In my lifetime, four presidents have been elected because of the anger of the electorate. In each case, the president of the opposite part of the incumbent won office. Most people, no matter their political persuasion will probably state that one was great, one was adequate and two were marginal. The question is, who? Here are the four:
Nixon
Carter
Reagan
Clinton
As I said, who you think was great, who was adequate and who was marginal are probably due to your political world view. So, if we take our anger to the polls and elect Barack Obama, there is a 50% chance he will be marginal, a 25% chance he will be adequate and a 25% chance he will be great based upon the four who were elected in my lifetime. In my opinion, Reagan was great, Clinton was adequate, Carter and Nixon were marginal. BTW...here are the other presidents elected under such circumstances...
Jefferson
Jackson
William Henry Harrison
Buchanan
Lincoln
Grant
Garfield
Benjamin Harrison
Cleveland (2nd Term)
Wilson
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Nixon
Carter
Reagan
Clinton
How many on that list were great? In my option, 5--Reagan, FD Roosevelt, Wilson, Lincoln and Jefferson. Adequate? 2--Clinton and Jackson. Marginal 6--Carter, Nixon, Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison Grant and Buchanan. Inconclusive 2--Garfield and William Henry Harrison. Both died early in office.
I also must say that I do not know about Eisenhower. Truman was unpopular and Eisenhower was of the opposite party. I rate Eisenhower as adequate. History, however, has vindicated Truman.
So in conclusion, do you expect real change from Obama? History is not on your side.
Posts
