Lyndon Baines Johnson was the BEST President in my lifetime.

[Laelth]

In exchange for his long, nasty war he got Medicare; Medicaid; federal funding for education including creation of the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Public Broadcasting Act; the Revenue Act of 1964; the Economic Opportunity Act; Legal Aid; the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Voting Rights Act of 1965; plus a lot, lot more.

Ask yourself this: what has Obama gotten in exchange for his long, nasty war (Afghanistan, which he now owns) and all the rest of his concessions to the right?

To those of us who are liberal, politically, it is absurd to call Barack Obama the "best President ever," and to liberals over the age of 42, it is equally absurd to call Barack Obama the "best President in our lifetime."

For your consideration.

-Laelth

[Tansy_Gold]

1. Rec,

:hi:

[Laelth]

16. Thanks. n/t

:hi:

-Laelth

[pnwmom]

172. His popularity was down to 16% at the end of his term.

Most progressives did not approve of his escalation of the Vietnam war. A great President would have been reelected -- not rejected by voters in favor of Richard Nixon.

No President exists in a vacuum. The reason Johnson was able to accomplish so much was that, until the election of 1963, he had strong backing for his programs in a Congress that was much more liberal than today.

[Laelth]

175. Most progressives I know don't approve of Obama's escalation of Afghanistan.

I agree, though, that Johnson had a more favorable Congress to work with, but that doesn't excuse all the right-leaning decisions Obama has made that didn't require Congressional approval.

I list some of them here: http://laelth.blogspot.com

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[SidDithers]

2. Unrec...nt

Sid

[villager]

113. rec...nt

Villager

[Laelth]

183. Thanks. n/t

-Laelth

[cordelia]

114. Rec

[Laelth]

184. Thanks. n/t

-Laelth

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[egoclothes]

157. Rec.....

Happy Holidays.

[Laelth]

185. Thanks. Happy holidays to you too. n/t

-Laelth

[Very_Boring_Name]

190. Rec

[Laelth]

191. Thanks. n/t

-Laelth

[JoePhilly]

3. So, would Obama be 2nd best then in your view?

Side question ... Vietnam = Afghanistan?

[OregonBlue]

38. Vietnam=Afgjanistan? You gotta be kidding? How old are you? Did you live through the

Vietnam era?

[JoePhilly]

42. Maybe you should re-read my post.

The author of the OP suggests that Vietnam = Afghanistan ... I do not.

And that is why there is a question mark at the end of my question back to the OP.

I agree that they are not equal, and that was my point. Your issue should be with the writer of the OP, and not with me.

[OregonBlue]

46. sorry Joe. You're right. I missed the ?.

[Laelth]

62. I'll respond just to help you with your expiriment.

I'd rank Carter 2nd. As for Clinton and Obama, I can't decide which of them is the bettr Republican President. Clinton actually balanced the budget, repealed Glass-Steagall, enacted NAFTA, abolished AFDC, and signed the Telecommunicatons Act of 1996. He also made two very good appointments to the Supreme Court. As Republican Presidents go, Clinton was the best since Eisenhower. Obama still has a long way to go, so I can't decide yet whether he's a better Republican than Clinton.

My referring to Clinton and Obama as Republicans is tongue-in-cheek, obviously, but suffice it to say that neither Clinton nor Obama would be second on my list of "best Democratic Presidents in my lifetime." I suppose Obama could, in time, get that honor, but I seriously doubt it.

-Laelth

[Teaser]

4. this post bores me

.

[Laelth]

11. Be fair, now.

The OP is much less boring than your response to it.

-Laelth

[JoePhilly]

31. No, no , no .... its is actually part of an experiement I started yesterday. Seriously.

Here's what's happening.

I'm an experimental psychologist, and I find people fascinating. In my real life, I study them. I study them at work, I study them when I'm not at work. And I study them here on DU.

Recently, there has been an exciting back and forth between those who support Obama, and those who don't. I find it fascinating.

So yesterday, I wrote an OP in which I indicated that I am ~47 and that I consider Obama to be the best President of my lifetime. Which is all true. In addition to making that claim, I also asked DU folks to indicate how old they were, and to indicate which President do THEY consider the best in their lifetime.

Here is a link for reference ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=575678&mesg_id=575678

When I wrote that OP, I was interested in an number of things.

1) I expected lots of DU members younger than 40 would select Obama.

2) I expected folks older than 40 to split, some Obama, some LBJ, some Clinton, some Truman (wondered if I'd get any FDR).

3) I expected some of the folks who responded with some one other than Obama to also use the opportunity to take a swipe at Obama. A common theme on Du recently.

And that's basically what happened.

So now on to the second part of my experiment. The question in my mind was ... for those who took a swipe at Obama, how would they respond if I asked them this follow up question ...

"So is Obama your 2nd choice?" My expectation was that few would respond to that follow up. Which is what happened.

Given the framing of the current OP, I'm very confident that it is basically side-ways response to my OP from yesterday.

You will notice that I ask that same question in post #3 above, "So, would Obama be 2nd best then in your view?"

My experiment continues.

[Little Star]

107. Oh my.......

Sorry, I am not impressed with your survey questions. They are much to narrow and slanted to reach reasonable conclusions.:thumbsdown:

[Pacifist Patriot]

35. Inspired you enough to post a response.

That must leave you with a little less bored time today. ;-)

[JimGinPA]

5. Viet Nam Was The Result Of A Lie - Afghanistan Was The Result Of 9/11

[Laelth]

63. You missed the point.

Show me Obama's long list of liberal achievements, and then I'll reconsider whether I want to call him "the Greatest President in my lifetime."

And show me Obama getting a lot of really good stuff in exchange for what he gives away. I haven't seen that yet.

-Laeth

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Laelth]

75. So, you think Johnson gave away a whole, whole lot in Vietnam.

I can understand that point of view. I think Obama is giving away a whole lot in Afghanistan, but it's obviously not as deadly (yet) as Vietnam. It is, however, equally ill-advised and un-winnable.

Nevertheless, I'm going to have to see a lot more liberal red meat from Obama before I'll call him the "Best President in my lifetime."

-Laelth

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Laelth]

82. No need to be rude.

I have found that the ignore button works quite well. I note that you are posting in my thread, and not vice-versa. If you don't like this thread, and are not interested in my opinion, buzz off.

-Laelth

[The Green Manalishi]

83. Yep, all those Afghanis on those planes

Thankfully neither Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, US allies had anything to do with 9/11

[golfguru]

111. Learn history before posting

Bin Laden and his entire Al Qaeda gang was ensconced in Afghanistan with
the the full support and blessings of the Afghani Taliban rulers. The 911 plot was
planned, terrorists trained & indoctrinated in Afghanistan. Without that sanctuary
911 would have been difficult to execute. But the terrorists were mostly Saudi.

[Maat]

117. Afghanistan was still an illegal war under international law.

We attacked a SOVEREIGN NATION, which had NOT attacked us. It is NOT legal to say, "Some people in that country attacked us; we feel the government agreed with that; we have the right to attack." No, go research international law. A sovereign nation may only defend itself against the deadly force of another SOVEREIGN NATION. That nation/government did not declare war and launch an attack. Therefore, the U.S. attack was illegal. International law experts have stated such, despite U.S. intimidation.

This is Professor Marjorie Cohn of Thomas Jefferson School of Law, which is an ABA-accredited school.
http://www.alternet.org/world/93473/afghanistan:_the_other_illegal_war/

[golfguru]

125. Germany never attacked mainland USA

yet we leveled all German cities killing almost million civilians.
FDR was not worried about legality of WWII.

Afghan war was justified in view of the Al Qaeda bases sanctioned by
the Afghan regime. Bush43 thought so and Obama has further escalated
the war so he concurs with Bush.

When 3000 civilians are brutally murdered, only cowards would refrain
from retribution. I am glad Bush & Obama are not cowards. Who is the
bigger authority to rule on it's legality? It was our citizens murdered
and we have every moral right to mount counter measures. Only cowards
would get tied up in knots worrying about International law.

[Maat]

140. Germany attacked an ally.

One is allowed to defend others in the same manner and the same circumstances.

However, the U.S. did not attack in the defense of others; the U.S. stated that it was defending itself - the reason offered was not one that held up to legal scrutiny.

Are you calling me a coward? If so, right back at ya.' Only cowards would attack innocent people in some sort of misdirected revenge and to secure resources.

Besides, if you don't believe in behaving according to the rule of law, be open about being in favor of totalitarianism and being apathetic about the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution.

[golfguru]

153. Taliban is hardly an innocent bystander in pre-911 Afghanistan

And no I am not calling you personally a coward because
I do not know you. I am making a general case that if you
are the victim of a brutal attack, and you do not counter attack
then cowardice is the best explanation.

[Maat]

159. Vengeance is a stupid way to react.

And, retaliation only serves to encourage MORE violence, not less.

"Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord."

[golfguru]

160. I can understand why you feel that way

because you were most likely born and raised in US.
Me on the other hand has roots in south Asia and people have a different
mind set there. The only thing they respect is power. If you convince
them you are a power to reckon with, they will not dare attack you. If
they think you are a paper tiger, they will get a thrill in attacking you.

If after 911 we had gone to the UN and sought legal authority for justice,
Taliban would still be ruling in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda safely opertaing
its bases. And many more 911 style attacks would have taken place.

[The Wizard]

174. Germany declared war on the United States

[olegramps]

226. Germany delared war on the United States following Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

232. And Japan, an ally of Germany, did attack us

The interlocking alliances would have brought us into the war sooner or later.

[The Green Manalishi]

141. Try learning some history yourself; I promise it won't hurt

Germany declared war on us.

It was, and is, an illegal war, waged against the wrong people, in the wrong place for the wrong reasons and supported only by the bloodthirsty and/or the sycophantic.

[golfguru]

154. Germany never sent a single bomber aircraft to US mainland

The only reason they were forced to declare war on US is because
we were active participants in supplying war material to Germany's
adversaries mainly Britain. Germany's war posture against United States
was purely a defensive posture. US could have stayed completely out of
the war in European theater. No world body gave permission to send
US troops for landing on European soil.

But back to the main issue, the US attack on Taliban regime in Afghanistan,
it was morally justified since Taliban gave aid and comfort and sanctuary
to Al Qaeda bases to be established there to train the terrorists and was the
command center for 911 operation.

I am happy that Bush-43 and Obama both agree with me, along with the congress.

[Art_from_Ark]

181. In case you missed the news

Germany declared war on the US shortly after Pearl Harbor.

[DutchLiberal]

197. Why does the FBI's page for Bin Laden not list 9/11 as one of the crimes he has committed?

No, I'm not a 'Truther'.

[frylock]

223. terrorists allegedly trained at flight schools in america..

when do we bomb florida?

[TheKentuckian]

229. Pakistan had about 2/3 of the training camps

Occupations are a dimwitted response to criminal bands that are spread around the globe and by all account numbering in the few thousands.

You are way off in to some old tired Bushshit and blood lust. Stating your selected response is counterproductive and doomed to failure is not saying their should be no response at all.

[dflprincess]

122. "Afghanistan was the result of 9/11"

Well, that's what we've been told. Just like we were told the Tet Offensive was the reason to escalate in Vietnam. But after all these years, that story is wearing awfully thin. Especially as we threw more blood and treasure at going after Iraq because they had "weapons of mass destruction". Or so we were told.

[Laelth]

179. PNAC's official documents better explain 9-11.

Afghanistan was the cover story.

-Laelth

[quakerboy]

165. Bologna

Both were the result of lies and misdeeds.

[DutchLiberal]

196. Afghanistan was the result of the gas pipeline Enron wanted there for years...

So Bush had to overthrow the Taliban first (who were welcome to visit his state Texas when he was governor) and put his old friend Hamid Karzai in place.

[Jennicut]

6. I'm sure LBJ was the best President of your lifetime. For those of us under the age of 42,

there really is no question, Obama has been the best. I am 35. I have just seen the end of DADT.

[davidinalameda]

13. uh no

I'm 43 and Obama has not been the best president

[Laelth]

64. This thread is for you, then.

A lot of younger people have no idea what having a liberal President is like.

I hope you have learned a thing or two from this.

-Laelth

[Uben]

7. Everyone has an opinion......

....but everyone else has their own, and they value it more than anyone else's. Johnson escalated the war in Viet Nam, and that's enough to count him out in my book. HE had some really great domestic policies, but his foreign policy sucked.

[Laelth]

67. Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan.

So, I'm not sure I understand your point.

-Laelth

[polmaven]

8. Do you really think it is fair

to compare the 6 years of LBJ to the 2 years of BHO to date?

[Laelth]

68. 5 years for LBJ, but let's not split hairs.

No. Of course it's not fair. Nor is it fair to make the ridiculous claim that Obama is the "Best President Ever" after only seeing him in office for two years.

That was my point, after all.

-Laelth

[rasputin1952]

9. If not for the albatross of Vietnam...

LBJ would be considered one of the great presidents.

Historians are split on how to treat LBJ historically, but he comes out in the top 5 consistently when domestic issues are viewed separately. One of the reasons historians are loathe to consider sitting or recent presidents for any kind of rating is that there is the long range ramifications of policy that need to be addressed. One exception is bush, he is consistently rated in the bottom three, but usually as the last, simply because his dealings domestically and internationally are so pathetic, historians realize that if we stay on the same track he put the nation on, there is nothing in the future but disaster.

LBJ was the consummate politician, he was ruthless when it came to getting legislation passed, he was a former congressman and Senator and knew what closets held which skeletons and was never afraid to use that knowledge to advance his agenda, it has been said that even J Edgar Hoover was afraid of the man, and that's saying a lot simply because LBJ bested him Hoover at his own game. In one case, it was rumored that LBJ had photo's of Hoover in drag, and mentioned to him that "you look damn good in those pumps, but they don't go well with the gown". I don't know if there is truth to this, but it is most certainly something LBJ would have said if the need arose; he had the killer instinct.

Although this has been called a "political ploy" by his detractors, LBJ was the only member of congress during WWII that left his seat to Join the Navy; and if it was a "ploy", it worked brilliantly. If it wasn't, (as I tend to believe), it showed him as someone who had high principles and a devotion to duty. It should also be noted that he listened to the generals and admirals during the VN buildup, and thought they knew what they were doing, he lost much sleep and agonized over the losses, but once in the swamp, he found it extremely difficult to extricate the nation from the war. For the record, Nixon campaigned on getting the nation out of VN, but did a very poor job of it, (talk about a "political ploy"), and it was Ford, after the House reused to bankroll the war any longer that got us out.

[MH1]

29. LBJ also had a more solidly Democratic Congress.

I don't think that can fairly be left out of the equation.

But I'll let Obama finish his term(s) before I spend a lot of thought on comparisons.

[tilsammans]

36. And Democrats generally were true to Democratic principles . . .

. . . back then. Not like the Republican Lites of the post-Reagan era.

[SanchoPanza]

95. Yes. Good old fashioned Democratic principles like segregation.

A third of the Democratic caucus in both the House and the Senate were unrepentant racists back in the mid-1960s.

About a fifth of the House Democratic Caucus in the 111th Congress were members of the Blue Dog Coalition. The same percentage of Senate Democrats of the same Congress could be said to have been centrist or conservative leaning.

A good trade, I'd say. But your mileage, and inclination toward indulging in superficial hagiography, may vary.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

233. which LBJ was not afraid to fight against

He pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even though he knew that it would turn the south Republican. He did it because it was the right thing to do, damn the political consequences.

[rasputin1952]

43. Very true...and the D's of yore were quite different than...

those of today.

[Laelth]

58. True, but Obama has knifed the left too many times for me to call him a "great" President.

And many of his betrayals of the left had nothing to do with Republican obstruction.

Another theory holds that Obama is some kind of liberal pragmatist. He takes what he can get, according to this theory, and given the intransigence of congressional Republicans, especially in the Senate, it is impossible for Obama to enact truly liberal legislation. Liberals are supposed to be pleased that Obama managed to accomplish as much as he has given the current political climate, and liberals are supposed to presume that in a more favorable political climate, Obama would have had the power to effect the transformative change we were promised in the 2008 election campaign. The flaw in this theory is that it ignores everything Obama has done that did not require congressional approval. Appointing Rahm Emanuel, a died-in-the-wool corporatist and leader of the DLC, as Chief of Staff? An industry insider, Ken Salazar, as Secretary of the Interior? Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education? Tim Geithner and Larry Summers as the foxes guarding the financial industry hen house? Republicans didn’t force Obama to appoint any of these people, and each one of these appointments constitutes a direct attack on a core Obama constituency. Environmentalists hate Salazar. Teachers hate Duncan. Most Americans who realize that bankers and financiers are making record profits and pocketing record bonuses on the public dime, while working Americans are forced to tighten their belts, hate the people who got us into this mess. Both Geithner and Summers played key roles in creating the financial meltdown from which we are now trying to recover. Everybody, of course, hates Rahm Emanuel, but liberals have more reason to hate him than most given that he is fond of calling them “fucking retarded.” To argue that Obama has liberal political instincts, but that he has been constrained by congressional Republicans, is patently absurd given the people he appointed to run the Federal Government.

And it’s not just his appointments that have irked liberals. Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay. It’s still open for torture and unconstitutional detention. Obama promised to end the Iraq war. Our troops are still there. Obama said he would escalate the war in Afghanistan, and he has kept his word on that, but he also promised to bring the troops home in 2011. Whoops. Now liberals are supposed to be happy that they’ll be coming home in 2014 ... maybe. Obama promised open government, but in nearly every case that has come before the Courts, Obama’s Department of Justice has argued for secrecy and for denying the public the right to know exactly what our government is doing in our name. Even worse, the Obama administration has taken a hard line on whistleblowers and is dead set on punishing Julian Assange for having the audacity to actually provide the people with some knowledge about the inner workings of their government. Obama could have eliminated “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” with the stroke of a pen. Instead, he ordered a survey and drug his feet on this issue for two years. Environmentalists were hoping that Obama would actually do something about global warming, but the Obama delegation effectively sabotaged negotiations in Copenhagen. Those of us who value our constitutional rights were hoping that Obama would put an end to warrantless wiretapping. That practice has been endorsed by this administration, not to mention that this administration is fully responsible for the electronic, full-body, naked-image searches that are now routine practice at airports across the country. Those of us who care about the republic were hoping that Obama would disavow the unconstitutional “Unitary Executive” theory of government propounded by George W. Bush. Instead, time after time, Obama has fought to preserve executive privilege and power.

Given all of this, liberals are supposed to believe that Obama has liberal instincts and intentions, but that he has been stymied by Republican resistance? Republicans didn’t force Obama to take any of the positions he took on the long list of issues cited above. The argument that Obama is some kind of “liberal pragmatist” is patently absurd.

http://laelth.blogspot.com

I think it wise to let Obama finish his time in office before making a final judgment, but the threads calling him the "Greatest President Ever" are a bit too much for me to stomach without objection.

-Laelth

[rasputin1952]

69. When I look at presidents, Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Truman, TR all

come to mind as incredible presidents. LBJ is right up there as well.

When I think of "worsts", bush, Buchanan, Harding and Coolidge have to be among the worst. It's far to early to figure Obama in the mix, (although bush is pretty easy even though he's so recent, I can't think of anyone that comes close to the disaster that bush was, except perhaps Buchanan for setting the stage for the Civil War).

Time will tell how Preisdent Obama pans out, the last few weeks have shown he can help push things through congress, but, as it always is, at a price. He's done quite a bit in 2 years, but could have pushed for more. The challenge in 2011 will be if he can take his case to the American People, because the House will be out for blood. If Boehner even comes close to shutting down the government like Gingrich did, R's have to know it's a death knell for any hopes they might have for the future...and the Teabag candidates will get crushed in the General election, they are full of themselves and the ?movement" is actually less than a sparrow fart in a hurricane.

In the reality of the situation, regardless of the party our congresscritters are in, it is up to us to hold them accountable. I have an R Rep, an R senator and one I don't really know anymore, (Nelson ?-NE). But I am in constant contact with their offices and they are pretty well sick of me, but they always answer my e-mails, snail mail and calls, (yes, I've gotten call backs from all three). It's a question of taking the time and effort to hold them accountable, or at the very least, letting them know they are prepared to vote for a pathetic Bill, (it also pays to let them know when they do a good job on legislation).

[Laelth]

73. I agree that it's far too early to judge Obama.

More than anything else, that explains why I object to threads calling Obama the "Greatest President Ever." It is too early to tell, but I seriously doubt that Obama will be one of the greats (from the point of view of the left--and that's my point of view).

It has been my experience that attempting to hold my alleged representatives "accountable" is futile--a waste of time, really. ymmv.

Thanks for the toughtful responses.

-Laelth

[olegramps]

227. I just hope I am around long enought to have an opionion.

[Laelth]

228. I hope so too, olegramps. Keep on keeping on. n/t

-Laelth

[emmadoggy]

77. K & R for the OP,

and I wish I could recommend this post as well. Very well said. I completely agree with all you have said here.

[Laelth]

143. Thanks. n/t

:toast:

-Laelth

[morningglory]

49. LBJ gave me a college education, and I have paid many

taxes, gladly. Had many interesting jobs with that education. Clinton made my family prosperous, and we bought a home. Now retirement age and set up in a paid for house, not a mcmansion, but paid for.

[rasputin1952]

65. Good for you!

And you are not alone, tens of thousands have been helped by Great Society programs, many of them don't even realize how much better it is now than it was back then. The fights for Civil Rights, the incredible passion and compassion of MLK...and it was Johnson that pushed for those Rights and a lot of other things. He helped open colleges to "average" people and pushed for federal funding for education. He tried desperately to alleviate poverty...and Lady Bird's legacy has been all but forgotten as billboards rise up again and litter is still a huge problem and getting worse.

What Johnson did is always overshadowed by VN, one thing cannot be taken from him though, regardless of what people think of him as a president, he certainly knew how to get things done, and he was unafraid to take things to the people to make a point and put pressure on congresscritters. he was a compassionate individual, but once again, got caught up by those who use war as the answer to everything...:(

Sometime in the future, people will see the good he did, in spite of the debacle in SE Asia.

[golfguru]

112. Although LBJ did not start Viet-Nam

Blame that on JFK. LBJ was recipient of bad geo-political advice.

[rasputin1952]

116. Actually, Eisenhower sent the first advisors to VN, not many...

but they wanted a grounds eye view of what was going on. Covertly we sent supplies by air and two American pilots were killed by antiaircraft fire. Eisenhower made it known he did not want to get involved in VN, but behind the curtains, things were moving toward a the conflict. Ike sent advisers there in the late 50's to help South Vietnam build up and maintain it's defenses after the French left, but the # were small.The kicker was the great "Commie Scare" of the 50's and after the Korean conflict, the nations taste of war soured, but because of jerks like McCarthy and his cronies worked the system to drum up fear...so, it was decided to send observers in to watch the Russians and gain intelligence.

There is a distinct possibility that JFK was assassinated because he was talking about pulling out completely from the conflict. The Gulf of Tonkin "incident" was a lie, and LBJ was eventually caught in it, but at the time, we were so "anti-Communist" that people were willing to try war again.

There is a pattern here that still exists to this day...hawks and zealots drive up the fear index to the point where they get what they want...live fire, w/o them having to go fight the damn thing. It seems that a lot of them profit from it though.

It is indisputable though that LBJ escalated the conflict in to full hot war, constraints kept US forces from crossing the border and making quick work of Hoi Chi Mihn and Giap in the North. We lost for several reasons, not the least being a fear of escalating the war to the point where either the Russians of Chinese would have entered on the side of the North...both nations most likely would have let the North fall as opposed to committing troops. For the record, it is virtually impossible to come out of a conflict if "static defense" is the strategy.

[OhioBlue]

129. Thank you for adding this bit of fact!!!!

It was indeed Eisenhower that sent the first "advisers". It amazes me how some can blame Vietnam on JFK when he neither initiated nor escalated to the point of war.

LBJ definitely had his domestic success that we can celebrate, tho I don't know that they would have been possible without JFK. I also think Vietnam is his cross to bear.

[DutchLiberal]

199. "Johnson was eventually caught in it..." Oh please!

Had a Republican president lied the way Johnson lied about Tonkin, you wouldn't think he was "caught into it", now would you?

[DutchLiberal]

198. I still suspect he had something to do with the Kennedy assasination...

Kennedy, of course, wanting to pull out of Vietnam (as we know now), and Johnson who escalated it completely by LYING the nation into war (Gulf of Tonkin).

[Connie_Corleone]

10. Well, I'm younger than 42...

Obama is the best President in my lifetime.

[Laelth]

59. Honestly, you are the reason I posted this thread.

A lot of younger people have no idea what having a liberal President is like.

I hope you have learned a thing or two from this.

-Laelth

[Number23]

101. What were we supposed to "learn" from this OP?

That "older" people can't see the forest for the trees?

[Laelth]

106. Are you younger than 42?

If so, it might be useful to look at Johnson's list of serious, liberal accomplishments before passing final judgment on a President who has only been in office for two years and who's results so far are decidedly mixed.

But, hope springs eternal. I am prepared to be disappointed.

-Laelth

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Number23]

126. This place is such a mess it's ridiculous

I post how you just negated your own OP by posting that "Obama has only been in office for two years" and my post was deleted.

No wonder everyone is heading for the hills.

[Laelth]

133. If it means anything to you, I did not alert on your post.

I rarely alert on anything. I prefer a more "free-speechy" DU, even when people get testy and snarky.

Regards,

-Laelth

[Number23]

148. It actually does mean something to me.

I simply disagreed with you. I didn't say anything nasty.

Thanks for letting me know. :)

[Laelth]

149. We disagreed, but I don't think either of us were disagreeable.

Cheers! :toast:

-Laelth

[Kahuna]

215. Another group you don't speak for is, folks over 42. Let's just keep

it real here. We all have our individual assessments of the history we have lived. Not all agree with yours.

[Kahuna]

214. Oh no, you did'int!

:)

[Kahuna]

213. Oh brother. If the President or anyone in his administration said such

a thing about the far lefties, the squawking and squealing would never end.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[great white snark]

14. More with the ponies.

The OP clearly states "in my lifetime". LBJ wasn't president in my lifetime or in some of the other respondent's lifetimes.

My glasses don't need correction either.

[AtomicKitten]

15. LOL. You know what's absurd? You calling other opinions absurd. nt

[Laelth]

70. Perhaps, but I think you get my point.

Many younger people don't know what it's like to have a liberal President. They needed a reminder.

-Laelth

[AtomicKitten]

84. That's really not your point.

Other psychophants chime in ... Jiminy Crickets! Who are these people? What's certain is that they're not liberals. That they are allegedly members of the Democratic Party tells me all I need to know. The Democratic Party has abandoned me and my ideals. DU, supposedly, is the online home of the "democratic wing" of the Democratic Party. If so, I am further out of the party's mainstream than I could have possibly imagined.

It's pretty clear - and you seem to agree! - it is you that is out of step with the Democratic Party.

[Laelth]

85. That's a response to a different thread.

And, evidently, lots of people have no idea what having a liberal President is like, even in other threads here on DU.

-Laelth

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Laelth]

90. The Democratic Party has moved way to the right since I have been politically sentient.

It hurts me, honestly, to see intelligent people like you celebrate that fact.

But, celebrate if you must. Just don't expect me to follow suit.

-Laelth

[AtomicKitten]

91. LOL. Your admittedly skewed view is, well, skewed. nt

[Lasher]

17. Scholars rank FDR the best president of all time, according to the most recent survey.

Going back in time no further than FDR, and according to this scholar survey, the next best were Truman, Ike, JFK, Clinton, Obama, and LBJ - in that order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Notable_scholar_surveys

[ProSense]

20. Here's the fascinating thing about the survey that included President Obama

He debuted highest (No. 15) of any President ever, and based on his first year. The poll has LBJ at No. 16.

[Lasher]

23. Yes, that Wiki article is a good resource.

This is not the first time I've hauled it out.

[JoePhilly]

32. See my post #31 above, I think you will enjoy it.

[displacedvermoter]

55. He got the Nobel Peace Prize as well based on his getting

elected. That is fascinating, too.

[vaberella]

26. Huh, interesting. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

18. and a war criminal too!

The last great liberal president, and a major war criminal, all in one package.

[displacedvermoter]

56. Obama or LBJ?

[Warren Stupidity]

78. LBJ - I don't think Obama is a liberal

nor have I ever heard him describe himself as one.

[Sheri]

19. i'm too young for Johnson.

i wish i could say i've had a President like that in my lifetime. what's happened to the Democratic Party?

[Laelth]

98. The Democratic Party has been marching right for thirty years.

(on economic issues, in any event)

Sad, but true.

-Laelth

[Kahuna]

216. They've been overwhelmed by the far left who have been helping

the republicans get elected since Johnson. That's what happened to them. Until we have a sustained period of Democratic presidents we will never advance the liberal agenda. It's as simple as that. Because of the antics of the far left, Americans have become accustomed more trusting and comfortable with republican presidents, because afterall, if our "own side" keeps tearing down our presidents, why would the country as a whole support them.

[craigmatic]

21. I agree. LBJ makes Obama look like Gerald Ford.

[Laelth]

142. Well said. Here's what Johnson had to say about Ford.

"Jerry Ford is so dumb he can't fart and chew gum at the same time."

fyi.

-Laelth

[craigmatic]

144. Bwahahahahahaha

[Laelth]

147. Johnson was not one to mince words. n/t

-Laelth

[Recursion]

22. I wasn't alive for Polk's presidency

But he's the only President I can think of that would surpass Obama in setting and achieving an administration's agenda (based on the first two years, at least).

[unblock]

40. but precious few have mourned the passing of....

mr. james k. polk our 11th president
young hickory, napoleon of the stump.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_6e1gLYz0g

[tularetom]

24. If it weren't for Vietnam he'd be one of the greatest ever

However, to those of us who came of age in those years (I was discharged from the army two years before the Gulf of Tonkin) it was such a massive clusterfuck it overshadowed his awesome accomplishments in the domestic policy arena.

Even to this day I can only remember being pissed off at him for getting my best friend killed and putting my brother's life in danger for what we all knew wasnothing more than a dick measuring contest.

Obama needs to cut his losses and seriously get us out of Afghanistan or it won't matter what he achieves domestically, he will be remembered as the guy who wasted bazillions of dollars and got thousands of American kids killed for basically, jack shit.

LBJ isn't the greatest president of my lifetime. I was born 3 months before Pearl Harbor.

[Laelth]

80. I was born during LBJ's administration.

Were I your age, I would have chosen FDR, obviously.

Prior to Vietnam, the U.S. just didn't lose wars. In hindsight we know better, but I can imagine Johnson thinking to himself, "I am not going to be the first President to lose a war, (insert expletive here)!" In retrospect, given the pressure on him to win that thing (and he didn't get us into it), I think history should be more kind.

But I am not trying to detract from your personal experience. I would merely like to see Obama get more in exchange for the terrible concessions he has made.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

-Laelth

[vaberella]

25. I was born in the time of Reagan. LBJ was way ahead. I can't give him a pass on Vietnam. n/t

[Laelth]

72. I didn't think I was giving Johnson a pass on Vietnam.

On that score, I thought I was saying that he's just as bad as Obama (escalating a stupid and un-winnable war). That's not giving Johnson a pass.

-Laelth

[nevergiveup]

27. I am 65 and Obama is in the lead in my mind

and he is only finishing his 2nd year. I suspect he will likely become one the the top 5 presidents especially if he can get a handle on Afghanistan. LBJ did great things domestically but his obsession with Vietnam left a permanent dark mark on his legacy.

[Swede]

28. 40,000 KIA US forces 1963-1969.

nt

[Laelth]

138. I hope you are right.

I would love to see Obama compile a list of liberal legislation to rival Johnson's. Sadly, I doubt that's going to happen.

-Laelth

[damonm]

204. Not just a dark mark...

Utterly devastated it, IMO, because the Credibility Gap created much of the youth protest that split the New Deal coalition. That split created the "Silent Majority" which gave us Nixon, and that SM went on to become the Reagan Democrats. Vietnam led us straight to Reagan, and that KILLS all the good LBJ tried to do. If it hadn't been for 'Nam, LBJ would rightly be among the greats.

[Kahuna]

219. Obama prevented a great depression. That makes him pretty great

imho. I didn't live during the depression. But, I've read enough and have seen enough images on film and paper to know that it was a horrendous time in our history.

[Laelth]

225. We may have been better off had Pelosi allowed a depression to happen.

As I argued, here: http://laelth.blogspot.com

-Laelth

[HeroTwins]

230. to hell with all the people who would suffer, let's have a depression for political gain!

:sarcasm:

This is what happens when you live in a world of abstract idealism.

[BuelahWitch]

30. It's a shame that Johnson is so often defined by Vietnam

instead of the work he did for the Great Society.

[Laelth]

150. Hear, hear.

Vietnam was a terrible, national tragedy. I don't deny that, but LBJ's achievements have provided lasting benefits for millions and millions of Americans. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, alone, is a tremendous and remarkable achievement that Obama can't even begin to touch, neither in its scope nor in its impact. Add that to all the rest of Johnson's accomplishments, and it is clear that history has been unjustifiably unfair to LBJ. He made the world a much better place, on balance. When I am gone, I hope that history will say the same of me.

-Laelth

[Still a Democrat]

33. So 58,267 dead and 303,644 wounded is a passing mention?

Kind of a big detail don't you think? Particularly when you use Iraq and Afghanistan to run down Obama. He is winding those wars down, LBJ escalated Vietnam big time.

[Laelth]

96. Obama escalated Afghanistan.

I am not trying to give either one a "pass" on their disastrous, un-winable wars. It appears to me, though, that Johnson got a lot more in exchange for what he gave away.

-Laelth

[treestar]

34. Why didn't he get single payer?

Why was what you mentioned enough in his case?

The Republicans of that day did not filibuster every damn thing. Every single thing.

He did not run in 1968 because he knew he could not win. That does not spell success.

[dsc]

39. He actually could have won

as Humphrey's narrow defeat shows, but he put his country first above his own ambition. He also thought, correctly it should be known, that if he won he would likely die in office. Johnson deserves status as a great President, despite VietNam.

[Ikonoklast]

105. No way would LBJ have won. He was reviled.

It was a good thing Nixon came along, or LBJ would have been the most hated president of the last century.

I remember the protests.

[Laelth]

152. That's a good question.

Obviously, I, and people like me, would have preferred single payer for all people, and not just for the poor and the aged (i.e. Medicaid and Medicare). If you are more familiar with the history of this legislation, I would love to hear your insights on it.

-Laelth

[marlakay]

37. I read a book on him

Seems the way he got what he wanted out of congress was he manipulated and threatened them. He kept files and had stuff on everyone.

[unblock]

41. he was also famous for eating raw onions before cornering congresscritters

and lecturing at them inches from their faces, usually with a solid height advantage as well.

congresscritters did NOT want to be on the receiving end of "the treatment".

[valerief]

44. That's what we expect our leaders to do for common good! If they're not doing that,

only the rich get richer. That's what's been happening the U.S.

[Laelth]

186. Agreed. n/t

-Laelth

[MadMaddie]

45. Yawn....geeze I am sensing a theme here...

[Laelth]

156. And what theme would that be?

Honestly, I do not understand your response.

:shrug:

-Laelth

[CakeGrrl]

47. Unrec - what's up with the presidential pissing contest?

Different times, different actions, different impacts on different people.

Everyone has their opinion; no one is right or wrong.

[mtnsnake]

50. What's up with you bashing people for expressing their opinions?

This is a posting board where people post their thoughts whenever they want, or did you forget that?

[CakeGrrl]

71. Didn't you read my post?

Obviously I'm aware of that.

I do think it's interesting that all these "qualifying" posts pop up after a couple of people express obvious enthusiasm for what's transpired in recent days. It's as if someone needs to throw cold water on it by reminding everyone that they don't think the President is all that - as if it's POSSIBLE not to be well aware of it when people express their displeasure day after day after day after day.

[JoePhilly]

108. +1

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Politicalboi]

51. Really?

LBJ just continued what JFK started, and he escalated the war. Here's LBJ enjoying time with his dogs too. Yeah the best.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2008/11/remembering-pre.html

[Laelth]

134. Were I old enough, I'd call FDR "the best President in my lifetime."

LBJ wasn't perfect, by any means. Lots of people died needlessly in Vietnam, and I am sensitive to that, but comparing LBJ's legacy to any President that followed him, LBJ wins, hands down.

imo.

-Laelth

[onenote]

52. I think LBJ presided over a lot of great legislation, but the War dwarfed everything

If something like DU had existed during LBJ's presidency, my bet is that you wouldn't have found a single poster defending him. Even though I liked the Great Society programs, I was still in the street marching and chanting "Hey Hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today."

[norske]

53. There have been no great US presidents

Seriously, there have been no "great" US presidents.....some are just less terrible than others in facilitating the transfer of wealth from the working class and the poor to the top 1%.

Johnson did some good things....and many horrible things...as most presidents do. Although it could be argued that Reagan, Clinton, and the Bush's brought the destruction of the middle class to a high art.

Obama is more of the same...continuing with the neo liberal policies of his predecessors while signing off on indefinite detention and even increasing the abuses of the Bush crime family.

"If you don't know history it's as if you were born yesterday" Howard Zinn

[MadHound]

54. In other words it is OK to kill five million innocents,

Just so long as we get liberal domestic policies at home. Sorry, I can't make that deal with the devil. LBJ is and was a murdering bastard in my book. However I've got to give him credit, the man knew how to fight, unlike the current occupant of the Oval Office.

[Laelth]

79. Nobody said it was OK to kill any innocents.

What I said was that LBJ got a lot of really good things in exchange for what he gave away. Obama is escalating his own senseless war that is un-winable and that is killing innocents, so he is no better than Johnson on that front, but Obama appears to get very little in exchange for what he gives away. That was my point.

-Laelth

[frazzled]

99. The Other Vietnam Memorial

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-06-28/entertainment/ca-2123_1_vietnam-memorial

[delightfulstar]

57. On the domestic front...

He was one of the most progressive of the 20th century, IMHO, along with Truman. LBJ did not inherit a good situation - he took office in the wake of the Kennedy assassination, the Cuban missile crisis, and the raising of the Iron Curtain, and there were riots upon riots provoked by racist groups in the South; Vietnam was a powder keg, and things were bound to go downhill, given the political situation within that area. It certainly didn't get any better under Nixon. LBJ did very well with what he had, and brought about a lot of legislation which was ultimately good for the country. I sure wish the next guy from TX (and his unfortunate spawn) who lived in the White House had taken that kind of approach.

[Laelth]

151. Thanks for the response. n/t

-Laelth

[Aramchek]

60. he inherited alot of stuff Kennedy initiated.

[Laelth]

163. Kennedy and Eisenhower, both.

But his records of achievements dwarfs both of theirs combined.

-Laelth

[tabbycat31]

61. Who would you say is the best president of my lifetime?

I was born in 1980.

[Laelth]

66. Carter. You were born before Reagan took office.

Why do you ask?

-Laelth

[tabbycat31]

76. Just wondering

I don't remember Carter at all (I was less than 1 when Reagan took office). I do know that I "voted" (aka pushed the button for my mom) for him as a baby but that's about it.

Of the presidents I can remember, the only ones I remotely liked were Clinton and Obama.

[Autumn]

86. I like Johnson, he did a lot

of good things. Of course Vietnam colored my view of his Presidency, since I lost a Brother there. If not for that I would agree he was in the top . It's stupid to say Obama is the Best President Ever at this point of the game. History will decide that.

[Laelth]

187. Thanks for the thoughtful response. n/t

-Laelth

[NorthCarolina]

87. K&R

[Laelth]

189. Thanks. n/t

-Laelth

[Stoic]

88. Vietnam destroyed his presidency

With Obama we get all the bad war and none of the good legislation. Of course, Johnson had the political chops to get legislation trough the House and Senate.

[Vinca]

92. I really didn't care for LBJ as a person - maybe it was the pulling

the dog's ears thing - but he probably did more for those who needed it most than anyone I can think of. The civil rights legislation was a real act of courage for a politician and Medicare/Medicaid is only outdone by Social Security legislation. I did like Lady Bird and her wildflowers. Wasn't she responsible for getting ugly billboards off the highways, too?

[Laelth]

93. I could care less who LBJ was as a person.

No more than I cared about Bill Clinton's sex life. Irrelevant to me.

But LBJ's record of liberal achievements, as you rightly note, ranks right up there with FDR's. Lady Bird Johnson probably had a lot to do with that, just as Elanor Roosevelt influenced her husband.

Lady Bird did plant a lot of flowers on our highways. I am not sure about the billboards.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[mtnsnake]

94. You mean this?

[Exilednight]

97. Nixon was in office when I was born. So, I put Carter at the top of my lifetime list. n/t

[Laelth]

136. Were I your age, that would have been my choice too. n/t

-Laelth

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Laelth]

103. I can't believe you feel the need to lecture me on what I should post here.

But, there it is.

:eyes:

-Laelth

[Number23]

104. No lecture. Confusion, maybe. Certainly laughter. But no lecture.

[Laelth]

109. Fair enough. n/t

-Laelth

[Marnie]

102. The Gambler-In-Chief

I agree

I also don't see how any politician who uses Social Security and Medicare, which are paid for, as poker chips to be used in his political "games."
You either stand for something or you don't Obviously Obama doesn't not stand for the health and welfare of retires and the elderly.

If he runs again he needs to be made to state unequivocally what his position on SS is. If he is willing to starve it to death how will he return the money that was taken from our checks, much less the interest it should have earned.
It's not the government's money, it not tax money, it is dollar bill by dollar bill our money. And he is betting it away on his political poker game.

[Laelth]

155. Hear, hear. n/t

-Laelth

[boppers]

115. Who did Obama draft?

On the Civil Rights Act, LBJ had some pretty self-damning words. I won't re-post them here, but suffice to say, he was no friend to minorities... he was making a political move, not an ethical, moral, or spiritual one.

[Laelth]

135. You raise two important points.

I've seen how LBJ spoke (privately) about minorities. I know what you're talking about, and you're right to be critical of him. I would note that he wasn't alone in those feelings. Ultimately, though, I judge Presidents by what they do, and seldom for what they say, and LBJ deserves a lot of credit for passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Those laws have made an enormous difference in the lives of millions upon millions of people. I will forgive him for speaking (privately) like the racist that he was. How he spoke made little difference to the people. The laws he passed made a tremendous difference, and I could care less whether his motivation was ethical, spiritual, or political.

As for the draft, let me say that we might be better off were the draft to be re-instated. That might focus more attention on our wars of choice and get us out of those wars more quickly. Lots of people died needlessly in Vietnam, and I am sensitive to that. I do not condone LBJ's escalation of that war any more than I condone Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan. But if we're going to have senseless un-winnable wars, I'd like to see our Democratic President get a lot of good stuff in exchange. I am not pleased by what Obama has gotten for the people in exchange for his concessions to the right. I think he could have done better. LBJ did.

I would also note that it does the Democratic Party no good for its members to bad-mouth one of the great, liberal, Democratic Presidents of the 20th century. FDR, Truman, and LBJ should be lauded for what they accomplished. LBJ was a liberal great.

-Laelth

[boppers]

158. No man (or woman) is above critique.

Have you ever wondered what FDR, Truman (etc.) would be treated like on DU today, if they were the current president?

I guess you're seeing how LBJ is treated....

[Laelth]

167. We don't do lockstep and the 11th Commandment like the Republicans do.

Never have, and never will. And we blister all of our own, past and present, but it's because we care about our country, and we value principle over this loosely-controlled franchise we call "the Democratic Party."

For better or for worse.

-Laelth

[joshcryer]

119. "I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of democracy."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxEauRq1WxQ

[Laelth]

145. That's what I'm talkin' about.

Go LBJ!!!!!!!!!

:toast:

-Laelth

[madinmaryland]

120. Aren't you really saying the "BEST PROGRESSIVE" President in your lifetime.

For the vast majority here, there are only three to choose from. Some have known four and a handful know five (Truman). If my Dad was on DU, he would probably weigh in with FDR.

[Laelth]

137. Sure. To me, progressive = good or "best" when compared to others.

What's disturbing to me is that to some here, and to many in the Democratic Party as a whole, progressive = bad. I hardly recognize the Democratic Party these days. That is sad.

Were I your dad's age, I would have said FDR too.

-Laelth

[GSLevel9]

121. He's got a LONG way to go to create a term that can rival either of Clinton's. nt

[Laelth]

180. I gotta say, this response puzzles me.

Care to explain? I am genuinely curious.

-Laelth

[ShadowLiberal]

123. Lyndon Johnson is heavily unranked as president, he gets blamed for stuff started under JFK

As horrible as JFK's assassination was, it took him out of the picture before things like the Vietnam war could drag him down. Had JFK lived, Vietnam would have inevitably blown up in his face just like it did to Lyndon Johnson.

Everyone blames Lyndon Johnson on Vietnam, but guess what, we were in Vietnam when Kennedy was president. I'm not 100% certain of this, but looking it up online I read US involvement in Vietnam started in 1961, which would be when Kennedy as president. The pentagon papers showed that the lies about Vietnam went back from the very beginning.

There's other people who exited at the right time to be remembered well and left a ticking time bomb that blew up in their successors face to. Andrew Jackson is one of those people, his war on the bank helped cause a really bad recession that dragged Martin Van Buren and got him kicked out after 1 term.

[OhioBlue]

130. nope... it started under Eisenhower

and combat troops weren't sent until like '65 under LBJ.

LBJ isn't being blamed for anything that started under JFK - LBJ's domestic legacy benefited enormously from JFK. LBJ made the decision to escalate what was started under Eisenhower to combat troops. We don't know what Kennedy would have done. Vietnam is LBJ's.

[BzaDem]

124. I think the problem is that you take huge accomplishments by Obama, and then deny that they are

accomplishments. (Or say they are actually right wing accomplishments, etc.)

So given this basic problem in identifying liberal accomplishments in the first place, it is probably counterproductive to argue about LBJ/Obama's relative strengths and weaknesses.

[Laelth]

146. You're right on some level.

I see the Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act as a massive give-away to the pharmaceutical companies and the parasitic insurance industry. You see that act as some kind of massive, liberal achievement. Compared to Medicare and Medicaid, Obama's "accomplishment" is a joke.

But your assessment is spot on. I see little value in the things you call Obama's "huge accomplishment."

-Laelth

[WiffenPoof]

127. Of Course...

as good as he was...if you know anything about his early political life in Texas, you would cringe.

I like when he crew his hair long after leaving office...it was kinda cool.

-PLA

[Laelth]

161. LBJ was "colorful" to be sure. n/t

-Laelth

[grasswire]

128. Bill MOYERS was LBJ's moral advisor and press secretary

Moyers, an ordained minister, rose to power in LBJ's administration because he provided a moral certainty to LBJ.

Great profile of Moyers here:

http://www.evesmag.com/moyers.htm

[Imagevision]

131. LBJ approves Gulf Of Tonkin attack/incident that never happened!

[Fruittree]

132. Disagree..

Pres. Obama is the best president I've seen.

[Laelth]

182. Out of curiosity, how old are you?

If you were born in 2001, I'd agree with you about Obama. If you were born in 1981, I might still agree with you ... maybe. Care to help me understand what you're tinking?

-Laelth

[Fruittree]

202. I think a person's opinion regarding a president is based on

expectations and what traits you admire. I like Pres. Obama's low key style. I like that he seems a hard worker. I like that he gets things done - maybe not the whole thing at once but there have been some pretty positive steps taken - Lily Ledbetter. The healthcare bill which maybe is not ideologically pure but on a practical level will be helpful to many of us. My son can now have insurance coverage - That's a big deal to me. Repeal of DADT. START treaty. There are more but I have to get going and I'm sure you know the accomplishments - you just choose to define them otherwise. And, no I am not 9 years old nor am I 29. I'm 53 and frankly I like someone who gets things done. I don't need a fight or a showboat.I never expected him to deliver me a perfect world - I figure the world is more than about me and everyone's needs and opinions are as important as mine. If you don't like Obama - wait and see what we get when the Republicans take over even more than they already had - Your appreciation level might change.

[Laelth]

203. Obama has definitely gotten things done.

I don't deny that. But LBJ got a lot more things done, from what I can tell--more things and better things. That's why I rank him higher in the list of Presidents through which I have lived.

And I have no desire to see Republicans controlling the oval office, but I sincerely believe that Obama is creating the conditions by which the Republicans can reclaim the Presidency through his regular betrayals of the left and his core constituents.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[Fruittree]

221. I don't think he's betrayed the left and his constituents as you say...

He's merely operating in the world of reality and getting what he can...It's kind of like my daughter wanting the $300 dress for a school dance - While I might love to give her that, reality dictates nothing over $50 - Have I not respected her desires? Have I betrayed her? No...I'm just giving her what I can given the situation we live in.. I might want the same thing for her, but I know I can't get it. I personally think what could defeat Pres.Obama is our slanted, dumbed-down media. A lot of what he's done is actually very progressive and good but how much do people hear about it with thorough explanations of the bills? Not much in my opinion because the media would rather run after the Tea Party and Sarah Palin in search of stories that will help ratings and cater to an audience more accustomed to People magazine than to the New York Times. What worries me is that attacks from the left rather than keeping the Pres. on track and prodding him to more progressive positions is at times only weakening him. Look at the results of the midterms - Had more progressives/democrats come out in his support, we wouldn't be stuck with the Congress we are now. I think in a lot of cases, we need to stop complaining and look at the big, long-term picture. Change is a slow process and like all good things worth having, we can't give up when we're just getting started.
Anyway - thank you also for your response. I enjoy a good conversation :)

[txwhitedove]

139. "Means of Ascent: The Years of Lyndon Johnson" one of the best books

I've ever read and changed my mind about LBJ. When growing up I thought he was gruff and tacky, certainly after JFK and "Camelot". But LBJ accomplished a great deal. Yes, one of the great Presidents.

[Raine]

162. Johnson did lots of progressive things

and really moved the country forward. It's just such a shame that his legacy will always include Viet Nam.

[Laelth]

169. As Obama's legacy will include Afghanistan.

It is a shame, but I continue to suggest that when we let the MIC have their wars, we ought to insist on liberal legislation at home in exchange. That's better than just funding the wars.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[Splinter Cell]

164. He did do a lot for domestic policy...

But I will always believe that he was "in the know" as far as the murder of our 35th President, and for that I can't forgive him.

[treestar]

166. LBJ is dead

Who knows how he would have handled things in 2008-2010? His methods that were fine THEN could be disastrous NOW.

What is the point of comparing Presidents? They each are of their own era of history.

Get over it, LBJ is gone, and there is no proof that acting like him would work for President Obama today.

[boppers]

168. You actually raise a very valid point about comparisons and eras.

Would Obama's tactics have worked the same way in the 60's?

Would LBJ be effective today?

...and there's the additional information we have about LBJ now, that we didn't have then. In 40 or so years, when the Obama administration becomes much more transparent (through records being released to historians), how will views change?

[rasputin1952]

170. Most things, both politically and in personal lives, are depenent

upon specific circumstances and how those circumstances are approached.

It is easy for us today to see the Civil Rights Act as a given, but those of us who were alive at the tie realize what a difficult situation was presented. LBJ, by pushing for the CRA, virtually guaranteed his any bid at re-election was to fail. He also knew he was at the the last part of his life, and the strain he had just gone through would have pretty well done him in, (he died a couple of years later, and was barely able to get around before he died).

Truman decided that desegregation of the military services were long overdue, and he knew there would be political blowback, but he proved correct, only because the time had arrived for him to act.

Suffrage for women was gained in 19209 because a preponderance of states decided it was time, (although it should have been included in the original Constitution).

Throughout our history, people younger than 21 were told to go to war, and yet could not vote for or against those who would send them.

People thought it was time for a "dry" nation, so Prohibition came about, only to be rescinded, partly because of the incredible power organized crime gained through illicit sales. Oddly, considering the "Drug War", no one looked back at to how Prohibition enriched mobsters, now the drug cartels far out pace what the mobsters ever dreamed of reaping in as profit.

Some of the problems PO face are as old as greed itself, some are newer and more nuanced. All things considered, he's doing pretty well, and comparisons often don't hold water. How can he be compared to Lincoln, who placed nation as a whole during the Civil War above all else?

Can we compare PO to FDR, who faced some of the harshest economic times and then a World War?

Can we compare him to bush, who drove the nation to brink of collapse, and left in utter disgrace and vilified?

What was/is the alternative? Could we have been able to afford a McCauin...I don't think so. So I'll work with what we have...and hope for the best.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

171. I am completely in agreement

In addition, there were the National Defense Student Loan Program, with 2% interest, 50% forgivable if you went into public school teaching, the military, VISTA, or the Peace Corps, 100% forgivable if you taught school in a poverty area for five years. The National Defense Foreign Language Fellowships provided free rides for graduate students in Asian, African, and Middle Eastern languages. I learned Japanese on one such fellowship.

[andym]

173. LBJ held more congressional power than any President since FDR

He not only had a large majority, the 89th Congress had 66-67 Democratic Senators and 289-295 Democratic house members, but many moderate Republican Senators and Representatives were willing to support progressive legislation. No other president has had this kind of power in my lifetime and few have ever had such power.

He was the only President in recent times positioned to enact major legislation, and to his credit he did so.
It's a great pity that he was not as visionary as Truman and tried to get single-payer. He was the only President in my lifetime who had the congressional power to achieve it.

However, ironically his progressive civil rights achievements would weaken the Democratic party for years as Southern racists and racist sympathizers moved to the GOP after his term, thus spelling the end of further significant social legislation. It only took twelve years after LBJ left office for Reagan to begin the destruction of the Great Society and the demonization of progressive philosophy.

[Laelth]

178. Very true. I can't argue with any of that, nor would I want to.

Obama has not been gifted with a Congress capable of passing the kinds of laws LBJ could pass, but I refuse to let Obama off the hook for that. Too many of his decisions that did not require Congressional approval have been right-leaning. I list some of them here:

Another theory holds that Obama is some kind of liberal pragmatist. He takes what he can get, according to this theory, and given the intransigence of congressional Republicans, especially in the Senate, it is impossible for Obama to enact truly liberal legislation. Liberals are supposed to be pleased that Obama managed to accomplish as much as he has given the current political climate, and liberals are supposed to presume that in a more favorable political climate, Obama would have had the power to effect the transformative change we were promised in the 2008 election campaign. The flaw in this theory is that it ignores everything Obama has done that did not require congressional approval. Appointing Rahm Emanuel, a died-in-the-wool corporatist and leader of the DLC, as Chief of Staff? An industry insider, Ken Salazar, as Secretary of the Interior? Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education? Tim Geithner and Larry Summers as the foxes guarding the financial industry hen house? Republicans didn’t force Obama to appoint any of these people, and each one of these appointments constitutes a direct attack on a core Obama constituency. Environmentalists hate Salazar. Teachers hate Duncan. Most Americans who realize that bankers and financiers are making record profits and pocketing record bonuses on the public dime, while working Americans are forced to tighten their belts, hate the people who got us into this mess. Both Geithner and Summers played key roles in creating the financial meltdown from which we are now trying to recover. Everybody, of course, hates Rahm Emanuel, but liberals have more reason to hate him than most given that he is fond of calling them “fucking retarded.” To argue that Obama has liberal political instincts, but that he has been constrained by congressional Republicans, is patently absurd given the people he appointed to run the Federal Government.

And it’s not just his appointments that have irked liberals. Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay. It’s still open for torture and unconstitutional detention. Obama promised to end the Iraq war. Our troops are still there. Obama said he would escalate the war in Afghanistan, and he has kept his word on that, but he also promised to bring the troops home in 2011. Whoops. Now liberals are supposed to be happy that they’ll be coming home in 2014 ... maybe. Obama promised open government, but in nearly every case that has come before the Courts, Obama’s Department of Justice has argued for secrecy and for denying the public the right to know exactly what our government is doing in our name. Even worse, the Obama administration has taken a hard line on whistleblowers and is dead set on punishing Julian Assange for having the audacity to actually provide the people with some knowledge about the inner workings of their government. Obama could have eliminated “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” with the stroke of a pen. Instead, he ordered a survey and drug his feet on this issue for two years. Environmentalists were hoping that Obama would actually do something about global warming, but the Obama delegation effectively sabotaged negotiations in Copenhagen. Those of us who value our constitutional rights were hoping that Obama would put an end to warrantless wiretapping. That practice has been endorsed by this administration, not to mention that this administration is fully responsible for the electronic, full-body, naked-image searches that are now routine practice at airports across the country. Those of us who care about the republic were hoping that Obama would disavow the unconstitutional “Unitary Executive” theory of government propounded by George W. Bush. Instead, time after time, Obama has fought to preserve executive privilege and power.

Given all of this, liberals are supposed to believe that Obama has liberal instincts and intentions, but that he has been stymied by Republican resistance? Republicans didn’t force Obama to take any of the positions he took on the long list of issues cited above. The argument that Obama is some kind of “liberal pragmatist” is patently absurd.

http://laelth.blogspot.com

Liberalism is, sadly, DEAD in the Democratic Party. The purpose of this thread to remind us of what we once were and what some of us expect out of a political party that we have supported for years and years.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

-Laelth

[retread]

176. A very friendly President! He once sent me greetings!! n/t

[xchrom]

177. i loved johnson for his socially progressives views on government

and what that energy can do for the citizenry.

and i hated him with a white hot passion for viet nam.

however -- the discussion of say lbj v. obama underscores what is 'liberal' or 'progressive' policy and what
is a conservative policy disguised as 'liberal' because the sitting congress and white house have D attached to them.

[Laelth]

193. Having that D attched means very little these days. Agreed. n/t

-Laelth

[Jakes Progress]

188. Yep. Last time we had a Dem President that knew how to use the office.

He was shot down by the war he inherited, but his domestic agenda was the last truly progressive administration. Since Johnson, we have elected Democratic presidents who were novices and who had more philosophy about the presidency than real working skills.

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KossackRealityCheck]

194. 1.Clinton, 2.Obama, 3.Johnson

Bottom line is peace and prosperity. I don't admire Clinton as a person, but his policies led to unprecedented low unemployment and the only military actions were to prevent genocide.

Obama ended Iraq and will end Afghanistan, ended torture, extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretapping, and although the children among us who have never witnessed the roll out of a major social program are gnashing their teeth about HCR because it wasn't exactly what they wanted, it will in retrospect be viewed as something as significant as Medicare and Medicaid. The huge expansion of Medicaid alone would make HCR the most significant social program in 50 years.

Johnson got many things done, but the war was a catastrophe. Anyone who thinks that Afghanistan or even Iraq is on the scale of Vietnam simply doesn't know their history.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

235. CLINTON?

Mr. Welfare Reform? (so that there's now a five-year lifetime limit on welfare, no matter what the economic circumstances?)

Mr. NAFTA?

Mr. Bomb Iraq without declaring war?

Mr. Wimp Out Whenever the Republicans Said Boo?

And Obama has not ended rendition or torture.

[DutchLiberal]

195. Tell it to this girl...

[Laelth]

200. War is terrible.

Should I post pictures of injured people in Afghanistan--which Obama escalated?

Nobody is giving Johnson a pass on Vietnam.

-Laelth

[DutchLiberal]

201. That's not true. YOU are giving LBJ a pass.

Otherwise you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous thread.

Oh, and don't assume I give Obama a pass for Afghanistan --which I don't.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

205. Erm why was Vietnam more noble than what we have now?? LBJ did have worthy accomplishments..

not taking that away, but modern times in this political environment Barack Obama is the best President of our times.

[Lord Magus]

206. You can say that Obama "now owns" Afghanistan but he didn't lie us into it.

LBJ most certainly did lie us into Vietnam.

[Frisbee]

207. I'm 48 and FDR is the best President in my lifetime...

because friends, family and Americans in general are still to this day benefitting from his presidency. And now it seems everything he accomplised is in danger!

[Lord Magus]

211. He also locked American citizens in concentration camps for looking foreign.

Just saying.

[Drunken Irishman]

208. LBJ is a huge reason why my father died in November...

He fought the battles of Vietnam long after he left its jungles and his death, poor health brought on mostly by Agent Orange, is a direct result of Lyndon Johnson's war policies.

My father didn't ask to be poisoned. He did ask to go to Vietnam because, at the time, he trusted his government. They let him down. Yes, that includes Lyndon Johnson.

My father was 57 years old when he died. Much of that life was spent fighting a war he ultimately lost. Even after coming home and settling down.

So I find it absurd, just as I'm sure many liberals would, to suggest LBJ was the best president of the last 60 years.

My father certainly didn't think so.

And neither do I.

For your consideration, of course.

[Lord Magus]

210. +1 million

[AtomicKitten]

217. *

:pals:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

234. And how many MORE such stories will there be as a result of Obama's escalation

of the war in Afghanistan and maintaining troops in Iraq after the alleged "withdrawal"?

It's exactly the same flaw that LBJ exhibited: continuing a stupid, immoral, illegal war long after it's clear that it's unwinnable (Afghanistan) or has led to consequences worse than the previous status quo (Iraq).

If you can't see that, you're starstruck.

[Drunken Irishman]

237. I don't recall ever mentioning Pres. Obama.

This post was about Johnson's claim as Greatest President.

I disagree with the merits of that post. I stated my case. If you want to use a what if scenario about Barack Obama's presidency in 50 years, go right ahead. I'm not about to do that, however.

My issue with Johnson and Vietnam goes well beyond just his actions of expanding the war. It's the way he dealt with that war.

[golfguru]

209. JFK the best then LBJ

[Kahuna]

212. You know what? YOU do not speak for all liberals.

DU is just an echo chamber. You may speak for a segment of DU posters (not even all of them). But you certainly do not speak for all liberals. I personally am sick and tired of grandstanders who think they speak for all liberals.

[AtomicKitten]

218. +1

:hug:

[Kahuna]

220. :)

:hug:

[JNelson6563]

222. Yeah, you speak for all liberals.

Not.

[OregonBlue]

224. Boring. Opinions are like assholes.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

231. I agree completely. If it weren't for the Vietnam War, LBJ would rank up there with FDR

His policies made profound, positive, and immediate improvements in nearly everyone's lives, and he knew how to win supporters on both sides of the aisle. He didn't bend over backwards to please the Republicans. He made the Republicans please HIM.

[TK421]

236. I wasn't alive then...I was born in 1975 and barely even remember Carter

if at all...but I do remember Reagan, and all of the "us verses them" mentality with the U.S and Russia back then, along with all that the Hollywood movies had to feed us back then, pounding into us how evil the Soviets were and how important it was for all of us to fight back and resist...but I was also a T.V and latch-key kid, so it probably had more of an impact on me than some..strange looking back on that shit; it all seems so ridiculous to me right now. Look at the state of the now Soviet Union and their bread-lines....miserable situation they are in, no better

I'm not going to say that Obama was the best or worst president I have ever had simply because I can't think of a president that was around when I had a slight interest in politics...I mean, what is the measuring stick there?. My Father was a die-hard Dem, as was my Mom, and I only started watching what was going on when Reagan was in office...my Dad would point shit out to me, and when Clinton was president, my Dad thought he was doing a good job...then there was the blow-job incident...seems countless Americans lost respect for him for that and everything he accomplished during his presidency seemed to go down the fucking drain..never mind what previous Repub presidents got away with.

Now I look at Obama, and he bit off more than he can chew...back during the primaries, when I supported Hillary for the nomination I envisioned Obama as weak; a good speaker, but someone who was weak and not ready to go toe-to-toe with the demons in the House and Senate, as well as someone who would give in more easily.I certainly don't want to see this president bend to a Republican-controlled House, but I'm still going to wait and see what happens this year before I make my decision to vote-not vote for him again

For the record, I am not a Liberal...I am a Moderate