06-16-2004, 06:26 AM
He wasn't a Rhodes Scholar if that is what you mean. Sometimes I find that people with very bright intellects lack common sense. Even then it is relative, and subjective. He was no Dan Quayle, and he was no Jimmy Carter. I think being a good leader requires more than intellect, it requires charisma, a command presence, good common sense, good character, and the ability to choose the right people to help you. As for bad president... Well, if you are talking about our national debt, then yes he was bad for the national debt. But, if you are talking about leading the US out of the stagnation, self loathing and the moral decay of the 70's then he was a good president. Like many presidents he has notches in the good and bad columns. Iran-contra was a mistake -- even if he was driven to try to free the hostages by negotiating with the hostage takers. It didn't work, and the net result was that the US looked bad. But, taking a strong stand against the USSR and using his bully pulpit to ask Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall was a great thing to do.
There are still some folks in the Dixie states who will never forgive Abe Lincoln for bringing the US to civil war and destroying the south.
There are still some folks in the Dixie states who will never forgive Abe Lincoln for bringing the US to civil war and destroying the south.