If you think Reagan was a good President, why? If you think he was bad why?
927104
i used to think reagan was the worst president ever. before bush.\n\nhmm. what was so bad about reagan? overthrowing democractically elected governments in south & central america because they were too liberal for his buddies' tastes and doing so via illegal wars financed through the secret, illegal selling of weapons to their (U.S.'s)  enemies. (namely Iran. btw, saddam hussein was the U.S.'s good buddy at this time, they were also selling him weapons, and he was at war with who? that's right IRAN.) another way they financed those wars was that the cia imported cocaine and dumped it in black ghettoes, which lends a whole new meaning to reagan's ' war on drugs.' that's for starters.\n\nand believe it or not, bush's gang  is worse.\n\noh  yeah. aroooooooooooooooooooooooo
71513
Ever since Reagan got elected and it's all his fault.\n\nOr Bush's.\n\nOr the other Bush's
30034
like is a relative term..\n\ni like him as a person.. he is a very intelligent man.. he has a photographic memory which made him one of the best public speakers we have ever had as president....\n\ni dont like him as a president .. im sorry to say...\nif you make your question more specific, maybe i will edit my post and answer it further..\n\nas to the economic boom argument that is completely wrong.. many economic anaylists will tell you that it takes several years for presidential economic policies to kick in.. Reagan should be given credit for some of that.. also.. \n\nI remember clearly the last two years of the Clinton adminstration the economy wasnt doing so hot.. \n\ni didnt know much about the economy then.. i still dont now to be honest.. but i remember quite clearly the DOW Jones taking nosedives all the time sometimes as much as 400 points in one day.. that was clearly on Clinton's watch.. \n\n ....\nas to why i dont like him as a president.. because his policy on terrorism was "appeasment".. it was a joke.. and now Bush is the bad guy because he stood up to terrorism, which escalated because Clinton basically ignored it for 8 years..\n\n----\nas to lying to the grand jury.. it was wrong and illegal and as far as im concerned he deserved to be impeached...\n\n but i would have done the same thing.. he was protecting his family.. adultery is not something that should have been in the public arena.. it was clearly the work of character assassins.. \n\nBUT.. that doesnt get bill off the hook in my book.. he tried to play his actions down by saying that oral sex was not sex.. which made him piss poor role model for this country..
732126
Well, things were bad during WWII, with internment camps in the US, but not as bad as in Europe, with occupation and Nazi death camps and stuff.  Things were bad during the McCarthy era, but not as bad as Afghanistan under the Taliban.\n\nI won't say I'm not concerned, but I have faith that things won't get *too* bad in the US because we value our freedom and rights.  I think a big problem is that people vote for candidates based on single issues--I call it "Trojan Horse Politics."  \n\nLike, Reagan got into office mainly based on his anti-abortion politics.  Then, he offered to kill off revolutionary Catholics if the Catholic church would kill off Communists.  There was the El Salvador thing, where the US spent billions of dollars backing a bunch of drug lords because the revolutionaries were communists.  We bankrupted the Soviet Union...and the Balkan states commenced to butchering each other and blowing historic sh!t up just like they did before WWI (which they started.)  While they were under Soviet control, they weren't committing mass rape and murder and genocide.  But after the Soviets lost control, they started fighting each other just like they'd wanted to that whole time.\n\nBush is kinda the same deal.  He was actually pro-Mexico once upon a time, and seemed friendly toward immigration.  Not anymore.  People voted for him because he seemed like "such a nice Christian" kinda guy.  Not really, but that's what he portrayed himself as.  So he gets in office, a few terrorists blow up the WTC, and...massive incompetence and fear-mongering ensues.  He's a Trojan Horse!\n\nPeople need to think critically--people, you can't vote in a candidate based on abortion, gay marriage, or gun control issues!  There are sooooo many other issues that are more important, and you aren't even finding out what the candidates think about those issues until it's too late--they're already in office and unless they really screw up, you can't just fire them.  You can barely impeach them!  People, think critically!  It's the American Way!
85760
After Reagan taught him some manners he sort of mellowed a little with age.  He became the first Muslim Government to decide to dismantle their WMD program for which we traded foreign aide.  He may have mellowed I did not say he got stupid.
581466
Even as a conservative, I say he is in no way the best we have had at President. But also, he is far from the worst (Nixon, Carter, Hoover, Clinton, McKinley, etc, all worse).\n\nHe's done good, but he has also made poor decisions, as all leaders do. I'd rank him as slightly above average.
440854
I agree with most of your comments.\n\nI agree that Truman was one of the best.  He, above all other things, accepted responisibility for his actions and wanted the President to be a man of unquestioned integrity.\n\nFor that reason, I believe the two Bushes to be the worst.  Neither has shown any desire to be a President that would make the American people proud.  All three of their combined terms have been marked by avoidance of responibility and the pursuit of personal interests over the good of the country.\n\nKennedy was overrated.  Didn't really do very many things well.  He relied almost completely on charisma.\n\nCarter was in way over his head and deserves to be among the worst, but has been a great ex-president.  I think he deserves some respect for his dipomacy and charity work since leaving office.\n\nRight on about Harding and Silent Cal.  I am torn on Clinton, although the country was relatively peace and prosperous during his tenure, I think much of the credit goes to Congress and gridlock rather than his own actions.  And he didn't have a strong sence of honour and integrity.\n\nI noticed you left off FDR and LBJ.  Both of whom were inexplicably popular.  FDR had good luck and charisma, JBL had bad luck and charisma.  I would put FDR on the best list, but not very high.  The circumstances surrounding his presidency would have made anyone look good.  Johnson belongs on the worst list in my opinion.  Although he did much good, he chose to sacrifice thousands of lives in Vietnam rather than make the unpopular decision to pull them out.
720813
Ronald Reagan.  Unlike Clinton, he did not have 5 embassies blown up under his watch, murder American citizens in WACO and Ruby Ridge, did not have a destroyer nearly destroyed, did not have the trade center have a bomb detonaed, did not have the largest terrorist attack before 9/11 (oklahoma city), or sell nuclear missle technology to China.  Both had their scandales, with Reagan's having to do directly with the seperation of powers OF CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE, VIA IRAN-CONTRA, whereas the scandal of Clinton invloved perjury in a court of law.  Though I do believe that Clinton, who was impeached, should have been convicted for perjury, I also believe that if he had demanded executive privalege, he should have been immune from testifying in that criminal proceeding.  \n\nReagan accomplished more internationally and nationally than Clinton.  Comparing the two, Reagan inheritated a worse economy than Clinton, and created a more profitable economy than Clinton.  Reagan also had to contend with a rival superpower in the Soviets, whereas Clinton did not.  Reagan dealt with the Imans successfully, as well as Libya and other tyrants.  Clinton's great success was Milosevich.  Comparring the defeat of Milo versus the USSr, Reagan accomplished more.\n\nThe economy of Reagan gave birth to the tertiary economy of the 90's, allowing the USA to leave behind the trappings of a primary and secondary economy.  Reagan grew the private sector, Clinton contained it.  In terms of inspiration, Reagan was greater.\n\nIn regard to popularity, Reagan stomped his opposition in both the electoral and popular votes.  Clinton never won more than 50% of the popular vote in either of his presidentail elections.  The presence of a 3rd party conservative candidate insured a split conservative vote, allowing an easy electoral win for Clinton.\n\nWhen Reagan left office, his party was stronger in the quantities of offices held in state and federal governments.  Reagan appointed morejustices, and thus exerted a greater influence on the judicial future of the nation.  When Clinton left office, Republicans held more governorships, state legislatures, as well as the senate and the house of representative.  In terms of delivering power to their party, Clinton was a total failure and Reagan a semi-success.\n\nAs those two weigh against each other, Reagan wins.  The other presidents, Bush I and Bush II, Ford, Nixon, and Carter, all rank behind these two.\n\nReagan\nClinton\nBush I\nBush II\nFord\nNixon\nCarter\n\nSpell check failed me, so please excuse the spelling errors.
1168592
President. Ron Reagan.
13882
Hard times can make a great President.  Lincoln is considered great because of what he accomplished in a very bad time.  He freed the slaves and brought the country back together.\n\nPolitics can color judgement on this too.  FDR is considered great by Democrats.  He certainly changed the way our nation operates.  And I would concede that he was a great wartime President.\n\nBut, being a conservative, I'm going to have to say that Reagan was the best.  He changed the world by bankrupting European communism.  He had some success in deregulating our country, and his economic policies never get enough credit for pulling our country out of the stagflation trap of the late 70's.
381121
WHAT HE DID WAS LEGAL! I HATE BUSH. But according to the IO (Intelligence Oversite) LAw put into place by Reagan He took shady YET LEGAL action. But over all he should have been out a year ago!
29154
there were many good presidents and many not soo good presidents.  since i dont know my history well enough to answer this i will just guess at a few that i think were good.  george w.  and i mean WASHINGTON and not bush.  abe lincoln.  Theodore roseavelt.  JKF.  and i'm actually considering William Clinton.  I might be missing a few but like i said it was an educated guess.
60858
LOL Please, only people who think he's a good president are hard core republicans.\n\nDont get be wrong, Im solidly middle of the road on most issues, i support our millitary 100%. I think Bush needs beter advisers, cause I dont think he's got the right stuff to be the Top man. Partly politics is bad for this country, that goes for Democrates, Commies, Libratarians or what ever. \n\nI'm all for some of the things George W has done, I just think he did a poor job on almost everything he's got involved in.
468448
I think President Bush is a great president.  He is almost as good as Ronald Reagan.  I absolutely love Georgie Bush!
1053504
Having a good idea, and having something that is practical enough to actually work are separate things, but it WAS a fictional show. An actor as President? It's been done before, with good results. R.Reagan oversaw the downfall of the Berlin Wall, and the U.S.S.R. breakup. However, I think Geena Davis is probably satisfied with her political support for real politicians.
1137344
What did the country look like before he became President?  High unemployment, high interest rates, high unemployment and failed foreign policy.  Reagan was a man of action and took those issues head on, to positive result.
109765
Ronald Reagan was president from 1980 - 1988.