Letter to the Editor: Obama among worst presidents

The Leavenworth Times.

I came across this letter to the editor in The Leavenworth Times, and thought it was one of the most accurate analysis of the Obama presidency I have ever read. You can read the entire letter below, or also here

Leavenworth, Kan. —
William Dameron
Leavenworth

To the editor:
Since 1900, America has had 19 presidents, not counting McKinley who took office in 1897. Three of them died in office and one resigned. Teddy Roosevelt replaced the assassinated McKinley, Harry Truman replaced FDR, Lyndon Johnson replaced Jack Kennedy, and Gerald Ford took over for Nixon, who resigned. Teddy and Harry were later elected on their own, so by my count, our voters have elected 17 presidents since 1904. We've had varied results.

It seems to me that some of those presidents were (or are) terrible, and maybe we need to consider qualifications more closely when we elect new ones. If only we knew which qualifications to look for, and which to shun. Perhaps we can work them out, to some extent, based on history.

People will rate these 19 presidents differently. I choose, as the best: Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Ronald Reagan; the worst: Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama. Franklin Delano Roosevelt belongs in both groups – some of his choices were very good, others very bad – my opinion.

The best presidents were hard working, dedicated men who made the right decisions for the right reasons. The worst? Wilson, the first progressive, was a liberal who led the nation into a war in which the United States had no compelling interest, costing 117,000 American lives and more than 200,000 wounded. Carter was a weak and ineffectual president who could be counted on to make the wrong decision every time, based on shaky intellectual judgment and liberal values. Obama is – what I said about Carter, but perhaps 10 times worse (in my opinion) because he is a fanatical ideologue and a narcissist who believes himself infallible – he doesn't value the opinions of others.

So, what qualities did the good presidents have in common? Hard work, honesty, belief in America, dedication to the job, and solid principles. They had sufficient intellect to understand the issues and make the right choices. All were experienced and successful in many facets of life before taking office. (Truman failed as a haberdasher, but was a highly successful captain of artillery in World War I. In World War II, he made his mark as a no-nonsense senator. He was incredibly honest and dedicated.)
The bad presidents? In my opinion, Carter was simply incompetent, though honest and well-meaning. Wilson and Obama were ideologues who wanted to take the country leftward. Obama came to office with virtually no useful experience, although he served in the Illinois and U.S. senates briefly, without distinction. He seems to have a high intellect, but no common sense – little aptitude for leadership, and skewed values that led him the wrong way.

When we voters look at the candidates, what qualities should we favor? I'd go for: a record of hard work and accomplishment; experience (particularly military and/or as governor); dedication; values; and intellect. Leadership is a must.

So, from the current crop of Republican candidates, I'd have to pick Romney and Gingrich as having the most experience, dedication, and intellect. (I may be Newt's only fan), I like Santorum, Pawlenty, and Bachman, but all lack experience. If Rick Perry jumps in, he moves to the top of my list. His more than three terms as a successful governor of Texas are on the record. His leadership, dedication, and values can't be surpassed.

I think Mr. Dameron is right on. The qualities most desired in the 2012 election will be hard work and accomplishment; experience (particularly military and/or as governor); dedication; values; and intellect.

Leadership is a must !