Drew are you a glutton for punishment? The conservatives will have a field day with this.

Monica thought Bill was one of the best "ten" also.

Rose-colored glasses see only what they want to see. Bill Clinton is a disgrace and a liar. He did say one of my favorite quotes though,"It depends what is is."

Alright Mr. Landry, since you are taunting me by posting a picture of Jackson (whom I loathe and you know it) I guess I should post my thoughts. As good looking as you are, your taste in presidents leaves something to be desired. Now I admit you have your reasons for loving the presidents you mentioned...just as I have my reasons for hating some of them *cough *Jackson*cough *

So your top 10...I admit you went right with Truman, Adams, Jefferson, Washington, the Roosevelts, and Lincoln...even though our exact rankings differ slightly. Polk I can see your case for, but I'm just not a huge fan of his even though he did more in one term than most presidents did in two. Jackson and Clinton though have me bemused. I understand your man-crush on Old Hickory I do...I mean he's the second most badass president we have ever had (after Teddy Roosevelt).

My top ten:

10. John Adams: So very annoying and obnoxious, but politically one of the greats. If he were alive today he'd get a shoe thrown at him just because he's John Adams. Besides all the good stuff you mentioned about Johnny he built up the U.S Navy, he was also never caught in a scandal. Incredibly I can't name ten presidents who didn't get caught up in a scandal (maybe your next blog topic?).

9. Harry Truman- Even though he was out of the loop on so many important things (i.e. Manhattan project)

8. Woodrow Wilson-

7. Thomas Jefferson

6. James Madison

5. Ronald Regan- Since you got in your liberal crush with Clinton I get the same with Regan

4. Teddy Roosevelt- Greatest real BAMF the country has ever seen. Busted trusts just as well as he could bust someone's jaw (he loved boxing)

3. George Washington

2. Franklin D. Roosevelt

1. Abraham Lincoln- Kentucky was home to two presidents who served in the same year, Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. Which is fitting since the state was frankly fighting against itself in the Civil War.

With regards to the Presidency, a subject that I have long studied, I decided to add my views regarding the intellectualism of our 20th Century Presidents and how their mental skills related to their success. As to our earlier history, other than Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Jackson and maybe Polk few stand out. Certainly almost all of American's recognized historians, through the decades of the Schlesinger Poll and others less regarded polls rank Washington, Lincoln and FDR in the top three with Jackson, TR, Wilson, Jefferson, Truman following in no solid order. As to the last slots, Polk, Clinton, and even Eisenhower have gotten high marks. Jackson and Wilson have suffered in recent days over racial issues, the Indians and African Americans. Jefferson also has his detractors. Eisenhower has moved up because of the failures of most of the post-war presidents. As to the bottom rung, Pierce, Buchanan, Harding, Coolidge, Nixon, Hoover, Bush II, will be vying for last place over the next number of years! Carter was stuck with the oil embargo and the hostage crisis, and his legacy is poor but not on the bottom rung.

I am glad people still think seriously about the IQ and mental health of our leaders. It would surprise me greatly, and almost everyone else I have known, that George W. Bush was reported to have an IQ near JFK. If George W. Bush has IQ of 115 and that sounds reasonable, then Bill Clinton has one of 215. I know of no example that George W. Bush has ever read a book of any consequence and he was by all accounts a barely passing student in college (560 Verbal on his SATs and a legacy!). I do not know what his core curriculum was, or whether he just didn't care, as many rich boys (and poor boys) don't. But, all in all, it is the poor boys that must excel to succeed. Certainly Bill Clinton was a poor boy, and he excelled, was incredibly well read, and his language and overall skills reflected that intellect. Yes, he was flawed, like many of us.

But, all in all, good political leaders do not have to be intellects, and in a sense the public has a tendency to mistrust them. Certainly Stevenson was labeled an "egg head" and the country rejected him, by wide margins, over the affable, but non-intellectual Dwight Eisenhower, who favored Zane Grey western novels as a way to intellectually test his gray matter or just relax. He spent more days on vacation, and away from work then any President, except maybe Calvin Coolidge or GW Bush in his term up to 9/11.

Jack Kennedy was a bright, and talented young man, who had many more advantages then most of his presidential peers. His great communicative skills were not hurt by his Hollywood good looks, and he had terrific political instincts fostered by his close connection to world events and the political theater of his upbringing. FDR raised himself to be President in the model of his cousin TR, but JFK, after the death of his brother, was fast-tracked to the job by the incredible heavy-hitting Kennedy political machine. Despite his incredible advantages he still had to produce, and he was quite capable of reflecting those skills on all of his campaign venues. As President he was inexperienced, a bit too young, and therefore pushed around by his own Congress. In a potential second term he would have had a short window of opportunity to succeed before morphing into the traditional lame-duck status that befits presidential 2nd terms. Certainly Michael Dukakis, who was and is quite bright, suffered from some of the same fear that the public has of intellectual superiority. In the modern era, only Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson, two true intellects were elected to the Presidency. Few people saw TR as an intellect and he was elevated initially by assassination, and not the direct will of the electorate. Ironically Wilson, former President of Princeton, an intellectual reformer, historian, and a writer, besides being the popular reform Governor of New Jersey, was elected as a true minority President, when his eventual political enemy, the former president, Teddy Roosevelt, split the vote in the three-way election of 1912.

So we do not have a long wonderful history of electing truly bright people. Maybe, in his own way, Nixon would be considered bright, a law school graduate from Duke, along with the highly educated and successful businessmen and engineers Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter. Certainly anyone smart enough to captain a nuclear submarine and to pass Admiral Hyman Rickover's rigorous tests was no dope. But few give or gave him good marks as a President, and he was never perceived as an intellect. Most people saw him as a country-boy peanut farmer! William Howard Taft, our largest president was an educated man, a lawyer, territorial governor, a cabinet official and also a Supreme Court Justice. But no one accused him of being overly gifted as an intellect. Warren Harding was a handsome fellow, with an eye for the ladies, and a political hack, as was Gerald Ford. Harry S Truman, like Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson and Gerald Ford was elevated to the job and unlike those I just mentioned, did not attend college. But Truman, who was never thought of as an intellect, was certainly not a fool, and now is widely recognized as near-great President, but still an unpopular one. LBJ was a political animal with a minor college education, who was quite bright, and incredibly energetic and ambitious, but not an intellect either. Coolidge was a dour fellow who slept through most of his five years in the job and had little vision or transferable ideals. Reagan certainly would never be accused of being well educated or bright, and was at best a line-reciting puppet with a primitive understanding of almost anything. His familiarity with the scientific world was appalling and his total inability to react with a spontaneous thought was embarrassing. Again he never had high marks regarding his reputation of being well read or an intellect, but he was and remains popular. He certainly could deliver a quippish line and was well-liked as a genial non-malevolent soul. History may just flay him to shreds as he will probably fall significantly in the minds of future generations of historians. This recent meltdown of our financial system may relegate him as being a modern day Coolidge to Hoover. Of course no two circumstances in history are exactly the same.

Of course we are left with one President who has always confounded everyone. FDR, the most successful politician and statesman in the history of the western world, was not an intellect. Everyone remembers Oliver Wendell Holmes "supposed" remark that he (FDR) was "a second rate intellect, but (had) a first-class temperament." (Denied by Oliver Wendell Holmes to his death!) According to Thomas Corcoran, his former and favorite clerk when he was on the Court, Holmes, when he met FDR at his home, confused him for a moment with his old rival Theodore Roosevelt. Holmes was thinking of TR has a "first rate-rate intellect with a second rate temperament." Then in contemplation he reversed it with FDR. He never thought FDR was a "second-rate" intellect, but second to his 5th cousin!

FDR was reasonably better educated then most, and had very high communication skills. His great strength really resided in his exceptional "people" skills. He knew how to get good people to do good and loyal work. He engendered great loyalty and love from his staff, and even received grudgingly given respect from his political enemies. Even the Japanese, in the midst of the war and on the edge of defeat, offered moments of silence, over the radio, at the news of his death and recognized him as a "great" man. No man in history had the combination of domestic, worldwide and posthumous acclaim. He owned the office and almost no one, even his great and most vicious opponents, could discount his power and skills. In a sense, an eternally healthy FDR would have gone on and on. His supporters were never tired of him, and his opponents were plum worn out by his skills, charm and worldwide support. Today he remains an almost unchallenged icon, far above his contemporaries and all who have followed. Most collective memories of FDR are unique and reverential. Though he was secretive, at times vindictive, and often politically too bold, his legacy remains unprecedented in history

Richard J. Garfunkel

Host of The Advocates

WVOX 1460AM Radio

Live-streaming at www.wvox.com

A well written piece rjgarfnkel,

I can't argue with a persons choice of top presidents in history as that would be subjective.

I, however, look at presidents differently than their supposed IQ verses intellect. After all, Einstein was a brilliant man of extreme IQ, but couldn't tune up a Volkswagon.

I think presidents should be judged on their ability to follow the Constitution and manage their most important role of commander in chief.

FDR certainly would fit the CIC catagory but did let the Constitution slide with his social programs and the use of his power to promote social agendas. I appreciate Washington's leadership in the Revolutionary war and his ability to keep his vision for a unified country seperate from the British. Lincoln recieves kudos here as well.

Kennedy was certainly a decisive president during the Cuban missle crisis and knew how to effectively apply the Marshall plan. Reagan, while being deminished in your word salad, was a tremendous leader and his strength through power contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Also, George H.W. Bush had a grasp of his CIC reponsibiltiy as we freed the newly occupied Kuwait, rather decicively.

While most of your great leaders, and Drew's, represent primarily left -leaning presidents, I contend a great president is a great delegator, moral, God-fearing, commander in chief who loves his country and it's founders ideals of a Republic under God.

I could just as easily chosen my list as those presidents who were the best farmers. I guess poor old Jimmy Carter falls to the bottom of most catagories. He was a nuclear engineer and still can't pronounce "nuclear" properly.

I guess we can all agree on one thing, a Nobel -prize winning president does not a great president make.

Have so many people not heard of Abrahan Lincoln? Banjo players, how many more times will anyone get to hear Ralph Stanley recorded? Try and think before tech. He plays with Steve Martin on that CD I mentioned, I think I mentioned.

Actually there was Lincoln, and there was F.D.R. and the rest are a jump ball, to this day. There appears to be so much parity in Presidents, and this has been my entire life. War for the last fifty years, they say we won one. Kennedy gave a great speech when he won. No one mentioned him. Johnson civil rights, I don't think he was mentioned. Johnson was the most effective President I remember; when he wanted it, he got it. War! Was the guy in the picture the Indian hunter. Probably would be hunting deer at Brown Co. Park. The guy who doubled the size of the country has always intrigued me. Did it without a shot being fired and no money down, doubled the size, a hell of a real estate deal. A cigar, a hand shake, statesmanship. The person who wrote this has not been in Israel for any length of time. Their peace with Palestine is so fragile the only time they feel it is when they sleep.

So, as I was saying, Milan played Muncie Central in the final, Milan won that one. Attucks came into the league with Robertson,and there have been many games played since.

The ominous task you put before us begs for some assistance. Without a criteria with which to judge, I am left with the assumption that we are to pick our "favorite" top ten based purely on how well we liked them.

I don't think this is a worthy topic to argue, for those of you who like to argue (and I am not one of those), because everyone has their own opinion of what they like and what makes a President a favorite of theirs.

I can't help but think if I were a Native American Indian, that I would be appalled at anyone's selection of Andrew Jackson, nor for that matter a great number of Presidents, Lincoln included, who fought to exterminate or remove Indians from their native lands.

On the same line of thought, had I been an American citizen of Japanese origin who lost my property and had to live in a 'containment' camp during the early 1940's, I'm sure that FDR would not be on my list of favorites.

I have read seven biographies on Theodore Roosevelt and there is not a unanimous decision amongst these learned experts on just where he stands, so I'm not sure how I could argue one way or the other. If I were an argumentative individual, I'm sure I could argue both ways based on what I have read.

I have read nearly as many books pertaining to the life and times of FDR and, like his cousin, his place in history is not favorably supported by all historians and yet by some.

Oh well, regardless of what I may think, most of you shall argue anyway, so be it. Have fun, that's what blogs are all about.

Jackson killed a man in a duel, took a slashing from a redcoat's sword, chased after a would-be assassin, had to flee the white house after throwing the most killer party ever had there, was a B.A. in battle, and was heartless against thousands of indians. I think he could take Teddy's best shot and laugh.

Now Nixon, there's a guy who could eat your liver, then lie about it with blood on his face!

Give me Honest Abe as #1!!

Franklin D. Roosevelt...really?

FDR and the New Deal was the beginning of the end of America.

His tripling of taxes, his laws making it more expensive for employers to hire people, his anti-discounting laws, his large-scale destruction of food, the 700 industrial cartels he enforced, the monopolies he established, the frivolous antitrust lawsuits he authorized against big employers...

Why has no one mentioned Warren G. Harding?

"We can reduce the abnormal expenditures, and we will. We can strike at war taxation, and we must. We must face the grim necessity, with full knowledge that the task is to be solved, and we must proceed with a full realization that no statute enacted by man can repeal the inexorable laws of nature. Our most dangerous tendency is to expect too much of government, and at the same time do for it too little. We contemplate the immediate task of putting our public household in order. We need a rigid and yet sane economy, combined with fiscal justice and it must be attended by individual prudence and thrift, which are so essential to this trying hour and reassuring for the future.

I speak for administrative efficiency, for lightened tax burdens, for sound commercial practices, for adequate credit facilities, for sympathetic concern for all agricultural problems, for the omission of unnecessary interference of Government with business, for an end to Government's experiment in business, and for more efficient business in Government administration. With all of this must attend a mindfulness of the human side of all activities, so that social, industrial, and economic justice will be squared with the purposes of a righteous people.

I wish for an America no less alert in guarding against dangers from within than it is watchful against enemies from without."

(excerpts from Warren Harding's presidential inauguration)

Ever hear about the depression of 1920? No? Well you can thank Warren G. Harding for that.

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

This could be partially inaccurate, but I thought I saw once on the History Channel where Andy Jackson turned sideways in a duel, hoping his thin frame would make for a more difficult target. Then, his competitor fired, hitting Jackson. He went down, and they thought it was a done deal. Then, he got up, dusted off, and capped his opponent. That was one of the two bullets lodged in Andy's body that he carried around. Crazy Dude!!

Check out Chester Arthur's sideburns sometime. I'm jealous!

Yeah a couple of his cabinet members were losers. Accepting bribes or skimming profit here and there. No evidence to date suggests that Harding personally profited from these crimes.

"I have no trouble with my enemies," Harding told journalist William Allen White late in his presidency, "but my damn friends, they're the ones that keep me walking the floor nights!"

Has there ever been a president that hasn't had a bad egg in his cabinet?

Let's put all the scandals aside for a minute.

I base most of my votes on fiscal policies. We've been slowly bankrupting our country for a long time.

Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. That alone would have probably been enough to get my vote.

"Harding's inchoate understanding of what was happening to the economy and why grandiose interventionist plans would only delay recovery is an extreme rarity among twentieth-century American presidents."

Government intervention is a hindrance to economic recovery, and Harding knew that. He gets my vote.

We need to learn from history. Quit devaluing the dollar. Cut the budget. Cut taxes. Let people keep their money. This is how you turn the economy around.

Bill Clinton disgraced the office by fornicating with an intern in the oval office. He then lied to the Grand Jury and was IMPEACHED.

Nice choice of top presidents.

How embarrassing for America.

name one

At least Nixon resigned when he was facing a disgraceful impeachement.

The Clinton's are so power hungry, that resigning was too beneath them.

Mr. Landry-----

I do not find your last comment about Republicans and their sex partners to be at all humorous!! That is not food for thought, that just shows what politics you are. I for one am a Republican and proud of it. And if you want to bash Republicans---heres a thought for you--most WARS are started by Democrates and ended by Republicans. I just think if you are going to be a so called writer for the paper then don't be onesided!!! And I know since I am not agreeing with you I will probably be deleted!

Well, we was fixin' to fornicate.

Garth you do have best sense of humor, and the best eye for observation of anyone I have been able to read in this rag. I wish you owned it and then perhaps it would be worth the ink it takes to print the thing. I know it would be quality, and that would at least give some confidence to the readers.

If you were not so amusing in your comments I would not want you to write to some these people, maybe me also, I am an idiot, I admit such. I sure do like the way you comment. I can just see you sitting there and in an instant know just what response to make. Thanks sincerely for not letting the crazies get to you...

"Bill Clinton - Ended Reaganomics; refused to make recessions on education"

I believe the word you are looking for is concessions not recessions.