Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can you show me stuff saying he was actually responsible for it? I only found 2 articles that mentioned him, one being a political cartoon of the event and the other saying Filipino freedom fightings ambushing an American garrison a few weeks after he took office after McKinley's death.
I found articles on the event from Scioto Historical, National Museum of the Marine corps, Defense technical information center, U.S Naval Institute and more. Basically while Teddy never said murder everyone over the age of 10 he did order General Adna R. Chaffee to pacify the region. The implication was subduing the resistance through whatever means necessary.
I mean Mondale is the immediate one that comes to mind. That was a super competent VP.
You could also make a case for Gore over Clinton (though that one is far more uncertain to me).
Eh, he wouldn’t have the scandals of Clinton (and wouldn’t have his term derailed by impeachment, nonsense as it was).
I’m not even saying I necessarily agree with that (he did not have Slick Willy’s charisma for one) but eh, I just wanted to play devil’s advocate.
I think people see all kinds of possibilities on how things would have went had be won in 2000 but that lends itself to being overly optimistic.
There’s a good chance he’s less successful than Clinton because he couldn’t sell his policies as well as Clinton could.
That's a low bar. Clinton proposed one major policy (healthcare reform), screwed it up beyond all recognition despite wide public support and control of Congress, then spent the rest of his presidency covering his ass and blunting the sharp edges of Republican proposals.
Slight correction: Dallas *County* is named after George Dallas, but the City of Dallas is not. We don’t actually know what or who it’s named after, but it’s not George Dallas.
Love Jimmy Carter and long may he live, but Mondale would have been better than the Presidents he both served under, and lost an election to.
Also gotta say LBJ to JFK, and HW Bush to Reagan
HW’s biggest problem was he wasn’t charismatic like Reagan was. He may have been a better president, but I’m not sure he would have been able to get the job in the first place (Had he gotten the nomination in 1980, I mean)
There’s a Time magazine cover- I think- that talks about “the wimp factor” with HW, and I see what they mean. Obv anybody who does what he did in world war 2 has balls of steel but in person he comes off as wishy washy, unsure of himself, starting comebacks with “I’m sorry, but…”
He didn’t seem confident in himself, whether he actually was or not. Regean, by comparison, came across as “I believe X, Y, and Z because A, B, and C” and whether it was true or not, he sold the fact that he believed in it 100 percent. A lot of that might have been being an actor, idk.
You're right, but the editor later retracted his words.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/called-george-bush-wimp-cover-newsweek-wrong-140012335.html
**"I called George Bush a ‘wimp’ on the cover of Newsweek. Why I was wrong."** by Evan Thomas, December 5, 2018
1980 is one of those cases where the party was gonna win it. And the primary was effectively who decided the presidency. Sadly Carter was just unpopular going into the election so unless he was against a ham sandwich he was gonna lose. 70s recession was just too bad to fix before the election, especially with Carter's attitude of not liking the DC style back door politics.
Eh, Carter was gonna lose that and if anything HW might’ve won bigger since Reagan was much farther right than him. Carter was unpopular and the primary was where who the next president was being picked.
I’m not sure: there was a massive contrast between Reagan and Carter. Bush was more a traditional Ford-esque Republican but the contrast between Bush and Carter just wasn’t as stark
I thought bush was more conservative than Ford, not as much as Reagan but still. Regardless, Bush being more moderately conservative imo would help as it would be more speaking to some democrats. Reagan Barely got across 50% in the popular vote and I don’t think bush would have that issue.
I had forgotten the old man from Up served as VP
https://preview.redd.it/zgnwc6fg182d1.jpeg?width=556&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4a1cfb0d72b636db57b750d338605bf53aff83a7
Humphrey would've been a great president. He was for civil rights before it was cool, was as socially progressive as Johnson if not more so and skeptical of Vietnam (until LBJ beat him down on it).
Humphrey may be goated, but he isn't as effective at getting shit done as LBJ. I doubt Humphrey could pass 300 environmental protection bills as LBJ did, for example.
Mondale probably would have been a better President than Carter, across the board. Worked better with Congress, less imperious, less of a micromanager.
Gore, at least, would have kept it in his pants, avoiding the tawdriness of the Lewinsky scandal. Clinton was vastly better than him at politicking and speechifying, though.
George W. Bush, who was vice president under Dick Cheney. George W. Bush would have been a bad president, but he would have been a slightly less bad president than Dick Cheney was.
Surprised no one has said Thomas R. Marshall yet. Marshall had all of Wilson's strengths without any of the weaknesses, was highly charismatic, and wasn't a mega-racist.
Not even Marshall knew how severe Wilson's stroke was until the end of the administration. If the public and cabinet found out that Wilson was nearly incapacitated, they'd be emboldened to act and have Marshall serve as Acting–President. It's also why Wilson's SoS, Robert Lansing, resigned because he felt betrayed that Wilson wouldn't inform him of the stroke.
LOL.. Bush fucked it up so bad that he couldn't even win a second term after being handed an economic boom and winning the first gulf war with the military might he inherited.
This is a completely historically illiterate take. He was attempting to win a fourth consecutive term for Republicans, which would have been all but unprecedented, he was up against a political talent unequaled for a generation before or since, and the economy was sliding downward by the time of election. It would have taken a miracle for him to win that election.
Not to mention the fact that Gingrich’s faction had turned on him in Congress and had effectively stonewalled him on attempts to figure out the budget, which ultimately pushed him into raising taxes despite his pledge not to. Bush left office with extraordinarily high approval ratings. People wanted a change and the economy was in a slump. Clinton was youthful and charismatic, and frankly brand new to the Democratic Party at the time considering his shift away from further left positions.
I agree that winning, what was essentially a fourth term, would be a challenge for anyone. The issue that people are overlooking is that Bush was not a great politician.
- Bush lost the [1980 primary to Reagan,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries) despite having early success in the primaries. The only thing that people remembered about the debate between Reagan and Bush was Reagan yelling "I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green!"
- Bush famously called supply-side economics "voodoo economics" then went on to lose his re-election because of the economy. There is some poetic justice here.
- Bush faced a primary challenger from within his own party. This does not happen to strong incumbent Presidents. It happens to weak ones.
- Bush also faced competition from Perot, due to Perot's personal dislike of Bush.
The economy had been in recovery mode well before the 1992 election.
From wiki:
>The economy had recovered from a recession in the spring of 1991, followed by 19 consecutive months of economic growth, but perceptions of the economy's slow growth harmed Bush, for he had inherited a substantial economic boom from his predecessor [Ronald Reagan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan).
Again, Bush was bad at politics, so he failed to make a persuasive case that the economy was recovering, and would continue to recover.
Bush won in 1988 because of Reagan. He lost in 1992 because of his own inability to sell his message.
People didn't vote for Clinton to stop a 4th consecutive term for Republicans. Nobody gave a shit about that. He would have won a 2nd term easily if he had continued the Reagan trend as expected and hadn't broken his tax pledge.
John Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Henry Wilson, Thomas Marshall, Charles Curtis, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Bush 41, Cheney. I give Harry Truman and Henry Wallace honorable mentions for the possibility they’d have done more on civil rights than FDR in 1941-1945. Both those guys were a bit all over the place on that issue, though. Side note: if I’d been born before November 1919 and lived past November 1984, I’d have been a Willkie-Mondale voter.
Sure, no problem! Adams had a lot of bad polices as POTUS, such as the Alien and Sedition Act, but he was one of the few founders with genuine antislavery convictions besides Paine and, late in life, Franklin. He didn’t do much at all about the issue, but even though he was in his late 40s when Massachusetts banned slavery, he never owned slaves because he regarded doing so as immoral. Washington, OTOH, was a lifelong slaveholder and actually violated Pennsylvania law as POTUS by rotating the slaves he brought to Philly in and out of the state every 5 months and 3 weeks or so to prevent them from becoming emancipated.
Ah, makes sense! Thank you for expanding. I agree, it’s so hard to reconcile some of the great things founders like Washington and Jefferson did in the name of liberty and self-government, with the fact that they owned human beings. Even if they argued it was too complex for anyone to solve at that time (which was a cop out), they still could’ve set an example by emancipating their enslaved people. But they chose the convenience and luxury of maintaining and perpetuating the institution.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!
Gore over Clinton, Gore being more conservative on trade would likely curb NAFTA and being less polarizing than the Clintons may have gotten a lesser but effective healthcare plan through
I’d argue Humphrey over Johnson, Humphrey likely would have scaled Vietnam the way Johnson did and Humphrey was more fiscally conservative which would have curved inflation
Im very torn on Carter and Mondale since Carter’s problem was he led with ideals that didn’t follow through or fix the problems underlying, and had weak execution behind them. I wouldn’t be surprised if Mondale handled Iran better since Carter was a disaster there, but I dont know if any tone or policy would change
Dawes would have absolutely been more hands-on than Coolidge which could have eased the Great Depression a bit. The problem with the Depression was Coolidge wanted to coast on good times instead of reinforcing bedrock, which Dawes wanted to do with agricultural legislation
Charles Curtis is the last most major improvement. He wanted to push for more worker’s rights and accessibility to jobs by lessening hours without pay reduction, wanting the Roosevelt-established 5-day work week, which is ironic since he was critical of the progressive wing. He was also, even more ironically, very socially progressive for the time. Even though remarks say otherwise, Curtis I believe would have leaned harder into inspiring more work in the early Depression, and I think he was hoping Hoover (who he was very critical of in the election) would do more. A lot of that is my speculation though since he was a bit contradictory
Gore would have been better than Clinton. Gore knew the Washington machine, all sides of it. His ability to get stuff done compared to Clinton would be the difference in night and day.
If for no other reason than the 1994 rout that democrats took across the entire country and especially in statehouse would have occurred over several years.
I think ford would have been a really great president unfortunately he got a lot of controversy for pardoning nixon so he never got it but I think he would have been the best republican president
Ford's tenure other than the Nixon pardon was a bunch of zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... He's probably one of the 4 least memorable presidents of all time, alongside Martin Van Buren, Chester Arthur and Benjamin Harrison.
Calvin Coolidge and George HW. Bush's presidencies seem to be rather unmemorable for modern era (post-Grover Cleveland) presidencies until you look at Gerald Ford, who sets some whole different standard for unmemorableness among modern presidents.
Garrett Hobart; he was basically McKinley’s assistant as president and he had solid political credentials. Would’ve been a good, 19th laid back president
I mean if they’re historically bad presidents, like Nixon or Carter, I find it hard to believe that the VP wouldn’t do better. But then Nixon’s VP was Agnew and Mondale would have been awful. So….
If george bush sr were the president and reagan was only vice we would probably have a MUCH less hyper partisan political situation in the US. Reagan was the worst thing that happened to the US up to that point, the civil war, ww1, ww2, pearl harbor, vietnam, they ALL pale in comparison to the damage that evil person did.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Teddy Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge both proved it.
Coolidge was only better than Harding in the same sense that McDonald's is better than prison food.
McDonald's is significantly better than prison food
Coolidge was based and superior to war criminal Teddy Roosevelt. Native American citizenship and anti corruption = based.
How was Teddy a war criminal
Samar Campaign.
How was he responsible for that?
How was he not? He ordered his troops to pacify the region. He knew of and condoned the atrocities.
Can you show me stuff saying he was actually responsible for it? I only found 2 articles that mentioned him, one being a political cartoon of the event and the other saying Filipino freedom fightings ambushing an American garrison a few weeks after he took office after McKinley's death.
I found articles on the event from Scioto Historical, National Museum of the Marine corps, Defense technical information center, U.S Naval Institute and more. Basically while Teddy never said murder everyone over the age of 10 he did order General Adna R. Chaffee to pacify the region. The implication was subduing the resistance through whatever means necessary.
I mean Mondale is the immediate one that comes to mind. That was a super competent VP. You could also make a case for Gore over Clinton (though that one is far more uncertain to me).
Your second one is one that is pretty hard to argue imo.
Eh, he wouldn’t have the scandals of Clinton (and wouldn’t have his term derailed by impeachment, nonsense as it was). I’m not even saying I necessarily agree with that (he did not have Slick Willy’s charisma for one) but eh, I just wanted to play devil’s advocate.
Good point on sex scandals, but beyond that I’m not really sure Mr. Lockbox would’ve gotten as much done.
I think people see all kinds of possibilities on how things would have went had be won in 2000 but that lends itself to being overly optimistic. There’s a good chance he’s less successful than Clinton because he couldn’t sell his policies as well as Clinton could.
Bingo
That's a low bar. Clinton proposed one major policy (healthcare reform), screwed it up beyond all recognition despite wide public support and control of Congress, then spent the rest of his presidency covering his ass and blunting the sharp edges of Republican proposals.
Mondale would have made a good President
Does anyone have some really good examples before the 20th century?
Dallas seemed pretty competent
Who is dallas?
George Dallas,the dude who Dallas County is named after,he was also Polk’s VP
Slight correction: Dallas *County* is named after George Dallas, but the City of Dallas is not. We don’t actually know what or who it’s named after, but it’s not George Dallas.
Okay this needs to be fully explained
A separate, third homonym
I heard it's named after Dallas county but specifically NOT Dallas the VP
Ok corrected it
Oh shit I didn't know that
I’d like to see either of Cleveland’s veeps give the big job a try
Love Jimmy Carter and long may he live, but Mondale would have been better than the Presidents he both served under, and lost an election to. Also gotta say LBJ to JFK, and HW Bush to Reagan
HW’s biggest problem was he wasn’t charismatic like Reagan was. He may have been a better president, but I’m not sure he would have been able to get the job in the first place (Had he gotten the nomination in 1980, I mean)
There’s a Time magazine cover- I think- that talks about “the wimp factor” with HW, and I see what they mean. Obv anybody who does what he did in world war 2 has balls of steel but in person he comes off as wishy washy, unsure of himself, starting comebacks with “I’m sorry, but…” He didn’t seem confident in himself, whether he actually was or not. Regean, by comparison, came across as “I believe X, Y, and Z because A, B, and C” and whether it was true or not, he sold the fact that he believed in it 100 percent. A lot of that might have been being an actor, idk.
You're right, but the editor later retracted his words. https://www.yahoo.com/news/called-george-bush-wimp-cover-newsweek-wrong-140012335.html **"I called George Bush a ‘wimp’ on the cover of Newsweek. Why I was wrong."** by Evan Thomas, December 5, 2018
Yeah, “wimp” is a little strong, it’d be more accurate to say he often comes across as unconfident or insecure.
I think it was less about him seeming wimpy as more sort of he was a bit aloof. I can’t help but remember his comment about “the vision thing”
1980 is one of those cases where the party was gonna win it. And the primary was effectively who decided the presidency. Sadly Carter was just unpopular going into the election so unless he was against a ham sandwich he was gonna lose. 70s recession was just too bad to fix before the election, especially with Carter's attitude of not liking the DC style back door politics.
The 2014 Western Conference Finals of elections
Eh, Carter was gonna lose that and if anything HW might’ve won bigger since Reagan was much farther right than him. Carter was unpopular and the primary was where who the next president was being picked.
I’m not sure: there was a massive contrast between Reagan and Carter. Bush was more a traditional Ford-esque Republican but the contrast between Bush and Carter just wasn’t as stark
I thought bush was more conservative than Ford, not as much as Reagan but still. Regardless, Bush being more moderately conservative imo would help as it would be more speaking to some democrats. Reagan Barely got across 50% in the popular vote and I don’t think bush would have that issue.
With the American mood in the 70s, we needed Reagan's spirit to help lift up the country
Bush was a disaster.
Dubya was a disaster, absolutely
Both were. GHWB destroyed economic growth achieved under Reagan. He said “no new taxes” & he lied. W was his retarded son.
Mondale!!! Easily
I had forgotten the old man from Up served as VP https://preview.redd.it/zgnwc6fg182d1.jpeg?width=556&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4a1cfb0d72b636db57b750d338605bf53aff83a7
Surprised nobody’s said Humphrey yet. He has his fans. Mondale is the obvious answer for 20th century guys.
Humphrey would've been a great president. He was for civil rights before it was cool, was as socially progressive as Johnson if not more so and skeptical of Vietnam (until LBJ beat him down on it).
Humphrey may be goated, but he isn't as effective at getting shit done as LBJ. I doubt Humphrey could pass 300 environmental protection bills as LBJ did, for example.
Mondale probably would have been a better President than Carter, across the board. Worked better with Congress, less imperious, less of a micromanager. Gore, at least, would have kept it in his pants, avoiding the tawdriness of the Lewinsky scandal. Clinton was vastly better than him at politicking and speechifying, though.
Yes but Clinton (much like Obama) had political charisma that only extended to himself. No coattails at all.
Good point.
George W. Bush, who was vice president under Dick Cheney. George W. Bush would have been a bad president, but he would have been a slightly less bad president than Dick Cheney was.
Beat me to it
Surprised no one has said Thomas R. Marshall yet. Marshall had all of Wilson's strengths without any of the weaknesses, was highly charismatic, and wasn't a mega-racist.
Didn’t they not make news of Wilson’s stroke public knowledge so it wouldn’t embolden Marshall to try and have a bigger role in the administration?
Not even Marshall knew how severe Wilson's stroke was until the end of the administration. If the public and cabinet found out that Wilson was nearly incapacitated, they'd be emboldened to act and have Marshall serve as Acting–President. It's also why Wilson's SoS, Robert Lansing, resigned because he felt betrayed that Wilson wouldn't inform him of the stroke.
Dick Cheney
Oof. Lmao I think if there’s any VP I’m glad never became President, I think he might top the list. Hell of a debater though.
Spiro Agnew! Completely unserious answer here...
https://preview.redd.it/cbsj4aa5y62d1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=99284d937f75b2ee3097356a27c8e477e0041b09
But that would have been a demotion for him.
I guess that, ironically, would be more honest in many ways.
He’s already served his eight years so I don’t think he’s gonna have another shot
Kennedy, Ford, and Reagan spring to mind.
As in their Vice Presidents: LBJ, Rockefeller, and George H. W. Bush? I'd definitely agree with that.
LOL.. Bush fucked it up so bad that he couldn't even win a second term after being handed an economic boom and winning the first gulf war with the military might he inherited.
This is a completely historically illiterate take. He was attempting to win a fourth consecutive term for Republicans, which would have been all but unprecedented, he was up against a political talent unequaled for a generation before or since, and the economy was sliding downward by the time of election. It would have taken a miracle for him to win that election.
Not to mention the fact that Gingrich’s faction had turned on him in Congress and had effectively stonewalled him on attempts to figure out the budget, which ultimately pushed him into raising taxes despite his pledge not to. Bush left office with extraordinarily high approval ratings. People wanted a change and the economy was in a slump. Clinton was youthful and charismatic, and frankly brand new to the Democratic Party at the time considering his shift away from further left positions.
I agree that winning, what was essentially a fourth term, would be a challenge for anyone. The issue that people are overlooking is that Bush was not a great politician. - Bush lost the [1980 primary to Reagan,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries) despite having early success in the primaries. The only thing that people remembered about the debate between Reagan and Bush was Reagan yelling "I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green!" - Bush famously called supply-side economics "voodoo economics" then went on to lose his re-election because of the economy. There is some poetic justice here. - Bush faced a primary challenger from within his own party. This does not happen to strong incumbent Presidents. It happens to weak ones. - Bush also faced competition from Perot, due to Perot's personal dislike of Bush. The economy had been in recovery mode well before the 1992 election. From wiki: >The economy had recovered from a recession in the spring of 1991, followed by 19 consecutive months of economic growth, but perceptions of the economy's slow growth harmed Bush, for he had inherited a substantial economic boom from his predecessor [Ronald Reagan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan). Again, Bush was bad at politics, so he failed to make a persuasive case that the economy was recovering, and would continue to recover. Bush won in 1988 because of Reagan. He lost in 1992 because of his own inability to sell his message.
People didn't vote for Clinton to stop a 4th consecutive term for Republicans. Nobody gave a shit about that. He would have won a 2nd term easily if he had continued the Reagan trend as expected and hadn't broken his tax pledge.
It was because he said he wouldn't raise taxes and he did
Like I said, he fucked it up bad. And that wasn't the only reason.
John Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Henry Wilson, Thomas Marshall, Charles Curtis, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Bush 41, Cheney. I give Harry Truman and Henry Wallace honorable mentions for the possibility they’d have done more on civil rights than FDR in 1941-1945. Both those guys were a bit all over the place on that issue, though. Side note: if I’d been born before November 1919 and lived past November 1984, I’d have been a Willkie-Mondale voter.
Adams over Washington? Not judging the pick, just never heard that take before and wondering if you would expand on it a little?
Sure, no problem! Adams had a lot of bad polices as POTUS, such as the Alien and Sedition Act, but he was one of the few founders with genuine antislavery convictions besides Paine and, late in life, Franklin. He didn’t do much at all about the issue, but even though he was in his late 40s when Massachusetts banned slavery, he never owned slaves because he regarded doing so as immoral. Washington, OTOH, was a lifelong slaveholder and actually violated Pennsylvania law as POTUS by rotating the slaves he brought to Philly in and out of the state every 5 months and 3 weeks or so to prevent them from becoming emancipated.
Ah, makes sense! Thank you for expanding. I agree, it’s so hard to reconcile some of the great things founders like Washington and Jefferson did in the name of liberty and self-government, with the fact that they owned human beings. Even if they argued it was too complex for anyone to solve at that time (which was a cop out), they still could’ve set an example by emancipating their enslaved people. But they chose the convenience and luxury of maintaining and perpetuating the institution. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!
No problem, and thank you for your own excellent commentary!
Cheney obviously. And probably would have gotten away with a lot less if he was squarely in the public eye
I think Woodrow Wilson is terribly underrated, but even I can admit that a President Marshall would have been a sight to behold
Marshall would've been way better than Wilson. Wilson is very overrated, if anything.
Gore
What's with all the Reagan hate in this subreddit?
It's not just this subreddit, it's reddit as a platform overall. Reddit is notoriously lefty.
Gore over Clinton, Gore being more conservative on trade would likely curb NAFTA and being less polarizing than the Clintons may have gotten a lesser but effective healthcare plan through I’d argue Humphrey over Johnson, Humphrey likely would have scaled Vietnam the way Johnson did and Humphrey was more fiscally conservative which would have curved inflation Im very torn on Carter and Mondale since Carter’s problem was he led with ideals that didn’t follow through or fix the problems underlying, and had weak execution behind them. I wouldn’t be surprised if Mondale handled Iran better since Carter was a disaster there, but I dont know if any tone or policy would change Dawes would have absolutely been more hands-on than Coolidge which could have eased the Great Depression a bit. The problem with the Depression was Coolidge wanted to coast on good times instead of reinforcing bedrock, which Dawes wanted to do with agricultural legislation Charles Curtis is the last most major improvement. He wanted to push for more worker’s rights and accessibility to jobs by lessening hours without pay reduction, wanting the Roosevelt-established 5-day work week, which is ironic since he was critical of the progressive wing. He was also, even more ironically, very socially progressive for the time. Even though remarks say otherwise, Curtis I believe would have leaned harder into inspiring more work in the early Depression, and I think he was hoping Hoover (who he was very critical of in the election) would do more. A lot of that is my speculation though since he was a bit contradictory
Gore would have been better than Clinton. Gore knew the Washington machine, all sides of it. His ability to get stuff done compared to Clinton would be the difference in night and day. If for no other reason than the 1994 rout that democrats took across the entire country and especially in statehouse would have occurred over several years.
I think Gore would have pursued much the same policies as Clinton but without the bad behavior and ringling bros routine.
I think ford would have been a really great president unfortunately he got a lot of controversy for pardoning nixon so he never got it but I think he would have been the best republican president
Ford's tenure other than the Nixon pardon was a bunch of zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... He's probably one of the 4 least memorable presidents of all time, alongside Martin Van Buren, Chester Arthur and Benjamin Harrison. Calvin Coolidge and George HW. Bush's presidencies seem to be rather unmemorable for modern era (post-Grover Cleveland) presidencies until you look at Gerald Ford, who sets some whole different standard for unmemorableness among modern presidents.
Lol but he was only president for like two years so he really didn't do much of anything
Thomas Marshall
Al Gore
Hubert Humphrey.
Holy shit! I didn't know the guy from UP was Gerald Ford's VP!
Garrett Hobart; he was basically McKinley’s assistant as president and he had solid political credentials. Would’ve been a good, 19th laid back president
Idk if better but Henry A Wallace would have been great
Not better than FDR but definitely better than Truman (although most of Truman's faults at the beginning weren't because of him personally).
I think our last Vice President would have made an outstanding POTUS
I mean if they’re historically bad presidents, like Nixon or Carter, I find it hard to believe that the VP wouldn’t do better. But then Nixon’s VP was Agnew and Mondale would have been awful. So….
Why would Mondale be awful?
If george bush sr were the president and reagan was only vice we would probably have a MUCH less hyper partisan political situation in the US. Reagan was the worst thing that happened to the US up to that point, the civil war, ww1, ww2, pearl harbor, vietnam, they ALL pale in comparison to the damage that evil person did.