Who was your least favorite President, *not* including the last few?

[LucyStoner]

I know this isn't a debate. lol But FDR can't be the worst. All politics aside, he comforted a nation during some very dark times. So he can be bad, but he can't be the worst. lol

I don't think he merits bad at all. Honestly, FDRs key program (SS) has helped us all forget how impoverished and hungry a huge percentage of our elderly people in this country used to be, even long before the depression. He also stemmed the rise of homelessness. A strong case can be made that he is why the Communist Party or Socialist Party didn't go mainstream in the United States.

[umsami]

I'm guessing I would say Lincoln or Kennedy, but they were assassinated before they could be considered horrible; so, I will have to go with Roosevelt. I think he did the worst and most lasting damage.

 

Which one? Teddy or Franklin?

[LibraryLover]

Of course, I loved Carter*. (Shocking. ;))  Everything would have been fine if he had turned up the heat, and gotten Rosylyn a new dress for the inaugural ball. That dress was truly the kiss of death for his presidency.

 

* Nobel Peace Prize 2002.

[*Lulu*]

I know this isn't a debate. lol But FDR can't be the worst. All politics aside, he comforted a nation during a very dark time. He also handily won 4 elections.. So he can be bad, but he can't be the worst. lol

Exactly. Hoover usually gets some big hate too, but I think a lot of that is misplaced and really belongs to Coolidge.

 

I think Nixion definitely is in the bottom 10.

 

Carter....to me he doesn't scream worst. Mediocre, yes, worst? I don't see it. He is by far the best former president in recent history, though. So that should keep him off the worst list!

[umsami]

Kennedy was just sleazy... just like his Daddy.

 

Policy-wise, though, the Peace Corps, the Space program, etc. all good.  No doubt that had he lived, he would have signed the Civil Rights Act.  

 

So here's an interesting question, in our 24-7 media, the Internet, etc.... would any of them been elected today?  I don't think Kennedy would have stood a chance.  Nixon had no idea on how to handle television...remember his disastrous debate with Kennedy?  

 

I worry that we focus too much now on media savvy, good looks (and there's an even higher bar for women), etc....and because of that, as well as the magnifying glass type scrutiny, we miss out on people who would actually be really good Presidents and politicians.  

[J-rap]

Just want to say that I'm so impressed with everyone's American History knowledge!  I'm always baffled that JFK has become such a legend, but of course that's because of the tragedy attached to him.  :(  I don't think he was a terrible president at all, but not amazing either. 

[LibraryLover]

Oh, I agree. But I didn't want to start a row. :)

I don't think he merits bad at all. Honestly, FDRs key program (SS) has helped us all forget how impoverished and hungry a huge percentage of our elderly people in this country used to be, even long before the depression. He also stemmed the rise of homelessness. A strong case can be made that he is why the Communist Party or Socialist Party didn't go mainstream in the United States.

 

[LibraryLover]

It's the whole of the family. Love them or hate, their history is fascinating.  Also, both Joseph and John were bona fide WWII heroes. Joseph was shot down and killed.

 

And. Beautiful, tear- stained widow holding the hands of two small & fatherless children.

 

 

Just want to say that I'm so impressed with everyone's American History knowledge!  I'm always baffled that JFK has become such a legend, but of course that's because of the tragedy attached to him.  :(  I don't think he was a terrible president at all, but not amazing either. 

 

[LucyStoner]

Exactly. Hoover usually gets some big hate too, but I think a lot of that is misplaced and really belongs to Coolidge.

 

His lack of leadership and seeming concern in 1929-32 is why he lost by so much and carried just 5 states. He was in the right place at the right time to respond to a massive crisis and he choose to focus on totally unrelated stuff. He didn't cause the depression or even oversee it being caused but he earned his bad reputation in his own right.

[*Lulu*]

It's the whole of the family. Love them or hate, their history is fascinating.

 

Also, beautiful, tear- stained widow holding the hands of two small & fatherless children.

I think in a lot of ways the JFK and Lincoln presidency are viewed through the lens of their assassinations. Had Lincoln lived to be the president who oversaw reconstruction would his estimation in the memory of the American people be as high? If JFK had lived would Camelot have been ripped apart by scandals for all to see?

[*Lulu*]

His lack of leadership and seeming concern in 1929-32 is why he lost by so much and carried just 5 states. He was in the right place at the right time to respond to a massive crisis and he choose to focus on totally unrelated stuff. He didn't cause the depression or even oversee it being caused but he earned his bad reputation in his own right.

I'd agree. I just hate it when people blame him for the depression. I would say he gets a place in the bottom 10.

[Lolly]

Which one? Teddy or Franklin?

 

I guess that is a rather important point question!  :laugh:  Franklin. The ever-loved, makes the tops list, FDR.

[LibraryLover]

FDR also had many affairs.  Although Eleanor was on record saying she wasn't a fan of intercourse, that she merely endured it. That's gotta hurt a guy.

[*Lulu*]

Coolidge

 

Harding

 

Fillmore

 

Wilson

 

Jackson

 

Hoover

 

Grant

 

Johnson

 

Nixon

[Denise in Florida]

May I say Ford is my favorite. :)

 

He took over after Nixon's resignation just as my interest in national politics was starting.  He seemed like a kindly, inoffensive, gentleman type after all the anger of Watergate. I was young but interested in politics and tired of the 'hearings'.  

 

He wasn't destined for greatness but he was a good man. :)

 

[Shahrazad]

I'm a bit baffled at how Lincoln, JFK, or Carter could be the worst presidents in history. I mean, even if you weren't a fan...the worst?

My vote would also have to go to Andrew Jackson. I do like Carter and I think that while he may have been weak, he is nowhere near the worst and was probably too decent of a person for politics :p. 

[*Lulu*]

So....who should round out the bottom 10?

 

And I don't think we can fairly count anyone who is listed in the top 10. They might be a personal least fave, but if most of history believes they rock......well. Democracy and all that. :)

[Lady Florida.]

I don't think anyone would put him on the 'best ever' list except maybe proud Catholic grandmas.  But worst, I don't see it.

 

Like mine. You never said a bad word about him, "even though he was Irish" (so said my Italian grandma).

 

It's the whole of the family. Love them or hate, their history is fascinating.  Also, both Joseph and John were bona fide WWII heroes. Joseph was shot down and killed.

 

 

 

 

And Joseph was being groomed to be president. John F. was the choice the family made when looking at who was left. 

[LibraryLover]

There's the other reason for legend status for the family. Death, death, and more death.

 

Like mine. You never said a bad word about him, "even though he was Irish" (so said my Italian grandma).

 

 

And Joseph was being groomed to be president. John F. was the choice the family made when looking at who was left. 

 

[LibraryLover]

And both Harrisons.

Coolidge

Harding

Fillmore

Wilson

Jackson

Hoover

Grant

Johnson

Nixon

 

[Mrs Mungo]

Just want to say that I'm so impressed with everyone's American History knowledge!  

 

Actually, this thread has made me believe that a number of people are astoundingly ignorant of American history.

 

[Mrs Mungo]

All this Andrew Jackson chatter reminds me of the rock musical "Bloody, Bloody Andrew Jackson" in which this least favorite president is transformed into an emo rock and roller.

 

 

 

This is something that got a whole lot of backlash in my circles. Like this:

http://www.indiancountrynews.com/nfic-columnists/albert-bender/10262-bloody-bloody-andrew-jackson-the-exhumation-of-a-monster

[*Lulu*]

The Lincoln and FDR nominations seem a bit odd to me.

 

I can get being unhappy with some of their policies, but both were men who saw this country through some very dark days.

[Mrs Mungo]

 

 

Maybe the rules should have been better defined -- name the worst president for whom you can list reasons for why he's the worst.

 

 

 

Ny nomination:

 

Andrew Jackson because:

 

1. He assisted in genocide.

 

2. Did not actually do his job as president-enforcing the laws of the US. He ignored the SCOTUS decision that stated the Cherokees had a right to self-govern and allowed Georgia to take away the lands belonging to the Cherokees.

 

3. He's a personal jerk. Junaluska saved his life at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, but while Junaluska was in Washington with a delegation of Cherokee the state of Georgia raffled off his farm and lands to white people, and Andrew Jackson allowed it. It was the SECOND time Junaluska's lands had been usurped by whites. He was incarcerated during Indian Removal. It's pretty bad when the battle buddy who saved your life later expresses personal regret for having done so. 

[LucyStoner]

And both Harrisons.

I think William Henry Harrision gets a pass. Spending a month as president, sick, and dying means you'll never make the best list but you don't get tossed on the worst list either.

 

However you, and your supposed refusal to wear a coat to a long inaugural, get much play on the strange presidential trivia lists!

[Shahrazad]

Clearly, freeing the slaves and ending the confederacy is a much worse crime than mass genocide.

[umsami]

I guess that is a rather important point question!  :laugh:  Franklin. The ever-loved, makes the tops list, FDR.

 

Really?

 

See, in my book, FDR did a lot of good in the face of a horrible recession.

 

The PWA was brilliant, IMHO.  Plus, we got a lot of great public infrastructure out of it, while helping people and not making them seem like they were totally on handouts.

 

He kept the US out of WWII as long as he could (which some could view as being good/bad.)  He was an inspirational leader during WWII....or so people of that generation say.  (My parents and their parents were staunch Republicans, but still say that his fireside chats were remarkable.)  

 

He blew it in not letting more Jews into the country, but honestly I don't see that being any different from our immigration policy towards Iraqis, Syrians, Rwandans, Bosnians, etc.  We all said "never again", but small scale genocides and similar still happen.  We have rarely, if ever, stepped up the plate and offered to take huge number of refugees.  

 

Way back, we're related to John Adams and John Quincy Adams. I've heard some negative stuff about Quincy...but I'm not sure if it's enough to leave him in the bottom 10.  Maybe.

[poppy]

I'm thinking we have fundamentally different definitions of what constitutes good and bad leadership. Many of the worsts on here are high in my best list, and I find ineptitude and idiocy in management to be the most egregious leadership issue in a presidency - I'll take someone who I fully disagree with but who has a goal, execution, and intentionality in their presidency as much better.

 

But inadvertently destroying policy, when being advised broadly to the contrary? Inexcusable.

 

First time I've ever heard 'not doing as he's told' is a sign of poor leadership! Also, the first time I've heard Lincoln called an idiot.   So two first for me today! That's all I really have to say about that analysis.

[umsami]

May I say Ford is my favorite. :)

 

He took over after Nixon's resignation just as my interest in national politics was starting.  He seemed like a kindly, inoffensive, gentleman type after all the anger of Watergate. I was young but interested in politics and tired of the 'hearings'.  

 

He wasn't destined for greatness but he was a good man. :)

 

Being from Michigan, we always liked Gerry too.  

 

He wasn't snazzy.  His buffoonery on SNL made for a great Chevy Chase skit. (Although my favorite SNL imitations were Dana Carvey as Bush I and Phil Hartman as Clinton).  

 

Betty being so open about her breast cancer and alcoholism was also revolutionary.  (Should we do a separate list for First Ladies?)

[poppy]

I don't think Lincoln was an idiot (Carter, OTOH....), I wasn't saying that and didn't intend to imply it, either. But I also think it is a fair assessment that he did more to undermine the Federalist system established at the conception of this country than anyone else before him and many since. That's a big deal. I'd still say he was a convicted, intentional, excellent president. But he made the wrong choice in a very, very important area. Carter, Grant, Obama, and JFK would all be on my worst lists specifically due to mismanagement and shortsightedness. All the things these individuals have stumbled in were advised against by their own cabinets and any number of independent commentators, for good and easily predicted reasons. And the results of the policy failures were not unforeseen at the outset.

 

For as much as I may hate what, say, a Nixon or FDR wrought in some of their presidential decisions, it wasn't due mismanagement or a lack of forethought in the implications of the policies, overall.

 

Everyone has their own opinions and history is not exactly free of subjectivity and the lens of the individual interpreting it. But I'll judge a weak leader more harshly than a strong leader with whom I have fundamental and untenably broad disagreements. In that I try to assess neutrally, as much as possible.

 

ETA: this is one of the best books on the subject I've ever encountered, and from one of the fairest and most thoughtful commentators in the current sphere:

http://www.amazon.com/Presidential-Leadership-Rating-Street-Journal/dp/0743254333/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418598211&sr=1-1

 

His column, Best of the Web Today, is the reason I pay for WSJ.

 

I don't really want to engage but I have to admit this one is a real head scratcher for me.  You think Lincoln undermined the Federalist system by not "re-conquering" the South? I don't think Federalist means what you think it means.

[EKS]

Jackson, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan.

[Shahrazad]

I have a hard time believing that you'd view a 'strong leader' who persecuted your particular brand of Christianity as being better than a weak leader whom you agreed with on all the major political points. Or if Obama was stronger and more effective, that suddenly he'd shoot up in your regard over a president who is much more in line with your personal values. 

I also have a very difficult time seeing 'Lincoln' as being weak or ineffectual as a leader. Personally, I don't feel states' rights trump human rights though.

[Lolly]

Really?

 

See, in my book, FDR did a lot of good in the face of a horrible recession.

 

The PWA was brilliant, IMHO.  Plus, we got a lot of great public infrastructure out of it, while helping people and not making them seem like they were totally on handouts.

 

He kept the US out of WWII as long as he could (which some could view as being good/bad.)  He was an inspirational leader during WWII....or so people of that generation say.  (My parents and their parents were staunch Republicans, but still say that his fireside chats were remarkable.)  

 

He blew it in not letting more Jews into the country, but honestly I don't see that being any different from our immigration policy towards Iraqis, Syrians, Rwandans, Bosnians, etc.  We all said "never again", but small scale genocides and similar still happen.  We have rarely, if ever, stepped up the plate and offered to take huge number of refugees.  

 

Way back, we're related to John Adams and John Quincy Adams. I've heard some negative stuff about Quincy...but I'm not sure if it's enough to leave him in the bottom 10.  Maybe.

 

I see him as being the start of the decline of our government. His programs were a large stepping stone that started the national government overstepping the bounds they are supposed to have. In addition, while many do feel that his programs halted the recession, it is not a given fact that they did. Most of the programs that are given that distinction were actually in place for about..8 years or so before the recession ended. Roosevelt's policies actually may have made the Depression last longer than it would have if they had not been put into place. WWII was the most important factor in pulling the country out of it, not the manipulation of economic forces by politicians.Did he knowingly or meanfully do these things? No. I believe he had the best of intensions. It is only with hindsight that huge mistakes can often be seen. And, with history books painting him as a saint, sometimes that is difficult also.

[LucyStoner]

On page one of the Lucy Stoner handbook for how to participate in WTM without losing your ever loving mind:

 

Never and I mean NEVER engage in any debate about the Civil War. The Ferguson threads don't have anything on the threads I have read here on the Civil War. I registered and then didn't post for awhile because of some doozies on the Civil War.

 

I will say that I think the United States of America has endured these years because of Lincoln. And then I will leave it at that.

[poppy]

We will agree to disagree. Lincoln refusing to acknowledge the right of the southern states to peacefully secede from the union and then seeking to reconquer the territory was a huge blow to states rights.

 

There really wasn't an attempt byy either side in the Civil War to resort to federal courts or international arbitrators for a decision on the legality of secession - which would have been the correct way to proceed. Arguably the Civil War would have still been fought in some form or another, but the grounds for it would have been vastly different had Lincoln handled the secession attempt differently. To put it another way, this quote might help:

 

As settled as secession may be as a political or historical issue to many, it has never been settled as a legal one. - Jim Ostrowski

 

I'm not going to debate this with you, but I will highly recommend the book I linked above as discussion this and several other fascinating arguments for who was a string and weak president, regardless of political affiliation. Really great!

 

ETA: found it! This article is a fascinating one that carefully explores the legal side of the arguments for and against secession, without getting too much into the judging the morality of either side. You may find it a helpful read -

http://jimostrowski.com/articles/secession.html

 

When you said "not reconquering" I was assuming you meant how he handled the surrendering of the states in Confederacy.  I didn't see a pro-Confederacy angle at all.  Silly me.

 

[Shahrazad]

On page one of the Lucy Stoner handbook for how to participate in WTM without losing your ever loving mind:

 

Never and I mean NEVER engage in any debate about the Civil War. The Ferguson threads don't have anything on the threads I have read here on the Civil War. I registered and then didn't post for awhile because of some doozies on the Civil War.

 

I will say that I think the United States of America has endured these years because of Lincoln. And then I will leave it at that.

 

I definitely agree. I've seen some fairly mild topics where someone has stated something along the lines of that they cannot fathom that anyone would actually disagree with this particular statement and just shaken my head because I've seen posters spout off clear racism, xenophobia, hate-speech, and misogyny as though it is a legitimate view to have so nothing surprises me here. I'm also a less active poster these days because it makes my brain hurt too much to keep up with these things. I DO wish the racists on some of the posts here would just come right out and acknowledge it rather than do their jump around, *wink wink*, 'I'm not a racist but...' dance where you can't straight out say, 'you are a racist,' yet but you totally know they are ;)

[Carol in Cal.]

My favorite currently alive EX-POTUS is Jimmy Carter.  I am very impressed with the fine work he has done since leaving office.  He is a good person, which is not all that common in politics, too.

[Shahrazad]

For what it's worth, Rush Limbaugh has often said that Lincoln, FDR, and Carter were the worst presidents...

 

Ouch. :p

[MSNative]

I suffer from Carter confusion. When I was young, the hostages came to visit my elementary school. It was painful to see them and I remember the adults having harsh words to say about Carter's handling of the situation. Then in college, he came and spoke and inspired me to help start a chapter of habitat for humanity on my campus. Then as an adult, I have read and listened to him and been saddened by his statements and lack of judgement.

This author of this article sounds like he has the same confusion I do about Carter.

http://observer.com/2014/08/the-moral-disintegration-of-jimmy-carter/

[umsami]

For what it's worth, Rush Limbaugh has often said that Lincoln, FDR, and Carter were the worst presidents...

 

Always liked them, but I think they went up a few more notches in my book after reading this.

 

In terms of what they've done post-Presidency (and granted FDR and Lincoln never had the chance), Carter has been most impressive IMHO.  His work with Habitat for Humanity, the work of the Carter Center, etc.  Plus, his willingness to call out his own denomination (Southern Baptist) on their treatment of women has been huge.   The work he's done as a mediator post-presidency has been huge.

 

I also like how Bush I and Clinton are such good friends post-Presidency.  I truly believe that the reason Presidents (in general) do not attack other Presidents, regardless of party affiliation, is because they are the only ones who know just how difficult the job is.  

[Shahrazad]

Most of our assumptions ARE based on your own previous statements. At very least, you have a woefully mistaken understanding of the roots of racism. I don't think anyone made an ad hominem attack, in this case at least, on your religion. I pointed out that, as you seem to find Lincoln worse than Andrew Jackson, genocidal douchebag, and your entire argument is that you would prefer a strong leader with views/actions that you find abhorrent to a weak one in line with your thoughts, it seems difficult to imagine that you would still feel that way if it was your group that was the victim of these abhorrent views.

[Shahrazad]

Always liked them, but I think they went up a few more notches in my book after reading this.

 

In terms of what they've done post-Presidency (and granted FDR and Lincoln never had the chance), Carter has been most impressive IMHO.  His work with Habitat for Humanity, the work of the Carter Center, etc.  Plus, his willingness to call out his own denomination (Southern Baptist) on their treatment of women has been huge.   The work he's done as a mediator post-presidency has been huge.

 

I also like how Bush I and Clinton are such good friends post-Presidency.  I truly believe that the reason Presidents (in general) do not attack other Presidents, regardless of party affiliation, is because they are the only ones who know just how difficult the job is.  

 

I agree. I have a lot of respect for Jimmy Carter, the man, beyond Jimmy Carter the former President. I think he shows true morality and is the only President I've personally seen express much sincere compassion even post-presidency without regard to how it affects his popularity.

[Shahrazad]

I'm a bit baffled at how Lincoln, JFK, or Carter could be the worst presidents in history. I mean, even if you weren't a fan...the worst?

 

My vote would also have to go to Andrew Jackson. I do like Carter and I think that while he may have been weak, he is nowhere near the worst and was probably too decent of a person for politics :p. 

 

 

Ny nomination:

 

Andrew Jackson because:

 

1. He assisted in genocide.

 

2. Did not actually do his job as president-enforcing the laws of the US. He ignored the SCOTUS decision that stated the Cherokees had a right to self-govern and allowed Georgia to take away the lands belonging to the Cherokees.

 

3. He's a personal jerk. Junaluska saved his life at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, but while Junaluska was in Washington with a delegation of Cherokee the state of Georgia raffled off his farm and lands to white people, and Andrew Jackson allowed it. It was the SECOND time Junaluska's lands had been usurped by whites. He was incarcerated during Indian Removal. It's pretty bad when the battle buddy who saved your life later expresses personal regret for having done so. 

 

 

I'm thinking we have fundamentally different definitions of what constitutes good and bad leadership. Many of the worsts on here are high in my best list, and I find ineptitude and idiocy in management to be the most egregious leadership issue in a presidency - I'll take someone who I fully disagree with but who has a goal, execution, and intentionality in their presidency as much better.

 

But inadvertently destroying policy, when being advised broadly to the contrary? Inexcusable.

[Mrs Mungo]

Pro-confederacy? Are you kidding me? I'm born and raised in a state that wasn't even involved in the civil war by geography, and now live in one that wasn't even established in the same century. In terms of morality I am firmly on the side of the abolitionists and think that was about the only good thing to come out of the Civil War. But the war wasn't fought because of slavery, but states rights.

This is not true. It is a popular piece of revisionist history, and it has appeared in many a "history" book (including some popular homeschool history books), but even a scant reading of the primary documents will prove that it is wrong. In point of fact, the southern states had been campaigning *against* the rights of the northern states not to support slavery. The SC Articles of Secession (many of the other states modeled theirs on SC since SC was the first) complain that the northern states are failing to "fulfill their constitutional obligations" by returning escaped slaves. SC was also mad that NY had stopped allowing "slavery transit" (bringing your slaves along when you traveled).

 

Mississippi's state plainly, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."

 

Some of the complaints of the southern states included the fact that some northern states were allowing voting by black citizens, political activism and free assembly. Those are the threats to the institution of slavery that the southern states were mad about.

 

There are a lot of myths out there with regard to the reasons the south went to war. That the southern states were attempting to maintain "states rights" is probably the biggest. Read the various Articles of Secession. Read the debates from the time. It isn't mysterious. You don't have to read a distilled, white-washed version.

[umsami]

I think its because they are all working to further the ends of the elite and keep regular people fussing about things that are ultimately unimportant, and are only superficially different.

 

I have a tinfoil hijab you can borrow. :)

[Kim in Appalachia]

The Lincoln and FDR nominations seem a bit odd to me.

 

I can get being unhappy with some of their policies, but both were men who saw this country through some very dark days.

 

 

I'm not against FDR's policies, but his Executive Order ordering the deportation and incarceration of Japanese Americans was the worst abuse of power in regards to EOs.  His attempt at "court packing" was also bad.  It was a clear attempt to bypass the limits of his power by the Constitution. 

 

 Just because I like FDR's policies and think he was a good leader through the war, doesn't mean I can overlook such a human right's violation.

 

I still vote for Andrew Jackson as the worst President in US history.   

[*Lulu*]

I'm not against FDR's policies, but his Executive Order ordering the deportation and incarceration of Japanese Americans was the worst abuse of power in regards to EOs. His attempt at "court packing" was also bad. It was a clear attempt to bypass the limits of his power by the Constitution.

 

Just because I like FDR's policies and think he was a good leader through the war, doesn't mean I can overlook such a human right's violation.

 

I still vote for Andrew Jackson as the worst President in US history.

I think if we were to make a list of worst presidential decisions, the top 10 would not necessarily be those made by the men identified as worst presidents.

[*Lulu*]

Except Andrew Jackson.

 

He would so make both lists!

[poppy]

 

 

Ad hominem on my religion or views on slavery and racism is completely off topic. I believe all men are created equal by God, regardless of ethnicity, creed, skin color, social status, sex, or time in history. I stand in affirmation of Abolition and slavery as an evil institution that should never have been instituted. I also believe our Constitution, as framed and explained by Madison, was meant to allow the voters of each state to choose whether or not they would remain united with the States and that ignoring that was a critical misstep by Lincoln and increased the furor and duration of the Civil War far beyond what it needed to be to change property laws and abolish slavery.

 

I didn't attack your religion or your views on race. I said you were pro-Confederacy.  Your third sentence tells me that you are indeed pro-Confederacy.   No need to get outraged and offended.

[Paige]

Andrew Jackson; hands down. I remember thinking he was the worst way back in elementary school. How did he get voted in?