Bottom Scholars: Why the American Public Was Dumb Enought to Vote for Obama

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/539334/201007021859/Bottom-Scholars.aspx

 

Bottom Scholars

 Posted 07/02/2010 06:59 PM ET

Academic Fraud: A new ranking of U.S. presidents has been released. No. 15 — three spots higher than Ronald Reagan — is a chief executive who's been in office less than 18 months. This would be funny if it weren't so sad.

The list was compiled by the Siena College Research Institute, which asked 238 "presidential scholars" to rank the 43 presidents in 20 categories. FDR finished first, buoyed by a No. 1 rating in "handling the economy." Theodore Roosevelt was second, then Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson. Rounding out the top 10: Madison, Monroe, Wilson, Truman and Eisenhower.

It's in the second 10, however, that things get funny. Barack Obama and his record-low approval ratings, tottering economy and feckless foreign policy somehow end up 15th while Reagan, who ended the Cold War, turned the U.S. economy around and set the stage for 20 years of unprecedented prosperity, is 18th.

John Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Lyndon Johnson also outrank the Gipper, who scored highest on "luck" and lowest on "intelligence ."

The bias in Siena's latest rankings begins with the choice of categories. Some are legitimate: economic stewardship, foreign policy accomplishment, domestic achievement, leadership ability, court appointments, integrity. But others are simply asinine.

Besides luck, "family background, education and experience" are dubious measures. Here too, Reagan ranked low (34th). No getting around that Eureka College degree. But so did George W. Bush (36th), despite his Yale B.A., Harvard MBA and a father who ranked 11th. Overall, Bushes 41 and 43 finished 22nd and 39th.

And while ability to communicate can be helpful, it's not necessarily a key to greatness or even competence. "Ability to compromise" can be a sign of weakness or lack of principle, and "party leadership" doesn't mean much if the party is led in the wrong direction.

Opinions on "handling the economy" are particularly interesting.

Here, Reagan ranks a mediocre 21st, lower than Obama, who stands 17th based on the bang-up job he's done so far, and well behind LBJ (10th), JFK (7th) and — despite two recessions in less than eight years — Harry Truman (6th).

Clinton stands a lofty third on economic stewardship, behind the two Roosevelts, and far ahead of Calvin Coolidge (30th), who only presided over the boom of the Roaring '20s.

Clinton is also considered by the scholars as our ninth-most-intelligent president, a notch behind Obama. Reagan is the seventh least intelligent, two spots behind Gerald Ford, and George W. Bush is second from the bottom in the brain department.

We are not making any of this up. You can see all the ratings at our Web site (ibdeditiorials.com). Why, if they're so silly, are we mentioning them at all? Because they're another example of the sorry state of American education. These people are teaching our kids.

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.