Paid Advertisement
Historynet/feed historynet feedback facebook link Weider History Group RSS feed Weider Subscriptions Historynet Home page

If you could replace President Obama with any previous President in history, who would you pick? Why?

Originally published on HistoryNet.com. Published Online: June 22, 2010 
Print Friendly
46 comments FONT +  FONT -

If you could replace President Obama with any previous President in history, who would you pick? Why?


46 Responses to “If you could replace President Obama with any previous President in history, who would you pick? Why?”


  1. 1
    Ed Hamilton says:

    George Washington

  2. 2
    Ed Hamilton says:

    The 'why' is rather obvious, isn't it?

  3. 3
    Mike H. says:

    FDR…He had some experience with an economy run into the ground by Republican economics.

    • 3.1
      TL Rouhier says:

      My grandparents were homesteading in Canada when the bubble burst here in the states. It had started there befor it started here, and was worse in Europe. You need to get your facts straight befor you point fingers. Many of FDR's programs were found to be unconstutional.

  4. 4
    Chuck says:

    My first choice would be Regan for his honesty and the way he hancled thd Soviet Union.
    On the Democrat side I would choose Harry Truman for the testorostone he showed in handling the Japanese before and after the war.

  5. 5
    Rick Gower says:

    I knew Jimmy Carter and Obama is no Jimmy Carter….HA!

  6. 6
    Chico says:

    Any — and haven't you heard, he is FDR. He passed a trillion dollars in "stimulus" because if we didn't, unemployment would hit 10%. Well, he was right. It didn't "hit" 10%, it passed right on through and SURpassed it. The man was clearly not ready to be president. He had no experience and only knew what he learned from books praising the likes of FDR. Franklin prolonged the depression and, sadly, Obama's doing the same now.

  7. 7
    Mark says:

    jimmy carter

    as big a boob as Carter was and is, obooba make carter looks like a genius.

  8. 8
    philip says:

    I think Grant would lead the country.He was a good leader.

  9. 9
    David says:

    Any of them would be better than BHO — even a dead one.

  10. 10
    Adam Bahm says:

    Regan, then Ike, then Palin.

  11. 11
    Chuck says:

    Way to go, David!

  12. 12
    John R. says:

    Harry S. Truman! He would have the necessary qualifications to lead our country to prosperity and solve the major problems affecting us all.
    It's quite obvious that the current president has no clue nor any qualifications for being where he is. Let's make him a 1-termer!!!

  13. 13
    Mark says:

    If we had to replace President Obama with a previous President, who would that be? Well, How aobut Andrew Jackson? The wholesale slaughter and deportation of a minority group wouldn't be acceptable (and isn't) but he was a proponent of less government and the only President to erase the National Debt. Also, he had the military leadership we all desire in our CIC.

    Just an option folks.

  14. 14
    Alicia says:

    It is really a shame that on a site where you would assume Americans who visit, read and study our history, display such ignorant comments. For instance, the comment posted by David on July 22nd and the comment that followed by Chuck on July 25th. Is this meant to be a threat? I will be contacting the management of this site and insisting they track & relay these messages to the FBI.

    • 14.1
      Catherine says:

      It is really a shame that on a site where you would assume Americans who visit, read and study our history, display such ignorant comments. For instance, Alicia, the way you are so ready to throw theUnited States Constitution–specifically the First Amendment–under the bus. Do the words, "They're entitled to their opinions" mean anything to you? And if you really believe that their comment was meant to convey an actual, physical threat to anyone's person, then I think you need a serious reality check.

      • 14.1.1
        Larry C says:

        Alicia is a troll on Ann Couter's message site. Her words here are a cut &paste of her words there. Best to ignore the trolls. We like debate but troll are disgusting!

  15. 15
    john portillo says:

    Lincoln of course, because he was the greatest President ever and a leader and right now this country needs a leader badly. It's a shame that when Lincoln was president we never got to see just how great he would be handling a nation that wasn't in war. Lincoln handled America in it's most difficult period. If he was president today he would bring the economy up instantly. Look at his non-Civil War issus such as the Homestead Act. That was a great accomphlishment. However, as many noted even Jimmy Carter would be better than obama. Sadly, there is truth to that.

  16. 16
    Chuck says:

    It looks like David and I will be expecting a visit from the FBI according to Alicia. If what David said and I agreed with is a threat then come and get me. If you want my email or hysical address let me know but be sure to give me yours.
    Get a life, Alicia. This is the real world.

  17. 17
    Adam says:

    quite frankly im not stuck on the fact that obama needs to be replaced… but if it had to be done i would say clinton! his personal choices in life may not have been the greatest but that doesnt have anything to do with the actual presidency he had which was quite impressive

    • 17.1
      TL Rouhier says:

      If Clinton had done anything but chase skirts the twin trade towers probably would still be standing. He ignored the first bombing, the attacks on our embesy's in Arerica, and the Cole bombing. Had he gone after the perps like a real leader history could have been changed.

      • 17.1.1
        Malcolm says:

        That statement is baseless and ridiculous. Clinton oversaw the largest period of sustained economic growth in US history, he also helped stop a genocide in Europe. If you want to point fingers away from Al Qaida for 9/11 then look to your beloved Reagan. He pumped arms and money to the mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

    • 17.2
      Akhsar says:

      Clinton is the worse choice. He 1 – lost the chance TWICE to kill Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11; 2- allowed AlQaida to entrench in Europe by ferrying them for free to fight in Bosnia hoping that they would return back to Asia after the war (yeah, right); 3- lost THE ONLY real chance of reforming Social security when he blew his agreement with Newt Gingrich to pass a reform ( Clinton needed votes of radical democrats to protect him from Monicagait); 4 – wasted a HUGE Social Security surplus on his pet projects which failed, and now retireees a facing a grim prospect; 5 – his economic success was a delayed success of GHW Bush's policies; 6- He pulled us into the current economic meltdown of 2008 by insisting on Carter-era policies to give unsound mortgages. This is not a leader of the nation facing tough choices.

  18. 18
    dick says:

    Does it matter which one I pick? Any one would be better, especially the dead ones.

  19. 19
    Blitzdon says:

    Clinton–exhibited the best knowledge and application of economic capabilities. Understood the need to balance budget and distribute the cost of the balance.

    Bush, Senior for military leadership.

    • 19.1
      Akhsar says:

      Clinton balanced a budget by squandering a huge Social security surplus robbering current retirees. He would be helpless now when really unusual and/or painful solutions are required

  20. 20
    Ben M says:

    I wish some of you folks would take your current political "trashing" fo some other site: say POLITICO.com. As for the question at hand, it takes a bit of serious thought. There are pros and cons for about a dozen serious contenders. Pragmatic-popularist with political savy would seem appropriate. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say LBJ. (That's Lyndon B. Johnson for those who would rather talk trash than talk about presidents who lead in a crunch.)

  21. 21
    Chris says:

    Andrew Jackson was willing to stand up for what he believed in, stood by his views and opinions(whether you agreed with him or not), and was more than willing to fight against the influence of Banking on American politics/government.

  22. 22
    William Hale says:

    Alicia is clearly a moron! Nothing that any of these posters said constituted a threat to the President. David said "any past president would be better than Barack Obama – even a dead one" He was CLEARLY referring to the 39 ALREADY dead presidents being able to handle the presidency better than a LIVE Barack Obama.

    It is not a threat to the President in any shape, manner or form, it is a shot(figuratively) at the current occupant of the White House and his complete lack of knowledge how to do ANYTHING remotely related to the office of President of the USA.

    Get a clue Alicia and quit making up absolute lies about other posters.

    whale

  23. 23
    Chuck says:

    Well said, William!
    I think it is time that HistoryNet.com starting asking new questions. It's obvious that some of us are interested. We seem to be beating a dead horse or president to death.
    In my opinion they have been on "vacation" long enough.
    Chuck in Montana

  24. 24
    Darryl Raby says:

    I agree fully with Chuck in Montana, in fact it is long past time to change questions.

  25. 25
    Ed Hamilton says:

    If they are having trouble coming up with or do not have time to develope the questions, maybe they should have the fans of History.net submit them. I bet we could come up with some doozies. That goes for History Fact of the Day too which has been 'Coming Soon' way too long.

  26. 26
    Elijah says:

    I would have to pick President Lincoln. He was, I believe, the greatest President America has ever had. He showed kindness and compassion to the Confederacy when he could have done horrible things to them instead. At the same time, he could be hard, like when he ordered the hanging of 37 or 38 Sioux tribesmen (which I did not agree with, but that is beside the point). He also proved that he was a great leader during war. Although it took him awhile to find the right general to lead his army, he still held hope and helped boost the moral of his people.
    Abraham Lincoln was a God-fearing, compassionate, unique President who could have changed America's history even more dramtically then he did, had he not be killed. If Lincoln was President today, there is no telling what great things we could do.

  27. 27
    Chuck says:

    I agree with Ed Hamilton. I'm sure we readers could supply a list of questions. I for one like this feature and am looking forward to the Fact of the Day. I just hope it comes in my life time. As I am getting closer to my 80th I sometimes wonder.
    I also wonder if the History.net even reads our comments to these questions.
    Chuck in Montana

  28. 28
    HistoryNet Staff says:

    Thank you all for your comments. We definitely follow the comments here and we are anxious ourselves to roll out some new features, update this list of questions for QotD and so forth. I apologize it has taken so long, and the only assurance I can make is that there is no one more interested in providing rich content for our readers than myself. If you would like to participate and provide content for these features (it isn't as easy as it appears!) we can likely trade you a subscription to one of our titles in exchange. Please contact me directly if interested…

    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/brian-king.htm

  29. 29
    zach says:

    presedent george washington he is a royal guy

  30. 30
    Ron says:

    Lyndon Johnson

  31. 31
    Larry C says:

    Fiscal and financial policy is not the result of Presidents. They can propose but Congress sets the budget and the Senate approves / disapproves. Neither Bush nor Clinton can be praised or criticized for the budgets fiscal policies of their time. Bush had no influence on any financial policy after the 2006 elected House and Senate. Presidents have major influence on international and domestic policy and military matters as well as those items had can do by a directive and choice of Secretaries. To the Question at hand: Every President had his pluses and minuses. Of the last 50 years I would narrow the choice to Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan. Considering that the greatest threat to security is Muslim Extremism, it would be difficult to choose between Eisenhower and Reagan.

  32. 32
    Larry C says:

    Correct to the previous:
    Of the last "150" years……

  33. 33
    Al From Maine says:

    Anyone would be better than this Bozo!! Even Jimmy Carter, Franklin Pierce or Millard Fillmore!!! I would like Ike, Mr John Adams or General Washington, a leader is what we need not someone who won't take responsibility for anything. God Save the Republic!

  34. 34
    Hans says:

    I can understand why many people voted for Obama the first time.

    When I was young I was idealistic too,

    Obama has been a terrible experiment and a total failure.

    Anyone who would vote for this man a second time is a fool.

    Any previous President would be a wonderful improvement.

  35. 35
    Akhsar says:

    Several candidates:
    1 – George washington – smart, keeps his cool under the fire, knows how to unite the nation, thinks twice about long term consequences of his actions
    2- Abraham Lincoln. Smart, knows how to handle unpredictable and frequently extremist congress, able to think 2-3 steps ahead of most of pundits.
    3 – Grover Cleveland – smart, able to handle the economic meltdown without increasing the role of Big Government.
    4- Calvin Coolidge – father of american economic miracle.
    5- Ronald reagan – res ipsa loquitur.
    6 – Truman -not afraid of unusual decisions, likes to evaluate situations without ideological blinds on his eyes, able to put Russia back in the backwaters where it truly belongs.

  36. 36
    Matthew In Wisconsin says:

    It’s common knowledge that through 1861-1864 close to a majority of Americans hated Lincoln. Absolutely dispised him. Heck, many people in the southern states still enjoy saying they hate Lincoln. I read what those folks have to say right on this same historynet.com website. It’s entertainment for them.

    Now on a website dedicated to historical perspective, we have history buffs railing in harsh langauge about our current President. I find that both ironic and a bit disappointing in the negative and childish remarks. Then add in the insults directed at those other readers who may dare to disagree with their opinoins.

    Why do we have to bring this "I'M RIGHT! AND ANYONE THAT DISAGREES IS WRONG!" attitude to this website? Frankly, a lot of the people posting here are a bunch of horse's rear ends.

    And here come more nasty comments….

  37. 37
    Shooter1001 says:

    Was Larry the Cable Guy a president? He'd be better than this clown. At least he loves this country!
    Seriously then, what kind of president do we need currently? Not Woodrow Wilson! Perhaps James Polk or Andrew Jackson. Ronald Reagan would be ideal in any situation.

  38. 38
    Ted says:

    In a nutshell:
    Nothing erodes a free market or free society like corruption and/or disparity of wealth. Ask any Mexican trying to sneak across the border. Obama inherited plenty of both when he assumed office. He recognized that reality and has attempted to rectify the inequality. So far, his biggest hindrance is a congress fixated on a 1950s mentality, including its caste classification and minority prejudice.
    Time to face reality. This is the 21st century and change is inevitable. Something like 70% of voters under age 30 voted for Obama. Who do you think will be running the country within the next 20 years?

    If I had to pick a past president who would most effectively deal with our present problems, it would be FDR, even though the Great Depression is not the same as the one we're dealing with now.

    Second choice would be Harry Truman.



Leave a Reply

Human Verification: In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Related Articles


History Net Images Spacer
Paid Advertisement
Paid Advertisement
History Net Daily Activities
History net Spacer
History net Spacer
Historynet Spacer
HISTORYNET READERS' POLL

Which of these wars resulted in the most surprising underdog upset?

View Results | See previous polls

Loading ... Loading ...
History net Spacer
STAY CONNECTED WITH US
RSS Feed Daily Email Update
History net Spacer History net Spacer
Paid Advertisement

Paid Advertisement
What is HistoryNet?

The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines.

If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest.

From Our Magazines
Weider History Group

Weider History Network:  HistoryNet | Armchair General | Achtung Panzer! | StreamHistory.com
Today in History | Ask Mr. History | Picture of the Day | Daily History Quiz | Contact Us

Copyright © 2013 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Advertise With Us | Subscription Help | Privacy Policy