Is it time to retire the Dan Quayle joke?

[Lohrenswald]

That Dan Quayle is the lowest ranking leader on the score board

It's been a long time since he was around

 

[Acken]

He got better ?

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

They can remove the Dan Qualye joke only if they forfeit the Gandhi nuke meme.

 

[MACKA0ili]

If Gandhi will always be the leader of India, then Dan Quayle will always be on the scoreboard

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

We will have to see if Trump gets elected before we have a new metric for crappy governance.

 

[George Abitbol]

What joke?

 

[Lohrenswald]

What joke?

 

[joncnunn]

Moderator Action: Moved to Ideas & Suggestions

 

[Hajee]

That Dan Quayle is the lowest ranking leader on the score board

It's been a long time since he was around

Only if they replace him with Donald Trump

 

[ww2commander]

I couldn't find the "Dan who???" option. Maybe you forgot it

These US centric jokes fall a bit flat with us foreigners!

 

[JuhQman]

Yeah, I can think of someone else who could replace good 'ol Dan.

Having said that, just remember that the future will always be better tomorrow.

 

[Ornen]

Side note: anyone else surprised to see Andrew Jackson so low? A few notches below Herbert Hoover is a bit much, especially since historians typically rank Jackson around #6-10 on presidential rankings, where Hoover lands toward the back of nearly all Presidential rankings by historians (source). I get that in 2016 Jackson is morally dubious, but he was an effective leader. And if we're ranking leaders by their morals, Hitler and Genghis Khan should rank at the bottom of this list, not Dan Quayle.

As for who should replace Dan? Maybe James Buchanan, the actual bottom-ranked US President. Maybe a contemporary dunce in the spirit of Quayle, such as Sarah Palin or Boris Johnson (Trump is a bit too current). My vote would go to Paul von Hindenburg, who presided over Hitler's rise and enabled the Nazis to come to power. Wilhelm II would also make a fine candidate for the bottom of our list.

 

[MistyRonin]

I would add King Charles II of Spain "the bewitched"... Google him to understand why...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain

In his defence, genetics were not his fault...

 

[Atlas627]

Side note: anyone else surprised to see Andrew Jackson so low? A few notches below Herbert Hoover is a bit much, especially since historians typically rank Jackson around #6-10 on presidential rankings, where Hoover lands toward the back of nearly all Presidential rankings by historians (source). I get that in 2016 Jackson is morally dubious, but he was an effective leader. And if we're ranking leaders by their morals, Hitler and Genghis Khan should rank at the bottom of this list, not Dan Quayle.

It isn't just morals. In hindsight, historians can see the impact of Jackson completely ruining the system of checks and balances by giving the Executive Branch much more power. IIRC, nobody vetoed anything before him, and he completely ignored several laws that were passed (including protection of the Native Americans, who he then drove out of their homeland).

 

[Ornen]

It isn't just morals. In hindsight, historians can see the impact of Jackson completely ruining the system of checks and balances by giving the Executive Branch much more power. IIRC, nobody vetoed anything before him, and he completely ignored several laws that were passed (including protection of the Native Americans, who he then drove out of their homeland).

Jackson remains controversial for a number of reasons, but that's absolutely something historians take into account when ranking Presidents. They still consider Jackson very highly – even factoring his legacy in expanding presidential power, his aggregate rating on WP is #8.

 

[Zaarin]

Jackson remains controversial for a number of reasons, but that's absolutely something historians take into account when ranking Presidents. They still consider Jackson very highly – even factoring his legacy in expanding presidential power, his aggregate rating on WP is #8.

Honestly, whenever I see a top 10 ranking of US presidents, I usually walk away convinced that the historians who made the list would have preferred to give George III the number one slot. Raw power seems to be the only metric by which they judge presidents--otherwise power-mad tyrants who monstrously expanded the power of the executive like Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, and FDR would be unlikely to rank so highly. At least in my opinion.

As for the Dan Quayle joke, I don't really care either way.