There is bias... then there is fanboysim.

For example... Bias is... "I like SRPGs better therefore i will rank them higher."

Fanboyism is "Nobody wants to flail they're body parts around... wait OMG Natal is going to rule!"

A lot of presidents get a pass because they did something awesome along with doing something good.

Won a major war... well that makes up for infringing everyons constitutional rights during it?

Gave all white men the ability to vote?  Who cares that you almost wiped out countless native american tribes!

etc.

Historical rankings of the presidents tend to be "ends justify the means."

That said, then why did George Washington pass Franklin Roosevelt. Both presidents whom served their terms many decades ago and well outside your 10-15 window. I'm jus saying that I think the polls are little silly. Must polls are I believe.

FDR? plenty of reasons.

1)  It's lately been found that he suggested that the terms of surrender during WW2 should be the castration of all german males.

2) The press was complicit in a lot of negative things that would of destroyed his presidency.

3) The has been a book recently that's greatly detailed the many many basic rights that he committed.  Stuff that would make the patriot act look like the Bill of Rights in comparison.  This is stuff... even most historians would like to ignore since WW2 is supposed to be the only morally unambigious war in history... and FDR is supposed to be one of the greatest of all time... and also the sole "proof" for Kensiyan economics even if it dosen't seem to bear out.

So.. really the reasons FDR is inflated and may be dropping is because people are shining light on a lot of the unbelievably bad stuff he did.

Basically if you thought Bush was bad... FDR was worse.  It's just he helped win WW2. 

By secrelty going against the Congress, Public opinion etc.  (and much more, the list is dizzying.)

@ Kasz

I have never liked FDR, but if it was a public fallout then I would have expected a larger drop.

*facepalm*

What makes it ok for the USA to kill Taliban? The fact that the US is currently engaged in a war against the Taliban. In war one of the aims is generally to kill the enemy.

What makes killing civilians a bad thing? Apart from the huge moral and legal objections its strategically terrible. The killing of civilians causes the people to look at the USA as an invading power and the Taliban as protectors encouraging further people to radicalise and become militants. Hence why the new general in charge of operations in Afghanistan has made it his primary strategy to concentrate on protecting civilians.

People like you in the military are the exact reason why the USA has so much trouble gaining acceptance in countries that they 'liberate', its to strong a focus on military force and killing the enemy over looking the need to capture the hearts and minds of the populace. Its a large part of the reason why America lost the war in Vietnam, had so much trouble in Iraq and is now losing in Afghanistan.

Well he did still defeat the Nazis.  The worlds "Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevilist"@tm government.

He was president when the Nazis were defeated. Not really the same thing. The Russians defeated the Nazis. We just helped.

I know that and you know that... but you know.  History has it's FDR fanboys.  For example most historians hold that if FDR didn't illegally help the English by bypassing the consitution, illegally impirsoning someone who caught him and going against the countrys and Congress's will that the UK would of fell and Russia would of never had a chance.

Yea. Crazy how the world really works.

For example, Andrew Jackson defeated the British in the greatest battle in the war of 1812. The problem was, he did it two weeks after the British had already surrendered. He didn't win the war, but everyone in the US thought he did.

It was the leading cause of him winning the presidency. Something that didn't really happen (it was a great battle victory however. Defeating the general that took down Napoleon and his army.)