Right, and as I've said, many politicians considered liberal/progressive have done the same: FDR, Kennedy, Clinton. Harry Truman has made racist remarks. What I'm trying to get at is, you're discounting someone's achievements based on racial/homophobic/whatever remarks and not based on their actions. If you were arguing purely on achievement, you wouldn't have brought up his antisemitism/homophobia.
Is ordering the CIA to harass people and fabricate rumours about their sexuality , in his capacity of President of the United States, not an achievement that can be discussed as a part of his record?
Is having a traditional Republican anti communist position (Meetings with China only done to counter the Soviet Union) not something that is a valid part of his record?
What about actively suppressing left wing regimes around the world via covert operations? Is that not a valid part of his record that can be considered? (Partially leading to the rise to power of one of the most notorious strongman, right wing , genocidal butchers of South America?)
How about a traditional Republican outlook on financial matters within the United States?
I can go on for a while, but i'll just summarize by saying that he is a very moderate Republican in my opinion, by no means is he a liberal or progressive unless you are comparing him to a tea party nutjob of today's era.
I should've separated my paragraphs. I meant the remarks, not the actions, shouldn't be considered when determining if he's a progressive/liberal President. Was anti-Communism a strictly Republican matter? I would think that most Presidents/politicians during the Cold War would've had that type of leaning, regardless of political affiliation. And by left-wing, do you mean Communist or just socialist/liberal/progressive?