Is Bush Worst President Ever?

[angie]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucrr/200512...JAQYcWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

Buchanan set the standard, a tough record to beat. But there are serious people who believe that George W. Bush will prove to do that, be worse than Buchanan. I have talked with three significant historians in the past few months who would not say it in public, but who are saying privately that Bush will be remembered as the worst of the presidents.

There are some numbers. The History News Network at George Mason University has just polled historians informally on the Bush record. Four hundred and fifteen, about a third of those contacted, answered -- maybe they were all crazed liberals -- making the project as unofficial as it was interesting. These were the results: 338 said they believed Bush was failing, while 77 said he was succeeding. Fifty said they thought he was the worst president ever. Worse than Buchanan.

This is what those historians said -- and it should be noted that some of the criticism about deficit spending and misuse of the military came from self-identified conservatives -- about the Bush record:

# He has taken the country into an unwinnable war and alienated friend and foe alike in the process;

# He is bankrupting the country with a combination of aggressive military spending and reduced taxation of the rich;

# He has deliberately and dangerously attacked separation of church and state;

# He has repeatedly "misled," to use a kind word, the American people on affairs domestic and foreign;

# He has proved to be incompetent in affairs domestic (New Orleans) and foreign (
Iraq and the battle against al-Qaida);

# He has sacrificed American employment (including the toleration of pension and benefit elimination) to increase overall productivity;

# He is ignorantly hostile to science and technological progress;

# He has tolerated or ignored one of the republic's oldest problems, corporate cheating in supplying the military in wartime.

Quite an indictment. It is, of course, too early to evaluate a president. That, historically, takes decades, and views change over times as results and impact become more obvious. Besides, many of the historians note that however bad Bush seems, they have indeed since worse men around the White House. Some say Buchanan. Many say Vice President
Dick Cheney.

So what do you think?

 

[hugo]

If the historians had been more conservative they would have also critiqued Bush's largely.unfunded expansion of medicare. Barry Goldwater type conservatives should be looking at the Libertarian Party right now. Bush's final standing will largely be determined by the failure or success in Iraq.

Right now Bush is running ahead of Buchanan, Pierce and LBJ.

 

[hopeUslide]

Three serious historians who don't want anybody to hear their views? Where ever did George Mason University find 415 historians? Do they migrate at this time of year to a breading spot? You state 338 failing to 77 suceeding, was there no undecided vote? Also how many of the historians peaves are from the 415 or the 338 or the 77? And if these historians have seen worse around the Whitehouse, might I ask the median age of the historians so I can determine how many presidents they have been through. I think age is an important since a historian in their early 20s has studied 2 presidents maybe? I would be inclined to think this president may be their first. Of course it is too early to evaluate the age of these historians, and their views could change over time. So I need to know all these answers to be able to give this post any creedance, ok,thanks

 

[Vortex]

myself i really dont see him as a president, but really just a puppet.

we elected an idiot, twice mind you, and its not his fault that he doesnt know what he is doing.......hell he didnt know what he was doing in business either, but since daddy is on board why should we bitch?!?!


Untill 2008 I am officially ignoring politics, foreign policy, human rights, human welfare, the war on Iraq, christian "goodness", Texas, Oil Companies (cept of course for my gas tank), shows/comedians that depict puppets (like sesame street), people in a disaster on our home turf that need help, Kanye West, Paris Hilton, Tara Reed, educating myself or others, making a difference, poor people, bomb threats, weapons of mass distruction, fingernail clippers on airplaines, and anything and everything Dubya is FOR or AGAINST.........

because in my lifetime i have never seen a president do more damage to our country than he has. I could give a rats ass if we have the power to destroy any other country we wanted......it really doesnt matter. I dont want to see us isolated from the rest of the world..........and now we have thanks to him.

Just like our "beloved" president im on a 4 year vacation from dealing with anything other than booze and keeping my job....till 2008 i am in a comma mentally......

Seriously i would even take another republican, as long as they have ZERO relation to the bush family!.......

zero!

 

[angie]

So I need to know all these answers to be able to give this post any creedance, ok,thanks

Click on the link and read the article in its entirety. It's there for a reason, jackass. You want those answers, go find em'.

 

[hopeUslide]

I read the "link" you posted, I found it exactly the same as your post. Don't get mad at me for not being able to substantiate your incomplete forum! I am simply questioning it's validity. I think this was written by an over imaginative reporter, with a political agenda. The guy who wrote this is from france, after all.

 

[angie]

Well since you're LAZY (or an incompetent idiot) I did some of the work for you:
http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html
Article that the posted article was based on.

http://hnn.us/
Home page of the History Home Network (You know, the ones who DID the poll?)
Try using Google sometime. It's a beautiful thing.

 

[hugo]

I think this comment from Angie's 5019 link gives the explanation.

It may be, as one pro-Bush historian said in his or her written response to the poll, “I suspect that this poll will tell us nothing about President Bush’s performance vis-à-vis his peer group, but may confirm what we already know about the current crop of history professors.” The liberal-left proclivities of much of the academic world are well documented, and some observers will dismiss the findings as the mere rantings of a disaffected professoriate. “If historians were the only voters,” another pro-Bush historian noted, “Mr. Gore would have carried 50 states.” It is plain that many liberal academics have the same visceral reaction against the second President Bush that many conservatives did against his immediate predecessor.

Historians come from academia which is heavily left-wing.

 

[Elmoish]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucrr/200512...JAQYcWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-


So what do you think?

I think Bush will be noted as one of the best Presidents.

Time will tell.

 

[slip_knot]

At least you have a terrier over there, we just got this lame poodle

 

[papabryant]

I think this comment from Angie's 5019 link gives the explanation.



Historians come from academia which is heavily left-wing.

I second Hugo's statement. I am studying Ancient Near Eastern History and Philosophy as a double major, and there are LOTS of liberal professors in both departments, even here in the Bible Belt.

 

[Kryptonite Man]

Liberals suck. They lie like Hell and piss me off!