Commenting on profile article: THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY by Sean Wilents,

I’d like to point out that this article is wholly partisan.

President Bush may, and probably will fare very well with historians. His steadfast courage in holding the line in Iraq and in the war on terror grates on the sensibilitys of the left.

The present course of the war is beginning to prove him right. I would hate to think this of any American, but it sometimes appears that there are those wish us to loose the war just to harm the President.

Honestly, Mr Wilents, is this your objective?

Commenting on profile article: THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY by Sean Wilents,

I’d like to point out that this article is wholly partisan.

President Bush may, and probably will fare very well with historians. His steadfast courage in holding the line in Iraq and in the war on terror grates on the sensibilitys of the left.

The present course of the war is beginning to prove him right. I would hate to think this of any American, but it sometimes appears that there are those wish us to loose the war just to harm the President.

Honestly, Mr Wilents, is this your objective?

No, Bush is not the worst president Pierce, James Buchanan, Harding and Cooledge were worse.

ed, what are you smoking? fox news pipe? i pity you

Ray,

There is, I suspect, agreement among historians for your point of view regarding the presidents you listed.

The point is, the only way a presidents legacy can be assessed is through the outcome of his policies.

Historians take little notice of a president’s popularity during his tenure in office.

After perhaps fifty years one can look back and view how those policies and actions changed and affected the world.

Mr. Wilents should know this. If he dosen’t, then he is, to say the least, slow witted. If he does know and still posted the story, he is more than dishonest.

Bk,

My congratulations, You are a very witty fellow (or lady).

BK
My Congratulations. You are a very witty fellow (or maybe lady).

Even if the US is successful in Iraq (at what, I don’t know,) Bush’s bungling of the situation after the invasion will ensure his historical standing as an incompetent president. As for his domestic legacy, I always found it strange that so many in America were more indignant about Clinton screwing an intern than Bush screwing the country. Scandals, corruption, fear mongering, torture, environmental degradation: even if the Iraq War never happened, successful or not, Bush would almost surely be regarded as one of America’s worst ever presidents. That he threw the US into this quagmire under misguided, if not completely false pretenses (WMDs anyone, or have we already forgotten why we went in the first place) is completely unforgivable.

Ed, why are you commenting about sean wilents article under the posting about the gallup poll?

Also, you do realize that historians are going to crucify george w as the president who was too lazy or too ignorant to notice iraq was burning while he was chanting “democracy” and “victory” in his sleep. whatever success we eventually achieve in a stable and secure iraq will be assigned to the next president, who won’t have the luxury of waiting 5 years to decide how best to extricate the country from the war without leaving behind another yugoslavia.

I find it amusing that two days ago Tim was heralding Obama as being up by ten points in NH. Now the headline is that he’s a co-frontrunner with HRC, NOT that he’s lost ten points. Ten points he probably never had. Quit with the polls Tim, let the people speak.

Of interest, a Zogby poll has Obama ahead by 13. Methinks the good folks of IA and NH have a lot of fun with the pollsters. Pick your pollster, pick your leader. The Gallup poll cited by Tim has Huckabee leading with 25% and Romney with only 9. Yet the Zogby poll has Romeny with 36 percent. Can we detect a trend here? I want a poll about the credibility of pollsters. They probably rank beneath congress.

Stormy,

I have to believe Mr. Wilents probably knows a lot more about presidents and their relative value than your average Joe and probably a HELL of a lot more than anyone positing herein. I have to believe you didn’t actually READ the article, written in 2006, which is citing an informal poll conducted among over 400 historians, a poll that was reported by Richard Reeves, noted liberal columnist and author.

Actual results of the poll were 338 said Bush was failing, 77 said he was succeeding and fifty said he was the worst ever. The poll was taken before Katrina, before the Iraq war evolved into the second 100 years war, before Bushney converted the surplus they inherited from Clinton into the biggest deficit in history, before the price of gasoline increased 200% and before China purchased all of America’s assets.

Now, you want liberal bias, I’ll give you liberal bias. In my humble, unprofessional opinion, Bushney is the worst ever and the countdown begins with him and works backwards through the various GOP presidents. And the best presidents begin with FDR and proceed from there through the following Demo presidents.

Why? Because each president SINCE FDR has had the benefit of learning from history, communications and technology. At the VERY least they should be able to do as well as the president who preceded them. How does Bushney stack up on that accounting? With a supportive congress no less?

Well, I too thought that Clinton’s problems with the intern were overblown and more his own business than anything else. That being said, history will have to make the call about his legacy.

As for Bush we are all looking at him now through glasses colored by our own political views. To headline an article as THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY is intellectually dishonest, serving only as a partisan discussion.

If anything, the problems with scandals reveal a need for term limits in congress. Those scandals involved both parties and were not not attributable to the president.

Bushe’s term isn’t quite over. If he decides to pardon family members and donors to his presidential library at the last minute, then I will be first in line to recant my view of his legacy

Stormy,

You don’t think a Prez should be held accountable to not at least maintain the status quo? Let alone lose ground? In a situation where they control ALL branches of the government? Not learning from past mistakes? This administration and this country is a train wreck. We’re regressing.

And I don’t see how term limits has anything to do it. The Prez DOES have term limits, which I think is wrong. Accountability begins, and ends, with the people. If you leave the doors and windows to your house open, you shouldn’t complain about the insects. You sure as sheet shouldn’t spray diazinon all over the kitchen.

This country KNEW GW had an IQ of room temperature and, in the words of that imminent philosopher, Coach, had failed up to an unprecedented level. In Cheney, they knew they were getting a bigoted, arrogant asswhole of the highest order. And yet they chose them, sort of, to be their ‘leader.’

As far as I’m concerned, everyone who voted for Bushney should do hard time equal to their time in office.

DirtyDennis,

I knew when I posted to this site I would take I shellacking. Fact is where is the challenge of debating when every one agrees?

Most of the posts here are well reasioned, but there other points of view.

One of your points about the average Joe: I hope that I’m an average Joe. I would suspect that one thing I have in common with the majority of these readers is the trait of not always subscribing to the the elitist viewpoint. Speaking as a person who is not an expert, but having some education, military experience and a longtime interest in history I believe I can reasonably hold these views.

And the 2006 article. Why now?

I looked for the POST A COMMENT on the Wilnet article and assumed (probably wrongly) that I could post here.

I’ll stop, but will continue to read with interest – CONVINCE ME.

I wouldn’t be so quick to call this viewpoint self-evident.

“This country KNEW GW had an IQ of room temperature and, in the words of that imminent philosopher, Coach, had failed up to an unprecedented level. In Cheney, they knew they were getting a bigoted, arrogant asswhole of the highest order. And yet they chose them, sort of, to be their ‘leader.’”

Historians will not judge Bush and Co. so harshly. They have the benefit of hindsight. They will make their judgements based on the bigger picture.

Stormy,

I hope you DO continue to post. Just because I disagree with your views doesn’t mean I disapprove. Us Average Joes with a little education and some military experience need to express themselves. More do. I believe this medium is the best resource to stem the erosion to which I’ve aluded.

As for elitist, if I’ve given ANYTHING that would lead you to believe I am other than a member of the great unwashed, I have done myself and you a disservice.

Digger,

It IS a viewpoint and only that. One benefit of this site is we’re able to air our beliefs fully and completely. If they reflect ignorance then so be it.

Jeez, it ALWAYS sticks me with Annonymous. Is there a message there?

By the by, I don’t consider my comments a shellacking by any stretch. Just waxing a different perspective and posing options, which you apparently didn’t deem fit for a response.

As for Bushney’s legacy, I’ve expounded on that whole business at length elsewhere. That’s all he cares about, his ‘mark.’ History is always easier on a Prez than the present. If I had MY way, Bushney would spend their remaining years in Sing Sing.

Actually Stormy, YOU brought it up in this thread. I thought that was interesting. Had nothing to do with the subject, not that THAT ever matters.

Dennis,
I couldn’t agree with you more in regards to the polls. At this point they seem to be more useful as tools for amusement than providing any clarity as to who is “leading” in the race. Add to this the 24 hour news channels’ treatment of these numbers as gospel and their constant parading of them across the screen, and we are left with nothing more than conjecture.
As far as how Bush will be viewed by history, I have no idea. I know that during Lincoln’s time in office many thought he was the worst and he seemed to come out alright (and no I am NOT comparing the two men). I suppose that just like the race itself, we shall have to wait and see how it all turns out.

Midman,

Welcome back. It twould seem that the only ones who care about polls is the media. And why not? It fills space and promotes response, witness herein.

They have as much value to an election as a poll to see who will win the World Series.

You’re right about Abe and you could be right about Bush. He may not be the worst and he may not be the most inept. Faint praise indeed. Considering he had the benefit of the experience of the 40 or so before him, you’d have thought he’d do just a tad better, given he had Congress and the Supreme Court on his side.

D.D. Theodore Roosevelt was a great president He was a Republican so was Eisenhower. Democrat good Republican bad only works because Republicans stopped being progressive.

Hey Ray,

I don’t know if I can go along with Ike being a ‘great’ Prez. He was okay and probably a perfect fit for the times. I doubt he would have been able to handle the turmoil of the 60s. Maybe nobody could.

But TR is a no-brainer and I’m glad you managed to mention the word progressive. He was a dyed-in-the-wool Republican and had some pretty provincial perspectives on people, specifically, the manliness of men, women, war, etc. But he was also EXTREMELY intelligent which, I believe, includes being a humanist. He realized that leaders, be they of business or government, had a responcibility to the people. He’s one of my favorites.

and FDR wouldn’t have been able to keep up on today’s campaign trail in a wheelchair; Clinton wouldn’t have been able to handle the 19th century without constant polling and female interns; George Washington’s wooden teeth would never have stood up to diner-fare; there’s no way Abraham Lincoln could’ve gotten away with wearing that funny hat on TV

You think 300 pound McKinley could get elected today?

Absolutely, a 300 pounder could go on a get-fit campaign and shed the pounds as he makes the rounds. People could log on to his website to check progress, maybe comparing their own. He could go on all of these stupid cookery programs to promote his new healthy lifestyle. Instead of the Oprah Factor, we would be talking about the Rachel Ray Factor.

Tim -

Haven’t you heard…75% of all statistics are bullshiit.

Midman,

It’s funny, actually, they had everything going for them. They could have gone into history as the greatest thing since Caesar. They sure didn’t need the money. So, why NOT make a legacy for the ages. Instead we got comic opera, with tragic results.

I am left with the image of Shrub, sitting in the school room after being told of the 9/11 attacks. Sitting. Numb.

That’s his legacy.

“The surveys of 423 “Republicans or Republican leaners” and 499 “Democrats or Democratic leaners” each have margins of error on all results of +/- 5 percentage points. The polls were conducted Friday-Sunday.”

So, that leaves out everyone I know that isn’t over 50. Seriously, how can anyone take this as an accurate measure of anything but old hardcore partisan voters who are retired and sit around the house all day waiting for someone to call them?

Nice leaner.

I’d like to add another condition to that list:

Land-line phones. Of those who even still have them, how many of them are around their house in the afternoon on a workday to answer?

I’d say these polls are a joke if they weren’t doing such damage to candidates not in favor with the seniors. They end up being self fulfilling thanks to MSM and all of us who are influenced by them.

So, when I see a poll, I picture Frank Luntz.