Honestly speaking, do you think Bush may be the worst president ever?
Yes
No
0voters
There have been great presidents in US history, with many historians counting Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, and Ronald Reagan as the greatest.
On the other hand, there were lousy presidents like Grant, Harding, Coolidge, or Hoover
But what do you think of George W’s presidency? After reviewing his record to date, some US historians say that he may be on track to become the worst president ever. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? If so, why?
Objectively speaking, what were the achievements of his presidency, and what were the negative aspects of his presidency? Do the positives outweigh the negatives, or vice versa?
No. But he is close. The one I don’t get is why people consider Ronny Raygun so great. His economic policy was shite, (remember supply side?). He started off the off-the-deep-end political screwing around with political appointments (or at least took it to a new level). Iran-Contra…
I haven’t studied the other worst presidents enough to be able to truly make a fair comparison, but he’s gotta at least be in the ballpark of ‘worst’, and his substandard intellect probably qualifies him for #1 as well.
Almost all presidents do something perceived as “a bad move” during their presidency; to realize what the effect really is, one must await History’s spin.
Reagan did triple the national debt and sent the nation into record deficits. His strength was his ability to bring out the optimism from people through his personality. And his policies helped bring down the Soviet Union.
But the gap between the rich and the poor accelerated under Reagan’s presidency.
[quote]The Worst President in History?
One of America’s leading historians assesses George W. Bush
George W. Bush’s presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history. . .[/quote] rollingstone.com/news/profil … in_history
[quote]A recent informal, unscientific survey of historians conducted at my suggestion by George Mason University’s History News Network found that eight in ten historians responding rate the current presidency an overall failure.
Of 415 historians who expressed a view of President Bush’s administration to this point as a success or failure, 338 classified it as a failure and 77 as a success. . . .Twelve percent of all the historians who responded rate the current presidency the worst in all of American history[/quote] hnn.us/articles/5019.html
No way, JD! You have GOT to be kidding this time, surely! Read the papers across the political spectrum and there can be little doubt of the overwhelming concensus on Bush. Or is this just an American jury? Even then, I’d say that even in the states he’s considered one of the worst ever.
[quote=“jdsmith”]Almost all presidents do something perceived as “a bad move” during their presidency; to realize what the effect really is, one must await History’s spin.
I think the jury is out on Bush right now.[/quote]
JD, take your head out of the clouds and come down to earth.
For there to be any debate one must be able to show both the plus and minus points of the presidency. Whilst the minus points are all to obvious, please find a single major plus point, if not then take the medicine and accept that he probably is the worst in history.
Sorry guys, I just don’t see it is that simple yet. The policies that Bush has put forth in the post-911 world are far reaching. I don’t think 5 years down the road is long enough to carve his suckiness in stone.
And yes, Sandman, I am thinking about an American jury, because from an American perspective that’s the one that matters.
Bush is out of office in 2 years. His economic policies will continue for a few years before that ship can change course, so we’ll see how his own changes play out (remember Bush instituted 15% across the board capital gains taxes, something I think is just peachy); the Bush foreign policy is going to be difficult to change, and it is yet to be seen how things in the ME will turn out.
Which is why I say, we must wait and see…not because I’m a Bush lover; I’m just patient.
Yes, they are. Our civil liberties have been eroded. Torture is now allowed. The White House operates beyond the law. All these far reaching policies are part of the reason he is among the worst presidents in history.
I sincerely doubt that and let us all recall a little peanut farmer from Georgia… who was without question our “Failed President,” but at least he “meant well” and was a “nice person” who put a great deal of focus on “human rights” (of course the fact that so many nations fell to oppressive governments under his term cough cough best not to mention) which is why millions of dollars in PR efforts have suddenly rehabilitated him as our “nation’s best expresident.”
I would laugh at how susceptible people like Dragon Bones are to media messages but… it is far too sad…
Yes, if the media says (mostly through frequent never proved allegations) that all the things that Dragon Bones believes are true are true well then Goebels point has been made, and proved, and that is just plain sad.
I think that Bush will go down as one of the most revolutionary presidents of the 20th century. For better or worse, he has shaken up the old order severely. How that turns out is open to debate. Whether it was wrong is not. The old way of doing things was not working. Now, comes the pain of reconstructing something in its place and that is inherently frightening.
“new” yes but also you are overthrowing existing power structures where vested interests are going to lose, but they must give way for a more equitable redistribution of political power and this in turn is needed if for example the Middle East is to modernize. While we can all quibble esoterically about the meaning of being modern and its relation to Allah, the fact remains that if people cannot read and are unfamiliar with technology, they are going to lose out economically in the 21st century. Whether Bush’s policies are going to help advance that are legitimately open to debate. BUT what cannot be argued is that the old system had to go. Now, as we pick up the pieces, let’s see if what is put together is better. Everyone and certainly the media seem to think that 3,000 soldiers is an outrageous sacrifice for such a venture, while totally ignoring the massive violence that has accompanied similar efforts. If anything, not to dismiss deaths, but looking at numbers, they are far lower now than in the efforts to fight communism, defeat Fascism and bring about an end to imperialism and colonialism. Right?
How so? Was not WW1 the opening salvo of the end of imperialism. Throw in all the messes like the British pulling out of India and the sectarian violence that erupted, the French in Algeria, etc. and what part of the high cost in terms of deaths and destruction do you not get about imperialism and colonialism?
[quote=“jdsmith”]Sorry guys, I just don’t see it is that simple yet. The policies that Bush has put forth in the post-911 world are far reaching. I don’t think 5 years down the road is long enough to carve his suckiness in stone.
And yes, Sandman, I am thinking about an American jury, because from an American perspective that’s the one that matters.[/quote]Far reaching in more than time alone. The impact is damn near global, so while the rest of us don’t get a vote on who gets in our perspectives are not irrelevant.
Ah… Canada does not pay to have a military of any credible strength and so it is incapable of acting alone or in concert with anyone else. And that is OUR problem? Last time, I checked the US president had no right to veto stupid Canadian policies either. And when’s the last time an American got to vote to impress upon Canadian politicians the necessity of playing an economic and military role commeasurate with its GDP weight and benefit from world trade? Anyway, be sure and let us know the unique leadership role that Canada is playing in the world and how we can “benefit” from that.
I really (oh please I need the laugh) want to know.
