Worst President Ever?

[Lemur]

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/WorstEver.gif

It's one of those President Bush v. Historians (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002804) kinda things.


A Pew Research Center poll of 109 leading historians found that 61 percent of them rank Bush as “worst ever” among U.S. presidents. Bush’s key competition comes from Buchanan, apparently, and a further 2 percent of the sample puts Bush right behind Buchanan as runner-up for “worst ever.” 96 percent of the respondents place the Bush presidency in the bottom tier of American presidencies. And was his presidency (it’s a bit wishful to speak of his presidency in the past tense–after all there are several more months left to go) a success or failure? On that score the numbers are still more resounding: 98 percent label it a “failure.”

So what do the Orgahs think? As Colbert would say, great President, or the greatest President? Just to give some context, here's an article about the ten worst Presidents (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/worstpresidents/), as tallied by US News. Some stiff competition in there. I am as unhappy with the Bush administration as any American, but I'm not sure it qualifies for "worst" without some serious discussion.

-edit-

A little more context might be called for. Here are Wikipedia's rankings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents), with a heavy bias against recent Presidents, as you will note. Here's a longish 2006 article (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history) by a respectable historian arguing for George W. Bush's last-place finish. Here's another '06 article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101475.html) arguing that President Bush is, in fact, only the fifth-worst President of all time.

[Fragony]

Too bad it's american presidents only because I happen to be thinking about someone.

[KukriKhan]

Despite your excellent links, Lemur, I think it's too early to tell. The final year of all 8-year reigns prompts thoughts of legacy, and many of them do things (and take bigger political risks) then, to establish what they hope is their legacy.

I guess I could back that belief up with sources, if necessary; but for now: let's just say it's been my observation that "lame ducks" usually try pretty hard, especially on foreign policy where they don't have to consult congress beforehand, to make a final lasting impression. And we have 9 months until he moves out of 1600 Penn. Ave.

[seireikhaan]

I think its too early to declare Bush the "worst ever", as many of his decisions have not yet reached full fruition. I'd put Buchanon and Harding as the worst two. Its more than a bit unfair to judge a president's legacy before he's even left office. :sweatdrop:

BTW, that Washington post article was a load of BS in terms of its argument against Madison. The war of 1812 had to be fought against the British, they still had forts on US soil, which is rather problematic. We needed British influence OUTSIDE of the US boundaries, not IN it. He's in no way in the bottom five.

EDIT: I forgot Grant, he was a pretty abysmal President as well. Much worse, imo, than Madison.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What about the Presidents who declared the western Hemisphere the essential backyard of the United States or declared war on the U.K. and its colonies in 1812? What about James K. Polk who went to war with Mexico in order to conquer their land? Madison, Monroe and Polk were excellent Presidents. Why?

It is foolish to label Bush as one of the worst presidents 1) because his term is not over and it remains to be seen what kinds of ramifications our near eastern incursions will have. 2) By other standards throughout history he really isn't that bad at all.

He invaded Iraq and doesn't defend his successful positions adequately.
He increased spending but lowered taxes. He got half of it right. What did you want from the guy? Has he really butchered the Constitution? What has he done? The Patriot Act?

If anything more people are able to openly mock the president and his family than ever before. Are we becoming less free?

[Boyar Son]

People still complain about Bush? No one should be surprised if he does something dumn anymore.

[ICantSpellDawg]

People still complain about Bush? No one should be surprised if he does something dumn anymore.

dumb.

[Geoffrey S]

I don't know, I kind of like him recently - not necessarily his agenda, but the fact that he seems genuinely undaunted by the challenges ahead, although he has made some good decisions more recently. Whatever his politics, he strikes me as someone who'd be great to talk to over some beer. In particular, the interview by BBCs Matt Frei caught my eye.
Interview pt. 1 (https://youtube.com/watch?v=NMcrkh-ovG4)
Interview pt. 2 (https://youtube.com/watch?v=0Xc776j-_WE)
Commentary (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7246075.stm)

Is he lonely? Is he worried about his legacy?

And the man himself on the subject...

We are still arguing about the record of the first president called George, and that was a couple of hundred years ago. I'm sure they will take their time when it comes to judging my record.

[Marshal Murat]

Some of the 'ten worst' were really bad submissions.

Zachary Taylor, because he was 'forgettable'?I didn't know that you had to be memorable to be good. To be put on the list because he was forgettable, pfff.

William Henry Harrison, because he died of pneumonia? I'm sorry that getting sick is something that you shouldn't do as president.

I could understand some of the presidents (Harding, Grant). Others (Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan) don't really deserve to be on there, in my opinion. They couldn't really do anything to solve the problem, and the compromises were the best anyone could really do. To say that they were responsible for the Civil War is laying it thick on some men who were trapped in a position between the North and South.

Personally, I would say
1. Van Buren - Depression follows his name, he just disconnected with Americans
2. Cleveland - Dawes Act, one of the worst legislations affecting Native Americans, ever.
3. Kennedy - While he was very telegenic, his domestic programs were a failure, he deepened U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and while he did negotiate the 'Cuban Missile Crisis', it obscures his 'Bay of Pigs' assault. A man who died a 'martyr' but whose actual accomplishments had no or a negative impact, overall.
4. Jackson - His brutal removal of the Cherokees from Georgia-Alabama.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I thin that Grant and Harding are the only presidents that should be dragged through the mud.

The others did what they could - led us to glory when they could and tried to kept things civilized... to a point. None have really gone out of their way to destroy the basic tenets of the Constitution - except the two jerks previously mentioned.

People need to lay off of Bush - he is nowhere near as bad as people wish that he was.

[seireikhaan]

What about the Presidents who declared the western Hemisphere the essential backyard of the United States or declared war on the U.K. and its colonies in 1812? What about James K. Polk who went to war with Mexico in order to conquer their land? Madison, Monroe and Polk were excellent Presidents. Why?

It is foolish to label Bush as one of the worst presidents 1) because his term is not over and it remains to be seen what kinds of ramifications our near eastern incursions will have. 2) By other standards throughout history he really isn't that bad at all.

He invaded Iraq and doesn't defend his successful positions adequately.
He increased spending but lowered taxes. He got half of it right. What did you want from the guy? Has he really butchered the Constitution? What has he done? The Patriot Act?

If anything more people are able to openly mock the president and his family than ever before. Are we becoming less free?
You answered your own question, imo(bolded parts). Also, I'd put in No Child Left Behind right alongside the Patriot act as well in terms of bad policy.

And don't forget that congress actually were the ones who declared war in the 19th century, Tuff, so bashing them(or congratulating them) based on the decision to go to war is quite thin. Obviously, it depends mostly on what the outcomes of the war itself. Iraq has bogged down for a much longer period than Americans wanted, and thus, as President, Bush gets the blame. Not to mention our failure to capture Bin Laden back in '02.

[woad&fangs]

If Bush was assasinated in mid 2002 then he would have gone down as one of the greatest presidents of all time. However, he was not assasinated so he will go down in history as one of the worst. However, Hoover, LBJ, Kennedy(everything good he did was really controlled by Robby), Harding and a few others might be worse than Bush.

[LittleGrizzly]

I did find it quite funny that the one guy got in the list for dying, seems a little harsh, or did he manage to make some really bad changes in those 30 days ??

I would say that modern day presidents have big advantadges over previous ones, Modern day presidents have expert advice on hand, huge budgets and rule the most powerful country in the world. Taking all this into account would make me think that the worse leaders are going to come from the past, a president trying to do something that would harm the country would have a lot more difficult time of it these days.

I do think the presidency of Bush has been bad for america, from foriegn policy and relations to the growing defecit, i now we can't judge fully now until we see the results of his presidency but i think history will judge Bush to have been one of the worst modern day presidents.

[Kralizec]

I agree with TSM. Our preceptions are inevitably tainted, ironicly, by beling alive when all these things happened. Let the generation after us make historical judgements about GWB.


I would say that modern day presidents have big advantadges over previous ones, Modern day presidents have expert advice on hand, huge budgets and rule the most powerful country in the world. Taking all this into account would make me think that the worse leaders are going to come from the past, a president trying to do something that would harm the country would have a lot more difficult time of it these days.

Modern presidents have these things because the world is immensely more complicated then it was 200 years ago. One could even argue that these days it's even harder to select the right data and make an informed decision.

[LittleGrizzly]

Modern presidents have these things because the world is immensely more complicated then it was 200 years ago. One could even argue that these days it's even harder to select the right data and make an informed decision.

The world is obviously more complicated now but looking through that 10 worst presidents list a few were on there for things to do with slavery and the native americans, No modern president would be allowed to make those decisions. So for bad moral judgements modern presidents have an advantadge of being judged by our modern day morales.

The reason the world is a lot more complicated these days is down to human intelligence (or one of the main reasons) so a modern day president has his own smarter brain and some of the worlds brightest people around him to advise him, im struggling to think of an example but if bush was thinking about doing something to help boost the economy, if it was a really stupid idea and obviously unworkable if one of his advisors didn't pick up on it congress or maybe the media would, whereas 100 years ago a president could possibly pass his own stupid idea because of less expertise and less people able to get hold of the deatils to judge it for themselves.

[Geoffrey S]

The world is obviously more complicated now but looking through that 10 worst presidents list a few were on there for things to do with slavery and the native americans, No modern president would be allowed to make those decisions. So for bad moral judgements modern presidents have an advantadge of being judged by our modern day morales.
I wonder, should modern-day morality come into things when it comes to choosing worst presidents?

The reason the world is a lot more complicated these days is down to human intelligence (or one of the main reasons) so a modern day president has his own smarter brain and some of the worlds brightest people around him to advise him, im struggling to think of an example but if bush was thinking about doing something to help boost the economy, if it was a really stupid idea and obviously unworkable if one of his advisors didn't pick up on it congress or maybe the media would, whereas 100 years ago a president could possibly pass his own stupid idea because of less expertise and less people able to get hold of the deatils to judge it for themselves.
I'd like to think that is true, I really would. Yet the evidence of the last eight years, at least, speaks against such optimism.

[LittleGrizzly]

I wonder, should modern-day morality come into things when it comes to choosing worst presidents?

As i was writing it i was thinking that, it seems basically unfair on the oldest presidents, they could be accussed of not being forward thinking enough and maybe even being a bad person but they could have been people who just fitted themselves around the common american morals at the time.

I think things like the economy, foriegn policy and domestic policys on crime and security are better standards to judge presidents by.

[Furious Mental]

I would say yes it does make sense because if you generally approve of how America has turned out it makes sense to rate its past leaders in terms of their contribution to its development into its present state. Going back further than the birth of modern civilisation you might have to apply a different standard but that doesn't apply to Presidents of the US.

[LittleGrizzly]

Well no American president before the one that freed the slaves freed the slaves, so thats 1 black mark, none of the presidents before women had the right to vote gave them the right to vote, thats another black mark. Even though they may not have supported these policys, unless they tried to change it they have 2 black marks on thier record that any modern president cannot have, so someone who was as bad as bush in every single way but in the past, would be a worse president than bush just because of those 2 black marks. Can you see my point ?

[Adrian II]

3. Kennedy - While he was very telegenic, his domestic programs were a failure, he deepened U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and while he did negotiate the 'Cuban Missile Crisis', it obscures his 'Bay of Pigs' assault. A man who died a 'martyr' but whose actual accomplishments had no or a negative impact, overall.I think the only use of this sort of lists is in comparisons of more or less similar problems which Presidents had to confront. Sometimes that is instructive. When it comes to Bush and Kennedy, I think it is.

Your evaluation of Kennedy is harsh. At least two of his accomplishments were lasting: his support (mostly through his brother Robert) for the civil rights movement, and the infusion of a new spirit of optimism into American politics after the Sputnik episode, resulting in, among other things, a spectacular space program.

One of his major failures was the introduction of the doctrine of 'limited war', mainly through McNamara. Limited wars as such were a real phenomenon at the time and there was nothing wrong with their conceptualization. But the sting of the new doctrine was in the notion that limited wars were a 'calculated risk' for both sides and that the use of force would be rationally managed by both parties. McNamara thought war, politics and the human mind were eminently rational. Not so!

This misunderstanding led to what you called 'the deepened U.S. involvement in Vietnam'. I believe a similar misunderstanding has led to the deepened U.S. involvement in Iraq in 2003, a concept developed and practised by a latter-day McNamara, namely Donald Rumsfeld.

Both governments were mistaken in their trust in technology and calculated warfare, and both were mistaken about the nature of their enemies. Kennedy wanted to halt communism, but the force the U.S. was fighting, de facto, was Vietnamese nationalism. Bush wanted to halt terrorism, whereas the real U.S. opponent on the ground is Arab nationalism.

That doesn't mean that either Kennedy or Bush were stupid or malevolent. As Barbara Tuchman writes in The March of Folly, political foolishness is seldom a mere result of stupidity or 'wooden-headedness', it is just as much the result of power: 'We all know, from endless repetitions of Lord Acton's dictum, that power corrupts. We are less aware that it breeds folly; that the power to command frequently causes failure to think; that the responsibilty of power often fades as its exercise augments.'

Years later, McNamara acknowledged in his autobiography that he knew the U.S. could not win the war in Vietnam, no matter how much he tinkered with technology, management-based theories and counterinsurgency models.
Kennedy, too, knew that it wouldn't happen. Yet, he persisted.

There is a passage in Tuchman's book that is worth quoting extensively because of its parallel with Bush and Iraq.

Tuchman describes how, ten days into his office, Kennedy approved of a report by General Lansdale who wanted to introduce new 'advisors' to the South Vietnamese government, Americans 'who know and really like Asia and the Asians' and who would 'guide the South Vietnamese to American policy objectives'.

Not to their own objectives, mind you, but to American objectives.

Tuchman:


This flaw, too, with its implications, Kennedy recognized when he said: 'If it were ever to be converted into a white man's war, we should lose it as the French had lost a decade earlier.' Here was a classic case of seing the truth and acting without reference to it.

The American failure to find any significance in the defeat of the French professional army, including the Foreign Legion, by small, thin-boned, out-of-uniform Asian guerrillas is one of the great puzzles of the time. How could Dien Bien Phu be so ignored? When David Schoenbrun, correspondent for CBS, who had covered the French war in Vietnam, tried to persuade the President of the realities of that war and of the loss of French officers equivalent each year to a class at St. Cyr [the French West Point- AII], Kennedy answered: 'Well, Mr Schoenbrun, that was the French. They were fighting for a colony, for an ignoble cause. We're fighting for freedom, to free them from the Communists, from China, for their independence.'

Because Americans believed they were 'different' they forgot that they, too, were white.It is hard to miss the obvious parallels.

[Vladimir]

Wait until he dies. Even Nixon somehow became a good guy when he did. Maybe a lot of people were just thankful. :shrug:

[ICantSpellDawg]

How about this title - "The Worst Generation's picks for Worst President"

[drone]

Not sure why Harrison is on the list. I've always thought that story is the best presidential anecdote ever. Give a long speech, in January, in the rain, die of pneumonia a month later. Lesson #1, short and sweet!

I'm sure if you really analyze all of the presidential terms, after all the facts come out, you can find faults and decisions that cause problems later. That's what fascinates me the most about 43, I can't wait for all the dirt that comes out once the new guy moves in. There is a lot that we don't even have an inkling of.

[Don Corleone]

I think terms like "Worst" or "Best" betray a very limited scope of thought on the issue of leadership. They present a list and don't even get into a definition of a highly ambiguous and abstract relative term such as 'good'. What is merit in this context?

With regards to the positive or negative benefit for the society at large of a presiden'ts legacy, it's impossible to judge current presidents versus past ones. There's a heuristic that says people tend to remember the good, forget the bad. Therefore, historical figures and ages always appear better than the here and now, where people obsess on the negative, particular in today's viewpoint.

There's a reason why historians traditionally used to wait 20 years before commenting on the legacy of a governing leader, and wise ones still do.

[HoreTore]

Two lost wars, an economy in pieces and a completely destroyed diplomacy. That's the legacy from Mr. Bush. Do you really have anyone who can top that?

[Vladimir]

Two lost wars, an economy in pieces and a completely destroyed diplomacy. That's the legacy from Mr. Bush. Do you really have anyone who can top that?

I know you didn't get senior membership for your insights in the Backroom. Perhaps you've topped him yourself.

[HoreTore]

I know you didn't get senior membership for your insights in the Backroom. Perhaps you've topped him yourself.

Well better ask the mods, but I rarely post outside the warm comfort of the backroom...

But I don't see how I'm wrong. 2 lost wars - Iraq and Afghanistan, they won't be won by the end of his term, and therefore they count as lost, especially since the timeframe outlined pre-war was like 2-3 months TOPS. So a defeat for Bush, maybe the next president can make it a victory for the US. Maybe not.

The economic crisis. It's already bad enough now, a lot of people predict that it will be worse. President Bush has been in power for the last 7 years - of course he is directly responsible for the crisis. If he had done his job, this wouldn't have happened.

The diplomacy. Let's turn time back to 2001. The world is united in sympathy and solidarity towards the US, americans and the president. Back in 2008, you rarely hear a good word about him outside some dictatorial palaces and the US. That someone was able to utterly destroy the ENORMOUS support Bush had after 9/11, is astonishing. It's a superb feat bad statesmanship.

So to compare him with other presidents - I see lots who have one, but I can't see anyone with all three failures.

A complete failure as a president - War, economy and diplomacy. There are no areas left for him to fail at, fortunately, his time is at an end.

[Lemur]

2 lost wars - Iraq and Afghanistan, they won't be won by the end of his term, and therefore they count as lost, especially since the timeframe outlined pre-war was like 2-3 months TOPS.
You realize that by your criteria, we also lost World War II? No, HoreTore, I fear you're indulging in hyperbole. A quagmire does not equal defeat. And failing to distinguish between the justified and necessary war in Afghanistan and the absolute waste of time and blood in Iraq weakens your argument.

I'm inclined to agree with those who say it's too early to judge the second Bush Presidency. But the mere fact that historians are already trying to rank it is interesting.

[Ronin]

Wait until he dies. Even Nixon somehow became a good guy when he did. Maybe a lot of people were just thankful. :shrug:

read Hunter S. Thompson obit piece on slick willy....it´s a doozy :laugh4:

[Adrian II]

I'm inclined to agree with those who say it's too early to judge the second Bush Presidency. But the mere fact that historians are already trying to rank it is interesting.Historians are not just desinterested observers, they are participants in today's debates and issues just like every other American. I think that on average this poll says more about them as a professional group than it says about any president of the United States of America.

It would be more interesting to compare a ranking made by historians, one by financial experts and one by, say, metal workers. Now that might tell us something interesting about the present state of the U.S. (though not about this President and previous ones).

[HoreTore]

You realize that by your criteria, we also lost World War II? No, HoreTore, I fear you're indulging in hyperbole. A quagmire does not equal defeat. And failing to distinguish between the justified and necessary war in Afghanistan and the absolute waste of time and blood in Iraq weakens your argument.

No, you(as in the US) haven't lost the war yet. Bush, however, has. When you start a war you expect to take a couple of months, and then can't finish it after 5 years(the length of WW2), I'd say that should count as a defeat for the guy in power.

As for Afghanistan, I'd say it's not won yet because of the Iraq war. If the resources for the Iraq war were to be spent in Afghanistan, I think it would've been successful by now. So it counts as a personal defeat for Mr. Bush too. The US itself, however, can still win the war.

Also, I didn't distinguish between the two wars because I didn't comment on whether or not they were just wars.

[Proletariat]

No, you(as in the US) haven't lost the war yet. Bush, however, has. When you start a war you expect to take a couple of months, and then can't finish it after 5 years(the length of WW2), I'd say that should count as a defeat for the guy in power.


Then you could have a loser and winner of the same war from the same side. Call the guy a moron or a war bungler or whatever, but he's not a loser yet. You don't call a runner in a relay race a loser if it's the next team mate who over takes the opponent.

Edit: Slightly on topic, there's little value in the list and ranking itself. Lemur and Adrian bring up the far more interesting topic of why this conversation has begun already

[ajaxfetish]

I wonder, should modern-day morality come into things when it comes to choosing worst presidents?

I don't see how it could not. Judging 'best' or 'worst' is a moral judgment, as they are the superlatives of 'good' and 'bad,' very much moral concepts. If we were to try judging them by the moral standards of their own times, it could be an interesting exercise, but would likely be ultimately fruitless. Do we really understand the morality of their days well enough to use it as a benchmark? Plus we would be rehashing old arguments, as they were already judged by the standards of their own days, by the journalists and historians of their own days. That stuff's already been written.

As I understand it, the purpose of history is to reinterpret the past through today's perspective, through the lens of modern values and interests. How else could we keep it relevant? Grizzly responded to you that we should use economy, foreign policy, and domestic policy as a yardstick instead of 'morality.' I don't see how that is any more objective. What makes a 'good' economy, or a 'bad' foreign policy? However we choose to measure the value of American presidents, it will be morally subjective, and it will be according to modern moral standards.

Ajax

[HoreTore]

Then you could have a loser and winner of the same war from the same side.

Yup. The country, the US, may win, but Mr. Bush personally has lost. He expected and said he would win in a short time, he has failed to do so in his presidency. He did not win, therefore he lost. His successor won't be a team mate either, neither Obama, Clinton or McCain represent his views. He's forced to let another team clean up his mess.

[LittleGrizzly]

Grizzly responded to you that we should use economy, foreign policy, and domestic policy as a yardstick instead of 'morality.' I don't see how that is any more objective. What makes a 'good' economy, or a 'bad' foreign policy? However we choose to measure the value of American presidents, it will be morally subjective, and it will be according to modern moral standards.

I would say judge on the results of the economic and foriegn policy actions taken by the president, you can see which presidents did well for the economy and you can see what results came from thier foriegn policy actions and whether this benefitted america.

[Xiahou]

Yup. The country, the US, may win, but Mr. Bush personally has lost. He expected and said he would win in a short time, he has failed to do so in his presidency. He did not win, therefore he lost. His successor won't be a team mate either, neither Obama, Clinton or McCain represent his views. He's forced to let another team clean up his mess.
That's a nonsense standard. By the same, FDR died a miserable failure, having lost WW2. :dizzy2:


Historians are not just desinterested observers, they are participants in today's debates and issues just like every other American. I think that on average this poll says more about them as a professional group than it says about any president of the United States of America.

It would be more interesting to compare a ranking made by historians, one by financial experts and one by, say, metal workers. Now that might tell us something interesting about the present state of the U.S. (though not about this President and previous ones).I agree with all of that. :yes:

[ajaxfetish]

I would say judge on the results of the economic and foriegn policy actions taken by the president, you can see which presidents did well for the economy and you can see what results came from thier foriegn policy actions and whether this benefitted america.
Again, you would be subjectively determining whether their actions 'benefitted' America based on a modern moral standard.

Ajax

[HoreTore]

That's a nonsense standard. By the same, FDR died a miserable failure, having lost WW2. :dizzy2:

Bah, I'd say that Chamberlain's policy is a better comparison. And when did we start counting him amongst the winners? When Roosevelt died, the war was basically won. How far from victory is Iraq and Afghanistan? I'd say they're not even half-finished. In fact, they're a lot worse off now than when the invasions were going on.

[Furious Mental]

The American war effort in WWII was making obvious progress towards total victory within about a year of Pearl Harbour. The American war effort in Iraq is making progress but progress towards nowhere, because Bush rooted the country so much in the first couple of years after the invasion that it basically can't be put back together properly. It has ended up being governed on the basis of ethnic and tribal compacts and a complex web of patronage, like countless other states that ultimately disintegrated in an orgy of violence.

[Pannonian]

Dubya looks awful because of what he started with, and what he's going to end up with. If your country starts off in poor economic shape and external enemies threatening to extinguish it, but you end up with a country in decent shape and with good international relations guaranteeing your future, one can say you did a good job of your guardianship. Bush's problem is that he turned the country round in the opposite direction, starting with a country in decent economic shape and with the world united behind the US in sympathy for 9/11, but then threw all of this away.

[Ronin]

Dubya holds the record for perhaps the quickest flush down the toilet of the good will that existed in the world for the US after 9-11.

after 9-11 there was talk of brotherhood with America, the world was shocked at the violence of that attack and would basically bend over backwards to help out....

then "you´re either with us or you´re with the terrorists" speech basically made half the world go ":daisy: you Mr. President" in a heartbeat.

and then Iraq....what to say about that?....he couldn´t catch Bin Laden (not necessarily his fault) so he tried to morph Hussein into Bin Laden, lied to the UN and pushed the US into an unnecessary war before the work in Afghanistan was even done, by this point the only real ally the US had left was England because Blair was basically Dubya´s prison :daisy:

so we reach the end of his presidency, Bin Laden is still producing his "greatest hits volume 35", Iraq has been fumbled up so badly that Islamic extremists have basically their recruiting work done for them for the next 25 years and the economy is in the crapper.

let´s not even start talking about the environment....but hey...at least he stopped the queers from getting married right?

worst ever?...don´t know...that´s for history to say....but the only doubt is how near the top of that list he is gonna end up on.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How about this title - "The Worst Generation's picks for Worst President"


Arguing the comparative worth of the "generations" is, I submit, even LESS likely to reach any sort of concensus than would an evaluation of U.S. Chief Executives.



Note:

A lot depends on what criteria you wish to use when measuring the worth of a presidency -- you should see the rank order created by those who prefer strict constitutionalism as their metric.

[Don Corleone]

after 9-11 there was talk of brotherhood with America, the world was shocked at the violence of that attack and would basically bend over backwards to help out....

then "you´re either with us or you´re with the terrorists" speech basically made half the world go ":daisy: you Mr. President" in a heartbeat.



Interesting viewpoint. Excepting Iraq for a moment, and I can, because the infamous "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" was made when Bush was making demands on the Taleban to turn over Al-Queda suspects, I find a discontinuity implicit in your statements.

So what exactly does "bending over backwards to help out..." mean to you, exactly? A quick, gruff "This shall not be tolerated" statement and then forget the whole thing? A cultural sanction such as not sending the Lisbon symphony to Kabul that winter?

Bush had to invade Afghanistan. The Taliban left him absolutely no choice. By authorizing Al-Queda to plan and launch the attacks from their territory and then return to their country for safe haven, they were declaring themselves four-square behind the terrorists, regardless of their lies and double-speak at press conferences. And it was this duplicity which Bush was highlighting with the "you're with us or with the terrorists" speech.

[Adrian II]

Bush had to invade Afghanistan. The Taliban left him absolutely no choice.That's clear as crystal. The U.S. had to do it, they were the only country able to pull it off, and they did so practically on their own. They made some big mistakes, but I doubt that any other country would have managed a similar invasion without committing them. Since then Nato has shared in the outcome ('you break it, you own it') and in the burden of policing and reconstruction. Over 30 countries are participating. Cooperation has had its ups and downs, but in as far as this sort of operation can be succesful, it certainly has been almost since day one. The Taliban were chased out of Kabul, sheik Omar and Osama were forced to flee and a new internationally recognized and supported regime was installed. That means Bush won his Afghanistan war, period.

Alas, then came Iraq, Guantanamo, Kyoto, lies, damn lies, freedom fries... :shame:

[Ronin]

Interesting viewpoint. Excepting Iraq for a moment, and I can, because the infamous "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" was made when Bush was making demands on the Taleban to turn over Al-Queda suspects, I find a discontinuity implicit in your statements.

So what exactly does "bending over backwards to help out..." mean to you, exactly? A quick, gruff "This shall not be tolerated" statement and then forget the whole thing? A cultural sanction such as not sending the Lisbon symphony to Kabul that winter?

Bush had to invade Afghanistan. The Taliban left him absolutely no choice. By authorizing Al-Queda to plan and launch the attacks from their territory and then return to their country for safe haven, they were declaring themselves four-square behind the terrorists, regardless of their lies and double-speak at press conferences. And it was this duplicity which Bush was highlighting with the "you're with us or with the terrorists" speech.


I´m pretty sure that Bush was talking to the international community with that "you´re with us or them" line...at least I can tell you it was not interpreted over here like being targeted exclusively at the taliban..there´s a significant difference between expecting your friends to help you and expecting your friends to be yes men basically....then again that´s why Bush and Blair were so tight.
The problem was not with the actions in the ground the US was undertaking at that time, I agree that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified, the problem was with the tone of rethoric that the white house started using that turned a lot of people off.....the blunders that followed only augmented the rift that was started by that speech in my opinion.

the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.....especially when I disapprove of it´s methods.

[Redleg]

Interesting discussion, reminds me of the discussion in the media about when Clinton left office.

Now some bring up interesting points but fail to consider all the facts, just like the Historians are doing. This list is primarily a focus on current politics not on lasting effects of the president.

I find it interesting that anyone who studies economics with any serious attention to detail blames the 2001-2002 downturn in the economy primarily on the current President, that would require President Bush to have been deciding economic policy in the time period of 1996 to 2000. The United States Government works on a 5 year budget plan with adjustments made every year. Greenspan was deciding the Fed Prime Interest rate from his economic models, with little influence from either President. Economic stimilus packages take at least 6 monthes to get thru congress and to the consumers of this nation. By September 2001 President Bush's Economic policies were just beginning to get out of congress and onto the street before the attack. Now blaming the current path to recession on President Bush and his adminstration is one thing that would be accurate, but the 2001-2002 downturn had several major factors contributing to the downturn beyond this presidents control or influence. Are is someone trying to blame the Dot.com bubble brusting, and the next being the finicial impact of the 9/11 attack. Or how about blaming Eron on President Bush? I find that even more amusing since a corruption scheme that severe normally takes years to take hold.

As for Horetore's standard about losing wars - way off base. Wars are determined by who leaves the conflict first, be it through a peace with honor, Vietnam - a lose, or outright defeat, Germany in WW2, or a stalemate with a truce, Korea. What we currently have is two conflicts that are stuck in the stagnation phase, one which can accurately be called a quiremire, or the beginning to of the end, or what ever term that describes a loss of ability to successful conclude the conflict. What Bush is guilty of is mis-management of the War against Terror in Afganstan by distraction into Iraq. That is a reason to proof assertion of fact into the discussion. The rest of you comment borders on what Tribesman would call bullocks.

All in All I find the list primarily as several have commented an indication of historical discussion geared at current politics. Given that this is an election year where the candidates are all very similiar, it makes it even more plausible.

Another election cycle of not electing the best candidate for the job, but voting for the individual you think will be the lesser of two evils.

American Politics at its worst.

[Don Corleone]

Well, you and Adrian both make valid points. I'm not making any sort of statement about Bush-diplomacy (the oxymoron was too delicious to resist), or his foreign policy, etcetera. I was speaking explilcitly with regard to the "You're with us or you're with them" statement.

I never realized that Europe took that statement so personally, I thought it was pretty clear that it was directed at 2 parties who were trying to play both sides of the street: the Taleban in Afghanistan and Musharaff in Pakistan. In light of your statement, all I can say is Colin Powell isn't the great communicator I thought he was, because that was his explicit mission.... spend the next three weeks roaming Europe and other friendly places to explain exactly what the President meant by that statement.

I'll grant you that the Bush administration comes off as cocky, arrogant and dismissive. And that's just to their party faithful. ~D. But on this particular issue, that wasn't the point, the president was drawing the line in the sand. Musharaff walked over it to our side, the Taleban stayed on the other.

[Furious Mental]

"So what exactly does "bending over backwards to help out..." mean to you, exactly? A quick, gruff "This shall not be tolerated" statement and then forget the whole thing? A cultural sanction such as not sending the Lisbon symphony to Kabul that winter?"

Before Afghanistan was invaded, NATO countries were offering much larger forces than are presently there to assist and without caveats, except that it would have to be a NATO operation. However, Bush, his cabinet, and US military leaders did not want to surrender their prerogatives to any sort of collective political and military arrangement, and they did not need contributions from NATO allies for the invasion, so they rebuffed the immediate offers of troops. This did not generate any good will and of course by the time ISAF was created all the previously gung ho governments were much less enthusiastic, so they offered less forces and with many more conditions on their deployment. Any possibility of extracting greater commitments from the countries was ruined by the invasion of Iraq- those that approved sent their extra troops to an overwhelmingly unpopular war which soured public opinion on both operations, those that disapproved simply sulked and decided that they weren't going to do anything extra for ISAF.

[HoreTore]

As for Horetore's standard about losing wars - way off base. Wars are determined by who leaves the conflict first, be it through a peace with honor, Vietnam - a lose, or outright defeat, Germany in WW2, or a stalemate with a truce, Korea. What we currently have is two conflicts that are stuck in the stagnation phase, one which can accurately be called a quiremire, or the beginning to of the end, or what ever term that describes a loss of ability to successful conclude the conflict. What Bush is guilty of is mis-management of the War against Terror in Afganstan by distraction into Iraq. That is a reason to proof assertion of fact into the discussion. The rest of you comment borders on what Tribesman would call bullocks.

All true. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't lost. Never said it was though...

I was talking about Mr. Bush's personal goal. He thought that the war would be won within a few months. When it is now going on for the 5th year, you can't call that anything but a failure from Bush.

[ICantSpellDawg]

All true. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't lost. Never said it was though...

I was talking about Mr. Bush's personal goal. He thought that the war would be won within a few months. When it is now going on for the 5th year, you can't call that anything but a failure from Bush.

War's have a tendency to drag on. If you want to go to war and get the support of Congress it is probably best to present the best case scenario. You could instead present the worst case scenario - but you may be called a pessimist and never get necessary (to your goals) things done with congressional authority.

BTW- The "war" against Baathist Iraq already ended successfully, but the occupation was miscalculated. There is no war going on between the United States and the enemy that it was fighting during the 2nd Gulf War.

Occupations are different from War. When dealing with technicalities such as titles of conflicts you must stay within those parameters when making technical statements.

[ajaxfetish]

All true. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't lost. Never said it was though...

I was talking about Mr. Bush's personal goal. He thought that the war would be won within a few months. When it is now going on for the 5th year, you can't call that anything but a failure from Bush.
Well, then I'd agree with you that Bush failed to achieve a goal. That's different from losing a war, however. I don't see how one can lose a war that's still in progress (or if, as Tuff puts it, you consider it a war already won but followed by an unsuccessful occupation, then you've certainly not lost a war).

Ajax

[LittleGrizzly]

Again, you would be subjectively determining whether their actions 'benefitted' America based on a modern moral standard.

judging thier effects on the economy is a mathmatical exercise morals do not come into it., infact with our greater modern expertise we could more accurately judge a president on his economic record. Morals partially come into judging foriegn policy but can be easily removed just stick to factual data rather than opinions of events.

[ajaxfetish]

Again, you would be subjectively determining whether their actions 'benefitted' America based on a modern moral standard.

judging thier effects on the economy is a mathmatical exercise morals do not come into it., infact with our greater modern expertise we could more accurately judge a president on his economic record. Morals partially come into judging foriegn policy but can be easily removed just stick to factual data rather than opinions of events.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think it's possible to evaluate ideas such as benefit without a subjective value judgment entering into the equation.

Ajax

[HoreTore]

Well, then I'd agree with you that Bush failed to achieve a goal. That's different from losing a war, however. I don't see how one can lose a war that's still in progress

Well this thread is about the president of the US, not the US the nation, and as such you have to judge the goals of the individual presidents. And for Bush, that means a big, fat

FAILURE

:whip:

[Redleg]

Well this thread is about the president of the US, not the US the nation, and as such you have to judge the goals of the individual presidents. And for Bush, that means a big, fat

FAILURE

:whip:

Then again one would have to also understand the policy that the President was attempting to accomplish before passing that judgement. What I find amazing is that once again we find you changing what you said to something else when your hyperbole point was shown to be completely incorrect.

[HoreTore]

Then again one would have to also understand the policy that the President was attempting to accomplish before passing that judgement.

His goal, as he told us, was to quickly invade, throw away Saddam, install democracy and freedom, plus throwing out al-qaida and WMD's, making the world a happy place. He did not achieve that.


What I find amazing is that once again we find you changing what you said to something else when your hyperbole point was shown to be completely incorrect.

Huh? I fully stand by my original point/statement that Bush is the worst president of all time. How has that changed?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Huh? I fully stand by my original point/statement that Bush is the worst president of all time. How has that changed?

Horetore - you should know by now that this forum is not for changing peoples minds who are closed, but for arguing with the closed minded to convince others that they are closed-minded.

I think that most people arguing in this thread have come to the conclusion that it may be hasty to make a conclusion about who the worst president was.

[gibsonsg91921]

Hey, thousands of our own children are dying on the streets, but hey! Let's bomb some Iraqis so their children grow up with revenge on their minds. Obama wants goodwill. Call it idealistic, but saying war will resolve the Western-Middle-Eastern emnity is downright folly.

[Lemur]

Call it idealistic, but saying war will resolve the Western-Middle-Eastern emnity is downright folly.
Well, war certainly can be an answer, but I see what you're getting at. Let's try a less emotional formulation (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/john-bolton-and.html):


I've become much more leery of unilateralism, pre-emption, and occupation as effective tools in the war against Islamism. But that's not because I want to surrender or have gone soft. It's because I want to win; and I don't think our recent strategy has been the right one. I also don't believe you counter terror with torture or fear with more fear. We can do better. And we can learn from mistakes.

The enemy is still real; and in its extreme forms must be defeated, not engaged.

[Redleg]

His goal, as he told us, was to quickly invade, throw away Saddam, install democracy and freedom, plus throwing out al-qaida and WMD's, making the world a happy place. He did not achieve that.

So we get a further definition one that is easily shown for what it is

invade Iraq - done
Saddam remove from power - done,
Democracy installed - Elections have been done
Freedom installed - working
Throw out Al-qaida - actually I think it was to fight Al-qaida and defeat them in Iraq, a big difference in definitions. Maybe you should clarify more.
WMD's - in a way done - proved that Iraq did not have any usable WMD's
Make the world a happy place - I dont remember reading this as one of his presidential objectives.

So by your own definition I dont see a time limited that he imposed on himself.
And I see some more self imposed hyperbole imposed onto the discussion.


Huh? I fully stand by my original point/statement that Bush is the worst president of all time. How has that changed?

Lost war to failure of policy. A big difference in how you are now defining that worst president ever. Now again you might want to chose your words a bit more carefully.

[Redleg]

Horetore - you should know by now that this forum is not for changing peoples minds who are closed, but for arguing with the closed minded to convince others that they are closed-minded.

Sssh - your about to ruin my amusment.



I think that most people arguing in this thread have come to the conclusion that it may be hasty to make a conclusion about who the worst president was.

Oh I agree with this statement completely, historians who review this early - while the man is still in office are doing so from a political agenda not a historical one.

[Furious Mental]

The claim that Iraq is a functioning democracy where human rights are respected is laughable. Democracy is not having a mullah and his mates in the police tell you how to vote. Freedom is not getting shot in the street for having a hair cut.

[Redleg]

The claim that Iraq is a functioning democracy where human rights are respected is laughable. Democracy is not having a mullah and his mates in the police tell you how to vote. Freedom is not getting shot in the street for having a hair cut.

LOL did I say functional Democracy or did I say a democracy has been installed and elections having been conducted. I can name other nations that have a just as brutal or even worse forms of democracy in their nations.

Rather assumptous of you to believe I said functioning democracy from that, or that I implied that it was a robust democracy.

Now are you attempting to state that no democracy exists in Iraq? Notice I have not placed words into your statement that are not there.

[Furious Mental]

Oh I'm sorry, when you put "democracy installed" in a list of achievements I thought that would presuppose "functioning democracy" rather than "elections where people vote for whichever communitarian bloc controls their neighbourhood" to create a parliament where only a quarter of the representatives show up. Any tin pot country can hold dysfunctional elections like that and create a sham parliament that hardly does anything. Given the stated intentions of your president in invading the country and what could potentially have been achieved were it not for the obstinate stupidity of he and his offsiders, I count the state of the Iraqi political system as an utter failure. If you think it is unfair to judge Bush by his own criteria, please say why.

[ajaxfetish]

If you think it is unfair to judge Bush by his own criteria, please say why.
Well, it might be unfair in Bush's case, because I don't think we can consider him able enough to choose reasonable criteria, but oh well.

Based on Redleg's original reply to HoreTore, I don't think he's standing up to defend the Bush plan as a great success, but making the point, as others of us have, that the criticism should be accurate. It's a little pointless to make up things to fault Bush for when he's already given us so much material to work with. Redleg called HoreTore on the specifics of his accusation, and was very precise in his reading and use of words, which is why

Oh I'm sorry, when you put "democracy installed" in a list of achievements I thought that would presuppose . . .
It's unwise to presuppose in such situations.

Ajax

[Furious Mental]

I don't see why not. If such things cannot be presupposed then the words are meaningless. I could say "I will build a bridge over that river" then erect some half-arsed edifice that no one dare cross because it could fall down at any moment, and say I that I still built a bridge.

[ajaxfetish]

Yes, you could. And if someone were to say you failed because you did not build a bridge they would be mistaken. If someone were to say you built a crappy, half-arsed edifice that no one dare cross because it could fall down at any moment, then they'd have a very good point.

Ajax

[Abokasee]

We can be sure of one thing, he has failed more than he has succeded

[Redleg]

Oh I'm sorry, when you put "democracy installed" in a list of achievements I thought that would presuppose "functioning democracy" rather than "elections where people vote for whichever communitarian bloc controls their neighbourhood" to create a parliament where only a quarter of the representatives show up. Any tin pot country can hold dysfunctional elections like that and create a sham parliament that hardly does anything. Given the stated intentions of your president in invading the country and what could potentially have been achieved were it not for the obstinate stupidity of he and his offsiders, I count the state of the Iraqi political system as an utter failure. If you think it is unfair to judge Bush by his own criteria, please say why.

One must be very careful with their assumptions, they often prove to be a distraction.

[Furious Mental]

"Yes, you could. "

I disagree. I don't think anyone would accept such a pedantry- as a matter of common sense saying one will do something implies that one will do it to a certain standard. This is certainly the case in the context of public policy. When Bush said he would install democracy in Iraq people took that to mean, and he knew and intended them to take that to mean, a functioning democracy. If he had said "We will install democracy in Iraq, but it might just be a half-arsed and unstable sort of participatory republic that will collapse after a while" how much support would he have gotten?

[ICantSpellDawg]

We can be sure of one thing, he has failed more than he has succeded

What do you mean "failed"? He succeeded in rallying the American people to go to war, succeeded in working a record breaking invasion, succeeded in winning a second term, succeeded in avoiding a second massive terrorist attack on our soil over almost 8 years, succeeded, succeeded, succeeded. Couple those with the others. He has failed on some things such as immigration reform, but others are still up in the air - such as a prolonged occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Look failure up in a dictionary - do you mean that certain fine point expectations were not met? Oh god no - not for a president!

If I buy a car that is very expensive and it turns out that i might not have enough money to pay the monthly payments, you can't say that I "failed" to pay when the check hasn't even come to be due.

Historians shouldn't be talking about failure as a fact until it becomes one, which I'm not saying is outside of the realm of possibility. Be fair and honest.

[CrossLOPER]

SUCCESS SUCCESS SUCCESS ALL ACROSS THE BOARD.

[HoreTore]

What do you mean "failed"? He succeeded in rallying the American people to go to war, succeeded in working a record breaking invasion, succeeded in winning a second term, succeeded in avoiding a second massive terrorist attack on our soil over almost 8 years, succeeded, succeeded, succeeded. Couple those with the others. He has failed on some things such as immigration reform, but others are still up in the air - such as a prolonged occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Spoken like a true believer.




There are still a few people left who praise Stalin too, but they are rather few.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Spoken like a true believer.




There are still a few people left who praise Stalin too, but they are rather few.

Aren't you one of them?

Oh, I forgot - you are the communist who's system works.


Bush has not been my favorite, but pre-maturely judging him as having more failures than successes is just that. Be reasonable, Iraq is not over just yet.

Some people are so eager to see Bush fail that they would trade the dignity and sacrifice of those who have tried so hard. Be careful of that.

Bush has primarily failed to rally the American people and sell them on his positions like other presidents have been able to do a bit more effectively - that is cut and dry.

[HoreTore]

Aren't you one of them?

Oh, I forgot - you are the communist who's system works.

One might say social democrat, like most of europe.


Bush has not been my favorite, but pre-maturely judging him as having more failures than successes is just that. Be reasonable, Iraq is not over just yet.

Some people are so eager to see Bush fail that they would trade the dignity and sacrifice of those who have tried so hard. Be careful of that.

Bush has primarily failed to rally the American people and sell them on his positions like other presidents have been able to do a bit more effectively - that is cut and dry.

Take a quick look at the state of the US economy, the one Bush had 8 years not to screw up...

[ICantSpellDawg]

One might say social democrat, like most of europe.



Take a quick look at the state of the US economy, the one Bush had 8 years not to screw up...

What did he do to screw it up exactly? Iraq? that is what is sinking us? I'd like to hear your opinions on that.

We are living in the age of China and we are still wearing the crown. Thanks George Bush II for single handedly blowing it in 8 years.

[LittleGrizzly]

He succeeded in rallying the American people to go to war

America didn't need rallying to goto war with Afghanastan i think 9/11 managed that, Iraq pretty much the same thing, just had to drop the words Al-Qaeda and WMD and that case was made.

succeeded in working a record breaking invasion

Can this really be put down to Bush ? any american president would have pulled off the invasion with a decent enough general in charge

succeeded in avoiding a second massive terrorist attack on our soil over almost 8 years

Again can this really be put down to bush ? i think you can only give him credit for not having another 9/11 if you put the blame on him for 9/11. Only if you think contraversial things such as "enhanced interigation" and the patriot act helped avoid anoher 9/11 otherwise the CIA acted as they would under any other president after a massive terrorist attack.

I suppose failure may not be the right word as he did things he wanted to do as president, they just didn't work out that well.

[ICantSpellDawg]

He succeeded in rallying the American people to go to war

America didn't need rallying to goto war with Afghanastan i think 9/11 managed that, Iraq pretty much the same thing, just had to drop the words Al-Qaeda and WMD and that case was made.

succeeded in working a record breaking invasion

Can this really be put down to Bush ? any american president would have pulled off the invasion with a decent enough general in charge

succeeded in avoiding a second massive terrorist attack on our soil over almost 8 years

Again can this really be put down to bush ? i think you can only give him credit for not having another 9/11 if you put the blame on him for 9/11. Only if you think contraversial things such as "enhanced interigation" and the patriot act helped avoid anoher 9/11 otherwise the CIA acted as they would under any other president after a massive terrorist attack.

I suppose failure may not be the right word as he did things he wanted to do as president, they just didn't work out that well.

Hah. What you are actually saying is that Bush can only take bad credit, never good. You look over him when there is success and target him distinctly when their is failure. Of course you are going to find more failures than successes!

Without Rumsfeld, the invasion would have taken tons more troops and much more time. Bush picked Rumsfeld. He should be given credit for doing so. He should also be held responsible for allowing Rumsfeld to go in with so few troops successfully but have no contingency plan in the event of likely insurrection. Credit should be taken away for doing that.

Some are now saying that Reagan wasn't responsible for ending the Cold War, Gorbachev was. I agree with the idea that both were responsible, among many others. To take away credit from one and lump it all onto another is not fair or reasonable unless they were really the only player, which is almost never the case in massive, international social occurrences.

Give and take credit fairly.

[Kralizec]

social democrat, like most of europe.

:inquisitive:

No.

[HoreTore]

:inquisitive:

No.

As opposed to Stalinists; yes.

[LittleGrizzly]

Hah. What you are actually saying is that Bush can only take bad credit, never good. You look over him when there is success and target him distinctly when their is failure. Of course you are going to find more failures than successes!

Im happy to give credit where credit is due, but is Bush really due credit for rallying the american people for war ?

9/11 did any rallying needed for Afghanastan, and false information did any rallying needed for Iraq, anyone with the ability to speak basic english could have said wmd al-qaeda and iraq in the same sentence.


Without Rumsfeld, the invasion would have taken tons more troops and much more time. Bush picked Rumsfeld. He should be given credit for doing so.

your going to have to clarify for me here do you mean the Afghanastan invasion or the iraq one ?

In the case of Iraq the result was never in doubt and a pretty quick victory was always on the cards without some huge mistakes, but did rumsfield really make a difference to any degree than another person in that position would have ?

Im happy to give credit for successes but with each point you have to judge how much Bush was an influence in this positive, i see conservatives here eager to remind people that Clinton just happened to be leader during an economic upturn, you have to use the same critical anylasis to judge bush on his successes.

[ICantSpellDawg]

[B]

Im happy to give credit for successes but with each point you have to judge how much Bush was an influence in this positive, i see conservatives here eager to remind people that Clinton just happened to be leader during an economic upturn, you have to use the same critical anylasis to judge bush on his successes.

I don't honestly believe politicians have as much to do with the economy as most people like to believe. They give incentives for things, they can make the climate more or less hospitable - other than that... what? Iraq? Do you believe that a war over the course of a few years has crippled us?

Do you think that Bush tanked our economy? Do you think that Clinton skyrocketed it?

I'm a believer that the people do that in concurrence with their ingenuity or lack thereof. You must also take into consideration the people and ingenuity of our competitors.

The rest of your points you are free to make, but when you blame him for failings when others may have had more to do with them, you should also give him credit when things go right (due to the same other people's decisions).

[HoreTore]

I don't honestly believe politicians have as much to do with the economy as most people like to believe. They give incentives for things, they can make the climate more or less hospitable - other than that... what? Iraq? Do you believe that a war over the course of a few years has crippled us?

Uhm, no the president and government has almost absolute power over the economy. He could, for example, have put a stop to the reckless gambling with loans that led to the disaster, yet he did not. He is reacting now, along with the central bank. That's at least a year too late.

[LittleGrizzly]

I don't honestly believe politicians have as much to do with the economy as most people like to believe. They give incentives for things, they can make the climate more or less hospitable - other than that... what?

I would agree with that point, i think the changes they make can have sizeable effects but so much of it is out of thier control, and what they do effect on policy they have experts help them achieve, i think with a majority of politics politicians have the idea and then have experts help them achieve something out of this.

Do you think that Bush tanked our economy? Do you think that Clinton skyrocketed it?

I don't pertend to now all the factors involved but i think Bush through his actions has had some negative effect on the american economy, im not really sure on clinton, i think the economy did have alot of factors outside of clinton control which were positive anyway and i don't now enough about economic decisions he made to judge his impact.

The rest of your points you are free to make, but when you blame him for failings when others may have had more to do with them, you should also give him credit when things go right (due to the same other people's decisions).

I think im being fair in my criticism of bush, when thinking of the economy under his leadership i do take into account things outside of his control, the fact 9/11 happened, the increased oil prices because of 9/11 and events around it, but then the Iraq war i do put down to bush, so increased terrorism and oil prices from that do go down as black marks against him.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't honestly believe politicians have as much to do with the economy as most people like to believe. They give incentives for things, they can make the climate more or less hospitable - other than that... what?

I would agree with that point, i think the changes they make can have sizeable effects but so much of it is out of thier control, and what they do effect on policy they have experts help them achieve, i think with a majority of politics politicians have the idea and then have experts help them achieve something out of this.

Do you think that Bush tanked our economy? Do you think that Clinton skyrocketed it?

I don't pertend to now all the factors involved but i think Bush through his actions has had some negative effect on the american economy, im not really sure on clinton, i think the economy did have alot of factors outside of clinton control which were positive anyway and i don't now enough about economic decisions he made to judge his impact.


OK - fair. I don't expect us to agree on much, and this is about as close to an agreement as I think we shall find.



The rest of your points you are free to make, but when you blame him for failings when others may have had more to do with them, you should also give him credit when things go right (due to the same other people's decisions).

I think im being fair in my criticism of bush, when thinking of the economy under his leadership i do take into account things outside of his control, the fact 9/11 happened, the increased oil prices because of 9/11 and events around it, but then the Iraq war i do put down to bush, so increased terrorism and oil prices from that do go down as black marks against him.

Okay - but look at other things. like this (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717934,00.html)

All I want is for people not to label him as an outright failure just yet. I understand it that people arn't thrilled with him - I'm not thrilled with him. I just think that it is pre-mature to be calling him the worst President ever or to say that there is some sort of answer key and he scored lower than 50 on the test - one that hasn't even been handed in yet.

[Redleg]

Uhm, no the president and government has almost absolute power over the economy. He could, for example, have put a stop to the reckless gambling with loans that led to the disaster, yet he did not. He is reacting now, along with the central bank. That's at least a year too late.

You missed one part in the equation - the President could ask congress to make a law to stop reckless gambling with loans - then congress would of had to act.

So when partioning blame for the failure of the economy in the United States one has to start lining everyone up and placing the blame on whom are at fault. Reckless loans is not a matter of regulation but of shoddy business practices of loan institutions.

If one believes the government can fix everything - then one blames the government. When on believes that individuals in a free society have to take responsiblity for their actions - one must first look at the individual before one blames the government.

So the failure of the loans is the primary responsiblity of the loan institution, followed by the individuals who took the loans and that leaves the government to clean up the mess that irresponsible people and institutions created.

Now if the question is should the government watchdog agency that monitors the economic well being of the nation should of paid better attention to the loan practices of these institutions? That government regulations should have been acted on by Congress to better provide oversight of loan institutions and their business practices?

To blame the President is easy when one doesn't understand the American Political system. Hell most americans dont even understand our political system, so its easier to blame one man that might not of even voted for - then look at the two individuals that they have the direct voting ability to from their state whom they cast a ballot on every 2 or 6 years that is a direct reflection on thier votes.

There are several things one can squarely be placed on the President. Foreign Policy and the Government Budget request. Everything else has to go through both the President and Congress. And even the budget has to go through congress before it is approved.

Now if you want to blame President Bush for something - stick with foreign policy and the failure to use his veto power to reject the pork spending of the United States Congress.

[LittleGrizzly]

Okay - but look at other things. like this

I knew i liked a few of Bush's decisions but i couldn't think of one of the top of my head, I think the big increase in aid to africa was a good decision and a brave one considering the mounting expenses at the time.

All I want is for people not to label him as an outright failure just yet. I understand it that people arn't thrilled with him - I'm not thrilled with him. I just think that it is pre-mature to be calling him the worst President ever or to say that there is some sort of answer key and he scored lower than 50 on the test - one that hasn't even been handed in yet.

I wouldn't call him the worst president ever, i don't now enough about previous presidents, only some major events they were players in ww2 and onwards.

Obviously you can't judge him historically within regards to previous presidents the way you could Carter or Nixon but you can judge his presidency as a stand alone and personally i would say its a bad one.

Considering what i think of the guys views he was going to struggle to impress me but he pleasently suprised me with a few policys such as the big increase in aid to africa.

[Lemur]

For what it's worth, Bush has finally defeated Truman (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=4652847&page=1). Only slightly related to his eventual standing in history, but worth noting.


At 39 months in the doghouse, George W. Bush has surpassed Harry Truman's record as the postwar president to linger longest without majority public approval.

Bush hasn't received majority approval for his work in office in ABC News/Washington Post polls since Jan. 16, 2005 — three years and three months ago. The previous record was Truman's during his last 38 months in office. [...]

The balance, as often is the case in U.S. politics, is tipped by the political center. Just 27 percent of independents and 23 percent of moderates approve of his job performance, the latter a career low for the president.

[drone]

I saw that, and lol'ed about the date. Four days before his inauguration. :laugh4: Talk about buyer's remorse.

[Devastatin Dave]

I would say Carter has got to be the worst and is continueing his failure in recent weeks hanging out with a multitude of terrorist. He should stick with building houses for worthless leaches.

[Lemur]

Nice to see you back DD, lube and ribs and all. Shall we be enjoying the pleasure of your company for a while, or were you just bopping in to give a shout-out to your homie Carter?

[HoreTore]

I would say Carter has got to be the worst and is continueing his failure in recent weeks hanging out with a multitude of terrorist. He should stick with building houses for worthless leaches.

Yes, because being the architect of a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt is such an easy job.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes, because being the architect of a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt is such an easy job.

Carter deserves much praise as a negotiator and his "one text" method is widely acknowledged as a major contribution to negotiation theory and practice -- ranks up there with Integrative Bargaining and Burtonian "Dual Track" as a tool for effective international bargaining and negotiation.

However, I think he would have made a better SecState than President. Having lived through his presidency, I assure you he was underwhelming in a number of other areas/qualities of leadership. I could also give you an argument about the unintended consequences of the CDA and their impact on our world that would not be flattering to Carter's earnest efforts.


All in all, however, neither Bush-43 nor Carter can surpass Buchannan or Harding when plumbing the depths of "worst ever" among the 42 to have held the office.


A strict constitutionalist would argue that the worst presidencies were those of: Lincoln, FDR, TR and possibly Jefferson. Only Ike (and maybe Ford) of the post WW2 crowd would be seen as being appropriate to the office as empowered in the Constitution.

[Redleg]

A strict constitutionalist would argue that the worst presidencies were those of: Lincoln, FDR, TR and possibly Jefferson. Only Ike (and maybe Ford) of the post WW2 crowd would be seen as being appropriate to the office as empowered in the Constitution.
To be honest Ford didn't have much choice but to be as close to a constitutionist as he could. His political goodwill with congress was pretty much used up by the circumstances that got him into office.

[Devastatin Dave]

Nice to see you back DD, lube and ribs and all. Shall we be enjoying the pleasure of your company for a while, or were you just bopping in to give a shout-out to your homie Carter?
I thought I'd make my first post in a few months in one of your threads. :beam: