Opinion on Bush (with full range of choices)

[Hurin_Rules]

I'm particularly interested in how you think Bush will be viewed from a historical perspective.

[Redleg]

Good poll choices - now it should be interesting to read the reasons why people voted the way they did.

Failed foreign policy in regards to Iraq, Weak and/or failed domestic response to emergencies that effected the nation, pushing the Prescription Drug Plan,
Failing to get a balance budget hrough Congress.

Bring President Bush down into the below average catergory which becomes Mediocre when I add in the Supreme Court nomination of a decent judge, and the tax cut.

Other comments to follow depending on how the general audience response to such a poll.

[Kanamori]

I think BP's poll had the full range necessary. Is there any doubt he is, at least, a great President?

[Byzantine Prince]

Good poll choices - now it should be interesting to read the reasons why people voted the way they did.

Failed foreign policy in regards to Iraq, Weak and/or failed domestic response to emergencies that effected the nation, pushing the Prescription Drug Plan,
Failing to get a balance budget hrough Congress.

Bring President Bush down into the below average catergory which becomes Mediocre when I add in the Supreme Court nomination of a decent judge, and the tax cut.

Other comments to follow depending on how the general audience response to such a poll.

Coming from someone that most likely voted for him this is quite an amusing responce.

[Lord Winter]

Ecomenys not the best. Time can only tell with Iraq. theres no so-so option and hes not quite a good preisedent rounding down so i vote mediocre

[Soulforged]

Seriouly who voted for bestest president ever?

I chose GAH! because it's not my president and because I feel a little GAH! when his name appears in any place.

As for his historical view, I think that with the information effect, this president will be the less "comprehended" of all time, even if he was as incompetent as other's in his charge, the information spreading about he and his administration, and his lose of prestige will be heavy.

[Red Harvest]

I think he is one of the worst presidents the nation has ever had. He's going to rank right in there with Buchanan, Coolidge, Harding, Hoover, and Nixon--elbowing them for space at the bottom of the list. "Worst president ever" is hard to be certain of, however, "Bad president" is insufficient. Given some time to research it, one could probably make a strong case for "worst."

Hoover's heart was in the right place from what I've gathered, but he didn't really understand the magnitude of the problem the country faced, and had too much faith in the free market sorting things out. I don't think he was a crook, he just lacked the empathy required for the time. His policies were certainly no worse than Dubya's and he didn't muck up as much in as many areas.

Nixon from my understanding was not all that bad as an executive, but his abuse of power was a problem. Frankly, what he did pales compared to what Dubya's crew has done. Nixon's crimes were simply more provable.

None of Bush's policies are sustainable. Everything he has done has been disguised for short term gain. The polarization he has caused in the nation is unacceptable, and this has been a conscious choice of his. Dubya is the fruition of the GOP Southern Strategy.

[Strike For The South]

Bush....the man has convictions he refuses to be swayed by polls and he has never had his knob polished by some fat intern. He handled 9-11 extremly well. Saying that Iraq has turned itno a mess with no clear plan. Our economy is currently taking it up the butt from the EU and China. Although things could be worse. Overall when history looks back on Bush. I beilive they will see a man a kin to Andrew Jackson. Saying this I still beilive America TEH PWNS

[Hurin_Rules]

For the record, I intended 'mediocre' to mean average, which is one possible meaning of the term. Of course the word can also mean inferior. Since I can't change the poll now, can we all assume that by 'mediocre' we mean 'average'?

I chose him as worst ever, although I do think the point is debatable. Like any other country, the US has had some bad rulers, but I find it hard to think of someone worse than Bush. Hoover was naive. Carter was ineffectual. Nixon corrupt. But did any of them launch a preemptive war on claims that later proved to be false? Did any of them preside over the greatest intelligence failure in US history and then fail to hold anyone accountable for it? Did any of them swing America from the greatest budget surpluses in its history to the greatest deficits (and in a single term, to boot!)? Did any of them squander the good will America had enjoyed from the rest of the world after 9/11 so quickly and so fruitlessly? I honestly can't think of anyone else with a comparably awful record.

[Ice]

He's alright. He has done some bad and good. Mostly bad though.. so he prob ranks as a C- or D+

[Red Harvest]

Overall when history looks back on Bush. I beilive they will see a man a kin to Andrew Jackson. Saying

Possibly, but that wouldn't be particularly favorable in the context of our times. While I have some respect for Jackson's Federalism, he was also a bit of a scoundrel and matches up with Dubya in ways. He introduced the spoils system of political patronage to the presidency, he heavily damaged the banking system, and he was a strong advocate of the Indian Removal Act.

[Strike For The South]

care to make a friendly "wager" on it

[Red Harvest]

care to make a friendly "wager" on it

When people look back on Dubya two decades from now, he will be reviled. The only question I have is, "how reviled?"

[solypsist]

i suppose only time will tell whether he was either inconsequential (despite everything) or ruinous (because of everything)

[Strike For The South]

my question define reviled. Gah Im in no mood for debate as the cowboys losing in overtime has made me and my pops ditruaght. The Blue collar boys didnt even cheer us up

[Red Harvest]

Reviled as in he will be loathed for his character, his methods, his policies, and the results they produced. People might agree with his political ideology still, but they will no longer consider him the paragon that they once did.

[Lemur]

I don't believe history will be very kind to Dubya. If nothing else, he has single-handedly destroyed small-government conservatism within the Republican Party. Just say no to fiscal sanity. And just say no to limited government, whether in terms of finance or power.

There are lots of other issues, and many that are more important than the bankrupting of our children, but for this alone I put Bush in the back-bench of Presidents.

[Kanamori]

Like any other country, the US has had some bad rulers, but I find it hard to think of someone worse than Bush. Hoover was naive. Carter was ineffectual. Nixon corrupt.

The US has never had a ruler. FDR is the closest we've come.

[Kanamori]

Seriouly who voted for bestest president ever?

You had better hide.

I'm sick and tired of everyone making fun of our bestest, and greatest, President.

[ichi]

Bush will be considered to have failed, scandals will taint his reputation, and we will be paying off the debt we have accumulated (giving big $$ to his cronies) for a long time.

Hopefully the people will remember come election time, how the Republicans have lied about damn near everything and pushed the limits on acceptable government.

Of course, the democrats have yet to develop a clear and coherent strategy, so who knows.

ichi

[Adrian II]

I'm particularly interested in how you think Bush will be viewed from a historical perspective.

Future historians will judge him according to priorities and preoccupations of their own age which are impossible for us to predict. And junior's term isn't over yet. I fear we may see two more years of bitter infighting and recriminations, prosecutions and paralysis.

My best guestimate would be that Geore W. Bush will go down in history as bad because he misread all the waysigns at the start of the 21st century. He failed to tackle the increasing social and economic polarisation of American society which resulted in parts of the country and population living in Third World conditions. Externally he waged a fake war on terrorism which alienated both old and new allies and lost the U.S. any sympathy it might have built on to save its Middle East interests and policies. Above all else, however, I believe this President will be written off as bad because through six of his eight years in office, and probably more, he 'forgot China'. That will be the real black mark next to his name.

[bmolsson]

Mediocre. Failed foreign policy the main reason, but also the rather outdated view on society with religion and moral as guidelines makes him mediocre.

[Kekvit Irae]

Thumbs up for Afghanistan and Iraq.
Thumbs down for having his nose too far up his bible to see he is screwing over the country.

I would have to say No Biscuit.

[Ja'chyra]

Where is the option for brain dead monkey?

[Franconicus]

Rate Bush? Not my business!

Has anybody an idea who will be the next president?

[Quid]

This is actually interesting for an 'outsider' such as myself. 20 out of the 24 people who voted as of yet put him as mediocre or worse!

I don't really care either way if he is good or bad. He doesn't affect me nearly as much as he does others. So I, as a non-American, abstain from voting.

I do have to mention, though, that I have never seen a head of state that has managed to turn the whole world against him after (s)he had most of it for him. I find that quite an achievement all in itself. Am also not so sure if he will go down in history at all worldwide as anything other than just a US president. He doesn't have the charisma or anything else, for that matter, about him that others have had before him. Just my two cents...

Quid

[Rodion Romanovich]

Mediocre,

his political achievements are of very low quality, but he is a good rhetoric. Perhaps not what he says, but the fact that he manages to keep a facial expression of self-confidence no matter what happens is a quality which can grant him a rating as good as the mediocre rating. However we shouldn't be too harsh on the guy, as he's mostly acting on decisions made by his party and his advisors, and much of the problems with Iraq were caused by his father (and other presidents), who handled the entire Iraq question in a disastrously bad manner (the by secret weapons trades balancing Iran and Iraq to maximize casualties for both sides in the Iraq-Iran war, the withdrawn of the promised air support for both shia and curdic rebels against Saddam Hussein after the rebels had launched their operations and thus made the formerly secret plans public - without air support which was a major part of the plan, they were slaughtered and easy for Saddam to kill with the terrible usage of chemical gas weapons). With the logic used previously in history, where those who lose ground are scapegoats for all bad that happens, Bush will go to history as one of the worst presidents, but the truth is that his predecessors carry most of the responsibility for his faults. That he then happens to lack genius to compensate the difficult situation he was put in, is of course unfortunate for the USA, but he isn't truly the main scapegoat in the situation.

In order to successfully solve the problems caused by predecessors, the best strategy would have been to start out with "I'm not like my incompetent predecessors, I despise what they've done, and I'm here to do a better job and repair the damage they've done". But seeing as one of the main predecessors responsible for the problems were papa Bush it was wrong in the first place to have a son Bush in command to do this. Few would call their father incompetent and admit his failures.

I hope the next president manages to restore American honor, prestige and rumour as keepers of promises, and manages to solve problems with drugs and poverty among the American lower classes while maintaining the American economy strong. If this could be achieved then there's a chance America can economically survive the rise of China and the third world without fighting a losing unethical battle to achieve that. Solving those problems would perhaps also give room for environmental reforms to stop global warming and similar. Such reforms are impossible to pass unless all countries do it, because whoever does it alone will get an economical disadvantage.

[Just A Girl]

you missed out avarage,
Mediocre is a nother way for saying hes a Joke,

Good is the closest option to avarage,

[Bartix]

No Biscuit for his own good!
He may choke on it like a Pretzel

[Redleg]

Coming from someone that most likely voted for him this is quite an amusing responce.

You should see John Kerry's record in Congress - he votes completely different then my beliefs. Most times you are voting the least of the two evils present by the parties, which is what the 2000 election was. Or in this last election the devil you know verus the devil you don't know.

Or Al Gore - what a liar that one was. But he did invite the Internet. LOL