Is Bush the worst President the U.S. has had?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Here's an article from over a year ago:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history

No historian can responsibly predict the future with absolute certainty. There are too many imponderables still to come in the two and a half years left in Bush's presidency to know exactly how it will look in 2009, let alone in 2059. There have been presidents -- Harry Truman was one -- who have left office in seeming disgrace, only to rebound in the estimates of later scholars. But so far the facts are not shaping up propitiously for George W. Bush. He still does his best to deny it. Having waved away the lessons of history in the making of his decisions, the present-minded Bush doesn't seem to be concerned about his place in history. "History. We won't know," he told the journalist Bob Woodward in 2003. "We'll all be dead."

I know its "liberal hippie commie pinko crap" from the rolling stone, but if you actually read the article they talk to real historians to get their take... so take it out on them.

[endzone_dave]

Anybody even claiming to be able to judge Bush at this point in history before his presidency is even finished is a complete idiot. Seriously.

I believe history will judge him to be one of our better presidents when all is said and done. But history must pass first.

Bush is so bad that you don't have to wait to make a judgement on him.

[The_cavalierman]

Anybody even claiming to be able to judge Bush at this point in history before his presidency is even finished is a complete idiot. Seriously.

I believe history will judge him to be one of our better presidents when all is said and done. But history must pass first.

So in one breath you say anyone judging his presidency is a complete idiot but in your very next sentence you predict he'll be judged as one of the better presidents...

:doh:

Alrighty then.....:thumbsup:

[The_cavalierman]

Here's an article from over a year ago:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history

No historian can responsibly predict the future with absolute certainty. There are too many imponderables still to come in the two and a half years left in Bush's presidency to know exactly how it will look in 2009, let alone in 2059. There have been presidents -- Harry Truman was one -- who have left office in seeming disgrace, only to rebound in the estimates of later scholars. But so far the facts are not shaping up propitiously for George W. Bush. He still does his best to deny it. Having waved away the lessons of history in the making of his decisions, the present-minded Bush doesn't seem to be concerned about his place in history. "History. We won't know," he told the journalist Bob Woodward in 2003. "We'll all be dead."

I know its "liberal hippie commie pinko crap" from the rolling stone, but if you actually read the article they talk to real historians to get their take... so take it out on them.

Here's the problem

Republicans normally bash sources when they don't like the message. The problem with Bush is even military historians are calling him one of the worst ever and they tend to favor republicans.

I wonder if they will bash their own conservative military historians?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Here's the problem

Republicans normally bash sources when they don't like the message. The problem with Bush is even military historians are calling him one of the worst ever and they tend to favor republicans.

I wonder if they will bash their own conservative military historians?

You "wonder" if they will? Seriously, if the George Washington came back to life and said that Bush had screwed up everything he'd built, Republicans would say "George Washington is just too old to get it.... and too liberal."

[The_cavalierman]

You "wonder" if they will? Seriously, if the George Washington came back to life and said that Bush had screwed up everything he'd built, Republicans would say "George Washington is just too old to get it.... and too liberal."

George Washington would be a liberal commie...without question

[SkinsHokieFan]

I guess you all did forget that conservatives essentially fired GWB1

But hey, we all have our heads in the sand :thumbsup:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I guess you all did forget that conservatives essentially fired GWB1

But hey, we all have our heads in the sand :thumbsup:

Extremely confusing post:

First, did you mean GHWB? Who is GWB1? I'm gonna assume you meant George Herbert Walker Bush, aka Bush 1.

Second, conservatives fired him? Huh? I thought he ran for re-election, got the republican nominee (not surprisingly) and lost when the people voted for Bill Clinton. I suppose that was the "conservative election?"

Third, who has their heads in the sand? And what is this alluding to?

[Midnight Judges]

Anybody even claiming to be able to judge Bush at this point in history before his presidency is even finished is a complete idiot. Seriously.

I believe history will judge him to be one of our better presidents when all is said and done. But history must pass first.

Can I make this my new sig? :laugh:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

George Washington would be a liberal commie...without question

I heard he likes terrorists too. :laugh:

[DjTj]

Here's the problem

Republicans normally bash sources when they don't like the message. The problem with Bush is even military historians are calling him one of the worst ever and they tend to favor republicans.

I wonder if they will bash their own conservative military historians?

I think plenty of Republicans will bash Bush. All the Presidential candidates are running away from Bush right now, and they have every right to be legitimately angry at Bush for screwing up Iraq, immigration reform, Social Security reform, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and a bunch of other stuff ... Bush basically killed the GOP's chances of becoming a dominant party for a decade through his incompetence.

It's kind of like how I think a lot of Democrats are kind of bitter at Bill Clinton for squandering all the political gains of his party by getting a damn blowjob from an intern. You put all this trust in a President to lead your party, and they screw it all up ...

In the short term, everyone will bash Bush (except for the most ardent loyalists) because those are the politics of the moment. Whether he's the worst President in history ... time will tell.

[hokie4redskins]

:dunce: Can I make this my new sig? :dunce:

Sure. And if I'm wrong in 50 years, you can call me on it.

:thumbsup:

[SkinsHokieFan]

Extremely confusing post:

First, did you mean GHWB? Who is GWB1? I'm gonna assume you meant George Herbert Walker Bush, aka Bush 1.

Second, conservatives fired him? Huh? I thought he ran for re-election, got the republican nominee (not surprisingly) and lost when the people voted for Bill Clinton. I suppose that was the "conservative election?"

Third, who has their heads in the sand? And what is this alluding to?

Yes, I am talking about Bush Sr. Should have but in the GHWB, my bad

2) Yea, conservatives fired him by voting strongly for Ross Perot. None of them forgot about him reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge, and went ahead and voted for Perot instead. That split vote gave Clinton a pluralistic victory (he won with 43 percent of the vote, compared to Bush's 37.4 and Perot's 18.9 percent)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992

The quote "conservatives fired Bush 1" comes from Peggy Noonan. And it was true

From "conservapedia"

http://www.conservapedia.com/George_H._W._Bush

Several other factors were key in his defeat, including siding with Congressional Democrats in 1990 to raise taxes despite his famous "Read my lips: No new taxes" pledge not to institute any new taxes. In doing so, Bush alienated many members of his conservative and libertarian base, losing their support for his re-election. The largest factor, which is the main reason Bill Clinton defeated Bush in the 1992 election, was the candidacy of Ross Perot. Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and Clinton, still a largely unknown quantity in American politics, was able to win the election due to Perot splitting the Republican vote in many states.

[Midnight Judges]

I am having a hard time finding a President who is worse that GWB.

It depends on the criteria. There are other Presidents whose low points are as low as dubya's, but they all had a few successes as well.

[Bliz]

You "wonder" if they will? Seriously, if the George Washington came back to life and said that Bush had screwed up everything he'd built, Republicans would say "George Washington is just too old to get it.... and too liberal."

This reminds me of a great episode of the Boondocks, a "what if" episode where MLK had fallen into a coma after a failed assasination attempt, and wakes up in present day America. He starts a political party, and goes on what is obviously supposed to be Fox News:

Martin Luther King: And so the philosophy of this new political party might be considered extremely leftist by some...

Talk Show Host: [interrupting] Do you love America?

Martin Luther King: [confused] I'm sorry?

Talk Show Host: You sure as hell are, buddy! Why can't liberals ever answer that question with a simple yes, huh? If you ask me if I love America, I say yes. Why can't you say yes? Say you love America, right now. Say it!

Martin Luther King: The party's basic philosophy is...

Talk Show Host: [shouting] Say it!

Martin Luther King: Sir, I will not be...

Talk Show Host: [shouting] Say it or shut up!

Talk Show Host: [normal] We'll be back with more fair and balanced coverage after...

[Huey hits Talk Show HOst with a chair and beats him]

[RammsteinSkins]

carter or hoover no doubt

[Midnight Judges]

Sure. And if I'm wrong in 50 years, you can call me on it.

:thumbsup:

So now it takes 50 years to judge a President? Cool. So Jimmy Carter may have been our best President ever! Yaaaaaaaaaay!

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Yes, I am talking about Bush Sr. Should have but in the GHWB, my bad

2) Yea, conservatives fired him by voting strongly for Ross Perot. None of them forgot about him reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge, and went ahead and voted for Perot instead. That split vote gave Clinton a pluralistic victory (he won with 43 percent of the vote, compared to Bush's 37.4 and Perot's 18.9 percent)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992

The quote "conservatives fired Bush 1" comes from Peggy Noonan. And it was true

From "conservapedia"

http://www.conservapedia.com/George_H._W._Bush

I'm not doubting that Ross Perot's presence greatly affected the outcome of the election, but those were actually more independents and moderates.

I think you are seriously stretching to say "conservative fired Bush 1." :2cents:

[KevinthePRF]

I significantly lean left on most issues but I can easily say no. Hoover and Carter immediately come to mind and I could probably research a few more pre-New Deal era.

Now as far as sheer stupidity he would easily rate top 3 at least. But the way administrations are built in the modern era he has had a host of fairly intellegent people around him to help mask his ignorance.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I'm not doubting that Ross Perot's presence greatly affected the outcome of the election, but those were actually more independents and moderates.

I think you are seriously stretching to say "conservative fired Bush 1." :2cents:

Well, liberals weren't exactly flocking to Perot in 1992 :laugh:

No Perot, no Clinton

Similar to no Nader, no Bush

From the wiki article

On November 3, Bill Clinton won election as the 42nd President of the United States by a wide margin in the U.S. Electoral College, despite receiving only 43 percent of the popular vote. It was the first time since 1968 that a candidate won the White House with under 50 percent of the popular vote. The state of Arkansas was the only state in the entire country that gave the majority of its vote to a single candidate; the rest were won by pluralities of the vote.

[Bliz]

carter or hoover no doubt

I've got to be honest, having been born in 1977, I've never really understood all the hatred poured on Jimmy Carter. WHat was it that he did, exactly, that makes him the worst, or one of the worst presidents? Was it the foresight he saw in asking people to conserve energy back in the 70s? The groundbreaking mideast peace negotiations he mediated at Camp David? Ooh! I know...it was his fault those hostages got taken in Iran.

According to wikipedia, Carter was responsible for legalizing home-brewing when he signed the congressionally approved bill into law in February 1979. This law renewed the country's appreciation for beer and the micro-brew enthusiasm of the 1990s.

Okay, seriously...there were inflation, unemployment and energy problems. But are they so much different than what other presidencies have faced?

So...does anyone care to elaborate?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Well, liberals weren't exactly flocking to Perot in 1992 :laugh:

No Perot, no Clinton

Similar to no Nader, no Bush

From the wiki article

I'm not sure that wikipedia quote says that conservatives fired Bush.

Like I said, I don't doubt that Perot helped Clinton greatly. But it was not the conservative base that "fired Bush." It was moderates and independents who had previously been called Reagan democrats and still voted for Bush 1 in the previous election that this time voted for Perot. Also, most of the young vote went to Perot, which probably hurt both Clinton and Bush.

[Stophovr6]

No, not the worst ever. But certainly the worst since my birth.

[81artmonk]

No that would be CARTER!!

[england]

richard nixon