The Worst President in History?

okie, Just type "worst president in history" in Google. You'll find thousands.

Mr. Imposter- I read the reference. I am certain you do not realize some vital facts.

First of all- The vehicle one uses to disseminate information is always important. There are many respected magazines---The Economist; Atlantic, Harper's, Time, Newsweek,but it can be said without fear of contradiction that Rolling Stone is not among them. Any magazine which has articles that regularly use f..., and f......., as a verb, adjective, adverb and noun as well as prominently illustrating pages with wenches in various modes of undress can hardly be said to be a main line magazine for intelligent people.

BernardR, There are many universitites that have conducted surveys on presidents and Bush; forget the mags.

Great. What fun, as I sort through the thousands of links looking for the one you posted. You are a genius, imposter. I don't know why I didn't think of trying it.

Hiya Okie

Just out of curiosity, for the sake of this disucssion, when does something become history? Is President Bush's first term history yet? Or Clinton's? When exactly can I start discussing the failings or otherwise of the current encumbent in a historical context?

Cheers.

Really, Mr. Imposter? I don't know of them. Would you list some of them please?

Now, I will continue with my analysis

2. You have not responded to Finn's referencing George W. Bush as the USA's Most Admired Man. Why not.

3. You reference Historians. I do hope that you are aware that the large number of Historians are left wing and would not ever give high ratings to George W. Bush.

Mr. David Horowitz wrote a book called "The Professors" in which he noted (P. ix)

The academic generation that came of age as anti-war radicals in the Vietnam era came in part from the activists that stayed in school to avoid the military draft and then earned PHD's taking their political activism with them when they became tenured-track professors in the 1970's.


4. I have read Dr. Wilentz' article very carefully. It is filled with exaggerations and misstatements which I will address one by one, but first I must refer to the WIkipedia note on Wilentz which makes a VERY VERY IMPORTANT COMMENT-

Sean Wilentz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sean Wilentz (b. in New York, N.Y., 1951) is the George Henry Davis 1886 Professor of American History at Princeton University, where he has taught since 1979. His writings have earned him wide acclaim. But his reputation and influence are not restricted to the academy. Wilentz received criticism and acclaim for a Rolling Stone article in May of 2006 which attempted to answer whether George W. Bush was the worst president in United States history. Although the article does not make any definite assertion, the cover caricature and the liberal stance of the magazine insinuated that he may well be the worst president in history.

I am sure. Mr. Imposter, that the WIkipedia entry states, ALTHOUGH THE ARTICLE DOES NOT MAKE ANY DEFINITE ASSERTION......AND CONTINUES THE COVER CARICATURE AND THE LIBERAL STANCE OF THE MAGAZINE I N S I N U A T E D THAT HE MAY WELL BE THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY.

You did note that, did you not, Mr. Imposter?

The article does not make A N Y D E F I N I T E A S S E R T I O N!!!

and you noted the word I N S I N U A T E D!!!

What we seem to be left with is an article that makes no definite assertion and we only come up with an insinuation.

I hope that I do not have to define insinuation for you Mr> Imposter--It is no where near A FACT!!!


But, I did read the article and will show that it is filled with exaggerations, unproven statements and misleading analysis.

Mr. Hingehead- President Bush's first term is History. His Second term, being unfinished( there are 28 months to go). He will hit the half way mark in November.

How did he do in his first term?

The ultimate judges are the people--not left wing ideologues.

The people gave him 3,000,000 more votes than his opponent, John Kerry.

The people of the USA gave their opinion that President Bush was doing a good job and should be re-elected.

Please show where the article "it is filled with exaggerations, unproven statements and misleading analysis." You don't expect us to believe your opinion without back up do you?

And if you type "Clinton pervert" you're liable to find thousands of hits, and if you type "America Evil," you'll probably find thousands of hits as well.

Do you really mean to suggest that Google hit stats are a reliable measure of veracity?

Perhaps you do, in which case you are the perfect example of the threat of the internet to rationality.

Google does hit stats? How do you get them?

Of course. Mr. Imposter- I wouldn't lie to you. I am sure you know that it will take a great deal of time to analyze the article. Don't be impatient.

Let us begin-

The first page of Dr. Wilentz' article is MERE OPINION. There is not ONE fact in it about George W. Bush.

The second page merely refers to the Historians who consider the Bush Administration a "failure"

Again, "An academic generation came of age as anti-war radicals in the Vietnam era. Many of these activists stayed in school to avoid the military draft and earned PHD's taking their political activism with them when they became tenured track professors in the1970's"

Expecting the younger "Hippie" radicals to praise Bush would be similar to expecting the Kremlinologists to praise John Kennedy.

Even Dr. Wilentz ADMITS- THAT HISTORIANS AS A GROUP DO THEN TO BE FAR MORE LIBERAL THAN THE CITIZENRY AS A WHOLE>

Even if the "leanings" of the majority of history professors are liberal, what about the general population of Americans? Are they liberal too? They also now rate Bush a failure. Can't win them all, eh BernardR? LOL

In his article--The Worst President in History?- Dr. Wilentz admits

quote

Twelve percent of the historians polled--NEARLY AS MANY AS THOSE WHO RATED BUSH A SUCCESS--flatly called Bush the Worst President in American History.

end of quote

IMAGINE, 12% of the group of radicalized Professors, who, by Wilentz's own admission, "tend to be more liberal than the citizenry as a whole" rated Bush A S A S U C C E S S>

But then Dr, Wilentz says that if the historians were polled today that 12% voting Bush as the worst president in American History.

THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD IS

THE WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY?

and, yet, only 12% of the LARGELY SELF-IDENTIFIED LIBERAL HISTORIANS, said he was the worst president in American History.

What a fraud the left wing is trying to pull!!!

What you do not seem able to understand< Mr. Imposter, is that there can be a large number of voters who are HARD RIGHT CONSERVATIVES who disapprove of President Bush. Many of them may disapprove of what they think is not a strong enough stance on Immigration.

It is ridiculous to believe that all of the disapproval comes from the left.

Indeed it would be ridiculous.

You're the first person to mention the idea at all.

Yes, BernardR, all the polls are fraud, because most of them now rate Bush in the low thirties to high twenties. They're all liberals. What a fraud!

Dr. Wilentz is a master of generalization- He states that" Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush( leaving out Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton and thereby showing his bias) governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case different factors contributed to the failure: disasterous domestic poicies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks. executive misconduct, crises of crediblity and public trust"

One reads hopefully for the evidence that those FAILURES are indeed failures--but alas, Dr. Wilentz leaves us unsatisfied AND GIVES NO EVIDENCE--NONE--NOTHING.

Mr. Imposter seems to be unaware that the respected polling organization- Rasmussen Reports gives President Bush a 40% Job Approval Rating.

Again, anyone who thinks that a substantial portion of the Job Disapproval does not come from Right Wingers who want strong action immediately on the Immigration Issue knows nothing about Politics.

Dr, Wilentz continues:

Top Military advisers and even members of the president's own cabinet who expressed any reservations or criticisms of his policies- including retired Marine Corprs Ge, Anthony Zinni and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, suffered either dismissal, smear attacks from the president's supporters or investigations.

I am sure that Dr. Wilentz knows about the Clinton Administration's sins in this area and he is being hypocritical when he does not mention them.

For example. Bob Woodward, in his book "Shadow" tells of the moderate and balanced Bill Clinton reacting to a leaked memo from the director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, with the comment--

LOUIS FREEH IS A G-DDAMN, FVCKING AS-HOLE.

AND

"Nussbaum(cheif counsel to the President of the United States was unceremoniously dumped . Nussbaum told Clinton-

"I've done nothingwrong. I acted properly to protect your interests, and it will hurt the presidency if Bernie Nussbaum can be driven out....It will give a message that if a person is close to you and loyal he can be driven out"

Nussbaum was forced to resign because of media complaints.


Wilentz knows that the Clinton Administration had more blood letting among the "loyalists" but does not mention it.

You can start discussing them anytime you wish. That doesn't mean the discussions are totally credible. Opinions are a dime a dozen. When does something become history? Use a bit of common sense. Its history when its over, but obviously it is only barely very recent history, and the perspective eventually becomes much clearer as all of the effects of an administration also become part of history. Obviously, this can take a few years, a decade, and ultimately maybe even a few decades before all of the effects can be evaluated more accurately.

Just a handful of examples of many that could be mentioned: We are still experiencing the effects of FDR's New Deal programs, JFK's policies with Cuba, LBJ's Great Society policies, the Vietnam War, Nixons Watergate, etc., even though those happened decades ago. The effects of those policies may be viewed differently now than they were shortly after they were instituted. For example, our success or the lack thereof in the Vietnam war greatly affects our views about wars ever since. As we debate the Iraq war, Vietnam is constantly referenced either openly or vaguely, and it serves to influence all of our thinking in one way or another as we make further decisions as a nation. History will yet record whether this influence turns out to be more constructive or more destructive as time goes on.

It is my opinion that historically, the Clintons terms were very destructive to us as a nation for more than a couple of reasons. You may not agree. Obviously many do not agree. And I think it will take many more years for all of the effects and the proper perspective on it to be clearer, including my own. I don't know what the learned historians are writing or intend to write, but whatever it is, I think it is still in a state of flux. At least it should be.

Bush's first term is very recent history, but logically history will look at Bush's both terms as lumped together into one, and they are not yet complete. When they are, opinions can be expressed, but the further we get down the road the better the perspective. I would say allow at least 5 years from the end of an administration to start speculating on its place in history, but waiting another 20 or 30 years after that will begin to give a better perspective.