Worst.President.Ever

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst

“As far as history goes and all of these quotes about people trying to guess what the history of the Bush administration is going to be, you know, I take great comfort in knowing that they don’t know what they are talking about, because history takes a long time for us to reach.”— George W. Bush, Fox News Sunday, Feb10, 2008

A Pew Research Center poll released last week found that the share of the American public that approves of President George W. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent.

An unscientific poll of professional historians completed the same week produced results far worse for a president clinging to the hope that history will someday take a kinder view of his presidency than does contemporary public opinion.

In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.
 
Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.

http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html

Seems like it isn't just us bush-haters than think he's the worst ever 

[Peter1469]

I find it hard to take any historian seriously if they are truly ranking a sitting president’s performance (at least without caveats).  Truman was hated at the time he left office, now he is seen as a pretty good president.  I admit that things don’t look good for Shrub’s legacy, but it is too early to start writing the history of the administration. 

The current hubbub is politics, not history….

[Vermouth]

I find it hard to take any historian seriously if they are truly ranking a sitting president’s performance (at least without caveats).  Truman was hated at the time he left office, now he is seen as a pretty good president.  I admit that things don’t look good for Shrub’s legacy, but it is too early to start writing the history of the administration. 

The current hubbub is politics, not history….

You're right. He may turn it all around in the next few months.

[conley]

i think this ranking is only going to go down with time, to be honest...the poop is just beginning to hit the fan it seems with the mortgage crisis, the war in iraq now that al-sadr is causing problems again, etc

i mean what is the major accomplishment of the bush administration? it's great that we haven't had another 9/11, but i wouldn't put that entirely on bush's shoulders, just like i wouldnt blame him entirely for the first 9/11 even though it happened well after he had taken office. and if our standards have dropped so low that all it takes is to not have a disaster as large as 9/11 happen again then really anyone could be president.

we've got:
-exhausted military
-housing problems
-recession most likely
-borders no more secure than 5 yrs ago
-rampant corruption in dc on both sides of the aisle
and so on

what is bush hanging his hat on? i dont see much chance for improvement. even if iraq self-corrects over the next few months, that just puts us back to where we started except now we have lost a lot of the best and brightest of the military b/c they chose to opt out rather than continue a military career.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

His legacy will depend on Iraq, IMO. That will be a long term deal.

[conley]

His legacy will depend on Iraq, IMO. That will be a long term deal.

yeah. i mean i'm glad saddam is gone, he was a bastard, but i dont know if after all is said and done it will be worth it. the only way i would see it being worth it, now that we know he didnt have wmds would be is if the u.s. really could establish some kind of national security benefit and oil reserves. it will take years to know about the former. hopefully oil will become cheaper and more reliable though it doesn't seem like our government is really making it happen in that regard. we're going to have to stop sucking the teet of fossil fuel eventually but in the meantime it would be nice if *something* came of all this. it could be a mutually beneficial thing for both iraqis and americans if they would just stop blowing things up (unlikely) 

[Peter1469]

What if the next president and congress push massive socialist programs that create much longer-term damage than Shrub has?

What if the new Court, a bit more right now thanks to Shrub, comes down with numerous pro-Constitution decisions over the next 10-15 years? 

What if Iraq turns out OK in 5-6 years? 

What if, what if. . . the point is we will not know the results of some of Shrub’s policies for a while.  It is OK for citizens to makes these “worst president ever” proclamations; I just would think that historians would wait a bit to see what shakes out. 

[conley]

well sure...i mean those characterizations -- best president ever, worst president ever -- will always be in flux as long as we have new presidents coming along. that's no reason not to a make a judgment at some point, but i agree that to do so before the man's term is even finished is a bit premature. hopefully the historians are wrong and this turns out to be a great administration. i'm not at all convinced that the next administration will be all that great, no matter who it is, because there are a lot of tough issues facing this country that at the present time need to be addressed.

[wow]

His legacy will depend on Iraq, IMO. That will be a long term deal.

Harry Reid has declared Iraq is lost. The Al Qaida admitted defeat.
The Iraqi Govt. has declared victory and Obama implies Iraq is lost.
This subject is a joke and always will be partisan.

[Publius]

I have no doubt that history will view Bush more favorably than his contemporaries.

While I'm no big fan of Bush, these polls pegging him as the 'worst POTUS ever' are simply laughable.

The fact remains, Bush has redefined US foreign policy for the foreseeable future. The Bush Doctrine will be the blueprint going forward for the duration of the War on Terror much in the same way The Truman Doctrine acted as a blueprint for the Cold War.

In time, as we begin to see real progress in the War on Terror and the transition of the backwards region better known as the Middle East, Bush will begin to get some due credit.

While in no way do I consider Bush to be a great President on par with the likes of Polk and others, he is better than anyone we've had since Reagan as I see it.

[conley]

this might not be the best thread for it, but i'd be curious to know who people think are the worst presidents ever, and why

i am no historian so i'm not sure...honestly i think this country has done pretty darn well for itself and i can't think of any presidents who have majorly screwed up. if we had had nuclear war with the ussr over the cuban missle crisis then i would say jfk sucked

i guess things were bad during carter, eh? i wasnt alive then so i dont know but reading about it sounds like it was a bad time for the united states

[conley]

and of course nixon for being a criminal and all that, also very bad stuff!

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

and of course nixon for being a criminal and all that, also very bad stuff!

Nixon is actually one of my favorite presidents.

[conley]

and of course nixon for being a criminal and all that, also very bad stuff!

Nixon is actually one of my favorite presidents.

how come? and did the criminal activity bother you?

[Publius]

In terms of ranking an absolute worst, it's no easy task, but in recent times, Carter and Ford were absolutely awful!