Summing up the Bush Presidency: Historians Rate Bush Worst Ever – 107 of 109 Rate Him a Failure

[Time for change]

Following one of the most disastrous 8-year spans of American history, it is time for Americans to take stock of what went wrong.

This post summarizes an April 2008 poll of 109 historians, conducted by George Mason University’s History News Network, which is the most recent large poll of historians on Presidential rankings that I could find. Though this poll was not a random sample, it was open to all professional historians. At the time the poll was conducted, George W. Bush had completed over 90% of his presidency. Since the major events of his past year in office included our country’s continuing slide into recession and the uncovering of more Bush administration scandals, it can be safely assumed that he would not fare any better if a similar poll were taken today.


General results

Here is a summary of George W. Bush’s ratings, compared with the 41 presidents who preceded him:

Rated worst ever: 67 (61%)
Rated in worst quartile (worst 11), but not worst ever: 38 (35%)
Rated a failure, but not among the worst 11: 2 (2%)
Rated a success: 2 (2%)

Here is a graphic representation of Bush’s ratings of failure vs. success:


And here is a graphic representation of his comparison with other presidents:



Reasons for poor ratings

Here is a sampling of reasons provided by the historians for their poor ratings of the Bush presidency:

The economy

“Mr. Bush inherited a sizable budget surplus and a thriving economy…. Bush transformed the surplus into a massive deficit. The tax cuts and other policies accelerated the concentration of wealth and income among the very richest Americans. These policies combined with unwavering opposition to necessary government regulations have produced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.”…

“His domestic policies have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled.”…

“Bush does only two things well,” said one of the most distinguished historians. “He knows how to make the very rich very much richer, and he has an amazing talent for f**king up everything else he even approaches.

Bush’s “War on Terror” and effect on our international standing

“In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States enjoyed enormous support around the world. President Bush squandered that goodwill by taking the country into an unnecessary war of choice and misleading the American people to gain support for that war. And he failed utterly to have a plan to deal with Iraq after the invasion. He further undermined the international reputation of the United States by justifying torture.”

“When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point – rightly – to the Bush presidency.”

Other major issues

 “Trampled on our Bill of Rights”; “Has broken the Constitution more often than even Nixon”
 “Appointed foxes in every henhouse”
 “Compounded the terrorist threat”
 “Turned a blind eye to… a looming ecological disaster”
 “Encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism”

General summations of the Bush presidency

“Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self”…

“Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct”…

“God willing, this will go down as the nadir of American politics.”…

“He is not a conservative, nor a Christian, just an immoral man” . . .

“Bush’s denial of any personal responsibility can only be described as silly.”…

“His administration has been the most reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, mendacious, arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent, and deeply corrupt one in all of American history.”

How did we do it?

Americans should think long and hard about how this happened. I can think of four reasons:

Money in politics
George W. Bush received tons of cash for his campaign for the presidency from the rich and powerful… the corporatocracy. These people and corporations contributed huge amounts of money to the Bush campaign because they knew that they would be rewarded many times over. And indeed they were – through massive tax breaks; deregulation of our laws against environmental pollution, worker safety, consumer protection, and much more; and no-bid contracts with almost total lack of oversight.

The corporate news media
Of all the corporations that have the power to influence our elections, those of the corporate news media head the list. Through progressive consolidation of the telecommunications industry, largely enabled by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the news we receive has been controlled by fewer and fewer wealthy corporations. In the run-up to the 2000 elections, they repeated lie after lie against Al Gore, making an honest, decent, highly experienced, and competent statesmen to appear as a corrupt buffoon. In the run-up to the 2004 election, they repeated lies (See section on “The swiftboating of John Kerry”) about John Kerry’s war record, making a true war hero appear as a phony, while covering up for George Bush’s shirking of his National Guard duty as a young man and his lying us into a disastrous war against Iraq as President in 2003.

Election fraud
In 2000, Al Gore received more than half a million more votes than George Bush. But Bush “won” an electoral victory due to a fraudulent election in Florida. Prominent among the reasons for the Bush “victory” were the purging of tens of thousands of mostly Democratic “felons” who weren’t really felons from Florida’s voter roles. Even with that, Al Gore came within 538 votes of winning Florida, before the right wing U.S. Supreme court stopped the vote recount in a 5-4 decision several days prior to the mandatory deadline, in perhaps the most corrupt U.S. Supreme Court verdict in American history. A later non-binding recount of the Florida vote showed conclusively that Al Gore would have been the clear winner if all the votes had been fairly and accurately counted.

In 2004, once again Bush needed massive voter purging – this time in Ohio – to achieve his re-election. In addition, exit polls indicated a clear victory for John Kerry, and there was a great deal of evidence of vote switching on electronic voting machines which counted our votes in secret and could not be recounted.

The gullibility of a segment of the American people
Even with all of the above-noted huge advantages of Republican, corporate friendly politicians, the American people cannot escape some of the blame. Voter turnout in the United States is routinely notoriously low compared to other industrialized countries. And even among those who do vote, too many Americans just don’t pay enough attention and are fooled too easily into believing the crap they’re fed from their corporate news media.


What now?

The problems noted above need to be corrected if our country is to thrive as a democracy. There is a tendency of many liberal/progressive Americans to believe that now that we have elected a new and much better president, our problems will go away. There is no question that Barack Obama will be a much better President than George W. Bush. He may even be a great President. But, as explained in an editorial by the editors of The Nation:

As we have learned from earlier periods of our history, progressive reform is not born from one election but out of a sustained struggle involving a mobilized public seeking change. With the defeat of John McCain, one part of that struggle is over. But another has begun…

The point made by that article and in other articles from the same issue of The Nation is that our country has many systemic problems that will require a prolonged struggle to correct. Chief among those problems is the example set by our outgoing President.

Though George W. Bush leaves office with historically low public approval ratings, as well as historically dismal ratings by professional historians, the many terrible crimes committed by his administration have as yet been unaccounted for and unpunished. Crimes against our Constitution have gone unpunished. Crimes against humanity and war crimes have gone unpunished. If those numerous crimes continue to go unaccounted for and unpunished, that leaves the door open for future corrupt Presidents to commit similar crimes. The American people need a full accounting of those crimes, and we need to set an example that dissuades future Presidents from believing that they can commit similar crimes with impunity. Neither our country nor the world can afford another four years of what we’ve just been through.

[Old and In the Way]

1. Bush's Freedom Institute will have their work cut out for them.

A lot of $ is going to be spent trying to convince us that up is down and over is under. It's probably a wasted effort given that we live in an internet age and Youtube has Bush captured in digital HD for generations to laugh at.

[empire we are]

41. His Freedom Institute will be

to Presidential Libraries what the Creation Museum is to museums.

Make believe revisionist bullshit.

Probably funded by the same crazy people.

[Old and In the Way]

49. Indeed...they'll be a whole new industry created.

The 'Bush was our George Washington'...or some bullshit equivalent. It won't fly, though.

[Hubert Flottz]

62. Bush's Freedom Institute belongs right next door to

Hitler's and Saddam's Freedom Institutes...

[philly_bob]

2. How did we do it? Breakdown of separation b/w church and state. n/t

[jhrobbins]

36. I think it's because the issues most touted by the RR/conservative targeted

groups that middle America could look at and say, well, that's not us, so the RR must not be so bad. They touted family values and who could be against that. This is all, of course, predicated on the fact that Bill Maher points out time and time again - the American public is too stupid to walk and chew gum.

[TahitiNut]

3. To rate the Smirking Narcissist a failure as a President gives him far more credit than he's earned

Indeed, he's a failure as a citizen and a failure as a human being. I wouldn't hire that useless turd to mow my lawn. He belongs in prison -- in a padded cell -- in solitary confinement -- for the rest of his miserable existence. When what passes for life exits his carcass, it should be cremated and the ashes dissolved in acid to ensure it cannot contaminate the earth.

[Time for change]

6. It makes one wonder what was up with those two historians who rated Bush's presidency a success

[Demeter]

9. SENILITY?

Imagine Poppy going around paying off all the historians in the world, and creating a foundation to continue the spreading of the "Good Word" after his death....

Stranger things have happened around the BFEE.

[tanyev]

11. Consultants for the Heritage Foundation, no doubt.

They should probably be introduced with air quotes while saying the word historian.

[glitch]

14. They may have invested in Halliburton early. nt

[jhrobbins]

37. Oh come on TN, tell us what you really think-don't hold back!

:sarcasm: :rofl:

[TahitiNut]

40. I really wish I had the vocabulary and power of expression to do so.

It's not "hate" (as some might call it) but it's such a thorough disgust and sense of OUTRAGE that MY COUNTRY has permitted that despicable turd (and his cabal of criminals) to occupy the White House for eight destructive years. It's not merely some partisan animosity either. I'm an independent and eschew partisanship. My loyalties to principles, values, community, and humanity in general leave no room for partisan loyalties. Moral dilemmas are far too common to invite the conflict in loyalties that comes from a "pragmatism of partisanship." (I.e. the notion that I'd have to accept a "Democrat" like Ben Nelson in order to support The Party. I just can't do that.)

So ... Cheney/Bush have presented me with both a new experience (I've never been even close to detesting a so-called Presidency before) and the challenge of expressing a virtually inexpressible sense of disgust. That challenge has helped me develop my powers of expression, but still not nearly enough to suffice.

I doubt I could be much more disgusted if it were Mussolini -- Cheney/Bush are on the same level as ol' Benito, imho, except Benito was more accomplished.

[FatDave]

60. May I suggest the phrase "utter contempt"?

That probably isn't strong enough though. All-encompassing hyper-contempt?

[TahitiNut]

66. That always sounds like "lactose intolerance" to me.

:dunce:

[FatDave]

67. No no, that's "udder contempt".

(and thank you for the set up)

[AlbertCat]

48. Tell us how you really feel.

It's true though. Like Gore Vidal says, you can't even talk about Bush and be serious. Even when you start to argue about or expound on Bush as a president, for or against, it becomes absurd. I mean, he wasn't even elected. He's the negative-president. A space where a president should've been. (see! absurd)

[Time for change]

4. Graph comparing Bush presidency with other presidents

Sorry, I put up the wrong pie chart. The one I put up was a virtual twin of the first one. Here is the one I meant to put up:



I just missed the editing deadline.

[indepat]

31. That's what eight years of fiscal, environmental, and economic destruction

in the tens of trillions of dollars, coupled with perpetual pre-emptive wars of aggression (choice) and evisceration of the Bill of Rights, except for the sacrosanct 2nd Amendment, much of the rest of the Constitution, the rule of law, and liberty and freedom thrown in as lagniappe will do. What are those 39% thinking, given that probably only one-half of those are really hard core true-believers? :D

[Time for change]

44. Well, we've had some pretty bad presidents

James Buchanan, who was generally considered our worst president before Bush, was unconcerned with keeping our union together, allowing the South to militarily prepare for rebellion prior to leaving office. Thus, he left Lincoln with one hell of a problem on his hands. Whereas Lincoln is given credit for ending slavery, Buchanan's efforts (or lack thereof) brought on the Civil War and could have resulted in prolonging slavery for decades. And we've had some other very bad ones also. So, Bush is up against some mighty stiff competition for "worst president ever".

It is very significant that 103 of 107 rated Bush among the worst 12, and 67 of 107 historians rated him the very worst. I agree with the 67. Only 4 rated him among the top 30.

[DutchLiberal]

55. I find it amazing that Reagan always is rated so positively.

Not only by the public, but also by historians.

[Time for change]

68. My impression is that right wing ideological think tanks have gotten into the business of rating

presidents -- and that's where Reagan's high ratings come from, especially from the Federalist Society. When you see presidential ratings, it's important to look where they're coming from. I could be wrong, but I don't believe that historians rate him very high.

[indepat]

78. I defer to your considerably keener intellect and initmate knowledge of our history. I still think

the destruction junior has wrought is more complete and will be longer lasting, will make a greater difference than what Buchanan did or did not do. Moreover, I think that almost every one of junior's initiatives, actions, and/or policies were either illegal, unconstitutional, fiscally irresponsible, mean-spirited, or otherwise detrimental to this country and most of its citizens save for those who directly profited therefrom. I challenge anyone to come up with even a short list of junior's initiatives which were not nefarious on the face, but intended for good for all Americans. :P

[Time for change]

82. I agree with you

Not the part about the "considerably keener intellect", but about the long list of nefarious, irresponsible, mean spirited actions, etc.

I was just trying to give some slack to the historians who didn't rate Bush dead last. Reagan was pretty bad too. I believe that he deserves to be second to last, for many of the same qualities you attributed to Bush.

[indepat]

85. Excuse the "considerably keener intellect" which does not even come close to describing the

vast gap in intellects. Junior #1, the Gipper #2, and GHWB way up there for he continued the Gipper's "voodoo economics" which has much further concentrated the nation's wealth among a relatively few. This, along with insanely irresponsible fiscal policies, an undue influence on an accommodative monetary policy (Greenspan's support for junior's tax cuts ((to be paid for by a reduction in social security benefits)), concomitant with a lazy fair approach to government regulation and oversight of the securities industry, securities products, and, in part, the banking industry, (let the boys be boys and privatize their ill-gotten profits and we'll socialize their losses), are the genesis of much of the meltdown in the capital markets, the stock markets, and the crashing economy which is feeding on its own flesh. But what does one single not-too-bright elder citizen know? :D

[Time for change]

86. You summed up his domestic policies very well.

And let's not forget his long term and enthusiastic support for the death squads in Central America, despite Congress ordering him to desist.

[indepat]

88. But the nation could not withstand a second impeachment process in such a short period of

time, so we'll sweep all Iran-Contra sins et al under the rug: then we'll beatify, sanctify, and deify the Gipper later. :D

[Muttocracy]

5. 96% bottom quartile. there you go. nt

[PatSeg]

7. Very interesting

Thank you for taking the time to put together all these sources. It must have been very time consuming.

It has been my observation that most people in this country were very complacent until Bush was appointed president. I knew few people who had any real awareness or knowledge of politics. Now it seems most people are really paying attention and it is "cool" to be politically savvy. Hopefully we won't slide into that old apathy again, but it is possible.

[BootinUp]

8. The little pie chart graphic is hilarious to me.

I am pleased whenever I see what I think are accurate assessments of dubyas time in office. Of course the standard defense is that enough time has not passed for historians to make unbiased assessments or some such thing. Not that I care much about that.

[KoKo]

80. Isn't it amazing to see that "sliver" after all this time....

:shrug:

[NNN0LHI]

10. Great thread. Lot of hard work put into this one

Recommended

[Mister Ed]

12. Bush was not a failure. He accomplished most of what he set out to do.

Lied us into a war to gain military influence over Mideast oilfields. Transferred indescribable amounts of wealth from taxpayers to corrupt cronies. Gave away publicly-held resources to said cronies in the name of "privatization".

Etc.

These were not accidents. These were the things that Bush and the people in his inner circle set out to do. For the most part, they succeeded.

[glitch]

13. I agree with you - TFC don't be so negative, you have to give a nod Bush's "wins"

Trillions looted just doesn't get much respect these days. He's a hero to his cronies, and apparently they ain't just Texan good old boys anymore.

[Optical.Catalyst]

29. We only see the surface of what the Bush Administration allowed to be stolen

The true magnitude of the America's loss will only be know through future research.

Let the indictments begin.

[Faygo Kid]

16. Yes, you are exactly right. But he was the worst for our nation and the world.

I couldn't agree more with your assessment. His single failure was his inability to destroy Social Security. Medicaid was next. Both are in trouble (especially the latter), but they may yet be salvaged.

I remember hearing him described as not bad or terrible (we have had those before), but the first catastrophic president - one from which we will never fully recover. I fear that's true.

[HughBeaumont]

21. He never said his presidency would be successful and beneficial for US.

Mind over matter.

They don't mind.

We don't matter.

[AlbertCat]

50. I also agree

What the Cheney presidency did was loot. Everything else was window dressing. 1st they looted the surplus and your taxes, then they tried to loot your SS (They're only failure, perhaps), and Iraq is still being looted, with a pipeline through Afghanistan. The bail-out, with no oversight, is the last quick looting gotten in just under the wire.

[Time for change]

69. I agree

But he was a failure with respect to how he performed for the American people.

[treestar]

79. Yes. And once they had 911, it gave them the political capital to do it

all - without 911, Dimson would have been less "successful." That's why the LIHOP and MIHOP theories are so tempting to so many.

[Faygo Kid]

15. Highly recommended. I had Andrew Johnson and Nixon at the bottom. Move over, guys.

It's not even close anymore, and this article does an excellent job explaining why. Beautiful quote:

“Bush does only two things well,” said one of the most distinguished historians. “He knows how to make the very rich very much richer, and he has an amazing talent for f**king up everything else he even approaches.

By Bush's standards, he is a success. He cheated to win two elections, took us into an unnecessary war against Saddam based on lies, drove the nation's wealth to the top 1/2 of 1 percent while taking a wrecking ball to the middle class (never mind the poor), trashed the environment, split the country as never before since the Civil War ("uniter, not a divider"), completely destroyed the economy so the government (states, too) will have an extraordinarily difficult time meeting basic needs, let alone expand programs, and to top it all off, gave hundreds of billions of our taxpayer dollars at the end of his disastrous regime to his buddies in the financial industries.

Those are just a few comments. There are so many more. Worst. President. Ever.

[DCKit]

17. :Al Gore received more than half a million more votes than George Bush..."

And that was just in Florida.

[Wetzelbill]

18. I would love to hear what the two who rate him as a success have to say

That would have to be so amusing. How the hell do you defend the guy? You just forget 9/11, the Iraq War, Katrina and the financial crisis? That's big stretch to say he hasn't been a total failure. Maybe somebody could come up with an argument that asserts Bush was only kind of a failure, but a success?

[Time for change]

22. I didn't put this in the OP because the comment frankly didn't deserve to be printed

But since you asked, one of the two who rated Bush a success actually rated him in the top 10. Here's the quote from the article:

"... high marks for courage in his willingness to attack intractable problems in the Near East and to touch the Social Security 'Third Rail'".

Well, it's not surprising to me that at least one out of more than a hundred historians would say something idiotic like that. What can you say? The guy is obviously a far RW ideologue. He probably rated FDR as a failure.

I'm satisfied with only 1 of more than 100 saying something like that. Historians are something akin to scientists -- they tend not to be ideologues, and are more interested in truth and accuracy. That's why this poll of historians gives Bush lower rankings than some corporate media sponsored polls, where only a small number of corporate media types are actually polled.

[Wetzelbill]

25. oh wow

Thats a pretty weak rationale to say he was a success.

I can't say I'm surprised, and yeah he's obviously a far-right ideologue, but as you say historians tend to not be ideologues, so, for me, I can't see any sensible historian who values truth and accuracy, actually thinking Bush was successful.

I wonder if that historian is Bernard Lewis?

[bulloney]

76. They give him high marks because he addressed something, That doesn't cancel the fact he screwed up

That would be like me entering a NASCAR race, jump into somebody's car, create all kinds of carnage from my inability to drive in such a venue, but rate my performance a success because I tried it out.

[JAbuchan08]

19. I love this quote from a "distinguished" historian

“He knows how to make the very rich very much richer, and he has an amazing talent for f**king up everything else he even approaches."

[ejbr]

20. Who are the 2% and how do we question

what the fuck their reasoning is? True, there are Bush loyalists, but they should their feet put to the fire and explain themselves with follow-up questions.

[Time for change]

71. See post # 22, above

There might have been more rationalizations as well, but they weren't mentioned in the article.

[ejbr]

75. Thanks n/t

[happygoluckytoyou]

23. WHO ARE THE 2 ? ? ? I DONT WANT TO STUDY AT THEIR COLLEGE ! ! !

[AlbertCat]

51. What....did you apply to Oral Roberts?

[puebloknot]

24. I am concerned over the "What Obama Wants" dialogue going on now ...

... over whether Bush, et al. will be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted.

It is not Obama's singular right to determine this issue. Whether his wish to move forward, so frequently expressed, is based on political expediency (cynical political expediency, I feel), or his own personal religious views is not the issue. Obama is a constitutional scholar. He ignores the matter of crimes against *our* state at *our* peril -- and maybe his own, politically, into the future.

The world is watching to see whether America is going to own up to its crimes.

I have continually said, over the last few years, that before healing can take place for this nation, the wound must be thoroughly cleaned. The wound is deep and cries for the excision of the cancer that has been growing on this latest presidency, and the reputation of this nation in the world, for the last eight years.

Thanks, TFC, for another great piece of work!

[Time for change]

33. Thank you -- I fully agree with you about the need to prosecute the Bush war crimes, and have almost

nothing to add.

And I have been very upset about what seemed to be Obama's determination to look the other way on this. But his appointment of Dawn Johnson to head the Office of Legal Counsel is a very encouraging sign IMO. Consider this statement of hers:

I felt the sense of shame and responsibility for my government's behavior especially acutely in the summer of 2004, with the leaking of the infamous and outrageous Bush administration Office of Legal Counsel Torture Memo. . . .

Whenever any government or people act lawlessly, on whatever scale, questions of atonement and remedy and prevention must be confronted. And fundamental to any meaningful answer is transparency about the wrong committed. . . .

The question how we restore our nation's honor takes on new urgency and promise as we approach the end of this administration. We must resist Bush administration efforts to hide evidence of its wrongdoing through demands for retroactive immunity, assertions of state privilege, and implausible claims that openness will empower terrorists. . . .

Here is a partial answer to my own question of how should we behave, directed especially to the next president and members of his or her administration but also to all of use who will be relieved by the change: We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation's past transgressions and reject Bush's corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation's honor be restored without full disclosure.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/05/olc/

[puebloknot]

84. Thanks for this encouraging development. I'm awash in moving ...

... my residence/office and am not keeping up with political developments. So, as always, thank you for your work. It's greatly appreciated.

[jhrobbins]

38. I was wondering this too-how come he gets to unilaterally decide.

[KoKo]

26. Thanks for pulling this all together. It's a great read.....one of those "keepers" for posterity.

:thumbsup:

[Time for change]

72. Thank you

[Kermitt Gribble]

27. “Encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism”

Pretty much sums up today's repuke party, huh?

[AlbertCat]

52. Sounds more like religion.

[Alcibiades]

28. Bush keeps saying that public opinion does not count

That what counts is the opinion of historians. Well, now that the historians have voted, it looks like Bush will discover they are part of the "elite," a category that includes anyone who disagrees with him.

Of course, if the mass public does not count and the elite don't count, no one matters at all. :banghead:

[DutchLiberal]

30. Excellent assessment of the media. However, the 'liberal media' lie still exists.

I debate people on a daily basis who continue to claim the media have always been liberal. And they claim they have always been extremely hard and unfair to Bush, since the day he was inaugurated. The same media that has spoon-fed them the lies they needed to be able to support Bush... are discredited as being liberal.

How...? Why...? :shrug:

[Time for change]

42. Three excellent books on the subject

There are several excellent books available now on how today’s national news media has failed to do its job, tilted way right, and become a defender of the status quo, rather than a watch dog of government excesses. I have read several of these books because I believe that this is perhaps the biggest problem that threatens our democracy today (along with election fraud and money in politics, all which are closely related). Three of the best of these books that I have ever read – on any subject – are “Into the Buzzsaw – Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press” edited by Kristina Borjesson, “What Liberal Media? – The Truth About Bias and the News” by Eric Alterman, and “Lapdogs – How the Press Rolled Over for Bush” by Eric Boehlert.

I discuss it more and provide the links to the books in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1784920

[DutchLiberal]

54. Thanks. I can't figure how the same media that feed them the propaganda,

can at the same time claim all media ae liberal.

[Time for change]

73. They like to be accused of being "liberal" because thay helps cover up their

pro-corporate/Republican bias.

[Divine Discontent]

32. Those two gotta be from Liberty Univ. or the Heritage Foundation. CUCKOOS! He's a false god to them.

[LynneSin]

34. Sorry, as long as Ronald Reagan is out there Bush can only ever be #2 in my book for worst

Think about this - if Reagan was never elected president I highly doubt we would have seen George Bush in ANY political office.

Nuff said.

[jhrobbins]

39. I have said this a lot-that while I didn't like Reagan, I wasn't afraid of him.

I felt he had America's best interests at heart and I am not so sure about GWB.

[LynneSin]

43. Best interests at heart - you didn't live thru the Reagan years did you?

eliminating the middle class and programs to help the poor aren't exactly creating a 'safe' america. Creating drug policies based on cute slogans and throwing anyone and everyone in jail didn't help benefit america.

Sure, Reagan didn't start a war but he bankrupted this nation just to say we are better than the USSR. Oh and all those wars we did fight under Bush Jr were against regimes that we HELPED during the Reagan years.



You do know who those 2 people are shaking hands and that this happened in 1983, when America wanted to take Hussein's Iraq off the terrorist list so we could ship him the WMD we had to track down some 20 years later.

Just because we didn't have any official wars during the Reagan administration doesn't mean our country was any safer

[jhrobbins]

53. I'm 57 years old, so, no, of course I didn't live through the Reagan years and I'm sorry

that I was not able to express what I meant better so that you could understand it. I certainly am aware of all of the policies of Reagan that were ill advised, but I still think that he was doing what he thought was in the best interest of America - however misguided. I just don't see that GWB did that - either by design or by default; I think he initiated policies that he cannot defend.

[DutchLiberal]

57. I think Reagan was an evil man. And I didn't live through his presidency.

At least, I was 5 when he left office.

[LynneSin]

64. I'm trying to figure out whose 'best interests' Reagan had

because if you were poor or middle class, or a minority or of a different sexual orientation then Reagan surely didn't have our 'best interests'. In fact, unless you happened to be a extremely wealthy white straight male then pretty much you were worthless to that administration.

Best interests means EVERYONE is included not just select people. I know too many lives destroyed by that man. I'm still waiting to hear what Reagan's 'best interests' are because I can't figure them out

[jhrobbins]

74. Oh Jesus H Christ - OK Reagan was the Anti-Christ - he was the most evil man

that ever lived. Hitler cannot carry his jock strap he was so evil. Now are we OK, because I sure want to be in Lock step with you. Now, give it a rest.

[LynneSin]

77. Look I'm just trying to understand how Reagan had 'America's best interest' that's all

If Reagan truly had the best interest of America he wouldn't have deleted funds from dozens of important social programs just so he could outspend USSR in military plus fund half dozen covert wars across this globe - covert wars that are the base of what is causing our problems today in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No, he didn't slaughter millions of innocent people like Hitler but Reagan NEVER had the best interests of America at heart. I find it difficult anyone would even contemplate that idea ESPECIALLY on a democratic website. Then again how long did it take Reagan to actually admit AIDs was real and not some 'gay disease' that he could ignore since he didn't really like the gays anyways. Just think how many lives would have been spared if he would have just funded AIDs research back in the early 80s when the health agencies were screaming for funding to help figure out what was causing this issue.

But if you think Reagan did have 'America's Best Interest' at heart - please tell me how. Point out a few examples of how he was putting 'America First' and taking care of Americans because clearly I'd love to better understand THAT one. And trust me, I was just a teenager during those years but I can assure you I never EVER saw Reagan putting the best interests of America out there - in fact I experienced the exact opposite. But perhaps while my family was having social programs cut left & right that was helping a widowed mother raise 2 kids when she had no job skills whatsoever other than housewife, you might be able to point out the good that Reagan did.

[DutchLiberal]

56. No official wars? What about Grenada?

[Time for change]

58. And then there were the death squads that he supported, despite Congressional orders to the contrary

in Central America.

[DutchLiberal]

59. Yeah, the ones the freepers call 'freedom fighters against the commies'.

George Carlin: "Well, if crime fighters fight crime, and fire-fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?" :rofl:

[LynneSin]

63. well I did forget about that one but it wasn't as long as Iraq or Afghanistan...

but then again Reagan had plenty of covert wars that lasted just as long

[Orsino]

35. 67%: an Electoral landslide for "worst ever." n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

45. Shrub failed at everything he tried; why should the Presidency be any different?

Molly Ivins told us so.

[Jefferson23]

46. Bush destroyed everything, seriously, what good came out of this administration?

The damage is not even complete yet, almost surreal these last eight long agonizing years.

[UpInArms]

47. I want the names of the fucktwits that rated this POS a "success"

those people should be subjected to waterboarding

[FatDave]

61. But... but... but...

I thought history was going to vindicate him!

[DallasNE]

65. Money In Politics

I am gratified to see that listed in first place as it is head and shoulder above all of the other problems. It is indeed responsible for some of the other listed items. The 1996 Telecommunications Act is one example of how money corrupted absolutely. Yes, that happened on Clinton's watch but the Republican's controlled Congress.

Some of the historians comments were devastating but also accurate. Worst President ever, indeed. Incredibly, some Republican's still mouth the Bush talking points on the economy that is in the worst shape it has been in since the Great Depression. Republicans just don't get it. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/24/obama.economy/index.html

[tclambert]

70. That poll was from April, before the big financial meltdown.

What must they think of Bush now?

[LeftyMom]

81. He's finally #1 at something!

[rucky]

83. History will prove the historians wrong.

You watch.



:rofl:

[TWiley]

87. Wrong? Well, maybe the 4% of favorable ratings will be WRONG

But, history will not be kind to the shrub. Unless, of course, the southern history revisionists go to work and paint him as some type of forward thinking hero like they did with the rebels in the civil war. Most people easily see them for the liars they are btw.

[rucky]

89. You sound just like my History teacher...

when I got a 4% on my test, he totally harped on the 94% I got wrong and didn't say a word about the questions I got right!