It is interesting to watch as those low low approval rating have started a stampede of new couragous Bushbag critics! I guess no one wants to be left behind in the 33% minority except the die hard GW worshipers.

by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 07:51:50 AM EST

Give him time to redeem himself. he's not done yet...

by Edger on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 07:58:13 AM EST

As a friend of mine is fond of saying, "Impeach him, and lets move on with the healing..." One can only hope I guess.

by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 08:00:09 AM EST

Wilentz's article notes that:

...an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure."

What do they know? They don't have the 80,000 foot view that the remaining nineteen percent have of bush.

by Edger on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 08:08:49 AM EST

Edger - And 99% of those 81% are Left of center Democrats.

by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 08:22:35 AM EST

Wilentz also notes that:

Historians do tend, as a group, to be far more liberal than the citizenry as a whole -- a fact the president's admirers have seized on to dismiss the poll results as transparently biased. One pro-Bush historian said the survey revealed more about "the current crop of history professors" than about Bush or about Bush's eventual standing. But if historians were simply motivated by a strong collective liberal bias, they might be expected to call Bush the worst president since his father, or Ronald Reagan, or Nixon. Instead, more than half of those polled -- and nearly three-fourths of those who gave Bush a negative rating -- reached back before Nixon to find a president they considered as miserable as Bush. 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.

by Edger on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 08:32:47 AM EST

Here's what I emailed Wilentz on this: "For a historian, you sure have a weak grasp of history. How do you think Lincoln would have ranked in 1863? If they were taking polls then, what do you think his numbers would have been? How do you think Truman ranked in 1951, versus how he's seen today? The truth is, anyone who claims to know how Bush will be ranked in history now is either clueless, or a partisan. Or both. " Had you asked leading academics of their era, both Lincoln and Truman would have received very, very low ranks. Both were reviled (not disliked, absolutely hated) by a large minority of the public (In Lincoln's case, likely a majority if you include the rebellious south). Truman decided not to run again, in large measure due to his sinking popularity. And yet, here we are, years later - and both are viewed as great men and great leaders. Pretty much on a bi-partisan basis. It's far too soon to make a historical judgement on this president. While I have my opinions, it's far too soon to make one on Clinton, either. Heck, for the most part, it's too soon to make one on any President later than Truman or Eisenhower. Too many people have living memories of the events, and that clouds judgement.

by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 08:35:49 AM EST

Whats is really sad is how many people think bush is not only the worst president in history, but how many people think bush is dumb or stupid or clueless:

Bin Laden again acknowledged a central role in initiating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed about 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, saying he thought of the idea after the U.S. military involvement in Lebanon in 1982. "As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me to punish the unjust the same way [and] to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women," he said, according to one translation. "It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American forces would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone at a time when they most needed him, because he thought listening to a child discussing her goat and its ramming was more important than the planes and their ramming of the skyscrapers," Bin Laden said. --LA Times, October 30, 2004

...bush is neither dumb nor stupid nor clueless - he knew exactly what was going going to happen on September 11, 2001... and he coldly used it to fan the flames of fear and hate for his own political gain.

by Edger on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 08:46:35 AM EST

PPJ: And 99% of those 81% are Left of center Democrats. I see you have conducted your own survey. Can we see your methodology, or are you just beating the tar out of a strawman because you have no reasoned response? Wait.

by Repack Rider on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 09:56:40 AM EST

Its those same left-of-center Dems that Fox polled.

by jondee on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 10:04:52 AM EST

"From hell's heart I stab at thee..."

--Herman Melville

by Edger on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 10:05:56 AM EST

JR: Had you asked leading academics of their era, both Lincoln and Truman would have received very, very low ranks. OTOH, very few of those surveyed at that time would have told you that presidents Lincoln and Truman were so dumb that the vice president had to tie their shoes for them, and so corrupt that no one seemed to care when a rich Texas businessman gave one of them $12 million as a "gift." (For details, see: Harken, insider trading; Texas Rangers, Tom Hicks, $12 million more than his shares were worth paid to minority investor and sitting governor of Texas named Bush). Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Mr. Lincoln's war start when the United States was attacked by rebels? Didn't the United Nations support Mr. Truman's war?

by Repack Rider on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 10:07:24 AM EST

Bush is awful, one of the worst, one of the most corrupt...this is a given at this point. A more interesting debate would be is this one of the worst congress' ever? In their failure to check and balance the executive, I'd also call them one of the worst.

by kdog on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 10:21:33 AM EST

Robertson, if I understand you correctly, you're comparing your guy to Truman and Lincoln? Could you please point out Mr. Bush's achievements that are comparable to Truman or Lincoln's, that future generations will admire? By now, Mr. Bush has had plenty of time to build up a record. I would love to know what you consider his accomplishments to be.

by Al on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 10:23:17 AM EST

Thats the meme they were pushing during the election run up. Except it was Lincoln and FDR. So much for the idea that drugs make you more aware.

by jondee on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 10:28:51 AM EST

Also, are we the worst electorate ever forelecting an imbecile twice? Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice shame on us.

by kdog on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 10:36:40 AM EST

George Bush has not only continued a murderous policy that has been pursued by successive US administrations for nearly a century, he has drastically expanded that policy and pushed it so far that we now stand on the edge of an abyss looking into apocalyptic hell. There is greater danger now than there has ever been that the world will tip and fall into that abyss if he and that policy are not stopped, and the US begins to move towards working and living with the rest of the world, rather than attempting to force the world at gunpoint and through bombsights into submitting to its will and its all-consuming and all-corrupting desire for the resources of the planet.

An examination of the details and consequences of that theme provides a startling object lesson in the pitfalls and conceit of an interventionist foreign policy.

Admitting that past mistakes and behaviors are what is causing the problem of "terrorism" is the first step to stopping it, and rather than being "America hating", or "appeasement", is in the long run the probably only way to begin a real and honest effort toward protecting and securing the U.S. Continuing the same policies and actions that are causing the problem will not remove it, only exacerbate it. If removing the problem is in fact the real goal of the administration. So far George Bush has been oblivious to the problems he creates and has been unwilling or unable to admit his mistakes. But I am also one who believes that in the midst of greatest danger hide seeds of opportunity...

by Edger on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 11:07:08 AM EST

"OTOH, very few of those surveyed at that time would have told you that presidents Lincoln and Truman were so dumb that the vice president had to tie their shoes for them, and so corrupt that no one seemed to care when a rich Texas businessman gave one of them $12 million as a "gift." " Actually, you're wrong. Truman was often described as a "failed haberdasher". Lincoln was described in terms I won't print - but they weren't flattering to his intelligence. My point is not to compare Bush to either man - it's to say that current judgements about serving politicians cannot be honestly used in a "judgement of history" sense. Let me take another example: Lyndon Johnson. 100 years from now, will he be primarily honored (for Civil Rights law) or dishonored (for botching Vietnam - and regardless of how you view Vietnam now, he botched it - either by being there at all, or not fighting to win - take your pick). We don't know what history's judgement of LBJ will be yet - it's too soon, and too many of his contemporaries are still alive. The same applies to Bush, and Clinton, and Bush (elder), and Reagan, and Carter - and further back as well, in my opinion. Too many of their contemporaries are still alive with too many partisan views informed by their take on current events. 100 years from now, historians who haven't been marinated in today's political conflicts (or those of the recent past) will make a more sober judgement.

by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 11:20:24 AM EST

JR-

How do you think Lincoln would have ranked in 1863? If they were taking polls then, what do you think his numbers would have been? How do you think Truman ranked in 1951, versus how he's seen today?

This is really funny. First you create an argument based your imaginary poll. Second you suggest that those great presidents honorable actions are comparable to lying and acting like a King. Claiming that he is not beholden to the Congress or Judiciary. Enriching himself while draining the national blood and treasure. Those are the reasons 67% of americans are unhappy with Bush. You must really love the guy to be willing to embarrass yourself so badly with such obviously empty comparisons.

by squeaky on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 11:21:28 AM EST

For a historian, you sure have a weak grasp of history. How do you think Lincoln would have ranked in 1863? Hm. How do you think Pierce would have ranked in 1850, or Andrew Johnson in 1867, or Harding in 1922? Surely those are the relevant comparisons. Ironically, George W Bush's very re-election may have been the thing that enabled him to be "worst ever". No President in history has ever mobilized the unreconstructed, bigoted, xenophobic, paranoid element to the degree that Bush has. Bush's loyalists are what make him the worst president ever.

by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 11:42:56 AM EST

Im kind leaning towards "spuds" myself.

by jondee on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 12:21:56 PM EST

Say what you want, but he has moved the courts to the right for years to come!! Furthermore, if the Stevens retirement rumors are true, he will be able to build a strong conservative majority for a couple decades!!!

by ntnelson on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 12:31:06 PM EST

JR, If you actually read the article, your objections are addressed. Jim, Just because Bin Laden is bad does not make W good.

by roger on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 12:34:26 PM EST

Squeaky: "Second you suggest that those great presidents honorable actions are comparable to lying and acting like a King. Claiming that he is not beholden to the Congress or Judiciary. Enriching himself while draining the national blood and treasure. Those are the reasons 67% of americans are unhappy with Bush." Hmm. I think you don't know much about American history. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. He had the entire Legislature of Maryland arrested (mid debate on secession). He had it replaced, and had the new legislature vote down the motion. He deported a serving congressman from Ohio (Vallindigham) for sedition. During WWI, Woodrow Wilson set up secret police and paid informants across the country - and numerous war dissenters were jailed for sedition. During WWII, FDR had citizens of Japanese descent locked away in camps (less well remembered is that a not insignificant number of people of Italian descent were also locked away). During WWI, and again during WWII, the government tapped all phone calls coming in or out of the nation from overseas. And here's the American left, talking about the mild (in historical terms) Patriot Act as if the end of civil rights is nigh. It's not only Wilentz that has no historical persective; most of the commenters (and certainly TChris) have none either. I'm not saying that it's irresponsible to object to parts (or all) of the Patriot Act; I'm saying that the idea that it's worse than anything ever done in US history is laughable - and shows either partisan blindness or an utter lack of awareness of US history. Heck, the Alien and Sedition acts of 1798 - and the Sedition act of 1917 - were far, far worse than anything that's even been contemplated over the last 5 years (or, to put Republican partisans in their place as well, than any abuse Clinton was ever accused of either). Disagreement and dissent are fine. An utter lack of historical perspective is another. Which is exactly what most commenters here, and Wilentz, lack.

by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 12:36:06 PM EST

Hmmm...The civil and revolutionary war is comparable to the WOT. hahahah. Your histerical knowledge has not helped you. Embarrassing to say the least. Got any more funnies from your steel trap of a mind for us.

by squeaky on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 12:40:15 PM EST

Just because Bin Laden is bad does not make W good.

Careful, Roger. That's a little too abstract for many in this thread, and around the country. At least we don't saw off heads!, cry Bush supporters in unison. Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

by glanton on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 12:41:23 PM EST

If Bush is the worst president ever, what does it mean that he was (re)elected? Bush and the other presidents mentioned earlier speaks to the mindset the American people were in when they cast their vote. As much as Bush disappoints me, I was infinitely more disappointed in the American people who voted for him. Bush will be gone after 2008, but the ignorance and apathy that put him into office will still be around.

by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 12:44:31 PM EST

kdubie, That's beautiful. The one thing that bothers me most about a lot of posters here is they want to abdicate the responsibility of the American people for what has happened in the last six years. Three examples: Did Bush and the media beat the war drums incessently, and switch reasons when the need arose? Why, yes. But it didn't take "rocket surgery" to see through it at any point. Did Bush and Rove exploit racism in the 2000 South Carolina primary? Of course they did. But instead of blaming them, how's about all those wastoids whose votes suchy hate-mongering swayed? The anti-gay crusade launched by the GOP in 2004, was that a gigantic red herring that played to the worst of the people? yes. But instead of blaming Rove, why not look a little closer at the people whose votes that strategy swayed? Uhmmerikkah.

by glanton on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 12:50:58 PM EST

Jim, in his prime role of spin doctor, is trying to say Bin Laden is the spokesman for the whole muslim world, which he is not.Bin Laden is no more the spokesman for muslims as Timothy McVeigh is a spokesman for the American people. Actually since Bush's unchecked reign of torture and murder Bin Laden's status has grown.

by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 01:03:53 PM EST

JR-

It was a far worse abuse of power than anything done before, or since.

OK now we have it. Abuse of power. At least now we are in the same ball park. BTW- I make no grandiose claims about my knowledge of American history. You on the other hand do. Look where it has gotten you. I do know something about the urge to repeat. And you are looking like a mighty fine example of one with whom the lessons of history are truly lost.

by squeaky on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 01:25:26 PM EST

Defending Bush is any American's right. But in doing so they are ignoring the damage done. Period. We live comfortable lives, far away from most of the madness in the world, and tend to have no ability to see how the rest of the world views us, or how our policies affect other people far away. The world is infintely worse off than when Clinton left office. Period. Terrible things have happened, and even more terrible responses to those happenings have doomed us further. President Bush has done as terrible ajob as I can imagine with the events that he was faced with. Failed miserably, alienated the rest of the world with bullsh*t cowboy talk, mistook his own dyfunctional self-assurance for God's will, and has, with the least intellect of any president I can also imagine, sunk our national imagination into the muddy blood of thoughtless war and destruction. Winning hearts and minds may have become a cliche, but it is an easy one we cannot even come close to acheiving at this moment. The voices that speak for us are those of unevolved, uncreative people lacking entirely the ability to look in the mirror and say "Jeez, was I full of sh*t or what?" That lack of a humane thoughtful ability, the inability to think outside of the box EVER, is what, in my mind, sets him apart as a singularly horrendous president. With all the gifts of modernity, technology and HISTORY, he chose to roll the bull into the china shop and screw it all. There's an illness working in him and those around him. The illness of unchecked pride and power.

by Dadler on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 02:06:30 PM EST

From time to time one statement that bin Ladin made at one time is taken out of context to try to support the theory that the only useful response is more of the same actions that are causing the problem in the first place.

With un-blindered reading of the statement it is obvious to all except the most obtuse and in denial fanatics who look for any excuse to continue the failed and murderous policies of the past century.

So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

They'd rather the problems continue, to help sell the fictional WOT, justify Bush's existence, and the support of him.

There are other statements made by bin Ladin, and there are also statements and actions of others that are important to be aware of...

There is greater danger now than there has ever been that the world will tip and fall into that abyss if he and that policy are not stopped, and the US begins to move towards working and living with the rest of the world

It is only the doctrine of Western "exceptionalism" (see here and here, for example) that permits this lunacy to go largely unremarked.

We believe that we have the ultimate solution to human history, and that it is our right and obligation to share it with the rest of the world -- by military might, as required. Since we have identified ourselves as inherently noble and virtuous, nothing we do can possibly be wrong. We might make a few regrettable errors -- engage in a little torture here and there, for example (even though the systematic use of torture is now indisputably official U.S. policy) -- but we are always on the side of the angels. And those we have identified as our enemies are inherently evil.
...
This apocalyptic crusader perspective suffuses the West, and the United States in particular.

by Edger on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 02:13:23 PM EST

yea JR The republican congress. BTW if history is any lesson when the Democrats regain control of Congress you will be eating crow.

here haven't been any abuses of power by this administration -

Right, because all illegal acts and abuses are deemed legal and for the public good by the radical theory of unitary executive theory. Radical when it comes to US history, a yawn when compared to the history of Kings and dictators. In all your non comprable analogies, Congress was asked to grant presidential authority. Bush has cut through all that red tape. He does not need any authority for anything as he is the self proclaimed "decider". Sounds really unamerican to me.

by squeaky on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 02:32:39 PM EST

Squeaky, iirc, most Democrats voted for both war authorizations. You can dislike that all you want, but there it is. Which abuses of power? Be specific. Your reference to Bush as "decider" is telling, I think - that refers to Rumsfeld. Executive branch appointees serve at the pleasure of the President, not at the pleasure of the opposition. I seriously doubt that you saw Republican's visceral dislike (hatred, even) of Janet Reno as a reason for her to step down - Clinton kept her in office, as was his right. Same goes for Rumsfeld. You want things to change? Try winning an election.

by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 02:46:14 PM EST

JR, Lincoln left some great accomplishments, along with great questions. W can only point to a string of failures. Again, read the link before you type. Your problems are pretty much discussed at length.

by roger on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 03:03:07 PM EST

JR-

Which abuses of power? Be specific.

Since you obviously refuse to take Roher's suggestion posted twice, you will have to wait a few year until his abuses are in listed the history books. Fooled twice, but a historian. Isn't that telling.

by squeaky on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 03:12:13 PM EST

Dadler, your post was a beautifully worded and expressed evaluation of the state of things today. "Spot on", as the saying goes.

by Edger on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 03:15:54 PM EST

Both Jameses (PPK and Robertson): Guys, you're engaging in wishful thinking. Bush's endless string of failures isn't the result of bad luck. The people who think ill of him--and that's not just historians, it's most of the country now--didn't come to that conclusion because we all got the same memo last week from the DNC or the International Left-Wing Conspiracy. And twenty years from now, the common view of his administration isn't going to magically change from criminal twittery to genius; more likely it'll be remembered as the regime under which America's preeminance on this planet began to slide. And that's what you're defending. He really is that bad.

by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 03:35:42 PM EST

Bush the worst president ever? That is the most ridiculous statement ever made and reaveals a great sense of bias that someone could even make that statement. Bush isn't even the worst president of the last 50 years. Nixon, Carter, Ford and Clinton? Bush is worse then those presidents? Bush conducted Afghanistatn, led the country back after 9/11 and has presided over an economy that recovered from the recession Clinton left him. Iraq is what is driving this and that isn't even settled history yet. Bush may turn out to be a bad president if Iraq goes in the tank (something most on this site seem to cheer for) but until he's out of office there are too many presidents in this last half century that were worse.

by Slado on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 04:32:50 PM EST

Republicans don't believe in context.

by glanton on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 04:52:49 PM EST

He really is that bad. Sorry, but Molly's right. In spades.

by DonS on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 06:10:31 PM EST

Kool-Aid Cake?

by Edger on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 07:09:35 PM EST

JR: Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. He had the entire Legislature of Maryland arrested (mid debate on secession). He had it replaced, and had the new legislature vote down the motion. He deported a serving congressman from Ohio (Vallindigham) for sedition. Is that why the GOP has suddenly remembered that it is the "party of Lincoln?" Truman was often described as a "failed haberdasher". Lincoln was described in terms I won't print - but they weren't flattering to his intelligence. Lincoln and Truman both served honorably in the military, while Bush deserted his safe unit. Neither Lincoln nor Truman received multi-million dollar bribes as Bush did from Tom Hicks. Lincoln was known as "Honest Abe." Bush? Bwahahahah! Truman said, "The buck stops here." Where does the buck stop in the Bush administration? Or should I say, the bucks, since our VP is paid more by the prime contractor to the military than he is by the taxpayers? One doesn't need the judgment of history to know that Bush is a remarkably incompetent individual, and a cursory study of his personal history uncovers considerable corruption. I'll take ONE EXAMPLE of a prediction made by Mr. Bush of a positive outcome to one of his policies, and the evidence that the prediction was correct. One.

by Repack Rider on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 07:46:08 PM EST

I've deleted a bunch of people's comments which were childish insults. I hope I don't have to close down the thread. It's to discuss whether Bush is the worst president ever, not to mock other commenters.

by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 08:35:14 PM EST

Sorry Jeralyn for that, but Bush is the worst ever President ever.

by squeaky on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 09:47:19 PM EST