Hah! Check this out:
History News Network’s poll of 109 historians found that 61 percent of them rank Bush as “worst ever” among U.S. presidents. Bush’s key competition comes from Buchanan, apparently, and a further 2 percent of the sample puts Bush right behind Buchanan as runner-up for “worst ever.” 96 percent of the respondents place the Bush presidency in the bottom tier of American presidencies. And was his presidency (it’s a bit wishful to speak of his presidency in the past tense–after all there are several more months left to go) a success or failure? On that score the numbers are still more resounding: 98 percent label it a “failure.”
More here.
Hat tip the following Investor’s Business Daily to Michael Medved:
So 98% of history professors adjudge George Bush’s presidency a failure and 61% say he’s the worst president ever. And we thought historians studied history, not events too recent to be properly assessed.
It should be no surprise that the 109 history professors surveyed by the History News Network would be critical of Bush. History professors tend to be a Democratic lot. A study conducted by Daniel Klein and Charlotta Stern in 2003 found that the Democrat-to-Republican ratio among them is roughly 9.5-1.
The professors’ political bias has blinded them to reality. They formed their opinions around an axis of nonsense: Bush’s invasion of Iraq, his “tax breaks for the rich,” and the alienation of many nations around the world. Let’s take their arguments one at a time.
• It’s far too early to deem the Iraq invasion a failure. In terms of military achievement, it ranks as one of the greatest in modern history. In a matter of weeks a dangerous dictator was toppled, his regime ousted, his military routed and an oppressed people freed.
Since then, thousands of terrorists have been denied their chance to strike America because the U.S. military has eliminated them.
The cleanup has been messy. But unless the U.S. loses its resolve, a stable, U.S.-friendly representative government is likely to emerge in a strongly anti-American region dominated by despotic regimes.
• “Tax breaks for the rich” is the big lie come alive. Under the Bush tax cuts, 25 million Americans at the bottom half of the income scale have been wiped off the federal income tax rolls.
And the rich? The federal tax burden of the top 1% of earners has gone from 19% under Jimmy Carter (in 1980) to 39.4%. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% paid 3.1% of taxes in 2005. In 1995, they paid 4.6%.
• Since Bush has been in office, pro-Americans have been elected to lead Germany (Angela Merkel), France (Nicolas Sarkozy), Italy (Silvio Berlusconi) and Canada (Stephen Harper). Both Britain and Australia remain close to the U.S. though both are under governments less pro-American than their predecessors. Who’s been alienated? Iran, which has been at war with the U.S. for nearly 20 years?
History professors need to stick to teaching history. They seem to be seeing the unfolding of events through a cloudy lens
George W. Bush will go down as one of our best presidents in U.S. history.
Meanwhile….the worst former president and one of the worst presidents wants some attention:
I think it’s too early to say either way what history will say about George W. Bush. Your statement (“one of our best presidents in US history” ) is therefore as foolish as theirs…
He has had the longest periods of sub 50% approval rating of any president in history, making him one of the most unpopular presidents in history.
You’re right.
Yes, I know. But I’m also right.
So? Among the 30% or so of us who support him, his approval rating is 80% of the time at 100%.
I actually get off on the fact that he’s had to deal with so much opposition BS for 8 years, since Florida 2000. The more he’s been maligned, the louder the chicken littles chirped, the more I’ve found something to admire about this president. Which is namely, that he is not afraid to make the tough decisions- the right decisions, even when it’s not the popular one to make, based upon the latest fickle gallup polls. A strong leader doesn’t use a weather vane and wring his hands over popularity.
President Bush will go the route of Harry S Truman, who did have the lowest approval rating in our history, at around 22 or 23%, while in office.
Moonbat bloggers are making a big deal of this survey. For them it’s proof of what they have been blathering on about ever since Bush first announced his candidacy. Medved has done a fine review as have many others. Since no one is covering the actual survey Qs, I wondered how many Qs are involved and what bias they contained. I figure this would be a fairly long and in depth review as would any reasonable person.
What I found was a profound shock to my system. Here are the actual survey questions with a link to the HNN page. Warning – you had better know history all the way to the goose down.
Let’s see if I got this straight………The worst attack on American soil by an admitted terrorist faction (al-Qaeda) sends this nation’s moral and economy into the tank. Bush reacts by taking on our enemy on their ground, liberates two nations that have lived in tyranny for decades that have become allies in the WOT. Along the way our economy roars back to record recovery numbers for four solid years, (while the MSM ignores reporting any of these facts), and we are to respect the opinions of left-wing liberal history professors (with an agenda) that proclaim this is our worst President ever?
Got it! Let’s not forget the world is melting and 9/11 was an inside job.
If Medved wants to argue by confining “historians [to] history, [and] events too recent to be properly assessed,” perhaps we can go another direction and look for present-day indicators that support Bush’s presidency as among the worst:
In 2005:
In 2006:
In 2007:
In 2008:
And most recently:
Now all of the above is just domestic polling. If you were to go overseas it would be much worse.
It is true that historians tend, as a group, to be far more liberal than the citizenry as a whole — a fact Bush admirers cling to in order to dismiss the poll results as clearly biased. But here if historians were simply motivated by a collective liberal bias, one might expect it to be a tempered bias, as, say, calling Bush the worst president since his father, or Ronald Reagan, or Nixon. Instead, what we find is a shockingly unprecedented event: more than half of those polled (61%) have reached back to the beginning of American history to find him the worst ever! This is not bias, it’s pure “malice”!
But there is more: 35% “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.” Presidents most commonly linked with Bush tend to include presidents like Hoover, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan …A typical reactionary lot with aggressive impulses… and so, yet, again, here he is grouped among the worst ever. Simply another indicator of that Bush has a larger problem than simply biased academics that don’t like him. This survey states there is such deep historical evidence for a bush failed presidency that historians feel comfortable going further out on a limb daring anyone to challenge them to the contrary.
But aside from the historians accounts of Bush presidency, the public poll figures are enough to describe a failing presidency over the years (they are more scientific, too): What’s happened is the public now includes the gathered evidence of Katrina, Valerie Plame, Abramoff, US attorney firing scandal, US torture, wiretapping, the economy, foreign relations, environmental editing, and the Iraq quagmire.
So, while Medvel can move the goal posts on the Bush presidency alleging bias among historians, declaring them invalid, he can’t move them with public disapproval ratings: Bush is presently only 5 or so points outside Truman and Nixon; that says that while he may not be the worst president in modern history he’s among the worst.
Since the left has effectively politicized the media, academia, and the arts, I am about 98% sure this poll is worthless. But let’s make sure we get all the respondent’s names, so the ones that are still alive in 50 years can get invitations to the Rushmore ceremony!
You mean like the way the liberal media and left-wing “leadership” move the goalpost every time an Iraqi province has a less monthly murder rate and violence than Washington D.C. or Philly?
Or the fact that more legislative progress has been accomplished in a fragile Iraqi government than the past 15 months of our “new direction” leadership here in the U.S.?
You’re right about one thing here Doug——-moving goalpost can certainly alter historical perspectives.
5.5% unemployment under Clinton – the good ole days.
4.5% unemployment under Bush – worst economy evah!
The goal-posts keep on a-movin’…
No, his approval ratings won’t go that low unless he revives the Amnesty program. I think he’ll probably leave that for McCain/Obama (they have nearly identical Immigration proposals).
What part of “approval ratings during a presidency have nothing to do with _historical_ ‘best’ and ‘worst’ ” don’t you understand?
What the hell. A historical study while the President is still in office. Is this a farce to make people believe that these hstorians have got a sense of humor??? If HNN has just shown the world that they are nothing but a bunch of Left Leaning weenies that are not qualified to be historians. As a history major, this makes me sick. We will not know the full extent on what Bush’s presidnecy will be for decades. And it alos helps to havmorethan 2 questions on something like this, and not mutiple choice at that.
And to think I actually had HNN on my feed list for a while, until I figured out that it is nothing more than a leftwing biased rag.
Those cartoons are great! Love the little rabbit. Remeber the rabbit that attacked Carter in a canoe?
As for “So 98% of history professors adjudge George Bush’s presidency a failure and 61% say he’s the worst president ever.”
Consider the source. A bunch of self loathing leftist academics hate Bush? That’s news?
I propose that a survey or poll be conducted on these “historians”. These are probably the same professors who are brainwashing our children with left wing liberalism, socialism and communism instead of educating them.
My opinion of them is less than 0%. The man isn’t even out of office yet and they are writing history? Give me a break.
How far to the left is Doug? Let’s see what he says, himself…
“Now all of the above is just domestic polling. If you were to go overseas it would be much worse.”
So, history is just a popularity contest, eh?
It’s pretty obvious that Hitler was very popular in Germany.
He was also popular among American Leftists of the time
http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/commentdetail.aspx?GUID=f715a709-2614-4ea5-967c-f6151f94a364&commentID=b8c4693d-dc66-41c9-a60f-bf25f80b82e6
(…and probably still is.)
This may begin to explain why.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=ECDD4D88-E374-4AAF-98BC-4FAAC691BA90
He was, and still is highly popular in the Middle East
http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=1636
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1191257294704
…especially among paleostinians.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=8e3a8520-2c27-41da-ac80-7fcaa7712be3
As to the academics who are condemning Bush when current events and popularity polls are all they have to judge by? When the real historical verdict on Bush is passed, they will have long ago vanished into obscurity when he will still be remembered. They, like the Leftist politicians whose cause they espouse, are chasing the polls, which they, by their writing, are trying to influence in their favor. Hey, if they can’t be famous later, might as well try to be popular now. Losers, all.
Oh, and note that Doug values foreign opinion above American. Now, were have I heard that nonsense before?
I suspect that, while he held office, Abraham Lincoln would probably have fared even worse than George W. Bush in the eyes of contemporary historians.
I understand it perfectly. Best and worst are subjective terms. Approval is subjective. Approval ratings are quantitative. Obviously they have nothing to do with anything other than the public perception at the time. His success as a president will probably best be determined by those born after Jan. 19 2009.
His approval ratings in the South would have sucked…
Rovin said:
I’d like to add to that list of unheralded accomplishments of #43′s admin that:
1: Libya yielded their nuke program after the fall of Saddam
2: The bogus N. Korea agreement brokered by Albright/Clinton had to be redressed, and they are again under more scrutiny
3: Pakistan became an ally
4: UAE and other Arab nations were forced into the financial war on terrorists, freezing funds and assets of known militant groups
5: There is increased int’l pressure on Iran and Syria… Iran for their nuke program, and Syria for their meddling in Lebanon.
6: Should either Iran or Syria prove to be a problem in the future, and if Iraq survives as an Arab democracy, friendly to the US, they are a great jumping point for parking military geographically between the two countries.
And Stix is also correct. How absurd to sound the end game buzzer on historical judgment when time has not yet passed to determine the results of this admin’s actions in the Middle East. History is analysis of past events… and those events are still in play. And will be for decades.
@MataHarley
Not to forget all the AlQaeda and Taliban leadership who have been eliminated, not to mention the pall cast on their recruiting efforts by the publicity their bleak fate.
Oh yeah………And almost 8 years after the worst attack on this nation’s soil there have been no other foreign terrorist that have had the opportunity to repeat this act. By God we should impeach this President and appoint some one who knows how to make this country safer.
Then “historians” would certainly have something to write about.
The U.S. gained at least three allies under Bush (Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan) while losing two enemies (Saddam, the Taliban rulership). That kind of turn around has never happened before. After WWII, the U.S. gained three allies, but the Cold War started immediately and so a bunch of allies were lost.
The U.S. has also gotten more aggressive with businesses to protect investors. Several billion dollars worth from crooked accounting were eliminated out of the accounting books. The business buzzword has been “transparency.” Business law hasn’t been this aggressive since the ’70s and early ’80s since minority/disabled/women discrimination law.
The military has the equipment needed to do the job for the army, navy and marines while the U.S. army wants the airforce to have more drones and the airforce wants to replace its aging fueling craft and heavy bomber fleet. That’s a far cry from what Clinton did for the military.
Excellent additions, Yonason. And I can only add to that, the rifts within the jihad elements themselves that has developed. These divides in the enemy camps have been a direct by product of the conflict in Iraq. A war zone where they proved themselves to be a brutal movement that sanctions the killing of fellow Muslims as infidels… not only for helping the US coalition, but for supporting an “unIslamic democracy”. Prior to that, they were revered as “freedom fighters”.
Which corresponds, of course, to your “pall cast” over recruitment comment.
Yonanson
Kennedy was not considered a leftist at that time. Rooservelt was but Kennedy was a rightist as were virtually all of the conservatives. They hated Stalin but liked Hitler.
MataHarley 10 – Doug left wing knuckle dragger 0
yonason 10 – Doug left wing knuckle dragger 0
Just keeping score
John,
Your arrogance and insults are beyond asinine. After coming from a funeral of a WWII vet, your ignorant, arrogant leftist lie of “They hated Stalin but liked Hitler” boils my blood. Pure BULLSHIT!!!!!!
I despise BOTH of those men and ALL they stood for. Socialism, no matter if it was Lenninism or National Socialism is a cancer upon humanity outwardly fooling the ignorant with “hope” and a “utopia”, but inwardly full of nothing but death and oppression.
But, as usual, you are a drive by poster so why bother.
As a Conservative, I’d say it was a mixed bag.
He so poorly handled criticisms, being both too little and too late in his responses, he gave legs and sometime credibility to the wildest of accusations. This is why he has the reputation he has now. That wouldn’t be bad if it only affected him. But it didn’t. The Republicans lost both Houses because of the negativity he allowed to flourish. The Democrats have a chance at the WH also because of that negativity against Republicans.
Yes, the media was stacked against him. But so was it against Reagan who still did great and also against Bush Sr. who held his own. Reagan didn’t have talk radio and Bush only had a little bit of talk radio at the time. Neither had the internet or blogs to help communicate the message.
Going after Saddam was the right thing to do, but his execution of the war in total is mediocre at best. The beginning and likely ending are good, but we lingered for 3-4 years continuously degrading in the security situation inbetween.
He failed on illegal immigration. Failed on border security. Turning the ports over to Dubai, wtf? Let’s face it. Philosophically Bush has an internationalist streak which is different that just wanting open international trade.
Another thing history will show once it has time to be actual history is the Katrina failures were almost entirely due to Louisiana governmental incompetence and not federal.
Direct from the National Defense University:
-page 27.
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf
…And for those who want it abridged:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/04/ex-rumsfeld-dep.html
Doug, this administration faced a polarization with Congress – mostly over Iraq, but also many other issues. The BDS has been alive and well, and proliferated by daily Congressional utterings to a willing press, catching the last saliva drop from every personal attack on this President’s character.
Disagree? Fine.. that’s part of our country’s strengths. But the partisan attacks have sunk to a new low over these past years.
The Nat’l Defense University’s accusation of “failure to partner successfully” translates into the more real analysis of a “failure to acquiesce to DNC/MoveOn.org demands”. For Congress DNC were never willing to partner or compromise. And that can not be laid at the feet of the Commander in Chief.
jpm100, yes it is a mixed bag. And most of us have some beefs with #43 and domestic issues, original war plan strategy and planning, etal. However all POTUS have “mixed bag” performance. This President has never been given credit for any of the pluses… most of which will be more obvious as time passes.
i.e…. when Iraq can handle their own under the next CIC, that (possibly) DNC President will take credit for events that could never have happened if the DNC had their way in 2006, 2007 and 2008.
And the electorate will buy that because they can’t remember history from yesterday.
“They hated Stalin but liked Hitler.” – john Ryan
The mistake you seem to be making is the one we have all been programmed to make, i.e., that Hitler was “Right Wing,” while Marx was “Left.” What the Left has done is to confuse the definition of what a Leftist is and what they stand for, and that makes seeing the threat they pose all the more difficult (They often change the meaning of words to obscure reality in order to camouflage their malicious intentions). I remember what an eye opener it was to find that Hitler was a Leftist. After that, a lot of things that didn’t make sense before started to.
Remember, Hitler came to power as a Leftist “opposing” Communism, even though they were both socialist movements, and had almost every essential feature in common. The major difference, as I recall, was that in Germany there was no internal threat to rally a “revolt” around, so it wouldn’t have gotten Hitler anywhere. By contrast, in Russia revolution was the ticket to building a power base, (Leftists are opportunistic parasites, after all.) But, as to their social policies, there wasn’t any real difference.
See John Ray’s wonderful material for more info.
http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/this-article-is-published-on-internet.html
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/
So, yes, Roosevelt and Kennedy were both Leftists, even though they might have evaluated other Leftists differently based on superficial considerations.
Also, see what Chris G. said. It’s a bit more direct and to the point.
Bush et. al., are accused of “…a failure to partner successfully” – doug
LOL
What a load of PC nonsense! Look at Chamberlain! He “partnered” with Hitler successfully…for Hitler.
Anytime, and I mean ANY TIME the Right doesn’t agree with the Left, we are accused of being obstructionist, stubborn, bullies, and are compared to Hitler and threatened with whatever they think will frighten us, sometimes even being falsely accused of crimes and having careers ruined just for spite for not being good “partners” (not succumbing to the Left’s Sharia equivalent). And you want us to “partner” with that scum?!
Like the spoiled little brat who throws a tantrum in the store because his parents are being so unreasonable for not buying him EVERYTHING he wants, they start causing a scene and sometimes damage which the parents have to pay for, just for spite. Too bad his parents just didn’t know how to “partner” correctly, eh?
The term “partner” means confederate, friend, supporter, etc., i.e., it means you are in agreement, in cahoots, share a common goal with the people you are “partnering” with. If you strongly disagree with them, but you support them anyway, it means at best that you have no backbone, no character, you stand for nothing. At worst, it means you are one of THEM! In fact, by accusing us of not “partnering” with them on their foolish ventures (nearly all) they are really giving us a tremendous compliment. We must be doing something right.
I am fed up with “partnering” with malicious idiots, and I hope most of America is, as well. And I’m fed up with their made-up words that mask reality to make it easier for them to con us.
@Cajun Tiger
Have you seen this debunking of the Katrina myths?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=2
It’s quite thorough, and informative. I’ve heard some ad hominem criticism of it, but nothing that’s based in reality. Despite the fact that it was one of, if not the, biggest national disasters, the response was faster than any other, including Andrew. I live in Florida, and remember while driving on Rt 75 seeing caravans of utility and other aid vehicles headed north to render assistance. It was massive, and fast. But the Left never will let go of a good lie.
After all the MSM BS I had been hearing while following the storm and it’s aftermath, I heard a Nat Guard officer say that before they could go in they needed permission. How long did it take? They requested the forms from Louisiana govt., received them by FAX almost immediately, filled them out and FAXed them right back, and were immediately responded to with permission to come in. And he said the whole process took about 1/2 an hour. A lot fewer people screwed up on both sides than any partisans are willing to admit.
yonason says:
I posted the accusation, but I didn’t make it; Joseph J. Collins made the accusation.
Why is this distinction important? Who is Collins?
He’s a “Professor of National Security Strategy at the National War College since 2004. Prior to this assignment, he served for 3 years as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability Operations. From 1998 to 2001, Dr. Collins was a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where he researched economic sanctions, national security policy, and homeland security. In 1998, after nearly 28 years of military service, Dr. Collins retired from the
U.S. Army as a colonel. His many publications include books and articles on war in Afghanistan, Operation Desert Storm, military culture, defense transformation, homeland defense, and the way ahead in Iraq.” –See his report.
“Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz asked Collins to serve as his special assistant. Shortly thereafter, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appointed Collins as deputy assistant secretary of defense for stability operations.”
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=28841
Therefore, this charge that yonason makes regarding the left:
…holds no water here; as Collins is not affiliated “with the left” since he was appointed by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and worked with them during the Iraq invasion.
Additionally, Collins’ conclusions were based, in part, “on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations, …” and, hence, his conclusions are shared by others.
Consequently, this is why Collins’ report is so poignant.
“Shadow Warriors” by Timmerman. Definitely worth a read. There are some who are supposed to be on the side of the administration but who have their own agendas. Basically leads to the conclusion that Bush’s biggest failure was in assuming that his Defense Department, the State Department and the CIA all would support the agenda of the President, when in fact each of them had an entrenched bureaucracy (mostly appointed by the Clintons) that had their own agendas, and who constantly and consistently threw roadblocks into the way of getting Bush’s programs done. Bush should have cleaned out all of these departments. It’s appalling and angering. What he describes is close to treason, imo.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307352099/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=1619512661&ref=pd_sl_7nlne996o9_b
Wonder where Carter would fit into the worst president category? Double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, misery index, you know…all those things we don’t have right now? I’m not saying Bush is the greatest president we’ve ever had, but he certainly isn’t the worst.
Oh, Dougy [#33], when will your handlers find you a new brain to replace that aby-normal one you got when you were cloned?
I found this over at Prairie Pundit, who dug it up at SWJ, and the bottom line is that, IN COLLINS OWN WORDS…
GOT THAT? It doesn’t mean what you thought it did, because those who told you lied. Why do you keep believing them?
So, what I was reacting to was the Liberal bias of the cherry-picking MSM, which distorted the content and intent of the study. Naturally they would have latched onto something that would have appealed to their lunatic base. I stand by my comments, though now I know they don’t apply to Collins, but to Dougy and the Miami (Pinko) Herald.
Everything they know is wrong!
Even did my own post on the matter Yon
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/04/18/mcclatchey-misreports-iraq-war-report/
Thanks Curt. I would have referenced that, if I had known. I see even Dougy read it, but naturally didn’t see how a lying MSM was a problem as long as it validated their BDS.
I was thinking of posting something along the lines of what Scott (#4) said, but he nailed it perfectly.