Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Kazan on March 02, 2010, 11:22:56 AM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html)
I was wondering how long it would take Gore to resurface, 3 pages of BS from the man with the most to gain from C(r)ap and Trade, because sometimes you just have to protect your investment ::)
His rantings would make Marx and Lenin proud.
This asshole should be dragged into the streets and beaten with 3/8" chain.
-
And this fool almost became president.Incredible!!!!
-
Al Gore is a menace to the United States and should be treated as such. The fucker gets millions in grants from the government then turns around and makes huge donations to the DNC. The recipients of these donations don't want the gravy train to stop, so the cycle continues.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html)
I was wondering how long it would take Gore to resurface, 3 pages of BS from the man with the most to gain from C(r)ap and Trade, because sometimes you just have to protect your investment ::)
His rantings would make Marx and Lenin proud.
This asshole should be dragged into the streets and beaten with 3/8" chain.
He's back because he has a huge financial interest in pushing the global warming agenda. He's no better than that T-BOONE Pickens clown last year pushing wind power. It turns out with a little investigation T-Boone holds huge investments in wind power tech... Hum... I guess everyone gotta eat!
-
He's back because he has a huge financial interest in pushing the global warming agenda. He's no better than that T-BOONE Pickens clown last year pushing wind power. It turns out with a little investigation T-Boone holds huge investments in wind power tech... Hum... I guess everyone gotta eat!
Al Gore is balls deep into the taxpayer to fund his lies, scams, treason, and traitorous activities.
I am so sick of these corporate communists like al Gore you have no idea.
-
maybe al gore should have helped me shovel some of the global warming from my driveway in dallas tx. we had over a foot of global warming fall in 2 days which was a record.
-
And this fool almost became president.Incredible!!!!
whats worse is BUSH became president...and 8 years later.....
:-\ ...just sayin
-
maybe al gore should have helped me shovel some of the global warming from my driveway in dallas tx. we had over a foot of global warming fall in 2 days which was a record.
I shovled a foot of climate change in NYC last week.
More like I was shoveling Al Gore's BS.
He really needs prison and a huge gay cell mate for about 20 years for what he has done.
-
whats worse is BUSH became president...and 8 years later.....
:-\ ...just sayin
Al Gore would have been far worse. I have no doubt about that whatsoever.
At least Bush gave us Roberts and Alito.
Gore would have appointed people like cass sunstein, holdren, and van jones to the SC.
-
Al Gore would have been far worse. I have no doubt about that whatsoever.
At least Bush gave us Roberts and Alito.
Gore would have appointed people like cass sunstein, holdren, and van jones to the SC.
right...woulda coulda shoulda...but...what happened cha cha?....i dont speculate..
-
whats worse is BUSH became president...and 8 years later.....
:-\ ...just sayin
Nothing in the world would be worse then an Al Gore presidency.NOTHING could ever approach that.
-
right...woulda coulda shoulda...but...what happened cha cha?....i dont speculate..
Anyone would have started war after 9/11.
however, Al Gore would have appointed horrific SC justices as well as pursued his enviro-freako agenda wo abandon.
As for cha cha - Bro - Cha cha yourself.
-
Anyone would have started war after 9/11.
however, Al Gore would have appointed horrific SC justices as well as pursued his enviro-freako agenda wo abandon.
As for cha cha - Bro - Cha cha yourself.
Are you fucking high...you are really defending Bush..talkin about what would have happened...this political party shit DOMINATES every aspect of your life...you are too weak to look at things with out your political "my side" glasses"....Fuckin amazing
-
Are you fucking high...you are really defending Bush..talkin about what would have happened...this political party shit DOMINATES every aspect of your life...you are too weak to look at things with out your political "my side" glasses"....Fuckin amazing
No, bush did a lot of screwed up crap, but he did a few good things, like roberts and Alito. In fact, thats the only things he really did good.
Gore is a POFS asshole who I wish would take his global wearming garbage to tianemen sqaure and squashed by a tank.
If you think Gore has your interests at heart, bro, you are worse than anyone and need to wake the hell up yourself and look who is behind the whole "green agenda" for yourself.
-
Are you fucking high...you are really defending Bush..talkin about what would have happened...this political party shit DOMINATES every aspect of your life...you are too weak to look at things with out your political "my side" glasses"....Fuckin amazing
Actually I have to agree on you with this, would have been interesting to see Gore with a Repub majority in congress. If things went the way they did during the Clinton admin the government would have been basically stalemated, which is good for the American people.
-
Maybe if gore would have been elected back then we would already be over this global warming bull shit. We would have learned 10 years ago what a crock it is and it wouldnt even be an issue now.
-
Actually I have to agree on you with this, would have been interesting to see Gore with a Repub majority in congress. If things went the way they did during the Clinton admin the government would have been basically stalemated, which is good for the American people.
LOL...in a funny way you are right
-
Actually I have to agree on you with this, would have been interesting to see Gore with a Repub majority in congress. If things went the way they did during the Clinton admin the government would have been basically stalemated, which is good for the American people.
And we would have had Justice Cass Sunstein and 5-4 COMMUNIST SC.
No thanks.
-
And we would have had Justice Cass Sunstein and 5-4 COMMUNIST SC.
No thanks.
Depends I think Gore would have been a 1 term POTUS, he is a buffoon and would have been shown for as much after 4 years.
-
Depends I think Gore would have been a 1 term POTUS, he is a buffoon and would have been shown for as much after 4 years.
Who would have ran in 2004? Jeb? W? McAsswipe?
GWB was bad, but lets not go overboard and make him out to be the worst ever, cause he is not. He sucked, but was not the worst ever.
Gore would have been a complete nightmare on so many fronts. As bad a W was on spemnding, Gore wanted more! On SC judges - sunstein, holdren, etc.
-
Who would have ran in 2004? Jeb? W? McAsswipe?
GWB was bad, but lets not go overboard and make him out to be the worst ever, cause he is not. He sucked, but was not the worst ever.
Gore would have been a complete nightmare on so many fronts. As bad a W was on spemnding, Gore wanted more! On SC judges - sunstein, holdren, etc.
I have always held the belief that one party control of the government is a bad thing, and we have seen this play out over the last 8 to 10 years. Not saying Gore would have been better just saying if he was pitted against a republican congress, he would not have been able to push any of this BS anyway.
-
Who would have ran in 2004? Jeb? W? McAsswipe?
GWB was bad, but lets not go overboard and make him out to be the worst ever, cause he is not. He sucked, but was not the worst ever.
Gore would have been a complete nightmare on so many fronts. As bad a W was on spemnding, Gore wanted more! On SC judges - sunstein, holdren, etc.
Gore was never all that liberal of a politician. The right has basically tried to paint him as such because he's become the face of the green movement. Throughout his career, most of his policies were considered pretty centrist. You may be aware of some quotes that slipped by me, but I seriously doubt Gore would have backed any of the people you listed for SC.
GWB was a downright terrible president and I think Gore would have been pretty damned good. Yes, we still would have went to war with Afghanistan, possibly Iraq, too. But those wars would have been handled far more pragmatically and bible prophesies would not have come into play. I could go on and on about why I think Gore would have been better pres than Bush, but seriously... As for what you posted, it's convenient to make him out to be the left's quintessential "villain" now- particularly if you are anti-green- but he has been pretty moderate throughout his career.
-
Gore was never all that liberal of a politician. The right has basically tried to paint him as such because he's become the face of the green movement. Throughout his career, most of his policies were considered pretty centrist. You may be aware of some quotes that slipped by me, but I seriously doubt Gore would have backed any of the people you listed for SC.
GWB was a downright terrible president and I think Gore would have been pretty damned good. Yes, we still would have went to war with Afghanistan, possibly Iraq, too. But those wars would have been handled far more pragmatically and bible prophesies would not have come into play. I could go on and on about why I think Gore would have been better pres than Bush, but seriously... As for what you posted, it's convenient to make him out to be the left's quintessential "villain" now- particularly if you are anti-green- but he has been pretty moderate throughout his career.
PMRC = nanny state tyrant to me. Screw al gore and his drunk wife Tipsy.
Al Gore = OWNED
-
PMRC = nanny state tyrant to me. Screw al gore and his drunk wife Tipsy.
Al Gore = OWNED
Except the pmrc is not a state entity. It had no authority aside from the public pressure they could put on the music industry. Senate committees regarding decency in popular entertainment go back to the comic book hearings of the 50s. If the public outcry is large enough, then the industry will adhere to a voluntary system. While I applaud Dee Snyder's owning, the PMRC, the MPAA and video game advisory warnings aren't Stalinesque.
These "focus on the family" type groups are traditionally right-leaning, so that's just more evidence that he has been pretty centrist throughout his career.
-
Except the pmrc is not a state entity. It had no authority aside from the public pressure they could put on the music industry. Senate committees regarding decency in popular entertainment go back to the comic book hearings of the 50s. If the public outcry is large enough, then the industry will adhere to a voluntary system. While I applaud Dee Snyder's owning, the PMRC, the MPAA and video game advisory warnings aren't Stalinesque.
These "focus on the family" type groups are traditionally right-leaning, so that's just more evidence that he has been pretty centrist throughout his career.
Maybe his exploting the tobacco issue and his sisters' death was what settled my opinion of him.
-
GWB was bad, but lets not go overboard and make him out to be the worst ever, cause he is not. He sucked, but was not the worst ever.
Yes he was. Of all past Presidents, he was by far the worst.
-
Yes he was. Of all past Presidents, he was by far the worst.
Please, grow up and read a history book.
-
Cool your dramatics and grasp reality.
-
Cool your dramatics and grasp reality.
Show me any serious historian who considers W the worst ever.
-
GWB wasnt even in the same league as Jimmy Carter.Its not even a comparrison.UE at 20% interest rates through the roof,gas lines,hostages in captivity.Carter was BY FAR the worst president this country ever has had and the worst former president we have ever had as well.A total disgrace as a human being.
-
Cool your dramatics and grasp reality.
quote of the day....
-
quote of the day....
Hey Cha Cha - Can you show me the credible historian who thinks W was the worst ever?
-
Hey Cha Cha - Can you show me the credible historian who thinks W was the worst ever?
he is to me...how bout that chief
-
he is to me...how bout that chief
Nothing he did comes close to the shit pile that Jimmy Carter put the country in.Remember this,Bush had 54 cosecutive months of job growth ,it only ended once that loon Pelosi came in and won the congress.Jimmy Carter had a worse[much much worse]economy,he did nothing about the hostages,gas lines miles long.He is the worst by miles.You werent born yet so you have no perspective of how bad it was under that disgrace.
-
he is to me...how bout that chief
Why is that? Have you ever read a history book? There were far worse presidents in our history than W. He sucked but he is not the worst.
Look up Warren Harding, Buchanan, and others.
-
Why is that? Have you ever read a history book? There were far worse presidents in our history than W. He sucked but he is not the worst.
Look up Warren Harding, Buchanan, and others.
My guess is that Mal is to young to remember Carter, hate to admit it, but I'm not. Carter was the worst POTUS that I can remember.
-
Hey Cha Cha - Can you show me the credible historian who thinks W was the worst ever?
http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html
HNNHistory News Network Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.Newsletter Submissions Advertising Donations Archives Internships About Us FAQs
Search HNN: Breaking News
Departments
News
HNN Articles
Hot Topics
Roundup
Blogs
Books
Features
HNN Videos
Student Shortcuts
Teacher's Lounge
Jobs
Print this Page
Log In4-01-08
HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst
Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes: The $10 trillion hangover ... Paying the price for eight years of Bush
Nate Silver: History May -- or May Not -- Judge Bush More Kindly
“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.
At least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only James Buchanan, in their view, being worse. “He is easily one of the 10-worst of all time and—if the magnitude of the challenges and opportunities matter—then probably in the bottom five, alongside Buchanan, Johnson, Fillmore, and Pierce,” wrote another historian.
The reason for the hesitancy some historians had in categorizing the Bush presidency as the worst ever, which led them to place it instead in the “nearly the worst” group, was well expressed by another historian who said, “It is a bit too early to judge whether Bush's presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title. Without a doubt, it is among the worst.”
In a similar survey of historians I conducted for HNN four years ago, Mr. Bush had fared somewhat better, with 19 percent rating his presidency a success and 81 percent classifying it as a failure. More striking is the dramatic increase in the percentage of historians who rate the Bush presidency the worst ever. In 2004, only 11.6 percent of the respondents rated Bush’s presidency last. That conclusion is now reached by nearly six times as large a fraction of historians.
There are at least two obvious criticisms of such a survey. It is in no sense a scientific sample of historians. The participants are self-selected, although participation was open to all historians. Among those who responded are several of the nation’s most respected historians, including Pulitzer and Bancroft Prize winners.
The second criticism that is often raised of historians making such assessments of a current president is that it is far too early. We do not yet know how the things that Mr. Bush has done will work out in the future. As the only respondent who classified the current presidency among the ten best noted, “Any judgment of his ‘success’ or lack thereof is premature in that the ultimate effects of his policies are not yet known.” True enough. But this historian went on to make his current evaluation, giving Bush “high marks for courage in his willingness to attack intractable problems in the Near East and to touch the Social Security ‘Third Rail.’ ”
Historians are in a better position than others to make judgments about how a current president’s policies and actions compare with those of his predecessors. Those judgments are always subject to change in light of future developments. But that is no reason not to make them now.
The comments that many of the respondents included with their evaluations provide a clear sense of the reasons behind the overwhelming consensus that George W. Bush’s presidency is among the worst in American history.
“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”
“With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said another historian. “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. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of area: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.”
One historian indicated that his reason for rating Bush as worst is that the current president combines traits of some of his failed predecessors: “the paranoia of Nixon, the ethics of Harding and the good sense of Herbert Hoover. . . . . God willing, this will go down as the nadir of American politics.” Another classified Bush as “an ideologue who got the nation into a totally unnecessary war, and has broken the Constitution more often than even Nixon. He is not a conservative, nor a Christian, just an immoral man . . . .” Still another remarked that Bush’s “denial of any personal responsibility can only be described as silly.”
“It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,” concluded one respondent. “His domestic policies,” another noted, “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; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.”
“George Bush has combined mediocrity with malevolent policies and has thus seriously damaged the welfare and standing of the United States,” wrote one of the historians, echoing the assessments of many of his professional colleagues. “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. His administration has been the most reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, mendacious, arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent, and deeply corrupt one in all of American history.”
Four years ago I rated George W. Bush’s presidency as the second worst, a bit above that of James Buchanan. Now, however, like so many other professional historians, I see the administration of the second Bush as clearly the worst in our history. My reasons are similar to those cited by other historians: 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.
Mr. Bush inherited a sizable budget surplus and a thriving economy. By pushing through huge tax cuts for the rich while increasing federal spending at a rapid rate, 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. Then there is the incredible shrinking dollar, the appointment of incompetent cronies, the totally inexcusable failure to react properly to the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, the blatant disregard for the Constitution—and on and on.
Like a majority of other historians who participated in this poll, my conclusion is that the preponderance of the evidence now indicates that, while this nation has had at least its share of failed presidencies, no previous presidency was as large a failure in so many areas as the current one.
-
Again, there was no budget surplus, I have already posted the info from the treasury dept.
-
My guess is that Mal is to young to remember Carter, hate to admit it, but I'm not. Carter was the worst POTUS that I can remember.
Thats what my dad said...he was in the oil business at that time...energy crisis and unemployment..we were in the shitter...but how much of that was policy from him...i dont know...
-
There was no budget surplus.
W inherited the dot bomb collapse, a small recession, a repeal of Glass Steagal, and other messes.
Yes he sucked, but give me a break with your story.
-
Thats what my dad said...he was in the oil business at that time...energy crisis and unemployment..we were in the shitter...but how much of that was policy from him...i dont know...
The biggest problem with Carter was he was weak, and other nations knew it.
-
There was no budget surplus.
W inherited the dot bomb collapse, a small recession, a repeal of Glass Steagal, and other messes.
Yes he sucked, but give me a break with your story.
Chump..you asked for something and i gave it to you...Dude is considered the worst by a country mile cha cha...sorry suzie...when you send troups to die for no good reason...yeah i would consider you the worst...especially when those troops were my brother, cousin, good friend...of which 1 came back.....yeah chump...i have a problem with broskie
-
Chump..you asked for something and i gave it to you...Dude is considered the worst by a country mile cha cha...sorry suzie...when you send troups to die for no good reason...yeah i would consider you the worst...especially when those troops were my brother, cousin, good friend...of which 1 came back.....yeah chump...i have a problem with broskie
Presidents throughout history have done the same thing. Read a history book. W sucked and was very bad, but he was not the worst.
-
http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html
HNNHistory News Network Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.Newsletter Submissions Advertising Donations Archives Internships About Us FAQs
Search HNN: Breaking News
Departments
News
HNN Articles
Hot Topics
Roundup
Blogs
Books
Features
HNN Videos
Student Shortcuts
Teacher's Lounge
Jobs
Print this Page
Log In4-01-08
HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst
Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes: The $10 trillion hangover ... Paying the price for eight years of Bush
Nate Silver: History May -- or May Not -- Judge Bush More Kindly
“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.
At least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only James Buchanan, in their view, being worse. “He is easily one of the 10-worst of all time and—if the magnitude of the challenges and opportunities matter—then probably in the bottom five, alongside Buchanan, Johnson, Fillmore, and Pierce,” wrote another historian.
The reason for the hesitancy some historians had in categorizing the Bush presidency as the worst ever, which led them to place it instead in the “nearly the worst” group, was well expressed by another historian who said, “It is a bit too early to judge whether Bush's presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title. Without a doubt, it is among the worst.”
In a similar survey of historians I conducted for HNN four years ago, Mr. Bush had fared somewhat better, with 19 percent rating his presidency a success and 81 percent classifying it as a failure. More striking is the dramatic increase in the percentage of historians who rate the Bush presidency the worst ever. In 2004, only 11.6 percent of the respondents rated Bush’s presidency last. That conclusion is now reached by nearly six times as large a fraction of historians.
There are at least two obvious criticisms of such a survey. It is in no sense a scientific sample of historians. The participants are self-selected, although participation was open to all historians. Among those who responded are several of the nation’s most respected historians, including Pulitzer and Bancroft Prize winners.
The second criticism that is often raised of historians making such assessments of a current president is that it is far too early. We do not yet know how the things that Mr. Bush has done will work out in the future. As the only respondent who classified the current presidency among the ten best noted, “Any judgment of his ‘success’ or lack thereof is premature in that the ultimate effects of his policies are not yet known.” True enough. But this historian went on to make his current evaluation, giving Bush “high marks for courage in his willingness to attack intractable problems in the Near East and to touch the Social Security ‘Third Rail.’ ”
Historians are in a better position than others to make judgments about how a current president’s policies and actions compare with those of his predecessors. Those judgments are always subject to change in light of future developments. But that is no reason not to make them now.
The comments that many of the respondents included with their evaluations provide a clear sense of the reasons behind the overwhelming consensus that George W. Bush’s presidency is among the worst in American history.
“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”
“With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said another historian. “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. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of area: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.”
One historian indicated that his reason for rating Bush as worst is that the current president combines traits of some of his failed predecessors: “the paranoia of Nixon, the ethics of Harding and the good sense of Herbert Hoover. . . . . God willing, this will go down as the nadir of American politics.” Another classified Bush as “an ideologue who got the nation into a totally unnecessary war, and has broken the Constitution more often than even Nixon. He is not a conservative, nor a Christian, just an immoral man . . . .” Still another remarked that Bush’s “denial of any personal responsibility can only be described as silly.”
“It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,” concluded one respondent. “His domestic policies,” another noted, “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; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.”
“George Bush has combined mediocrity with malevolent policies and has thus seriously damaged the welfare and standing of the United States,” wrote one of the historians, echoing the assessments of many of his professional colleagues. “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. His administration has been the most reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, mendacious, arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent, and deeply corrupt one in all of American history.”
Four years ago I rated George W. Bush’s presidency as the second worst, a bit above that of James Buchanan. Now, however, like so many other professional historians, I see the administration of the second Bush as clearly the worst in our history. My reasons are similar to those cited by other historians: 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.
Mr. Bush inherited a sizable budget surplus and a thriving economy. By pushing through huge tax cuts for the rich while increasing federal spending at a rapid rate, 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. Then there is the incredible shrinking dollar, the appointment of incompetent cronies, the totally inexcusable failure to react properly to the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, the blatant disregard for the Constitution—and on and on.
Like a majority of other historians who participated in this poll, my conclusion is that the preponderance of the evidence now indicates that, while this nation has had at least its share of failed presidencies, no previous presidency was as large a failure in so many areas as the current one.
61% just shot down 333's silly claim.
-
Bush came in at the start of a recession.This is left wing revisionist history.His tax cuts caused 54 consecutive months of job growth untill pelosi killed it.
-
On C-SPAN, Historians Rate W the 7th Worst President Ever
February 15, 2009 9:41 AM
PrintRSSE-mailShare this blog entry with friendsFacebookTwitterRe dditStumbleUponMore
This morning we learn that C-SPAN has surveyed historians to again come up with a President's Day ranking of commanders-in-chief.
Fittingly, for this Abe-a-licious year, the 16th president comes in at #1, with Honest Abe Lincoln retaining his top slot.
He's followed by George Washington, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, and Harry S Truman in the top five slots. JFK, Thomas Jefferson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Woodrow Wilson, and Ronald Reagan finish out the Top Ten.
The worst president, as judged by the panel of historians, is James Buchanan.
Second worst -- Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson.
Third worst - Franklin Pierce. Fourth worst - William Henry Harrison. Fifth worst - Warren G. Harding. Sixth worst - Millard Fillmore.
And there he is, George W. Bush, ranked as 7th worst. (8th worst is John Tyler.)
Reagan, Clinton and George H.W. Bush have all advanced in rankings since the last time C-SPAN did this survey, in 2000. Bill Clinton back then was ranked 21st; he's now 15th. Reagan went from 11 to 10. Bush Sr. went from 20 to 18.
Jimmy Carter, interestingly went down -- from 22 to 25.
"Bill Clinton and Ulysses S. Grant aren't often mentioned in the same sentence - until now," said historian Richard Norton Smith. "Participants in the latest C-SPAN survey of presidential historians have boosted each man significantly higher than in the original survey conducted in 2000. All of which goes to show two things: the fluidity with which presidential reputations are judged, and the difficulty of assessing any president who has only just recently left office."
This all gives me an excuse to show this video of the late great Peter Jennings asking Bill Clinton about the rankings -- in particular about Clinton ranking 41st on "moral authority," behind Richard Nixon. Compelling video.
-
Bush came in at the start of a recession.This is left wing revisionist history.His tax cuts caused 54 consecutive months of job growth untill pelosi killed it.
lets be real..the dot com bubble was nothing like a real recession where significant amounts of jobs are lost.
-
lets be real..the dot com bubble was nothing like a real recession where significant amounts of jobs are lost.
Of course not, but the point is that Bush did not inherit a growing and great economy as some want to point out.
Additionally, the repeal of Glass Steagal, which was signed by clinton, and pushed by Sommers, Geithner, Rubin and Grahmm had a huge influence on why we are in the present disaster we are in.
Yes W sucked, however, its completely ridiculous to blame everything on him and not acknowledge other huge things that took place that he did not have anything to do with.
-
oh i agree. Bush didnt inherit a surplus but clinton along with newt did hack down the deficit. The bush exploded it.
-
oh i agree. Bush didnt inherit a surplus but clinton along with newt did hack down the deficit. The bush exploded it.
Agreed 10x over. The drug bill was a disaster, as were many other things. The amnesty for illegals, dubai ports, harriet meirs, CFR, it was a complete mess.
But he is not alone, he had a complicit GOP congress and then even worse when Pelosi took over.
-
oh i agree. Bush didnt inherit a surplus but clinton along with newt did hack down the deficit. The bush exploded it.
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
Clinton's last budget did a bit of its own exploding
-
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
Clinton's last budget did a bit of its own exploding
People need to remember that the government took in a ton of money from the dot com craze via capital gains tax reciepts on stock transactions.
Once the dot coms exploded, those revenues never came back to the govt until the last stock boom in 2006-2007.
-
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
Clinton's last budget did a bit of its own exploding
the facts dont lie. youre right.
let me correct myself then, bush NUKED the deficit.
-
the facts dont lie. youre right.
let me correct myself then, bush NUKED the deficit.
and Obama decided to multiply it by 3.