General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHistorians Still Despise George W. Bush
By David Austin Walsh
4-26-13
"Former president George W. Bush has had his best week in years. His public approval ratings have hit a seven-year high, publications around the country have published articles reassessing his legacy, and he was warmly joined by all of the living former presidents at the dedication of his new presidential library at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. . . .
The past week, however, saw Julian Zelizer pen an article for CNN entitled "History's still out on George W. Bush," while Stephen Knott, writing for the Washington Post, claimed that the former president has been the victim of a "rush to judgment" by historians.
So will historians revise their collective opinion of George W. Bush?
It doesn't appear likely.
The History News Network conducted an informal poll on Thursday asking American historians from the nations top research universities and liberal arts colleges to grade the presidency of George W. Bush on an A-F scale, based on fourteen different metrics, ranging from foreign policy to the economy to transparency and accountability.
Sixty-four historians responded. Thirty-five -- over half -- rated his presidency an outright failure.
Overall (not a composite): F
Communication ability D-
Relationship with Congress C
Supreme Court appointments D
Handling of the economy F
Executive appointments D
Diplomacy & foreign policy F
National security D-
Civil rights & civil liberties D-
Innovation and initiative D
General leadership D
Vision D
Transparency & accountability F
Integrity D+ 1.45
Crisis management D
Ability to learn from mistakes D- "
http://hnn.us/articles/historians-still-despise-george-w-bush
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)garthpool 11 days ago ?
George W. Bush always catches a break. Now it's grade inflation.
calimary
(81,242 posts)George W. Bush always catches a break. Now it's grade inflation.
Seriously. I'm gonna be 60 in a couple of weeks. I can remember back a few Presidents. dubya was worse than the worst. He was reagan times about 15. Somehow he had an appeal that helped anesthetize much of America to just how foul his time of presiding was.
I'm sitting here trying to think back on the various odiferous types who lurked behind the curtain in other really freakshow Presidencies. Because with ALL administrations, it's not just the President you send into office. It's all the people he's bringing in with him, or whom he plans to appoint or nominate for something. That part is key.
nixon and reagan come to mind. haldeman, ehrlichman, john mitchell, charles colson, all these fiends during the nixon era, plus the Watergate Burglars. For reagan it was john poindexter, oliver north, elliott abrams, caspar weinberger, and more. It was Criminality on Parade with both their regimes. But maybe what makes them NOT the worst was that, back in those days, there was enough strength among the opposition to contain at least some of the shit that came out, and the shitters responsible for it. And back then we had a vigorous, muckraking, and impartial news media bent on telling the truth regardless whether it generated profits or furthered an agenda. At least back in nixon's day, a whole bunch of his scheming conniving little cabal wound up ousted from their jobs, facing charges and in numerous cases, federal prison. reagan's administration was epically criminal, record-setting at that:
The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any US president.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals
At least some people were held accountable, even if reagan himself escaped impeachment over the Iran/Contra Affair. And of course, we all know what happened with richard Nixon, the first time a President actually had to pay in full for the bad things he did. But dubya's? None. Well - one. scooter libby. Who btw still walks free to this day and uncontrite. He's never seen a day at a federal penitentiary, even one of those "Club Fed" types where white collar criminals go for their timeouts. And in dubya's den, there are actual war criminals. Plus one who many honestly and soberly describe as evil. ALL THE MALFEASANCE of the bush/cheney years, and not one individual has had to face any music except for that from some local orchestra playing them onstage at yet another speaking engagement along the "mashed-potato circuit".
None of these schmucks in bush/cheney & co. has had to pay a price for what he/she did.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)unblock
(52,213 posts)*reagan* had an appeal. that at least i understand. there was a stark disparity between his emotional and his objective reality. he governed like a mean, selfish, corrupt piece of horse droppings, but he had a very charming style, he was witty, he had decent speechwriters, and so on. i understood his appeal, all you had to do was ignore the actual issues and he seemed like a great president.
shrub on the other hand was a disaster through and through. i do not understand any appeal. in fact *all* republicans i've ever known to support him did so with their head held low. they were party loyalists and felt compelled to support him, but they were clearly not proud of him.
the only appeal shrub had, imho, was the appeal of the republican party itself, which he had as its chief representative, and if it weren't for that he would have had nothing. people who liked him did so because they wanted to like him, because it was politically necessary to like him. not because he was actually likeable.
calimary
(81,242 posts)reality and who don't spend a lot of time polluting what's left of their brains by watching Pox Noise - certainly everybody here on DU - weren't fooled. But so many others in this country were. Ate the whole thing. Swallowed it whole. And asked for seconds. Remember how what people said of him so often that he was someone you could go have a beer with? And THAT made no sense to me, either, because why on earth should you be wanting to go have a beer with a dry drunk?
Unfortunately, "somehow he had an appeal." I have friends who've gone all the way over to the Dark Side. And I have heard them say, straight-faced and with all sincerity, that dubya was one of our better presidents.
JI7
(89,249 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)If these teabag fruitcakes take the presidency, he may start to look good in comparison. The GOP gets nuttier by the day.
Cha
(297,196 posts)Just 'cause he built a liebury building for My Pet Goat.
jambo101
(797 posts)Amazingly he got in for a second term,I thought it quite obvious Rumsfeld and Cheney were the real powers behind that presidency as Bush was just such a idiot.
Very fortunate for America that theres a two term limit,had he stolen a third term America would have been done.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Ronald Reagan's corpse would be propped up in the Oval Office to this day.
cali
(114,904 posts)It makes it sound like historians have a personal grudge and aren't making professional asssessments
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)It does make it look personal, but it is the headline the History News Network used.
cali
(114,904 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Must be a "gentleman's D+"
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)As one of the commenters noted, Bush is benefiting from grade inflation.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)was DEFINITELY inflated.
Warpy
(111,255 posts)Sensible people would call him pigheaded. Some people out there are not sensible and laud him for the courage of his convictions.
Give me a muddler, please, with the good sense to realize when something isn't working and try something else.
I pointed out many times during his misadministration that history is written by the literate and the literate were not going to approve of much of anything he did.
olddots
(10,237 posts)while the earth is still in existence.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)every single person on this board agrees on.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)There you go.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Mission Accomplished!
MFM008
(19,808 posts)whats lower than F? G ?? Bush gets a G or H or Z.
Ron Obvious
(6,261 posts)I'm thinking 'catastrophic' is closer to the mark.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)Why the hell are historians giving him such high marks? Damn it, even historians forget their history.
F------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On all categories!
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)fasttense
(17,301 posts)they did an awful job. Maybe they should have just counted all the peoples votes.
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)Not just historians, people from all walks of life from all over the world still despise him. I despise him more now than I did when he was the fake president, and that's saying a lot because I get sick just looking at him, much less listening to him.
Fuck bush and the rest of his henchmen, especially dick the prick! ASSHOLES!
secondwind
(16,903 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)spicegal
(758 posts)What's worrisome is that there's nothing to prevent another Bush. He was never qualified, yet sold to the public, at least enough of them. I refuse to say he won in 2000. We can thank Florida and the SCOTUS for that debacle. Pox on our SCOTUS, another institution I've lost faith in.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)deutsey
(20,166 posts)It goes back to the mid-'70s, imo, when the right-wing reaction began in earnest. When Reagan got in the White House, that's when the disaster began to unfold.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)The only reason I give him Fs is because Qs are not an option
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Helpfully covers his criminal ass.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)clear eyes and objectivity is what counts.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)But I agree that give him low marks would be a better choice of words.
tanyev
(42,554 posts)They should be asking fair and balanced historians like David Barton.
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)Anybody with half a brain who lived through his regime(i refuse to call it an administration since the murderer was anointed, not elected) knows what an absolute cluster-fuck it was. I can't believe this shit was even debated when that stupid "libruree" was opened.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)indepat
(20,899 posts)suspect some of those ratings will tumble a tad, especially for the integrity and Supreme Court appointments metrics.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)I only say that because I live in the Washington, DC area and I was here 9/11/2001. I knew from the first moment of the attack I would blame him for falling down on the job. I have never changed my mind on that subject.
I think that D- should be an F-. Just my opinion....
Sam
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)The one grade I might tick up a tad was integrity. I believe he was clueless enough, particularly in the first term, to believe all the bullshit Cheney was feeding him. I'd give him a solid C.
Greybnk48
(10,168 posts)What a weird word to use, "despise," as if the accurate reporting of someone's legacy is somehow an emotional or visceral response that may change with time. What they said was true, and truth does not change.
edited to add punctuation.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)but it is the one from the History News Network.