The Verdict is in: Guess Who's The Worst President in US History? -- Guess who?
When you review the facts below and consider his impact on our economy, foreign policy, and domestic policy, by almost any standard, its difficult to find any president who did more harm and left the country in worse shape than George W. Bush.
At the same time that Bush was leaving office with a 28% job approval rating, 61% of historians rated George W. Bush's presidency as the worst in history. In another, informal survey of 109 professional historians, 98.2% judged the Bush presidency as a failure while a mere 1.8% classified it as a success.
Read more on the biggest waste of space to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania.
probably why he wasn't suited to the job. We, the people, knew that and did not elect him. A corrupt Supreme Court and various cheats in some states did that.
And in both cases I'd say it is just sour grapes. Gore MIGHT have won if the SC hadn't intervened but there's no guarantee, and if he hadn't run a poor campaign the election wouldn't have been in doubt. In my mind this poll reflects how little most Americans know about history. There are many presidents who were worse than Bush. And if we are talking about the worst president during the last 45 years then I'd vote for Reagan.
Some were almost as bad, but few left the country in such bad shape both at home and abroad. reagan was certainly one of the worst 10.
How about Dred Scott loving Buchanan? Andrew Jackson made him ambassador to Russia because we dont have one to the North Pole
Filipino murderer McKinley?
Sexist racist Wilson?
Calvin "I will be the least president I can be" Coolidge?
Ronald "still fucking the world 30 years after his death" Reagan.
When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Indians who were fighting removal, Jackson said, "The Supreme Court has made their decision, now let them enforce it," which is comparable to Bush issuing signing statements that contradicted the plain sense of bills, or violating treaties that we more or less wrote like the Geneva Convention.
In his defense, Jackson fought the big banks, and while he screwed the Indians, at least white settlers benefited.
Bush did not fight for anyone worth a billion dollars of any race ever.
Most of the Philippine Insurrection was fought after McKinley was assassinated. Blame Teddy Roosevelt for the main attrocities in the P.I.
War started June 2, 1899.
Roosevelt became president on Sept 14, 1901.
War ended July 4, 1902.
10 months for Roosevelt (who wasn't VP when the war started). 2 years, 3 months with McKinley who ordered his generals to be as brutal and sadistic as possible, which they were.
Sorry, been to PI many times in the past ten years. Saw first hand, primary sources of the war and the orders given.
McKinley was a murderer.
Pershing won the last battle on Jolo.
The capture of Aguinaldo did not end fighting in the islands. It ended the formal war and moved on to small scale fighting with "bandits" like the Pulahanes.
1904-1907, there were several US regiments trying to pacify Samar.
not by the scale, magnitude, corruption, and total across the board on every issue incompetence.
One of the most corrupt administrations ever, can't think of a single thing he accomplished other than the Teapot Dome scandal.
who I was taught was the worst up until Bush ... he was a one term and it wasn't Jr. keep thinking someone in the late 1800's..
George W. Bush is absolutely the worst president in US history.
Some polls cite James Buchanan because his bungling helped bring about the Civil War. Others cite LBJ, because of Vietnam. But neither of them, and especially Buchanan, had much history to guide them.
But Bush had history to guide him. And he started not one, but two Vietnams. And as a bonus he set the whole Middle East on fire. Blood, treasure, countless lives, all lost due to him. And it's not over yet. Not by a long shot.
Put on a disguise. Nothing dramatic. Just put on something so that no one knows who you are. Maybe glasses and a false mustache.
Then go to your nearest VA hospital. Go there every day, six days a week, until you are too old to travel. Tend to the vets there. Change their bed sheets. Help them eat. And then after twenty years, you have maybe atoned for a very small sliver of the damage you have done.
War Pays for Some: A Hunt for Cash
Thats something for the leading liberal pundit, partisan Democrat, and converted Obama fan Paul Krugman to reflect on. War, Krugman informed New York Times readers last August, doesnt pay anymore, if it ever did for modern, wealthy nations. This is particularly true, Krugman feels, in an interconnected world where war would necessarily inflict severe economic harm on the victor.
Theres truth in his argument if by war we mean only major military conflicts between large and industrialized states. Such conflagrations are more than unlikely in our current ultra-imperialist (Karl Kautskys term) era marked by massive cross-national capital investment and global market inter-penetration.
More on Karl Kautsky:
To Hilferding imperialism is a policy of capitalism and not a stage of capitalism itself. Kautsky also held this view, but he differed with Hilferding in regarding imperialism as a policy of industrial (albeit a "highly developed" capitalism rather than of financial capitalism. From the policy viewpoint, regardless of how it expresses itself, capitalism conceivably possesses the power to turn competitive imperialism into a cooperative economic internationalism. Kautsky, indeed, came to the conclusion during the war that imperialism is not inevitable or unalterable under capitalism but may yet attain a still higher synthesis, an "ultra-" or "super-imperialism," under which a peaceful policy may be adopted as in the days of Manchesterism, as the best means of eliminating the wastes of competitive warfare and of insuring uninterrupted profits.36 Hilferding likewise thought such an eventuality possible economically but not politically, because of antagonistic interests between the powers.37
Turning to the radical communist representatives of Marxian thought, we find very little originality, but a vast amount of polemical criticism of the theories of imperialism held by Kautsky, Hilferding, and all center and right-wing socialists. The outstanding example of this sort of criticism is found in Lenin's Imperialism.38 Embittered and disillusioned, particularly by the failure of Kautsky, so long regarded as Marx's direct successor, to go the whole way with violent revolution, Lenin makes him the scape-goat for all revisionist "renegades" from true Marxism.
Lenin and the communists generally are hostile to the notion that capitalism is capable of adopting a peaceful policy, even temporarily. The fact that capitalism once went through a peaceful stage is regarded as a mere episode in its development.39 Lenin identifies imperialism with the monopoly stage of capitalism and scornfully rejects the view that it is a mere external policy. He looks upon imperialism as "a tendency to violence and reaction in general,"40 and he brands any suggestion that it is otherwise as the talk of bourgeois reformers and socialist opportunists which glosses over the "deepest internal contradictions of imperialism."4I Granting, says Lenin, that capitalist nations should combine into such an "ultra-imperialism" or world-alliance as that visualized by Kautsky and others, it could be no more than temporary, for peaceful alliances prepare the ground for wars.42
But many elites in rich nations, the US (the worlds sole military superpower) above all, still and quite reasonably see an economic payoff in undertaking military engagements in mostly poor and pre-modern but resource-rich nations and regions. In a more classically national-imperialist vein, Washington remains committed to the use of military force in pursuit of the control of Middle Eastern oil (and other strategic energy concentrations around the world) because of the critical leverage such control grants the US over competitor states.
The biggest flaw in Krugmans argument is his failure to make the (one would think) elementary distinction between (a) the wealthy Few and (b) the rest of us and society as whole when it comes to who loses and who gains from contemporary (endless) war, As the venerable U.S. foreign policy critic Edward S. Herman asks and observes:
Doesnt war pay for Lockheed-Martin, GE, Raytheon, Honeywell, Halliburton, Chevron, Academi (formerly Blackwater) and the vast further array of contractors and their financial, political, and military allies? An important feature of projecting power (i.e., imperialism) has always been the skewed distribution of costs and benefits The costs have always been borne by the general citizenry (including the dead and injured military personnel and their families), while the benefits accrue to privileged sectors whose members not only profit from arms supply and other services, but can plunder the victim countries during and after the invasion-occupation.
Wow - how do they figure? He trounced both his opponents.
Even Fox would have a hard time lying about those.
Here. Educate yourself instead of repeating the mindless pablum you believe:
and to the racist tea party yokels who are upset that Obama who won both of his elections rather easily,
there is no comparison
Right around 9-11 there was a report released from media outlets on the Florida results election concluded if the whole state was recounted Gore would of won under some standards and Bush on others, but that is not the fraud the fraud was from purging of the voter roll where people with similar sounding/spelled names or SSC#'s that were closely alike 3% of eligible African-Americans in Florida were purged off the roll's, now if you want to think this was just a coincidence and ignore that Bush's brother was Governor of Florida and the Secretary of State was his state campaign chair that is your pejorative but don't compare the 2 successful Obama elections with Bush's, one outright fraud and the 2004 re-election is murky itself where 2 elections officials in Ohio were sentenced to 18 months in jail for pre-selecting ballots for recounts, why did they do that, because they wanted to avoid lengthier recount
as it was even in their pre-selected ballots Kerry picked up votes
so it is not the same and Bush is easily in the bottom 5 of worse American Presidents and the worse one in the last 80 years
yeah and Reagan was shit too
Every yard had multiple Kerry signs! People were so fed up with Bush that they covered their entire lawns with Kerry signs! I have never seen anything like it before or since.
I went to a close by municipal area that is traditionally staunch Republican and most of the yard signs were for Kerry and by a large margin.
There is no fucking way Bush won Ohio in 2004. As a matter of fact I feel safe in saying in 2004 Bush was crushed in Ohio.
The Bush clan are the worst presidents in US history. You can take that to the bank.
In the 2000 and '04 campaign seasons, Bush signs outnumbered Gore and Kerry signs 100:1 around where I live.
I've said for years that Hitler and Stalin could run for office here as Republicans and they'd win in a landslide - simply because they would be running as Republicans.
That's your argument with Gore. He should have run a better campaign so that he could have overcome mass election fraud and a rigged court system.
No, lay the blame on the cheat. W started planning his cheat with Rove from the very beginning. You can NOT pretend that W was honest when he had to get his Daddy's Supreme Court to put him in office. The 2nd time there was even more mass election fraud with votes from Ohio being counted in Chattanooga. It's still a rigged election system but Democrats have learned to overwhelm the cheats.
And just because some delusional RepubliCONS believe Obama stole the election doesn't make it so. They have NO use for facts. There were no recounts or late night vote changes like there was with W. There is absolutely no evidence Obama stole the election like the RepubliCONS did with W. Heck, RepubliCONS still want another birth certificate for Obama, so facts mean nothing to them. But there is clear evidence W stole the election.
In fact, there hasn't been an honest RepubliCON president since Eisenhower. Nixon, Raygun and the bushes were all traitors and cheats. But that's what you get when you allow capitalism to run your government.
Bush clearly got a lower proportion of the popular vote than Gore; this is not disputed even by those who think that the election was handled correctly (which I do not!) There is no serious suggestion that Obama got a lower proportion of the popular vote than Romney or McCain.
I do agree on your Reagan nomination, but not on the rest of your post.
and the issue with Gore who "MIGHT" have won, although it rests with the SCOTUS, shouldn't have been an issue if votes were properly counted, which required nothing more than the measure of time. Bush couldn't trust in that, so thus the effort to reach a premature conclusion.
I don't like your perspective, Sir.
Spread that kind of money around and good people with do bad things...rationalizing that "it's just this once" and "it's money for my kids" or whatever.
BUSHCO has so much money stashed from its own slimy business practices that they don't really need any friends to help.
It is a dangerous time with another Bush in the mix....for that reason, I actually hope that Trump wins the nomination because I think he will explode somewhere down the line.
Image him in a debate with Bernie, and insulting that fine, gentle polite man. Trump will look like the arrogant MF sociopath that he is.
Yes, he is the Worst. Lots of bad ones; Andrew Johnson comes to mind. But Dubya is the worst ever.
Like they say about Climate Change.
He and his massive friggin' ego likely make up that entire 1.8% alone.
Even Nixon, who disgraced the office, had some genuine policy accomplishments - the SALT agreements and the opening to China.
that Nixon and his China policy..............
He gave us today's TPP, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the South Korean Trade Deal, and other great negotiated tactic "deals" and the best item on the list other than him and his entire team being criminal's and pathological liars -----------------------------------------"fast track authority" used today and yesterday ---------------just gotta love to be coerced and blackmailed into trade deals, without any discussion until it's to late----------------the legacy lives on
Honk----------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016
He and War Criminal Henry Kissinger deliberately dragged the Vietnam war out for four years so he could announce "peace" right before the 1972 election, at the cost of the lives of20,000+ American soldiers and at least half a million Vietnamese military and civilians. And the '72 peace terms were identical to those that LBJ had proposed in 1968.
Kissinger monkeywrenched that plan by telling Thieu that he'd get better terms from Nixon, so LBJ's peace plan was wrecked for the sole purpose of electing Richard Nixon to the presidency.
There is a word for that: TREASON
We should keep this fucking thread going for about a week.
James Buchanan was overwhelmed by events. And he had no history to guide him. Even his best options probably would have only delayed the Civil War. He probably could not have prevented it.
George W. Bush is in a different catagory. He could direct events, instead of just being lead by them. And he chose the most destructive options available.
Buchanan: An unfortunate president
Bush: A willfully destructive president
I didn't like it, you didn't like it, most people didn't like it. But Bush didn't take the job to benefit me, you, or most people, he took the job to benefit the 1%. As for the job he did for the 1%? He was 99% successful, the only thing he didn't get that he and they wanted was privatization of Social Security.
The audience laughs and claps. Oh, that's so hilarious! McMonkey gives them tax breaks at our expense via our tax dollars and he calls them his base. Oh hahahahaha! Get it? The haves and have mores! Hahahahahaha!
Fuck you and your base, fucking asshole!
laughed all the way to the bank. And when that wasn't enough we bailed out the banks.
Now tell me again, who was the stupid one?
To them facts are just someone else's opinion. Only soundbites repeated endlessly are 'facts' to them.
They inherited or married into their wealth, but they think they reached where they're at because of them. Most of these people aren't smart enough to push a broom. They throw their support behind the party and candidates that work harder to widen the gap between the haves and have-nots.
The classic Ann Richards line, "They were born on third base and think that they hit a triple."
The fact that his brother is hurting just for being a Bush is very gratifying to me. His brother made sure that Florida went to George. He's implicated up to his eyeballs.
Alas, if there was karma, Dubya wouldn't be a grinning, happy idiot, finger painting through retirement in Texas.
But Reagan set the stage for Dubya, legitimizing pre-emptive wars that had nothing to do with our security (Granada) and cementing trickle down economics as the cornerstone of modern conservatism.
There's that 1% again.
That's all he was ever concerned with, so all is good with him, I'm sure.
That imbecile laid the groundwork for just about everything Dumbya did.
That makes him pretty fucking bad also.
from the get go. The Zombie King was so addled it is entirely possible he didn't know dick about it. The list of things about which the ZK was ignorant is/was as long as the galaxy is wide.
Dubya Senior administered some secret chemical agent which accelerated Reagan's mental decline.
Think the worst you can imagine of these miscreants and you'll wind up in the ballpark.
NOTHING past the Bush Crime Family. They are America's Borgias, corrupt beyond belief, rich, ruthless and just plain evil.
They should be extirpated root and branch from the public life of this nation.
Because 2 weren't enough.
The Bush family carry the water for the real powers. They can always be depended on to do whatever dirty deed required, including murder. So yea, big money likes em, they never have a thought of their own to mess with the grand plan. Turning the %99 into wage slaves.
People, get with it. Kick this to the top. Surely we can agree on this issue.
country. 2nd ...this should be a warning to those that vote because of name recognition or that believe name recognition is a good thing for their chosen candidate.
That alone should put him the running for worst president ever.
He proposed we privatize Social Security. And just look at his RACIST response to the Katrina disaster.
There are only about an additional million other crimes and misdeeds done by Dubya.
That may not be true at least since the Truman era
Half the population is stupid and brainwashed from constant lies and propaganda from the likes of Fox Fake News and over 1,000 republican talk radio stations pumping out lies and propaganda about Obama and the Democrats 24/7.
to the memories of the more than a million Iraqis and Afghans that he and his loathsome ilk murdered.
certainly the worst in my lifetime. and any one of the current republican candidates i am convinced would be every bit as bad.
Jeff61b at hubpages said this?
Wow that is some high powered writer there.
Does anyone need anyone to tell them how bad w was?
That would require everyone who lived through his reign to die.
Reagan's Goebbels took care of his image in real time, w was a disaster and his image was and is un-repairable.
which I found very telling
Presidency with it country in fantastic shape for most, then he drove it into the ground to benefit the 1%.
He should be awaiting the firing squad for treason, torture, violations of international law and violations of the US Constitution. Oh, and murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents.
In a just world the fucker would had been tried for war crimes among other things.
Right up there with the likes of Hitler.
Bush's presidency was a complete failure - there was absolutely zero positive accomplishments while he was in office.
The economy was in a major recession/mini depression when he left, the rest of the world hated us, we were bogged down in two wars, one of which should never have happened and was illegal and based on a lie, and the other should have been a very quick deal but was not won quickly because resources were diverted to the illegal war.
He failed at disaster response to a major disaster (Katrina), his policies led to the creation of ISIS, and Iraq is used by Russia as an excuse as to why they can do the same thing in Crimea.
It doesn't get much worse than that.
he wasn't good enough to be worst, he's something below that, they may have create a new word to describe it.
Thanks for the thread, Feeling the Bern.
US Grant deserves a mention and Hoover although you could argue by the time he got into office it would have been difficult to prevent the crash of 29. Madison also started a war for little reason (impressment would have solved itself given another year) that could have ruined new England's economy and lost our independence.
That should read: the biggest waste of space to steal the presidency twice.
Keep this thread going. Tell your neighbors about it. Tell them to join in. They can tell stories about how the Bushes (both of 'em) fucked up their lives.
The Supreme Court of the United States!!!
a failure before he was even selected/sworn in... just because of his past performances. Still others knew from the moment he opened his pie hole!
Namely Buchanon, and Jackson as they make Bush seem mild. I'm sure many here know why.
The Bush administration oversaw mass murder and torture, economic collapse, failed in his handling of a major natural disaster, and outed our own spy as political payback. I think you'd be hard pressed to find another president who failed in more areas than GWB. Multiple presidents may have been more damaging in their specific specialties of failure, but I guess I view worst pres. as an overall award. Like an all around champion of a failure gymnastics competition.
the last 18-24 months in office. He at least started to distance himself from Uncle Dick a little bit, which is probably why there was at least some modest and temporary improvement on the ground in Iraq. Doesn't change the fact that the decision to invade was a disastrous one, with permanent consequences, but I give him credit for recognizing (finally) that he was getting some horrible advice from a long-time trusted insider and that he needed to reverse course. I also give credit for basically eating his own party's free market mantras and enacting the New Deal bailout legislation. Again, the damage had been done but he was basically fighting his own party on that one and did the right thing.
The problem with Bush is that he really had no business running the country. No ideas of his own. Totally reliant on others, not only for implementing his own ideas but for ideas at all. It amazes me how idiotic American voters can be, voting for one guy just because we're tired of seeing the other guy in office. Or voting for the outsider just because we buy into this bullshit that he or she's going to change things in Washington.
Give me someone with experience, who knows how Washington works and at the same time has some sort of vision for how to enact new ideas pragmatically. Hillary Clinton would be a perfect example. Bernie Sanders...not so much.
the eight Presidents listed below Dumbya never sat back and
watched a major American city die. Not that I'm aware of.
Hoover let people go hungry in the Great Depression thinking his economic ideas were worth the pain (consensus is now they were bad for the economy anyway, but that wasn't what made him bad; it was the suffering he allowed). I don't know enough about most of the others to know why they're considered failures (apart from Harding corrupt, and I think some were pre-Civil War letting slavery stay while the chances of the war grew; Andrew Johnson screwed up the chance to fix the South after the war, I suppose).
I couldn't believe the moron was actually in office. I thought I would go mad.
My screen name is a reference to him.
but the worst in history? Not sure. I think Reagan may be the worst in recent history; and if he had not been president, Dubya might never have got to be president in the first place.
Long-term, one has to consider several from the 19th century. People tend here to refer to James Buchanan and his failure to prevent civil war, but his predecessors Fillmore and Pierce weren't great either, and their policies undoubtedly contributed to the decline of the country toward war. Both accepted slavery, and Fillmore ended up running for a far-right party, the 'Know-Nothings'. Another president, John Tyler, ended his political career as a member of the Confederate Congress (a former president becoming an active enemy of his country is really going a bit far). Earlier still, there was Andrew Jackson and that little matter of genocide.
In the UK, I'd put Thatcher the Evil One as the worst recent PM, but once again there were plenty of bad ones earlier on!
Amazing the amount of Fox So Called News propagandized who think President Obama was the worst. That said, they've been unable to freep that poll enough to get him even close to President Bush.
He did not only ruin the economy, and started two wars,
He started the whole destabilization of the ME, which will
continue for decades, and we have no idea how to solve it.