George W. Bush - Still the Worst

[NRaleighLiberal]

A new study ranks Bush near the very bottom in history, due to delusional wars, reckless spending and inflexibility
BY ROBERT MERRY

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/29/george_w_bush_still_the_worst//

"In 2003, President Bush, then two years into his tenure, was asked by journalist Bob Woodward about his place in history. “History,” he replied. “We don’t know. We’ll all be dead.” This is a remarkable statement from any president, suggesting a blithe attitude toward the job’s magnitude and responsibility to posterity. Compare this insouciance, as historian Sean Wilentz did in a searing Rolling Stone piece on the younger Bush, with another president’s observation on the subject. “Fellow citizens,” said Lincoln, “we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.”

Wilentz’s Rolling Stone piece, appearing in the spring of 2006, with Bush still in office, posed a question: Was this president the worst ever? The Bush presidency, wrote Wilentz, appeared “headed for colossal historical disgrace,” and there didn’t seem to be anything Bush could do to forestall that fate. He added, “And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.”

In the 5,500-word analysis that followed, Wilentz presented a solid case, although some of his arguments and expressions sounded more like they emanated from the Democratic side of the U.S. House floor than from a dispassionate historical examination. Like his good friend Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Wilentz has nurtured a career combining rigorous scholarly pursuits with occasional vectors of partisan advocacy for Democratic causes. But the question deserves attention, and Wilentz poses it with verve and pungency."

snip

much more...

Are ANY of us surprised? NOPE! Still - and will always be, I suspect...the worst!

[liberal N proud]

1. They shouldn't have had to study too hard to make this determination

[unblock]

2. i think it's hard to find another president who did anywhere near his real and enduring damage.

i googled a list of presidents often thought of as among the worst.
i think none of them come close to the real and lasting damage that shrub did:

- two completely voluntary wars, both long-lasting and tremendously expensive, with little nebulous goals, no exit strategy, and little hope of any real upside.
- turned a record surplus into a record deficit.
- stacked the supreme court with young right-wing partisan hacks.
- 9/11 happened under his watch, and he turned a unifying moment into a cudgel with which to abuse political opponents.
- lost major respect internationally
- insituted torture
- created and atmosphere of animosity and contempt for liberals, democrats, muslims, atheists, agnostics, and others.
- and the list goes on.



taylor: forgettable, but didn't do much damage.

hoover: the depression was probably doomed to start regardless of who was president. he didn't rise to the challenge, that's for sure, but in any event his major failings were largely limited to the economic realm.

nixon: definite mixed bag. obviously his war policy was an abomination and his paranoia and crookedness did brought disgrace to the office. on the other hand, he gave us a few goodies like the epa, opened up china, and started the process to reduce icbms with russia, supported equal rights, and implemented affirmative action.

w.h.harrison: gimme a break, how much damage can you do in 30 days?
grant: sure, his administration was notoriously corrupt, but what else did he do?

tyler: mostly just ineffective.

fillmore: kicked the slavery/civil war can down the road, but every president did that from washington right up until lincoln.

pierce: mostly just an expansionist. on the side of slavery, but again, not very different from others pre-civil war.

a.johnson: mostly in disfavor for having opposed reconstruction, but reconstruction was a mixed bag. moreover, his damage was arguably not particularly enduring, or at least, whatever enduring damage there was was due more to slavery and war rather than johnson.

harding: mostly just useless.

buchanan: another of the pre-civil war presidents. none of them are uniquely terrible.

[Liberal Gramma]

3. You forgot Reagan

His policies were responsible for most of the economic troubles we see today. Elimination of the Glass-Stegall act, so letting banks bet on the market; weakening of unions, thus weakening the middle class; trickle-down economics, resulting in the huge income inequality; running up the deficit, in the belief that it doesn't matter. He destroyed our economy and decimated the middle class.

[unblock]

4. well, ya got me there.

that'll learn me for just googling a list on the intertubes.

[libinnyandia]

5. That can't be true! Yesterday Glenn Beck said that W is a progressive.

[center rising]

6. Excellent article!!!

We will be feeling GWB's recklessness for decades to come.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

7. "We will be feeling GWB's recklessness for decades to come."

More like centuries, the little creep ruined this country!

[Individualism]

8. we still got that now

under Bush 2.0 and than maybe Bush 3.0 coming soon. There even cutting your services to fund the military industrial complex.