Printable View
[SIZE="6"]A Team of Historians has just rated George W. Bush's Presidency, and compared it to the other 43 Privious Presidents. Its No Suprise that George W. Bush is rated in the bottom 10. What is suprising is that he shares the 37th position with Richard M. Nixon. I think little Georgie will be keeping quiet about his Legacy from now on.. ;) comments anyone? SIZE]
Sorry: Forgot to add the articles address : http://news.aol.com/article/president-rankings/344005
Also included with that article is a poll the results of which I have posted bellow at the time I reviewed the article.
I wonder what the political affiliation of the people who made the rankings was as these things are ussually purely subjective.
What do you think of the top 10 list?
Fairly accurate 59%
Somewhere in between 28%
Way off the mark 13%
What to you think of the bottom 10 list?
Fairly accurate 49%
Somewhere in between 27%
Way off the mark 24%
What do you think of George W. Bush's ranking, tied for fifth worst?
It's too harsh 46%
It's too kind 36%
It's about right 18%
How do you think Obama will be rated after he's out of office?
Somewhere in between 39%
Bottom 10 35%
Top 10 26%
Note the low confidence in Obama's future (belaying the fact he is not pricevied as the messiah after all) and the high amount of people that disagree with Bush's rating.
The article also contained this interesting factoid of opinion on Clinton:
Bill Clinton left office with a high approval rating, but a panel of writers who focus on US politics and foreign affairs at the Times, a British publication, considered him mediocre. The president who passed progressive legislation but who saddled himself with the Monica Lewinsky scandal landed at number 23. As panelist Ben Macintyre put it, Clinton "promised so much, delivered so little and embarrassed everyone."
Additional Kennedy did not make the top ten where as Regan did.
The proof will be in the pudding and I am sure its purely speculative at this point where any of the Presidents should be ranked that held office in the past 50-75 years including Nixion and Bush.
I am not suprised, the also left office with the lowest approval rating of any President in History, including NixonQuote:
Originally Posted by Stealth694
It is all somewhat subjective. Nixon would probably be much higher on the list if it wasn't for a little thing called watergate. Clinton marred anything he did with blowjobs. I'm sort of surprised at the number of people thinking Bush's rating was too harsh. Just goes to show how divided this country is, and was, about Bush.
Though I don't understand the messiah comment, Denu? As someone who voted for Obama, I never knew people viewed him as a messiah! And I'm honestly not sure what I think quite yet- but I know his job is not easy and it's too soon to judge or criticize imo.
It's probably one of the more difficult shoes any new president has ever had to fill in history. I'll be curious where he ranks after 4 yrs as well. However, the confidence isn't listed as low actually. It's pretty much a three way tie as to top, middle, and bottom- leaning heavier in the middle. Personally I think it would be near impossible for him to land in the top 10. No one could possibly even fix the disaster that our country is in a matter of 4 yrs. Nor will he do it all to the publics liking, my own included at some point I'm sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
No president is ever popular when he is in power. Everyone will always compare him either to the last one or the next one and he will always come up short.
Frankly I prefer Douglas Adam's view of politics - never give the job to anyone who actually wants it... :)
How do you think Obama will be rated after he's out of office?
Somewhere in between 39%
Bottom 10 35%
Top 10 26%
Very Hard To say, he has a 4 year term and has only been in office for 6 weeks
Only time anfd Histiry will tell but one has to give him tim,e can't pass any judgmenet on any Presidents Performance after only 6 weeksi n office, but he has said some decions he makes will not be liked by many, other will
let's see where we are and what he has done in say Jan 2010
I may add, be it hypothetical or not, supoose after 8 years searching for him, Obamas Adminstration Captures Bin Laden?? His approval rating would go through the ceiling
I, too, am curious about the messiah comment. The messiah myth is one built up by the Republicans during the campaign. He is a man, a good man, I think trying to do an almost insurmountable task.
Bring us back from the brink of disaster that Bush and crew has brought us to. In three weeks he has already done more and gotten more shit for it, than Bush.
THe messiah comment is Republican propaganda.
And the survey still seems to have a right-wing bent.
Nice point Mkemse,,, I say wait at least 6 months before we start Judging Obama.
As for Obama catching Bin Laden,,, I doubt it, Personally I think Bin Laden is either dead or so sick he is at deaths door.
I agree with you on Bin Laden, I was just using that as an example
My istincts tell me the Republican aare not happy at all and it may be Bush's fault they no longer Control CongressQuote:
Originally Posted by Belgarold
And if anyone noticed, be it chance or not, during the last election in 2008, very few if any Replicans, SEnetors, Reps or Presidential Cndidates wanted anything to do with Bush, they realy seemed to make it apoint to distance themselves from him, nobody asked him to appear with them ect
I think Bush's Legacy will be a Badly Failed Foreign Policy, Bad Economic Policies ect ans when he was in Office, American International Intelligence was a Contradication in terms, all he ever said was "It was a result of Faulty Intelligence" that seems like he used that everytime he was wrong or we ran into a problem of some kind, if we had that bad of Intellignce why did he do nothing to correct it, he was Commander and Chief, it was his job to correct what was wrong or directthse who needed it to be corrected
And my apolgies to all if i deviated to much from the topic
According to polls I have Read Including Teagan Woodards Poll taken in September of 2008 was 19%
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
It was not so much Faulty Intelligence, it was Bush's attitude that he knew more than anyone and everyone. He didn't listen to people who disagreed with him and usually got rid of them because these people were not on his team. Bush was a Meglo Maniac who felt he was God
Very Well SaidQuote:
Originally Posted by Stealth694
It's far too early to bejudging any of these men in terms of history. Perhaps Nixon, it being nearly 40 years ago since he left office, but that's still a little early. It's my feeling that a president would have to be out of office for at least fifty years before we could get a true perspective on his administration. Much less than that and you still have the problem of partisanship.
That doesn't mean people can't have their opinions. Just that there's little justification for claiming an accurate ranking, especially for Bush and Obama, and even for Clinton. History and historians must take a longer view of such things.
I agree with Thorne.... this is current events rather than history and it is likely that historians of the future will judge things completely differently. Everyone (even and possibly especially non Americans) alive today has an opinion on Bush and all the other presidents mentioned. This is not good for objectivity.
If nothing else on Bush, his legacy could very well boli down to his failed foreign policies
I think Stealth hit the nail on the head. It was Bush's attitude and secrecy and arrogance that will be his legacy. He valued loyalty over competence and did not like to hear "defeatist" talk even when it was the truth.
Reagan is judged one of the 10 best mainly because of a concerted legacy project in the 1990s. I lived through Reagan's presidency, his was not a great presidency. I feel Bush is waiting for the same type of whitewashing of his administration. He was a bad president and for my money his legacy is our current situation in Irag, the economy and the partisan nature of Washington. LOL< and the fact that the Republicans cannot even utter his name most of the time.
Again, you're assuming that they have, indeed failed. While it's true that they may appear to have failed over the short term, the long term effects of his presidency have yet to be known.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
Abraham Lincoln was considered a terrible president at the time. His significance to history wasn't realized until long afterwards.
Not to say that Bush can be compared to Lincoln. No one would be more surprised than I if he were seen to be anything other than a poor, if not downright bad, president.
More so Iraq, when he annouced we were going in he said we would be in and out in 90 days, that was almost 8 years ago, we needed to focus on Afganistan not over through Iraq, Bin Laden and the Taliban are/were in the Tora Bora Mountain, not in Iraq, we had no reason to go into Iraq, they has nothing to do with 911 we should have placed all our forces and efforts in AfghanistanQuote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Even if Iraq had connecion to 911 which Bush addmitted they did not, Bin Ladin was never there, he is who we are after
CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, during a discussion of President Bush’s recent trip to the Middle East on Monday’s "American Morning," cited her discussion with unnamed "analysts and experts," and concluded " it's hard to discern any evidence of any success on this trip whatsoever." "American Morning" substitute co-host Kyra Phillips, following-up to Amanpour’s analysis, remarked, "Well, critics have come forward and said, okay, whether it's his policies in Iraq, Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he's failed everywhere."
The three-minute segment, which was the last in the 6 am Eastern hour of the CNN program, came after a report by CNN correspondent Aneesh Raman, which summarized the President’s trip. Amanpour, in response to Phillips’ "failed everywhere" statement, gave a more nuanced take on President Bush’s foreign policy track record. "Well, events have moved beyond anybody's expectations and control.... If you look in Lebanon, the elected U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is not in control. Hamas is in control because it has a superiority -- rather Hezbollah, in terms of weapons. So the U.S.-backed allies there are not in control, basically, only in name only and de facto."
In her final question to Amanpour, Phillips continued her dour take on the Bush record. "And so is it him, is it his advisors? I mean, a lot of people are saying, he's got to do something for his legacy. He's got this Iraq war that's just tarnished his image and the Republican Party, but he continues to come home empty-handed. So can he even win?"
Amanpour replied, "Well, it's about policy, many of the analysts are saying. Policy is being pursued that has not paid off, in terms of the ends that presumably were imagined." She then concluded by going back to the issue of Lebanon, specifically, talking about the recent flare-up between the Lebanese government and Hezbollah.
The full transcript of the Amanpour/Phillips segment from Monday’s "American Morning:"
KYRA PHILLIPS: CNN's chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour joining us now. Did he [President Bush] achieve anything on this five-day tour?
He Samolia Policy FAiled, his Policy on Soviet Georgia Fail, his Policy with the Palastinians failed, their President has NO control there, the Palastianes are controlled by Hama not by
their President
you look in Lebanon, the elected U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is not in control. Hamas is in control because it has a superiority -- rather Hezbollah, in terms of weapons. So the U.S.-backed allies there are not in control, basically, only in name only and de facto
Mahmoud Abbas was elected to lead the Palastinian, yet Hama controls everthin,g anotherfailed US Bush Policy, he was backed bythe Bush Adminstration and chosen by the people of Palastine
As bad as Bush's ratings were the congress and senate's ratings were lower. President Obama's Ratings are falling. I think the main reason Our latest politians are rated so low is that we know what they do almost before they do it and judge them before what they did has had a chance to work. Look at the stimulas bill. the congrssional budget office has judged it a bad bill with little or no chance to fix the economy. Let's hope there're wrong.
Presidential Approval Ratings, Since 1950
Below are the highest and lowest approval ratings ever received by a president in a national opinion poll throughout his presidency.
President Highest - Lowest
Harry Truman - 87% - 23%
Dwight Eisenhower - 79% - 48%
John F. Kennedy 83% - 56%
Lyndon Johnson 79% - 35%
Richard Nixon 67% - 24%
Gerald Ford 71% - 37%
Jimmy Carter 75% - 28%
Ronald Reagan 68% - 35%
George H.W. Bush 89% - 29%
Bill Clinton 73% - 37%
George W. Bush 90% - 25% (ABC- 23%, Fox-25%, NBC-27%, Gallup-25%)
Sources: Can West News Service; CNN; "The Ups and Downs of Presidential Popularity," Ron Faucheux, Campaigns and Elections magazine. Rateit.com
I think this reflects the variances the public feels during a presidency and shows the need for time (decades at least) to evaluate and even then its going to be biased since there's no real metric to measure "best". I think I, or anyone else for that matter, could make as good a case for Lincoln being among the worst or conversely make just as good a case for him being among the best. Its all in how you evaluate those facts.
The issue of seeing Obama as a messiah stems from the refusal to consider or allow any critical review of any part of his progroms, work history, or advisors. His stint in Congress was spent running for a promotion, his position in Il was spent having legislation handed to him, and largely voting "present". Oh Yes and voting to kill newborns.
Not really!
I take it winning the Cold War counts for nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Belgarold
Where did he say in and out in 90 days?Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
Al Quaida also was seen and likely operating in Iraq, but that is not the reason for going into Iraq. UN resolution 1440 was the proximate reason.
The quotes you use from CNN are disjointed and make no sense.
To me this partisan viewpoint shows that the 'messiah' myth is a partisan one. I don't believe that any bill has been put forth, anywhere that was based on killing newborns. COuld you please explain this inflammatory statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
Nothing in the Spending bill is designed to stimulate anything. In fact of the 40% claimed to be tax relief at least half of that is going to be spent on things that have their own category in the "plan". Not to mention the fact that the plans call for states that accept money from the Feds must undo Welfare Reform as a result!Quote:
Originally Posted by moosehunter
Reagan did not WIN the cold war. He happened to be President when Gorbachev and powers within Russia brought down the SOviet Union. He made a speech that probably hastened the bringing down of the Berlin Wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
But, this is one incident and ignores the economical issues that helped to begin the destruction of the middle class. He destroyed government programs that put many homeless on the streets and many of the mentally ill on the streets as well. This served to make our country less safe.
So, No, 'winning' the Cold War does not count for that much.
I have just been informed by a great friend that Bush, Sr. was president during the fall of the Soviet Union. So we are both wrong there. SO how COULD Reagan have WON the Cold War?
1. There has been and still is a lot of harsh talk against Obamas program and his work and personal history....which is I assume what passes for "critical review" these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
2. Nobody ever voted "to kill newborns". Abortion views are a private matter. But if you really insist on it....I suppose its much better to raise them and ship them off to Iraq so they can be tortured and killed and all so some very corrupted rich people can get even more rich.