Bush's Place in History.

[Stealth694]

[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]

[Stealth694]

Sorry: Forgot to add the articles address : http://news.aol.com/article/president-rankings/344005

[denuseri]

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.

[orchidsoul]

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.

[B][COLOR="pink"]
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.

[DuncanONeil]

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.

[Belgarold]

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.

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.

[DuncanONeil]

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.

Nothing partisan about it. That is simply an analysis of how people reacted to Obama and to any criticism of him or ideas.
As a member of the Il Legislature Obama voted for a bill (SB1095eng 92nd General Assembly). This bill would have required that any child that survived an abortion be treated as any other citizen. He voted against the bill in favor of a person not mentioned in the bill. Result he voted to allow the death of newborn.

[damyanti]

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.

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.

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.

[DuncanONeil]

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.

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.

1 Harsh talk about a poorly thought out progrom that is poorly veiled earmarks? No there is no reason to question the "plan". That is point in fact evidence of the messiah syndrome.

2. The bill had nothing to do with abortion, except for the fact that it refers to a child that survives the abortion procedure. The bill granted all rights of the nation to that child and your guy voted to deny those rights. Result those children are set off on the side and allowed to die!

[DuncanONeil]

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.

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.

I may have responded to this already. This is exactly what is meant by his being viewed as a messiah. Any attempt to address his history, experience, or plans is always characterized as a "harsh attack".

[mkemse]

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.

Killing newborn is not right, but it is ok to send 18 year olds to war to be killed, what is the difference killing is killing

I believe thier is a there are 10 Commanments 1 of which is "Thall Shall Not Kill" is this mean exclusely for new borns?? if not, then again sending 18 years olds off to war to be killed is just as bad, killing is killing regardless of age

[DuncanONeil]

Soldiers in war are not sent to be killed. The newborn has no control of their life those that CHOOSE to join the military made an informed choice.

[mkemse]

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

[mkemse]

[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]

I am not suprised, the also left office with the lowest approval rating of any President in History, including Nixon

[wmrs2]

I am not suprised, the also left office with the lowest approval rating of any President in History, including Nixon

Of course you are not surprised! Bush left office at a time in history when the judging press was 93% liberal, communistic, socialistic, and far left in their interpretation of things. Jesus Christ had the same liberals judging him and look what his approval rating was. Following generations and more fair judges will rate G.W. Bush very favorable.

Jesus Christ and Bush received the same treatment. Jesus saved the world and Bush saved the USA from more 9/11 attacks. Neither person was given credit for what they did by the contemporary judges of historical accomplishments. Only a fool would expect today's press wound rate Bush at the top but his day will come and the hard hearted liberals of today will be judged in the same light as Jesus Christ's judges. History is not interpreted by any panel of contemprary judges assembled at this time. The interpretation of history is left to future generations who will be more fair than the Bush haters of today.
I am back, wmrs2

[mkemse]

Of course you are not surprised! Bush left office at a time in history when the judging press was 93% liberal, communistic, socialistic, and far left in their interpretation of things. Jesus Christ had the same liberals judging him and look what his approval rating was. Following generations and more fair judges will rate G.W. Bush very favorable.

Jesus Christ and Bush received the same treatment. Jesus saved the world and Bush saved the USA from more 9/11 attacks. Neither person was given credit for what they did by the contemporary judges of historical accomplishments. Only a fool would expect today's press wound rate Bush at the top but his day will come and the hard hearted liberals of today will be judged in the same light as Jesus Christ's judges. History is not interpreted by any panel of contemprary judges assembled at this time. The interpretation of history is left to future generations who will be more fair than the Bush haters of today.
I am back, wmrs2

True, but his saving us from more 911 attacks does not change his Failures on Foreign Policy
The Poll taken was among BOTH Neo Conservatives and Liberals, even Fox News rated him at less then a 21% approval rating and I certainly do not comsider Fox News a Liberal Network


True fair Judgement on Bush as you said will take a few years, I assume (based on age) neither of us will be around when that happens
Thereality still is that his total Foreign Policy failers are big as they were will over shadow his saving us from more attacks, and for the most part his policies have cause most countries on theworld to have GREAT distain towards the United STates, we havevery few allies now, far fewer then when he took office, I also have issue with a President be they Democratic or Repbilcn that are NOT transpartent to those who supported and voted forthem, I saw NO transpareny in the Bush Adm.

And aside from the Mardi Gra this year and Lat, 3 years after the fact, New Prleans is not much better off now then they were then a Demestic Policy Failure
It is hard to support ANY President regardless of Party who is not honest with the voters of this country
Yes I am a LIberal, but I hadrly consider myself either a Communist or a Socialist, you cab be a Lerbal Democrat and not be a Communist or Socialist
And Micheal Steele the new RNC chairman sais 1 week ago, don't blame the DEmocrats for the mess we are in now, it is current and was NOT there there doing and if we want to attract our base bac we need to chage the image of our Party now orwe will continue to loose election we have to broade our base of supporters and platform (he did not give specifics on thechanges in the platform they ned to change only that changes had to be madefor the RNC to go anywhere now, as he put it the 2006 & 2008 elections were a clear mandate for change, Domesticly and Foreign

,

[wmrs2]

True, but his saving us from more 911 attacks does not change his Failures on Foreign Policy
The Poll taken was among BOTH Neo Conservatives and Liberals, even Fox News rated him at less then a 21% approval rating and I certainly do not comsider Fox News a Liberal Network


True fair Judgement on Bush as you said will take a few years, I assume (based on age) neither of us will be around when that happens
Thereality still is that his total Foreign Policy failers are big as they were will over shadow his saving us from more attacks, and for the most part his policies have cause most countries on theworld to have GREAT distain towards the United STates, we havevery few allies now, far fewer then when he took office, I also have issue with a President be they Democratic or Repbilcn that are NOT transpartent to those who supported and voted forthem, I saw NO transpareny in the Bush Adm.

And aside from the Mardi Gra this year and Lat, 3 years after the fact, New Prleans is not much better off now then they were then a Demestic Policy Failure
It is hard to support ANY President regardless of Party who is not honest with the voters of this country
Yes I am a LIberal, but I hadrly consider myself either a Communist or a Socialist, you cab be a Lerbal Democrat and not be a Communist or Socialist
And Micheal Steele the new RNC chairman sais 1 week ago, don't blame the DEmocrats for the mess we are in now, it is current and was NOT there there doing and if we want to attract our base bac we need to chage the image of our Party now orwe will continue to loose election we have to broade our base of supporters and platform (he did not give specifics on thechanges in the platform they ned to change only that changes had to be madefor the RNC to go anywhere now, as he put it the 2006 & 2008 elections were a clear mandate for change, Domesticly and Foreign

,

What foreign failures? It still comes down to your opinion which I think is very flawed by liberal interpretations. The USA is still a free country and many foreigners have lost many more freedoms than we have. Bush has been more successful in foreign affairs than his predecessors in my opinion. But again, it comes down to opinion. I happen to like the way I think than the way you think.

[DuncanONeil]

Not to say you are wrong but I must ask. What foreign policy failures?

[DuncanONeil]

"we havevery few allies now, far fewer then when he took office,"

Then how do you explain the coalition in Iraq?

[DuncanONeil]

"Of course you are not surprised! Bush left office at a time in history when the judging press was 93% liberal, communistic, socialistic, and far left in their interpretation of things."

Don't forget that at the same times as these ratings, that are constantly trumpeted Congress consistently posted worse ratings!

[fetishdj]

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...

[Belgarold]

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.

[mkemse]

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.

My istincts tell me the Republican aare not happy at all and it may be Bush's fault they no longer Control Congress
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

[Stealth694]

My istincts tell me the Republican aare not happy at all and it may be Bush's fault they no longer Control Congress
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

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

[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 Said

[Thorne]

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.

[DuncanONeil]

Not really!

[GearJammer]

post removed by poster

[Stealth694]

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.

[mkemse]

I agree with you on Bin Laden, I was just using that as an example