Rolling Stone: Bush Worst President Ever?

[troutman]

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/pro...ent_in_history

George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. 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.

Worst? I don't know. Most Incompetent maybe.

And, Neil Young's scathing new record, Living With War:

http://www.metacritic.com/music/arti.../livingwithwar

Tiny Mix Tapes
Living With War is instantly the most incisive and penetrating album that Young has released in years, and it is arguably the most vital of his career.

The New York Times
"Living With War" -- irate, passionate, tuneful, thoughtful and obstinate -- is definitely worth a click.

Rolling Stone
Young charges the current president and his administration with, among other things, lying, spying, waging war with no right or reason and dereliction of duty to the nation's founding ideals. He then calls for the most extreme judgment available to the American people in "Let's Impeach the President"

[rubecube]

Well he's definitely not the best president ever...but LBJ and Nixon have to be pretty high up there too.

[Lurch]

Macleans had the exact same story about 1 month ago. Pretty compelling case to put him amongst the worst in terms of measurables, popularity, etc.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Macleans had the exact same story about 1 month ago. Pretty compelling case to put him amongst the worst in terms of measurables, popularity, etc.

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/po...14_170120_5808

[Cowperson]

Although I remain a supporter of the decisions to go to Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, I said before Bush's first term I wouldn't have voted for him if I had the opportunity and also said in 2003, in spite of my support for Iraq, that Bush needed to be voted out of office.

Some find that contradictory but its not and my comments on the matter have been consistent since 2000 in this forum.

The same ideology that I favoured - and continue to favour - in getting into Afghanistan and Iraq is also the same ideology that led to failures in prosecuting the aftermath and continues to delay the eventual and inevitable withdrawal, something I said here last year. Only the falling polls have triggered the move to bring USA troop levels below 100,000 by Congressional elections in the Fall.

My comment above is illustrated in this paragraph from the Rolling Stone story:

he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities.

Even at that Bush might still be above 50% in the polls if not for all the other goofy stuff that has happened, on extraordinarily leaky immigration that can only lead to a crisis, on the continuing massive holes that still exist on homeland security five years after 9/11, on the continuing appalling stumbles, massive deficits ala Reagan and human misery and lack of progress on property damage we still see one year after Katrina . . . as obvious examples.

The blurring of the line between separation of church and state was the origin of my original objections to his election.

On the other hand, after a brief flirtation with the more extreme fringes of the right wing in America, we'll likely see a welcome swing back towards the center in Congressional elections this Fall . . . . a benefit at least.

Having said all of that, one must concede that Bush is a TWO term President, that he stood before the electorate and passed a referendum on his record, even if the populace now regrets their decision only a year and a half later.

As such, I'd put Bush behind Jimmy Carter as the worst President in my lifetime . . . . . if anyone was around in that period you'd remember Carter left a country in 1980 that was in a profound state of depression, certainly a mood worse than he inherited even in the aftermath of Vietnam, heading into a massive recession after being held hostage by a punk Iran, all overhanging issues in no small part due to his own lack of leadership and vision.

I'm a little surprised the Rolling Stone article scarcely mentions Carter. in fact, in skimming it, I didn't see him mentioned at all.

And, actually, if we were really thinking about things, we might name one of the most popular Presidents in USA history, Ronald Reagan, as one of the worst in history considering the massive deficits and inflation he left behind - which led to big problems later - as well as his descent into Alzheimer's while still in office.

Nixon actually got America out of Vietnam, opened dialogue with China, negotiated missile treaties with the Soviet Union, and his term was also, generally, a prosperous one for America . . . . . although war is always prosperous and the stock market fell 50%, I believe, in his last year in office when government stop paying for conflict.

Is it all about popularity?

My thoughts.

Cowperson

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

And, actually, if we were really thinking about things, we might name one of the most popular Presidents in USA history, Ronald Reagan, as one of the worst in history considering the massive deficits and inflation he left behind - which led to big problems later - as well as his descent into Alzheimer's while still in office.

Actually, the article comes down pretty hard on the Reagan administration, not for the reasons you mentioned, but for the massive number of white-house officials involved in various corruption scandals during his tenure.

[White Doors]

Isn't Reagan considered one of the best American Presidents of all time now? I know he was villified at the time - but he did play quite a role in the collapse of the SU.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Isn't Reagan considered one of the best American Presidents of all time now? I know he was villified at the time - but he did play quite a role in the collapse of the SU.

Only by Republicans

Seriously though, the Reagan administration had some tremendous flaws. Racking up a massive debt, Iran contra, Getting involved in Central/South American civil wars, etc.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

He has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities.

Or as Colbert said (see the thread on Colbert) in his speech:
If he has an idea on Monday, he'll still support that idea on Wednesday, no matter what happens on Tuesday (paraphrased)

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Isn't Reagan considered one of the best American Presidents of all time now? I know he was villified at the time - but he did play quite a role in the collapse of the SU.

I think Reagan gets more credit than he is due for the collapse. There were a lot of factors that lead to the fall, and the eastern block's apparatus couldn't maintain hold. I think Reagan may have hastened it, and for that he should be applauded, but his election to office didn't suddenly bring an end to to iron curtain.

I think it probably takes a good 20 years before it can be decided if a President was good or not. Many policies can take years before their impact can be determined. Popularity gets a candidate elected, but I think history should decide if he was any good.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Isn't Reagan considered one of the best American Presidents of all time now? I know he was villified at the time - but he did play quite a role in the collapse of the SU.

Only by neo-cons. To them, Ronald Reagan is a saint and a superman. Too bad superman was dealing with half a deck when he was in office during his second term. Hard to be great when you're barely cogniciant of what is going on around you.

There were many factors that lead to the down fall of the Soviet Union. Several harsh winters lead to the country not being able to feed itself. The arms race with the west started to bleed the country dry. Afghanistan was the final nail in the military coffin. The pull of the west was getting to be too great as the the Soviet Block states started to crumble to the pressures of the people. The way the Soviets used communist doctrine to develop an oppressive state was their undoing, NOT Ronald Reagan.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I think Reagan gets more credit than he is due for the collapse. There were a lot of factors that lead to the fall, and the eastern block's apparatus couldn't maintain hold. I think Reagan may have hastened it, and for that he should be applauded, but his election to office didn't suddenly bring an end to to iron curtain.

I agree. He gets way too much credit.

There were things happening within the Soviet Union that had nothing to do with Reagan. The fact that their agricultural science was based on Lamarckian genetics, which decreased their ability to be self-sustaining was a major factor. Nationalism in the Baltic states and within Russia was another. Weak leadership was a another.

Reagan's "Tear down this wall" speech is over-emphasized. The USSR was well on the decline at that point. Not that the arms race didn't play a roll, but the Soviet government was foolish and that helped.

[fredr123]

History will never forgive this administration for its involvement in the assassination of Former President Logan. A black eye for US politics for sure...

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Although I remain a supporter of the decisions to go to Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, I said before Bush's first term I wouldn't have voted for him if I had the opportunity and also said in 2003, in spite of my support for Iraq, that Bush needed to be voted out of office.

Some find that contradictory but its not and my comments on the matter have been consistent since 2000 in this forum.

The same ideology that I favoured - and continue to favour - in getting into Afghanistan and Iraq is also the same ideology that led to failures in prosecuting the aftermath and continues to delay the eventual and inevitable withdrawal, something I said here last year. Only the falling polls have triggered the move to bring USA troop levels below 100,000 by Congressional elections in the Fall.

My comment above is illustrated in this paragraph from the Rolling Stone story:

he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities.

Even at that Bush might still be above 50% in the polls if not for all the other goofy stuff that has happened, on extraordinarily leaky immigration that can only lead to a crisis, on the continuing massive holes that still exist on homeland security five years after 9/11, on the continuing appalling stumbles, massive deficits ala Reagan and human misery and lack of progress on property damage we still see one year after Katrina . . . as obvious examples.

The blurring of the line between separation of church and state was the origin of my original objections to his election.

On the other hand, after a brief flirtation with the more extreme fringes of the right wing in America, we'll likely see a welcome swing back towards the center in Congressional elections this Fall . . . . a benefit at least.

Having said all of that, one must concede that Bush is a TWO term President, that he stood before the electorate and passed a referendum on his record, even if the populace now regrets their decision only a year and a half later.

As such, I'd put Bush behind Jimmy Carter as the worst President in my lifetime . . . . . if anyone was around in that period you'd remember Carter left a country in 1980 that was in a profound state of depression, certainly a mood worse than he inherited even in the aftermath of Vietnam, heading into a massive recession after being held hostage by a punk Iran, all overhanging issues in no small part due to his own lack of leadership and vision.

I'm a little surprised the Rolling Stone article scarcely mentions Carter. in fact, in skimming it, I didn't see him mentioned at all.

And, actually, if we were really thinking about things, we might name one of the most popular Presidents in USA history, Ronald Reagan, as one of the worst in history considering the massive deficits and inflation he left behind - which led to big problems later - as well as his descent into Alzheimer's while still in office.

Nixon actually got America out of Vietnam, opened dialogue with China, negotiated missile treaties with the Soviet Union, and his term was also, generally, a prosperous one for America . . . . . although war is always prosperous and the stock market fell 50%, I believe, in his last year in office when government stop paying for conflict.

Is it all about popularity?

My thoughts.

Cowperson

I agree with most, and especially Carter, with what you wrote. We still see the ill effects of Carter's rule.

History will tell where GWB stacks up against all the rest. Saying now that he is the worst ever means nothing and is just more "I hate Bush so I am calling him the worst" silliness. One Abraham Lincoln, in his time was most likely considered the worst president ever too. 600,000 Americans soldiers died under his reign, struggled to win his second term which was ended with a bullet in head.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I agree with most, and especially Carter, with what you wrote. We still see the ill effects of Carter's rule.

History will tell where GWB stacks up against all the rest. Saying now that he is the worst ever means nothing and is just more "I hate Bush so I am calling him the worst" silliness. One Abraham Lincoln, in his time was most likely considered the worst president ever too. 600,000 Americans soldiers died under his reign, struggled to win his second term which was ended with a bullet in head.

I've visited forums where there are still people who believe Lincoln was the worst ever. Of course, they are from the deep south and believe that slavery would have ended without the war and that teh war was just a northern excuse to reign in the south.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I've visited forums where there are still people who believe Lincoln was the worst ever. Of course, they are from the deep south and believe that slavery would have ended without the war and that teh war was just a northern excuse to reign in the south.

See that's just not true. Nobody in the South knows how to use a computer...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I agree with most, and especially Carter, with what you wrote. We still see the ill effects of Carter's rule.

History will tell where GWB stacks up against all the rest. Saying now that he is the worst ever means nothing and is just more "I hate Bush so I am calling him the worst" silliness. One Abraham Lincoln, in his time was most likely considered the worst president ever too. 600,000 Americans soldiers died under his reign, struggled to win his second term which was ended with a bullet in head.

Oh I agree. It's always about hating Bush and nothing more. To put it in Edmo-centric language, this author is a "playa hater".

There couldn't possibly be a reason (although he listed several) to say he's a terrible president, it's just blind hatred.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Oh I agree. It's always about hating Bush and nothing more. To put it in Edmo-centric language, this author is a "playa hater".

There couldn't possibly be a reason (although he listed several) to say he's a terrible president, it's just blind hatred.

No, it's every neo-con's favorite excuse....LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!!!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

There's no question that Bush is pretty bad--and though popularity isn't everything, it's worth remembering that his pre-9/11 ratings were nothing to write home about, and that he was in the doldrums before the invasion of Iraq as well--meaning that though he has at times enjoyed high popularity ratings, that may have been an effect of external events, not of anything in particular that he did. After the fog of these events has settled, people are starting to notice that this administration doesn't seem to DO a heck of a lot.

What Bush HAS done, in a material way, is oversee the biggest power grab for the presidency since Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war. This administration is secretive, nakedly power-hungry and cynical--and in my estimation, people are finally getting tired of that.

But to say he's the worst president ever is a bit tough. For one thing, we'd all have to agree on a single standard for measuring presidents, and the thing is, no such standard can exist, because circumstances change from term to term, let along decade to decade or century to century. If Reagan had been president when Carter was, who's to say what would have happened? It's food for thought--Carter was probably in large part a victim of circumstance.

As for Lincoln--he probably benefits from his circumstances in hindsight. He wasn't perfect, but handled the impossible situation he was handed about as well as it could have been handled. He is made to look a little better by the veritable gong show that was the American presidency right before and right after the civil war. Buchanan was terrible. And then a string of inept and corrupt Republican administrations during the reconstruction didn't help anything--including Ulysses S. Grant, who was probably, in my opinion, a better candidate for "worst president ever" than Bush.

Even my hero FDR probably benefited from the favorable comparison to the presidents around him. Hoover was terrible. FDR was by comparison, great. (he had his flaws, too--although FDR's my hero, I don't want to get into a discussion of Pearl Harbor, etc. etc.) After that, the American public was forgivably underwhelmed by the choice between Dewey and Truman.

I think the "worst president ever" stuff is partially based on the assumption that most presidents were pretty decent guys. The thing is, there are a lot of candidates for "worst president ever"--it's a title for which there is a lot of competition. (My vote goes to either Harding or Grant, btw. I strongly dislike Bush, but I don't think he's close yet)

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Oh I agree. It's always about hating Bush and nothing more. To put it in Edmo-centric language, this author is a "playa hater".

There couldn't possibly be a reason (although he listed several) to say he's a terrible president, it's just blind hatred.

Where is the sarcasm smilie????? You were kidding, right?