That’s not me asking, actually. That’s the cover story in the current “Rolling Stone,” issue 999. (It’s dated May 4, so i don’t know how much longer it’ll be on the stands.) It’s a detailed, scholarly overview of the Bush administration as provided by one of the country’s leading historians. As much as Bush supporters will cry foul, it is difficult–if not impossible–to argue with the thorough, reasoned and historical comparisons of Bush with other presidents…those deemed both the greatest successes and the greatest failures. Recommended reading.
PAD
• 
We have the magazine where I work and a conservative coworker of mine was flipping through it. He glanced at the article for about five seconds, and said, “This historian sucks!” He couldn’t have read an entire paragraph. I think he read a couple of the captions.
See, that’s probably going to be the reaction of any Bush supporters who try to read the article. Granted I don’t KNOW any Bush supporters, but you get the idea. 😉
Yeah, I’m thinking most Bush supporters don’t read Rolling Stone anyway, since every issue has a Bush-bashing article in it. My mother in law saw this issue and was so offended by the cartoon of Bush in a dunce cap that she turned it over so the back was showing instead.
The piece itself is at http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history
To back the stereotype of people clinging to their political opinions, I’ll admit I _still_ see Bush as Warren G. Harding — well-meaning but listening to the wrong people and just not up to the job.
On the other hand, the stiff-necked Hoover is also a good comparison.
Frankly, I think it’s too soon to judge accurately.
Bush Jr has certainly been a BAD President, but all we have to judge him on is the stuff that’s already known about.
How much evil, screwed-up stuff is there that this administration has gotten up to that has been left uncovered? Until someone other than the Republicans is in charge of at least one of the Houses and is willing and able to do some digging, we’ll never know.
Thanks for the notice – I’m flying today, and always end up wanting a magazine or three for the flight. Looks like I’ll grab this, Real Simple, and Glamour for the flight to Philly. Danke!
I hate it when the media does this. By saying “worst ever,” they sound too radical. I despise Bush, but I don’t know if I’d put him as worst ever. I’d certainly put him as worst of my lifetime, though.
Oddly enough, Maclean’s Magazine in Canada (think of a Canadian Time and you get the idea) asked the question if he was the worst president in a 100 years about three weeks ago.
You can read the article here: http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp?content=20060417_125323_125323
I dislike Bush, but I’m always wary of carrying out historical judgement on a politician until his term in office is completed and there are a few years distance as well.
I never thought Canadian Prime Minster Brian Mulroney would be anything other than reviled (Think Bush’s poll number are low? Mulroney’s were at around 12% at one point. His party went from 160-odd seats to two in the 1993 election). And yet, his political rehabilation is ongoing. He was just acknowledged as Canada’s “Greenest Prime Minster” (most environmentally friendly.
I don’t see how Bush could be positively viewed once historians get their legitimate crack at him, many years from now. But I won’t be surprised when a lot write good things about what he did.
Way back on 5 December last year, i reacted to articles already asking the same question with a blog post…
To those who are saying it’s too early to judge Dubya, that’s the reason the cover headline and article title read “The Worst President in History?” There is a question mark for a purpose. The historian, Sean Wilentz, is not stating an absolute fact, nor even offering an opinion; he’s asking a question. He does offer some evidence which supports the question’s being answered in the affirmative, but he doesn’t categorically state that Dubya is the worst president ever.
In fact, he notes this near the end of the article:
No historian can responsibly predict the future with absolute certainty. There are too many imponderables still to come in the two and a half years left in Bush’s presidency to know exactly how it will look in 2009, let alone in 2059. There have been presidents–Harry Truman was one–who left office in seeming disgrace, only to rebound in the estimates of later scholars.
“it is difficult–if not impossible–to argue with the thorough, reasoned and historical comparisons of Bush with other presidents”
It’s almost sad commentary that you’re not kidding about this part. The ‘almost’ being it’s become nigh customary to start off arguments with a “of this, there can be no argument”, so as to, right off the bat, discount any would be disputer as the ramblings of the mad. ’cause if there can be no argument, and someone is, in fact, arguing… then obviously he’s a nutty-nutterson – and no attention needs be payed him or his contentions.
Granted, you did throw a “difficult” qualifier in there… but really, the insinuation is there.
I’ll put you down for Great, then.
I believe that the correct answer to the question is – No one knows for sure yet, but if he is remembered as the worst President in the history of the country, it won’t be because of the left wing fantasy that this admittedly unabashed liberal has spun in the pages of that scholarly publication, Rolling Stone.
I mean really. This article could only appeal in its entirety to the most ardant Bush haters. Such people would be down on the President if he cured cancer, claiming that he only did it to help wealthy white people. (The article is peppered with little bits of propaganda that fall right in line with liberal dogma. Global warming – BUSH’S FAULT! Tax cuts – ONLY FOR THE RICH! War in Iraq – HORRIBLE FAILURE!!!)
I’m not sure how Bush will end up. He certainly is not batting a thousand. But unless things go markedly downhill, there have definitely been worse men in the office. In my lifetime. And I’m 42.
Time will reveal, but George W Bush is definitely the worst president of the last 40 years, and if you get past a little bump there you could even say 70 and not meet much opposition.
Of course, you have to brace yourself from the reaction from the partisan crowd, who will label such thinking as “Republican Hatin'”. But that comes with the territory. The ‘Pubs will always want to lable a Dem as the “worst president in X years”.
But seriously, how can anyone defend Bush’s moves. I heard him say yesterday that he staunchly believed that although gas companies claimed a $50B profit over the last three months, there was no evidence or reason to suspect price gouging. Yet, he’s more than willing to investigate whether gas station owners are engaging in price gouging. What’s wrong W, afraid to go after your friends who are fuel executives, so instead you’ll go after the former grease monkeys who worked hard to buy their one gas station.
Or how about this one: Bush said this week that the answer to once-again-rising gas prices was to eliminate restrictions on drilling for oil in Alaska and other places. So, he won’t accept the possibility of investigating his buddies, but it’s okay to ruin a national wonder to make his buddies even richer? Sure thing, Commander in Chief.
Bush, he’s the man. Sure
I believe that the correct answer to the question is – No one knows for sure yet, but if he is remembered as the worst President in the history of the country, it won’t be because of the left wing fantasy that this admittedly unabashed liberal has spun in the pages of that scholarly publication, Rolling Stone.
I take it that you won’t actually READ what the person has to say, then….
“Mulroney’s were at around 12% at one point. His party went from 160-odd seats to two in the 1993 election”
9%. For about a year. He finally stepped down as Conservative Party leader after that. If only because he was pushed out by the party in fear of what his presence would do to them in the election. It didn’t help.
And it was 177 seats down to 2.
OK, for that honor, I would vote FOR Bush 🙂
“Or how about this one: Bush said this week that the answer to once-again-rising gas prices was to eliminate restrictions on drilling for oil in Alaska and other places. So, he won’t accept the possibility of investigating his buddies, but it’s okay to ruin a national wonder to make his buddies even richer?”
I believe it was on NRO (that’s The National Review Online for you non con-blogophiles out there) the other day where someone made the excellent point that if all the oil companies colluded to limit the ammount of oil wells they could dig, and the ammount of oil refineries they could build to produce gasoline faster and cheaper, they would all be put in jail… or at least flee the country once word got out about their impending arrest (but c’mon, you’d do it too if you were a bazzilionare).
Instead, it’s the government, at the behest of environmentalists and other groups, that does this colluding for them.
And if you wanna ask if I think limiting envoironmental, for lack of a better more spite filled term, ‘safe-gaurds’ would decrease oil profits… well that’s exactly what I’m saying.
But this is a small quibble in the overall pseudo-debate of the day… so I’ll let ya’ll get back to it.
Bush has made some important mistakes, and his Taliban-esque pandering to the religious right is regrettable. But many of his problems–from the oil crisis to terrorism–have been building a long time and were exacerbated by others. For instance, Clinton recognized al Qaeda as a major threat, but couldn’t bestir himself to do anything. WHen the economy was recovering under Bush 1, Clinton was nonetheless elected and took credit. When the economy starting crashing under Clinton, Bush was elected and given the blame for the recession. Not everything is Bush’s fault. And we need to recognize that the next decades require a firm hand and resolute opposition to radical Islam lest we be hurled back into the middle ages.
It will come as no surprise to those who know me, but I think a good case can be made that when things are looked at with the perspective of 50 or 100 years, Bush will rank far higher than Clinton or Carter (to choose two examples). What lasting legacy did either of them leave? Yes, Clinton was popular. Yes, I think some good things happened under his 8 years. But tell me, what happened that will still resonate 50 years from now?
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think Bush will be held as high as Lincoln, Roosevelt, or Reagan (yes, Reagan). I think he has squandered some opportunities (especially the chance to bring true financial balance to the government — there is no excuse for the current deficit). But when you look at foreign policy, I think Bush did things that will matter, and that will turn out to make a positive difference.
Bush has not been a great president (when compared to some that have come before), but I obviously would argue he has been a good president. I can remember how many people reviled Reagan. Yet 20 years later, there is a begrudging respect from many that in the one area of the time that counted, the Cold War, he did something right. I believe the same will be true for Bush. In terms of the one thing that really mattered, terrorism, he did something right. Not perfect, but something that mattered and that made things better than when he took office.
Iowa Jim
“I can remember how many people reviled Reagan. Yet 20 years later, there is a begrudging respect from many that in the one area of the time that counted, the Cold War, he did something right.”
You mean hurl us into debt over an imagined threat? Sorry, no begrudging respect here.
“In terms of the one thing that really mattered, terrorism, he did something right. Not perfect, but something that mattered and that made things better than when he took office.”
What was that, exactly?
JLK
monsieurms wrote: >>>For instance, Clinton recognized al Qaeda as a major threat, but couldn’t bestir himself to do anything.
Neither did Bush 2. Remember, the BushW administration was given the same inteligence and he also didn’t do anything about it. To be fair, let’s say that either Clinton or BushW had pre-emptively struck Al-queda before 9-11, there would be a tremendous amount of opposition.
History is going to look back on an administration that took us to a war based on bad inteligence. An administration that possibly commited treason in leaking the name of a CIA agent in retrebution to critisism of said inteligence report. Who failed to show any concern during the crisis in Catrina until he was preassured politically. Who illigaly wiretapped it’s citizens even though there were legal ways to do it.
Please tell me how the above is anything but the current administration’s fault?
“I mean really. This article could only appeal in its entirety to the most ardant Bush haters. Such people would be down on the President if he cured cancer, claiming that he only did it to help wealthy white people.”
You know, I see snide comments like that all the time. And you know what they’re based on?
Nothing. Nothing except pure bias and arrogance toward those with liberal views…you know, kind of like Bush has.
If Bush cured cancer, he would be cheered by everyone. Period. To assert anything else is just stupid.
Just as when Bush sent troops into Afghanistan, he had the support of…what? Ninety percent of the people? More? I know *I* supported it and stated it here repeatedly.
Unlike, say, conservatives who found any reason to trash Clinton for anything he did, ascribing the most venal or self-serving motives for any major action. Support Bush for war? Absolutely; he’s doing it to protect the country. Support Clinton for war? Absolutely not; he’s doing it to distract from Monica.
It would be nice if conservatives stopped thinking that liberals act like conservatives.
PAD
Iowa Jim: Clinton or Carter (to choose two examples). What lasting legacy did either of them leave?
P&P: Seriously? Clinton balanced the budget (and showed future presidents how to do it, if they cared to). Sure, it’s not “lasting”—Bush, Jr. dismantled the gain. Like it or not, the “aspirin factory” turned out to be (at least) a dual-use facility. There was the speech at the UN marking Global Terrorism as the greatest threat the country would face. (You’ll remember the Republicans ran some serious spin that day: they aired Clinton’s deposition on “sexual relations.” Serious governenace choice: fëlláŧìø or terrorism? Which is more important?) Oh, and there’s the whole jailing Milosovich. Wait—brokering peace with the IRA. Oh, and the first real steps towards a peace accord w/Israel & Palestine (Bush dropped the ball on that, BTW). More real $$ for education. Unequalled prosperity for the whole of his term (and the recession started immediately after the election results were in—learn your dates).
Carter was all into this “peace” and “integrity” stuff. Now, while I realize that’s not wholly supported by the “Moral Majority,” it was resolutely Christian. Good guy, that Carter. Builds houses for poor people. Help me out here: how many houses has Bush funded? Even after Katrina? (I mean besides the mansions for his friends in Congress.)
How’s this for a lasting legacy: at least my kids will respect Clinton and Carter on the merits of their jobs. Sure, Clinton had an affair with an intern, but Bush screwed the world. Well, I guess that’s a legacy after all…
I’m a conservative Republican, and I’d really rather not be lumped in with the ardent Bush supporters. That’s why I like the term neo-con, it allows me to say that a lot of the nut cases who are calling themselves conservatives today are different than me.
I didn’t like Clinton, but I wasn’t at all happy about the impeachment mess. I’ve come to like and respect Clinton more since he left office. No, that’s not just in comparison to Bush.
I voted for Bush in the 2000 election, but not in the 2004 election. I’m not sure Bush is the worst President ever. That’s the kind of thing that is best judged 50 years from now, when people can be dispassionate about it. However, I don’t think the claim is invalid, either. I think a lot of the decisions that he’s made have been really bad, and there’s nothing wrong with the article.
I like Stephen Colbert’s interviews, “George Bush.. Great President or the Greatest President?”
and then, “I just have Great or Greatest. I’ll put you down for great.”
PADguy says:
It would be nice if conservatives stopped thinking that liberals act like conservatives.
I try not to get into discussions about politics, because it’s usually a matter of opinions instead of facts, no matter what one’s political allegience is. But I will say that one thing I am very tired of is shows (radio, TV, whatever) devoted to some Left or Right celebrity/figurehead ranting his/her opinions at everybody. How useless is that? I much prefer forums like this one, where there is at least the chance of a discussion.
Unfortunately, my radio doesn’t seem to get many stations, and most of the ones I do get are skewed to the Right. I think it is a bad sign when I hear certain Right-minded figureheads saying something, and the first thing that comes to mind is, “Prove it!” Of course, it’s all opinions, so it doesn’t have to be proved. But I prefer opinions based on facts, not convenient interpretations.
On the radio, I continuously hear the Right criticizing the Left of what amounts to “bad behavior.” “Ooooh, those democrats, they were so rude! Why, I never! Can you believe they won’t support the troops? They must hate America!” This is a complete and total denial of point of view. Heaven forbid that the Right admit, “It’s not that they hate America. It’s just that they have a different perspective of what is going on.” Heaven forbid that politicians should be reasonable when it is not convenient for them politically.
It’s not enough to know where one side stands on the hot issues. In order for real progress to be made, both sides need to acknowledge each other’s perspectives and take them seriously. And then they need to take this attitude to the forums.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to hold my breath until that happens. If you don’t hear from me again, please tell Jessica Alba that I love her and that I’m sorry about the misunderstanding.
“Unequalled prosperity for the whole of his term (and the recession started immediately after the election results were in—learn your dates).”
I would suggest YOU learn YOUR dates. I work in the financial services industry, and had a bird’s eye view of the whole experience. The market had been showing signs of weakness for some time. Perhaps you remember Greenspan warning against the “irrational exuberance” of the average investor? The market hit it’s high point in March/April of 2000, and headed down from there, LONG before the election. Nice try, but that comment just doesn’t fly. In terms of the next few years, 9/11 definitely caused a commotion but the market had actually turned around and was showing a lot of positive growth before the twin scandals of Enron and Worldcom hit (both of which had been festering for some time and can’t be laid at Bush’s feet).
When reading the article, (and yes, I DID read the article), it is obviously biased. The opening line itself gives that away, with the historian taking as fact a multitude of liberal talking points that quite simply are nothing more than opinion. Reading through the rest of it gives nothing but empty comments backed up by nothing but air.
I worry about the way this nation is becoming more and more polarized, I really do. It seems like there is so much hate on both sides of the aisle that we no longer have much common ground. I blame both Republicans and Democrats for this. The way that my fellow Republican’s acted during the Clinton presidency was embarrasing and infantile. The way that the Democrats have been acting since 2000 is even worse.
BenD, what have the Democrats done since 2000? One of their failings is their aversion towards attaking Bush.
-It took the Republicans for Bush to suddenly start shaking his cabinet.
-The Republicans were also the major factor in Bush cancelling the deal with Ubai.
-The Democrats had nothing to do with the way Bush handled Katrina.
-The Democrats had nothing to the with the way his Admisnitration leaked the identity of a CIA agent as retribution for pointing out, befor the war in Iraq, that the inteligence was faulty.
I think it’s fair to question his administration, in light of the fact that even his own party is doing so.
Bush supposedly deserves credit for spreading democracy.
1) By toppling the Taliban in Afganistan
2) By toppling Saddam in Iraq
3) By helping create the political atmosphere that pressured the Syrians to leave Lebanon.
4)By creating the atmosphere for some limited democratic steps in Egypt and othe Arab countries.
5) By not allowing Israel to prevent the elections in the Palestinian territories. (Although I’m not sure Israel would have acted differently, nor was there need for the Americans to introduce democracy into Palestinian society)
But even if somehow democracy of some sort endures in Iraq or elsewhere in the middle east, I think this success will be tainted by all of the mistakes associated with the Iraqi war. WWI, resulted in the toppling of 3-4 empires, but it is still considered a misguided war.
I doubt if Bush can claim credit for any great successes in the war on terror, unless we assume that US intelligence has prevented a worst outbrake of Al-Quaida violence around the world. Attacking Afganistan was a justified step against terror but not a fantastic success, and Iraq had a negative effect on fighting Islamic terrorism. Bush also squandered the leaderhip position of the US built during the 90s by his father and Clinton.
The key point of the article is not that Bush is responsible for hurricanes or terrorism or global warmingor even economic recession, but that he hadn’t dealt with these issues well when facing them. I think Clinton would have done a better job handling all these issues.
Clinton could not have attacked Afganistan based on what Al-Quaida was doing during his term. The events in Iraq and the attitudes toward the war show the risks of waging a war without proper justification.
BenD says…
“I worry about the way this nation is becoming more and more polarized, I really do. It seems like there is so much hate on both sides of the aisle that we no longer have much common ground.”
The nation’s always been polarized… it’s just now we hear about it more. Since the federalists took aim at the anti-federalists (or vice-versa) we’ve had two to multiple groups of people duking it out over what is the right and wrongs ways to run this country. Often with harsh and occasionally obscene rhetoric.
This is not a big deal… and I think it speaks volumes about how great a country this is that we can fight like this without even the spector of physical conrontation looming over, like would in other countries.
Also, polarization is inherently a good thing. Granted, I’d rather it was right wing arguing with the righter wing over what to do… but that’s just a little pipe dream of mine. If we didn’t have polarization we’d have become a stagnate, autocratic, less interesting by far, and commie-esque nation. I never want my government walking in complete lock step… that’s just not the way humanity works.
As for turning down the vitriol… now what fun would that be?
PAD says…
“Unlike, say, conservatives who found any reason to trash Clinton for anything he did, ascribing the most venal or self-serving motives for any major action. Support Bush for war? Absolutely; he’s doing it to protect the country. Support Clinton for war? Absolutely not; he’s doing it to distract from Monica.”
I think, or at least hope, most conservatives take my position on this… that is, being able to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time:
1. Clinton was doing this, at least in part, to distract from Monica.
2. It was still the right thing to do, and deserved our full fledged support. His timing was suspect, his action was not.
Chris, I’d disagree with point number 1. The timing was too close. Something like that doesn’t get started and arranged in that short an amount of time.
In Richard Clark’s book he says that things were pretty far along when the scandal hit. The question at the time was actually whether or not to call it off because people would think it was a distraction.
2. It was still the right thing to do, and deserved our full fledged support. His timing was suspect, his action was not.
Then when would have been a good time? He’s been out of office 5 years & some of the vocal right is still obsessed about the bløwjøb, a common defense of anything bush does is “But Clinton …”, and when things go wrong people are still pulling whatever they can out of their ášš so they can blame Clinton for it.
==============
As for bush & gas prices, in 2000 when gas was less than half the price it is now, bush said the President should “pick up the phone, call OPEC, & tell them to open the taps”. Now bush tells us that there’s nothing that can be done about gas prices.
Sean Wilentz: No historian can responsibly predict the future with absolute certainty. There are too many imponderables still to come in the two and a half years left in Bush’s presidency to know exactly how it will look in 2009, let alone in 2059. There have been presidents–Harry Truman was one–who left office in seeming disgrace, only to rebound in the estimates of later scholars.
Luigi Novi: But are the reasons for Truman’s low approval rating comparable? Was Truman believed to have violated the law, the Constitution, civil rights, and international law?
Overworm: Bush said this week that the answer to once-again-rising gas prices was to eliminate restrictions on drilling for oil in Alaska and other places. So, he won’t accept the possibility of investigating his buddies, but it’s okay to ruin a national wonder to make his buddies even richer?
Luigi Novi: How would drilling in Alaska ruin a national wonder? Wouldn’t 99.99% of the Arctic refuge be untouched? And aren’t there already drill rigs there now, co-existing with the wildlife? Don’t caribou, for example, co-exist with oil fields? According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the caribou population in Alaksa’s biggest oil field has quintupled since drilling began there.
Posted by: Michael Brunner at April 30, 2006 12:34 AM
Then when would have been a good time? He’s been out of office 5 years & some of the vocal right is still obsessed about the bløwjøb, a common defense of anything bush does is “But Clinton …”, and when things go wrong people are still pulling whatever they can out of their ášš so they can blame Clinton for it.
Chris: Any time during his 8 years in office would have been a good time to bomb Iraq. Why he picked that particular moment, in that particular news cycle to do it, is the part that’s suspect to me.
As for the Clinton bløw jøb thing… I never cared a bit about it. I would prefer my presidents not getting their recreation in the Oval Office of all the many offices available to them – but otherwise it wasn’t a big deal. Now then, the many other thing’s he did while in office… travelgate always being one that irked me no end… and then using the bløw jøb facade to cover for them (which was just a brilliant move on his part. Cause no matter what he was being attacked on, even when it was actually warranted, he just came out and defended the bløw jøb. Brilliant.), that stuff gets to me.
==============
As for bush & gas prices, in 2000 when gas was less than half the price it is now, bush said the President should “pick up the phone, call OPEC, & tell them to open the taps”. Now bush tells us that there’s nothing that can be done about gas prices.
Chris: Bush was wrong. Politically it was the timely thing to say… but economically it ranks up there with ‘steal underwear + ? = profits’.
This massive increase in gas and oil prices was really quite predictable – in addition to the Nigerian unrest, and the loss of production from the Iraqi oil fields, the market became extremely nervous as this whole Iran mess began ramping up. Compounding this has been Bush’s refusal to utter one simple phrase, one that none of his predecessors has had a problem with since Vietnam – all he really has to do is confirm that the US will not be the first to deploy nukes. When, in a press conference, a reporter gave Dubya the opportunity to say just that, he declined – “I don’t wanna take any of the options off the table.”
See, this is one of the many things about Bush that frighten me – he sees pre-emptive attack with nuclear weapons, against an opponent he merely suspects of wrongdoing, as an option.
I have read the article, and I see the same bias others mention. It’s still an opinion piece, though, so it’s SUPPOSED to be biased. Just becuase he’s a professor of history doesn’t make his opinion unbiased. Where did the notion that when a person gets PhD after their name, that they weren’t allowed to express an opinion?
BTW, for those who want to find “proof” of bias, you need only check the political contributions of the author. In 2004 he gave to the DNC.
A side note on oil profits. I did a little digging at the time to look for their profit margin – just to see how much money they were spending to get all this. For the quarter it sat at 8% – at around the same place it’s been for 10 years. That’s not out of bounds for any company, and shows that it’s not the oil companies making the money here – it’s the speculators in the market. I’ve only seen this little factoid reported in the media once, though, so it’s not very widely discussed.
With all the outrage over the “high” price of gas (talk to a European about how badly we have it) I seem to recall that many environmentalists and even some politicians have proposed taxing gas at rates that would have brought prices considerably higher. Aren’t we supposed to be trying to cut back on gasoline consumption and isn’t the only way that will happen is by raising the price so high that SUV type gas guzzlers fall out of fashion?
If you believe that global warming is both a reality and caused in large part by auto emissions, this price spike should be cause for celebration.
One thing about the current politics–boy, if you’re the kind who likes to say that both parties are run by fools, you were given plenty of ammunition. It’s like a race to the bottom over who can say the most ignorant thing. Supply and demand? What dat?
>WWI, resulted in the toppling of 3-4 empires, but it is still considered a misguided war.
And it very effectively sewed the seeds for another, worse conflict twenty years later. One which, by its end, saw the toppled empires replaced in some places by the now ever-expanding Soviet Union. Not much of an improvement.
>Now bush tells us that there’s nothing that can be done about gas prices.
No, there’s nhot much HE wants to do about it. There’s a difference.
Back around ’41-42, the US realized they had a problem and gathered up their top physicists, chemists, engineers, threw lots of money at thyem and, a couple of years later had atomic energy and the atomic bomb.
So, what’s the government waiting for to crank up a Project Manhattan style all-out quest for an alternative to oil? The ‘energy crisis’ first reared its ugly head THIRTY YEARS ago. Since then, the administration’s answer to it has been simply to dig more holes. Whoppee …
In 2004 he gave to the DNC.
And for all we know, he gave to the RNC in 2000.
Of course, the general rule of thumb here must apply as well: the media is completely biased in favor of liberals, even though most of the conglomerates that own the major media outlets regularly donate to the Republicans.
But keep believing the spin.
Of course, the general rule of thumb here must apply as well: the media is completely biased in favor of liberals, even though most of the conglomerates that own the major media outlets regularly donate to the Republicans.
So when Rupert Murdoch owned the Village Voice you considered it to be an example of conservative bias?
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at April 30, 2006 12:19 PM
“In 2004 he gave to the DNC.
And for all we know, he gave to the RNC in 2000.
Of course, the general rule of thumb here must apply as well: the media is completely biased in favor of liberals, even though most of the conglomerates that own the major media outlets regularly donate to the Republicans.
But keep believing the spin.”
But this man isn’t the media – he’s an academic. A man who admits academia, specifically history departments, are made mostly of liberals.
He even says here,
“Historians do tend, as a group, to be far more liberal than the citizenry as a whole — a fact the president’s admirers have seized on to dismiss the poll results as transparently biased. One pro-Bush historian said the survey revealed more about ‘the current crop of history professors’ than about Bush or about Bush’s eventual standing.”
Now just because he admits to it, and just because he says that the presidents admirers will use this fact to dismiss the results, doesn’t mean they don’t warrant dismissing for just these reasons.
Basically, the entire contention of this article is that a very specific area of the population, history professors, really don’t like Bush. And that’s why he’s the worst president ever.
The media thing is a completely different argument.
Whether your Conserivative or Liberal, I don’t see how anyone can say that Bush hasn’t been a failure in just about everything he does:
-He failed to act on intelligence and prevent 9/11
-He failed to apprehend Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice
-He failed to stabilize post war Iraq
-He failed to bring aid in a timely manor to New Orleans in the wake of Katrina
And these are just the big ones, and don’t include balancing the budget, rejuvinating the economy through tax cuts, Harriet Miers, No Child Left Behind, a revamp of Social Security, and more recently his guest worker program.
The only success he’s had in office are the nominations of John Roberts and Sam Alito.
…and capturing Sadaam.
Brian, many of your points hold water but how can you say the economy isn’t rejuvenated? 4.8% growth in the last quarter? Even with high energy prices? Low unemployment, low inflation, god job growth….
In the old days, when a Democrat was in office, the economy was pretty much judged just on those terms–inflation, growth, jobs, unemplyment. By those standards, Bush is doing great (we will ignore, for now, the fact that it’s one of our cherished myths that presidents are the ones directly responsible for the nation’s economy, an argument for another time).
One can legitimtely make the news grimmer by factoring in trade deficits, the budget imbalance and other factors but it weakens the Bush opponents arguments to ignore the good news.
> …and capturing Sadaam.
Who, it turns out, wasn’t really any threat to North America, and the resources diverted to getting him were taken away from getting bin Laden who we KNOW is. Great sense of priorities there.
Bill Mulligan –
So when Rupert Murdoch owned the Village Voice you considered it to be an example of conservative bias?
If I knew anything about the Village Voice, I could respond to your question.
Murdoch isn’t an idiot, and he was pretty shrewd in how he built his business empire, but he’s certainly not playing to liberals these days.
Chris –
A man who admits academia, specifically history departments, are made mostly of liberals.
So? It’s precisely this kind of thinking that’s hurting this country so badly – just because most academics or writers in the media are liberals doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
Yet, that’s exactly the position conservatives have taken.
Bush will be viewed as one of the worst, if not the worst, president in our history.
Craig, the Village Voice is a New York based paper so far to the left it makes Eric Alterman look like Michelle Malkin. It has some great columnists and is always a good read, even if you don’t buy into the politics (unless you are one of those who can’t admit the “other side” has any ability to think or entertain). You should check it out, I think you’d enjoy it. At the very leats, the personal ads have moments of brilliance (my own fave– “Female boy George look-alike seeks male, same. NO WEIRDOS PLEASE”)