I voted for Bush...Nixon was not a role model, but some of his efforts had very good results (relationship with Russia, China and his efforts to end the Viet Nam war stand out in my mind).
I didn't attempt any research into this...just going from history classes and my own recollections.
I think the way the Bush Administration is running the war in Iraq (and for getting us there in the first place) and the emergency response to Katrina top my list of worst Presidential actions.
The people that Bush has chosen to lead our government have in many cases proven to be poor choices. Rumsfeld, Libby, Rove, Brown (Former FEMA) and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff are all poor government officials (IMHO). And all were chosen by Bush.
There are a lot more reason I would choose Bush as the worst President, but that is enough for now.
Dwight ***************************************************** 04-20-06, 09:32 PM Kelleygirl Because of all damages done to our country, G.W. is the worst on my list but I can be bipartisan -- I'd put Lyndon Baines Johnson second.
04-20-06, 11:13 PM juanruiz Any poll that omits Grant and Fillmore is not of much use.
04-20-06, 11:42 PM newnickname This article suggests that most historians would choose James 'I shall carry to my grave the consciousness that I at least meant well for my country' Buchanan.
Maybe it is too soon to judge Bush Jnr. Not because he may suddenly start pulling rabbits from hats, but because it's impossible to get a perspective on a presidency with the president stiil in office. Of course his faults are going to appear larger than those on show in ancient controversies.
On Grant...
'When he was elected, the American people hoped for an end to turmoil. Grant provided neither vigor nor reform. Looking to Congress for direction, he seemed bewildered. One visitor to the White House noted "a puzzled pathos, as of a man with a problem before him of which he does not understand the terms."'www.whitehouse.gov
The UK also found out that military heroes are not necessarily the best candidates for civilian leadership. The Duke of Wellington dug his heels in against electoral reform but lost; 'Though it [The Reform Act] passed, Wellington was never reconciled to the change; when Parliament first met after the first election under the widened franchise, Wellington is reported to have said "I never saw so many shocking bad hats in my life".'
04-20-06, 11:49 PM DorianGreyed The Rolling Stone article is a long, but fascinating read. I highly recommed it.
04-21-06, 12:45 PM juanruiz The problem with popular polls such as this is that opinion is naturally based on current viewpoints, and not the general feelings of the time. In other words, the approach to judgement is anachronistic. Case in point: How would Bush be viewed today in re Iraq had the US populous held the manifest destiny view of the 1840s, when Polk invaded Mexico?
04-21-06, 12:55 PM Scotty Why is it that the absolute worst is not on the list? That would be Jimmy 'Peanut farmer" Carter.
04-21-06, 01:57 PM newnickname
quote: How would Bush be viewed today in re Iraq had the US populous held the manifest destiny view of the 1840s...
Wouldn't he still be in trouble for the lack of success in stabilising and controlling Iraq? Seen as an imperialist move, the invasion is still a failure.
04-21-06, 02:23 PM juanruiz Well, Polk's war wasn't exactly a cake walk either.
04-21-06, 03:51 PM newnickname Maybe not fair, but kinda funny...
'Yes, Virginia, the current occupant of the Oval Office is no longer a crook or an adulterer. He's a moron.
As if that were not bad enough, we still face two and half years with this man at the controls. NFR reader Philip Bourgeois suggested an intervention launched by former Presidents Clinton, Bush Sr. and Carter. Not a bad idea, Phil.
Poppa Bush must be beside himself watching his kid screw up decades of diplomacy in just five short years. He could take sonny into that Oval Office alcove where Monica used to dispense her favors and administer a few long overdue dope slaps.
Bill Clinton could sit the moron down and give him a short course on how to balance a checkbook, teach him the difference between capital investment and undisciplined spending, and the virtues of saving for a rainy day.
Jimmy Carter could teach Junior the actual meaning of the word "compassionate," and how to walk that walk. Carter could reveal to him that giving the already comfortably rich even more money is not compassion. Giving more money to the growing number of those who work 60 hours a week or more, and still can't get by, is "compassion." And he could figure out how to cover the nearly 50 million Americans who cannot afford health insurance.
But none of that is likely to happen. One of the trademarks of a moron is contempt for facts that challenge the simple but comfortable fictions that rule their daily routines. You can drag a moron to a library, but you can't force him to learn.
In fact morons get downright testy when someone challenges what they think they know. We saw this trait earlier this week when Bush was asked if he thought Don Rumsfeld should resign. The moron lashed out at the questioner, dashed into his imaginary phone booth and emerged as The Decider. "I'm the decider," he pronounced, with Mussolini-like swagger. You see, scratch a moron and beneath that smirking, ignorance-is-bliss exterior, you discover a fundamental truth: Beauty may be only skin deep, but moron goes right to the bone.'Forrest Gump's Evil Twin
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 4318 | Location: Anchorage, AK | Registered: 06-05-02
