Is Bush the worst president, ever?

[Ben Kenobi]

I meant that as a joke, Bush being the first president of the 21st century.

Anyways, I'll be happy to carry on the discussion.

Oh, Zkribbler, what's your degree in? If you are going to diss historians, lets have all your cards on the table.

[Zkribbler]

Political Science, specializing in International Relations.

[Ben Kenobi]

JFK, LBJ, Clinton? WTF? And I say, Hoover, WTF, but I'm a in a minority concerning Hoover's merits.

I agree with you about Hoover, although he was poorly served by the Smoot Hawley Tariff which should have been vetoed.

Again, just because two historians disagree doesn't mean that either of them are necessarily wrong.

All-time I this is how my list would be.

1. Early period.

The giants.

Jefferson, Washington, Adams,

Monroe, Madison

Quincy Adams.
---------------------------------------

Jackson, Polk

Van Buren, Harrison, Taylor, Tyler

Fillmore, Buchanan,

-------------------------------------

Lincoln

Johnson, Arthur, Harrison, McKinley, Garfield

Grant, Hayes, Cleveland

--------------------------------------

Teddy Roosevelt, Coolidge

Taft, Hoover

Wilson, Harding

----------------------------------------

FDR, Reagan, Bush Jr.

Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Bush Sr, Ford

Carter, LBJ, Clinton

--------------------------------------

So my top 11, would be in chrono order:

Washington
Adams
Jefferson
Jackson
Polk
Lincoln
Teddy Roosevelt
Coolidge
Franklin Roosevelt
Ronald Reagan
Bush Jr.

In overall order it would be:

Ronald Reagan
Coolidge
Lincoln
Jefferson
Washington
Jackson
Teddy Roosevelt
Polk
Adams
FDR
Bush Jr

[Zkribbler]

Ben, It's a little unclear what you're saying.

Are you rating the Presidents by era, with each era separated by a dotted line?

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes.

The top are the standouts in each era.

The middle have mixed records.

The bottom are the worst of each era.

I find it easier to understand and easier to compare across each era then the whole mass altogether.

[Zkribbler]

Harrison gave a speech and then died. I guess a good many other Presidents should have used this strategy and improved their ratings.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think it's fair to rank Harrison as bad as the presidents who had a full term (sometimes longer) and did way more damage.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I don't think it's fair to rank Harrison as bad as the presidents who had a full term (sometimes longer) and did way more damage.

I agree:

Top rank is: +
Middle is: 0
Bottom is: -

[One_more_turn]

Bush II is slightly better than James Buchanan.

[Berzerker]

Originally posted by Agathon
In part he's a victim of the times. There have been periods of history where even a completely incompetent boob couldn't do that much damage. Unfortunately, this isn't one of those times.

Even then, an incompetent can sometimes have a moment of clarity and clearly see what has to be done and have the will to do it. Ronald Reagan had just such a moment when he realized that Gorbachev was serious about reform. Countless numbers of people may still be alive because of that decision.

But Bush isn't wholly responsible for this. Blame has to go to the clowns who voted for him. He's the representative of a large section of the population who are in denial about fundamental problems facing the United States and the world. The bad news is that the denial isn't restricted to the Republican side.

We all know what happens when powerful countries refuse to face the facts.

Before one can deny, one must see I think many people are just plain ignorant, I'm ignorant about most of the stuff the govt does. But yer right, what other incompetent Prez was given a 2nd term? I'd put both Bush's and Clinton below Carter - all 3 of them fell into the trap Carter set for the Russians which I credit the most for "winning" the Cold War.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Carter's (and Reagan) support for the Afghan resistance was not the cause of (or linked to) 9/11, it was our departure from the policy of Carter and Reagan of keeping our military "offshore" by Bush and then Clinton and Bush II - the first Gulf War followed by a decade of staying there is what led to 9/11. Had we left after expelling Saddam we would have avoided 9/11...

That is very speculative.

The islamic resistance movement doesn't simply dislike Saudi Arabia because of US troops there, but because of its leadership and its ties to America.

the hatred for the US is bigger than its physical involvement in places, and more due to its ideological competition with Islam, and America's hegemony in general.

[Velociryx]

I think Ben is a clever Free Republic Bot, and not a real person.

It's the only explanation that makes any sense....

-=Vel=-

[Ben Kenobi]

Free republic?



What's that?

[Berzerker]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

That is very speculative.

The islamic resistance movement doesn't simply dislike Saudi Arabia because of US troops there, but because of its leadership and its ties to America.

the hatred for the US is bigger than its physical involvement in places, and more due to its ideological competition with Islam, and America's hegemony in general.

Here is my speculation - we would not have been attacked on 9/11 had we not been mucking around in the ME, in particular, the time period following the first Gulf War. We expelled Saddam from Kuwait (1st mistake) but we set up shop in SA instead of leaving (fatal mistake). The attacks began shortly thereafter and their stated reason was our presence. Thats called connecting the dots, not speculation

Here is your speculation - we would have been attacked on 9/11 regardless of our foreign policy, even if we weren't over there.

Reagan learned the lesson when he got our soldiers killed in Beirut. His VP wasn't paying attention, or our leaders have made the conscience determination that American lives shall be sacrificed to terrorism as part of the cost of meeting energy needs - blood for oil.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by conmcb25
Oh please the Hoover administration did EVERYTHING wrong in response to the Depression. Strictly on economics alone (leave Iraq out of the picture because Hoover had no real equivalent) Hoover was clearly worse than Bush.

Surely Hoover understood the magnitude of the Great Depression too late, trying to meet an unprecedented crises with insufficient means, believing in voluntary actions and trickle-down effects. But it's quite often forgotten that after 1930, Hoover started programs which would successfully be expanded by FDR and become the fundament of some of his most successful New Deal programs: Home LoanBank Act, RFC, Emergency Relief and Construction Act...
If someone gripes about his tariff act, keep in mind, that praised FDR continued this policy all the way.
Hoover's foreign policy was a rather good one among US presidents, and his progressive domestic reforms also proved positive and lasting.
Hoover is in no way the one responsible for the Depression but since it happened during his presidency, he gets much of the blame. Not reacting to the crises in a visionary way and doing it too late makes him an average president but not the "hands in the pocket"-guy he was made. FDR has the prime merit of making your nation confident again. Taking up many existing ideas, expanding them and pushing them through with popular support and initiative.