The Worst President In U. S. History!

[rotorwash]

Good Grief!! I ignore you guys for two days and suddenly I am a page of posts behind.

First, "same handful of chief executives whom national polls of historians, from across the ideological and political spectrum, routinely cite as the bottom of the presidential barrel."

There has never been agreement between historians about who is at the bottom of the barrell. The argument is tremendously diverse and inconclusive. Mr. Wilentz, who teaches History at Millsap College, is very much an individual who you can identify with politically, Gimpy, and he and someone like Paul Johnson of Berkely would never agree on the same person. It really doesn't matter how much Mr. Wilentz cites national polls, they all have the same problems as the one used as the foundation for this story.

Gimpy, this quote from your post, "And he goes on to say, "In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure."

Here Wilentz does himself a major disservice, and he also does one to you because he misquotes the author of the survey.
The survey was conducted at the request of Robert S. McElvaine of George Mason University, another gent with political views you would love. Wilentz is the second resurrection of this story I have seen, the other one was in "McLeans", the Canadian publication that wouldn't say a good word about Bush if you had their cajones in a vice, and both versions make the same mistake.
The current version says, "an informal survey of 415 historians . . ."

The actual story says, "of the 415 historians who expressed a view, 338 classified it as a failure and 78 as a success."

What's the difference? The truth-only 415 people responded with an opinion about GWB as opposed to the lie-a survey of 415 historians. Big difference here. Some respondents, not included in the 415, did not mention GWB. Some respondents, also not included in the 415, said that it was too early to make an accurate call, wait 50 years. (Gee, I thought I said that) How many surveys were sent out? That figure is not available, but if it were sent only to the members of the Organization of American Historians, it would have been in the neighborhood of 11,000.

When was it sent out? In early 2004, an election year. Suppose that had any bearing on the results, reported in HNN May 17, 2004?

I think we need to consider the words of one historian in refering to the survey: "The political split I find in rating recent presidents means that it is likely that the HNN study merely tells us what the political orientation of their pool is.

"This is a measurement issue. You may think you are measuring GW Bush, but you are really measuring the politics of the panel surveyed. I am not saying that, if someone were to do a representative study of historians, they wouldn't find Bush a failure (given the political makeup of the profession, they probably would); what I am saying is that this result would be determined by the politics of the raters, not GW Bush's successes or failures.

"In rating presidents, one should either politically balance panels or measure the politics of the raters and assess their impact on the ratings -- or both (the informal HNN survey does neither). Otherwise, you are not measuring what you think you are measuring." James Lindgren


Rotorwash

[ABNCIB]

Gimpy, when was there a federal surplus? Granted there was a year or two where we spent less than we took in, but there wasn't a surplus. the federal debt kept growing. It's good to see you're still the same silly old fart you've always been.

[Gimpy]

I be-a hornswaggled, knock-kneed, buck-toothed hillbilly!

Where the hell have you been my Airborne buddy..........Long time no see (or hear)!

Yep, that's me .............old & silly!......

Good to hear from you even though it appears you're still the same old siily fart you've always been also!.....

Hope you and yours are doing well.

[Advisor]

Awwww Gimpy, you ain't that old!!!!

[colmurph]

Gee. I thought that Jimmy Carter was about the worst President we've had during my lifetime. He gave the deserters from Vietnam amnesty and gave the Panama Canal (that we built) to the Panamanians to turn into another Suez "Marlbourough Canal".

Can you as a wounded veteran, accept an amnesty for the craven cowards who ran to Canada while you were in Vietnam?

[reconeil]

Just some slight corrections, and hope you don't mind?
But, I just can't believe there was any Administration WORSE THAN CLINTON & GORE.

If wasn't for Clinton and his foreigner patronizing (both legals & illegals) clique setting the stage for or encouraging it through ineptness and a general worldly naivete',...don't believe that Sicko Muslim Terrorists would've have the balls to attack America so severely.

Still, and in fairness to One Term: "Jimmy Who?", he only had half as much time to screw-up The U.S. Military and Intelligence Community,...as did UN loving Bill Clinton.

Though, you also didn't mention EXTRAORDINARILY GENEROUS with The People's Retirement SAVINGS Jimmy Carter & Gang, did give away VAST sums of collected F.I.C.A. Monies to MANY foreigners: "NEVER HAVING PAID ONE THIN DIME INTO F.I.C.A.".

But then, I guess that's just A Democrat Thing?
Later, Gore cast the deciding vote in The Senate to start taxing the: "Never To Be Taxed Social Security" (according to FDR).
Thus, more F.I.C.A. Monies get legally ripped-off by Big Brother.

So then, I guess it fair saying that perpetual obstructionists and under miners even turn against their very own, when needed and/or getting their greedy little mitts on MORE & MORE of Taxpayer Monies.
Sure-as-hell appears so at every opportunity,...as regarding to: "The Pie in Sky" and usually quite greatly deceptive Democrat Crowd.

Neil

[Packo]

Just wonderin'.....although I hate this forum, had to ask...on Sept 24th, 2001, what would his rating been?

Ratings, like pictures, are a snapshot in time and I would not believe a Berkely Professor if he told me day was light and night was dark.

Now, am I happy with GW? Nope. Very upset over a bunch of things. Worse President ever? Well, I'll answer that the same way I answer people that tell me the Iraq war is "lost" or a "waste", and a bunch of other stuff:

I equate presidents and wars to anything that will be a historic event. Be it Clinton, Nixon, Grant, Carter, Bush (1or2), WWII, Korea, Vietnam, or the War on Terror, HISTORY and only HISTORY will tell. Ask one Korean Vet in 1954 if he thought the Korean War was worth it and I'll bet he either didn't have an opinion or felt a bunch of rice eatin' gooks and rice paddies weren't worth one American life. Now, 50 years later we are buying cars from a country that couldn't defend itself.

Y'all can argue until the cows come home but only HISTORY will prove whether this war was worth it or GW is the worse president ever. All I would ever wish for if I was president was a tour like Ike's and Clintons. What's been dumpted in GW's lap is more than most presidents have seen in 10 tours.

Pack

[b3196]

Paco.....You senile ole fart
Booger lee

[reconeil]

You most certainly make a lot of Good Common Sense.

Regardless, I personally don't historically compare The 9/11 Muslim Attack on America by fanatical defenseless men, women and children (babies also) mass-murderers, to any other conflict or war other than with the earlier Imperial Japanese mass-murdering butchers of The Twenties, Thirties an Forties.
The Germans weren't all fanatically-murderous Nazis.

Then too, The Japanese devastatingly sneak attacked us, and thus similarly Declared War on America. Though, and in fairness, The Japs didn't attack Sovereign American Soil. Hawaii was only A Protectorate then.

Plus, The Japs also (just like similarly fanatic Muslim Terrorists & Assassins), didn't believe that any other than their breed even had a right to live and breath,...just as muslims* now believe of infidels*. Well,...except possibly in a slave-like capacity?

Hey,...I could be wrong?

Neil

P.S. ANYBODY (re. **)
How come when doing a spelling check here, a capital
for: "muslims" was deemed correct, where as a lower case
for; "infidels" was perfectly alright? Why is that?

[zuni_rocket]

Without a Doubt Jimmy Carter was the worst President & is the Worst Ex-President as well!

Jim Bishop