George W. Bush's first ranking: 36th of 42

C-Span invited 65 historians and observers of the presidency to rank the presidents of the United States.  Perennial greatest president of all time, Abraham Lincoln, continues to hold first place in their estimation.  Franklin Roosevelt and George Washington always seem to vie for second place, and while Roosevelt held the number two spot in 2000, he has exchanged places with Washington in this year's survey: Washington now is number two.  

Here are the ranking of the presidents; note the position of the Prince Jackass, whom I have placed in bold; a little more on the Moron-in-Chief's contribution after the list:

1.  Abraham Lincoln

  1.  George Washington
  2.  Franklin D. Roosevelt
  3.  Theodore Roosevelt
  4.  Harry S. Truman
  5.  John F. Kennedy
  6.  Thomas Jefferson
  7.  Dwight D. Eisenhower
  8.  Woodrow Wilson
  9. Ronald Reagan
  10. Lyndon B. Johnson
  11. James K. Polk
  12. Andrew Jackson
  13. James Monroe
  14. Bill Clinton (Clinton and Monroe are tied in the list)
  15. William McKinley
  16. John Adams
  17. George H. W. Bush
  18. John Quincy Adams
  19. James Madison
  20. Grover Cleveland
  21. Gerald R. Ford
  22. Ulysses S. Grant
  23. William Howard Taft
  24. Jimmy Carter
  25. Calvin Coolidge
  26. Richard M. Nixon
  27. James A. Garfield
  28. Zachary Taylor
  29. Benjamin Harrison
  30. Martin Van Buren
  31. Chester A. Arthur
  32. Rutherford B. Hayes
  33. Herbert Hoover
  34. John Tyler
  35. George W. Bush
  36. Millard Fillmore
  37. Warren G. Harding
  38. William Henry Harrison
  39. Franklin D. Pierce
  40. Andrew Johnson
  41. James Buchanan

Note that only one president of the 20th century, Warren Harding, ranked below George W. Bush.  Even Herbert Hoover outpaced the Prince Jackass.  From that perspective, it is at least conceivable that a survey of historians at the beginning of the 22nd century well might rank George W. Bush as the 21st century's worst president.  And of course, the magnitude of Bush's failure has yet to be measured.  If we never recover from the catastrophe that engulfs us, Bush surely will rival James Buchanan for the bottom rung of the ladder.

Specific areas of Bush's incompetence in the survey included:

Public persuasion: 36th out of 42
Crisis management: 25th out of 42 (just below John Quincy Adams)
Economic management: 40th out of 42 (just one ahead of Herbert Hoover)
Moral authority: 35th out of 42 (he edges out Millard Fillmore)
International relations: 41st out of 42 (Poor William Henry Harrison, who lived just a month, is the only one below W.)
Administrative abilities: 37th out of 42 (sandwiched between Grant and Buchanan)
Congressional relations: 36th out of 42 (edges Richard Nixon)
Vision: 25th out of 42 (the luminous visionary Zachary Taylor just barely outpaces him)
Pursued equal justice for all: 24 out of 42 (tied with Grover Cleveland)
Performance within context of times: 36 out of 42 (Fillmore barely beats him)

Tags: George W. Bush (all tags)



Worse than Hoover,

that should be an accomplishment

by Lakrosse 2009-02-15 06:44AM | 0 recs
Crisis management

Like when you get attacked, you attack the WRONG country.
Like when the whole world is watching mismanagement of katrina's aftermath, you give a thumbs-up to the manager.

If that places u about 17 presidents, wonder what these other presidents did?

by ann0nymous 2009-02-15 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Crisis management

My guess is that as there is more historical perspective and partisan concerns, his standing will sink.

by Beltway Dem 2009-02-15 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Crisis management

Or like when you leak the identity of one of your own covert intelligence operatives in time of war.

by pascal1947 2009-02-15 11:27AM | 0 recs
Millard Fillmore is asking for a recount...

The absentee ballots are under dispute, and he is contemplating a lawsuit at the moment....

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-15 07:54AM | 0 recs

the scotus would rule in bush's favor (again)...

by bored now 2009-02-15 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Millard Fillmore is asking for a recount...

I agree.  This is unfair to Fillmore and Harrison who should be above Bush.  Heck, even Harding is probably should be above Bush.

by gavoter 2009-02-16 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: George W. Bush's first ranking: 36th of 42

Ha, even Nixon comes in head and shoulders above Bush. That is one bar below which no president wants to fall, much less by a large margin. I hope that despite the deeply in denial nature of his character, he secretly knows he's no Truman and it stings.

by phoenixdreamz 2009-02-15 08:01AM | 0 recs
Consider the source

The Times UK published the list. Rupert Murdoch has owned this rag since 1981.

Before he got his mitts on it, The Times was considered England's paper of record. Today, not so much. It's decidedly conservative, and more in the American than in the British sense of the word's meaning. The same paper has an article bashing Obama for recreating the welfare state with his stimulus plan (WTF?). The Times is a paper suitable for lining birdcages and wrapping fish, nothing more.

by Spiffarino 2009-02-15 09:04AM | 0 recs

I just got done reading the same thing at the Times Online. Should have followed the damn link.

My dumb ass.

Still, I think the 65 historians got it wrong about GW. Over time historians will assess the damage his presidency did to the country and the rule of law, the rampant waste and corruption, and the way he attempted to marginalize all other branches of government and they will put him on par with Buchanan.

by Spiffarino 2009-02-15 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: George W. Bush's

First and foremost, note that this listing of the first forty-two (inasmuch as Cleveland was both 22nd and 24th) is by way of Rupert Murdoch's rag, thus not to be taken very seriously.

One notes, accordingly, that Teddy Roosevrlt, Dwight Eisenhower, media and Right-wing honey Ronald Reagan, and GOP nominal Democratic favorite Harry Truman all crack the top ten.

One also notes that Bill Clinton ties at fourteenth, behind the very dubious presidencies of James Knox Polk and Andrew Jackson.

Note, too that JFK cracks the top ten above, and while most historians note his glitz and glamour, his barely three-year reign resulted in little of substance to most serious historians.

Of course, this is a re-writing of history, by Republicans and for Republicans, at a time when Reaganomics, taken to its extreme by way of George Walker Bush, has left the United States economy in absolute shambles.  

Indeed, if any President can be proven to have had his policies absolutely lethal for the nation's (and the rest of the world's health) it is certainly Ronald Wilson Reagan.  He ought to be anathema to all but the most Right-wing of zealots now, and should be certainly ranked, along with George Walker Bush, at the very bottom of presidential lists.

But the GOP and the Right-wing media never cease to apoologize for and yet effusively praise this horrendous President, little more than a tired old has-been film star striken with senile dementia in his latter presidential years.  No President should be more villified than Reagan today--inasmuch as he paved the path for George Walker Bush, whose bone-headed leadership has left America teetering on the brink.

But leave it Murdoch and the always Right-wing acolytes in the press across the Atlantic to repeatedly try to resurrect Reagan false imagery.

And leave it to that same Right-wing press to deny Bill Clinton his due.  Bill Clinton, absolutely the best American President of the twentieth century after FDR.  

Sorry, not LBJ. whose Vietnam stewardship paralyzed America.  Not sleepy-time 1950's Ike, whose administration was aloof and Cold War enuniciated.  Not Woodrow Wilson, also myopic and distant, if erudite in his advocacy of a League of Nations.  And certainly not GOP blessed Harry Truman, the ultimate Cold Warrior whose drop of the hydrogen bomb, an experiment gone wild if there ever was one, needlessly crippled generations of a long ago surrendered Japanese.

One also notes that Washington and Lincoln both best FDR.  Sorry, Republicans, FDR was every bit the equal in greatness of Lincoln, and FDR's policies every bit as far ranging, if not further ranging still.

So, one can fall for the latest MSM Murdoch and company Right-wing claptrap about Presidential rankings still blessing Ronnie Reagan even though his policies may have already have finished off the United States.  Or one can face absolute reality and acknowledge greatness by actual achievements, perceived as real by Americans who lived it rather than aloof historians eager to re-write history to their own ideological design.

Thus, the real listing of Presidential greatness would read something like the following:

1 and 1 (absolute tie) Lincoln and FDR

  1. Jefferson
  2. Washington
  3. Clinton
  4. Teddy Roosevelt
  5. Wilson
  6. JFK
  7. Eisenhower
  8. LBJ
  9. Truman
  10. Jackson
  11. Monroe
  12. Cleveland
  13. John Adams
  14. John Quincy Adams
  15. Madison
  16. Carter
  17. Taft
  18. Garfield
  19. McKinley
  20. George H. W. Bush
  21. Polk
  22. Ford
  23. Grant
  24. Nixon
  25. Taylor
  26. Reagan
  27. Hayes
  28. Hoover
  29. Benjamin Harrison
  30. Pierce
  31. William Henry Harrison
  32. Coolidge
  33. Van Buren
  34. Andrew Johnson
  35. Fillmore
  36. Arthur
  37. Tyler
  38. Buchanan
  39. Harding
  40. George Walker Bush

Someday, likely not in my remaining years (and I am fifty-five now), FDR will tie with Lincoln as the greatest, Clinton will at last get his top ten (if not top five) due, and Ronnie Reagan will be relegated to the ash-heap of bad history.

But the Right Wing still controls much of the news media, and as to so-called historians, remember that Clinton to many among them is still considered white trash--and "the one that got away."

But the above list will one day surely approximate the truth.  Having read every major presidential biography, I believe I can back up my claims quite substantially.

by lambros 2009-02-15 11:04AM | 0 recs
Please post ANY historian of any note

That puts the Big Dog up that high...

I think most would rate LBJ for the Great Society higher...inspite of the debacle of the Vietnam war...

And, Ike has risen much lately, as has Truman.

And, you are going to be on an island, if you think ANY historian of note is going to rate Bill above Teddy Roosevelt.

And, as much as I dislike him, also find ONE historian that places him in importance above Reagan (again, NOT my opinion, but historians who rate in terms of importance...)

I like Bill, but you have to be completely alone in putting him 5th all time. Just too high.

What for? For being the right place when Intel and Microsoft Lit up the Economy?

I am very pro-Clinton, but let's be realistic here.

He's in the midpack, probably not going to crack the top ten.

If this is argueable, PLEASE post ONE major historian that agrees with you?

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-15 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Please post ANY historian of any note

oh, I don't know, Bill wasn't perfect, but he was practical and he accomplished quite a bit, considering he had a lot of opposition.  Ii don't know of any previous president who was so widely respected in the world.  

It's funny, well not really, but when George was running I comforted myself in thinking he could not be as bad as Reagan an was proved wrong. He's worse than Nixon, nothing of his accomplishments and he started the war in Iraq (Dick just didn't want to be a president who lost a war, which is very very bad, but he didn't start it, Kennedy did).  

Rather than call on historians, why not think it through yourself, with the legislation that benefits the wider economy and working Americans.  Bill Clinton was pretty damn good. It remains to be seen if Barack can reach his abilities.  My life got better under Bill, just COBRA alone and the time I was able to take from work caring for my dying father.  There is the health legislation for children, I was working at an HMO then and I saw the increased number of kids getting to see a doctor when they were sick.  He didn't mess up the economy, there was regulation going on, it was boring back then. He did some things wrong, but overall I'd guess he'll be rated higher and higher, by historians, depending on how they count.  

by anna shane 2009-02-15 11:35AM | 0 recs
Sure, I did very well under Clinton

But the economy was at a full gallup, and that is mostly because of the tech boom.

COBRA, good, Right wing Welfare reform, not so good.

Sure, I liked his tax policy, but I didn't like DOMA, Don't ask Don't Tell or NAFTA.

Remember, "the day of big government is over?"

Bill brought in total creeps like Dick Morris, and took a lot of right wing memes and made them part of the DLC...

Joe Liberman? Evan Bayh?

As I said, I like Bill, he was smart and his foriegn policy was head and shoulders above Bush 1 or 2.

And, his two appts to the SOCTUS, Bryer and Ginsburg were absolutely stellar.

He won the wars he fought, without a lot of military contractors being the main beneficiares.

But, for a still unwritten book, I actually think it will be easy for Obama to move ahead of Bill.

Cause not to bring up sore wounds, but we know THE FIRST line in any Bill Clinton historical Bio will be...

That is truly sad, because that will surely limit his being in the top ten...Monica sealed his place in history, for better or worse.

Even if you think it was a witch hunt, which it was, it's the one item in Bill's bio that will always be there, probably first...

Just as Bush's will be, fought the most controversial war in US history, and oversaw the worst economic collapse since the great depression.

I do agree with the diarist, GWB will slip even lower as time goes on...

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-15 12:14PM | 0 recs
And, just to add to the conversation...

Before Suzie and Caro come crashing in and brand me a Clinton Hater...

Purely speculative, but I think Hillary would have been a more spectacular President then Bill.

Much more willing to take chances, and, I think at heart, much less a politician then a statesman.

I always thought Bill, though he felt our pain legitamitely, was more then capable of making the backroom deal.

Hillary, on the other hand, my gut says she truly believes her principles, and would never sell out.

I think, for example, had she NOT been pushed for the war vote by her handlers, she MIGHT have voted against that damn war...

In fact, I much more blame Bill for her loss then Hillary herself.

When she finally took control, and stopped listen to Mark Penn and Bill, she came within a whisker of pulling it out....

All speculation, but, I really do have mixed emotions inspite of being an Obama supporter.

Hillary would have been a great President IMHO, in fact, better then Bill.

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-15 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: And, just to add to the conversation...

it's true that the first line will have Monica in it, he was the first American president to be caught, but hardly the first.  I though tit was kind of refreshing, I never did anything that embarrassing. And Ken Starr got t show us what real pornography reads like (ick, Ken's a creep).  

How ya doing?  I'm not blogging as much these days, trying to catch up on work that pays.  a

by anna shane 2009-02-16 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Please post ANY historian of any note

In the C-Span survey, Clinton went from 21st in 2000 to tied for 14th in 2009.  He moved up 6-7 positions on the list, whereas no other president moved up more than 1 position.  Perhaps Lambros is right as to how Clinton will be judged some years down the road.

by markjay 2009-02-15 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Please post ANY historian of any note

IMHO, that is due to to his continue high approval ratings and the short term perspective that the Monica wars were a witch hunt.

But, cracking the top ten means taking out some big big names, and I fail to see what historical legislation or event Bill caused that will continue to rise him in history?

And cracking the top five? He just didn't do anything that memorable, except be the exception to 40 years of Reagan rule....

I would like to think it was the Economy, but really it was just that Bush went right back to the downward Reagan spiral of massive deruglation, unwarranted tax cuts, and massive military spending.

By comparison, Bill's economy was the work of a master, but mostly by comparison...

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-15 01:15PM | 0 recs
his foreign policy

was a massive success, with the US being more respected in the world than it was with Reagan or either Bush, winning peace in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Kosovo, and establishing modern precedent for work on I/P. If Bush/Reagan axis had remained in office, our economy would have sunk, along with our standing in the world, as much of the world did not like them, and in reality, Reagan did not bring down the Soviet Union. The fact that the world will see America better with Obama than Bush II owes in part to Clinton, who showed the world they can have confidence in an American president, which is why so soon after W. one can get a chance. However, I also agree its hard to give top 5 to him, but I still think he should be 10-12.

by Lakrosse 2009-02-15 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Please post ANY historian of any note

He rose 66 points from 2000 to 2009.  If he rises another 2 points, he moves into 12th place.  From there he's got some climbing to do.

Unfortunately for Clinton, 10% of the scoring is based on the criteria of "moral authority".  His low score on that drags down his overall score.  On the other hand, he's already ranking in the top 10 in economic management (3), pursued equal justice for all (4), and public persuasion (10).

by markjay 2009-02-16 04:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Please post ANY historian of any note

that's cause they mean finding out while in office, moral authority of their times.  History shows a lot less morals.  

by anna shane 2009-02-16 07:19AM | 0 recs
you're putting Clinton WAY too high

Name one lasting achievement of his presidency.

His biggest achievements were quickly undone by his successor. In contrast, the Republicans who followed LBJ were unable to roll back the clock on his major domestic policy achievements.

by desmoinesdem 2009-02-15 11:44AM | 0 recs
Here's a lasting achievement

of his term: relative stability and successful transition to democracy of Eastern Europe after the Cold War. Ethnic cleansing and violence threatened this process in places like the former Yugoslavia, of massive strategic importance to the US due to its proximity to the middle east, and to Russia. With the other countries like Poland, former Czechoslovakia, Clinton provided the necessary assistance to keep them on the path. Not to mention, Clinton toed a thin line with Russia over Kosovo. Bush would never in a million years have had the standing in the world to lead that conflict. Clinton is to largely thank for Eastern Europe lacking the turmoil it was in after the USSR collapsed.

by Lakrosse 2009-02-15 01:35PM | 0 recs

I am in 100% agreement with you. I was born in Eisenhower and there is NO QUESTION that Bill Clinton was the GREATEST President in MY lifetime. (and W was the worst).

by nikkid 2009-02-15 05:25PM | 0 recs
Polk and Jackson

There is no way Clinton should be ranked higher than Jackson. Yes, I like Clinton, but 100 years for now, if Clinton is remembered, it will be because of Hillary, and I doubt that, too.

Jackson is attributed to creating the first political realignment in American history. As I recall from my high school history class, he expanded democracy to non-property male owners.

Whether you like him or not, Polk was a high impact president. He could have been ranked in the top 5 had he a second term. In terms of impact, Polk probably ranks in the top 5 of presidents. Whether you like it or not, no other president would have had the audacity to annex Texas, Oregon Country and create a war with Mexico. It may have been brutal and unjust, but America could not have become a great continental power without Polk. Moreover, one can only guess what would have happened to slavery, the civil war and civil rights movements had Polk never been president.

Obama is going to be ranked farily high in history. If you are young enough, just wait and see.

by Zzyzzy 2009-02-16 12:35PM | 0 recs
William Henry Harrison was robbed!

Sure, he didn't get a lot accomplished in the six weeks he was president, but he did a lot less damage to the country than W.

by desmoinesdem 2009-02-15 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: George W. Bush's first ranking: 36th of 42

How could Chester Arthur be ranked so low? No President left office with higher approval ratings. He established the Civil Service with the Pendleton Act, he stopped the genocide on the Plains, he established the modern post office.

Publisher Alexander K. McClure wrote upon Arthur's leaving office, "No man ever entered the Presidency so profoundly and widely distrusted, and no one ever retired... more generally respected." Author Mark Twain, deeply cynical about politicians, conceded, "It would be hard indeed to better President Arthur's administration."

Indeed. Arthur ranks at near the top of my list. The only criticism that can even be leveled at Arthur was that he signed the Chinese Exclusion Act even though he tried to have it amended prior he eventually signed it in order to get a comprehensive immigration law passed. Arthur was also the last incumbent to seek the nomination of his party and not get it. He so pissed off the Republican power brokers but the American people loved him.

by Charles Lemos 2009-02-15 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: George W. Bush's first ranking: 36th of 42

I think John Quincy Adams deserves some accolades, but I'm more familiar with what he did after he was President than his actual term.

by Jess81 2009-02-15 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: George W. Bush's first ranking: 36th of 42

adams crafted the monroe doctrine for godsake. this has been part of our nation ever since. he had a presidency from hell-handed to him in a deal of some kind over jackson. quincy was probably our most intellectual preidents beside jefferson and wilson.

by art3 2009-02-15 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: George W. Bush's first ranking: 36th of 42

Wow, we've had a lot of shitty Presidents.

I thought they were putting JFK way too high, until I saw them hit Ulysses S. Grant when they weren't even halfway through.

by Jess81 2009-02-15 01:50PM | 0 recs
Why isn't he dead last?

Hey, Andrew Johson bought Alaska?

What EXACTLY did Bush do that has ONE Centillion of Success?

He stood with a bullhorn in a wreckage of a building?

How does "Osama determined to strike in the US" make that a great act?

Tell me, name ONE thing Bush did that was good for his legacy?

Dead last, the most absent chowderheaded president ever.

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-15 02:18PM | 0 recs
How about 5?

1. He was athletic.

2. That little soft shoe on the steps of the White House when he was waiting for McCain was pretty nifty.

3. He made it henceforth impossible to use the phrase "make no mistake", which was long overdue.

4. He expanded the English language.  He gifted future generations with new words.

5.  Years from now they'll say that the President who succeeded him had the bar so lowered that he was guaranteed to be a political success and a two-termer from the moment he was inaugurated.

by Jess81 2009-02-16 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: George W. Bush's first ranking: 36th of 42

I hope that Bush sees these lists as he lives out his post-presidency life.  And while I know it will never happen, I like to dream that he will somehow, privately, at some point before he dies, realize how much damage he did.

by ProgressiveDL 2009-02-15 04:09PM | 0 recs
don't hold your breath

Bush actually revels in being despised, it's his thang.  Remember, he was a practical joker, he liked humiliating people, for him that was fun.  Remember he smirked when sending Karla Fae Tucker to the gallows?  This guy is maybe human, but far from the 'best' example.  

by anna shane 2009-02-16 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: don't hold your breath

That's the reason I'll never be able to dislike Tucker Carlson 100%, because he reported that "Please Mr. Bush, don't kill me" remark.

by Jess81 2009-02-16 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: George W. Bush's first ranking: 36th of 42

I actually had a ding-a-ling at work ask me "Worse than Carter?" When I said that W was the worse President in history.....geez how can the Repugs try and say Carter was as bad or worse than W? I mean really what Planet have these morons been living on?

by nikkid 2009-02-15 05:28PM | 0 recs
Kennedy way too high

Narrowly avoiding a nuclear war, getting us into Vietnam, and failing to get your domestic agenda through Congress should not get you into 6th on this list.

by JJE 2009-02-15 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Kennedy way too high

Wrong - Kennedy was a great president.

by jrsygrl 2009-02-16 10:45AM | 0 recs
Bay of pigs says hi

by JJE 2009-02-16 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Bay of pigs says hi

You are an idiot. Get off a Democratic blog & go love your Reagan.

by jrsygrl 2009-02-17 05:38AM | 0 recs
Good argument

Your sharp and well-reasoned exposition has shown me the light and I now realize that the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam were good things after all.

by JJE 2009-02-17 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Good argument

No - the fact that you seem to think Reagen should be up there but Kennedy not & you make such snarky comments about the bay of pigs (when Kennedy's handling of that situation was very well regarded) and Vietnam (which Kennedy was planning a withdrawal) demonstrates a very high level (at best) knowledge of the man's legacy. Despite that you have deemed him a poor president which means you have no qualms about coming to conclusions which are lacking in depth.

by jrsygrl 2009-02-17 11:19AM | 0 recs

I didn't say anything about Reagan, at all.

Kennedy's handling of the bay of pigs was not highly regarded at all.  It was a complete disaster and Kennedy should have aborted it when he first learned of it.

Kennedy escalated American involvement in Vietnam and supported the overthrow of Diem for fear that Diem would negotiate with Ho.  Speculation that he would have withdrawn is just speculation.

Kennedy was ok but he's overrated.

by JJE 2009-02-17 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually

What are you talking about? Kennedy's handling of the Bay of Pigs is cited constantly even in the most basic High School classes as being well handled.  And his plans for withdrawal from Vietnam were very well documented. Like I said, you are judging his presidency with barely a cursory knowledge of some high level events.

by jrsygrl 2009-02-17 04:01PM | 0 recs

maybe you mean the Cuban Missile Crisis?  He does get high marks for that.  It's not the same thing as the Bay of Pigs, however.  Maybe you should brush up on your high school history.

As for Vietnam, Kennedy continued Eisenhower's policy of US involvement and supported the coup against Diem in part because of fears that Diem was moving toward accommodation with the Communists.  McNamara's statements about JFK's change of heart late in the day and the withdrawal of 1,000 military personnel don't undo that.  If he had lived to follow up and withdraw, then perhaps he'd be more deserving of the worship he receives, but judging by what he actually did he's overrated.

by JJE 2009-02-17 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Uh

Now you blame him for dying that's great....

His plans for withdrawal were well documented and in some circles when his assassination is discussed it is raised as a possible motive.

Whatever, you've clearly bought the media bullshit about him as transmitted via Hoover.

by jrsygrl 2009-02-18 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: George W. Bush's first ranking: 36th of 42

Unfortunately this list is a bit flawed. They have Reagan as a top 10 president; he should be at the bottom 10 hanging with W.  I can't stand how people act like he was a decent president.  Let's see he brought us the now debunked "trickle down economics," a recession, blocked workers' rights laws, and oh yea has anybody (besides him) forgotten about the Iran Contra scandal, which he should've been impeached for? Yea he was a real top 10 president there.

by jrsygrl 2009-02-16 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: George W. Bush's first ranking: 36th of 42

I'm afraid we've lost that battle.  I remember at the time I heard about the Ronald Reagan Project (the group that tries to get everything named after him), I thought it was a futile attempt at burnishing a lackluster (at best) legacy.  But they've done their jobs well.

by Jess81 2009-02-16 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: George W. Bush's first ranking: 36th of 42

Well I'll say it time and again, the GOP are the masters at marketing...

But that doesn't mean I'll see this ranking and pretend like it is reality.

by jrsygrl 2009-02-16 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: George W. Bush's first ranking: 36th of 42

?, WTF is this about?  Are you trying to respond to someone else's post?

by jrsygrl 2009-02-18 11:04AM | 0 recs

it's some kind of sentimental people are thinking about, not who he was and what he did.  When he was governor of California I used to have this reoccurring nightmare, where I was working for him, in his dark paneled office surrounded by like-minded creeps, I know on the surface it does not sound scary, but I'd wake in a very cold sweat.  I thought we could have no worse than Reagan, and was proven wrong.  Oh, well!

by anna shane 2009-02-16 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: George W. Bush's first ranking: 36th of 42

Maybe we are missing something here.  True, George W. Bush is a fool in his own right but the explanation of his disastrous presidency might have a genetic dimension as well.  Barbara Bush (George W's mother) is a descendent of Franklin Pierce and, as we can see, President Pierce ranks 40th out of 42 Presidents.  Frankly, I can't imagine him or anybody else ranking below George W but at least one might be able to explain what accounts for the fact that George W was so completely unfit for the office.  Didn't Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes opine "One Generation of Idiots Is Enough"? Looks like we have had at least three generations if you count W and both sides of his family.

by New Dealer 2009-02-16 11:19AM | 0 recs
This list baffles me.

Polk 12th?  Presidents between 1840 and 1860 get marked lower on slavery.
Truman 5th?
McKinley ahead of Adams?
Wilson ahead of Monroe?
Hoover 34th?
4 Cold War Presidents in the top 10 and no LBJ?
H.W. ahead of Madison and Q and R (Gerald Ford)?

Bah!  This ranks 99 on my top 100 list of really awful lists (EW's 100 best movies was worse).

by AZphilosopher 2009-02-16 03:41PM | 0 recs

36th sounds a little high.


by yellowsnow 2009-02-17 03:54AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads