George Bush the Worst President in 100 Years?

[Andrew]

Saw that prominent Canadian magazine at my grandparents. Didn't read it but noticed the cover. Hell even after supper a father of 2 made a joke about Bush being a bad president while the discusion of requiring a passport to get between Canada and the US in 2007 and how Bush didn't even consult Canada and said that it was "final". The joke was about Bush not admitting his mistakes.

BTW the line ups to get passports are getting pretty hectic.

You can read the MacLeans article here

Would anyone agree that he is the worst president in 100 years? Or is he a great president for winning the war on terrorism (an ideology)? ::)

EDIT:

BTW Bush supports piracy.

[Acriku]

He's certainly in the running. I'm really interested to see what happens in the next 5 years to see if anything good can come out of this (directly or indirectly).

[exatreide]

Taft anyone? Bush is rather bad.

[GhostHunter]

The next president will have to spend his time making up for the losses achieved by Bush.

[Tezcatlipoca]

I have to say though, that's probably one of the best interviews I've seen of the guy so far (from the 'piracy' article). He's actually acting normal for once, and nominally-competent. And I don't mean his "trying to act normal" acting normal.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Throughout history it seems quite normal for people to think that their current president/leader/whatever is the worst in years ... and that the world will end in their generation.  Its like generational deja vu.

"That Bush is unpopular, especially among academics, is not surprising in itself. He has always been a polarizing figure, and most presidents have been deeply unpopular at some point in office, especially those who dedicated themselves to ambitious projects beyond America's borders. Even Abraham Lincoln, now generally considered the greatest of all U.S. presidents, was widely detested in his day for triggering the bloodbath of the Civil War for no good reason." -STEVE MAICH MacLeans article

Guns

[Andrew]

Well, I think that clinton was a terrible president, all because of a blowjob. Nevermind the fact that Bush invaded two countries and tens of thousands of died, that is nothing compared to a blowjob. You know how many people that affected? millions! ;)

Actually, the next president can easily just blame everything on Bush (especially if Democrat). When any discussion on the debt being too high the president can say that it was Bush's fault.

I think that is what the current Ontario government is doing with the previous government (blaming them for everything).

[Acriku]

The thing is guns, no one has done this bad of a job with what has happened during his term. There's one thing to be at odds with the fiscal mismanagement of every president in the past two decades, but this, this is something much larger to be at odds about. Something no president may top.

[Anathema]

Well, I think that clinton was a terrible president, all because of a blowjob. Nevermind the fact that Bush invaded two countries and tens of thousands of died, that is nothing compared to a blowjob. You know how many people that affected? millions! ;)

Actually, the next president can easily just blame everything on Bush (especially if Democrat). When any discussion on the debt being too high the president can say that it was Bush's fault.

I think that is what the current Ontario government is doing with the previous government (blaming them for everything).

During Clinton we had the Blackhawk incident in Somalia and he launched Tomahawks on Iraq to prevent Saddam from *gasp* developping WMD's. US performance in the Yugoslav wars was also less then ideal. To say that Clinton was less of a warmonger then Bush, or that he was more competent at it is ridiculous.

The trial against him was of course politcally motivated, but he wasn't impeached just because of a blowjob, but because of perjury. He lied under oath about it, not something to be taken lightly. What's happening now to Scooter Libby is essentially the same thing.

[GUNWOUNDS]

The thing is guns, no one has done this bad of a job with what has happened during his term. There's one thing to be at odds with the fiscal mismanagement of every president in the past two decades, but this, this is something much larger to be at odds about. Something no president may top.

What I'm saying is that many people feel that way in certain historic points.... I'm sure many people back in the 1850's were saying that no other president would be able to top Lincoln's civil war bloodbath.  I mean that was americans killing americans for god sake and many people (even to this day) feel that it was unecessary.  You see its very easy to demonize a president.  And all of it should be taken with a grain of salt IMO.

Guns

[Acriku]

Lincoln had things to redeem him from complete demonization: emancipation, Lincoln logs, his hat; what does Bush have? What has he done to give historians in the future a way to mock him up to something else?

[nemafakei]

It's really not possible to compare. I mean, foreign policy has been pretty brutal under any president you care to name. Economically, the basic premise has stayed the same: corporate subsidies via massive military spending to whichever groups funded the president's campaign; for the past sixty or seventy years, it's all been variations on a theme.

[Dude_Doc]

Probably the worst president in a long time. At least he is funny...

[Andrew]

Probably the worst president in a long. At least he is funny...

No Wai! ;D

[GUNWOUNDS]

Lincoln had things to redeem him from complete demonization: emancipation, Lincoln logs, his hat; what does Bush have? What has he done to give historians in the future a way to mock him up to something else?

You can butter anything up.

     For instance, people will be able to say that Iran, Iraq, Afghianistan, and N. Korea were all dealt a crushing blow that set them back decades from becoming a threat to us simply due to the fact that the Bush administration had the guts to go in and take out hostile rogue regimes.  I dont mean to sound like i agree with everything 100% .. but somewhere in the back of my mind ... deep down inside i am sorta glad that the Bush administration is so bold that it throws its weight around in order to keep american interests protected.  I mean the fact that the Bush administration is willing to send nuclear bunker busters into Iran in order to destroy reinforced underground uranium enrichment facilities means alot to me. 

     You see, if left alone, these facilities can make a nuke in 10 years.  But the Bush administration only has 2 years left.  And so they know future administrations may not have the balls to destroy Iran's uranium facilities and so they are willing to take the responsibility and criticism and do it themselves to ensure it gets done.  Just like they felt that future administrations would not have the guts to take down the saddam regime... so they went ahead and "got that done" too.  If anything the Bush administration will be able to boast that although it was unpopular... atleast it got more foreign policy goals accomplished than any other recent administration.  I'm just hoping they have time to hit N. Korea (after Iran) before the next election.

Guns

[exatreide]

I'm pretty sure that if the talks break down, Israel would take care of Iran...

[VigilVirus]

Bush has the lowest approval rating of any american president, ever. I would think that can signify how bad of a president he is - consider the fact that this country right now is republican in its majority and he still can't get a good rating.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Bush has the lowest approval rating of any american president, ever. I would think that can signify how bad of a president he is - consider the fact that this country right now is republican in its majority and he still can't get a good rating.

Approval ratings, polls, and the like are meaningless.  And there wasnt even polling or approval ratings for the majority of the presidents as that didnt even exist back for the earlier presidents.  Disapproval or hatred for someone is somewhat subjective and population is changing as well.  We have more people living in America than when George Washington was president and the country nowadays is very polarized.  I agree with Nema in that you really cant compare the presidents and that they basically all do the same song and dance.  Saying that Bush is the worst president is like saying Orange is the worst color.  Doesnt really mean much.

Guns

[gunner154]

Approval ratings, polls, and the like are meaningless.  And there wasnt even polling or approval ratings for the majority of the presidents as that didnt even exist back for the earlier presidents.

Not unless we use a certain yardstick to measure the 'goodness' of a president. And if we use coherence with the population's opinions as a yardstick, he is a terrible president. Of course, many yardsticks do exist, and none can work in isolation. However, dismissing such a yardstick when we are talking about a democratic country is pretty bad thing to do.

[nemafakei]

Contemporary opinion polls have the problem of varying with public knowledge. Consequently, presidents who did a good job of concealing their mistakes (or presidents who have a receptive media) would rank equallly with those who made none.

[gunner154]

Granted. But that applies similarly for other yardsticks. If we were to strictly consider the possibility of concealing mistakes, by a slippery slope (I must admit it's a slippery slope), there is no proper way of judging a president, since the possibility always exist. Obviously, these other yardsticks I refer to are non-opinion-poll-based, but when a point becomes functional in this other yardstick (eg. uncovering these mistakes), by the nature of a free press (an assumption), the public would be aware of it and thus the mistake would apply to opinion polls as well. Thus, it is reflected, to a certain extent, in opinion polls.

I do concede that opinion polls cannot work in isolation though. It has to be used with other yardsticks for accurate determination of how good a president is.

[nemafakei]

A free and perfect media is an assumption I'm trying to refine. Today's opinion polls on President So-and-so will vary about how open (not subject to direct or indirect censorship), inquisitive (willing to dig rather than rely existing knowledge) and informative (do they report new developments in very old stories) today's media are about yesterday's presidents. Contemporary opinion polls will vary based on how open the media of So-an-so's time were. If today's media is judged to be better (not an assertion I'd necessarily make), then the contemporary opinion polls between Bush and So-and-so would be unhelpful.

We know things about previous presidents that the population at the time didn't: most declassified information will tell you that, and quite often the picture is in pretty stark contrast. Wilson is often portrayed as an anxious, well-meaning idealist, (among US presidents, arguably he is), but correspondence that's now public (I'm afraid I can't remember the context) shows that his presidency was still a pretty cynical and tough affair.

[VigilVirus]

If you consider all the mistakes made by the Bush administration that were uncovered, don't forget that there are many times more offenses and mistakes that still remain hidden (also consider the fact of how long it usually takes for Bush to admit his mistakes if he even does). As the skill and technology of uncovering mistakes through journalism and media rises, so does the ability to hide them by the administration.  But no skill or technique can hide the fact that Bush is a shitty president.

[GUNWOUNDS]

If you consider all the mistakes made by the Bush administration that were uncovered, don't forget that there are many times more offenses and mistakes that still remain hidden (also consider the fact of how long it usually takes for Bush to admit his mistakes if he even does). As the skill and technology of uncovering mistakes through journalism and media rises, so does the ability to hide them by the administration.  But no skill or technique can hide the fact that Bush is a shitty president.

People just like you... living where you live... most likely have said the same exact thing about whatever president was in office when they were alive.  Its political deja vu.  Which shows the flaws in comparisons or constant bashing.  Its choosing the lesser of two evils when selecting a president anyways (which is impossible given the public's limited knowledge and the politician's homogeneity).  Its like debating whether Cobra Commander was worse than Megatron.  Saying Bush is a shitty president is meaningless if all presidents have been considered shitty at one point or another. Whats the saying?  Can't please all of the people all of the time?

Who was the worst leader? :

Guns

[Dude_Doc]

People just like you... living where you live... most likely have said the same exact thing about whatever president was in office when they were alive.  Its political deja vu.  Which shows the flaws in comparisons or constant bashing.  Its choosing the lesser of two evils when selecting a president anyways (which is impossible given the public's limited knowledge and the politician's homogeneity).  Its like debating whether Cobra Commander was worse than Megatron.  Saying Bush is a shitty president is meaningless if all presidents have been considered shitty at one point or another. Whats the saying?  Can't please all of the people all of the time?

Or maybe you don't like people talking about your precious president? The majority of the world can't be wrong.  ::)