From across the pond... america's worst presidents... - New England Patriots Forums

***DarrylS*** · 11-12-2006, 05:32 AM

The Independent asked its "experts" to write a short piece about America's worst presidents.. interesting Carter, Hoover and Coolidge get one vote each.. GWB gets three.. yes folks he is a winner.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1963227.ece

George W Bush: chosen by Owen Dudley Edwards

The question "who is the worst US president" is something I have thought long and hard about and the answer is very simple: it is the incumbent president. I had previously thought that Nixon was the worst and there were other candidates such as Warren Harding - but they all pale in comparison to Bush. He has displaced all his predecessors. Nobody has been quite as appalling.

George W Bush - chosen by A C Grayling

Bush certainly is the worst president since the start of the 20th century. Before then, there was very little that US presidents could do. They did not have the same influence in world affairs that they have today. So since the start of the 20th century is the only basis for comparison. The first reason for Bush being the worst US president is his insensitivity and his ignorance. Before he became president he was asked questions such as what is the capital of Sweden - and he showed that he was very, very poorly prepared.

***patsfan13*** · 11-12-2006, 11:36 AM

Of course 20 years ago these folks would have said Ronald Reagan.

I am always amused by the Euro's critiquing American when there civilization is going down the tubes and being replaced by an Islamic society (check European demographics). It now looks as if WW1 & 2 will destroy Europe ALL fo Europe, it will just take ~ 100 yrs after the end of WW2. The US just propped them up for a few years after WW2.

***Harry Boy*** · 11-12-2006, 05:51 PM

Who gives a f-ck what those a$s holes think, the next time they need help with something let them run to France or Germany.

where's the bricks?

All_Around_Brown · 11-13-2006, 07:21 AM

If they think he's the worst as of now...imagine what they'll think when the veil is torn away from the actual inner workings over the past six years when there were no check son his power.

Examples: Cheneys secret energy task force; the truth to the intel manipulation prior to Iraq; the secret prisons; the stolen CPA funds (tens of billions worth)

Shining a long overdue light on these areas will turn stomachs even more.

Real World · 11-13-2006, 09:25 AM

GWB is not the worst president ever. Obviously he is the current president in very unpopular times. Anyone that would call GWB worse than Carter needs to checked for a pulse. Bush is very unpopular by a good portion of the country. It's silly to cite a serving president as the worst when it is impossible to know what his policies will mean down the road. This is a classic example of the "what have you done for me lately" mentallity. So are we to assume that in October 2001 GWB was teh greatest president ever? How about in MAy of 2003? Was he fantastic then? Hard to call a serving president the worst when a presidents policies are long term. For example, what effect will Alito and Roberts have on the US in 10-20 years time? What if Iraq does become a sovereign democratic nation in 10-20 years time? What if the Military Commission Act does prove to be a servicable tool that defines the rights of terrorist suspects versus uniformed soldiers? Obviously there is lots to dislike about GWB. The border, Amnesty, spending, etc...but to call a serving president the worst is a bit illogical. My guess is in '94 they would have called Clinton the worst. Or in '92 they'd have called Bush Sr. the worst. A president has to be judged some years after his terms have finished.

All_Around_Brown · 05-11-2007, 11:00 AM

This post seems relevant.

RW...seems with Bushs polling numbers now down there with Carters, you may want to consider taking america's pulse??

Real World · 05-11-2007, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All_Around_Brown

This post seems relevant.

RW...seems with Bushs polling numbers now down there with Carters, you may want to consider taking america's pulse??

I stand by what I said in November. We've had 30 years to analyze Carter's presidency, and he still qualifies as the worst. GW is still in office. Am I saying that GW won't be considered the worst in 20, or 30 years? Absolutely not. He very well could be. My point then, and my point now, is that it is somewhat senseless to certify a sitting policy with long term ramifications versus policies we've had 30 years to disect. It's like using polls numbers to dictate policy.

All_Around_Brown · 05-11-2007, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

I stand by what I said in November. We've had 30 years to analyze Carter's presidency, and he still qualifies as the worst. GW is still in office. Am I saying that GW won't be considered the worst in 20, or 30 years? Absolutely not. He very well could be. My point then, and my point now, is that it is somewhat senseless to certify a sitting policy with long term ramifications versus policies we've had 30 years to disect. It's like using polls numbers to dictate policy.

Fair enough. But as far as public opinion goes, they are in the same league. If you (or the GOP at large) choose to ignore the import of that fact, do so at your own peril and expect what Buckley said: that Bush is ruining the conservative movement and the party will probably not get popularity back for a generation to come.

Its too bad one bum had to come along and ruin the party, huh?

***gomezcat*** · 05-11-2007, 12:09 PM

As much as I am very unimpressed with Bush at the moment, I think RW's point is a good one. Let's see what Iraq looks like in ten or twenty years' time. My suspicion is that things won't look better, but I have been wrong plenty of times before.
I would also point out that the President should be seen in the context of his entourage. If it is a success/disaster, then the influence of the Neo Cons needs to be taken into account.
It should also be pointed out that The Independent is a liberal newspaper.

Real World · 05-11-2007, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All_Around_Brown

Fair enough. But as far as public opinion goes, they are in the same league. If you (or the GOP at large) choose to ignore the import of that fact, do so at your own peril and expect what Buckley said: that Bush is ruining the conservative movement and the party will probably not get popularity back for a generation to come.

Its too bad one bum had to come along and ruin the party, huh?

FYI, Gw's approval rating, and the Congress' are neck and neck, and statistically equal (32% versus 37%, with a 3-5% margin of error). Remember, that GW had (even if artificial) the highest approval rating ever. Polls are polls, telling, but obvioulsy emotional, and short term. GW is by no means some great president. Don't get me wrong in that regard. He's no conservative (fiscal certainly) as is evidenced by the report out today about government never being bigger in our history. He could go down as the worst by a landslide, but my simple point is that it is unfair to compare someone who's had 20-30 years of relfection versus someone who's still at the throne. If, as these people have said so in their words, the position of president of the US is powerfull and influential, with long term ramifications, then we need to assess it in comparrison to his predecessors only after he's had a similar distance from his term. Take Reagan for example. Everyone loved, and still love Reagan. I think Reagan was a very good president, but I think hindsight takes more away from him now, than anyone would have in 1988. Reagan did some shady, shady stuff, that people had no concern for back in yesteryear, but that we look upon differently, at least I do, today. I just don't think you can take a "what have you done for me lately" approach when comparing past presidents legacy, to a sitting presidents. We can assume anything, but to certify is illogical to me.