Bush by a nose.

Nixon destroyed any faith or trust in our public "leadership" that many post-WWII American youth may have had left after Vietnam.  Our government is not Uncle Sam any more - it's more like that creepy neighbor Sam who stares at your sister too long when she walks by his house, and who causes you to worry about  home and hearth when you're traveling and you know he's still back home lurking next door.

Bush may have actually succeeded in destroying our legacy as a nation by the time all is said and done; largely through his hubris; his lack of sophistication in recognizing the cause-and-effect of most everything going on around him; but mostly by surrounding himself with too many for whom social justice, objective governance, public trust or even basic honesty are considered 'quaint' and 'outdated' concepts.

tszirmay wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: I don't believe Nixon was catastrophic before Watergate.   I believe Kennedy was worst than Nixon.   Iván       What do you dislike so much about JFK? Just curious (I am no fan of US politicos) = all vasura as far as i am concerned

Atavachron wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Atavachron wrote: I think it's pretty obvious GWB is the most disastrous president we've ever had, at least in the last few generations    ..Ivan I'm curious; is your reference to Kennedy in regard to Viet Nam or the Missile Crisis?  Who started Vietnam?  Who was responsible of Bay of Pigs?   Iván gotcha, just curious

1. Latin American countries: Many terrorist groups that attacked our nations and killed innocent people were trained in Cuba during the 660's, 70's and 80's.
2. The people of Cuba: People in that beautifuk country, don't deserve the suffering they had for soi many years, most surely if Fidel had been overthroned long time ago, the situation would be normal for people there.

Lets be honest, people loved Kennedy because he was young, had charisma and popularity, while Nixon had absolutely no charisma and was not young or had a wife like Jeckie, but he ended with Vietnam and helped stabilize the country.

Epignosis wrote: ClemofNazareth wrote: Epignosis wrote: Not that I'm defending him, but I'm pretty sure we've had way lousier presidents than Bush #2.  Face it- it's popular to be "anti-Bush" (especially among young people), but saying he's the WORST president might betray any knowledge of US history some people claim to have. Franklin Pierce, anyone?   I agree Bush-bashing is popular these days, but it's hard to ignore the fact that he has the worst approval rating of any president in the history of tracking approval ratings - how can tens of millions of people all be wrong?   More importantly, Pierce's poor legacy is largely a reflection of him being a drunken ass who alienated large portions of the American populace, and at a time when the nation was deeply divided internally.  Grant was a pretty lousy president as well, and for some of the same reasons.   But Bush's ineptitude rises to new levels because the damage he and his ilk have done go far, far beyond our own borders.  He has left his stain on many other parts of the world, and in doing so has shamed our nation on an international stage.  Pierce (and pretty much all presidents prior to WWII) never had the power or the reach to make such a broad impact.     Hey friend- Tens of millions of people voted for Bush. Remember, I'm not defending him here, just pointing out some US history (since I enjoy history).  Bush only has more effect on the world due to the era he lives in.  Had other US Presidents lived in this time, what unpopular choices would they have made? How about Andrew "I don't think blacks deserve rights" Jackson?"  Kanye West could have made some defensible accusations against this guy.

Yes, roughly 53,000,000 people voted for him, but in a country of more than 300,000,000 I wouldn't call that a ringing endorsement of support.

Anyway, your point that Bush has had more opportunity to make more impactful bad decisions only because of the time he lives in might be true, but it is kind of irrelevant.  Jackson, Grant, Johnson and possibly others would have been worse presidents were they serving today, but the fact is they aren't (and can't) serve today, so the point is rather moot.  Really, under that rationale Kennedy would likely have been the worst since in today's world the Bay of Pigs would undoubtedly have been much more catastrophic than it turned out to be then.

Epignosis wrote: You know, Bob, incidentally, I agree with just about everything you've said in this most recent post.  I disagree with a few minor points, but for the most part you and I see eye to eye here.  I am cynical about the election process (although I still plan on voting), and I agree it is pointless to talk about political leaders in different situations (like talking about how different a given progressive rock band would sound if they had a different lineup ). I must, however, take issue with "perception = reality."  There are plenty of people in mental hospitals for whom the little green men under their beds are real- but that doesn't mean we have to take them seriously.  Politically, people don't take everything into consideration (we really can't), but many do not even try to gather as much information as they can before making a judgment.  That's my whole point about US politics- lack of information or misinformation driving voters' consciences- and the Internet age has only made things worse in that respect. The media has been playing tricks for years, like using a huge headline, but tacking a question mark on the end- George W. Bush Slept With Michael Jackson? for example.  Sometimes busy people catch the headline, but don't read or process the article (or better yet, question it).  When the subject comes up in conversation later that week or that month, it might very well sound like this: "So George W. Bush was on TV yesterday, and..." "George W. Bush?  Isn't he the guy that slept with Michael Jackson?" And so misinformation spreads.  It's just one of many techniques. So how much "awfulness" can be attributed to Bush and how much can be attributed to other factors?  Again, I'm not defending Bush, but from my experience, people treat the President as a convenient scapegoat for anything and everything that goes wrong.  I just wonder how much of Bush's foreign policy was based on faulty military intelligence or other forms of bad information?  All I am proposing is that before people claim "Bush is the worst," they might want to judge themselves- how would I act in Bush's situation?  Heck, right after 9/11, lots of people were ready to jump out of their seats to go to war (I lived just outside of Fort Bragg at the time).  And Bush's approval rating then?  A whopping 86%.  Apparently people thought Bush was doing the right thing by going to war at the time.  Now it's popular to be against having gone to war.  It seems that voters don't have to be responsible for the outcome of their opinions, and are free to change their minds at any time, and without repercussion. This is another thing I don't get (remember, as an English teacher I engaged my students in political discussion from time to time, especially if someone made a bold assertion I was not certain they could back up):  Some folks paint Bush as a moron- he's fairly inarticulate, he doesn't always do a decent job of getting his point across, and he seems mildly incompetent; yet in the same breath, claim that he is some criminal mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, some sort of villain who orchestrated and manipulated events to go to war.  Is it just me, or do these two characters seem at odds, or are the people who make these claims disingenuous at best? One more thought your post brought up in my mind regarding the number of people voting is this: If you want to claim that Bush did not receive strong support from his country at election time in 2004, you would have to concede that no candidate has received strong support from his country at election time since perhaps Nixon over McGovern in 1972 (60.1% of the popular vote). Sorry for the extended post.  My intention was to be brief, but I kept thinking of things to say.    Go ahead and tear me apart.

I suspect as well we aren't all that far apart politically. I'll vote as well, as disillusioned with the process as I may be.

And I concede your point about there being shades of perceptions that sometimes don’t touch the realm of possible reality. I still contend in the context of this subject that perception does equal reality though. Or at least one's perception can impact reality. Mark David Chapman thought he was Holden Caulfield, and John Lennon is dead. John Hinkley's reality included a non-existent relationship with Jodie Foster which resulted in an assassination attempt on President Reagan. And millions of voters (whose realities may be nearly as skewed as Chapman’s and Hinkley’s, though not necessarily to violence) perceive one or another candidate to be something that he or she may not in fact be, but elect those people anyway, based on those perceptions.  

As to how much of the past eight years can be ‘blamed’ on Bush, that’s another part of each individual’s reality, I suppose. For me there needs to be some measure of accountability though. Bush held himself up as ‘the Decider’. Bush took the oath to be the leader of the land. I’m probably tainted by my military background, but in my reality the guy at the top takes the praise as well as the blame, both in equal measure.

On the popular vote question I have to say you make a salient point; I hadn’t considered this before. I suppose for some of us the distrust and bad taste left by the 2000 elections tainted those in 2004 as well, although I’ll admit Bush’s second victory wasn’t any less marginal than those of many other presidents.  

You bring up a point that I think helps frame the discussion about which president was the worst though. You asked how much of the past eight years’ “awfulness” can be attributed to Bush. I suppose the same question would have to be asked in comparing him to any other president. Was Bush more (or less) complicit in the bad decisions made during his tenure than Carter, Nixon, or any other president was in theirs? That’s probably a good starting point in determining which of them was actually the ‘worst’, although once again we’d be measuring with a pretty subjective ruler.

ClemofNazareth wrote: I suspect as well we aren't all that far apart politically. I'll vote as well, as disillusioned with the process as I may be.

Me too.  And beyond the process, I don't really like either candidate this time around. 

ClemofNazareth wrote: And I concede your point about there being shades of perceptions that sometimes don’t touch the realm of possible reality. I still contend in the context of this subject that perception does equal reality though. Or at least one's perception can impact reality. Mark David Chapman thought he was Holden Caulfield, and John Lennon is dead. John Hinkley's reality included a non-existent relationship with Jodie Foster which resulted in an assassination attempt on President Reagan. And millions of voters (whose realities may be nearly as skewed as Chapman’s and Hinkley’s, though not necessarily to violence) perceive one or another candidate to be something that he or she may not in fact be, but elect those people anyway, based on those perceptions.

I understand what you mean here.  I just think there's a (very dangerous) difference between saying "perception affects reality" and "perception is reality."  That's all.  But I certainly understand what you mean- for better or worse, perception colors our choices (as I suppose it must).

ClemofNazareth wrote: As to how much of the past eight years can be ‘blamed’ on Bush, that’s another part of each individual’s reality, I suppose. For me there needs to be some measure of accountability though. Bush held himself up as ‘the Decider’. Bush took the oath to be the leader of the land. I’m probably tainted by my military background, but in my reality the guy at the top takes the praise as well as the blame, both in equal measure.

I see your point.  Bush may not be the driving force behind the economy, but he is the head honcho over the US military.

ClemofNazareth wrote: On the popular vote question I have to say you make a salient point; I hadn’t considered this before. I suppose for some of us the distrust and bad taste left by the 2000 elections tainted those in 2004 as well, although I’ll admit Bush’s second victory wasn’t any less marginal than those of many other presidents.

I often wish we had more than what is for all practical purposes a two-party system.  Worse than that, we have labels that get tossed around without much thought about what they mean (i.e., "liberal," "conservative").

ClemofNazareth wrote: You bring up a point that I think helps frame the discussion about which president was the worst though. You asked how much of the past eight years’ “awfulness” can be attributed to Bush. I suppose the same question would have to be asked in comparing him to any other president. Was Bush more (or less) complicit in the bad decisions made during his tenure than Carter, Nixon, or any other president was in theirs? That’s probably a good starting point in determining which of them was actually the ‘worst’, although once again we’d be measuring with a pretty subjective ruler.

Epignosis wrote: I agree.  My whole point in entering this discussing (I thought I'd sworn off Internet debates!) was twofold: 1) The American people would do well to employ a measure of humility in criticizing our leaders.  That doesn't mean we don't criticize them, just that we try to gather some perspective before jumping on the bandwagons of the ever-outraged.  The hubris lies here: How many of us would do a better job in the exact same situations as our President? 2) Many of the people quick to denounce Bush as "the worst in US history" don't know diddly about US history.  It's a shame, but it's the truth.  Before we give Bush that shameful award, consider this: -Woodrow Wilson supported eugenics, and helped make Indiana the first of over thirty states to pass legislation for compulsory sterilization of certain people. Did you read that?  This guy (along with other notable minds) actually supported the idea that some people should not be allowed to have children.  And acted on it. -Andrew Jackson was a galloping racist (he owned nearly 150 slaves) who pressured the Natives to take a hike... -...And then his successor, Martin Van Buren, helped "escort" the Cherokees on what we know as "The Trail of Tears" (4000 of them didn't make it). "Well, the Native Americans aren't really important (even though they were here first), but as for their land..." -Oh, and Jimmy Carter didn't like progressive rock music (citation pending) These are just a few Presidents who just might steal Bush's award for worst US President, if, I don't know, people under 30 actually knew who they were and what they were about.

Well, Jr hasn't been linked to a eugenics agenda as far as I know, but there is at least arguable evidence that his father supported sterilization of poor blacks when he served as ambassador to the UN in the 70s. That's not a condemnation of the son, but at least it suggests that Wilson wouldn't be the only one judged on this point.

And Jackson wasn't the only president to own slaves; again, I only point that out to suggest other presidents such as Jefferson and Taylor were guilty of this as well.  I've read that Grant even owned a slave while serving in the Army, who he freed on the days leading up to the Civil War.  And really - there are about 100 years' worth of presidents who shamed our legacy as far as native Americans go.

But Carter?!  That b*****d!  He was probably into Men Without Hats or the Bee Gees or maybe Frankie Goes to Hollywood!  Oh, the shame!  

Seriously though, I'm enjoying the discussion, but as you are all too aware this is an endless debate.  And of course there are many who will dismiss whoever is seated in the Oval Office without regard for evidence.  I've lived through nine presidents, and this one chafes me more than any of the others, though frankly that's mostly due to the lack of transparency he has shown over the years as much as anything else.

This is a graph that accompanied a survey I read about a while back that George Mason University conducted among a few hundred professional historians.  In total they aren't quite as hard on Bush as the general public is, but not by much (interesting, I got a security error trying to paste the graph, so you'll have to settle with a link):

http://hnn.us/resources/bushpoll3.gif - http://hnn.us/resources/bushpoll3.gif

Who knows really if this president is our worst: even if he is, there will most certainly be another just as bad or worse someday.  I agree with you that one of the flaws in our current system is the two-party system.  Perhaps if we had more legitimate choices the competition would result in a more qualified candidate.  That seems to work for open markets; seems like it should for electing public officials as well.

Epignosis wrote: But in the end, I guess there's one thing everyone here can agree on... Kansas Rocks!

Well put!  

Ya think if that had been Gerald Ford standing there, maybe both those shoes would have hit the mark?

Now more to the point of the immediate poll question.  Nixon was evil, corrupt, scheming, and paranoid.  Bush has no such good qualties.