Who is the worst president

Worst President In History?
Bush's most dangerous legacy is the erosion of America's vaunted traditions of civil rights and liberties.

By: Achal Mehra

A reputed historian, representing a profession that is usually very circumspect about making sweeping judgments, recently speculated that President George W Bush could go down as the worst president in U.S. history.

Sean Wilentz, a professor of history at Princeton University, wrote that great presidents, "Presented with arduous, at times seemingly impossible circumstances, they rallied the nation, governed brilliantly and left the republic more secure than when they entered office."
By contrast, "Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties -- James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Herbert Hoover and now Bush -- have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off."

Current public opinion, which is notoriously fickle, seems to reflect Wilentz's view. Bush's favorability ratings have been hovering around 30 percent. According to Gallup Poll, which has measured presidential job approval ratings since the 1940s, only four presidents, Richard Nixon, Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter and the first George Bush, have ranked lower and none recovered.

During his 1980 presidential bid, Ronald Reagan posed a dramatic question that resonated with the electorate and crucified then Pres. Carter. "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" A recent poll found that a resounding two-thirds of the American public believes the country is worse off than when Bush assumed office. Some 70 percent think it is on the wrong track; more than half consider Bush dishonest and untrustworthy.

Gross ineptitude, reckless politicking even with national security, nepotism, cronyism and sleazy corruption are at the root of Bush's failed presidency. The administration politicized national security after 9/11 by stoking fear for the sole objective of mobilizing public opinion. Shallow and incompetent political cronies, hucksters, personal friends and business associates were rewarded with plush appointments and contracts by the Bush administration.

Disastrous as Bush's incompetence and nepotism have been and the terrible price the country has paid as a result in precious resources and lives in the politicized war on terror and the misadventure in Iraq, Bush's most dangerous legacy is the erosion of America's vaunted traditions of civil rights and liberties, which served as a beacon around the world.

The first decade of the 21st century will go down in ignominy with the Red Scare of the McCarthy era, the Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798 and the persecution of dissenters in World War I and World War II. The Bush administration has used terrorism in this decade, much as McCarthy used communism.

In the name of the war against terrorism, the Bush administration has engaged in unconstitutional and criminal abuses, including kidnapping people, torturing suspects or rendering them to other countries for torture, holding prisoners without trial and sometimes without even access to attorneys and family in Guantanamo Bay and other secret gulags, and warrantless tapping of emails and telephones of U.S. citizens.

These egregious abuses have been made possible because the Republican majority in the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives failed in its constitutional oversight responsibilities. With two-and-a-half years still remaining of the Bush term, the prospect that we are living under an incompetent and unchecked president in such perilous times ought to be sobering.

Fortunately, the American public will get an opportunity later this year for some damage control during the midterm Congressional elections. We hope that they will restore some semblance of checks and balances on a reckless, inept and constitutionally unrestrained chief executive by electing Democratic majorities in both houses so that proper investigations can be undertaken and constitutional speed breakers installed until the long Bush nightmare comes to a welcome end in 2008.

 

Yes...we know...you hate Bush about as much a Midas hates muslims...

Warren G Harding is the worst by far...probably followed by Andrew Johnson who vetos civil rights

Harding: Most Corrupt administration ever,numerous affairs, personal scandals and misuse of government resources, Teapot Dome Scandal

In fact he agreed that he was not the man for the job "I am not fit for this office and never should have been here" -- Harding

though Franklin Pierce was pretty bad...died from from cirrhosis of the liver from a life of alcoholism

Buchanan was pretty bad...manic depressive, ruined his party, might have been our first gay president

Lot of bad presidents...not sure if I rank Bush as the worst...in fact I know I wouldnt...I guess its opinion...

 

It's pretty hard for me and I'm guessing most people to judge presidents as far back as Harding. They could have been absolutely horrible as far as I'm concerned but I didn't live in those times and historical records are often slanted. I have only experienced the presidents from Kennedy to Bush and I have to agree with the Bush Administration/McCarthy comparison. Terrorism is the "Red Threat" of our generation. Never have I heard so much talk of "Un-Americanism", and "perceived threat", and "enemies within". We said that we'd never go down that path again and yet here we are. Executive branch powers are running amok and our civil rights are under fire. Even citizens rights groups, the people that fight for us against the government, are under attack by many American citizens strickly out of fear. Where is our modern day Edward R. Murrow when we need one so badly. Someone that will make the public wake up and realize the path we have been lead down the past 6 years. Maybe the internet now serves that function.

What I can't figure out is where the 30% that approve of George Bush are coming from. Does anyone here really support his overall presidency of the past 6 years? If so, please tell us why. Is it just blind party loyalty, single issue support, or do you really think he and his administration are doing a bang up job?

 

The 'wake up' thing always gets me...its so funny when some person says that and I hear it a lot from self proclaimed know it alls who see things clearly...It must be rough to be surrounded by the blind deaf and dumb when you are SO AWARE of what is the truth. It always tells me what kind of person you are dealing with when they make a plea for people to 'wake up' as if they are so clear sighted...


and you know, records are pretty vast on presidents back to harding...it wasnt the dark ages...read a biography or 2 or 3...if you can only rate presidents that you have lived through...you arent as awake as you claim. Or maybe you just relish another chance to go off on the current one...some would say you cant truly rate a presidents legacy until years AFTER...go figure.

 

George W.
L.B.J.
I don't know though, I've only been alive since Raegen

 

I like how people always bag on the Presidents, but the Senators and Congress and other crocked ass polititions get a pass....


If the two parties actually cared about the working man and would work together to make good things happen, It would be truely news worthy...

 

You can pick on the terminology if that is all you have. But the fact that many people went along with McCarthy's views in the beginning and only after a lot of damage had been done "woke up" and saw it for what it was makes the sleep analogy apt. If you want to replace the phrase with "became aware" or "realized", or "finally understood", it's all good.

In order to be a self-proclaimed know-it-all one would have to actually have made the proclamation. Having someone else say you are a self-proclaimed know-it-all just isn't the same thing. It's more name calling and again, if that's all you got... Being surrounded by those of inferior intellect is usually referred to as "suffering fools". Being surrounded by people that express opinions that result in loud and clear echos emanating from their south sides is worse than dealing with the deaf and dumb...It's more like dealing with the deaf, dumb, and blind because they refuse to see what is right in front of their faces. They should be seeing it but for some reason they don't. I asked you for your reasons but your decided to attack my terminology instead. If just asking the question is offensive enough to you to send you into a holier-than-thou rant, you have probably built some strong defenses around your position that you can't even breech.

The current one is the only one that has any bearing on this conversation. Having read many biographies that take contradictory positions, I tend to believe that most biographers write biographies with agendas either good or bad. Unless you believe everything you read, you have to take them with a grain of salt.

 

I did hate Jessie Helms if that helps.

 

Oh you proclaim it all the time, I thought you were so aware and smart you would have realized with the very statement that people need to 'wake up' you make the statement that somehow you are awake (see things in the correct way) and those who do not agree without your assessments are somehow 'asleep' or worse are just not smart enough to see what you see so clearly...again...give others a bit more credit to see from your posts that you believe you are completely right and those who disagree with you are somehow deficient (or asleep, too stupid, blind or whatever to see what you see)...or are you not as bright as you think not to understand that one doesn't have to say it in so many words to be saying it with every post.

So only the most current ones can be discussed in a thread concerning the worst president ever? Well at least you admit to the fact this thread was only posted to bash the current one by a poster who literally foams at the mouth when he rants about the subject and whose bias and obsession is clear as day. Obviously this is a thread for agreement that Bush is the worst president and other candidates and opinions are not welcome...now I see. If I thought another presidents deficiency was greater (one I didnt live through but most historians agree was the worst) I should just keep it to myself

Oh...and I would also think that such a super intelligent guy like yourself might understand that a little distance from a subject might bring about a more balanced view while rating a president the worst in history while he is still in office and surrounded by partisan bickering might be the faulty way to approach the subject but then again, I am just one of the unwashed masses...asleep if you will...I certainly dont have the clear vision others might have on the subject Dont get me wrong, I think our current president (and congress, both parties) are an embarrassment but I thought this was going to be an open discussion about who we thought was the WORST of all time. I wasn't aware that unless you lived through the administration, one cant have a clear view of the facts surrounding past presidents. I guess that limits the president I cant discuss to Carter through the current one...now that I know the rules as set by you I better know how to respond...good thing you are here to set the boundaries. Carry on with the Bush bashing circle jerk then...I prefer a more open minded wider discussion of presidencies and wish not to limit it to the last handful.

Nixon was IMO the worst modern president he was a bud of McCarthy and a common crook, biggot, etc...maybe even kennedy who sent so many to vietnam to die...but yeah...back to how BUSH is the worst EVAR!!

 

Would you like me to state may convictions with less certainty, less clarity, less vigor? Maybe I could state them in a more PC manner for you. Maybe I could soften my stance so that those of you that felt differently could feel more comfortable. You've yet to challege or refute anything I've said just the manner and the tone in which I've said it. How about if I write for example, "Bush is an incompetent idiot who fancies himself the first American king". And then there is the Drusus version, "President George W. Bush II wise leader of the American electorate has made some not so good, but not terrible decisions, and probably should be the next royal highness of these Unite States". It just takes too long to appease everyone's sensiblities when you have to write more than one version of your own opinion.

I put no such restriction on who could and who couldn't be discussed here. I didn't even start this post. I have no insight into the motives behind this post. No one forced you to participate in it anyway.

I really don't know if Bush is the worst president ever. But I would bet that he is definitely on the short list.

I feel like if I keep saying that I have put no restrictions on the conversation one way or the other, it might sink in. You certainly don't need my permission to talk about whatever you want. If people here want to bash Bush, he certainly has given them plenty of ammo to do so. It is sort of the easy road to take and I've memorized the route pretty well myself. I'm of the opinion that I have the right to critize my elected leaders if I want to. I'm sure the right was in one of those earlier amendments someplace.

Hey, I didn't say you could say that!

 

Buchanan, LBJ, Roosevelt (FDR), Kennedy, in that order

 

While I am not a big fan of Nixon, there was much good he did do (visiting China and getting us out of Vietnam are two that come quickly to mind) that would prevent me from considering him one of the worst modern presidents.

If you want to bring Kennedy in, remember that he was not the one who sent so many to Vietnam. He was dead long before the major troop escalations took place there, it was Johnson who sent all the troops over. The biggest global blunder you can pin down on Kennedy is the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Most everything else he did resulted in generally favorable or outstandingly positive reviews.

If you're going to knock down individuals, be sure you have your facts straight. Just throwing names out there to counter some one else's argument doesn't work very well.

 

Well, the list of evils when it comes to Nixon are long and more than I want to list. His little trip to china hardly balances his major failings; he is easily one of the worst amoral crooks to ever occupy the office of president.

About Kennedy I say 'maybe even Kennedy who sent so many to Vietnam to die'...this is a factual statement when comparing Kennedy to Bush. While the initial very small force in Vietnam was not placed there by Kennedy...he certainly began the troop build up in earnest sending FAR MORE troops into Vietnam and laying the ground work for the war...If he had lived it would have continued...he...like Bush...was not opposed to pre-emptive action and regime change...in his case it was commies...in Bush’s case it is a brutal dictator.

The Facts about Kennedy are that he DID escalate troop build up, he sent thousands do fight in vietnam...which is what I said...that is a fact...

Kennedy increased military assistance to the Diem regime yet again. By mid-1962, the number of U.S. military advisors rose from 700 to 12,000. During the summer of 1963 administration officials began discussing the possibility of a regime change in Saigon. (Kennedy looking to make a regime change? who does that remind you of?) By the next year he had again escalated the troop presence in Vietnam to 16,000.

So in essence he escalated the troop presence in Vietnam 22 times what it was before he entered the office...he did not put an end to this preemptive military action in another country, he escalated it laying the ground work for many thousands to die there for much the same reason we have troops in Iraq, our national interest (vaguely)...which is what I said and the point was making.

With all due respect, You might want to heed your own advice when attempting to correct someone on facts...

 

I was referring to your implication that Kennedy was the one who sent the huge number of troops to Vietnam to die. The changes to our role and efforts in Vietnam that led to so many deaths was not due to Kennedy, but to Johnson and his administration.

Did Kennedy escalate our involvement in Vietnam? Yes, he did. Were his actions directly responsible for the 50K plus US soldier deaths? No, they was not.

It is generally considered that prior to 1964-65, the US involvement was one of advisors and aid. It is around 1965 that the our participation in Vietnam changed to a War/Conflict basis and had active US involvement in military force. As Kennedy was dead long before this took place, placing the blame on him is incorrect. That is the point I am making here.

 

George Bush I was bad, and George II is worse. Lyndon Johnson and Woodrow Wilson were probably equally bad. I also never was a Harry Truman fan because of the pretty useless involvement in Korea. There may have been presidents with less ability than those, but probably none who did as much damage.

 

I guess it really is just a matter of personal opinion. For example, many people I met "down south" said the worst president was Abe Lincoln. How many people outside of the deep south carry that opinion? I don't believe as Drusus says that we only get a better perspective on a presidency long after it is over. I think time galvanizes perspectives of a president but it doesn't necessarily come to the correct conclusion. Our perspective of past presidents is greatly influenced by contemporary events, prejudices, and biases. If we were not fighting a war, we'd probably look at a president from a more economic perspective rather than a military or foreign policy perspective.

It's hard to seperate the experiences and biases you develop over your life when considering a different time and different society. This country is nothing like it was during Roosevelt's, Lincolns, or even Kennedy's time. Historians and Biographers try to accomplish this but they are always writing with an eye towards their contemporary audience. A lot is lost just in the differences in the means of words alone. I think people want to understand the past in terms they can identify with more than they want to really know the nuts and bolts of what the past was really like.

When it comes to figures as prominent as U.S. Presidents, agendas, allegiances, and politics fly off of the wall into the public discourse. I'm not sure if it is even possible to really know or get a flavor for the past circumstances that influenced a presidency in anything other than general societal trends, statistics, and broad public opinions. Time has a habit of washing everything clean until just the barest of bones are preserved and all of the flesh that made up the original character is sterilized beyond recognition. At least it would seem that way to those that lived through it.

 

well, time can also remove raging partisan bias...also you do not have to rely on broad public opinion, statistics and whitewashed sterilized information. Contemporary people always write quite a bit about the times and the people, people on both sides so you can often get information straight from contemporary accounts of people who lived in those times, then compare these accounts with other historical data and get a pretty accurate picture of the man and the times...always knowing that partisan bias is always a factor and know thy source and his/her bias.

In my opinion I can make a much more unbiased judgment from the copious material left behind regarding Andrew Jackson then I could Bush...simply because at the moment we are embroiled in massive partisan bickering...and everyone knows strong partisan bias can truly slant anything anyone says or writes about a sitting president as polarizing as this one. Its just my personal opinion that it is better to view presidents and assess them in hindsight...

 

But isn't it true that being "embroiled in massive partisan bickering" that we see today is part of the flavor of the time we live in? Partisan bickering IS the story of the day. Whether you agree with it or not isn't relevant, it is still part of the story of our times. How is distance going to make that easier to understand? What you are talking about sound more like the way you would like history to remember these times not how they actually were.

The only thing that will truely change with time is the folding of these events into events that have not happened yet and therefore haven't had the chance to "taint" our perspectives. For instance, if at some point in the future, the USA sides with Middle Eastern countries against the enemies we face in the African wars, how would our earlier enemies be viewed as current day allies? My guess is that not quite the same way that they are viewed today. Time and events change the past as surely as time keeps marching on.

 

CLINTON! (sicko)

 

Sicker than torturing George? So consentual sex is sicker than torture to you (it sounds like you are the sicko).