Worst President in History?

[ace13 0]

George Washington was pretty awesome I am really glad they elected him

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Be careful where you get your news from...

http://www.newsmeat.com/media_political_do...Jann_Wenner.php

The article is by Sean Wilentz, not Jann Wenner...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Be careful where you get your news from...

http://www.newsmeat.com/media_political_do...Jann_Wenner.php

The article isn't 'news'.

it is about presidential success or lack thereof from a historical perspective.

There's an element of opinion there don't you think? The article was never cited as a 'news' source. Edited April 20, 2006 by Fishdude

[Fischkoepfin 1]

James K. Polk. Now there was a president. He sought no second term.

I was responding to stanmoonie

Oh I see. Sorry! Should have directed my criticism at stanmoonie then, I guess.

Ulysses S Grant - controversial general, pretty much sucked as President...

Yup, the other president who had a member of his immediate staff indicted, but he wasn't as divisive.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

James K. Polk. Now there was a president. He sought no second term.

I was responding to stanmoonie

Oh I see. Sorry! Should have directed my criticism at stanmoonie then, I guess.

Ulysses S Grant - controversial general, pretty much sucked as President...

Yup, the other president who had a member of his immediate staff indicted, but he wasn't as divisive.

Just inept, which gave the impression of serious corruption.

[ace13 0]

Be careful where you get your news from...

http://www.newsmeat.com/media_political_do...Jann_Wenner.php

The article is by Sean Wilentz, not Jann Wenner...

You say a publisher has no say what goes into his magazine and it isn't in anyway political

[Fischkoepfin 1]

it is about presidential success or lack thereof from a historical perspective.

There's an element of opinion there don't you think? The article was never cited as a 'news' source.

Totally. There's no true objectivity in reporting or the humanities. Of course it is Wilentz' historical perspective, but as a historian, he's pretty conscientious. Moreover, he's trying to make sense of a poll of his colleagues. I thought it was an interesting article because it attempts to offer a larger view without resorting to typical partisan patterns.

Edited April 20, 2006 by Fischkoepfin

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Be careful where you get your news from...

http://www.newsmeat.com/media_political_do...Jann_Wenner.php

The article is by Sean Wilentz, not Jann Wenner...

You say a publisher has no say what goes into his magazine and it isn't in anyway political

To a degree, of course. That said, that criticism is better directed it at the huge 'Rupert Murdoch' media conglomerates who own Americas news media.

I think you have a lot more to worry about than this one article, which yes does make a lot of criticisms about GWB, but then again the article is not specifically about him.

You might say because of the nature of the article "worst president in history", that it would be a rather glaring ommission for the writer to leave out GWB entirely. Citing GWB gives the article topical relevance - speaking from a writers perspective.

Edited April 20, 2006 by Fishdude

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Be careful where you get your news from...

http://www.newsmeat.com/media_political_do...Jann_Wenner.php

The article is by Sean Wilentz, not Jann Wenner...

You say a publisher has no say what goes into his magazine and it isn't in anyway political

No, I didn't say that. But just because the publisher of Rolling Stone contributed money to democratic campaigns doesn't mean that everything published in the magazine is necessarily approved by the democratic party. And for a topic that contested, the article is relatively balanced and at no point endorses Democratic presidents as inherently better than Republicans.

[I'm Gone 60]

Bush is certainly the worst in my lifetime, that said the candidates since 1980 have been variously less than stellar. Clinton was probably the best IMO (in my lifetime), coming off the back of Reagan and Bush Sr.

Worst of all time though? I think there were some real stinkers back in the 1800's who put GWB to shame.

Carter was just as ineffective and enough time has passed to get a clearer look at him. Things look bad for Bush, but if a miricle happens and things improve in Iraq he will look a better in the view of history.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bush is certainly the worst in my lifetime, that said the candidates since 1980 have been variously less than stellar. Clinton was probably the best IMO (in my lifetime), coming off the back of Reagan and Bush Sr.

Worst of all time though? I think there were some real stinkers back in the 1800's who put GWB to shame.

Carter was just as ineffective and enough time has passed to get a clearer look at him. Things look bad for Bush, but if a miricle happens and things improve in Iraq he will look a better in the view of history.

True, unless he tries to start another 'pre-emptive war'. But better of course, is not the same as great. Mediocre I'd say.

Edited April 20, 2006 by Fishdude

[ace13 0]

I would like to thank whoever started this tread. It has been awile since we had a good wholesome political conversation on VJ. I love it.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I would like to thank whoever started this tread. It has been awile since we had a good wholesome political conversation on VJ. I love it.

You're welcome.

Bush is certainly the worst in my lifetime, that said the candidates since 1980 have been variously less than stellar. Clinton was probably the best IMO (in my lifetime), coming off the back of Reagan and Bush Sr.

Worst of all time though? I think there were some real stinkers back in the 1800's who put GWB to shame.

Carter was just as ineffective and enough time has passed to get a clearer look at him. Things look bad for Bush, but if a miricle happens and things improve in Iraq he will look a better in the view of history.

True. I think it has been almost half a century since there was a truly "great" president, regardless of party affiliation. I'm not even sure if I think Bush is the worst; Hoover has always been my personal favorite, followed or tied with Coolidge, and somewhere close to that such people as Buchanan, Johnson, and Grant.

[Fuzzness 2]

Oh, my. Those Christians just brainwashed again Are we still crying because Kerry lost? I find it humorous that the left spends all this energy crying, complaining, bitching and moaning instead of working on their own defunked party, building some core priciples that could win votes and producing a candidate that stood for something (AND ACTUALLY VOTES THAT WAY).

I find it humorous how the right spends all this energy badmouthing the left, making them huge hipocrites. I find it absolutely hilarious how the right will never admit to being wrong and remain closed minded towards other ways beside their own.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Oh, my. Those Christians just brainwashed again Are we still crying because Kerry lost? I find it humorous that the left spends all this energy crying, complaining, bitching and moaning instead of working on their own defunked party, building some core priciples that could win votes and producing a candidate that stood for something (AND ACTUALLY VOTES THAT WAY).

I find it humorous how the right spends all this energy badmouthing the left, making them huge hipocrites. I find it absolutely hilarious how the right will never admit to being wrong and remain closed minded towards other ways beside their own.

Me too. Though I think in the interest of showing that there are still some people capable of differentiating the paleo-conservative right from the neo-conservative right, it would be more exact to say that there are some in the Bush-following right who can't admit mistakes and keep projecting their own whining onto others...