Historians Rate George W. Bush a “Failure”

[jazzer]

No, and to demonstrate my point, President Bush enjoyed lopsided approval ratings in 2001. So from either vantage point, they were/are irrelevant except as grist for the political mill. Here is a composite of all poll ratings through 2007....at which point shall we declare him a "failure"...when re-elected?

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

Thanks for making my point. Steady decline pretty much from 911 on. All that's left is the death knoll.

Edited April 21, 2008 by jazzer

[bush_cheney2004]

Thanks for making my point. Steady decline pretty much from 911 on. All that's left is the death knoll.

False...you refuse to accept that in fact there was an uptick for the INVASION OF IRAQ / Saddam's capture, and in any event, approval ratings were at or above 50% for most of the first term. Similar ratings trends are available for many presidents in the last half of the 20th century....are you going to declare them all failures too?

[jazzer]

False...you refuse to accept that in fact there was an uptick for the INVASION OF IRAQ / Saddam's capture, and in any event, approval ratings were at or above 50% for most of the first term. Similar ratings trends are available for many presidents in the last half of the 20th century....are you going to declare them all failures too?

Are you that daft? How long did Bush stay up there? I don't play favourites. Any president who had these types of ratings would definitely be a failure in my books, Democrat or Republican.

[bush_cheney2004]

Are you that daft? How long did Bush stay up there? I don't play favourites. Any president who had these types of ratings would definitely be a failure in my books, Democrat or Republican.

In your "books"....are you serious? Your criteria would deem all presidencies since LBJ as failures except for Bill Clinton. Harry Truman would also be a "failure".

I think we know what your "ratings" are all about, and completely detached from the reality of each administrations' accomplishments and failures.

[jazzer]

In your "books"....are you serious? Your criteria would deem all presidencies since LBJ as failures except for Bill Clinton. Harry Truman would also be a "failure".

I think we know what your "ratings" are all about, and completely detached from the reality of each administrations' accomplishments and failures.

Hmm, let's see: LBJ's only redeeming feature was bring civil rights on board - otherwise a failure. Richard Nixon might have had a great foreign policy and then watergate killed him - another failure. Ford - weak leader, failure. Jimmy Carter - need I say more. Bush 1 - wishy washy, Gulf War slightly redeemed him but overall - failure.

Clinton had the only favourable polls - liked by majority of people most all the time, success. Bush 2, don't get me started - failure. And Truman with his bomb dropping on innocent people -failure. I'm sure you'll pick this apart but that's okay. It's only my opinion.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hmm, let's see: LBJ's only redeeming feature was bring civil rights on board - otherwise a failure. Richard Nixon might have had a great foreign policy and then watergate killed him - another failure. Ford - weak leader, failure. Jimmy Carter - need I say more. Bush 1 - wishy washy, Gulf War slightly redeemed him but overall - failure.

Clinton had the only favourable polls - liked by majority of people most all the time, success. Bush 2, don't get me started - failure. And Truman with his bomb dropping on innocent people -failure. I'm sure you'll pick this apart but that's okay. It's only my opinion.

They all dropped bombs on innocent people with the exception of Carter. I think you have demonstrated that not only is it only your opinion, it is an unqualified and irrelevant opinion.

With so many failures in the Executive Office according to you, how is it that the Unites States managed to not only survive, but become the most powerful nation on the planet?

Edited April 21, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[jazzer]

With so many failures in the Executive Office according to you, how is it that the Unites States managed to not only survive, but become the most powerful nation on the planet?

That's the American way don't you know. You guys think you're the best, it's in your commercials and movies, it's in your saluting every flag you see, wearing lapel pins and flag clothing. You say something like "We're the best country in the world" enough times, you believe it. Remember Hermann Goering or Joseph Goebbels? You've been led to believe your the most powerful because you have more weapons. But see, your economy is in the toilet, and you've had to borrow how much from China? 40 million + with no heath care? Corrupt politicians (yes we have a few too) from both parties, invading a country that had nothing to do with 911, Mission Accomplished turns into perpetual war costing thousands of lives. But not too many countries are buying your propaganda anymore. Yep a fine country you have there.

Edited April 21, 2008 by jazzer

[jazzer]

They all dropped bombs on innocent people with the exception of Carter.

Is it really necessary to list ALL the failures? I'd be here all freaking night. Truman is listed because that's pretty much where American terrorism started. I could be wrong, it may have earlier. I don't seem to remember when Ford did any bombing but I'm sure you'll fill in the blanks. So yup, dropping bombs does not a president make. My favorite tho is the shock and awe fiasco on Baghdad presented like a movie. Nice touch there.

[August1991]

Good find, but the problem is the right wing will always label Historians that don't agree with their agendas as left wing, thereby voiding most intelligent PhD Historians.

And the right wing would not be wrong to believe that university professors of history are more left wing than the American people.

As you wrote yourself:

Well, apparently 81% of the American public , "according to a recent New York Times poll, believe Bush has taken the country on the wrong track." Even the Pew Research Centre sites an approval rating of 28%. I don't think die hard Republicans would respond negatively in those kinds of polls, hence either the majority of responders are left wing or Bush is clearly in the lower tier of Presidents. In regards to the original poll I linked to, it was conducted by History New Network itself. Larry Dewitt is the only historian to speak out against the poll that I know of. So it's his opinion against the majority of 109 other historians.

According to your post, of 109 historians, only one thought Bush's presidency a success. Among 100 Americans voters, 28 gave him a positive approval.

Well, the Left was never very good at math.

From link in the OP:

In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.

1.8% would be two professors - not one.

----

Let me throw out an idea. Harry Truman took the decision to drop the atomic bomb not once but twice. Because of his decision, hundreds of thousands of people were killed instantly, and others survived but suffered for the rest of their lives.

Was Truman's presidency a success or failure?

According to this poll of university professors, Truman ranks well above George W. Bush.

Is it really necessary to list ALL the failures? I'd be here all freaking night. Truman is listed because that's pretty much where American terrorism started. I could be wrong, it may have earlier. I don't seem to remember when Ford did any bombing but I'm sure you'll fill in the blanks. So yup, dropping bombs does not a president make. My favorite tho is the shock and awe fiasco on Baghdad presented like a movie. Nice touch there.

I gather you disagree with these American university professors because you would put both Harry Truman at an even lower level than Bush Jnr. According to you, Truman started "American terrorism".

I am surprised that you would equate Truman and Tojo. Isn't that like equating the RCMP and the Hell's Angels? Or equating Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler? According to you, if the police use guns to catch criminals, then the criminals should also have the right to have guns - even the terms "police" and "criminal" imply an unfair prejudice and discrimination. No?

Edited April 21, 2008 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

That's the American way don't you know. You guys think you're the best, it's in your commercials and movies, it's in your saluting every flag you see, wearing lapel pins and flag clothing. You say something like "We're the best country in the world" enough times, you believe it. Remember Hermann Goering or Joseph Goebbels? You've been led to believe your the most powerful because you have more weapons. But see, you economy is in the toilet, and you've had to borrow how much from China? 40 million + with no heath care? Corrupt politicians (yes we have a few too) from both parties, invading a country that had nothing to do with 911, Mission Accomplished turns into perpetual war costing thousands of lives. But not too many countries are buying your propaganda anymore. Yep a fine country you have there.

It is a fine country....300,000,000 strong from all over the world and growing (far more than in Canada, another fine country). America was founded in war and is no stranger to the tradition....same as your "failed" empire. The single state of California has an economy larger than all of Canada's, yet I don't think Canada is a "failure", even with your own share of challenges (including "peacekilling" and a broken health care system).

I searched for historical Prime Minister approval ratings and "failures", but you know what, it seems that nobody really gives a damn about that.

Edited April 21, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[jazzer]

I searched for historical Prime Minister approval ratings and "failures", but you know what, it seems that nobody really gives a damn about that.

We don't seem to obsess over ratings like you guys. I use the U.S. ones because they unfailingly point out the approval rating and overall performances of your Presidents. To me they are an indicator how what the people think. I know that voting day, though, is the only poll that's important.

[bush_cheney2004]

We don't seem to obsess over ratings like you guys. I use the U.S. ones because they unfailingly point out the approval rating and overall performances of your Presidents. To me they are an indicator how what the people think. I know that voting day, though, is the only poll that's important.

American president job approval ratings date back to at least 1937 (Gallup Poll). The President with the highest rating since 1937 is George W. Bush, our current president. He also has the lowest. Correlation to an administrations' "failure" is subjective at best. The presidential ratings are depicted here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_rating#Graphs

Looks like Harry Truman consistently ranks in the top ten regardless of his Bush-like "failing" approval ratings.

Edited April 21, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

We don't seem to obsess over ratings like you guys.

Different. We tend to obsess over the best PM we never had.

Link

Edited April 21, 2008 by August1991

[jbg]

I guess you missed my post where I cited 6 other polls putting Bush way down near the bottom. At any rate, these are your people answering the polls. I tend to go with what the bulk of your nation's opinions of your head honcho.

My point is that it's too early in the game. Truman went out with approval ratings that wouldn't get someone elected dog catcher and the estimation of his role is now far more favorable. The severe inflation and shortages that largely caused his unpopularity and afflicted parts of his term later settled into the sunny postwar prosperity of most of the period from 1954-1969. At that point, his accomplishments, i.e. the courageous racial integration of the armed forces and housing, the establishment of the State of Israel and the rapid and successful end to the Pacific phase of WW II redounded to his credit.

It is worth pointing out that Abe Lincoln was extremely unpopular in 1864 and is now uniformly ranked among the first or second greatest Presidents. Other greats such as John Adams were not popular on exiting office.

I also have serious doubts that the polls are accurate. Polls can easily be pushed in the direction desired by the pollster.

[jazzer]

I also have serious doubts that the polls are accurate. Polls can easily be pushed in the direction desired by the pollster.

Best tell that to the political parties who tend to rely on them.

[Guest American Woman]

It is worth pointing out that Abe Lincoln was extremely unpopular in 1864 and is now uniformly ranked among the first or second greatest Presidents.

And I'm sure that means a lot to Lincoln "now."

Bush is perceived as a failure now, in his lifetime, so that's good enough for me.

Edited April 21, 2008 by American Woman

[peter_puck]

Because, brace yourself...they are irrelvant. President Bush prevailed as quite a success in the only poll that matters. Hmmm...let's see...what would he rather have....the kind blessings of "PhD Historians" or another term in office as POTUS.

Those who can....do....those who can't...become "PhD Historians".

He won the first election because of chads, supreme court justices and gobs of money and dirty politics.

He won the second because he was a war time president (and gobs of money and dirty politics).

If he was running again today, he would loose to that Reverend Wright goof.

He has made massive blunders in the war on terror, Iraq, oil and the economy. He has racked up more debt than all the presidents before him combined (and started with a bigger surplus than any president before him).

He has waged some of the sleaziest political campaigns in modern US history.

He lost control of the house and senate.

He has probably cemented the United States fall from great power status. (thought, to do anything about it, his father/ or Clinton would have probably tried to do something about it.

What was this guys qualifications for the job anyway ? Bush senior was a long term senator, a vice president and a very bright guy. I am not a fan of Clinton, but he was a very bright man who brought himself from nothing. Same with Obama, same with McCain (who would have been ending his 2nd term if not for the sleaze unleashed on him by Bush and his allies during the last race.).

As I see it, the only real qualifications this guy had were A) who his daddy was, The willingness to kiss (french) the ass of the social conservatives.

[sharkman]

Nice rant, puck. But the biggest fault of Bush is his fiscal policy. He spends like a frickin democrat.

I was watching Ben Stein being interviewed recently, and he said something that shocked me. He was once a speech writer for Nixon, and wrote one on the oil situation(that's not the part that shocked me). He said the Nixon administration realized that the US had a major oil dependency that was being supplied by mostly foreign countries that hated them. They needed to solve this problem.

Cut to 30+ yrs later, and Bush is saying they need to address their oil dependency problem. Good grief. Stein says there is no will to deal with this problem and it's only going to get worse. Same thing with the US trade deficit.

I blame Bush for not dealing with the fiscal problem and the oil problem, but when you think of it, every president since Nixon must have known the same things and did nothing. What does that tell you?

Where's polynewbie when you need him?

[peter_puck]

Nice rant, puck. But the biggest fault of Bush is his fiscal policy. He spends like a frickin democrat.

I could not agree more - his spending habits are worse than Clinton's.

He said the Nixon administration realized that the US had a major oil dependency that was being supplied by mostly foreign countries that hated them. They needed to solve this problem.

I blame Bush for not dealing with the fiscal problem and the oil problem, but when you think of it, every president since Nixon must have known the same things and did nothing. What does that tell you?

I blame every president since Nixon, but Bush is the only one who had the political climate to act. The future became clear with the rise of China (which he helped by letting them into the WTO)

[bush_cheney2004]

I could not agree more - his spending habits are worse than Clinton's.

More like Ronald Reagan....much revered these days, eh?

I blame every president since Nixon, but Bush is the only one who had the political climate to act. The future became clear with the rise of China (which he helped by letting them into the WTO)

You "blame" all these American presidents? Blame them for what...being presidential? Do you also "blame" the US Congress, which appropriates the actual funding?

What gives you standing to "blame" either?

[margrace]

Oh well Bush just moved another big carrier nearer to the coast of Iran. It happens to be the one he declared "The war was over" on. If Iran does have bombs to let loose all the arguments on here are a waste of time.

Edited May 5, 2008 by margrace

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh well Bush just moved another big carrier nearer to the coast of Iran. It happens to be the one he declared "The war was over" on. If Iran does have bombs to let loose all the arguments on here are a waste of time.

It is a waste of time either way....see the current PBS series "CARRIER".

Also....we don't have any "little" ones....they are all "big".

[peter_puck]

You "blame" all these American presidents? Blame them for what...being presidential? Do you also "blame" the US Congress, which appropriates the actual funding?

I was just trying to point out that Bush does not deserve ALL the blame. I am really dissapointed that otherwise fiscally conservative members of congress did not veto some of the Bush spending bills.

Clinton should have tried to tackle oil dependence, but oil was at $20 a barrel and he probably could not have done much.

[bush_cheney2004]

I was just trying to point out that Bush does not deserve ALL the blame. I am really dissapointed that otherwise fiscally conservative members of congress did not veto some of the Bush spending bills.

Why should they? Reagan and Clinton taught them that you can have your cake and eat it too. Hell, President Nixon had a balanced budget in 1969.

Clinton should have tried to tackle oil dependence, but oil was at $20 a barrel and he probably could not have done much.

No, the idea was not to "tackle" oil dependence, but to diversify foreign sources in the age of growing globalization. US investment in Canada and Mexico has paid off handsomely.

[jbg]

What was this guys qualifications for the job anyway ? Bush senior was a long term senator, a vice president and a very bright guy. I am not a fan of Clinton, but he was a very bright man who brought himself from nothing. Same with Obama, same with McCain (who would have been ending his 2nd term if not for the sleaze unleashed on him by Bush and his allies during the last race.).

I guess you enjoy boasting of your ignorance. GHWB never served as a Senator. He was a former CIA director, a two-term member of the House of Repreentatives, Ambassador to the UN, a twice failed Senate candidate, head of the GOP and failed Presidential candidate before becoming VP. As a President he was a miserable failure who abdicated his job in finishing the Iraq invasion, and reneging on a promise not to raise taxes.

He has waged some of the sleaziest political campaigns in modern US history.

**********

He won the first election because of chads, supreme court justices and gobs of money and dirty politics.

He won the second because he was a war time president (and gobs of money and dirty politics).

If he was running again today, he would loose to that Reverend Wright goof.

Oh really. Bush knew which state he'd need to rig? He knew that Florida would tip off with a 700 vote margin? Quite the prophet [/sarcasm]

He has made massive blunders in the war on terror, Iraq, oil and the economy. He has racked up more debt than all the presidents before him combined (and started with a bigger surplus than any president before him).

Generals always fight the last war. This war is unique, in that the enemy, Radical Islamic terror is stateless.

He lost control of the house and senate.

Not uncommon at the end of a second term. Remember, he started out with a 50-50 split in the Senate and was one of the few to increase his parties' strength in the first mid-term election.

He has probably cemented the United States fall from great power status. (thought, to do anything about it, his father/ or Clinton would have probably tried to do something about it. As I see it, the only real qualifications this guy had were A) who his daddy was, The willingness to kiss (french) the ass of the social conservatives.

Nothing here of interest to respond to, since you forgot to mention your likely view that he's a chimp. Edited May 6, 2008 by jbg