George W. Bush = Harry S. Truman?

[August1991]

A CNN poll released May 1 pegged President Bush's approval rating at 28 percent, among the lowest in modern American history. The rating hasn't yet reached the all-time low of 22 percent, which Harry Truman received in a February 1952 Gallup poll. How did Truman manage to be less popular than George W. Bush?

The Korean War, a weak economy, and "tax fixing." Truman had struggled in opinion polls before—most notably before his comeback victory in the 1948 election—but his approval ratings suffered a steady downward decline from early 1949. By February 1952, military operations in Korea had reached a stalemate, with congressional Republicans hammering Truman for "botching" the war.

Slate

In the long view of history, President George W. Bush will go down as the true great one…ranking with Harry Truman…on the issue of seizing the moment to launch an effort that will defeat our enemies.

From the very start, on September 12, 2001, Bush understood a new existential threat to our safety made clear the necessity for interventionism. He understood immediately that the ground-rules had changed. The end of U.S. foreign policy was still the security of the United States but to do this-as John Kennedy had said of the Cold War-it is imperative to achieve “the success of liberty.”

Chicago Daily Observer

Truman is often remembered now as a good president but people forget that he did not seek another term in 1952. He took many controversial decisions.

Truman ordered the horrific use of the atomic bomb not once but twice. He defended Berlin against a siege in 1949. He started the process of containment of the Soviet Union and in effect started the Cold War. He decided to send US troops into Korea (an unpopular war). In this, Truman set the stage for the Vietnam War and many other proxy battles in the Cold War.

Truman took unpopular decisions but he had the good sense to see the real future threats and to confront them early.

-----

In another thread, Argus made the argument that in US presidential elections, the folksy guy always wins. I belittled the idea but there is some truth to it. Truman was a folksy guy in a similar way to Bush Jnr. People made fun of Truman's apparent ignorance of the world, his mixed metaphors, his lack of education. Some thought that he wasn't very bright.

[jdobbin]

Truman took unpopular decisions but he had the good sense to see the real future threats and to confront them early.

Although there were controversies in regard to Truman's foreign policies, it was how he handled the economy following the war that made him lose Congress in 1946. His administration was ineffective in dealing with rampant inflation and labour problems. He threatened the railways and while he eventually got his way, it cost him big with working people. They voted for the Republicans in a big way in 1946.

After 1946, almost all of his agenda stalled in Congress for the economy and domestic affairs.

Truman recognized Israel despite the warnings of his cabinet about how divisive it would be. In the end, both Truman and the members of the cabinet were correct: Truman for recognizing Israel and the cabinet for predicting long term hostility.

Were it not for the Berlin Airlift and his whistlestop tour, Truman might not have secured the Democrat nomination and been reelected in 1948. He had a cutthroat campaign organized by the old and corrupt urban bosses of the party.

The article says that Truman started suffering in 1949 but truth by known, it started right after the war in 1946.

The comparison of Truman to Bush presupposes that Bush made the right choices on foreign policy during his time in power and that people will remember that later on. However, comparing Bush to Truman's ending on World War 2 and the Berlin Airlift seems too bold a step. I think it is wishful thinking on the part of some Republicans who hope that something remains of the legacy of eight years of Bush.

There is a reason why Bush is mired where he is. For foreign policy, he will have a hard time getting over the belief that the U.S. was drawn into a war in Iraq over false intelligence.

[bush_cheney2004]

You get my vote....President Bush is very reminiscent of the plain talking Harry S. Truman, who has been elevated in stature since his post-war term and low poll numbers. President Truman also integrated the US military, which was a pivotal step for the civil rights movement.

Will Bush be held in such high regard based on unpopular decisions made today? That remains to be seen... many years from now. He already has the second term that eluded Truman, LBJ, and Carter.

As far as the Iraq War is concerned, the USA was not "drawn in" by anything but the desire to finish an incomplete job in the wake of 9/11 attacks.

[Remiel]

That article mentions an " existential threat " to the security of the U.S.. But the idea of absolute security is unattainable. What Truman was facing in the Cold War was the very real possibility of an existential threat to the U.S. itself, not some nebulous phantom aspect of it. Despite the tragedy of 9/11, there was never any existential threat to the U.S. during the presidency of Bush. Anyone who would say otherwise should be treated with suspicion.

[bush_cheney2004]

That article mentions an " existential threat " to the security of the U.S.. But the idea of absolute security is unattainable. What Truman was facing in the Cold War was the very real possibility of an existential threat to the U.S. itself, not some nebulous phantom aspect of it. Despite the tragedy of 9/11, there was never any existential threat to the U.S. during the presidency of Bush. Anyone who would say otherwise should be treated with suspicion.

That's OK...as there was no "existential threat" from Truman's North Korea or the fall of Berlin either. The 9/11 attacks created the practical political climate to execute existing US foreign policy for not only Iraq, but the entire region. "Existential threat" is merely doublespeak for those who can't justify military actions for their own special interests (e.g Kosovo, Haiti).

Just "Git 'er done".....and Bush did.

Edited July 28, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

That article mentions an " existential threat " to the security of the U.S.. But the idea of absolute security is unattainable. What Truman was facing in the Cold War was the very real possibility of an existential threat to the U.S. itself, not some nebulous phantom aspect of it. Despite the tragedy of 9/11, there was never any existential threat to the U.S. during the presidency of Bush. Anyone who would say otherwise should be treated with suspicion.

The Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb in August 1949. It exploded its first hydrogen bomb in 1955. (Indeed, the Soviets only managed four atomic bombs between 1949 and 1953. They had no way to deliver these bombs accurately to the US until much later.) The Berlin airlift started in June 1948. The recognition of Israel in May 1948. (Good point, Dobbin. One that I hadn't considered.) The Greek Civil War in which the Soviets tried to control Greece or even many of the governments of eastern Europe had yet to be finally determined.

The policy of containment predates all of this. It is noteworthy that Churchill gave his "Iron Curtain" speech in Fulton Missouri in March 1946. (I note that Fulton is about 140 miles from Independence.)

Truman never met Stalin after Potsdam. (Shortly after meeting Kennedy in Vienna, Khrushchev ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall. Shortly after meeting Carter in Vienna, Brezhnev ordered the invasion of Afghanistan. So much for appeasement.)

The dropping of the atomic bomb not once but twice has always been a point for me. Why twice? I reckon that Truman wanted to show not only the Japanese but also the world that a US president could and would. At devastating cost, Truman put some very strong cards in the hands of future presidents.

On July 24 I casually mentioned to Stalin that we had a new weapon of unusual destructive force. The Russian Premier showed no special interest. All he said was he was glad to hear it and hoped we would make "good use of it against the Japanese."

Link

On August 10, did Stalin show no special interest?

My point is that Truman went well beyond what seemed at the time an appropriate response. Moreover, Truman seemed to listen to the counsel of well-informed people and then used his own common sense in deciding what to do. He didn't worry much about the chattering classes.

[Full disclosure: I've always liked Truman particularly since I saw his office in Key West. If I were president, I would have had a southern White House like that too. In an American way, it was sort of like Levesque's home on rue d'Auteuil.]

----

Although there were controversies in regard to Truman's foreign policies, it was how he handled the economy following the war that made him lose Congress in 1946. His administration was ineffective in dealing with rampant inflation and labour problems. He threatened the railways and while he eventually got his way, it cost him big with working people. They voted for the Republicans in a big way in 1946.

After 1946, almost all of his agenda stalled in Congress for the economy and domestic affairs.

...

The comparison of Truman to Bush presupposes that Bush made the right choices on foreign policy during his time in power and that people will remember that later on. However, comparing Bush to Truman's ending on World War 2 and the Berlin Airlift seems too bold a step. I think it is wishful thinking on the part of some Republicans who hope that something remains of the legacy of eight years of Bush.

There is a reason why Bush is mired where he is. For foreign policy, he will have a hard time getting over the belief that the U.S. was drawn into a war in Iraq over false intelligence.

These are good points Dobbin and far be it from to defend Bush Jnr. I opposed the war in Iraq and I have always felt that Bush Jnr was a country club, preppie Republican. That's his style of humour. And given what he did on the morning of September 11, I reckon he's a coward too, or not much of a leader. Maybe he grew up very quickly in the following few hours. Edited July 28, 2008 by August1991

[JerrySeinfeld]

Interesting.

I've always compared him to Reagan, at least foreign policy-wise.

It's rare to see a USA president have much influence over the economy, anyway, so that's not a great basis for judgement.

People in Canada commonly make the mistake of comparing a president to a Primeminister domestically, but it's not the same. Presidents have limited domestic influence.

People who jump up and down pointing blame at Bush for everything from hurricane response to a domestic recession are mislead, mostly because of the limits on domestic Presidential power, but also because of an irrational urge to blame everything on GW Bush, more commonly known as Bush Derangement Syndrome:

Link to Bush Derangement Syndrome Definition

But I digress.

Reagan - During his term, dismissed by the left as an overly simplistic cowboy-type war monger who would ultimately lead to the destruction of the earth through his callous military policies and lack of "tolerance" for other ideas. Was firm in his approach, ignored the nervous nellies, stayed the course and brought down the Berlin wall.

Bush - During his term, dismissed by the left as an overly simplistic cowboy-type war monger who would ultimately lead to the destruction of the earth through his callous military policies and lack of "tolerance" for other ideas. Is firm in his approach, ignores the nervous nellies and polls, stays the course and will most certainly be given more respect by history.

FOUR MORE YEARS!!! PLEEEEASE.

Obama? Can anyone say "Jimmy Carter on steroids and a healthy dose of back to the bad old days of mid-east illusions and BS"

A true marxist in the white house. hoodathunkit. haha.

[WIP]

I suppose that since George Bush has been a perfect storm of a disaster while in office, the only faint hope for Neocons is that somehow, some way, nostalgic history buffs will rehabilitate this idiot and portray him as a visionary who defended the Free World in a time of peril ( I'm sure that's what George Jr. is hoping for also!)

George does have one thing in his favour -- it seems that the favourability ratings of wartime presidents is higher than presidents who managed to avoid engaging in foreign conflicts. Later generations of Americans forget the presidents who wage peace and prosperity, and favour the warriors, even when they lead the country into disasters like Vietnam.

But George is a disaster on so many levels -- he inherited a nation with a balanced budget and yesterday the Whitehouse is projecting a deficit of more than 500 billion dollars, when the off-book war costs are factored in! If future historians remember George Bush as the president who led America into an economic disaster that led to the collapse of America as the pre-eminent military and economic power in the world, how favourable will his comparison be with Truman or any other past president?

[bush_cheney2004]

....If future historians remember George Bush as the president who led America into an economic disaster that led to the collapse of America as the pre-eminent military and economic power in the world, how favourable will his comparison be with Truman or any other past president?

Could work out quite well if the war and budget legacies of Lincoln and FDR are any measure. Reagan (and the Congress) ran up quite a tab during the 80's too. President Bush is already a success based on one measure....he is a two term president.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Could work out quite well if the war and budget legacies of Lincoln and FDR are any measure. Reagan (and the Congress) ran up quite a tab during the 80's too. President Bush is already a success based on one measure....he is a two term president.

Indeed.

One shouldn't put too much emphasis on the short term popularity of ideas. History has shown that usually the knee-jerk finger-in-the-wind types have been wrong.

Look at all the enviro-loonies who pressured governments worldwide to push for bio-fuel legislation such as ethanol. It was a short-term panic solution to "save the planet". Sounds like a big, worthy cause, right?

But don't all of the looney left's policies in the short run?

Now people are starving all over the world because the food supply is being used as an energy source.

What does this have to do with GW Bush? Well, it's just another example of people on the left who get over-excited and push hard for short term change.

Popularity isn't the best gauge of what is best.

Anyone who saw "Star Wars Attack of the Clones" or heard the song "Ice Ice Baby" can attest to that

[peter_puck]

Could work out quite well if the war and budget legacies of Lincoln and FDR are any measure. Reagan (and the Congress) ran up quite a tab during the 80's too. President Bush is already a success based on one measure....he is a two term president.

I suppose by that logic, Robert Mugabe is a bigger success. He ran up a massive deficit and ran his country into the ground. But, hey, he had more than two terms.

I could also point out that while Regan ran up the deficit, he also cut spending. He took over a lousy economy and made it great again.

Bush on the other hand took over one of the best economies and stable treasuries in American history and ran both into the ground (while at the same time running the deficit to record levels).

If you look at the US stock market in terms of world currencies it has gone through one of the biggest 8 year crashes in history. While most Americans do not realise this because it is measured in the free falling American dollar, ask anyone from Canada or Europe who bought US stocks or mutual funds how their investments are doing. I can tell you - very very BAD.

There is an article by an economist out there somewhere where they remove the effect of massive personal and government borrowing from the US economy during the Bush years and find an economic disaster. Any real president would have tried to put a stop to fraudulent borrowing, but Bush new it was all the was keeping his economy going.

Edited July 29, 2008 by peter_puck

[bush_cheney2004]

I suppose by that logic, Robert Mugabe is a bigger success. He ran up a massive deficit and ran his country into the ground. But, hey, he had more than two terms.

Conversely, Canadian PMs who balanced the budget can't even manage a simple majority. Bush did.

I could also point out that while Regan ran up the deficit, he also cut spending. He took over a lousy economy and made it great again.

Bush on the other hand took over one of the best economies and stable treasuries in American history and ran both into the ground (while at the same time running the deficit to record levels).

Nonsense....the American national debt still increased during the Clinton administration. We all know now about wht the "best economies" was based on, and it promptly went bust (before Bush ever took office).

If you look at the US stock market in terms of world currencies it has gone through one of the biggest 8 year crashes in history. While most Americans do not realise this because it is measured in the free falling American dollar, ask anyone from Canada or Europe who bought US stocks or mutual funds how their investments are doing. I can tell you - very very BAD.

Then you made bad choices....my stocks and mutual funds are not doing "very very BAD".

There is an article by an economist out there somewhere where they remove the effect of massive personal and government borrowing from the US economy during the Bush years and find an economic disaster. Any real president would have tried to put a stop to fraudulent borrowing, but Bush new it was all the was keeping his economy going.

Citation please...Bush is the real US president, and there is nothing you can do about it.

[Remiel]

Conversely, Canadian PMs who balanced the budget can't even manage a simple majority. Bush did.

The kind of majorities made possible by only having two serious political parties are not a worthwhile feature.

[bush_cheney2004]

The kind of majorities made possible by only having two serious political parties are not a worthwhile feature.

Whereas having even more "serious" political parties leads to Gomery hearings.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Bush on the other hand took over one of the best economies and stable treasuries in American history and ran both into the ground (while at the same time running the deficit to record levels).

WTF?

Seriously, sometimes for a free-market person like myself, whounderstand ths american political system and the limitations on the actually economic power held by any president, it's difficult to argue with people who don't get the basic fudamental facts right.

First of all, unless you're living in a centrally planned economy, no government "runs the economy".

Second, Unless you're living in a parlaimentary democracy, like Canada, you don't elect dictators every 4 years, you elect a president who must deal intimately with congress to get things done. This is a very complex process - the president can't just run around chopping taxes and building hospitals in shawinigan at his whim the way our leaders can.

Third, Bush is a free market thinker. Some very smart economic purists believe the worst thing to do is bail out risky lenders. After all, they took the risk in lending to poor credit risks. By bailing them out, this ruins the entire risk - reward trade off that dictates fundamental economic decision making.

It may be best to let them fail and cleanse the financial system, rather than reward poor economic decision making with bailouts. All that does is encourage future poor decisions, whic is why we got into this mess in the first place.

For all of these reasons and many more, it's ridiculous to hold GW Bush responsible for the "economy".

Fortunately, the only people who do this tend to be contral planner-socialist types who think the government does, or should do everything.

Edited July 30, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[guyser]

WTF?

Seriously, sometimes for a free-market person like myself, whounderstand ths american political system and the limitations on the actually economic power held by any president, it's difficult to argue with people who don't get the basic fudamental facts right.

First of all, unless you're living in a centrally planned economy, no government "runs the economy".

Second, Unless you're living in a parlaimentary democracy, like Canada, you don't elect dictators every 4 years, you elect a president who must deal intimately with congress to get things done. This is a very complex process - the president can't just run around chopping taxes and building hospitals in shawinigan at his whim the way our leaders can.

Third, Bush is a free market thinker. Some very smart economic purists believe the worst thing to do is bail out risky lenders. After all, they took the risk in lending to poor credit risks. By bailing them out, this ruins the entire risk - reward trade off that dictates fundamental economic decision making.

It may be best to let them fail and cleanse the financial system, rather than reward poor economic decision making with bailouts. All that does is encourage future poor decisions, whic is why we got into this mess in the first place.

For all of these reasons and many more, it's ridiculous to hold GW Bush responsible for the "economy".

Fortunately, the only people who do this tend to be contral planner-socialist types who think the government does, or should do everything.

Ahem.....Bush signed a housing bill today. Bails out the lenders and helps Frddie Mac and Fannie Mae who have loads of bad mortgages on the books.

So much for free market thinker huh?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12166.html

Not to mention the Bear Stearns bailout from March of this year.

Ill agree that Bush is not responsible " for the economy" but he is trying !

So, is Bush a central planner socialist type?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Ahem.....Bush signed a housing bill today. Bails out the lenders and helps Frddie Mac and Fannie Mae who have loads of bad mortgages on the books.

So much for free market thinker huh?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12166.html

Not to mention the Bear Stearns bailout from March of this year.

Ill agree that Bush is not responsible " for the economy" but he is trying !

So, is Bush a central planner socialist type?

No. But let's face it, even a lot of free market thinkers can let the "saviour of government coffers" blind them from time to time. I'm not saying Bush is perfect, I'm just saying it's ludicrous to blame Bush for the economy.

Meantime, there is something to be said for psychology. We are in somewhat of a "psychological" recession - in the sense that people are afraid. But if they weren't afraid, the financial markets would calm down.

It's somewhat of a self-fullfilling prophecy, which is why it might not hurt to give some support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I know I'm contradicting myself, but my main point previously was that Bush (or any president) isn't solely responsible for the fortunes of an economy, for good or for bad.

I mean, come on. Should we be giving credit to Bill Clinton for the tech bubble, or the ensuing tech wreck? It just happened.

[blueblood]

Indeed.

One shouldn't put too much emphasis on the short term popularity of ideas. History has shown that usually the knee-jerk finger-in-the-wind types have been wrong.

Look at all the enviro-loonies who pressured governments worldwide to push for bio-fuel legislation such as ethanol. It was a short-term panic solution to "save the planet". Sounds like a big, worthy cause, right?

But don't all of the looney left's policies in the short run?

Now people are starving all over the world because the food supply is being used as an energy source.

What does this have to do with GW Bush? Well, it's just another example of people on the left who get over-excited and push hard for short term change.

Popularity isn't the best gauge of what is best.

Anyone who saw "Star Wars Attack of the Clones" or heard the song "Ice Ice Baby" can attest to that

It was GW that implemented biofuels, not for the environment but for other reasons, keeping gasoline prices down being the main one.

People have been starving for years, can't save them all. Only difference now is that our country's ag sector is back on track and there aren't tractor parades in Ottawa anymore. Plus the jobs generated from this.

It's because of GW Bush's ethanol policy is why there isn't gas rationing in the states.

I'll remember this argument for when you defend the oil industry from "gouging" poor consumers in Eastern Canada.

[peter_puck]

Then you made bad choices....my stocks and mutual funds are not doing "very very BAD".

I think you missed the point. Since you appear to be an American ( Bush has few fans, even among Conservatives outside the US) you probably measure your returns in US dollars. During Bush's term, the Dow went from about 10K to 11.5K, so if you had 10K in stocks when Bush was elected, your stocks would have gone up 1.5K.

Myself, being Canadian, I measure my returns in Canadian dollars. If I had 10K in US dollars when Bush came to power, I would have had $15000 in Canadian dollars.

Now, the stocks are up to 11.5K, but since the dollar is near par,I have less than 12K in Canadian dollars. I could have had the same investments as you, but I lost money.

This is played out all over the world, the Australian dollar, Yen and Euro have all made huge gains against the greenback.

You may think you made money, but go try to spend your loot on oil, fruit from Mexico, that goddy IKEA furniture or a Prius and you will see that your buying power has actually gone down.

Then you have to add to this the fact that all the massive trade deficit under Bush has put money in the hands of foreigners who are now buying up the US.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think you missed the point. Since you appear to be an American ( Bush has few fans, even among Conservatives outside the US) you probably measure your returns in US dollars. During Bush's term, the Dow went from about 10K to 11.5K, so if you had 10K in stocks when Bush was elected, your stocks would have gone up 1.5K.

President Bush is quite popular in Albania! My investments are international in scope, as are the gains/losses.

Myself, being Canadian, I measure my returns in Canadian dollars. If I had 10K in US dollars when Bush came to power, I would have had $15000 in Canadian dollars.

Now, the stocks are up to 11.5K, but since the dollar is near par,I have less than 12K in Canadian dollars. I could have had the same investments as you, but I lost money.

On average, perhaps, but you could have done much better with self directed investments.

This is played out all over the world, the Australian dollar, Yen and Euro have all made huge gains against the greenback.

Yes....the secret weak dollar policy.

You may think you made money, but go try to spend your loot on oil, fruit from Mexico, that goddy IKEA furniture or a Prius and you will see that your buying power has actually gone down.

Haven't noticed this at all when dollar valuations are factored in. Inflation is a variable constant!

Then you have to add to this the fact that all the massive trade deficit under Bush has put money in the hands of foreigners who are now buying up the US.

This is a strange comment coming from a Canadian. Everything is for sale.

[August1991]

The dropping of the atomic bomb not once but twice has always been a point for me. Why twice? I reckon that Truman wanted to show not only the Japanese but also the world that a US president could and would. At devastating cost, Truman put some very strong cards in the hands of future presidents.

Soon, there will be analyses of Bush Jnr's presidency - what did it mean?

Rather than consider his presidency from the perspective of 2009, I think that it is better to consider it from the perspective of 2019 or 2029. The contemporary MSM patronised Truman and insulted Bush Jnr.

With Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo, Bush Jnr (like Harry Truman before him) has put some very strong cards in the hands of future presidents. Bush Jnr invaded Iraq and then Saddam was hung. Iraqis can now organize a different government. George W. Bush used the UN and then ignored it.

Obama and other future presidents will benefit from the hand Truman and Bush Jnr gave them.

As Roosevelt said, "Walk quietly but carry a big stick."

Edited December 31, 2008 by August1991

[punked]

Just because you say it isn't true. Harry Truman first of all was never a favourite of polling companies check out Truman and Dewy so it is a bit iffy to look at his approval rates.

Also Estes Kefauver and his thugs actually investigated Truman's Admin on fear of Communism inside the Admin which was a big point in Eisenhower's 52 run. What does Bush have did Obama run a campaign based on "Bush has terrorists running the Government?" As History proceeded people remember this was stupid stopped worrying and looked back. This wont happen with Bush there is nothing comparable.

Maybe we can compare Truman nationalizing the steal mills with Bush and the Car industry. I guess this might be justified. Still very very things.

The other thing we can't forget is Truman benefited in opinion at least from Nixon big time. Truman died at the right time, when people were looking for a real president someone who gave his word, fought for the country, and made the tough decisions. They found this in their memory of Truman at a time when Nixon was making the Whitehouse look like fun house.

In conclusion I think Bush is going to get the Jimmy Carter treatment. A smart man but who is viewed as one of the worst ever. Republicans should get use to hearing this "so and so is the Bush running for a third term." Or "Do you remember Bush? You didn't live through like I did" He signal handedly has killed off the Jimmy Carter defence I think and I thank him for it.

[jdobbin]

Rather than consider his presidency from the perspective of 2009, I think that it is better to consider it from the perspective of 2019 or 2029. The contemporary MSM patronised Truman and insulted Bush Jnr.

It is only the media that holds a poor opinion of Bush? Like Truman, Bush has had some of the highest support and lowest support. Obviously, the times dictated how people felt. It was rally round the flag or hang the devil up.

Truman probably deserves to be in the top 10. Will Bush be there? It doesn't seem a reasonable assumption based on what we see so far.

By the way, an individual can only be hanged. He isn't hung unless you something about Saddam that I don't know about.

Edited December 31, 2008 by jdobbin

[August1991]

Truman probably deserves to be in the top 10. Will Bush be there? It doesn't seem a reasonable assumption based on what we see so far.

Truman's place was earned only in hindsight.

I suspect that Obama appreciates the reputation Bush Jnr left him,

[jdobbin]

Truman's place was earned only in hindsight.

Was it? I think for bringing the war to a quick end, he earned himself a spot at the table. Conservatives are remembering him more fondly now for the policy of intervention after World War II but that is the very thing that Democrats and Independents rank him lower on.

We are not seeing a big end to a war as we did with Truman. Since there is no resolution to a major conflict, it will be hard to think of Bush cracking that top 10. Reagan would appear to have a stronger chance of that and he still hasn't done it either in many assessments.

I suspect that Obama appreciates the reputation Bush Jnr left him,

I suspect that Obama appreciates that Bush is so low in the polls that there is no real place but to go up.