Bush: the worst president in history?

You know....there is some merit in FDR being right up there. It was him that interned all those Japanese Americans.

But it was Truman that dropped the bombs on Japan.

When it comes down to it, they've all sucked.

Still.... when you google 'Worst President' it still comes up G.W. Bush.

BEST PRESIDENTS

1999 C-Span Viewer survey of best presidents -- Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt. Franklin D. Roosevelt in that order.
2000 ABC News Poll of "greatest presidents" -- Abe Lincoln, JFK and FDR in that order.
2007 Rasmussen -- FDR comes in fifth
2005 Washington College -- FDR comes in third

Looks like you're in the minority on this one, NN.
2007 Gallup poll -- FDR comes in fifth
2008 Harris poll -- FDR number two

The question of whether GWB has been the worst President, depends on how you did economically during the 2001-2009 period. While the majority of us kept our heads above water, a lot of people, the bankers, the mortgage barons, the brokers, the CEO’s did extremely well. The extent of their concern went only to the tip of their noses or the bottom line on their balance sheets. Their greed and lack of concern have led us to this day. GWB and DC will leave the White House and never look back; their lifestyles guaranteed.
The mess on Wall Street and our economy as a whole did not happen overnight, and those guys and gals mentioned above were only concerned with What’s in it for me. When, because of their greed and lack of concern, the walls came tumbling down, they cried help. GWB and most politicians said we cant let them go under, so pump the taxpayers money into their coffers.
At the same time, they were cracking down on the very people who they asked for help. Through foreclosures, and tightening of credit, they stuck it to us. And still they cried, you cannot let us fail, and guess what, we did just they knew we would do. We threw them a lifeline.
All this happened under GWB’s watch, and as President and Commander in Chief, he bares the bulk of the blame, but the guys and gals above bare their share also.

Great post Eden. I concur.

I would hope that historians still look at the facts, instead of polls. This President has been marketed as the worst by the media - and any reflection of that in the polls demonstrates the effectiveness of the marketing techniques.

As far as facts go, very few of the general population could compare James Polk to the current President, or explain why the explosion on the Maine or the Gulf of Tonkin are somehow better excuses to engage in a war than all the evidence submitted by both parties in the US Congress, along with foreign intelligence, and Sadam's own public behavior and statements.

My opinion of Bush is that he's a guy who did what he had to do. We have an enemy that we civilians don't understand. He says we "don't negotiate with terrorists" because what they want to negotiate is our freedom. All's I'm saying is that as president you cant please everyone, and he's only human. I believe he did what he thought was the right thing to do and that is protect the freedom of you and I. Now it's up to the next president to do that.

It's one thing to say you can't please everyone ... a quote you took directly from Bush's mouth. It's another to look at the facts and realize that Bush, in September, wasn't even capable of pleasing 28 percent of the people. It's nice to blame "the media" for everything, but you should also remember that Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan are very powerful media players. As far as the war goes, it is and always was about Bush's inferiority complex over his father and his personal addiction to oil. But it's OK. 3,000 dead kids to bring Democracy to a country that never threatened us, didn't want war with us, and doesn't really want Democracy may seem worth it to some "ditto heads."

jsevigny, I agree with you. GWB is not protecting our freedoms. And I dare say that the troops are not protecting our freedom. Iraq is no threat to us now. Our freedom is not at risk from Iraq. Osama bin Ladin, if he is even alive, is in a cave somewhere hooked up to a dialysis machine. He is not threatening our freedom. So where do the threats come from? Inside our own country, from those who would want to know what library books we are reading, who we are emailing, and what we are saying on our telephones. Think about those who would take away our rights to a fair and speedy trial and you will know who is threatening our freedoms. At the risk of sounding dramatic, we are the only ones who can protect our freedoms. I'm not handing that responsibility over to a bumbling drunk.

I think anyone who claims that anything is the best or worst in any classification is more than likely a poor student of history. If someone can provide background details for why the arrived at a conclusion like that, it is stunning. After all, it is a big claim to make & for it to be made baselessly just adds another name to the long and growing list of loud-mouthed pontificators, without reflecting at all on their thesis. I admit to being an imperfect student of history; it is difficult for anyone to even have a complete and objective view of current news without at least some facts being obscured by what we want to believe.

An Israeli doctor says 'Medicine in my country is so advanced that we can take a kidney out of one man, put it in another, and have him looking for work in six weeks.'

A German doctor says 'That is nothing; we can take a lung out of one person, put it in another, and have him looking for work in four weeks.

A Russian doctor says 'In my country, medicine is so advanced that we can take half a heart out of one person, put it in another, and have them both looking for work in two weeks.'

The Texas doctor, not to be outdone, says 'You guys are way behind, we took a man with no brains out of Texas, put him in the White House for eight years, and now half the country is looking for work.'