Historians Rate the Propagandist's Presidency

[conjur]

http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html

Of 415 historians who expressed a view of President Bush?s administration to this point as a success or failure, 338 classified it as a failure and 77 as a success. (Moreover, it seems likely that at least eight of those who said it is a success were being sarcastic, since seven said Bush?s presidency is only the best since Clinton?s and one named Millard Fillmore.) Twelve percent of all the historians who responded rate the current presidency the worst in all of American history, not too far behind the 19 percent who see it at this point as an overall success.

I think this chart says it all:
http://hnn.us/resources/bushpoll1.gif


So, when the Propagandist said to Bob Woodward that history would be the judge, well, the early votes are coming in and it's not looking good at all. Not really a surprise, though. But, give him enough time and he'll have Rove work his magical spin and all will be well soon.

 

[1EZduzit]

Nothing new here. At least not to me :laugh:

 

[Genx87]

That is amazing work done by Historians considering Bush's presidency is currently active.

Another brilliant act of enlightenment from the left lol

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Genx87
That is amazing work done by Historians considering Bush's presidency is currently active.

Another brilliant act of enlightenment from the left lol

think he has to do an actual miracle to change the outcome

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Genx87
That is amazing work done by Historians considering Bush's presidency is currently active.

Another brilliant act of enlightenment from the left lol

What? You mean like, there's plenty of time for him to screw up worse?

Thanks for the reminder.

 

[StageLeft]

Considering so many of the positives were joking, you can't take any of these numbers seriously.

Further, I bet a lot of these people were from liberal enclaves known as universities.

Further, they are idiots. I say not because his presidency is a failure or success but because simply it's not finished. These people are not judging his actions but judging how they guess the future will judge him.

He may be a failure. Hell I think he is one, but judging it from a historial standpoint now when he's got four years left is premature.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Genx87
That is amazing work done by Historians considering Bush's presidency is currently active.

Another brilliant act of enlightenment from the left lol

What? You mean like, there's plenty of time for him to screw up worse?

Thanks for the reminder.

Most of the time historians look at history. I find it amazing just 4 months into the 2nd term of a current presidency Historians have already put their opinions on the matter.

I guess maybe somebody needs to remind them of their job. To look at history, not predict the future.

But who am I? Certainly not one of the self proclaimed enlightened in this country.

 

[Last Rezort]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Considering so many of the positives were joking, you can't take any of these numbers seriously.

Further, I bet a lot of these people were from liberal enclaves known as universities.

Further, they are idiots. I say not because his presidency is a failure or success but because simply it's not finished. These people are not judging his actions but judging how they guess the future will judge him.

He may be a failure. Hell I think he is one, but judging it from a historial standpoint now when he's got four years left is premature.

well said

Originally posted by: feralkid
What? You mean like, there's plenty of time for him to screw up worse?

Thanks for the reminder.

well said

 

[arsbanned]

It's common for historians to weigh in before a president has completed a second term. They did it with Clinton. That was probably OK with the partisan fools on the right. However, it's hard to say how either will be judged 50 years from now.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
It's common for historians to weigh in before a president has completed a second term. They did it with Clinton. That was probably OK with the partisan fools on the right. However, it's hard to say how either will be judged 50 years from now.

Dont remember that, maybe the media didnt report it?

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: arsbanned
It's common for historians to weigh in before a president has completed a second term. They did it with Clinton. That was probably OK with the partisan fools on the right. However, it's hard to say how either will be judged 50 years from now.

Dont remember that, maybe the media didnt report it?

"Historians are beginning to categorize Mr. Clinton as a politician of splendid natural talent and some significant accomplishments, who nonetheless missed the greatness that once seemed within his grasp."

Link

Clinton places last in moral authority
President Clinton rates near the top for managing the economy and pursuing equal justice, but dead last when measured for "moral authority," according to a ranking of presidents by 58 historians.
Clinton rates 20th in crisis leadership; 21st in international relations; 21st in administrative skills; 22nd in vision; and 21st in performance. His high scores are in "pursuing equal justice" (5th) and economic management (5th); his low scores were in congressional relations (36th) and moral authority (41st).

More

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Genx87
That is amazing work done by Historians considering Bush's presidency is currently active.

Another brilliant act of enlightenment from the left lol

It is rather amazing. They must be prophets :roll:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
It's common for historians to weigh in before a president has completed a second term. They did it with Clinton. That was probably OK with the partisan fools on the right. However, it's hard to say how either will be judged 50 years from now.

It won't take 50 years to show what a fool this clown has been. It will take 50 years to reapair the damage. That's my take on Bush.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Genx87
That is amazing work done by Historians considering Bush's presidency is currently active.

Another brilliant act of enlightenment from the left lol

It is rather amazing. They must be prophets :roll:

As already noted, historians aren't held in suspension while history takes place. Why is this so difficult to understand?

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: arsbanned
It's common for historians to weigh in before a president has completed a second term. They did it with Clinton. That was probably OK with the partisan fools on the right. However, it's hard to say how either will be judged 50 years from now.

It won't take 50 years to show what a fool this clown has been. It will take 50 years to reapair the damage. That's my take on Bush.

And that's the sad truth.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Genx87
That is amazing work done by Historians considering Bush's presidency is currently active.

Another brilliant act of enlightenment from the left lol

I'm sorry...but could you help me out by explaining to me just what part of:

"415 historians who expressed a view of President Bush?s administration to this point"

did you have trouble understanding?

 

[shurato]

He has trouble understanding anything that may shed a negative light to the man who's asshole that has a permanent spot for his lips.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Genx87
That is amazing work done by Historians considering Bush's presidency is currently active.

Another brilliant act of enlightenment from the left lol

What? You mean like, there's plenty of time for him to screw up worse?

Thanks for the reminder.

Most of the time historians look at history. I find it amazing just 4 months into the 2nd term of a current presidency Historians have already put their opinions on the matter.

I guess maybe somebody needs to remind them of their job. To look at history, not predict the future.

But who am I? Certainly not one of the self proclaimed enlightened in this country.

seems to me they already have 4 years and 4 months of history to judge on.

 

[Darthvoy]

Originally posted by: shurato
He has trouble understanding anything that may shed a negative light to the man who's asshole that has a permanent spot for his lips.

LOL..:thumbsup:

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: arsbanned
It's common for historians to weigh in before a president has completed a second term. They did it with Clinton. That was probably OK with the partisan fools on the right. However, it's hard to say how either will be judged 50 years from now.

It won't take 50 years to show what a fool this clown has been. It will take 50 years to reapair the damage. That's my take on Bush.

Don't you get it? If something good happens within 5, 10, 15, . . . or whatever years, the righties will claim that Bush gets the credit. If something bad (or nothing better) happens, the righties will either claim that "It will take time to see the benefits of his policies" or will blame the bad stuff on Clinton. This is the same crowd who attributes the great economy under Clinton to Reagan/Bush-1.

That is what it means to be a true believer. These same people are waiting (and waiting and waiting and waiting) for the second coming of Christ. Do you think the fact that Christ NEVER shows up in any way shakes their faith?

 

[BBond]

?He is blatantly a puppet for corporate interests, who care only about their own greed and have no sense of civic responsibility or community service. He lies, constantly and often, seemingly without control, and he lied about his invasion into a sovereign country, again for corporate interests; many people have died and been maimed, and that has been lied about too. He grandstands and mugs in a shameful manner, befitting a snake oil salesman, not a statesman. He does not think, process, or speak well, and is emotionally immature due to, among other things, his lack of recovery from substance abuse. The term is "dry drunk". He is an abject embarrassment/pariah overseas; the rest of the world hates him . . . . . He is, by far, the most irresponsible, unethical, inexcusable occupant of our formerly highest office in the land that there has ever been.?

Yep, that's Bush.

Only an idiot would disagree. Only an idiot would demand that historians wait to make an assessment on such an obvious outright failure.

But wait. Anyone who supports this disaster is an idiot by definiton.

 

[judasmachine]

i remember the right leaning historians coming out against Clinton mid term too. it's a bunch of politically motivated busy bodies on both sides. although i think they are right this time.

 

[BBond]

PS The part about lying constantly and often, seemingly without control reminds me of the blatant lie Bush and Karzai told just today about the "success" of poppy eradication which was toppled by Bush's own embassy officials in Afghanistan.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1598023&enterthread=y

 

[ElFenix]

what was it that kissinger said? it was too early to comment on the legacy of the french revolution?

 

[glenn1]

I'm sure the historians of the day probably would have ranked other greats such as Andrew Jackson and Lincoln pretty low too. Jackson's election was a far more bitter affair than Bush vs. Gore, his abolition of the Second Bank of the U.S. wasn't exactly a master stroke, and let's not forget the Trail of Tears. As far as Lincoln goes, it's only with the benefit of hindsight we laud him for the soaring rhetoric of the Gettysburg Address (whereas most of the folks were concentrating on the 23k Union dead), the Emancipation Proclamation hardly got a glowing review from all listeners, and let's not forget his election was the proximate cause of the Civil War.

Now I'm not claiming that Bush should or ever will be compared to Lincoln or such, but it's just a simple illustration that historical opinions tend to change after a bit of time has passed. A hundred years from now, Bush may be considered a great, or he may be considered an abject failure. Attempting to pass judgement on him at this point is more of a parlor game than a well-considered verdict.