History will not be kind to King George.

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
History vs. George Bush

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.

Among the cautions that must be raised about the survey is just what ?success? means. Some of the historians rightly pointed out that it would be hard to argue that the Bush presidency has not so far been a political success?or, for that matter that President Bush has not been remarkably successful in achieving his objectives in Congress. But those meanings of success are by no means incompatible with the assessment that the Bush presidency is a disaster. ?His presidency has been remarkably successful,? one historian declared, ?in its pursuit of disastrous policies.? ?I think the Bush administration has been quite successful in achieving its political objectives,? another commented, ?which makes it a disaster for us.?
...

There's much more, including pretty pictures for all the knuckle-draggers here. Some more quotes:

HARDING: ?Oil, money and politics again combine in ways not flattering to the integrity of the office. Both men also have a tendency to mangle the English language yet get their points across to ordinary Americans. [Yet] the comparison does Harding something of a disservice.?

McKINLEY: ?Bush is perhaps the first president [since McKinley] to be entirely in the ?hip pocket? of big business, engage in major external conquest for reasons other than national security, AND be the puppet of his political handler. McKinley had Mark Hanna; Bush has Karl Rove. No wonder McKinley is Rove?s favorite historical president (precedent?).?

LoL, does Harding a disservice...

And then there was this split ballot, comparing the George W. Bush presidencies failures in distinct areas. The George W. Bush presidency is the worst since:

?In terms of economic damage, Reagan.

In terms of imperialism, T Roosevelt.

In terms of dishonesty in government, Nixon.

In terms of affable incompetence, Harding.

In terms of corruption, Grant.

In terms of general lassitude and cluelessness, Coolidge.

In terms of personal dishonesty, Clinton.

In terms of religious arrogance, Wilson.?

So, Vadatajs, Who are the historians?

 

[Vadatajs]

Ozoned: stop wasting everybody's time. Why don't you answer your own question? Oh wait, maybe because the article doesn't mention who they are? Just because 338 people who know a hell of a lot more than you have an opinion that you do not like, you think you have the right to pull some stupid conjur-vs-CADsortaGUY pressing of me.

Anybody here with a brain can see your question is bullsh!t and just an attempt to get a rise out of me. And it worked.

here

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Ozoned: stop wasting everybody's time. Why don't you answer your own question? Oh wait, maybe because the article doesn't mention who they are? Just because 338 people who know a hell of a lot more than you have an opinion that you do not like, you think you have the right to pull some stupid conjur-vs-CADsortaGUY pressing of me.

Anybody here with a brain can see your question is bullsh!t and just an attempt to get a rise out of me. And it worked.

here

here

I raise you by one



Thanks for clarification that any idiot could post a piece like the one you posted and try to pass it off as something other than what it is, which is pure bullsh!t.



No names, no credibility. Not even to the opinion.


Have a nice night, Vadatajs.

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Ozoned: stop wasting everybody's time. Why don't you answer your own question? Oh wait, maybe because the article doesn't mention who they are? Just because 338 people who know a hell of a lot more than you have an opinion that you do not like, you think you have the right to pull some stupid conjur-vs-CADsortaGUY pressing of me.

Anybody here with a brain can see your question is bullsh!t and just an attempt to get a rise out of me. And it worked.

here

here

I raise you by one



Thanks for clarification that any idiot could post a piece like the one you posted and try to pass it off as something other than what it is, which is pure bullsh!t.



No names, no credibility. Not even to the opinion.


Have a nice night, Vadatajs.

Sweet dreams, kid. I'll try to find a Newsmax link to solve your percieved 'credibility gap.'

 

[burnedout]

A recent informal, unscientific survey of historians conducted at my suggestion. . . . .

At least the survey's flaws are admitted in the opening sentence.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vadatajs

Originally posted by: ntdz
why dont we let the American people decide if it was a success or not...not some stupid partisan historians.

Anti-intellectualism at it's finest, folks.

That said, historians are in a position to compare the actions of the current president to the actions of past presidents in a level of detail that Joe Sixpack cannot. If you can't see the validity of their opinions in this context, then you're clearly one of the knuckle-draggers I was referring to in the initial post.

Most historians thought Reagan sucked at the time, too. Then, the economy took off right after he got out of office and he's considered one of the best ever. Time grants perspective, particularly in politics and history.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Vadatajs

Originally posted by: ntdz
why dont we let the American people decide if it was a success or not...not some stupid partisan historians.

Anti-intellectualism at it's finest, folks.

That said, historians are in a position to compare the actions of the current president to the actions of past presidents in a level of detail that Joe Sixpack cannot. If you can't see the validity of their opinions in this context, then you're clearly one of the knuckle-draggers I was referring to in the initial post.

Most historians thought Reagan sucked at the time, too. Then, the economy took off right after he got out of office and he's considered one of the best ever. Time grants perspective, particularly in politics and history.

That is true. It is also true that the perspective granted does not always improve things in favor of the person being evaluated. Back during the days of Teddy Roosevelt, the whole concept of Manifest Destiny was a big deal, a lot of people were all for it. Now he is considered the worst imperialist president in history. Not a big improvement, wouldn't you say?

In any case, W is not Reagan...not on his best day. I can't imagine history being very kind to Bush.

 

[chess9]

Uh, oh, mentioning Millard Fillmore in the same breath as Bush is like comparing some car to the Yugo.

If anyone seriously thinks the academics of America are going to be kind to Bush, they are completely out of touch with reality. Bush's personal competency aside-which is a major threshhold issue-his policies have been so obviously antithetical to intelligent international relations and compassionate conservatism how could he expect to be loved by those who think and teach for a living?

I'm surprised that even 77 were generous enough to give Bush a thumbs up. That's really huge in my view and a major victory for Bush.

-Robert

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Vadatajs

Originally posted by: ntdz
why dont we let the American people decide if it was a success or not...not some stupid partisan historians.

Anti-intellectualism at it's finest, folks.

That said, historians are in a position to compare the actions of the current president to the actions of past presidents in a level of detail that Joe Sixpack cannot. If you can't see the validity of their opinions in this context, then you're clearly one of the knuckle-draggers I was referring to in the initial post.

Most historians thought Reagan sucked at the time, too. Then, the economy took off right after he got out of office and he's considered one of the best ever. Time grants perspective, particularly in politics and history.

That is a good example. The party faithful still idolize Reagan. Others were beguiled by his charm and did not realize what he was doing to the country. Future historians will not be distracted by such deceptions. They will recognize Reagan as the bad president he was.


---------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980