98 percent of "professional" historians: Bush presidency a failure

[Splashdown]

Wonder if good ol' DA took this poll?

The First Draft of History Looks a Bit Rough on Bush
By Kenneth T. Walsh
Posted April 11, 2008


President Bush often argues that history will vindicate him. So he can't be pleased with an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted by the History News Network. It found that 98 percent of them believe that Bush's presidency has been a failure, while only about 2 percent see it as a success. Not only that, more than 61 percent of the historians say the current presidency is the worst in American history. In 2004, only 11.6 percent of the historians rated Bush's presidency in last place. Among the reasons given for his low ratings: invading Iraq, "tax breaks for the rich," and alienating many nations around the world. Bush supporters counter that professional historians today tend to be liberal and that it's too early to assess how his policies will turn out

 

Heh.

98 percent of professional historians couldn't hold a job at McDonalds.

link

[djones520]

So 98% of people who look at the past for a living are telling us what the future is going to look like?

[Chris_]

So 98% of people who look at the past for a living are telling us what the future is going to look like?

Worse: So 98% of people who look at the past for a living are telling us what the future looking back is going to look like.  Like right after Nixon, they all "knew" he would be considered the worst President ever (he rarely makes the bottom 10 these days).

[Duke Nukum]

I am not a historian but I predict that President Bush will be looked upon rather favorably.  I don't think he will go down as a great President, though he could have, but he will be well remembered for his leadership in the wake of 9/11 and in recognizing that Iraq would have to be dealt with.  If he takes on Iran before he leaves office, he might just end up among the greats.

[Wretched Excess]

to some degree, he is at the mercy of his successor.  if his efforts to democratize the middle east ultimately
succeed, then he will be considered an historic president.  if not . . . well, at least he dared larger objectives
than using the office to make it with pudgy interns.

 

[Duke Nukum]

to some degree, he is at the mercy of his successor.  if his efforts to democratize the middle east ultimately
succeed, then he will be considered an historic president.  if not . . . well, at least he dared larger objectives
than using the office to make it with pudgy interns.

 

I think the thing that keeps him out of the greats is he doesn't seem to have dared enough.  And he never consistently rallied the country around his vision.  This is a huge mistake when the press is hostile to that vision and has no compunction about distorting that vision.  Or even betraying the country to the enemy.

The thing that made Reagan great was not just his vision that the Soviet empire was evil and not only needed to be destroyed but could be destroyed but that he got out there and pushed for his vision in spite of the press.  He spoke over the press.

McCain not only has no vision that I can detect, he loves being loved by the press.  This makes him dangerous and I can't decide if he is more dangerous than the alternatives at this point but it is doubtful that he will achieve any greatness as POTUS.  Hopefully he will just be an adequate space holder.

[Chris_]

to some degree, he is at the mercy of his successor.  if his efforts to democratize the middle east ultimately
succeed, then he will be considered an historic president.  if not . . . well, at least he dared larger objectives
than using the office to make it with pudgy interns.

 

I think the thing that keeps him out of the greats is he doesn't seem to have dared enough.  And he never consistently rallied the country around his vision.  This is a huge mistake when the press is hostile to that vision and has no compunction about distorting that vision.  Or even betraying the country to the enemy.

The thing that made Reagan great was not just his vision that the Soviet empire was evil and not only needed to be destroyed but could be destroyed but that he got out there and pushed for his vision in spite of the press.  He spoke over the press.

McCain not only has no vision that I can detect, he loves being loved by the press.  This makes him dangerous and I can't decide if he is more dangerous than the alternatives at this point but it is doubtful that he will achieve any greatness as POTUS.  Hopefully he will just be an adequate space holder.

Someone who I know who has actually met McCain, said that he was an arrogant git.

I am just wondering why the GOP can't seem to muster someone with personality like my fave Ronnie, is it really a mutually exclusive trait? It shouldn't be. Finishing school really should be pre-requisite for all Repubs seeking office.