Until they invent the time machine and make Jimmy Carter disappear, the answer is...NO.
PARIS -- President John F. Kennedy was considered a historian because of his book "Profiles in Courage," so he received periodic requests to rate the presidents, those lists that usually begin "1. Lincoln, 2. Washington ..." They should've asked him to rate the horniest presidents.
But after he actually became president himself, he stopped filling them out. "No one knows what it's like in this office," he said after being in the job. "Even with poor James Buchanan, you can't understand what he did and why without sitting in his place, looking at the papers that passed on his desk, knowing the people he talked with."
Poor James Buchanan, the 15th president, is generally considered the worst president in history. Ironically, the Pennsylvania Democrat, elected in 1856, was one of the most qualified of the 43 men who have served in the highest office. A lawyer, a self-made man, Buchanan served with some distinction in the House, served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and secretary of state under President James K. Polk. He had a great deal to do with the United States becoming a continental nation -- "Manifest Destiny," war with Mexico, and all that. He was also ambassador to Great Britain and was offered a seat on the Supreme Court three separate times.
But he was a confused, indecisive president, who may have made the Civil War inevitable by trying to appease or negotiate with the South. His most recent biographer, Jean Clark, writing for the prestigious American Presidents Series, concluded this year that his actions probably constituted treason. It also did not help that his administration was as corrupt as any in history, and he was widely believed to be homosexual. GAY!? Oh, he just moved way, WAY up on the list! Is it me or was every famous person gay?
Whatever his sexual preferences, his real failures were in refusing to move after South Carolina announced secession from the Union and attacked Fort Sumter, and in supporting both the legality of the pro-slavery constitution of Kansas and the Supreme Court ruling in the Dred Scott class declaring that escaped slaves were not people but property. He was the guy who in 1861 passed on the mess to the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. Buchanan set the standard, a tough record to beat. But there are serious people who believe that George W. Bush will prove to do that, be worse than Buchanan. I have talked with three significant historians in the past few months who would not say it in public, but who are saying privately that Bush will be remembered as the worst of the presidents. I can't mention any names, of course. Wouldn't want them rounded up by the Black Helicopter Squadron and taken to "the camps". You'll just have to take my word for it.
There are some numbers. The History News Network at George Mason University has just polled historians informally on the Bush record. Four hundred and fifteen, about a third of those contacted, answered -- maybe they were all crazed liberals -- making the project as unofficial as it was interesting. These were the results: 338 said they believed Bush was failing, while 77 said he was succeeding. Fifty said they thought he was the worst president ever. Worse than Buchanan. 50 out of 415? Wow, that's like...12%!!! So, doing liberal math, that makes Bush the Worst President EVER!
This is what those historians said -- and it should be noted that some of the criticism about deficit spending and misuse of the military came from self-identified conservatives -- about the Bush record:
He has taken the country into an unwinnable war and alienated friend and foe alike in the process; Unwinnable? We shall see.I think you're wrong.
He is bankrupting the country with a combination of aggressive military spending and reduced taxation of the rich; "Reduced taxation of the rich"?
I'm rich?
WOW! I'M RICH!!!
He has deliberately and dangerously attacked separation of church and state; I missed that. When did that happen? Was I on vacation?
He has repeatedly "misled," to use a kind word, the American people on affairs domestic and foreign; Really? Proof please? Evidence? Instances?
He has proved to be incompetent in affairs domestic (New Orleans) and foreign (Iraq and the battle against al-Qaida); Blown up levees and hunter killer dolphins.
He has sacrificed American employment (including the toleration of pension and benefit elimination) to increase overall productivity; Last I heard there's more jobs in this country then in any time in history
He is ignorantly hostile to science and technological progress; HE HASN'T CURED AIDS YET!!! JAMES BUCHANAN WOULD BE SO PISSED!!!
He has tolerated or ignored one of the republic's oldest problems, corporate cheating in supplying the military in wartime. We're Halliburton...and we know where you live...
Quite an indictment. It is, of course, too early to evaluate a president. That, historically, takes decades, and views change over times as results and impact become more obvious. Besides, many of the historians note that however bad Bush seems, they have indeed since worse men around the White House. Some say Buchanan. Many say Vice President Dick Cheney. You left out Evil Genius Karl Rove. Karl hates when you do that!
#3
Richard Reeves??? I thought that old NY Times Socialist was long dead and buried. I demand a check for signs of voodoo. So what's with the Paris byline. Is he reduced to scribbling for L'Humanite?
Posted by: ed ||
12/06/2005 18:09 Comments ||
Top||
#4
JUST STFU!!!!
Posted by: 49 pan ||
12/06/2005 18:12 Comments ||
Top||
#5
By this article Historians seem ill equiped to judge current events.
#6
Rememer that the number who thought him sucessful were 154% of those who thought him the worst ever. (For every 100 who rated him worst, 154 picked succeding).
And this tripe is considered NEWS? Merde.
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/06/2005 19:19 Comments ||
Top||
#7
A bit of perspective, from Wikipedia:
Reeves' opinions generally have a liberal bent--he opposed the war to topple Saddam Hussein as "stupid and unnecessary" (column, March 19, 2003)--but shuns "extreme" leftist positions. He pays close attention to happenings overseas and often fills his columns with explanations of current trends based on history. Many of his columns focus on the world's reaction to the United States' political actions.
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/06/2005 19:23 Comments ||
Top||
#8
If I were looking for perspective, Wikipedia is the last place I'd go, as the quote amply demonstrates.
#9
Most history departments don't focus on 'old' style history and went left a long time ago.
Well you aught to read what they wrote about Lincoln during the war. Now we have a quasi-temple in Washington, one of four at Rushmore, and on the fiver and penny. Would never have expected it had you asked in 1864.
#10
Well put. Back during the Civil War the Democrats constantly referred to Lincoln as a cretinous warmonger who looked like an ape. Sound familiar?
The character of this president will be justified, not vilified, by historians long after Clintonâs legacy has gone the way of Hardingâs. A hundred years from now his encyclopedia entry will read something like âA controversial president, W. Bush was nevertheless respected by many for his international promotion of democracy and conservative personal qualities, which most Americans of the period found a welcome relief after the excesses of the wild 90's. His memorial in the Kurdish city of Mosul is still carefully maintained nearly 70 years after....â
You get the picture. The leftists know this, too, which is why they hate him so much: just like they did Regan.
#11
Never in my life has the rhetoric been so vitriol towards an acting president. The left is in a tailspin, and they are taking everyone down with them that they can. G.W. seems to be pretty middle of the road to me. God help the arabs if I ever get elected.
#12
Hah! Dubya is Washington, Lincoln, Albert Einstein and Julius Caesar all rolled into one! He has replaced Richard the Lionheart as standard Muslim bogeyman! He could whip Rommel's Afrika Korps singlehanded! Genghis Khan would fall on his knees and beg mercy at the very sight of him! He can eat a side of beef in one sitting and down two barrels of moonshine at lunch. He can take on 100 interns in a session! He craps like an elephant and pisses napalm! He can fly the Space Shuttle and the Airbus 380 blindfolded, at the same time! He can outride a Scythian warlord! He can build a B-2 out of an old trash can and a roll of duct tape in one afternoon! He can take on 100 left over interns in one session!
There, an exercise in hyperbole deserves an equivalent response.
#13
Never in my life has the rhetoric been so vitriol towards an acting president. The left is in a tailspin, and they are taking everyone down with them that they can.
Very true. For one thing, the liberals (communists) see the end of Roe vs Wade, a womans right to snuff. They hate Bush for it. They hate him because he believes in something besides himself, a higher calling, being, whatever. They simply cannot abide it. They are self-absorbed, Godless communists and proud of it.
#14
We have a President with the guts to attempt to reform the butt-crack of the world and of course, the LLLs hate him. Either Islam reforms from within or the West will eventually be forced to do it from without, by means which make the Iraq war appear pale, see Wretchard's Three Conjectures.
I hope that we knock over Ahmanijhad and the Mad Mullahs so W can notch another 60,000,000 liberated on his gun! In 20 years W will be lauded for his stunning accomplishment of knocking the Islamic world into sensibility. Clinton will be a sad side note, best known for the stained dress. And G*d help us if we elect the Hildebeast in '08.
#16
A.C. LOL! Don't forget he can shoot lighting out of his ass and his -em- 'gas' can raise the dead.
The Liberals hate Bush because he has Character. He cares about advancing even the littel guy. That is a real threat to those who want to enslave the little guy with dependancy on government handouts.
From heretofore unknown (to me, anyway) blogger "Steve" at "IR1." Hat tip: Instapundit.
I think the boy's on to something . . .
While watching Hannity and Colmes on Fox News last night cover John Kerry's pronouncement that our troops in Iraq are no better than terrorists it suddenly struck me: Karl Rove has made suckers out of the democrats again.
Remember how the Bush team kept strangely silent for months while democrats unleashed increasingly powerful attacks against Bush's Iraq policy and its results? Remember the agonizing questions about why Bush did not speak out in defense of his policy and its indisputable achievements in Iraq? The answer is in the phrase, verbal momentum.
What the heck is that? Well all right, I just made it up. But what it means here is the tendency to defend and even extend a position one has taken when it is first challenged, before the higher brain functions like logic have a chance to kick in. Of course the longer those higher brain functions take to kick in the further the position will be extended and with a lot of politicians that gives plenty of time to get way out in left field. Howard Dean and John Murtha spring to mind for example. I have a cousin who described this effect, after an argument with his wife, as his "out of body experience". "I was over here", he said, "and my mouth was over there still talking!"
The reason this is important is that there's a pretty fine line between vigorous opposition to your country's policy during war and behavior that most Americans regard as treason. Stay on one side of the line and your criticism drains support from your political opponents. Cross the line and you are suddenly in political no man's land. Now it's clear why the Bush team had to wait such an seemingly excessive length of time to respond. They had to wait while the democrats all slowly racheted up their rhetoric, until they were just barely on the "safe" side of the line. Then, when the Bush team finally responded, the susceptible democrats took the bait and jumped right over the line, driven by their own verbal momentum.
It's interesting to note that one politician, who pretty much everyone agrees is the Mr. Spock of the democratic party, didnât fall for it. Of course with Hillary Clinton it's pretty hard to tell if she's one politician or two so the extra brainpower probably helped her see the trap sooner.
Anyway that's the idea. Karl Rove, master of timing and momentum, strikes again and we all get to watch the democrats crowd together on that last little twig way out at the end of the limb.
I used to be a law clerk in an appellate court, and I got paid to watch a lot of lawyers make fools of themselves. One of the judges on our court used to be a master at using people's verbal momentum against them. During oral argument, he'd induce a lawyer to extend his position further . . . and further . . . down the garden path . . . then whammo! he trips the ambush (that is, points out the glaring hole in the lawyer's argument) and leaves the poor sod standing there in his Brooks Brothers suit looking stupid. Thing was, this judge was an equal-opportunity sort, and he'd usually do it to both sides on a case, just to keep 'em on their toes.
So, yeah, I agree with the theory of "verbal momentum."
Anyway, fellow Ranters, what's your take? Hit the comments!
Posted by: Mike ||
12/06/2005 12:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
To extend the lawyer analogy, the Dems have constructed an argument that takes into account everything except the testimony of the witnesses. They really don't seem to have caught on to the fact that anyone with a modem can read the milbloggers, i.e., guys on the scene who almost without exception support the mission (or can talk to returning troops.) The contrast between what the Dems are saying and what the troops are saying also reinforces the (accurate) perception that the Dems are generally anti-military. ("Hmm,I can either believe Howard Dean or a Marine sergeant who just got back from Iraq. Lemme think about that for a nanosecond.")
Posted by: Matt ||
12/06/2005 13:15 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I think the verbal momentun is part of it, but probably the icing on the cake. Rove understands that the only poll that counts is the one they take on election day and that none of the others matter, except as they effect that one. From Rove's perspective, public opinion in odd numbered years is irrelevant; He can't get the press he needs all the time, so he let's them (the donks and the press)have their fun when it doesn't count. But once we are within election time, they start to focus on the message so that on election day they get 51% of the vote.
The same thing is happening here. Note that Rove has improved the congressional standing of the trunks in 2000, 2002 and 2004. If he can do it again in 2006, he will be in Mark Hanna territory. The focus from now till November 7 will be on victory in Iraq. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser, said somebody famous. The message all year long will be that the trunks will deliver victory in the War on Terror. This will build the majority in Congress and provide the momentum for action in 2007, just as the Iraqis should be in a position to pick up the slack. Pencilneck should be scared, very scared.
#3
Yes this theory make sense as far as political junkies are concerned. But look at the other side of the coin.
Years of alligations without any response have left the impression amung a lot of people that there is truth to those alligations. Certainly total bullshit statements are now generally taken as fact.
If you win the arguement amung the 10% paying attention and lose it amung the remaining have you really gained?
#4
RJ, look at the election results. That's what counts. Not enough people are convinced by the BS to win one election out of the last 3. I suspect this is how Bush uses polling, to tell when too many people are starting to buy the BS and it's time to fight back.
#5
I have a cousin who described this effect, after an argument with his wife, as his "out of body experience". "I was over here", he said, "and my mouth was over there still talking!"
Any husband (or wife for that matter) can probably readily testify to the validity of 'Verbal Momentum'.....
#7
and Karl Rove brought out the small saw today (Bush gently chiding) - big saw later (Cheney)
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/06/2005 17:04 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Thosh, you make a good point but it still concerns me because fully 50% of the country doesn't vote and at some point a good chunk of them might. These are the ones who don't pay attention until they think the world is ready to end and that is what the Democrats have been screaming for years now.
If the lies sinks in it could be bad. Truth doesn't matter, impressions do.
But as I said so far you are right. It seems enough people see through the BS that my concerns may be totally unwarranted. Could be my point only effects those who get stuck in watercooler arguements with uninformed idiots. But that's pretty bad as it is.
#9
fully 50% of the country doesn't vote and at some point a good chunk of them might.
am making matters worse, 50% of the dead folks still don't vote and at some point - a good chunk of them might :-)
Air America can't float a radio station in a single US city and the congress voted 403-3. The press has the biggest megaphone to pronounce "how Americans think" but no matter how much they hype it, the Deaniac crowd is a tiny minority.
#11
I loved the way Hugh Hewitt pased up Dean today. The man clearly was out there in left field and doesn't realize it or care. Kerry all but lost any direction when he paints the U.S. GIs as the bad guys. Yes Karl was right to let them keep swinging, eventually they would have to hit themselves because they were the only ones in the fight.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
