Worst President Ever?

worst-president.jpg

Nice sticker. But is it true?

Nominations for Presidents even worse than GWB — if any — are now open.

I have come around to the view that GWB is substantially worse than Nixon. And also Jefferson. But is he worse than Andrew Johnson? Than US Grant? Andrew Johnson had some principles, but they were pretty bad ones on the whole. Grant was a great general but an unabashedly awful President. And there are surely some obscurely bad Presidents that I’ve neglected?

Or, I suppose, this could perhaps be no more than another example of the middle-aged propensity for the jeremiad…

This entry was posted in Politics: US. Bookmark the permalink.

98 Responses to Worst President Ever?

  1. Lou Mandarini says:

    The reason that W is the worst is because he blends all of the characteristics that our worst presidents have had into one seamless mélange. This administration’s corruption and incompetence surpasses that of Warren G. Harding and U.S. Grant. This administration’s single-minded and thoroughgoing dedication to the interests of the plutocracy exceeds Reagan and Coolidge. This administration’s grandiosity and aggrandizement goes beyond Jefferson. This administration’s rejection of science, policy and arrant anti-intellectualism is greater than Andrew Jackson or Dwight Eisenhower. Finally, This administration’s willingness to harass, punish and silence its critics has not analgoue in political history — except maybe Nixon. At the same time, W’s misguided foreign policy transports him from the realm of mere clumsy ineffectuality in which presidents like Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson and Jimmy Carter live. I’m not entirely sure we have an analogue for W – not without reaching back into Rome for Nero….

  2. buce says:

    Recall: the job of every Republican president is to make his predecessor look good.

  3. wcw says:

    Taft might have been worse.

  4. elektratig says:

    Great question — although I respectfully disagree with the premise about GWB.

    I’ve been reading a good deal of antebellum history lately and am confident that James Buchanan (1857-61) is at or near the bottom of the barrel. After having improper communications with the Supreme Court in connection with the Dred Scott case, he handled the Kansas Lecompton Constitution dispute in the worst possible way, stubbornly refusing to take advantage of several opportunies to diffuse the crisis. In the process, he went out of his way to alienate and destroy the credibility of Stephen Douglas, the last best hope of the Democratic Party. He somehow managed to believe both that secession was unconstitutional and that there was nothing he could constitutionally do about it. To top everything off, until the waning months of his presidency his administration harbored the likes of Secretary of War John B. Floyd, who was both corrupt and actively working against the federal government.

    Ulysses Grant, by the way, does not come close to being the worst president. He’s probably not even in the bottom five or ten. Despite the scandals, he was not personally corrupt, and a number of his policies were quite enlightened for the times. Among presidents who held office before 1876 alone, Buchanan, Franklin Pierce and Andrew Johnson were clearly much worse than Grant.

  5. Michael says:

    “This administration’s willingness to harass, punish and silence its critics” might be matched by the first John Adams’s administration. They did pass the Alien and Sedition Act, after all…

  6. abbamouse says:

    Buchanan seems to be the historians’ consensus choice as the worst President ever, fiddling while the country descended into civil war. Indeed, his officials did more than just leak a name or break into an office here or there. His people actually shifted arms into vulnerable armories in the South, where they could be more easily seized by rebels in the event of civil war. Mere corruption cannot compare to what amounted to treason, and the results of Buchanan’s negligence were surely worse (in therms of lives lost) than the negligence of any other President.

  7. It sounds to me like Buchanan takes the cake, at least for domestic policy. At least Bush didn’t help start a civil war. I can’t think of any president whose foreign policy is worse than Bush’s, though.

  8. C.E. Petit says:

    I’d have to vote for Warren Harding. Between scandals worse than Enron and looser trousers than Wild Willy–not to mention a little union-busting on the side and some truly awful judicial appointments–he’s at least competitive with George III.

  9. Pinski says:

    How about the racist Woodrow Wilson? He helped bring back the KKK (after Grant had essentially gotten rid of it) through his funding of “Birth of a Nation” (originally titled “The Clansman”) and segrated the federal government for the “protection” of African-American’s.

  10. BroD says:

    I’m imprtessed by the nominations. It’s heartening–in a depressing sort of way–to know that the nation somehow survived some pretty bad precedents (see, I even make joke!)

  11. Yeah — so far Buchanan probably takes the cake. It is worth remembering that after him the only new political party ever added to the system won office.

    Warren Harding though sure fits the bill for domestic cronyism; what is promotes GWB toward the top tier is the combination of incompetence, greed, erosion of the rule of law, and imbecillic foreign policy. That’s a hard total to match. Most previous potential occupants of the top spot carried on their misdoings in less arenas.

  12. jim says:

    “Say what you like about Millard Fillmore, at least he kept us out of Vietnam.” — Bob Hope.

  13. elektratig says:

    Given the opening by Jim, I can’t resist commenting on Millard Fillmore. Despite the jokes about him — no doubt inspired by his name and the few pictures that make him look like an overstuffed chair — he was a fine person and good president. He was raised in abject poverty (his father was a tenant farmer in central NY State). Through intelligence, determination, ambition and a little luck, he rose to become a lawyer, respected local politician, leading citizen and philanthropist of Buffalo, almost universally regarded as intelligent and conscientious.

    In 1848, Fillmore was unexpectedly nominated for the vice presidency because he was respected by virtually everyone who knew him and disliked by almost nobody. “Fillmore’s emergence as vice-president was a tribute to his record and talents, as well as something of a vindication of the American political system.” (Elbert Smith, The Presidencies of Zachary Taylor and Millard Fillmore.)

    When in mid-1850 president Zachary Taylor died, Fillmore did an admirable job resolving problems that helped breaked the impassed and paved the way for the passage of the Compromise of 1850, delaying the Civil War for ten years. The Whigs foolishly declined to nominate him in 1852, and Democrat Franklin Pierce — one of the worst — won the election. The Whig party fell apart in 1854, making Fillmore the last Whig president.

  14. Neal says:

    I can’t believe you’ve all forgotten: Bill Clinton had sex with an intern! And he was married! And he lied about it!

  15. Max says:

    You mean the U.S. Grant that held a fractured nation together after a Civil War? Who could have had a third term, and who was internationally revered? Your low opinion of Grant is, unfortunately, a sign of middle-age: the historiography on his service has President has radically shifted in only the past decade or so, as historians have re-evaluated his performance in light of the challenges he faced. He’s now generally considered to be an overall success, though one with a considerable amount of scandal and a lot of problems with his personal leadership of suborbinates.

    Think of this: Grant managed to keep the country together after a civil war, Bush managed to split the nation 50/50 after it was attacked.

    In the bigger picture, I tell my conservative friends to come up with any post hoc measure of presidential success they want, without limitation, and then evaluate Bush using those criteria. He invariably ends up at or near the bottom. Try it yourself. When you blow several trillion dollars to (a) get stuck in a quagmire against the wrong enemy, (b) set the economy back 5-10 years (c) severely damage the concepts of ‘rule of law’ and ‘checks and balances’ and (d) staff the government so poorly it, e.g., allows whole cities to perish, well, it’s hard to come out anywhere but the bottom.

  16. Chuck says:

    We probably can’t honestly judge him till his second term is finished.
    God help us. Increasing National Debt. Possibly another useless war for “Democracy” via torture.
    Does anyone know if there are cheap tickets on Ebay for “someplace safe over the rainbow” ?

    – (Signed) Scared in PA.

  17. At least Bush didn’t help start a civil war.

    well, at least not in this country….

  18. Bruce Baugh says:

    Since others have covered Buchanan, I’ll put in a word for Andrew Jackson, whose defiance of the court seems to me a direct ancestor of W’s attitude, and whose genocidal campaign against the Cherokee is right up there in death and terror sought out. I think that W’s war against Iraq combines features of that and of Buchanan’s buddies’ support for the Confederacy, in his relentless boosterism for the House of Saud and thereby the Wahhabi cause and for totalitarians hither and yon. The enthusiasm for torture is, I think, a genuine innovation in the annals of immoral presidency.

  19. I tread cautiously into what sounds like a liberal sounding chamber (i.e., I am coming at this from the opposite side of the political spectrum). But Michael appears to keep things at a high level here, so here goes.

    Most of what I have heard here about GWB are the same liberal canards. I really don’t see him having split the country after 9/11 – it was plenty split after his disputed victory. Just think back to what you were saying about him in the summer of 2001, after having supposedly “stolen” the election. The country was already split. It was just that national coming-together of the 9/11 tragedy covered that up for awhile.

    As for corruption, the reality is that the only real scandal to have gained any real traction is that of Scooter Libby. Enron never went anywhere because the Administration wasn’t really involved, and the only person who really seems to have suffered on the national level was Paul Krugman (if for no other reason than that James Taranto keeps reminding us of his ties there). And note – just like Jim Wright wasn’t part of the Clinton Administration, Tom DeLay isn’t part of the Bush Administration.

    Compare this with the Clinton Administration:
    – PIs hired to control the Bimbo Eruption.
    – Firing of the travel agency staff (though if Hillary had done it properly, it wouldn’t have been an issue).
    – Cattle futures, Whitewater, Rose law firm billing records, legal conflicts of interest (ok, all were before Bill Clinton took office)
    – Pulling FBI files on almost 100 Republicans.
    – Vince Foster (yes, I think it really was a suicide).
    – Repeated allegations of sexual predation, many coorborated.
    – Illegal HillaryCare meetings.
    – Commerce Department “pay to play” junkets, until Sec. Ron Brown died in an airplane crash on one of those junkets.
    – IRS audits of political opponents instigated from the White House.
    – Presidential purjury, followed by impeachment.
    – “Wag the Dog” military strikes to distract the country from impeachment.
    – Illegal campaign contributions, notably from PRC fronts. In other words, they knew (or should have known) that they were accepting campaign cash from the Red Chinese (add to this indications that the PRC gained a lot of valuable intel about our military capabilities during Clinton’s term in office).
    – Renting the Lincoln Bedroom for campaign contributions.
    – Selling Presidential Pardons for contributions to Hillary’s Senatorial Campaign. (And note that her two brothers also made money off the pardons).
    – Stealing stuff from the White House on the way out the door.
    – The ongoing Cisernos Independent Counsel. The independent counsel claims that he has been ready to give his report to Congress for awhile now, but is still fighting the hundreds of motions aimed at preventing that filed by numerous members of the Clinton Administration.

    I point these out merely to refute the contention that the present Bush Administration is overly corrupt by historical standards. Indeed, I think Ronald Reagan’s Administration had a lot more true scandals of corruption than has this one, so far. As with Grant, Reagan seemed to keep a lot of his crony’s close, and a lot of them turned out to be somewhat corrupt.

    As for the War on Terror, the jury is still out. I think it is going just fine. I suspect that many here think that it is a quagmire already. But the nice thing about historians looking at Bush’s Presidency 20-50 years down the road is that they will know whether he was right – or you are. Indeed, a lot of things look different in retrospect. Looking back, were we right in giving Stinger missles to the Afghanis to fight the Soviets, knowing now that they morphed into the Taliban? Or, indeed, should we have kept air bases in Saudi Arabia to enforce the Southern No-Fly Zone, when our presence in Arabia was one of the justifications by OBL for 9/11?

    So, I do think that it is silly to consider GWB one of the worst presidents ever, given that most of what I have seen here is liberal perceived wisdom and accepted truth, much of which I think will wither in the bright light of historians viewing his Administration from 20-50 or more years in the future.

  20. michael says:

    I don’t know why I bother replying to someone who thinks Vince Foster was murdered. Such people are not members of the reality-based community, but rather a faith-based group in which it must be the case that Clinton(s) are the root of all evil — a world view that allows them to ignore the beam in their own (or their leader’s) eye.

    But here goes.

    It’s useful to distinguish between three kinds of corruption (at least):

    1. personal
    2. mis-use of official resources
    3. fundamental distortion of institutions

    Each on this list is an order of magnitude worse than its predecessor. Type 1 runs from small-time stuff (claiming tax deductions you don’t deserve) to pretty big-time stuff (fraud). Bad, at worst very bad, but alas not as uncommon as one would wish. Type 2 starts at serious and goes up from there. It includes things like sending contracts and grants to your cronies. Sometimes that’s just stealing public money. Sometimes it means leaving troops in wartime with substandard equipment or food. Type 3 threatens the republic. It starts with mis-use of the police power (IRS, FBI, CIA investigations and files) and goes up from there to things like torture, rigging elections, and worse.

    Your list is a odd confabulation of all three types, seasoned with some great tin-foil stuff.

    – PIs hired to control the Bimbo Eruption.
    &bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;Not even illegal.

    – Firing of the travel agency staff (though if Hillary had done it properly, it wouldn’t have been an issue).
    &bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;If I recall, they served at the pleasure of the White House? If so, it was a pure media issue. No laws were even touched, much less broken.

    – Cattle futures, Whitewater, Rose law firm billing records, legal conflicts of interest (ok, all were before Bill Clinton took office)
    &bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;Bad Type 1 on the billing records, I suspect (although nothing was ever proved). The rest was mostly media hype, financed by Scaife money (and the lead accuser has recanted).

    – Pulling FBI files on almost 100 Republicans.
    &bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;Bad type 2 – if it was done with a bad intention. Oddly, though, this never seems to have resulted in any prosecutions. Why?

    – Vince Foster (yes, I think it really was a suicide).
    &bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;Here you have gone off the deep end.

    – Repeated allegations of sexual predation, many coorborated.
    &bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;Type 1 if it were true.

    – Illegal HillaryCare meetings.
    &bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;I happen to think the meetings were illegal, although less so — because less secret — than Cheney’s meeting with oil exec to set energy policy. The D.C. Circuit, however, pronounced Ms. Clinton’s meetings to be legal.

    – Commerce Department “pay to play” junkets, until Sec. Ron Brown died in an airplane crash on one of those junkets.

    &bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;I’m afraid I have no idea what you mean here. If this refers to the practice of administrations taking friendly figures along on foreign trips, are there Democrats in Bush’s delegations?

    – IRS audits of political opponents instigated from the White House.
    &bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;I believe you are confusing Clinton with Nixon.

    – Presidential purjury, followed by impeachment.
    That’s “perjury”. And it was, or nearly so. The question of course had no business being asked, had no relevance to the investigation, and the issue resulted in an acquittal.

    – “Wag the Dog” military strikes to distract the country from impeachment.
    &bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;I opposed and still oppose attacks on foreign countries without a declaration of war, a state of war, or UN permission. But the evidence is strong that the Clinton White House thought it was acting against terrorist sites.

    – Illegal campaign contributions, notably from PRC fronts. In other words, they knew (or should have known) that they were accepting campaign cash from the Red Chinese (add to this indications that the PRC gained a lot of valuable intel about our military capabilities during Clinton’s term in office).
    &bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;If you wish to have the principle that the head of a campaign is to be charged with the knowledge of every contributor, we can do that. We’ll never have an un-indicted politician again, but we can do that.

    – Renting the Lincoln Bedroom for campaign contributions.
    &bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;Still going on today.

    – Selling Presidential Pardons for contributions to Hillary’s Senatorial Campaign. (And note that her two brothers also made money off the pardons).
    &bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;Eh?

    – Stealing stuff from the White House on the way out the door.
    &bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;A totally debunked allegation. See the GAO report. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    – The ongoing Cisernos Independent Counsel. The independent counsel claims that he has been ready to give his report to Congress for awhile now, but is still fighting the hundreds of motions aimed at preventing that filed by numerous members of the Clinton Administration.
    &bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;&bnsp;Actually, the investigation is proof of the vindictiveness of clinton-haters.

    You will note that there is no credible example of a type 3 on the list of charges against Clinton — with the closest being the (IMHO illegal) strikes against Sudan and Libya; oddly these are the acts most likely to resemble the some of the greatest errors of the current administration — the bungled, and mis-sold, invasion of Iraq. To which we add torture, the assault on the bill of rights, the claim that dissent is unpatriotic, the accrual of an enormous budget deficit to give tax breaks to the richest; the pervasive corruption (the K street project; Iraq monies; Halliburton; terrible support of the troops in food and armor); the politicization of institutions (think CPB, think paying journalists with public funds to write pro-administration stories); and near-treason (think Plame leak; relations with Chalabi). And there is so much more. In short, Bush scores multiple trifectas.

    Clinton had a lot of faults — many, many. But on balance he left the country significantly better off than he found it. Could any serious person say that of the Bush administration to date? Or in any likely version of 2008?

  21. Todd says:

    GWB as worst president ever? Let me just say in reaction that this president more appropriately belongs to a discussion of the finer presidents we’ve had. Contrary to the alarming popular liberal hysteria common to this site, the sky is, in fact, not falling. Disregard the fact that areas of our domestic interest, such as the economy, have flourished under the current leadership, the main issue for everyone should be our very survival from those that would see us mercilessly die or cower in fear. With the very preservation of our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness being at stake, we should laud our president, who has aggressively defended and protected our way of life. Not only have we been kept safe at home, but “W” has adopted a foreign policy that not only safeguards our own interests, but doesn’t turn a blind eye to the suffering of those persecuted under the tyranny of despots across the globe. Be warned, history might even look upon Bush 43 with reverential eyes as the man who single-handedly most influenced the establishment and spread of democracy across the globe, beginning with the important struggle that now exists in Iraq. Who would seriously argue that the seeding of middle eastern democracy taking place in Iraq is not in the entire world’s best interest, much less the United States of America’s? I believe in healthy debate and the right of intelligent, sensible people to have different opinions, and will always fight for the right of free speech to dissent. This notion, however, that GWB could be the worst president ever seems to spawn from ideological bitter frustration that results in disingenuous, short-sighted, and intellectually bankrupt diatribes. Can’t we set aside the draconian partisanship and strive for common ground and debate that abandons vitriolic commentary for a balanced, open-minded approach? I felt that President Clinton was largely a good president. He did many regrettable things, but it seems clear to me that he had the interest of the American people in mind, and demonstrated competent leadership. As regards to their interest in serving the American people, and their ability to do it well, each in their own way, I consider Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to be not at all dissimilar.

    Perhaps the unity and harmony I desire are unrealistic…. A guy can dream though…

  22. velid says:

    Nixon killed a lot more people, untold millions in Vietnam and Cambodia. Reagan gave us the Contra War, Salvadoran death squads, and Guatemalan genocide. Even Kennedy brought us to the brink of global nuclear war in a fit of macho posturing.

    I in no way want to minimize the horror of what Dubya has done and still less what he may have set in motion or yet stir up. But in terms of the pure physical damage and mass murder he is in no way the worst, at least so far. In terms of eroding basic human rights, however, he is no doubt a contender for the worst ever, though Andrew Jackson, who made bridles out of Indian skin for his horses, could give him a good run for his money.

    I think the best case for Dubya as the worst president ever is in terms of the waves of destruction he has set in motion on virtually every front: from exacerbating the crisis in the Middle East beyond the point of no return to policies designed to accelerate global climate change to the rehabilitation of torture and disappearance as instruments of national policy to the accelerated dismantling of civil liberties in the US to attacks on science and education to the promotion of theocracy.

    None of these converging vectors has reached full potential yet, but the wave is looming on the horizon.

  23. Man, what does Harding have to do to get some luv around here?

    My shortlist:

    1. Harding
    2. Buchanan

    I’ll defend Andrew Johnson, if solely for the reason that one of his impeachment charges was that he hurt Congress’ feelings.

    As to this kneeslapper:

    – PIs hired to control the Bimbo Eruption.

    This was proven to be bullshit

    – Firing of the travel agency staff (though if Hillary had done it properly, it wouldn’t have been an issue).

    Total non-issue that was inflated by the MSM into something “serious.

    – Cattle futures, Whitewater, Rose law firm billing records, legal conflicts of interest (ok, all were before Bill Clinton took office)

    And all were proven *not* to have happened.

    – Pulling FBI files on almost 100 Republicans.

    Proven to be Craig Livingstone overstepping his authority. He was fired.

    – Vince Foster (yes, I think it really was a suicide).

    The dude from Enron. Oh yeah, he accidentally shot himself with a shotgun from ten feet away.

    – Repeated allegations of sexual predation, many coorborated.

    Many corroborated by people who were LYING. Kathleen Willey? Jeez…

    – Illegal HillaryCare meetings.

    This one cracks me up the most. Hillary Clinton is held to be “evil” by the Right, and for what? Because she thought that maybe kids should get health care paid for by the government. OH MY FUCKING GOD!! GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN!!!

    – Commerce Department “pay to play” junkets, until Sec. Ron Brown died in an airplane crash on one of those junkets.

    Ah, you forgot to mention the part where everyone on the plane had been shot before it crashed.

    – IRS audits of political opponents instigated from the White House.

    Eh, that was Nixon.

    – Presidential purjury, followed by impeachment.

    Didn’t commit perjury, despite what a legion of lawyers in Congress (who one would think actually knew what ‘perjury’ meant) kept blathering about on CNN every FUCKING DAY FOR TWO FUCKING YEARS

    – “Wag the Dog” military strikes to distract the country from impeachment.

    Gee, if only Bush had continued the “Wag the Dog” strikes, a BIG FUCKING OFFICE BUILDING IN MANHATTAN WOULD STILL BE STANDING TODAY.

    – Illegal campaign contributions, notably from PRC fronts. In other words, they knew (or should have known) that they were accepting campaign cash from the Red Chinese (add to this indications that the PRC gained a lot of valuable intel about our military capabilities during Clinton’s term in office).

    Another tin foil hat conspiracy that was blown to hell when the facts came out.

    – Renting the Lincoln Bedroom for campaign contributions.

    Like Ken Lay?

    – Selling Presidential Pardons for contributions to Hillary’s Senatorial Campaign. (And note that her two brothers also made money off the pardons).

    Pales in comparison to Bush I pardoning everyone so that he wouldn’t have to end up going to jail.

    – Stealing stuff from the White House on the way out the door.

    Which the Bush Administration eventually said never happened. Oh, or are they part of the conspiracy too?

    – The ongoing Cisernos Independent Counsel. The independent counsel claims that he has been ready to give his report to Congress for awhile now, but is still fighting the hundreds of motions aimed at preventing that filed by numerous members of the Clinton Administration.

    Yeah, an OIC investigation that is still on going, even though the target of the investigation was found guilty and has already finished serving his sentence.

  24. Tom Hilton says:

    Responding (god knows why) to Todd:

    Contrary to the alarming popular liberal hysteria common to this site, the sky is, in fact, not falling.

    Nice. It’s easy to shoot down your own skewed characterization of anti-Bush sentiment; it’s a good deal harder to engage actual, specific criticisms of Bush. You won’t have an argument until you at least try the latter.

    Disregard the fact that areas of our domestic interest, such as the economy, have flourished under the current leadership,

    Sadly, no. The economy does appear to be improving (by some measures–e.g., growth in GDP–although by other measures such as median wage growth, the economy continues to perform dismally), but only by comparison to what it was during Bush’s first term. We had four years of net negative job growth; that’s not a flourishing economy by anyone’s definition.

    the main issue for everyone should be our very survival from those that would see us mercilessly die or cower in fear. With the very preservation of our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness being at stake, we should laud our president, who has aggressively defended and protected our way of life. [emphasis added]

    You and I agree that the terrorists’ goal is to make us ‘cower in fear’. Is that not precisely what the administration’s exploitation of the issue, with their faux ‘terror alerts’ and ceaseless exaggeration of the threat, has accomplished? Are you not saying, then, that the administration is objectively pro-terror?

    Snark aside, here again you offer lofty-sounding phrases in place of specific argument. About the only word in there that’s really justified by Bush’s performance, though, is ‘aggressively’. They have been aggressive. Otherwise, they have done lots of things, many of them badly, some of them actively exacerbating the threat, and they have also not done lots of things that would enable the country to defend itself against the reality of another terrorist attack.

    Not only have we been kept safe at home, but “W” has adopted a foreign policy that not only safeguards our own interests, but doesn’t turn a blind eye to the suffering of those persecuted under the tyranny of despots across the globe.

    Tell it to Saudi Arabia.

    There are effective and ineffective ways of trying to spread democracy. Trying to impose it by military force has not worked; Iraq may wind up a Shiite theocracy (and Iranian client state), or it may tear itself apart with years of bloody civil war, but the one outcome that most certainly will not occur is a liberal, western-style democracy. And in the process of trying to impose democracy, we have thoroughly alienated the whole Muslim world (this is objective fact, as measured by poll after poll after poll before and after the war).

    I believe in healthy debate and the right of intelligent, sensible people to have different opinions, and will always fight for the right of free speech to dissent.

    Would that Bush felt the same.

  25. ron says:

    Worst President ever? Raises some interesting questions and things to consider. e.g. 1. It would seem logical to focus upon those Presidents who served only one term and were denied a second by the voters. (exceptions would include Polk and Coolidge, whom most historians feel would easily have won again). 2. Perhaps those Presidents who did not finish a full term and those Presidents who were never elected should be excused (Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Filmore, Johnson, Garfield, Arthur, Harding, Kennedy, and Ford). It is interesting that so many people list names on this list, particularly Tyler, Filmore, Johnson, and Harding. 3.Perhaps we should treat each term of office separately since most second terms have been woefully bad. e.g. Jefferson’s first term included the Louisianna Purchase, the successful action against the Barbarry Pirates,etc. while in his second term he failed to effectively deal with Britain and Napoleon leading to his non-Intercourse Act which proved to be adisaster for the American economy. FDR’s first term which restored hope to Americans and as no less a judge than Ronald Reagan said, saved whole communities with programs like the CCC and WPA. After winning the biggest landslide in history his second term was not good. The “court packing scheme,” the recession of 1937, the “copperhead” off year election of 1938. Similarly, Nixon’s first term resulted in EPA, OSHA, an end to the Vietnam War, a period of B;ack economic growth and again a landslide victory like those of FDR in 1936 and LBJ in 1964 with over 60% of the popular vote and over 500 electoral votes. Of course Nixon’s second term was a disaster.
    4. I don’t particularly like President Bush, but it is probably a mistake to judge his presidency this soon. In the early sixties, historians made this mistake and suggested that Ike was in the bottom 25% of American Presidents. Twenty years later historians wiped the egg off and he is now rated as one of the best.
    My question is, since the election of 1824 (the first election where the popular vote is even listed) has any President who was elected to two terms had a good second term and who had the best second term? (Jackson, Grant, Cleveland?, Wilson, FDR, Ike, Reagan, Clinton, Bush) the last two are probably too recent, but …

  26. sean says:

    Jimmy Carter is by far the worst modern president. His foreign policy was terrible. He was a complete failure in dealing with the Soviet nuclear threat and he gave away the Panama Canal. On domestic side, he created the economic phenomenom known as “Stagflation”, and created a “crisis of confidence” within the minds of the American public. He was totally ill-equipped to deal with the Iran hostage crisis. The only positive of his presidency was the Camp David Accord. Carter’s backers refer to him as “our best former president” which acknowledges that he was a terrible President.

  27. CARTER and LBJ were the worse!!! Carter was instramental in the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, by threatening to cut off military aid to Iran if the Shah didn’t adopt drastic reforms which caused his overthrow, a US ally going back to 1941 (reinstalled in ’53). Carter refused to answer the Shah’s plea for US troops. The Shah’s overthrow lead to FOUR WARS in the middle east totalling between ONE AND TWO MILLION DEATHS and 27 years later we’re still fighting! LBJ of course started the Vietnam War, Nixon had the thing won, but intense political pressure forced him to withdrawal. The resulting genocide that followed totalled about one million deaths, but much of this can be blamed on the left and the press for surendering in a war that was won. There’s also Al Gore’s “economic team to Russia” whose economy collapsed soon after taking his advice and leading to nuclear material getting on the black market which has greatly contributed to this situation. Osama is reported to have spent millions to aquire nuclear weapons. If Osama nukes DC, then Clinton will get the worst president award. What do you think it will do to your rights and the economy if DC gets vaporized? but of course the sheeple will blame Bush.

  28. Erich says:

    I would have to agree that Carter was the worst! I mean, the Panama Canal is the tip of the iceburg with him…

  29. phil says:

    I love reading intelligent arguments, and there are some here. I also am glad there are some ‘legal’ minds who can refute some of the dreck point by point. Blaming Carter for mid-east wars since the Shah kinda ignores the European meddling in the earlier part of the 20th century. Finally… I have a degree in Art and even I know that LBJ didn’t start the damn Viet Nam war. Cripes.

  30. Jim says:

    Certainly Mr. Bush has not been a good president. To make a case for the worst ever is difficult. We didn’t live through Jackson’s “trail of tears”, or some of the other awful events above. What we are experiencing is the worst president in most of our lives. The most incompetent in terms of what he started with and what he has done.

    While presidents aren’t the magical creatures we want them to be, they are charged with Guiding our Nation. On this Bush has failed miserably, by any honest assessment. Easily worse then Clinton, HW Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon and Johnson.

    Probably the single most corrupt event of our time occured on Dec 24th, 1992. HW Bush pardoned 6 people involved in the Iran Contra (Arming terrorists) Scandal. Weinberger avoided trial, and likely America lost its chance to learn the truth.

    Bush pushed through tax cuts, mostly for the rich. As Warren Buffet said in opposition to bush “Call it class warfare, but my class is clearly winning”. In the press he spun and lied about their effects.
    He’s held back any attempts to reform heathcare. He’s mangled our energy policy and mislead America about this too. Of course he lied about Saddam…9/11. He didn’t read his memos, and then “never imagined” people could hijack airliners and fly them into buildings? How did he get past a simple briefing?

    He started a quagmire, only to distract people from his stolen 2000 election? Why else? Oil? He still won’t tell us the truth.

    Mr. Bush is the right wing equivalent of Nader. Maybe that’s why he never tried to honestly defend his inept policies, he thought people would be too unified by war to look at him critically. He botched post 9/11 sympathy. No getting around that, he did it here and around the globe.

    His trillions of debt, his failed policies; economic, tax, healthcare, education, outsourcing, etc. and of course his unnecessary and illegal war easily make him the worst of our time.

    That is possible without even getting into his selections, (Cheney, Alito, Roberts) as even more evidence of his poor and disasterous decision-making skills.

  31. Leslie says:

    There is something terribly wrong or very shortsighted with anyone who thinks Bush is anywhere close to Jimmy Carter in damaging the country. Not only did Carter father Middle East terrorism by failing our only ally in the area, the Shah of Iran but he also gave us the “Misery Index”. The misery index was made up of inflation and unemployment, both of which were double-digit numbers during his administration. The thing that causes Carter to really stand out, as a disaster is that he continues to damage our country and impede world peace even now, 30 years after voters threw him out of office. Since leaving office Carter has stuck his nose where it does not belong resulting in the following………………

    The Clinton administration was preparing to take a hard line with North Korea when, uninvited, Carter stepped in offering diplomacy. Thanks to him North Korea has nukes today.

    Carter has praised Castro on many occasions and consequently given him international status he does not deserve. This has helped Castro continue to deny rights to the Cuban people.

    Since Carter never fails to embrace any socialist dictator he has put his seal of approval on the very suspicious “election” of Hugo Chavez. Chavez will be the world’s problem for years to come and has become Castro’s replacement for support he once received from the Soviet Union.

    In an example of the utter smallness of this man reflect on the following. When the Pope died Carter’s people contacted the white House offering to LEAD a delegation to the funeral. Once Carter was advised that the President would attend he chose to stay home. He had no interest in attending the funeral of a truly great world leader whom he had criticized on occasion unless he got to lead the delegation.

    Wake up you idiots it’s no wonder your site hasn’t had a post in 5 months. President Bush is doing a good job during truly serious times. Cut him and America some slack.

  32. Michael says:

    Carter didn’t torture anyone. Carter didn’t destroy US credibility abroad. And Carter didn’t lie us into war. And, oh, yes, Carted didn’t announce via “signing statements” that he considered himself above the law.

  33. Jim says:

    What’s with the Carter Fantasy? You people are really spinning to rationalize Mr. Bush and his pathetic actions.

    Washington, Jefferson, all presidents have made mistakes and hindsight is always 20/20. The point with Mr. Bush is that he consistently does the wrong thing.

    He Lied about Iraq. Your only other choice is that he didn’t take the time to know better.

    He lied about his tax cuts. If you don’t think he lied about them, take a course in economics.

    About N. Korea, he did nothing. Iran Nothing. Two serious threats, very unlike Iraq. Bush did NOTHING. Why?

    Afghanistan, now executing Christians? Good job again Mr. Bush. Good thing you invaded the “non-threat” Iraq.

    Trillions of debt, more poverty, declining middle class, Billions for Iraq, no money for our outsourced workforce, this is Bush’s legacy. Those FACTS are nowhere near as bad as the BS you “people” make up about Carter and Clinton.

    These and his other transgressions cannot be excused as say mistakes other presidents have made. The simple reason is that many of his policies are factually flawed, and his only motivation seems to be greed, not strategic mistakes like other presidents.

    You can believe the world is flat, or you can examine the facts and acknowledge that W. Bushie is the worst, and most incompetent, president we have ever known.

    Don’t be a Bush Lemming.

  34. heywood says:

    Only the truly stupid believe that Bush is a Good President.

    To take the leap that Carter is worse then Bush implies not stupidity but psychiatric difficulties or brainwashing by the Karl Rove, Oliely, Limbaugh and Hannity media.

    Carter had his faults, as did our whole system of government. We just survived watergate, vietnam, and Ford (remember him?) No president has it easy.

    No, it’s when presidents do stupid and immoral things like Jackson’s Trail of Tears, or Buchanan’s inactions, or Bush’s incomptence that they become candidates for the Worst Ever.

    Those Repug non-thinkers impeached Clinton for a blow-job. Bush has bungled every aspect of his job so far. Even the savvy repugs can’t name one thing he’s done right, without making stuff up.

    Not only should he be impeached, but America needs to take a long look in the mirror over how someone whose policies are so Bad and intellectually dishonest could even win a primary in Utah.

  35. Tim says:

    in defense of W:

    with regard to W’s first term and the stock market crash of 2000, doesn’t anyone seriously think that that the stock market collapse which began 3 months after W took office was his fault? how can anyone attribute the poor economic performance of W’s first term to W? Does anyone think that if Al Gore won the 2000 election, that we would have recovered so quickly economically from the 2000 stock market crash and the resulting recession? I think not. If Gore had one, there would have be no tax cuts and thus no fiscal stimulus in late 2000 and 2001 which obviously aided in the economic recovery…. if Gore had won, 2000 thru 2004 would have been much like 1930 thru 1934 where the exact opposite economic policies were enacted which prolonged the Great Depression….W’s fiscal economic policies are very much underrated.

    Carter by far is the worst president (at least of the 20th century)….economically he accomplished nothing…he made the energy crisis of 70’s worse rather than mitigating it….

  36. Alex Goodyear says:

    Carter is by far the worst president of all time. Bush may very well be the worst public speaker of the presidents, but he doesn’t take any bulllsh*t from people trying to hurt our country. If he would secure our border, lower prok spending, and assasinate Ted Kennedy then I would put him in the top 3…

  37. Bruno says:

    Worst presidents:

    1. Lincoln, hands down. Started a civil war that resulted in the deaths of 625K Americans.
    2. Wilson. Got the US involved in a world war that was unnecessary for America’s safety. The peace treaty ending WW1 is a direct cause of WWII.
    3. Truman. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That’s all you need to know.
    4. FDR. Provoked the Japanese to attack, thus involving the US in another world war that we should have avoided.

    It is way too early to tell if Bush ranks with these monsters. Depends on how badly the next few years go in the middle east and if the US can avoid a civil war over illegal immigration.

  38. Michael says:

    Lincoln fired on Fort Sumter? What alternate universe do you live in? And were you aware that seven southern states seceded before he took office? So Lincoln started the war only in the sense that he didn’t surrender to the southern demand to quit the union. The rest of your comments, with the arguable exception of Truman for Nagasaki, are equally odd.

  39. allie says:

    bruno, you have got to be out of your mind.

    Lincoln, along with Wilson, Truman and FDR, was a great president. You have to keep in mind the seven states that seceded before office, Lincoln, being the good president that he was, tried to keep the Union together as one country! Could he just sit there and let this wonderful nation be split in two? No, he fought for his country, his nation and led them to victory. Yes, many, many Americans died, but you also have to take into account that many of those Americans wanted to fight, they enlisted.
    Lincoln’s presidency was in a crucial period of American History. Did you ever think that wihtout his strong leadership that maybe, we would not be the United States of America, but would be split into north and south? He emancipated the slaves, and turned the civil war into a war on slavery. He wanted equality and fought for that. He was an amazing orator and delivered countless numbers of speeches, including, but not limited to the Gettysburg Address.
    In such a troubled time in history, you cannot judge Lincoln for the war, that was the nation and the people’s choice, those seven southern states seceded first, and Lincoln did all he could do to being his country back together and be united!

  40. heywood says:

    It’s really funny seeing people try to defend “W”. Some very important points:

    1) Carter had to clean up after Ford, and Nixon.

    2) Bush campaigned in 2000 for tax cuts cuz the economy was so strong. The market lagged in 02 and early 03 largely due to his reckless talk about Iraq. (These relevations about no WMD, Saddam being a threat weren’t news to people in the financial markets, they were concerned about what this fool might do)

    3) Had Gore been elected the Clinton plan of counterterrorsim may, may have prevented 9-11. Even a top X Reagan advisor said Clinton was too “obsessed” with Osama. Gore helped head the project – you won’t hear from the (Liberal- ROTFLMFAO) media.

    4) No, bushie can’t speak well, but he obviously can’t think clearly either, unless he wants America to be land of the Corrupt, Welfare for only the Rich, War is Peace, etc. Why people are continuously fooled by Bush and his ilk is beyond belief.

    There is no defense for “W”. Unless you ignore facts, logic and history.

  41. heywood says:

    In addition to #3 above, it is well known that Bush never met with his advisors on terrorism. He never, or rarely, read his memo’s (esp Bin Laden Determined to Strike America). Up to 9-11, he’d spent close to 40% of his presidency on vacation.

    For various reasons Bush is the worst, at least of our lifetime. He’s obviously the most incompetent.

    His presidency is like his life. He was born on 3rd base and drank away 20 yrs, killing off many of his brain cells.

    In his presidency he blew, intentionally for political and personal gain, Many Great opportunities. Blowing his opportunity to be a “Uniter” is perhaps his worst (of course there’s always tax policies, education, the economy, immigration, foriegn policy, national securtiy – not one has he demonstrated competence on).

  42. Joe Knight says:

    Are you kidding? Were you alive during the Carter administration. Carter is the worst President we EVER had. He was unpopular and he had disasterous, domestic,economic and foreign policies. He is singlehandedly responsible for making more powerful our 2 main advesaries, Iran and North Korea. The later by neg a weak nuke treaty for Clinton that the N Koreans had NO intention of honoring. As president he pressured the Shah to step down and allowed the most radical islamic facists into power there.
    Do you realize that if we had supported and kept the Shah in power we probably would not have had the Iran Iraq war, Gulf wars 1 or 2. Maybe even 911.
    Like it or not I believe history will be kind to “W” He has an amazing list of of domestic legislative accomplishments..ie tax cuts and tax reform,education reform, medicare reform,energy initatives such as ethanol and hydrogen fuels. Add to that a Immigration reform( That I hope does not pass unless it is the house bill) his only disapointment will have been Social Security reform. Given the challanges we have faced the economy has been great. Yes the deficits are too high but we have fought 2 wars and had a recession (that began in the 3rd quarter of the last year of Clintons presidency). And as a % GDP they are not out of line according to many economists.
    Add to that victory in Iraq and Afganistan and ol “W” has a chance to go down in history as one of our best presidents. We have already won these wars. We must be allowed to win the peace

  43. Heywood says:

    You’re really confused about Iran. It was Reagan who dealt with the Iranian Terrorists, sold them arms, etc. Reagan’s incompetence in the middle east is legendary (Saddam, Osama, etc.)

    Bush has screwed up so many good opportunities for our country. Whatever Carter did can’t even compare to Bush’s blatant contempt for morality and simply doing the right thing. The TRUE effects and motives behind his polices prove this.

    The “man” (used here in only the true biological sense) just hasn’t done anything that would be evidence of using common sense. He seems to be motivated by greed and a perverted version of Christianity. As more facts come out, the lower his ratings will go. Eventually the miserable bush policies will no longer exist amongst civilized people. — I guess you’ll always have your confederate flag morons, limbaugh lemmings etc.

  44. Heywood says:

    Of course Bush doesn’t get a pass on the deficit. Tax cuts during wartime? The interest rate @ 0.5% was more then enough. The decline during Clinton’s time was due to Greenspan pushing short term rates up to 6.5% in May of ’00. Bush’s moronic posturing after 9-11 towards Iraq was a huge factor in slowing the economy.

    We KNOW that Bush created a war in Iraq that did not need to happen. The man has squandered billions, and divided this country more then ever due to his incompetence. Bush himself has not been able to justify his war, or his other pathetic and self-serving policies.

    He is such a pathetic president that the Carter years, while not pleasant seem wonderful compared to the Bush years.

  45. Omar says:

    Andrew Jackson is the worst. He filled govenment postions with his uneducated hick supporters and he overruled the Supreme Court case to allow Native Americans to stay in their land. He also destroyed the bank of the US creating a economic panic.

  46. Omar says:

    Bruno are u retarted? Linclon? What are u a racist? And he didn’t start it our Forts were hit first.

  47. Omar Spira says:

    Yeah john Adams did pass the Sedtion Acts. I always thought he was a good guy.

  48. David says:

    Bush is the worst president we have ever had.

    Basically he is a NAZI. He has no qualms with infringing on Constitutional Rights.
    4th Amendment (Patriot Act).
    1st Amendment (Government Wire-Tapping)
    Trying to Add an Amendment to ban Gay Marriage

    He has bankrupted our economy with a war that had no merit.
    He bankrupted the U.S. airline industry.

    Meanwhile, he gives tax benefits to the rich and destroys the future
    of social security. He and Cheney make deals with the oil industry
    to raise oil prices. (this will be discovered you just wait and see).

    And he attained office by Fraud (Voting was rigged).

    What else? Thousands of U.S. soldiers die so Bush and Cheney can try to take
    over middle east oil for their own personal gain.

    He destroyed the credibility and honor of the United States.

    He significantly worsens benefits for the elderly and disabled … and confuses them
    with different packages that they can’t understand and that don’t provide them
    with adequate benefits anyway.

    He’s so incompetent that he didn’t send help to aid victims of Katrina (weeks go by??)
    He puts NAZI’s in our Supreme Court to destroy our Constitution more.
    He lies and changes his stories repeatedly.

    He tortures people and sets up secret camps in other countries to torture people
    (this WILL definitely be proven … just wait and see)

    Let’s see what else?? Jesus.

    He can’t speak a coherent sentence. He’s incompetent as hell. Looks like an ape when he talks.
    He hires other incompetent and unqualified people in high up positions. FEMA can’t do it’s job.
    VA’s office loses millions of VA social security numbers (including mine).

    Basically I hate this spoiled Rich f–cking NAZI who doesn’t care about Civil Rights or the poor.

    He is now attempting to destroy the infrastructure of the Internet so it will become more
    like the TV networks where only the wealthy can truly afford to have a good website.

    And he’s bringing a lawsuit again the New York Times (unbelievable 1st amendment issue).

    I hate this ba*stard.

  49. ed says:

    can’t believe i’m getting into an argument that features a “basically, bush is a nazi” zinger, but what the heck.

    carter’s gotta be the worst prez of all time, because he didn’t do anything right ever. every other president under consideration for the “worst” title – buchanan, jackson, lincoln, (go to a libertarian site sometime and see what they think about his trampling of the constitution: it makes bush’s NSA follies look like grade-school stuff), harding, nixon, et al – they all managed at least occasionally in their administrations to at least once in awhile get SOMETHING right. jackson got re-elected. lincoln won his war. harding kept the boom going. etc etc.

    but not carter!

    in NO aspect of his presidency – not domestic, economic, military, or foreign policy did carter manage to ever do anything right. not once.

    *domestic? the country was going to hell, so jimmy gave us his “malaise” speech, told us it was our fault, and we’d just have to “get used to being a second-class power”.

    *economic? let’s see…..$800 gold;(that’s be about $2200 today, adjusted for inflation); NYC went broke; remember jimmy’s famous “misery index”?

    *military? LOL yeah, the US military was a fearsome war machine under carter. y’all remember how jimmy’s delta force – the best we had at the time – managed to crash their choppers into each other when they tried – and failed – to rescue the hostages seized by the iranians from our embassy. (otherwise known as an act of war. carter’s response was telling: he made a VERY frowny-face speech, and went to the UN for guidance.)

    *foreign policy? ah, geez, where to begin? well, let’s just stay on iran, shall we? the reason the iranians were able to seize our embassy there and kidnap our people (an act of war, to which carter responded to by doing….essentially nothing) was that carter basically CAUSED it to happen. he (essentially) kicked out the shah – our longtime ally – and made it known that he had no objection to the installation of a glorious islamic republic headed by the ayatollah khomeini, mr. sweetness & light himself.

    so let’s recap. sneaky – stupid – unlucky – incompetent – thought with his hopes and wishes rather than his brain – couldn’t lead his way out of a paper bag – can’t do anything right EVER…….

    worst prez alltime GOTTA be carter.

    lastly, to all you “bush is a nazi, man” lefties out there, a question. i don’t actually like bush myself – he’s much too timid for my taste. but here’s the question: since 9-11, i’ve seen post after post of outraged liberal screaming about how whatever it is that bush is doing is wrong wrong wrong, he’s gonna ruin the country, doomgloomihatethatnazi, blah blah blah. ok, fine. as i say, i don’t like him either.

    but 3000 of our countrymen were killed in an act of war. state-sanctioned or not, it was an act of war. and the realities of the world dictate that the strongest, richest nation on earth CANNOT let such an atrocity go unavenged. in fact, our response to the atrocity MUST BE an overreaction, (i think, anyway), or we’ll be doing 9-11’s every couple of years for the next 100 years or so.

    the president of the USA must lead the response. you don’t like bush’s response? fine.

    but NEVER – and i do mean NEVER -do i see you guys offer up an alternative response to 9-11.

    how come?

  50. heywood says:

    Ed, whatever you like to exaggerate about Carter, doesn’t even hold a candle to the gross incompetence exhibited time and time again about Bush.

    To state that Carter was even as close to bad as Bush is, is just plain dishonest and illustrates a contempt for history and the facts about the Bush regime.

  51. David says:

    Joe, you’ve got to be kidding. History will show Bush as leading America down the road to World War III.

    You said Bush had an amazing list of of domestic legislative accomplishments..ie tax cuts and tax reform,education reform, medicare reform,energy initatives such as ethanol and hydrogen fuels.
    Um, yea, that’s real amazing. Tax Benefits to the rich. Education system is falling apart, Elderly are losing benefits, and Fossil Plants are violating laws where people are even dying.

    And trust me. Not one single real law will ever be passed related to the use of alternative fuels like ethanol while Bush is in office. That’s all a sharade because he is an OIL man and hates environmentalists.. He and his cronies have “re-interpreted” many of the provisions of the Clean Air Act to give Corporations more freedom to pollute… less sanctions, etc…

    Immigration reform? What reform? Building a wall and sending troops to the border is NOT the answer.

    He’s destroying Social Security. He wants to privatize it so that millions of people will not get their benefits when they retire.

    You say the deficits are too high. It’s much more than just a DECIFIT. It’ll take YEARS to get out of debt because of his sorry ass. And you are unbelievable. CLINTON did NOT cause the recession. unbelievable. Clinton got us out of debt after REAGANS military spending spree (Star Wars, IRAN Contra, etc). You Republicans are so out of WHACK with reality it’just s unbelievable. Totally screwed in the brain.

    Bush is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on this stupid unjustified war. There was no victory in IRAQ and it never will be considered a victory. Because it’ll come back to haunt us for years to come… The Muslims do not forget defeat and we should have just left them over there and let them destroy themselves… I’d rather spend the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars on the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Da*n Republicans.

    What victory in Afghanistan? Where’s Osama Bin Laden, the real cause of 9/11.

  52. ed says:

    well, guys, try as you might to stay on the “evil nazi bush” message, that wasn’t the question, was it.

    the question was “worst prez of all time”, and ed postulated it was carter, because carter – as opposed to
    some of the other popular choices listed here – never managed to do anything right EVER. (and don’t waste
    my time with the ‘israel-egypt peace’ scam, ok? 1) since neither israel nor egypt has any oil, them being at
    peace has no bearing on US national interest and 2) we bought them off, in true carterian fashion, to the
    tune of multiple billions per year, ongoing)

    again, ED DON’T LIKE BUSH, BECAUSE BUSH IS WAY TOO TIMID FOR ED’S LIKING,

    but….

    ed admits that bush has managed to do at least a few things right.

    1) bush has managed a decent economy, in uncertain times (economic #’s carter would have killed for)
    2) bush’s military won stunning victories overseas (poor occupation management, but great battle plan)
    3) no recurrence of 9-11 on american soil!

    ergo, since bush has done something right, that makes him…..NOT “worst prez ever”.

    winner and still champion! james earl halfwit shit-for-brains carter!!!!

  53. heywood says:

    Ed, you almost make sense.

    Much of the Economy’s difficulties in 01 were due to greenspan, not Clinton or Bush. Bush did stall the economy from 02 to 03-03 with his moronic posturing.

    Your complaints of Carter are noted. He had to clean up after Vietnam, Nixon and Ford. He also did not have full support of his own party in congress.

    Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Ike, FDR all did bad things, no one is perfect.

    What makes Bush so bad, the worst of the very least our lifetime is his consistently doing the wrong thing. Newsflash ED: Iraq did not attack us! Look at his tax policies, education, outsourcing, healthcare, prescription drugs, he consistently violates common sense in favor of making the rich richer!

    Is that a coincidence? I’m not that dumb. Faux news and Limbaugh get paid millions to lie, you may believe them, informed people don’t.

    You little list of things Bush has done right is laughable.

    1) He did nothing to fight terrorism pre 9-11. Nothing to increase military spending pre 9-11. The credit goes to Clinton’s military.

    2) The economy was strong, yet correcting a bit, pre 9-11 as mentioned before Bush’s lax behavior likely allowed 9-11 (not reading his memo’s, not following clintons “obsession with Osama” (an ex Reagan aide’s term) etc. Bush has blown numerous opportunities to allow everyone to participate in our current economic growth, as usual the select and the rich get the Bush Bennies.

    These two facts pretty much smash your case.

    So no, the clear winner as the Worst ever (at least in the last 100 years) is still Mr. Bush and his overtly greedy and incompetent actions and policies.

  54. David says:

    Ed,

    Here’s the difference between Carter and Bush. Bush is un-American. Bush is ANTI-America Pro Rich. Bush is a NAZI who just managed this week with his NAZI SS supreme court to s*it on the 4th amendment yet again by making it 100% legal for the police to enter any premises without knocking. Un F*cking believable.

    This is why Bush is the absolute worst president ever. No other president in history has ever been this incompetent and willing to re-write the constitution faster than you can say “Animal Farm”.

    Carter at least was American and cared about our constitution and our people … and was not incompetent ALL the time like Bush.

  55. heywood says:

    David,

    I wouldn’t call bush a Nazi, but he clearly has fascist traits. His fascism is a bit different then Hitler and Mussolini’s, but the similarities are there. The consequences for our nation can be avoided through the next elections in ’06 and ’08.

    I hate to advocate a strict party vote, but right now the Democrats are the best chance our country has at regaining some dignity.

    Unless the Greed Over Priciples party reinvents itself and moves away from these disasterous Bushie policies and philosophies a straight Dem ticket is the only way one with morals and common sense could vote.

  56. David says:

    Vote Democrat no matter who is on the ticket !!

  57. David says:

    I’m sorry I keep posting here … but I just can’t stop.

    I cannot understand how anyone can support Bush and his 8 BILLION dollar / month war.
    And he calls himself a “conservative”. Yea, right.

    Thanks ALOT for putting the U.S. economy in debt for the next 20 years and destroying
    health care, education, social security, retirement, and our environment. And for re-writing
    the Constitution…

    He has GOT to FUC*ING GO. IMPEACH THIS FU*CKER NOW.

  58. ed says:

    guys, guys, guys. getting a little hysterical and breathless, are we? how DARE someone wander off the officially-sanctioned, party-approved “hate evil nazi bush” reservation! and then have the GALL to back it up with facts and figures, and want you to do the same?? the NERVE! ed should KNOW that slogans and bush hatred should be allowed to trump any and all arguments!

    see, stuff like the last few posts are why i gave up arguing politics with unthinking, knee-jerk, blindly partisan left-wing ideologues. but – seeing as how i’ve already gone to all this trouble – we’ll rebut those moronic last few posts, and then call it a day.

    and to make it even more fun, we’ll use your own “logic”.

    1) so carter was a spectacular failure because he “did not have full support of his own party in congress”? LOL lovely thing about the net: fast lookup of facts & figures. dem control of congress in carter years was as follows: house, dems held a 2-to-1 post-watergate numerical advantage. senate, dems held (counting the inevitable RINO’s) a veto-proof majority. what kind of prez produces miserable results with this kind of advantage? hmmm…..maybe the “worst president ever”?
    2) so you’re mad at the latest USSC decision, and it’s all bush’s fault, is it? so now presidents are held accountable for USSC decisions made during their tenure? ok. so i can safely assume you boys LOVE nixon, a republican, because “roe” came down on his watch? no? what a surprise.
    3) ahhh. so bush gets no credit for stopping 9-11 because it happened on his watch, but “clinton’s military” gets the credit for winning the wars because……? why? because clinton wasn’t a republican? so i can safely assume you therefore hate FDR, a democrat, because pearl harbor happened on his watch? no? what a surprise.
    4) “carter at least cared about the constitution and our people”. *sigh* and you know this…how? because he SAID so? because he was a democrat? why can’t he be held accountable for his miserable failings as president? why can’t his “caring” be measured by results? economic, military, domestic or foreign-policy gains? why? because carter – the worst president of all time – HAD NO gains of any kind. but hey! at least he “cared”! i’m sure that meant a lot to the people who were out of work in the carter years, struggling under 8-9% inflation rates.
    5) and on and on and on.

    good luck in the real world, guys. good luck trying to get real employers to go along with your half-baked ideas that “because i want a thing to be true, it must be so. even if i can’t supply any facts or figures to back it up.”

    you may now continue preaching to the statist choir, i suppose. say, does anyone know how the “get us out of iraq” vote in the house turned out? LOL

  59. heywood says:

    Ed,

    You need to read up a bit. Lay off the sauce. You’re not making any sense. Parroting what you hear from Rush or from some other right wing moron doesn’t make you look very good.

    It definitely doesn’t change the fact that Bush is the worst. And your fantasies about Clinton and Carter are pretty impressive.

  60. Michael says:

    OK people. Let’s strive for more light and less heat.

  61. ed says:

    heywood, that’s twice now you’ve disparaged “faux” news and limbaugh. i can see that you are enraged at the left’s loss of their media monopoly – as most knee-jerk, unthinking hardcore left-wing ideologues seem to be – (whatever happened to “let a thousand flowers bloom”?) – but it’s just a wee bit off topic.

    topic was: worst prez ever.

    a strong case can be made for carter, using facts and figures.

    your case seems to be only “i hate bush, so he must be the worst”. using arguments consisting of: snide and catty little remarks at those who would dare cross the orthodox left-wing party line; ringing but oddly vague and inaccurate excuses for carter’s truly spectacular incompetence; and disagreements with specific policy positions, as if a president’s decision on a specific issue of the moment qualifies him as “worst ever”.

    how do the lawyers say? “when you have no case, abuse the plaintiff”.

    you have no case, heywood. and until you can specifically answer why carter is better than bush when bush’s A) economic numbers are MUCH better B) military performance is MUCH better C) domestic numbers are better….

    you will continue to have no case. and carter will continue to be “worst president ever”.

    also, you’re rude, and seem to have no class at all. i suppose you think your righteous anger over someone suggesting evilnazibush isn’t “worst prez ever” makes that excusable. it doesn’t.

  62. David says:

    Ed,

    You’ve GOT to be kidding me.

    You said: Bush’s (A) economic numbers are MUCH better (B) military performance is MUCH better C) (3) domestic numbers are better….

    What dream world do you live in?
    (A) We spend 8 BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH on a stupid war. Let me say it again. EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS EVERY MONTH THROWN DOWN THE TOILET. (B) Military Performance is NOT better. Guys are driving around in cheap ass scrap metal tanks … and (C) domestic numbers are WORSE. Far worse, except for the rich of course.

    Your just wacked in the brain. I just cannot understand how anyone can support Bush and/or think that he has done anything close to being good or right for our country.

    And by the way I’m a lawyer. So I attribute things like a President’s view of the Constitution and Civil Rights and who they nominate for the Supreme Court to be MAJOR factors as to whether or not they are a good president or a bad president. In Bush’s case, he is definitely a NAZI. No difference at all from a NAZI except that he isn’t killing anyone. Other than that he’s a NAZI / Fascist far Right religious wacko dumba$$ republican just like all republicans and the world will be a whole lot better off when the Democrats take control again…

    And to answer one of your other sayings. How do I know Carter cared? Your said it. Because he was a DEMOCRAT and cared about Civil Rights and our Constitution. He was a TRUE American, unlike BUSH.

    Bush is the kind of President who would ban burning the American Flag. Burning the American flag represents FREEDOM of the utmost. It should ALWAYS be legal. But Bush would throw people in jail over it.

    Bush is the opposite of FDR, the greatest President the United States has ever had.

    So we could have an argument here in this forum regarding who is the BEST president we’ve ever had and you’d probably say someone like REAGAN or BUSH because you don’t give a s*it about civil rights, the elderly, disabled, people without health care or food, or the Constitution… and you’d be wrong.

    I’ll run for President and straighten ALL this crap out. Our troops would be back home within a month
    and I’d start paying off the debt the fu’ing republicans left behind.

  63. David says:

    To your comment:

    “but 3000 of our countrymen were killed in an act of war. state-sanctioned or not, it was an act of war. and the realities of the world dictate that the strongest, richest nation on earth CANNOT let such an atrocity go unavenged. in fact, our response to the atrocity MUST BE an overreaction, (i think, anyway), or we’ll be doing 9-11’s every couple of years for the next 100 years or so.”

    Should have sent special forces to get Osama Bin Laden. No need to enter IRAQ at all
    and make more enemies in the Middle East.

  64. ed says:

    david, if you’re really a lawyer, as you claim, then your clients are in deep trouble.

    yup: “bush’s economic numbers are MUCH better than carter’s”. i know it’s easier and more fun to just screech disbelievingly at such a thing, but – for a change – try looking it up first. carter’s (rough average) econ #’s were: unemployment: 8%+; inflation 8-9%+; 30-year-mortgage rate 9-10%+.
    for bush, those numbers are (roughly) 5%; 3%; and 5-6%. as i’ve mentioned earlier, the grossly incompetent worst president of all time – that’d be carter – would have KILLED for numbers like that.

    as for the other thing…”i know carter cared because he was a democrat”. well. one hardly knows whether to be amused or saddened by such breathtaking naivete. as i said earlier, things like this are why i no longer argue politics with unthinking left-wing robots, slavishly mouthing the “grosse lugen” political slogans the profs indoctrinated them with at school.

    apologies for earlier double post (whacks computer). also apologies for previous mild flaming of silly hardcore LW ideologue. since i have no particular dog in this fight – don’t really care for bush, just prefer to use facts & logic in a debate, as opposed to the standard LW slogans and dogma – i oughta know better.

    mea culpa – but carter is still worst prez of all time. (although must admit that recent readings have convinced me that buchanan is at least as bad as po’ stupid jimmuh, which is saying something.) anyway. so as long as those 2 clowns are allowed by the LW ministry of truth to remain in history books, all the “bush is worst prez” gang have no case.

  65. david says:

    Ok Ed. Carter was an aweful Prez I give you that. Maybe even in top 3 of worst
    Presidents.

    But Carters stats: unemployment: 8%+; inflation 8-9%+; 30-year-mortgage rate 9-10%+.

    That’s nothing compared to Bushies:
    36 months (IRAQ war) x 8 BILLION DOLLARS / month = 288 BILLION DOLLARS down the toilet.

  66. david says:

    Ok Ed. Carter was an aweful Prez I give you that. Maybe even in top 3 of worst
    Presidents.

    But Carters stats: unemployment: 8%+; inflation 8-9%+; 30-year-mortgage rate 9-10%+.

    That’s nothing compared to Bushies:
    36 months (IRAQ war) x 8 BILLION DOLLARS / month = 288 BILLION DOLLARS down the toilet.

  67. ed says:

    dave, dave, dave. you make this too easy. ah, well: nice thing about arguing with pseudo- lawyers is they give you all the ammo you’ll ever need.

    glad to see you have admitted carter’s spectacular incompetence: easily qualifying him in race for “worst prez ever” duncecap.

    but i gather you’re not too happy about that whole “iraq” thing. in an earlier post, you said we should have just gotten osama (and read him his rights? made sure he had access to counsel?); and left iraq out of it.

    is that really what you consider an adequate response from the richest, most powerful nation on earth to an atrocity that killed 3000 american civilians? do you really think that your “book ’em, dano” response would dissuade osama wannabes from trying a stunt like that?

    sad, sad, sad. so i gather, using your “logic” once again, that you must therefore HATE the democrat fdr for his massive overreaction to pearl harbor. what fdr SHOULD HAVE DONE, using dave logic, was just capture admiral yamamoto, and leave japan and germany and italy alone. damn that fdr! billions of dollars wasted, millions of lives lost on his macho little power trip! tens of thousands of innocent civilians burnt to death in tokyo, hamburg, dusseldorf…..mothers! small children! cats and dogs!

    is that about it? or are you suggesting that fdr, because the nation was attacked on his watch, because (many fewer than 3000) americans were killed in an act of war, was entirely justified in his conduct of his war? you are? what a surprise.

    so why is it ok for fdr and not ok for bush? wouldn’t have anything to do with that whole “republican/democrat” thing that you seem to set so much stock in, would it?

  68. David says:

    FDR’s action was an absolute necessity. Bush’s attack on Iraq was not. You should watch
    Frontline’s “Dark Side” and see how really political and screwed up the Republicans were
    in respect to Iraq. They wanted to fight Iraq regardless of whether there was any evidence
    to support the war or not. Alot of great CIA agents resigned because they couldn’t take
    Bush’s nonsense any more. Colin Powell resigned for the same reason.

    Anyway, I would have had a covert operation and just killed Osama Bin Laden. And then announced
    to the world that we killed him and not to F with the US any more. No trial at all. I mean we spent Billions to fight the wrong country.

    Some of your points make sense though … but I have too much pride to admit them.
    I still say Bush is the worst President ever in US history though.

  69. heywood says:

    Ed,

    I was a bit out of line, but your pro-bush rhetoric ignores fact, logic, common sense. Maybe you just watch too much Fox News.

    There are MANY points posted above (mine alone) that trash your arguements, yet you fail to understand. For some reason you like having things repeated to you or you just ignore facts about Bush and his “philosophies” that you don’t like.

    I was hoping you might have something constructive to add, but you don’t seem to. You don’t seem to get the fact that Bush has blown so many opportunities to do the right thing or be a good (or even great) president.

    In addition to the many reasons you’re wrong, Carter had little to work with, he didn’t divide the nation with his incompetence, Bush had everything going for him and he screwed it up.

    Now the USA being the most powerful country on the planet, we will likely survive Bush. We will prevail in Iraq and other areas, but it will be more likely in spite of Bush then due to him.

    Most of us would much rather believe in our president. I have my own businesses and like some of his ideas, but his incompetence on almost every level is just too disgusting to bear.

  70. ed says:

    fellas, you’re missing the real point here. the real point is not me being “pro-bush” (if you’ll read my earlier posts, i’ve made it pretty clear i’m not). it’s not even the incompetent fool carter being the worst prez of all time. the REAL point here is, you guys are basing your idea that “bush is worst” on your disagreement with specific policy decisions of the moment that he’s made – by and large, iraq – and i submit that’s a ridiculous way to determine a “worst ever” prez. it’s also extreme hypocrisy, as i’ll demonstrate shortly.

    the country was attacked, in a manner that had no precedent in US history. a whole new kind of war. but 3000 american civilians were killed, and bush was the prez, so he had to do something. respond some way. take some action. right? and….BECAUSE THE ACTIONS HE’S TAKEN ARE THINGS YOU HAPPEN TO DISAGREE WITH…..you’re trying to tell me he’s the “worst ever”. faulty logic, muchachos. and extreme hypocrisy: because you’d NEVER subject a democrat president to that same level of criticism.

    let’s apply that standard – your “i think he’s wrong, so he must be evil/stupid/worst” to a beloved liberal icon: FDR. let’s make your silly standards apply to BOTH parties, shall we?

    1) fdr took ofice in 1933, right smack in the middle of the great depression. hard times. but….one thing about hard times, ain’t no way to go but up, right? not if you’re an incompetent like fdr. for 8 years – EIGHT LONG YEARS -fdr tried to deal with the depression – oddly enough, all of his solutions seemed to involve ponzi schemes or creating/expanding govt agencies and power – and at no time from 1933-1940 did he even manage to get the unemployment rate below 15%. 8 years – control of congress – all the power he could seize for himself – and his economic policies were CLEARLY all miserable failures. some people – hard-eyed types who insist on tangible results from a president – some people might therefore call fdr “incompetent”. but i’ll bet you guys won’t, will you. in fact, i can state with a high degree of confidence that you or someone like you will rush in to offer excuses for his sorry results.

    2) i could go on forever, but we’ll limit it to 2. so! it’s now the ’40’s, ww2 is on hot & heavy, and fdr – now that the war has finally solved his economic woes for him – has a war to win. how to do it? answer: firebombing! fdr allows HIS military to firebomb civilian population centers in germany & japan, resulting in well over 300,000 innocent civilians being burned alive in the firestorms. mothers, granparents, babies, dogs and cats…..BURNT ALIVE. and fdr is responsible for it. he allowed it to happen; he allowed it to continue over a period of YEARS; he didn’t put a stop to it……kind, sainted liberal icon fdr burned 300,000+ innocent men, women and children to death. will you now call him “worst prez ever”? or just stick to the old faithful “war criminal”? (and BTW, all of the stats i’ve used here are pretty much accurate. one firestorm in dresden alone in 1943 killed 40,000+; one fire raid in tokyo killed over 100,000. i invite you to look it up.)

    of course you won’t. you’d never dream of applying that kind of standard to a democrat – only evilnazibush, it would seem.

    and THAT’S the point, boys: your “worst president ever” commentary is fundamentally flawed and not worthy of serious consideration because you’re intellectually dishonest. which – as i believe i may have mentioned – is why i gave up arguing politics with LW types.

  71. David says:

    Ed,
    [your comments]…

    [] disagreement with specific policy decisions…

    um, try disagreement with ALL of his policy decisions. He hasn’t done anything close to right yet.

    [] by and large, iraq – and i submit that’s a ridiculous way to determine a “worst ever” prez.

    I don’t think so. Bush’s incompetent spending spree of over 250 BILLION dollars on an unjustified war against IRAQ is enough by itself to call BUSH the worst president ever. Add to that his complete disregard for civil rights, health care, education, and the elderly and disabled, and his incompetent management of Katrina.

    [] 3000 american civilians were killed, and bush was the prez, so he had to do something.

    yes he had to do something. We expect Presidents to do something in a case like that. However, we don’t expect them to ATTACK THE WRONG COUNTRY AND SPEND 250 BILLION DOLLARS ON IT. NO OTHER PRESIDENT would invade the WRONG country with NO EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WERE THERE AND THAT IRAQ WAS INVOLVED OR AFFILIATED WITH 9/11.
    ……………………………………………………
    Ok let’s look at FDR again. What a fantastic awesome President. He saved the United States.

    your comments again:
    [] … [FDR’s] ponzi schemes or creating/expanding govt agencies and power – and at no time from 1933-1940 did he even manage to get the unemployment rate below 15%.

    unbelievable. You measure everything by the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate is a worthless piece of crap measurement that says nothing about the true state of the economy. Besides, without FDR’s New Deal and big government programs to help the poor, the rate would have been 75% because the whole damn country was poor and starving to death during the depression.
    ……………………………………………………..
    FDR cared about people (unlike Bush). Started Social Security (which Bush wants to destroy)
    Got people out of the depression and created JOBS. Regulated Wall Street for the First Time to prevent fraud.

    The war against Germany was imperative and necessary. Because HITLER was an actual threat to world peace because he was attacking other countries everywhere. Saddam on the other hand was not a threat. He wasn’t attacking anyone. (The first Gulf War under the first stupid Bush was acceptable and made some logical sense because Saddam attacked the KURDS). But this war is ridiculous and laughable. Saddam didn’t have weapons of mass destruction. Wasn’t attacking other countries. …
    wasn’t part of 9/11.

    Bottom line: Bush just wanted everyone to believe Saddam was affiliated with 9/11 so he could go there and get IRAQ’s OIL. That’s what it’s all about. He actually tried to get CIA agents to find evidence to fight IRAQ when there wasn’t any evidence to support the war.

    [] you say FDR’s policies were CLEARLY all miserable failures. Yea Right. I think that he did an excellent job.

    [] firebombing! fdr allows HIS military to firebomb civilian population centers in germany & japan, resulting in well over 300,000 innocent civilians being burned alive in the firestorms. mothers, granparents, babies, dogs and cats…..BURNT ALIVE. and fdr is responsible for it. he allowed it to happen; he allowed it to continue over a period of YEARS; he didn’t put a stop to it.

    FDR wanted to retaliate against Japan and bring as much destruction as possible to Japan for revenge. He did. He achieved his goal. Unlike Bush, who will spend BILLIONS of dollars letting soldiers get blown up by road-side bombs in the WRONG country. We should RIGHT NOW bomb the absolute shit out of afghanistan for 10 months straight until the f’ing muslims cry mercy and hand over osama bin laden. Bush is a panzy.

    Your whacked in the brain with republican bullshit.

    The only thing I’ll say is that, yes, I may “sometimes” be biased against a Republican President including whenever they make war decisions … but in this case … with Bush’s dumbass, there just isn’t anything to believe in at all. He’s so damn incompetent. He needs to be impeached now,
    the f’ing NAZI bastard.

  72. heywood says:

    The main reason I believe bush to be the worst, and I’ll admit my newfound partisanship – I used to like Reagan, still don’t think Nixon was all that Bad – Is that Bush seems to have taken GREAT PAINS to divide this country. He was handed unity, a good economy, a united congress, a united world and blew it all, except for the economy – which due to his inactions have benefited few – wages remain stagnant and poverty continues to increase.

    He acts CONSISTENTLY in a manner inconsistent with common sense, that almost always makes him and HIS Class of people richer. (Examples: the (his) War, prescription drugs, his failed social security reform, education, faith-based programs, tax policies, no money for education; or retraining our outsourced workers.. all the bennies go to the Rich under Bush and our Repug congress.

    Now I’m not anti-rich, it’s just that History shows us that they don’t need this kind of help in getting/staying ahead, they (almost) always get richer.

    It’s frustrating for people like myself who love this country, but who have no voice because the Republican Media and Money machine have managed to convince people that Bush is good. Heck people now believe McCain is a stinkin’ moderate. And he is b/c the country has moved sooo far to the “right”.

    In the Arab world they believe that the Jews caused 9-11. Because of the Media. And the mainstream media continues to prop up Bush and the GOP. It’s just disgusting.

    And don’t even get me started on his Faux Christianity.

  73. heywood says:

    One more thing, as I’ve said before ALL presidents have a tough job. They all have mad contoversial decisions, some turn out good, some bad.

    Some of the criticisms above of Carter, FDR are valid, as there are such lists for Washington, Jefferson and just about every president.

    Bush, unlike FDR or Carter, is presiding over very good times – or what could be very good times under competent and honest leadership.

    What sets Bush apart as a Worst Contender, is his consistent contempt for “The People” in his ACTIONS – not always his words, sometimes they sound good.

    It is very likely that Bush will be regarded as the Worst, as more information becomes available, more and more people dislike Bush.

    I just wonder if the Great Repub Media Spin Machine can fool enough people – again – to keep these irresponsible policies going, and keep Bush/Cheney from being impeached and removed like they truly deserve to be.

    Attacking the wrong country and lying about it is much worse then covering up a break-in or an affair. Yet lemmings still have “W”‘s on their windows – how ignorant!

  74. heywood says:

    And don’t forget, if he wasn’t on vacation 40% of the time, read some of his memos, followed clinton’s lead on fighting terror (and if the repugs would have not passed a watered-down version of Clinton’s anti-terror bill in ’98), there is a small chance 9-11 would have been stopped.

    So then he Blasts through Afghanistan, with a few troops, neglects it for the most part, then takes on Iraq, a non threat despite obvious real threats out there, Iran, N Korea.

    But no, he gets a free pass on his incompetence from the media because he’s pro-tax cuts for the major media corporations.

  75. ed says:

    oooo-WEE! hell hath no fury like an angry liberal, huh? in just a few short days, you boys have gone from (self-described) “lawyer” and “business owner”, the very SOUL of civility and rationality, to snarling attack dogs, posting replies dripping with hate & fury. to hear ya tell it, the very notion that bush might not be “worst prez ever” – despite ed having proved this with facts & figures, as opposed to the usual LW “proofs” of feelings & “that’s what the prof said!” – is just “republican BS” trotted out by “repugs” intent on defending that “f’ing nazi b***ard”.

    so what pushed you over the edge? was it ed’s statistical PROOF that bush is not worst; or was it ed’s airtight case that sainted & beloved liberal icon fdr was, in fact, an economic moron and a war criminal to boot; or was it ed’s notion that you guys can’t have it both ways: that any standard you want to apply to bush ought to be applied to a democrat?

    i bet it was that last one, huh. left-wingers HATE the idea that standards can apply to them, too. ah, well. perhaps this is to be expected. an interesting quote from a LW blog, ‘democraticstrategist.com’, helps explain things: “after stewing in impotent rage for 6 long years, democrats…” (will marshall) well. hmmm. how to say this gently?

    while your righteous tantrums were very scary and impressive, tales full of sound and fury and all that, you did nothing to advance your case. in fact, you did a fine job of advancing MY case: you know, the one where i said you boys are “intellectually dishonest because you’re holding bush to an entirely different standard from anyone else, due to your laughably irrational bush-hatred.” my advice to you fellas would be to take a deep breath sometime. let go of your fear. be a playa, not a hayta.

    winner and still champion in the “worst prez ever” sweepstakes? carter! with buchanan and FDR coming up fast on the inside! (until someone can make a rational case – using facts & figures – [ACTUAL, RELEVANT facts, mind you: none of this “he takes too many vacations” stuff] otherwise.)

  76. David says:

    d, y’d b a pthtc lwyr. Y hvv’t prvn nythng t ll. I’d wn hnds dwn n ny crt f lw gnst y. … h xcpt fr th Nz sprm crt ndr Bsh.

    y’r a brn-wshd dtt hd.

    **THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DISEMVOWELED PURSUANT TO THE COMMENTS POLICY — The Managment**

  77. David says:

    Ed,

    It’s people like you who are ruining this country.

  78. heywood says:

    Ed,

    You rant well, but your stuff lacks a basic commonsense quality. You haven’t produces anything that a logical person would consider a reason why Bush is not the worst.

    You ignore evidence, etc. You need to have the news repeated to you. Maybe English isn’t your first language, again, you sound drunk. Sorry your posts earn yourself the insults.

    If you honestly believe that Bush isn’t the worst then state something he’s done right. I know you’ve tried and failed miserably before, buy you must have something there, you keep going.

    You have refuted zero points. I have conceded all your facts and most of your conclusions about Carter, FDR, whomever for the sake of argument. You can’t take away Bush’s gross incompetence. And you can’t, even with my generous concessions, make Bush sound better then any other questionable president.

    Or can you? Still waiting. Just refute one point.

    (Ok, Bush does regularly walk into AF One without tripping – – that doesn’t count as something he does right)

  79. ed says:

    OH, i have tasted my own medicine, and it is BITTER INDEED!!!

    you boys crack me up. confronted with just a couple of inconvenient facts, and someone’s refusal to buy into the orthodox LW dogma you’ve been spouting, you…..fall apart completely and call me bad names. stop it, fellas! you’re…. you’re frightening me! and thanks so much for illustrating my “LWingers are irrational, intellectually dishonest screamers” point for me, BTW.

    david – mr. pseudolawyer – run along now, and find a fact or two, ok? i know it’s easier and more fun to screech bad names at the heretic, just like back in school, but it does grow tiresome here in the real world. whether you like it or not; whether the prof told you or not – carter is a much better candidate for “worst prez” than your oh-so-typical pick. hell, i’ve made a fantastic case that FDR (you remember: economic moron; instituted national ponzi scheme that’s bankrupting the country; notorious war criminal..) was worse than your guy. your responses – check those last 2 posts – are telling.

    and heywood? i refuted your “point” quite awhile back. your “worst prez” criteria of “i disagree with his policy decisions” is idiotic, and one-sided. you’d NEVER hold a dem prez to that standard.

    one more time: allow me to demonstrate. imagine – god forbid – that the scumbag lawyers who decided the 2000 election had picked gore. ok? happy? now 9-11 happens, and gore (assuming he doesn’t follow his first instinct, which would no doubt be “unconditional surrender”) launches a limited attack on afghanistan. doesn’t topple taliban; doesn’t get osama…and then declares victory and “redeploys” the troops back home. now! ED disagrees with that response. ED wants an exponentially more ferocious response: lots of dead jihadis; mecca a sea of glass, arab national capitols firebombed with 300,000 arab civilians burned alive…..call it the “rooseveltian method”.

    since i disagree with “president gore’s” decisions, i loudly cry that he’s worst ever, and call those who disagree with me bad names. are you going to tell me that’d be ok with you? that that’s a valid and smart way to pick a “worst ever” prez, even though he may be a democrat, because ‘fair’s fair’?

    yeah, sure you are.

  80. heywood says:

    We crack you up? ROLTFLMFAO!

    Again we have a long-winded tirade from you, where you try to rationalize your love for Mr. Bush and your Contempt for the Facts.

    It’s such drivel.

    If you want to keep posting, why don’t you actually read the posts, and respond logically? Or at least close to the same topic.

    You’ve clearly been spanked, you can’t defend Bushie or his ilk. I guess if you could, you would have said something substantive by now.

    I can’t wait for your next post full of misdirection, topic changes, assualts on “liberals”, inabilities to context historical situations, rationalization, and minimizing of Bush’s incompetence.

  81. ed says:

    ahhhh, heywood. still fighting the good fight, no matter how many difficult facts or uncomfortable questions you have to ignore to do it, is that it?

    (fatherly chuckle) well of COURSE you are. you’re a left-wing ideologue, trained in the fine LW art of namecalling and shouting down dissent. this is why i no longer discuss politics with folks like that: having blindly swallowed the profs political indoctrination, (which is interesting: kids nowdays ACT like they’re such street-smart badasses, but they dare not question the prof or his dogma, for fear of….something), they fan out into the world ready to screech the slogans they dutifully learned by rote until they drop.

    because after all, repitition is a most important ingredient in the dissemination of propaganda.

    your arguments have been proven to be naive and childlike; proving this to you vexes you and makes you pouty (so i’m “longwinded”?? aaargh! a TOUCH, i do confess’t!); in short, you’re a perfect representation of the educational system that spawned you. congratulations.

    but carter – with buchanan and FDR coming up fast on the outside – was clearly a much worse president than bush, no matter how many catchy slogans or snippy putdowns of dissent you trot out to the contrary.

  82. Michael says:

    IF THE INCIVILITY ON THIS THREAD CONTINUES THEN I WILL CLOSE IT
    -mf

  83. David says:

    Ed,

    I’m a lawyer. License in my pocket. And you need to check your own facts. I’ve proven my case.

  84. David says:

    The point was this Ed. Bush is so incompetent he attacked the wrong country.
    And you can rant and rave about Left Wingers all you want now, because I am
    leaving. If I want to hear that stuff, I can listen to Rush Limbaugh.

    Watch the Frontline thing I told you about. You’ll see what I’m talking about.
    Bye.

  85. ed says:

    shut the thread DOWN?!? and ruin the scintillating, spirited give-and-take?? close the fascinating, educational peep into a debate between 2 polar opposite political philosophies? ruin the real-time, up close and personal peep into how 1 of those philosphies responds to deviation from the party-approved message with vituperation and personal attacks?

    while the other makes calm, rational posts using lots of big words, clever shakespearean references, and (evidently) uncomfortably good cases for what he’s saying? and keeps TRYING to keep the debate on it’s original point? which was, if you’ll recall, “worst prez ever”. NOT ‘evilnazibush sucks’.

    don’t shut it down NOW… it’s just getting interesting.

  86. heywood says:

    Ed,

    I’ve noticed again that you didn’t make a point or respond to ANY of the points made in any of the previous posts.

    As I said before, your thoughts on Carter and FDR are noted. You have not shown how they are worse then Mr. Bush. Not even close.

    When you did try, you were soundly rebutted. Since then you have offered nothing other then smear, as I have returned, calling you drunk twice – for which I apologize. I just didn’t know how else to describe your posts.

    Maybe it’s the partisanship thing, but 5 years ago I was a staunch independent. I just don’t see how anyone can say that Bush was Better then Carter with a straight face.

    For all the opportunities Bush has blown, given the good times he inherited – compared to Carter – the country was a mess having just survived Ford, Nixon, Vietnam, Watergate – He made some bad decisions, but he was never just plain wrong in the moment. Hindsight is always 20/20. With Carter, he flopped on many things, with Bush he’s intentionally flopped on many things. That’s a huge difference.

  87. ed says:

    well, it’s been good clean fun & all, but perhaps it’s time to let this “worst prez ever” thing go. confronted as i have been with knuckleheads who – against all reason, logic, and mathematical proofs – insist that evilnazibush is “worst ever”, (just like the prof told them to!), maybe it’s just time to walk away, the clear and obvious winner of the debate.

    heck, this thread has even tried the patience of the owner of this blog, who has kindly provided a forum for calm, cool, reasoned ‘discourse’, only to see it ruined by a hysterical group of knee-jerk, blindly unthinking, hardcore left-wing ideologues. you guys should be ASHAMED of yourselves!

    on the other hand…..allowing the “bush sucks” guys to think they’ve carried the day with bitter invective, free-associative rambling, and pathetic excuses for the dems i’ve PROVEN have been much worse presidents than bush would be just what they want, wouldn’t it.

    sorry, boys. it’s not that easy. carter (and FDR) are still much worse presidents than bush, as i’ve shown. bush – for all his myriad faults – has managed decent-to-good economic numbers in uncertain times; his military pulled off stunningly easy and well-planned combat victories overseas; and there has been no recurrence of 9-11 on american soil, which is clearly not an accident.

    those are the facts, try to spin them away as you might. and despite the creative and amusing excuses you offer for carter (and FDR), their collective incompetence hugely overshadows bush’s. bush isn’t a great prez – to my mind, he’s not even particularly good: he’s a RINO statist, entirely too soft on the islamists, and much much too in love with big government – but in no way is he worst ever.

    not so long as carter, buchanan, and fdr remain up on the board.

  88. David says:

    ahhhh, Ed. still fighting the good fight, no matter how many difficult facts or uncomfortable questions you have to ignore to do it, is that it?

    (fatherly chuckle) well of COURSE you are. you’re a right-wing ideologue, trained in the fine RW art of fear-mongering and namecalling and shouting down dissent. this is why i no longer discuss politics with folks like that: having blindly swallowed the profs political indoctrination, (which is interesting: kids nowdays ACT like they’re such street-smart bad$$$$$, but they dare not question the prof or his dogma, for fear of….something), they fan out into the world ready to screech the slogans they dutifully learned by rote until they drop.

    because after all, repitition is a most important ingredient in the dissemination of propaganda.

    your arguments have been proven to be naive and childlike; proving this to you vexes you and makes you pouty (so i’m “longwinded”?? aaargh! a TOUCH, i do confess’t!); in short, you’re a perfect representation of the educational system that spawned you. congratulations.

    but carter – with buchanan and FDR coming up fast on the outside – were all clearly better presidents than bush, no matter how many catchy slogans or snippy putdowns of dissent you trot out to the contrary.

    ( this is how your rhetoric sounds )

  89. ed says:

    the beautiful thing about having a political discussion with members of the hysterical left – “liberals”, they used to call themselves, until somehow that word became a liability – (what’s this years’ fashionable word? “progressive”, is it? odd, is it not, how conservatives and libertarians and those on the right end of the spectrum feel no need to rebrand themselves in a desperate attempt to fool the voters…) (but i digress), is that when you keep pointing out inconvenient facts, and keep demonstrating that their arguments are just a weak pack of excuses, they sort of fall apart.

    witness the above attempt at humor/satire from the lib…er, “progressive” chap. all the time in the world, dictionaries at his disposal, an entire internet to glean ideas from….and the best our (self-described) lawyer friend can do is to copy down word-for-word another person’s post. wow! i can’t IMAGINE why anyone would be skeptical of his claims of lawyerhood! can’t you just see him in court? “your honor, everything that witness just said is BOGUS, dude! also, he totally sucks, man!”

    of course, weak attempts at wit, and gross plaigarism don’t quite do the intended job: making a case that anyone could be a worse president than the moron carter. what next, i wonder? a well-written “bush sucks, man” limerick? (avuncular chuckle)

    stay tuned!

  90. heywood says:

    Wow,

    Another few days gone and ED is still stuck on Carter, FDR. Although Buchanan may be worse then W.

    To make this clear: FDR didn’t attack, say Argentina when Japan bombed Pear Harbor, no, he attacked Japan and its allies who declared war on us, Germany. Bush didn’t even attack the right country. That’s a lot worse then the supposed failures of FDR.

    As I and others have said before, FDR wasn’t perfect, Reagan was a flop on many levels, all presidents stink in one or many areas.

    What Ed or anyone will never be able to defend is that Bush consistently sides with his base and against what is best for America and Americans.

    It is no coincidence that this happens. No matter how many colorful expressions Ed makes or how he tries to say it’s liberal hogwash – he can’t change the fact that Bush is much worse then Carter.

    Bush was handed a great economy, military etc. All the pieces were in place for him to be the next G. Washington – esp after 9-11. But no, he blew world and domestic unity – Carter, yes I’m sure even Buchanan wouldn’t have screwed that up.

    But you people still defend Mr. Bush? Apparently they are unaware of the Billions Bush has wasted on his Iraq folly or the Billions that the rich don’t need or use. Unaware of poverty, healthcare, education, labor markets, the list of Bush’s incompetence is endless.

    Not one redeeming quality of Bush (backed by facts) has been posted. Until Bush, Carter probably was the worst of our lifetime. Carter must be calling Bush everyday to thank him for relieving him of that title.

  91. David says:

    Your absolutely right Heywood.

  92. heywood says:

    Thanks David. But lets not forget that Clinton had an affair and lied about it.

    Seriously, while carter was bad, why does Reagan always get a free pass? After all he sold arms to terrorists in Iran – the ones that held our people and nation hostage during the Carter years. We don’t know the extent of his corruption – we wouldn’t even know of Iran-Contra if it weren’t for a plane crash in S. America.

    He gave Saddam WMD’s even after he gassed all those Kurds in ’82.

    He increased taxes at least 2X mostly increasing the bill for the lower income folks.

    He’s often given credit for Killing off Russia, but Russia had food lines since at least the early ’70’s.

    Of course Bush I had to pardon 6 people on Christmas Eve 1992 to forever seal the truth.

    While he did restore confidence in America after the miserable ’70s and appoint greenspan, his (known) corruption has to be one of the worst cases ever.

  93. ed says:

    the OTHER beautiful thing about political discussions with the hysterical left – now wanting to be known as “progressives”, the previous label having fallen into disfavor somehow – is that if you just stay patient they get flustered and (finally) tell the truth. if you keep pointing out the idiocy of their childlike positions, and their learned-by-rote-back-in-school slogans, and their strings of words randomly strung together in amusing & ridiculous configurations (“i know carter cared because he was a democrat!!” – hysterical progressive), EVENTUALLY they get mad enough to say what they REALLY mean.

    and, heywood my man, you finally did, didn’t ya.

    you FINALLY admitted your real problem with bush: he let “the rich” keep “billions they don’t need and can’t use”. the NERVE! allowing people to keep their own money! money the glorious STATE could be using to buy votes with! to do LW social engineering with! etc etc. suspicion confirmed, dog. you’re NOT a playya. you’re just a hayta.

    as i’ve proven before, all your other pontificating postulations have been – so sorry – nothing but lies: your idea that “bush is worst” stems entirely from the fact that A) he was chosen by the scummy lawyers over the democrat B) he’s responding to 9-11 in a manner entirely too vigorous for the left (what’d you boys have in mind? a nasty lawsuit or something equally pathetic?) c) he’s not a democrat!

    and until you can address the FACT that he’s a much better economic president than the incompetent moron carter (and FDR); and he’s managed to fight a war without having to resort to massive crimes against humanity as the hideously evil fdr did; and nowhere did i once ever mention clinton – odd how the LW always goes scurrying back to hide under bubba’s skirts in times of stress – your arguments are no different than any other LW sockpuppet, dutifully copying DNC propaganda.

    but you guys ARE doing a fine – if surrealistic – job of congratulating yourselves. keep it up!

  94. al says:

    you’re absolutely right, ed!!! and did you notice how after they ran & hid under clinton’s skirts, they tried to bash reagan? how typical.

  95. heywood says:

    Ha, Ha, Ha,

    The thought of Ed “proving” something is truly laughable.

    ED once again no point only blowhard jibberish about “liberals” hysterical nonetheless.

    When something is True, just because Limbaugh and Fox News ignore doesn’t mean it ceases to exist.

    When oh, when will you address a fact or demonstrate that you follow a logical thought pattern? Your silly insults are very old. What is this three weeks of you saying nothing?

  96. heywood says:

    Ed,

    I’ll make this easy for you.

    Why don’t you hold ALL your little insults and paranoia about “hysterical liberals” inside.

    Pick one or two reasons why you think Bush isn’t the worst. Or something you really think he’s done well. Something he hasn’t screwed up.

    Before you post why don’t you review previous posts? This would cut down on repetition and make things interesting.

    Please try to be brief, as this way we can address each topic more efficiently – without getting sidetracked.

    Beleive me Ed, I’d much rather believe our president is a good man with a good philosophy. I just need some evidence.

  97. ed says:

    no no, heywood – let ME make it easy for YOU. so ya say you really want to look at the evidence. forswear hysterical sloganeering. be all “logical” and stuff, but you….just….need…something….to…go…on. oh, and by the way, it really would help out if i bothered to “read before i post”. that about it?

    the OTHER other thing about arguing with hysterical ‘progressives’, is that they have this wonderful tendency to accuse others of doing what they themselves specialize in.

    ooo-kay. well. if YOU had bothered to read my existing posts, rather than just slam in a new set of catty little remarks and putdowns (that’s your 3rd reference now to fox news & limbaugh. odd, since i never brought them up even once…) (you REALLY don’t like the existence of non-party-approved news organizations, do you. oh, well. most progressives don’t, for some reason.) (whatever happened to “let 1000 flowers bloom”?) you’d see that i’ve REPEATEDLY – 5 or 6 times now – have shown that carter is worst because his economy was beyond pathetic; his foreign policy was beyond pathetic (any problems we have with iran today are entirely carter’s fault) (which, really, is carter in a nutshell: his screwups just keep on giving!) and his leadership was….well, you get the picture.

    your responses have all been in the mode of either “huh-UH!!” or excuses such as “well, carter came into office in tough times!” never mind the fact that that meant all he had to do was make things even a LITTLE better, and he’d get some credit. but he couldn’t, could he. when it’s been pointed out – REPEATEDLY – that bush has managed good econ #’s in uncertain times; fought a brilliant battle/combat plan overseas without having to resort to crimes against humanity as FDR did; and prevented a recurrence of 9-11, your responses have been about the same. “huh-UH!!!” or “yeah, well, that doesn’t count.” or, my personal fave, bringing clinton & reagan into the thread, when they hadn’t been mentioned at all. or were you just doing the dnc-mandated “boost clinton/bash reagan every few posts” thing?

    so tell me again how i haven’t made any rational points? or listened too well? all my existing posts are still up. try reading them, for once. and THEN we’ll talk about being a good listener. oh yeah: and, please, try to be brief. so we don’t get sidetracked.

  98. Michael says:

    I’m closing this thread. It’s not that it drifted off the original topic, but the invective.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *