NationStates Jolt Archive

I posted this link in another thread, but I feel this one is worth its own:

The Worst President in History? By Sean Wilentz (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history)

You are right. This does indeed deserve it's own thread. Bush is one of the most corrupt men in the world. Someone needs to put an end to this. Don't panic people. No need to report my post. I'm not threatening or planning anything. Simply stating that am not happy with it.

All we need is a depression and Hoover will look like a saint.

You are right. This does indeed deserve it's own thread. Bush is one of the most corrupt men in the world. Someone needs to put an end to this. Don't panic people. No need to report my post. I'm not threatening or planning anything. Simply stating that am not happy with it.
I'm sorry but you seem to be so uninformed... :headbang:

its too early to say that bush is the worst president in history. he still has 2 years left, he could do something right in that time that would push him past richard nixon or ulysses grant.

its too early to say that bush is the worst president in history. he still has 2 years left, he could do something right in that time that would push him past richard nixon or ulysses grant.


Forget it. There is nothing this corporate whore can do to turn things around, short of curing AIDS. I don't think Bush is THE worst president, but hes at least in the top 5 behind Lyndon Johnson.

its too early to say that bush is the worst president in history. he still has 2 years left, he could do something right in that time that would push him past richard nixon or ulysses grant.

Given Bush's personal business history, plus his rigid inflexibility as stated in the Wilentz article I doubt he'll do much to improve the situation on his own initiative. If anything, it'll either be extreme pressure from an outside force or just pure miraculous serendipity that saved his ass just like 9-11 did.

I posted this link in another thread, but I feel this one is worth its own:

The Worst President in History? By Sean Wilentz (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history)

While I tend to agree with his sentiments, I don't agree with the method. He did little or nothing to tell us what it is that makes a president good or bad. He only offers bromides like "Bush is really a divider"--well what President isn't? George Washington earned scathing rebukes in many quarters for personally putting down Shay's Rebellion. So did Lincoln for just about everything and Roosevelt for attempting to pack the court. So what is it that seperates those instances from Bush's?

For the record, I do believe that Bush will go down as one of the worst in history (I still think Hoover takes the cake), but I wish he'd provide us with a standard benchmark by which to judge whether or not he's right.

While I tend to agree with his sentiments, I don't agree with the method. He did little or nothing to tell us what it is that makes a president good or bad. He only offers bromides like "Bush is really a divider"--well what President isn't? George Washington earned scathing rebukes in many quarters for personally putting down Shay's Rebellion. So did Lincoln for just about everything and Roosevelt for attempting to pack the court. So what is it that seperates those instances from Bush's?

For the record, I do believe that Bush will go down as one of the worst in history (I still think Hoover takes the cake), but I wish he'd provide us with a standard benchmark by which to judge whether or not he's right.

I read the actual paper copy of Stones on which this article is printed. Unlike the website, it has a side article of the 5 best and 5 worst presidents in history and detail exactly what they did or didn't do to earn that spot.

"Bush is really a divider"--well what President isn't?
Actually almost all of the Presidents were compromisers. I'm old enough to remember when nearly all congressional bills passed with a majority of both parties. I remember when the President called in the committee leaders of BOTH parties and worked out a compromise. This was during both split government and Democratic control of both branches.

Sometime around 1980, the idea come to the mind of the new majority that one only needs 50% of the votes. Since then, the advantage of compromise has been lost. I know some think compromise is a dirty word. But those who have studied government and business know that a one sided view allows flaws in thinking to be accepted. The ideas of the opposition point out those flaws so they are able to be filled before a proposal becomes law.