Historians vs. George W. Bush

Mr. McElvaine teaches history at Millsaps College. He is the author of EVE'S SEED: BIOLOGY, THE SEXES AND THE COURSE OF HISTORY (McGraw-Hill).

Editor's Note 12-5-05: This article was first published 19 months ago. It was referred to in an article by Richard Reeves on Dec. 2, attracting wide notice. Readers are encouraged to post fresh comments by clicking on the link at the bottom of this page. (FYI: To see the graphics displayed on this page in a larger format click here.) Although his approval ratings have slipped somewhat in recent weeks, President George W. Bush still enjoys the overall support of nearly half of the American people. He does not, however, fare nearly so well among professional historians. A recent informal, unscientific survey of historians conducted at my suggestion by George Mason University’s History News Network found that eight in ten historians responding rate the current presidency an overall failure. Of 415 historians who expressed a view of President Bush’s administration to this point as a success or failure, 338 classified it as a failure and 77 as a success. (Moreover, it seems likely that at least eight of those who said it is a success were being sarcastic, since seven said Bush’s presidency is only the best since Clinton’s and one named Millard Fillmore.) Twelve percent of all the historians who responded rate the current presidency the worst in all of American history, not too far behind the 19 percent who see it at this point as an overall success. Among the cautions that must be raised about the survey is just what “success” means. Some of the historians rightly pointed out that it would be hard to argue that the Bush presidency has not so far been a political success—or, for that matter that President Bush has not been remarkably successful in achieving his objectives in Congress. But those meanings of success are by no means incompatible with the assessment that the Bush presidency is a disaster. “His presidency has been remarkably successful,” one historian declared, “in its pursuit of disastrous policies.” “I think the Bush administration has been quite successful in achieving its political objectives,” another commented, “which makes it a disaster for us.” Additionally, it is, of course, as one respondent rightly noted, “way too early to make a valid comparison (we need another 50 years).” And such an informal survey is plainly not scientifically reliable. Yet the results are so overwhelming and so different from the perceptions of the general public that an attempt to explain and assess their reactions merits our attention. It may be, as one pro-Bush historian said in his or her written response to the poll, “I suspect that this poll will tell us nothing about President Bush’s performance vis-à-vis his peer group, but may confirm what we already know about the current crop of history professors.” The liberal-left proclivities of much of the academic world are well documented, and some observers will dismiss the findings as the mere rantings of a disaffected professoriate. “If historians were the only voters,” another pro-Bush historian noted, “Mr. Gore would have carried 50 states.” It is plain that many liberal academics have the same visceral reaction against the second President Bush that many conservatives did against his immediate predecessor. Yet it seems clear that a similar survey taken during the presidency of Bush’s father would not have yielded results nearly as condemnatory. And, for all the distaste liberal historians had for Ronald Reagan, relatively few would have rated his administration as worse than that of Richard Nixon. Yet today 57 percent of all the historians who participated in the survey (and 70 percent of those who see the Bush presidency as a failure) either name someone prior to Nixon or say that Bush’s presidency is the worst ever, meaning that they rate it as worse than the two presidencies in the past half century that liberals have most loved to hate, those of Nixon and Reagan. One who made the comparison with Nixon explicit wrote, “Indeed, Bush puts Nixon into a more favorable light. He has trashed the image and reputation of the United States throughout the world; he has offended many of our previously close allies; he has burdened future generations with incredible debt; he has created an unnecessary war to further his domestic political objectives; he has suborned the civil rights of our citizens; he has destroyed previous environmental efforts by government in favor of his coterie of exploiters; he has surrounded himself with a cabal ideological adventurers . . . .” Why should the views of historians on the current president matter? I do not share the view of another respondent that “until we have gained access to the archival record of this president, we [historians] are no better at evaluating it than any other voter.” Academic historians, no matter their ideological bias, have some expertise in assessing what makes for a successful or unsuccessful presidency; we have a long-term perspective in which to view the actions of a current chief executive. Accordingly, the depth of the negative assessment that so many historians make of George W. Bush is something of which the public should be aware. Their comments make clear that such historians would readily agree with conclusion that then-Democratic presidential hopeful Richard Gephardt pronounced a few months ago: the presidency of George W. Bush is “a miserable failure.” The past presidencies most commonly linked with the current administration include all of those that are usually rated as the worst in the nation’s history: Nixon, Harding, Hoover, Buchanan, Coolidge, Andrew Johnson, Grant, and McKinley. The only president who appeared prominently on both the favorable and unfavorable lists was Ronald Reagan. Forty-seven historians said Bush is the best president since Reagan, while 38 said he is the worst since Reagan. Almost all of the historians who rate the Bush presidency a success are Reagan admirers. Indeed, no other president (leaving aside the presumably mostly tongue-in-cheek mentions of Clinton) was named by more than four of the historians who took a favorable view of the current presidency. Ronald Reagan clearly has become the sort of polarizing figure that Franklin Roosevelt was for an earlier generation—or, perhaps a better way to understand the phenomenon is that Reagan has become the personification of the pole opposite to Roosevelt. That polarization is evident in historians’ evaluations of George W. Bush’s presidency. “If one believes Bush is a ‘good’ president (or great),” one poll respondent noted, he or she “would necessarily also believe Reagan to be a pretty good president.” They also tend to despise Roosevelt. “There is no indication,” one historian said of Bush, “that he has advisors who are closet communist traitors as FDR had. Based on his record to date, history is likely to judge him as one of America’s greatest presidents, in the tradition of Washington and Lincoln.” The thought that anyone could rate the incumbent president with Washington and Lincoln is enough to induce apoplexy in a substantial majority of historians. Among the many offenses they enumerate in their indictment of Bush is that he is, as one of them put it, “well on his way to destroying the entire (and entirely successful) structures of international cooperation and regulated, humane capitalism and social welfare that have been built up since the early 1930s.” “Bush is now in a position,” Another historian said, “to ‘roll back the New Deal,’ guided by Tom DeLay.” Several charges against the Bush administration arose repeatedly in the comments of historians who responded to the survey. Among them were: the doctrine of pre-emptive war, crony capitalism/being “completely in bed with certain corporate interests,” bankruptcy/fiscal irresponsibility, military adventurism, trampling of civil liberties, and anti-environmental policies. *** The reasons stated by some of the historians for their choice of the presidency that they believe Bush’s to be the worst since are worth repeating. The following are representative examples for each of the presidents named most frequently: REAGAN: “I think the presidency of George W. Bush has been generally a failure and I consider his presidency so far to have been the most disastrous since that of Ronald Reagan--because of the unconscionable military aggression and spending (especially the Iraq War), the damage done to the welfare of the poor while the corporate rich get richer, and the backwards religious fundamentalism permeating this administration. I strongly disliked and distrusted Reagan and think that George W. is even worse.” NIXON: “Actually, I think [Bush’s] presidency may exceed the disaster that was Nixon. He has systematically lied to the American public about almost every policy that his administration promotes.” Bush uses “doublespeak” to “dress up policies that condone or aid attacks by polluters and exploiters of the environment . . . with names like the ‘Forest Restoration Act’ (which encourages the cutting down of forests).” HOOVER: “I would say GW is our worst president since Herbert Hoover. He is moving to bankrupt the federal government on the eve of the retirement of the baby boom generation, and he has brought America’s reputation in the world to its lowest point in the entire history of the United States.” COOLIDGE: “I think his presidency has been an unmitigated disaster for the environment, for international relations, for health care, and for working Americans. He’s on a par with Coolidge!” HARDING: “Oil, money and politics again combine in ways not flattering to the integrity of the office. Both men also have a tendency to mangle the English language yet get their points across to ordinary Americans. [Yet] the comparison does Harding something of a disservice.” McKINLEY: “Bush is perhaps the first president [since McKinley] to be entirely in the ‘hip pocket’ of big business, engage in major external conquest for reasons other than national security, AND be the puppet of his political handler. McKinley had Mark Hanna; Bush has Karl Rove. No wonder McKinley is Rove’s favorite historical president (precedent?).” GRANT: “He ranks with U.S. Grant as the worst. His oil interests and Cheney’s corporate Haliburton contracts smack of the same corruption found under Grant.” “While Grant did serve in the army (more than once), Bush went AWOL from the National Guard. That means that Grant is automatically more honest than Bush, since Grant did not send people into places that he himself consciously avoided. . . . Grant did not attempt to invade another country without a declaration of war; Bush thinks that his powers in this respect are unlimited.” ANDREW JOHNSON: “I consider his presidency so far to have been the most disastrous since that of Andrew Johnson. It has been a sellout of fundamental democratic (and Republican) principles. There are many examples, but the most recent would be his successful efforts to insert provisions in spending bills which directly controvert measures voted down by both houses of Congress.” BUCHANAN: “Buchanan can be said to have made the Civil War inevitable or to have made the war last longer by his pusillanimity or, possibly, treason.” “Buchanan allowed a war to evolve, but that war addressed a real set of national issues. Mr. Bush started a war . . . for what reason?” *** EVER: The second most common response from historians, trailing only Nixon, was that the current presidency is the worst in American history. A few examples will serve to provide the flavor of such condemnations. “Although previous presidents have led the nation into ill-advised wars, no predecessor managed to turn America into an unprovoked aggressor. No predecessor so thoroughly managed to confirm the impressions of those who already hated America. No predecessor so effectively convinced such a wide range of world opinion that America is an imperialist threat to world peace. I don 't think that you can do much worse than that.” “Bush is horrendous; there is no comparison with previous presidents, most of whom have been bad.” “He is blatantly a puppet for corporate interests, who care only about their own greed and have no sense of civic responsibility or community service. He lies, constantly and often, seemingly without control, and he lied about his invasion into a sovereign country, again for corporate interests; many people have died and been maimed, and that has been lied about too. He grandstands and mugs in a shameful manner, befitting a snake oil salesman, not a statesman. He does not think, process, or speak well, and is emotionally immature due to, among other things, his lack of recovery from substance abuse. The term is "dry drunk". He is an abject embarrassment/pariah overseas; the rest of the world hates him . . . . . He is, by far, the most irresponsible, unethical, inexcusable occupant of our formerly highest office in the land that there has ever been.” “George W. Bush's presidency is the pernicious enemy of American freedom, compassion, and community; of world peace; and of life itself as it has evolved for millennia on large sections of the planet. The worst president ever? Let history judge him.” “This president is unique in his failures.” And then there was this split ballot, comparing the George W. Bush presidencies failures in distinct areas. The George W. Bush presidency is the worst since: “In terms of economic damage, Reagan. In terms of imperialism, T Roosevelt. In terms of dishonesty in government, Nixon. In terms of affable incompetence, Harding. In terms of corruption, Grant. In terms of general lassitude and cluelessness, Coolidge. In terms of personal dishonesty, Clinton. In terms of religious arrogance, Wilson.” *** My own answer to the question was based on astonishment that so many people still support a president who has: Presided over the loss of approximately three million American jobs in his first two-and-a-half years in office, the worst record since Herbert Hoover.

Overseen an economy in which the stock market suffered its worst decline in the first two years of any administration since Hoover’s.

Taken, in the wake of the terrorist attacks two years ago, the greatest worldwide outpouring of goodwill the United States has enjoyed at least since World War II and squandered it by insisting on pursuing a foolish go-it-almost-alone invasion of Iraq, thereby transforming almost universal support for the United States into worldwide condemnation. (One historian made this point particularly well: “After inadvertently gaining the sympathies of the world 's citizens when terrorists attacked New York and Washington, Bush has deliberately turned the country into the most hated in the world by a policy of breaking all major international agreements, declaring it our right to invade any country that we wish, proving that he’ll manipulate facts to justify anything he wishes to do, and bull-headedly charging into a quagmire.”)

Misled (to use the most charitable word and interpretation) the American public about weapons of mass destruction and supposed ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq and so into a war that has plainly (and entirely predictably) made us less secure, caused a boom in the recruitment of terrorists, is killing American military personnel needlessly, and is threatening to suck up all our available military forces and be a bottomless pit for the money of American taxpayers for years to come.

Failed to follow through in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and Al Qaeda are regrouping, once more increasing the threat to our people.

Insulted and ridiculed other nations and international organizations and now has to go, hat in hand, to those nations and organizations begging for their assistance.

Completely miscalculated or failed to plan for the personnel and monetary needs in Iraq after the war, so that he sought and obtained an $87 billion appropriation for Iraq, a sizable chunk of which is going, without competitive bidding to Haliburton, the company formerly headed by his vice president.

Inherited an annual federal budget surplus of $230 billion and transformed it into a $500+ billion deficit in less than three years. This negative turnaround of three-quarters of a trillion dollars is totally without precedent in our history. The ballooning deficit for fiscal 2004 is rapidly approaching twice the dollar size of the previous record deficit, $290 billion, set in 1992, the last year of the administration of President Bush’s father and, at almost 5 percent of GDP, is closing in on the percentage record set by Ronald Reagan in 1986.

Cut taxes three times, sharply reducing the burden on the rich, reclassified money obtained through stock ownership as more deserving than money earned through work. The idea that dividend income should not be taxed—what might accurately be termed the unearned income tax credit—can be stated succinctly: “If you had to work for your money, we’ll tax it; if you didn’t have to work for it, you can keep it all.”

Severely curtailed the very American freedoms that our military people are supposed to be fighting to defend. (“The Patriot Act,” one of the historians noted, “is the worst since the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams.”)

Called upon American armed service people, including Reserve forces, to sacrifice for ever-lengthening tours of duty in a hostile and dangerous environment while he rewards the rich at home with lower taxes and legislative giveaways and gives lucrative no-bid contracts to American corporations linked with the administration.

Given an opportunity to begin to change the consumption-oriented values of the nation after September 11, 2001, when people were prepared to make a sacrifice for the common good, called instead of Americans to ‘sacrifice’ by going out and buying things.

Proclaimed himself to be a conservative while maintaining that big government should be able to run roughshod over the Bill of Rights, and that the government must have all sorts of secrets from the people, but the people can be allowed no privacy from the government. (As one of the historians said, “this is not a conservative administration; it is a reckless and arrogant one, beholden to a mix of right-wing ideologues, neo-con fanatics, and social Darwinian elitists.”) My assessment is that George W. Bush’s record on running up debt to burden our children is the worst since Ronald Reagan; his record on government surveillance of citizens is the worst since Richard Nixon; his record on foreign-military policy has gotten us into the worst foreign mess we’ve been in since Lyndon Johnson sank us into Vietnam; his economic record is the worst since Herbert Hoover; his record of tax favoritism for the rich is the worst since Calvin Coolidge; his record of trampling on civil liberties is the worst since Woodrow Wilson. How far back in our history would we need to go to find a presidency as disastrous for this country as that of George W. Bush has been thus far? My own vote went to the administration of James Buchanan, who warmed the president’s chair while the union disintegrated in 1860-61. Who has been the biggest beneficiary of the horrible terrorism that struck our nation in September of 2001? The answer to that question should be obvious to anyone who considers where the popularity ratings and reelection prospects of a president with the record outlined above would be had he not been able to wrap himself in the flag, take advantage of the American people’s patriotism, and make himself synonymous with “the United States of America” for the past two years. That abuse of the patriotism and trust of the American people is even worse than everything else this president has done and that fact alone might be sufficient to explain the depth of the hostility with which so many historians view George W. Bush. Contrary to the conservative stereotype of academics as anti-American, the reasons that many historians cited for seeing the Bush presidency as a disaster revolve around their perception that he is undermining traditional American practices and values. As one patriotic historian put it, “I think his presidency has been the worst disaster to hit the United States and is bringing our beloved country to financial, economic, and social disaster.” Some voters may judge such assessments to be wrong, but they are assessments informed by historical knowledge and the electorate ought to have them available to take into consideration during this election year.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Disqus

More Comments:

Jim Balter - 6/12/2009 Oh, I said it in the subject line. Nevermind.

Jim Balter - 6/12/2009 > Mr. Sherlock comes along and says "Enough."



Weird ... I could have sworn that, when I originally wrote that. I said "Mr. Sherlock comes along *a year later* ..."

Jackie Kapaun - 9/4/2008 I, for one, am glad that the scholarly historians quoted in this article don't run our country! This article clearly illustrates how our own personal ideology colors our perception and our documentation of people and events. As historians, wouldn't you agree that your purpose is to record facts - all the facts? Record the facts without your personal bias?

The beauty of this country is that every four years we get to choose a side to have a turn at running our government. I can't see how either side has been overwhelmingly successful during their four years. It seems to me that we view most of what occurs in big government very simplistically. George W. Bush didn't start the decline of how our allies and adversaries view us. That started the first time we told someone "no" or "stop that" or we felt compelled to act as police in some conflict. Our economic woes with the burst of the technology bubble - and before that any other bubble - wasn't caused by George W. Bush. Jimmy Carter didn't cause the high gas prices of the '70s.

We are all so quick to blame and yet so slow to accept responsibility. At least, right or wrong, George W. Bush didn't make his decisions based on the results of the latest poll. I'd rather have a leader who makes decisions based on what he feels is right within the confines of the Constitution of The United States, and, no on the latest whim of the last group of people to answer questions.



I am certain there may be grammatical errors in my post. I am not an English professor. I do believe all my words are spelled correctly and I do believe you can read and interpret correctly my sentences with the grammar used.

Bill Hutto - 7/13/2008 Undermining basic values, not sure about that, but Bush has ruined the country, unless you want to ignore the deaths of over 4000 of our men and women---------and for what??????

Why are we not going after the real culprit of 9/11?

Old Sarg - 4/16/2008 None of this matters. No one will be impeached, no laws were broken and no government friends or insiders became rich off our nations actions in this war against terror. Your type are simply dogs. Hiding behind your walls biting at the heels of men as we walk by. You can whine and live in the past and dram of the demise of this nation but this nation is stronger than what you may think. Sit in your little office and chase your little dreams of Neocons and government badmen hiding in the shadows. You are a nobody in this life. Ha!

Old Sarg - 4/16/2008 Such a good judge of others. Too bad you come across as a shrill whiner.

Old Sarg - 4/15/2008 Sorry guys. This article simply make you all look like you are a joke. This is really sad.

John Williams - 4/12/2008 should stick to his penchant for regurgitating liberal talking points and leave the real history to historians.



Has Bush made mistakes? No doubt. But the talking points memo Mr. McIlvane includes in his "analysis" is more indicative of a political operative than an objective observer.

Eric Foner - 2/18/2008 This is such a specious argument. Most spying on the citizens since Nixon?? Last I read was LBJ, Bobby Kennedy, et.al. spying on all sorts of rabble rousers; but Nixon?

You all seem to forget when talking about the deficit that the House of Representatives has the power of the purse according to the US Constitution. All but one of Reagan's budgets was considered 'dead on arrival' after being presented to the Congress. Reagan wanted to slow the growth of social spending while increasing defense. Increased tax revenues from a country coming out of recession would offset any disparities. Alas, the Democrats wouldn't have any of that.

Bush, with Republicans in control of both houses, has been a disaster on the budget, it's true; two wars, totally ill-advised prescription drug plan, etc. But it seems that federal deficits are always laid at the feet of the president in power. A majority of the federal budget is FIXED by law and cannot be reduced. Pork barrel spending by congress barely gets passing mention.

In the final analysis, Bush's war against Islamofacism will seem prescient. His ratings will surely go up, just like Reagan's did, and more importantly, just like Nixon's did; to the point that when Nixon died in 1994, he was revered as a statesman, and Watergate was a minor footnote.

Stop trying to rank sitting presidents!!!

maggie e. winslett - 12/31/2007 You are so very correct in your commits.



Not only is he burring the history he is preparing to rewrite it for the future at his soon to be constructed presidential library on the campus of S.M.U.





The library is to include his years as president but it is to include a special section on the George Bush philosophy on how government needs to be conducted.



Apparently, King George believes he is such a stellar example of how the government should be conducted that he wants to lay out the master plan for the future!



Maybe we need a topic titled master ego v.s. government by the people.



maggie e. winslett - 12/31/2007

I wonder, after this most tragic year regarding "King George" if you still feel the same way.



I personally still think the topic was of great use in making many people consider who they will vote for this time around.



We need desperately to think hard about the candidates. We need to look at their HISTORY of living candate during their time on planet earth. Just how informed are they on foreign and domestic policy. ...instead of what their LAST NAME might be. That will only be of interest if we are trying to trace their family history.



We do not need presidents elected by LAST NAME (as in a KING George) We need presidents elected by significant life style, devotion to political history, not raising hell with drugs and Jack Denials in Texas. History needs to consider in the candidate’s background.



We simple do not have any “History” to consider about a living human other than the years they have spent on earth.



They are Not dead YET sir!



Thank the Lord; I was in classes that understood the meaning of history applied to my currant life…



Thank you to ALL of my past professors!



They left me with a curiosity of checking the private and public backgrounds of the individuals I vote for.



Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007 Treason is a "high crime" by any normal definition, however one might choose to classify lying under oath about oral sex. So why aren't the traitors in Washington impeached already ? Mr. Fallai's hypothesis to explain recent American political history -which might be summarized as "Republicans are ignorant hypocrites"- is incomplete without a discussion of the associated corollary: Democrats are spineless wafflers. And it is a bit of a stretch to impeach members of the Republican Administration for actions consistent with or at least predictable under policies which many congressional Democrats ratified.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007 Hold your offense, please, Mr. Galle. I was being perhaps inappropriately ironic, but if you read what I actually said the reference was to the "new improved" guards, who I assume are now helping to fix the problem which Rumsfeld and his policies created at Abu Ghraib.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007 To Chris Pettit:



I don't think we are in fundamental disagreement but there are perhaps important differences in emphasis.



I would agree that America’s national political system is fundamentally flawed. I think John McCain, a leader of campaign finance reform, is one of a small minority of politicians genuinely trying to address the problem (to little avail, so far, I freely admit).



I find your remarks "out of date" in that they do not seem to reflect the sea-change that has occurred under the new Cheney-Rumsfeld regime. In that sense, at least, you remind me of Nader. If you don't see that the current presidential administration is drastically worse than the norm in America, I have a whole lot of more recent books to recommend to you. A good one to start with would be John Dean's "Worse than Watergate".

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007 Mr. CP,



I could not agree more re the "undereducated ignorance" of most Americans concerning world affairs. Having also lived abroad for some years, I can assure you that non-Americans are also not as well educated or informed as they ought to be as members of the global community (although the Americans' knowledge generally ranks near the bottom of industrialized countries in basic areas such as science and geography).



There is nothing at all "elitist" about wanting people in democratic countries to be more informed and aware of the world around them. America is already going to pay a high price for allowing the Bush approach of "ignorance by design" to go relatively unchecked for so long, and, furthermore, leaders worse than Bush are quite imaginable (e.g. "co-president" Cheney whose corporate crimes pale beside what might happen if he had sole control of the levers of power). Al Qaeda or some such group is bound to strike the U.S. again some day in some fashion, and the rest of us aren't nearly as well prepared as we should be for both that scenario and the likely attempts to capitalize thereon by the "Dr. Strangeloves" most of whom are not as inexperienced and blunder-prone as Bush, as feeble-minded as Ashcroft or as transparently predictable as Wolfowitz.



Having rejected most of the recent "exposé" books on the Bush Administration's foreign policy, because they lack proper documentation (there are already more than enough unsubstantiated rants available; here on HNN for example), I have found the following of some use (all published during the historically critical years 2002-03):



Prestowitz, "Rogue Nation"

Newhouse, "Imperial America"

Telhami, "The Stakes"

Zakaria, "Future of Freedom"



PKC

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007 Yes, but G. W. Bush never was "one of their own", and his Cs in college History are proving to be fairly valid predictors of his apathy, sloppiness and mediocre performance as President. Would that his "eagerness" on Iraq had been truly based on a desire to "finish" what was "left undone in 1991" and not just on an arrogant assumption that shortsightedness (which won America the war in 1991 and then lost it the peace) would somehow "work" in 2002-03 (e.g. at the ballot box in 2004; as Bush made clear to Woodward, he doesn't care much about what kind of world he leaves behind him) if only it were accompanied this time by more unilateral bluster, more stubborn refusal to listen to outside advice, more unwillingness to admit mistakes or change course, and better soundbite management.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007 This wide-ranging analysis is interesting but largely descriptive rather than analytical. In particular, this is an instance where (as another HNN article this week puts it ) the “intersection” of the “personal” and the “historical” is critical to understanding what is going on.



Unlike many politicians whose publicly stated goals are more dramatic than their actions, Bush's tongue-twisted "affability" pales compared to his radical and unAmerican actions. Career diplomats and career military officers of all political persuasions are upset at his Administration’s deep disregard for their long-established knowledge and experience. Accomplished business leaders are uneasy with the President's cavalier attitude towards fiscal prudence and his hypocritical weakening of free trade policies. Scientists are outraged at his deliberate attempts to slash science funding and warp future research towards pre-formed poll-driven unscientific conclusions.



Historians are also not immune from personal outrage at unprecedented and unwarranted governmental attacks on their profession:



In November of 2001, George W. Bush "issued an executive order...virtually gutting the 1978 Presidential Records Act....In essence Bush was repealing an act of Congress and imposing a new law by executive fiat...[As a result]... presidential scholarship as it now exists will largely end. As the Association of American Libraries has noted, many of the best-known works about the American presidency would not have been possible had Bush’s order been in effect...Bush and Cheney assumed office planning to take total and absolute control of executive branch information. They will decide what the public should know and when, if ever.”



- John W. Dean, “Worse than Watergate” pp. 90-92.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007 Clearly, professor McElvaine is not writing here to try to convince diehard Bushies of the error of their ways, let alone offer himself as a target for a fusillade of formulaic, tangential and inquisitional-style questions. Somewhere though, there are hardened criminals who need to be interrogated by someone of Todd Galle's vigor.

Mr. Galle, Uncle Sam wants you... to join the new, improved intelligence staff at Abu Ghraib. You may wish to act quickly, before it is razed to the ground and the "bad apples" covering up their knowledge and instigation of its former techniques are imprisoned themselves.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007 Nicely done, Chris Pettit, but perhaps a tad out of date. And, can you take on "ignorance by design" (John Dean's characterization of our current chief pretzel-conquerer) as well as just garden variety ignorance ?



I also wonder whether you have thought much about path-dependency, lesser evils, lost opportunities and counterfactuals, for example: John McCain winning South Carolina, or voting against the Iraq war resolution.



For some reason reading your piece reminds me of the KPD in the Reichstag of 1933. Maybe that is unfair, but really now, don't you think Ralph Nader would make a great senator ? As long as we are pursuing fantasy ideals here, make that a senator from Texas, please.

Jim Balter - 12/20/2006 Funny how thoroughly that "smug confidence" has been borne out. As I said long ago, it was no more "smug" than is our expectation that the sun will rise tomorrow; it was simply a rational inference from available evidence.

Thomas Michael Cannon - 9/24/2006 I have been saying that Bushie is the worst President we have ever had since the middle of 2002. So to see that a majority of today's historians are already saying that his Presidency is the worst is no surprize to me. All of his actions since this article was printed have only confirmed my views more.

joesph p glass - 4/19/2006 this kind of article, which starts with a lie- his approval rating is in the 30's. Dear sir, your math is waaay off by assuming most Americans support the lies and propaganda thrown at us. Realize their are still people out here reading that don't just buy a lie blindly, they research. something you should have done.

Lance Diduck - 4/14/2006 Elections came to Palestine, and they elected Hamas. Iraqis were liberated from Saddam, and delivered to local militias -- if they didn't end up in Abu Grahib. Our Alaskan fishing ports have plenty of anti-terrorism measures in place to protect against unexpected bad guys lurking there, but expected levee breaches are allowed to occur, because the cronies placed in FEMA were too busy primping.



One could just as easily come up with figures on how Hitler achieved low unemployment, and how he saved Germany from all those evil internationalists that came into vogue after the Great War. He even kept Germany safe from Communism, well, at least until the Soviets launched a counteroffensive. He was popularly elected and enjoyed high poll numbers, even when the bombs rained down in retaliation of Germany's aggression policies. After all, this aggression wasn’t unilateral -- they counted Mussolini and Stalin among the coalition of the willing. And really, poll numbers outside Germany didn't count, because only Germany knew what was good for pure Germans.

But few are claiming that Hitler was good for Germany overall. Conversely, one could elaborate Lincoln indiscretions: that he led America into a preventable ruinous war and suspended constitutionally protected rights. Indeed the rich could buy their way out of the war without pretense. But few argue that Lincoln was bad for America. Lincoln’s war kept America united, and settled the slavery question once and for all. It justified, even in the minds of the participants, the sacrifices made. It showed the world that when America said "individual liberties for all men" they really meant it, and made America that enduring symbol to the world -- until now. Few WW2 era Germans knew what the point of their war was, even if the early victories did make them feel good about themselves after the humiliation of the Versailles Treaty. "Deutsches Lebensraum" is hardly an Ideal that will serve as a beacon to the world, not like "individual liberties for all" which is how Lincoln eventually cast his generation's conflict, and that is why he is considered routinely among the world great leaders.

This is the point of historical perspective -- evaluating the policies of leaders in context, and how they cast the struggles of their age. For every generation fights, and every generation relies on their leaders to define just what they are fighting for.

"Make War to Prevent Terror" -- can you have a better non-sequitor?



cliff d west - 3/26/2006 Could you provide a link informing us where this brain dead republican candidate is located?

Daniel Sauerwein - 2/8/2006 Let's not forget that many polls have come out showing that a vast majority of academics hate Bush and are Democrats. So, it can therefore be argued that if another Republican were in office, the same results would occur.

Lawrence Brooks Hughes - 2/7/2006 than what do historians think of George W. Bush, is the question of what happened to pervert the entire profession into an army of leftist dummies? I can find no "diversity" of opinion whatever on this board, which speaks badly for its posters and quite well for the president. I notice national unemployment just fell to a new low of 4.7%... Fifty million Iraqis and Afghans have been liberated. Elections have come to Lebanon and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Palestine, as well as Iraq, etc., etc. The kleptocracy at Turtle Bay has been outed. The Bush program at home and abroad has been a stunning success, in fact, which is why he was reelected by 3.6 million votes.

The Republican - 1/19/2006 where the hell are you getting your information you goddamned red neck! how can you say that half of the american people like what he has done. I guess what you're saying is that we like to not have jobs and we like education cuts and so on.....you're a dick! just like bush. I'll beat the crap out of you for thinking like that! ass hole!



Lorraine Paul - 12/19/2005 I haven't found one person here who is prepared to state that there is only one country in the world that has been found guilty of terrorism in a world court. That country is the United States of America. Whether you agree or disagree with that verdict is irrelevant.



Further, I fail to see how after dropping a bomb which was known to, at the least, have blown both the arms from a child, the US and its allies could continue their 'shock and awe' exercise!



Many joining in on this discussion argue as though all this is merely an intellectual exercise and the most eloquent and erudite must inevitably be proven to be in the right. We are talking about children, mothers, old people dying. All because they live in the 'wrong' country. Where is the passion and anger against these crimes? Or is anger and compassion only reserved for the deaths of those who died on US soil.



As historians some of you make very good neo-cons.

Lorraine Paul - 12/19/2005 I hate to tell you this but we have compulsory voting in Australia. Therefore, a vast majority front-up on election day. To my disgust Bush's glove-puppet, aka Australian Prime Minister John Howard, was narrowly re-elected last year. However, when the institutions people trust let them down it isn't fair to call those same people 'idiots'. Instead heap shame upon those who betrayed that trust! I don't blame the American people for voting for Bush - twice. I blame the public opinion manipulators and the vast machinery they control and employ.



It is hard enough to keep one's equilibrium here where flag-waving and jingoism is often greeted with suspicion and embarrassment. It must be so much harder living in a country where programmes like "Jessica Simpson and (insert husband's name)'s Tour of Duty", are applauded and admired.



It sometimes seems as though Americans have been waving that flag so often and for so long that the waving has become more important than the flag itself.



Three years ago most of my friends in the US turned against me when I asked them to look for less simplistic reasons for 'why they hate us' than those put forward by Bush. It would be interesting to ask them how they feel today about his presidency.





Jennifer Kent - 12/14/2005 bush, in a speech today: "leaving iraq would be a continuation of the mistakes that led to sept. 11" --





Wake up, wake up! The war on Iraq is what constitutes terrorism.

Jennifer Kent - 12/13/2005 "What I've really learned from this article is not that historians think Bush is a failure (I already suspected that), but that many, if not most, American citizens think Bush is an okay president. The conclusion: the anti-Bush historians have failed to "enlighten" the public."





You fail to realize that the majority of the public are total idiots. In order to complete an election, a MAJORITY of Americans need to vote. So if the majority of Americans vote for a total idiot, the majority of Americans ARE the total idiots. See the logic?

Real DCC - 11/22/2005 I wonder what the Bush backers are writing now. It is probably something along the lines of charging the historians in this survey as aiding alQaeda.



Or, perhaps they hope this article is no longer available, for it seems the general population has caught up with the historians.

Jim Balter - 11/7/2005 If IN FACT Bush is the worst President in history, then we would expect OBJECTIVE historians to vote against him; those who voted for him would have done so for reasons other than an objective evaluation. Therefore, any balancing or taking people's votes into account would skew the results in Bush's favor.



In order to establish an objective set of voters, we would have to evaluate them on some INDEPENDENT basis, not correlated with the issue they are voting on.



Jim Balter - 11/7/2005 "I'd like to see the average rating from historians who voted for Bush versus those who didn't. And please don't use the excuse that it's irrelevant. If it is, then there wouldn't be any harm in revealing this, would there?"



So please post your medical history here. If it's irrelevant, there wouldn't be any harm in revealing this, would there?



"So humor me."



And how, prey tell, is that to be done?

Jim Balter - 11/7/2005 "-Bush has reduced the tax burden on the rich



This is objectively false."



If this were true, then Bush would have failed on his own terms. It's interesting when Republicans insist that they haven't done what they want to do.

Jim Balter - 11/7/2005 Indeed. To be consistent, Mr. Lindgren would have to insist that a panel evaluating Hitler would have to be balanced in their opinions of Nazism. And a panel evaluating Darwin would have to be balanced in their opinions about whether evolution has occurred. This is a notion of "objectivity" that negates the role of fact and evidence on the views of objective observers.

Jim Balter - 11/7/2005 What if George Bush turns out to be the second coming of Jesus Christ? Mature professionals like Mr. Rivers recognize such possibilities.

Jim Balter - 11/7/2005 Mr. Sherlock comes along and says "Enough." My immediate thought is: "What a jackass."

Eric Zuesse - 10/24/2005 An important fallacy in James Lindgren's comment is:



He assumes that a historian's "objectivity" would cause there to be no correlation bewtween the way the given historian votes and this historian's ratings of U.S. Presidents. Lindgren assumes that if the historian is "objective," then that historian would have no greater tendency to score Bush highly if he voted for Bush than if he did not, and that the historian would have no greater tendency to score Bush poorly if he voted against Bush than if he did not.



In other words, Mr. Lindgren assumes that an "objective" historian won't, at all--not even just slightly--tend to vote for or against a given candidate on the basis of whether or not he approves of that candidate and his policies.



Lindgren thus exhibits an outrageously false concept of "objectivity" and of what it means to be a social "scientist."



I am not saying that Lindgren's view of "science" is uncommon; I am merely pointing out how obviously false it is.



The fact that this false view of "science" is common does not mean that it is true, but only that the current stage of development of the philosophy of science is so crude that such an absurdly false view of "science" remains common today.



Obviously, a social scientist who disapproves of a given President's performance will therefore be *both* more likely to vote against him on that account *and* to score his performance in office low on that same account.



Indeed, for a social "scientist" to believe, as does Mr. Lindgren, that in order for him to be "objective" he must not tend to vote for candidates whom he approves of, nor to vote against candidates he disapproves of, the social "scientist" would have to possess a very warped concept of "science" and of "objectivity," so that he would be neither scientific nor objective.



This false view of "science" has vast ramifications; it greatly retards the development of authentically scientific history, and of authentically scientific other social sciences.

Richard Paco Jones - 9/25/2005 fast forward to september 24, 2005



everybody should know, by now, that sept. 11 was a result of our (xtian west) refusal to withdraw troops stationed in islamia (since the 1920's) -- in violation of dearly-held muslim beliefs



bush, in a speech today: "leaving iraq would be a continuation of the mistakes that led to sept. 11"

Jim Balter - 9/7/2005 I didn't say anything about "proof", or anything like it. I said "indirect affirmation" -- perhaps you should check the meaning of that last word in a dictionary. The person affirming something could be completely wrong. But someone unable to offer a reasoned rebuttal to a claim suggests that they lack a rational basis for disagreement, which suggests that somewhere in the recesses of their mind an affirmation lurks.

Pedro Cruz - 7/16/2005 G.W.Bush has undermined the basic American value of "competence in office." He raised incompetence in office to a new level during the nine months preceding 9-11 by deliberately ignoring credible and persistent evidence that his country would be attacked by airplanes being flown into buildings. He neglected his responsibility to protect his country from foreign enemies so that he could have a justification for pursuing his personal goal: deposing Mr. Hussein. Sadly, how he has managed to remain in office in spite of his incompetence is a testament to the ignorance and gullibility of a majority of Americans.

j l dunbar - 7/5/2005 a divided nation split destructively between secular and value neonazis with schiavo and right wing zealots demanding we kidnap brain dead women with rhetoric of 'err on side of life' while we hear headlines of dead wrong and speeches stating it was 'worth it' to murder 1760 soldiers serving 3 tours in a war concocted with false intelligence.



and now priorities set for supreme court installation that will further divide usa and possibly a set up for bolton to be axe man for un reform as information that rove leaked cia agents name becomes available.



i cant think of a more divisive america. while downing street memos may not be impeachable it shows how reprehensible bush is. imagine 59M americans voting for a twice convicted drunk?



history will provide the answers that libs already aware of. when you begin a lie you usually end the same way.

Shannon Jacobs - 6/5/2005 Amusing spin. When, pray tell, will Dubya actually become responsible for anything? The disastrous results cannot be postponed forever, though so far they have managed to stave off total collapse by borrowing from our dear friends Japan, Saudi Arabia, and China. China? Actually, the Saudis are probably worse as friends, but in any case, with friends like that, who needs enemies?



By the way, your poor spelling is rather rude. Remember this is an intelligent and informed audience. Actually, your own "content" makes the point germane, since your mumbling appears to be ad hominem attacks mostly directed at the intelligence of the authors.

Shannon Jacobs - 6/5/2005 My first degree includes history, and I've continued to read quite a bit of it over the years. I have already seen excerpts of this document a number of times.



I've always considered myself an informed voter, but in 2000, while I certainly was not going to vote for Dubya against the well-qualified Al Gore, I did not regard Dubya as being capable of the disastrous performance he has delivered. Actually, I could not have conceived that any one person could be responsible for so much damage to the once mighty nation.



I think the bizarre (s)election of 2000 should have been mentioned as an aspect of the political ruthlessness and hypocrisy of BushCo. The damage it did to the system was enormous, and probably contributed greatly to their secret fortress mentality. Also, I don't think sufficient attention was given to Dubya's marginal participation in the decision processes. Dubya basically acts as a sock puppet for Cheney and Rove.



I was still hopeful until the election of 2004. However, whether or not the election was manipulated, it is clear that far too many voters are too far gone in their ignorance or are actually fanatical Busheviks of various stripes. All things have a time, and America is reaching the end of hers.

James Lindgren - 5/26/2005 I just posted below on the measurement problem you raise. In part, I wrote:



"The political split I find in rating recent presidents means that it is likely that the HNN study merely tells us what the political orientation of their pool is.



"This is a measurement issue. You may think you are measuring GW Bush, but you are really measuring the politics of the panel surveyed. I am not saying that, if someone were to do a representative study of historians, they wouldn't find Bush a failure (given the political makeup of the profession, they probably would); what I am saying is that this result would be determined by the politics of the raters, not GW Bush's successes or failures.



"In rating presidents, one should either politically balance panels or measure the politics of the raters and assess their impact on the ratings -- or both (the informal HNN survey does neither). Otherwise, you are not measuring what you think you are measuring."

James Lindgren - 5/26/2005 I just blogged this at the Volokh Conspiracy:



http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_22-2005_05_28.shtml#1117123917



The new HNN rating of presidents.--



The History News Network has published the results of an informal survey of historians and found George Bush to be a failure (tip to Instapundit).



With Steve Calabresi, in 2000 I wrote up the results of a survey of politically balanced panels of historians, political scientists, and law professors for the Wall Street Journal, an article in Constitutional Commentary, and a chapter in Presidential Leadership (a Wall Street Journal book edited by James Taranto and Leonard Leo).



One thing became clear to me: for recent presidents, such as Bill Clinton, any ratings reflect more the political makeup of the rating panel than judgments about the president being rated.



I replicated this study this year for a revised version of Presidential Leadership due out this fall (we added economists this time).



The political split I find in rating recent presidents means that it is likely that the HNN study merely tells us what the political orientation of their pool is.



This is a measurement issue. You may think you are measuring GW Bush, but you are really measuring the politics of the panel surveyed. I am not saying that, if someone were to do a representative study of historians, they wouldn't find Bush a failure (given the political makeup of the profession, they probably would); what I am saying is that this result would be determined by the politics of the raters, not GW Bush's successes or failures.



In rating presidents, one should either politically balance panels or measure the politics of the raters and assess their impact on the ratings -- or both (the informal HNN survey does neither). Otherwise, you are not measuring what you think you are measuring.



Our new 2005 study should be released in the early fall as part of a revised version of Presidential Leadership. Sorry, I can't release the results. You'll have to wait another few months to learn how a politically balanced panel of historians rate GW Bush.



Ricardo Luis Rodriguez - 5/26/2005 Historians, of all people, should be the first ones to jump up and state what the source of their wisdom is-the perspective that passage of time imparts. Instead, when it comes to Bush, they get their hair all up in a twist, cast their source of wisdom to the wind, and bloviate indignantly about this or that.

Historians may take solace in the fact that in regards to recognition of present merit they are no worse than Art critics, Literary critics, or any other "Academy types". Academy types have all lauded now forgotten "geniuses", while their contemporaneous luminaries are better seen after the passage of time.

Ricardo Luis Rodriguez - 5/26/2005 By your standards, the UN's lack of action in Rwanda and and Serbia were exemplar as they watched massacres unfold. Perhaps we shouldn't have attacked Nazi Germany given all those innocent civilians obliterated by aerial bombing of Dresden, Berlin, Frankfurt, etc. No, we are not perfect, and we have killed many innocents, but I give the Iraqui electorate more credence than you as to wether they think our intervention was worth it.

As to the Geneva convention... It is a treaty dictating conduct between warring armies as defined by the treaty itself. The mujahedeen violate all provisions of what a standing army is, except that they carry weapons. By their own conduct they abrogate all protections of the Geneva convention. We are not fighting an army following Geneva convention rules, I do not see why we should follow Geneva convention rules. As a matter of fact, the penalty for flouting Geneva convention rules is the implied threat of experiencing the full horror of war at its most savage. We already are at the receiving end of such carnage(witness the live beheadings, deliberate targeting of civilians, burning and parading of mutilated corpses), I see no problem with ou present relatively restrained response.

Doug Mitchell Rivers - 5/26/2005 What is most noticeable about the tsunami of Bush-hate comments by the so-called historians on this site is the childish emotionalism and lack of professionalism. The book is clearly out on Bush. If he has initiated a wave of democracy in the mideast that makes the world a significantly better place in which to live, then that will be major plus. If he "saves" social security, another. What if history looks back and takes (ahem) a broader view of the last half of the 20th century to present than our leftist-sound-bite profs, and sees that Bush did a fairly good job of maintaining the economy - post Clinton techno-bubble? A good job overseas and at home would seem to add up to a successful presdiency. Not saying this has been nailed down yet, but a more thoughtful analysis, it seems to be, would have to recognize the possibilities.

Clearly some grounding in the disciplines of history does not automatically confer thoughtful perspective and maturity of outlook.



John E Torbett - 5/26/2005 The quotations listed by Mr. McElvaine in his article and the related comments show a level of ignorance that is astonishing. There are so many fallacies repeated by these people I don't know where to start but here goes.



-Worst job loss in first 2 1/2 years since Hoover



How can historians be ignorant of the fact that the economy was in recession on Januay 23, 2001, (so says the National Bureau of Economic Research), the NASDAQ was down over 50% from its March 2000 high, dot com companies were burning through capital received from venture capitalists and Wall Street at an unprecedented rate, literally hundreds of public corporations were fraudulently overstating their earnings (Enron, World Com, AOL, Global Crossing, Tyco, Xerox, etc. all had to restate earnings dating back to the 1990's), Wall Street allowed its massive conflicts of interest to color its stock analysis, approximately 1.5 million of the jobs lost in Bush's first term were lost by December 2001 (two months into the first fiscal year of Bush's Presidency and before any of his tax cuts had even taken effect), a significant majority of the job losses were created during the worst stock market bubble in American history and would have been lost no matter who occupied the White House because most dot com's formed in the 1990's never earned a dime. Some economists estimate that just short of 1 million jobs were lost as a direct result of 9/11 (the planning and preparation for which began in the February 2000). Additionally, there have been well over a hundred thousand jobs lost as a direct result of NAFTA and other trade agreements entered into by the Clinton Administration. These agreements were hailed by Clinton sycophants as an essential part of his legacy. Well, in the words of Ward Churchill, those chickens have come home to roost becasue the impact of his predecessor's policies is being felt now. Bush didn't have anything to do with it.



Finally, correlation is not the same thing as causation. There are many statments by historians which dogmatically conclude Bush was responsible for job losses, but I didn't see a single fact supporting those conclusions. As a matter of fact, Bush's tax cuts ameliorated the impact of the recession. You don't have to take my word for it, Alan Greenspan attested to this fact before Congress several times. Total household wealth in the USA is currently at the highest level it has ever been. Home ownership is now at the highest level ever in the history of this country. Unemployment is below the historical average since WWII, inflation is significantly below the historical average since WWII, etc. etc. You may be historians, but you sure aren't economists.



-Bush has reduced the tax burden on the rich



This is objectively false. The percentage of total income tax revenue paid to the government by the top 20% of income tax payers has increased since Bush' tax cuts took effect. The marginal rates went down for all individual income tax payers. The argument that the tax cuts only helped the rich is nothing more than a talking point intended to inflame class envy amongst those ignorant enough to believe it (aka the Democratic base).



- Foreign Policy and our Allies



Our economy also suffered from the complete foreign policy mess that Bush inherited from Clinton. Terrorism against the US had been metasticizing for ten years without any opposition save a few missles lobbed at Sudanese aspirin factories. Our close allies that you historians are so concerned about were on the dole from Saddam. French politicians in Chirac's administration and journalists were being bribed with UN Oil for Food money while France was actively violating the UN sanction regime by selling Saddam arms. A German citizen was convicted in 1998 of having sold Saddam centrifuge equipment used to create weapons grade nuclear material. Russia also sold arms to Saddam and had its own politicians sucking from the teat of Saddam's oil money. These same European crooks were simultaneously arguing for an end to sanctions all together. I've got news for you geniuses, Mr. Chirac does not have our best interests at heart. He is a Gaulist and he wants to restablish French power on the world stage. He has intended to do this by creating a united European foreign policy (although that isn't looking too likely right now) and undermining the US at every turn. Why do you think he supported French oil contracts with Saddam and recently attempted to sell arms to China? Chirac is an antagonist and it's laughable that historians think that Bush had anything to do with that. He just decided that he wasn't going to be cowed by the French. Plus, anti-Americanism seems to have lost some of its potency as a political tool for Schroeder in Germany.



You historians worry about the increased hatred for America since Bush entered office, yet you conveniently forget about the ill will engendered by decades of support for dictatorial regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc. And no matter how badly you may want to pin it on the Bushes, that policy began with FDR's support of the House of Saud in the 1930's and was continued by every administration afterwards right through Clinton's eight years. Sandy Berger refused to allow a predator drone to fire on Bin Laden because he didn't want to kill a visiting Saudi prince for God's sake. Bush is the first Western politician who has had the guts to acknowledge that this cynical, realpolitik approach never achieved the stability that served as its justification. And, by the way, you conveneintly forget the anti-globalization riots in Seattle and Genoa which were almost exclusively directed against the US and its impact on the world economy. What about the huge anti-American demonstrations in Greece when Clinton visited there in 2000? We now have Walid Jumblatt, the leader of the Druze Christians in Lebanon, saying thank God for the invasion of Iraq which has given the Lebanese the courage to demand real democracy. You can deny it all you want, but when the very people who are engaging in the Cedar Revolution are explicitly giving Bush credit (as Jumblatt did in the Wash. Post recently) there isn't anything to argue about.



-worst stock market loss in first two years since Hoover



The stock market was in free fall when Bush entered office and 9/11 was the nail in its coffin. Just for comparison's sake, the NASDAQ fell 54% from its March 10, 2000 high to December 31, 2000. The NASDAQ fell 52% in Bush's first two years (1-23-01 through 1-22-03). However, the NASDAQ is still down from where it was when Bush entered office but the difference is that it was massively overvalued then and it isn't now. On January 1, 2001, the avg. PE Ratio for the NASDAQ was 36, now its 15 which is exactly the historical average for the NASDAQ.





- Bottom Line



Bush inherited a mess from Clinton and he has made the best of it. He has been far from perfect however. The irony is that the truly bad policies Bush has pursued are those that liberals advocated. Campaign finance reform is a joke and Bush should have vetoed it. No matter what the liberal whack jobs on the SCOTUS say, McCain Feingold is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Not to mention the fact that it has resulted in even murkier financing of political entities by billionaires who son't have to disclose teir contributions. The steel tariffs were a joke, but they were championed by one of the pillars of the Democratice party, unions.



I just can't believe that teachers are either so ignorant or deluded by their hatred of Bush that they actually believe the nonsense they spouted off in this survey.

John E Torbett - 5/26/2005 The quotations listed by Mr. McElvaine in his article and the related comments show a level of ignorance that is astonishing. There are so many fallacies repeated by these people I don't know where to start but here goes.



-Worst job loss in first 2 1/2 years since Hoover



How can historians be ignorant of the fact that the economy was in recession on Januay 23, 2001, (so says the National Bureau of Economic Research), the NASDAQ was down over 50% from its March 2000 high, dot com companies were burning through capital received from venture capitalists and Wall Street at an unprecedented rate, literally hundreds of public corporations were fraudulently overstating their earnings (Enron, World Com, AOL, Global Crossing, Tyco, Xerox, etc. all had to restate earnings dating back to the 1990's), Wall Street allowed its massive conflicts of interest to color its stock analysis, approximately 1.5 million of the jobs lost in Bush's first term were lost by December 2001 (two months into the first fiscal year of Bush's Presidency and before any of his tax cuts had even taken effect), a significant majority of the job losses were created during the worst stock market bubble in American history and would have been lost no matter who occupied the White House because most dot com's formed in the 1990's never earned a dime. Some economists estimate that just short of 1 million jobs were lost as a direct result of 9/11 (the planning and preparation for which began in the February 2000). Additionally, there have been well over a hundred thousand jobs lost as a direct result of NAFTA and other trade agreements entered into by the Clinton Administration. These agreements were hailed by Clinton sycophants as an essential part of his legacy. Well, in the words of Ward Churchill, those chickens have come home to roost becasue the impact of his predecessor's policies is being felt now. Bush didn't have anything to do with it.



Finally, correlation is not the same thing as causation. There are many statments by historians which dogmatically conclude Bush was responsible for job losses, but I didn't see a single fact supporting those conclusions. As a matter of fact, Bush's tax cuts ameliorated the impact of the recession. You don't have to take my word for it, Alan Greenspan attested to this fact before Congress several times. Total household wealth in the USA is currently at the highest level it has ever been. Home ownership is now at the highest level ever in the history of this country. Unemployment is below the historical average since WWII, inflation is significantly below the historical average since WWII, etc. etc. You may be historians, but you sure aren't economists.



-Bush has reduced the tax burden on the rich



This is objectively false. The percentage of total income tax revenue paid to the government by the top 20% of income tax payers has increased since Bush' tax cuts took effect. The marginal rates went down for all individual income tax payers. The argument that the tax cuts only helped the rich is nothing more than a talking point intended to inflame class envy amongst those ignorant enough to believe it (aka the Democratic base).



- Foreign Policy and our Allies



Our economy also suffered from the complete foreign policy mess that Bush inherited from Clinton. Terrorism against the US had been metasticizing for ten years without any opposition save a few missles lobbed at Sudanese aspirin factories. Our close allies that you historians are so concerned about were on the dole from Saddam. French politicians in Chirac's administration and journalists were being bribed with UN Oil for Food money while France was actively violating the UN sanction regime by selling Saddam arms. A German citizen was convicted in 1998 of having sold Saddam centrifuge equipment used to create weapons grade nuclear material. Russia also sold arms to Saddam and had its own politicians sucking from the teat of Saddam's oil money. These same European crooks were simultaneously arguing for an end to sanctions all together. I've got news for you geniuses, Mr. Chirac does not have our best interests at heart. He is a Gaulist and he wants to restablish French power on the world stage. He has intended to do this by creating a united European foreign policy (although that isn't looking too likely right now) and undermining the US at every turn. Why do you think he supported French oil contracts with Saddam and recently attempted to sell arms to China? Chirac is an antagonist and it's laughable that historians think that Bush had anything to do with that. He just decided that he wasn't going to be cowed by the French. Plus, anti-Americanism seems to have lost some of its potency as a political tool for Schroeder in Germany.



You historians worry about the increased hatred for America since Bush entered office, yet you conveniently forget about the ill will engendered by decades of support for dictatorial regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc. And no matter how badly you may want to pin it on the Bushes, that policy began with FDR's support of the House of Saud in the 1930's and was continued by every administration afterwards right through Clinton's eight years. Sandy Berger refused to allow a predator drone to fire on Bin Laden because he didn't want to kill a visiting Saudi prince for God's sake. Bush is the first Western politician who has had the guts to acknowledge that this cynical, realpolitik approach never achieved the stability that served as its justification. And, by the way, you conveneintly forget the anti-globalization riots in Seattle and Genoa which were almost exclusively directed against the US and its impact on the world economy. What about the huge anti-American demonstrations in Greece when Clinton visited there in 2000? We now have Walid Jumblatt, the leader of the Druze Christians in Lebanon, saying thank God for the invasion of Iraq which has given the Lebanese the courage to demand real democracy. You can deny it all you want, but when the very people who are engaging in the Cedar Revolution are explicitly giving Bush credit (as Jumblatt did in the Wash. Post recently) there isn't anything to argue about.



-worst stock market loss in first two years since Hoover



The stock market was in free fall when Bush entered office and 9/11 was the nail in its coffin. Just for comparison's sake, the NASDAQ fell 54% from its March 10, 2000 high to December 31, 2000. The NASDAQ fell 52% in Bush's first two years (1-23-01 through 1-22-03). However, the NASDAQ is still down from where it was when Bush entered office but the difference is that it was massively overvalued then and it isn't now. On January 1, 2001, the avg. PE Ratio for the NASDAQ was 36, now its 15 which is exactly the historical average for the NASDAQ.





- Bottom Line



Bush inherited a mess from Clinton and he has made the best of it. He has been far from perfect however. The irony is that the truly bad policies Bush has pursued are those that liberals advocated. Campaign finance reform is a joke and Bush should have vetoed it. No matter what the liberal whack jobs on the SCOTUS say, McCain Feingold is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Not to mention the fact that it has resulted in even murkier financing of political entities by billionaires who son't have to disclose teir contributions. The steel tariffs were a joke, but they were championed by one of the pillars of the Democratice party, unions.



I just can't believe that teachers are either so ignorant or deluded by their hatred of Bush that they actually believe the nonsense they spouted off in this survey.

Jim C. - 5/26/2005 I'd like to see the average rating from historians who voted for Bush versus those who didn't. And please don't use the excuse that it's irrelevant. If it is, then there wouldn't be any harm in revealing this, would there? So humor me.



Of course, if that data wasn't recorded, just go back and let us know the numbers of those historians that voted for Bush and those who didn't.



I expect some supercilious dismissal of the idea. The real reason for dismissing it would probably be that it would expose the blatant bias of these so-called historians.

Dylan Sherlock - 5/26/2005 One of the main charges levelled against President Bush by his critics is that he is offending America's foreign allies. As a citizen of Canada, one of the foremost (in being offended and in being an ally) I'd just like to say my piece.



The majority of governments in the world are ruled by incompetent, power hungry oligarchies who care about foreigners about as far as they can throw them. Canadians for example, have not gone to Iraq. Of course, we've since discovered that the former Prime Minister's (who made the decision) son-in-law had an oil deal with Saddam Hussien for billions of dollars. The current Prime Minster had a million dollars of Saddams money invested in a company he owned. We found that even if we did have the moral surety to help America build a stronger coalition in Iraq, we couldn't because our armed forces have been castrated by two decades of Liberal governments.



On the face of things, Canadians seemed very angry about the whole Iraq war thing, very anti-Bush and whatnot.



This is not a bad thing.



Bashing America is Canadians second favorite activity (first favorite since the hockey season was cancelled). In fact, from travelling the world, I've noticed that most people enjoy bashing America. It isn't a real measure of America's success or failure. Popular anti-Americanism is just a way to fit in for most people. It's a social activity. Very few stop to formulate an opinion, they just acquire one, compliments of the Naomi Klein pop-culture.



The big failures of Bush from a "I vist Michigan every year" standpoint are: limp-dick "faith-based initiatives", the Patriot Act(which I can sympathize with at least, a terrorist was caught at the border crossing coming from the city I was born in, most of the provisions in it seem very reasonable), the either incompetence or plain stupidity of the NCLB and the failure to moderate an increasingly polarized country.



If anything that I think history will remember Bush by, the last is the most important. During the last four years, Americans have become deeply split over his administration and over this war. While I agree with the war, the domestic "big-yet-small government" approach seems just a little silly. But that doesn't matter, 'cause I'm not an American. What does matter is the first superpower to ever have a real sense of decency is breaking down into this emmense unsustainable red-state/blue-state divide.



Good luck Bush. You'll need it. And so will America.

Dylan Sherlock - 5/26/2005 Enough.

Karl Hallowell - 5/25/2005 I'm not a fan of G. W. Bush. If he and his entire cabinet were to resign tomorrow, I wouldn't mind in the least. But let's keep things in perspective. Bush has deposed of two governments that were big trouble makers in the Middle East. His pre-war arguments and post-war followup were laughable and incompetent, but the wars were pretty competent and achieved the overthrow of these governments.



No significant terrorist attacks have occured on US soil since 9/11.



He failed to control spending and the magnitude of tax cuts seems unwise, but he is addressing Social Security which is probably one of the worst things to come out of the New Deal era. IMHO, we should just end the program and pay out such obligations as have accrued. Retirees these days are a lot richer (excluding Social Security) than they were in the 30's when the program was created. We aren't justified in forcing a couple hundred million people to enter and pay for a program when we really just need something that covers the neediest few percent.



People like Mr. McElvaine who talk of the "3 million" jobs lost by Bush or the decline in the stock market have no concept of what really happened. Yes, a third of the value of publically traded companies vanished over two years. Losing 3 million jobs is about the right speed for such an loss of wealth. The point? Who pumped the stock markets up to that point? It wasn't Bush. Plus the decline started (March 2000) more than six months prior to Bush getting reelected, and was nine months old by the time he actually entered office. I haven't been remotely impressed by Bush's economic incentives, but at least he kept Greenspan around.



Even now, the budget deficit, taxes, etc aren't a significant fraction of the US's GDP compared to other OECD countries. So saying we're on the "brink of bankruptcy" is highly misleading.



Finally, I find global opinion to be pretty worthless. The problem is that it comes and goes so easily. You can't keep it or use it for very long. He lost a lot when he backtracked on the harmful Kyoto treaty (too bad it got ratified anyway).



Karl Hallowell - 5/25/2005 Maybe there is a bit of 'self-selection' in that historians tend to be 'liberal'. On the other hand maybe one should ask which is the chicken, and which the egg; maybe sober assessment of history, and perhaps especially in the United States, leads smart people toward views that might be termed "liberal". Presumbly if "liberal" was so correlated with "smart", then you would see similar dominance by the "liberal" ideology for say corporate executives as you see for historians. Self-interest goes a long ways to explaining things, IMHO.

Gonzalo Rodriguez - 5/25/2005 Mr. Petit, once again you demonstrate just how high of an opinion you have of yourself. Be careful not to scrape your nose against the ceiling, you might get hurt.

Rob G McPhee - 5/25/2005 Well of course they would have had similar result for Reagan. He unneccesarily escalated the Cold war by pushing long range weapons into western Europe, declared opposition to the USSR in no uncertain terms, and foolishly spent us into deficit for military reasons.



Everyone who was anyone knew that the USA/USSR Cold War would only be resolved once we clarified our differences and came to the negotiating table, and this "cowboy" president was doing nothing but pushing that time farther and farther away.



And he tried to cut taxes on the 70% income tax bracket to INCREASE government tax receipts from those same people. Obvious idiocy that has no possibility of working, because the economy is never affected or altered based on taxes. If you want to take in twice as much, just double taxes and you'll be there...



Oh, yes, all of the above was said during Reagan by various people, and all is obviously flawed in many significant ways. I could go on, but it seems unnecessary as very few believe any of the previous today.



Perhaps historians will do better once they gain the perspective of having the events of today be "historical".

R. Fogg - 5/23/2005 Let's just hope the worst of the damage caused by the Worst President Ever has already been inflicted.



I don't think America will be able to restore its good name in the eyes of the world until this Administration stands trial and answers for its crimes.

clarence willard swinney - 5/17/2005 I flip flip flopped more thn any President.BUSH WAFFLE HOUSE

“I say what I mean and mean what I say”

“ Promises made-Promises kept”

“When I make up my mind it stays made up”

“I do not take cues from anyone”

“You can’t say one thing and do another”

“Trust me I’m a straight shooter”

“I’m the commander, I don’t need to explain, I do not need to explain why I say

things”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.Osama Bin Laden is my number one priority. (at least this week)

2. We need an Office of Strategic Influence (Next decade maybe)

3. I will follow the UN Resolution as long as it takes-10-27-02

10-31-02—The UN needs to act now

2-13-03—The UN needs to show courage (like I did during Vietnam.)

4. I am a strong believer in Fair Trade—(except steel and softwood lumber) (votes first)



Ed Crane—Co-Founder and President of The Cato Institute-“Everything this

Administration does is political”



5, We do not need for the Homeland Security Department to be a Cabinet position.

I made up my mind on it. Boston Globe—6-9-02 “Bush Flip Flop”

6. I will get Osama Bin Laden “Dead or Alive”—(go get em cowboy)—5-13-02-(“I don’t know where he is, I have no idea and I really don’t care.) (It’s not that important. It’s not out first priority”) (“I say what I mean”). (“When I make up my mind it stays made up”).

7. I will use the bully pulpit with OPEC. (Sic em bulldog my gas now 1.65 per gallon)

Supply went down and Prices went up and (“This is just the Free Market at Work”)

8. I will never apologize to the Chinese for “stealing our plane”. Please guys! Be nice.

Return our plane. “I regret it”

9. I mean what I say—“We can expect an attack”. Each month warning. When BOY?

10. Wash. Post-2-8-03—Bush seeking a promise from IRAN (Evil) for humanitarian help

in event a slaughter is done in Afghan. (Sounds like Reagan?)

11. NYT-1-23-03—Bush (Man of steel will) “rescinding” old policy and implementing a new policy that allows managed care organizations to limit and restrict coverage of emergency services for poor people on Medicaid. This was after criticizing HMO.s for refusal to allow treatment. If this is a Devout Christian I am Jesus Christ.

12. We will not negotiate with North Korea. Wash Post 1-16-03—Bush is now willing to consider agricultural and energy aid. (Hold on! This is EVIL of axis)

13.Individual investors who borrow money to buy dividend-paying stocks should be penalized. (Gosh! What did I say—I did not mean it) NYT 2-5-03

14. I mean what I say until yelling starts. Military pay increase of 2% then 4%.

Stars & Stripes-12-30-02—Bush asked Defense Dept. to lower the announced pay raise for the military from 3.7% to 2%. Finally got 4 in 2004 budget.



“I am tired of all the Lying and Deception”—Amen! Halleluiah! Then stop it Boy.









15.I mean what I say—I am the education president. Please. First budget increased by 1,5% which had averaged 7% increase per year over five years. (Sounds like Clinton were the educated educator to me.)

16.Wash Post-12-2-02—In June 2002 Bush promised 500 Million to fight mother-child transmission of Aids . In Aug he vetoed the first transfer of the 500 million. In 111 days since his promise 222,000 babies have been infected with Aids. (I wonder if Jesus Christ is tossing in his bed)



17.“Secretary O’Neill is doing a good job. The economy is improving. I have faith in him”. (Your faith lasts two weeks boy)



18.The Homeland Security Bio-Terrorism Bill is too expensive. I will veto it. An Ok is not a veto boy.

(I mean what I say” but maybe I will not this time.)



19. I do not approve of an Independent Investigation of 9-11. (“I mean what I say” but—yelling is too loud).



20.I am against international money laundering controls. (9-11—“I changed my steel mind”) They may catch daddy.



21.We will have major social security changes. Wash Post. 11-11-01—Andrew Card on Meet the Press on 11-10-02 “I am not sure we will reform it” This was a Centerpiece of his campaign..



22.-12-30-02—We will not tolerate a North Korean nuclear arsenal. (Act nice guys if you want our $$$)



23.We do not hit civilian targets(in Afghan). There is no evidence. (Red Cross building not civilian—Veterans Hospital is military—Warlord Party heading to Kabul to celebrate was armed with .22 rifles—Wedding Party was violent and firing in the air at our planes 20,000 feet above them)



24.Wash Posr-11-15-02—“If you are not happy with the administration’s policy toward Iraq at any given moment just wait a week or two. A new policy, more to your liking, is bound to appear”.



A. Go it alone week

B. Let us wait for UN week

C. “Regime change” is goal

D. remove wmd is goal

E. Secretary of State is nor speaking for the president

F. Attorney General is not speaking for the administration.

G. I am sick and tired of this waffling and waiting.





25.Steel Tariff—I really did not mean that much. I angered some people. Reduce it.

(When I make up my mind it stays made up)

26.Carbon Dioxide is a power plant pollutant I will control.. (Oh! It will be too costly to my energy contributors so forget it suckers—cough cough)

27.Reuters-6-26-02—‘I have confidence in the Palestinians when they understand we are saying they must make the right decisions”—“I can assure you we will not be putting money into a society which is not transparent and which is corrupt”.

(Was he referring to his administration? Sounds like it—transparent—corrupt)



28.I am against human cloning in any form. (well, not quite “any”)

29.“I knew nothing about dangers of 9-11”. Eight months later. “I knew a damn bunch (but I was too busy on Vacation and looking for more to blame on that President who stomped my dad. Darn it is tough being dumb, inarticulate and following such a brain and great success)

30.“I am in excellent physical condition.” (Darn, staying up till midnight in Paris zapped all my energy—Boy—try conditioning your mind))

31.I am on top of everything. (Why did you say twice on TV—“I am not in control the Pentagon is running the War (Afghan)—You have a White House base—same as Al Qaeda. Only more secretive)

32.I will veto bill increasing benefits for disabled military retirees (Yep!He was war hero.. 6-20-02 in Wash Post. I do not change my mind. Until 2004 Budget).

33.-6-14-02—released 23,653 of ”cherry picked” Reagan papers after refusing to do it. “When I make up my mind it stays made up” Is this BOY real ?”

34.I mean what I say—‘I will provide 100 million to help preserve the Rain Forest”

35.Budgeted funds for his dad’s Crusader cannon then demanded that Congress kill the big sucker.

36. Airline Security is very important to me. Then, why did you fight so hard to keep guns out of cockpits?

37.Barred part-time Mexican and Canadian students from U.S. schools after 9-11. Then, after howls reversed his decision. “When I make up my mind”

38.Simon (candidate for Gov. of California). “He is a breath of fresh air.”

Bush sho hated that California Smog for he avoided Simon while in his presence.

39.“I will not engage in bailing out countries.” 30 billion to Brazil just a tip?

40.NY Times-Richard Stevenson-2-14-03—“Bush eases Ban on AIDS money to pro-abortion groups abroad.. What will he tell Falwell?

41.-March 6—“We will call for a UN Security Council vote.” Geo. Bush

March 13—“There may be no vote” Colin Powell

NY TIMES-“Bush promises to adopt peace plan”. The Guardian-“Bush reversed his previous insistence that the Middle East Peace effort must wait till after Iraq SLAUGHTERAMA

42.NY TIMES--Edmund L. Andrwews-2-26-03—Less than a month after President Bush proposed a radical overhaul and expansion of individual retirement and savings account the White House has abandoned their idea. (“When I make up my mind it stays made up”) (“Promises made promises kept”) (“I say what I mean and mean what I say”)

-------------WHO IN HECK IS IN CHARGE IN THIS WAFFLE HOUSE?------------



43. NY Times-Patrick e. Tyler-5-17-03—“In reversal, plan for Iraqi self rule by June 1 put off indefinitely. “When I make up my mind(scorched?) it stays made up”? Sho!

44.BIG WAFFLE—Washington Post-8-19-03-Dana Milbank & Bradley Graham—

“Bush revises view on combat in Iraq”.---May I on USS Desertion he said-- “Combat Operations are over”.. Now—“Actually, Major military operations continue because we still have combat operations going on”. Is this boy of scorched brain or what?

45. TEACH FOR AMERICA PROGRAM ZAPPED BY BUSH. I am pissed off. Big time. In 2000 campaign Bush promised President Wendy Koop to expand it. His aides asked President Wendy Koop to quadruple it. . On July 11,2003 she got a letter “We regret to inform you your application was not selected for funding”. Gone. Zapped totally. Bush is one of sorriest not just worst in history. Read TIME—8-17-03. Joe Klein article headed “WHO KILLED TEACH FOR AMERICA”? Sorry, but I am so furious I have difficulty writing. I do not like to curse but xxxxxxx.

45.OBL not priority or is he?

A 9-13-01—“The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him”.

B. 9-17-01—I want justice. Wanted :Dead or alive.”

C 12-28-01—“Listen awhileago I said to the american people our objective is more than Bin Laden—Press pool in chapel on ranch

D. 3-13-02 “I am truly not that concerned about him.”The New American 4-8-02

E. 3-13-02—“I don’t know where Bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” Wow!

46. Bush told bob Woodward in his book “Bush War” that “he didn’t feel that sense of urgency” about Al Qaeda prior to 9-11”. No claims had great sense of urgency.



47.Nov 2003 Bush made highly touted speech about spreading democracy in the entire Middle East. NYT reported he backed away after it was denounced by Egypt Mubarak and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

48. 2-2-04 Budget Director Bolton-“we will not need additional funds for 04.”

5-5-04 Bush “I am requesting that Congress establish a 25 Billion contingency reserve ”

49. 3-9-04 Press Secretary McClellan-“Condoleeza Rice will not testify before 9-11 commission it is matter of principle.” President Bush on 3-30-94 “Dr. Rice will testify.”

50. 3-19-02 Ari Fleischer-“Creating a Cabinet Office will not solve the problem.”

6-6-02 President Bush “Tonight I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single permanent department securing the homeland of America.”

51. NYT 1-29-04 “Bush resists outside investigation on WMD intelligence failure.”

2-6-04 Bush “Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, to look at American intelligence capabilities.”

52. Wash Post-1-19-04-“Bush opposes extension of time for 9-11 commission.”

CNN-2-4-04---“Bush supports time extension for 9-11 commission.”

53.NYTimes 2-26-04-Bush limits testimony to one hour.”

Spokesman McClellan-3-10-04 “Bush sets no time limit for testimony.”



54.Larry King Live 2-15-00 Bush says Gay Marriage is a state issue.

2-24-04-Bush “Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, an amendment to our constitution defining andprot4cting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.”

55. 3-6-03 Bush vows to have a UN vote no matter what 3-18-03-Wash Post-“Bush withdraws request for UN vote.”

56. Columbia Journalism Review—Bush vetoed Patients Bill Of Rights as Governor but boasted how he got it passed. Now, flip flop to double straddle. He touted the Texas law as super duper.

When a challenge to the Texas Law went before Supreme Court Bush joined with two HMO’s in opposing the law. Could it be because the HMO’s are Pioneers in his campaign. Doesn’t this man have any honor or integrity?



57.Remove troops from Korea. A proposal by Cheney. Bush on 3-13-02 “There is no question we have obligations around the world, which we will keep. There is a major obligation for the 37,000 troops in South Korea. It is an obligation that is an important obligation. I know it is important and we will keep that obligation.

US Newswire-8-19-04.



58. Speech in Michigan 8-16-04—“We have got to use our resources wisely, like water

It starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes Basin.. My position is clear : we are never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water.”

Per Associated Press in July 2001 Bush said “I want to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien about piping Great Lakes water to the west and southwest. A lot of people don’t need the water, but when you head South and West, we do need it.”

AP 7-19-01—White House release 7-17-01 “remarks by the President in Roundtable interview with Foreign Press.



59. Cheney in Elko, Nevada 8-14-04 “Kerry recommended sensitivity for terrorists. No war was ever won by sensitivity”. Interview with Hugh Hewitt—8-12-04—“From the standpoint of the shrine (Najah), obviously it is a sensitive area, and we are very much aware of it’s sensitivity.” The Daily Howler-8-17-04

60. NYTimes-8-31-04---

April 13,2004—“Can you ever win the war on terror? Of course you can.”

July 19,2004----“I have a clear vision and a strategy to win the war on terror.”

August 30,2004—“I don’t think you can win the war on terror”

“I say what I Mean and Mean what I say”

“When I make up my mind it stays made up.”

IS THIS PERSON SANE?

61. March 5,2000—on CBS Face the Nation—Independent group attacking his opponent John McCain---Bush said: ‘That is what freedom of speech is all about. People have the right to do what they want to do, under the-under the First Amendment in America.



August 23,2004 Bush said: “the practice of independent groups to run smear ads is bad for the system. They should be banned.”

From Media Matters 8-27-04 TRUST ME—I SAY WHAT I MEAN AND MEAN WHAT I SAY sho nuff



62.BIGGIE WAFFLE—8-28-04 Interview Bush said “I don’t think we can win it (war on error) but I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world-let’s put it that way.” Bush said innumerable times “we will win the war on terror”. Many times. www.permalink 8-31-04

Does this person understand anything he says?

63. What a Jerk! Signs Bill today (3-21-05) which stops removal of Life Support for 41 year old lady. Yet, Signed law in Texas to allow removal of Life-Support due to big hospital costs.

Clarence Swinney-political historian-burlington nc www.cwswinney@netzero.net



Super List—172 Waffles—www.compassiongate.com











Some D Dude - 2/24/2005 "do not for a moment believe Al Gore would have crashed the economy by slashing taxes on the rich (which is the real cause of the deficit, not spending). Nor do I believe he would have reversed environmental protections, supported pseudo-science, proposed a Constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage..."



Is this for real? Did Terry McAuliffe write this?



The econ is crashed? Try reading a newspaper. You're clueless. As for the deficit, IT'S THE FIFTH HIGHEST, not the highest. So please don't lie when making a point. And the tax cuts only shave off about 5% or less of what the govt. will take in over 10 years. Hardly a cause for concern, eh? Also, what about when you pay more in taxes you get more of a cut don't you understand?



What enviro protections have been rolled back? Go read Gregg Easterbrook of The New Republic. He intensely disagrees.



Gay Marriage Amendment. Sorry, but Bill Clinton ended the gay marriage dream when he signed the Def. of Marriage Act.



Pseudo-science? Like what? Is Bush practicing Alchemy or something? Perhaps physiognomy? Just wondering.

Some D Dude - 2/24/2005 "What the hell explains these attitudes, which look so ridiculous in retrospect? I wish I knew. One thing I can say: I am confident that this poll of historians will look asinine in turn within 20 years."



Dude, the poll is bogus. No reputable HISTORIAN would give his thoughts on how the PRESENT will be interpreted by FUTURE generations.



Also, this is all the feckless Left has left: just lie about anything the right does, then when the right questions/attacks back, the Left holds up their collective nose and merely responds: Just what we thought. You're too stupid to understand.

Steve Herman - 12/3/2004 It is extremely difficult to understand how a person with the intellect, abilities, character, and personal history of George W. Bush is today President.



This is pure conjecture, but I think a meeting or meetings were held back in 1992-93 after Clinton took office to lay out the strategy to gain control once and for all and under any and all circumstances.



The original plan was to run Jeb Bush in 2000. George W. was then considered an after-thought, back-up plan, or something along those lines. Back in 1992-93, both were politically neophytes, never having run for any office of any type and with a total of 0 years in public service between them. Strangely, however, or perhaps not so strangely, both decided to make thier first bid for elective office in this time-span.



Jeb does seem to have some intellectual abilities, some charisma, and is generall quite well-spoken. It is quite easy to see how those wanting to take over permanent control of the government could see that by getting Jeb elected twice governor of some state (generally considered the minimum criteria necessary for a credible candidate) and with his natural name recognition, he would serve quite nicely to do their bidding.



However something happened. Jeb lost in his first race for governor of Florida. The back-up, George W. won his race as governor or Texas. Jeb won the next race, and George W. was reelected. Coming into 2000, GW, their back-up, was the only option that met the minimal criteria to be viewed as a credible candidate for the Presidency.



It should be understood that their was no actual Republican Presidential primary in 2000. GW was given at least 20 million well before the Iowa caucuses. Whatever happened in Iowa and New Hampshire, no candidate could possible compete against GW and his money in the sudden onset of primaries across a vast swath of states in what is known as Super Tuesday. The money made GW a lock before the primaries ever began, money that had never previously accrued to a candidate until after he had proven his electoral viabilty as a presidential candidate.



Securing the sanitization of his military records and whatever other records that may have existed, careful handling and coaching of the candidate, the use of sophisticated tactics greatly refined in the last election, and surviving a scare when some records did come to light, those wishing to take permanent control over the government have now succeeded in twice electing a person who is essentially an unknown mediocrity to the highest office in the land.



What does this mean? It means that those who initiated this strategy have taken over permanent control of the US government.

Steve Herman - 12/3/2004 Bush appears to me to be someone who was essentially picked by moneyed interests to do their bidding. Unless someone comes into the office with convictions and goals, maticulously tailoring his life and presence toward one day attaining the highest office and working toward achieving them, I do not see how that person can be evaluated in the historical sense.



Bush is simply a person who's led a mediocre, mostly private, priveleged life, and is and will continue to be a mediocre president.

david james bobalik - 11/5/2004 After reading many of your posts on George W. Bush I would like to state a view things I found troublin