He'll be called the worst after we finish adding up the damage...



"Lincoln and Washington were rated as the best
By Kenneth T. Walsh

Posted February 17, 2009

President George W. Bush is near the bottom of the heap in the latest survey of historians on presidential leadership.

Bush received an overall ranking of 36 out of 42 former presidents—in the bottom 10.


Ronald Reagan was rated 10th best, up from 11th in a similar survey taken in 2000; Bill Clinton was rated 15, up from 21 in 2000. George H.W. Bush went to 18 from 20.

The five best presidents, according to the historians, were Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, and Harry Truman, in that order. Rounding out the top 10 were John F. Kennedy at six, Thomas Jefferson, Dwight Eisenhower, Woodrow Wilson, and Reagan.

The worst presidents, according to the survey, were James Buchanan at 42, Andrew Johnson at 41, Franklin Pierce, William Henry Harrison, Warren Harding, Millard Fillmore, George W. Bush, John Tyler, Herbert Hoover, and Rutherford B. Hayes.

The survey was conducted for C-SPAN, the cable network, among 65 presidential historians and scholars, who ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on 10 attributes of leadership: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, "vision/setting an agenda," "pursued equal justice for all," and "performance within the context of his times."

Supervising the survey were historians Douglas Brinkley of Rice University, Edna Medford of Howard University, and Richard Norton Smith of George Mason University.

"How we rank our presidents is, to a large extent, influenced by our own times," Medford said in a news release. "Today's concerns shape our views of the past, be it in the area of foreign policy, managing the economy, or human rights. . . . Lincoln continues to rank at the top in all categories because he is perceived to embody the nation's core values: integrity, moderation, persistence in the pursuit of honorable goals, respect for human rights, compassion; those who collect near the bottom are perceived as having failed to uphold those values."

Among the historians and political scientists who participated in the ratings were H. W. Brands, Thomas Cronin, Robert Dallek, Alvin Felzenberg, Fred Greenstein, and James McPherson.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/history/2009/02/17/historians-rank-george-w-bush-among-worst-presidents.html

so funny, I just posted a thread about such 'rankings'. So much information about presidential 'report cards' out there.

I dont know if he was the worst(Bush), I have stopped caring so much about those types of labels,, but I am glad he is no longer there.

Nobody cares about George bush anymore except you.He's gone.Get over it and move on.

But, but, but....he's still walking around free.

it's all subjective and opinions. Who I think was the best president, someone else might think they were the worst and vice versa....opinions, everyone has one

I knew Harding would make the list.

brilliant minds do think alike,,lol,,,just joking

I do totally agree though.

Where was that draft dodging, fellating, philandering, William Jefferson Clinton?

some reason i don't see getting out of an unjust war dishonerable...seems you want to see people die. even bush had sense to get his daddy to prevent him from going.
my top list would be coolidge

How is that even news? I suck at current events and politics, and I could have told you that...

He'll be the worst 100 years from now too

fortunately , or unfortunately, those things have as little to do with the job of presidency as they would the job of a CEO. When was the last time you had a job review where you were asked if you cheated on your wife, had oral sex, or served in a war?

And the fact we were left with a SURPLUS under his leadership, probably excludes him from being anywhere NEAR the worst of the worst in all the 200 years of America.

If there was an applause emoticon, I'd be soo using it right now.

It kills me. Clinton gets the credit for a projected surplus yet congress was a republican majority.

103rd Congress (1993-1995)

Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (43 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100



104th Congress (1995-1997)

Majority Party: Republican (52 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100


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

105th Congress (1997-1999)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

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

106th Congress (1999-2001)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

There was also the Rolling Stone article...

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history

Bush or Harding - it's pretty close...but Rubin and Greenspan
just might have put him over the top!

He'll be called the worst after we finish adding up the damage...

Again that is subjective to who you ask. Some may not see it as damage. Who knows.

Also, since it is an opinion, not everyone will call him the worst.

Told you all, Harding was damn close to being the worst.

How is Hoover not the top of the worst list?

Likewise, who gets the blame when we go into deficit,,,,the buck stops at the white house. Otherwise, democratic presidents could only recieve credit if the congress had democratic majority and republican presidents only if congress had republican majority. In truth, once President is elected, regardless of the political majority, there is an expectation that progress be made. If it is, he usuallly gets some credit and if it isnt he usually gets some blame