Bush has done virtually every single thing all the other presidents listed have done and then some:  started an unnecessary and unprovoked war; allowed rampant corruption; protected big business at the expense of labor; cut taxes in a war economy; allowed ravishing of the public treasury by rapacious contractors; failed to mount an aggressive response to the most costly natural disaster in our history; misused and strained the resources and capacity of the most powerful military in the history of the world; created huge debt for us and our progeny; promoted borrowing from foreign banks, thus eroding the independence of our economy; marginalized and excluded the opposition party; promoted ideology and dogmatism in the place of realism and balance; curbed, reduced, or eliminated the protections afforded by our Constitution and the Bill of Rights; and established a nasty partisan tone in Washington that equates lawful dissent with treasonous intent and promotes a culture of intimidation through ad hominem attack.  He has at his disposal more resources of information and intelligence than any leader in history and shows an astonishing incuriosity and willful refusal to consider any but his own narrow, uninformed, and partisan viewpoint. 

It is my considered opinion that Bush just sucks as President.

The Average Polk rating is at about 10.  That's right, he's ususally placed in the top 10.  Nixon is only 32.  Madison is also frequently put in the top 15 (he frequently breaks top 10). 

http://en.wikipedia....

Check it out here.  These writers should've done a bit more research for these articles.

At least two of the writers are history professors and as such, may look at history a little differently than most.

For example, Madison is highly regarded overall for all his accomplishments, but his leadership as president isn't considered great - at least by the author.  It's hard to argue that the only president who was responsible for getting white house burned down was a good president (i.e. he shouldn't have picked a fight with the far superior British).

It says that those "averages" are averages over the past 10 years.  Many different polls added together.  I trust the "averaged polls", which included the opinions of 100s of historians, over one or two guys in the WaPO (which I am quickly losing faith in).

I believe Historians grade Presidents differently then we who live thru them do. I was born in 36 under FDR, but lived an adult life with the rest of them.
Truman was okay except for his arragance with the military in the Korean War.
Ike was the Interstate system, but he left the country to others to run. He was more interested in getting a tree named after him at Augusta.
JFK was on the verge of become one of the greatest of them all, till his life was cut short.
LBJ had good and bad moments, but left Vietnam get out of hand.
Nixon what can anyone say about insanity of power.
Ford got along with everyone and got thru it with out much tarnish. Except his wild golf swing, that seemed to find spectators.
Carter was one of the great ones, but was in office at the wrong time. He had great vision, but could not get others to follow him. Most of that was from the hard feelings over Nixon's impeachment
Reagon has gotten far too much credit for ending the cold war. He just happened to be in power when it collapsed from the policies JFK started and other presidents continued. I personally dislike him for his war on the unions and the collapse of our steel industry.
GHWB gets credit for being able to unite the world in Desert Storm, but gets a bad grade for not figuring out a better way to end it. Promoting an over throw and getting all those people killed because of false hope, put him in a bad light.
Clinton was really one of the good ones with a lot of credit. Bad for giving away too much to big business so he could stay in power.
GHB goes down as the worst of the worst. The failures are too long to list. One President who never should have gotten into the White House. The "How's your Boy" statement says it all. Lack of any dignity.

37. A. Johnson
38. W. Bush
39. Nixon
40. Jackson
41. Buchanan

Now I totally disagree with McKinley being among the worst. He resisted going to war with Spain while the nation and war hawks like Teddy Roosevelt wanted it. It wasn't until an investigation concluded that a mine blew up the Maine in Havana harbor that he finally gave in. Remember, McKinley was a Civil War vet and knew the horrors of war first-hand. He DID NOT start or provoke the Spanish-American War!

Hoover was a poor president but not an immoral or destructive one. It was his inability to see the best course of action which hurt his presidency to help resolve the Depression. Although he's still in my Bottom 10. Buchanan is the worst for essentially letting the Civil War happen.

The Mexican Army invaded the US in 1846 so as to provoke the US into war.

The US promptly kicked their ass.

Polk was not "unprovoked".

Eric, you are being silly.

sorry

Really you are not worthy of a comment, but I will anyway. You probably should trun off Fox and listen to CNN and MSNBC. That is all they are talking about. George the worst President??? Although most say it is too early to tell, but as of now they say the answer is YES. And the last I listened to was Scarborough and Pat Buchanan, Republicans
And if you knew anything about the terrorist and attacks on the US, you would know that it usually takes them 5 to 7 years to plan and finance such attacks. So your estimate is close when you say in the next 2 years. It may happen on the Demo watch but I bet we do not blame it on the Repub's last 8 years of miss management.

salstanford writes:

"...have you had any terrorist attacks in your neck of the woods?  No, you haven't."

*Yes, we did have*; forgot 9/11 so soon? Shame on you.

Bush had been warned about that one more than a month ahead of time. And what did he do? Diddly squat, beyond saying "you've covered your ass now". But he dragged us into a war of choice (his, not ours) on the basis of that same attack just by "editing" intelligence. If that's good leadership, then I'd rather have bad one, any day.

"I think most democrats have lost their sense of rationality and can only see the President or any other Republican"

If I were to interpret your sentence *as written* (perhaps you need some writing lessons from Webb?), I'd have to answer: "no, we don't. We see Pelosi, and Leahy, and Conyers, and Waxman... And yes, Webb too". And the 'pubs are gonna see a lot of them also, come January

"There WILL be an attack in the next two years and Republicans will loudly and often blame the dems."

No doubt about that; it's the only thing they know how to do  with any degree of efficiency. They seem to suffer from the reverse of Midas Touch -- everything they touch turns to dross.

You're so full of hate its ridiculous...the fact that you revel in the fact that democrats will be in control while we're attacked, is somewhat deranged.  And if you hadn't noticed, Democrats control Congress, not the Department of Homeland Security, or the Department of Transportation, or the Department of Defense.  All of those things are run by the executive branch.  So I do believe that Mr. Bush is still in charge of protecting us for two more years, not the Democratic Congress.

The damage done to American interests and to the American tradition of both democratic (small d)government and restrained executive power by Bush II is almost beyond calculation. When it comes to the hyped-up terrorism theme employed by a panicky George W and Republicans, please remember that, after the FIRST bombing of the World Trade Center under President Clinton we had NO further terror attacks on American soil for many, many years... not in fact until the reign of George W, who, records now show, dismissed everything Clinton did as a matter of course, and ignored his predecessor's warnings about terrorism until another attack did occur on his watch, not Clinton's.

The American President is neither King nor Pope, and slavish kowtowing is not required, despite endless efforts by the Bush coterie to require it. Wrong decisions, incompetent exection of poorly prepared endeavors, an apparent inability to think more than one move ahead cannot be excused by waving the Fear Flag of terrorism. All, repeat all successful capture and punishment of actual proven terrorists has resulted not from wrongful military action and use of excessive force, but from plain, pure, intelligence-based police work. Bush's War on Terrorism is a sham and a scam.

I repeat: A Great Leader does not take a free people to war by telling them to be afraid.

This monumental incompetence and unerringly stupid responses to problems, this poor risk management and elitist arrogance of power, this tin ear for history are what make George W, if not the most disastrous of our Presidents, then certainly a competitor for the bottom rung of the ladder. Only the passage of time will decide what the Consequences of this Truth are for America as the consequences play out in future history. 

The difference between a real leader and Bush?

FDR -- "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself"

Bush -- subtract out all the nonsensical verbiage and what you get is "Be afraid.  Be very afraid."  Pathetic.

Obviously, I was takling about an attack AFTER 9/11, on W's watch.  What are you, fourteen?

As for Bush doing nothing to prevent the attack, you dems keep saying that but never say exactly what it was he could have done or what your party could have done.

And yes, it takes years for bin Laden to plan an attack but, uh, what's to say he couldn't have had one in the planning stage, or starting planning a new one after 9/11?  He would have loved to make George Bush look like a fool and we won't know until W writes his memoirs exactly what attacks have been prevented in the last 6 years.

I'm thrilled to see the dems take over Congress and especially with SanFranNan in charge.  They can't unite long enough manage a kindergarten field trip so yes, it wil be fun to watch them.  They will guarantee an '08 victory for the GOP.

All the dumbocrat "leaders" keep screaming about "the unjust war" (is any war just?), "Bush's war", etc....have you forgotten how they voted to go to war?  At what point did they change their minds?  At what point did the war become a bad war?

I didn't come on this board to start an argument.  I saw that it was a strong, almost totally democratic board with a lot of strong feelings.  Obviously, I'm a republican and I came on to try to understand how you arrive at some of your conclusions and why you personalize every disagreement you have with the Administration. 

I didn't "hate" Clinton, more like I thought he was an immoral alley cat and gave the Presidency a bad name with his prejury, impeachment and his zipper.

I'm trying to understand the depth of your hate for Bush.  I just don't get it.  Why can't you disagree with him without getting stupid about it?

I've heard it said democrats are like lemmings and will follow their group right off the cliff.  I hope not.

and I welcome your comments, despite the rather juvenile name-calling (SanFranNan--- straight out of junior high). However, I did not leave the GOP so much as it left me in the middle when it lurched off over a cliff to the far right, and once I saw Bush II in action it was clear to me this was not the party my ancestors had founded before the Civil War, and supported and nurtured through McKinley, Teddy R, and Eisenhower.

Do I believe the Democrats are perfect? Of course not, but they at this stage of history far far better than the Republicans in terms of political philosophy and vision. Name-calling and endless personal attacks on Clinton (who, by the way, was never as scandalous as, say, Harding) are as pointless as hating Bush--- I do not hate poor George W, I despise him, and consider that his unfortunate personal psychology writ large in his Administration is ruining this country.

You and I have an honest disagreement here, but, frankly, the authoritarian  unitary executive concept being pushed by the Bushites is NOT an American concept and no amount of cross-purpose discussion is going to change that. Dislike Democrats if you wish, but, as a former Republican, I urge you to reconsider your total commitment to the Bush philosophy and the Bush agenda.

Actually it was a diehard democrat who gave me SanFranNan...but you're right.  It is silly and I shouldn't have used it.

I guess it's because I'm older that I'm a conservative.  I want to return to the days when you could put up Christmas decorations and not be sued by your neighbors, and fires weren't automatically assumed to be arson.  I don't want children having babies because they simply "want someone to love and depend on them" and then assume others will take care of it.

I don't think Christianity should be eliminated but other religions such as Islam or Judaism are allowed and I want to see more kids go to college than don't. 

I guess there values are what I see in the Republican party.  I don't see it as authoritarian at all.  Would you mind telling me specifically how the GOP left you?  No, they're not the party of past decades but is the democratic party?  To me, the democrats stand for an anything goes attitude and I don't necessarily call that progress. The ideas of the democrats doesn't seem to take into account the consquences of their actions, for instance, gay marriage. And my best friend is gay so don't call me a homophobe.

What principles of the democrats do you admire most and what vision and political philosophy caused you to join them?  I'd also like to hear why you think W's personal philosophy (are you talking about being a Christian?) has affected what you consider to be his failed presidencies.  I think history will judge him far more favorably than his current critics.

My committment to George W. Bush is not total by a long shot but I do admire that he has owned up to the mistakes he has made.  I don't like his stubborness or his tunnel vision...but to paraphrase you...I think he and the GOP are better than any democrat I've seen such as Hillary or Nancy Pelosi, Reid, Biden, etc., etc.  They don't represent my values.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to switch parties any more than you are and I appreciate your comments and would really like to hear more.

By the way, what's the difference in "hate" and "despise?"