61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst

History News Network ^ | 4/1/08 | Robert S. McElvaine

[steve-b]

...In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.

Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation's history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations....

[jdm]

What a crock of shit.

[andy58-in-nh]

92% of “Professional Historians” couldn’t hold down a job at Dairy Queen.

[Moonman62]

I would put him in the bottom five, but not worse than Carter.

[ladtx]

They maybe historians but in no way are they professional.

[dashing doofus]

Reagan was considered a failure by the press and academics too. Years later, their opinions changed.

Hard to see how Bush is worse than Jimmy Carter.

[Bernard Marx]

The survey assumes that people give a damn what ivory tower historians believe. They’ve systematically censored/distorted/ignored the history of Communist espionage in the U.S. so why should they be believed about anything?

[RightWhale]

109 professional historians

Not to be confused with historians.

[kbennkc]

This means 39% of historians will never attain tenure .

[andy58-in-nh]

I’m assuming these are academic historians rather then the sort who actually need to produce marketable books and articles.

[dead]

It's an "informal poll" of the 103 readers of the George Mason University liberal history website.

It would be the equivalent of asking this website to rank Bill Clinton's presidency.

Predictable, unscientific, and worthless. I'm sure Olberman will lead with it tonight. Maybe even Couric.

[dead]

Reagan was considered a failure by the press and academics too. Years later, their opinions changed.

Actually, I doubt many of them changed their opinions. The facts just made them look like idiots.

[Resolute Conservative]

I rank GW in the top 1/3. He squandered away any higher rank with his border policy ( or lack thereof ) and weak domestic agenda.

[SoldierDad]

Bunch of Ivory Tower mental midgets giving their 2 cents worth of opinion. I’d like to see any one of them actually have a real job.

[dead]

I’m assuming these are academic historians rather then the sort who actually need to produce marketable books and articles.

The only qualification for the 109 "professional historians" was that they send them their name and school affiliation. Then the second requirement was waived for "independent historians."

Basically, if "Heywood Jablomi of Jojo Gumshow Academy of Puppies" submitted his opinion, it was counted.

[Cecily]

Any historian who thinks this presidency is the worst in American history doesn’t know American history.

[andy58-in-nh]

LOL. I think I did my senior thesis for him.

[Niteranger68]

Well, consider the source.

[Pontiac]

Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents

I don’t think the author of this story has much of a grasp on history (or math).

G. W. Bush is the 43 rd President so that would mean there are 42 other presidents.

[Tallguy]

Reagan was considered a failure by the press and academics too. Years later, their opinions changed.

Nah! The 'professionals' still hate Reagan today as much, or more than they did when he left office. The reason is frustration on their part over his increasing popularity with the masses.