Posted on 04/14/2008 12:04:11 PM PDT by meandog
President Bush often argues that history will vindicate him. So he can't be pleased with an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted by the History News Network. It found that 98 percent of them believe that Bush's presidency has been a failure, while only about 2 percent see it as a success. Not only that, more than 61 percent of the historians say the current presidency is the worst in American history. In 2004, only 11.6 percent of the historians rated Bush's presidency in last place. Among the reasons given for his low ratings: invading Iraq, "tax breaks for the rich," and alienating many nations around the world. Bush supporters counter that professional historians today tend to be liberal and that it's too early to assess how his policies will turn out.
“109 professional historians...”
Or more precisely, 109 liberal Democratic professors.
He does?
These "109 professional historians" are going to be dead when history actually judges Pres. Bush, so no one cares what they think.
I’ll wait for the results of the Straight Historians.
So historians are basing their opinion on policies/wars that Bush has put forth that no doubt will take years to play out.
In other words, their basing their opinion on future prediction.
Historians liberal? Oh say it ain't so... now why would people whose livelihood depend on tax dollars in some way shape or form be liberal? snicker I'll bet they didn't like Reagan during that last months of his presidency either.
“Not only that, more than 61 percent of the historians say the current presidency is the worst in American history.”
There is a repeated, provable cause and effect at play here.
Every time an article comes out claiming this for Bush II,
Jimmy Carter hurries to make a prominent gesture to reclaim the lead.
So...these would be the historians who don’t know what “history” actually means?
Had he stuck to conservative principles, Bush might have been as great as Ronald Reagan. But, when he decided instead to embrace the pseudo-con agenda, he ensured that his legacy would lie somewhere between Jimmy Carter's and Warren G. Harding's.
Sigh. Perhaps I’ll go back to reading the history textbook my grandmother gave me. It talks about “Porto Rico.”
Amen! I put no faith in these ‘polls’ or the stories about them whatsoever! Even IF they are reporting exactly what the respondents said they’re talking to people who get their information from the MSM and buy it hook, line and sinker. Or worse still, they get their info from MTV and Saturday Night Live.
It will take a decade or two for the smoke to clear and for anyone to take a look at the record without a jaundiced eye.
“more than 61 percent of the historians say the current presidency is the worst in American history.”
No bias there. He couldn’t be the worst; there is always Jimma Carter.
Precisely. I’d love for the them to state, item by item, how this Presidency is worse than the disaster that was Jimmy Carter’s four year tenancy in Washington.
Their only answer would be that “W” has an “R” after his name.
This infuriates me.Pres. Bush liberated 50 million people.The tax cuts were for all of us and kept the economy chugging despite 9/11.Since we invaded Iraq, the West has been electing more conservative,pro-American leaders.We have not had another attack on our shores which everyone predicted would happen.Bush tried heroically to fix Social Security and was stopped by the Dems.
The person who comes in last should be the one who did nothing to protect America from the ever escalating attacks that led to 9-11 and was impeached for lying under oath.
Pres.Bush is correct;when the real history is written, when the Middle East is finally a moderate place because of his efforts, he will be vindicated.
I will go with Tony Blair’s assessment;”The world was fortunate to have George Bush at this time in history.”
Ah yes, presidential historians... their judgments on the smashing success of Bubba’s presidency doesn’t seem to be wearing that well with time. Why should anyone pay any attention to ivory tower pronouncements now?
Read some of the statements written about Lincoln during his Presidency. Leaves me very wary about opinions current historians have about President Bush. I remember from my undergraduate history classes. You cannot judge current events that have not become history. It takes time to see events in their historical context. Now all these contemporay historians know that so their opinions really don’t matter.
In the words of Robert the Bruce, “History is often written by those who would hang heroes”.
But better than Alley Cat Clinton
Ward, are you being hard on the beaver again?
1. Kept America in a war for years.
2. Gave the taxpayers a break by using tariffs to finance the government.
3. Warned the nation against foreign entanglements, whether the foreigners liked us or not.
Guess they think that other George was a failure, too.
I tell you the Liberal Dems are coming undone ~ nearly in a state of total collapse.
It's this Hildabeast/Obamasama thing isn't it!
???
Herbert Hoover???
Ronald Reagan???
Millard Fillmore???
What were the other 39% or so thinking? Were they sleeping through the past 7 years of political cronyism, government sponsored torture, war, jobs depression, and stock market stagnation?
Rick Shenkman the editor has a history degree from Vassar.
Thereby proving that 98% of professional historians are also professional liberals.
As if we had any doubt...
Corrected:
So he doesn't give a rat's ass about an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted by the History News Network
“Not only that, more than 61 percent of the historians say the current presidency is the worst in American history.”
Apparently, all of them were born after 1980.
Well I think history will smile on Bush. I will miss him.
stock market stagnation? What the hell is that? Is that when it neither goes up or down? Did you go to school with these delusional history professors... or are you bitter from PA?
Sorry to hear that the last seven years have been so tough on you, MM.
Bet you had a tough time in the eighties, too...
Historians are supposed to BE impartial, not SAY they're impartial, not be left wingnuts.
Show me the specific list of names and their professional affiliations and personal political contributions. That would shed some much needed honesty on this issue.
...with a consensus that mankind causes climate change...
Two of the three reasons are canards cribbed from the DNC. Citing “Invading of Iraq” begs the question. If in the future that proves to have been a mistake Bush will look bad if not he will look good.
The failure to mention protecting Americans from another 9-11 as a significant positive achievement, even if you disagree with everything else about the President, is a clear bias.
A president that was a complete failure does not get reelected, also.
Most of the current crop of historians grew up during the sixties and are marxists. The next generation will be a bit less devoted to karl.
Which is why I exited my hoped-for-career as a Professor of History.
Woodrow Wilson was the worst, no one else is close . He gave us the Federal Reserve and, after being re-elected on a “He kept us out of war” platform, got the U.S. into WWI . A war we had no stake in yet cost us 210,000 American lives .
61 percent of historians think ...
An unpopular war with 5,000 deaths is worse than a civil war with 6 to 700,000 deaths - any real historian would rank James Buchanan below George W. Bush.
5.1 percent unemployment is worse than 36 percent undemployment during the Great Depression - any real historian would rank Herbert Hoover below George W. Bush.
Having an aide to the Vice President convicted for misleading a grand jury about a matter that did not involve an underlying crime is worse than being forced to resign from office for covering-up a break-in on the opporing political party’s headquarters - any real historian would rank Richard M. Nixon below George W. Bush.
The fact that the majority of a survey of so-called professional historians ranked G.W. Bush last proves that they’re (A) ignorant of history, (B) emotionally disturbed, and/or (C) tenured professors.
Notice they left out illegal immigration.
I never heard him say it. His supporters do. It's ironic proof of the elitism of the left that the fact that the president himself has a degree in history. Yes folks, the president is an historian.
These ba4tards said the same thing about Ronald Reagan. See how well that turned out.
“Professional historians.” That’s funny. I don’t care who you are. The state of “history” in this country is a liberal joke. The garbage found in the “history books” that are being used at our Federal indoctrination centers is nothing but sick, liberal fiction. History books these days are nothing more than the mindless ramblings of hate-filled, anti-American liberals.
I agree. I think history will vindicate him, just as it did Harry Truman.
They did state why: they’re Saddmite code pinkos, they bought the Democrat propaganda of the Bush tax cuts being only for the rich (like they’re poor?) and lacking a “consensus” for getting rid of a terrorist kingpin that his father lacked the personal fortitude to get rid of in 1998. They probably think Jimmah Cahtah has “gravitas”.
for once I find myself almost agreeing with you— he’s the second worst President this century.
Without those definitions, this article is just so much hot air!
He made/gave the RINO positions the majotity leverage in the republican party..
He made what was covert for a decade obvious among republicans..
BIG gov't republicans with a desire to make 30 million brand new democrats citizens..
Illegal aliens WILL BE voteing democrats 90 percent..
Actually many vote even NOT being citizens. already..
Bush and sycophants made a John McLaim Presidency possible..
Judgeing from the Bush Administration a McLaim presidency would be WORSE than Obama or Hillary.. Because of the VIOLENCE done to the republican party.. long term..
Bush will BECOME a hero of the democrat party, eventually..
How else could they base a future prediction?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.