Posted on 11/06/2008 4:21:15 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
(CNN) -- With record low approval ratings and intense criticism for his handling of the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina and the economy, the word most used to label George W. Bush's presidency will be "incompetent," historians say.
"Right now there is not a lot of goodwill among historians. Most see him as a combination of many negative factors," said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School.
"He is seen as incompetent in terms of how he handled domestic and foreign policy. He is seen as pushing for an agenda to the right of the nation and doing so through executive power that ignored the popular will," he added.
But like so many presidents before him, Bush's reputation could change with time.
Harvard University political history scholar Barbara Kellerman said when President-elect Barack Obama takes over in January, people may view Bush in a new light.
"I think it's possible when people have stopped being as angry at the Bush administration as they are now ... that they will realize that some of this is just ... the luck of the draw."
Kellerman, author of the book "Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters," noted that Bush has not had luck on his side for the past eight years.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
A little early for evaluations, IMO.
Oh, really, ya think?
Our objective media, rubbing the salt in.
Any real historian wouldn’t be talking about Bush while he was still in office. History isn’t the “now” it is the past!!
Those that do aren’t historians!!
(Where are the names of these “historians”?)
When Obama finishes destroying the country, they will still blame Bush.
All I know for sure is this...show of hands...who thought we were ABSOLUTELY going to get hit again? If you didn’t raise your hand, you’re lying like a Democrat.
I rest my case for telling Bush critics to STFU.
That’s great to hear Zeliza bash Bush. After all, he is a Prof at the WOODROW WILSON school. I guess it takes one to know one...
The Clinton's never upped USA security after the 1993 hit ON AMERICAN SOIL (not one little bit)...embolding the terrorists!!
No terrorists attacks on US since 9-11.
Recovered from the recession inherited from Bubba.
Two emerging democracies in the middle east.
Missile defense deployed.
I guess none of those things were on the “historians” lists.
So true. Just as soon as they realize Barack Obama cannot be picked up by the "clean end".
Too early for evaluation!
President Bush was handed an economic recession from the Clinton years and then 9/11 which was a disasterous blow to an economy already in recession. Those NASDQ losses were in the 98-99 years.
The rest, the constant battering from the left and the media which was unconscionable will go down in history as a hideous example of out-of-control partisanship.
The “stolen” election which wasn’t, Katrina and the democrat Governor who had everything at her disposal on her command as governor and didn’t use it because she froze, and everything else incompetent in LA isn’t mentioned, I see.
Also not mentioned is the demise of a sacred tradition that politics stops at the water’s edge.
The democrats in Congress, Former President Bill Clinton, and others used the media in foreign countries to bash Bush to politicize their cause for the future.
President Bush’s presidency was unlucky. Everything that could have happened, did.
The current economic problems have their origins in the Clinton admin, although this admin helped it along.
I am glad he was there. He’ll be written as a good president, not great, but good for the times.
*In about 200 years....
|
Republicans and Conservatives might ask themselves, why didn't Bush defend himself against the scrupulous unjustified attacks? Good question. Bad results for Republicans.
Such high praise. They said worse about Reagan.
Current "historians" are little different from journalists. It isn't "history" until enough time has gone by to assess it in context of what went before and what came afterward. Chou En Lai once made a remark about the French Revolution's importance - "It's too early to tell."
Nevertheless, we have a steady line of Bush haters, even here on FR, triumphantly trumpeting the risible illusion that they've had the last word. The presumption is amusing. In time the idiocy will be as well.
You’re spot on. Some of Bush’s problems were self-inflicted, some was just bad luck, but most was a media hit-job that started the day he took office.
It’s impossible to tell how he’ll be viewed in 50 or 60 years, but one thing is certain; The hit-job will continue full-steam-ahead for the next 4 years or longer. Bush will be blamed for everything that goes wrong in Barry’s New Amerika. It is going to be very painful to watch.
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.