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”.
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.