Bush is the worst. The Republicans are lost. What else is new?

How soon people forget Jimmy Carter,

You know, I used to get upset.

But this is really just pathetic.

I guess the coin flip came up "dunce" today.

Will we be back to "evil criminal mastermind" tomorrow?

Uh. I have to echo smitty. Jimmy Carter. Hellooo?

This is probably the type of thing that should be judged 10-20 years from now; I'm sure it'll sell them a bunch of magazines though.

Also, any president undergoing the kind of political resistance he has (every.single.step.of.the.way.) would probably be a failure, so I don't know if it's necessarily a good barometer for his policies or potential effectiveness.

"Worst president ever"?

What a freakin' joke.

Even without Jimmy Carter on the list, there are other easy targets that are being passed over in favor of the current pinata of the left, W.

Herbert Hoover was pretty piss-poor at his job, with his attempts to stop the Depression actually making things worse.

LBJ saddled the country with a war that went on for another 7 years after he was gone as well as the Great Society programs helping plunge our economy into the toilet.

James Buchanan basically fiddled while Rome was burning, helping make the divides between the North and South worse, which caused the Civil War once Lincoln won the 1860 election because the South knew he'd actually get off of his ass and push for changes.

That's three easy historical choices that will be ignored just so they can continue the "dummy in the White House" argument.

Considering the LAST guy to get that treatment was Reagan, who is now unquestionably one of the best presidents ever, I'd say the fact they're stooping to this means W is doing a lot of things right.

With the track record of liberals never being on the right side of history, this can only mean Bush will obviously be thought of as one of the best in history.

I can't believe that anyone who thinks that GW Bush is a good President, must be a bleeding heart Republican, that would openly support any Republican President, who uses a very corporate media to get what he wants. Lying about foreign and domestic security issues, is enough for impeachment, if not crimminal charges, but as long as we continue to drive our Escalades with W04 stickers on them we'll never be able to look ourselves in the mirror and say, "We the people" because we the misinformed people created this mental midget! This course we have been led down by Bush is a crash course for disaster. Bring on Hilary in 08, she'll fix it...LOL
We are going through Americas Dark Ages, thank you W.

OK Jimmy Carter number one Bush number two!

I remember this Wilentz guy. He was also blow-harding about how history would remember the Clinton impeachment... as a travesty of justice or some such. He was a witness at the proceedings.

Keith , you like your party you are pathetic and diluded. It didn't take but hearing the vile spewing out of Fraud Kerry's mouth to put an end my having voted democrat for almost 20 years and yes registered. All it took was paying attention followed by countless hours of research and with every passing minute the more disgusted I became with the democrat party and the more relieved I was that they didn't get my vote Nov. 2 2004. You and your incompetant traitorous party can no longer lie without impunity and deceive the Majority. Or are you still in denile of the fact that you "ARE THE MINORITY PARTY IN EVERY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT" AND DESERVINGLY SO. Your a fool and a tool.

So who are these alleged "leading historians?"

Gotta love keith. He falls back on the ol' tired LLL rhetoric complete with the "Escalades with W stickers on 'em" stuff.

Memo to Keith:

Where I live I find that there are PLENTY of Escalades, along with Lexus, Volvo, Mercedes, Acura, and Porsche SUV's and other SUV's of all types sporting the usual LLL bumperstickers including their Kerry/Edwards ones. Of course most are being driven by the rich elitist lawyer/ college professor/media types that live in their little enclaves nearby.

I had to laugh my ass off when I was behind a Jeep Cherokee one morning. It had the LLL favorite "No Blood for Oil" bumpersticker along with a rear window sized CODE PINK sign! What a bunch of hypocrites!!!

So Keith, you might refrain form making the presumptious assumption about who drives what, honey. You just might find out that a good portion of those "evil SUV's" are being driven by hypocritical LLL's just like you.

The left is giving it everything it's got to win back the House for the Dems so they can begin impeachment hearings against Bush.

There's an easy way for the Congressional Republicans to avoid that (and keep their majorities): follow Carl Bernstein's advice and open a real, serious investigation into Bush, complete with subpoenas -- the kind of investigations they opened into Clinton's behavior just about every week.

Right now the main thing that will drive Democratic voters to the polls is that the Republican Congress refuses to do any oversight of Bush (whereas when the Democrats had Congress in 93-94, they did real oversight of Clinton and even forced him to appoint a Special Prosecutor). If the Republicans pre-empt this by investigating Bush themselves, this will take away the main GOTV weapon of the Democrats -- because "moderate" Democrats don't want impeachment, but would be satisfied with real oversight hearings.

Since when did "Rolling Stone" become part of the "MSM?"

Over the years it has become pretty corporate and Wenner maintains it as just a part of his media-publishing empire, but come now: In terms of the "MSM" pantheon of accepted, "go to" outlets, "Rolling Stone" has rarely, if ever been included in such company as "Newsweek," "Time," the "New York Times," or "The Washington Post."

It's history was born of the 60s counterculture, and its left-of-center political writing has consistently been the one remaining vestige of that heritage. And this is probably why it has never been treated by the real "MSM" as a worthy member of their group.

"Rolling Stone" part of the MSM?

Anyone who thinks that way, reveals just how ignorant and out-of-touch he or she is. Or, to put it in other terms, just how "un-hip" he or she is.

But right wingers are rarely if ever "hip." Just like they are rarely if ever in touch with reality in general.

Obviously Wizbang is where at least two almost parallel universes manage to meet at a single node. How else to explain the separate versions of reality that posts present on controversial political topics like this one.

Either that or at least one side is lying or delusional.

Now, lets see, did the original post say RS was part of the MSM, or did it speculate that the MSM would pick up on their cover story and run with it?

I sure hope that Sperm Donor hasn't been smoking something "hip" before either making donations or posting here. Our gene pool and our thread could do with fewer dead-end mutations.

BrandonInBatonRogue: Unquestionably? Seriously?

I love the rousing defense here. No, Carter was worse. No Hoover was worse. At least you are all admitting he is bottom three or four. That is the first step. We will accept your apologies when you are ready to give them. Seriously. When you are ready to move forward as a nation, feel free to send us an apology. An apology for calling us traitors for pointing out the obvious.

As for Carter, at least he wasn't a complete embarrassment every time he opened his mouth. At least he was a real Evangelical Christian with actual christian values, unlike this mean-spirited, dry-drunk frat guy we got now. At least he didn't run up three trillion in debt in five years. At least when faced with rising energy prices, he actually pushed conservation. At least he wasn't a phony silver-spoon New England bred southerner. At least he didn't read My Pet Goat for seven minutes while the nation was being attacked. At least the photo op wasn't his first priority. I certainly don't recall him spending months and months on vacation. Nor do I recall the outrageous cronyism. Nor do I remember Carter being unable to admit obvious mistakes.

Say what you will about Carter, just don't compare him to this petty, shallow, ridiculous man we currently have in office. They aren't even in the same league.

These right wings blogs are amusing. I get a kick out of it, I can't believe you hard rightwingers still take youreselves seriously. This blog is a joke. "Sheehan still too busy to visit sons grave," this is you're headline, pathetic! You right wing extremists are as incompetent as Bush. Good luck, losers.

So, this is where the 32 percenters run for cover. Here you'll find the persistent campaign of mockery towards human conditioning. You'll find and learn to love the pompous, pretentious writings of the diminishing radical rights endless loud bombastic declamation of nefarious preservation. This is indeed a very entertaining lethal polypeptide gene pool where the repressor introns are between the nonallele exons causing flatulence anxiety. It's only fitting that this blog be renamed to WizJape or WizFart.

Harry Truman bottomed out at a 23% approval rating. Just thought you should know.

Daniel gets an A for spelling and a C- for grammar, punctuation and syntax.

Rolling Stone being part of the MSM or not, I was struck by the notion that a magazine would try to push articles on such a wide range of topics as:

Who is the Worst Pres in History (possibly a serious discussion)

and

What is Nick Lachey up to (isn't he Jessica whats-her-name's husband? hardly a serious discussion)

The liberals are salivating over the opportunity to get even for the Congresses impeachment of the worst president ever. Its hard to understand why perjury is preferred to integrity by some, but I'm sure some moonbats will subsequently try to explain it.

Are the 70% of Americans who are sick and tired of this man's incompetent bungling all "liberals"? Maybe reasonable folks are salivating over the prospect of getting this country back on track and out of the hands of the current bunch of power drunk fools who are selling US out corporate greed.

When the dust clears on what's left of this country and the world when this 8 year shitstorm is over, Bush will indeed be viewed as the worst ever; no one else even comes close. Comparisons with Carter are laughable. Doesn't anyone remember his take on our dangerous dependence on oil? Seems he just might have been on to something there. We'd be in a much safer and stronger position today if we listened 30 years ago instead of ridiculing him as weak and ineffective.

Tim, thanks for the info. Harry had his problems with the media, too.

Along those lines, anybody see / hear about the recent Gallup poll that asked people their opinion of the Congress? I think Congress got a 23% (!) "favorable" rating.

Is RS - or any other publication - going to cover that?

Doubt it...

Regarding groucho's remarks (April 19, 2006 08:17 AM), my feeling is that a large number of the 70% are conservatives like me who think that the president has turned into democrat lite: spends like a drunken sailor, soft on border security, a wet noodle on his court nominees, and entirely too "nice" for the country's good.

Seattle Slough,

You're intentionally misconstruing my argument.

The point of it was that the "historians" in question must not have a lot of credibility if they're claiming W is *the* worst president during the middle of his administration while ignoring a couple of guys who were unmitigated disasters.

That's based on the argument made above, which I agree with, that a presidency can't be judged accurately until at least 10-20 years down the line, once the results of policies are more evident.

If you want a proper historical comparison between Bush and another president, I'd say that James Polk is appropriate, as Polk was hated by the intelligencia of the day for the war against Mexico (referred to as "Mr. Polk's War" by Henry David Thoreau, amongst others).

"Mr. Polk's War" was seen as a land-grab by the anti-war side back then, while the War On Terror is seen as an oil-grab by the anti-war side today.

As for the length of my argument in the previous post, it's because I've got a college background in history and one of the things drilled into me there was that you actually *make and support* an argument rather than just throwing it out there and insulting the opposing viewpoint.

I'd expand more on the Polk-Bush comparison, but I've got to work in a few minutes.

The usual suspects for worst Presidents are Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, and Warren G. Harding...Bush seems to have bet the house on Iraq being a significant threat and equally(and recklessly in my view) bet the future of our children's children on global warming not being a significant threat. ..It shouldn't be too difficult for history to judge in 20 years the results of these two decisions, and whether Bush joins the aforementioned Presidents with so much at stake...but the trends and facts on the ground have recently so unfavourable and Bush, like a character in greek tragedy, is unable to change, since he decides" what's best" for us almost solely on instinct.

Also, any president undergoing the kind of political resistance he has (every.single.step.of.the.way.)

umm, he had 80%+ approval rating after 9/11, had both houses of Congress for most of his presidency, and a media that did ZERO investigative reporting to refute/support his claims to go to war, they just took gov't sources at their word. The opposition he faced was purely POPULIST from the people who knew from the beginning that Bush would lead this country down the wrong path. Now people are jumping on the bandwagon. I would argue that Bush had one of the easiest political presidencies.

With the track record of liberals never being on the right side of history

umm, this is categorically incorrect. Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Paine, Lincoln, Grant, FDR, Churchill, Gandhi, Jesus, Moses, MLK, Nelson Mandela, Susan B Anthony, William Wallace (Braveheart, great movie), all liberals. Hell, if you want to believe Bush, he's liberating Iraq, some might say that makes him liberal too. Power-hungry egomaniacs have generally been on the wrong side of history more than liberals (Hitler, Mussolini, King George (no, not GWB), Caesar, Pharaoh, Milosevic, Hussein, bin Laden, Charles Taylor, just to name a few). Now Bush is somewhere in the middle of those two categories (inherent presidential authority vs. "liberating" Iraq).

History will judge his presidency, and it will probably be closer to the bottom than the top, but if he nukes Iran, than no question in my mind he will definitely be the worst ever.

Hey sean, where will they rank him if Iran nukes us? Expand your mind, doooood.

Yes he had 80% approval rating...which would have dropped like a rock no matter WHAT he would have done. It was a temporary spike for obvious reasons. As soon as he began to act, the number dropped and the voices of dissent emerged. Unfortunately, those voices became a constant roar that have never let anyone come out and clearly define the concensus facts.

Also, I think you completely mistate the circumstances of the reporting regarding the buildup to Iraq. What were they supposed to report? That the world intelligence community supported Bush's assertions? That there was bipartisan support? That Hussein had consistently violated the terms of the ceasefire from the first Gulf War? That Hussein was acting as though he did, in fact, have WMD's? That Hussein was abusing his own populace and was a serious human rights violater? These things didn't hinge on the government's word, they were readily apparent for anyone with eyes and a functioning brain. But because we didn't find any serious stockpiles of WMD's after a 2 month buildup, Bush lied. Even if Hussein DIDNT have WMD's at any point we believed he did, his intent was obviously to have them; and the latticework for reconstituting his program was solidly in place, as well as the know-how. As soon as the sanctions against him were dead and gone (which would not have been very long the way things were looking) the world would have gone back to ignoring him and what do you think would have happened? A few years down the line things would have come to a head again as some obvious signs would inevitably leak out that production of WMD's was going full scale. The world would act surprised and outraged and we'd be exactly where we are now, except in this circumstance we would be in a position of weakness as we are with regards to Iran.

What actually happened is as soon as we hit Afghanistan we heard talk about a quagmire and Vietnam 2. Then with Iraq it was Bush lied and manipulated intelligence, where are the terrorists chimpy?, oh there they are...well we brought them there obviously, this one's really going to be a quagmire though, Joe Wilson, we're terrorizing innocent Iraqi's, the body count is 100.000+, white phosphorous, war-for-oil, we're torturing them!, secret prisons, Iraqi civil war...any second now, a grim milestone a grim milestone a grim milestone a grim mileston, domestic spying!!!!!, plame 007, the economy sucks, economy ok: women/minorities hardest hit, Cheney is a murderer...oh wait he didnt die, we're going to nuke Iran (no, really, we are), Rumsfeld obviously has to go, and a dozen other trumped up "scandals" I've left out. Yes, obviously the media has given him a pass. The fact that you say he's had one of the easiest presidencies is laughable. The man can't take a piss without calls for investigation or impeachment or the NYT claiming it's a sign of ominous things to come. Then you act surprised that the public has lost faith in him -those who ever had any- after this kind of sensationalistic media interrogation. He could be Jesus Christ and have similar approval ratings right now. Just remember, "we destroy people, it's what we do."

I judge the liberal conservative argument like this: If I moved next door to a tree hugging,volvo driving liberal, with a Kerry bumper sticker; and an F-150 pick up driving conservative with a W bumper sticker. Who would move first when they see my black ass coming? Mmmmm, I am going to put my money on the F-150 guy putting up that Century 21 sign first. In fact, did I mention that this is not some hypothet I made up for sake if this argument? Well I should have, because it is not, it really happened to my wife and I. Yes, the liberals are still there, and I consider them friends. As for the conservative, not sure where he went, but I am sure it's to a whiter brighter neighborhood :)

So hey, call me crazy, but my politics are partially based on my personal experiences. Bush might be a decent guy, but he is in the wrong party as far as I am concerned, and his decision to go to Iraq was a bad one. Where he ranks among our Presidents? Only history will tell.

The node where the parallel universes meet. The ozone (and perhaps some other smokey sweet smell emanating from one side) permeates the air here.

Or maybe its just the smell of a barn that hasn't been cleaned for a while.

At any rate, you Bush haters are only verifying the last statement of the post: "look for it to get really nasty out there."

Just what, if any logical thinking process was used, are you thinking when you spread venomous and spiteful verbiage in the comments of a post about how venomous and spiteful verbiage is about to be promulgated by the Left and MSM? I guess it is to agree with Kim. Unless you are simply incapable of suppressing the knee-jerk response of Bush Bashing in any post mentioning him, no reading comprehension need be applied.

[If you are Independent or Conservative and posting such, you are disagreeing and saying its not just the Left]

Personally, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other for the fellow - I don't particularly like all of his decisions or his staff. I think its way too early to judge the results of his decisions. One reason to rush to judgement at this time is fear that time may disintegrate your arguments. Kinda like what the Bush bashers accuse him of doing with the tired and hackneyed WMD debate.

So, to get back on topic, anyone got any links to MSM picking up on this story?