A different kind of discouraging poll for Bush

May 2, 2006

[tag]Siena College[/tag]’s Research Institute conducted a poll of 744 domestic history and political science college professors to get a sense of [tag]Bush[/tag]’s place in [tag]history[/tag]. He didn’t fare very well.

If his presidency ended now, Republican George W. Bush would go down in history as a [tag]failure[/tag], according to a majority of college history and political science professors surveyed nationwide.

And, 67 percent of the 744 professors responding to the survey conducted by Siena College’s Research Institute said they doubted Bush “has a realistic chance of improving his rating” during his remaining time in office.

“While time is needed to fairly and accurately gauge how well any president ranks with his predecessors, George W. Bush starts with a ranking that could hardly be lower,” said Thomas Kelly, professor emeritus of American studies at Siena.

Of those professors participating in the survey, 58% said that if Bush’s presidency were to end now, it would be considered a “failure” while 24% said it would rate “below average.” The categories appear to follow the example established by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who asked historians in 1948 (and again in 1962) to rate presidents as either “great,” “near great,” “average,” “below average,” and “failure.” (The bottom eight were the same both times, with Ulysses Grant and Warren Harding rated as the only “failures” in each poll.)

The Siena poll dovetails nicely with Sean [tag]Wilentz[/tag]’s recent cover story for Rolling Stone.

George W. Bush’s presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many [tag]historians[/tag] are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very [tag]worst[/tag] president in all of American history.

I’m sure it’s a source of pride for the president that he has finally found a contest in which he truly excels.

May 2, 2006 at 4:43 pm

Am I imagining this or weren’t the Republikans talking about how W wast possibly teh best President ever just a few years ago? Hmmm.

“Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again”

Holy S**t….if that’s Bush’s only chance at redemption, we might as well start stocing up on emergency supplies.

Betcha that before the week is out, someone from the psychotic pachyderm club bleats (they’re all sheep, you know) about how this survey is biased in favor of “the Communist-leaning intellectuals who call themselves “professors….” ”

“Failed” is hardly the term I’d apply. Words that come to mind include “Criminal,” “Murderous,” “Thieving,” Impeachable,” and “Treasonous.”

“Many historians are now wondering…”

Uh, folks, what’s there to wonder about? There shouldn’t even need to be an ‘honest’ debate about this one… absolute.worst.president.in.history.

Bush is pretty bad.

It’s amusing to hear conservatives spinning out that Jimmy Carter was the ‘worst president ever’.

It’s also amusing to hear conservatives pointing out that Turman left off regarded as a pretty bad president, but is fondly remembered now for his honesty.

Of course, Bush totally lacks in the honesty department. And he is the…

…absolute.worst.president.in.history.

I believe it makes no sense to even put the Regal Moron on the same scale as our former presidents. A turd isn’t “the worst kind of candy”; it has an altogether different scale of measurement. I think Steve got it just about right: “Criminal,” “Murderous,” “Thieving,” Impeachable,” and “Treasonous.”

Regardless if he is a failure or success, who will have to pay off the massive debt of his irresponsible spending?

But republicants won’t take that poll seriously because college professors are liberal by definition.

“Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again…”

How ’bout one of his own making? Be very afraid. This guy is just dumb and evil enough to do something desperate. Maybe that’s why Rove is spending all his time on the strictly political now. Hatching plans before jail.

Yes, already the worst president ever–with time to spare. Now all that’s left is to open daylight between him and any future rivals.

Append a quote time:

…. to rate presidents as either “great,” “near great,” “average,” “below average,” “failure,” and “miserable failure.”

Since historians ( and the rest of us ) will be paying off Bush’s massive spending spree and dealing with the rubble of U.S. influence and prestige for many, many years to come, I’d say that the historical turd has yet to hit the fan and in future years W’s abyssmal reputation will only get worse.

At this point, if a “a cataclysmic event on the order of [etc.]” were to occur, that is, if what we’re talking about here is a terrorist attack that kills hundreds or thousands of Americans, what follows won’t be like the post-9/11 period. Once the shock passes people will want to know, first, why it wasn’t prevented, why was Bush caught napping again, where was the CIA, etc., and then a lot would depend on how well the gov’t handles the aftermath. And how well do you think that will be? The administration has had almost five years to get their act together, and if Katrina was any indication they won’t be ready, and people will be enraged. To me that feels likelier than any Rally Around Good ol’ Dubya scenario. Another catastrophe like 9/11 and Bush will truly be consigned to the scrap-heap of Monumental Failures. (Personally, I think he belongs there already.)

It could get worse. Irreversible global warming
and peak oil could occur on his watch, he might
attack Iran, and he might finally heed Grover
Norquist in order to head off the national debt
from running out of digits to measure it.

Worst ever. Even the historians are admitting
it, long before they get paid to judge. They’ve
thrown in the towel already.

How can it be that nobody cares? Just us
commie bloggers, is all. Less than 5% of
the people?

Whoa, looks like maybe I’ve been too hard on the academics lately. Still, I wonder how many of them say it in class and to their colleagues, and not just when they’re taking a survey.

I have to reckon that Katrina was a preview of what will be Shrub’s response to– and approval rating after– the next “9/11-like” attack.

He’ll stand on rubble. He’ll make tough-sounding speeches. He’ll vow vengeance. And he’ll do nothing to care for those who will be displaced or injured, or the families of those killed. And America will loathe him for it.

Or worse, he’ll start dropping nukes, and thus fill even the most grief-stricken with horrified embarassment.

Too many people already have their eyes open. I saw a post recently that asserted that never again will any terrorist be able to hijack a plane– the passengers would bum-rush the guys, everybody knows to expect a flying-into-buildings attack and nobody’d fall for “our demands have been met and we are heading back to the airport now”. Likewise, I don’t think anyone would allow Shrub to hijack an attack either. Shit, people are so cynical now, that an underground film claiming that 9/11 was an inside job planned by Shrub and Cheney is actually getting taken seriously!

The Democratic leadership can take the guesswork out of this by running focus groups. Pound some unsuspecting test subjects with relentless emotionally-cloying, gory, fear-inducing, faked “America Under Attack” TV coverage of a new terrorist attack, interspersed with clips of Shrub talking tough. And see how his “approval rating” does. You have got to know that data-addicted Rove has run exactly this test and knows the results of it– and maybe that is why he doesn’t seem quite so smug anymore.

Comments are closed.