English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I think harding was. The teapot dome scandal, and he himself said that "I was never fit for this office" or something like that.

2007-10-01 04:17:54 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

I'm not saying bush isn't. I'm just saying think about it. he could be

2007-10-01 04:30:44 · update #1

18 answers

Historians do tend, as a group, to be far more liberal than the citizenry as a whole -- a fact the president's admirers have seized on to dismiss the poll results as transparently biased. One pro-Bush historian said the survey revealed more about "the current crop of history professors" than about Bush or about Bush's eventual standing. But if historians were simply motivated by a strong collective liberal bias, they might be expected to call Bush the worst president since his father, or Ronald Reagan, or Nixon. Instead, more than half of those polled -- and nearly three-fourths of those who gave Bush a negative rating -- reached back before Nixon to find a president they considered as miserable as Bush. The presidents most commonly linked with Bush included Hoover, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan. Twelve percent of the historians polled -- nearly as many as those who rated Bush a success -- flatly called Bush the worst president in American history. And these figures were gathered before the debacles over Hurricane Katrina, Bush's role in the Valerie Plame leak affair and the deterioration of the situation in Iraq. Were the historians polled today, that figure would certainly be higher.

Even worse for the president, the general public, having once given Bush the highest approval ratings ever recorded, now appears to be coming around to the dismal view held by most historians. To be sure, the president retains a considerable base of supporters who believe in and adore him, and who reject all criticism with a mixture of disbelief and fierce contempt -- about one-third of the electorate. (When the columnist Richard Reeves publicized the historians' poll last year and suggested it might have merit, he drew thousands of abusive replies that called him an idiot and that praised Bush as, in one writer's words, "a Christian who actually acts on his deeply held beliefs.") Yet the ranks of the true believers have thinned dramatically. A majority of voters in forty-three states now disapprove of Bush's handling of his job. Since the commencement of reliable polling in the 1940s, only one twice-elected president has seen his ratings fall as low as Bush's in his second term: Richard Nixon, during the months preceding his resignation in 1974. No two-term president since polling began has fallen from such a height of popularity as Bush's (in the neighborhood of ninety percent, during the patriotic upswell following the 2001 attacks) to such a low (now in the midthirties). No president, including Harry Truman (whose ratings sometimes dipped below Nixonian levels), has experienced such a virtually unrelieved decline as Bush has since his high point. Apart from sharp but temporary upticks that followed the commencement of the Iraq war and the capture of Saddam Hussein, and a recovery during the weeks just before and after his re-election, the Bush trend has been a profile in fairly steady disillusionment.

2007-10-01 04:41:43 · answer #1 · answered by Easy B Me II 5 · 3 1

Kennedy, he may have been liked by the US citizenship but was an idiot along the lines of Bush as far as statesmanship. His lack of diplomatic skills nearly brought the world to nuclear war. Nixon on the other hand may have been one of the best presidents the US has had , just unfortunate about the Watergate business but probably not as bad as many of Bush's transgressions.
Just shows that either
1.The US citizens are more tolerant of there politicians.
2.They have allowed standards to slip in all forms of public office and he is seen as acceptable as everyone does it (looks out for no.1 and damn the rest of the world)
3.The US citizens are less well informed, more complacent and dont even try to see the truth any more. Cant see past there own job or possessions for the countries greater good.

Really - Bush is still a very good candidate. He is stupid , uninformed and selfish. A very bad combination.

2007-10-01 04:28:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Herbert Hoover, A great guy but a horrible President.

Led the country into the greatest depression we have or likely ever will see. Publicly supported prohibition while secretly drinking at the Belgium Embassy (not on US soil).

Yes Hoover was a victim of circumstance and though you can't blame the creation of the Federal Reserve on Hoover's shoulders, you can blame his administration for not properly overseeing the corrupt bankers controlling the Federal Reserve.

Though Hoover tried and tried his lack of political prowess, his inablity to work with the legislature and his pro-business backing everything he did to cool the depression only seemed to fuel the fire.

Not to mention the handling of the Bonus Army, though again was not the fault of the Hoover administration, he failed to reprimend MacArthur for his commands in attacking WWI vets seeking the bonus money they were promised. Roosevelts efforts against the Bonus Army went much smoother.

2007-10-01 04:26:13 · answer #3 · answered by labken1817 6 · 0 1

I'm not sure you're going to get any good answers here. Most people haven't been around long enough to know what kind of impact most presidents have had on our country. They also probably aren't well versed in history.
I'm going to say that NO president should have that title. Nobody's perfect. If nothing else, they serve as an example of what not to do next time. Hindsight is 20/20 but mad are those glasses pretty foggy when you're looking in the present tense. I think everything in life happens for a reason. Personally, I'm happy with my own life & perhaps if one of these presidents had done things differently, I wouldn't be in the same position I'm in now.

2007-10-01 04:28:14 · answer #4 · answered by Roland'sMommy 6 · 0 2

Never studied which Presidents had more problems or scandals in history, but I've lived through 10 Presidents now and I STILL have to say that Jimmy Carter has not yet been beaten for all the problems during his administration.

Even Johnson had more detrimental effect on the economy and the quagmire on our military than the current President.

2007-10-01 04:23:27 · answer #5 · answered by Marc X 6 · 4 1

William Henry Harrison

2007-10-01 09:31:17 · answer #6 · answered by Mr. Smith 5 · 0 0

I agree, Gojira and Opeth are incredible...however the worst could might desire to be interest for a Cowboy. they do no longer do something new or distinctive, in simple terms a gaggle of stuff that's already been executed.

2016-10-20 11:39:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Carter: Failed Iran hostage rescue, double-digit inflation, long lines at the gas pumps, waiting ten days to do something about the energy crisis, high unemployment, selling the Panama Canal into the hands of a terrorist.

Clinton: Too many to list, it would take a book.

2007-10-01 04:28:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Jimmy Carter, then Lyndon Johnson.

2007-10-01 04:30:52 · answer #9 · answered by Lilith 4 · 1 1

Jimmy Carter
Most honest Carter Quote" I have never met a dictator I didn't like"

2007-10-01 04:42:41 · answer #10 · answered by CFB 5 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers