I can think of possibly two. Harding and Buccannon.
2007-10-15 09:59:56 · 19 answers · asked by David S 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
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 historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst
Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's "pursuit of disastrous policies." In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.
2007-10-15 10:12:22 · answer #1 · answered by Easy B Me II 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
wow do your research before you make an idiot out of yourself. bush may not be perfect, but 9/11 wasn't his fault, and he had the full support of both republicans and democrats for going into Iraq, so it's foolish to say he alone is responsible. there have been some pretty bad presidents in the past...it just depends on how you're looking at them. if you want honesty, don't look and Clinton or Nixon. if you want peace, then you're sol bc we don't really understand the concept of minding our own business, regardless of who's in the oval office. In my opinion, carter pretty much sucked it up; bush's reign is incomparable to carter's.
2007-10-15 18:28:13 · answer #2 · answered by Rachel 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
he is in grand company.
i was born in the early 50's, so in my life time he is in line to surpass the likes of Eisenhower(shah of Iran),Nixon(Watergate)Reagan( Iran-contras) bush 1(more Iran- contras) and now Jr.(too numerous to list).
i will give JR. this much, he did not want to stand in his daddy's shadow and prove that he could out do his pappy at some thing and he did(bigger crook)
2007-10-15 17:42:28 · answer #3 · answered by Constipated CON. 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Compared to Jimmy (I'm scared of rabbits) Carter, Bush is a saint. I know Bush isn't but when you look at Jimmy he sure looks close to it.
2007-10-15 17:16:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Clinton... Carter.
2007-10-15 17:27:51 · answer #5 · answered by Robert S 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Just wait till the next one gets settled in. Then you'll see!
2007-10-15 20:48:03 · answer #6 · answered by jacyinbg 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No I would say Bush takes the cake.
2007-10-15 17:13:22 · answer #7 · answered by Steve P 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Try BOB from Zimbabwe.
2007-10-15 17:04:29 · answer #8 · answered by Rooikat 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No one...in my lifetime...will be worse the Jimmy Carter (I pray to God!!!).
Clinton may have been, but the republican congress saved him from himself.
2007-10-15 17:05:22 · answer #9 · answered by Yahoo Answer Angel 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
They all had their bad points as well as some good points.Just depends on how you look at them.
2007-10-15 17:08:53 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋