It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ofhumandescent
I have two e-mails from Obama and he sounded a lot nicer, down to earth and intellegent then George W Bush Jr ever did
Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by Darth Logan
If she were emailing me, I'd respond, too. Vaavaavoom...
Originally posted by maria_stardust
Look at it this way. The current administration has really mucked things up as it is.
- We're in the midst of a recession.
- Unemployment is at an all time high.
- Oil and gas prices are through the roof.
- The housing market is on the verge of collapse.
- The economy is a virtual cesspool.
- The military is worn and over-extended.
- Our personal rights and freedoms are slowly being stripped away.
I could go on and on, but you get the picture. At some point we have to ask ourselves, "How much worse can things possibly get?"
Considering things are running pretty low right now, I figure the only way we can go is up. Obama certainly can't do any worse. If anything, he can probably start digging us out the mess we're currently in.
Originally posted by Gemwolf
Exactly the same things have been said about a certain Mr G.W. Bush... Go ahead. Do the search. You'll find exactly the same thread titles with Mr Bush's name in there.
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Originally posted by Gemwolf
Exactly the same things have been said about a certain Mr G.W. Bush... Go ahead. Do the search. You'll find exactly the same thread titles with Mr Bush's name in there.
Except history has proven them right!
Originally posted by argile2000
Ummm wait a min, what do you mean? History has proven who right? I think after many years scholars will look back on Bush and go.. Hmmmm, he kinda hooked us up..
The Worst President in History?
One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush
SEAN WILENTZ Posted Apr 21, 2006 12:34 PM
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 president in all of American history.
From time to time, after hours, I kick back with my colleagues at Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. For years, these perennial debates have largely focused on the same handful of chief executives whom national polls of historians, from across the ideological and political spectrum, routinely cite as the bottom of the presidential barrel. Was the lousiest James Buchanan, who, confronted with Southern secession in 1860, dithered to a degree that, as his most recent biographer has said, probably amounted to disloyalty -- and who handed to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, a nation already torn asunder? Was it Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, who actively sided with former Confederates and undermined Reconstruction? What about the amiably incompetent Warren G. Harding, whose administration was fabulously corrupt? Or, though he has his defenders, Herbert Hoover, who tried some reforms but remained imprisoned in his own outmoded individualist ethic and collapsed under the weight of the stock-market crash of 1929 and the Depression's onset? The younger historians always put in a word for Richard M. Nixon, the only American president forced to resign from office.
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.
The lopsided decision of historians should give everyone pause. Contrary to popular stereotypes, historians are generally a cautious bunch. We assess the past from widely divergent points of view and are deeply concerned about being viewed as fair and accurate by our colleagues. When we make historical judgments, we are acting not as voters or even pundits, but as scholars who must evaluate all the evidence, good, bad or indifferent. Separate surveys, conducted by those perceived as conservatives as well as liberals, show remarkable unanimity about who the best and worst presidents have been...
Originally posted by jamie83
reply to post by Gemwolf
Speaking for myself, I don't think Obama is the biggest or baddest guy in U.S. history. He's just one of the most inexperienced, liberal elitists that's ever been the nominee for a major party.