First Draft of History Looks a Bit Rough on Bush

[Flashermac]

President Bush often argues that history will vindicate him. So he can't be pleased with an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted by the History News Network. It found that 98 percent of them believe that Bush's presidency has been a failure, while only about 2 percent see it as a success. Not only that, more than 61 percent of the historians say the current presidency is the worst in American history. In 2004, only 11.6 percent of the historians rated Bush's presidency in last place. Among the reasons given for his low ratings: invading Iraq, "tax breaks for the rich," and alienating many nations around the world. Bush supporters counter that professional historians today tend to be liberal and that it's too early to assess how his policies will turn out.

 

 

Link

[rogueyam]

President Bush often argues that history will vindicate him. So he can't be pleased with an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted by the History News Network. It found that 98 percent of them believe that Bush's presidency has been a failure, while only about 2 percent see it as a success.

 

This is silly. Neither President Bush nor anyone else expects today's "professional historians" to be anything other than arrogant leftist jackasses with regard to current political events. That is reality. In thirty years time "professional historians" will likely be somewhat more sensible in describing the events of today while continuing to spew leftist nonsense about events of their day. Big frickin' deal!

 

As an object lesson in this phenomenon compare and contrast what "professional historians" said about President Reagan upon his death in 2004 with how they regarded his presidency in 1984. Same, same.

[Khun_Kong]

Ya ever post anything about LoS, Rogoyim?

 

PS: Bush blows. Deal with it.

[devils reject]

Couldn't agree more. The only way historians or anyone else for that matter can describe GW Bush is that he really is the 21st century village idiot. :thumbdown:

[rogueyam]

Ya ever post anything about LoS, Rogoyim?

 

Not under "Non-Thailand News" certainly.

[pe7e]

As an object lesson in this phenomenon compare and contrast what "professional historians" said about President Reagan upon his death in 2004 with how they regarded his presidency in 1984. Same, same.

 

You're having a joke aren't you? most people I know, thought Raygun was a half wit back in 84, and still regarded him a senile half wit two decades later in 04, anything giving a less harsh opinion, was purely said out of respect for the dead.

[playtheblues]

I remain absolutely convinced that the world needs a strong America. President Bush has made America weaker and that's a big problem. You thus cannot compare him to Ronald Reagan who made a positive contribution to the interests of the West and the rest of the free, politically emancipated world (where I belong).

 

America is and has at least since WWII been the main provider of "free public goods" in terms of security etc (Professor Paul A. Kennedy), under which umbrella all those caviar leftist anti-americans are comfortably getting a free ride, like the rest of us.

 

Another thing is that there are trends in today's America that really scare me such as a crime and violence rate pointing towards a Hobbesian society, threatening to overpower the rules of law and order ("No Country for Old Men"), growing Christian fundamentalism, absurd and vulgar richness for the few, lack of welfare for the many.

 

As to your categorical rejection of leftists (caviar or not) as of less than even mediocre intelligence it is - well, too categorical.

 

I am now with immence pleasure rereading my two favorite philosophers Jean-Paul Sartre and Bertrand Russell, both firmly in the leftist part of the political spectrum. Even if you find Sartre too continentally French for your American taste, would you really describe the author of "Principia Mathematica" (Russell) as stupid?

 

But it is true that leftism has stagnated intellelectually since their time.

 

[zen4dummies]

As an object lesson in this phenomenon compare and contrast what "professional historians" said about President Reagan upon his death in 2004 with how they regarded his presidency in 1984. Same, same.

 

You're having a joke aren't you? most people I know, thought Raygun was a half wit back in 84, and still regarded him a senile half wit two decades later in 04, anything giving a less harsh opinion, was purely said out of respect for the dead.

 

Raygun had the most corrupt administration in US history with 34 felony convictions and doubled the national debt, but has had an airport and a large Navy ship (an aircraft carrier?) named after him. Maybe dubya thought he could the same?

 

Checkout Doonesbury on April 6. http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20080406/cx_db_uc/db20080406 . Maybe this link will work.

 

 

[Julian2]

It's cartoonists like Garry Trudeau and Pat Oliphant that the right wingers loathe most of all.

Someone who will flick past a written attack on alleged government corruption on his way to the sports section will stop and read a political cartoon and think "Hey, there's something in that".

And they don't always have to make people laugh to get their point across.

 

 

[Neo]

Raygun...doubled the national debt

 

During the Reagan years tax revenues went up thanks to his innovative tax reform, but the democratically controlled congress made and passed budgets that created the debt. So unless you have facts to prove otherwise let's all agree Reagan was the good guy here and the democrats simply went on a spending spree and blamed Reagan.

 

Funny what happened to Bush Sr too. He was crucified by democrats for not sticking to his "read my lips" because he signed the DEMOCRATS tax bill. Still, he was stupid for doing that but talk about the pot calling the kettle black.