Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history.
--Eric Foner, DeWitt Clinton professor of history at Columbia University
MiB: Ashish Shah, CIO, Public Investing, Goldman Sachs Asset Management
-
This week, we speak with Ashish Shah, Chief Investment Officer,
Public Investing, Goldman Sachs Asset Management. Previously, he was
co-head of Go...
2 hours ago
1 comment:
I think Bush has to be our worst president ever. The list of offenses is quite long and very damaging to our country.
But, also, Who is close to being as bad as Bush?
Harding is sometimes cited as our worst president, but his offence was ineptitude and corruption in his cabinet. It was all pretty contained, not that damaging to the country.
Buchanan was a horse's pitoot, a waste of four years, but there was perhaps nothing to be done but delay the Civil War for his term in office.
U.S. Grant was a wonderful man and a brilliant general, but somehow not up to the task of handling the political swamp of Washington D.C. A more adaptable president with a better team during his eight years might have accomplished a lot, particularly with respect to making the South better. I understand Grant is better thought of in recent decades.
Nixon? Watergate was really pretty contained. It seems hard to justify the feeling that our nation was ever really at risk.
But Bush 43 creates a catalogue of disgrace and ineptitude. Seems to me he is worthy of the role of being America's Caligula.
Post a Comment