8 Comments:

From the article:

No other president -- Lincoln in the Civil War, FDR in World War II, John F. Kennedy at critical moments of the Cold War -- faced with such a monumental set of military and political circumstances failed to embrace the opposing political party to help wage a truly national struggle. But Bush shut out and even demonized the Democrats.

No other president? Wilson sentenced an opposing presidential candidate to jail, for ten years, for making an anti-war speech. For Pete's sake!

Not to mention Adams's Alien & Sedition Acts.

By  Joey de Vivre, at 9:08 AM  

Lincoln's administration suspended habeas corpus and closed down Democratic newspapers. On the other hand, Lincoln's cabinet included non-Republicans...I think.

The article might prove to be right, but I didn't much care for it. It's like declaring Albert Pujols the best hitter ever because he's had 5 excellent years.

By  Hammer, at 9:16 AM  

Unlike Hammer, I thought it was a pretty good article. My problem with it is that I read these things and get so dammed depressed over the fact that we have to suffer another almost 3 years of this putz we call a President. I believe he will be judged as the worst.
Paul Krugman it today's NYT echos the sentiment. Even more depressing is his prediction that W will try and resurrect his reputation (and Party's prospects for November) with an attack on Iran. If the voters fall for that, then Barnum really was correct.
On a more academic note: The article mentioned Nixon as one in the running as the worst. I never felt (nor do I now feel) that way about Nixon. He is one of the most interesting and most tragic Presidents since he represented great achievements and great failings. He'd be a candidate for a Shakespearian (sp??) tradegy.
Anyway, Jambo, thanks for providing the article.

By  Anonymous, at 1:31 PM  

Nixon has to be mentioned because he resigned. His accomplishments will always be overshadowed by the criminality inside the White House.

By  Hammer, at 1:33 PM  

No doubt. But, unlike Buchanan or Hoover, for example who accomplished nothing as President, the Nixon Presidency did have some real accomplishments that are with us today (the EPA and an open relationship with China to mention two). The fact that he was a crook cannot erase those accomplishments.

By  Anonymous, at 1:38 PM  

If Archie Bunker were here today he might sing "Mr. we could use a man like Richard Nixon again." From a strictly policy standpoint Nixon pretty good compared to today's Republican party. But he will always make the "worst" list for the damage he did to the institution and the public's view of government.

By  Jambo, at 2:34 PM  

Sins of commission rather than sins of omission.
I'm not trying to be a Nixon apologist here. Heck, Mussolini got the trains to run on time, and Hoover was pretty good as an ex-President.

By  Anonymous, at 3:42 PM  

What about Carter? Aside from the Camp David Accord, he didn't accomplish anything, did he? As an ex-president and elder statesman, he's the man to go to when you need houses built for the poor or money for tsunami victims, but he got our embassy in Iran taken over for sheltering the shah and astronomical double digit interest rates... history can't treat him kindly.

By  Anonymous, at 3:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home