If you think George bush will not be rembered as the most unpopular president. wich president was the most unpopular in history

rolling stone already named him(bush) the worst U.S. president ever.

Political scholars that the editors at Rolling Stone are...

I believe the piece Reincarnated was talking about was written by a leading scholar, historian Sean Wilentz.

The Worst President in History?
By Sean Wilentz
Rolling Stone
Thursday 20 April 2006
"One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush"

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.

Historians do tend, as a group, to be far more liberal than the citizenry as a whole - a fact the president's admirers have seized on to dismiss the poll results as transparently biased. One pro-Bush historian said the survey revealed more about "the current crop of history professors" than about Bush or about Bush's eventual standing. But if historians were simply motivated by a strong collective liberal bias, they might be expected to call Bush the worst president since his father, or Ronald Reagan, or Nixon. Instead, more than half of those polled - and nearly three-fourths of those who gave Bush a negative rating - reached back before Nixon to find a president they considered as miserable as Bush. The presidents most commonly linked with Bush included Hoover, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan. Twelve percent of the historians polled - nearly as many as those who rated Bush a success - flatly called Bush the worst president in American history. And these figures were gathered before the debacles over Hurricane Katrina, Bush's role in the Valerie Plame leak affair and the deterioration of the situation in Iraq. Were the historians polled today, that figure would certainly be higher.

Even worse for the president, the general public, having once given Bush the highest approval ratings ever recorded, now appears to be coming around to the dismal view held by most historians. To be sure, the president retains a considerable base of supporters who believe in and adore him, and who reject all criticism with a mixture of disbelief and fierce contempt - about one-third of the electorate. (When the columnist Richard Reeves publicized the historians' poll last year and suggested it might have merit, he drew thousands of abusive replies that called him an idiot and that praised Bush as, in one writer's words, "a Christian who actually acts on his deeply held beliefs.") Yet the ranks of the true believers have thinned dramatically. A majority of voters in forty-three states now disapprove of Bush's handling of his job. Since the commencement of reliable polling in the 1940s, only one twice-elected president has seen his ratings fall as low as Bush's in his second term: Richard Nixon, during the months preceding his resignation in 1974. No two-term president since polling began has fallen from such a height of popularity as Bush's (in the neighborhood of ninety percent, during the patriotic upswell following the 2001 attacks) to such a low (now in the midthirties). No president, including Harry Truman (whose ratings sometimes dipped below Nixonian levels), has experienced such a virtually unrelieved decline as Bush has since his high point. Apart from sharp but temporary upticks that followed the commencement of the Iraq war and the capture of Saddam Hussein, and a recovery during the weeks just before and after his re-election, the Bush trend has been a profile in fairly steady disillusionment.

Click Here To Continue Reading

But the fact of the matter is that Rolling Stone wouldn't publish an article unless it served their agenda.

you won't see Ann Coulter publishing a pro-liberal book or article.

If you think George bush will not be rembered as the most unpopular president. wich president was the most unpopular in history

I don't think there's much debate about that question.

If you think George bush will not be rembered as the most unpopular president. wich president was the most unpopular in history

I don't think that President Bush will be remembered as anything close to the least popular President.

I think that Presidents Carter and Nixon will likely occupy those coveted spots.

It will do well to remember that Presidential popularity is not necessarily concurrent with Presidential effectiveness. It is also well to remember that popularity during a President's term, or terms, is cyclical without exception--it waxes and wanes. Historical assessment of popularity will be an overall average.
For instance, In the cases of people like Reagan and Roosevelt, the two aspects went together. They were both very popular overall, and great as well.
In the cases of people like Nixon and Carter, popularity was low, and effectiveness was low, especially in the latter case.
President Clinton was fairly popular, but as far as greatness was concerned, I do not think history will show him anywhere close to the top of the list.

Kennedy on the overall was popular, and historically, he is perceived as an icon almost. As to effectiveness or greatness, history cannot assess him as great, mostly becauise of the fact that despite his vast potential, he has no chance to utilize it (I think he would've been great).
President Lincoln had popularity problems, which were of course due to the fact that about half of a nation hated him due to the particular time he lived in and the nature of what happened to the country. He will however be remembered as great.

President George Bush...
He too lives in a strangely (almost bizarrely) divided period in American history...much different, and more difficult to assess that the schizm that existed in Lincoln's time.

I think his overall popularity will be assessed as just about in the middle of the pack. However, his effectiveness will be on the upper end of the scale...perhaps not in the great category, but close.

I can't really say,since I don't live in the US.But you don't have to be American to see how bad Bush has done in office.

Lets be totally realistic here.
It is going to be hard to top a general of the victorious side of a civil war in US history.
If they had actual population percentage records for sheer hate, Grant would likely always be No.1

I don't think that President Bush will be remembered as anything close to the least popular President.

I think that Presidents Carter and Nixon will likely occupy those coveted spots.

It will do well to remember that Presidential popularity is not necessarily concurrent with Presidential effectiveness. It is also well to remember that popularity during a President's term, or terms, is cyclical without exception--it waxes and wanes. Historical assessment of popularity will be an overall average.
For instance, In the cases of people like Reagan and Roosevelt, the two aspects went together. They were both very popular overall, and great as well.
In the cases of people like Nixon and Carter, popularity was low, and effectiveness was low, especially in the latter case.
President Clinton was fairly popular, but as far as greatness was concerned, I do not think history will show him anywhere close to the top of the list.

Kennedy on the overall was popular, and historically, he is perceived as an icon almost. As to effectiveness or greatness, history cannot assess him as great, mostly becauise of the fact that despite his vast potential, he has no chance to utilize it (I think he would've been great).
President Lincoln had popularity problems, which were of course due to the fact that about half of a nation hated him due to the particular time he lived in and the nature of what happened to the country. He will however be remembered as great.

President George Bush...
He too lives in a strangely (almost bizarrely) divided period in American history...much different, and more difficult to assess that the schizm that existed in Lincoln's time.

I think his overall popularity will be assessed as just about in the middle of the pack. However, his effectiveness will be on the upper end of the scale...perhaps not in the great category, but close.

rolling stone already named him(bush) the worst U.S. president ever.

Well, that sums it up doesn't it?

Well, I live in the US and I do know how bad he's done. It just seems like whoever I vote for never gets into office. But far be it for me to suggest for people not to vote. It's just that when you consider what conspiracy theorists say about it, it's not who we vote for who gets into office as president; it's whoever 'they' want to get into office.(not my personal opinion)

Aranel, I posted a question in my previous post to you. I was wondering what you thought about that.

http://ashiana.conforums.com/index.cgi

~ Isis

Well sure if you value information from liberal pop rags, which I dont.

from liberal pop rags

I can't really say,since I don't live in the US.But you don't have to be American to see how bad Bush has done in office.

Did anybody else here know that Obamas full name is "Barack Hussein Obama"? I just thought thta I'd share that. I'm very sure that with the last two of his names he is certain to be a hit with all the anti-American sects.

so many people here bashing Bush, but no one listing reasons

very interesting many of you can follow a thought like sheep but cant come up with an original thought of your own