Does anyone even care (politics)

[knapplc]

Kucininch is way out there on this one. For one, why the hell would you even try to do this with only a few months remaining for this administration

essentially to tarnish the reputation of W i would think.

I LOLed.

In my life there has not been a worse president. I have a hard time thinking of a worse example of this office, actually. He can't get lower than #43 on the list.

[nebgib5]

Right, since Bush has such a great legacy to tarnish.

thats not what im saying, but being impeached and everyone thinking you're just bad is a big difference going down in history.

Not necessarily. I think most would agree that there have been worse presidents than the two who have been impeached (Andrew Johnson and Clinton): James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, etc. The fact that congressional politics prevent impeachment doesn't necessarily give presidents a free pass; public opinion can be pretty damning, and Bush is pretty screwed in that department. Of course it's possible that his legacy takes a turn for the better as history progresses (a la Harry Truman, whose approval rating upon exiting office was somewhere around 20%), but I would say it's quite unlikely in Bush's case.

[Snakes Gould]

Kucininch is way out there on this one. For one, why the hell would you even try to do this with only a few months remaining for this administration

essentially to tarnish the reputation of W i would think.

I LOLed.

In my life there has not been a worse president. I have a hard time thinking of a worse example of this office, actually. He can't get lower than #43 on the list.

im not saying i agree nor disagree (though i would probably agree), but thats the only semi-logical reason in my eyes.

[ROC AllStars]

Not necessarily. I think most would agree that there have been worse presidents than the two who have been impeached (Andrew Johnson and Clinton): James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, etc. The fact that congressional politics prevent impeachment doesn't necessarily give presidents a free pass; public opinion can be pretty damning, and Bush is pretty screwed in that department. Of course it's possible that his legacy takes a turn for the better as history progresses (a la Harry Truman, whose approval rating upon exiting office was somewhere around 20%), but I would say it's quite unlikely in Bush's case.

I agree. As time passes, the more that becomes known about what has happened in Washington over the past 7+ years, the worse Bush and his cohorts will look.

[sportsaddict]

Harding is consistently rated as the worst president ever. He was basically a complete idiot and the government was extremely corrupt while he was in office.

Of course, I'd make an argument for Buchanan as the worst, as he pretty much let the Civil War start and did nothing about it.

Bush, after it's all over, will be down there at the bottom of the list, that's for sure. We'll see if he ends up dead last after a few decades pass.

[Omaha Red Sox]

Not necessarily. I think most would agree that there have been worse presidents than the two who have been impeached (Andrew Johnson and Clinton): James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, etc. The fact that congressional politics prevent impeachment doesn't necessarily give presidents a free pass; public opinion can be pretty damning, and Bush is pretty screwed in that department. Of course it's possible that his legacy takes a turn for the better as history progresses (a la Harry Truman, whose approval rating upon exiting office was somewhere around 20%), but I would say it's quite unlikely in Bush's case.

I agree. As time passes, the more that becomes known about what has happened in Washington over the past 7+ years, the worse Bush and his cohorts will look.

I don't know, when we look back and consider the state of things out of his control, I think history will have more pity on him than disdain. I'm not a fan, I'll make that clear, but I certainly do not believe he's as bad as he's perceived. One thing, that many of us news-watchers fail to realize, is that the US has yet to be attacked since 9-11. Most other countries have. Credit Bush? I don't know. But as time passes, especially if Obama gets in ( ) I think we'll look back and realize he wasn't very good, but he wasn't the worse we could have had either.

[nebgib5]

Not necessarily. I think most would agree that there have been worse presidents than the two who have been impeached (Andrew Johnson and Clinton): James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, etc. The fact that congressional politics prevent impeachment doesn't necessarily give presidents a free pass; public opinion can be pretty damning, and Bush is pretty screwed in that department. Of course it's possible that his legacy takes a turn for the better as history progresses (a la Harry Truman, whose approval rating upon exiting office was somewhere around 20%), but I would say it's quite unlikely in Bush's case.

I agree. As time passes, the more that becomes known about what has happened in Washington over the past 7+ years, the worse Bush and his cohorts will look.

I don't know, when we look back and consider the state of things out of his control, I think history will have more pity on him than disdain. I'm not a fan, I'll make that clear, but I certainly do not believe he's as bad as he's perceived. One thing, that many of us news-watchers fail to realize, is that the US has yet to be attacked since 9-11. Most other countries have. Credit Bush? I don't know. But as time passes, especially if Obama gets in ( ) I think we'll look back and realize he wasn't very good, but he wasn't the worse we could have had either.

1.3X as many U.S. troops have died in the Iraq War as died on September 11th, and that's all on Bush. By some accounts about 200X as many Iraqi civilians have died as died on September 11th, but unfortunately not too many people care about that. Economically, a couple trillion dollars hasn't exactly been cheap either. It is true that there have not been any major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since, but a large portion of the world absolutely detests the United States, in part because of Bush. He may have evaded any major disasters on his watch (well, he still has another 6 months to go), but he's leaving a very unenviable position for whomever succeeds him.

[Omaha Red Sox]

but he's leaving a very unenviable position for whomever succeeds him.

Actually, I think whoever takes over will be looked upon quite fondly as the guy who replaced the tyrant and will get credit when the economy bounces back.

[Pogotheostrich]

but he's leaving a very unenviable position for whomever succeeds him.

Actually, I think whoever takes over will be looked upon quite fondly as the guy who replaced the tyrant and will get credit when the economy bounces back.

Same here. Whoever is the next president is going to be in a great spot. If things don't turn around Bush will still be blamed. If things get better they will get all the credit.

[nebgib5]

I'm talking purely from an international affairs standpoint. Certainly there are some factors (such as the economy) that will inevitably bounce back at some point and make the next president look good.