Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1 - 20 of 85 Posts

·
Nobody
Joined
·
6,373 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html/

Although his approval ratings have slipped somewhat in recent weeks, President George W. Bush still enjoys the overall support of nearly half of the American people. He does not, however, fare nearly so well among professional historians.

A recent informal, unscientific survey of historians conducted at my suggestion by George Mason University’s History News Network found that eight in ten historians responding rate the current presidency an overall failure.
Why should the views of historians on the current president matter?

I do not share the view of another respondent that “until we have gained access to the archival record of this president, we [historians] are no better at evaluating it than any other voter.” Academic historians, no matter their ideological bias, have some expertise in assessing what makes for a successful or unsuccessful presidency; we have a long-term perspective in which to view the actions of a current chief executive. Accordingly, the depth of the negative assessment that so many historians make of George W. Bush is something of which the public should be aware. Their comments make clear that such historians would readily agree with conclusion that then-Democratic presidential hopeful Richard Gephardt pronounced a few months ago: the presidency of George W. Bush is “a miserable failure.”
You have to love these graphics too. Hey, they're historians, not graphic designers.



And then there was this split ballot, comparing the George W. Bush presidencies failures in distinct areas. The George W. Bush presidency is the worst since:

“In terms of economic damage, Reagan.

In terms of imperialism, T Roosevelt.

In terms of dishonesty in government, Nixon.

In terms of affable incompetence, Harding.

In terms of corruption, Grant.

In terms of general lassitude and cluelessness, Coolidge.

In terms of personal dishonesty, Clinton.

In terms of religious arrogance, Wilson.”
Most corrupt since Grant, ouch.
 

·
Oladipo for the people
Joined
·
48,150 Posts
:laugh:


4 more years of Bush. He makes me laugh with how incompetent he is, and Im Canadian, so I dont have to live with him.


Seriously though, I dont understand how half of the U.S. can stand behind this guy. I would use harsher words towards "Dubya" but it would probably cross some sort of line.
 

·
Nobody
Joined
·
6,373 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
:laugh:


4 more years of Bush. He makes me laugh with how incompetent he is, and Im Canadian, so I dont have to live with him.


Seriously though, I dont understand how half of the U.S. can stand behind this guy. I would use harsher words towards "Dubya" but it would probably cross some sort of line.
That's American party politics... vote for the guy that represents your team, even if he's not qualified, because the goal is to beat the other team.

I'd like to hear your Canadian perspective on Bush, if you want to PM me or something.
 

·
Oladipo for the people
Joined
·
48,150 Posts
Ill dig up some of my old posts sometime this week and show you.

Its funny when I think about it, Bush is about as qualified to run the most powerful country in the world as I am to be the go to guy on an NBA championship squad, and Im a 170 pound 5'10 white unathletic guy.
 

·
duke of new york, a#1
Joined
·
16,132 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Spriggan</b>!
Automated Republican Defense System initiated:

Those historians are dastardly liberals!
That's version 1.0.

Version 1.1 automatically searches for a similar article with opposite results, ie.

"Syracuse University’s History News Network poll reveals 8 out of 10 historians feel the Bush administration is an overall success,..."

Then the articles negate each other.
 

·
Top Of The Pops
Joined
·
27,472 Posts
Originally posted by <b>speedythief</b>!


That's version 1.0.

Version 1.1 automatically searches for a similar article with opposite results, ie.

"Syracuse University’s History News Network poll reveals 8 out of 10 historians feel the Bush administration is an overall success,..."

Then the articles negate each other.
There's the other version of this, the "implicit disagreement."

"338 historians rated Bush a failure? There must be millions of historians. If only these 338 historians are coming forward to brand Bush a failure, the rest of those millions of historians must all endorse him. That's quite a huge number of supporters!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,749 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!


There's the other version of this, the "implicit disagreement."

"338 historians rated Bush a failure? There must be millions of historians. If only these 338 historians are coming forward to brand Bush a failure, the rest of those millions of historians must all endorse him. That's quite a huge number of supporters!"
Yes I remember that thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,817 Posts
Since many would view Grant as the most corrupt President in the history of our country by far, it's very sad to hear that Bush is viewed by qualified people as the worst president in terms of corruption since Grant.
 

·
Nobody
Joined
·
6,373 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Originally posted by <b>Celts11</b>!
Since many would view Grant as the most corrupt President in the history of our country by far, it's very sad to hear that Bush is viewed by qualified people as the worst president in terms of corruption since Grant.
Absolutely right, but I had wondered before about the issue and I'm not surprised... the general public doesn't seem to care but history is not going to look kindly on the ties between the federal government and businesses like Halliburton and Enron.

It's no secret what's going on here. The problem is, like one of my professors (a Vietnam veteran) says, is that this administration believes that the public will let them get away with whatever, and so far they've been right. If they get reelected, we the people are going to look like morons in history.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,045 Posts
EVER: The second most common response from historians, trailing only Nixon, was that the current presidency is the worst in American history. A few examples will serve to provide the flavor of such condemnations. “Although previous presidents have led the nation into ill-advised wars, no predecessor managed to turn America into an unprovoked aggressor. No predecessor so thoroughly managed to confirm the impressions of those who already hated America. No predecessor so effectively convinced such a wide range of world opinion that America is an imperialist threat to world peace. I don 't think that you can do much worse than that.”
One historian noted:

“He is blatantly a puppet for corporate interests, who care only about their own greed and have no sense of civic responsibility or community service. He lies, constantly and often, seemingly without control, and he lied about his invasion into a sovereign country, again for corporate interests; many people have died and been maimed, and that has been lied about too. He grandstands and mugs in a shameful manner, befitting a snake oil salesman, not a statesman. He does not think, process, or speak well, and is emotionally immature due to, among other things, his lack of recovery from substance abuse. The term is "dry drunk". He is an abject embarrassment/pariah overseas; the rest of the world hates him . . . . . He is, by far, the most irresponsible, unethical, inexcusable occupant of our formerly highest office in the land that there has ever been.”
These are professional opinions, folks.
 

·
Administrator 12/02--7/07
Joined
·
36,839 Posts
Does anyone have a link to the underlying research, or to a paper with annotations? I'd like to see who decided who would be contacted, who responded, what these "professional historians" teach, on what level and where, and what questions were posed of them to formulate the results reported.

I understand that the survey was informal and unscientific, but if we are to draw conclusions, there seems to be information missing.
 

·
Administrator 12/02--7/07
Joined
·
36,839 Posts
I was surfing, trying to find a link to a mainstream news source that references or provides analysis of the above Historians -vs- Bush article. So far, I have found none.

I did find an interesting article defending Bush through dissection of the criticisms of notable dissenter Noam Chomsky.

Dissecting Chomsky and Anti-Americanism


My posting the link isn't neccesarily a full endosement of the article. I think Chomsky makes good points, at times. But it is an interesting read, nonetheless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,045 Posts
Well Tom, in addition to the historians cited above we have:

1. A bunch of top scientists who think Bush is anathema to the current study and progress of science and medicine.
2. A bunch of Nobel economists who think Bush is nuts.
3. A bunch of four-star generals and retired chiefs of mission who think Bush and his Iraq plan are failures.

While not completely conclusive, I think a number of us can draw fairly accurate conclusions from the available evidence.
 

·
Administrator 12/02--7/07
Joined
·
36,839 Posts
I had some questions about the methodology of some of those other internet articles as well.

I'm not trashing the reasearch. I'd just like a closer took. We all know how things can get distorted very quickly when it comes to these kind of issues. Certainly Sen. Kerry has had his fair share of complaints about manipulations of the truth.

Honestly, I'm not as pro-Bush as you think. On the other hand I'm not very impressed with John Kerry.

What I really hate is zealotry, and especially zealotry passed off as fact. Whether its the Swift Boat captains, or some unidentified "professional historians."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,045 Posts
Agreed, Tom.

I'm just having a hard time finding any pro-Bush (a) historical reports, (b) scientific/environmental reports, (c) economic reports, or (d) military reports from those not in the current Administration.
 

·
Me lose brain? Uh oh!
Joined
·
5,702 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Nevus</b>!


It's no secret what's going on here. The problem is, like one of my professors (a Vietnam veteran) says, is that this administration believes that the public will let them get away with whatever, and so far they've been right. If they get reelected, we the people are going to look like morons in history.
DISCLAIMER: Unsubstantiated, opinionated anti-Bush comment below! It's just an editorial from a fairly liberal San Franciscan (me), so pay it no mind if you disagree.

The thing I find somewhat unnerving about this comment (which I agree with) is that the administration has already given many, many people in various walks of life the impression that they'll "do whatever they can get away with". This was all during a 1st term, when they needed to keep the prospect of reelection in mind, thereby at least paying lip service to the polls and approval ratings. Just imagine what they'll "try to get away with" if they don't need to worry about reelection anymore in a 2nd term. It's probably best not to think about that. :uhoh:
 

·
Administrator 12/02--7/07
Joined
·
36,839 Posts
Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
Agreed, Tom.

I'm just having a hard time finding any pro-Bush (a) historical reports, (b) scientific/environmental reports, (c) economic reports, or (d) military reports from those not in the current Administration.
Obviously, Karl Rove has his attention focused elsewhere...




:grinning:
 
1 - 20 of 85 Posts
Top