Actually, the correlation is that those with a post high-school education tend to be more conservative and those with post-bachelor's education tend to be more liberal. Personally, I chalk that up to a lack of real world experience. As a college student I can tell you it's a lot easier to talk about something in theory when you're sheltered in that environment for most of your formative years. By the time most of these guys get a real job they're in their late 20's. This, of course, is just my opinion. Maybe it is you who should connect the dots. Any historian will tell you that proximity to the events in question taint the interpretation. Many historians during Kennedy's presidency annointed him one of the greatest while time has allowed for a more objective view. It's still way too early to tell if he's going to be in the top or bottom but I doubt the authenticity of a statement that many historians are making assertaions that Bush will be remembered as the worst. Most probably realize that time will allow us a greater view of his presidency as a whole.
Since his term is not even over, and some of the ramifications of his actions have yet to be felt, this is surely premature. What if his Supreme Court nominees turn out to be the best ever? What if through some strange twist of fate a Bush policy ends world hunger? What if aliens invade the earth and Bush flies in a fighter against the mother ship and inspires some drunken vet to kamikaze their super weapon after a marine and a nerd upload a computer virus into the mothership, thus lowering their shields? Yes, much too early to make these determinations. A possible indicator that he is not the worst president ever is that he was re-elected, though the American people are by no means infallible, just track sales of Brittney Spears records.
If we're talking about the same kind of "bath," then that's a base. Anyways, I think that Bush's presidency was going along fine until 9/11. Arguably, no other president has ever been put in a situation of that proportion (I say arguably because there have been other catstrophes such as the World Wars, the Civil Wars, Pearl Harbor, etc.). In fact, two presidents that dealt with catastrophes that are somewhat comparable to 9/11 in a favorable way went down on a short list of the Greatest Presidents of all time. I believe that Bush was in position to put himself among the greatest directly after 9/11, but that faded soon. I kind of feel sorry for the guy. Anyways, I didn't read any posts after the one I quoted so I don't know if anyone said anything like what I did...
You forgot to mention that the virus would be uploaded with a Mac which, even though not fully compatible with many computers on our own planet, was completely compatible with an alien interface.
Here's a less biased look: President Bush Is 'Average,' But Far From Ordinary By JAMES TARANTO September 12, 2005; Page A17 Ask someone to describe the presidency of George W. Bush, and "average" is not a word you're likely to hear. Mr. Bush's detractors treat him with a level of vituperation unseen since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt; some even blame him for bad weather. His admirers don't go so far as to credit him when the sun shines, but their affection for him is palpable. So it may come as a surprise that in a new survey of scholars ranking the presidents, Mr. Bush finishes almost exactly in the middle of the pack. He ranks No. 19 out of 40, and he rates 3.01 on a 5-point scale, just a hair's breadth above the middlemost possible figure. But this is no gentleman's C. Mr. Bush's rating is average because it is an average, of rankings given by 85 professors of history, politics, law and economics. Most such scholarly polls have a strong liberal bias, reflecting academia's far-left tilt. But this survey -- conducted by James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society and The Wall Street Journal -- aimed at ideological balance. The scholars were chosen with an eye toward balancing liberals and conservatives, and Mr. Lindgren asked each participant about his political orientation, then adjusted the average to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight. Mr. Bush's rating thus reflects the same sharp partisan divide that gave him a shade under 51% of the popular vote last year. GOP-leaning scholars rated Mr. Bush the 6th-best president of all time, while Democratic ones rated him No. 35, or 6th-worst. Even Bill Clinton -- 13th among Democrats, 34th among Republicans -- isn't as controversial. If this result reflects the passions of the moment, how will history judge George W. Bush? Today's opinion polls are no guide: Warren G. Harding was a lot more popular when he died in office than Harry S. Truman was when he left, yet Harding now rates as a failure and Truman as near great. Here's one way of thinking about the question: The three great presidents -- Washington, Lincoln and FDR -- all faced unprecedented challenges, all responded to them boldly, and all succeeded. Mr. Bush has met the first two of these criteria: The 9/11 attacks were his unprecedented challenge; setting out to democratize the Middle East was his bold response. Will he succeed -- not just in bringing stability and representative government to Iraq but in beginning a process that spreads freedom throughout the region? That will determine whether he joins the top tiers of presidents. If he falls short, he may still get credit for trying. The lowest-ranking presidents tend to be not those who aimed high and missed, but those whose administrations were plagued by scandal (Harding, Nixon) or who were passive as crises built (Buchanan, Carter). [How They Rate] If Mr. Bush's vision turns out to have been overambitious, the more salient precedents may be the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon B. Johnson. Both had bold, forward-looking agendas, and both suffered enormous setbacks. Wilson sought to make the world safe for democracy, but America instead turned inward, leaving the world decidedly unsafe for democracy until after World War II. Johnson waged war both in Vietnam and on poverty, with one loss and one draw. Yet neither one is judged a failure in the survey: Wilson is above average at No. 11, and Johnson is average at No. 18. Like Mr. Bush, both are more highly regarded within their own party. Wilson finishes 7th among Democrats and 23rd among Republicans; LBJ, 9th among Democrats and 31st among Republicans. One thing that is sure to prove irrelevant to Mr. Bush's legacy is the intensity of today's Angry Left. FDR faced an Angry Right in his day, but Republicans in the survey rank him the 5th-best president. Even Ronald Reagan, out of office less than two decades, ranks a respectable 14th among Democrats. Mr. Bush is a polarizing figure today, but if his policies prove successful over time, even his detractors will grudgingly come around. Mr. Taranto is editor of OpinionJournal.com and co-editor, with Leonard Leo, of "Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House," just out in paperback from Wall Street Journal Books.
Ok just to set the records straight...... Clinton sent more troops abroad for "peace keeping missions" then both Bushs' combined. Hell troops are still in Bosnia now, home in one year my arse. Don't be fooled, there was no government surplus, check your facts. A surplus would imply no debt to pay off. And Funny how the facts get distorted on the economy. At the end of Clintons presidency the stock market crashed, during his presidency he maintained an unemployment rate higher then that under GW Bush. It was under Clinton that this trade deficit with China opened up and jobs started leaving the country so fast you could hear the sucking sound, not to mention the accounting scandals that have plagued us (Arthur Anderson, Enron, Tyco, etc) due to laws being passed to loosen up the reporting. And to top it all off the countries debt to income ratio rose under Clinton which should tell that people are living well outside thier fiscal means by using credit cards, equity loans and any other bad lending ideas you care to chime in with. Lexis Nexis.....its a wonderful thing! But only if your concerned with the TRUTH Oh and as far as Clinton sucking your absolutely correct. How this country put up with his lying, treason, stealing, manipulations, derelection of duty....god i could go on but it will only get worse from here....lol How he ever got elected in the first place just boggles my mind. Ross Perot was a splinter candidate is the only reason. There was more spinning going on with the press during his election campaign then on a carnival tea cup ride. How about taking campaign contributions from foriegn nations? Oh and don't forget selling national security secrets to China, I know its a little thing but we don't want to leave anything out. High crimes and misdemeanors would be an understatement. Stealing china, furniture, silver and anything else that wasn't nailed down from the White House when his term was over? Yeah thats a touch of class for you.
Andrew Jackson and Dubya have a few things in common, but most significant is that they show the potentially fatal flaw in democracy. By appealing to people on a level that requires no rational thought and instead appeals to fear and faith and other things that can't be quantified or disproven, and orchestrating (or having it orchestrated for you) a campaign that specializes in mudslinging and dumbing-down, any person could potentially occupy the position of the most powerful man in the world. And this is with no regard to their intentions or their actual capabilities. It's the space where popular appeal and intelligent analysis never come into contact (until well after the fact), and that's the space where Bush II and Andrew Jackson thrived. Jackson practically invented the method of campaigning that candidates still use today. He spent loads of money, never took a stand on issues, played up his status as a war hero and frontiersman, and spread untrue rumors among the populace about his opponents (during stump speeches, he had the information spread that J.Q. Adams, while ambassador to Russia, pimped out little boys to the Czar.) I don't know if Dubya is the worst president ever - he could be very valuable if he acts as a corrective on the way the public votes, as an object lesson on the danger of voting with your biases instead of your brain, but I doubt that will happen. It hasn't happened yet.
Yeah, but he can pronounce nuclear. OddsOn the statute of limitations for blaming the last administration for the country's problems ended when Bush was re-elected. We'll see who history is kinder too.
How he ever got elected in the first place just boggles my mind. Ross Perot was a splinter candidate is the only reason. Not factual. Studies show that Perot helped the incumbent both times he ran.
Almost all of what he posted is in regards to the years of the Clinton administration and was only brought about by someone saying that Clinton's years were 100% rosy. Whether you agree with him or not, misrepresenting his post is wrong.
