Grant may have been a weak and ineffective president but before that he risked his life to save his country which is the precise opposite of what Dubya has done.
In Bush's first term net employment in the US actually went down which is unique in American History. He's also the only president to introduce a tax cut in during wartime, and he's allowed the balance of trade to reach alarming levels.
As for the forgettable presidents, what was that dictum about the happiest nations being those with no history?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Judging from the presidents I've seen come and go in the last 50 years, the worst president in US history is probably the next one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As always, I like to point the finger back at us...of which our worst presidents are a reflection.

2004 would be up there. But to be fair, a decent percentage voted for the slightly lesser evil...1984 was a landslide in favor of an idiot, who many still worship...But I think I'll go with 1972.

I think Andrew Jackson was a popular scumbag, but I can't rembember back that far...Any other suggestions from history buffs?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I´m afraid that when all the proof is in to support George W. Bush´s candidacy for "Worst President", there may not be a country left to grant him that dubious honor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush...active alcoholic, liar, manipulator, dumb, ignorant, ...war monger. He has destroyed the credibility of the USA at home and abroad, has authorized torture of US citizens and non-citizens, denigrated and ignored the Constitution, stands for everything that is sick in the USA, and....gets away with it! Truly amazing! I pity the next president. This one is not worthy of being called: "Mr. President". He should be designated: "Mr. Scumbag".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interesting that the article left off a President who:
1. Closed newspapers that called for negotiations and a court case rather than going to war in his time
2. Arrested newspaper reporters without charges or trial if they made jokes about him or didn't go along with his program
3. Opened fire on unarmed demonstrators
4. Issued an arrest warrent for the head of the Supreme Court
5. Placed military tribunals in all the major cities to avoid the courts
6. In Chicago, set up a camp for enemy combatants where snipers greeted POW's by shooting any Black men who had fought for the enemy as they entered. If there weren't any, they would randomly shoot whites to keep the population in line. Food was left outside the prison to rot and the POW's began to whither away. People nearby saw and heard the horror, and signed a petition to have the food given to the POWS. Everyone who signed the petition had their home and business taken away and was placed in the camp!
7. By achieving victory consolidated power into a federal government taking it away from states. This would lead to the U.S. becoming an international power, the President never again having to ask permission from all the states to go to war, the first emergency powers acts placing the President above the law, World War 1, San Juan Hill, Korea, Vietnam- all legacies of this consolidation.
8. Promised to send all blacks back to Africa.
9. Presided over a nation that tried to hide slaves- by taking them to Canada because all industrialized states like Illinois banned blacks from entering
10. Ordered the leader of the opposition to be arrested and held without charges fearing a court battle would prove that states did have a right to leave - that man was beaten by arresting soldiers, his adopted black child covering his body was also beaten as the child yelled for the soldiers to stop. He was held in solitary confinement for 2 1/2 years before the Pope fashioned a bloody crown of thorns mailing it to the next President urging his release.

11. Is called by fellow lovers of a military government honest with no explanation as to how he got the support of Tamminy Hall in NYC, the most corrupt political machine in the nations history.

That President was Abraham Lincoln and the fact that this author must know all the above and yet admire all the above actions makes any critique of Bush just silly. To put it another way, how many newspapers has Bush closed? How many Americans were shot for participating in peaceful protests here? How many comedians have been jailed "for the duration" for telling jokes about Bush?

Shouldn't Bush be allowed to go as far as this writers hero?

Now, about what economists now think of FDR and his failed attempts to end the depression, jail people for their racial makeup, allowing spies to infiltrate our government, refuse to stop or prosecute lynching..... but that's another post......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I recall the statement by Mark Twain: "When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years."

I began to develop some political awareness about the time of the Watergate hearings, so that I recognized that the president was involved in something that made him unfit for office to many. I harbored this opinion whenever I thought back on the administration of Tricky Dick.

Now I suppose that I am old, and look back with fond nostalgia to those happy childhood days. I find myself longing for the transparency and good governance of the Nixon Administration. In the light of "W", I find that the old man was a far better president that we knew. A real gemstone embedded in a cow pie. Oh, how I wish I could read headlines about wage and price controls, "Phase III", the "Energy Problem". I would weep to see him again, arms outstretched, with fingers in the "V"-sign.
.
OK, maybe not. I am not totally soft in the head. Still, Nixon is a veritable star in the heavens when compared to Junior.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

W!W!W!

Tom

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WeAreWideAwakew.org/WAWA
have been accused of "hating" President Bush, but WAWA does NOT hate anyone.

What WAWA hates is apathy, ignorance, hypocrisy, governments that deny human rights and defy International Law

And WAWA is flaming angry that our Lord, Brother, Lover was hijacked by Candidate Bush -who claimed JC was his favorite Philosopher-to get elected

President Bush neglects to follow the Philosophy,

Which is:

The Peacemakers are the children of God, one must love, pray for, do good towards their enemies:

NOT bomb or torture them!



JC was never a Christian,

That term was not even coined until 3 decades after JC walked the earth.

But JC was a social justice, radical revolutionary Palestinian devout Jewish Road Warrior who ROSE UP/INTIFADA and challenged the job security of the corrupt Temple authorities when he taught the people they did NOT need ritual baths or sacrificing livestock to be OK with God:


For God loved them just as they were: poor, oppressed, diseased, outcast, and sinners who endured under Roman occupation.


What got JC crucified was that he disturbed the status quo of Rome by teaching that the least of all were loved and valuable to God,

And that Cesar only had power, because God allowed it.



WAWA
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Contemporary history buffs have wised up on Jackson's racism and are rightfully condemning it and its pernicious results.

But as Confucius said, what is big in the back is big in front.

Jackson's sense of white supremacy led directly to manifest destiny and manifest destiny was ennobled. This is evident in the song " America" which contains such verses as "from sea to shining sea."

Without Jackson we may well be Switzerland. There is some appeal in that, but we certainly would not have become a great world power.

As we emerged as a great power other white supremacist President's, notably Wilson somehow managed to associate American power with anti-Imperialism, democracy and political equality.

Paradoxically, without America's emergence as an anti-Imperialist world power no Western nation at all would have come forth as an advocate of poliitical equality and equal rights irrespective of race.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I really must protest Mr. von Hoffman's assessment of John Tyler.

The Whig Party was founded to counter Jackson's accretion of power to the Presidency and to return this power to the Congress. The party grandees choose Harrison as a distinguished General and Governor who would serve as a compliant executive to this plan.

Tyler, the former Governor of Virginia, the California of the time, was there to balance the ticket and attract electoral votes.

However, when Harrision died Tyler asserted great strength and assured that the Vice President would succeed to full Presidential status upon the death of the President.

Because of Tyler's immense political courage and personal force the Presidencies of T. Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson were regarded as legitimate, full-fledged Presidencies.

It is not hard to imagine how entirely different our laws and government would be without these titans.

John Tyler, despite his lack of party support cannot be viewed as a weak or failed President.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sad to say, there's plenty of shameful poop to go around about most all of our presidents, beginning with the slaveholding of the Founding Fathers (save Adams) and right up to the shafting of poor women and children and gays by Clinton. No, it's not all equal, and some of the offenders did great things simultaneously. It's a tough job, or at least it was until W took office and decided, having watched his father in a haze of booze and resentment, that the presidency was a cakewalk.

What most bothers me about Bush is that his administration has attempted to change the paradigm completely. He only pretends to struggle with difficult issues or feel pain. Cheney eggs him to new heights of arrogance and audacity while Rove and whoever works for them try to spin it. We "in the reality-based community," as Ron Suskind reported, have been reeling since the Supreme Court put them in office. What this administration has damaged most in my opinion is any authentic sense of integrity. What's up is down and what's down is up, and that any challenge to their views is intolerable, and since they have God on their side and our data in their hands, not only should we agree, there will be dire consequences to anyone who doesn't. If the Democrats don't get it together, our republic is going to be toast.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IT's very interesting studying the presidents of the US, past and president to avoid revisionist history of a greater time, stronger morality, etc. A great book on the subject of strictly the presidential campaigns is: See How The Ran by Gil Troy. It is great to see that oftern our rose-clored galsses look to a better time in the past that often didn't exist.

Thanks for the article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Have you forgotten starting a war on a soveriegn nation,
The creation of The PATRIOT Act, the surveillance society, turning innocent sovereign citizens into criminals, the destruction of Habeas Corpus,the re-authorization of The PATRIOT Act, the passage of CAFTA by 1 vote, exporting jobs/careers abroad. There are too many violations to mention.
Or is it that we are not seeing the Fascist/Totalitarian agenda.
Is the current government attempting to destroy the Constitution , Bill of Rights and our unalienable rights?

Any concerns are just a symptoms of these
more basic and urgent issues. If we lose the Constitution,
Bill of Rights and our unalienable right- we are no longer America. Would THAT qualify for possibly being the worst president in American history ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dan makes some great observations:

the lost transparenvy of government and;

the real skill and talent that Richard Nixon brought to the office of the Presidency.

It is ironic that the conservative movement, whose avowed mission is to shrink government and get it off our backs has brought increased inflation, the shrinking middle class, the security state and is now exercising its utmost power to put big brother into all our bedrooms.

Nixon's towering talents have unfortunately been misused to justify the conservatives' all out assault on heterodoxy in American life.

Nixon, this most individualistic of all our Presidents, has had his legacy misused to serve as the political foundation of a program of relentless conformism.

In my opinion, this stems from his use of illegal means, such a burglarly and money laundering to effect political benefits that he had already gained through his statesmanship.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not that a President has to be perfect, since they are but human, but I don't believe we've ever had a good President.

Washington may have been the closest, with Jefferson right behind him. Of course both were slave holders, and Jefferson, for all of his intellectual prowess and who should have had more compassion and should have known better, essentially stole land from both the French and the Indians. Washington did nothing to preserve the existing rights of Indians, either, and ordered the extermination of thousands of Shawano, Tslagi and others.

Kennedy, by no means perfect, did do some good with the Alliance for Progress and did show courage in dealing with a very real nuclear threat. But he further embroiled us in Vietnam, started the sanctions against Cuba and failed to take advantage of other situations that could have prevented the eventual take over of America by the right wing.

Roosevelt? No way. He rolled over while the major industrialists took over the government, causing future generations great pain and suffering and the building of a massive bureaucracy that still grows out of control.

Eisenhower could have been a whole lot worse, but he failed to act to prevent the growth of the right wing, particularly the anti-communist activities that resulted in a lot of repression, black listing and other un-American activities.

Among the more disgusting: Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, L.B. Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, daddy Bush, Clinton and dummy. Does anyone else see a trend, here?

The upshot is that we seem to be taking a long slide down hill and with one, maybe two exceptions, the current crop of Presidential hopefuls do not seem to be much better.

Skywolf.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As much as I hate Nixon's guts, I believe Bush II has this category beat; no question!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Only Shrub could turn a 71-year-old, lifelong registered Republican like me, Goldwater conservative and Ronald Reagan fan into a rabid Bush-hater.

Once an ardent suporter of George W., I flipped after finding the Rosetta Stone of White House corruption. Here are the details.

In February 2004 while researching the Internet for information about Dub-ya's service in the Texas Air National Guard, I found a falsified presidential biography that claimed he flew ANG F102 interceptors almost six years when the actual time was 27 months.

There were other misrepresentations as well – all intentional, not typos or mistaken dictation.

Of all places, the bogus bio had been published on a State Department website for the whole world to see. Everyone except the sleepwalking press, that is.

After shaking off my incredulity, it became clear the fabricated federal document had been created in 2000 (or earlier) to make Governor Bush competitive with his primary opponent, Senator John McCain. Not coincidentally, for example, the inflated flying duty covered the same time period McCain spent as a POW in North Vietnam -- from 1968 through 1973.

To validate my discovery, I called the Boston Globe. Impressed, it ran the story the next morning, on 02/28/04, under the headline, "Bush Bio on Web Inflates Guard Service," and gave me credit as the source.

To read the Globe article and learn more about the most dishonest White House in U.S. history, visit my investigative website: www.King-George.biz.

Hugh E. Scott -- Vietnam veteran, ex-USAF pilot and author of "George Dub-ya Bush, THE PHONY FIGHTER PILOT."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sure we may hate W, but who put him there, and who continues to let him stay? in a representative democracy, we the people are supposed to be the government. with our opinions split 50-50 over so much, it's not surprising that our elected officials are without a rudder and are letting all of us drift along into the backwaters of history, the world, and ourselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sadly, you missed the worst President. He didn't mean to be that,but he realized he made a big mistake when he handed the running of the country to the corporations through the Dulles brothers and the sister. That was when the Military Complex that he spoke about took over. He warned you all in his farewell speech, sadly few got it, at the time.
His name was Eisenhower.
Johanna Moren

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In my opinion, Ronnie Reagan was the worst president.

A Hollywood actor who conned people to vote for him because he could ACT like a president should.

A proponent of the most ridiculous right-wing fantasies and wet dreams. He would have gladly started a nuclear war with the Soviets.

This was a guy--as Mrs. Jimmy Carter remarked--who made it OKAY to and ACCEPTABLE to have a "screw the poor" attitude. And as if that wasn't enough, he also f***ed the middle class by raising interest rates to un-heard of levels, made union-busting just another business tactic; while lavishing money on the military.

And he did it all with an "aw shucks!!" fake folksiness as he systematically screwed the poor while padding the oligarchy.

As bad as Bush II has been, I maintain that EACH and EVERYONE of his policies were preceeded by--and merely extensions of--things that started in Reagan's reign.

To this day, the right-wingers practically fall to their knees in tears and cross themselves at mention of his name.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Grant was too noble a man to be the worst anything. He had some crooks in his administration, but, like Harding, he had nothing to do with their corruption. On the plus side, he was the last President until Lyndon Johnson who would go to bat for black people."

I have to disagree with this statement. Even LBJ braggged that Truman didn't have the horses to get the Civil Rights Amendment passed, but HE did.
Truman couldn't get the amendment passed and in a typical Truman move, 'integrated the Armed Forces', the only thing he could do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The man who nearly turned America into a monarchy was clearly the worst president this country has ever had and polls of historians continue to show it. To just completely forget about him makes me doubt everything in this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reagan, along with every subsequent president, is up for worst ever. They all sat by, and are sitting by, while corporatism turns patriotism into a joke.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While the senate is debating whether they should debate an end to the war (or even a pullback), we are dbating who the worst president was (is).

I say it is Bush, and I pray he is impeached before he gets us all killed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While we're at it, can anyone think of one thing that Bush has done as President that is any good?

This is a serious question. I really would like to know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Even Bill Clinton said in a speech he was a virtual president, that all decisions where already made for him, and that it's the same for all political leaders, including the congress, JFK was the last real president we had and you know what happened to him.

The decider does'nt decide anything, he is a diversion to keep us occupied while they steal the country away, like the 3.5 trillion missing at the pentagon, pocket change for these fellows.
The real question should be, is the presidency dead ?
and if so who is in control...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How about Woodrow Wilson?

He entered us into WWI only for monetary profit (but, I guess what war isn't about that) despite massive public opposition, created the the first internment camps for German-American citizens (a precursor to what was done to the Japanese), closely monitored newspapers and dissenting groups, including arresting those who would not cease their opposition to his policies. And of course, what I consider his greatest sin, allowed for the screening of "Birth of a Nation"--the KKK propoganda film in the White House--and he liked it!

Yeah, he supposedly helped Europe end WWI (BS--the English Tanks were about to end the war without US help) and he opposed the Treaty of Vesailles with his 14 Points (which were good on paper, but never adopted), and is responsible for creating the League of Nations (which didn't last and was TOTALLY ineffectual in stopping, well, anything!). He's given credit for things that had little to no impact and we give him a pass on what he did on the homefront! He's got my vote for #2--W definitely has #1!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think I remember reading that Barbara Bush was a decendant of Franklin Pierce - Am I remembering this correctly - Is W following in a longer family tradition than we realize -
Anyone out there Know?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember; "yo, Blair!" to address the Prime Minister of England? (A fellow wanker but just the same.)

The man has no sense of decorum and few brain cells. George W. Bush gets my vote hands down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After all, Darth Cheney pulls the strings on Puppet Boy GW!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THEY elected him, and what stupid assholes they are. You drive south (especially f'in florida) and you see a megachurch, next to a bar, next to a "gentelmen's club" (translation-whore house). THAT is your born again red state hypocrit who voted in this monster. And may I remind you that Rush Limbaugh and other right wing jerks live there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am tired of hearing of Bush's mispronunciation of 'nuclear'. Merriam Webster's has done a pretty good job of recording the various pronunciations of words, including those in their pronunciation keys that are used by a large enough group. That is what becomes standard. Maybe, those who pronounce it 'nucular' aren't the bozos, but those of us who call them that because we are unaware of (legitimate) regional differences in pronunciation, George's being one of those listed as okay. Look it up.

By the way, I, too think W is a bad president. He is the worst simply because he has and is doing more damage to our nation and the planet than any one human in the course of history. If that does not make him the worst president, then what would?

Cheers,

Ray Teurfs

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GWB has been advancing (white) Imperial America; sadly this is the vision of too many Americans. The next "great" president will come to terms with the present realities of the world stage. The sooner we accept that we're just one of half dozen major players on the world stage the better off we and Earth will be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

With respect Alternet, I’m not sure running ‘Who’s the Worst’ articles when your country’s morality and respect, even survival, is circling the drain, is the best use of important alternative media at this time. Surely - obviously - there are hundreds of nefarious goings-on which deserve your critical light of exposure, and which are potentially dangerous, even lethal, to the well-being of diverse peoples and species on our shared planet. Progressives, liberals, democrats and anyone with even the remotest blip of brain function already know that bush is among the worst ever; and I would submit: not just Presidents, but leaders, overall, in history.

I applaud your work in general, as it is usually relevant and first-rate, and I am well aware that there is no such thing as perfection, even in progressive media ;) However, all the time and energy you and your readers spend considering whether your farce of a leader is worse than Nixon or Buchanan or others is energy not devoted to learning about and discussing the multitude of urgent issues out there - and we all know there’s no shortage of those. Indeed, it’s not impossible that ideas like this are foisted on the media as a means of distraction, while they continue doing whatever behind the scenes; think Schiavo or Ramsey, and now Smith.

Btw, since I’m here, I vote bush. This is both for the primitive neocon agendae he follows without question, and the subsequent death, misery and potentially irredeemable destruction he, his boss cheney, and their sick corporate masters are causing throughout the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The votes are in. The worst president is Cheney, Dumbya Bush was nosed out in the photo.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

they pull the strings. doesn't matter who's dicken in the kitchen - there's a larger force at work here. MJ12 might just be the 'cover term', but their actions sure are crystal clear, and consistent, too.

no wonder American policy has been so full of fantastical distraction, euphemism, and murder. it's ingeniously propelled thru each White House selection. those that fight it, get their heads blown apart by 'single shooters' offed to cover tracks.

it's all set up before it begins.

it is, as they say, metastasized.

end of story.

(don't trust me on this. trust your intuition)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have had very few terrible PMs in our history; nothing on your Maddison, Bush(s), Reagan, Nickson, or Buchanan anyway. I mean, Chretien was really corrupt, and Mulroney was not much better (though he actually cared about the environment). Martin was weak, but not a complete mess... RB Bennet wasn't that great, but then again, none of the leaders in power when the depression started have a good reputation. Alexander Mackenzie was pretty weak too, but he did introduce some good constitutional reforms. Then there's Sir John A, he was a rollercoaster of a PM; he did some great things, but he did them poorly (railway = great idea, railway monopoly to CPR = bad). Dief was great except for the whole Avro Arrow deal. And Trudeau was good too, though the NEP was a bit of a disaster to say the least. No complaints for Pearson or Laurier. St. Laurent, Cambell, and Clarck are all unremarkable, but not bad. I dunno, any Canadians have any ideas on who makes the worst PM ever list??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I cannot remember any president (going back to Ike) who's been castigated more than Bush II...Dumb, delirious, sick, bumbling, mumbling, rude, ill-bred, lazy, delusional, arrogant...You name it and he's been called it...Yet he's still in power after six years with two more years to go and no real threats in sight. Sort of like an American Castro--vilified, but still going strong.

Has he done anything that will leave a positive legacy? Well, several things. One, he's resolutely opposed the climate change alarmists (the 21st Century version of the Savanarolas); he's exposed the US for what it is--a rogue nation intent on empire and hegemony (no more mythology on this score after Bush II); and he's rightly seen that radical Islam is a threat to Western civilization.

One of the worst? Nah! He'll be remembered as a middle-of-the-pack president who was in way over his head.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First of all, I must take issue with Von Hoffman when he writes: "Tippecanoe (William Henry Harrison) lasted about a month in office before he died of a cold contracted while making his inaugural address." We've known since Louis Pasteur, that colds are not caused by the cold weather; but by viruses and bacteria caused by contact with others. In most of the history books back in the day tell us that Harrison died because he wasn't wearing a hat and caught cold. Bunk!
More likely his cold was caused by too many hand shakes.

As for Dubious Dubya: he must be the biggest fuck-up in US history who has caused the most damage to the planet, thus he gets my vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carter's inaugural speech said the time of racial segregation was over, and that racial discrimination had no place in the future of the state. He was the first statewide office holder in the Deep South to say this in public. Following this speech, Carter appointed many blacks to statewide boards and offices.
The 1970s had economic stagnation coupled with price inflation, as well as higher interest rates was Nixon's fault, not Carter's. In 1973, during the Nixon Administration, OPEC (The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) agreed to reduce supplies of oil available to the world market. This sparked an oil crisis and forced oil prices to rise sharply, spurring price inflation throughout the economy, and slowing growth. Significant government borrowing for items such as the Vietnam War and the nuclear weapons stockpile helped keep interest rates high relative to inflation. Jawboning and price freezes had proved ineffective.

In 1977 Carter created the Department of Energy. Carter wore sweaters, installed solar power panels on the roof of the White House, installed a wood stove in the living quarters, ordered the General Services Administration to turn off hot water in some facilities, and requested that Christmas decorations remain dark. Nationwide controls were put on thermostats in government and commercial buildings to prevent people from raising temperatures in the winter or lowering them in the summer.
Carter's was legislation included pardoning Vietnam-era draft-dodgers, and canceling the B-1 bomber program , but then he met with opposition from the leadership of the Democratic Party when he characterized a rivers and harbors bill as "pork barrel" spending.
During his first month in office Carter cut the defense budget by $6 Billion. One of his first acts was to order the unilateral removal of all nuclear weapons from South Korea and his intention to cut back the number of US troops stationed there. Carter planned to remove all but 14,000 U.S. air force personnel and logistics specialists by 1982.
One of Carter's most important accomplishments as President was the Camp David Accords.
President Jimmy Carter and Leonid Brezhnev sign the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT II) treaty, June 18, 1979. It was Carter's main goal that nuclear weaponry be completely banished from the face of the Earth.
Jimmy Carter had been attempting to deal with the Iran hostage crisis and the hostile regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Those who assert that a deal was made allege that certain Republicans with CIA connections, including George H. W. Bush, arranged to have the hostages held through October, until Reagan could defeat Carter in early November, and then be released, thereby preventing an “October surprise” from the Carter administration in which the hostages would be released shortly before the election. The hostages were released the day of Reagan's inauguration, twenty minutes after his inaugural address.
In September 2006, Carter was interviewed on the BBC's current affairs program Newsnight, voicing his concern at the increasing influence of the Religious Right on U.S. politics.
In 1994 Clinton sent Carter to North Korea.North Korea had expelled investigators from the International Atomic Energy Agency and was threatening to begin processing spent nuclear fuel. Carter met with North Korean President Kim Il Sung, resulting in the signing of the Agreed Framework, under which North Korea agreed to stop processing nuclear fuel in exchange for a return to normalized relations, oil deliveries and two light water reactors to replace its graphite reactors.
In 2005 North Korea announced that it had nuclear weapons. Carter's supporters attributed the failure of the agreement to continued sanctions by a Republican-controlled Congress. Their opponents claimed the North Korean government never intended to give up its nuclear weapons program.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While most commentators today rightly refer to Bush as an obsessive war-monger for his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they forget that President Clinton, in his time, engaged in several overlapping and sequential acts of war in Somalia, Iraq, Sudan and Yugoslavia. Clinton’s military actions and the embargoes killed and maimed thousands of Somalis, resulted in 500,000 deaths among Iraqi children alone and caused thousands of civilian deaths and injuries in the Balkans. Clinton ordered the destruction of Sudan’s main pharmaceutical plant producing vital vaccines and drugs essential for both humans and their livestock leading to a critical shortage of these essential vaccines and treatments. President Clinton dispatched thousands of US troops to Somalia to occupy the country under the guise of a ‘humanitarian mission’ in 1994. Washington intervened to bolster its favored pliant war-lord against another, against the advice of the Italian commanders of the UN troops in Somalia. Two-dozen US troops were killed in a botched assassination attempt and furious residents paraded their mutilated bodies in the streets of the Somali capital. Washington sent helicopter gunships, which shelled heavily, populated areas of Mogadishu, killing and maiming thousands of civilians in retaliation.

full article by James Petras

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It seems to me fundamentally inaccurate to compare Bush to presidents of the 19th century or a little later. Times have changes fundamentally and drastically. The arrogant stupidity of this non-elected president, the horrible damage done to the world by him, his insulting rhetoric, his mockery of the English language, the fundamental cult of death that surrounds him -- there simply is no comparison.

This is a man who swaggers around feeling like King of the World, who ought to be the most ashamed person on Earth, who is fundamentally without substance, and who is probably the most loathed and disliked single person on the entire planet. Why does he act so proud?

He is worse than the worse president, his presidendency is a threat to the survival of countless species on this planet -- let alone the human species. What could be worse?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only rival I could come up with for Bush II is Andrew Jackson. The great 'Indian Killer' was not only responsible for what would be considered war crimes, but gave authority to the removal of the Cherokee in what became known as the trail of tears. This set a precedent of ignoring sovereignty we still have yet to overcome.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

normal people are certainly NOT obsessing over whether current President Bush is the "worst President in history" - only malicious, psychotic Leftists with too much time on their hands AND not enough substantive, important issues to consider or work to be doing are concerned with such frivolous nonsense - I love visiting alternet.org every now and then because it is consistent: there are always lunatic netizens in this seemingly parallel universe who are consistently nasty and thoroughly adolescent in their political concerns and opinions - people suffering with the clinical malady BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) say the wiiiildest, craziest things - makes me laugh every time

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GWBush - covered up lies for basis of Iraq escalation, doesn't listen to good advice, follows advice of greedy, advocates misinformation, no shame for misleading and wasting military assets

LB Johnson - covered up lies for basis of Vietnam escalation

RM Nixon - covered up lies for basis of extending Vietnam War, advocated and covered-up illegal acts of his administration

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'd have to divide the time line before and after Civil War. So, BCW my vote is for Buchanan. Through incompetence and duplicity sent us down the long and bloody road. ACW, my vote is for BushII- He has pushed us into an illegal and unnecessary war with Iraq - He is doing his best to bring about war with Iran - He may bring about nuclear war. He has destroyed our standing internationally as a defender of democratic principles and nations. We are now the bully, rogue big power on the block. He has bankrupted the economy. He has infringed on liberties through unlawful eavesdropping. He has thrown out the Geneva Convention standards for prisoners. He defends torture. He is an absolute horror. But I must be fair - He is not really the president - the real president is Cheney - So, I guess I should not go too hard on Dubya.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not so much GW Bush but the idiots that voted him as President!.
Is your current USA electorate the worst ever?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

By ANY and ALL criteria, Bush is the worst, hands down and NO competitition!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... -∞. Yes, on a scale of 0-10, a negative infinity. Most of us know Dick Cheney's the one pulling Dubya's strings. I at least personally believe that Cheney is evil incarnate (Bush is part evil, part stupid). He is obviously morally bankrupt and cares for nothing except enriching himself and his buddies. But how can I give him the absolute lowest score possible?
Well, when you allow 3000 Americans to die in a terrorist attack to pursue an imperial, self-serving rampage on an entire region, allow Osama bin Laden to run away in Afghanistan while instead bombing poor Afghani citizens, then 'cut and run' from Afghanistan to go to war in Iraq on fabricated evidence killing probably around 700,000 Iraqis by now and over 3200 U.S. troops, inflaming terrorism to incalculable proportions, and destroying our reputation, just to fill your and your friends' own pockets while having personally dodged military service, pursue spreading the bloody rampage of the empire to Syria, Iran and who knows what else, authorize torture violating the Geneva Conventions while our popularity drops even further, stonewall investigations into 9/11, Iraq, and torture just to protect your own treason, greed and cruelty, steal from the poor and give to the rich (cutting Social Services to make up for Tax Cuts for the Rich), open up the environment to big polluters (effectively destroying it) while fighting to reduce emissions of information of global warming while fighting to prevent any action done about global warming itself, help destroy the electric car out of personal selfishness, pursue security policies that only make us more vulnerable, put radical extremist nutcases and loyal, incompetent cronies in top government positions, control the media via bribes, intimidation, and secrecy, fight for drug companies' rights to lie to consumers for more profits, pursue abortion policies that only cause over 1,000,000 extra deaths worldwide annually, attack personally anyone who questions you, ... oh dear, this could go on forever!
So, a virtually infinite amount of negatives with virtual if not literally no positives=-∞/10. At least we can take comfort knowing that no future president could ever be worse (well, worse AND get away with it; but I do not see many things that could make one worse than him nonetheless). I don't think any punishment could ever be enough for what this demon has done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From the late 1960's until the mid-1970's, Nick was one of the best columnists to grace the pages of The Washington Post. His clarity was a magnet. A lot of us used him as ammo in the fight against Nixon and the Vietnam War. I'm delighted to know he is alive and writing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of course Dubya is a prime candidate for worst but don't forget Ronnie, whose legacy to America was that is was alright to be selfish. Both of them were/are social Darwinists. Only the fit shall survive!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another Faked Orgasm from the Unaccomplished Missionary [position]

(hey that could have been my dissertation!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is my first time posting a comment to this site. I was compelled to do so after just being informed by mother 5 minutes ago that my 38 year old brother is for the 3rd time going to fight in George Bush's war. Needless to say, my heart fell into the pit of my stomach. I have told my brother on many occassions that he should get out. He's done enough and that he has been blinded by b*llsh*t. In my 26 years on earth, never have I felt so much disdane and disgust for one human being. It blows my mind how you can lie and cheat your way to the top, do what ever the hell you feel like and not give 2 sh*ts about the people whose lives you are sacrificing for your lies and you determination to show the world that you have the big balls of them all. I'm so sick of this sh*t I can't wait until the elections and who ever wins had better made damn sure they have their priorites straight and heart and mind in the right place. The loved ones of these men and women who are are getting slaughtered over there are on edge every nanosecond because you never know when that phone call that you take will have someone on the other end telling you your loved one is no more. I totally understand that this was my brother's choice to sign up for this and respect and commend him for doing a job that most of us wouldn't dare do. I just hate the fact that because he has chosen to serve his country, our country, that he is being exploited by people that shouldn't be in power in the first damn place. To all of you who have loved ones or knows someone that is serving over there, I understand just exactly what you are going through. Peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In this discussion about worst presidents, critics totally missed one point regarding President Nixon: he closed the gold window in 1971 when the French tried to turn in their dollars for gold. For the economic illiterates posting here, this was BIG. The reason he did it was to enable his continuation of the inflationary Vietnam war. What he accomplished was to single-handedly overturn the Brenton Woods Agreement that established the world monetary order for the post WWII period, opening an era of uncontained inflation. If you examine a chart regarding money supply figures, you'll find an explosion of M3 dating back to '71 continuing up to the present resulting ultimately in double digit inflation, recession, stock market blunge, etc.

Bush, in his usual lying way, recently abandoned the reporting of M3 under the fraud that it's no longer "relevant". Of course, other countries still report M3 for their currencies, so you have to ask what this clown is hiding.

When your retirement consists of living in your car and eating dog food, remember that the cause of your problems stems back to Nixon and was finished off by Bush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The comments made here are most interesting insofar as they show an awareness of our history. However, it should be noted that all those who head governments (and other institutions) are human and suffer from human frailties; therefore their administrations reflect not only their successes but also their failings. And in many cases it depends on whther you see "the glass half empty or the glass half full" in deciding whether the positives overcome the negatives- or vice versa.

It is also not entirely fair to compare current presidents to those of the 19th century since the presidency was not chosen by direct vote of the people, and that, at least initially, voting for any office was restricted to the property owners- a situation which was legally changed in time, but problems in enforcing full voting rightsstill persist.

It is also not entirely fair to blame the American public for Mr Bush's accession to the presidency. How much accurate information was given prior to either election? How much were fears intensified by the propaganda that was showered upon us prior to the elections? And what of the lies that were spread about other candidates which added to creating the image that Mr. Bush was by far the best that could be offered to us. And yet, in spite of all this, in 2000 there is much reason to believe not only that the popular vote went to Mr. Gore, but also that even Florida went Democratic. But for the first time in history, when there was a questionable election, the Supreme Court stepped in to determine who would hold that office. We have the media to blame for much of what Americans know and what subsequenstly happened.

And yet, the media is in the same trap as the rest of us Americans- you either played ball with this administration, or you were out- note what had happened to Helen Thomas, a highly respected journalist of many decades of covering the White House. Relegated to the back row and ignored because she dared to stand up for what she saw. There are many journalists who have produced the truth- books have been written, magazines are available and even sites like this on the internet. But how many Americans have the time or the access to research everything? Most Americans may be credulous, but the information that is doled out daily APPEARS credible.

In any event, having lived through many crises that have faced this country, this is the first time that I fear not only for our country- will it continue to exist ? or with all the hatred in the world toward us, will we go out of existence like Poland in the 18th century? will we be nuked into rubble? Even if this does not happen, what negative effect will we have long run on the lives of those on the planet? even on the planet itself?

There are demands for impeachment. However, if it is impossible for the Senate to even get enough votes for a non binding resolution to disapprove Mr. Bush's plan to send additional troops to Iraq, how can you expect these same Republicans, who vote in lockstep, to vote against the President? Only if the media is free enough and brave enough to bring the non-Constitutional actions of this administration to the people on a daily basis can there be a major groundswell for this. And with the media owned, not by those committed to service, but by corporations concerned about the bottom line, who have also reduced the number of investigative reporters what chance do they have?

This entire situation is so complex that it cannot be solved with simple demands or criticisms. This is the first time in the history of this country that an administration has so manipulated everything and everyone, and has so twisted the Constitution and Bill of Rights that unraveling the problems is almost impossible. Even fighting for justice in some cases loses us even more civil rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We cannot foretell the future, but we can learn from the past...thanks for the reminder!

Which current candidates do we think will make the worst President? Hard to tell!

At least Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, and other stars of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9-11" (which I showed to all my college students in China) have been "sincere" in their narrow-minded pursuit of war gainst Arabs, other Muslims, and leftists who happen to run oil-producing nations, like Hugo Chavez....and their support of US-British neo-colonialism. They have become easy targets to criticize politically, though unfortunately they also have made the USA an easy target for the rest of the world to criticize for war crimes, and for some Muslims to hate....

At least we know where they stand, though I wonder: how much of their neo-colonialism is based on the misguided belief that you can impose "democracy" at gunpoint, and how much is really motivated by oil profits and over $16 billion in taxpayer-financed federal contracts for Cheney's Halliburton sole source for "rebuilding" Iraq? (And by other military contractors)

Yet I have a very uneasy feeling about some of the Democrats, too, especially those who have failed to apologize for their earlier votes to invade Iraq, and their continued refusal to cut the funding and demand the troops come home NOW...After all, under the U.S. Constitution, only Congress can declare war, and Congress could end this war tomorrow...

Is it political cowardice? Fear of voters who may think they are not "patriotic" or not protective enough of Israel? Is the continued waffling of Hillary Clinton and others about the illegal, immoral, and unwise invasion of Iraq also due to pressure from big money corporate stockholders of Halliburton and other military contractors and oil companies?

Remember that Brown and Root, A.K.A Halliburton, was Texas Democrat Lyndon Johnson's main financial "angel" when "landslide Lyndon" ran for the US Senate, and a huge beneficiary of President Johnson's federal contracts during the Viet Nam War, receiving the largest single military contract in U.S. history, the building of Cam Ran Bay Naval Base in Viet Nam. Remember also that at one time, LBJ's widow Lady Bird was the largest single stockholder of Brown and Root stock, apart from George and Henry (mssrs. Brown and Root, the engineers who founded the company).

Was Lady Bird Johnson simply a wise investor, like Martha Stewart and Hillary Clinton (two words: cattle futures!), or were she and her husband Lyndon (who as President could not directly receive payments or stock, at least not openly or legally) rewarded with gifts of low-price Brown and Root/Halliburton stock or backdated stock options as a "thank you" for the billion-dollar military contract awarded to them by LBJ?

I don't know. But this "ancient history" is worth investigating, just as Dick Cheney's and the Bush family's financial ties to oil companies and Halliburton and other military contractors are worth investigating.

Successful businessmen, including government contractors, are not stupid. They have many "friends" in both parties, and are especially generous to those Congresspersons, Senators, and Presidents who have the power to award federal contracts and influence laws and regulations which affect their business.

Take a look at the drug industry, the oil industry, the banking and insurance industries, the tax-preparing companies, the corporate media....and at their donations to politicians of both major parties.

And you still wonder why so many Democrats lined up behind Bush and Cheney when they announced their invasion of Iraq?

Gary J. Minter

http://spaces.msn.com/aidschina
http://aidsvillagechina.blog.sohu.com
www.healthchina.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Probably at least 4 billion people hate Dubua,
the man should just evaporate.
But he sleeps well

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's no doubt Dubya is by far the worst, but it couldn't be even more of a disaster. Imagine if Cheney were president! Yes, he pretty much pulls all of George's strings anyway, but still...

I'm still shivering just thinking about it.

Rathan47
http://911debate.wordpress.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When you have heard enough about why Bush should be impeached, when you have said all you can say about how frightening the present situation is, you can take action through one impeachment group that has a sound and promising plan on how to succeed in impeaching George Bush where Congress has failed. They are collecting American's Pledges to participate in a national strike and general boycott should Congress fail to pass a specific bill calling for impeachment. It will be unlike any strike in history, but you need to read the entire plan. It is viable and remarkably simple, and is getting strong support from the general public. But it depends on us, the American people, to organize ourselves. With our Representatives failing to represent, with most of our union leaders failing to oppose, with our media failing to report the truth, we must not fail to pick up the slack and get it done, OURSELVES. Through this action we will grow new, legitimate leadership willing to take on such an important task.
Bush and the people behind this madness must go and we must make it happen! Read this Plan, Sign a Pledge, and most importantly Spread the Word. Our freedom and democracy depend on it.
PledgetoImpeach.org.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

everyone is talking but I think it's time to take decisive action with impeachment. the people must do the work by not participating in the system/economy. the best idea I've seen on how to impeach is at www.pledgetoimpeach.org. check it out; it calls for a national strike if congress does not act. we, the people can force congress to act by not taking part. it something we can really do if we want to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm an old fart, but I can remember going to To San francisco and listening to Mort Sahl "digging the brick wall" in the early 60's. One of his great lines was , when the country was founded we had 3 million and out of that we produced Washington, Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine etc and yet with 300 million people the best we can do is Bush and Cheney--Darwin was wrong. (obviously updated)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All of you people have to be darn fools to think bush is the worst president at all. I can admit even though i like him being president he is not the best in the world but he is the best that is givin to us so i say that Hoover was a real mistake. He firmly belived from the actions he took that everything will take care of itself well evidentually the Deppresion didnt do that. You can only really use that theory of ranything organic not inorganic. When it is inorganic you have to take a course of action to prevent it from getting worse and to bring it back up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...president is the entire Bush Family, a dynasty of republican corruption. His father is equally corrupt, that is why 'we the people' cannot get Reagans papers, which belong to 'we the people'. If I were Dumbya's father I would shoot him for what he has done to america and the american people. But then daddy Boosh has no loyalty to america either. The entire family of Boooshs are dumb dull witted Texass texans and rednecks. None of them worth a damn.
I have been scandalized and radicalized by this family of criminals, thugs and bullies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]