Historians weigh in on Bush’s legacy – “Failure!”
I guess David Cross was right–Bush might just go down as the worst president ever. Most Nuclear Rays readers probably have felt the rightness in that statement for a long time. But now folks who have historical perspective and know Bush’s competition for King Douchebag have confirmed it (my source here is from Harper’s–and thanks to Old American Century for the heads up):
Among historians, there is no doubt into which echelon he falls–his competitors are Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Franklin Pierce, the worst of the presidential worst. But does Bush actually come in dead last?
Yes. History News Network’s poll of 109 historians found that 61 percent of them rank Bush as “worst ever” among U.S. presidents. Bush’s key competition comes from Buchanan, apparently, and a further 2 percent of the sample puts Bush right behind Buchanan as runner-up for “worst ever.” 96 percent of the respondents place the Bush presidency in the bottom tier of American presidencies. And was his presidency (it’s a bit wishful to speak of his presidency in the past tense–after all there are several more months left to go) a success or failure? On that score the numbers are still more resounding: 98 percent label it a “failure.”
This was an informal poll done by George Mason’s History News Network, so take it with a grain of salt–it’s just a little poll to brighten your day, not the exhaustive overview that only decades of objectivity can truly deliver. Still, this doesn’t bode well for the legacy George Bush believes he’ll someday have, except in one regard–there’s nowhere to go from here but up!