Was the American electorate the worst electorate in history? After all they relected George W Bush in 2004.

I would say if you look at the character of those who hate Bush/Howard so much you realize just how good a President/Prime Minister they were.

I simply don't know enough about US presidential history to tell if there's been a worse POTUS, but that's not what makes this article so great. What makes it so great is that I can now cook up some popcorn and watch OLO's resident Rightists contort themselves trying to demonstrate that Bush was in fact a wise and effective leader.

And, Blairbar, Bush was only elected in 2000. The 2004 election was the largest and most elegant case of vote-rigging in history.

I would classify Bush as next to the worst president in American history.

My candidate for the worst president is Andrew Jackson, a genocidal Bible basher with a disregard for law. The civilised Indian tribes of the southeast United States had adapted to white man’s ways having prosperous farms, a newspaper and even a university. White men wanted their land so Andrew Jackson forced them west on the “Trail of Tears’ in which many died. People along the trail were even forbidden to give them food or water.

Until Jackson’s presidency the personnel in government departments below cabinet level were unchanged regardless of what party was elected. Jackson introduced the ‘Spoils System’ whereby workers were sacked in wholesale lots and replaced by cronies and party supporters. Civil service legislation introduced under President Arthur curbed the practice somewhat, but it still exists.

Jackson ignored court orders. He said, “Judge Taney has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.” Under Jackson there was no rule of law either domestic or international. Before he became president Jackson invaded Florida that was a Spanish possession. As president he allocated federal money to his ‘pet banks’.

Bush has done more damage since the United States was a much more powerful nation under Bush than it was under Jackson. However, Jackson as far as I am concerned was worse. With all his faults Bush, unlike Jackson, was not a racist.

I don't know enough about earlier US presidents to know just where George fits in ths table, although I think a couple of other recent ones would rank ahead of him in the "worst president" rankings.

Be that as it may, even if you had awarded him that rare honour, at the end of his terms, he did not hold it for long. Obama has all ready made him look like a mature statesman, in just a couple of months.

I have always distrusted orators. Too much thinking about the how, rather than the what, they are saying.

Yes this bloke is all ready the worst, I just hope he is not that bad, that he is the last.

Maybe it is the worst electorate in history, characterised by paranoid myopia backed with an idiotically penile reliance on guns. Bush reflected their own stupidity and in doing so got away with the worst excesses of any dictator. Not only that but he convinced other western leaders - lapdogs Blair and Howard in particular - to join his barbaric cause. When people objected (for example, painting 'No War' on the opera house) they were somehow unpatriotic and the objects of government scorn.

Since when has it been OK to torture people? Detention without charge? Scrap the Geneva Convention? Kill civilians indiscriminately?

Instead of blistering rage and a hard-edged imperative to have him and his fawning minions brought to trial, they are still American heroes to the same myopic masses whose blind patriotism makes them complicit in his criminality.

While I agree with the author that Bush junior would have to be a strong contender for worst-ever president, I disagree with much of his reasoning.

<< ... libertarians or classical liberals - i.e., people who believe in a maximum of both social and economic freedom for the individual. >>

Giving maximum economic freedom to individuals sounds good in theory, but in reality it's only ever freedom for a select few and always comes at the expense of those less privileged.

<< Because the only good thing I can recall that Bush ever did was to shepherd through some tax cuts. But even these were targeted and piecemeal, tossing bones to favoured interests, rather than any principled abolition of any levies or a wholesale cut in rates. >>

The only fair tax cuts are those to the poor and lowest paid and, just as these weren't the type favoured by Bush, the author too would obviously prefer wholescale tax cuts to rich and poor alike. This would only increase the already huge wealth disparities within the US.

<< Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. This the largest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ and will cost the already bankrupt Medicare system trillions more. >>

I don't agree with increasing any nation's dependency on drug-taking, which is no doubt the end result of this legislation, but I disagree even more strongly with the author's implication that drugs should only be available for the wealthy who can afford their inflated prices.

<< Nationalisations and Bailouts. In response to the crisis he created, he nationalised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and passed by far the largest bailouts in US history (until OBAMA!). >>

I've mixed feelings about the bailouts, which gave greedy manipulators of the financial system a second life they didn't deserve, but the nationalisations were indeed a wise move. Contrary to the author's faith in free marketeering, the presence of a government owned and controlled bank is vital in preventing the private banking system from returning to its former unfettered freedom to accrue short-term profits, irrespective of social and environmental cost.

Hasbeen's post reminds me of an article by comedian David Wong:

"In 2000, George W. Bush was the affable, goofy common man we'd all like to have at our barbecue. Al Gore was a robot, smart and unfeeling as HAL 9000 and just as likely to lock us all out of the bay doors because of some unfathomable calculation made in his computer brain. We went for Bush, and in fact we've been voting for the George W. Bush in that matchup for a couple of centuries, due to an odd misfire in the American brain that associates low intelligence with honesty."

Clearly, the misfire isn't just an American phenomenon.

Ah spleen venting and conservative baiting .. what sport!

david f: "My candidate for the worst president is Andrew Jackson"

I wandered over to Wikipedia to see what Jackson's entry was like. It was a bit of a curates egg. I guess the impression I get is of a violent but fair man. From Wikipedia:

"Jackson fought 13 duels ... In the duel ... Dickinson shot Jackson in the ribs before Jackson returned the fatal shot; Jackson actually allowed Dickinson to shoot first, knowing him to be an excellent shot, and as his opponent reloaded, Jackson shot, even as the bullet lodged itself in his chest."

And...

"His legacy is now seen as mixed, as a protector of popular democracy and individual liberty, checkered by his support for Indian removal and slavery."

That is not a bad summation. It will be interesting to read the summation of Bushes presidency in a decades time. Jackson made some very good decisions (eliminated the Federal debt in the good times, fought off Nullification), and some highly dubious ones. Right now Bushes legacy doesn't look to be mixed. I can't think of a single courageous and correct Bush decision. But perhaps that is just me.

Dear rstuart,

I appreciate the fact that you actually looked up Jackson. Historians do not regard him as one of the worst presidents. To me his genocide of the Indians, spoils system and disregard for law outweigh his popularity and his reputation as a friend of the common man. Indians and black people also contained common men.

Bush’s appointment of two black Secretaries of State paved the way for a black president. To me that is positive. His disregard for the law was as bad as Jackson’s, but unlike Jackson he was not a racist.

With all his flaws Jackson was not a liar, and Bush lied the US into a war we didn’t have to have.

I think Obama may be one of our better presidents. He has not played the bully boy and has actually talked with those like Chavez who oppose the United States. His priorities of health, energy and education are excellent priorities. He apparently is serious about reforming the health system.

He also is apparently serious about limiting corporate influence. He also appears capable of thought. His background as a community organiser working with poor people is unique among presidents.

I am 83 and have voted in every US presidential election since 1948. So far I am more enthusiastic about him than any president since 1948.

Dear Sancho
How do you explain this?
"As in the 2000 presidential election, voting controversies and concerns of irregularities emerged during and after the vote. The winner was not determined until the following day, when Kerry decided not to dispute Bush's win in the state of Ohio." Wiki
Did Kerry complain about "vote rigging"?
Personally I don't give a stuff about the presidential qualities of George W Bush but he was elected democratically in probably the freest nation on the planet. If you wish to blame someone perhaps blame the Democrats whose candidate was not quite up to scratch but the fact is, as you and everybody else knows, George W Bush won the presidential election.

Bush, worst president? He probably deserves to be right up there, although his election victories do tell us something about the difficulties of modern democratic politics, especially in regard to the US situation given that many voted for him.

As for the author, great to see people who write for the Daily Reckoning also on On Line Opinion.

Wow. Wotta list.

Why wait til they're out of office to prosecute the bastards for high crimes? It's virtually at the stage where taking the oath of office is sufficient evidence.

"Was the American electorate the worst electorate in history?"

quite possibly.

Sorry but where was the article? That was just a rant without a hint of any objectivity. It wasn't even constructive in the slightest. Of course there is something to be said about Bush's incompetence, but it is a concern when people spray vitriol like that without even trying to be balanced. Sounds like Doug has a real chip on his shoulder.

What I love about the article is that, rather than bashing Bush, it bashes conservatives. It does this with a nice disclaimer, too: the author says that he doesn't understand conservatives, then goes on to tell his readers exactly what conservatives think and why they think this.

Perhaps it helps that I am not American, but I am generally pretty conservative (the Political Compass puts me right next to the Israeli head honcho) and I don't like Bush at all. It's not because he restricted firearms (frankly, the gun lobby sickens me) or his attempts to make housing readily available (I thought Carter was shouldering the blame for the credit crisis, anyway). It's not because of Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib. To assume that Bush, in only 8 years or so in office, single-handedly orchestrated all of this 'evil' is giving him a bit too much credit. To me, he is a skidmark on the underpants of history simply because he is a twit.

When are people going to realise that it is not US Presidents who make policy.They are merely puppets of the Corporates who have the real power.Obama is getting away with more than Bush since he is the new messiah.

Not even bush wanted to go into Pakistan but Obama gets away with it and still backs the Patriot Act.This stupidity of party political competition is merely a distraction to keep the masses confused and subjugated.

Arjay:

"Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money" - "Tim Robbins" (Trey Parker), "Team America: World Police".

Doug Casey wrote: "People will blame the full suite of disasters Bush caused on the free market simply because Bush constantly said he believed in it."

A lot of the disasters were due to the free market regardless of whether Bush said he believed in it or not. Reckless subprime lending, unregulated hedge funds and other market excesses contributed to the financial debacle. A president who believed that the market needed more regulation might have prevented some of the disasters.

Arjay wrote: When are people going to realise that it is not US Presidents who make policy.

Answer: When people adopt Arjay's conspiratorial view.

Otonoko is right. Bush did not do it alone.

Was the American electorate the worst electorate in history? Somehow, I think the German electorate that elected Hitler was worse.

Since when has it been OK to torture people? Detention without charge? Scrap the Geneva Convention? Kill civilians indiscriminately?
Baxter Sin,
I'd say it's justified whenever someone causes undeserved grief to another. After all, retaliation is always carried out in the hope that more grief can be prevented. if you care to brush up on your german then go to "wie du mir, so ich dir" I'll make it easy for you. It means "i'll do to you as you did to me". I believe the Aboriginal system was along those very sensible lines until the academic do-gooders got imposed onto this great land's hard working society.
George Bush & John Howard inherited a very difficult balancing act. Yes, there could have been other options but as per normal the theorizing do-gooders oppose anything that works in practice & after they managed to de-rail it all they blame those who made a decision despite all the odds.

You're quite mistaken there, blairbar. I strongly recommend you read this article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/print

Why didn't Kerry complain? Firstly, a lot of the evidence didn't emerge until well after his concession. Secondly, as Keith Olbermann at MSNBC commented, "You can rock the boat, but you can never say that the entire ocean is in trouble...you cannot say: By the way, there's something wrong with our electoral system."

By saying Bush "was elected democratically in probably the freest nation on the planet", you're perpetuating the refusal to question US electoral integrity that allows this sort of corruption to flourish.

There's a reason we know that so many supposedly free and fair elections in the Middle East and Africa are shams - exit polling. It's rigorous, reliable, and when applied to the 2004 US election, it clearly shows an unexplained and highly suspicious tendency for Kerry votes to end up with Bush. And that's before you even begin taking in the many reported cases of outright anti-Democrat coercion, removal of independent oversights, and Democrat votes being awarded to the Republicans by the voting machines _right_in_front_of_the_voters'_eyes_.

If it had been the Democrats in bed with the voting machine manufacturers, shutting down polling stations to tamper with votes, and mass-distributing fake leaflets to discourage minority voters from polling, I'm sure you'd be all over it.

Jacky Kellie didn't have to look far for electoral fraud ideas in the 2007 Oz election.

david f

<< Arjay wrote: When are people going to realise that it is not US Presidents who make policy.

Answer: When people adopt Arjay's conspiratorial view. >>

I don't agree with a lot of what Arjay has to say, but I do on this one. Corporate lobbyists wield enormous influence over policy formulation. They mightn't be directly involved in writing and voting for legislative change, but they spend enormous amounts of money and effort in lobbying those who are.

The strong regulatory framework, which had controlled the US banking system and served the economy well since being introduced after the 1930s crash, was only dismantled, piece-by-piece, due to the persistent efforts of powerful banking lobbyists. It was this process, that began in the seventies and continued right through the eighties and into the nineties, which led directly to the recent financial collapse.

Already it's becoming clear that a lot of Obama's wonderful rhetoric is not getting translated into action. The big corporates are pulling out all stops to see it never does. They mightn't be making the policy but they're certainly calling the shots.

individual

<< I believe the Aboriginal system was along those very sensible lines until the academic do-gooders got imposed onto this great land's hard working society. >>

What a nonsense. Academics had nothing to do with the dismantling of the aboriginal system of governance, which I agree was an eminently sensible one in many respects and had certainly stood the test of time and served its people well. The aboriginal way of life was destroyed by the greed and ignorance of early white settlers. I doubt there were many 'academic do-gooders' around then. By the time any academics became involved in aboriginal affairs, the damage had long been done.

It's very convenient, not to mention lazy, to label every grievance onto those pesky 'do-gooders'. It does nothing whatever to advance your argument though. Who is their counterpart? The 'do-badders'?

Everyone is motivated by the urge to do good in the world, whether it's purely within their own sphere of influence or whether it extends more broadly. There are many who selflessly look beyond their own immediate circumstances and seek quite legitimately to improve the world for others and just as well. The world would be a much poorer place without them.

Dear Bronwyn,

It is nothing new that there have been lobbyists who block a president's program. President Franklin D. Roosevelt established Social Security, legislation allowing unions to organise, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and a lot of other advances in what was called the New Deal over great opposition from the National Association of Manufacturers, Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups. Roosevelt was elected four times over the opposition of 90% of the press. He used radio to appeal to the masses and was successful in making great changes for the better. Chester Alan Arthur who is not thought of as a great president put through legislation establishing the civil service reversing to a great extent the corruption in the Jackson instituted 'Spoils Systems' over the united opposition of Roscoe Conkling and other party bosses. Eisenhower managed to keep military budgets in check over the opposition of what he termed the 'military-industrial complex'.

In his attempt to reform the health system Obama faces the opposition of the insurance companies, the drug industry and other interests whose profits will be affected by health system reform. He is conducting an intensive campaign to go directly to the American public by using the internet as Roosevelt used radio. He has also announced that he will try to work on the issues of education, energy and peace. I don't know how successful he will be, but presidents have succeeded in the past against powerful opposition. I hope Obama can do the same. His struggle for health reform is still going on.

"By saying Bush "was elected democratically in probably the freest nation on the planet", you're perpetuating the refusal to question US electoral integrity that allows this sort of corruption to flourish."
Well Sancho you know better than me. I guess I am naive and perhaps I should add the USA to other countries such as North Korea, Iran, Russia,Libya, Syria as fellow corrupt nations.

To other posters please forgive my targeting individual's post.

It's a seriously sad indictment of individual's outlook when s/he considers violence justified. Unfortunately, given the history of his/her posts, my attitude will be written of as being that of the 'loony left' or a 'do gooder' rather than one that might stimulate rational thought.

Retaliation is not carried out in the hope of less grief; by its very nature it is self-serving. Much like the history of individual's posts.

David f refuses to enter into debate but labels those with alternate views as conspiritors.Why don't you debate the facts David f.Obama still backs the Patriot Act and is extending an unpopular war in Afghanistan.Why?

The world's top 50 banks are worth $56 trillion or 56 times our GDP.Kevin Rudd jumps up and down pleading with them to pass on interest rates cuts and they tell him to suck eggs.Who has the real power david f? They will now increase rates independantly of the RBA policy.Who now controls monetary policy?

Who is their counterpart? The 'do-badders'?
Yeah, well Bronwyn, maybe & hopefully one day you will see the light of reality.

Like others, I would make no claim to be an expert on American Presidents, but this article confuses me. Like Bronwyn, I tend to agree with the author's assessment of Bush, but for quite different reasons.
But this sentence:
"As disastrous as he was, I rather hate to put him in competition for "worst president" in the company of Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, the two Roosevelts, Truman, Johnson, and Nixon"
Seems a bit of a mixed bag. I'd always thought Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Truman and Johnson at least, were generally held in high regard; both by historians and by most Americans.
I have to question the author's objectivity.

blairbar, now you're just being silly.

1) you were the one trumpeting american democracy and the "freest nation on the planet" (whatever that means). is your claim now reduced to "better than syria"?

2) it is well possible for democratic nations to elect awful leaders. if you don't think bush was an awful leader, i can only assume you've been exclusively watching fox news for the last ten years.

davidf, yes the german electorate was of course far worse, but the context was of american history. and the american electorate post-2001 has been shameful. (and 2000 was no beacon of sanity).

Dear Bushbasher
Yes I plead guilty to being silly as I presumed most readers knew my comments were in reply to Sancho who suggested the American voting system was corrupt.
No where have I commented on the awfulness or otherwise of George Bush or any other American President down the ages. The silly point I was trying to make was that in a well functioning democracy it is the majority of voters who take responsibility for those elected. In 2004 the majority of US voters re-elected George W Bush. I guess they didn't consider him then the worst President in history.

blairbar:

1) your first post seemed to defend bush against charges of being an awful president, by noting that bush was reelected in 2004.

there is little sense in this. as i've suggested, the reelection of bush may say more about the cluelessness of the electorate (or the corruption or antidemocratic nature of the system) than the wonderfulness of bush. and even on your own terms, you might look at bush's dismal approval ratings at the end of his second term.

2) sancho questioned the legitimacy of the 2004 election. you responded by declaring "George W Bush ... was elected democratically in probably the freest nation on the planet."

now, from my point of view i don't care if 51% or 40% of voters voted for bush in 2004. either way, that's one hell of a lot of morons. but sancho is right: as far as democracies go, the american voting system is pretty awful. it is seriously flawed in design, dishonestly run in implementation, and measurably awful in outcomes.

3) in response, you started referring to syria and north korea et al. to what end? one can have serious criticisms of america without thinking it's the worst of the worst.

4) now you respond, reiterating the point of your first post. once again, so what? you also say a majority voted for bush in 2004: i don't care, but sancho is right that this is open to question.

but the main issue is when you write "in a well functioning democracy it is the majority of voters who take responsibility for those elected".

america is a democracy, but to suggest that it is well functioning goes against a hell of a lot of evidence suggesting otherwise.

Could say that the worst part of the Bush presidency for Australia, was the tragedy of it being backed to the full by Blair and Howard.

This was despite the fact that our more philosophical academic political tutors were very much against the above political set-up.

As one who gained his political knowledge in late adulthood was thus encouraged by such tutors to defy the above Bush-Blair-Howard political reasoning.

And though many of our OLO contributors still regard such as very left wing, my philo' reasoning tells me that the Bush/Blair/Howard reasoning was so far rightist that it desperately favoured deliberate political untruths to succeed.

This has been so much revealed in Iraq in the case of the Surge which was actually a desperate deal arranged between the Bush-led officer-cast and Saddam's Sheiks, not only parents of the Sunni insurgents, but who as part of the Surge success, were even offered positions in the new Iraqi government.

Certainly our media knows well about it, but still acts very dumb when old warriors or worriers like myself enquire about it?

Best Regards, BB, WA.

Baxter Sin wrote: please forgive my targeting individual's post.

I forgive Sin.

Blairbar wrote: In 2004 the majority of US voters re-elected George W Bush. I guess they didn't consider him then the worst President in history.

They could have considered him the worst President in history and his opponent as worse.

Arjay wrote: David f refuses to enter into debate but labels those with alternate views as conspiritors.

I wrote you had a conspiratorial view. One with that view is not a conspirator but explains actions by seeing conspiracies behind them. Since I neither know why nor approve backing the Patriot Act and extending the Afghanistan war I can't debate it. I think the people, especially the women, of Afghanistan should be able to live a free life but doubt that US armed forces can secure it for them. If Obama is a puppet as you claim he cannot be blamed, as he is not acting on his own will.

The US presidents have been a mixed bag. Lyndon Johnson carried on a horrible war in Vietnam and at the same time did a tremendous amount to bring American black people into the mainstream.

Obama has stated goals of improving health, education, energy policy and bring peace to the Middle East. That is quite a load. He is pursuing health reform at the moment.

Although it didn't abolish slavery the US Constitution is a magnificent document. The Bill of Rights guaranteed freedoms that were unique in the world. There was no religious test for office, an independent judiciary and separation of powers between the executive and legislative branch advocated by Montesquieu and not realised in the Westminster system. Most participants in the Constitutional Convention were educated elite informed by the Enlightenment. If there had been universal suffrage at the time we might have had a Constitutional written by those whose views were acceptable to the likes of Pauline Hanson. We now have a much more extensive democracy than existed at the end of the eighteenth century. Baby Bush is a product of it. Maybe a problem is universal suffrage

david f,tell me what you see here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLr1VmN1SVI&feature=related

Arjay

Referring to your Youtube video, apart from being 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back, are you claiming the aircraft flying into the Twin Towers was incidental to the collapse of these buildings?

Just curious, do you believe in the moon landing?

As for BBush, worst president of the 21st Century.

Unluckiest president? Obama who is expected to clean up the mess Bush and his neo-cons created.

Not one of you has looked at the current US president ... in your totally negative backward looking focus.

Fortunately the Yanks are not so silly with their judgements. They'll let history seen from a distant future judge George W. and they'll assess the incompetent fool they elected as George W. Bush's successor throughout his term.

At this point in the presidency, Obama has the lowest popularity rating of any ... note any... US president. That includes both George W. Bush's two terms.
So we can conclude Obama logically, according to the current US polls, is assessed by US voters as the worst President ever.

Wow that can't be right, Can it?
.... hahahahaha

Doesn't augur well for his re-election does it?.

Just like our Kevvy he's continually in re-elect mode, has completely failed or reneged on his election manifesto and has with his latest failure in reforming Health become to be seen as very ordinary.

Yep the US electorate often gets it wrong, but realise their errors and then they punish their inept presidents by awarding them only one term and seem to ensure they do not gain control or lose control of the Senate.

The Yanks seem to understand the present and future are worth far more than the naval gazing infantile raking over of the entails of yesterdays brunch.

Another point all you should try to understand about US presidencies and the handover of power. It is the great American tradition to have a smooth transition of power. It has been a landmark highlight of the US system. It has always ensured the actions and decisions of previous administrations stay in the past and it does not 'rub the noses' of electors in the mess their former votes helped create.

It's a tradition that will continue ... in the US .. but apparently not something recognised here in olo.

I reckon the Yanks are pretty shrewd , and you blokes mostly ... well what's the opposite of shrewd

*It has always ensured the actions and decisions of previous administrations stay in the past and it does not 'rub the noses' of electors in the mess their former votes helped create.*

Eh Keith, so snap, crackle, pop, vanish We just make history go
away like that and you call it smart!

I thought we needed to learn from history, but it seems not so.
Sarah Palin is waiting for you Keith.

Luckily for the world, your judgment in politics is about as bad
as your judgement of the share market, so I don't think we have
much to fear :)

.

"as far as democracies go, the american voting system is pretty awful. it is seriously flawed in design, dishonestly run in implementation, and measurably awful in outcomes." bushbasher
Thank goodness for the Australian voting system. It has given us fine national leaders such as John Howard and Paul Keating and is free from morons.

happy fathers day yabby.

Today Yabby I enjoyed the company of my daughter while supervising work early this morning, a breakfast with a great woman, tennis with my son and his mates this afternoon and now I'm sitting on my yacht in the bay thinking about where I'll sail this week.

Are you still beavering away stockpiling all those nuts?

Now make sure you have a really happy life ... too.

kindest regards keith

Times seem to have changed.

Many openly and comfortably criticise that former regime now but when Latham said much the same as many others have said in this thread, he was virtually crucified by the press - not to mention the antics of Bob Brown and Co during Dubbyas trip downunder.

Have we changed so much since then or has the world, with the benefit of hindsight - shifted it's focus?

Maybe it was their money plus our own military insecurity that made them so appealing, along with their arrogant and contrived "Mission Accomplished" Hollywood bravado.

I thought it was universally acknowledged that James Buchanan was the worst US President ever. I rather expect that history will continue to agree with that assessment.

Martin Van Buren, who enforced Jackson’s Indian Acts, is also seriously up there, as is Warren Harding, Andrew Johnson, Millard Filmore, John Tyler, Ulysses S. Grant and Franklin Pierce. George W. Bush will certainly be in the bottom half courtesy of his invasion of Iraq and failure to act sufficiently early to curb the excesses of the financial system, but history may struggle to place him in the bottom 10.

As for the author of this piece, apart from Barack Obama, it is hard to understand who he would put in his top 10. I would have Lincoln, F.D. Roosevelt, Jefferson, Washington, Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Eisenhower and Polk.

Dear Agronomist,

It is not universally acknowledged that Buchanan was the worst president. Many historians choose Harding for that position.

My choice for the best is Washington. His refusal to accept a third term established a precedent for the limitation of power. He could have been reelected for life.

I would put Wilson and Reagan in the bottom 10. Wilson could have kept the US out of WW1 and didn’t. His self-determination has given sanction to a number of new nations being founded on the basis of ethnic nationalism that makes people within the borders of those nations who do not fit the national paradigm second-class citizens. His racism delayed black liberation. I believe his self-determination was motivated by his hope that ‘lesser’ peoples would be less likely to come to the United States. His alienation of the Republicans kept the US out of the League of Nations. With a stronger League WW2 might have been prevented. Reagan belongs in the bottom 10 because Reagonomics culminated in the financial catastrophe during Baby Bush’s administration.

At the top I would have Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Chester A. Arthur James Monroe and William Howard Taft.

On bottom I would have from the worst: Andrew Jackson, Baby Bush, James Buchanan, Franklin D. Pierce, Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan, Warren G. Harding, Herbert Hoover, James K. Polk, Calvin Coolidge, Andrew Johnson. I have 11 bad because I think they all belong there.

James K. Polk belongs in the bottom 11 because he continued the genocidal policies of Andrew Jackson towards the Indians and initiated an aggressive war against Mexico. Although the US benefited greatly from the war it remains an unconscionable act of aggression.

Many put Grant in the bottom 10. However, two of my grandchildren are also his descendents. They are both bright and beautiful.

Eisenhower has been called a ‘do nothing’ president. In that lies his greatness. Many of the things he refused to do shouldn’t have been done.

Barack Obama’s administration is only at the beginning. Time will tell where he ranks.

By far the worst president was Woodrow Wilson. WW1,income tax,federal reserve bank,illegalization of drugs,women with the right to vote. Wilson was the first U.S. president to be stooged by that hideous bloated swine Winston Churchill. Wilson the moron was sucked in by the phoney telegram from Germany to its Mexican embassy and the betrayal of the Lusitania by Churchill withholding U-boat sightings.

Keith, you seem as over-full of confidence in the American Way as the born-again religio cranks, most with looks in their eyes like Nazi stormtroopers on parade.

Just as Socrates implied, don't look as if you own the world, just let the thoughts run deep and sensible to find the real truth of the matter.

Was Bush incompetent? He was only as good as his controllers.

Was his regime dishonest, conniving and brutal?

Most definitely.

Congratulations david f. At last a contributor with a sensible rating system for US presidents.
"Many put Grant in the bottom 10. However, two of my grandchildren are also his descendents. They are both bright and beautiful."

Thanks for the video, Arjay. The narrator asks what we see; I reckon I'll answer that. I see a 9-second loop of footage detailing a small part of an event that took a lot longer than 9 seconds to play out. Missing from the footage, for example, is an airliner that flew into a building. As far as I know, at the time of the incident, the only precedent for this had taken place on the same day. Sure, planes have collided with buildings before, but I can't think of another example of a plane hitting a building that big squarely and deliberately. Why would the narrator (who positions us to believe he is an engineer - he might well be) be able to predict the results of such an event, given that there was no precedent? He would have to catapult an object of a similar size, similar temperature, similar shape, similar capacity for destruction into a building of similar size, similar structure, etc at a similar speed to recreate the event. And I don't know too many people putting their hands up for that job.

Dear ELLSWORTH, The Lusitania should not have been a casus belli. It was carrying munitions, and that made it a legitimate target. The Germans had a right to sink it. Wilson's Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, resigned in protest at Wilson's warmongering. However, I fail to see what is wrong in women having the vote or the income tax.

Dear Arjay,

I saw the beginning of your Youtube video, and it confirmed my impression that you have a conspiratorial view.

Bushbred there you go agin ... and for an alledged historian it is a woeful practice.

How many born-again religio cranks and Nazi stormtroopers on parade have you actually looked in the eye that enables you to assess the nature of the look in their eye ... or indeed their similarities?

You should know such generalisations without any shred of authentic evidence is the type of pap that distorts the accuracy of history.

Grade E. Fail.

As for the Liberal Democratic US system ... well Bushbred would you like me to compare it to the many other systems, modern or ancient? With your apparent dubious methodilogies I doubt you'd be able to conduct an informed or unbiased analysis.

Thankyou for allowing me the compliment of deep and thoughtful ... but I think to you they are only words used in a similar fashion to over-full of confidence and the American way ... empty platitudes or critiques.

Nice to see you are not one of those grumpy, unloved, unfulfilled silly old buggars ... eh mate.

Keith, going by your remarks about your lifestyle, Keith, you are just a braggart who has had a lucky life.

Reckon as a student of political philosophy, you'd be lucky to get five out of ten.

Indeed, anyone who still backs Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Co, should now be regarded academically as a total failure.

The mystery is how Blair and Howard ever got tangled up with them?

Nary a Cheer, from BB, Buntine, WA

Ahhh Bushbred,

I prefer to think I'm an extrovert who has worked hard and earned my few benefits?

I've always recognised Australia's greatest curse is envy and it's often displayed alongside small minded arrogrant superiority.

You'd agree wouldn't you?

This was shown on national Danish TV. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o Our own Aust Govt has refused to let the ABC air it.This is not conspiracy theory but scientific forensic evidence that makes a lie of the offical Bush administration's view of reality.

Well over 800 Architects and Engineers in the USA now want a new investigation into 911 in the light of new evidence that is indisputable both scientically and visually.see http://www.aetruth.org/

The truth is slowly emerging and the real conspiritors will soon hopefully face justice.

Sorry the website for Architects and Engineers is http://www.ae911truth.org/ View the indisputable reality.These are not a bunch of crackpot wackos who are influenced by mind altering drugs.This is the reality,no matter how unpalitable we in our Western comfort zones find it.

Arjay, you're going to have to kick this habit of seeing the world as one giant conspiracy.

It will, I can promise you, be damaging to your health, both mental and physical.

Your new favourite - nano-thermite - is an absolute doozy.

>>This is not conspiracy theory but scientific forensic evidence<<

That is exactly, and most precisely, absolutely wrong, on both counts.

The evidence that nanothermite was present in samples of dust taken from the vicinity of the towers is irreducibly vague. It talks about the presence of aluminium and iron oxide in samples, as if the only way their presence could be justified was in nano-thermite form.

Conveniently ignoring that the building contained thousands of tons of aluminium, and significant amounts of rust, simply because it was... a building.

Also completely ignoring the fact that a residue of "spent" thermite is barium nitrate. None of which was found. Even by the conspiracy-dudes.

Pure fantasy. And this is also to ignore a half-dozen other impossibilities embedded in the theory. How did the necessary amount come to be installed in the building, and where? How was it detonated? Why did it not just explode from the heat generated by the exploding planes.

Or were those planes fictitious too?

Frankly, I would imagine any and every wacko theory gets a run at your place.

And the "architects video" is pure undiluted speculation. The collapse of a building of this size, under the conditions it experienced, was literally unprecedented. To speculate that experience from "normal" demolitions would apply here is irresponsible. Except of course for people who wish to profit financially from the controversy.

It is simply a string of vague "how else can you explain" postulations. I found myself disagreeing with just over 100% of the "statements" made in the video, and reinforced my view that 9/11 conspiracy nutters are unable to apply normal logic.

Anyway, you did manage to pervert yet another thread with your nutjob theories, Arjay.

Kudos at least for that.