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.