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.