Jay Bookman

By Charles

May 28, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this

Keep drinking your Liberal Kool Aid, Jay - Bush’s Presidency will be vindicated for trying to fix what the Clintons left him (radical Islamic terrorism). You must not remember the Carter years either. Thank God for President Reagan who got our country back on the right path again!

By Red Foreman

May 28, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

Hey Jay, Breaking News…

Bigfoot is running loose in downtown Atlanta, followed closely by aliens in a UFO…better call “BHO” or maybe the “Liberal Media” to save us all!!!!

By Thor

May 28, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this

Sadly, in Georgia there are a lot of people who still like Bush. I wonder if there is a correlation between our poor educational system and people who still support this President?

I really can’t say if Bush is the worst in US history; he certainly is the worst in my lifetime. I would place him in the bottom 5.

The people who still support Bush are very small but loud. They have made up their mind a long time ago that they like him and will support him, no information will ever change their minds - they don’t want to hear it.

America is in serious trouble right now. The buck stops with Bush for all his mistakes.

By Bobby from Texas

May 28, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

Charles, it is time you accept reality. No one is drinking Kool Aid, but drawing rational conclusions. I love my country more than anything and I wanted to see Bush succeed just as much. Because you like a person or agree with their ideology, doesn’t mean you should turn a blind eye when they fail. You are not throwing them under a bus, but accepting the painful truth about their lack of success. This is the second time in 28 years trickle down economics has proven to be a fraud. This notion of military might trumps all has now been proven to be a failed strategy. If you love your country as much as I know you do, then you will be honest about what is happening. Only then can we hold the people we elect accountable for their performance and not whether we like them personally or if they have a “R” or “D” besides their name.

God bless you God bless America God bless us All

By The Truth

May 28, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this

Thor, Sadly, there are people like you in Georgia. Last time I checked W got the most votes for a president, in the history of this country. I don’t vote for someone based on what MTV or Pdiddy tells me. I vote for the best leader. Bubba was not a leader. He read polls from PMSMBC and we were bombed 4 times because of it. Also, I have an MBA so don’t try to pull the old “poor education” card on me.

Candide, last time I checked AMerica is the best real country in the world. It’s sad that communist like yourself exist. It is you who should lined up and shot.

By RealityKing

May 28, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this

America should be the “Arsenal of Democracy” - Roosevelt

In 1938, facing strong isolationist sentiment from leaders in the Senate, Roosevelt slowly began re-armament in secret.

On January 1941, he delivered his famous Four Freedoms speech, further laying out the case for an American defense of basic rights throughout the world.

By 1941, U.S. Navy aircraft carriers were secretly ferrying British fighter planes between the UK and the Mediterranean war zones, and the British Royal Navy was receiving supply and repair assistance at American naval bases in the United States.

July 1941, Roosevelt ordered Secretary of War Henry Stimson to begin planning for total American military involvement.

December 4, 1941, The Chicago Tribune revealed “Rainbow Five,” a top-secret war plan drawn up at President Franklin Roosevelt’s order. “Rainbow Five” called for a 10-million man army invading Europe in 1943 on the side of Britain and Russia.

Sorry Jay.., but history proves you wrong. And it shows that historians and political scientists are quite a bit more open minded about national security matters than you progressive media editors. Clearly history was over looked during those reading lessons..

By Matthew

May 28, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

Bobby,

Please state the economic alternative that will not result in the twice-every-30-year slowdowns that we’re now seeing. An enterprise system of economics is cyclical. It always will be.

By The Truth

May 28, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this

Jay, I’m not a fan of you or the AJC but I will give you credit for at least letting people comment. Unlike Cynthia Tucker, you can take criticism and I do like it when you comment. Kudos to you.

Now, I don’t agree that W will go down as the worst president. History will show what he is or is not. Jimmy Carter, in my opinion, was the worst. Unemployment was through the roof, terrorism was born under his presidency, gas prices were high, the country was in a terrible recession and he was destroyed by Reagan. At least Bush won both times he ran.

By demwit

May 28, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

“transform the Middle East to ensure an enduring peace in the region.”

Haven’t we been trying to do this very same thing since like the 70’s????

By Huac

May 28, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this

Out of curiosity, finally read Jay’s bio. Along with Journalism, says he has a degree in History. If that’s the case, he knows better than he’s been letting on this whole time. Looks like his job description is to provoke rather than to enlighten. Should this be considered outright decpetion? If so, Jay might turn out to be the worst editorial writer the AJC ever had. Sure, only history can decide. But why wait for that?

By Pat

May 28, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

My father-in-law was married to a German woman for many years. He told us that whenever they visited her family, her elderly relatives would argue for hours, insisting that Hitler was a great German who did great things for the country, but was ultimately betrayed by “traitors” and lesser men. Keep on dreaming your fantasy, 22 percenters” You’ll be defending Bush while he’s still roasting in the flames of hell for his crimes.

By The Truth

May 28, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this

Pat, There is a bit of a difference from Hitler and Bush. Hitler was a mass murderer who exterminated Jews and attacked several countries. If you want to call Bush a murderer fine, but then I would point out that Clinton is also a murderer because a lot of people died in his little wag the dog war in Kosovo. By the way, how do you know Bush is going to hell? Are you a priest, angel, Jesus or God?

By Thor

May 28, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this

Most people today are not informed. Very few read newspapers or news magazines or a book. Television and the computer where we can just flip around until we find something which appeals to us. See, the news is actually boring and requires an attention span. Hence, adult men between 35-60 like to watch news entertainment like Hannity and O’Reilly where they can watch a wrestling match rather than receive information.

The 30 minute evening news if transcribed will not fit on page one of the New York Times; that’s how much information most people receive. The public is nothing more than a bunch of ill informed morons.

And for Mr MBA, “The Truth” - unlike you who actually votes for a leader, my parents raised me to vote against someone because they are all bad. I would also imagine with an MBA you popped out of the academy mill of SEC schools noted for their football programs rather than their intellectual academic thinking. Your MBA degree means you have taken political science 101 and perhaps one or at most two college level history classes. You’re trained in accounting but your mind (like most BBA candidates) is trained to conform - the business world likes that! Liberal arts degrees might not earn the big bucks of an MBA but they do train minds to think independently - and how to read. Bush is at the bottom due to the public who voted for this “leader”.

By Jay Bookman

May 28, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

To The Truth(sic):

So, you want to leave the verdict on Bush to the professional historians, huh? Sounds good to me, and this piece from April’s Harper’s explains why: “But, as George Mason University’s History News Network reports, the historians have a different measure. They want to stack (Bush) up against his forty-two predecessors as the nation’s chief executive. 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.”

By The Truth

May 28, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this

Thor, If Duke is an SEC school then I was duped. By the way, there are some GREAT SEC schools. Vanderbilt? Ever heard of it? How about University of Florida? Great school. As for a liberal arts degree. IF you want to work at Star Bucks then get a degree in lib arts. I also find it funny that you pick on O’Reilly and Hannity because it’s ONE news channel in a sea of liberal channels. NBC, CBS, MSNBC, ABC, and PBS. They outnumber FOX my friend. I also find it funny that whoever disagrees with you, or any other liberal, is deemed stupid. It is common knowledge that the less educated tend to vote for democrats and the more highly educated vote republican or libertarian. I’ll take a leader like Bush over a naive senator from Illinois any day. I’ll also choose capitalism over socialism any day.

By Huac

May 28, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

Jay, when Harry Truman left office, his approval numbers were about the same as W’s. Now Truman is listed in nearly every historian’s top 10…many have them in their top five. Nobody polled ‘historians’ in Trumans day about the job he was doing. But if they did, I would guess most would have said “I’m an historian. That means you’ll have to ask again in at least another 25 years.”

By The Truth

May 28, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

Jay Bookman, Then you would have to include Bill Clinton in that category. We were bombed 4 times and he did nothing. At least W has kept this country safe and the economy doubled what it was when Clinton was in office. By the way, “polls” are one-sided and often vague. IF polls were true then we would never have had a Bush presidency. “Historians” also said that Reagan would go down as a terrible president and now we have dems and repubs scrambling to make their image fit his mold. By the way, where was Jimmy Carter in your “poll.”

By Jay Bookman

May 28, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this

And in 25 years, when historians are still saying that Bush was the worst president ever, you and others will be insisting that we have to wait at least 50 years to make that kind of statement. And in 50 years….

By Thor

May 28, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this

Harry Truman read books; Bush does not.

By The Truth

May 28, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

Jay Bookman, You didn’t debate any of my statements about Clinton or Jimmy. Thanks. You’ve proved a point that liberals are all one-sided. 50 years? I’ll hopefully be in heaven my friend. Now, feel free to call me a religious nut.

By the way, I see polls on CNN everyday. One poll asked the question, what is your favorite color. Blue or Green? Now, the majority said blue so CNN says that blue is everyones favorite color. Do you see the ridiculousness in polls? When I read that the majority of Americans hate Bush and then see that 600 out of 1000 people were polled I see bias. You should really ask Chris Matthews for a job on his show shining his shoes. By the way, did you also know that NBC, ABC and MSNBC’s ratings are in the tank? I wonder why?

By RealityKing

May 28, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

Maybe, just maybe…., but one thing is for sure. The AJC’s subscribers list is the worst in it’s history.

By Observer

May 28, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

Mr. Bookman - I find it telling that you wish to declare Bush’s historical standing in the present. Sorry, but that’s not how “history” works.

There is no argument that George W. Bush has made many mistakes - most (if not all) presidents do. Presidents are forced to make decisions in real time and history is given the luxury of grading those decisions after the fact. I’m sure Jimmy Carter made his economic decisions with the best interest of the country in mind but history, with the benefit of looking at an 18% prime rate in hindsight, views him as an economic idiot. Carter was not an idiot. He simply made some poor decisions in real time.

Bush has made poor decisions as well but regardless of his current approval numbers, history will probably place him in the middle of the pack. Unfortunately, Mr. Bookman, only time will tell - that’s how history works.

Bush has made poor decisions as well but regardless of his current approval numbers, history will probably place him in the middle of the pack. Unfortunately, Mr. Bookman, only time will tell - that’s how history works.

By Crafty

May 28, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

Thor, how do you know he doesn’t read books? Also, what books have you read lately? And no, Playgirl doesn’t count as a book.

By Fred Mertz

May 28, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this

Jay,

I don’t know if I would call him the worst President. As a Republican, I can definitely say that he is one of the worst Republicans. He has been a real mixed bag in so many areas. I don’t think that any President from either party can be successful without being consistent in their policy. Bush has been shooting from the hip since he took office. Sometimes he hits the target and sometimes he hits the dog….

By RealityKing

May 28, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this

Sure, sure, the worst in history…

1) Largest tax cut in history(all taxpayers). 2) Largest homeowership in history(all races). 3) Longest economic expansion in history. 4) 2 brand new democracies. 5) 57 million newly freed people. 6) Libya and NK give up nuclear ambitions. 7) Most diverse administration in history. 8) NCLB. The latest scores prove the need for this one. 9) End of the line for Saddam and his murderous sons. 10) Exposed the medias liberal hate machine and it’s agenda.

By Thor

May 28, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

Bush has admitted he doesn’t like to read. It has been reported that Rove has pushed Bush to read but he doesn’t. This year Bush’s staff has been bragging that he’s read over 30 books which is simply a lie. Bush has admitted he doesn’t read newspapers.

Pick up “Fiasco” by Thomas Ricks former war correspondent for the WSJ who is now with the Washington Post for a look at the decision making of this administration. At the end of the book Ricks describes the various long term scenarios for Iraq which is disturbing.

Pick up “Cobra II” by the NYT’s war correspondent Gordon and General Trainor. This is probably the best book in addition to “Fiasco”.

Read all three of Bob Woodward’s volumes.

Brzinsky (Carter’s NSA hawk) has an Ok book on foreign policy.

“Against All Enemies” by Richard Clarke is superb.

Greenspan’s new book is good as well on the stupidity of Bush.

Reading takes an attention span. These are nice, thick books which most of the American public won’t read. Kissinger has read all of these books and they are written by well known, established authors.

By The Snark

May 28, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

It’s pitiful that the only defense anyone can offer for George W. Bush is the claim that Jimmy Carter was worse.

I don’t recall that Carter got us into any mess remotely like the invasion of Iraq. As for unemployment and inflation — Carter didn’t cause them, and Reagan didn’t fix them. The economy is not under the control of the President. You might as well blame Reagan and Bush I for the recessions of the early 80s and 90s.

By The Truth

May 28, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this

Thor, Everyone on your book list hates Bush. Why would I want to read any books written by people that have it out for him? By the way, what books does he need to read to make him smarter? What books are you reading that don’t have political bias?

By independent

May 28, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this

Hey Jay Bookman, How do you suppose those same polls view our current Democrat led Congress? Do you think they will be considered the Worst Congress in History?

By W. MARTIN

May 28, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

Whether George Bush is the worst President in history is debatable, we can leave that to the historians. BUT this is not easily debated—-under this administration, our country’s reputaton has suffered tremendously …America is operated on borrowed money…Bush goes to Sauda Arabia and all but ‘begs’ for help with the oil situation and is turned down…yet another major financial disaster occured under Republican administration…efforts to address the fuel concerns have nothing to do with conservation but more to do with maintaining high profits for the oil industry (which should be no surprize to us what with Bush and Cheney)…and we’ve said nothing about the polarization of Americans…I’ll stop with this. While commennts and reports like the above information are seen in the newspapers and heard on t.v. and radio almost daily, and while they may not be completely accurate to every ‘dot and tittle’ they do represent so much of what the Bush administration, encouraged by the religious right (fundamentistis)and political extremest—-has done to American and its reputation in the world. Should one say ‘to heck with what the world thinks about us,’ he only compounds the problems sinse he obviously dosen’t realize that no one, no place, no country, can isolate itself completely from the world. You may debate my opinion that I have come to see that the Right Wing, by whatever name, as we have come to know them, seems incapable of leading a country—-perhaps because they like to feel every issue is so critical, every question so holy, every matter so serious, every social incident so moral that they cannot ‘compromise.’ Yet, part of getting along together requires a little give and take, whether in the relationship of husband/wife, parents/child, next door neighbors, adjoining towns, or members of the communities of nation. Many of today’s politicans pride themselves in being ‘morally unyielding’…which may be part of the problem. In the world of ‘truths’ and ‘morals’ so much of what we like to call ‘truth’ is our opinions and what we like to think are ‘morals’ are more cultural teachings—-leaving so much of what we call ‘truth’ to be debated and a lot of what we label ‘morality’ to be questioned.

By The Truth

May 28, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

The Snark, Then why do dems boast that Clinton created the best economy? Why Carter? Have you not read the comments about Clinton? Define what mess Iraq is? Troop death? Because the troop deaths are lower than any wars of this century. Clintons legacy is blow jobs and weakness on national defense. Carters legacy is terrible recession, Iranian terrorism, high inflation, high unemployment. Bush Sr. legacy is Gulf War one. Bush Jr. legacy is War on Islamic terrorism, low unemployment, economic greatness, high gas prices.

By Independent

May 28, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

PSSST W.Martin Guess what? our so-called reputation was not all that great in the Middle East before the BUSH Adminitration.

By Observer

May 28, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Thor - You paint yourself as a well read and informed intellectual. Do you endeavor to read anything that supports a point of view other than your own or do you only read authors who are highly partisan liberals like ALL of those mentioned in your last post?

Just because somebody has a point of view that differs from yours doesn’t make them stupid or uneducated – only different. If the extent of your “education” is to make yourself well-versed on only one side of the issues, it can be argued that you, sir, are the one lacking education.

By Thor

May 28, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

Gee… Alan Greenspan is a partisan, aye? I like how people comment about authors when they have never read the book - its easier to let other people tell you how to think.

Brilliant.

By Wild Bill Hiltner

May 28, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this

“Oh Jay”, “Oh Jay”, “Oh Jay”, my dear, sweet, deluded, “Oh Jay” - the George Mason University’s History News Network - hardly more than a junior college and certainly not an elite institution of learning - if you are a professor at GMU, its either because you are the trailing sposue for spouse who has a hgher paying job in the same town or your hopes and dreams did not pan out. This so called historian consensus was probably more that one marginally employed lib calling a bunch of his similarly positioned friends. While we wait for the real historians to consider the real facts, maybe you can riddle one thing for me. How can a man o’ integrity, such as you hold yourself out to be, stomach the democrat ads that take McCain’s 100 year comment out of context by not showing his conditions to the statement? Maybe you could do a nice blog or editorial on that and Obamalama ding dong’s silence on this example of intellectual dishonesty?

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

May 28, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this

Hi Jay,

I’d like to get your thoughts on the media’s “complicity” here with regards to not pressing Bush enough on making his argument. My opinion is that the drumbeat of “liberal media bad” leading up to this was the foundation on which his effort was built. Attack the messenger and distract the peoples.

Also, for all those Jimmy fans out there…say what you will. But if memory serves me, he predicted an energy crunch and had solar panels installed on the White Houes. What was the first thing that Reagan did? Take them down…what kind of vision is that.

None…it’s a complete lack of vision, and represents the same narrow minded focus that got Atlanta into the traffic mess that it’s in now.

By Blind Homer

May 28, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this

Carter was a terrible president with a Baptist minister’s approach to foreign policy, but he inherited stagflation from Nixon and Ford, whereas Bush created the Iraq disaster almost singlehandedly. The Reagan legacy is deficit spending combined with tax cuts for the wealthy, amnesty for illegals leading to the current massive invasion of our country, and treason (Iran Contra). The Bush I legacy is hypocrisy (“read my lips”), elitism, and the only standing president in U.S. history to win a war but lose re-election. Iraq disaster means 4000 plus U.S. lives, tens of thousands or Iraqi civilian lives and a trillion plus dollars so we can have a huge debt, a deflated dollar, and $4 a gallon gas. Being generous, I could call it a mitigated disaster, the mitigation being removal of Saddam and killing lots of terrorists. Unfortunately, I suspect we have created more terrorists than we’ve killed, therefore it’s a total disaster.

By Jay Bookman

May 28, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

To Cherry-pickin’ Jim:

Yes, the constant complaints about the liberal media probably did play a role in the media becoming “complicit enablers” of the Bush strategy, as McClellan puts it. But you can’t blame Bush and his people for that. They just did what politicians do. The blame lies exclusively with the media for caving into it. We failed the American people.

By Gandalf, the Grey

May 28, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this

Bookie, you forgot Peanut farmer Carter in your worst presidents list. He’s still doing harm to this country. Habitat for Humanity! HAHAHA He couldn’t scare off a fly, but he lays down with jackals all day long. What a disgrace!

By Jay Bookman

May 28, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this

Well Gandalph, a lot of your fellow Americans disagree. In the most recent poll I can find, conducted in 2006, 22 percent said they considered Carter a poor or below average president, while 54 percent rated Bush as poor or below average.

By The Truth

May 28, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

Jay Bookman, How many people were in the poll? What part of the country was polled? What were the questions? What percentage were democrats and republicans?

We can play the poll game all day long but the fact is Carter was a total idiot who was blown away by Reagan. Even Georgia can’t stand the guy. He was booed at a Braves game a week ago by “real Americans.”

By Donald

May 28, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this

It never seizes to amaze me how republicans can minimize any wrong by a conservative, neocon, or moral hypocrite and discredit any success by anyone else. This is true even when success is defined the same. Why is this? Well social pyschologist Stanley Milgram’s empirical work, regarding behavior, comes to mind. And if one were to do a subsequent study of those who participated in Milgram’s experiment, I would be willing to bet a lot of money that they were majority republicans. I would venture even further and suggest that they are what John Dean, former President Nixon’s aide, described as right-winged authoritarian-followers in his book Conservatives without conscience. This group of followers, like those in Milgram’s experiment would blindly follow their leader into the abyss without question.

To further illusrate the point, in Milgram’s experiment subjects were ask to distribute with increasing intensity the velocity of electricity upon their fellowman who was placed on the other side of a glass wall. I do not remember the exact voltages and their subsequent increments, however it was noted to those who participated that on the upper end the voltages became lethal. With suprising regularity, to the tune of ninety percent (90%)or thereabout, each subject, upon instruction, exacted the maximum voltage without regard for the damage being done to their fellow man on the other side of the mirror (world). This, amazingly. was accomplished because the person who was giving the instructions had on a doctor’s jacket which presented the illusion that in some way he had the authority to exact this punishment and therefore the subjects were simple doing what the person in authority had prescribed. (He was neither doctor nor scientist, just a stooge used for the purpose of the experiment.)

Now when you have supposed intelligent people who would commit such atrocities upon their fellow man without serious or necessary reasons where, in America, does one think their political affliation resides. Indeed with which political party would you ascribe this self-centered delusional behavior? What is really more troubling is that these individuals have no concept of the internal contradictions which reside in most of their conservative arguments. In a sense not conscious of their conscience. Milgram called this blind obedience ‘the dispositional cement that binds men to systems of authority.’—Without it many organization would simple not work; with it, they could also run amuck— In other words we must always question our leaders for they are not infallible. That’s what democracy is about. This flaw, proved by empirical evidence is one that the medical profession would do well to pursue and indeed rush to prescribe some kind of remedy, otherwise we perish as a nation with these types of followers and the leaders they would choose.

By sunshine and thunder

May 28, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this

Donald

Thank you for posting the biggest bunch of voo doo ever seen here.

By Red Foreman

May 28, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this

Look Jay, Bigfoot is on the loose and all you guys wanna talk about is Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter.

By the way, your Democrat controlled Congress has an 18.7% approval rate. Watcha got to say about that, smart guy?

And I want an answer for the following…

A) Bigfoot-Does he really exist? Is he really a terrorist spy? Is he a Republican or Democrat?-This will be a big issue this election year!

B)Will rising corn prices causing a bourbon shortage?-Inquiring minds want to know.

By Independent

May 28, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

Hey Red, Jay is not going to address that because the 18.7% does not help his flawed logic.

By Leah

May 28, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this

I know how I feel about Bush personally. My question is: Forget about how history will judge him; what makes him a good president now?

War, deficit, foreclosures, lies and deceit at the highest level of government, dead and wounded American soldiers, dead and wounded innocent Iraqis (no life is lesser than that of another), inflation, high (under-reported) unemployment rate, tarnished reputation around the world, poor response for hurricane victims, extemely high oil/gas prices, tainted food and products, broken borders, massive outsourcing of jobs… All of this took place on his watch. Did he create most of these problems? No; but he did nothing to make them any better. As a president, he’s been a colossal failure. Failure of leadership; failure of judgement. Absolutely no moral standing.

Forget history, I know what I see today.

By reebok

May 28, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this

Like Carter or don’t like him, but he was and is anything but an idiot. He was not a particularly effective President, but he never approached the level of damage that Bush and his cronies have inflicted on America and the world. And his post-Presidency has improved thousands of lives through his Habitat and election-monitoring work. 30 years from now, if McCain has his way, Bush’s war will still be killing young Americans.

By Copyleft

May 28, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this

It’s always amusing to see TheLiest and his blatant self-contradictions—which he isn’t even aware of!

Today’s faux pas was especially funny: America is the best real country in the world. It’s sad that communists like yourself exist. It is you who should lined up and shot.

In other words, America is so great that we should abandon everything it stands for and shoot people who exercise their freedoms! Hah!

Funny, funny stuff. With great minds like this behind BushCo, it’s no wonder the Repukes are going down in flames.

By Blind Homer

May 28, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this

Seems like it’s down to Carter or Bush, they are clearly the two worst of my lifetime. Please refresh my memory, was it Bush that won the Nobel Peace Prize?

By The Truth

May 28, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

Copyleft, Did you got off work at McDonalds early today? Or, did you injure your jaw blowing your customers in a back alley?

By Albert

May 28, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this

i’m glad that Scott McClellan, who always seemed like just another Bush toady to me, has had the guts to come right out and speak out against Bush’s misguided and incompetent leadership.

By The Truth

May 28, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this

Blind Homer, Yassar Arafat won the peace prize. Good company to be in, huh?

By Abba

May 28, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this

Sorry everybody, but I don’t see the point of arguing over whether GWB is the worst President in US history or not?

Even if everyone on this blog stopped debating the topic and agreed with Jay Bookman, it wouldn’t do an ounce of good.

The current approval rating of Congress is awful - lower than Bush’s ratings; should we conclude that this is the worst Congress ever?

This strikes me as nothing but finger-pointing, and ignores what I believe is the much larger issue behind these low approval ratings - the overall dissatisfaction of the American people with its government.

On the one hand I have GWB, who some would say is the worst President ever. Many on the left side of the aisle have quite vocally said that he is (among other things): a liar, an idiot, narrow-minded, poorly-read, and a stooge of Big Oil.

On the other hand I have the Democrats, who TWICE couldn’t beat the intellectual dwarf. If GWB is as awful as Democrats believe, what does it say about their party that they lost to him twice?

Congressional and Presidential approval ratings appear to be in such a rut because we Americans are stuck. Who do you choose: the party led by the intellectual lightweight, or the party that can’t beat the intellectual lightweight. What a lovely choice.

By W. MARTIN

May 28, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this

INDEPENDENT—-Surely you are not suggesting that our reputation in the Middle East is not much worse since Bush and America’s invasion of Iraq. When I talk about ‘reputation’ I’m not only talking about other people’s opinion of US(which maybe more important than some people like to think), but I’m talking about ‘credibility’ as well, about people listening to US. Terrorism appears to be more a ‘world’ problem than an ‘area’ concern…The greatest tragedy of Bush’s adminstration is that when the world needed US good reputation and creadibility, we had none! And perhaps as bad,it seems Bush has learned nothing as seen in a recent criticism in Israel of those who would want to ‘talk things out’ rather than ‘fight.’ Bush has little credibility with the world…not much with too many US citizens! What a shame. And Bush is such a pleasant!

By Blind Homer

May 28, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this

Truth - Yes, and for the same reason, trying to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the Palestinian issue. You have a problem with that? I guess you prefer Bush’s ‘let’s get our boys killed for the sake of my legacy’ approach to the Middle East?

By The Truth

May 28, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this

Blind Homer, Did it work? Nope. Nice try there Blind.

By Blind Homer

May 28, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this

Truth - No, although Yasser did lower the violence level for awhile. And I’ll even concede Bush’s approach may work. I am very doubtful about that, but I admit it’s possible and only time will tell. However, the point is Carter, despite his flaws, had the intellectual and ethical capacity to at least pursue a peaceful resolution. I think Carter’s presidency was a failure, at least in some part, because he was too ethical, allowing Afghanistan and Iran Hostage crisis day 444. Oddly enough, it seems Bush’s is a failure in large part due to his poor ethics and stubbornness. Personally, I liked Nixon’s foreign policy.

By The Truth

May 28, 2008 5:15 PM | Link to this

Blind Homer, Arafat may have more innocent Jewish blood on his hands than Hitler. He did start the PLO didn’t he? Anyway, Bush is stubborn. There are a lot of things I wish he’d done differently but he was nothing compared to Carter. Nixon? Way before my time.

By GOPs got to go

May 28, 2008 7:25 PM | Link to this

Surely you all remember how anyone who even whispered something about Bush being wrong was almost strung up in effigy as a unpatriotic, terrorist loving, dirt bag. At least his conscience finally got the better of him. Maybe Snow will be next. Listening to him in the past I have thought surely he can not be THAT obtuse to believe this line of BS. You watch, Snow and then blondie will “tell all” next. The cockroaches are starting to swarm away form the garbage dumb that is this Administration

By Ten Foot Injun

May 28, 2008 7:41 PM | Link to this

Hey Wild Bill - since youre asking to consider the context of McCains 100 year statement, did you offer the Rev. Wright the same courtesy during his lambasting?… Just thought id ask.. As for this discussion I for one appreciate Mr. Bookmans insight and provacative journalist style, he gives us all something to talk about and discuss the issues in an open forum. If this is any indication of the type of professor you are then kudos to you.. I would have killed to have a professor that encouraged free thinking over the run of the mill profs thay only love the sound of their own voice….

By Ten Foot Injun

May 28, 2008 7:42 PM | Link to this

Hey Wild Bill - since youre asking to consider the context of McCains 100 year statement, did you offer the Rev. Wright the same courtesy during his lambasting?… Just thought id ask.. As for this discussion I for one appreciate Mr. Bookmans insight and provacative journalist style, he gives us all something to talk about and discuss the issues in an open forum. If this is any indication of the type of professor you are then kudos to you.. I would have killed to have a professor that encouraged free thinking over the run of the mill profs thay only love the sound of their own voice….

By Georgia Boy

May 28, 2008 7:48 PM | Link to this

Bush the Younger’s Administration has presided over a series of policy disasters. First, the Republicans in the White House, Senate, and House managed to convert a projected $2 trillion dollar governmental surplus into an approximately $500 b governmental deficit. The Republicans justified this egregious act of fiscal responsibility on the grounds that “deficits don’t matter”. I for one beg to differ. The Chinese, Saudis, and other foreign governments are now financing the deficit spending of the United States government. Some legacy.

Second, the regulatory infrastructure has apparently collapsed. The FDA has failed to ensure the safety of the drugs that are offered to the public; tainted food seems to circulate quite freely; air controllers are stretched to the limit and the airline safety has been neglected. The Republicans had majorities in the Senate, House, and occupied the White House, so they had the opportunity. They just didn’t care to address these issues.

Finally, I find it so ironic that the Republicans are willing to spend $12b a month in Irag, but not one cent to ensure the solvency of Social Security. You don’t think that people notice these things? Wait until the votes are counted in November.

By Bob

May 29, 2008 1:16 AM | Link to this

Bookman,

Have someone link to this article from the Atlantic Monthly, which argues that President Bush may be vindicated if Iraq turns out as a democratic state: (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/bush) Then have someone read it to you.

When that happens—as I expect it to occur—then how will the corroded by venom Bush-haters survive? How will they survive anyway after next January, when the oxygen for their white-hot hatred is removed? I feel for them (and you). Perhaps President Obama will push for special medical facilities for those who no longer have any reason to live.

Regards,

Bob

By Frederick Douglass

May 29, 2008 1:20 AM | Link to this

Thor I’m openly weeping as I write this, your eloquence floored me. I’m half educated, a product of the separate but equal schools of the 1960’s, but I try to think outside of the box. You hit some nails on the head.

By cripvet

May 29, 2008 3:30 AM | Link to this

Bush, deceiver, betrayer,hypocrite,and double dealer. This is the dictionary definition of a TRAITOR. Bush lied us into this godforesaken war and the media like good lapdogs, went right along with it. I was for Afghanistan, that is where Osama is and that SOB is still running around talking smack while we are stuck in a place that was not even part of OUR problem. Saddam was the Iraqui’s problem, could care less if he was killing them, their leader, their problem and he WAS NOT a “significant” threat to the US. We have dead and maimed soldiers, doing 3+ tours of duty for a buncha LIES. And THE TRUTH you sound like one of those “chicken hawkes”, as long as it ain’t YOUR MBA A— on the line your real tough. And yes i

By BDAtlanta

May 29, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

My respect for Duke Univ is now all but gone.

By BDAtlanta

May 29, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

This is a bit late but it is also worth noting that great leaders don’t lead by using fear on their citizens to get what they want or cover up their mistakes. Idi Amin used fear, Stalin used fear, even Saddam Hussain used fear. This clip shows BushCo gaffes and their timely fear mongering to cover up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az7yl-UnsQQ

That’s no way to lead a country.

By beejay

May 29, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this

Superlatives turn me off. Saying “worst president” is hyperbole and can’t possibly be true if one were to read the policies and actions of all U.S. presidents. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to quit with extreme language. How about “bad,” or “terrible,” or “so-so”? But “worst”? Give me a break. It doesn’t help your argument, it weakens it.

By Mike

May 29, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this

“President Bush will be remembered as the worst president in this nation’s long history.”

Just like they said about Truman.

By Frederick Douglass

May 29, 2008 7:16 PM | Link to this

Truman’s IQ was a little better than the 88 registered by someone else we know, endowments by affluent parents will take you far apparently.