The most popular and least popular U.S. President

[NDN]

Bush certainly hasn't been an excellent President. His second term has been a complete mess and a real let down. However, I do believe history will look back on this President as a good President - not great, not horrible.

Even from a Republican perspective I don't see how you guys could call him anything other than a failure. Besides getting tax cuts passed and starting an unpopular war he didn't get most of his agenda passed.  Between immigration 'reform,' the various parts of the 'ownership society,' miers, etc. he didn't really get what he wanted. And most of the stuff he did get is starting to be scaled back (e.g. Patriot Act) OR has blown up in his face. I mean I can admit when a Republican actually is competent, like Gingrich, but Bush just isn't.

[jesmo]

Well, he did bring Roberts and Alito to the court.

How I miss the 2003 Bush though.  He had an attitude.  Landing on aircraft carriers, "bring it on, bitch", wearing a flight suit ... that was badass.  And all the liberals threw a hissy fit because he was perpetuating male stereotypes.  Or something like that.

Bush is certainly one of the better modern Presidents. He is probably my second favorite President of modern times. Eisenhower is my favorite, however.

Too bad we won't have anyone to continue his legacy after January 20th, 2009. Clinton, McCain, and Obama wont do it. I will miss these glory days.

And, yes, I am serious !

[NDN]

Well, he did bring Roberts and Alito to the court.

True.

I think what got him really was mostly the cockiness.

[Saxwsylvania]

Well, he did bring Roberts and Alito to the court.

True.

I think what got him really was mostly the cockiness.

No, no, no!  If anything, he should be more cocky.  Ever since his second term, we've seen a kinder, gentler Bush.  Maybe he should go to Iraq and do some fighting like Prince Harry.  Sure he'd be a target, but it'd be great press coverage.  And his approval would soar.

[CultureKing]

Is there anyone here who preffered Bush 2004-2008 vs Bush 2000-2004. The way I think about it Bush laid all the horrible plans (in terms of failures and just overall bad ideas) during his second term and for the most part they all came to a head during his second term. Basically I was amazed during the first term Bush was able to do so much damage but do so with the backing of a good portion of the public. Then in his second term he at least tries to rectify some of his mistakes and he has actually taken on some of his more moderate issues such as immigration and the israeli-palestinean conflict (though that is a lost cause started much too late in his presidency). Also there is the fact that Bush really was a lame duck from early 2006 and on.

[Keystone Phil]

Is there anyone here who preffered Bush 2004-2008 vs Bush 2000-2004. The way I think about it Bush laid all the horrible plans (in terms of failures and just overall bad ideas) during his second term and for the most part they all came to a head during his second term. Basically I was amazed during the first term Bush was able to do so much damage but do so with the backing of a good portion of the public. Then in his second term he at least tries to rectify some of his mistakes and he has actually taken on some of his more moderate issues such as immigration and the israeli-palestinean conflict (though that is a lost cause started much too late in his presidency). Also there is the fact that Bush really was a lame duck from early 2006 and on.

I definitley prefer the first term over the second though he did bring us Roberts and Alito after he was re-elected.

[Beet]

In the first term, if you're successful, you establish yourself. You say to the previous establishment, "suck y'all, I'm President now." It's kind of what adolescents do to their parents or a new corporate VP might do to his division, but on a grander scale. You have to do this in a way that upsets people, almost by definition. This is what Reagan did in deploying MX missiles to Europe and starting the mini Cold War of the early 1980s. He was basically establishing his independence. This is what George W. Bush did in invading Iraq. He was creating his legacy. It would have been impossible if it had not been controversial. In fact, the more controversial, the better, as long as the policy gets enacted in the end. Bill Clinton tried to do this but the result was failure, rather than success; his "success" was his survival.

[dead0man]

Bush was a great cheerleader after Sep11th.  We probably needed that.  I don't think Al Gore could have done as good of a job as Bush did in that role.  What we didn't need was incompetent boobs in charge of the DoD (Rummy).  In my opinion history will look at Rumsfeld as the single biggest mistake Bush made in office.

[Franzl]

Bush certainly hasn't been an excellent President. His second term has been a complete mess and a real let down. However, I do believe history will look back on this President as a good President - not great, not horrible.

No, you are incorrect. History will see him as one of the best Presidents ever.

Now I'm not trying to bash Bush now, even though it's one of my hobbies, but how can anyone say Bush will be regarded as a "great president". Even republicans that attack socalled "tax and spend democrats" should be offended by Bushs spending without appropriate taxation.

The same is true for Reagan, the republicans look to him as a hero, although he is guilty of similar reckless handling of money.