Comments on: Two Updates

By: Marshall Miles

Marshall Miles — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 01:43:43 +0000

Bush like Harry Truman?

I guess next you will say the Mayflower Madam will go down in history like Mother Teresa.

How much acid did you do in the 70’s Jake?:)

By: Jake

Jake — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 00:17:19 +0000

I’m already there… (http://www.legendoaksgolf.com/golf/proto/legendoaksgolf/)

By: Terry

Terry — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:31:01 +0000

Jake,

See you at Noble Horizons.

By: Jake

Jake — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:25:14 +0000

Geoff… there are several groups that rate presidents. Grant’s scandals, Teapot Dome, Watergate and Monica are usually mentioned. But in general I think the historians normally account for ethical lapses in their ratings.

TC… if the War in Iraq is enough to make Bush as bad as Carter, then there’s no convincing. But by any economic measure there is no comparison. My bet is that Bush will go down in history very much like Truman. Very unpopular during his day, but rehabilitated by history. Truman made the wrenching changes needed to respond to the Cold War, Bush the unpopular decisions related to Islamic extremism.

Let’s talk in 2030.

By: Terry

Terry — Thu, 31 May 2007 21:08:56 +0000

Geoff,

I like your idea about quantifying a presidency — except that “sleaze” and “bad luck” are not the only determinants of a failed presidency. There is also competence, judgment et al.

As for lying to Congress to start a war, the Iraq resolution passed the House 296-133 and the Senate 77-23. What did those 156 members of Congress know that those who claimed they were lied to didn’t? It’s looking more and more like Kerry, Edwards and Hillary voted for the war because they were afraid of the political consequences of voting against it.

Now if we could only quantify successful stints in Congress as well …

By: Geoff Brown

Geoff Brown — Thu, 31 May 2007 20:38:43 +0000

It would be interesting if some presidential historian (ideally a more or less impartial one) with time on his/her hands would develop a sleaze index for all the presidents, thus permitting them to be objectively ranked according to number of scandals per day in office. I would include all kinds of sleaze (including being the recipient of oral sex, just in order to keep the Republicans happy), but I’m thinking that lying to Congress to start a war would outrank a BJ.

Then, maybe someone would do a bad luck index, or rank the presidents according to the number of policy fumbles per day in office.

It could be that I spent too many years in big business and hence feel a need to quantify everything, but it seems to me that there are so many ways that someone can qualify as the “worst” president that some numbers might help make these subjective rankings more than hot air and politics.

Maybe I’m dreaming…