Written from an historians point of view, makes convincing points as to why George W. Bush may be the worst president.

It is hard to separate belief from fact, but the premise of the story presumes without question that current poll numbers are indicative of long-term historical assessment of a presidency. Problem one: "Reliable" poll numbers have only been around for 40 years, according to the author, yet he uses presidents from pre-polling days as evidence of failed presidents. Problem two: Poll numbers are not and never have been reliable indicators of long term assessment nor even of short term public opinion. Problem three: The article is selective in its time scale. What if it had been written two years ago when Bush was rated at 90%+?

An entertaining and often compelling op-ed, but not fair journalism. Examples of unabased partisanship include: - "[Bush] has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities." - "In a deliberate political decision, the administration stampeded the Congress and a traumatized citizenry into the Iraq invasion..." Can't make a strong charge like this without a lot more evidence. - There are a number of possible problems with the results from the informal survey cited at the start of the article. To claim that political predispositions were not a ... More »

I enjoyed reading a story that didn't treat me like a third grader in vocabulary and logic! I also found it informative and reasoned. It was valuable for putting an historic perspective on acts of the presidents.

It is written from a particular perspective, which defenders of the President would label "liberal" or "left wing". But the fact remains that it would not have been written at all, or at least would have had no chance of publication in a respectable journal, if the facts it exposes were false, or if the perspective it adopts were not a credible one and widely shared.

The writer's knowledge of history, plus his identification early in the essay of his perspective and the group (historians) whose perspective he represents, give the story a reliable, upfront voice. The writer does not create absolute proclamations, but qualifies his claims. His logic is not based on cheap emotional stories or name-calling techniques, but on solid comparisions between political figures of the past and their actions and the actions of GWB. While the writer represents a vew that is more popular with readers who lean to the left, in this story the balance of facts leads to that outcome, rather than an intentional manipulation to that end.

Well researched, good reading, factual, honest. Liberal bias will be attached because of the publication but the facts prevail.

It seems less journalism than an extended opinion essay. As to its fairness, if I read it as a Bush supporter I find the adjectives stinging enough to prevent me from seeing the nouns.

While I categorically agree with the viewpoint expressed in this story, the unfortunate reality is that it expresses an editorial viewpoint, rather than one that can be backed by worthy sources. I wish that the author had utilized more direct sources in his article, rather than endlessly quote opinion. (However, since I am unable to see the context of this article, this might very well be the point. If that is the case, then this is quite the incisive, well-crafted sort of writing of which the Democratic party needs much more.)

An extremely accurate portrayal of all of the Presidents choices thus far. He delves into the only success story of the Bush presidency, tax cuts, and explains why they too were a poor decision. And he does it without flaming rhetoric.

Great "cliff notes" overview of the Bush presidency. It's biased but factual. The over-the-top RI cover and somewhat left-slanted language detract, but at the same time draw people to read it (as my first review, even). But in the end, it's a pretty scathing coverage of the facts. And good to see the long view approach.