Although George W. Bush's approval ratings have rebounded slightly, as often happens at the end of a president's tenure, he will nevertheless finish his presidency with among the lowest scores since approval ratings came into widespread usage. Gallup pegs Bush's final approval numbers at a -27 net (34 percent approve, 61 percent disapprove), the worst for any outgoing president save Richard Nixon.
Surprisingly, however, there has historically been fairly little relationship between a President's popularity at the end of his term and the way that he has tended to be regarded by history. The following chart compares two things: a president's final net approval rating as measured by Gallup, and the average historical ranking of that president as assigned based on three recent polls of historians. (These were the polls conducted by CSPAN in 1999, by Siena College in 2002, and by the Wall Street Journal in 2005. The chart excludes Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, whose terms ended unnaturally.)
Although there is some correlation between the final Gallup numbers and the historians' views of each president, it is not very strong -- in fact, it is not at all statistically significant. The most obvious discrepancy is that of Harry S. Truman, who was extremely unpopular at the time he left office in a cloud of foreign entanglements and minor domestic scandals. Truman, however, is regarded very favorably by historians. The next-most striking disconnect is that of Gerald Ford, who was actually fairly popular for most of his presidency -- perhaps Americans were happy to have any alternative to Richard Nixon after Watergate -- but is not very well regarded by history. Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson have also worn a little better historically as compared with perceptions about them at the end of their terms.
Perhaps the end of a president's term tends to produce oddities in tracking his approval numbers. Human beings have a strange habit, after all, of becoming nostalgic for things they were never particularly fond of in the first place. Americans, moreover, tend to take a "What have you done for me lately?" view of their presidents -- even toward the end of president's term, they may have trouble placing his entire legacy into historical perspective. So let's instead look at a President's average approval rating over the lifetime of his term, as also provided by Gallup.
Here, the relationship is a bit stronger (very strong, in fact, if we exclude Harry Truman). Bush's average approval rating over his eight years in office, however, is actually not all that bad. You can place various sorts of caveats on this -- he was extremely popular after 9/11, for instance, for reasons having more to do with the nation's need to heal rather than anything in particular that Bush did. But fundamentally he was fairly popular over his first term, popular enough to get re-elected to a second, and then the second term went very badly.
Now, personally I don't think that history is likely to judge Bush much all that much more kindly than he being is judged right now. Whereas Truman almost immediately came to be regarded more favorably by historians than by the public, the scholarly community is every bit as down on Bush as is the general public, and it's hard to imagine what exactly could transpire from here on out to change those perceptions -- the seemingly unlikely prospect a long-run democratic peace in Iraq perhaps being the exception. Still, to assume that the final chapter has been written on Bush's legacy would be wrong.
1.15.2009
History May -- or May Not -- Judge Bush More Kindly
by Nate Silver @ 4:39 PM...see also approval ratings, bush, history
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

120 comments
How about a prediction (or speculation) from your simple model about where he'll rank based on his average? (With the cavaet that you obviously think he'll fall somewhere between his average and end-of-term ranking).
It seems questionable to include Nixon in the analysis, but leave out FDR and Kennedy.
I suspect that if you use the average of their last full term (instead of over all their terms), the correlation will come out even stronger.
I don't need math for this one - this guy will be viewed as worse than Carter, probably even worse than Nixon.
I definitely feel GW was a lot worse than Nixon. He was at least as criminal, with none of Nixon's diplomatic successes or sometime moderation in domestic policy. And he didn't even win either election fair and square, with 2000 being a very obvious election theft.
Nate, JFK and FDR both died in office, but FDR didn't end his last term in office unnaturally; he just died of natural causes while in office. The unnatural end was surely JFK (and Lincoln).
History will view George W. Bush as a better president than anyone the loony left can produce! LOL! OWNED!
It is indeed hard to see what would raise Bush’s reputation in the future. If you compare him to any President generally acknowledged to be a bad President, Bush outdoes them.
Johnson? Bush started (not inherited) an even more senseless war and had no plan for ending it.
Nixon? Bush broke more laws and demonstrated more contempt for the Constitution.
Hoover? Bush has been even more clueless about the economy.
Harding? Bush is more corrupt, has appointed more cronies, and more incompetent people.
Buchanan? Bush has been even worse about doing nothing while the country falls apart.
Bush is the all-star of bad Presidents. He’ll be the standard against all future bad Presidents will be compared.
"History will view George W. Bush as a better president than anyone the loony left can produce! LOL! OWNED!"
___________________________________
THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR JOHN MCCAIN!!!
I'm not assuming anything about Bush's "legacy." I plan on doing my part to make sure he is remembered accurately: as a corrupt, criminal thug who, with his band of corrupt, criminal thugs, plundered America and the world.
Truman looks like an "outlier".
If you omit Truman from the data analysis, it looks like there may be a pretty decent (statistically significant?)positive correlation between how contemporaries and historians judge a President.
Correspondingly, it is also starkly apparent that Truman was under-appreciated in his time.
I didn't know Reagan was such a good president until I read that chart. In fact, I was pretty sure that he was fucking terrible.
Thanks, nameless historians!
"Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson have also worn a little better historically as compared with perceptions about them at the end of their terms." That's demonstrably NOT true about Reagan as he was well liked during his term (as the plot shows) and historians still like him (for whatever perverse reasons).
Does the concept of sigma clipping ever enter Nate's brain? Truman is such an incredible outlier he should not be included in any such discussion. While in many ways Truman was a remarkable individual (if not particularly bright), he was certainly a very mediocre president who has consistently been ranked far too high by historians.
No way to predict the future, I don't think. I have my doubts that Bush will be remembered as a great or even good President. It is quite possible he will either fade into the background, like Fillmore or Garfield; or he could wind up being remembered as a bumbling idiot.
I suppose much is going to depend on how well Obama does as President. If he is successful at tackling the problems Bush failed to address, such as the capture of Bin-Laden and repairing the economy, it will be remembered that for all Bush's experience as Governor of Texas, he was less effective than a one-term Senator nobody had even heard of before 2004. The further out from the present we go, the harder the comparisons will come, because the issues Bush failed to address will not be the same ones faced by a future President say, 20 years from now.
Which is to say, Bush and his supporters have a vested interest in seeing Obama fail. I anticipate we will see Fox News ready to fly at Obama's throat the minute he makes even the most minor error, and similarly ready to diminish ever accomplishment of his administration. Sarah Palin's recent entry into he world of mass media is a symptom of this as well.
Perhaps this is why the stage management of Obama's public image is still so present even after the election is over. It could be seen as a prophylaxis against talk-radio and Faux News, something to draw attention away from the trolls of the media and reframe the discussion into one more conducive to getting the public to urge Congress to comply with the Oval Office. It is regrettable and a little Orwellian, to be sure. It also speaks to the complete lack of any attempt at objectivity or neutrality in the media. Journalism has been dead for some time now, and this is merely the stench of it's corpse.
Perhaps the only way to stop this nonsense is through re-establishing the fairness doctrine and alleviating the need for so much production in the White House.
Bush's legacy is integral to Obama's success or failure,and the reverse is also true. Both sides want to be the one writing the history book on the subject. The sad truth is that America will undoubtedly suffer from the Right's attempts to sabotage Obama in the name of preserving the Bush legacy.
"He who controls the past controls the future"-Josef Stalin
I was born while Truman was President, although he left office just after I turned 2, so I don't have any recollection of him as President.
However, I remember how he was excoriated and slammed by the Republicans after he left office even into the mid-60s.
Some of the reasons for his rise in esteem:
- He made critical (although criticizable) decisions to end WW II. For one, the Potsdam Conference was not one of his shining moments;
- He instituted the Marshall Plan, that many (especially the right) thought was a waste of money, but eventually proved to be a God-send to Western Europe;
- He was a leading force in the creation of NATO. Many on the right thought the US should have a go-it-alone policy, and drag the Western Europe nations along with our policies, not work with them to develop joint policies. Also, there was a general anti-German feeling in the country that didn't abate until much later, and including Germany in NATO was not considered a good decision after all the carnage caused by Germany in WW II;
- Although he was excoriated for the Korean conflict dragging on, he eventually was given credit for the rapid reaction by the US to the invasion by North Korea of the South, thus saving South Korea from being overrun;
- Although it took decades for most to acknowledge, he was finally recognized for ordering the military to desegregate, even though the military had a united front and tried to undermine his desegregation orders;
- Many on the right would have excoriated ANYONE who succeeded FDR on general principles - after all, many on the right to this day consider FDR to be the closest to a Communist of any President we've had, and some still consider him an out-and-out Communist;
- HST had the integrity and intestinal fortitude to tell McArthur where to go when McArthur clearly disobeyed direct orders given by the Commander-in-Chief. Since McArthur was a 'hero' to the right-wingers, he was sacrosanct to them, thus any attempt by anyone to put tarnish on McArthur was considered blasphemy by the right;
- Many anti-Semites were outraged when he recognized Israel's existence;
- He was a strong supporter of the United Nations. Many on the right to this day still think that the UN is the next step to a one-world government that will not be good for the US (and they believe we should screw the rest of the world, if necessary, to make sure the US is preeminent).
Lots of things to consider, and it took a long time for HST's accomplishments to be recognized, especially with the political environment of the time.
George Bush didn't make many, if any, similar type decisions for him to rise much, if any, from his initial extremely low position on history's rankings. Add in his bungling of the economy to his poor to disastrous decisions in going to war, and he might well be considered by history to be even worse than Herbert Hoover (who did have some admirable humanitarian attributes both before and after his Presidency).
So the DEMs seated Burris today just in time for him to cast a vote to allow the phase II of TARP to pass 52 -42
Biden delayed his resignation just long enough to also vote, but 8 [count 'em - EIGHT] senate DEMS jumped ship & voted 'nay' along with most of the GOPers including McCain...
took alot of arm twisting for Obama to hold onto a slim majority INCLUDING BURRIS...
this would be a GREAT time for Nate to roll out his SENATE cartogram so we can see the dispersal of TARP voting
IF the TARP II had failed to pass, now THAT would have been interesting indeed...
RE: TARP II
On the vote, 45 Democrats, six Republicans and one independent lined up behind Obama, while 33 Republicans, eight Democrats and one independent sought to block use of the funds.
although actually in this case an aye was a virtual nay... since the vote was on whether to block the additional funding
example: AZ - McCain [aye], Kyl [nay] - WTF
DCM,
The TARP vote was an unusual vote:
The bill was to prohibit the use of the remaining funds, so all the votes "for" TARP were actually cast as 'No' votes to the bill. Even if the vote in the House next week goes against the bill, the bill failed in the Senate (thus did not pass both chambers), so the White House will have access to the funds.
If the bill to deny access to the funds had passed the Senate, and (as expected) passes in the House next week, the President could use a Veto of the bill, thus needing a 2/3 majority of both chambers for the veto override. A veto override would have been the only way to deny access to the funds.
With the defeat of the bill to deny access to the funds in the Senate, a veto will not be needed for access to the funds, no matter what happens in the House next week.
this email just in:
---------------------
"Don't miss your piece of history"
Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:39 PM
From: "Presidential Inaugural Committee" @ info@pic2009.org
Dear _______,
Over the next five days, hundreds of thousands of people will be coming to Washington, D.C. to celebrate this historic inauguration.
Once they arrive, our small supply of official Inaugural collectibles and memorabilia is going to go fast.
This is your last chance to secure your piece of history while items are guaranteed in stock.
Visit the official Inaugural Store today and get commemorative merchandise to celebrate the historic Inauguration of President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.
Don't miss your chance to get official collectibles bearing the Inaugural Seal, clothing and accessories from the Runway to Change line, or special Inaugural pieces by graphic artist Shepard Fairey.
These are limited edition items produced in small quantities -- and as visitors begin to arrive in Washington, D.C. demand will grow rapidly.
Visit the official online Inaugural Store today:
http://www.pic2009.org/limitedsupply
Commemorate this once in a generation event with your own piece of history.
Thank you,
The Presidential Inaugural Committee
"DONATE NOW"
===================================
ok, this is just too much soliciting imho - and for what ???
WV - WINGU...
MIKE
yup, I am aware of that as I noted an AYE was really a NAY here
but IF it had passed then Obama would have been slimed even before he took offrice
Barack's team had to whip up the opposition to this bill while Bush took the day off again...
DCM,
In my above post I talked about how the stage management of the Obama Administration will continue in an effort to combat spin from the Right-wing media.
The solicitations you keep getting are to pay for the production costs behind what is going to arguably be the biggest theatrical production of our lifetimes. It ain't cheap :)
Think Wag the Dog here. Hopefully without declaring war on Albania.
So Nixon's term ended naturally?
Bush Lagacy:
Rallied the country after 9-11. Took down the Taliban government in record time.
Took Iraq from a feared regional enemy to a democratic regional force to be a buttress to Iran for the forseeable future. Taught our enemies that we would do whatever it took to crush them, including toture to keep the country safe. Now that daddy (Bush/Cheney) have done the dirty work, mommy (Obama/Biden) can inherit the benefits of work well done. Bush/Cheney is Jack Nicholsen character in "A few good men", whereas Obama/Biden is Tom Cruise and his lady Navy waife.
Inherited a recession/9-11 economic slump and grew the ecomomy for 52 consecutive months.
Turned Harry Reid into a cartoon character.
Turned Nancy Pelosi into a foolish streched skinjob.
"Bush Lagacy:"
__________________________________
Typo or Freudian Slip?
Where does Herbert Hoover fit in on that list?
And who cares?
No matter how hard the Reich-wingers try and rehabilitate Bush, he's always going to be a useless featherhead who launched an unnecessary and bloody war and dragged the economy into the brink of ruin.
For decades Republicans have been trying to rehabilitate Herbert Hoover, but nothing they do matters. He's still the worst President of the 20th century, worse even than Nixon in terms of his effects on the country (although morally miles above Nixon).
Nothing the right does will ever rehabilitate Bush. He's going down in history as leader of a criminal regime. A band of oil-profiteers and vicious thugs, so corrupt, twisted and incompetent they had to screw their pants on in the morning.
Jack-be-nimble:
You wrote that Bush "Took Iraq from a feared regional enemy to a democratic regional force to be a buttress to Iran for the forseeable future".
I can't believe the extent of your stupidity. Iraq, before the invasion, was dominated by a Sunni minority led by Saddam. The regime change in Iraq had the effect of bringing Shiites into power.
Guess which sect of Muslims dominate Iran. Shiites.
So, Iraq was a buttress to Iran when Saddam was in power. Which explains why the pseudo-deity the Republicans worship, Ronald Reagan, supported Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war.
Now when Mahmoud Ahmedinajad visits Iraq he's able to cruise Baghdad in an open-air convertible surrounded by enthusiastic Shiites while getting his ass kissed by the Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Our own President needs the cover of a battalion of Special Forces and Black Hawk Helicopters to visit.
That's the Bush legacy. He's given Iran influence in Iraq the ayatollahs could never have dreamed of having while Saddam was in power.
Was it Barney Frank who summed it up by saying "Bush is the worst President since Caligula?"
Bush has always been true to his ideals. So, if he has an approval rating in the 30's is still almost 20 points higher than Congress. Coincidence???
PROgress is the opposite of CONgress.
A month ago, there was a discussion of a new bipartisan debate circle called "Intelligence Squared": "Was Bush the worst president of the last 50 years?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIJDCoId3vg&feature=PlayList&p=696ECA0435EFDFF3&index=0&playnext=1
It was Karl Rove and William Kristol vs. some english guy and the chairman of the Slate group, Jacob Weisberg.
Rove and Kristol basically argued along the lines of "Worst president? Really? Come on, don't exaggerate!" They more or less took it for granted that Presidents Johnson, Carter and Nixon were much worse. Rove cited a few numbers and never really answered the questions. Kristol completely focused on foreign policy and never mentioned the economy.
Well, I can actually find reasons why Carter, Johnson and Nixon were NOT the worst president of the past 50 years. Each of them had a lasting achievement: the Civil Rights Act, the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, and the establishment of relations with China. In addition, Carter's energy policy was 20 years ahead of its time and Nixon founded the EPA.
I cannot see a success of that magnitude under Bush's presidency. If he had just finished the job in Afghanistan, caught Bin Laden and Mullah Omar, he'd have such a success. Bush's failures are not compensated by successes. And I don't see any longlasting legacy, like Truman's post-World-War architecture. If there was such a plan under Bush, it has failed terribly (the domino theory of democracies???).
While I fully agree that exit approval numbers are a poor predictor of the historical verdict of a President, I think that the administrations of the presidents since Carter are still far too recent to take their "historical" rankings seriously.
In Reagan's case, he's become the go-to legacy guy for the Republican party, which will mean his record is politicized until that stops being the case (probably another decade or two).
I remember how deeply negative people's perceptions of GHWB were when he left office, thanks to a recession. But his record has been seen in a steadily better light as the years have gone by, as his tax increases and handling of the first Gulf War have appeared increasingly wise. I don't think that process is over.
The same is really true of Clinton, who left under a cloud of scandal, but in another couple decades once he's out of the limelight, he will be remembered for his policies which supported long-term growth.
I agree with Nate that only the emergence of a real democratic miracle in Iraq would serve to change the long-term perception of the Bush years.
It is true that prediction is difficult, especially of the future. (Neils Bohr.) But history has always concemned incompetence and ignorance. On that basis I can safely predict Bush 43 will continue to be ranked near the bottom. No "mellowing" for him.
LO,
Better check your facts before you mouth off about what you don't know.
Everything in Iraq/Iran is not about religion. The Shiite in Iraq are not like the Shiite's in Iran. There are many cultural and historical resentments. Do you think it was just Sunni Iraqies fighting against Iran in the 1980's. It doesn't take a history degree to have a clue about this stuff.
Spend a few months getting a clue, then report back.
If Obama lives up to his potential, Bush will be remembered as a good president?
Why? Without what Bush has done, Obama could not have gotten elected. Things have to be seriously messed up for voters to value change over experience by the margin they did.
There are some, okay billions, who think George W. Bush is the worst American president of all-time. Then there are some who think George W. Bush couldn't possibly be the worst American president of all-time...He was NEVER elected president. I am one of those people.
Like Lo said, Jack, why do we want to buttress Iran? Iran is now buttressed by Iraq, Lebanon, and - well, maybe not Gaza, but they've tried. "Mission accomplished"? Goodbye and good riddance to Bush. I hope the next time I see him is on trial for war crimes at The Hague.
A lot of how history judges Bush has to do with how well the next 4 or 8 years go with Obama. No doubt Clinton's record will also be judged very differently now that we have his successor to critique.
As Stephen Colbert has asked many times:
George Bush - great president or the greatest president?
George Bush - great president or the greatest president?
More like the greatest disaster ever to befall the American republic.
History doesn't bother with clowns- sorry.
@Jack-be-nimble:
You ought to get a clue about the use of the word "buttress" (see Michael @ 7:29 PM). "Buttress" means "reinforce" or "support". I think the word you wanted was "buffer", as in "establish Iraq as a buffer against Iran". Now, how has that worked out thus far?
Nobody here has mentioned the longest-lasting and probably most serious consequences of the Bush era, i.e. for the environment. I suspect that in the long run this time will be remembered mainly for our rapid backward progress, toward a society more materially addicted (in the structure of our homes and transport) to enormous energy use for pointless luxuries. Bush has done everything in his power to tilt us further into that ditch.
George W. Bush is the worst two-term president since 1900.
Economy: Fail
Deficit and balanced budget: Fail
Protecting AMERICAN CITIZENS inside America's Borders: Fail
Prosecuting (even by warfare) those that attacked the United States: Fail
Improving International Relations: Fail
Buidling his party: Fail
Accomplishing Missions: Fail
Protecting the Environment: Fail
Supporting Injured Veterans: Fail
Number ONE
Protecting and Upholding the Constituion: Fail
The areas of "success":
Saturday Night Live
Malaprops
Record Oil Profits
Waving the flag
Paving the way for Sarah Palin
Was listening to right wing lunatic Chris Plant today or yesterday. Here's the argument he made for Bush's Iraq legacy.
If Obama pulls out and Iraq succeeds, Bush did an exceptional job there.
If Obama stays and leaves in place Bush's withdraw time line, Bush succeeds.
If Obama pulls out prematurely and Iraq fails, it shows Bush was correct by leaving troops there.
He left out if Obama follows Bush's time line and we pull out, then all hell breaks loose.
Of course, the right wing nut jobs will lay blame on Obama no matter what.
As much as these right wing nut jobs would believe they are going to shape the perception of history, the fact of the matter is they have a very limited audience.
The spin war has begun. Lets see who wins.
The Bush Presidency
---
The End of an Error
Bush/Cheney is Jack Nicholsen character in "A few good men", whereas Obama/Biden is Tom Cruise and his lady Navy waife.
So you're admitting that Bush and Cheney are the villains?
Isn't it like comparing apples to oranges to compare a "1-44 ranking" with "net % job approval"? For example, historians may agree that the 22nd president was a pretty good president, just not as good as the 22 above him (perhaps they'd say that only 10 presidents were "bad" and deserving of negative approval ratings). Yet, even if he left with a +10% approval rating, his historian ranking would tend to "level" the graph, showing a very small relationship when in reality it may be true that there is a very strong relationship.
it's hard to imagine what exactly could transpire from here on out to change those perceptions
How's about 108 books put out over five years by right wing hacks looking to revamp his image, bought up by the Scaife brothers to put them at the top of the NYT list...
Nature abhors a vacuum...
How's about 108 books put out over five years by right wing hacks looking to revamp his image, bought up by the Scaife brothers to put them at the top of the NYT list...
Sounds like a great economic stimulus plan.
If Bush gets blamed for the fall of the American superpower, he'll be sealed off forever in the sub-basement of history.
I think Nixon is under-ranked. (1) What did Nixon do that was worse than FDR's Japanese internment? (2) Nixon is all about Watergate only if you take for granted that the U.S. never went to war with the Communist superpowers. I don't take it for granted. I give Tricky the most credit--pretty monumental when you consider for a thousand years prior, whenever two military powers were in shooting distance, they shot. Did any European power ever miss a chance to go to war? I call Nixon history's greatest peacemaker--he broke the vicious cycle of world wars. To me, Watergate was more of a medical removal--Tricky cracked up and just had to go. Anyway, he deserves as much slack as a wartime President as we give FDR for the camps. We were in greater danger in the Cold War than even in WW II.
Debunking the Bush kept US Safe FALLACY :
Imagine you have 10 kids ...
2 die in a terrorist attack ...
3 are sent off to find or kill the perpetrators ...
ALL 3 die in the war and after 8 years the perpetrator is still sending Farewell Greeting Cards ...
Now how SAFE do the remaining 5 of your kids feel ?
Bush: Sending 4000+ off to die in the guise of atoning for a terrorist act that killed 3000+ while STILL NOT ACCOMPLISHING the very mission set out for in the first place DOES NOT COUNT as keeping the country safe ...
I STILL DO NOT FEEL SAFE ...
A lot of how history judges Bush has to do with how well the next 4 or 8 years go with Obama.
I disagree.Bush will be condemned to the lowest circle of history's hell by reputable historians regardless of how Obama fares.
Bush's crimes and stupidities will not be lessened by any of Obama's.(I don't expect Obama to make any.If he does ,history will condemn him too.)
To me,the Republican effort to rehabilitate Bush is an incredible political error.They'd be much better advised to condemn him too and start afresh,rather than tying themselves to an eternal loser.
I hope they continue their current disastrous course.
Opus,
I agree, that would be the wisest course of GOP action. I have doubts that this is the course they will choose.
If they stand behind Bush all the way, and they think there is a chance that doing so will ultimately exonerate him, the result is the possibility that they can claim they were right all along. There's no need to change party leadership, hell, even the party rank and file can stay where they're at, everyone is safe and secure.
If however, they admit that Bush as President Clumsy Fuckup, they have to clean some house. The hardest core Bush supporters will have to go. Some can do they, "I was duped!" routine, which means they were gullible and naìve, and therefore unfit to lead. Others can say, .Look, I just did as I was told", but that makes them look like muppets. In the end, they'll all have to resign, and sooner than later, with their political careers badly besmirched.
Plus, they'd need to reinvent themselves. Which they had to do after Nixon-Ford. That was neither easy nor pleasant, and had Carter been better at dealing with Iran and OPEC, odds are pretty good the pain would have stretched out for many many years. Things like the Church Committee, which severely limited the reach of surveillance, would never have happened if the GOP hadn't imploded with the disgrace of Nixon. They wound up so weak they couldn't do much in Congress or the Senate, and their name was not only mud, it was dogshit.
Now, if the GOP does clean house and take their lumps, they'll have to hope there's a Reagan on the horizon to resurrect the party, and a Carter in the present to set the stage for him.
Or we could just have a modern day version of the Era of Good Feelings, which is fine by me.
SnW
was that the Error of Feeling Good ???
the bible told me so...
@66gardeners:
A lot of how history judges Bush has to do with how well the next 4 or 8 years go with Obama.
Maybe. We may see something in this in Lincoln following Buchanan and being followed by Johnson. On the other hand, Johnson's reputation was not helped Grant's problems; and Harding's reputation was not helped by Coolidge's mediocrity.
Historians tend to overlook some kinds of problems. Lincoln's tyranical excesses (suspending the writ of habeas corpus being just one of them) have been pretty much forgiven because he freed the slaves and kept the nation together at its darkest hour. Historians regard FDR's concentration camps--and that is how they were described at the time--as merely an oops. Similarly, historians might look the other way regarding Bush's policy of torture, his end-run around FISA, etc. This probably requires their seeing substantial successes on the part of Bush. Actually Bush has had some substantial successes. Unlike Buchanan and Harding, he had an agenda and was unafraid to make decisions. Unlike Carter, he got along well with the majority in Congress and was able to get most of what he wanted enacted. Historians tend to like that kind of stuff. Bush's problems don't begin until you look at how bad that agenda and those decisions were.
One place where historians may very well be harsher on Bush than many current day liberals is his conduct of the Iraq War. Many (certainly not all) liberals focus on the fact that the war should should not have been fought in the first place. Well, it shouldn't have been. But too much focus there can obscure the fact that, given that we went to war, it was very incompetently directed. Indeed, some liberals even assume that the war was unwinnable from the get go. But it was winnable--or at least it was reasonably close to being winnable. Bush REALLY screwed up, and not just because he behaved badly and tortured people. Bush's incompetence in war should, I think, be uncontroversial to historians. This might be enough to sink him with historians.
'History May -- or May Not -- Judge Bush More Kindly'
who is this all knowing 'history' fella anyway & what does are his standards ???
Wm Shakespeare said it well back in the day via Hamlet, Act 3, scene 4:
"I must be cruel only to be kind.
This bad begins and worse remains behind."
WV -mists...
more on judging Bush 'kindly'...
Olde English may be too obscure for Bush the vorascious book readerer [as per Karl Rove]...
how about a song from his misspent youth instead:
Nick Lowe's classic refrain
"You've gotta be
Cruel to be kind in the right measure,
Cruel to be kind it's a very good sign,
Cruel to be kind means that I love you,
Baby, you've gotta be cruel to be kind."
Dubya, we are only being cruel & dissing ya cuz we rally luv ya lots [not]
would help his cause if he didn't give such a smarmy, smirking goodbye speech tonight - how insincere & low energy can a lame-duck POTUS be ?
Junior George, the thrill is long gone - don't let the back door hit you on the way out
good riddance to bad rubbish
IKE - quick, what exactly did [or didn't] the ol' general do as POTUS that would justify such a high ranking from historians ???
same for Reagan imho - far more CONs than PROs on balance; and look at the neo-con culture that Ronnie's heirs have spawned upon this country & corrupted the entire world
the fog of history obscures reality & reason apparently
There are, I think, three major viewpoints historians will take with the Iraq War:
1. It was not justified.
2. It was justified, but poorly executed.
3. It was justified, corrections were made in mid-course, and it ended favorably.
The likelihood that historians who take viewpoint 1 will never rate Bush highly is very high.
The historians who take viewpoint 2 will also rate Bush extremely low - one of the original F-Ups of the war was the tete-a-tete we had with Turkey right before the war, their making Turkish soil off-limits to US forces, thus the US not being allowed to use Turkish soil to introduce troops into Iraq, and limiting the effect of air strikes from the north. Historians do not take JUST the military actions into account when determining their view on history, but everything they can research to determine what actions were taken, when they were taken, why they were taken, and how they were taken. Diplomacy is a very important part of each of those action. Historians look at the diplomacy leading up to an action, the political leadership of the countries involved, the social factors of the time, economic factors, and a multitude of other factors.
Those who take viewpoint 3 are the delusional, neo-con 'historians' - not really historians, but people who have an axe to grind against 'lib-ruls, pinkos and commies', thus their opinion won't matter. Their viewpoint will most likely fade within 20 to 30 years anyway.
Well,it looks like we have a new troll,egapre.He has posted the same thing-whatever it is-on the last few day's threads.
The word most be out that we're once again moderatorless.
JFK's approval ratings were incredible. And those were before he was assissinated. I think it's safe to say he would have maintained those numbers throughout his second term.
Of course, when you see footage like this it's easy to see why he was so popular.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BC_B3OBmb0Y
Nate's number crunching aside, there is not objective way to verify "judged by history". So Nate's doing his best and trying to see how they're judged by historians.
In truth, very few people put Truman on their "best presidents" list. Most people judge a president by the two or three biggest achievements or mistakes they make. Other things are drown out. For Truman, it was dropping the bombs, intervening in Korea, and his own personal integrity. His more nuanced achievements are all but ignored. That probably puts him in the top half, but not the top five. But many historians still gauge a president by how much they grew the president's power, and no one except historians actually see that as an achievement. FDR's public perception is sort of the opposite. His greatest shortcomings are forgotten, because his big achievements overshadow them. Johnson's was and is viewed by the public as a failed presidency because of the overreach of the Great Society and Vietnam.
So, traditional historians may rank Bush quite high, because he used a time of national crisis as an excuse for an executive power grab. Average people, though, will remember that Bush failed on 9/11 to keep us safe, then greatly expanded our military footprint in the middle east (even into countries that had not attacked us), and failed miserably in his response to Katrina. You may not think that's a fair assessment, but that's the three biggest things that happened over the last 8 years.
The judgement of Bush may become less harsh, as others have mentioned, if we are attacked again under Obama. But if we are not, then Bush will become more and more remembered as the guy who failed to protect this nation from terrorists and hurricanes, but focused his attention on petty political matters and unnecessary wars.
What Bush doesn't seem to realize is that most people don't do a whole lot of research into a presidency. Most people operate off of their family's opinion and a few big historical moments taught in history classes. It may not be fair, but it's the way it is.
@ dorsk188
traditional historians may rank Bush quite high, because he used a time of national crisis as an excuse for an executive power grab. Average people, though, will remember that Bush failed on 9/11 to keep us safe, then greatly expanded our military footprint in the middle east (even into countries that had not attacked us), and failed miserably in his response to Katrina.
No..Reputable historians will judge his anti-Constitution power grab quite severely and will rank him much lower than "average people" (evangelicals,rednecks,etc.).
And what do you mean by "the overreach of the Great Society"? Johnson is justly criticized for the Vietnam War mess but the Great Society (Voting Rights Act,Medicare,etc) was a monumental achievement.It almost brought America into the 20th century on social issues.What about it does the public see as "overreaching"?
@Opus
No..Reputable historians will judge his anti-Constitution power grab quite severely and will rank him much lower than "average people" (evangelicals,rednecks,etc.)
My understanding (and I could be wrong on this) is that most historians viewed growth of executive power as requisite for presidential greatness, but that liberal historians have backed off on that some twenty years ago and that conservative historians are nowadays coming around as well. But when I said "traditional", I really mean historians with that outlook. I am aware that many modern historians don't view the expansion of the presidency as crucially as they once did. This may explain why GHWB is gaining in historians' opinion, as well as the general public.
My own presidency professor accepted this more traditional view when I was in college a few years ago. Expanding the powers was always a "good" thing and relinquishing them (as GHWB did when going to Congress for approval to invade Iraq) weakened the presidency and was thus "bad"
If you challenged him on it, I'm sure he would recognize the nuances whether this was really good or bad, but when ranking them, this was important.
What about it does the public see as "overreaching"?
I don't know what your political identification is, or who you talk to about these issues, but Johnson's domestic policies are anathema to most Republicans. Johnson moved us toward a Welfare State in their view. Objectively, I think you can make the case that there was a backlash to it among the right (epitomized by Reagan's anti-progressive taxation sentiment that is echoed today).
Sorry, let me just amend.
No one in the mainstream are against the Voting Rights Act. Medicare is not necessarily one of the prime targets of the backlash, though some see it as too expansive. Also remember that Johnson essentially generated the beginning of Affirmative Action in a real sense.
The truth of the matter is that many people in this country (especially the slightly older and whiter) are still emotionally "Reaganite" and see government as the problem, rather than the solution.
Liberals and younger people don't have that sort of visceral reaction to government action, but boomers and conservatives do. And even though many of them are calling for more government action now, it's not a real ideological position. It's more like, and I can't remember who first said this, "Government is the enemy, until you need a friend."
@DCM: Lasting truce in Korea? Interstate Highway system? Those are the top two that come quickly to mind, I'm sure there are more if I spent a minute or two to ponder it.
The really interesting point about Ike is that he was initially ranked in the lower third (#22/31 in 1962), but is now consistently placed in the top ten. Ther perception of Ike changed quite a bit from 1962 to 1982 - why?
Hey, check it out. A Korean troll. Never saw that coming.
Personally, I take a rather fatalistic view of 'W'. I think we have only begun to feel the full impact of Bush's policy. In fact, I think we are headed towards a period that not even Obama can rescue us from.
I've made this comparison many times in the past. We are the American Empire and much like the Roman Empire we are about to fall. I hope I'm wrong but the writing is on the wall. George W. Bush is the person who (almost) single-handedly destroyed the world. Whether he intended to or not is a moot point. He is the Kublai Khan of our time. He steered us on a course of self-destruction that has yet to unfold. But unfold it will. America's time has passed. We should have heeded Eisenhower's warning but greed got the best of us.
Bin Ladin new this and played us like a harp. Played Bush like a drum. He drew us into a war of ideology instead of a war over territory. And much like Afghanistan broke the back of the Soviet Union, our meddling in the affairs of the Arab world will break the back of America, both economically and spiritually.
Rome died because of ennui. There was no one left to believe. That is happening here in America.
It is still possible to pull ourselves from this morass. We cannot wait for the judgement of history, but rather, we need to make history NOW. Judge Bush for what he has either done or failed to do. The argument over his intentions is irrelevant. A well meaning tyrant is still a tyrant. There are ideals in this country still worth fighting for. We must stop trying to usurp them for personal benefit.
All for one, one for all.
Bush will be remembered as the worst president since Harding maybe even worse than him.
He came in with a surplus and left us with a 1.2 trillion deficit. He started a war of choice that killed and maimed thousands and made us less safe. Sure he was handed 9-11 and instead of using it to unite the country he used it
to divide it poitically. He was truely a man unprepared to lead.
Jimmy Carter was also a poor president but he was handed a crappy economy and made it worse and had a foreign policy crisis but at least got everyone back alive without killing thousands.
He showed weakness but it worked out and he used his post presidential years for good, I doubt Bush will do much good in the future.
One fact is true if Obama is a good president he can thank Bush for leaving him such a mess.
Statler N Waldorf:
If however, they admit that Bush as President Clumsy Fuckup, they have to clean some house. The hardest core Bush supporters will have to go. Some can do they, "I was duped!" routine, which means they were gullible and naìve, and therefore unfit to lead. Others can say, .Look, I just did as I was told", but that makes them look like muppets. In the end, they'll all have to resign, and sooner than later, with their political careers badly besmirched.
The problem with all that you're saying here is that it also applies in lesser or greater degrees to most of the Democrats in both Houses of Congress.
DCM in FL:
same for Reagan imho - far more CONs than PROs on balance; and look at the neo-con culture that Ronnie's heirs have spawned upon this country & corrupted the entire world
I agree. I also think that the current economic crisis may have the effect of downgrading Clinton's rating by historians somewhat, because: (1) Some of the Reaganite banking deregulation continued under him, whether the Republicans in Congress were the driving force or not; (2) The economic expansion of those years was driven by easy credit which has come back to bite us. To be sure, Clinton left the country in pretty good shape, and was very popular at the time he left office, but to the extent it could be argued that GW took some of what were arguably excesses of Clinton-era economic policy and worsened them, that could have the effect of garnering Clinton some sideswipes from historians. The key difference between them, even disregarding a much more competent and respectful though seriously flawed (Rwanda, Kosovo) foreign policy and obvious differences in intelligence, is that Clinton actually gave a damn about deficits.
dorsk188:
The Great Society programs have been objectively shown to have quite significantly decreased poverty (no reference at my fingertips, but the statistics are impressive). Ergo, the War on Poverty was pretty successful. Johnson's big downfall was Vietnam, not domestic policy. Good historians deal in facts, not lying propaganda by parties that are ideologically opposed to doing anything appreciable to help poor and black people.
I agree with DCM in FL on Reagan and Eisenhower. Eisenhower was the guy who put Iran where it is today by overthrowing Mossadegh. Also, I'm not sure on this, but I think he did not do much to stop maccarthyism which is a real shame on america and has lasting effects (see the last campaign). Maybe Truman could get disapproval on that one too.
As to Reagan the Iran/contragate shows a disgusting disregard for the law and the anticommunist fanaticism of the man. He also did a lot to deregulate the economy, break unions, lower taxes for the rich etc.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
JMMorris said:"One place where historians may very well be harsher on Bush than many current day liberals is his conduct of the Iraq War. Many (certainly not all) liberals focus on the fact that the war should should not have been fought in the first place. Well, it shouldn't have been. But too much focus there can obscure the fact that, given that we went to war, it was very incompetently directed."
If you accept the premise that the United States has a unilateral right to attack anybody, anywhere in the world for any reason, or no reason at all, in complete blatant violation of international law and morality, and against the nearly universal opposition of the entire rest of the world, then you do exactly what is the consensus view of all political parties in the U.S. -- blithely skip over the fact that the Iraq war was an illegal war of aggression and focus on the "it was badly handled, causing too much damage to us."
That is exactly like arguing that Hitler's invasion of Poland was wrong because it turned out to be too costly to Germany, but that if Hitler had managed things better, then the "historians" (war-crimes apologists would a more accurate term) would "see him better."
The UN Charter, and universal international law, which WE created to begin with (Roosevelt) and which, by treaty, has the force of law inside the U.S., makes clear that "waging aggressive war" is the paramount WAR-CRIME.
" A war of aggression is a military conflict waged in the absence of "a necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation."
Clearly Iraq doesn't qualify there, because there was no "imminent threat" creating a "necessity of self-defense" -- in fact there were no weapons of mass-destruction, or links to Al Queda, and Bush administration officials KNEW at the time that such was the case. It wasn't "bad intelligence," the decision to go to war was made completely INDEPENDENT OF THE INTELLIGENCE: "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin."
Bush not only didn't seek UN sanction to attack Iraq, (as opposed to he in fact signaled plainly to the world that he intended to use force WITH OR WITHOUT UN sanction. So UN resolution 1441 (giving Iraq a last chance to comply with weapons inspectors) was as irrelevant to the decision to go to war as a League of Nations resolution demanding Poland "mediate" it's boundary dispute with Germany would have been in September 1939. Bush, like Hitler, had made the decision to go to war over a year earlier.
This constitutes a war of CHOICE, devoid of the necessity for "self-defense" and without official sanction of the United Nations, which is by definition a "war of aggression" and therefore a "paramount war-crime" - in the words of the Nuremberg Tribunal.
That means that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others who planned, prosecuted and carried out that war are in fact international war criminals, who ought to tried for their crimes, and even sentenced to death -- if the same principles we applied to the Nazis at Nuremberg were applied impartially to our own leaders.
The only thing preventing this is NAKED FORCE. "The UN Security Council, as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, has the ability to rule on the legality of the war, but has not been asked by any UN member nation to do so. The United States and the United Kingdom have veto power in the Security Council, so action by the Security Council is highly improbable even if the issue were to be raised."
IN short, the question cannot even be raised because the U.S. government will veto any attempt to hold U.S. leaders accountable for their crimes.
But, nothing prevents historians from examining the record and concluding that Bush was acting in blatant violation of the UN Charter which as a treaty has the force of law inside the U.S., and therefore was an international war-criminal who should be tried for his crimes, crimes which directly resulted in the deaths of over 500,000 people and forced millions of Iraqi refugees to flee from their homes.
@Cugel
Agree in principle; just not in timing. We have far more pressing issues to deal with right now. War crimes have no statute of limitations. I frankly want Dick Cheney's head on a spit but I want my country to thrive first and foremost. We can judge them later.
Here you go, Larrouturou, from Wikipedia's McCarthy page. As you'll read, Eisenhower might be said not to have forecefully stood in McCarthy's way, but he was no supporter.
McCarthy and Eisenhower
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States.During the 1952 Presidential election, the Eisenhower campaign toured Wisconsin with McCarthy. In a speech delivered in Green Bay, Eisenhower declared that while he agreed with McCarthy's goals, he disagreed with his methods. In draft versions of his speech, Eisenhower had also included a strong defense of his mentor, George Marshall, which was a direct rebuke of McCarthy's frequent attacks. However, under the advice of conservative colleagues who were fearful that Eisenhower could lose Wisconsin if he alienated McCarthy supporters, he deleted this defense from later versions of his speech.[47][48] The deletion was discovered by a reporter for The New York Times and featured on their front page the next day. Eisenhower was widely criticized for giving up his personal convictions, and the incident became the low point of his campaign.[49]
With his victory in the 1952 presidential race, Dwight Eisenhower became the first Republican president in 20 years. The Republican party also held a majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate. After being elected president, Eisenhower made it clear to those close to him that he did not approve of McCarthy and he worked actively to diminish his power and influence. Still, he never directly confronted McCarthy or criticized him by name in any speech, thus perhaps prolonging McCarthy's power by giving the impression that even the President was afraid to criticize him directly. Oshinsky disputes this, stating that "Eisenhower was known as a harmonizer, a man who could get diverse factions to work toward a common goal... Leadership, he explained, meant patience and conciliation, not 'hitting people over the head.'"[50]
McCarthy won reelection in 1952 with only 54% of the vote, defeating former Wisconsin State Attorney General Thomas E. Fairchild but badly trailing a Republican ticket which swept the state of Wisconsin; all the other Republican winners, including Eisenhower himself, received at least 60% of the Wisconsin vote.[51] Those who expected that party loyalty would cause McCarthy to tone down his accusations of Communists being harbored within the government were soon disappointed. Eisenhower had never been an admirer of McCarthy, and their relationship became more hostile once Eisenhower was in office. In a November 1953 speech that was carried on national television, McCarthy began by praising the Eisenhower Administration for removing "1,456 Truman holdovers who were [...] gotten rid of because of Communist connections and activities or perversion." He then went on to complain that John Paton Davies, Jr. was still "on the payroll after eleven months of the Eisenhower Administration," even though Davies had actually been dismissed three weeks earlier, and repeated an unsubstantiated accusation that Davies had tried to "put Communists and espionage agents in key spots in the Central Intelligence Agency." In the same speech, he criticized Eisenhower for not doing enough to secure the release of missing American pilots shot down over China during the Korean War.[52]
By the end of 1953, McCarthy had altered the "twenty years of treason" catchphrase he had coined for the preceding Democratic administrations and began referring to "twenty-one years of treason" to include Eisenhower's first year in office.[53]
As McCarthy became increasingly combative towards the Eisenhower Administration, Eisenhower faced repeated calls that he confront McCarthy directly. Eisenhower refused, saying privately "nothing would please him [McCarthy] more than to get the publicity that would be generated by a public repudiation by the President."[54] On several occasions Eisenhower is reported to have said of McCarthy that he did not want to "get down in the gutter with that guy."[55]
Welcome to my confusion:
On the TARP stimulus release bill yesterday, my Republican Senator, Judd Gregg, was one of 6 Republicans voting to allow the release of funds (or voting against holding them back). But my newly elected Democratic Senator, Jeanne Shaheen, was one of 9 Demotrats to vote against the release of funds.
You know, I used to call Shaheen "Steve Merrill in disguise" when she was our governor (Merrill was the previous Republican governor) because she vetoed the bills abolishing the death penalty and imposing a state-wide income tax here in New Hampshire. I wonder if she will be NH's mirror image of Olympia Snow.
@Legendary
Thanks for your $.02
I'm cognizant of the perceived hyperbole of my statements. But I stand by them. My argument for them would require a dissertation (which is actually what I'm working on).
Trust me, I do not wish to play Nostradamus, but I feel that a fundamental shift is about to occur.
Are the last eight years the worst in our nation's history? Well that's a subjective assessment. The Civil War was pretty bad. The sixties were tumultuous as well. WWI and WWII sucked but all of these circumstances proved to be defining moments of excellence in American history. My fear is that the Bush years are the fiddling of Nero whilst Rome burns.
I don't believe that Bush intentionally meant to create such a conundrum. But I do think that his influence may lead to a deconstruction of everything that American values embody. We are completely ripe for the picking. And the harvesters are patiently awaiting.
Again, I want to be wrong.
Same deal with Bayh and Lugar in Indiana, BTW.
That's not Korean, it's Chinese. And once porn purveyers like that find a way, they will use a "bot" to spam every thread.
Either we will need moderation here or we will need different comment software.
Once again, I want to advocate for self moderation. I enjoy the the unadulterated contributions of the blog community until they become offensive or threatening such as the recent activity. Can't we, as a community, moderate our discussions via plurality? Those that are offensive and threatening get shut down by us?
And what was the deal with that dude (whose name I refuse to mention)? What did Nate ever do to him? What an asshole.
We are still judging Lincoln.
I think the question is whether Bush is remembered as a spectacularly bad president or remembered much at all. He won't be remembered as a good one.
@Legendary
Tru Dat, Brother.
Michael
Very true, including some Democratic leaders who have refused to admit fault in authorizing the War in Iraq. As such, I think the GOP is more likely to fight tooth and nail to undermine Obama than to admit fault, and the Bush Democrats will just sort of hope we all forget what they did and try to slip into the shadows when nobody is looking.
Perhaps this is why impeachment proceedings consistently failed. Too many people on both sides of the aisle have blood on their hands to start pointing fingers.
Unfortunately, it also means the whole matter is unlikely to ever make it to court As such, Bush's actions will not be officially repudiated, and can be used as grounds for similar, perhaps even more extreme, activity later on by another President.
It was because of Sulla's mishandling of Rome that Caesar felt bold enough to abolish the Republic. Precedent had been set, so it did not seem as unthinkable as it would otherwise have been. Without some sort of official limitations on Presidential power established, along with penalties for future Presidents that exceed their purview, I fear the future.
Given that power concedes nothing voluntarily (NB how Clinton opposed limiting Executive power until she lost the primary, and then started advocating for it, and Obama has remained silent on the topic), I have my doubts about such limitations ever being placed.
Up until about ten months ago I was of the opinion that the incumbent had some small chance of having his presidency rehabbed depending on events in the Middle East during his final year and over the course of his successor's first term. This was due in large part to the arc of opinion regarding the presidency of Woodrow Wilson (foreign affairs was determinative) during the thirty years that followed the end of his second term.
No more. The events of the past ten months guarantee, in my opinion, that the President will be in the red (see average historical rankings link above) for a century to come even should he be the subject of a popular biography by someone with the stature of McCullough forty years from now. I do think he's probably lucky in his successor. The country will move on in no time at all.
I've liked Junior (he's referred to in that manner) personally since reading Richard Ben Cramer's What It Takes back in 1992, but his choice for Vice President back in 2000 marked the end of whatever small chance there was that I might vote for him to be President. Thank God that individual never became President. He did more than enough damage as Vice President, Secretary of Defense and Chief of Staff.
Gallup has Bush's average approval rating at 49.4 as of January 5th. This puts him in about the same place as his father. Of five presidents on the second chart who had an average approval rating below 50% only Truman was later viewed favorably by historians.
I would also bet that Mathew H may be right and I'd love to see the second chart done using the average of only the last full term a president served (perhaps you'd average in the little bit of Roosevelt's 4th term, Nixon would keep his term and a half, etc.) This would only affect FDR, LBJ and Reagan, but I bet it would tighten up the trend line - though Truman would still be an outlier, which is of course the catch. There is a small chance that Gee W will be one too, but the trend line suggests he will always be considered at best a below average president and the second term chart (which I bet is more statistically significant and therefore more likely to be predictive) would place him near or at the bottom.
Statler in da house!
I haven't even gone to bed yet. Good to see you back on the site.
@Davy: "Self-moderation" doesn't work in the blogosphere any more than self-regulation works in the economy.
Reagan left office and for a few years was viewed quite unfavorably because the image of his age (and falling asleep during cabinet meetings) had overtaken his legacy. Iran-Contra was also a stain on his record. As the years went by, his legacy as the great communicator was resurrected. That having been said, I don't recall history reversing itself on Hoover or Nixon. Bush's karma will rightfully remain intact. His ignorance reached a point of critical mass.
Regarding Reagan, I'm not sure his legacy was resurrected after Iran Contra. He was clearly showing signs of Alzheimer's at that time, and in the interview he conducted.
What he did at the very beginning of his first term -- as even Obama has acknowledged -- was to change the tone. And he really stopped inflation fast. But except for the so-called 'Reagan Democrats' blue collar workers, he never won over support across the political spectrum.
And the Reagan legacy, as it were, has been tarnished by his RW successors both in Congress and the Presidency -- and in the mentality that the economy would operate best if just left on its own, and that government would work best if it just got out of the way.
Those elements of the "Reagan Legacy" are now seen as not so good.
Reagan allowed 100,000 gay men, Haitians, and IV drug users to die of AIDS before he even mentioned the disease in his speeches. he consistently fought efforts by Congress and NIH to secure funding to study the disease, delaying knowledge of how to prevent it for almost a decade. It is because of Reagan that the disease was not contained in it's nascence, and as a result that some countries now have a 24% prevelence rate for HIV infection-meaning almost a quarter of every man, woman and child is HIV+. We can also credit the lack of development of medications to treat the disease, as well as vaccine research and Post Exposure Chemoprohylaxis to Reagan's decision to ignore the deaths of a hundred thousand American citizens before saying anything.
Reagan is a monester who si responsible for millions of deaths across the entire world and in the US. It's just more convienient to ignore those deaths because theyw ere mostly Black people, gay people, sex trade workers and intravenous drug users. We have as a society chosen to think of the lives of others as worth less if they do not meet our criteria-some of which are impossible (if you're Black or Gay, there's no way to change that), and some of which are hypocritical (IV drug use is seen as criminal but alcohol is acceptable and even encouraged), and some of which are just mean (like attacking homeless women that sell their bodies just to feed themselves and maybe support a child).
America-the land where a fetus' life is more important than the lives of those who are already born.
Leg,
Are you trying to say it is somehow hypocritical to be HIV+? perhaps you can go yell at all those dead people for being so rude as to besmirch the memory of your idol! How mean and cruel of those dead people! I mean, Reagan said he was a christian, and we all know that means you can do anything you want and get away with it.
Pro-life and pro-death penalty? Don't fret! If you're s christian, you don't have to explain the contradictory nature of such a position. Same thing if you are pro-war. Never mind that the Bible contains numerous passages ordering the faithful not to judge others or seek vengeance. Being a christian means you areGod, and you can do whatever you want! It's okay to let people die and ignore them! Because that's what Jesus meant by the Parable of the Good Samaritan! He didn't mean you should help people. He meant you should let them die slowly and painfully, and then try to make a profit off the drugs that could save them!
This is the new christianity. You don't have to Love they Neighbor or any mamby-pamby shit! Because you are Christ!
In the New christianity, you can just ignore the soft and squishy parts of the Bible, and enforce the stuff you want on other people! Never mind that the Kingdom of Heaven was not meant to be an earthly country. You can start your own form of Shari'a.
Jesus Christ, will you please save us from your insane followers!
There's this old joke we used to tell each other in high school down here.
Yuri Gagarin was a Soviet Cosmonaut, the first person in space, actually. When he returned from his space-flight, he was of course approached by a mob of reporters and the like.
One of them was a Southern Baptist minister, an old white racist that used the Bible as an excuse to hate people. He became increasingly insistent on talking to Gagarin, shouting over and over again, "Mr Gagarin, did you see Gawd?"
At first, the cosmonaut tried to ignore him, thinking to himself that maybe this simpleton did not know the Soviet Union was an atheist country. Eventually he gave in, and as the throng of reporters fell silent, he looked at that old Bible-thumper right in the eye, and he said,
"Yes, I did. But I have very bad news for you. She is Black."
Statler, very good point about the cost of Reagan being slow to act on HIV.
Juris, how old were you during the Reagan presidency? I ask because your claim that he "never won support across the political spectrum" doesn't resemble the era I lived through. OK, sure, partisan liberals maintained their opposition throughout his presidency, but you could say the same about right-wing Republicans vis a vis FDR, and my response would be to point out how submerged they were. Reagan was an extremely popular president. Who else won 49 states in any presidential election? And yes, he was a very effective communicator, inasmuch as people who were his ideological opposites nevertheless gave him credit for being personally charming when they met him. I always opposed him and believe he did great harm and little good for the country (going back to Statler's point on HIV, one of the best things Reagan did was to nominate C. Everett Koop and let him speak his mind), but I do hope that Obama will emulate Reagan's open-door policy with respect to Congress and cultivate support and cooperation from Republicans as well as Democrats. Just like Reagan, I want Obama to be "bipartisan" without compromising his overall ideological bent. And early signs are that he may be doing just that and having some success.
It's somewhat unfair to judge presidents of past against more recent ones, since the scope of presidential power has evolved so much in the past century, particularly the past 50 years.
For that reason, I don't like ranking the past 43 presidents. They need to be judged by their own merits in the context of their time.
With that in mind, historians are unlikely to say much good about GW Bush for at least a generation. There are just too few historians with the sort of political leanings that will judge him well. But that's not his only problem.
Bush has mishandled a lot, and can't point to too many grand accomplishments. At least Nixon had China and Johnson had civil rights. What does Bush have? No Child Left Behind? Medicare prescription plan?
Bush's lack of curiosity and desire to have everything summarized curtly will end up looking very bad for him when historians actually begin studying his papers. Coolidge is viewed very badly now for a similar kind of intellectual laziness.
While I don't think Reagan was a great president, his papers reveal that he thought a good deal about
America's place in the world (until he started to lose his marbles). By all accounts, Bush doesn't do that.
In the end, I think he'll probably end up being viewed kind of like Taft - out of his league and got involved in unnecessary foriegn entanglements. But in Bush's case much more serious. Perhaps if Iraq turns out to be stable, friendly democracy, the perception will change.
Michael,
I read Koop's autobiography, and he had to fight Reagan tooth and nail. He was always convinced that they were going to fire him at any moment.
And he was not appointed until after Rock Hudson died- a gay man who everyone thought was heterosexual. It was okay to let people die so long as they were like me. But the minute someone thought the dying could look like one of you, then it was alarming!
To Reagan, a gay man's life didn't mean alot
Statler, all your points are well taken. But the fact is, Koop wasn't fired, and he was a bright spot among Reagan's appointees. He may have been the very best Surgeon General of all time, and certainly had the greatest impact of any Surgeon General in my living memory.
I'd say it's a toss up between Koop and Elders. I like Surgeons General with some fight in them :)
Personally, I hope one day to be appointed to the post of Sturgeon General. All the world's wealthiest will want to eat whatever comes out of my ass.
@ Michael
Good historians deal in facts, not lying propaganda by parties that are ideologically opposed to doing anything appreciable to help poor and black people.
I was talking about average people who are Republicans or Reagan-Democrats, not historians. I don't think we're in disagreement, here. The war was clearly the larger of the two black marks on Johnson's presidency, but Republicans have fairly successfully demonized the social programs, as well. And I was not making a case about Johnson's domestic effectiveness, just the perception of his effectiveness among the center-right of the country (which has been politically dominant since Nixon).
Leg,
This is the central point I'm trying to make. the Bible says You Shall Not Kill. Period. End of sentence. Doesn't say, "Except when". No qualifiers. End of story.
Cut and dry as they come, in my opinion.
But you will castigate anyone that ignores that in favor of abortion while coming up with excuses in favor of the death penalty.
The Sixth Commandment does not exclude murderers. That exclusion is something you inserted into the Law because it was convenient for you.
Beating your swords into plowshares does not mean preemptively strike suspected holders of WMD. But you'll try to twist it into being acceptable by Biblical terms. It isn't.
You inject your idealism into the Bible, and then you wonder why we stare at you with utter bafflement. You want to shout, "This is God's word!" when two guys ask why they cannot marry. But you're so quyick to execute prisoners in violation of God's word.
You can't pick and chose, man.
You can't use the Bible as a basis for legal argument is the Bible says that the Kingdom of Heaven is not an earthly nation. Christianity is anti-theocracy. So stop trying to make this into a 'christian nation', because the Bible explicitly states that there are no christian nations.
Stop putting words into the mouth of God. He is not your puppet.
So you're telling me God only speaks to the elites and you have to take a special class to understand what He means?
Isn't that why Luther left the Catholic Church?
Sorry, I don't believe in a God which needs human elites trained in esoteric rituals to communicate to people. That system is just too open to abuse by the priests, who will claim to speak for God and then accuse anyone that challenges them as being too stupid to understand it.
You don't speak for God. God speaks for Himself.
Legendary:
Sure, pragmatic solutions are good, but the need to terminate pregnancies can never be completely ended. Contraceptives fail, and some pregnancies end up having to be ended for health reasons. And on your other point, though crime has plummeted lately, murders will always take place in some amount.
As for the suggestion that disregarding the life of fetuses while being against the death penalty is hypocritical, it doesn't make sense to me. Some of us simply don't consider a fetus to be a human life in the same way that the "already born" are. A greater degree of concern for more highly developed fetuses is certainly logical, but also uncontroversial and built into the Roe v. Wade decision. I have no anguish whatsoever about a woman's decision to have an early abortion, nor about the abortion of a late-term fetus under tragic and potentially life-threatening circumstances for the prospective mother or the diagnosis of horrible birth defects such as spina bifida.
The reason I'm against the death penalty isn't primarily because of concern for the lives of murderers. If you murder someone, you deserve to die, and if police have to kill you in a shootout, good riddance. The problem is that there is no way to allow for the "unreasonable doubt" that has caused a pretty large number of death row inmates to be in fact not guilty of murder - some of whom have been executed, as in the infamous Texas case in which the Supreme Court ruled that evidence of actual innocence is not a sufficient reason to order a stay of execution. I fail to see a compelling reason to execute people already behind bars, that would justify the state-sanctioned murder of unjustly convicted innocents. One exception I'd be willing to consider is what to do with convicted murderers who murder again while in jail, but perhaps solitary confinement in perpetuity might be sufficient to protect people from such individuals. My basic rule of thumb is that the government shouldn't kill people if it's at all possible to avoid killing them and still protect society.
I think it is unreasonable to claim the reason why abortion should be illegal is because it is anti-life and then to execute prisoners or declare preemptive war. Logically, it makes no sense to say one form of killing is better than any other. To kill is to kill.
Statler, first of all, Legendary is right. The commandment is "Thou shalt not murder," and the King James translation that's been copied so many times is simply wrong.
Secondly, if you want to cite the Bible as an anti-war text, you have a problem, because then you can't explain why God told the Israelites to conquer Canaan, etc., etc., etc. The Bible certainly contains anti-war sentiment, but also plenty of war.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the Bible says there are no Christian nations. To me, the New Testament isn't part of the Bible, anyway, but let's include it for the sake of discussion. When the New Testament was written, of course there WERE no Christian nations!
Statler:
The argument the pro-life/pro-death penalty people make is that the fetus is "innocent." I frankly wonder why Christians make that argument, since they believe in Original Sin. Do you lack sin until you are born? But anyway, that's their argument.
Well, to me the death penalty is murder. Allow me to explain why I say this. I'm not a theologian, so I'll try to be brief, but forgive my prolix if I fail to do so.
1) The State is not comprised of Gods but of men. If we are to assume that men are capable of error (therefore sin), we mus assume the State is equally capable of error. Should the state falsely find someone guilty of murder (which is a possibility) and then execute him, it cannot make reparations for it's crime. Unlike a life sentence, where the prisoner can be released with an apology and maybe some money to help make up for the years lost, you can't bring the dead back to life. Once they're gone, that's it.
2) The state does not have Divine Authority. The Bible explicitly states that vengeance belongs to the Lord alone, and is not for men to seek. The Death Penalty is, above all else, about vengeance. The victims do not spring back to life upon the execution of their murderer. Nothing is restored. More pain and suffering is added, and none is taken away.
3) There is a specific proscription against ritual sacrifice, which the Death Penalty comes entirely close to. It is performed in a ritualistic manner, with an appointed time, date, method, a specific role for executioner and audience. The whole grisly mess is little different from Moloch, except instead of sacrificing to a God we sacrifice to the State. The State should not assume such a role.
We are not here to judge other people or to decide who is holy and who is profane. There is another Judge that will make that decision, and any attempts to subvert His role is pretentious at best.
From the stand point of Religion, I can see no reason for the execution of prisoners. I will next attempt to make my stand from a Secular perspective. Again, forgive my prolix, since I'm no lawyer, either.
The role of the state, as defined by Locke, is to protect Life, Liberty, and wealth. (sound eerily familiar?)
Now, life is not protected by the destruction of life, any more than it is possible to prevent theft by stealing.
The State is constrained by the law as much as the citizenry. Were it not so, we would live in a totalitarian society where mistakes made my the State cannot be remedied. In fact, given the awesome power of government, it makes more sense to argue for a disparity that favors the citizens rather than one that favors the State. When a cat is int he presence of a mouse, one does not seek to protect the cat from the mouse.
Further, the State itself does not exist except by the consent of the Governed. Should the State itself disappear, the possibility that the citizenry will continue without it is still there. It is not true that the State can exist without the citizenry. Therefore, the State is not superior to the citizen, rather, it is inferior to it. The citizen is to rule the State, the State is not to rule the citizen.
However, the citizens are prone (as every other society is and has been prone) to mob violence, mass panics, and to collective temporary insanity. While many would argue that there is something about Americans that make them superior to other humans, they are wrong. We are subject to the same errors that brought down every other nation that came before us, and just as subject to ills as those we see int he present, and wish we didn't have to. The minority must be protected from the Tyranny of the Majority, lest we degenerate into an unruly mob. The worst images from our history are those of lynchings and other forms of collective psychosis.
All too often, prisoners are convicted not on evidence but on suspicion, prejudice, and the extremism of the desperate looking for an archetype to blame for their ill fortune.
The Death Penalty allows horrible atrocities to be committed during the depths of mass psychosis. We must therefore protect ourselves from it.
Over the next few years, the Obama administration will reveal more facts about the Bush Administration that are currently being hidden. On top of that, more of Bush's decisions will yield their results, and so far those results have been a terrible economy, foreign policy disasters, more Israeli attacks and unimaginable deficits.
The Bush defense that "he kept us safe" is offensive because a) it ignores the fact that the only act of peacetime foreign terrorism on US soil occurred under his charge; b) it ignores the terrorist attacks on our allies by Al Qaeda in Bali, Madrid and London, as if Bush doesn't have a responsibility to keep them safe.
The public will probably forget Bush over time, but I don't historians will have much kind to say about him. Probably the best we can hope for is that he didn't really matter in the long run, as Obama solved most of the problems Bush created.
I am not sure history will be kind on George W Bush. I think Truman is a bit of an unusual case because of the termoil he inflicted on the Democratic Party through his (albeit tepid) support of the civil rights movement. So many of his own party where not squarely behind him, and partisan republicans where not on his side.
I don't see Bush benefitting from the same level of retrospective respect. I think the Iraq War has done for him in the same way that the Vietnam War did for LBJ, and Bush does not have the same level of domestic successes to rescue any of his reputation.
I am always surprised by how political bias causes people to lose any semblance of objectivity. I like President Bush, but accept the likelihood that inhistory he will not be an upper tier president, although I also consider the contentions that he will be at the bottom to be emotional and partisan arguments. In the scope of history, what has he done that has such awful consequences at to put him near the bottom?
But my main point is that there is an obviously possibility that would greatly enhance his "ranking.' Nate recogizes it grudgingly:
"it's hard to imagine what exactly could transpire from here on out to change those perceptions -- the seemingly unlikely prospect a long-run democratic peace in Iraq perhaps being the exception. Still, to assume that the final chapter has been written on Bush's legacy would be wrong."
It is possible that Iraq will turn out to be a big long term success (Afghanistan as well), that could catapult Bush into the upper echelon of presidents, and anyone who does not recognize that possibility is not being truthful and objective. It is also possible that the "war on terror" will be viewed quite favorably.
Compare these issues re Bush with the Clinton presidency. There is nothing that I can see about the Clinton presidency that would cause him to go up and much that will cause him to descend - dishonesty, pardons, impeachment, and perceived as asleep on terrorism.
@ dorsk188
My own presidency professor accepted this more traditional view when I was in college a few years ago. Expanding the powers was always a "good" thing and relinquishing them (as GHWB did when going to Congress for approval to invade Iraq) weakened the presidency and was thus "bad"
Apparently your professor gave no weight to what use the expansion of power was put.And he considered GHWB weak because he followed the Constitution and recognized that the power to declare war rested with Congress.
I hope your old professor is now retired and no longer poisoning young minds.
Johnson's domestic policies are anathema to most Republicans. Johnson moved us toward a Welfare State in their view.
I hope by now that "most" Republicans are more enlightened.As for the remaining Neanderthals,they can't die out soon enough to suit me.
The war was clearly the larger of the two black marks on Johnson's presidency, but Republicans have fairly successfully demonized the social programs, as well.I
In the world of right wing think tanks,yes.But not in my world.And not in world of most citizens today.
Sorry for asking,but how about in your world?
Speaking of partisanship, AxelIDC sees a world where Obama, not even president yet, "solved most of the problems Bush created."
I think we can anticipate that Obama will have plenty of his own problems to try to solve and, in any event, how often does a new president come in and "solve" the problems of his predecessor. Maybe Reagan. Maybe IKE on the Korean war. Those who like FDR will say he did, although that is debatable.
What other president solved the problems of his predecessor? Or is that just something that we expect from the magic Obama? I think we need a reality check.
Kansas: Bush may or may not be judged differently with regards to Iraq, but I venture to say his legacy regarding Afghanistan will not be judged differently. Bush took his eye off the ball there and pre-emptively invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 based upon cherry-picked intelligence. Afghanistan's state of affairs at the time Bush is leaving office is disastrous because of his neglect. If things eventually change there, it will be because of Obama, not Bush.
With any luck, this man will be prosecuted for war crimes and there will be no hope for his legacy.
dorsk188 said...
many historians still gauge a president by how much they grew the president's power
Dork (oops, I mean dorsk),
Many is not most. MOST historians gauge a President by how they conducted their term in office, how they handled problems that were given to them, how their appointments handled the duties they were given, etc.
But the MOST important criteria is how they did their job within the criteria set by law.
dorsk said...
So, traditional historians may rank Bush quite high
Dork, dork, dork (ooops, I mean dorsk):
Traditional historians have NEVER ranked a President according to how they expanded the powers of a President. They rank a President on how that Chief Executive conducted themselves in office in accordance with the laws of the land, and Bush did his best to shred all but the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights; withheld information from the American public and distorted most information he did give; politicized everything he could so meet his ends; neglected those Americans who didn't help him meet his goals (the former residents of New Orleans still living in FEMA trailers, for example); etc.; etc.; I don't see many historians ranking Bush on a very high scale. The only ones who will are the so-called historians who write history for and to the fascist right-wing of the country.
Just as one example of your fallacy of high-ranking Presidents are rated such because they expanded the powers of the Presidency:
George Washington
I think you would agree that Washington is almost universally considered one of the top five American Presidents.
On 23 December 1783, George Washington voluntarily gave up command of the Continental Army when he resigned his commission to the Continental Congress in Annapolis, Maryland.
When George Washington was President, there was no prohibition to a President serving no more than two terms. Yet, in 1796, Washington made it very clear to everyone that he would step down from the Presidency at the end of his second term. By doing that, he did not expand the Presidency at all, but limited it, if not in actual fact, he limited it by custom.
Finally, YOU and your ideological cohorts may not recognize Truman as a top tier President, but it is obvious that many historians (actual, not fake) do. If in fact so many consider him in the top 10 of American Presidents, what did he do to expand the powers of the Presidency for him to be considered in the top tier of Presidents by most legitimate historians?
So outgoing ones get a bump when it is known they are going or are about to leave? I wonder if Obama helped Bush along by taking charge so much right after the election? People may have indulged in the notion that W had actually already ended his time of influence, months ahead of Inauguration Day, and started the "nostalgic looking back" earlier than usual.
On another note, in the second chart, I see the single termers dominating in the bottom half, with the double termers and FDR in the top. I know that presidents have a tendency to stumble over some type of bad problem or 'morass' in their last term. Should be be averaging, not over their whole tenure, but just the last term, as someone else suggested?
Truman is the outlier. As Nate says, "Here, the relationship is a bit stronger (very strong, in fact, if we exclude Harry Truman.)" Maybe somebody out there can help me with this, possibly point me towards some info that explains why historians think he's so great. He had his share of scandals, as Nate points out. He is the first American president that I'm aware of that got us into what any sensible person would call a war, but he labeled it a "Police Action" (Korea). This set a precedent for legitimizing other "conflicts" (Viet Nam), "incursions" (Grenada), or just ordinary mucking in other people's business (Iran-Contra). He is the author of the relationship that President, and former General, Eisenhower later warned would dramatically change America, likely for the worse, the Military-Industrial Complex. From everything I've read about him, he was a nasty, stubborn little man, sort of a "my way or the highway" kind of guy. Sound familiar? And, while people can change, the things he wrote about the Germans while serving in the U.S. military in World War One, paint the picture of a bigot with a mean streak. Let's not forget, he is the only person in the world who has ever deployed a nuclear device, and he used two - on civilians. For me, the fact that Dubya thinks he's great is the final nail in the coffin. Call it guilt by association, if you will.
So, if there are any historians out there (real ones, not amateurs like me), please fill me in on why "Give 'em Hell, Harry!" is now so revered.
"There is nothing that I can see about the Clinton presidency that would cause him to go up...perceived as asleep on terrorism."
No sir. I'm amazed to see anyone seriously make such a statement (if you were being sarcastic, then I'm just tonedeaf and I apologize). Clinton was actively on guard, aware, and responding to the Al Qaida threat. Even to the extent of leaving notes and explanation of policy for his successor... who completely ignored them and did NOTHING WHATSOEVER until after the attack came. If anyone has been asleep on terrorism, it has been GWB up to 2001, and after that he simply reacted as Bin Lauded led him around, much to the misfortune of our contry, and much to the advantage of Al Qaida.
As much as I think Bush was horrible at defending the constitution and standing up for American values (i.e. allowing torture, politicizing the justice department), I think that Iraq will settle out to a stable democracy, and as much as it pains me to think it, I believe Bush WILL indeed rank at least in the top half of American presidents all time.
Jack-be-nimble praising Bush:
"Rallied the country after 9-11."
And alienated the rest of the world. Plus rallying the country to go shopping instead of sacrificing was pretty stupid.
"Took down the Taliban government in record time."
Except they came back... still under his watch.
"Took Iraq from a feared regional enemy to a democratic regional force to be a buttress to Iran for the forseeable future."
I think you mean to buffer Iran? If so, no. Iraq is more likely to become a strong ally to Iran at this point.
"Taught our enemies that we would do whatever it took to crush them, including toture to keep the country safe."
Yes, I'm sure proving we could do an Abu Ghraib helped America a whole lot. Not.
"Now that daddy (Bush/Cheney) have done the dirty work, mommy (Obama/Biden) can inherit the benefits of work well done. Bush/Cheney is Jack Nicholsen character in "A few good men", whereas Obama/Biden is Tom Cruise and his lady Navy waife."
You do realize that the movie is about how Nicholson is wrong, don't you?
"Inherited a recession/9-11 economic slump and grew the ecomomy for 52 consecutive months."
The growth was not a real one. It relied on a housing boom that turned into a bust.
Compare your unwarranted praise of Bush to what he did wrong: Bush doubled the national debt, led the nation into a trillion dollar pre-emptive war against a country that was a minor threat to us, let New Orleans suffer for days after Hurrican Katrina, destroyed the environment, installed political cronies left and right while forsaking experience to do the job called for, and had the country suffer the biggest economic catastrophe since the Great Depression at the end of his eight years.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看 捷克論壇 微風論壇 大眾論壇 plus論壇 080視訊聊天室 情色視訊交友90739 美女交友-成人聊天室 色情小說 做愛成人圖片區 豆豆色情聊天室 080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網 台中情人聊天室 桃園星願聊天室 高雄網友聊天室 新中台灣聊天室 中部網友聊天室 嘉義之光聊天室 基隆海岸聊天室 中壢網友聊天室 南台灣聊天室 南部聊坊聊天室 台南不夜城聊天室 南部網友聊天室 屏東網友聊天室 台南網友聊天室 屏東聊坊聊天室 雲林網友聊天室 大學生BBS聊天室 網路學院聊天室 屏東夜語聊天室 孤男寡女聊天室 一網情深聊天室 心靈饗宴聊天室 流星花園聊天室 食色男女色情聊天室 真愛宣言交友聊天室 情人皇朝聊天室 上班族成人聊天室 上班族f1影音視訊聊天室 哈雷視訊聊天室 080影音視訊聊天室 38不夜城聊天室 援交聊天室080 080哈啦聊天室 台北已婚聊天室 已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室 摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室 520情色聊天室 QQ成人交友聊天室 免費視訊網愛聊天室 愛情公寓免費聊天室 拉子性愛聊天室 柔情網友聊天室 哈啦影音交友網 哈啦影音視訊聊天室 櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集 123上班族聊天室 尋夢園上班族聊天室 成人聊天室上班族 080上班族聊天室 6k聊天室 粉紅豆豆聊天室 080豆豆聊天網 新豆豆聊天室 080聊天室 免費音樂試聽 流行音樂試聽 免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看 色情貼影片 免費a長片 本土成人貼圖站 大台灣情色網 台灣男人幫論壇 A圖網 嘟嘟成人電影網 火辣春夢貼圖網 情色貼圖俱樂部 台灣成人電影 絲襪美腿樂園 18美女貼圖區 柔情聊天網 707網愛聊天室聯盟 台北69色情貼圖區 38女孩情色網 台灣映像館 波波成人情色網站 美女成人貼圖區 無碼貼圖力量 色妹妹性愛貼圖區 日本女優貼圖網 日本美少女貼圖區 亞洲風暴情色貼圖網 哈啦聊天室 美少女自拍貼圖 辣妹成人情色網 台北女孩情色網 辣手貼圖情色網 AV無碼女優影片 男女情色寫真貼圖 a片天使俱樂部 萍水相逢遊戲區 平水相逢遊戲區 免費視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天 辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網 080視訊聊天室 日本美女肛交 美女工廠貼圖區 百分百貼圖區 亞洲成人電影情色網 台灣本土自拍貼圖網 麻辣貼圖情色網 好色客成人圖片貼圖區 711成人AV貼圖區 台灣美女貼圖區 筱萱成人論壇 咪咪情色貼圖區 momokoko同學會視訊 kk272視訊 情色文學小站 成人情色貼圖區 嘟嘟成人網 嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區 免費色情a片下載 台灣情色論壇 成人影片分享 免費視訊聊天區 微風 成人 論壇 kiss文學區 taiwankiss文學區
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment