How would you rate George W Bush's Presidency,and how do you think History will remember him?
Where do you rate him,among the list of America's worst Presidents?
From what I have read,he is a lame Duck President.
http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html

Actually, any President in the last years of his second Presidency is a "lame duck." For example, he cannot initiate legislation with any chance of seeing it through, and has no "clout" with Congress since there is no chance, obviously, that he will be re-elected. Traditionally, most of his staff including Secretaries (of) begin to wander off since there is little chance they will be retained by the new President (of either Party), and there are greener pastures awaiting.

I think Bush will be given high remarks for his words and actions right after 9/11, but it is far too early for historians to place him in the "bad" or "good" list (witness the fate of Harry S. Truman immediately after he left office and now) since so much of the record is not available.
What it does seem, though, is that Bush's Administration will be remembered for what turned out to be a blunder and complete subsequent mis-calculation in Irag (Afganistan may be another story), and a domestic policy that put safety before liberty. Certainly it appears, moreover, that there was a decided push to increase the powers of the President (as opposed to Congress and the Supreme Court).
Cheers,
Z

Excellent Post, 'Z'. Wonder if there wasn't a 2 Term limit,would it be better for your Country,in the long run. Here in OZ, there isn't a limit, so our leader is obliged to work hard for his full Term,if he has any chance of re-election. What are your thoughts on this point?

Remember that our first president was Washington, whom many wished to make either a king or President-for-life. Like the great Roman Republic's heroes, he absolutely declined such power. The term limit was, somewhat later, designed to insure that others of lesser nobility would not be tempted (a special exemption was made, though, for FDR who was President at the time).

On the other hand, there is no such thing as a vote of "no confidence" that would topple an administration at any time (the closest thing we have, I suppose, is Impeachment) nor is the President forced to be a member of the House (which I take to be the case in England and Australia) and stand for re-election by local constituents.

It seems, at least so far in our two histories, that both systems have worked well.
Z

42 out of 42 and you know what I think will prove it is no matter who wins the next election, they will probably not win re-election

I agree.

Even the Iraq situation may be viewed very differently in 50 years or so. We have to let some time transpire before we can make much other than an emotional, irrational opinion.

Not necessarily.

I thought Bush would be replaced in 2004, and then the Democrats nominated Kerry. Instead of Bush being replaced, he won the election by what I beleive was the largest vote differential in US history - almost 10 million votes.

There was a thread a couple months ago similar to this. I think it was about Presidents in general, if I remember correctly.

As I mentioned in that thread, it is way too early to make a judgement on the effects of any Presidents administration while they are still in office. It takes years to really get a sense for any accomplishments or failures. Let's not forget Bill Clinton. When he left office, some people were proclaiming that he was the greatest President ever. Now....we see the long term effects of his policies and it is not good. Even his once staunch supporters are jumping off that bandwagon.

As far as Mr. Bush goes....Way too early to make a rational judgement.

Bush had 62,040,606

Kerry had 59,028,109

only won by 3 mill

I think the largest landslide is still Nixon in 72 over McGovern and his insane asylum partner Eagleton(who I actually was a busboy at a table he was eating at once and I gotta tell you he was definately abit off)

The only other one I can think of is Clinton over Dole and thats only cause Dole was 762 years old

What about Barry Goldwater versus LBJ?

BMG:27 million (61 percent)
LBJ:43 million (38 percent)

Goldwater received 52 Electoral votes, Johnson 486.
Z

Gentlemen, back to Bush please.

It is perfectly okay to make a judgement about Bush's perfomance right now.
It's just a question about how "WE FEEL" not neccessarily what all history will report, and it is in this light that I make the following observation;

Bush has been one of the best "PUPPET" leaders we have ever had.
He followed every single piece of advice that anyone ever gave him, no-matter how stupid the advice may have been!

He came to Toledo one time and I had the chance to hear him speak, and I thought to myself;
" This has got to be one of the dumbest people I have ever heard ".
He was constantly stumbling over his words, and there was some guy he kept turning to when he would loose his place.
He only allowed for a few questions when he finished his speech, and looked at a loss about how to answer, and used the phrase," I can not comment on that at this time", twice
during his answers.

So in summation, I belive that history will not be kind to this guy, as well it should not be!!!!