Posted on 06/06/2004 9:43:55 PM PDT by Samwise
Although his approval ratings have slipped somewhat in recent weeks, President George W. Bush still enjoys the overall support of nearly half of the American people. He does not, however, fare nearly so well among professional historians.
A recent informal, unscientific survey of historians conducted at my suggestion by George Mason University’s History News Network found that eight in ten historians responding rate the current presidency an overall failure.
(Excerpt) Read more at hnn.us ...
"Of 415 historians who expressed a view of President Bush’s administration to this point as a success or failure, 338 classified it as a failure and 77 as a success. (Moreover, it seems likely that at least eight of those who said it is a success were being sarcastic, since seven said Bush’s presidency is only the best since Clinton’s and one named Millard Fillmore.) Twelve percent of all the historians who responded rate the current presidency the worst in all of American history, not too far behind the 19 percent who see it at this point as an overall success."
I'd be interested in finding out their political affiliations. Bet they're mostly Dems.
Marx was right about one thing: class interest (in this case, kissing up to all the other left leaning primates barking at the moon who surround you in the academy) almost always trumps the truth.
gus=guys
Is this the same 415 "historians" who signed the letter that Clinton's crimes didn't "rise to the level of impeachment"?
Where do most historians get there salary from?
I would like to see some polls conducted on Bush supporters vs. Kerry supporters linked to their employment.
I would venture to guess that private citizens more often support GWB and those on the public dole most often support Kerry (minus the military...).
BTW, I am currently on the public trough myself (in the military) so I'm not putting EVERYBODY in the same group and I'm not looking to offend all public servants.
I just think you're more likely to support the DNC if you are already part of some socialist institution.
I'm looking around the site and trying to learn more about them.
If you're in the military, you are not on the public trough. You are earning your wage.
Thank you for your service!
This fact alone would be enough to convince me that George Bush must be a fabulous President.
I am flabbergasted that people could actually spend time studying history and have absolutely no understanding of it.
You'd win that bet in a NY minute. They're almost all on the left.
Oh, they understand it. They just don't like it. So they "deconstruct" it to fit their anti-American, anti-Founders, anti-Free market, anti-white people, anti-male, anti-freedom agenda. They're propagandists first, historians a poor second.
You are probably right. Look what else I found there.
http://www.nixonlibrary.org/store/index.cfm?fuseaction=product_details&productUID=E938D955-3959-481D-910A-28BBA403B32E
Somehow, this seems tacky, but it could just be me.
OK, I'll say the obvious: most historians are left-leaning commie pinko swine!
Neither did Ronald Reagan while he was president.
These people are not true historians.
Any history needs time and context to best depict an event or a presidency.
That is why only now Ronald Reagan gets an admission of the full measure of his success.
Any bum who calls himself a historian and rushes to judgement based on incomplete information is just a partisan bum.
They must miss the gas lines, oppressive taxation, sky-high inflation and the stagnant economy of the Carter years or the "Great Society" agenda and the oh so successful "War on Poverty" of the Johnson era (and of course we cannot leave out his competence regarding the Vietnam War).
Perhaps these revisionist "historians" would have preferred that we continued with Clinton's "head-in-the-sand" strategy to deal with terrorists (now that was a stellar president). The fact that W is meeting the threat head-on should not interfere with these historians preconceptions that such actions are only acceptable when a Democrat such as FDR meets a similar challenge with a similar response.
For collectors of historical autographs that wold seem to be a good way to get an unambiguously genuine Nixon signature. It's not to my tastes, either, but I can definitely understand why they are being sold.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.