Posted on 12/07/2005 11:06:54 AM PST by woofie
How about "Written by the worst columnist ever"?
This litany of supposed mistakes, and worse, is nothing but a parroting of all the liberal distortions they've concocted from the beginning to destroy Bush - which is much more important to them than the well being of the country. They are the true "misleaders" and are deliberately destroying this nation from within to promote their own agenda. Richard Reeves, in the same ideological camp, is merely pandering to them, using his editorial position to legitimize the snow job.
Not, of course, that the moon landing was in his Administration. But he sure got the ball rolling.
the difference is appeasement/ negotiation with the south could have averted war. appeasement/ negotiation with terrorists results in progressively larger sneak attacks.
FDR helped create this quasi-socialist system we have in place, but my vote goes to Carter as well. I honestly cannot think of a single positive thing he accomplished as president.
Carter has them all beat!!
I bought a House in Midland, Tx when Carter was President.
Interest rate for the housing market at the time was 17%.
YEAP Carter is worst and worst ex-president ever!
Its so funny how in each Republican administration this resurfaces. It happened in Reagan's, G. H. W. Bush's and now Dubya's.
The leftist academics are activist propagandizers and our young people are their targets.
This "survey" is useless. Only 1/3 of those contacted responded.
I vote Harry Truman worst ever. Not because of the bomb, that was about the only think he did right.
"It also did not help that his administration was as corrupt as any in history, and he was widely believed to be homosexual."
There were homosexuals in the 1850s?
An amazing record! Carter continues to be the worst President -- even when he's not President. Astounding!
Carter was bad but inept. Johnson was bad but capable. A bad President who gets (bad) things done is probably the worse of the two. Buchanan or Pierce? I don't know, I'm old but not that old. I've heard U.S. Grant had his problems with scandals during his terms.
The complaints about Bush listed in this article are that he hasn't been a liberal.
He seems oblivious to the fact that in almost every characteristic of Buchanan, Bush is an opposite, as if somehow that is irrelevant.
I noticed that
1. He basically stole the 1960 election, and was the product of a corrupt political machine (which was one reason he had no accomplishments to speak of -- because Congress knew this and basically decided to sit on their hands while he was in office).
2. His administration marked the start of an incredibly arrogant and dangerous change in U.S. foreign policy -- in which foreign heads of state were targeted for assassination by the U.S. government for any number of reasons (which was ironic, when you consider that LBJ went to his grave convinced that JFK's assassination was arranged out by Castro as retribution for the failed attempt on Castro's life).
3. The start of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam, which would eventually be one of the most destructive events (in political and economic terms) in U.S. history.
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.