Dave- Using that argument... Why was BushII elected instead of "more of the same" with Gore??

The economy was not the primary issue in 2000. Not many recognized it as faltering yet.

I saw the implication as the economy performing better under Bush II than Clinton. Maybe I misunderstood. I would hardly characterize it as being "in a shambles' though.

The very same people who are b!tching to high heaven about how bush didn't protect us from Katrina would have been the first to blame Bush if Saddam had cranked up his chem/bio factories supplied terrorists with WMD. The only way to judge if the Iraq invasion was a mistake or not will be to look back 10-20 yrs from now. Will the middle-east be a better place for it, or not. Too soon to tell. With Carter it's a different story. We have the perspective of history. His pacifist stance emboldened the USSR. They invaded Afganistan and Angola, were making inroads into central America. Extremists took control of Iran and sent the middle east into a death spiral. What did Carter do?
Appease. And where did that get us? Carter was the ULTIMATE disgrace. Clinton was a scumbag in his private life, but his policies didn't do much harm... He had the good sense to sign on to the Republican's welfare reform measures, and got to steal some of the credit for its success. He also had the good fortune to be president during the Internet boom, and the tremendous increase in productivity that it provided business.

Gore's best laugh line post-election: "There are winners, there are losers. And then there's this third category ...."

Wouldn't that be because the line item veto was determined to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998?

Tabs actually gave a pretty good summery of the past 60 years. I had to weigh in on Carter...just awful. Many have etched his shortfalls, I won't bother. Not surprised by the high votes on GW2, with a younger crowd they may not remember many of the previous prez's.

No, just like most liberals you don't have a clue, and everything looked rosy under clinton because Enron type accounting and Bush put an end to that, yet you idiots still blame Bush even when he does the right thing. Anyone remember 9-11, that had a lot to do with the economy, had Clinton really done something about terrorist (I will admit, I'm not sure what else he could have done other than taking real action against those who sponsor the actions) President Bush wouldn't have had the set backs he over came. I hope you don't spit on the Republican burgers that you serve at White Castle.

Actually no, Dave, Bush41 left the economy and the Presidency with the economy on the upswing...He did piss off his base by compromising with the back-stabbing lefties; and like Brutus to Ceasar, they capitalized successfully on this, which all contributed to his loss...During the runup the economy faltered and the rats politicized it with the help of their media machine.

Because the media ignored it intentionally...Just like they ignored Juanita Broadderick before impeachment...Just like they are ignoring the smoking Bush economy presently.

line item veto or not, Bush never vetoed a spending bill. He has GROWN Govt faster than any president since Johnson. There can be no excuse for that.

Consider the circumstances of Congress that these Presidents had to get the legislation thru. It was a Democrat controlled Congress until 1994 these guys were working with. Reagan got major tax reform, the Gramm-Rudman Tax Act, through that congress. I lowered top tax rates from 60-70% to i think 33%. He also got Phone and Banking deregulation through, with mixed results (remember the Savings and Loan Crash)

Clinton increased the top income taxrate to 36% with a Democrat Congress, then when the Republicans took control in 1994 kept spending down ( i'm talking % of GDP here, you spin guys) and we got a balanced budget, which was the mandate of the voters then thanks to Ross Perot.

Bush 2 on the other hand has taken spending out of site while the Republicans controlled Congress. What has he gotten thru? Some tax cuts, a stinker of an Education bill, a bad Medicare Drug plan, the Dept of Homeland Security and the Patriot act.

Yeah, I voted for Bush 2 as the worst....

Pretty accurate summary of this President's domestic "accomplishments."

Foreign policy? Won't even go there ...

what is so striking in the results thus far is, Nixon, the only Prez to be forced out of office, is the ONLY one aside from Eisenhower and Bush1 to have ZERO% on the "Badness" meter ;-)

wow

SvK

Mule, I almost voted with you. But Carter's total ineffectiveness, combined with his double digit inflation & unemployment, gave him the edge. Oh, don't forget...Carter also didn't know how many helicopters were needed to fly to Tehran. Ol' long-ears? LBJ? IMHO, #2 of the worst post war presidents. He, the ultimate example of the crooked "spoils system" Southern politician. Nixxon's on my list, but far down there...mostly because he betrayed his party.

I think the poll needs to be time weighted.

I just got a nasty cut on my finger, swear it the worst I've ever had. Stepping on a nail when I was 15 was worse but how much worse?

Comments about Johnson are ringing in my head, very good point about age of posters and memories.

If you add five points of disgrace for every four terms out of office would Carter over take Bush II?

Someone please figure this out, and if this should be on a curve not a linear scale. Cheers all.

kachi- excellent point on time weight.

Interesting that folks who seem blind to repeated incompetent handling of multiple national crises in office under Bush2 are excoriating Carter for the failed hostage rescue attempt.

I guess having mechanical failures in the desert is somehow worse than ignoring massive warnings about al Quaeda, creating nearly 200 thousand new federal jobs and a trillion dollar deficit in largely "show" security measures; taking no action whatsoever after a massive power failure in the midwest (everyone's forgotten about that one, right?) after promising to act to help prevent such occurrences; invading a country and sacrificing thousands of our troops and decreasing US presitige and security around the world for only slight political gain; and presiding over one of the most inept rescue efforts in modern history -- the Katrina mess...

Of course, nothing seems to be Bush2's fault to his apologists. I applaud those who are not knee-jerk defenders of the administration. Every president on the list has made grievous errors in office. Some short term; some that have implications for generations to come. It's just part of the job. In trying to separate out the short-term, even the Vietnam war, tragic and misguided as it was, has little to do with where America stands today.

I feel this poll is irrelevant. Recency of memory is too great a factor here.

Sorry, but the president who brought us closest to armeggedon was Kennedy...but people tend to be too sentimental about him because he was assassinated and fail to recognize disasters like the bay of pigs, etc. were on his watch.

Sad but true...the best way to turn a hated world leader into a beloved one is to assassinate him. Kennedy had more than his share of screw-ups, but they are now either forgotten or forgiven.
He also got us into Vietnam, by sending "advisors"...

I was thinking the exact same thing. This poll shouldn't include the most recent 3-4 Presidents. That way we aren't responding based solely on a strictly emotional basis.

And out of all of this list, remember, only one had a word created to cover the pathetic financial condition under his watch...

STAGFLATION