Tuesday, April 15, 2008

History's Verdict In on George "Loser" Bush


The non-profit History News Network has just released results of a survey of 109 professional US historians. By a margin of slightly over 98% they declared the presidency of George w. Bush a failure. It seems two of the 109, or a whopping 1.8%, judged the Bush presidency a success.

61% of the historians polled opined that the current presidency has been the worst in American history. Another 35% ranked Bush in the bottom quartile.

http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html

9 comments:

Fish said...

Whatever problems I have with Geroge Bush's politics, I am not so blind as to be fooled into thinking he's a loser. At least not as a politician.

The number one consistency in his political career, seems to be winning. First he accomplished the unheard of by winning back to back terms as governor of Texas. Add to that the fact that he is a two term president and the argument doesn't hold much water.

Call him a fascist, an intellectual insect, a war mongerer, and I'd have a hard time disagreeing with you. But loser? I don't think so.

Gazetteer said...

Mr. Fisher--

Is it possible that you are, perhaps, conflating the electoral successes of a presidential candidate with the policy successes of an actual president?

.

Fish said...

I think my comment was pretty clear Gazetteer. I wrote that as a policitician, at least, he is not a loser. Political success is measured by how good you are at staying in office, end of story. In the U.S. that means winning elections.

As for what kind of a president he has been, that's a subjective question and everyone has their own answer. That's all I was saying.

The Mound of Sound said...

Fish, you contumacious rapscallion, ought you not be minding your books so that, having fleeced the unwitting taxpayers of Ontario with your astonishingly expensive, publicly-funded education, you might actually graduate? What you wrote and what you meant is, was and ever shalt be, of no moment whatsoever. Study lad, study that you may at some point prove yourself worthy of this high public trust.

When is your grad? I ask only because I didn't show up for my own. Final exam and final adieu to Fauteux Hall, hit the ignition and gun it all the way to Vancouver. Ah, those were the days, ships were made of oak, men were made of iron! We'll never see their like again.

Fish said...

Yeah I guess you're right Mound. Back to my insurance law notes then.

My grad, is appropriately enough, on the anniversary of D-day! It's two days after the barrister's exam, so there is going to be one Hell of a party!

The Mound of Sound said...

Fish, you never cease to disappoint. First it was "municipal law" and now you affront my senses and all notion of decency with "insurance law." Oh my god, what are they churning out these days but book-learned clerks? Tell me you took the opportunity to master real lawyer courses - stuff like equity and jurisprudence, evidence - the very lifeblood of the whole discipline.

They've been steadily downgrading law schools into trade schools these past several decades. Jesus weeps.

Fish said...

OK, I'm on a study break, so I'm allowed this comment!

They teach us about equity and jurisprudence as part of our various courses on other subjects. For example, in my reparations class last semester, the prof often discussed various principles of equity. Evidence at least is still a class unto its own.

In fact, this semester I took an advanced evidence class, last semester, I also took a class on forensic sciences, which was basically just an evidence class because we learned a lot about how the law relates to the various fields of forensic science.

Sadly, there is a lot of emphasis on specializing in law school these days, and I hear that once we are part of the profession this does not change. I personally intend to specialize in criminal litigation, but not before I've had the chance to get a few civil trials under my belt. I did a little bit of work on some civil files with my summer job last summer and enjoyed them. It's just family law that I'm not looking forward to.

It's funny, most experienced lawyers I've spoken to tell me that while law school is an essential part of making a lawyer, they didn't actually lear how to be a lawyer until they entered the profession.

The Mound of Sound said...

Are you telling me, Fish, that an accredited law school no longer offers specific courses in equity and jurisprudence but merely touch on them in other courses. These subjects are the very philosophy of law and can't be bundled into occassional trivia to agument other subjects. Law, without its philosophy, is reduced to taxes, conveyances and collections. It no longer even tracks society, it becomes the stuff of legislation, lifeless and mechanical. There'll be few Dixons and Laskins or Dennings emerging out of schools that follow this path.

Fish said...

I can tell you that I've never taken one, and I don't know anyone that has. I just took a quick glance at the list of courses offered in September 2007 and in Winter 2008, and didn't see any of those classes (I could have missed it though).

Here is the URL, if you care to look for yourself:

http://www.commonlaw.uottawa.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2349&Itemid=344&pid=266&lang=en