I'm not a professional historian, merely an amateur history enthusiast. Nevertheless, I still find myself delighted by the debate going forth in the Washington Post the last couple days.
Respected historian Eric Foner declared Bush as "The Worst President" ever, surpassing the previous standard bearers of all stripes, whether it was the double curse of Pierce/Buchanan, the pathetic John Tyler, the malevolent Nixon and the exemplars of the Peter Principle in American Life, Ulysses Grant and Warren Harding.
No, Bush has passed them all according to Foner because, quite rightly, he observes Bush has managed to have all of their underlying faults in one twitchy, shallow, oedipal package.
And now more historians come forth to lend their opinions as to whether the Chimperor Disgustus is the worst. The results are, considering the circumstances, hilarious.
David Greenberg says it's a close call, but Bush only comes in SECOND WORST.
Douglas Brinkley chimes in, that Bush is a modern day Hoover and that he is only THIRD WORST.
Michael Lind says nah, only "FIFTH WORST".
The strongest in the Bush camp? Vincent Cannato whose only defense for Bush is that he might suck less after a couple decades have passed. Hoping for a "Harry Truman" from Bush is pretty thin gruel -- as Harry Truman were he still alive would no doubt tell you. Can you imagine how "Mr. Give 'em Hell" would respond to Bush. Oh, Lordy, it would be beautiful! Bill O'Reilly and George Will would have to be hospitalized with the vapours.
When the strongest defense of Bush is the meagre, "we won't know the full measure of his suckitude for years" it must make Karl Rove feel all tingly.