DJ Drummond at Wizbang asks his readers to rate the President:
1. Yes or no, do you think President Bush has done a good job overall as President?
No.
And it’s not because of the Iraq War, which is what motivates most of the anti-Bush feeling out there. Its because of a complete lack of fiscal responsibility, exploding federal budgets, exploding federal regulations. McCain-Feingold, which he refused to veto. The No Child Left Behind Act, product of George Bush and Ted Kennedy. The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, the largest expansion of the welfare state since Nixon. And, in short, a complete abandonment of everything that the GOP was supposed to stand for from 1980 through 1998.
The Republican Party as the party of limited government died under the leadership of George W. Bush, and it’s going to take time, and real work, to bring it back to where it was even ten years ago.
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
2. On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being complete failure and 10 being a great President, how would you grade President Bush?
4. On a par with Ulysses S. Grant and Warren G. Harding.
The rest of the questions have to do with George Bush’s personality, which I think is irrelevant to the question of how history will judge him, and how you think the next President will perform which, given the way the world works, is entirely unpredictable.
Anyway, feel free to add your own opinions.
See, the thing that gets me with your (2) is that you give Warren G. Harding and U.S. Grant a 4. I think Bush is on their level, but I don’t think they deserve a 4. They are (according to a set of rankings I glanced at) consistently in the bottom 5 presidents. What’s an average President (say Taft or McKinley) get, a 7? I mean, it’s sort of a grade-inflation thing you’ve got going (no offense).
Or does your 4 mean that Bush could have been way worse and you can visualize a President ranking as a 2?
To stay on topic, I’d go:
1) No.
2) 2.5, in the bottom five of presidents (w/ Grant, Buchanan, Harding, and Nixon