Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Here is a bit of history.

Posted By: middle class on 2008-10-31
In Reply to: McCain's associations - gourdpainter

This election has me very worried.  So many things to consider.  About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than.  I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another.  I must say this drives my husband crazy.  But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with.  About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama'.  I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight.  We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans. I started looking into Obama's life.
 


Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California.  He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan.  During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip.  Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family.  My question - Where did he get the money for this trip?  Neither I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college.  When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York.  It is at this time he  wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry.  Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia?  It's not cheap! to say the least.  Where did he get money for tuition?  Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year.  Why Chicago?  Why not New York? He was already living in New York.
 


By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago.  Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year.  Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'.  About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School.  Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School?  Where did he get the money for Law School?  More student loans?  After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down.  But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what?  They represented 'Rezar' which Rezko's firm.  Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago.  In 20 03, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money'  for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price).  With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property?  On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased.  Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.
 


 Now, we have Obama running for President.  Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss.  She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first.  Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran!  Do we see a pattern here?  Or am I going crazy?
 


On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran.  This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'.
 


Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan?  They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign contribution for Obama.  Where is that money coming from?  The poor and middle class in this country?  Or could it be from the Middle East? 


And the final bit of news.  On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos.  Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'.  When questioned, 'he made a mistake'.  Some mistake!


 All of the above information I got on line.  If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.


 Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this?
 


 A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - 'Beware of the enemy from within'!!!




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

History is history and opinion is opinion. You need to learn the difference.
x
I know history
Jews and Communism?  Dont get the link there.  Jews are definitely not communist and even in the old world, *Old Europe*, Austria, Germany, Poland, they were not communists..they were shop owners, jewelry makers, prosperous bankers..I have never met a communist or socialist jew and I grew up in NYC.  To quote history, to remember history, to study history, does not mean we are contributing to terrorism..or aiding our enemies..that argument makes no sense.  My major in college was history, minor anthropology.  So, I pretty much know a bit about history.  When people close their eyes to the truth, refuse to admit what is really happening or what type of administration is running the country, follow like sheep without question, that is when we are headed to ruin..not when there is free flow of ideas and talk of history, even quotes from the most evil of them..
What is history but....
windows that open and close. You are correct. However, you still want to beat Bush up for going to Iraq. We went. Nothing can change that. CLinton did not fight them in Somalia like he should...we cannot change that. However, the reason for not leaving Iraq post haste is as much about running yet again from Al Qaeda as it is about abandoning the rank and file Iraqi people. You have to understand that I have been in the military culture for a long time and have daily talks with someone who has been there and done that...he does not form my opinions and we have been known to butt heads...however, he does give me great insight. He knows who the enemy is. He has faced them.
It is history, kam...look it up.
Democrats are the ones who were against freeing the slaves. When Abe Lincoln and the Republicans(yes, he was a Republican) freed the slaves and after the war passed legislation to give them the vote, the Democrats immediately passed poll taxes and literacy tests so that the newly freed slaves would not be able to exercise their new right to vote. African Americans did not get clear right to vote until the Civil Rights Act in the 1960's, when enough Northern Democrats bucked the party and joined the Republicans to pass that act. It is all history, all fact. Look it up.

history and the

impact of Supreme Court decisions on the role of government?  I guess it really has nothing to do with being VP.  All you need is a rah-rah speech, a sense of victimization and a flag pin and you are good to go.  Sorry, sometimes I think.


 


Don't you know your history?
Yes there has always been a President Elect. They become President Elect after the electorates vote the 2nd week in December. Until then they are still just a citizen. However the media is so anxious to get Bush out (and I don't blame them), that they are not reporting the truth (although that doesn't surprise me from what I saw during the campaign).

However "Office of the President Elect" is new and invented (created out of nothing) by the O.

Here's what one of a hundred different sites says...

Obama Invents 'Office of the President-Elect'

Monday, November 10, 2008 12:54 PM

By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size


Barack Obama has created a stir by proclaiming that he heads “The Office of President-Elect” — an office that does not officially exist.

At his first news conference on Nov. 7, Obama stood at a podium bearing a sign that read: “Office of the President-Elect. Also, his Web site, Change.gov, bears the words “Office of the President-Elect” at the top of its home page.

Writer Larry Anderson referred to the “made-up little title” on the American Thinker Web site, and declared: “I nearly busted a gut ...

“Once again, [Obama] can’t wait to invest himself with the trappings of office.”

Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin wondered: “What other make-believe offices are they going to invent between now and Inauguration Day? I can’t ever recall in my lifetime any mention of such an office.”

Technically speaking, Obama may not even be the President-elect, according to the American Sentinel Web site.

“Megalomaniac Obama’s ego grows even more insufferable,” a weekend posting reads.

“Yes, he will be [president-elect]. But he’s not officially yet, until the Electoral College votes.

“The Constitution provides that on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, electors convene in their respective state capitals. It’s then that they formally elect the President of the United States, based on the general election results.”

Has anyone ever in history won by this
large of a margin & had the electoral college cast their votes opposite? No. You're grasping at straws.
Are you saying there's a different history?
x
How's this for a history........ sm

Scroll down to the bottom of the 5th page of this report and start reading.  Ogden has argued against opposed the Child Internet Protection Act of 2000, challenged the Child Obsenity and Obscenity Enforcement Act and has represented numerous p*ornographic publishers in various causes.  I think this is more than enough reason to oppose him as DAG.


http://www.scribd.com/full/11607068?access_key=key-18yr2u50t8o0sz54rbrl


You don't know your history very well, do you?
??
History speaks for itself. sm
You are simply ignorant of it and I said it was ONE of the reasons, not the only reason.  Still trying to twist my words and worm out that you don't know history at all!  Do you EVER watch the History Channel?  Read historical books, not just college course books.  I am through talking to you.  People who can't even admit they are wrong and try to put the onus on someone else aren't worth talking to.  Besides, you are so filled with hatred, I am surprised you didn't say how ugly Bush's daughters are just to throw that in just one more time.
A word on history.
 Whatever it is that is being discussed concering global conflicts, when using history to clarify, define, explain, prove, whatever...I always try to remember that history has always  been written and interpreted by the victor.
Ancient history
I dont care about ancient history.  I care about right now in America. The fact is, the American people have spoken and they have stated with their vote that the Republican controlled congress was not working to their satisfaction or benefit and Bush's ideological based administration was heading American down the wrong track.  I know it must be making many conservatives quite upset but majority rules in America, that is what democracy is, government by the majority of the people.  So, accept it and move on.  Democrats had to for the last 12 years and it was quite a hard pill to swallow at times.  Finally, America will be on the right track and maybe we will be able to rebuild positive relations with the world and get out of Iraq before many more of our heroic soldiers are slaughtered for nothing but a bunch of lies.
You should care about history....
and should learn from it. Sadly, that is something neither party seems to do, and both have left their origins. The sad thing is...as they sow, so shall WE reap.
Your history is messed up

Look what I found in a book about the Democratic party:


The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, championed by the party despite opposition at the time from its Southern wing, has continued to inspire the party's liberal principles.


_________


There are also multiple chapters as well as multiple books written about the metamorphosis of BOTH parties since their inception.  See, sometimes books really can be a good thing!!!  By the way, do you get your historical information from the chronic-liars-library or something?  Cuz it surely seems like it. 


Obviously you did not read the history...
I did try to get along...and got attacked wholesale for it. Which seems to be the liberal tack...based only on my experience on this board, mind you.

I do not apologize for finding "the wisdom of the Clinton Presidency" amusing. I know that people would like to think that is the way the Clinton Presidency will be remembered...but unfortunately that will be overshadowed and most people remember him as the President who jumped the intern, lied about it, and was almost removed from office for it.

I have a "fairly broad knowledge base" but pretty much founded 100% founded on those utterly awful right wing rags that make much of America cringe." Please to be specific. What have I said or posted from an utterly awful right wing rag? Please show the post and the right wing rag it came from, please and thank you. My SCHIP information came from the Library of Congress web site and the bill itself...unless you call those right wing rags. On that subject, what are you calling utterly awful right wing rags? Frankly, I think that verbiage would make much of America cringe. And come to that...what do you base THAT statement on?

So...first, what are the utterly awful right wing rags? And then suppor that with "most of America would cringe." Lets see some facts, and not from an utterly awful left wing rag, to use your colorful description. Though until you said that, I really had not viewed them that way. Thank you, really, for a new perspective.

So...let's start with your list of utterly awful right wing rags...and support with fact your assertion that said "rags" "make much of America cringe."


You must know the true history.....
Anyone who has studied history in depth knows West Virginia history and the history of its people. They have been for the most part poor people, black and white, and they are proud people. They made do for themselves, didn't take handouts. It's still that way a lot today and they do look at things a lot differently. Goes back to before civil war days. Knowing that helps me to understand their point of view a little better.
Maybe not the worst in US history...
US Grant had lots of problems with the whole Teapot Dome scandal brought on by his best friends - great General, poor President. The list goes on and I'm sure one day Bush will be added to it, but I'm not sure he deserves the title of Worst.
I don't know why I hated history in
school, fascinating now, but I guess it is all the stories; they all their stories. Jamestown on one side here on my mother's maternal side, and the swedish on her father's side. On my paternal side, his mother had the cherokee and some interesting tails from North Carolina to OK to Tx, but her grandfather fought for the union under Grant and went AWOL when they were close to his mother's and he found out neighbors had wiped out all her stores leaving her and the rest of the kids with no food or crops. He killed 2 brothers in the field and could not find the third, married his childhood sweetheart and they hid in the smokies with an old black friend of the family and then drove 2 covered wagons to Ok, she never weighed more than 96 pounds her whole life (did not get those genes). They left Ok for TX when they found out the other brother was looking for them. Looks like we are both old school and alas, there is no room for us anymore. Guess us old dogs have to get out of the way. Being right certainly does not count for anything, does it?! Enjoyed your posts. L
Will history repeat?
If Senator McCain is elected, wonder what excuses will be used to keep him away from the convention in 2012?
You obviously have no clue about his history, a
community organizer in the gettos of Chicago before he even went to Harvard Law School, president of the Harvard review, a very intelligent person, brought up by his single-parent mother and his grandparents to be a compassionate and honorable man, and someone who understands that a president cannot be the end all monarch of American, but knows how to appoint people to his team with expertise. He is a good father, a family man, with a wife that supports him. No one wants to say it, but the biggest reason most white people don't want to vote for him is because he is black and smart.
Boy, did you sleep through U.S. History?
Do you know the foundations this country was built on?

I didn't think so.
Thank you for the history lesson!
That was hilarious! Especially the girlie-man part - boy, do I know some of those liberals! =)
You're right on the history and
Papa Kennedy had some pretty shady associations I do believe.
I don't need a history lesson
I majored in it in college. I know there's discrimination and I know there are people who will discriminate in this election - either for or against Obama. But I think it's just a shame that you think Democrats are all above this. I live in a pretty hick town in southeastern Ohio where there are MANY Democrats who are voting McCain simply because they won't vote for a black man, plain and simple. And if you think that southeastern Ohio is the only place this kind of mentallity is, you'd be wrong. Discrimination is a terrible thing, but don't think it's just a Republican thing.
those who do not learn from history....
You should know the rest. and yes, I learned plenty....I learned plenty when my wonderful friend left to go to work on 9/11/2001 just like every other ordinary day, just doing his job, and never came home again. Sorry, but if we don't keep remembering, we are doomed.
History lessons

    Some postings are like getting a history lesson.


I feel like sitting in a classroom agian.


Sometimes it even feels more like brainwashing.


Is this the goal of a forum?  


history book??
Revelations?? Give me an enormous break. Even the stuff that is pseudo-historical is more like little kids playing telephone. Revelations works better as a sci-fi novel than as a history book. & anyway, since when are predictions anything like history? What, the "history" of a bunch of people guessing some stuff? Good grief. This is why I really despise Christianity. You have to embrace the concept of satan, evil, the anti-christ, all those hideous concepts, in order to be a true believer. It's fine to believe whatever you like, just make sure your right to believe stops at my right not to be infringed upon by some fairy tale.
tHOSE WHO LEARN FROM HISTORY

I agree with you 200%.  I did not vote for Obama.  I always vote based on the Bible as does my family and at our Bible Chapel.  I always vote against abortion and always towards marriage of one man and one woman,  I do believe that Obama is a socialist and he will be introducing social medicine.  It makes me think that we're closer to the rapture than we think.


History of bailouts

Instead of trying to blame for the bail outs I want to know how all this came about and I found an interesting site that gives a little history of different government bailouts in the past.  Thought it might be interesting for some to read - just a little history (wish I liked reading about history this much when I was in high school).


http://blog.mint.com/blog/finance-core/a-brief-history-of-government-bailouts/


 


They say history repeats itself and it always does
History is starting to repeat itself already with the beginning of the 3rd term of the Clintons with all the Clintonites that BO is appointing.

Here's a bit of more history...

After WWI Germany sank into a depression.

It found its answer in a man who was an incredible orator. He was a charasmatic speaker who told Germany what it wanted to hear. He promised a rise to glory. He tapped into the dissatisfaction and frustration that the people were feeling and offered relief.

He promised them change. And he delivered. He neglected to mention that "change" meant much more than what people were expecting.

Germany wasn't a dictatorship before he took over. He was elected by a country that thought his promise of change would solve all its problems. He may have not fooled the entire nation but he fooled a majority for a long time.

Who said history is not interesting. We can learn a lot from it, but sometimes unfortunately people do not learn.
We need to do a little history lesson
Israel DID create the situation.  Gaza is landlocked on all it's borders by Israel.  They are not allowed in and out.  Dr. Ron Paul had made a comment about concentration camp state; that is accurate.  They have no means to get supplies in and out.  A lack of supplies doesn't meant the leaders are starving their people.  Supply and demand.  Simply economics.  Those who can afford things get them.  That wouldn't be the case if the market was allowed to flow within Gaza, but that will never happen because as of now Israel has them in a full nelson and at their mercy.  Mercy isn't something Israel abounds with.  Barely anything is allowed in, so the supply is small.  That lack of food you talk about to feed families isn't the fault of the leaders.  Demand is high, supply is low, so yes, the rich SOBs running the joint will do what rich people do -- buy what they can afford because no one else can.


Hamas was created by Israel as a counter to the PLO.  Much like we go about the world creating little counter-revolutions everywhere, so does Israel in the middle east.  They create groups to do their bidding, using useful idiots who might actually BE extremists or just idealistic people, then when the group deteriorates away from their original purpose, Israel doesn't like that and starts crying that they're being persecuted by everyone around them.  Poor little Israel can't get a break.  Always getting pushed around by the big mean Arabs.  Yeah, the Arabs with AK-47s that are 50 years old.  You know, the same Israel who would just assume firebomb entire neighborhoods, killing anything and everything around.  Mossad is active in every country in the world in the same fashion that the CIA is.  Slapping around a bee's nest only invites them to sting you to death.  That's what's occuring.

Hamas has eventually become a tool of the people around and has been elected into governments.  Israel doesn't like that.  It's a threat to their tyranny.

Extremism exists on all sides.  Not just the poor idiots that get talked into blowing themselves up.  Zionism has been a blight that has existed for generations and will continue to exist as an excuse to kill millions of innocent people in the name of God.


And history TRIES to rewrite itself...
Only the dubya blind will never see the truth...........
no history book here
just internet babble.  I can copy/paste too! 
We ARE repeating history, right now.
Going back to the days of the New Deal - spend, spend, spend. Let's just hope it doesn't take a World War to get us out of this one.
No president in history
has gone against his party or against an incumbent.  Protecting their jobs is right at the top of his job description, second only to getting himself re-elected.  And in his second term, his top job is to aid his party's pick for a successor, then secure re-election for his party's senate/house candidates. 
I went only so far back in history because
Israel is insisting that they were the first in the Holy land and tht it is therefore their land.
This is not true, the Palestinians were first there.
Then, secondly, Israel, especially the far right Netanyahu does not want a 2-state-solution for the Palestinians, he wants the whole Palestine for Israel.
This is not right,
YOU, whoever your are, should brush up on your history!..nm
nm
From you? LOL. You make up your own history,
nm
How do I make up my own history? Isn't it a
historical fact that the Christian massacred the Muslim to conquer back the Holy land?

And didn't Israel kill over one thousand of Palestinians and wounded thousands in the Gaza war 2008?

THESE ARE FACTS which you are obviously not aware of.


Real history....(sm)

Let's not count on history books, let's just go to the Constitution.


http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm


History proves that I am right, you can only
cite the Bible.
You guys might want to read up on history. sm
Hitler hated the Jews for several reasons, one of which was communism. Socialism and communism are bosom buddies. The left LOVES socialism.  Thus anything a Nazi war criminal says that you use is pretty darned frightening and says a lot more about the left than they are willing to say about themselves.  So glad you are keeping us informed. 
You best read up on history a little more. GOT for one thing.

I guess I think it's important to know his history.
In my case, that means a lot to me, even when people say things I agree with.  Besides, a famous man once said A litany of complaints is not a plan.  I believe most Americans want us out of Iraq.  I don't believe a precipitous withdrawal will be to the benefit of anyone.  None of us wants to see those men (not boys, as Phil says.  That's an insult to these men and women who are all enlisted voluntarily.) and women harmed.  The idealouge is definitely diametrically opposed.  Some mouthpieces are just better to hear it from than Phil Donahue.  As Bernard Goldberg said of Phil in 100 People Who are Screwing up America, Phil Donahue made the world safe for emotion masquerading as thought.  His first guest on his first show was Madalyn O'Hair (very appropo, since he is himself an atheist).  Bernard says in his book that his show was so fresh that no one stopped to realize how far, even for a liberal, his ideas were from the mainstream.  But mainly what he did, in show after show, year after year, was give tremendous exposure, and his own strong support, to the forces challenging traditional beliefs and behavior.  Phil was the champion of the it's not your fault, blame society way of thinking.  His shows centered around this way of thinking.  His virulent hatred for authority extended to anyone in positions of authority, including police, for whom he had an especial loathing.  Yes, we will have to agree to disagree.
It's more like that the conservatives know history and are better informed.
I am amazed that you people are not challenged more.  I don't care about the political aspect but this is just ridiculous. Capitalism is superior to socialism in every way.  Socialist societies have never prospered.  Never.  Socialism remains a failed experiment.  Capitalism was implemented in West Germany and West Berlin following World War II. West Germany and West Berlin prospered and living standards became much better. Socialism was implemented in East Germany and East Berlin following World War II. East Germany and East Berlin stagnated and living standards deteriorated. The split turned German into an experiment that could be observed, studied, and used to show the differences of how capitalism and socialism affect a country. This is a matter of fact.  Anyone who opts for socialism is a fool. 
The Worst President in History? sm

The Worst President in History?


One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush






George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.

From time to time, after hours, I kick back with my colleagues at Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. For years, these perennial debates have largely focused on the same handful of chief executives whom national polls of historians, from across the ideological and political spectrum, routinely cite as the bottom of the presidential barrel. Was the lousiest James Buchanan, who, confronted with Southern secession in 1860, dithered to a degree that, as his most recent biographer has said, probably amounted to disloyalty -- and who handed to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, a nation already torn asunder? Was it Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, who actively sided with former Confederates and undermined Reconstruction? What about the amiably incompetent Warren G. Harding, whose administration was fabulously corrupt? Or, though he has his defenders, Herbert Hoover, who tried some reforms but remained imprisoned in his own outmoded individualist ethic and collapsed under the weight of the stock-market crash of 1929 and the Depression's onset? The younger historians always put in a word for Richard M. Nixon, the only American president forced to resign from office.


Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a failure. Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's pursuit of disastrous policies. In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.


The lopsided decision of historians should give everyone pause. Contrary to popular stereotypes, historians are generally a cautious bunch. We assess the past from widely divergent points of view and are deeply concerned about being viewed as fair and accurate by our colleagues. When we make historical judgments, we are acting not as voters or even pundits, but as scholars who must evaluate all the evidence, good, bad or indifferent. Separate surveys, conducted by those perceived as conservatives as well as liberals, show remarkable unanimity about who the best and worst presidents have been.


Historians do tend, as a group, to be far more liberal than the citizenry as a whole -- a fact the president's admirers have seized on to dismiss the poll results as transparently biased. One pro-Bush historian said the survey revealed more about the current crop of history professors than about Bush or about Bush's eventual standing. But if historians were simply motivated by a strong collective liberal bias, they might be expected to call Bush the worst president since his father, or Ronald Reagan, or Nixon. Instead, more than half of those polled -- and nearly three-fourths of those who gave Bush a negative rating -- reached back before Nixon to find a president they considered as miserable as Bush. The presidents most commonly linked with Bush included Hoover, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan. Twelve percent of the historians polled -- nearly as many as those who rated Bush a success -- flatly called Bush the worst president in American history. And these figures were gathered before the debacles over Hurricane Katrina, Bush's role in the Valerie Plame leak affair and the deterioration of the situation in Iraq. Were the historians polled today, that figure would certainly be higher.


Even worse for the president, the general public, having once given Bush the highest approval ratings ever recorded, now appears to be coming around to the dismal view held by most historians. To be sure, the president retains a considerable base of supporters who believe in and adore him, and who reject all criticism with a mixture of disbelief and fierce contempt -- about one-third of the electorate. (When the columnist Richard Reeves publicized the historians' poll last year and suggested it might have merit, he drew thousands of abusive replies that called him an idiot and that praised Bush as, in one writer's words, a Christian who actually acts on his deeply held beliefs.) Yet the ranks of the true believers have thinned dramatically. A majority of voters in forty-three states now disapprove of Bush's handling of his job. Since the commencement of reliable polling in the 1940s, only one twice-elected president has seen his ratings fall as low as Bush's in his second term: Richard Nixon, during the months preceding his resignation in 1974. No two-term president since polling began has fallen from such a height of popularity as Bush's (in the neighborhood of ninety percent, during the patriotic upswell following the 2001 attacks) to such a low (now in the midthirties). No president, including Harry Truman (whose ratings sometimes dipped below Nixonian levels), has experienced such a virtually unrelieved decline as Bush has since his high point. Apart from sharp but temporary upticks that followed the commencement of the Iraq war and the capture of Saddam Hussein, and a recovery during the weeks just before and after his re-election, the Bush trend has been a profile in fairly steady disillusionment.


No not silly. History is repeating itself. sm
He is very similar to El Duce the fat moose Mussolini. He disassembled the existing democratic government system in Italy. Bush and Co are doing it here through the USA Patriot Act. Yes, the times are different, but the ideology is the same.

To you history began six years ago
Do you really think the Middle East would be any different if we had never entered Iraq?  The Jew-Arab conflict was never going away.  It was always smoldering sometimes underneath the surface, but more often than not on the surface.  Actually, the reasons they are fighting now doesn't have one thing to do with Iraq.  Of course, the terrorists, are not happy we are in Iraq, but are we trying to make the terrorists happy?  I'm confused, because it seems you think the terrorists have no responsibility in this whatsoever.  I asked you some questions earlier, and you've yet to answer them other than to spin the blame back to the U.S. Bush.
You must not watch much on the History channel. sm
When Eisenhower liberated the Jews in the concentration camps in Germany, he made the surrounding townspeople walk through to see what they had done.  Many of them worked in the camps.  Do you think that only Hitler was behind killing all the Jews? I want to live in your world!  But of course, not all Germans were in on the killing.  However, most of them knew and that makes them complicit in my book.  I won't address the bigotry remark because it's just silly.  How about joining in some debate instead of getting all emotional?
You aren't too aware of history. sm
Hitler's reign began with gun control.  I thought everyone knew that.