[Vision2020] Narcissist Nader May Run Attention

[Sue Hovey]

Almost arrogant that one uses the phrase, "consensus of most historians" 
without some citation.    Of course historians do make qualitative 
judgments, but folks need to remember that historical events are static as 
they happen, but continue to live through interpretation.  Even historians 
spend a lot of time rebutting each other.  And occasionally a rebuttal 
results in a refutation.  The instance that comes to mind is an error made 
by a historian considered by other historians to be a giant, Henry Steele 
Commager.  And yet he said, in reference to slavery that it wasn't such a 
brutal institution. He also made other derogatory remarks in a textbook he 
wrote as a professor at Harvard.   Some years later he stated his words were 
the worst generalization he had ever made.

So if the list of history's worst presidents are those four, who says so? 
Personally, my list of four would include Harding, Nixon, GW Bush, and 
possibly Buchanan or Pierce.  Chester Arthur is down there somewhere, except 
he proved to be more adroit than most of his critics thought he would be.

And I have work to do, but this is an interesting chain, even though it no 
longer bears any relation to the subject line.

Sue
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund_2007 at verizon.net>
To: "'lfalen'" <lfalen at turbonet.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Narcissist Nader May Run Attention


> Hi Roger,
>
> Hmmm . . . I don't know that most historians do, in fact, agree with your
> list, but I do know that many political scientists don't agree -- Carter
> wouldn't be on that list but Nixon would, and this Bush is on the lists of
> many.
>
> But, here's the historical historians' ranking I was able to find:
> http://www.infoplease.com/spot/presrankings1.html
> Note:  Carter doesn't appear.
>
> Also check out:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents
> This provides a nice overview through time -- as well as the ability to
> cross-check for accuracy -- and again, I'm not seeing Carter in the bottom
> five on any of the *historian* polls, Roger.
>
> Of course, any of us can cherry-pick polls to use, but I'm interested in 
> the
> historian poll you're relying on to put Carter where you place him?
>
>
> TIA,
> Saundra Lund
> Moscow, ID
>
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
> nothing.
> ~ Edmund Burke
>
> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2008 through life 
> plus
> 70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce 
> outside
> the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
> author.*****
>
> Saundra
> Moscow, ID
>
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
> nothing.
> ~ Edmund Burke
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
> On Behalf Of lfalen
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:30 AM
> To: g. crabtree; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Narcissist Nader May Run Attention
>
> Gary is right on Obama. Keely is wrong on Bush. Bush is far from the best
> president we have had, but he is far from the worst. The bottom tier
> consists of Buchcanan, Pierce, Harding, and Carter. This is the consensus 
> of
> most historians. The rankings change with time, but most agree these are 
> the
> worst. W. H. Harrisson and Garfield weren'y  president long enough to be
> evaluated.
> Paul's idea on elections has some merit and it would save the expenses of 
> a
> runoff election.
> Roger
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>