He's a very strong candidate, all right.
Others are his distant relative, Franklin Pierce, who was almost helplessly inept and divisive; Andrew Johnson, who spectacularly bungled the Reconstruction period; William H. Harrison, who caught a cold during his inauguration that he would die of thirty days later; Ulysses Grant, a great general but a useless President; Warren G. Harding, who went as far to admit that he wasn't fit for the office; and Richard M. Nixon, who was a corrupt, paranoid, self-serving control freak from the word go.
However, for sheer arrogance, ignorance and incompetence, George W. Bush is a very strong contender. He inherited a massive budget surplus and enormous prosperity, his presidency witnessed the worst single terrorist attack in global history, and he still managed to approach the end of his two terms with an equally enormous budget deficit, a monstrously expensive and ill-conceived land war in Asia which had absolutely nothing to to do with the people who targeted the US in the first place, and spectacularly low approval ratings.
Compared to him, Jimmy Carter is a Pericles. Carter at least managed to broker peace between Israel and Egypt. Bush has never managed to display the slightest glimmer of genuine interest in foreign politics, or in America's role in the world, except insofar as that role involved invasion, exploitation and military conquest. He is certainly one of the least intellectually curious and most narrow-minded presidents in American history, and at a time in world history when the role demanded historical knowledge and broad, informed vision, that ranks him low indeed.
· 1 decade ago