Conrad Black and George W. Bush, sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G

When this week's (April 17) Maclean's landed in my mailbox, I took one look at it and wondered if The Nation had switched to glossy paper. That's because the cover, which shows a confident looking George W. Bush, asks "The Worst President in 100 Years?"

Inside, a six-page essay (including photos) in which Steve Maich rips the preznit on every from his catastrophic foreign policy blunders to his fiscal mismanagement.

Maich doesn't even get into the environment or health issues and scarcely mentions the humanitarian and political disaster that was Hurricane Katrina. It would take a whole year's worth of Maclean's to do that.

Still, Maich manages much in the space allowed.

In 2004, George Mason University polled 415 presidential historians and found 80 per cent considered Bush's first term a failure. More than half considered it the worst presidency since the Great Depression. More than a third called it the worst in 100 years. Eleven per cent said it was the worst ever. Robert McElvaine, a professor of history at Millsaps College in Mississippi, says scores would likely be worse if the poll were repeated today. "When I filled out that survey I said Bush was the worst since Buchanan [1857-61], but things have gotten worse and now I'd have to consider him the worst ever," McElvaine says. "If you look at the situation he inherited, and the situation following 9/11, he had great opportunities and he basically squandered them.

Maclean's website also asks readers to vote on whether Bush sucketh more than any other president in a century and, last time I looked, the score was 76% to 24% against the Shrub.

Here's the thing: Conrad, Lord of Blackness, has taken umbrage at this altogether inadequate historical scholarship. Which is why his former protege, Maclean's editor/publisher Kenneth Whyte, will be sacrificing many trees so that Black can hold forth in next week's Maclean's on how there have been far worse U.S. presidents in the past. (Recall that Black recently authored a biography of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a copy of which has been shredded to line my nuclear bomb shelter.) Readers will no doubt be subjected to a torporific treatise on Taft's inability to grasp the intricacies of the job.

Maich will respond to the response. And Black will likely respond to the response to the response. Which should drive a lot of traffic to the Maclean's website.

Sayyyyy, do ya think they planned this?

 

 

Comments

[Bill-Muskoka]

Antonia,

Okay, so the ivory tower folksies have differing views. The historical assessment folks have differing views. Sorry, I care about my opinion, my view, as one who had to live under their leadership.

Who cares what Con(artist)rad Black thinks? FDR did things for the U.S. that saved the nation, regardless of what Sir Blackness' take is.

Now back to George Walker Bush. In my 60 years, and yes I recall almost all of them rather vididly, G.W. Bush wins the Schmuck of My Lifetime Award as THE WORST PRESIDENT I HAVE SEEN! PERIOD! Not even a close second.

I have lived under the terms of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, G.H.W. Bush, and now Dubya!

None were perfect but all but Bush and his Daddy served with honour (despite their sexual proclivities), and did what was best for the country within their frame of reference and knowledge.

Yes, even LBJ exceeds the Bushies and I despised LBJ more than any of them.

[Antonia]

I am reminded that I have already written that Maich and Black have a history.

http://thestar.blogs.com/azerb/2006/01/that_steve_maic.html

Scroll down a bit: You'll see where Maich, a former reporter with the National Post, ultimately ended up leaving, sources say, because of a scrap over a story he did on Black.

[sooey]

i dunno. i think george w bush has been an alarmingly successful president. and who can argue with ken whyte's success? and conrad black certainly has had enough success that he can hire very expensive lawyers while continuing to live in a style you and i can only dream about living.

[Joe]

yeah sooey, I was I was born into wealth like Bush and Black. Man, if only my dad had been a president too... sigh.

[sooey]

"citizen black" dana and joe. very humanizing. debbie melnyk director, rick caine producer.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Joe,

Well, one cannot get all the breaks, eh? LOL

[A de Cosmos]

Does this mean that the Lady of Blackness will write a Macleans column linking Maich's views to the opression of Isreal?

[Antonia]

Actually, I am told she will be expounding on the agony of da feet. Stay tuned ...

[sooey]

i've seen it. i wonder if protege ken whyte has seen it. ... ... ... who is ken whyte? and... why?

[Maz]

I've been president-watching since Eisenhower was in the saddle at
the White House. Of course, being 15 when JFK was killed, sealed
my interest in the U.S. president as "leader of the free world," etc.
All told, Bush is by far the worst of the this group of presidents. He
adds insult to injury by providing sloppy answers as the rationale
for all the evil or inept things he does. The conflation of Bush with
Mad magazine's Alfred E, Newman is by now just mild caricature,
so grotesque is the man and the administration he leads. Nixon, by
comparison, comes off looking almost middle-of-the-pack.

[True North]

Chimp Face as all time worst is a slam dunk.

But I wonder if our ability to see these criminals for what they are hasn't a lot to do with the wired multi channel world - blogs and all.

Back when a few W.R.Hursts ran the media I bet it was a lot easier to fool most of the people most of the time. Black and boardroom buddies Pearl and Kissinger can only dream about it now.

It still amazes how the internet hasn't been controlled by now - although they're working on it!

[Elvid]

Conrad likes FDR, Bill Take a look at Conrad's Black Wore FDR cufflinks for years before the book. One of his nice satorial touches.
And don't think that Black can lose his peerage. Jeffrey Archer's sins didn't mean that he lost one.
And don't be dishing my man, Taft. Adore all 350 pound of him.
Got stabbed in the back by TR in 1912 and the result was Woodrow Wilson.
Though probably a better Supreme Court justice than president
And, Dana, I guess Conrad is entitled to his rantings just like your are...

[Adam in Whitby]

Just more proof that that Macleans is a right-wing fascisto rag of imperialist running dogs. No wait. That must be next issue.

But seriously, Bill-Muskoka, you really want to call Nixon's presidency more honourable than GHWB's? Succesful, maybe. But "honourable?" Please to define...

[Bill-Muskoka]

Elvid,

LOL. It is truly wonderful when people can come together, even if some or gross disagreeance is present, and share things in a civilized manner. Why can't so-called leaders do that?

I reviewed the Lord Blackness' book and he seems to have revealed his internal penchant for meaningless details, which of course, are so well reflected in his newspapers.

Adam,

Nixon could go to China. Bush cannot go anywhere. See the point? LOL

[James Bowie]

Say what you will about Taft, he was President and he was also Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I don't see Mr. Bush warranting that type of appointment after his term in the executive.

[Elvid]

Someone's meaningless details are someone else's staff of life, Bill..
All in one's personal intrepretation.,
Bush Jr. has lots of competition for worse president in the past century. Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Carter, Nixon, Johnson and Reagan.
Probably more like my 32nd cousin William McKinley than anyone with Karl Rove playing the Mark Hanna role of power behind the throne.

[Antonia]

Couple things here:

1. I was advised to take down one comment by regular visitor Dana. Danada, if you care to make your point in another way -- and I know you know what I mean -- go ahead.

2. Today there was another comment by an Isaac Sorenson who did not include his email address. I thought it ENTIRELY valid except for some potentially libellous phrasing. (If you state the facts and let people draw their own conclusions, then this can be avoided!) Therefore, I am re-posting it with those potentially libellous sentences removed.

Understand that I HATE EDITING OR DELETING COMMENTS and do so only when I absolutely have to because I can't email them back to the person who submitted them. That's why I let you know when I do this.

Here's Isaac's comment, minus some potentially libellous material.

"I'm not buying into this bogus stunt by Kenneth Whyte. ... It took the fifth estate and the CBC to give us the goods on Mulroney and his $300,000 cash payoff from Schreiber. And what role did Kenneth Whyte play in all of this? In fact, Whyte had this information years earlier, while at the helm of the National Post, but chose to hide it from his readers. Why? Because Whyte was ideologically invested in another version of the Mulroney story. ...
As for poor George W. Bush, the man is so thoroughly discredited that at this point Whyte's neocon agenda is actually advanced -- not set back -- by dismissing him. Taking a jab at the hapless George W. hardly takes courage at this point.
This whole charade just provides cover to Whyte to pretend that he's even-handed.
What a farce.
I'll take Whyte seriously once he comes clean about the bombshell scoops -- like his own reporter's scoop on Mulroney's cash payoff -- that he suppressed, when he starts to report critically on topics that could make a difference here in Canada.
Please tell us why you spiked that Mulroney story, Kenneth, and while you're at it, tell us why anyone should ever take you seriously again.''

[Dana]

It's because I called him fat isn't it? No one likes to be called fat, especialy fat people. I can understand that Torstar would be concerned and advise you to take it down.

But really he's not fat. Not at all. A little jowly in certain lights and from some angles but cerainly not fat.

Not compared to Mussolini certainly. Now Mussolini was fat.

[Jay Currie]

Contrary to my general support for the American war effort and annoyance at the sand that the left keeps trying to throw in the Administration's eyes, I would say that baring Nixon who was an out and out crook, W. is certainly the worst post-war President by quite a long measure. (It is a measure of the complete ideological bankruptcy of the Dems that they were unable to beat Bush hollow last time out.)

Bush has been a domestic disaster incapable of saying no to a spendthrift Congress and seemingly obsessed with a feckless socon agenda. His Homeland security iniatives have been remarkably mismanaged.

For people of a crunchy con/libertarian bent such as mine, Bush seems incapable of understanding that the very best thing he could have done was to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Instead he has presided over on ongoing expansion of that government.

Economically it is simply a testament to the inherent stregth of the US economy that it has survived Bush's apparent economic illiteracy and frank indifference to everything from the trade deficit to the budget deficit.

But here is the next problem: Bush is, I believe, a sure bet to serve out his current term. he is going to have a significant influence on who the Republicans select as their next Presidential candidate and, unfortunately, it will likely be someone who will appeal to the Republican, socon, base so carefully assembled by Karl Rove. But who are the Dems going to nominate?

Hillary? I could live with Hillary but could the Mooreite/Chomsky base deal with her? Or will the Dems be dumb enough to go for robots on the order of Kerry or Gore?

Not wanting to vote for another socon (assuming I had a vote) is not the same as wanting to vote for a national security challenged Dembot. Where's Scoop Jackson when you need him?

[Bill-Muskoka]

Elvid,

In reality, it really is a moot point. Carter was not the swiftest kayak in the rapids. Reagan was an 'acting' president, Johnson was simply a gangster criminal (according to people in Texas who actually knew him).

Wilson, Harding, Coolidge were before I was born and therefore I really do not pass judgement on them. History lies like a rug regarding such matters.

But Bush has sank the Office of the POTUS to a historic record low of intelligence (both his and his staff), culture (he has none), and the proper grasp of the English language (need I really go there?).

Economically he has castrated the American public, and they will react to that.

He is NOT a Republican, at least not the Republicans I have known as an American citizen. No more than Stockwell Day is a Joe Clark (who I do have respect for).

Yes, we all have our opinions, and mine are based on actually having lived under the consequences of so many POTUS's (amazing how that comes so close to the old mustard treatment...LOL).

The office of POTUS, like the Throne of the Queen should be occupied by the highest caliber of individual, not some bozo hick with a rich family. The man is a total and complete insult to American history. He has no competition, and that is a hard one to achieve.

I say he is the greatest testament to a monarchical form of government on the planet! At least there is a prepatory and educational path followed by those headed to a throne. Bush's greatest competency for a throne would be a Texas one-holer!

[Elvid]

Well, I'm old enought to have lived under Warren Gamiel Harding and George W.H. Bush. is no Harding.
No Nan Britton hidden in the White House closet for one...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nan_Britton

[Mach Stelmacher]

Hhm.

Does anyone else recall Bush announcing he was on the cusp of something big a while back>? A real nail-biter and something to do with energy I believe.

Anyway, the question occured to me as I
perused the article posted in this link:

Oil discovered on Capitol Hill

http://www.themountainmail.com/main.asp?SectionID=7&SubSectionID=7&ArticleID=7701&TM=28506

- - - - --

Velly interesting.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Elvid,

Darn, we old farts have this problem of recall. Sure whacks the ivory tower writers, eh? LOL

Now, knowing you are a scholarly gentleman, I note you wrote 'George W.H. Bush', au contrare mon ami!

It is 'George W.Bush' No 'H.' there. His daddy was 'George H.W. Bush' The 'H.W.' standing for Herbert Walker.

Now I am familiar with Herbert Hoover (some waould say he really sucked, even though he was not the inventor of the Hoover), but I must confess that the only Walker I am familiar with is Johnny Walker! LOL

Touching back Tricky Dick Nixon. Perhaps his greatest blunder was rejecting the request for cooperation with Fidel Castro?

Our great comedian Bill Murray stared in a litle known film 'Where The Buffalo Roam', about the life of Hunter Thompson.

His motto was 'It just ain't wierd enough yet!'. He managed to get aboard Air Farce One and nail Nixon and Agnew with whipped or shaving cream (Brain fart can't recall which).

Have a great day Elvid.

[Ivan Prokopchuk]

I Like this blog, Antonia. Maclean's is pilloried for its sins, but there is some sort of grudging respect. Easter/Passover? A hope?
Some prof saying Bush worse than even Buchanan?
I have stopped reading long books since I went online but I do remember John Updike's
Memories of the Ford Administration and in that book, through a kind of parallel American umiverse, Buchanan is displayed as an intellingent, sophisticated, multicultural
with a firm grasp of geopolitics, especially
Russia. I believe he could actually read Russian.
Can we say the same of Alfred E.?

[Bill-Muskoka]

Hi Ivan,

Long time since I have seen you post here. Good to see you are still alive and kicking! LOL

Gerald Ford! ah, the memories of one of the most human POTUS' in history. Yes, he was noted for his clutztyness (a typical focus of MSM, rather than what he did or failed to do), and of course being a member of the Warren Commission on the JFK Asassination.

Betty did miracles to bring people out of denial and into treatment as well. Too bad Dubya didn't follow her lead, eh?

Personally I liked him...he did not seem overtly dangerous. He was pretty much a 'blink' in POTUS history though!

Carter was more famous for the Tehran Boondoggle and the Vicious White Rabbit! LOL

Please Alfred E. is a great hero to millions, unlike Dubya! LMAO!

Long live the works of Don Martin! (no relation, of course, to a certain former PM).