12 Comments

And… it is of course well known that professors of history, all of the liberal arts for that matter, represent an even segment of the populus, reflecting accurate percentages of the views and blelieves of the American cross-segment!

Beware of liberal media accolades!!

Reeves is the darling of the NY media because he wrote glowingly about JFK, softpedaling the trysts in the White House, glorifing the Bay of Pigs and the standoff over Cuba. And he REALLY earned his spurs, by doing a scathing psyche

job on Nixon. So, now anything he writes is instant “take it to the bank” history. Just ask the New York Times about it, they will tell you.

When Reagan was in, he was the worst. Then Bush senior was in, he got the nod. Just wait. If Republicans keep the White House in 2008, Reeves will be all over that person by 2010. By 2012, that person will be the worst. People with no sense of history always think the here and now is the worst–except when their own golden boys are on the throne.

The MSM–nothing if not predictable.

Who is Richard Reeves?

I had an interest rate lower than my parents?

I wonder how my portfolio is doing today?

So who is REALLY the worst? Seems like that distinction should apply to a president who:

Rode on the coattails of others’ acheivements (and claimed the credit).

Signed into law the (then) most radical and expensive new tax on the population at large.

Brought the country into a foreign war in which we had no direct interest.

Spent 100,000 lives in doing so.

Allowed the isolationists to cut-and-run, leaving a mess behind ensuring that the next generation would have to go back to finish the job, spending 300,000 more lives in the process.

Retreated into the background during his second term to become entirely ineffective.

I refer to Woodrow Wilson. Admittedly, that last attribute cannot be considered a flaw of character due to his stroke while in office. Nevertheless, the country and, especially, the world was much worse off when Wilson left office.

Is there something before a first draft?

In my case, the first one is always a draft unless there’s nothing on tap.

The true measure of a President must wait on posterity. I would question anyone’s judgement and motivation, historian or not, who offers a contemporaneous opinion of a President’s worth. A President is emeshed in world events, the meanings of which can only be understood in the context that the passing of years can provide – particularly during times of crisis and contention, such as we are experiencing now. I offer as an example the contrast between contemporary accounts of Lincoln, and our present-day view of him.

Wilson, Jimmy Carter and Andrew Johnson share the honor. But Bush II the worst?

The fact that he’s so reviled by leftists and liberals just means he’s a doer. If we can slam the door on Islamofascism within the next decade Bush will go down as one of our greatest presidents ever. In 30 years his face will be on a coin, and we will still be going, “Richard who?“

The Book of Lists: “The List of the Most Hated and Feared Persons in History,” 1983 edition (p. 393). Based on a poll of Europeans.

1. Ronald Reagan

2. Leonid Brezhnev

3. Dracula

4. Muammar al-Qaddafi

5. Adolf Hitler

Anyone who is strong and believes in right and wrong is reviled and feared.

These leaders get in the way of progress towards making societies meek, malleable, and pacifist.

My general feeling is that academics like these are basically cowards. They know they wouldn’t last 5 years as capitalists facing competition out in the real world.

Publish or Perish is about as bad as it gets.

Poor things.

Roger:

I have no idea how history will judge President Bush and of course future events will have a lot to do with its judgement. But when he left office President Truman was considered one of the worst(and one of the most stupid) Presidents ever. The actual facts, seperated from the conventional wisdom of the blowhards of his time, have shown him to be one of our best Presidents. Is Bush another Truman? I am not so arrogant to think that I have any clue to where Bush will be ranked. I do know that self appointed “experts” like Reeves are so filled with their own vision of their brilliance that I tend to ignore there vapid proclamations.

I think we need a revise and rewrite:

Journalism is the rejected manuscript of history.