One of America's leading historians, SEAN WILENTZ writes...
"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.
posted on April 22, 2006 02:06:30 PM new Carl Bernstein calls for Senate Hearings NOW.
Worse than Watergate? High crimes and misdemeanors justifying the impeachment of George W. Bush, as increasing numbers of Democrats in Washington hope, and, sotto voce, increasing numbers of Republicans—including some of the president's top lieutenants—now fear? Leaders of both parties are acutely aware of the vehemence of anti-Bush sentiment in the country, expressed especially in the increasing number of Americans—nearing fifty percent in some polls—who say they would favor impeachment if the president were proved to have deliberately lied to justify going to war in Iraq.
John Dean, the Watergate conspirator who ultimately shattered the Watergate conspiracy, rendered his precipitous (or perhaps prescient) impeachment verdict on Bush two years ago in the affirmative, without so much as a question mark in choosing the title of his book Worse than Watergate. On March 31, some three decades after he testified at the seminal hearings of the Senate Watergate Committee, Dean reiterated his dark view of Bush's presidency in a congressional hearing that shed more noise than light, and more partisan rancor than genuine inquiry. The ostensible subject: whether Bush should be censured for unconstitutional conduct in ordering electronic surveillance of Americans without a warrant.
Raising the worse-than-Watergate question and demanding unequivocally that Congress seek to answer it is, in fact, overdue and more than justified by ample evidence stacked up from Baghdad back to New Orleans and, of increasing relevance, inside a special prosecutor's office in downtown Washington.
posted on April 22, 2006 03:08:52 PM new
Democrat on ethics panel faces allegations
Mollohan stepping down after allegedly steering money to groups
Updated: 10:44 p.m. ET April 21, 2006
WASHINGTON - Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.) stepped down temporarily from his post as ranking Democrat on the House ethics committee, amid accusations that he used his congressional position to funnel money to his own home-state foundations, possibly enriching himself in the process.
As recently as Thursday, Mollohan, a 12-term lawmaker, said he would not step aside, but he bowed to pressure yesterday from House Democratic leaders eager to pursue their campaign against what they call a "culture of corruption" in the Republican Party.
"It has become clear that the unprecedented campaign that has been launched against me will continue to be at least as relentless as it has been to date," he said in a letter to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), maintaining his innocence. "I do not want these baseless allegations to divert attention from the important work that the House Ethics Committee must undertake in the remainder of this Congress."
In a 500-page complaint filed with a U.S. attorney in February, the conservative National Legal and Policy Center in Falls Church challenged the accuracy of Mollohan's financial disclosure forms and detailed a remarkable change in the lawmaker's personal fortune.
Sharp increase in personal wealth
Mollohan's real estate holdings and other assets jumped in value from $562,000 in 2000 to at least $6.3 million in 2004, said Ken Boehm, chairman of the legal center.
During the same period, Mollohan used his position on the House Appropriations Committee to secure more than $150 million in appropriations for five nonprofit entities that he helped establish in his congressional district. One of the groups is headed by a former appropriations aide, Laura Kurtz Kuhns, with whom Mollohan bought $2 million worth of property on Bald Head Island, N.C.
The congressman has steadfastly maintained that the surge in his personal worth came from an inheritance, some smart investments and a sharp run-up in real estate values, especially in Washington.
• More U.S. news
Pelosi joined Mollohan in asserting that the charges against Mollohan stem from a partisan effort to deflect attention from the Republicans' ethical problems, including a criminal indictment in Texas against former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), former GOP congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham's guilty plea to bribery charges, and the guilty pleas of former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff and two former DeLay aides.
Editorials in The Washington Post, the New York Times and, on Thursday, the Charleston (W. Va.) Daily Mail had called for Mollohan to step down from the ethics committee.
Unanswered questions
Even some Democratic leadership aides said he has not fully answered questions surrounding the appropriations he obtained, which funded generous salaries for Mollohan associates and former aides. One of them, the Institute for Scientific Research, paid its three top executives a total of $777,000 in 2004. Employees of those nonprofit groups and associated contractors, in turn, contributed generously to Mollohan's campaign committees and a Mollohan family foundation.
"Frankly, I am shocked it took Mr. Mollohan this long to come to the conclusion that he could not serve as the senior Democrat on the ethics committee while under federal investigation over his financial dealings," said Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Boehm said he was unimpressed by Mollohan's gesture. What he wants to see is a revision of at least 262 financial disclosure forms that his group says are demonstrably false. As for committee assignments, Boehm said: "If I had a choice, I would say resign from the Appropriations Committee. That's where the real stuff happens."
Panel in peril
The ethics panel, officially known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, has its own problems. The panel has been dysfunctional since House leaders moved in early 2004 to replace its aggressive chairman, Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), with Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), a closer ally of the party leadership, then tried to change committee rules to block investigations driven by Democrats.
Republicans have long charged that Mollohan, at the behest of Pelosi, has thwarted all efforts to reach a compromise on new rules that would get the committee functioning again.
"Congressman Mollohan and the Democrats have repeatedly used the ethics committee to play politics while blocking the committee from functioning," said House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).
Republicans questioned why Pelosi turned to Rep. Howard L. Berman (Calif.) -- a lawmaker not currently on the ethics committee -- to take Mollohan's top Democratic spot on the panel.
Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (Ohio), the next most senior Democrat on the committee, took a trip to Puerto Rico in 2001 that was financed by a lobbyist, an infraction that Republicans say links her to the lobbying scandals bedeviling some of their colleagues.
posted on April 22, 2006 04:04:56 PM new You always hurt the one you love....A new Fox News poll gives Bush a new low, and a lot of the disapproval is coming from Republicans.
President Bush’s job approval rating slipped this week and stands at a new low of 33 percent approve, down from 36 percent two weeks ago and 39 percent in mid-March. A year ago this time, 47 percent approved and two years ago 50 percent approved (April 2004).
Approval among Republicans is below 70 percent for the first time of Bush’s presidency. Two-thirds (66 percent) approve of Bush’s job performance today, down almost 20 percentage points from this time last year when 84 percent of Republicans approved. Among Democrats, 11 percent approve today, while 14 percent approved last April.
"It seems clear that many Republicans, while they may still like and support George Bush, are growing uneasy with what may happen to their candidates — and the policies they support — in the November elections," comments Opinion Dynamics Chairman John Gorman.
posted on April 22, 2006 06:41:10 PM new
I think Bush's ratings are dropping also because sane-thinking Republicans are now trying to distance themselves from the rantings of the far right fringe groups who support Bush whole heartedly and never shut up and try to tell everyone that their fascist anti-American views represent the entire party and the whole country. They embarrass true Americans who don't want to be associated with them in any way.
Edited to add that I love that cover illustration.
posted on April 22, 2006 08:04:00 PM new
Hey stupid BUSH and NEOCONS. Its the message not the messengers.
The SMALL MINORITY that still support DUMBO BUSH just don't get it. By almost 7 to 3 Americans think this country is headed in the wrong direction under DUMBO BUSH and his GANG of crooks called CON-servative lawmakers.
JOIN THE GREAT AMERICAN PROTEST ON NOVEMBER 7th 2006.
posted on April 22, 2006 09:13:34 PM new
There are those that think rationally and recognize the seriousness of the situation and then there are a few that sit there and lol like sick hyenas because of their crazed desperation and denial and it's all they have left.
posted on April 22, 2006 09:52:16 PM new
Kiara, give me the defination of a true American. since you used that statement you should be able to tell me.
Is it that we are true to only America? Can we be true to American if we live in another country? Can we be true Americans if we have dual citizenship? Can we be true Americans if an American has been a traitor to their country? When does someone become a true American?
_________________
posted on April 22, 2006 11:47:16 PM new
When I said 'true Americans' I was equating it with the majority of Americans and their feelings about Bush's leadership. That majority does not agree with his leadership.
posted on April 23, 2006 06:40:09 AM new
Libra63 you posted. "Democrat on ethics panel faces allegations
Mollohan stepping down after allegedly steering money to groups".
If Mollohan or any Democrat is arrested and found guilty of a crime I hope they are striped of power and go to jail for a very long time. Similar to what the courts did to (R)Duke Cunningham in California.
I am sure you being a law and order conservative republican you feel the same way.
We Democrats are sick and tired of the best government money can buy in Washington under Bush and his gang of corrupt conservative lawmaker crooks.
Since I believe the crime of money corruption and other crimes is more of a republican problem under DUMBO BUSH. How about you and I making a little wager.
I will pay you $10.00 for every Democrat lawmaker or their staff that gets arrested for a crime.
In return you must pay me $10.00 for every Republican lawmaker or staff that gets arrested for a crime.
We can start our little wager at the beginning of DUMBO BUSH'S first or second term and run until DUMBO is no longer in power. Your choice.
Before you agree to my wager please do a little research. I think you will find this summer is looking bad for several conservative lawmakers and their staff.
