Good point. I guess Bush can hope that several decades from now there is an even more terrible GOP President who makes Americans think better of Bush in hindsight.

James Buchanan has moved up one notch on the list.

He's now the second-worst president ever.

Contemporary disapproval of both Carter and 41 was largely due to recessions in 1980 and 1991. People have forgotten about the recessions, which come and go and aren't very individualized; what they remember are things like the Camp David peace accords and the success of the first Gulf War.

Once people forget about the 2008 recession, they are going to remember Enron, the second Gulf War, and Katrina.

Isn't it likely that Carter, H.W. Bush, and Clinton look even better in hindsight because a whole lot of Americans are comparing them to George W. Bush?

Likely? You mean like, "isn't it likely that the sun will rise in the East?"

Possibly the only positive accomplishment of Duh-bya's presidency has been the effect it has had on the rehabilitation of his father's presidency. Bush 41 wasn't the best POTUS, for sure, but he probably ranks up into the top twenty (in other words, slightly better than average). Bush 43, otoh, is fighting for that bottom rung with all his might.

The good news is that George W Bush will displace Herbert Hoover or James Buchanan as the worst president ever in the minds of most Americans, though I do think that Buchanan still deserves to be brought up in any such discussion.

Bush will also, eventually, become known as the most criminal as people who have worshipped his lawbreaking finally die off or get some sense knocked into their heads. I'm not certain we need to give Nixon or Harding or, even, Grant a break for the corruption they tolerated in their administrations, but Bush was so active in his hatred of the rule of law and our constitution that even Reagan might have recoiled at the indifference that Bush's White House showed to it.

It's been a straight downhill line since Nixon: every repug president is, against all odds, worse than the one before.

Nobody could believe any president could be worse than Nixon, but Reagan actually was (destroying the New Deal economy and shitting on the constitution.) The full extent of Bush I's crimes won't be known until the Iran-Contra files are released, but it's clear at minimum he extended and expanded Reagan's crimes.

Yes, it's hard to imagine how anyone could be worse president than Smirky/Darth, but trust me, that's what we all said about Nixon. And Reagan. And Bush I.

I suspect GWB's approval ratings will go up in the future. Bush has the talent of coming off like a nice, affable fellow. Assuming he does something positive with his post-presidency, people will begin to think more about his personality than his policies. Heck, that's how he got elected twice.

I dont think he'll ever get up past 50%, though. Too many people will remember how destructive he was.

Of course, if there are investigations into Bush's illegal acts as President, then his numbers could actually go down. But it seems that such investigations are likely to be toothless at best, but probably wont happen at all.

Bush recently said he regards his failure to privatize Social Security as his biggest domestic policy success. Many people probably agree with him on that.

Carter gets a bum rap, usually due to wingnut antipathy. He started teh hard deregulation of the economy (but in a good way that was fairer to labor than Regan), appointed Vlocker to control inflation (but Regan got the credit), and had a strong focus on human rights. If you listen to any of his speeches on energy, its remarkable how prescient they are.

But events... the hostages in Iran sunk his presidency. If only he'd agreed to trade them for weapons like Regan did... And when it comes to making hard choices on energy consumption, you usually don't do well electorally by telling folks what they ought to do when you can just promise them pie in the sky.

Bush shouldn't get his hopes up too much. Much of Carter's ratings approval probably stems from his humanitarian efforts, it's hard to imagine Bush going around the world building houses for people. Carter also remains kryptonite within the Democratic Party, so it's hard to imagine Bush giving a major speech at say the 2036 Republican convention.

The hostages really did sink Carter's presidency. But wouldn't American hostages held for what, 400 days, have sunk ANY presidency?

Isn't it likely that Carter, H.W. Bush, and Clinton look even better in hindsight because a whole lot of Americans are comparing them to George W. Bush?

Oh snap!

Guscat, yes Carter's approval rating is defintely helped by his humanitarian efforts but those were after his presidency. Plus, Bush will get credit for his work and effort with AIDS in Africa. Props where props are due.

Bush 41 and Carter were also pretty good ex-Presidents.

I find it hard to believe that Bush 43 will be a good ex-President. He will probably write a self serving memoir and he will probably be the next baseball commissioner. Does anyone think that Bush 43 will say anything of importance over the next 10 years?

But, I am a Republican Troll so ....

The past presidents named in your post have all managed to do some pretty productive things with their lives after they left the White House, which has undoubtedly contributed to the positive regard they enjoy with American people. Once W is done with this job he never really liked I am sure he will be returning to ESPN and video games, which is where his interests have always been. Eight years from now, I suspect that the feeling of overwhelming disgust most Americans have for W will have passed, and likely be replaced by pity...for such a pathetic man.

I'd like to know the age range that was questioned. Half of all Americans weren't alive when Carter was President, and were still in plastic pants when Bush 41 was in office.

Not to mention, that's the half who are so well edjamacated that they can't distinguish between the Civil War and the Vietnam War.

I'd like to know the age range that was questioned. Half of all Americans weren't alive when Carter was President, and were still in plastic pants when Bush 41 was in office.

Hee, that "plastic pants" bit shows your age.

Nixon looks better compared to Bush.

Finally someone is giving Carter some credit. Had Reagan not undone things like his energy policy our country would be in much better shape today.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090105/cm_csm/yrodgers05

My guess is more moderates and liberals like George HW Bush, than "conservatives."

I still think W was the Manchurian candidate for GHWB to extract revenge on the conservative ideologues who ruined his chance in 1980 and 1992.

>"But now 64 percent approve of how Carter handled his job as president."

The passage of time has shown that most of what Carter did (or tried to do) was the right course of action.

As far as the hostages go... what americans forget.

What Iran wanted was the return of the former Shah of Iran to face murder charges.

Imagine if the US had taken Saddam Hussein to a tropical island and refused to turn him over to either international courts or Iraq.

Ditto most of the other tin-pot dictators we either installed or supported.

Carter was clearly the worst President ever - exceeding even Grant, Harding and FDR.

Bush Sr was (along with Colin Powell) solely responsible for Saddam's survival for 10 years longer than necessary.

Clinton was a moderately successful President but a total failure as a man.

Let's pretend we are a woman who married them all.
Carter called us a whore everyday, we divorced him.
Bush Sr. slapped us around from time to time, divorce.
Bush Jr. beat the crap out of us, broke bones, passes us around to his friends, and did every horrible thing a man could do to a woman.

Now we look back and decided being called a whore or getting slapped occasionally wasn't so bad.

Perspective.
---------------
Plus let's face it, Carter has been golden when it comes to his post-White House humanitarian efforts.

And for the record, Bush Sr would not have the rating he has if Clinton wouldn't have shared the spotlight on some humanitarian causes.

Thanks, cousin, for moving me down a notch.

Franklin

And, down at Liberty U and Regent U, the debate still rages about why Fort Sumter was ever needed to protect the Gulf of Tonkin.

Carter was clearly the worst President ever

He's history's greatest monster!

Carter was clearly the worst President ever - exceeding even Grant, Harding and FDR.

You have FDR as one of the worst presidents ever? I doubt Carter minds being in his company.

Bush Sr was (along with Colin Powell) solely responsible for Saddam's survival for 10 years longer than necessary.

They were also responsible for the survival of thousands of American soldiers for 10 years longer. I think they made the right call.

(though it was wrong for them to indicate that they'd support an Iraqi uprising against Saddam, then pull back - allowing Saddam to crush the rebellion.)

Carter was clearly the worst President ever - exceeding even Grant, Harding and FDR.

Wow, what a well-supported argument! Unfortunately you're wrong. Carter was far better than Reagan--he didn't double the national debt or sell arms to Iran like Redink Reagan.

"Nixon looks better compared to Bush."
Posted by: jeff on January 7, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Dude, Stalin looks better compared to Bush.

With that in mind, can you even imagine what the next several presidents would have to "accomplish" for W. to get a bump in his approval ratings after the fact? I think you'd have to be polling ex-Americans after America ceases to exist.

In 10 or 20 years, there will be a cherry picked polls asking your opinion about ex-presidents. They will select regions sympathetic to the Bush Administration to produce desired poll results.

Partisan groups will start to cut away at the facts of his legacy, and replace hard facts with sterile facts.

History books will be printed, highlighting the 'tough' decisions the 43rd president was faced with - and discuss his presidency on cerebral level without expounding on the scandals, lies, and disregard for human rights - all of which will be subjective conjecture at that point.

He will be remembered very differnetly than angry Americans want him to be remembered - barring any secrets and facts coming to light.

I think that one of the reasons people have such a high opinion of Carter now is all the positive things he has done since the end of his Presidency.

Reagan and Bush-41 pretty much disappeared into reitirement, whereas Carter has done some wonderful work with Habitat for Humanity as well as staying active on the international diplomatic scene.

It's likely academic, since America wouldn't survive a President awful enough to make Bush look comparatively better.

How does someone such as fred t get to post his prattle on this site? Jim Bowie justice anyone?

Admittedly Carter was too religious! But if the hostage rescue had worked he would have had a much higher approval rating.

Isn't it likely that Carter, H.W. Bush, and Clinton look even better in hindsight because a whole lot of Americans are comparing them to George W. Bush?

Hold that thought. Eisenhower looked better after Kennedy and Johnson.

Future Americans will compare George W. Bush to Barack H. Obama. At minimum, Obama's disappointments will show that the problems Bush failed to solve were harder than everyone thought. Consider, as a first possibility, that Obama might take credit for victory in Iraq. If that were to happen, then Bush's curt dismissal of the report by the Iraq Study Group, and his appointment of Gen. Petraeus, will look pretty good. It's only a possibility, but some Obama supporters are disappointed already, and he hasn't even been sworn in.

Isn't it likely that Carter, H.W. Bush, and Clinton look even better in hindsight because a whole lot of Americans are comparing them to George W. Bush?

This is the very same thought that occurred to me about two sentences into the article.

Right now Bush's approval ratings are in the teens. Obviously in 30 years they will be higher because there isn't any other direction for them to go.

"Isn't it likely that Carter, H.W. Bush, and Clinton look even better in hindsight because a whole lot of Americans are comparing them to George W. Bush?"

Am I missing something? I didn't know Clinton looked bad to begin with.