Bush was the worst modern U.S. president.

Pro provided no definition of what criteria he used to provide his opinion of the "worst" president. In a democracy, I think the most important criteria is whether the candidate provided an accurate description of how he would govern. If the candidate provides an accurate description of his vision and that vision turns out to be a poor prescription for government then the fault lies more with the electorate than the candidate. For good or ill, the electorate should, most importantly, get what they bargained for. I grant that having a poor vision is a detriment, but it is not the primary one. President Bush scores very well on his promises. Bush promised a Medicare prescription drug entitlement and an expanding Federal role in education. Bush delivered on both promises, working with Democrats to enact the legislation. Conservatives disapproved, but the electorate got what they were promised. On the foreign policy front, no one thought for a minute that Bush would start by having an apology tour. No one confused Dick Chaney with Joe Biden. Americans got what they were promised. Moreover, Bush was re-elected, clearly reflecting the fact that they got what was promise and were not terribly displeased with it. Of course, leftists were and still are outraged. That's not Bush's fault. That is a consequence of their beliefs. President Obama is the worst president of modern times because he has governed contrary to what he promised from the day he took office. http://www.cato.org... He expressed generally leftist policy preferences, but not to worry, he assured Americans, because everything would be done on a bipartisan basis. He promised explicitly never to use the reconciliation process, because that would be contrary to the principle of bipartisanship. http://www.washingtontimes.com... Obamacare was jammed through under reconciliation. Early in the health care debate, Senate Republicans made regular requests to meet with the President to present their ideas for compromise legislation. Obama steadfastly refused to meet, and never did. There was a one-day "summit" designed as a stunt to give the appearance that the President was willing listening, but it was proved irrelevant to the legislation that was passed. Obama promised to have all the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, but did not. http://tinyurl.com... The numerous payoffs like the union exemption the tax on Cadillac health care plans and the Florida exemption to the discontinuation of Medicare Advantage were negotiated in secrecy. Obama's failure to govern as promised was a matter of his choosing, and so inexcusable. He could have met with Republicans if he chose to; he could have promised to veto any legislation passed under reconciliation; and he could have made the health care negotiation transparent. His pattern is consistent. The "czar" system of governing prevents appointees from being questioned by Republicans in Congress. http://www.judicialwatch.org... Obama chooses not to make those as conventional appointments. Pro has the burden of proof in the debate. He must prove to the audience of the debate that the resolution should be affirmed. Pro has not presented a case. He presents a reading list and invites us to construct his case for him. Of Pro's 20-some references, all but three are opinion pieces on the "World Socialist Web Site, Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)." For example, they tell us about "Bush, Clinton and the crimes of US imperialism in Haiti." Shocking how that Bill Clinton committed crimes of imperialism, right? He also cites a diatribe from a Pakistani paper. Since Pro has not made a case, I have no obligation to refute it. However, let's pretend he did make a case and used the polls of historians cited in his first two references to show Bush was poorly ranked. The first, a opinion piece in the Washington Post, includes the caution, "Changes in presidential rankings reflect shifts in how we view history. When the first poll was taken [60 yeas ago], the Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War was regarded as a time of corruption and misgovernment caused by granting black men the right to vote. As a result, President Andrew Johnson, a fervent white supremacist who opposed efforts to extend basic rights to former slaves, was rated 'near great.' Today, by contrast, scholars consider ... Johnson a flat failure." Not long ago, a Chinese historian was asked what he thought of the American Revolution. He said, "It's too soon to tell." Recently the public approval ratings of George Bush edged past the approval rating of President Obama, 44% to 43%. It's difficult to assess the policy repercussions of presidents in less than a hundred years. If Iraq turns out to be a successful democracy and spurs the spread of democracy in the Middle East, overcoming terrorism in the process, then Bush will rank as on of our greatest President's. If Obama produces a lasting paradise in the United States, then he will be right up there. Right now, the odds look better for Iraq than hope-and-change, but we'll have to wait to know for sure. Since we cannot tell for sure how policies will be viewed over time, I proposed campaign honesty as the criteria. The historian's polled are all academics, and probably left-leaning. That is because confirmed sighting of right-wingers in academia are extraordinarily rare. The historian polls were before Obama had been in office, and Obama's demonstrated incompetence has soured even leftists. Even they do not appreciate his lack of bipartisanship and transparency. Neither poll is a scientific survey, and the second, the History News Network poll, is explicitly proclaimed informal and and unscientific. A scientific survey would have to include all historians, not just selected ones in leftist academia. These types of polls down rate Reagan and give high marks to Clinton and even Eisenhower. They are polls of ideology. Con concludes with a list of false charges against Bush, none supported by other than the opinions of the World Socialists. Bush was a middle-of-the-road president. He expanded social welfare programs and gave unprecedented aid to Africa. He had a tough foreign policy against despots and terrorists, which is what people wanted and still want. a. Bush's key support came from the manufacturing and industrial sector. Obama's key support is from trial lawyers and unions. Bush's favored sectors are far more in line with the best interests of the country than Obama's. b. Bush did not lie about the threat of WMDs in Iraq. It turned out that Saddam ad deliberately leaked false data to make it appear that he had WMDs. Saddam thought this would deter Iran, while thinking the US would never invade under any circumstances. c. Bush cut taxes across the board. The high bracket was cut from 39.6% to 35% while the lowest bracket was cut more dramatically, from 15% to 10%. http://tinyurl.com... d. Enhanced interrogation causes no permanent injury. If lives are in immediate danger, as they were, enhanced interrogation is morally justified, and, as liberal jurist Alan Dershowitz argues, morally compelled to save innocents. http://tinyurl.com... The American public approved and continues to approve. e. Bush did not ostracize all who opposed him. He worked with Ted Kennedy on education reform, and the War resolutions were overwhelmingly bipartisan. The revised system of military tribunals was broadly bipartisan, as was the drug benefit. Pro has offered his opinions, but has not made a case. On policy issues, it will be many decades before history can judge. The one thing we can judge is campaign honesty, and Obama is much worse than Bush. The resolution is negated.