Historians rank Lincoln as best president, George W. Bush 36 out of 42
16-Feb-2009 (25 comments)

Bush scored lowest in international relations, where he was ranked 41st, and in economic management, where he was ranked 40th. His highest ranking, 24th, was in the category of pursuing equal justice for all. He was ranked 25th in crisis leadership and vision and agenda setting.
In contrast, Lincoln was ranked in the top three in each of the 10 categories evaluated by participants.


Why so generous?

by Q on

Forget "President," he is one of the worst human beings in the world.


Kaveh Nouraee

if a man dies during open

by Kaveh Nouraee on

if a man dies during open heart surgery of a burst clot...

All I can say for certain is that his HMO will deny the claim.

anonymous fish

damn girl!

by anonymous fish on

i can't even keep 2008 - 09 straight... much less centuries....:-)  i truly believe i was a scarlett in a previous life...lol.  not with the tiny waist of course but i looooooved her strength.

your analysis is extremely accurate.  the south hugely resented the north's superiority attitude.  but they of course were guilty of the same thing with regard to the slaves! 

one thing though... the plantation owners were very privileged for the most part.  they were educated and traveled abroad.  they were, and ARE, atrocious snobs.  to this day!  you just wouldn't believe it.  the first question is not "what do you do for a living" but "who are your people".   i shit you not.  after the war of nothern aggression, southern women took pride in their proverty.  the men?  well, there weren't that many left to begin with. but just as it will be the women in iran to force a difference, it was the women who kept what pride was left alive.

i read and wrote the last comments on the fly yesterday so i don't doubt it doesn't make much sense.

but consider this analogy (to kaveh and Q).  if a man dies during open heart surgery of a burst clot.... what killed him?  the clot itself or years of smoking and eating fatty foods?

rosie is roxy is roshan

four points, two small, two big

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

small point numero uno: AnonFish, get your centuries straight will you? lol

small point numero dos: todo el mundo:  SECEED, not SUCCEED and not SUCK SEED.

Large Point Numero Uno:

Didn't Lincoln also at some point say that it would be better if the liberated blacks could be "repatriated" back to Africa? I beliee you're correct, I somehow recall he did think they were if not inferior, unassimilable, and

Large point numero dos: it was also my udnerstanding that the North had an industrial economy similar to England and the South's plantation economy was actually more part of the system of latifundios and caciques(planttations and "bosses"), hence a source of exploitable raw materials for the industrial North, and that was a primary reason why the North didn't want them to SECede..cheaper resources.


it's true, state's rights was a big issue and still is. Actually as Q pointed out the South was Democrat at that time and the Civil War reversed that. Now if you look at an electoral map you will see that the red states are the historical south and many of the not yet states associated with the South at the time (along w/the mountain states). Central issues in elections always include gun control, abortion and so on. The idea is that abortion should be a states; rights jurisdiction (and so w/gay marriage, etc.). Now gun control is a little different because it's a constitutional issue which would on the surface imply a Federalist viewpoint but in actuality doesn't, because the contenton is that the Supreme Court has no right to trespass certain boundaries. (Ditto abortion in that wise..)

IMHO states' rights issues are still alive and kicking and the Civil War has never ended only now it's called the Cultural Wars.

I also have this idea, Fish,, and I wonder what you think of it==the rise of Christian Fundamentalism also began in the South and now goes through the Red States. As Q mentioned below, the plantation owners were obviously a very small minority of the white population, however the white population was considered "white trash" and I believe the one thing that gave them a sense of identity  and enfranchisement was their superior status to the blacks.

I believe that the rise of Christian Fundamentalism fills a gap for these people who have lost their historical status and identity sociologically..they replace it with religion.

Do I sound nuts to you? You sound like you have both micro and macro insights into the whole shebang.

anonymous fish

hmmm... not

by anonymous fish on

lincoln's primary interest was not the equality of the black man.  during his primary campaign in 1958 he made it perfectly clear that he considered the black man inferior.  i'm paraphrasing but he wrote that "if he could save the union without freeing the slaves, he would... if he could save the union BY freeing the slaves, he would".  was that part of the emancipation proclamation??? not sure.  i'd have to do some research. 

gentlemen.  i am aware that you both are extremely intelligent.  but it's simply a matter of fact that the war was NOT exclusively about slavery.  the north couldn't care less about the fate of the black man.  the abolishionists were a very small minority in the north but obviously extremely vocal.

lincoln wanted each new state to be a free state.  his rationale was that slavery would die out on its own.  the south rejected his proposal because they felt they would eventually lose any position of strength which of course is true.  the south depended on a labor force whereas the north was the center of manufacturing.  when the north imposed the tariff, it was intented to drive the south further into a dependent and inferior status.  it was a matter of the difference between two vastly different cultures.

these are easily researched conclusions. 

the civil war was a result of south carolina succeeding from the union.  lincoln sent federal troops to fort sumter in charleston to fortify his position.  the south believed in a state's rights rather than the federal government.

so while Q might consider these factors "water cooler gossip", it would behoove him to do a little more research and not rely solely on textbook information. 

don't mistake my explanation as anything even remotely supporting slavery.  there is no justification for it and i'm not making excuses.  but there were many many factors involved in the civil war. 

Kaveh Nouraee

A Misconception About Lincoln

by Kaveh Nouraee on

There's been a misconception that's developed over time about Lincoln being bipartisan. Throughout the 2008 campaign and since the inauguration, President Obama has been effectively capitalizing on that common misconception in order to promote his ideas on how he will govern.

Truth is, Lincoln, a Republican, (sorry, Fish) was anything but bipartisan. As the US grew and expanded westard, the idea was floated that when new states were added to the Union, one would be a slave state, the other would not, and alternate as such. Lincoln would have none of it. The Civil War broke out because he wanted slavery abolished. Sticking to his principles rather than caving in to bipartisanship, eventually the Union was reunified, but it ended up costing him his life.

A White Republican freed the slaves. Ironic, huh?

rosie is roxy is roshan

Underground railroading the thread..

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

Well I DID give you some free publicity on my Rise and Fall of the Nazi Dinosaurs blog. 


In any case I can't see how anybody's hijacking the thread here since nobody's here but you chickens (even after my clarion call!) so why don't you just continue on at that peculiarly leisurely magnolias and mint julep Iranian style pace?

I'M all ears... LOL PS re new blog, bottom feeders maybe but you could always ignore them and just talk to each other and...if you like, I'LL feed 'em for you..how's that sound?..I'll say derisive barbed things and then they'll character-assassinate me and I'll RESPOND and they'll all get. too busy to bother you two...but seriously I think this makes a FINE secession thread!

anonymous fish

with regret...:-(

by anonymous fish on

as much as i would like to continue this discussion, i don't think it's a good idea to open a new blog.  i was pretty excited about doing so but when i got home and told my husband, he suggested that it might be the kind of thing that would attract the bottom feeders who will have no real interest in, knowledge of, or intention to discuss civily.  :-))

i can see it now... "The Civil War" on iranian.com.  lol  I'm not THAT much of a glutton for punishment.

i can understand not wanting to derail the blog but if you decide that it's not really going anywhere and would like to resume, i'll be happy to join you again.

it sounds like you have a serious interest in history.  i don't know if the civil war is a special field of interest but if it is, i would suggest "The Civil War" by Bruce Catton.  i know this will sound like a funny gift but i got it in high school before he died.  it's simply marvelous and along with my bio's on bob dylan, one of my treasures.


peace out.



by Q on

i can read wiki too...:-). your summation was almost a complete paraphrasing of wiki.

I'm disappointed that your apriori (and obviously false) assumptions of me, my background and my level of knowledge (compared to yours) have lead you to this meaningless "response." Paraphrasing "Wiki" is easy to detect. Please show me the Wiki page and point to the part of my response you think was a "paraphrase". If you can't, I'll ask you to refrain from making such meaningless "observations" in the future.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I do have independent interest and more importantly respect for History. I'm affraid you don't get to pick and choose the level of interest of people you are talking to.

Yes, I have learned many things from textbooks, and unless you had a very special privileged position during the civil war itself, so did you. I don't see anything wrong with this.

i believe that anything less than a personal interest is going to result in an opinion based on "textbook" facts. i'm sure you'd agree that history is sometimes based on less-than-objective observations.

If you think your background and "interest" gives you any advantage in discussing history, you are sadly mistaken. In fact, the parallel you made to Iranian affairs was apt. Some of the people most personally involved are also the most ignorant about it. Howver, there is no shortage of people trying to sell their "heritage" as some kind of greater access to truth. I reject that notion entirely. In most cases this fallacy becomes quite clear real fast.

i beg to differ in your statement that there was not a majority of people against lincoln. he wasn't even recognized as a candidate in the majority of southern states.

So what? How does that contradict my majority claim?

he won his election solely on support from the north.

Yes, hence the civil war. What's the point?

you are incorrect however when you say it was a "north" election only.
The election I was referring to was in 1864.

the south resented lincoln greatly because of his "wishy washy" status on slavery. he absolutely WAS in disfavor with the south.

That's your opinion. Mine, I believe, is more in tune with the truth. To the wealthy land owners and slave holders which made up a tiny part of the population in the South, security of having slavery in the south and in future territories was a major issue. But to most people in the South it was a Yankee "aggression" assault on culture and states rights that caused them to support succession and fight for it. In fact it was the entire Republican party which was dominant in the North that was the "enemy". Lincoln was not nearly as objectionable as some of the other anti slavery activists and politicians. These reasons are not personalized to Lincoln, even though he may have been a convinient figure head for them.

In any case, even if the entire south single-mindedly hated Lincoln above all else, that's not a majority.

the north was determined to "put down" the south's grip and the quickest way to do it was to abolish slavery on which the south was totally dependent. again, make no mistake that the north gave a rat's ass about the slaves. evidence of this was during and after the war itself when the north provided ZERO support for the newly freed slaves.

Yes, I recognize the "pop culture" fad, common in office water cooler conversations, that says "hey, did you know the Civil war wasn't really about Slavery?" There being "other factors" is a meaningless tautology. Your entire point here and about reconstruction is not relevant to this discussion. I got the message that you know something about this issue.

right or wrong, the south secessed from the union on christmas eve of 1960. the articles of secession were actually drafted in beaufort, south carolina... where i lived for 30 years and where we still own a home.

And were you in that home when it happened back in 1960? Just kidding, I know it was a typo. But seriousy, I don't see how this is relevant.

i still don't see any "spin" in zion's comment. she made a factual statement about lincoln. she then made a statement about bush. two different observations on the subject which in fact WAS about the popularity of past presidents.

Factual statement 1: Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons and was pursuing a nuclear program.
Factual statement 2: It is better to attack Iraq than to wait until Saddam nukes the USA.

Two factual statements, from FOX news.
Do you honestly not see the spin? Do you not honestly see the subtle deception that

Do you really not understand how it works?

Comparing "anti Lincoln" Americans after the civil war to "anti Bush" Americans in 2009 may consist of some factual statements. But it is spin nontheless. If you accept the factual statements, that means you buy in the comparison (that is the context) they appear in, which is cynically and un-objectively designed to make Bush look good. This is how spin and propaganda works.

I'm sure some people in the future may look back at Bush more positively, but only because the spin machine has created the groundwork.

I prefer to discuss this further in another thread, as I don't want to derail this one. Start a blog and I'll join you.


No worries AF

by tsion on

After all, I also think you are delusional about Bush. So what?


anonymous fish


by anonymous fish on

in that this is still a hotly debated issue between yankees and southerners, i'm reluctant to get into a debate with YOU.  i can read wiki too...:-).  your summation was almost a complete paraphrasing of wiki.  lol.  i'm speaking from somewhat of an advantage (i believe) in that this IS something i'm pretty familiar with.  just as most iranians here would claim that my knowledge of issues in iran is more biased than informed, i will make that claim here.  do you have a personal interest in "the war between the states" or "the war of northern aggression"... family that fought in the war... or an educational contribution (as in a thesis, etc.?).  i believe that anything less than a personal interest is going to result in an opinion based on "textbook" facts.  i'm sure you'd agree that history is sometimes based on less-than-objective observations. 

i beg to differ in your statement that there was not a majority of people against lincoln.  he wasn't even recognized as a candidate in the majority of southern states.  he won his election solely on support from the north.  you are incorrect however when you say it was a "north" election only.  the south resented lincoln greatly because of his "wishy washy" status on slavery.  he absolutely WAS in disfavor with the south.

while slavery was the primary source of disagreement between the north and the south, there were other factors.  the north was determined to "put down" the south's grip and the quickest way to do it was to abolish slavery on which the south was totally dependent.  again, make no mistake that the north gave a rat's ass about the slaves.  evidence of this was during and after the war itself when the north provided ZERO support for the newly freed slaves.

the north was determined to impose stricter federal control over the south all the while giving a looser interpretation of the constitution.

economically speaking the north also wanted a "tariff", which would give a huge advantage of the north over the south in that manufacturing was almost exclusively in the north.

so.  the south said "screw you".  we're going to create our own government.  right or wrong, the south secessed from the union on christmas eve of 1960.  the articles of secession were actually drafted in beaufort, south carolina... where i lived for 30 years and where we still own a home.

i still don't see any "spin" in zion's comment.  she made a factual statement about lincoln.  she then made a statement about bush.  two different observations on the subject which in fact WAS about the popularity of past presidents.  if she had listed each and every president with a comment about each one, would you consider that "spinning" anything?  this was her observation, nothing more.

the fact that i think she is delusional about bush is beside the point... sorry, zion, i'm getting off the train on that one.  :-) 

you know of course that personal info about you is discussed... big time.  LOL.  i am still of the conviction that you're a woman.  maybe wrong, maybe right.  makes no difference who you are...

anyhoo.  that's my history lesson for the day.

Q.  i'd be honored to discuss this with you further.  ;-)


Thanks AF

by tsion on

There are also other examples I can give for my point, like Truman, but you have to understand something about our Q here: These rae all excuses for him to rant. He will keep ranting no matter what anyone says. In this case, he is using these opportunities to propagate his newest theory about me: that I am a Canadian. Like he has done in the past with his other claims, like how I am a woman and that I advocate killing of Iranians in a military attack. He will keep this up in all other comments he is going to make. He is a dear and a lot of fun to watch so please let him have his fun. ;-)

[I mean how can you not like someone who says stuff like this:

'The spin here is that Zion and Bush fans are fantacizing about some kind of a big reversal in Bush's legacy as gime goes on.'

Even if this delusional premise were true about me, how is "fantasizing" about something tantamount to a "spin"? lol.]



No... not really AF... my history is fine.

by Q on

First of all, the nation almost went to war 3 other times in the past, was saved only by a series of compromises and would probably have gone to war sooner or later, no matter who won the Republican nomination. The Republican party platform was anti expansion of slavery and having special rules for one section (Actually the south wanted Slavery in future sections) of the country would not have been acceptable.

That kind of special treatment was the only thing that would have satisfied the South, thus civil war was inevitable. In fact Lincoln gave in far more than he had to in order to stop it and appeal to the border states. What he was personally, is not the issue.

At no time was there a majority of people against Lincoln or against the war. In 1864 North-only election, Lincoln ran against one of his own Generals who was also pro-War. Even in the South, the anger was directed at the "Aggressor Yankee" and not one person (Lincoln) because of the prevailing popularity of the cause in the North.

By contrast George Bush's personal popularity rating was about 20 percent, when he left office. No comparison.

The spin here is that Zion and Bush fans are fantacizing about some kind of a big reversal in Bush's legacy as gime goes on. It is, if you haven't watched, THE standard line in Fox News. The comparison with Lincoln really shows how delusional these people really are. Lincoln never experienced a 'reversal' of popularity. His majority simply got bigger and bigger over time.

To insinuate that people (and respected Historians) who evaluate Bush at very the bottom of the barrel, are like the pro-Slavery or pro-Successionist Southerners who "over time" will change their mind is a rediculous fantasy and an insult.

Yet, the way Zion spins it, one would think both groups were equally misguided, and "Zion" and his Fox watching friends in Canada are smart enough to recognize this truth early and will be vindicatedin the future! Now that's funny.

anonymous fish


by anonymous fish on

oh my god... that is awesome!

rosie is roxy is roshan

I can help!

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

anonymous fish

wait a minute... back the "i know american history

by anonymous fish on

better than you" truck up!

as a matter of fact, zion is absolutely right.  yeah yeah yeah, he was a great president in many ways, i agreed to that. but do ya think we would have had a civil war if he weren't for him? 

for MANY people, the civil war was far less about the issue of slavery than the suppression of the rights of the south by the overly aggressive north.  lincoln did many good things but don't fool yourself by thinking that he was all about the equalities of the black people. it ain't true.  the below is a rather radical view and not necessarily one that i believe completely but the points are well made.



Whatever Q

by tsion on

as long as you are happy...lol.



Bullcrap Zion, your weasel wording is transparent

by Q on

Classic Fox News

Couple definition of "Weasel Words":

An equivocal word used to deprive a statement of its force or to evade a direct commitment.

[From the weasel's habit of sucking the contents out of an egg without breaking the shell.]

Weasel words is an informal term for words that are ambiguous and not supported by facts. They are typically used to create an illusion of clear, direct communication.
Weasel words are usually expressed with deliberate imprecision with the intention to mislead the listeners or readers into believing statements for which sources are not readily available. Tactics that are used include:
- vague generalizations

"seen" and "many" are the weasel words you throw in, when you want to spin. This is the very essence of spin.

That's why, I called it spin and not lie (Though you have made both in the past).

More spin-free Education for Zion: It was the South (Lincoln's opponents in the minority) who actually succeeded from the Union (ie. dividing).

case closed.

(Not a good day for Canadian Education system, Zion).



by tsion on

My words: Lincoln was seen by many as a divider....

Q, the "unspinable" angel of truthfulness: Lincoln was a divider... ?

Case closed.


anonymous fish

many years must pass?

by anonymous fish on

uh... try a couple millenia.  you can't honestly think that anyone, anywhere is ever going to think bush is anything but a criminal, can you?

i'll get back to you on lincoln.  i've gotta finish dinner.  :-)


Love the spin Zion, do you ever take a break?

by Q on

Lincoln was a "divider" who "made" the nation go through the civil war? Ha.

Wow! If only there was Fox news back then, you would have been the lead anchor.

It's obvious US has been getting a bad wrap when it comes to education, Zion. Your Canadian school system has also failed you big time.


I agree... that's too generous

by IRANdokht on

I think he should be indicted:



rosie is roxy is roshan

How about...

by rosie is roxy is roshan on






by tsion on

Lincoln was seen at his time as a divider who had made the nation go through a bloody civil war by many. Many years must pass before a fair and balanced evaluation of GW is made.


anonymous fish


by anonymous fish on

wins my vote for first but clearly lincoln is in the top three.

as far as bush is concerned.  can't we just forget him already!!!