In response to:

Was George W. Bush a "Bad" President?

greenback Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 5:54 PM
…a low interest rate. The interest rate would been better served as more diverse, and more local, and less across the board. Risk would have been better served if the valuation De Minimis would not have been raised: no measurement means that market behavior has the green light to run rampant. Government centralization of the regulations in place had much to do with the crash (Bill Clinton did that!). Between interest rates, values, and risk—the fraud, slavery, greed, socialism—a lack of interest to acknowledge something was wrong—both, wall street and main street, as well as government all played a role. There is s much to say; so much to tell; so many elements and factors to analyze. To say Bush was a Bad Economic President is simply...

That certainly seems to be the general consensus on the Left. Consider, for example, this piece by the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein. Responding to Keith Hennessey’s must-read editorial debunking the so-called “Bush is stupid” myth (a contention, I might add, he doesn’t necessarily dispute), Klein had this to say about our 43th president:

But all this just goes to show that raw intelligence is overrated. Bush was smart. Plenty of the people around him were smart. But he was a bad president. Presidential scholars rank him 38th — and, remember, there have only been 43 presidents (Barack...