C-SPAN 2009 Historians Presidents Leadership Survey

[aerosolben]

Released for Presidents Day:

http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/default.aspx

Summary:
http://www.c-span.org/Images/PresidentialSurvey/TopTen.jpg

Pulled the link from Digg (http://www.digg.com), which is predictably of angry teenagers wondering why Bush isn't last.

Personal thoughts:
Bush is probably as low as he'll ever fall on the list (and probably in line with where he'd be elsewhere, maybe. I would expect him to probably rise slightly in coming years as history distances us from recent events, though I wouldn't be surprised if he remains at the bottom of modern presidents until someone more recent surpasses him, or there is an unexpected development in the Middle East or similar which vindicates him.

Pretty decent list, all things considered. Polk and Reagan can switch places, though.

[gdnp]

I am curious about Kennedy above Jefferson. Jefferson was clearly the more important historical figure, but much of what he did was outside his term as president.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Jefferson was a horrible president, he totally flip flopped on the issues, after he became president.

The Louisiana purchase he sent to Congress was like, "Yeah, I didn't have the power to do this, but this is a really good deal!"

[HereticHulk]

W should be dead last IMO.

Not much could possibly vindicate him.

[funk de fino]

I wonder where Ron Paul is on the list..........

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

W should be dead last IMO.

Not much could possibly vindicate him.

The survey here was specifically rating leadership. But either way, it would be awfully hard to seriously argue that Bush should be dead last.

Buchanan sat around and watched as the entire country literally disintegrated.

Unless the United States happens to cease to exist in the next few years as a direct result of something Bush did, it would be awfully hard to claim he belongs below Buchanan. Pierce and Fillmore are in close to the same boat as Buchanan in that regard.

[aerosolben]

The survey here was specifically rating leadership. But either way, it would be awfully hard to seriously argue that Bush should be dead last.

Buchanan sat around and watched as the entire country literally disintegrated.

Unless the United States happens to cease to exist in the next few years as a direct result of something Bush did, it would be awfully hard to claim he belongs below Buchanan. Pierce and Fillmore are in close to the same boat as Buchanan in that regard.
Not to mention Johnson, who set race relations back about 100 years after the war was over.

And there needs to be a lot of trials before we can fairly judge the Bush administration more corrupt than Harding's.

[Travis]

Isn't it kinda mean to have Harrison fourth from last? How much bad could he have done in just one month of office?

[Texas]

I am curious about Kennedy above Jefferson. Jefferson was clearly the more important historical figure, but much of what he did was outside his term as president.Never underestimate the power of mythology.

[UnrepentantSinner]

They dedicated a part of Washington Journal to this yesterday morning. I watched bits and pieces but wish I'd watched more of it.

[Travis]

I always think it's interesting how respected Truman is now, placing fifth on this list and almost always in the top ten of any list of greatest Presidents, considering how unpopular he was when he left office.

[gdnp]

I always think it's interesting how respected Truman is now, placing fifth on this list and almost always in the top ten of any list of greatest Presidents, considering how unpopular he was when he left office.

What was the source of his unpopularity? The economy? Korea?