How will history refer to these 8 years? An interregnum?

[garthranzz]

History - historians - will conclude, rather easily, that the 2000 presidential election was stolen, twice - once in the counting and once by a Supreme Court in which at least two of the judges should have recused themselves. Coming to what should be a common consensus, that 2004 was also stolen, though more subtly and perversely, make take some time.

But then, recognizing the illegitimacy of Bush & co, what will the 8 years be called? Will he have an asterisk by his name, in the listing of presidents, as surely Bonds and other cheats do in record books? Will he not be listed at all? Now, that would be justice - to have Obama (or Hillary Clinton) listed as the 43rd president, remove from Bush I the distinction of joining John Adams - poor John Adams must be very, very sick at this - as the only one whose son became president, and simply treat Bush as an usurper. England had no king during Cromwell's reign, and America had no president during Bush's.

My brother, a historian, listed what he thought were the A+ presidents and the F- ones. One surprise here:

A+ (in order, 1-5)
Washington
Lincoln
FDR
TR
Polk

F- (in order, worst being last)
Nixon
Hoover
Buchanan
GWB aka/dba the shrub

What's surprising, or not, is the historian's judgment of GWB = Nixon almost didn't make the F- list, because he did have some positive accomplishments. Just not enough.

[lligrd]

1. A Lost Civilization nt

[XemaSab]

2. I think, if anything, Clinton was the interregnum

:hide:

[Warpy]

5. I think so, too

He was the mildly conservative place holder between the radical GOP administrations. He didn't correct much of the mischief, but the Congress he got stuck with after 1994 did most of the additional deregulatory mischief. He was largely a place holder with no great achievements or great disasters to his name.

I just hope they don't refer to these years as the crash and dissolution of the nation.

[dysfunctional press]

3. "the final nail"

although, not for very long.

but if the insects ever evolve to a point where they have historians, they'll probably see it completely differently.

[Hissyspit]

4. These past years? "The Stupid Era In American History?" How 'bout "End Of The American Century?"

The "America Fucks Itself Decade?"

[Double T]

6. America's END TIMES.

[Brigid]

13. Could be.

I am still holding out some hope that we can stop this, but if McCain gets elected, either fairly or by the Repugs chating once again, we're screwed. I really do think this is the last chance.

[Frances]

7. I agree with the first three on the best list

I think Washington is often underrated.

I don't know any other military master who led a successful revolution and then gave up power peacefully.

I don't know enough about TR and Polk to comment on them.

[bemildred]

8. The word is "usurpation" or "coup".

What was done was NOT constitutional.

[babylonsister]

9. OK, I had to look interregnum up:

1. an interval of time between the close of a sovereign's reign and the accession of his or her normal or legitimate successor.
2. any period during which a state has no ruler or only a temporary executive.
3. any period of freedom from the usual authority.
4. any pause or interruption in continuity.

But America had no president during *? You've got my vote.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Welcome to DU

Interesting avatar you have. Please check out the DU sport page. You might like it.

I don't think there is any doubt but that I regard Bush the Frat Boy as a usurper and not a bona fide president. Impeachment would have been necessary only to humor those who were deluded into thinking otherwise.

In any case, it is more important in the coming years that We, the People, and those we really elect to govern us, will expend our energy in cleaning up the mess Bush and Cheney leave behind than to squabble about whether he was really president or not. For all intents and purposes, he was. He assumed the authority of the office and abused its power and even asserted powers the president does not have. He started a war based on a pack of lies, attempted to scuttle Social Security, assert the right to unilaterally define the depth of "our" commitment to Iraq without congressional oversight and really seems to think that anything he agrees to with his own puppets in Baghdad will be binding on his successor. He committed sins of omission as well, such as doing nothing about climate change except denying it exists. That, too, will have to be remedied.

The surprise to me on your brother's list of F- presidents is the omission of Harding and the inclusion of Hoover. While no candidate for Mt. Rushmore, Hoover did belatedly react to the Great Depression, finally realizing that it was no ordinary commercial panic (as recessions were called at that time). As for Nixon, although he can point to China, he is better known for two other thins: taking his sweet time to extricate US forces from Vietnam and for all that getting no better settlement than one he might have gotten the day he took office; and, like Bush the Frat Boy, being an active participant in the crimes of his administration. So he's no surprise to me.

[garthranzz]

11. OOps. Meant Harding not Hoover

My mistake. I knew that, but the Three Stooges of the 1920's are sometimes hard to distinguish. Let's see, the seven dwarfs had - whoever. The 1920's had greedy, sleepy and dopey? We can do better than that.

I got tired of the Saints avatar. Not of the Saints, just having that as my avatar.

I'll check it out.

(And thanks for the welcome, but I've been a member since Nov 2004.)

[Tektonik]

12. I wish we had Nixon instead of Bush

[rcsl1998]

14. .