I think anybody even rating Clinton's presidency the worst is a moron because enough time hasn't passed.
I'm sure Vince Foster, the Branch Davidians, and 500,000 dead Iraqis love the "peace" Bill Clinton gave us.
>61% of historians are morons. How is Bush the worst when the predecessors of him who've taken similar actions (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Johnson), are the best?
Because they were all more effective than Bush. They're not ranking him poorly on expansion of powers alone.
Effective in what? Reducing liberty?
If you consider Social Security, Social Reform, the Abolishment of Slavery, the Equal Rights Amendment and the League of Nations to be reductions in freedoms then yes. Not that they are and if they were then those reductions in freedom should have happened.
