The Washington Post carries a total of five op-ed pieces today discussing the likely historical ranking of George Bush in the Presidential gallery; and while, as far as I'm concerned, he doesn't belong in that line due to illegitimacy, they make for fascinating reading. In descending order of obloquy, the pieces are:
Vincent J. Cannato [1] argues that the test of history requires a historical timescale, and that it's possible that Bush could be spared the worst-ever ranking due to a haze of distance or with an eye to successes that may yet appear. This most obvious reactionary lickspittle amongst the five makes the best-case assumption that Bush's legacy will be 'mixed', thereby demonstrating that even amongst the right, there is a dawning realization of catastrophe.
Michael Lind [2] makes the case that Bush ranks merely as fifth-worst, and offers up James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and James Madison as greater catastrophes.
Douglas Brinkley [3] also notes that there are two more agonizingly long years to go which may offer Bush redemption, but
[t]hough Bush may be viewed as a laughingstock, he won't have the zero-integrity factors [sic] that have kept Nixon and Harding at the bottom in the presidential sweepstakes. Oddly, the president whom Bush most reminds me of is Herbert Hoover, whose name is synonymous with failure to respond to the Great Depression. When the stock market collapsed, Hoover, for ideological reasons, did too little. When 9/11 happened, Bush did too much, attacking the wrong country at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. He has joined Hoover as a case study on how not to be president.
David Greenberg [4], pending the next two years, sticks with Nixon in the bottom spot, for the time being.
Eric Foner [5] keeps it simple, with the self-explanatory title He's the worst ever.
And to think that there was a time when some interested parties were flogging a 'Bush is like FDR and Churchill' storyline.
[6] | 
[7] | 
[8] | 
[9] | 
[10] | 
[11] | 
[12] | 
[13] | 
[14]