WaPo: Worst president ever? Or merely 5th-worst?

The folks at the Washington Post apparently don't care if they don't see another White House reception for the next two years and one month.

Not much other way to view the symposium going on right now, trying to pin down just exactly how bad a president Bush actually is. That he's a bad president is now, apparently, a foregone conclusion at the Post--which is a little odd, since they were among the biggest cheerleaders for what is widely acknowledged as the thing that laid Bush low, the Iraq invasion and occupation. But the only question remaining seems to be: just exactly how bad?

Worse than Buchanan?

Worse than Harding?

Worse than Nixon?

Worse than a sharp stick in the eye?

Worse than "Gigli"?

Worse than Michael Richards' stand-up act?

The search for the proper yardstick is crucial.

You can read a round-up of the Bush-Bash-O-Rama here.

If you prefer to immerse yourself in the whole business at the Rotisserie League level--Is 43rd really five worse than 38th, or does it just seem that way? Was the War of 1812 worse than the Second Iraq War? Was the invasion of Grenada worse than the invasion of Haiti? (You do remember that we invaded Haiti, don't you?)--you can read the original articles here, here, here, here, and here.

I'm certainly no Bush fan, but I find this a little odd. Using the primo real estate of the Post's Sunday Outlook section to debate this while Junior's got two years left in office seems a little like the Brett Butler joke about always referring to her then-husband as "my first husband" and watching with dry amusement as he didn't get it.

Maybe, having watched the Beltway 500 cheerlead and excuse and roll over for Bush for years, I just want to see them pay a little more existential dues before getting to jump on the Bush Bashing Bandwagon. Those of us who have been here from the beginning took a lot of grief.

Maybe I'll feel better the day the Post runs a collection of essays on which mainstream news media let us down the worst since 2000.

The Post, for concealing the fact that Bob Woodward himself was one of the reporters to whom the White House leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative, even as he was on the talking-head shows saying there was nothing to the Plamegate story?

The New York Times, for letting Judith Miller routinely channel WMD disinformation during the early stages of the Iraq war?

Fox News, for . . . well, if we never counted on them, could they really let us down?

Cross-posted at Preemptive Karma.