Over at his blog Shaun Mullen makes the case that Bush edges out Johnson, Harding and Buchanan for the coveted Worst President Ever trophy. The basic argument goes thusly: 1) the other WPE contenders held power when America was either at peace or a relatively small world power, 2) he has failed to achieve practically any of his policy agenda despite controlling both houses of congress, a commanding public approval mandate (at one point anyway) and a compliant press and 3) declaring that a major war will be the most important thing that he does as president and then screwing it up. Of course there is more so go read the rest.
To me the scope of Bush’s awfulness is simply too cinematic to fit into a blog post or even a single-volume reference text. As I have pointed out before we need something more like a wiki to catalogue it all. With a wiki people interested in say, the gutting of congressional comity rules, our bizarro-world science policies or the underpants gnome planning for postwar Iraq (1. Defeat Saddam. 2. ??? 3. Profit!) can hash out what they know without taking personal responsibility for the whole story.
The rationale here is that each medium has strengths and weaknesses. Blog posts are great for percussive bursts about a specific topic or event but bog down when the writer tries to get too comprehensive. Books are great polemical tools because you can really get into the weeds of an issue but even then you have page limits and the specific interests and disinterests of a particular writer. Ask fifteen experts why Bush is WPE and you will get ten or twelve answers based on their personal area of interest, and I am not buying that many books. For that sort of question it seems like a wiki is really the only way to go. If RedState wants to start their own wiki about how Democrats are worse than an Earth-killing asteroid then great, the more the merrier.
Ask and ye shall receive! Via a commenter, this wiki from PFAW could be very promising.