"Presidential Leadership: The Rankings," OpinionJournal, 12 September, gives and James Tarantino,"How's He Doing," interprets the results from a survey of 130 prominent professors of economics, history, law, and political science, which asked them to rate American presidents on a scale of 1-5. Sponsored by the Federalist Society and the Wall Street Journal, the survey was taken in February/March 2005. I'd quibble with some of the rankings, i.e., I'd give John Quincey Adams a higher rating and John F. Kennedy a lower rating. Discussion focuses on George W. Bush's place in the listing: distinctly average at 19th out of 40 presidents, but it's an average achieved from remarkable polarization of opinion.

Were the poll taken of the same respondents in September 2005, I suspect that he'd fall even lower on the list. John Zogby recently polled public opinion and found that, if George W. Bush were matched against any of his predecessors since Jimmy Carter, he would lose. Even at his low ebb in public opinion, however, Bush still beats John Kerry by one percentage point. As Glenn Reynolds comments at Instapundit, it underscores what a weak candidate John Kerry was.

Ralph E. Luker - 9/12/2005

Sure, but that's the point of the fact that Bush losses when matched against all four of his immediate predecessors. With the president's approval ratings at 38/42% positive and Kerry not having the responsibility of Iraq/Katrina, I'd expect Kerry to be doing a whole lot better than running neck and neck.

Jonathan Dresner - 9/12/2005

Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say that it underscores what a weak candidacy Kerry presented.

Also, the margin of error on the poll was almost 3%, so a one percent margin isn't likely to be statistically significant.

Perhaps, considering that Kerry's been out of the spotlight and Bush has maintained a constant campaign on issues and themes, it points out just how really weak Bush is, if he can't pull further ahead.