Ad hominem. There are no sources on politics that you would trust to give fair portrayal.
Worst post ever? No, but the Rolling Stone on politics - c'mon, I'd trust them to give a fair portrayal of Bush about as much as I'd trust Cooley to rank law schools . . .
True - the attack was ad hominem, but solely out of laziness. All of the points the author makes have counterpoints, I'm simply not going to go through them all and retort them. In virtually every sentence, the author uses loaded language. Take, for example: "the Bush administration . . . threatens to overturn the Framers' healthy tension in favor of presidential absolutism." You can argue that this is the case, or you could argue that too much power currently resides in the congressional and judicial branches, and that Bush is balancing it back out.
I attempt to formulate my opinions from a wide variety of sources - when short on time, I try to at least keep up with the Washington Post and the Washington Times; when I have more time, I expand to sources such as the BBC, National Review, Slate, and many others. But based on the political arguments I've read in the Stone, I don't read any more - they're too predictable. I'm also suspicious of any author who does a story on the worst presidents of all time and fails to mention incompetently corrupt presidents such as Grant and Harding.
I think the president will certainly be remembered as a simple man, but he's likely to be remembered very differently by different types of people. There are still farmers in remote regions of China where Mao is remembered fondly, even I would argue that his domestic policies proved far more dangerous than Bush's.
And if the Middle East were to become broadly democratic, our improved relations with them and a reduced threat of terrorism would be considered worth the cost to many people; the cost-benefit here is highly subjective. I never said I think it's likely that the Iraq war will be a good investment in the long run, but I do think it's possible. Also, the future is so difficult to predict - attempting to rate him amongst the all-time presidents while he's still in office is, IMO, a waste of time. Notice that in a recent LSD poll of one's favorite presidents in US history, Clinton was the top vote getter. 100 years from now, nobody will remember anything that he accomplished (although he did a great job of keeping us on our economic course, that's not what legacies are made of).
Iraq will be Bush's signature issue in the long term - everything else you mentioned is a mere swinging of the pendulum, likely to slip through the cracks in the history books.
i think this is an excellent post. i think bush will be remember 100 years from now as an average president, but legacies change well after a president has left office as later events put his presidency in prespective.