He's at 43%. Carter's at 54%. Clinton's way up at 66%. H.W. has 59%.
I don't trust CNN polls. They had Walker and Barrett dead even as the polls closed on June 5th. So, let's just do an Althouse poll:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९४ टिप्पण्या:
If you don't trust them why post them?
It's time to start listing Sweet Old Barack as an Ex-President.
I didn't see Gore listed. Didn't he win in 2000?
Jimmy C is getting crushed.
Clinton wants Obama to lose so 15 years from now Obama also gets crushed in such a poll.
To Bill, it's always about Bill.
Went with the pack (#2), but Willie is kind of a dead heat with Bucketmouth, as he left a mess equal to Carter's (EnRon, DotBomb, subprime mortgages, War On Terror), as well as dragging the country down to new lows of ethics, accountability, and moral standards.
Best Bush 43, reason: did more than any President to change global landscape for the better by overthrowing hostile dictatorships in Iraq and Afghanistan and rather than simply propping up a new dictatorship to take their place, worked to give the peoples of those countries the chance to elect humane democratic governments instead.
Worst Clinton, reason: was president during a time of relative peace and prosperity and squandered it.
As of 96 votes, only 4 have NOT chosen Carter as worst...
I think Carter gets a lot of residual good will from his Habitat for Humanity work. I think Bush I & II and Clinton are much better though, in that while Clinton talks policy, he seems less shrill and partisan about it. Plus, Clinton has the whole relief for Haiti with the Bushhitler thing in his plus column.
CNN is so full os shit.
The only goodwill Carter gets is from those who never lived under his Administration as adults. Four more years of Obama and W's ratings will be sky-high when compared to Obama. Clinton can thank his lucky star that he had a Gingrich to keep him from passing Hillarycare and other lefty projects. Otherwise he to would have been in the toilet. Remember folks, if Clinton had been that popular Gore would have won in a landslide as the 3rd Clinton Administration. He wooly won the first time thanks to Perot. The second time he barely beat a tired old man in a 3 way race. Clinton's popularity was overhyped then and is now.
Carter gets voted the worst and I'm not sure that he *was* the worst while he was president. He accomplished some pretty significant things when it came to foreign policy, didn't he? I was pretty darn young, so I may be remembering wrong.
But he had a terrible time domestically and we had the energy crisis and huge lines (for real) at gas pumps, and then the Iran embassy thing and the disastrous attempt at rescue.
So... that's while he's president...
Afterward, yes, he gets lots of credit for Habitat for Humanity, but that doesn't say a thing about his term as *president*, and he seems to have become utterly delusional when it comes to announcing that genocidal dictators are decent people who honestly win their elections, but the usual suspects won't notice that when he's got the proper anti-Israel attitudes, which he's got.
you nailed it cubanbob. Carter lost as an incumbent in a 3 way race with 2 republicans. that's rejection.
Well, Carter easily as worst, but I can't wrap my head around associating any of the others with the word best.
The reason Carter polls highly is because the American people are very forgiving and they want to not believe a former POTUS is a traitor.
Carter gave us double digit inflation, interest rates, and unemployment. As for the Bushes and Clinton, Clinton was easily the worst (he never got over 50% of the vote).
I agree associating "the best" with these guys is difficult.
Synova,
Carter definitely inherited an ungodly mess -- is there honestly a single thing about the Seventies that doesn't suck? -- and there is a case to be made (Megan McArdle made it, IIRC, a year or two back) that he did a fairly good job with the crappy hand he was dealt.
I'm not so sure; I think things in all sorts of places might've gone much differently (and better) had Reagan's 1976 primary challenge against Ford succeeded.
I have mixed feelings, too, about his post-Presidential career. Habitat for Humanity is a good thing. His ever-more-harsh criticism of Israel and his general self-positioning as America's official foreign-policy conscience I do not appreciate.
"The reason Carter polls highly is because the American people are very forgiving and they want to not believe a former POTUS is a traitor."
Who has ever suggested Carer is a traitor...aside from you, and why do you suggest Carter is a traitor?
Carte was a mediocre president, without question...but he is clearly the best among (a poor pack of) living ex-Presidents.
I can't wait until Obama becomes eligible for that poll.
Oh, and here's a brutally accurate takedown of a rotten current living President, from today's COUNTERPUNCH, and it does not invoke the silly canard that he is a "lefist/socialist/communist" that is so beloved of paranoids, fanatics, and children:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/06/07/president-cat-food/
Did you all find those weapons of mass destruction yet? What about the billions that disappeared from our IRA's back in 2007? Mission accomplished.
Maybe this will get Carter to back Romney, so that he can immediately move up to 2nd worst when Obama joins the list of ex-Presidents.
Actually, rating living ex-Presidents as "best" is impossible, no matter that the question is relative; more accurately, we must define them as "worst" and "least worst."
Bruce,
Carter endorsing Romney? Won't that swing the election in Obama's favor???
Habitat for Humanity is not always a good thing. It's basically a home-builder. Why are they better than Lennar Corporation?
Carter was an awful POTUS and has managed to eclipse himself as an even worse ex-POTUS.
Cook needs to take a baby step to the Right if he doesn't want to fall off the edge of the world (as the Kingston Trio once said, "You're all alone, y'know").
"Carte was a mediocre president, without question...but he is clearly the best among (a poor pack of) living ex-Presidents."
Even he couldn't type such nonsense without losing control.
Carter endorsing Romney? Won't that swing the election in Obama's favor???
If recent history is any guide, Obama can ensure Romney's losing the election by endorsing him.
COUNTERPUNCH
Why the all-caps? Does that somehow confer heft, gravitas and credibility?
In a Dickensian mood: I would Clinton both the best and the worst of living presidents.
Carter definitely inherited an ungodly mess -- is there honestly a single thing about the Seventies that doesn't suck? -- and there is a case to be made (Megan McArdle made it, IIRC, a year or two back) that he did a fairly good job with the crappy hand he was dealt.
I agree, I know it’s popular to blame/credit the President for whatever happened while they were in office regardless of how much they had to do with it but Carter did inherit a mess and he did some things right – deregulation of the transportation sector being pretty high among them and also Volecker was willing to make a lot of tough decisions that arguably brought inflation to a heel. I don’t agree with a lot of Carter’s policies but one thing I think he deserves credit for is that he was probably one of the last Presidents we’ve had who was willing to push for policies that resulted in short-term pain for which he took the brunt of the blame because he truly believed we’d be better off in the long run. Even if I disagreed with some of those policies, it’s far preferable to the “kick the can down the road until after I’m out of office” mentality that seems to dominate both parties.
"-- is there honestly a single thing about the Seventies that doesn't suck? --"
That was elementary and jr. high (we hadn't discovered "middle school")... so yes, there was honestly not a single thing about the Seventies that didn't suck.
;-)
"Why the all-caps? Does that somehow confer heft, gravitas and credibility?"
All caps: because it's a title.
The site's "heft" and "credibility" derive from it's excellent commentary on current affairs. It does not aspire to "gravitas."
try link again
Lawn sign after the election in 2008.
"-- is there honestly a single thing about the Seventies that doesn't suck? --"
Farrah Fawcett (unless you asked nicely)
Bush's core failing was never explaining the strategy of the war on terror. And it's so easy to do.
Side failings: belief that the public wants bigger government, belief that Mexicans ought to displace American assimilative culture because they're such nice people.
I chose Clinton/Carter, with as asterisk, "Clinton hemmed in by a GOP Congress."
"Farrah Fawcett"
Okay. Farrah Fawcett didn't suck.
But being a girl trying to make your hair *do* that sucked a little bit.
;)
Worst Clinton, reason: was president during a time of relative peace and prosperity and squandered it.
How does one squander peace?
"-- is there honestly a single thing about the Seventies that doesn't suck? --"
Every single week in Nov 1975 in my hometown was a sunny and warm. (It rained on the weekends, as I recall)
In November!!!
That definitely didn't suck.
As of 96 votes, only 4 have NOT chosen Carter as worst...
Even the Democrats had had enough of Carter over his interference in North Korea. It takes a lot for a cabinet member to call a former president a "treasonous prick". Nobody will 'fess up to having said it, but my money is on Albright.
While he gets some credit for Habitat for Humanity, he should take some heat for the Carter Center's certification of fraudulent elections all over the planet.
One thing to remember is the public tends to raise its opinion of presidents as time passes. Bush II hasn't had much time to benefit from that yet.
"-- is there honestly a single thing about the Seventies that doesn't suck? --"
A big-nosed Canadian bass player hooked up with a blond Canadian and they did coffeehouse gigs that started in the early seventies. By the mid-seventies, they had found a drummer and got a recording contract, but the drummer only lasted one album. Shortly thereafter, still in the seventies, they found a guy that went on to be one of the greatest drummers in the world, eventually leading to a decades-long career and included hits like "Tom Sawyer" and "Spirit Of The Radio" among many others.
Rush started in the seventies.
Things in/from the 70s that didn't suck:
Funk
"The 6 Million Dollar Man"
"Star Wars"
The classical music-influenced style of guitar/synth rock music typified by:
Queen, Foreigner, Kansas, Heart, Styx, Journey, Toto
Synova,
That was elementary and jr. high (we hadn't discovered "middle school")... so yes, there was honestly not a single thing about the Seventies that didn't suck.
Damn, you're my age!
No, but seriously: Vietnam, the Cambodian genocide, wage and price controls, stagflation, gas rationing, hair (I don't mean the musical Hair,; that had its points, and belonged to the 60s anyway, but my God the sideburn epidemic and the shagginess), and OMG everything fashion-related from interior design to clothing. James Lileks had a running series awhile back of excerpts from the Sears Catalog, 1973 or -4 (forget which). You could merely look and weep.
Throw in CHiPS, blaxploitation, and the disaster-film craze. Though by now those last actually have a sort of camp appeal to them. As Mark Steyn said somewhere, those were the days when you called 911 and OJ Simpson showed up, as opposed to the later days when you called 911 because OJ Simpson had shown up.
"-- is there honestly a single thing about the Seventies that doesn't suck? --"
In fourth grade someone brought in Elton John's The Bitch is Back on 45 and managed to play it before it was taken away. That didn't suck.
The three "Carter: Worst" choices currently have a cumulative 92% of the vote, the biggest landslide win of Mr. Peanut's career.
Note that this is only valid until January 2013, when there will be a new sheriff in town as worst ex-president.
Nathan Alexander,
Funk
I'll have to pass on that one; haven't heard enough.
"The 6 Million Dollar Man"
Enh, OK. I liked it (and "The Bionic Woman"), but I was a kid.
"Star Wars"
That I'll grant you. I watched it on broadcast TV a few weeks back and was surprised how primitive the effects were, but at the time, and in theaters, it was quite something.
The classical music-influenced style of guitar/synth rock music typified by:
Queen, Foreigner, Kansas, Heart, Styx, Journey, Toto
Leave the "classical-music-influenced" out of it. If classical music consisted entirely of slow ballads, I probably wouldn't be a classical musician. Still, there are some guilty pleasures of mine from that lot. I didn't hear any of them in the 70s, only on radio in the 80s.
wv: lacerac 22. The drug for when you've just cut your finger in half.
What about Yes, ELP, King Crimson. PROG ROCK!
"What about Yes, ELP, King Crimson. PROG ROCK!"
More reasons the 70s sucked! Punk rock 4ever!
Actually, my first ever concert was YES's CLOSE TO THE EDGE TOUR, (their opening band was then brand-new Eagles). They were great, but that was their last good album.
I saw ELP on their Brain Salad Surgery tour...they sucked.
King Crimson..meh.
Like it or not, despite some admirable personal traits, George Dubya Bush left the country in a mess when he left. Just like Carter. That is his legacy.
Unlike with Carter, we didn't have a Reagan coming to the rescue. Just an unqualified speechifier and jive artist who you wanted to have a beer with. And an angry old man that promised us several wonderful new wars - the fiscal collapse under Dubya and two ongoing never-ending Neocon wars of nation-building for people that hated us nonwithstanding.
McCain during his inept campaign, announced he wanted War with Iran, War with Lebanon, War with Yemen, War with Russia over Georgia, War over Darfur. A few Pacific Islands needed war, too, if you looked into McCains talks..
People look at the Reagan and Clinton Presidencies as the better times. Jobs, America going in the right direction. There was a certain timing - both were lucky they had Tech bubbles and new innovations creating new wealth and were able to keep us out of draining wars. And Wall Street didn't stab them in the back.
But Obama is like Carter following Ford.
A bumbler replaced by someone in over his head.
I visited the Truman "Little White House" in Key West recently and one factoid pointed out there is that Truman left office with an approximate 30% approval rating. But when rankings were done in the 1990's he ranks among the top 5-7 as ranked by approval level. And Truman had the most low-key post-Presidency of anyone. He was the antithesis of Bill Clinton in his years out of the White House, he wasn't out there telling the world how great he was every freaking day.
So, time adds perspective and perspective changes everything. I hope G.W. lives long enough to see the curve bend for him. He won't be one of the greats, but doesn't deserve to be ranked last, certainly not below Carter or Clinton.
Re: Clinton, I agree with George Will's assessment: He wasn't the worst President we have ever had, but he clearly was the worst person to serve as President.
I would put BushI/Clinton about even as the best. Bush II above Carter for the other 2.
In January 1978 we had a ton or snowdays. That definitely didn't suck and that was the 70s too. Awesome! And let me tell ya: Easter of 1976: 94 degrees! Awesome!
I would just like to tell our Prog-Rock ambassadors that just because there are 88 keys on most synthesizers, you needn't play them all...
in one song.
I would just like to tell our Prog-Rock ambassadors that just because there are 88 keys on most synthesizers, you needn't play them all...
in one song.
Heresy.
That's a nice poll you have there Althouse. But you didn't give us a chance to vote for Obama in the "worst" category.
I don't trust CNN polls. They had Walker and Barrett dead even as the polls closed on June 5th.
Ironically, the Carter-Reagan polls in 1980 also had the race dead even.
Carter's popularity now tells me that CNN poll-takers are evil. Also, the public school union teachers who are indoctrinating our kids are also evil.
I remember Carter as horrible. The nightly news was all, "It's Day 169 of the Hostage Crisis." Ineffectual, incompetent, impotent. Obama's still not as bad as Carter. He's way better at assassination, for instance.
In the School of the Future smart kids will ask why President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for drone strikes and assassinations. And the liberal indoctrinators will be forced to say, "It's called peace through strength."
It all kind of sucks if you're an innocent Muslim living in Afghanistan but hey, at least Obama didn't make them swallow water.
The only people who wouldn't choose Carter as the worst are those who weren't around during the four years of malaise. Stagflation, Iranian disaster. It was horrible.
I can't believe how many people picked Bush II as the best. Seriously? Wasn't the growth of government spending and deficits labeled "compassionate conservatism"? Perhaps an Iraq war that really wasn't necessary?
If Obama is defeated, then Carter's reign as the worst will be over.
Carter definitely inherited an ungodly mess
What made the 1970's so horrible was a couple of decades of a liberal Congress and a liberal President. Johnson-Nixon-Ford-Carter was Liberal-RINO-RINO-liberal. Ford didn't actually understand how inflation works. Nixon was a price-fixing idiot. The Republican party in the 1970's was an embarrassment. Nixon just proves that a Republican squish can violate the Constitution as much as the next guy. He's a Commie-kissing asshole. And Henry Kissinger might possibly be Satan. Whenever Kissinger opens his mouth I cringe at the evil that's about to come out. Can we kick these fuckers out of the Republican party? Please? Also you can have James Baker and his green power tie. We'll trade you all of them straight up for JFK. You know, the anti-Communist tax-cutter who got us into Vietnam? The Bay of Pigs guy who wanted to assassinate Castro with a cigar? And who insisted that we plant our flag on the fucking moon? We'll take that guy. You can keep his brother, the swimmer.
Coolidge makes them all look like pigmies.
Re: Clinton, I agree with George Will's assessment: He wasn't the worst President we have ever had, but he clearly was the worst person to serve as President.
-------------
Give me a competent person who surrounds themselves with able people and generally makes the right decisions (JFK, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton) even if they have certain personal "character challenges" - over a Carter, Dubya, or Obama - anyday.
So what if JFK cheated on his wife, had orgies, took drugs? So what if all his kids describe Reagan as a non-loving, aloof piss-poor parent?
++++++++++++++++
Saint Croix - "Can we kick these fuckers out of the Republican party? Please?"
You are little different than the black racist, socialist, Green Nazi, gov employee unions, and progressive Jewish money bundler coalition of the Democrat Party that seeks to purge out the traitorous DINOs like Clinton, Lieberman, Ben Nelson.
Up until now, Carter was the worst president in my life-time. Truman was the first president I remember. He was the first to ride in a helicopter—I saw it in the news reels at the movies. Carter was the last Democrat I ever voted for. Obama may turn out to be worse. It depends on the next few months. I don't think I will vote for a Democrat ever again. I didn't vote for Obama or McCain, I voted for Bob Barr.
Saint Croix,
Ford didn't actually understand how inflation works.
Ford once said that there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never would be under a Ford Administration. I mean, he was a likable guy, but there are limits as to what you can really take in a head of state.
Cedarford,
Re: Clinton, I agree with George Will's assessment: He wasn't the worst President we have ever had, but he clearly was the worst person to serve as President.
I doubt the last part, because we've had some serious pieces of work in that office. But, yes, Clinton is a scoundrel and a lech. That puts him roughly on par with JFK, and I think Clinton was the better President.
btw, Cedarford, must you work evil Jews into absolutely everything?
"The only people who wouldn't choose Carter as the worst are those who weren't around during the four years of malaise. Stagflation, Iranian disaster. It was horrible."
I see Carter as the "least worst" of a rotten bunch, and I was around then, and in fact the '76 election was the first in which I could vote. I voted for Ford, and then for Reagan in '80, (my last--and regretted--vote for a Republican).
"Worst" is easy; Carter. "Best", in this list, is difficult to measure; it's a shame that they can't ALL lose.
Robert Cook,
I see Carter as the "least worst" of a rotten bunch, and I was around then, and in fact the '76 election was the first in which I could vote. I voted for Ford, and then for Reagan in '80, (my last--and regretted--vote for a Republican).
We had sorta-kinda debates in my middle school social studies class in 1980. I was a John Anderson debater. No one really wanted to be a Carter debater. Many people wanted to be Reagan debaters. (This is Orange County, NY -- mostly blue-collar, a lot of commuters to NYC.)
wv: 12 ookshint. Honestly, wv, this is getting silly.
The only people who wouldn't choose Carter as the worst are those who weren't around during the four years of malaise. Stagflation, Iranian disaster. It was horrible.
Do you have something against sweaters?
So how well did these guys really do with the economy?
Five former Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country's indebtedness.
Dave,
Five former Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country's indebtedness.
And you leave out Harry Truman's predecessor and GWB's successor why, exactly? And why Truman but not Eisenhower?
Dude, even cherry-picking is supposed to involve a mite of subtlety.
"Michelle Dulak Thomson said...you leave out Harry Truman's predecessor and GWB's successor why, exactly? And why Truman but not Eisenhower?"
First - FDR had the depression and WWII. His first focus was on getting the economy on track. When they prematurely tried to deal with increased debt (in '37 I think) it triggered the second dip). Then the war came and necessary government spending lifted the nation out of the depression for good.
Second - This isn't my observation - I just get a kick out of it - BUT I'm pretty certain that Eisenhower's record would be in line with Truman and Kennedy as that was the trajectory during those years. You have to go back to Nixon to find a Republican president who had a positive record. But then again Eisenhower and Nixon would be called RINO's by today's Republican majority.
He accomplished some pretty significant things when it came to foreign policy, didn't he?
Well, yes, Synova. He did an awful lot of screwing over the US with wrongheaded foreign policy.
I see Carter as the "least worst" of a rotten bunch
Well, yes, Robert, but you're someone who treats Counterpunch as something other than the sewer of idiocy it is.
I thought we were supposed to rate their ex-presidencies, and the best was easy--Bush II--because he's been almost invisible. Worst is a toss-up between Clinton and Carter, but only because Carter's had more time--remember how he betrayed Clinton over Haiti and N Korea? I'm sure they hate each other.
Robert Cook voted for Reagan!!!
Then he lost his mind.
First - FDR had the depression and WWII.
The US economy started growing against a few months before FDR took office. Just an observation.
Eisenhower and Nixon would be called RINO
Quite possibly. Then again, FDR, Truman and Kennedy were much too right-wing on national defense to ever win office as Democrats today. Also, I kind of doubt the regulations FDR put in place to exclude non-whites from the workforce would play well in the modern Democratic Party. :)
"synthesizers"
If you're referring to Moogs and other producers of synthetic sounds, you should be aware that true prog rock bands used mellotrons (which used actual recordings of the sounds from the instruments). All others were imitators.
I will let Robert Cook's hate speech ("Meh") against a truly great band go unreported to the authorities. He's entitled to his opinion. But any band that completely improvises a song as beautiful as "Trio" live onstage (bonus points if you know why an improvised song with only 3 performers has 4 people listed as the songwriters) is way beyond almost every other band that has ever existed.
Sorry for contributing to the threadjack, but something had to be done. The standard is high, I know, but I believe it was met.
"Revenant said..FDR, Truman and Kennedy were much too right-wing on national defense to ever win office as Democrats today"
An interesting thought, though not really born out by the facts. Just look at President Obama who despite opposing the Iraq invasion has been anything but a "dove."
The move of the Republican party to the right (some say extreme right) has been commented on by many moderate Republicans even a few who used to be considered conservative.
An interesting thought, though not really born out by the facts.
Oh, the Bush/FDR parallel works brilliantly, actually.
America is attacked. The President decides to prioritize a war against a fascist dictatorship that had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks, and posed zero military threat to us, but was technically at war with us -- because doing so suited long-standing policy goals of his. A lengthy and extremely expensive war followed, followed in turn by a long and expensive occupation (going on 70 years in some places). Ultimately the war had the effect of encouraging a much more dangerous and murderous enemy that later Presidents had to deal with.
I would say that FDR was the original neo-conservative, but that's not really true -- Woodrow "make the world safe for democracy" Wilson deserves that title.
Anyway, you are certainly right that Obama has had his own military adventures -- the point is, he had to lie about them to get the nomination. If he had said up front that he planned to intervene militarily in third-world nations and launch an aggressive assassination campaign against foreign Muslims, Hillary Clinton would have taken the nomination from him handily. :)
I wanted to add one note:
The move of the Republican party to the right (some say extreme right) has been commented on by many moderate Republicans even a few who used to be considered conservative.
When people whine about the good old days of "moderate" Republicans, they're referring to the years between 1932 and 1980, when the Democrats had virtually undisputed control of Congress and won the Presidency eight out of twelve times.
Weirdly enough, since the Republican Party began this supposed move to the "extreme right" it has enjoyed a level of electoral success not seen since the postwar era -- the post CIVIL war era, that is. :)
"...Robert, but you're someone who treats Counterpunch as something other than the sewer of idiocy it is."
Easy to say, harder to demonstrate.
You are little different than the black racist, socialist, Green Nazi, gov employee unions, and progressive Jewish money bundler coalition of the Democrat Party
What can we get for C-4? Anything? I'll trade C-4 for Scoop Jackson's sock.
The move of the Democrat party to the left (some say extreme left) has been commented on by many moderate Democrats even a few who used to be considered liberal.
This is a fun game. We should play again some time.
Just look at President Obama who despite opposing the Iraq invasion has been anything but a "dove."
True, but if he'd actually told his supporters how he would govern - Gitmo detentions, drone assassination lists, etc, he would never have been elected.
The move of the Republican party to the right (some say extreme right) has been commented on by many moderate Republicans even a few who used to be considered conservative.
You have to be pretty out of touch to think the Republicans are anything like extreme right. They're taking us to the same place the Democrats are - an insolvent welfare state with vastly increased influence over all aspects of life. They're just taking us there at a slower pace.
I tell you, I told you, and I will tell you again:
You're ALL following behind me,...
During the Bush speech where the unveiling his and his wife's portrait took place at the WH, I was literally begging him to belt out, "Miss me yet?"
Carter must have felt the tremendous weight being lifted off his shoulders that he is no longer the worst president that has ever existed in this country now that Urkel has usurped that title.
Dave,
I think if you are going to go back as far as Truman, you must admit the existence of Eisenhower and Nixon, rather than comparing "all the Democratic Presidents since 1945" with "the last four Republican Presidents" (i.e., starting the clock at 1975).
It's an ingenious argument of yours, that Eisenhower only coasted for eight years between Truman and JFK, so that he doesn't deserve the credit you gave them for achieving the same results.
And he and Nixon were both RINOs anyway, yes? Well, by modern standards Nixon was, with all that wage-and-price-control nonsense. But you don't get to write him out of the history of the Republican Party for not being Republican enough for your rarefied nose. He was a rather prominent figure for a considerable time.
If his economic figures don't fit your map of "Democrats for the win," just say that he and the unfortunate Eisenhower -- doomed to be spliced between two Democrats and therefore not to get any credit for his eight years in office, because obviously everything would have been exactly the same if (say) Elvis Presley had been President all through the 50s ...
Anyway, just do the debt analysis you did with everyone from Truman forward, only this time include Eisenhower, Nixon, and Obama. Why not?
I sure hope Michelle Dulak Thomson keeps posting at Althouse.
"And he and Nixon were both RINOs anyway, yes? Well, by modern standards Nixon was, with all that wage-and-price-control nonsense. But you don't get to write him out of the history of the Republican Party for not being Republican enough for your rarefied nose. He was a rather prominent figure for a considerable time."
Yes, the GOP used to be much less conservative than it is now.
MDT's comment reminds me that the RINO expression is odd. Wouldn't it make more sense for us to say CINO, conservative in name only? The GOP is a big tent national party to which about a third of the electorate belongs. Of course the GOP contains voters with quite different ideological views. The GOP in Massachusetts has to be quite different from the GOP in Texas if it is to compete politically in Mass
Conservatism, OTOH, is a political philosophy, not a political party and is much more intellectually rigorous and consistent than the GOP can be.
"During the Bush speech where the unveiling his and his wife's portrait took place at the WH, I was literally begging him to belt out, 'Miss me yet?'"
He wouldn't, because he knows the answer from most would be "No!"
Robert Cook said...
"The only people who wouldn't choose Carter as the worst are those who weren't around during the four years of malaise. Stagflation, Iranian disaster. It was horrible."
I see Carter as the "least worst" of a rotten bunch,
I know! Have you ever seen either of the shrubs swing a hammer? Couple a amateurs. Now Jimmah can pound nails! That guy is a carpenter!
Unfortunately, for awhile, he thought he could be a president.
Saw Bush and Seether in concert in Rochester, MN last night. They put on a great show. Seether did a set of all their biggest hits and the newer "Country Song". Just go my bush tickets to attend them alive nd mix of older hits and a few from their new album.
I hear they are heading to Omaha for a concert tonight. I recommend seeing it if you like their music. It was a blast!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा