Jimmy Carter or George W Bush?

[MissCatholic]

Honestly?

I cannot think of a more incompetent fool than Bush. Since 2004, he has no passion for the job. He looks a tired man lacking ideas. When a crisis appears he does nothing but be stubborn. He tries to con the American people by re-wrapping his policy up in new paper (mondays night address). The economy is apparently good for the rich yet cant promote it. Iran is calling americas bluff. The border is completely out of control. The GOP are completely disorganised. Republican governors in blue america are facing tough fights because of his actions. Harriot miers. Hurricane Katrina. Education. Healthcare. American auto industry is going down the toilet. And whats his response...as usual the same. dont worry TRUST ME

[MissCatholic]

AND DONT GET ME STARTED ON IRAQ

[MODU]

Of the two?  Jimmy. 

Now, go sit in time-out until we call you down for supper.  You've been a bad Nomo.

[Democratic Hawk]

AND DONT GET ME STARTED ON IRAQ

It is with some irony that one of the few things I agree with Bush on, he and others have made a complete utter mess of. And I can't say it wasn't to be expected , in fact my own intuition knew he would from the start. He's never inspired me with his acute lack of ability in providing effective US and global leadership

As for Carter, he meant well but he too fell well short of providing effective US and global leadership but when things didn't go well, you could see the pain in his face. Bush, on the other hand, insensitively strummed as though he hadn't a care in the world while New Orleans flooded. It didn't look good. He should have known better. And before any one starts, I'm well aware enough of the blame can be levelled at the Democrats, Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin. Neither deserve to be re-elected. End of!

But Carter and Bush are easily the worst from their respective parties in living memory

Dave

[agcatter]

What a wonderful choice.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

JIMMY CARTER'S TEN MILLION JOBS DESTROYED THE AMERICAN ECONOMY!!!!!!!

[Giant Saguaro]

Jimmy was certainly worse. Ultra naive foreign policy and extremist economic agenda; CIA cuts, military cuts, horrible leadership qualities - no, he's disaster city. He's the worst of all possible worlds. He did want a better world, though, I can't say he wanted a world that was worse off than when he came in. So I guess I can say he had noble intentions.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Jimmy was certainly worse. Ultra naive foreign policy and extremist economic agenda; CIA cuts, military cuts, horrible leadership qualities - no, he's disaster city. He's the worst of all possible worlds. He did want a better world, though, I can't say he wanted a world that was worse off than when he came in. So I guess I can say he had noble intentions.

You're right, only an extremist would increase the number of jobs by over 10 million in one Presidential term while having the national debt as a fraction of GDP go down.

[MasterJedi]

Of the two?  Jimmy. 

Now, go sit in time-out until we call you down for supper.  You've been a bad Nomo.

^^^^^^ Bad Nomo, Bad!!!

[Nym90]

Carter.

Both were incompetent, but at least Carter cared.

That's obviously a bit of an oversimplification. Carter was a great man, but was in over his head as President; he really didn't have enough experience.

And Bush might care, too, deep down in his heart, but he seems to have sold his soul to the corporate agenda.

[Boris]

Carter because then Rumsfeld and other incompetents within the Bush Administration would be gone...and replaced with more incompetents. What great choices.

[Giant Saguaro]

Jimmy was certainly worse. Ultra naive foreign policy and extremist economic agenda; CIA cuts, military cuts, horrible leadership qualities - no, he's disaster city. He's the worst of all possible worlds. He did want a better world, though, I can't say he wanted a world that was worse off than when he came in. So I guess I can say he had noble intentions.

You're right, only an extremist would increase the number of jobs by over 10 million in one Presidential term while having the national debt as a fraction of GDP go down.

Well he OBVIOUSLY didn't do it himself, in reference to the jobs. I'll have to look somewhere to see what the tax rate was when he left office as I do not recall - it was ridiculous, and we had a slashed CIA and smashed military with an expanding Soviet Union to show for it. Reagan cut our taxes, built that military back up, restored many of the CIA's powers, and by the middle 1980s the economy was off and running, something Carter never managed to *oversee*, despite your assertion that Carter alone created 7 zillion jobs or whatever. Nonsense.

[Nym90]

Jimmy was certainly worse. Ultra naive foreign policy and extremist economic agenda; CIA cuts, military cuts, horrible leadership qualities - no, he's disaster city. He's the worst of all possible worlds. He did want a better world, though, I can't say he wanted a world that was worse off than when he came in. So I guess I can say he had noble intentions.

You're right, only an extremist would increase the number of jobs by over 10 million in one Presidential term while having the national debt as a fraction of GDP go down.

Well he OBVIOUSLY didn't do it himself, in reference to the jobs. I'll have to look somewhere to see what the tax rate was when he left office as I do not recall - it was ridiculous, and we had a slashed CIA and smashed military with an expanding Soviet Union to show for it. Reagan cut our taxes, built that military back up, restored many of the CIA's powers, and by the middle 1980s the economy was off and running, something Carter never managed to *oversee*, despite your assertion that Carter alone created 7 zillion jobs or whatever. Nonsense.

Unemployment was quite low and a lot of jobs were created under Carter, and indeed without running up a massive deficit, but high inflation partially compensated for the job creation.

Inflation and job creation were somewhat cancelling each other out, reducing the overall effects of both.

[Beet]

Um so deregulation of industries, phasing out of price controls, raising interest rates to match inflation rates, and keeping the budget deficit tiny compared to his successors is "extremist economic policy"? Boycotting the Olympics, beginning funding to the mujahadeen, getting the hostages released from Iran, increasing military spending, funding the MX and Minuteman missiles, restoring Radio Free Europe, the Camp David accords, establishing diplomatic relation swith China, launching the RDF program, is "ultra naive" foreign policy?

And I love how Carter gets blamed for not "overseeing" the fact that the forward C-130 gunships failed to warn the helicopters behind them that there was a haboob dust cloud in their flight path, thus causing two of the helicopters to break down. If that mission had worked you'd be hailing Carter as a hero. The President can't micromanage military plans. The man who sold the plan to him was a cowboy right out of Dr. Strangelove who detested bureaucracy and doing it by the book. He represented all the worst of conservtive gung-hoism.

Oh and the ayatollahs loved Reagan. They could count on him to sell them weapons.

[The Dowager Mod]

Carter wasn't evil or stupid so i gotta go with him.

[Giant Saguaro]

Jimmy was certainly worse. Ultra naive foreign policy and extremist economic agenda; CIA cuts, military cuts, horrible leadership qualities - no, he's disaster city. He's the worst of all possible worlds. He did want a better world, though, I can't say he wanted a world that was worse off than when he came in. So I guess I can say he had noble intentions.

You're right, only an extremist would increase the number of jobs by over 10 million in one Presidential term while having the national debt as a fraction of GDP go down.

Well he OBVIOUSLY didn't do it himself, in reference to the jobs. I'll have to look somewhere to see what the tax rate was when he left office as I do not recall - it was ridiculous, and we had a slashed CIA and smashed military with an expanding Soviet Union to show for it. Reagan cut our taxes, built that military back up, restored many of the CIA's powers, and by the middle 1980s the economy was off and running, something Carter never managed to *oversee*, despite your assertion that Carter alone created 7 zillion jobs or whatever. Nonsense.

Unemployment was quite low and a lot of jobs were created under Carter, and indeed without running up a massive deficit, but high inflation partially compensated for the job creation.

Inflation and job creation were somewhat cancelling each other out, reducing the overall effects of both.

Well, I don't think inflation and job creation cancelled each other out because Carter asked for 2 things: labor leaders to hold down wage demands and companies not to increase prices. Neither worked to offset inflation. Prices continued to rise all the way through the middle of 1980, when Carter introduced new proposals, including more demands on wage freezes, restrictions on credit, and taxes on imported oil.

How anybody thought that would reduce inflation beats the hell out of me. And then  the guy has the balls to demand a resignation from all of his staff. I'm glad the American people demanded one from him in November '80. Disaster city.

[Giant Saguaro]

Um so deregulation of industries, phasing out of price controls, raising interest rates to match inflation rates, and keeping the budget deficit tiny compared to his successors is "extremist economic policy"? Boycotting the Olympics, beginning funding to the mujahadeen, getting the hostages released from Iran, increasing military spending, funding the MX and Minuteman missiles, restoring Radio Free Europe, the Camp David accords, establishing diplomatic relation swith China, launching the RDF program, is "ultra naive" foreign policy?

And I love how Carter gets blamed for not "overseeing" the fact that the forward C-130 gunships failed to warn the helicopters behind them that there was a haboob dust cloud in their flight path, thus causing two of the helicopters to break down. If that mission had worked you'd be hailing Carter as a hero. The President can't micromanage military plans. The man who sold the plan to him was a cowboy right out of Dr. Strangelove who detested bureaucracy and doing it by the book. He represented all the worst of conservtive gung-hoism.

Oh and the ayatollahs loved Reagan. They could count on him to sell them weapons.

And you think Carter handled the Iranian hostage crisis like a pro, I'm sure. Good "gung-hoism." He just did nothing. After 8 helicopters couldn't make it through a sandstorm. Pretty bad if that's the state of things.

The problem was Carter didn't know WHAT he wanted to do. He sat on it and sat on it and sat on it. His decision to send 8 helicopters in there was a "roll of the dice." And Vance took the fall.

[nclib]

Bush is worse than Carter.

[Beet]

Um so deregulation of industries, phasing out of price controls, raising interest rates to match inflation rates, and keeping the budget deficit tiny compared to his successors is "extremist economic policy"? Boycotting the Olympics, beginning funding to the mujahadeen, getting the hostages released from Iran, increasing military spending, funding the MX and Minuteman missiles, restoring Radio Free Europe, the Camp David accords, establishing diplomatic relation swith China, launching the RDF program, is "ultra naive" foreign policy?

And I love how Carter gets blamed for not "overseeing" the fact that the forward C-130 gunships failed to warn the helicopters behind them that there was a haboob dust cloud in their flight path, thus causing two of the helicopters to break down. If that mission had worked you'd be hailing Carter as a hero. The President can't micromanage military plans. The man who sold the plan to him was a cowboy right out of Dr. Strangelove who detested bureaucracy and doing it by the book. He represented all the worst of conservtive gung-hoism.

Oh and the ayatollahs loved Reagan. They could count on him to sell them weapons.

And you think Carter handled the Irania hostage crisys like a pro, I'm sure. Good "gung-hoism." He just did nothing. After 8 helicopters couldn't make it through a sandstorm. Pretty bad if that's the state of things.

Actually, there were more rescue attempts. There was one cancelled after the election and when it seemed a deal for the hostages' release had been made through. But Iran at the time didn't have a centralized government; it was going through a lot of power struggles and their foreign minister, who was in charge of negotiations lost power to the hardliners and he was executed a couple years later. You try to negotiate in a situation like that. And I contend it's not exactly easy to rescue 52 people in the middle of the enemy's capital city hundreds of miles from the shoreline either. Even if there was a hostage crisis in the middle of D.C. it would be a difficult situation, let alone Tehran.

And yes, he did get the hostages back alive. It felt horrible, while it was happening, but that feeling was always going to be transitory. What wasn't going to be transitory was the lives of those 52 people and their families back home. If you were in that embassy you'd thank your stars it was Carter in the oval office and not some trigger happy wingnut.

[Giant Saguaro]

Um so deregulation of industries, phasing out of price controls, raising interest rates to match inflation rates, and keeping the budget deficit tiny compared to his successors is "extremist economic policy"? Boycotting the Olympics, beginning funding to the mujahadeen, getting the hostages released from Iran, increasing military spending, funding the MX and Minuteman missiles, restoring Radio Free Europe, the Camp David accords, establishing diplomatic relation swith China, launching the RDF program, is "ultra naive" foreign policy?

And I love how Carter gets blamed for not "overseeing" the fact that the forward C-130 gunships failed to warn the helicopters behind them that there was a haboob dust cloud in their flight path, thus causing two of the helicopters to break down. If that mission had worked you'd be hailing Carter as a hero. The President can't micromanage military plans. The man who sold the plan to him was a cowboy right out of Dr. Strangelove who detested bureaucracy and doing it by the book. He represented all the worst of conservtive gung-hoism.

Oh and the ayatollahs loved Reagan. They could count on him to sell them weapons.

And you think Carter handled the Irania hostage crisys like a pro, I'm sure. Good "gung-hoism." He just did nothing. After 8 helicopters couldn't make it through a sandstorm. Pretty bad if that's the state of things.

Actually, there were more rescue attempts. There was one cancelled after the election and when it seemed a deal for the hostages' release had been made through. But Iran at the time didn't have a centralized government; it was going through a lot of power struggles and their foreign minister, who was in charge of negotiations lost power to the hardliners and he was executed a couple years later. You try to negotiate in a situation like that. And I contend it's not exactly easy to rescue 52 people in the middle of the enemy's capital city hundreds of miles from the shoreline either. Even if there was a hostage crisis in the middle of D.C. it would be a difficult situation, let alone Tehran.

And yes, he did get the hostages back alive. It felt horrible, while it was happening, but that feeling was always going to be transitory. What wasn't going to be transitory was the lives of those 52 people and their families back home. If you were in that embassy you'd thank your stars it was Carter in the oval office and not some trigger happy wingnut.

To be truthful, I'd be worried about what the guy was willing to give away or to what extent he was willing to wait. And finally, I'd thank my stars for the one that actually got me out. The revolutionaries actually continued to hold the hostages until the day Carter left office. Any deals were made easier once it became obvious that Carter was gone, because that was part of what the revolutionaries demanded: they'd release on return of the shah (which couldn't be trusted) or when Carter was ousted.

I think the situation with the helicopters in the sandstorm was a summation of sorts of the Carter admin's lack of financial support for the military. We had all kinds of faulty equipment and didn not have the people or hardware to fix it all. That's pathetic.

[True Democrat]

Honestly?

I cannot think of a more incompetent fool than Bush. Since 2004, he has no passion for the job. He looks a tired man lacking ideas. When a crisis appears he does nothing but be stubborn. He tries to con the American people by re-wrapping his policy up in new paper (mondays night address). The economy is apparently good for the rich yet cant promote it. Iran is calling americas bluff. The border is completely out of control. The GOP are completely disorganised. Republican governors in blue america are facing tough fights because of his actions. Harriot miers. Hurricane Katrina. Education. Healthcare. American auto industry is going down the toilet. And whats his response...as usual the same. dont worry TRUST ME

I've liked him more since 2004. . .

He's had a lot of new ideas actually: border control, guest worker program, social security privitization, free trade, etc. . .

[Beet]

Um so deregulation of industries, phasing out of price controls, raising interest rates to match inflation rates, and keeping the budget deficit tiny compared to his successors is "extremist economic policy"? Boycotting the Olympics, beginning funding to the mujahadeen, getting the hostages released from Iran, increasing military spending, funding the MX and Minuteman missiles, restoring Radio Free Europe, the Camp David accords, establishing diplomatic relation swith China, launching the RDF program, is "ultra naive" foreign policy?

And I love how Carter gets blamed for not "overseeing" the fact that the forward C-130 gunships failed to warn the helicopters behind them that there was a haboob dust cloud in their flight path, thus causing two of the helicopters to break down. If that mission had worked you'd be hailing Carter as a hero. The President can't micromanage military plans. The man who sold the plan to him was a cowboy right out of Dr. Strangelove who detested bureaucracy and doing it by the book. He represented all the worst of conservtive gung-hoism.

Oh and the ayatollahs loved Reagan. They could count on him to sell them weapons.

And you think Carter handled the Irania hostage crisys like a pro, I'm sure. Good "gung-hoism." He just did nothing. After 8 helicopters couldn't make it through a sandstorm. Pretty bad if that's the state of things.

Actually, there were more rescue attempts. There was one cancelled after the election and when it seemed a deal for the hostages' release had been made through. But Iran at the time didn't have a centralized government; it was going through a lot of power struggles and their foreign minister, who was in charge of negotiations lost power to the hardliners and he was executed a couple years later. You try to negotiate in a situation like that. And I contend it's not exactly easy to rescue 52 people in the middle of the enemy's capital city hundreds of miles from the shoreline either. Even if there was a hostage crisis in the middle of D.C. it would be a difficult situation, let alone Tehran.

And yes, he did get the hostages back alive. It felt horrible, while it was happening, but that feeling was always going to be transitory. What wasn't going to be transitory was the lives of those 52 people and their families back home. If you were in that embassy you'd thank your stars it was Carter in the oval office and not some trigger happy wingnut.

To be truthful, I'd be worried about what the guy was willing to give away or to what extent he was willing to wait.

That's fantastic Saguaro, you're really one stand up guy. When your own life is on the line you only think of little details of negotiations at the political level. Real selfless of you. (/sarc) In any case you needn't have worried because the Iranians didn't get any of their demands. Nothing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, no. The hostages were released because the Ayatollah decided keeping them wasn't benefitting anymore. Iraq had attacked Iran and  the Shah was dead and the Iranians had bigger things to worry about. They would have been released had Carter been re-elected as well. In any case, even if we go by your interpretation, electing Reagan was just capitulating to America's enemies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh give me a break. The helicopters didn't drive into the haboob becaue of 'lack of financial support'. They drove into the haboob because the commanders on the ground grossly misjudged the situation and failed to warn the people behind them. The equipment wasn't faulty in the least. The commanding officer moreover thought he could do everything "by the gut" and had complete contempt for regulations until the mission was already finished.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Carter

[Wyatt Chesney]

Both economic failures, both foreign failures, both incomptent dumbasses (pardon the language), and neither really deserved the first term they were rewarded. I'll be safe and say that James Buchanun was the worst president ever.

Though I really don't like Carter because he prevented the Udall revolution. Mo Udall was a hero to me growing up. Somehow I highly doubt that Mo Udall would have been attacked by "killer rabbits"....while canoeing(sp?).

[Speed of Sound]

Both sucked, but one was honest.



Jimmy Carter