Woo Hoo!

In your face libs!

Woo Hoo!

Righties will celebrate that he is only seventh worst. Let the effects of the debts he left fully sink in and he will go lower as will Ronnie RAygun and Bush Sr. America is only now beginning to realize what Reaganomics has done to our country.

Worse than Hoover!!

Heckuva job, Georgie

Woo Hoo, indeed!

George W. Bush has ONLY been surveyed to be the worst president in ~85 years. I wonder how many people are alive that even remember what the Warren G. Harding administration was like. As the "fruits" of GWB's administration ripen, I'm sure his legacy will become more evident (like durian).

Yes, Trueblue.

His legacy is only at the overripe jackfruit stage now. As the real story unveils over the coming years and his staffers start writing their books, the real stench will begin to develop.

Barry's Porkulous Bill may put him at the bottom.

"Righties will celebrate that he is only seventh worst."

I don't see any celebrating yet. Does that happen later?

Barry's Porkulous Bill may put him at the bottom.

#6 | Posted by fwthom

right there with FDR, right?

The stimulus package will be 787 billion over 10 years, according to the CBO, or about three months of Iraq a year, and you righties couldn't pump enough borrowed money into the Iraq sands, so what exactly are you whining about? That it creates jobs and improves infrastructure in the USA?
Does the right hate America that much?

As the "fruits" of GWB's administration ripen, I'm sure his legacy will become more evident (like durian).

#4 | Posted by TrueBlue

Durian - ewwwww!

Barry's Porkulous Bill may put him at the bottom.

#6 | Posted by fwthom

May not.

"The honor of worst American president ever this President's Day goes to James Buchanan, who directly preceded Abraham Lincoln as president and is blamed for not doing enough to prevent the Civil War."

What was he going to do, make the pro-slavery crowd into decent people by snapping his fingers? They heard all the arguements, they just didn't give a shit. The only way to save their souls was with an ass-whipping. And even then, they and progeny spent the next few decades picking on ex-slaves just to satisfy their need to be sadistic bigshots.

The Civil War was inevitable. Mind as well say Buchanan was a shit president because he failed to prevent a harsh winter.

Does the right hate America that much?

#8 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-02-16 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

No, but I think we could learn to hate Canada that much

I don't see any celebrating yet. Does that happen later?

#7 | Posted by JOE

Oh come on. People have been arguing for months why Bush isn't as bad as President _____ and how history will vindicate him as one of the greatest.

"I don't see any celebrating yet. Does that happen later?"

Or in post #1.

Barry's Porkulous Bill may put him at the bottom.

#6 | Posted by fwthom at 2009-02-16 03:09 PM |

Yeah sally, I bet you know a lot about being the "bottom".

well I saw two of these on cspan yesterday morning and its so nice that most of you dont know all of the story on this survey but IM sure it wouldnt matter to you anyway.
as richard norton smith and the other lady whose name I forget...this ranking of bush is a 'snapshot' and doesnt reflect what time will do to it.
examples they used are both truman and IKE..who was mysteriously lower on the survey before this....both made leaps up the list..

and of course if this were taken at the end of lincolns term he might have been on the very bottom instead of on top for all time as these two scholars predicted...
of course after his inaugaration and assination, ill will towards him changes much like it did with jfk

so go ahead and have your little fun with this because in 80 years when I am on here writing to your great grandchildren I will tell them who really started this country to Rotting....

Or in post #1.

#14 | Posted by Sully

Post #1 is the DR equivalent of sarcastic clapping.

so go ahead and have your little fun with this because in 80 years when I am on here writing to your great grandchildren I will tell them who really started this country to Rotting....

#16 | Posted by afkabl2

BL2 writing to our great granchildren in 80 years...

Interesting that Dubya's only serious contender for Worst-POTUS-Ever is James Buchanan, whose failure was to prevent an inevitable war, while Bush's greatest (of many, many) failures was to cause an unnecessary one.

"Or in post #1."

Read the signature. You're smarter than that.

Try, oh so hard, to realize that Bush LOANED the $350 Billion to the banks. All of THAT money was paid out for Preffered stock, and Bonds to an equivalent amount. It will ALL be paid back with interest, whether or not the Corporations go bankrupt! The Government is FIRST in every line for reimbursment!

So take his original deficit of $456 Billion and add the $350 Billion loaned on his watch. Then subtract the $430 - 470 Billion returning to the treasury and WALLA, it's down to around $350 - 380 Billion. High, but in a wide range with other presidents, except Pres Obama!

Put that against the $787 Billion to be followed by anther $500 - 650 billion to get it right, on top of the regular budget that is yet to be formed with NO mechanism to repay ANY of it and suddenly Bush looks more intelligent and thoughtful.

When the dust settles, and honest people start to actually consider the actions taken by both presidents in this crisis, it will be determined that Obama and crew followed the example of Bush and crew to the letter, straight down the line!

Remember, the original LOAN to the auto companies was just that. Also AIG received a loan, along with the original bank funding. It will all come back to the Treasury, with interest. It may well be, when all is said and done (calculated), that there was NO deficit in Bushes last year in office.

Now wouldn't that be a bitch!

GWB is the 50th best president ever!

"Read the signature. You're smarter than that."

Not today I ain't.

i think the jury is still out. if the truth comes out about the lost billions, Iraq and about 9/11, he still could be number one!

Look at the way Bill Clinton shot up from 2000 to 2009, I would imagine that Bush will do the same over time.

Look at the way Bill Clinton shot up from 2000 to 2009, I would imagine that Bush will do the same over time.

#25 | Posted by taxman

2 key variables: Clinton left office at about 64% approval vs. Bush's 30%. Plus Clinton has done a lot of high-profile good stuff, like tsunami relief and other stuff with Bush I.

Look at the way Bill Clinton shot up from 2000 to 2009, I would imagine that Bush will do the same over time.

#25 | Posted by taxman

Be sure to factor in their approval ratings at the time they left office.

Clinton - 68% (Highest on record)

Bush - 22% (Lowest on record)

Not a chance in hell TM. Glad I do my own taxes.......

My numbers are accurate.

Anyone care to wager against my assertion that Bush moves up that list over time? Truman was hated when he was done, but has moved up. Hell, look at Nixon on that list. I would be willing to bet that in 10 years Bush ranks higher than Nixon. I am not saying Bush will necessarily end up in the top half, but he will end up in the 27-32 range.

You say ABC....

I say CBS.......

Come on man, we are trying to make the same point here.

(Gallup has it at 66%. I am fine with that number if you are.)

Anyone care to wager against my assertion that Bush moves up that list over time?

Considering how difficult it would be for him to move down, that is a foolish bet.

I'll bet you that he doesn't get over 12th worst.

Nixon CREAMS him on foreign affairs.

"Look at the way Bill Clinton shot up from 2000 to 2009, I would imagine that Bush will do the same over time."

Clinton shot up in the minds of many because of Bush.

I thought Clinton was shit before Bush redefined shit.

Try, oh so hard, to realize that Bush LOANED the $350 Billion to the banks. All of THAT money was paid out for Preffered stock,

Bush paid about 20% over value for that stock and if you seriously believe stockholders are guaranteed a payback, I've got an infrastructure-ready Bridge in Brooklyn I can let you have cheap...

I thought Clinton was shit before Bush redefined shit.

Nope, he left office with the highest final approval rating than any other President in the History of the United States of America.

You can look it up!

(CNN) -- With record low approval ratings and intense criticism for his handling of the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina and the economy, the word most used to label George W. Bush's presidency will be "incompetent," historians say.

"I thought Clinton was shit before Bush redefined shit."

"Nope, he left office with the highest final approval rating."

That doesn't prevent Sully, or millions of other Americans, from thinking Clinton was shit. Are you really this stupid?

As the "fruits" of GWB's administration ripen, I'm sure his legacy will become more evident (like jenkem).

Fixed that for ya.

I may not live to see it, but I have little doubt that Pres. 43 will eventually win this contest.

Come on man, we are trying to make the same point here.

(Gallup has it at 66%. I am fine with that number if you are.)

#31 | Posted by Manypaths

I wasn't correcting you... I was correcting my own post where I threw out 64% from memory, rather than a source.

I have to say this for Harding -- he was bright, generally honest as a businessman and publisher, and he knew what he was talking about. He was depressed and had some subordinates mess up the Strategic Oil Reserves "Teapot Dome" comes to mind.

That cannot compare in "badness" to a guy who was not particularly brighter than your average C-student, who was so slothful he had to be set up in business by his Dad's wealthy benefactors seeking favors, and who then ran his doomed wildcatting business into the ground, only to be rescued by a Arab sheik currying favor, and even then "forgot" to file the required SEC forms so his fellow shareholders wouldn't get screwed, and who knew so little about what he was saying that needed to be wired to some odd electronic device in his jacket to know what to say to hard questions, and who spent 8 years paying premium prices to Arab oil sheiks and corrupt oil cronies fill up the strategic petroleum reserves (and now that he's gone, there's nowhere to store $37/bbl oil because he filled up all those reserves at $140/bbl!)

So who was more corrupt? Who was worse?

"in 80 years when I am on here writing to your great grandchildren" -AFKBLT

They won't be here. This "blog thing" will be obsolete. Just like you in Barbara Bush's bowels are today. Sorry.

And by then George W Bush will be lower on the list (if there is a list)

We can all hope that Bush ends up as the best Republican president of the 21st century.

"It may well be, when all is said and done (calculated), that there was NO deficit in Bushes last year in office.

Now wouldn't that be a bitch!

#21 | Posted by dogen at 2009-02-16 03:42 PM"

Are you high? Retarded? Both?

The Liberal Press Bubble....coming to a bird cage near you!

Waaal, I really don't know anything about Pierce. Andrew Johnson was in Lincoln's shadow, but not that bad. Harding was a crook, but not close to Nixon, Reagan and Bush 2. Maybe Pierce and the guy who caught cold at his inauguration and died a month later were bad, but the worst just MUST be Bush 2, Reagan and Nixon in that order. The best: Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Wilson, Jefferson ... herm

I suspect Bush will try and buy his way out of the shitstorm coming his way when some bright historian writes a book about the truth behind 911.

Acually Reagan outdid Clinton because he had a lower disapproval rating than Clinton.

Approval ratings are not something historians should be using to determine greatness. Lincoln was unpopular during much of his presidency..

Churchill was defeated, in fact, grew quite bitter over it, right after WWII.

Standing courageously on principles against public opinion is (historically) one of the measures of greatness.

And, WHO today is a historian writing about Bush? That's nonsense. You don't really get to write history UNTIL its history.. and its a bit soon after Bush to be writing history. Give it at least 20 years..

Who knows, but there's a pretty good chance that as time passes, Bush will be considered a great president. And what of Obama? Certainly the first black president, but probably not the last, so that will lose a bit of impact.

If he turns out to be Jimmy Carter II (and I think he's well on his way).. he'll just be footnote.

"Who knows, but there's a pretty good chance that as time passes, Bush will be considered a great president.

Posted by nmg_no at 2009-02-17 12:15 AM"

You are on crack.

#50 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2009-02-17 12:24 AM

Posted by nmg_no at 2009-02-17 12:15 AM"

You are on crack.

Or are you praising the poster on whose post you are commenting for emulating Obama, and thus being on the path to better and greater accomplishments?

"Obama... was and possibly still is a crackhead"

There goes Johnson and his "unsubstantiated rumors" again. If flinging feces were an Olympic sport, he'd win the gold medal.

I suppose William Henry Harrison is low on the list and falls within the worst presidents due to his tenure of just 32 days in office before his death.

There goes Johnson and his "unsubstantiated rumors" again. If flinging feces were an Olympic sport, he'd win the gold medal.

#52 | Posted by Danforth

Why fling 'em when you can snack on 'em?

-Johnson

Historians: Six Presidents Worse Than Bush

The bottom 3 are Democrats.

In all honesty, shouldn't the Headline read "The 3 worst Presidents of all time are all Democrats"?

Talk about dredging up your silver linings!

I do what I can....

~{:^)

lol!

Talk about dredging up your silver linings!

#57 | Posted by Corky

To be fair, my original headline WAS "Bush NOT the worst President in history"

I try to keep it positive!

I kinda liked mine....haha!

"Worse than Hoover!!"

When I saw that I kind of thought to myself "this is silly." I'm sorry, I don't like Bush, I don't approve of the job he did, but there has only been 1 Great Depression and it spanned almost the entire length of Hoover's administration. He was worse.

Then there is Nixon, who yes, did a lot of things, and got a lot of stuff done, but sorry, if you have to resign in shame or face certain impeachment and more importantly conviction, you belong at the bottom of the pile.

President Hayes' ending of Reconstruction was a monumental mistake that lead to very bad times for the South.

James Madison declared war on the British though they were far superior, leading to embarassing losses along with the capture and burning of Washington DC. Yet he is ranked 20th! 20th!?! The White House burned and all that was left was the outer walls.

Even though Bush was bad, there have been much more horrendous leaders if we just step back and look for a minute.

2 key variables: Clinton left office at about 64% approval vs. Bush's 30%. Plus Clinton has done a lot of high-profile good stuff, like tsunami relief and other stuff with Bush I.

#26 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at

you are SO RIght mister rougue
and lets not forget the 150,000 that he got from the saudis so he could go over there and bash america,.,
and all of the millions given to his socalled world fund.
and just think of his contribution to the youth of america...mainly the boys..he made thier first sexual encounters
JUST A BLOWJOB...........

the man is obviously great and should get higher every year.....

In all honesty, shouldn't the Headline read "The 3 worst Presidents of all time are all Democrats"?

#56 | Posted by American1st at 2009-02

BRILLIANT

I will use that line the next time I call into cspan and richard horton smith is on which is about once a month it seems.

you are SO RIght mister rougue

#63 | Posted by afkabl2

Thank you. I know. Despite your feeble attempt at deflection, I have accurately depicted public perception of Bill Clinton.

Despite some obviously negative aspects, he has been able to maintain his stature here and around the world. Whether Bush will ultimately salvage any positive legacy remains to be seen.

On Dec. 28, 2008 Drudge reported a Russian pole listed Stalin among the 12 most admired.

Thank you. I know.

I will assume that such an intelligent sumbitch as yourself could see the sarcasim.....lol

and it may be long enough for you and I to be nothing but 'remains' but I predict he will go up as the world terrorists make their move on the weakened security of the USA.........

and no matter how long it takes I plan on still being here.........even if I have to change my name to dorian.

We'll have to see. It's hard to say given the fact that the challenges he faced were probably the hardest challenges that we've faced in our lifetimes.

Also, all this money spent on the war on terror may or may not be worth it - but we'll probably never know because the information relating to results is largely classified. I do know he spent too damn much money, and was far from a fiscal conservative.

"Drudge reported a Russian pole listed Stalin among the 12 most admired."

Actually, Stalin made it to number 3. It talks to the perspective of people, but not of history. Stalin is rated so highly by the people because he successfully defended the Russians against Hitler. He provided an (apparent) stability. And he made Russia into one of the top two countries in the world. But history tends to take a more comprehensive view. And Stalin's negatives vastly outway hispositives.

This is the issue regarding Bush. The question is how real was the terrorism threat and, if it was a very serious threat, how did he deal with it. The economy, rightly or wrongly, will be blaimed on him so he won't improve in that regard. Therefore, Bush has to improve regarding foreign policy. Afghanistan has to improve greatly. Unfortunetly, this is severely doubted by pretty much every expert I have read. Iraq has to become a stable country. His one remaining chance.

But I do agree that Bush will move up in the ranks with the passing of time, when things won't seem as critical as they are today. Just not very much.

But I do agree that Bush will move up in the ranks with the passing of time, when things won't seem as critical as they are today. Just not very much.

and its obvious and typical that you make note even a remote suggestion that iraq will be a democratic ally in the region and thus a part of peace in that part of the world...and remember this whole issue is talking about many years hence, so this could be a distinct possibility but its one that you dont even mention............

" I do agree that Bush will move up in the ranks with the passing of time..."

The affable former BLT smokes something wild. The last Bush, already last in the eyes (and hearts) or anyone who's ever read a book, has no way to go but down. As the years pass, we will wonder how we ever let the great thefts of 2000 and 2004 survive without veritably starting a revolution. herm

"so this could be a distinct possibility but its one that you dont even mention...."

Really? Could have sworn that I stated that: "Iraq has to become a stable country. His one remaining chance."

I've been saying it for over a month now. History will vindicate GWB. He is flying up the historical 'greatness' scale like a streaking meteor. Give him a little more time and he may even be popularly deemed the equal of Carter. You go boy!

"...he (Bush) may (in time) even be popularly deemed the equal of Carter... '

Jimmy Carter was an honest man. That never pays in Washington. Jimmy Carter was proof positive that people don't want a REAL Christian in the White House, but pretend ones like Reagan and Bush. Above all, Jimmy Carter is the undisputed best ex-president we ever had. herm

Carter was both an idealist and a micromanager. Neither is a good quality in a president and the combination of the two can be disastrous (as Woodrow Wilson can attest). Faith can not move mountains all by itself.

For those of you who do not study history, on either side of the party line, I would find it inconceivable to believe that Jimmy Carter is about anyone. While I am not a fan of Bush, I am not sure it is appropriate to judge him yet on certain aspects - namely foreign policy. Additionally LBJ ought to be near the bottom - he was as disastrous as Carter, Harding, Hoover, etc.

Carter the best - ex-president we ever had. You are either kidding, on drugs, or stupid. What on earth would possess you to come to that conclusion!

Defend,
I believe that comes from the good he has done since leaving office compared to what he did in office. He is certainly the most active, but we have just started with the young Presidents, so who knows what Clinton, Bush, or Obama will do in years to come.

"I would find it inconceivable to believe that Jimmy Carter is about anyone."

You really should read about the presidents listed below him. Harding's administration, for example, was one huge scandal after another.

Q" Who are these people that actually watch CSPAN?

Q" Who are these people that actually watch CSPAN?

#80 | Posted by MSgt

I like watching CSPAN when something important is going on. Sometimes I prefer to just listen, observe, and evaluate without all the talking heads jabbering on.

Worse than Hoover!!

Heckuva job, Georgie

#3 | Posted by reinheitsgebot

But not worse than Obama!

"But not worse than Obama!"

Oops:

"Carter the best - ex-president we ever had. You are either kidding, on drugs, or stupid. What on earth would possess you to come to that conclusion!"

You want to end with a "?" - one of the Adams (John or John Quincy?) defended the Amistad's slave mutineers and another (Taft?) became chief justice, but most play golf or try to defend their errors. Carter takes trips and speaks out, builds houses for Habitat and lives his faith. I stand by my statement. herm

Carter would have been the best president of the United States only if he was in the running with only
0ne other candidate and only if that other person was Hugo Chavez.

Says who? History, not you will judge Bush.

I have no doubt that you are trying to put lipstick on a pig.

"History, not you will judge Bush."

How does "History" "judge"?

Forty three(43) better than Carter!

"But not worse than Obama!"

Oops:

Overall, 61% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far while 37% disapprove. The President's overall approval rating has been remarkably steady since inauguration day. In polling conducted since then, Obama's overall approval rating has been between 60% and 62% every day but three. Once it slipped a point below that range and twice it went a point above.
Hans

#83 | Posted by Hans

LOL

And what was Bush's apporoval rating in the first 20 days of his first term?

(Some people are stupid on purpose)

And what was Bush's apporoval rating in the first 20 days of his first term?

It was in the 40's. The only way for Chimpy to increase his approval ratings was to let 9/11 happen on his watch. Yessir, when it comes to suckage, Hoover was a piker compared to the deciderer.

(Some people are stupid on purpose)

#90 | Posted by Eddie

Obviously.

(BTW - the answer is 16 points lower than Obama's)

You really should read about the presidents listed below him. Harding's administration, for example, was one huge scandal after another.

#79 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-

you have a point about harding and all that..
but to say that carter was a good president tells me that you werent very old between 1976 and 1980.

inflation was rampant
interest rates were high
there was a reason why we all read and used the word

malaise....

Q" Who are these people that actually watch CSPAN?

#80 | Posted by MSgt

I like watching CSPAN when something important is going on. Sometimes I prefer to just listen, observe, and evaluate without all the talking heads jabbering on.

#81 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

cspan is without a doubt the most bipartisan and unpolitical network on the airwaves today
it also gives you a chance to call in and give your opinion on the air in the mornings and if you dont think there arent some 'loopy' people out there on both sides, then you need to turn it on sometime.

"but to say that carter was a good president tells me that you werent very old between 1976 and 1980."

First off, I didn't say he belonged in the top 50%. I laid out what I thought his flaws were. I do think he tried to the best of his abilities and that, in my book, puts him above quite a few other presidents, especially your hero.

Secondly, I was in my late 20s then so no, I wasn't 60 years old like you.

I do think he tried to the best of his abilities and that, in my book, puts him above quite a few other presidents

He was well-intentioned but also incredibly naive.

He was a shitty president because he wasn't suited for the rigors of the job.

He's a very good elder-statesman because that is where his strengths lead him.

Ha! Is funny thread.

How come nobody's mentioned America's 13th POTUS yet?

Millard Fillmore, the last of the Whigs.

The guy served out one term in office and then lost his own parties nomination for a second term.

How harshly do you have to suck in order fer THAT to happen?

While Historians may dicker about who's worse or better than who till the cows come home the fact remains that Dumbya had the lowest gallop poll numbers in seventy years of taking them which indicates that according to popular perception George Dumbya Bush was the Worst. POTUS. EVAR.

/Certainly the worst in living memory.

Be Well.

/Not really here.

I'd have to go with Ol' Franky Pierce as the worst president.
Here's some fun facts:

After losing the Democratic nomination, Pierce reportedly quipped "there's nothing left to do but get drunk."

He reportedly once ran over an elderly woman while driving a carriage intoxicated.

Harriet Beecher Stowe referred to him as "the archtraitor."

During the Civil War, Pierce declared support for the Confederacy and loudly denounced Abraham Lincoln, whom he wholly blamed for the war.

Pro-slavery Border Ruffians, mostly from Missouri, illegally voted in a government that Pierce recognized.

During his first years in Washington, as a young Congressman, he kept company with a hard-drinking crowd, showing his manliness by competing with his companions in drinking capacity.

Soon after Pierce's inauguration, one of the members of his party wrote of the President: "I deeply, deeply deplore his habits, he drinks deep . . . A great mistake was made in putting him in at all."

cspan is without a doubt the most bipartisan and unpolitical network on the airwaves today
it also gives you a chance to call in and give your opinion on the air in the mornings and if you dont think there arent some 'loopy' people out there on both sides, then you need to turn it on sometime.

#94 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-02-18 11:52 AM

Where else can you see people like Dick Durbin saying we need to make it safer for people to go to hospitals. Or Harry Reid crying about mothers not feeling safe enough to bring their kids to school. How about the Congresswoman from Houston taking the floors time asking why there are no african names when identifying hurricanes? Thank God for C-SPAN. Proves how useless and inept our so called leaders can be.

Secondly, I was in my late 20s then so no, I wasn't 60 years old like you.

#95 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-02-18 12:18

oh...OUCH....lol

well maybe you can take something from your "ELDERS" then about what life was like then..

military reduced to helicopters in the desert porportions..
iran made us look as weak as ever in our history.
gas lines...and YES I know that started with ford but it continued with carter as well...

and there is also a reason that even democrats have said more than once that this economy is as bad as 1982.....

but we got out of all that.........now we have some even bigger problems to overcome...

HEY SPUD...why not talk about harrison then????

"well maybe you can take something from your "ELDERS" then about what life was like then.." - BL2

I know what life was like then. Shit, by that time I had seen life from the perspective of my country, of Southeast Asia, of Western Europe. I very much disliked the gas lines. But I also understood that the Arabs had us by the balls. I didn't believe Iran had made us look weak. Hell, Russia didn't think so either. I believed (and still do) that we shouldn't have been involved with them, esp. with overthrowing their government.

good for you and thank you

and lets remember too..

even back then people were talking about

LETs DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE energy problem

I wonder what ever happened to that idea??? LOL

Historians: "Historians are too dumb to realize that a degree in history will get them absolutely nowhere". More at eleven . . .

LETs DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE energy problem

I wonder what ever happened to that idea??? LOL

#103 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-02-18 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bushs policies made it necessary to put our money into other programs. Bush fucked up America for 25 years. BUSH DID IT is valid for all fuck ups for all times. Actually--it is morons like you that fucked up--your votes made this problem more than anything Bush did. The blood of thousands on your hands, and now the wreck of the economy. Nice going--YOU did it--is more valid than--BUSH did it. You should have your own country to fuck up.

Carter was by far the best President between 1963 and 1993.

By any standards. Reagan took credit for Carters economic policy---then almost spent us back into the stone age.

Carter brought peaceto the middle east that Reagan fucked up again.

No wars under Carter.

No trillion dollar boondoggles attacking little countries.

"Carter was by far the best President between 1963 and 1993."

Where the hell were you in 1979? I was trying to start a small contracting business then, and loan interest rates were in the 17 - 20% range. Few mortgages were made and few homes were selling. Great times.

GA-
After those great times we abandoned Carter's investments in cleaner or renewable energy technology and decided just to cozy up with the RIGHT despots and "Kings" in the ME and throw nothing but caution to the wind, ignoring that, ultimately, oil had us by the balls.

Google "Bandar Bush" and then laugh at Carter's green initiatives. And then picture "W" landing on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit and helmet. Picture yourself cheering.

Where the hell were you in 1979? I was trying to start a small contracting business then, and loan interest rates were in the 17 - 20% range. Few mortgages were made and few homes were selling. Great times.

#107 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2009-02-19 02:16 AM | Reply | Flag

That wasn't Carter. That was 15 years of Viet Nam inflation. It took Carter a while to clean up after the republicans. Reagan took credit for Carters economic recovery plan before he almost spent us back to the stone age. The point still stands.

(Some people are stupid on purpose)

#90 | Posted by Eddie

Obviously.

(BTW - the answer is 16 points lower than Obama's)

#92 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

LOL!!!

(Some people are dishonest to prove a point)

Obama 66%
Bush 68%

Obama 66%
Bush 68%

#111 | Posted by Eddie

I don't know what poll you are looking at, but Gallop had Obama 69 Bush 53.

*Gallup

"I don't know what poll you are looking at, but Gallop had Obama 69 Bush 53."

Sanan, some people, like eddie, are stupid on purpose.

Hans