O'Contraire: Why Jimmy Carter is Worse than Bill Clinton

postchronicle ^ | Mar 31, 2006 | Daniel Clark

[CDHart]

Should be "au contraire" not "o'contraire." It's French, not Irish, for heaven's sake.

Carolyn

[Vote 4 Nixon]

The first thing I think of when I hear Jimmy's name spoken is the fact that he is the walking turd who gave away the canal. Oh I almost forgot about desert one. Sheesh!

[Let's Roll]

IMO because Carter is stupid and that makes him much more dangerous.

Beelzebubba may be just as amoral, but he's at least bright enough to know what's in his best interest.

[ishabibble]

So very true. If Carter had bombed Iran into perdition the day that the hostages were first taken, we wouldn't have heard from these evil POSs for another century.
A small and forgotten sidenote. The "students" who took over the embassy in Tehran let all the black personnel go, which further split the U.S. apart.

"United We Stand Divided We Fall" is fast becoming our reality. Jimmy Carter opened the door for terrorism against all Americans

[RobbyS]

It also shows the divisive effect of the civil rights movement. Since then our politics has been balkanized. It now seems. however, that the blacks will have to reconsider their lock-step alliance with the Democratic Party as the Latino vote surges. Immigrants take away jobs more from blacks than from whites.

[Question_Assumptions]

Jimmy was the worst President of the 20th Century. Almost all of our problems in the Middle East can be traced back to mistakes that Jimmy made, from losing Iran to the Islamofascists to letting the Soviets invade Afghanistan and includes doing nothing to deter the Iran-Iraq war, nothing to stop the destruction of Lebanon, and so forth. Even if peace treaty between Israel and Egypt got Anwar Sadat killed and Egypt has only been getting more radical since.

And that doesn't even touch on the other disasters during his Presidency in the Americas, Asia, and Africa. He was worse than useless.

[Gordongekko909]

Oh, no question. LBJ sucked hard. Damn Groovy Society program. I think the only reason why he isn't generally placed in the bottom two is because his policies didn't start to have a visible effect until later. We finally sunk into the depths of the hole that he dug during the Ford/Carter years, so people starting paying more attention to economic issues with the advent of Whip Inflation Now and such.

And with people paying attention, Carter failed spectacularly. Johnson had a wave to ride, much like Clinton did from the Reagan policies, so he gets a pass. He ran on Kennedy's legacy, and there was still some life in the post-war economic boom. On top of that, he had the foresight to bail out when his numbers were in the toilet rather than try for a third (or second-and-a-half, as it were) term.

That, and an inordinately large number of libs who don't like him because of Vietnam are convinced, beyond all reckoning, that he was a Republican. I can't even count all the times I've had to clear that up. If people start looking too closely at him, then it will become clear that Johnson was, in fact, a Democrat.