Posted on 01/28/2009 3:56:55 AM PST by Kaslin
How worthless is Jimmy Carter?
Haley Barbour, Governor of Mississippi, makes the point that when an opposition party seizes control of the White House from its rival, that party almost always holds the Presidency for two terms at least. This means that the odds heavily favor Barack Obama’s reelection in 2012.
In the last 112 years, an opposition party took over the presidency eleven times (McKinley in 1896, Wilson in 1912, Harding in 1920, FDR in 1932, Eisenhower in 1952, Kennedy in 1960, Nixon in 1968, Carter in 1976, Reagan in 1980, Clinton in 1992, George W. Bush in 2000). In ten out of those eleven instances the new White House party maintained control of the executive branch for at least two terms.
Only once in 112 years – since the distant days of William McKinley – did a new president turn out to be so feckless, so incompetent, so sanctimonious, so repellant, so self-destructive, so….well, worthless….that his party lost the White House (big time!) after only one term.
Now, can we guess who this appalling loser might be?
In the sweep of recent history, James Earl Carter, Jr., stands utterly alone in leading his party to capture the White House with overwhelming Congressional majorities (61 Senators, 292 members of the House – far bigger margins than Obama!) and then, after a brief four year demonstration of almost unimaginable ineptitude, handing the reins of government back to the opposition.
In looking ahead to the Obama administration, no one wants an economic or foreign policy repetition of the nightmarish Carter years – the Republic can hardly afford that sort of long-term damage.
But GOP loyalists should legitimately hope that the new president does manage to follow Little Jimmy’s political example – repeating the Carteresque feat of losing the presidency for his party after a single term of office.
In this regard, President Obama’s first week has already provided a promising start—displaying some of the nastiness, small-mindedness, insecurity, and self-righteousness that notably characterized the Georgia Peanut. The Inaugural Address included graceless digs at President Bush that undermined the promised theme of “unity,” while touchy, grumpy comments to the White House press corps stunned reporters who had previously displayed their infatuation with the new president. The odd remarks scolding Republicans with a reminder that “I won” and warning them not to listen to Rush Limbaugh, hardly characterize a self-confident, optimistic, coalition-building leader in the style of FDR, JFK or Ronald Reagan.
Of course, it’s still much too early to say that Barack Obama has chosen to follow the disastrous path of Carterism, but it’s worth noting that the appallingly loathsome 39th President is still very much on the scene and is out promoting a new book in which he offers the current incumbent his misguided advice on Middle East Peace.
If President Obama chooses to invite the Worthless One to any sort of White House meeting, then Republicans can take encouragement from the interaction and nurture renewed hope for a big comeback within four years.
By the time Ø is done, we may wax nostalgic for the good ole days under brother Jimmuah...
Carter is so worthless that when he finally passes on, the worms will throw him back for a lack of nutritional value.
Yes. Next question please.
It might be argued that Carter was the worst President of the modern era. But, Hoover was pretty darn hapless too.
ROTFLMAO!
People may look at us like we're old codgers when we're saying "I remember back in the day when Obama WASN'T considered the worst president ever," and say "Yeah, sure, riiiiiight..."
My guess has always been Bambi would be a Carter re-do. He could be that stupid I guess with all that lefty help he has.
How do you say, "I remember back in the day when Obama WASN'T considered the worst president ever," in Arabic?
I believe we are watching and experiencing the worst ever in process. I fear for all the rights and freedom we are going to loose. It’s evident by his selections that past failures to comply with requirements and standards are meaningless except for the working class.
I don’t think the odds mean squat. Every election is unique, and is won on the power of the candidate’s personality and his ability to convey his beliefs to the voters.
If the pubs put up a good candidate this time, one who is a good communicator and has solid Conservative values, then they’ll have a good chance of winning.
The odds are made up as we go along.
Obama could win re-election if he keeps this gushing, slobbering lovefest of his going for four years while ramming his Marxist agenda down everyones smiling faces.
LLS
I keep seeing all these late night commercials crying for motorcycle mechanics schools, and more and more blue collar schools, yet I think what will really be in demand is counseling for the disillusioned left that will be unable to cope immediately after the fall from grace that Obama is about to do.
These people will kill themselves and their loved ones before that accept that they were mislead.
Yup. And they will spend the next 4 years blaming Bush for every OBama blunder.
Hussein is a different sort of thing from Carter. Carter was probably more naive than real socialist. They do superficially share their approach to the Military. Carter wanted the money that was being "wasted" on Defense for his domestic projects. Obama wants to emasculate the military because it is perceived as a possible rival power center.
I believe O'Bama to be much more clear-eyed and calculating. Carter didn't know what to do with the bonanza of a collapsing economy . Hussein is intentionally pushing collapse for the purpose of government- his- control of the banking system. AS a socialist(at least) he surely believes that with that control he can shape the Economy in whatever way he desires.
As a socialist, even a very bright socialist, he does not understand that he cannot then revive a collapsed economy at all. The USSR only advanced industrially be sucking off of Europe and looting the "Captive Nations" after WWII. Reagan's economic offensive against the USSR greatly accelerated the inevitable wasting of Eastern European gold and technology and brought collapse before the USSR was able to get enough political and military edge in the world to overpower the West.
When the US slides into real socialism there will be no rival economic powerhouse which the new socialist USA can drain to maintain some sort of industrial base. When the US falls to socialism, Europe will rapidly disintegrate as an economically advanced society as it is smothered under Shariah.
A functioning communist system, and that is what is in prospect here, requires the existence of a large economically free system outside of it in order to keep from sliding into subsistence economy beset by famine and plague.Intellectual socialists cannot see that at all. Practical socialists have no problem with it because the central State, the capital, will remain rich by draining from the countryside- now the rest of the world- as Moscow and Peking have done in their empires.
Actually the party in power tends to lose seats during midterms. What was odd about the Bush Presidency was that during his first term the GOP actually gained seats, which was an oddity.
OBamBam will probably one-up the Peanut Brain by possibly running the country into a depression within his four year term.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.