Poll: Carter Preferred Over Both Bushes
Rasmussen Reports just reposted a poll from last month that’s suddenly very relevant again, given Jimmy Carter’s high-profile entry into the debate over whether race is driving anti-Obama rage:
Which ex-president has done the best job since leaving the White House — Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton or George W. Bush?
32% Jimmy Carter
22% George H.W. Bush
29% Bill Clinton
9% George W. Bush
9% Not sure
Carter edges both Bushes by double-digits. The poll was taken last month, well before Carter’s race remark the other day. But the numbers are noteworthy, because even before this week, Carter has generally been assumed by some Dems to be terrifyingly controversial, largely because of his writings on the Middle East.
With the focus on the Mideast heating up again, Carter will likely be making more news, and the Obama administration will likely be distancing itself from him again, as it did yesterday. Worth recalling that the public doesn’t take all that dim a view of the stuff he’s done since leaving the White House.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Obama et al did a great job changing the subject today to national security and health care….greatly assisting the media in getting off the race meme from yesterday (pushed by Carter in two different sound bites).
it was urgent to move away from race in advance of the sunday show blitz. now the very important news media questioning obama on sunday will have so much to cover that race will be left to the sideline…maybe 1 question with a follow-up per host. imho.
I think it’s pretty funny he’s not going onto Faux Noise Sunday and appropriate considering Fox is now a 24/7 propaganda network for the GOP. They don’t even pretend to be fair and balanced any longer…not that they ever acted so before.
Saying fair and balanced and being it are two different things unless you’re a Fox zombie follower.
God that makes me happy. He was really and truly the most sincere president about trying to change DC, in my lifetime. And because he was an outsider and too smart and too well-intentioned for his own good, he got blind-sided by Reagan and Cheney and I think Rumsfeld was in on that too.
It was such waste. I love it that he’s just grown in stature since he left the presidency, steadily.
This really does touch me deeply that people finally see him for who he really is.
He gets a lot of credit for Habitat for Humanity from both sides of the isle. I’m sure this has something to do with those numbers.
Greg:
(from Rasmussen)
Which ex-president has done the best job since leaving the White House
Best job….of what? Coddling terrorists? Building homes? Making a horse’s *** of himself? The question is useless.
That’s very encouraging. Carter is well thought of in Canada mainly because we haven’t had to suffer the barrage of anti-UN, anti-internationalism rhetoric and ideology you guys have had to live with. Nor have we been subject to the incessant personality-smearing that constitutes so much of recent politics in the US. Where Carter has been treated in an unbalanced manner in Canada has been in our daily papers which, under Conrad Black and the Asper family, have been pretty solidly anti-Palestinian. But the rest of our media has treated him even-handedly.
I never voted for the man, but at this juncture Jimmy Carter does carry cred on the street! Just not Pennsylvania Ave or Wall Street! As a Southern politician inculcated into the Southern idiom, he most probably knows what he is speaking to! -Kevo
“it was urgent to move away from race in advance of the sunday show blitz. ”
Totally totally agree, heather.
“The question is useless.”
Well, something is.
Scott C., I’d argue that a question like that would very likely register as general approval/disapproval.
It’s because he did such a terrible job as President that people are most excited that hapless Jimmy is far away from the levers of power.
Greg:
Yes…it is basically a popularity question. It probably just means “Who do you like the most.”
Carter’s temperament lends itself very well to the role of elder statesman, even as it didn’t lend itself well to the role of president. I have never doubted Carter’s sincerity, even as I don’t think he was, for the most part, a very effective president.
I think he’s been a magnificent former president, and his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for the work he’s done since leaving office attests to that.
oddjob – he wasn’t effective mainly, I think, because he was a real outsider. He didn’t know how vicious it was going to get in DC.
Carter for me has always been more or less proof that someone that sincere and that sincerely clueless because he is too sincere, cannot be a good president.
I’ve had morons say to me: I don’t care if someone is qualified or experienced – as long as they are honest.
Give me a sharp crook any day who knows how to play the game. Like LBJ, par example -
Carter just never saw the hostage crisis and the Reagan coup coming.
We can always count on the moralists Scott C. and Baby Hugo to chime in with the needlessly snotty post regarding a man that the majority of Americans would characterize as decent. You two are certainly class acts.
Jimmy Carter has consistently been honest, moral, and to the best of his abilities, seems to have lived a life that conforms to the standards set by Jesus. President Carter has been a consistent and unwavering advocate of democracy here and abroad. What have your paragons of virtue Reagan, Bush the greater, and Bush the lesser done?
It is not possible for the wingnuts lunatics to remain silent when any liberal is lauded. It just eats away at them and makes the just have to write ridiculous drivel. Wow, I guess Carter really is powerful. The merest mention of him sends these folks into an absolute lather.
If you have so much pent up anger, why don’t you grab a hammer and go down to your local Habitat for Humanity affiliate and put your energy to some kind of constructive use?
Who do you like the most? Hmmm. I respect Carter the most. I’d want to hang out with Clinton the most, followed by H.W. on his cigarette boat. I’d want to have a meaningful conversation with Carter, but he’s the last one I’d want to hang out with Carter the least, the old scold. So likeability might not be it.
The Limbaugh-loving cousins believe that everything wrong in the Middle East is on Carter’s head, set back the cause of peace 50 years, and that the Nobel prize committee is a bunch of liberals, so who cares.
Carter for me has always been more or less proof that someone that sincere and that sincerely clueless because he is too sincere, cannot be a good president.
Pretty much.
Once they realized he didn’t want to play by their rules the Congress, most especially including the Congressional Dems. who had large majorities in both houses, more or less ignored him.
He facilitated the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. That was a truly noteworthy accomplishment. On the domestic side he mostly meant well but was ineffective. In the long run I think the most significant thing he did regarding domestic policy was nominate Paul Volker to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve. People usually associate Paul Volker with the Reagan era and its prosperity, but it was Jimmy Carter who first put Volker in that job. The prosperity of the 1980’s wouldn’t have occurred without Volker’s impact on the Federal Reserve.
You know, Kathleen, if Scott really feels the way he posts, I almost do feel sorry for him – must really be miserable to be that miserable about everything and everyone.
Although, I did agree with him about Kanye – but that’s a gimme.
oddjob – “He facilitated the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. That was a truly noteworthy accomplishment. On the domestic side he mostly meant well but was ineffective.”
True – and excellent point about Volker.
I think what should strike everyone and should have already, is how prescient Carter was about the oil crisis. And steadily everyone wanted to deny it.
everything wrong in the Middle East is on Carter’s head
Another clue that the wingnut right is locked in a thirty year old time warp.
how prescient Carter was about the oil crisis. And steadily everyone wanted to deny it.
Given his inclination to take scientists seriously I’m not surprised by any of that. Even back then the data were pointing to the sorts of outcomes we’re facing now. I was aware of that then when I was in my late teens.
Jimmy Carter was a rebound President. What I mean is that Nixon had cheated on the country, and then Ford pardoned him. Ford had never been voted on in a national election, not even a Presidential primary. He was appointed VP, and then President. The country was looking for someone who was the exact opposite of Nixon, and Carter fit that bill. But you know what sort of decisions people make on the rebound. It could never last.
Jimmy is a very decent man, who really does try to live up to WWJD, but he really was not up to the job of President.
He totally mishandled the Iran Hostage Crisis, from the very start, and made himself a prisoner of the hostage takers.
An Embassy, under international law, is the territory of the country that it represents. It is sovereign territory , and that made the over running of it, and act of war against the USA.
President Carter should have treated it, like FDR did the Pearl Harbor attack.
He should have declared that we are now at war with those who attacked us, and the embassy staff are prisoners of war, and must be treated as such, or those in charge in Iran will be tried as war criminals.
That would have got their attention, and President Carter would have had the country behind him.
You have to act as the commander in chief, when a hostile nation attacks your sovereign territory. President Carter did not, an thereby allowed the Ayatollahs to solidify their regime.
oddjob – wasn’t he basically a scientist by training?
Yes, he did take science seriously, and he was a devout Southern Baptist. God mainstream Protestanism has changed in the last 30 years.
left a ‘t’ out of protestantism.
I think Carter’s problems as president, and they were real, started with perception. The press dwelled on the micromanagement thing, the “malaise” and sweaters, the Depression-baby thriftiness and teetotaling boringness.
And the last part tied into the DC power structure. Tena, I think you’re right that he didn’t know how vicious it was going to be, but there’s a flip side. I was reading a Jody Powell obit, and it was recounting how he and Jordan and the other Southern boys came riding in with chips on their shoulders to school the Ivy Leaguers and clean up that town. Now that’s what Carter was elected to do, but between the no-fun First Couple and the us-against-them outsiders, they were doomed to have ranks closed against them.
Reagan was a breath of fresh air to the country and to DC because he was all sunny and all that B.S., plus he and Nancy and pals knew how to party and how to play ball.
He’s still a baptist, but he’s formerly renounced the Southern Baptist Convention (as I believe so also has his local parish).
He was trained as an engineer, graduating with a bachelor of science from Annapolis, and then later studied nuclear physics so as to qualify for the new “nuclear navy” that Hyman Rickover was creating.
Liam,
If the attempt to rescue the hostages had succeeded, even with a high mortality rate among the captives, Carter would have been hailed as a hero and Reagan would not have been elected. The raid’s failure seemed to symbolize an emasculated Carter who was powerless to stand up to these thugs. Perceptions aside, ALL of the hostages came home, save the one marine killed while the embassy was being stormed.
Carter deserves credit for placing the safety of the hostages above his own political concerns. A lesser person might have used the crisis as a pretext for war, conventional or nuclear, excuse me, nucular. Carter sacrificed his chance for reelection by not succumbing to the lesser angels of our nature.
I think that Carter’s electability and his presidential legacy are inexorably intertwined with our sense of national impotence and shame over the Iranian hostage crisis. His entire record as president is filtered through that lens.
“Jimmy Carter says ‘Yes!’”. (a donut to anyone who knows what this is reference to).
He musta done something right is he pisses off the Right so badly!
(formally renounced)
“it was recounting how he and Jordan and the other Southern boys came riding in with chips on their shoulders to school the Ivy Leaguers and clean up that town. Now that’s what Carter was elected to do, but between the no-fun First Couple and the us-against-them outsiders, they were doomed to have ranks closed against them.”
O well yes, Kathleen, I think you totally nailed it.
Terrible timing, too, really, for that kind of image.
oddjob – I thought he’s probably renounced the Convention – every sane Baptist has – Moyers, for example.
The american rightwing narrative on Reagan is very curious to me. Do any of you share my perception that much of this is a consequence of the sort of venomous derogation of personality/character which has come up with the rise of the new conservative movement which really became institutionalized under Reagan?
@Tena,
Just curious in reference to your 255 post about Carter’s sincerity and honesty being perhaps a liability in a town as duplicitous and full of hardball playing politicians.
Where do you rank Obama on the sincere/honest versus LBJ hardball playing Pres scale?
@Gasman,
He failed as Commander in Chief, when he did not treat the take over of our sovereign territory as an act of war against the USA.
There is no avoiding that fact. The rescue raid was a show of weakness.
Had he declared that Iran had declared war on us by attacking us, then he could have started to stage forces in Turkey, etc, and put the fear of god into those Ayatollahs. They were not in power long enough to have reorganized the military under their control.
I never try to gloss over failures on our side. He failed his first big international challenge, and he allowed it to fester, on national TV, where the nation, nightly, watched us being humiliated by a rag tag bunch of religious fanatics.
“Where do you rank Obama on the sincere/honest versus LBJ hardball playing Pres scale?”
I was waiting for that question, but I somehow imagined sbj would be asking it.
I think Obama is sincere, but he’s also a politician in ways that Carter never was. And never had to be, actually, until he got to DC. Obama is the first AFrican American to make it to the White House. He did not get there by being inept as a politician or weak.
Let me add – Obama is no LBJ, either. Their styles are not comparable, to start with.
I think Obama is much more of a pragmatist than Carter was. President Obama doesn’t let his ideals get in the way of making progress (as he sees it) now. President Carter wasn’t very good at that, although I’m sure he would have liked to have been.
I’m not in disagreement with you Tena. For me however the verdict is still out…I don’t mean to be a single issue guy but if Obama pulls a TRUE public option out of the hat I will be IMPRESSED and give he and his strategists kudos.
I think anybody who took down the Clinton machine is an incredible candidate…I hope he is equally talented as a leader. And I hope once health care gets behind us he gets on with it and ignores the military industrial complex and the hawkish nature of our establishment and brings the troops home..from both wars.
oddjob – damn you said it so much better than I did!
As far LBJ goes, he was a very crude and physical man and Obama is very much not. He’s elegant, actually, and cerebral, though not with the egghead connotation that has become so damning for no good reason.
“Do any of you share my perception that much of this is a consequence of the sort of venomous derogation of personality/character which has come up with the rise of the new conservative movement which really became institutionalized under Reagan?”
Naw.
(Now if I only understood what you are trying to say…)
rukidding – O I just thought the question was pretty inevitable and I was waiting to see who asked it. It’s the best question given what I said.
Liam,
What would a war with Iran have looked like? It’s hard to imagine that we would be better off now. If a war with Iraq was unpopular, even with the justification of the hostage crisis, it’s simply not clear that it would have been anything other than a disaster. If you think the Islamic world doesn’t like us now, imagine what our status today would be if we’d nuked Tehran.
Sometimes discretion actually is the better part of valor. It’s too bad that our idiot cowboy president didn’t realize that.
I’m too young to remember LBJ, except as the president I first recall being aware of. I can remember being 8 years old in the spring of ‘68, riding in my dad’s car while he had the radio on and learning that President Johnson had decided not to run for re-election. I also remember how disgusted my father was with LBJ. (My dad tended to vote contrarian and since we lived in a strongly Republican area he was a registered Democrat, but he was sick to death of the whole Vietnam thing and very strongly wanted us to get out as fast as possible – “I think we should do what the French did: acknowledge we made a mistake, and leave.”)
“our idiot cowboy president didn’t realize that.”
That screams for an edit: our idiot fake cowboy president, who was actually an Andover cheerleader, didn’t realize that.
I’ve grown to admire Carter enormously since his Presidency. He has exhibited thoughtfulness, compassion and courage. As much as I admire him however as a leader he simply lacked charisma.
In the 50’s Truman and Ike could get away lacking charisma because TV was just coming on the scene. Then JFK took out Nixon in those debates and it seems to me the Presidency took on an additional responsibility. Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Obama all ooze charisma…Carter and the Bushes…not so much.
What would a war with Iran have looked like?
Would it have been brief, or would it have led to some sort of extended occupation?
Don’t forget that at the time our largest foreign policy challenge was the USSR, and Iran shared a mountainous, fairly extensive border with the USSR.
An extended occupation of Iran, a likely outcome of a war that led to the downfall of the Ayatollahs, would have been an extremely difficult trick to pull off. The Soviet government would have viewed it in the worst of terms.
@Gasman,
It would not have lead to war. They would have recognized that they would have been overrun within hours, and that the Shah’s army would side with us. They would have released the hostages.
That is why they released them when Reagan was sworn in. They knew that he would have declared war.
Regardless, you can not let someone get away with an act of war against us. You could have asked the very same question about how a war with Japan would look like, right after Pearl Harbor.
You can never make the country look so weak, that it will not respond to an act of war against it.
I’ve known real cowboys – Bush is such an insult to them.
oddjob – LBJ was crucified on the cross of Vietnam. At least he felt personally anguished over it, which is more than I can say about Commander CooCoo Bananas, by any means.
The last time I remember seeing LBJ on television was a year or two (or three?) after Nixon was sworn in, at a nationally televised college football game where the Texas Longhorns were playing. LBJ was up in the stands, cheering on the Longhorns.
He’d grown out his hair, past his shoulders, like the “hippies”.
I still remember how strange that looked to me.
sbj – It seems to me that Carter is uniquely despised on the right. He is, according to the ongoing narrative, utterly undeserving of respect. The neoconservative notions are part of this, of course, given the nature of Carter’s involvement in the middle east. But even outside of that corner of the right’s objections and disdain, there’s a pretty serious and constant derogation of the man.
Now, it is a given in the modern rightwing universe that if there’s a Dem leader, he or she is a target for smearing (Ted Kennedy, Hillary, Daschle, you name him/her). It’s rather like a domestic version of the PNAC strategy to knock down any rising entity that might pose a future problem to US hegemony. One might suggest that Palin is such an example but then one would have to ignore the fact that even Bush considered her grossly unfit. Still, one could say that outside of questions of balance, modern US politics is played this way.
But my tentative thesis here is that the building up of the Reagan mythology, as he campaigned and after, must (in a logical sense) necessarily contrast him with someone else. To the degree that Carter was made to look bad, to that degree Reagan would look good. You might not agree but it seems very likely to me that the release of the hostages in Iran was co-ordinated for reasons of propaganda perception. And that drew a stark contrast between the two men.
Tena I think you are referring to the old Texas expression…”All hat and no cattle”
And you would be correct, Bernie.
And the reason it heated up like that was because the Democrats had just impeached a Republican president.
Things have never been the same – it has been revenge city ever since from the Right.
And by the by…re the middle east…the right is already beginning, as we knew they would, to go absolutely nutty re the European missile shield. I fully expect Beck to inform us that we’ll all have onion domes on our houses before the year is out. And that Israel is now made defenseless.
So it’s probably important to note the following statement from Barak…
“I am not among those who believe Iran is an existential issue for Israel.” Barak concluded: “Israel is strong, I don’t see anyone who could pose an existential threat.” http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/09/17/world/international-uk-israel-iran.html?_r=3
rukidding – yeah that is the one.
The reason the Right worships REagan is because he was their first president after Nixon to restore credibility to the Republican Party.
That’s the reason for all the hagiography, which is so misplaced. The day they announced his Alzheimer’s my husband turned to me and said: how could they tell? And I would bet you he was one among millions.
@bernie: A lot of what you write makes sense – I won’t quibble with the bits that are wrong (!) I was 18 when Reagan took office. Everyone hated Carter and was ashamed of him. He not only appeared weak and lacked charisma but we also had huge economic problems, high unemployment, high energy prices, even gas rationing! Reagan gave a wonderful speech and he made you feel proud. But please note that he was that type of charismatic speaker and that type of perceived leader long before Carter served as his counter. The “mythology” of Reagan, in other words, pre-existed the handy boogeyman of Carter. I think perhaps Reagan was more an antidote to our national shame stemming from Nixon than from Carter.
I would encourage you to apply your thesis to two other Presidents: Bush II and Obama. Would Obama appear to be so thoughtful or such a charismatic speaker or etc etc without the boogeyman of Bush II? In other words, would the mythology surrounding Obama have been possible without the demonizing of Bush II?
“The Democrats had just impeached a Republican president.”
Contact the history books! – they’ve got it wrong again!
@bernie: Was the proposed missile shield in Poland intended to defend Israel? (At least Israel gets Patriot missiles – I don’t think Poland has gotten even that yet.)
(Oh, come on, sbj.
Technically, of course you’re right, but you’re old enough to remember that the only reason Nixon wasn’t impeached was because he resigned before the vote was taken.)
@Bernie…how much do you consider culture in your thesis. Americans can be loud, arrogant and macho..exceeded perhaps only by Australian men who generally consider themselves real badXXsses…I’m amused by tough guys like Bush, Reagan and the righties….usually they remind me of again to use that Texas cliche “all hat and no cattle.” I mean really on a personal level Dick Cheney has never done anything to exhibit any personal courage…dodging the draft and hiding who knows where on 9/11 and days following…but he was tough on paper and with other lives. Perhaps as a Vietnam Vet I am more disgusted by the chicken hawks than most and so very prejudiced against Cheney/Bush.
In your native land Bernie..hockey players never TALK about being tough…they are ACTUALLY tough.
I think Americans crave that John Wayne toughness so much they are offended by thoughtful intellectuals like Carter and appreciate “tough guys” even if they are only truly tough in the movies (Reagan) or a cowboy hat and jeans.
Perhaps due to your love of hockey..Canadians can appreciate genuine physical courage but understand the need for intellect in governance.
Re; LBJ and Obama- totally different styles. But, like Tena said, you don’t get to where he is without being tough. Different personalities and I think Obama has great political skill. I’m not sure someone like LBJ could exist now as a Senator because he was somwhat sheltered in that small community and there wasn’t a 24/7 newscycle that would’ve exposed his every flaw. Plus, I think the language of politics has changed. He was a master for his time for sure.
Ok, sbj – Nixon was impeached, replaced by Ford who was replaced by Carter who was replaced by Reagan.
Reagan was the first elected Republican after Nixon who was popular generally and who restored the party’s self-respect.
What about that is incorrect, you snarky adolescent?
ChuckinDenton – O god, given how the press just excoriated both LBJ and Ladybird at the end of LBJ’s time in office, he would never survive the meatgrinder. You’re so right.
sbj – Re Reagan…there was, and remains ongoing, a Norquist project to burnish the reputation of Reagan (detailed well in “Bring Down This Myth” and quite humorously evidenced in the last series of Republican candidate debates). As to Obama, there’s no question that by way of contrast with Bush, he looked even more appealing to many.
(Nixon was never actually impeached. He resigned before the House of Representatives as a whole voted on it.)
“Reagan was the first elected Republican after Nixon who was popular generally and who restored the party’s self-respect. What about that is incorrect, you snarky adolescent?”
Nothing! I agree: “I think perhaps Reagan was more an antidote to our national shame stemming from Nixon than from Carter.”
The bit about Nixon [NOT] being impeached? – You know I’m all about the facts…
Jesus, I feel like Eric Cartman is standing there and every time I post he starts sniggering. “She said: uranus. Heh heh heh…”
*sigh**
Ok, Here’s that hair split for you: The Democrats had just forced a Republican president to resign or else face impeachment.
Good thing we’re not doing this in braille. That would have taken about 5 pages.
@bernie: “Quite humorously evidenced in the last series of Republican candidate debates.”
Don’t forget Obama’s own burnishing of Reagan’s legacy. My gosh! – He’s part of the conspiracy!
My point stands: Reagan was considered a great speaker and a charismatic leader long before Carter. It could very well be that his legacy continues to grow in stature as a result of continued comparisons to Carter. You imply that those such as this Norquist fellow demonize Carter to this day to make Reagan look better in comparison. But one then has to wonder why polls such as the one cited here show that Carter’s reputation is getting better with the passage of time.
Perhaps to understand Reagan and why he shines still to this day in the eyes of so many you really need to have been an American citizen at the time, who had endured both Nixon and Carter. That’s my thesis…
I was a citizen who lived through Nixon and Carter and in my opinion, Reagan was the worst president of the 20th century.
But then, I can get past the avuncular good looks and the Max Headroom rhetoric.
“Jesus, I feel like Eric Cartman is standing there and every time I post he starts sniggering. “She said: uranus. Heh heh heh…”
That’s really more of a Beavis and Butthead thing.
“The Democrats had just forced a Republican president to resign.”
I think, at best, you are downplaying the role of Republican leaders in forcing this resignation.
rukidding – the differences between our two countries is an endless source of curiosity for me. But you romanticize hockey players. I played hockey for years but I’m a pacifist and I like to wear petticoats in the evening.
We have a small aspect of the cowboy thing but it doesn’t form up into the John Wayne species of mythology such as you guys have. Our settler experience and self-identification, I think mainly because of climate, is rather more of the families working hard thing such as you’ll find in your northern most states (not much of the cowboy thing in Keillor). And, of course, we have lumberjacks (thus the petticoats).
sbj – I have a mixed set of notions about Reagan. But not much mixed about those who, as his son said at the funeral, have used him towards such lousy ends.
http://www.frogstar.com/files/wav/klingon.wav
@bernie: “I have a mixed set of notions about Reagan. But not much mixed about those who, as his son said at the funeral, have used him towards such lousy ends.”
We definitely agree about that – but I doubt we are thinking about the same people.
@tena: Regards tort reform. I have to agree with you. The demo plan that Obama has put forward in no way resembles the demo projects that Bush II had in mind.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/WH_launches_medical_liability_reform_pilot_.html?showall
“I think, at best, you are downplaying the role of Republican leaders in forcing this resignation.”
Gee, I wonder how come the GOP trained the laserlight attention of their revenge square on us til they finally got the Big Dawg with his pants unzipped?
SMH
[bangingforeheadonkeyboard]
That might be relevant, sbj, if that’s what I’d said.
Not to digress to far afield…but while I give credit to Reagan for making many of us FEEL good the economic catastrophe we’ve just gone through…correction are still going through began on Reagans watch with his embrace of the Laffer curve the resultant Kemp Roth Bill and the advent of trickle down economics. Something trickled down alright but it wasn’t the promised wealth. Again the score is in…there are facts to examine..as is done in Harvard economist Norton Garfinkle’s book.
Cutting taxes on the wealthy so that they have more money to invest thereby creating more jobs is simply non factual Reagan and his “revolution” have been a disaster for this country shrinking the middle class in ways unimaginable before Reagan took office and listen to the discredited dolt Arthur Laffer and Jack Kemp. The rich NEVER created more jobs…they simply invested in **** like derivatives and Credit Default Swaps.
When the Dems have used the Keynsian principles of cutting middle class taxes…consumption rises and people go back to work and EVERYONE benefits…including the wealthy even when they pay a higher marginal tax rate.
As they say you can have your opinion but not your facts…the period from post WWII until 1980 was great for the middle class…since Reagan it’s been downhill. Jimmy Carters greatest crime was to come into office when OPEC started feeling it oats and our dependence on foreign oil made us vulnerable…
Ohhh and btw how did our oil boys George and Dick do on our dependence on foreign oil? Grade please. F
Allow me to fill in some of you liberals about why conservatives, particularly those who stay informed, find Carter insufferable. Yes, we think on the merits of just about any policy issue he was disastrous and has continued to be consistently wrong and exert a harmful influence since leaving office.
But, more than that, over time he has become a bitterly twisted and vindictive man. Go back and review his record of public statements and involvement over the past 15 years or so, and you will see that he became a vicious, nasty partisan who apparently felt that he had to do all he could to tear down Republican Presidents in order to rehabilitate his own terrrible record.
Go back, for example, and look at his despicable embrace of Michael Moore and his lunatic attacks on GWB. Look at the ugly statements he has made about Reagan and Bush I. He does not articulate “sincere” policy difference but virtually always lashes out with personal attacks. Along with it, he is always at pains to ensure that his works of charity get “due” public attention. And he clothes it all in sanctimony, making Gasbag’s idolatry of Carter perfectly understandable.
You are all blind to the ugly, vile man he has become. And his latest irresponsible outburst, tarring over half the country as racists — complete with glaring factual misrepresentations about the recent protests — is par for the course.
As for this ridiculous poll, Scott is exactly right. It is a largely meaningless question. But, on top of that, GWB has been out of office for seven months and has been almost entirely out of public view. GHWB has similarly stayed largely out of the public spotlight, adopting a true statesmanlike stance that the country does not need former Presidents continually taking a public role. The exact opposite, in other words, of the officious Carter.
So what other result could this silly poll produce? Both Bushes have kept a low and private profile, while Carter is always afflicting us with his presence. The liberal base loves it when he bashes Israel or the Bushes, and half the rest of the populace doesn’t pay enough attention to know that he does much more than build houses. This poll is meaningless.
Tena…stop bruising your forehead…I believe SBj means well unlike the bilgeman or scott. He may be a bit misguided but he is trying to be fair.
If Halle Berry had Married Tim Burton she would be known as Halle Burton, and Dick Cheney would have funneled billions and billions of no bid defense contracts her way.
@tena: “That might be relevant, sbj, if that’s what I’d said.”
I believe this was in response to my snip about tort reform. My contention was that Obama had embraced Bush’s demo projects – Obama called them a good idea. You contended that Obama had not embraced the notion of tort reform at all. I can see now that Obama misled us during his joint session speech – and I agree with tena – he has not embraced tort reform. It was a bit of misdirection in hopes of securing some bipartisan consensus. It didn’t work – so now he’s offering up the same old nonsense.
Don’t bang your little head, tena – I agree with you!
Thanks rukidding.
QB….now I’ve joined Tena banging my head against the keyboard. Bush I was OK….but Bush II was an unmitigated DISASTER for this country. You can’t seriously consider a candidate for the WORST President in the World as anything but the completely loser he is….I willl give you this…he is a pretty good golfer and he ducks flying shoes really well…but PLEASE look at the score QB…the economic measurements do not lie….the Repubs have been a disaster for the economy. Show me the money!
The GDP…rates of inflation..job creation…with the exception of Carter who was blindsided by the OPEC oil embargo the Repubs have been a total failure for the MAJORITY of our fellow citizens. Buth then QB perhaps you are in that 1% who own more than 50% of our wealth.
Liam – LOL –
rukidding – stick around and see how long your assessments holds.
Liam,
That’s funnny!
rukidding,
Your BDS doesn’t make GWB the “worst president ever” or whatever your favorite locution is. It just means you have a bad case of BDS.
But, in any event, you as usual completely missed the point. I said, in short, Carter has been a terrible ex-President, while Bush II has been an unseen ex-President for a grand total of seven months. Your BDS is so extreme that you can’t think of anything else.
Your economic views are akin to mythology and not something it is worth debating. You don’t even appreciate the difference between a fact and an opinion, so there isn’t any basis for discussion.
All I would say about it is that, your views taken seriously would call for reinstating tax and other economic policies of 1979. Or perhaps you prefer 1959. Good luck selling that.
There is no such thing as BDS because there was not one thing deranged about our assessment of Bush – it is unanimously agreed upon except by the 30%ers and their fevered little champions that Bush was the Worst President Ever.
Telling the truth is not deranged. We were right. In fact, we fell short of how bad it really was.
“Thursday’s annual Census Bureau report on income, poverty and access to health care-the Bureau’s principal report card on the well-being of average Americans-closes the books on the economic record of George W. Bush.
It’s not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.
On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country’s condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton’s two terms, often substantially.”
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/09/closing_the_book_on_the_bush_legacy.php
But, you know, we’re “deranged” cause we kept pointing out that what was going on was going on.
qb-
Obviously your hatred has gotten in the way of your judgement. I’m not gonna go thru your laundry list of problems with Carter and point our your distortions. Obviously you can’t see them.
That’s your BDS talking, Tena. You need help.
By the way, this is really a funny statement:
“it is unanimously agreed upon except by the 30%ers and their fevered little champions that Bush was the Worst President Ever”
Unanimous used to mean unanimous, as in everyone, but now I guess it just means you assume everyone agrees with you, except those whom you know don’t.
Chuck,
This blog is a cauldron of liberal hatred. You see what you feel.
You don’t like my opinions of your iconic ex-President, but you can’t identify any distortions, because they are opinions.
Tena, thanks for that link but I don’t believe QB wishes to deal in reality. No time to bore anyone with it right now but those Bush numbers are not atypical of what happens with an R running the economy.
Quantifiable measurements (facts not opinion QB) are available that prove QB and Reagan’s Laffer curve policies were a disaster.
As for arguing about returning to rates that benefit the middle class…while I might advocate that…and believe it would help…I am naive enough to think I could take on that 1% who not only own over 50% of our wealth but even a higher % of our politicians. Combine their influenece with the lack of awareness of there own self interest from people like you QB as well as dolts like Maria Bartiromo who somehow has secureed a position of prominence…well no…alas I do not think we’ll be taking the country back from the monied interests until it gets even worse. Sooon we’ll be like Mexico with no middle class and then Lou Dobbs can finally stop worrying about the impending takeover by the immigrants.
Forgive the typos misspellings like there instead of their…well I’m a slob I confess.
Sorry, ruk, you still don’t know the difference between facts and opinions. And you are oblivious to innumerable false premises in your neat theories.
You think higher taxes and more government are “good” economics. Your party is in total control and indeed plan to spend trillions more, and raise taxes by trillions. We’ll see in the long run how that works out. Just raise taxes back up to 90% marginal rates and let the good times roll.
“This blog is a cauldron of liberal hatred. You see what you feel.”
O you have no idea. Without the secret liberal decoder ring, you don’t realize just how hateful we’re really being.
If you untwist the foil a little bit, your brain might have some room to work.
quarterback, let’s see this great Bush and Republican record you’re standing up for.
Come on – list the shining freaking achievements of this president you are claiming wasn’t the worst ever.
I’m breathless with anticipation.
Of course QB isn’t interested in reality. What conservative is? Reality bites for them.
@Tena,
To be fair, George W. Bush was not our worst president ever. Dick Cheney was!
Liam – No – Bush was the worst president for letting Cheney run him and everything else.
Ergo, since he was calling all the shots, that makes Dick Cheney the worst president ever! On that, the Simpsons comic book guy, and I agree.
I disagree, and I’m serious and I’ll tell you why – Bush was elected president, not Cheney. Therefore, the responsibility was Bush’s, not Cheney’s. Therefore, Bush abrogated his presidential responsibility to Cheney who fucked everything up – but Bush has the ultimate responsibility and I refuse to let him off the hook.
QB:
href=”http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/poll-carter-preferred-over-both-bushes/#comment-75775″>Well said.
But not well linked by SC.
The rankings seem to be about right except for Jr Bush. It’s only been a few months, so it really isn’t a valid assessment at this point. BTW, I think the guy is a shmuck, and I cursed him every day of his eight years in DC. At this point in time, I would say the most damning rank is that for Sr Bush. What has he done the past 19 years besides fall out of airplanes? Oh, I almost forgot, he worked with Bill Clinton raising money for the tsunami victims a few years ago.