Redstate

GW falls kinda in the middle but how can ANYONE by any measure believe that there has been anyone worse than Jimmy Carter -- during AND after his presidency.

The Man fell into an ideological trap and allowed what should have just been an economic crisis metastasize into a situation that threatened the republic. He also set the stage for an unending growth in government and the longest democratic control of congress since the civil war.

His solutions weren't much different than FDRs. He was not a laissez-faire guy. He was very interventionist. He signed massive tax increases to try to fix the problem. He accelerated public works projects to try to fix the problem. He jacked up tariffs across the board to try to fix the problem. FDR's policies weren't any better than his, they were just bigger and bolder versions of the same kind of stuff. WWII is what ended the depression.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

60% tariffs. Do you need more ? He could have kept his campaign promises to the farmers many other ways.

His polcies were actually better in concept but not large enough in execution. Thats the tragedy.

BTW if you think BDS is bad talk to someone who lived through the depression about President Hoover.

Would have to be in the running... but I suppose Carter pretty much takes the cake. He makes Clinton look like an absolute rock star.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

You should be proud. With a brilliance such as yours, you better be careful or you'll get stuck in Iraq.

genius

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

/bow
Thank you, thank you, you've been a great audience!

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

Madhouse Thought and The Minority Report

Because of the oiiiiiiilllllll.

Moe

PS: Folks, let me know when this entry no longer amuses.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

NT

a member of the Skull Society. And only he, George Walker Bush really knows what the "eye" in the pyramid on a dollar bill really means.

And, in case you didn't know it, "Walker" stands for "Walker, Texas Ranger". The series was really about GWB, but the episodes are coded. Only Karl Rove can crack the code...
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

We've had 43 presidents. Each of them, if studied in some level of detail, have had plenty of things they did which would generally be perceived as good and healthy

Ok genius, Jimmy Earl Carter, start naming all the good things he did. I won't hold my breath.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

He ended the draft. He appointed Fed Chairman Volcker.
--
Run like Reagan!

nearly destroyed the economy. And he did not end inflation, inflation stopped when the government stopped creating more money. As for the draft thing, it was inevitable. The congress did it, and he went along.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

The money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve- it's by adjusting the money supply that the Fed controls interest rates.

but the treasury can also increase the money supply.
Volker did decrease the money supply but also raised interest rates to near orbital levels. This did nothing but tank the economy.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Oh yeah, because it was doing so great before he choked inflation to death. Sorry, I'd rather have a 1982-style recession than a prolonged stagflation slump.
--
Run like Reagan!

Volcker was an absolute disaster. The late 70's were about as close to a depression as I hope America ever gets again.

On the good side, my CD's were earning around 16%. Of course, I was one of the few that had any money at all to put into savings.

He reinstated registration for the draft. I believe it is Nixon that gets the credit for ending it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Draft ended 1973 by Nixon. Registration ended 1975 by Ford. Registration started 1980 by Carter.

There really is nothing good to say about the man.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I thought it was Nixon who ended the active drafting, Carter who ended registration, and Reagan who reinstated the registration.

But if I'm wrong, I'm glad to know.
--
Run like Reagan!

See what happens when you try to say nice things about Carter? Let that be a lesson for you.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Not to beat a dead horse here, but it might be worth remembering who was Ford's SECDEF who oversaw the transition to the all-volunteer army...

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

They say no man is indispensible, but it's going to take longer to get the successors for some...
--
Run like Reagan!

Where he got Israel and Eygpt to make peace.

Low and behold without pressuring Israel to surrender the right to exist either!

While Carter was a pretty bad president, the peace between Eygpt and Israel has lasted.

Of course I think it can be argued that Eygpt and Israel have had more to do with that than Carter, and that Carter just happened to be the lucky fellow to stand around when it happened.

But it did happen when he was president, and he probably did have a small part to play in it.

Which is, by the way, the major reason why you can get a decent domestic beer these days.

Otherwise, yeah, twit.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

none of those presidents started a war with no withdrawal plan notsobluestater

Lincoln was accused of horrible planning throughout the first two years of the Civil War. He was also accused of lying about the purpose of the war. He was told that the lies were so bad that troops wouldn't re-enlist. Wasn't the Civil War an optional war of choice? Why couldn't the South just be its own country if they wanted to? Was it worth a million lives to stop them?

Do you think that Truman's plans in Korea were clear, or did they change a few times? Was that war a good idea, or a waste of lives and treasure? Were we right about the intentions and willingness of the Chinese?

If you don't understand these questions, do you really know enough about history to determine that Bush has been the worst president ever?

Stick with the monkey pictures. It's waaay easier than reading.

--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

The campaign of 1864 (Lincoln vs. McClellan) is, IMO, the most fascinating Presidential campaign in American history. It took place, of course, only months prior to both Lincoln's death and ultimate Union victory in the war.

Howver, Lincoln appeared headed for certain defeat throughout most of the campaign. And it wasn't until Atlanta fell in early September of 1864 -- and Sherman's subsequent "March to the Sea" -- that voters felt a tinge of hope that victory was possible.

Lincoln was handily reelected. But the ensuing months actually proved to be some of the most trying for the Union. Even the days leading up to Appomatox itself, as Jay Winik so eloquently chronicled in "April 1865", held quite a bit of uncertainty.

"Liberal" is quite obviously a fool. Lincoln had no idea what he was getting America into when he engaged the Confederacy after the attack on Fort Sumter. In fact, his first pass at fighting the war proved to be disastrous -- as he badly underestimated the resources which would be needed to preserve the Union.

Many, then, tried to persuade him in 1862 that the war couldn't be won and, even if it could, would not be worth the costs.

Thankfully, Lincoln rejected this defeatism, redoubled his efforts, and emerged victorious.

But to think that he knew, in April 1861, how the Civil War would eventually play out and how he would win it, is dangerously and astoundingly naive.

My specific point was that the accusation of having no plan was stronger in 1862 and 1863. Later in the war, it was more a question of winning versus losing.

I want "liberal" to give us some thoughts on the significance of Neville Chamberlain, the wisodom of waiting until 1941 to engage Hitler, whether liberal sees a connection betwween Hitler in 1933 and Ahmadinejad in 2006, and whether or not history has come down in favor of our withdrawl from Vietnam -- given the aftermath.

Also, a paragraph or two about General Giap and his effect on groups like al Qaeda would be highly instructive.

--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

What the democrats were saying isn't printable

Lincoln had no withdrawal plan. Which is why Reconstruction lasted, what, 10 years? And then after that, African-Americans were repressed once again.

And Truman's peace talks regarding Korea were stuck until Stalin physically died, if I remember correctly.

Hey, I opposed this war too, but snarky comment earns snarky comment.

It's been a hundred and forty years, and we still have not withdrawn from the Confederacy. When are we going to cut our losses and redeploy out of that quagmire?

Lewis Grizzard, "Delta is ready when you are!"

In Vino Veritas

Lincoln = Civil War - no withdrawl plan, the bloodiest American war ever. More Americans died in the Civil War than all other wars combined.

Truman = You've never heard of Korea! No withdrawl plan there.

You just proved you are worthy of all the ridicule that has been heaped upon you.

Yeah how bout another one-liner, thats all liberals like you are good for. What are you 12? or are you attending the Detroit public school system?

Don't be dissing the DPS! They have enough problems of their own!

>>>>b.)gave tax cuts to the rich, making the rich richer and the poor poorer

Illogical on its face. How is a poor person's income effected at all if a rich person gets a tax cut. The economy is non-static.

>>>c.) turned billions of dollars in surplus into trillions in deficit,don't say clinton did it conservatives.

OK, I won't, but then you make point d.

>>>>>d.) created medicare plan that currently has tens of thousands of senior citizens experiencing coverage gaps, at the same time reduced social security benefits.
If you are really worried about deficits, you probably wish GWB would actually cut a bunch from Socialist Security and Medipander. Leave the ponzi shemes to AMWAY.

>>>e.) isn't listening to iraq study group

Whe I was listing all the reasons GWB made me feel warm and fuzzy, I forgot that one. Thanks.

>>>>>f.) read a book about a goat to elementary school when our country was watching the world trade towers fall

Gee, I guess he would have had to have known those attacks were coming to have been 100% likely to be manning the bridge like Capt Kirk during the 9-11 attacks. There goes one of your pet conspiracy theories.

>>>>g.) where was he during katrina? brownie was not doing a heck of a job

Niether was anyone else until the National Guard showed up. Explain to me why the city of New Orleans had over 200 buses within blocks of The Superdome that sat there and got flooded out.

>>>>>h.) starts whisper campaigns to defeat is opponents such as: "john mccain's adopted daughter is the daughter of a prostitute" how juvenile can you get?

I don't know. Ask the Dem. operatives that shopped Mark FOley IM's all over the media prior to Election 2006.

>>>>i.) the mission still isn't accomplished georgy, and it's way past 2003

An earlier part of your screed suggested that the mission had changed several times since then. If you make that statement, than perhaps, you, yourself have no clue what the mission was. Given that; you're in no position to make an intelligent judgement as to whether it has been accomplished yet.

2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight

all of your rebuttals to my points, except for b. and d., refer to small technicalities that don't deal with the presidents involvement with the issues.

b. it gives the rich more money which makes them richer. i'm so sorry that i forgot to mention that the value of the dollar is decreasing, and the poor have been receiving 5.15 an hour, since 1996

d. how about getting out of iraq, that will save us oh, about 250 million dollars a day!

refer to things the President doesn't control either...

2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight

The most notable being that it will be cheaper for people from other countries to buy the goods we manufacture.

While I don't claim to have a PhD in economics, something tells me you don't have clue. You are a liberal after all.

The cost of leaving Iraq is far greater than your small mind will every comprehend.

Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.

My house playing Nintendo. The President is wicked good at Mario Cart. We were so busy playing that we forgot to turn on the news...whoops.

International Affairs is just Political Science with an accent.

Always uses those damn blue shells right before I win!

...not sure where I compared FDR to GWB. I did compare him to Truman -- at least insofar as his foreign policy goes. And I think it's the most apt comparison at this point.

There was a prevalent school of those in the late 40s and early 50s (which is understandable, considering the grueling war the nation had just endured) that we should seek a more accomodationist stance towards the expansion of the Soviet Empire.

Truman rejected this, in favor of interventionism -- chiefly in Korea. Boiled down to a single notion, we "lost" in Korea. At the time, the policy was incredibly unpopular as was its executor.

Truman left office unpopular and reviled -- stubbornly confident in a policy that many saw as unnecessary intervention in an internecine squirmish half a world away.

In hindsight, however, Truman's policy in Korea -- problematic though it was -- set the stage for an ultimately successful effort to beat back the spread of global communism. And his legacy has since grown immensely.

Of course, many presidential legacies hinge completely on the performance of the economy. That certainly seems to be Bill Clinton's. In that respect, Bush gets high marks -- although I'm generally loathe to give any president too much credit for economic health.

However, the conditions in the early years of the Bush presidency were dire. We had a protracted stock market crash, a slew of major corporate accounting scandals, a potentially devastating attack on our soil, a commodity price surge, and various other economically challenging events. It could've been 1932 all over again.

Yet, the economy has performed quite well. The lowered tax burdens, continued free trade policies, and an aggressive monetary policy all contributed to this resiliency -- with only a short and shallow recession resulting.

Here we are now with sub-5% unemployment, 3-4% annual GDP growth, low inflation, and low interest rates.

I'm far from being a Bush lover. As a small government fiscal conservative, I think his presidency has had its share of black marks (some of which I discussed in my above post).

But you really can't take anybody too seriously who just says "he's the worst." Anybody who says that really doesn't have much in the way of frame of reference.

So you've gone from a common garden variety troll to a Talking-Point-O-Matic.

Before you're account vaporizes, let me summarize (using your creative grammar because I think the style is neat-o):

a) binLaden didn't bomb us, either - the people who did are dead - you had your chance to argue that the Bush Doctrine was a bad idea in 2003 and you failed - so the blood of all those dead soldiers is therefore on your hands and I hope you can sleep at night

b) got a link for the whole "poor poorer" thing? because all evidence appears to be to the contrary. google is your friend. and yeh, an econmoy growing for 15-quarters in a row with nearly 10-mil new jobs and 4.5% unemployment reeeeeeeeeally stinks, doesn't it.

c) as if a recession and 9/11 had nothing to do with that. brilliant.

d) gee, I didn't know medicare was created in 2004. must have missed that.

e) good for him, neither is anyone else.

f) and I'm sure he could have personally kept the towers from falling had he reacted a whole 5-minutes faster. got me there.

g) yep, and it's all his fault that NOLA turned into Mogadishu 16-hours after the storm ended. oh, and the governor and mayor belonged to which political party again?

h) are you sure georgie did that?

i) well, saddam is about to be hanged, his kids are dead, and Iraq is no longer in a position to shoot-down our planes or attack it's neighbors. sounds like "mission accomplished" to me.

Toodles.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

A 4.5% increase in overall employment.

Let's not confuse "liberal" with facts, though.

--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

You just aren't too bright. The US was not and has never been "attacked" by Afghanistan. If you are referring to 911, the US was attacked by al Qaeda. aQ is a radical Islamist organization and never governed Afghanistan.

The Taliban, a religious/political group headed by one Mullah Omar, actually governed Afghanistan. They provided a safe haven for aQ.

You're getting tiresome now.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

...as it's the willingness to wallow in ignorance. Kinda scary.

There's much to fault Bush on, but it's still possible to frame that debate in facts...

--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

Here you are my little twit brained liberal with small case ideals.

1. You are obviously young, ignorant and inexperienced in life.

2. Your arguments are of no face value and deserve no rebuttals of consequence.

3. I doubt you have ever accomplished anything resembling worthwhile productivity, there being little commercial value in the ability to whine about those things which you incapable of understanding.

4. At best your future is projected as a parasite feeding on the fabric of American culture because you offer no meaningful contributions there too.

5. Now why don't you swim away with your fellow intellectual ramoras and sustain your views by being nourished from the drool of the likes of Al Gore, John Kerry and Al Franken.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Seriously. I was at Dkos for a year when I thought I was a "moderate", and not even liberals are this stupid.

a) Afghanistan did not attack us. Al-Qaeda did.

b) Everyone (as whole, I'm sure that your deranged self is an exception) is richer now then they were 6 years ago. Real wages, among other things, have gone up across the board. Not bad considering that GW inherited the aftermath of the dot-com bubble.

c)

d) Lets hear your plan.

e) I'm sorry, I must have missed the spot in the Constitution where it talks about how Presidents must listen to and use every recommendation from un-elected study groups. I will give you hint, the President is the Commander in Chief.

f) Your course of action would have been to what? Jump up and down screaming? Thank you for realizing what conservatives have been saying all along: that big, bureaucratic organizations (like, I don't know, maybe the federal government?) are incapable of dealing with almost any situation. Had the attack occurred one year prior, during Clinton's terms, do you honestly think the Feds would have been quick and nimble in dealing with such an attack? If you answer is yes, please back it up with some facts.

h) First off, what possible gain would GW have from bringing McCain? Second, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Where is yours?

g) Apparently he was laying the charges on the levees so he could kill as many po' black folk as possible.

i) I want to hear your plan for victory in Iraq.

Oh, and for God's sake, try using punctuation and complete sentences.

Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.

They probably just want to have everyone laugh at you.

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

NOBODY who's a regular poster here needs any help with you. Darin H is absolutely right, you got recommended because you're an easy target to start the week. Kind of an early Christmas. And you haven't disappointed. Your comments are right out of your TalkingPoint-O-Matic™, your thought process is uninformed and misinformed, your knowledge (let alone your understanding) of history is non-existent, and your typing skills reveal someone who spends too much time texting his buddies.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

exactly, he confronted iraq not afghanistan

ill see where this has gone tomorrow, but for now i will let you scream at me.

The next scream will be the first. This has been like shooting fish in a barrel so far.

Raise your hand if this tripe is making you "scream".

--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

Yes, liberal, Bush certainly did confronted Afghanistan.

The massive military campaign was called Operation Enduring Freedom. We lost several of our men (and women) in the first couple of days.

Now there is a serious debate on whether or not the war in Iraq took away from resources in Afghanistan. Bob Graham and Bob Byrd both opposed the war on these reasons, but looking at Afghanistan now, you can't argue with the result...

Taliban-Gone
Mullah Omar-Gone
al Quaeda's Afghan base-Gone
bin Laden-Gone

(UBL probably fled to Pakistan...although others think he went west to Iran)

If he's dead, his supporters are probably trying to cover it up.

From now on, I will type Iraq, not Iraq. And here I was saying wrong the whole time that I was there!!! Maybe if I wasn't so stupid, I wouldn't have been "stuck" there.

Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.

You say Bush is the worst president ever not because his actions were evil, wrongheaded, or even stupid. You think Bush is the worst President ever because you don't like the results- you only support your country in war when it's short and sweet.

Interesting that you don't consider FDR the worst President ever, or even better Lincoln, or probably the top worst: Madision.

After, Madision got the White House burned down, and the capital of the US was sacked. How much worse can you get than that!

After, Madision got the White House burned down, and the capital of the US was sacked. How much worse can you get than that!

I certainly hope they found a bunch of clueless has-been politicians to serve on some kind of blue ribbon panel to investigate the incident and make recommendations. If they haven't, is it too late to do it now? There might have not been enough clueless has-been politicians around at the time.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

He's all yours Moe...
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I would have let him live, except that he made the mistake of erasing a Contributor's editorial corrections. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Then again, to quote Larry Niven: think of it as evolution in action.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Ironic, ain't it, that there probably are virgins available to martyrs of this stripe.

Ah, youth...

--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

...to activistettes. College students, take note.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

And agreed to. ;)

... but I think he has stuck to principle on several things:

Iraq. There are things that have been misguided, and others that are just plain wrong, but he has stood by his principles and decisions throughout. The most recent example is the Iraq Study Group -- which offered him a lot of political cover if he chose to hide behind it. He did not.

Another: Taxes.

A third: Immigration. He on the other side from conservatives on this one, but he always has been.

Terror: People are sick of this fight. Bush is committed to it.

Finally, naming Jesus as his favorite political philosopher is hardly unprincipled. I think he believes it.

--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

On Iraq: He bungled the situation by 1) not knowing what he was getting into (I highly doubt that he, like Rep. Reyes today, could have told you the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni before, and long after, we invaded, and his naive belief that a democracy can be made to grow overnight anywhere in the world is astounding.); 2) failing to adjust policy in response to the many grave situations that emerged on the ground, and 3) refusing to admit he had made a mistake about anything, to take heed of advice and criticism (which he is only pretending to do now, I fear, embarrassingly three years after the invasion, for public relations purposes). His "principle" of not acceeding to the reality that we have to get out of there is explained by his knowing, given he won't be running for anything ever again, that his historical legacy will be in tatters if Iraq is a failure (as it is bound to be).

On Taxes: That must have been a tough call with Republicans in control of Congress. As tough as his dissipating the surplus by cutting every taxpayer a check in 2001 so that now we are even deeper in debt. Bread and circuses, bread and circuses. Absolutely no backbone was exhibited in taking those positions, and even if I agree (which I do) that rates should be kept low, George W. Bush squandered any chance he had of simplifying the tax code. Now Rahm Emmanuel is shopping around his proposal for a flat tax, and the Democrats may have stolen the issue, due to President Bush's and the Republicans' being so much in the thrall of lobbyists (who spend half their time fooling with the code).

On Immigration: It's hard to tell what President Bush really has in mind here. I think he's fudged a number of times. In any event, I'll bet he caves to Democratic demands for the short-term publicity of making it appear that something is being accomplished in Washington.

On Terror: I am not "sick of this fight." Let's keep on fighting. I am sick of Prsident Bush's cavalier disregard for the Fourth Amendment as well as international treaties, to which the U.S. is a party, that forbid torture. Torturing detainees makes no sense practically (in that they'll tell you whatever you want to hear and our enemies will feel even freer to engage in the same behavior) or, obviously, morally. Which brings me to your last point . . .

On Naming Jesus Christ as his "Favorite Political Philosopher": As a practicing Catholic, I have nothing whatever against Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, I am fairly certain that W's assertion that the Son of Man is his favorite political philosopher was the product of two things: 1) his lack of knowledge of any conventional political philosophers (At the same debate, Steve Forbes answered "John Locke," which actually makes some sense. Furthermore, when the Governor of Texas was asked to explain his response of "Jesus Christ," he replied, and I quote, "If you don't know, I can't tell you.") and 2) he was shamelessly pandering to the religious conservative voters of Iowa (and elsewhere). If you want further elaboration on just how cynical that pandering really has been, consult David Kwo's book Tempting Faith. I've read it. It's an eye-opener.

Just for the record. Why? Because he beat Al Gore and John Kerry and he is a stand up guy.

-Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

A very good point.

NCLB is not working. Here is a website that explains how much it is not working and why.

try this one http://nochildleft.com/2006/sept06killing.html

"teacher moral", "give schools a chance",

how about a little less emotion and some more facts, even PBS of all places has at least some facts to offer up

PBS NCLB

AACTE Education Policy Clearinghouse lots of facts and information here....

So you hate everything Bush, hate is an emotion, a strong one I'll concede... but no spine, destroyed the Republican Party and compared him to 18th-century French royalty?

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin