Duros62: “That is unmitigated bullshit and you know it, Jay. Our problems in the Middle East go back much farther than that. Including, but not limited to, the coup in 1953 by the CIA and Norman Schwarzkopf’s father.”

American’s first permanent fighting force was created to fight in the Middle East. The Western World has been screwing with the Middle East for a long, long time.

That is unmitigated bullshit and you know it, Jay. Our problems in the Middle East go back much farther than that. Including, but not limited to, the coup in 1953 by the CIA and Norman Schwarzkopf’s father.

And while there haven’t been any polling about “worst ex-president” that I know of (and I don’t give a rat’s ass about polls anyway), I’ll stand by Carter as worst.

So, in other words, the reason this title didn’t garner any interest or attention is because you made it up, entirely, in your own mind.

When Jay Tea’s in full-blown moron mode, you start with a, “Fuck” and end with an, “Off!”

Debating him is a waste of time because, chances are, he will run.

JT: most of our problems in the Middle East can be traced back to Carter’s mishandling of Iran

JT: You might have overlooked the news, but the military re-enlistment rates are above quotas.

Fond as you are of moving goal posts, you must have seen no problem with the requirements being significantly dropped so that those quotas are being met with ex-cons and others who would not have been at all accepted into the military until recently. Or did you miss that part of the news?

JT: In the old days, former presidents quietly retired, occasionally writing a book or two.

Which, of course, is a good thing because the moment they leave office they suddenly lose all ability to be of service. While I certainly wish various presidents, ex- and otherwise, had quietly disappeared I don’t get how someone who benefits the country suddenly looses that the instant another person is inaugurated.

JT: But there was a hell of a stink when Reagan gave a speech in Japan for about a million dollars after leaving office, because that just wasn’t done.

Yeah, lets compare giving a speech for a million dollars to the kinds of actions that end up getting someone awarded a Nobel Peace prize. Do you really, truly not see the difference between someone lining their own pockets with a million dollars and someone working uncompensated to bring peace to one of the most troubled regions of the world?

As for Carter and energy:

Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.

I know that some of you may doubt that we face real energy shortages. The 1973 gasoline lines are gone, and our homes are warm again. But our energy problem is worse tonight than it was in 1973 or a few weeks ago in the dead of winter. It is worse because more waste has occurred, and more time has passed by without our planning for the future. And it will get worse every day until we act…”

Alternative energy development and conservation. An attempt to wean us off of oil dependence. All derailed by Reagan.

Also, Carter supported the Shah, not Khomeni.

Last point, our troubles in the Middle East can be traced to our dependence on their oil, and thus, our interference in their politics.

And Christ. You are piling on Clinton for getting paid for giving speeches? At least he gives good speeches. What did Bush Sr. do when he left office. Oh yeah, he collected his fee for giving various mineral rights to a Canadian mining firm, and then went on to capitalize on his government connections in the high profit defense industry.

Sure the military met their vastly lowered quotas with lots of happy, well adjusted skin heads and ex-cons, high school drop outs, and lots of cash baiting. Stop loss much?

That must be some delicious Kool-aid.

Anti-Israel? By trying to find a legitimate route to peace even if that means talking to Hamas? What a jerk. Why can’t he just get with the forced relocation, illegal settlement, economic strangulation program like everyone else?

Supported Khomeni? You mean by pressuring the Shah to implement democratic reforms?

Unless Carter is a time lord, he wasn’t responsible for the removal of a duly elected Iranian president in the ’50s and the subsequent support of an autocratic dictator for the next 25 years, which may have played a teensy part in the hostage crisis and the rise of the Ayatollah.

Carter also cleverly manipulated Reagan into trading arms for hostages (negotiating with terrorists!)and stipulating that said hostages be held until Reagan took office, I suppose.

You might have overlooked the news, but the military re-enlistment rates are above quotas. In fact, one unit that’s seen a great deal of action in Iraq met its anuual quota (ending at the end of June) several weeks ago.

And while there haven’t been any polling about “worst ex-president” that I know of (and I don’t give a rat’s ass about polls anyway), I’ll stand by Carter as worst. His free-lance diplomacy with North Korea over nukes, his anti-Israel efforts, and now his meeting with a recognized terrorist organization put him head and shoulders above any other ex-president I can recall.

In the old days, former presidents quietly retired, occasionally writing a book or two. Two notable exceptions were John Quincy Adams, who served in Congress after leaving office, and William Howard Taft, who served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. But there was a hell of a stink when Reagan gave a speech in Japan for about a million dollars after leaving office, because that just wasn’t done.

Well, Clinton has dwarfed Reagan’s accomplishment there, but he has a hell of a way to go before he passes Carter for ignominy.

That’s Jimmy Carter, Democratic superdelegate who’s endorsed Barack Obama.

J.

Unlike Bush, clearly is better than Carter since he’s been able to blow American prestige worldwide. Not to mention Bush’s much larger case of impotence in dealing with the actual people behind 9/11.

JT: The military utterly demoralized and underfunded. The nation seen as an impotent laughingstock around the world.

As opposed to now when morale is at an all time high, military suicides are down and the soldiers are getting all the funding they need? (’scuse me, gotta go watch them close another military aid center because too many soldiers are in need of their services.)

JT: And I wasn’t moving the goalposts. I was simply pointing out an alternate yardstick.

In other words, you weren’t moving the goal posts. You were simply moving the goal posts. As I said: Heaven forbid we use a consistent measure if that doesn’t give the result you want.

JT: He then went on to set the bar for “worst ex-president,”

Doing what, exactly? Building habitats for the homeless? Acting as a diplomat? Earning the Nobel Peace Prize?

I’ve never heard of this distinction, which is obviously your point, so please point me in the direction from which this information originated.

Hell, Google up “misery index” and see just how bad things were at the time. Unemployment, interest rates, and inflation all at horrid levels. The military utterly demoralized and underfunded. The nation seen as an impotent laughingstock around the world.

And I wasn’t moving the goalposts. I was simply pointing out an alternate yardstick. As I recall, the prior record for “worst president” as measured during his term in office was Truman, and now he’s widely seen as one of the better ones. Nixon had very high approval numbers at various points, and now he’s seen as one of the worst. And Clinton… easily one of the most polarizing presidents in the last couple of decades, but now more and more people are starting to see him as I do: not the worst, but certainly pretty bad.

As a rule, I don’t give any stock in polls and surveys. The only polls I give any real stock in are the ones held on Tuesdays, and where the results are both absolutely measurable and meaningful. They’re called “elections.”

Fact: Carter was the first president since Herbert Hoover to be denied a second elected term. And he was, indeed, THAT BAD.

He then went on to set the bar for “worst ex-president,” a title that had never garnered much interest or attention. But it looks like Bill Clinton is looking to nail down that title like it was a chubby intern with a beret and a cigar.

He’s got a hell of a way to go, though. Carter’s ex-presidency, like his presidency, is, indeed, THAT BAD.

J.

Give the Current Occupant time; I’m sure he won’t allow himself to be outdone in this category either.

Jimmy Carter has done more good since he left office than I imagine George W. Bush would even think of doing. I’m sure he’s looking forward to all of the corporate board members he can help out, mind you. Although I have to wonder if he’s delusional enough to think he can make a living off of “speaking engagements.”

By all means, let’s move the goal posts. Heaven forbid we use a consistent measure if that doesn’t give the result you want.

JT: Carter hit rock bottom when he was defeated in the 1980 race, 44 states to 6 (plus DC), and 489-49 in electoral votes. Convert that to a percentage, and it works out to around 90$ rejection…

Election Results 1980
Reagan got almost 91% of the electoral votes, but less than 51% of the popular vote. So without the distortion caused by the electoral college Carter had, at most, a 59% rejection.

But even that’s switching the goal posts. 69% of the people in this country are actually saying they disapprove of Bush. At most only 59% wanted someone other than Carter. Some of that 59% would say they disapproved of him, sure, but just because someone didn’t vote for Carter doesn’t mean they disapproved of him. All that can be legitimately concluded is that they approved of someone else more.

So Bush: 69% actively saying “bad job!”. Carter: something less than 59%.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wFYeGN67Gc

Thanks Reagan.

J.