leg4li2ed0pe wrote:In response to XXXXX:
Carter was probobly the best president we ever had. He had some problems in the execution but he had the best ideas for the country of any president ever. Don't get me wrong though he wasn't perfect.
IMHO, at best, Carter was a Millard Filmore type of neutral president. I don't agree that he was a good president, let alone great one. If you visit the Gallup Poll link I gave earlier in this topic, you will see that your view is not reflective of most Americans
. That link has this chart:Presidential Job Approval:
Retrospective Approval Ratings for Presidents
percentage who approved of each president
Most political pundits agree that Carter has been a better president since he left office, with his housing project, peace envoys, etc. He is a nice and decent man, but he did not inspire the people, and did not change history like Reagan did with ending the cold war, restoring our economy, negative view post-Vietnam, etc.
I didn't always agree with clinton. He seriously screwed up wellfare and his bombing of iraq was definatly not necessary. kenedy had some major problems. He almost caused nuclear war with his bay of pigs invasion. The cuban missile chrisis wouldn't even have happened without him. Johnson was one of the major causes of the vietnam war so I obviously have a problem with him. Trueman started the cold war and the military buildup that it included. If he hadn't characterized communism as necessarily evil we would have avoided alot of problems. Under FDR perfectly good food that could have been givin to millions of starving people was dumped and destroyed.
I agree with most of that. I would have also added how horrible Nixon was. FDR did a lot of good too. Clinton presided over a stretch of good economy, and had a playful charisma which was to his credit.
I just dont want the overshow of support to affect how Reagan is thought of by historians and others. He was still not a good president. Thats why I attack him even in death.
I differ from your opinion in terms of what I just said at the very least. I do respect your right to be wrong however.
As for your comments about kerry, he is running a terrible compaign. He doesn't say anything. I listen to the man talk and all I hear is talk abuot leadership and not about policy. That being said I hear the same from bush. Gore is better now than he was when he was running. If he had acted like he is now, then, it would have been much harder for bush to steal the election from him.
I agree on both points.
Clinton may have been animated but as much as you seem to be worried about how people put across their ideas I think it is the ideas themselves that matter.
I disagree. Most people are not interested in politics, and in general are very superficial and shallow. Most vote for a string of local names in the booth that they never heard of, and default to a party line vote. If they deviate from their famly/friend/job/union dictated party line, it is based on how they feel that day. I can guarantee that none of the people on this forum have taken the time to read the links I have given for the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the analysis of Thomas Jefferson, and his ownership of slaves and fathering offspring of his slaves. I can guarantee you that no one on this forum actually took the time to read the GATT Treaty, or the Kyoto Accords, or even UN Resolution 1441, yet they blow off about what they hear from their friends, family, or the liberal Dan Rather media mischaracterizations
. I put the link there for all of them, but I guarantee that none of these blow hards will read them.
They will vote democratic and continue bashing the Republicans because that's what their parents do, or their friends, or workers. They vote based on their emotions.
Bush did a bad job after 9/11. Let's stop kidding ourselves about that. The "with us or against us" bullshit needed to stop. It was a great way to squander what support we had after the attacks. Whether we should have gone into afghanistan is also debatable.
Actually, you are wrong. Look at these various polls, and see that Bush had an approval rating of 70-82% for about 9 months after 9/11
. It is not a debate about going into either Afganistan or Iraq. The world is better off for both actions. We shall see what the new polls show on Bush/Kerry/Nader now that the Iraq news is rapidly improving. Once the gas prices come down, and the economy keeps improving, they will climb up. Just be patient.
Even though kerry is running a terrible campaign he is still ahead in the polls. They aren't really "sinking" themselves. It's bush's Iraq that is doing that.
Past tense is the operative distinction. Wait for the next round of polls, and you will see the improvement for Bush.
Im sick of hearing this stay the course arguement. Both kerry and bush are trying to make it but people are identifying bush with it. Stay what course? Its like realizing you are going in the wrong direction and doubling your speed because of it. Its like saying damnit bush drove us into a ditch but he should be the one to get us out.
The iraq resolution is nice but it doesnt really do anything. We should have given france (and most of the iraqi people, the ones not appointed by us) what they wanted, a veto power against american operations. Also as long as the US is in control of the military situation nobody is going to contribute. It has to become a UN led operation. Maybe the US should even pull out completly within a few months. We are so arrogant in thinking that if we leave there will be nothing there and there will be some sort of power vacume. It means we think the Iraqis would be unable to govern themselves. It was this same thinking that caused america to become an imperialist power at the beginning of the 20th century.
You do not understand how to deal with cultures that operate on the basis of force and intimidation. Just think of the Klingons, and you get the picture. Your French blood is causing brain decay. You missed the lesson of how Reagan got Gorbachev to dissolve the Soviet Union, and the Berlin Wall. People who don't think Reagan's buildup did it, should read the comments by Gorby himself.
Did you know 75% of bush's ads are negative while only 25% of kerry's are? Now I know the 527s are running mostly negative ads but it does come from both sides.
I agree. It has also been highly effective for Bush's candidacy. In part, because Kerry has done and said enough things that the negative ads ring true. Bush's team has to counter the self-admitted 75-80% liberal press who present their daily drivel of one sided anti-Bush news, only the bad news from Iraq, etc. etc. They don't expose the evil George Soros trying to buy the election, nor the radical comments made by moveon.org. As long as those radical elements get a free pass, I'm all in favor of the very effective Bush negative ads.
This comment deserves to get quoted. "They have absolutely no idea what they are generating with people like this, instead of picking someone like Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman to lead their charges. Why do you suppose Ralph Nader is stealing 5-7% of the vote primarily from Kerry? He will be your spoiler....lol! "
I dont know what you are trying to say but it doesn't make sense. First you say we should nominate zel miller. I have news for you, zel miller endorsed george bush a long time ago. He would even refuse to run if asked. Lieberman is also extremly moderate. Neither of these two really stand for anything. Here is where your comment gets even wierder. You say that it is because the democrats didn't nominate an extreme moderate the nader is doing well. Nader is a liberal. If the democrats had nominated an extreme moderate Nader would be doing better not worse. The really liberal people in the democratic party would vote for him because they don't like the moderates. If a party wants to destroy a spoiler like that they nominate someone to the far right or left. Not a moderate. That being said kerry is reletivly moderate contrary to what your sig says. The whole party is.
You are really just as closed minded as much of the democratic party is. Its a problem with both sides. Your post demonstrates that.
I can see your confusion. What I am saying is that the Democrats first pick ultra-liberal Howard Dean, and then decide at some point to destroy him. That did incredible damage to their party, and the liberal wing, in contrast will not support Kerry as he is trying to move to the mainstream middle. These liberal, and anti-war kooks have now moved to Nader in alarming numbers.
The democratic establishment picks Kerry who is about as exciting as Gore, who is about as exciting as watching paint dry. Kerry has been shown by several well respected research firms to be the most liberal U.S. Senator
, and as such is not able to reach enough mainstream voters to get elected. He is trying to move from his liberal voting record to the middle, but in the process he is appearing to be flip-flopping on what were thought to be his core issues.
What I am saying is that they should have picked a mainstream, moderate democrat like John Edwards or Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller who could have won enough southern state votes to win an electoral majority. Instead they pick ultra liberals, and try to get them to move to a false mainstream, that the liberal democrats see right through, and the republicans will never buy. The liberals have now bailed to Nader, and everyone else is seeing Kerry as a depressing, boring corpse pretending not to be a liberal.
What the Democrats needed to do was pick a moderate Democrat who had charisma like Edwards, but with more respect and experience. They should have sacrificed the kooky extreme liberal fringe...chalking it off to Nader, and tried to take away a significant portion of the middle and undecided voters, especially appealing to southern states which used to always be democratic.
Instead, they roll out another Gore-bot clone, do a lot of screeching, whooping and hollering, and think the way to the promised land is through bashing my 50% of the country.
I'm not actually as close minded as some of my posts have indicated. I'm a lone voice on a liberal forum board, dealing with a lot of fringe kooks who sling their sh*t and attacks in a way that would make Janet "Plastic Face" Pelosi proud. As a result, I come accross as a right wing fanatic to some. Too bad for them.