Probably Carter's greatest accomplishment. As bad as things are today in the Middle East, just imagine what they would be like absent Camp David and Carter's successful diplomacy. While I'm no fan of Carter (I agree that he was a poor leader and indecisive), to declare him the "worst ever" is simply absurd. I'm glad I voted for him twice. Ford was a good guy, and a better president than he's given credit for, but there was no way I would vote for him after the two terms of Tricky Dick Nixon. And I would never take back my vote for Carter over Reagan, who is overrated, IMO, by far too many. I'm a bit confused... what on earth does President Obama have in common with Carter, other than belonging to the same party? Nothing.
Where would you rank each of them? Reagan is at least top 10 in my book. I'm also curious where people rank JFK & Clinton.
Clinton is too low on that list. Its the reason I wonder where people would rank him. Infidelity aside, he made a good president. I really wonder how much that hurt him in these rankings.
I've said this before in other threads, but I believe the Camp David Accords, alone, preclude considering Carter as one of the worst ever. Sadly, it's starting to look like what they did to Clinton over the course of his administration was just a good round of practice. They are flailing wildly due to Obama shaping up as a more than capable leader. Marginalized by the travesty of the Bush administration, all that remains for the not-so-loyal opposition is to try and discredit Obama with a scorched earth policy. Ironic thing is, they don't even realize that this strategy has led them to their demise.
I would say JFK was a pretty mediocre president with a legacy fueled by image and tragedy. The Bay of Pigs is his most glaring failure as was action in Vietnam. He seemingly covered his eyes on civil rights until it became to unbearable in the South for the president to remain inactive. To call Jimmy Carter the worst in history also seems clouded by being one of the worst in the modern era. However, I would argue that Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan were the three worst in American history. Their actions and indecisiveness led to the Civil War which ruptured this country, literally.
He gave the go for Operation Eagle Claw. He killed the B1 bomber (cause he knew the B2 was coming online soon) RR used it as a political issue and brought it back, for no strategic reason. Who did he try to appease when he boycott the Games? Seriously what are you basing this on?
IOW, even the Wall Street Journal didn't rate Carter in the bottom 5 or label him as any worse than "below average." Thank you for helping to prove my point. Saying that Carter was the worst president ever is pure hyperbole.
I never said what you made up here, you lying imbecile. I am not claiming that Carter was anywhere near "great," merely saying that claiming that he is the worst in our history is hyperbole. No wonder you won't take my challenge, your reading comprehension is apparently worse than your brother's.
The things that happened during CArter's admin were not his fault. Just as 9/11 was not bush's fault, and that the mortgage crisis and credit bust was not entirely his fault. What makes Bush terrible was his blindness to stick to a failed script even when his advisors begged him to change course. This is what made Carter a failed president. His fault were his inability to react and handle a crisis, and provide leadership America could believe in. Obama is neither of these. He's thoughtful yet decisive. He's an inspiring leader. He doesn't back down, but he takes the input of all. How that compares to Carter is beyond me.
Maybe not his "fault", but you don't read a PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US" and go back to clearing brush. carry on
Same as the one for your brother, a structured debate on several topics to be judged by a panel that we agree on.
I wouldn't try to rank either Carter or Reagan. I'll let the historians tackle that. You would be wrong. The Bay of Pigs was already in train before Kennedy took office. Eisenhower deserves the real "credit" for that one. If Kennedy deserves crticism for it, it is that he went along with the "experts" and let the invasion occur, and once deciding to let it go forward, he didn't use American airpower to help the invasion forces. Whether that would have done any good is highly debatable, in my opinion. There was no "popular uprising" in Cuba, which the "experts" said would occur. The only way we were going to take out the Castro regime was by a full invasion, not the Mickey Mouse operation cooked up by the CIA. Kennedy was responsible for first putting troops in Vietnam, but the numbers he sent were miniscule compared to Johnson. Not only that, but there is evidence, once top secret, but now declassified (and I've posted it here before... I'm not hunting for it now), that he was strongly considering withdrawing the troops, not increasing their numbers. Your comment about civil rights, with all due respect, is bull****. Do some reseach.
