Carter is just plain looney lately

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
[You are totally clueless Lemon. Carter was a disaster as a President in many many ways. I am guessing that you are not old enough to remember Carter as President.

BTW you claim he did not negotiate with terrorists, but he negotiated the release of the hostages, wouldn?t that be negotiating with terrorists?

I see you're too chickensh8 to address my posts regarding Bush's demonstrable crimes. You're delusional if you think anything Carter did sinks to the level of abject criminality of his murder of 3422 (and rising) American troops or his treason for the way he and his adminstration have shredded the U.S. Constitution.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
[You are totally clueless Lemon. Carter was a disaster as a President in many many ways. I am guessing that you are not old enough to remember Carter as President.

BTW you claim he did not negotiate with terrorists, but he negotiated the release of the hostages, wouldn?t that be negotiating with terrorists?

I see you're too chickensh8 to address my posts regarding Bush's demonstrable crimes. You're delusional if you think anything Carter did sinks to the level of abject criminality of his murder of 3422 (and rising) American troops or his treason for the way he and his adminstration have shredded the U.S. Constitution.

The bolded parts illustrate why I don't even bother to read most of your replies Harvey, you are so filled with hatred for Bush that you are incapable of reasonable debate on any topic dealing with him.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Time to dispute the bogus Nobel peace prize thing----you may not like the fact that Carter was awarded the Nobel prize but at least it was not self awarded. And its quite genuine and also for what its worth, the Israeli Egyptian peace is still holding.

I also fail to see why the Carter foreign policy was a disaster. If anything, the Carter administration was a point at which world respect for the US was at a high point. And Carter, quite unlike Reagan and GWB, did not negotiate with or arm terrorists.

You are totally clueless Lemon. Carter was a disaster as a President in many many ways. I am guessing that you are not old enough to remember Carter as President.

BTW you claim he did not negotiate with terrorists, but he negotiated the release of the hostages, wouldn?t that be negotiating with terrorists?

Where ideology meets facts and beats them:

Carter never gave Iran anything for the return of the hostages - he 'stood tough' while they were held 444 days and costing him his re-election.

But the right-wing ideology says Carter was 'weak' and Reagan was 'strong', because those are the lies that get insecure men voting republican, and so the strong possibility that it was Reagan's people who negotiated the release of the hostages exactly when he became president, mysteriously, and the confirmed dealings his people had with trading missiles to Iran for hostages later (and selling arms for money for the illegal terrorist Contra forces, laundered through Israel, giving Israel the ability to blackmail)...

The funny thing is, there's Reagan helping Israel in Lebanon with US marines; and then after a bomb, there's Reagan 'cutting and running' from the inappropriate mission.

These ideologues just repeat the ideology, Carter weak, Reagan strong.

Of course, they aware a lot more points for body counts in war than for peace treaties that prevent casualties, so they're not going to like good presidents much.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
I see you're too chickensh8 to address my posts regarding Bush's demonstrable crimes. You're delusional if you think anything Carter did sinks to the level of abject criminality of his murder of 3422 (and rising) American troops or his treason for the way he and his adminstration have shredded the U.S. Constitution.

The bolded parts illustrate why I don't even bother to read most of your replies Harvey, you are so filled with hatred for Bush that you are incapable of reasonable debate on any topic dealing with him.

The text you bolded is absolutely true. They are the reasons for my dislike of Bush.

The reason you refuse to "debate" them is because can't provide any real facts to disrprove them. All you ever manage to do is lie, dissemble, and attempt to distract from the truth with meaninless, irrelevant references to other people, events, times and places.

One definition of murder is acting with reckless disregard of the life and safety of another. How is starting an elective war that directly causes thousands of deaths of American citizens and based only on lies NOT acting with reckless disregard of the lives and safety of those American troops?

Regarding treason

Treason

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor.

How does the Bushwhackos starting an elective war that directly causes thousands of deaths of American citizens and based only on lies NOT betray the nation of their citizenship and/or reneg on an oath of loyalty?

How does revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent like Valerie Plame, who has devoted her life to protecting and defending our nation NOT betray the nation of their citizenship and/or reneg on an oath of loyalty?

How does initiating multiple efforts of illegal surveillance of American citizens in violation of their rights under the U.S. Constitution NOT betray the nation of their citizenship and/or reneg on an oath of loyalty?

Go ahead and refute them if you can. If you can't, and all you can do is continue to lie and dissemble, it's reasonable to believe that you are working for the murderers and traitors.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
In his defense, bush is the greatest mass murderer of the 21st century. Please dipute that.

Murder = the intent to kill innocent people.

Bush doesn't fall under that category.

Why the usage of the word "innocent"?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I am more than old enough to remember Carter as President. A great man but mostly ineffective as President, largely due to his inability to delegate and tendency to micromanage. A diaster, though? Hardly, and not even close to the magnitude of diaster that your beloved W is. Carter at least honored and followed his principles-W just gives them lip service while running this great country into the ground every way possible-financially (most irresponsible budget ever-and biggest turnaround from sound fiscal policy ever), militarily (wasting our military on a foolish and useless war, and tying up the military and future leaders for years trying to clean up after him) and politically (largest, most politically biased and reckless growth of national government.

It interesting that you would bring up the budget; let?s look at the facts shall we?

The four years he was in office he ran the highest deficit in the countries history 1980 (in dollar terms) and the 3rd highest in 1978 and 4th highest in 1977. Now these numbers have been passed since then, but at the time they were the highest ever. Now if you want to talk about the Carter fiscal years 1978-1981 (the budgets passed while he was in office) you end up with the 1st, 2nd and 4th in the history of the country. (1981,1980 and 1978) How exactly was he being responsible while running the largest deficits in the countries history?

Let?s talk about deficits in terms of GDP, a far better number to compare Presidents by since they show deficit verse our ability to pay them back.
In terms of GDP Carter ran -2.7, -2.7,-1.6 and -2.7
Now going back to the WW 2 era we had only exceeded -2.7% three times (1968,75 and 76) That puts Carter at 4th, 5th and 6th worse deficits in terms of GDP in the countries history (up to that time.)

Now Bush, his worse year was 2004 at -3.6% compared to Carter that number sure is high, but in terms of our history it is only the 10th highest deficit as a % of GDP.

My point? if this was in 1980 and we were talking about budget deficits Carter would be the worst President in US history. (With the exception of Ford, but not sure that is fair to Ford who didn?t have much power after the Nixon debacle.)
Everything that you guys say about deficits would be true of Carter as well.

BTW I am not excusing Bush?s lousy record; I am point out that Carter?s record was just as lousy, if not worse.
The figures come from here
Now if you want some extra credit you can go here and get the GDP numbers for each year they were in office, add them together and then add the total of their deficits and divide and get their total contribution to our Debt in terms of GDP. (At least I think that will work, someone let me know if it doesn't.)

Spending tidbit that I bet you didn?t know.
Clinton spent more in terms of GDP for every year of his first term than Bush has spent for his entire term.
Carter also outspent Bush for every year but one.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Carter never gave Iran anything for the return of the hostages - he 'stood tough' while they were held 444 days and costing him his re-election.

quote:
The Algiers Accords of January 19, 1981, were brokered by the Algerian government between the USA and Iran to resolve the situation that arose by the capture of American citizens in the American embassy in Tehran. By this accord the American citizens were set free.

Among its provisions it was stated:

The US would not intervene in Iranian internal affairs
The US would remove a freeze on Iranian assets and trade sanctions on Iran
Both countries would end litigation between their respective governments and citizens referring them to international arbitration, namely the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.
The US would ensure that US court decisions regarding the transfer of any property of the former Shah would be independent from "sovereign immunity principles" and would be enforced
Iranian debts to US institutions would be paid

We gave them back the money we had frozen. Interestingly when Bush agreed to unfreeze North Korean assets a bunch of people on here accused him of ummm negotiating with terrorists I believe?

 

[Harvey]

PrevaricatorJohn is still too chickensh8 to address Bush's demonstrable crimes of murder and treason. :clock:

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Harvey
PrevaricatorJohn is still too chickensh8 to address Bush's demonstrable crimes of murder and treason. :clock:

Harvey, still to delusional to realize that there are no crimes or treason.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
Carter never gave Iran anything for the return of the hostages - he 'stood tough' while they were held 444 days and costing him his re-election.

quote:
The Algiers Accords of January 19, 1981, were brokered by the Algerian government between the USA and Iran to resolve the situation that arose by the capture of American citizens in the American embassy in Tehran. By this accord the American citizens were set free.

Among its provisions it was stated:

The US would not intervene in Iranian internal affairs
The US would remove a freeze on Iranian assets and trade sanctions on Iran
Both countries would end litigation between their respective governments and citizens referring them to international arbitration, namely the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.
The US would ensure that US court decisions regarding the transfer of any property of the former Shah would be independent from "sovereign immunity principles" and would be enforced
Iranian debts to US institutions would be paid

We gave them back the money we had frozen. Interestingly when Bush agreed to unfreeze North Korean assets a bunch of people on here accused him of ummm negotiating with terrorists I believe?

There's a difference between trading arms for hostages, and stopping the holding of their money for hostages.

Note, I don't fault Carter if he did negotiate for the hostages; we had a big apology owed them for having overthrown their democracy. I'm just comparing who traded what.

As for your complaints about double standards on negotiating with terrorists, note that it's often the hypocrisy that is the issue, and it's the right wing that likes to try to get the political credit for 'tough talk', so that when they violate that tough talk, it's more of a story than with someone who did not say the same things. It's a bit like how when a national leader for marital fidelity has an affair, it's more of a news story, just as when Ronald 'tough talk guy' Reagan withdrew from Lebanon after a bomb, or re: Iran-Contra.

Now, let's look at what your lawless president, Bush, is doing regarding the provision you did not see fit to bold:

The US would not intervene in Iranian internal affairs

So much for the Bush policy to have covert military operations in Iran, to spend tens of millions funding political dissidents in Iran, etc.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn

Originally posted by: Harvey
PrevaricatorJohn is still too chickensh8 to address Bush's demonstrable crimes of murder and treason. :clock:

Harvey, still to delusional to realize that there are no crimes or treason.

I already made the prima facia case. If you think otherwise, prove it with facts. Otherwise, you're still lying, just as you always do.

If you want others to stop calling you a liar, you could always STOP LYING.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Thump553
I am more than old enough to remember Carter as President. A great man but mostly ineffective as President, largely due to his inability to delegate and tendency to micromanage. A diaster, though? Hardly, and not even close to the magnitude of diaster that your beloved W is. Carter at least honored and followed his principles-W just gives them lip service while running this great country into the ground every way possible-financially (most irresponsible budget ever-and biggest turnaround from sound fiscal policy ever), militarily (wasting our military on a foolish and useless war, and tying up the military and future leaders for years trying to clean up after him) and politically (largest, most politically biased and reckless growth of national government.

It interesting that you would bring up the budget; let?s look at the facts shall we?

The four years he was in office he ran the highest deficit in the countries history 1980 (in dollar terms) and the 3rd highest in 1978 and 4th highest in 1977. Now these numbers have been passed since then, but at the time they were the highest ever. Now if you want to talk about the Carter fiscal years 1978-1981 (the budgets passed while he was in office) you end up with the 1st, 2nd and 4th in the history of the country. (1981,1980 and 1978) How exactly was he being responsible while running the largest deficits in the countries history?

Let?s talk about deficits in terms of GDP, a far better number to compare Presidents by since they show deficit verse our ability to pay them back.
In terms of GDP Carter ran -2.7, -2.7,-1.6 and -2.7
Now going back to the WW 2 era we had only exceeded -2.7% three times (1968,75 and 76) That puts Carter at 4th, 5th and 6th worse deficits in terms of GDP in the countries history (up to that time.)

Now Bush, his worse year was 2004 at -3.6% compared to Carter that number sure is high, but in terms of our history it is only the 10th highest deficit as a % of GDP.

My point? if this was in 1980 and we were talking about budget deficits Carter would be the worst President in US history. (With the exception of Ford, but not sure that is fair to Ford who didn?t have much power after the Nixon debacle.)
Everything that you guys say about deficits would be true of Carter as well.

BTW I am not excusing Bush?s lousy record; I am point out that Carter?s record was just as lousy, if not worse.
The figures come from here
Now if you want some extra credit you can go here and get the GDP numbers for each year they were in office, add them together and then add the total of their deficits and divide and get their total contribution to our Debt in terms of GDP. (At least I think that will work, someone let me know if it doesn't.)

Spending tidbit that I bet you didn?t know.
Clinton spent more in terms of GDP for every year of his first term than Bush has spent for his entire term.
Carter also outspent Bush for every year but one.

There are lies, damn lies, and PJ's twisted use of statistics.

What PJ neglects to mention is that by his "logic", Ronald Reagan is the worst President, running deficts twice as large as Carter's as a percentage of GDP. Reagan's worst was -6.0% in 1983, making Carter's -2.6% a fond memory of the good old days. The second worst was Bush Sr., whose deficits ranged from -3.9% to -4.7% over his four-year term. Third worst is Bush Junior. Finally, the best President according to PJ's "logic"? None other than Bill Clinton.

So PJ, how do you explain this? Are you going to acknowledge Reagan was the worst President since WWII, and Clinton was the best, or are you going to admit your post above was just another one of your switfboating smears? Mu guess is you'll cut and run, just like you did when I showed the Bush administration lied according to your own definition. Toodles.

 

[ProfJohn]

Bowfinger, my point was to show Thump553 that Carter was a mess as a President economically. Besides having the largest deficits history he also have very little economic growth and high inflation etc etc.

Economically speaking Carter is the worse President since before WW 2 I would guess.

Now if you just want to rate Presidents on the state of the economy during their term then Clinton rates very good, but so would Bush 43 and Reagan. All three had some great growth numbers and generally good economic times during their terms.

Finally, it is WAY too early to try and judge Iraq in historical terms and what it will mean long term. It?s like looking at Pearl Harbor and saying ?OMG the war is lost? when the truth was six months later the war was turned around.
We don?t know how Iraq will turn out or what will happen long term.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
In his defense, bush is the greatest mass murderer of the 21st century. Please dipute that.

You believe that? Need to take you out back. You and everyone else here who truly believes that.

CONGRESS and Bush sent our troops to Iraq. It's the Islamists and insurgents who are killing most the people over there.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
Finally, it is WAY too early to try and judge Iraq in historical terms and what it will mean long term. It?s like looking at Pearl Harbor and saying ?OMG the war is lost? when the truth was six months later the war was turned around.

No, it's not too early to know Iraq is the Bushwhackos' fuster cluck, and no amount of your continuous lying and dissembling is going to change that. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
In his defense, bush is the greatest mass murderer of the 21st century. Please dipute that.

You believe that? Need to take you out back. You and everyone else here who truly believes that.

You believe that? You better take me and the majority of Americans who know what a criminal traitor and murderer Bush is out back with you so we can hand you your silly ass on a platter with nothing more than facts and logic. :laugh:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bowfinger, my point was to show Thump553 that Carter was a mess as a President economically. Besides having the largest deficits history he also have very little economic growth and high inflation etc etc.

Economically speaking Carter is the worse President since before WW 2 I would guess. ...

No sale, you can't have it both ways. If the stats you quoted truly show "Carter was a mess as a President economically", they also show Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 were all worse. If not, if your stats show nothing, then your post was another empty smear. Pick one.

 

[ProfJohn]

Bowfinger, debating you is a waste of time.

Carter had high unemployment, high interest rates, high inflation, high deficits and lines at the gas pumps.

Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 had high deficits; that is the only thing they have in common with Carter.

There is more to measuring a President than his deficit numbers. Go back and read the post I was responding too, especially the part I bolded.

Carter at least honored and followed his principles-W just gives them lip service while running this great country into the ground every way possible-financially

My point was that Carter ran the country into the ground financially FAR worse than Bush 43.
That is all I was trying to say, get it?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Lately?

Carter has been a crackpot ever since they pulled him off the peanut farm to DC.

This is just the latest shining example of another ex-POTUS going berserk. Carter has actually argued against the US at the UN on numerous occasions. It's disgraceful, despicable, and downright shameful.

So if the USA was violating international accords on . . . I don't know . . . torture . . . the right thing to do would be . . . cheer us on?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

As for the resident troll that wants to claim Bush has been more fiscally responsible than Carter . . . HAHAHAHA!

Carter ran deficits %GDP 2.7, 2.7, an 1.6 . . .

Bush has 1.5, 3.5, 3.6, and 2.6 . . .

The kicker is that Carter didn't have HUGE SS surplus to clean up the numbers. The REAL Bush deficits are significantly higher . . . in absolute terms and %GDP.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bowfinger, debating you is a waste of time.

Carter had high unemployment, high interest rates, high inflation, high deficits and lines at the gas pumps.

Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 had high deficits; that is the only thing they have in common with Carter.

There is more to measuring a President than his deficit numbers. Go back and read the post I was responding too, especially the part I bolded.

Carter at least honored and followed his principles-W just gives them lip service while running this great country into the ground every way possible-financially

My point was that Carter ran the country into the ground financially FAR worse than Bush 43.
That is all I was trying to say, get it?

I understand perfectly well what you were trying to say. The problem is except for the one piece I challenged, you offered no factual information to support your attacks. You also offered no context for your claims.

More to the point, your entire smear is simply a diversion from the topic of this thread which is Carter's views on how badly the Bush administration screwed things up. If you were truly interested in productive debate, you would be focused on objectively refuting Carter's criticisms instead of attacking him personally.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Carter really was too nice a guy to be President. He didn't think low enough. I don't fault him for the economy of the 70s though since at the time no one really understood why the inflation was happening to begin with. Much of it was fallout from the 60s, and recall that Nixon had price/wage controls. There was a significant correction after that, the oil embargo and no Fed as we now have it (which came to be in it's present form to address this very inflation problem). Presidents get both too much credit AND blame for the economy.

 

[Lemon law]

You can make a very good case that Carter was handed a very bad economy by Nixon. And paying off the debts of the Vietnam war was not cheap. And a similar case that Clinton handed GWB a stellar economy and budgets surpluses. Inside of two years GWB had spent all the surplus and was wracking up huge debts with the unwise tax cuts for the wealthy. And then postponing repayment by putting everything on the national credit card of the national debt. Sorry non Prof John---GWB makes Carter look very wise economically.

And meanwhile back at the ranch, it looks like GWB&co. are very upset at Carter. And the GWB administration is falling all over themselves to be every bit as rude to Carter as possible. Its looks like GWB&co. have a very thin skin when it comes to looking at the damage they have done to US credibility.

And the other meanwhile back at the ranch----lets get off criticizing Carter and back on the question of this thread---Is GWB what Carter said he is or not.? If any want to bash Carter, they are free to start their own thread. Anyone with a Nobel prize will be especially credible on any Carter bashing thread.

And for that matter, GWB may end his days in the Hague and not at the ranch as he plans. There is certainly a non-zero chance that GWB will end up charged with crimes against humanity when the full truth comes out. And and the honor of being even charged with international war crimes is not exactly as good as winning a Nobel peace prize.---even if its a mere nomination and the you and whose army requirement saves King George's butt.

And for that matter---has anyone---in the entire history of the world--been crazy enough to even think Carter could be even remotely guilty of being an international war criminal? But a very substantial part of the American public are prepared to think that GWB IS AN INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIMINAL.---add this poster to that list of people who think that charge can be proved.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Thump553
I am more than old enough to remember Carter as President. A great man but mostly ineffective as President, largely due to his inability to delegate and tendency to micromanage. A diaster, though? Hardly, and not even close to the magnitude of diaster that your beloved W is. Carter at least honored and followed his principles-W just gives them lip service while running this great country into the ground every way possible-financially (most irresponsible budget ever-and biggest turnaround from sound fiscal policy ever), militarily (wasting our military on a foolish and useless war, and tying up the military and future leaders for years trying to clean up after him) and politically (largest, most politically biased and reckless growth of national government.

It interesting that you would bring up the budget; let?s look at the facts shall we?

The four years he was in office he ran the highest deficit in the countries history 1980 (in dollar terms) and the 3rd highest in 1978 and 4th highest in 1977. Now these numbers have been passed since then, but at the time they were the highest ever. Now if you want to talk about the Carter fiscal years 1978-1981 (the budgets passed while he was in office) you end up with the 1st, 2nd and 4th in the history of the country. (1981,1980 and 1978) How exactly was he being responsible while running the largest deficits in the countries history?

Let?s talk about deficits in terms of GDP, a far better number to compare Presidents by since they show deficit verse our ability to pay them back.
In terms of GDP Carter ran -2.7, -2.7,-1.6 and -2.7
Now going back to the WW 2 era we had only exceeded -2.7% three times (1968,75 and 76) That puts Carter at 4th, 5th and 6th worse deficits in terms of GDP in the countries history (up to that time.)

Now Bush, his worse year was 2004 at -3.6% compared to Carter that number sure is high, but in terms of our history it is only the 10th highest deficit as a % of GDP.

My point? if this was in 1980 and we were talking about budget deficits Carter would be the worst President in US history. (With the exception of Ford, but not sure that is fair to Ford who didn?t have much power after the Nixon debacle.)
Everything that you guys say about deficits would be true of Carter as well.

BTW I am not excusing Bush?s lousy record; I am point out that Carter?s record was just as lousy, if not worse.
The figures come from here
Now if you want some extra credit you can go here and get the GDP numbers for each year they were in office, add them together and then add the total of their deficits and divide and get their total contribution to our Debt in terms of GDP. (At least I think that will work, someone let me know if it doesn't.)

Spending tidbit that I bet you didn?t know.
Clinton spent more in terms of GDP for every year of his first term than Bush has spent for his entire term.
Carter also outspent Bush for every year but one.

I figured you'd spin this carter against bush. They both sucked but no one sucked more then the chimp currently in office. bush spent way more then Carter did. bush has screwed up the USA more then ANY other president, bush will also enjoy the LOWEST ratings of any president. It's pretty sad...

Edit:

Check out the facts... Blue is for Carter.... Just out bush Ragan and current Chimp.

Zing!

 

[Jhhnn]

Your economic attributions about Carter are way off base, PJ, but you knew that. He inherited a grisly situation in that respect- Wage and price controls of the vietnam era had only recently been lifted, and the success of OPEC put huge pressures on the economy, not to mention the loss of employment in war industries...

And if GHWB's economy was so rosy, then why was Clinton's "It's the Economy, Stupid!" campaign slogan such a big hit?

None of which is germane to the discussion at hand, anyway, although the whole song and dance about WW2 really is- We've been in Iraq longer than it took us to win WW2, and you're trying to convince us that it all started yesterday... that it's "too early to tell" about Iraq... absolute Malarkey.

 

[Thump553]

PJ: You are taking Carter's economic legacy out of historical context-perhaps a reflection of someone who didn't live through that era. Starting with LBJ, and (probably semi-reluctantly) continued by Nixon, this country engaged on a foolish guns and butter policy, whereby no effort was made to fund the costs of the Vietnam War, it was merely added onto to the current budget and added to long term debt (an aside-sound familiar? It's exactly part of what your hero, GWB, is now doing).

As a result, this country fell into an inflationary cycle that lasted well over 15 years, continuing through Nixon's years (esp. the second term), all of Ford and Carter's terms, and part of Ronnie's. It took years of concerted effort to undo the damage then, and I for one feel it is ridiculous to blame Carter for being in charge during the damage control years.

By your standards, the next two or three Presidents-whoever they are-are going to be horrible, mostly because they are going to being saddled with cleaning up GWB's sundry (and vast) messes.

I don't think it's appropriate for any loyal American to stand by and muzzle themselves out of deference to the current President. This President, especially, has an amazing ability to construe that as support for his foolish and misguided policies.