When Jimmy Carter was elected... worst

[IAM]

When Jimmy Carter was elected I thought he was the worst president (USA) ever. Reduction of the armed forces, statements by his brother, admissions about his thought life, etc. But in recent years looking back at his placing solar panels on the White House Lawn etc. I have thought different but then this... What do you think?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jh1erZREds

 

[Cutlass]

Carter was better than Reagan, GW Bush, Nixon, and at least a dozen others. He wasn't all that good. But he was a long way from the worst. As it true of Obama as well.

 

[IAM]

Carter was better than Reagan, GW Bush, Nixon, and at least a dozen others. He wasn't all that good. But he was a long way from the worst. As it true of Obama as well.

i think carter would have been a great president in an age of peace but Reagan defeated the Nemesis. GW Bush bad.

 

[Antilogic]

There were a bunch of bad presidents in the 19th century. People need to knock off the hyperbole.

I was in the JFK assassination museum and some woman was trying to tell me the worst president ever was LBJ because she was from California. It didn't make any sense, and I just asked if he was worse than James Buchanan.

 

[Cutlass]

i think carter would have been a great president in an age of peace but Reagan defeated the Nemesis. GW Bush bad.

No one who claims that Reagan had any significant role in the Cold War, much less won it, has no knowledge of recent American history.

 

[IAM]

There were a bunch of bad presidents in the 19th century. People need to knock off the hyperbole.

I was in the JFK assassination museum and some woman was trying to tell me the worst president ever was LBJ because she was from California. It didn't make any sense, and I just asked if he was worse than James Buchanan.

That's my point I'm not trying to say a current president (Obama) is the worst president. distance (time) gives a better perspective. I have had time to evaluate Carter ( Iwas there) and I think he was a better president then I thought originally.

 

[IAM]

No one who claims that Reagan had any significant role in the Cold War, much less won it, has no knowledge of recent American history.

Really absolutely no credit?

 

[useless]

Wasn't Reagan's brain mostly destroyed by the time he made that comment

 

[Traitorfish]

Jimmy Carter seems to have killed less people than any other US Presidents in the 20th century, which has to be worth something. Surely?

 

[IAM]

Wasn't Reagan's brain mostly destroyed by the time he made that comment

In government things take time. Moving to a 500 ship navy does not happen overnight. Anyway reagan was not what I was talking about. In retrospect 'his' 'failures' with the Iran rescue mission were not all his.

edit 'his failures' = Carter

 

[Cutlass]

Really absolutely no credit?

Really, no. No action or policy of Reagan was responsible for what happened to the USSR. The USSR's economy was dead in the water before Reagan took office. The USSR did not change any policies in response to anything that Reagan did.

What Gorbachev did was in response to factors that had nothing to do with Reagan. He was trying to revive the economy that had at that point been moribund for at least a decade. He just lost control of it. Gorby was not reacting to Reagan at all.

If anything, Reagan tried to revive the USSR and strengthen it. He used US tax dollars to subsidize Soviet food imports, letting the USSR spend more money on guns pointed at us. He also worked to create oil and gas exports from the USSR so that they could earn more money to support their empire.

The only thing Reagan did which could be considered a positive towards the end of the USSR was in meeting with Gorby and signing some arms control treaties. This weakened the hand of Soviet hardliners in internal political battles against Gorby. But the USSR was coming apart at the seems long before that.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

The media has a lot of say on who's good and who's not. And in turn, the media is also controlled by the establishment who give power to the presidents.

 

[Antilogic]

That's my point I'm not trying to say a current president (Obama) is the worst president. distance (time) gives a better perspective. I have had time to evaluate Carter ( Iwas there) and I think he was a better president then I thought originally.

I wasn't directing that at you, but rather at the mass of pundits/offline conversations/peeps in general. The recentism bias is incredible. I was going to post a brief rant about some presidential bracket thing my buddy sent me, but I think I'll start a new thread for that.

I definitely agree with the sentiment--the impact of leadership can be evaluated better with a bit of time (basically, the calm down and take a breath moment).

The media has a lot of say on who's good and who's not. And in turn, the media is also controlled by the establishment who give power to the presidents.

This. They are also bad at historical context.

 

[IAM]

Really, no. No action or policy of Reagan was responsible for what happened to the USSR. The USSR's economy was dead in the water before Reagan took office. The USSR did not change any policies in response to anything that Reagan did.

What Gorbachev did was in response to factors that had nothing to do with Reagan. He was trying to revive the economy that had at that point been moribund for at least a decade. He just lost control of it. Gorby was not reacting to Reagan at all.

If anything, Reagan tried to revive the USSR and strengthen it. He used US tax dollars to subsidize Soviet food imports, letting the USSR spend more money on guns pointed at us. He also worked to create oil and gas exports from the USSR so that they could earn more money to support their empire.

The only thing Reagan did which could be considered a positive towards the end of the USSR was in meeting with Gorby and signing some arms control treaties. This weakened the hand of Soviet hardliners in internal political battles against Gorby. But the USSR was coming apart at the seems long before that.

No matter how weak the Soviet Union was NOBODY in power gives up power. There were lots of contributing factors but Reagan's agendas were a factor. star wars defense, tear down this wall, 500 fleet navy etc. we won.

but I was talking about Carter. I use to dislike him but now I think he had some very good ideas but they were just out of time.

 

[Tahuti]

Jimmy Carter seems to have killed less people than any other US Presidents in the 20th century, which has to be worth something. Surely?

That would be Warren G. Harding. FDR, rated among the best, certainly has presided over more deaths in US history than any other US president from the 20th century.

Historians seem to have a hard-on for killers.

On the more serious note, Jimmy Carter was one of the least competent presidents of the 20th century, given how he pretty much ruined the Middle-Eart.... Middle-East.

 

[Antilogic]

That would be Warren G. Harding. FDR, rated among the best, certainly has presided over more deaths in US history than any other US president from the 20th century.

Historians seem to have a hard-on for killers.

On the more serious note, Jimmy Carter was one of the least competent presidents of the 20th century, given how he pretty much ruined the Middle-Eart.... Middle-East.

I would need to double-check to make sure we didn't have any interventions in Latin America during the Harding administration.

And the problems in the Middle East were seeded long before the Carter presidency (look at Truman and Eisenhower, for example).

 

[Cutlass]

No matter how weak the Soviet Union was NOBODY in power gives up power. There were lots of contributing factors but Reagan's agendas were a factor. star wars defense, tear down this wall, 500 fleet navy etc. we won.

None of those things affected what went on within the USSR.

 

[Tahuti]

I would need to double-check to make sure we didn't have any interventions in Latin America during the Harding administration.

And the problems in the Middle East were seeded long before the Carter presidency (look at Truman and Eisenhower, for example).

Harding ended the remaining US military engagements in Latin America: If anything, he working actively to prevent any further loss of life!

My primary complaint about the Carter administration is the way he handled the Iranian revolution. Yes, I think Harding was actually a better president than Carter.

 

[IAM]

... Jimmy Carter was one of the least competent presidents of the 20th century, given how he pretty much ruined the Middle-Eart.... Middle-East.

Yea everybody stop posting and lets deal with one issue at a time. Jimmy Carter Ruined the middle east? I don't even have a comeback for that. Other than thousands of years of conflict.

 

[onejayhawk]

i think carter would have been a great president in an age of peace but Reagan defeated the Nemesis. GW Bush bad.

Carter was a President in time of peace. His administration is proof that peace is a nice concept, but not a practical reality. History will be kinder to Bush than Carter, who is remembered as weak. For all his faults, Bush had backbone.

J