There maybe some disagreement over which of our past leaders was the worst.
Indeed. I think Bush is in the running. How many other Presidents have sent nearly 3500 troops to slaughter and created a training ground for terrorists?
The Sun article is hilarious. The oozing contempt and frequent generalizations make for a crass sort of elementary-school political analysis. And all of these cartoons merely insult, with no ability to either defend the current President or tease out what was wrong with Carter's administration (which was not great, but not as simply awful as Emperor Bush's cabal of political sorcerers). I think Carter, as a mediocre President himself, is in a good position to point out problems, because he has been there and made some mistakes of his own.
Of course I would. I don't believe in this weird custom of former presidents keeping their mouths shut. Why is it that the people who have done the job cannot comment on those doing the job?
I think any comic that has to reference a man's cultural identity in a negative light fails on such an epic level that it detracts from the argument as a whole.
I thought so too up until Bush. He is the joke President of my lifetime. Whoever is the next President is going to look like Einstein compared to that clown.
I agree with your first point wholeheartedly. If he was so bad as a President, why not use THAT as a basis for satire or critique?
On the second point, we have had some pretty lousy Presidents. I think Nixon was quite bad, but Bush is pushing illegality and imperial rule past the breaking point. It is a toss-up, to me.
just a note... I would be highly suspect of a "ideologically balanced group" as created by the WSJ and Federalist society. Given both organizations ideological bent, balance may include both the right and far right. That being said the list does look fairly similar to other such lists I have seen. (It does have a slightly more conservative bent than some of the others I have seen, but not to the degree of some)
One critique of any person or groups rankings of presidents is that in the case of Reagan forward it is really too soon to make an accurate empirical assessment of presidential performance. Personally I think it is far too early to rate even as far back as Nixon, although Nixon might be fair game at this point.
I have seen far too many poor quality scholarly articles that have taken an almost "journalistic" approach to instant analysis. (See almost anything written in Presidential Studies Quarterly in the last 15 years or so)
March of 2005... so that was two years ago. Gee Dub has had and taken a lot of opportunities to go even farther down the list since that survey was taken. And, joy of joys, he's got two more years to take himself (and the rest of us) down some more.
I demand rose petals and joyous throngs in the streets. Now.
Oh shit, the source doesn't agree with me. I can't say I'm smarter than all those people questioned, that would make me look dumb..I know, attack the source.
Children please. Your wrong and you know it. If you disagree find another source of your own. Until then, you are wrong.
It's funny that they have to criticize Carter on the basis of "Billy Beer" and "malaise" (a word he never used). To me, it says something when irrelevancies and lies have to be dragged in to buttress a weak argument. Carter wasn't as bad a president as Reagan or Bush (any Bush). He didn't go to China like Nixon, but then he didn't break the law to spy on his enemies like Nixon, so I don't think he was worse than Tricky Dicky (who looks pretty good when compared to the insane clown posse that's hanging on to power by any means possible now).
Cox and Forkum lie about Carter "capitulating." But they're always full of shit, so no surprise there. Gorrell's attempt at character assassination is as devoid of content and good cartooning as ever. The guys with illegible signatures have nothing to say, so no refutation is needed.
Carter Said MalaisereadwriteblueMay 28 2007, 09:57:10 UTC
Check Wikipedia:
When the energy market exploded - an occurrence Carter desperately tried to avoid during his term - he was planning on delivering his fifth major speech on energy. However, he felt that the American people were no longer listening. Instead, he went to Camp David and for ten days met with governors, mayors, religious leaders, scientists, economists and general citizens. He sat on the floor and took notes of their comments and especially wanted to hear criticism. His pollster told him that the American people simply faced a crisis of confidence because of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the Vietnam War, and Watergate. On July 15, 1979, Carter gave a nationally-televised address in which he identified what he believed to be a "crisis of confidence" among the American people. This has come to be known by critics as his "malaise" speech because Carter used the word "malaise" in his televised speech, even though the word "malaise" did not appear anywhere in the officially released text transcript:
Re: Carter Said Malaisekip_wMay 28 2007, 13:16:45 UTC
"Check Wikipedia" -- which says that the word doesn't appear in the speech but, like, my roommates brother swears he heard him say it.
I'll be easy enough to find when you turn up an actual documentary source other than Rumorpedia. I Googled [carter malaise] as well, but guess what? I found a page full of sources that mention that the word isn't in the speech -- plus Wikipedia, that alleges, without evidence, that it is in the speech, and I see which one you dived on. I've been looking for about forty minutes now, and still can't find anybody directly quoting Carter with the "m" word. You'd think somebody would have heard the speech and remembered what he said. If it was there.
There is a difference between using exaggerated features as satirical representation and making dumb jokes at the person's expense, especailly in response to political criticism.
Comments 78
Indeed. I think Bush is in the running. How many other Presidents have sent nearly 3500 troops to slaughter and created a training ground for terrorists?
The Sun article is hilarious. The oozing contempt and frequent generalizations make for a crass sort of elementary-school political analysis. And all of these cartoons merely insult, with no ability to either defend the current President or tease out what was wrong with Carter's administration (which was not great, but not as simply awful as Emperor Bush's cabal of political sorcerers). I think Carter, as a mediocre President himself, is in a good position to point out problems, because he has been there and made some mistakes of his own.
Reply
Would you feel the same way if it wasn't GWB being criticized?
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'd still say Nixon was the worst president ever.
Reply
Reply
On the second point, we have had some pretty lousy Presidents. I think Nixon was quite bad, but Bush is pushing illegality and imperial rule past the breaking point. It is a toss-up, to me.
Reply
Now Reagan, that guy was bad.
Reply
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007243
As you can see, Bush, both of them, are not the worst we have had.
Reply
One critique of any person or groups rankings of presidents is that in the case of Reagan forward it is really too soon to make an accurate empirical assessment of presidential performance. Personally I think it is far too early to rate even as far back as Nixon, although Nixon might be fair game at this point.
I have seen far too many poor quality scholarly articles that have taken an almost "journalistic" approach to instant analysis. (See almost anything written in Presidential Studies Quarterly in the last 15 years or so)
Reply
I demand rose petals and joyous throngs in the streets. Now.
Reply
Children please. Your wrong and you know it. If you disagree find another source of your own. Until then, you are wrong.
Reply
Cox and Forkum lie about Carter "capitulating." But they're always full of shit, so no surprise there. Gorrell's attempt at character assassination is as devoid of content and good cartooning as ever. The guys with illegible signatures have nothing to say, so no refutation is needed.
Reply
When the energy market exploded - an occurrence Carter desperately tried to avoid during his term - he was planning on delivering his fifth major speech on energy. However, he felt that the American people were no longer listening. Instead, he went to Camp David and for ten days met with governors, mayors, religious leaders, scientists, economists and general citizens. He sat on the floor and took notes of their comments and especially wanted to hear criticism. His pollster told him that the American people simply faced a crisis of confidence because of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the Vietnam War, and Watergate. On July 15, 1979, Carter gave a nationally-televised address in which he identified what he believed to be a "crisis of confidence" among the American people. This has come to be known by critics as his "malaise" speech because Carter used the word "malaise" in his televised speech, even though the word "malaise" did not appear anywhere in the officially released text transcript:
I want to talk to ( ... )
Reply
I'll be easy enough to find when you turn up an actual documentary source other than Rumorpedia. I Googled [carter malaise] as well, but guess what? I found a page full of sources that mention that the word isn't in the speech -- plus Wikipedia, that alleges, without evidence, that it is in the speech, and I see which one you dived on. I've been looking for about forty minutes now, and still can't find anybody directly quoting Carter with the "m" word. You'd think somebody would have heard the speech and remembered what he said. If it was there.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment