English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-07-09 09:24:00 · 14 answers · asked by LML 1 in Politics & Government Politics

14 answers

No.

Carter was not a bad president. Have you never heard of Iran-Contra? Basically when Reagan was running against Carter he made a deal with the contras that Carter didn't know about. So no matter what Carter did, they wouldn't release the hostages = he looked weak.

Reagan ran for office stating, '...the hostages will be released the day I am sworn in or else." He did this because he knew he didn't have to go to war because of the deal he had made. On January 20(think was 20th), 1980 the day he was sworn in, the hostages were released. GO FIGURE? Also when he was questioned on this during the investigation, his response was, "... I don't remember."

Reagan committed treason and it was not until the end of the investigation in 1988 that this came out. Now, don't ask me why in the hell he was never charged because that one I have no clue on.

2006-07-09 09:32:12 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0 0

Probably. Carter was one of the most intelligent guys we've ever had in office. But he couldn't hack it as President. He had some good and bad ideas, but was sort of a care-taker from the time he was elected. After the Nixon ordeal, the GOP knew they most likely couldn't win in '76. And if they did, no one trusted them. So, Ford agreed to run a doomed campaign, and Reagan continued to up his "star" power. (They had Ronnie wetting his feet as early as '68.) Bush has his problems, for sure. But I think the only way to compare them fairly would be to look at each would have done in the others shoes.
The economic situation sucked hard in the late 70's, and Carter ended up making it worse. He would have lost to Reagan anyway, but the Iran-hostage crisis was why he got his *** handed to him. No matter what anyone wants to believe, the economy is better now than it has been in a long time, maybe ever. Whether Bush, or any president for that matter, has anything to do w/ that is up in the air. But if they take the blame, they should also get the reward. Granted, Bush has made some huge mistakes on terrorism, but the Iran deal in Carter's time was no where near as "heavy" as what we have now. Bush would have handled that as well as Reagan did. So, while Carter was a smarter, and probably better man, Bush has the edge on being a better President.

2006-07-09 16:45:52 · answer #2 · answered by DocGonzo 2 · 0 0

I happen to be a Republican so take this with a grain of salt. I think Bush is the worse speaker of the two, but the better President. Though it's hard to evaluate the quality of a President in the current context. One really needs to wait about 10 years after they have left office to truly give them an accurate grade.

With that said I believe that in 10 years Iraq won't be the crappy place it is today. I also believe that the world under Bush's leadership will not allow Afghanistan to go back to the terrorist harboring place that it used to be. I also believe that enough pressure will be placed on North Korea to turn that state around. Though I think with N. Korea we need to hope for an internal civil war more so than a direct invasion. If as I suspect all of these things come true, then President Bush could go down as one of the better presidents of the last 150 years.

I say that knowing full well that his popularity is in the low 30's, and that Iraq is not going very well for him. I also say that, even though I strongly disagree with his policies on stem cell research, and how FEMA handled Katrina.

2006-07-09 16:37:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

In one word, NO. Bush is the worst president that I have ever seen in the business of running the country. Everything that he does makes the rich, richer and the poor and middle class poorer. Add to that a war that should have never been and the loss of life involved. Jimmy Carter didn't get much done. But at least it didn't cost American and other lives.

2006-07-09 16:32:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No. I liked Carter. Part of the problem was the events that turned against him. The gas shortages and of course the Iran hostage crisis. I really believe that Reagan made a deal with Iran to hold them until he became president. Carter was successful at Camp David which was a major milestone in our relationship with Egypt and the Mid East. He had the moral courage to give back the Panama Canal to Panama, despite the fact that it was unpopular at home. He worked 20 hour days. At his inauguration, almost all events were free, the most people had to pay was 25 dollars for any event. Contrast that with the Reagan and Junior's inauguration which priced most people out of the events. He was and still is a humble man who tried to do his best. He failed at times, but his heart was always in the right place. And unlike that current phony in the White House, he was a true born again Christain. You won't see Junior building houses for humanity. Finally, he is a fly fisherman. That is one of the things I like about him. He also writes books. Junior can barely read.

2006-07-09 19:18:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I remember Carter:

Long gas lines
High unemployment (almost no ads in the newspaper)
High inflation
High taxation
Military lived on welfare
Gave away the Panama Canal, which we built
Our failed foreign policy
Him scolding the citizens for the bad economy
The mariel boat lift where castro gave us all his criminals
Our helicopters crashing in the desert
The 444 day hostage nightmare
Him pardoning the draft dodgers
Cater's embarrassing brother
Carter's claims he saw UFOs on his peanut farm

I have never seen Americans more angry, more stressed out, more unsure of themselves than any other time. Here comes Reagan with happiness, and a positive attitude and wins (at that time) the greatest landslide in US history. Yeah, I remember Carter, he was really a very bad politician. A naval officer, but a horrible political leader. Click and learn.

2006-07-09 16:50:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Carter never lied to his people, he was really a man of god.

thats what killed him, he told the people the truth, he didn't invent a shiny city on the hill......

Carter created peace, Carter was the responce to the corruption of Nixion,

Carter was taken out by OPEC, and Iranian terrorist....the middle east....

Funny seems like the president after him is who armed ....Iran, while also arming iraq.

2006-07-09 16:41:00 · answer #7 · answered by nefariousx 6 · 0 0

Dubya is the bottom of the barrel.

Even Mater from the movie CARS would make a better president than the moron Bush.

2006-07-09 17:05:15 · answer #8 · answered by Truth 5 · 0 0

In what world?
Carter is a Christian.
Bush's Christianity never existed; just like the WMD's.

2006-07-09 16:32:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The are both equally ineffective as Presidents.

Bush is too close minded, and his advisers are too close minded and too much the "true believer" mentality (Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld) to be truly successful

Carter was a micro-manger who tried to control even the most unimportant detail (such as the tennis court schedule)

2006-07-09 16:33:55 · answer #10 · answered by Mr. PhD 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers