I can't help but notice that when a Republican President leaves office, he quietly enjoys his retirement and does not interfere with the current administration. Yet, Democratic ex-Presidents (who were abysmal while in office), in attempts to remain relevant, find it necessary to bad-mouth their successors.
2007-05-20 00:40:40 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I think they are both hoping to change their legacies so they both don't go down as two of the worst Presidents in US history. Sadly to say, their damage to this great Nation is already done.
2007-05-20 00:46:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well lets see. There were 5 living past presidents when GWB was sworn in as pres. 3 republicans and 2 democrats. Unfortunately because of sickness Ronald Regan had no idea what was going on. GHB, GWB's father has had some bad experiences over his sons beliefs and hardly ever talks about it. Gerald Ford had some inflammatory remarks about this admin and individuals in it. I'd say he was against current policy and the way the country is heading. So I guess he didn't quietly enjoy what he saw.
2007-05-20 08:00:35 · answer #2 · answered by David R 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you are slightly mistaken if you think Clinton bad mouths Bush very much. They are friends, they have lunch together.
I disagree with what you said about Republican ex-presidents also. GHW Bush has done many things since leaving office. Nixon did nothing because he was ashamed and disgraced, Ford did high profile public things after he left office, and Reagan was losing his mind so what could he do?
Thousands of people ask Carter and Clinton to do commercials, interviews, fund raisers, speeches, books, etc. Carter and Clinton entered into politics because they want to help change the world and make things better. That drive and desire doesn't just go away after you leave the oval office.
2007-05-20 08:54:17 · answer #3 · answered by goneresistance 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
liberal politcs is allabout feel good, i feel your paiin type psychology. as the elecotrate wakes up and find someone must pay for the free lunch they preach, the electorate becomes disillusioned and vote conservative. the liberal past presidents react to that by attempting to appeal to the throw the bums out philosophy that comes at the end of EVERY administration because some feel dissolusioned that they dont get their fare share of the pork barrel money normally allocated to welfare or municipal aid in some form or fashion. If they didnt attempt to bash the conservatives the liberal victim/welfare base would erode away and were would the liberals be without the mirage that conservatives cater to the rich. thats precisely where the hillary clinton diatribe about the mean spirited republicans comes from.
2007-05-20 07:47:53 · answer #4 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would beg to differ. Some Former Presidents might have more aggressive Public Relation departments but I do not think anyone called into service ever really quits. Their health might diminish their attendance but be assured when a former President shares a thought -they are heard. Some former Presidents chose to fade out of the media headlines more than others.
2007-05-20 08:49:01 · answer #5 · answered by Dawnita R 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your question shows that you are very misinformed! While it is true that most past presidents try to stay out of the political affairs of the present whitehouse occupant, there is a point where all seem to step in! Eisenhower commented on Johnson and Kennedy. Bush sr. on Clinton. The real issue is that the present occupant refuses to take resposibility for anything he has done! Even Bush Sr. has commented on this!
2007-05-20 07:50:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
actually,they are partly responsible for the worlds messes to begin with.Both idiots had a do nothing foriegn policy.Such cases can be said of iraq,iran,n.korea,and osama.They speak in order to sell books and get their wife elected.Carter is the worse of the two.With high gas prices,inflation,and a wuss policy with iran,he should remember his tenure and keep his mouth shut.
2007-05-20 14:48:05 · answer #7 · answered by killa d 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They're no better than the rest of the crazy world that's jumped on the bandwagon. Carter is a terrorist apologist and always has been. Since most of the world is now as well, guess he wanted to get his 2cents in.
2007-05-20 07:48:58 · answer #8 · answered by tttplttttt 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You have picked two candidates who's legacies are already in the sewer and follow the theory that 'misery loves company' !
I find it interesting that whenever these two have a bit of criticism regarding the incumbent, it usually gets buried somewhere towards the back of the newspaper !
2007-05-20 07:51:33 · answer #9 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Neocons slither
And neocons slide
When it comes to fighting
Neocons hide
They ask slimy questions
To tar all their foes
Like dog poo in summer
Squished up through your toes
They think they’re so clever
Blame Carter for all
But for Iraq
Bush takes the fall
The neocons hate liberals
Taxes, government and gays
But they kill our brave soldiers
By night and by days
They claim to be moral
With family values and prayer
But they drip with hypocrisy
No risk do they share
When it comes to the military
And going to war
Its not for the republicans
Its just for the poor
So keep asking questions
Designed just to smear
You give a new meaning
To the word known as queer!
2007-05-20 08:02:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋