answer to first part of your question: because George Bush feels that anyone that criticized him is "unamerican" and since he cannot say this about a former president (especially one that does so much work with underprivileged and downtrodden voters) without looking like a complete horses behind, he uses a word taught to him by his handlers (and no doubt, he mispronounces it).
answer to the second part of your question: because the republican party is better at scaring people into voting. period. they perfected the art of terrorizing people into thinking that they are the only party that believes in god - everyone else is a godless heathen - that they are the only party that believes in the traditional sense of "family," and that if you vote for any other party "the terrorists win."
2007-05-21 03:04:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by SmartAleck 5
·
4⤊
4⤋
Because Carter was a terrible President whose policies caused our country to slip into a deep recession and lose all respect within the international community. What other leader would allow over 50 of its own people to be kidnapped and held hostage for well over a year and do almost nothing but try to appease? What other leader would allow the leaders of OPEC to hold the nation hostage by agreeing to reduce oil production in a move designed to hurt the US? What other leader would announce the removal of all military deterrence along the South Korean border and basically abandon our allies who have had their aggressive neighbor just looking for an opportunity to overrun them(fortunately only 3600 troops ended up being removed because the rest would have been dead as soon as the ships sailed over the horizon).
I could go on and on but you get the picture. Now he thinks he has any standing to criticize the President and his policies because they run contrary to Carter's own beliefs of bending over to make everyone happy? No former president publicly criticizes the sitting president. and especially someone of Carter's standing. I could stomach it more if it was a successful ex-president, but not Carter.
And FYI Carter is not great at the things you claim he is(well he does speak pretty good), just famous. If you aren't old enough to know about someone refrain from commenting on them or their accomplishments please.
Oh and we got the Bush administration twice because he won the elections. Maybe if the Democrats ran someone worthwhile you wouldn't be complaining right now.
2007-05-21 03:37:29
·
answer #2
·
answered by meathookcook 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
Carter did nothing while he was President.
Iraq invaded our embassy and took over 400 Americans hostage. Carter did nothing.
Inflation hit a high of more than 12%. Carter did nothing.
Interest rates were even higher. Carter did nothing.
Carter has NEVER been relevant except in lowering respect for America throughout the world and reducing the influence and power of our defense systems.
He did get a Nobel peace prize but then , look at what those socialist leftists who select the winners of the prize represent and it only further underscores the irrelevance of Jimmy Carter.
He IS a good humanitarian, let him keep doing what he is good at. Building habitats for the poor.
When it comes to the future of America he has never even risen above a NEGATIVE influence.
2007-05-21 03:10:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by Philip H 7
·
3⤊
3⤋
Oh please, shall we bear in innovations the double digit inflation and unemployment, the term "misery index" replaced into coined throughout the Carter years. I nonetheless bear in innovations the better expenditures, the gas lines and seeing myself and my acquaintances laid off. humorous no possible tell me the place those 7 million greater jobs have been created or how long they lasted. Oh and shall we no longer forget approximately Carter's blinding international savvy, while he abandoned one among our staunchest allies interior the Gulf and allowed the muslim fruitcakes to occupy our embassy for 444 days. If he had gained reelection i'm specific we could have considered soviet troops on the English channel and a a million/2 a million American infantrymen the two lifeless or in Soviet hard artwork camps. So do no longer tell me how super you think of he replaced into, I lived via his term, he replaced right into a super screw up. Oh and in case you think of human beings forget approximately, the present recession did no longer start up until 2006, the year the Democrats took administration of congress. I do bear in mind that Bush warned appropriate to the housing bubble in the past than that and that a Democrat (Barney Frank) suggested we had no longer something to rigidity approximately. So no I won't forget approximately, in comparison to you seem to have finished.
2017-01-10 12:13:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
That explanation would take days, but I do believe that the only reason that Bush feels that Jimmy Carter is irrelevant is because Carter does not like bush in the presidency (not unlike many). And of course, anything that is against Bush (like most presidents) is therefore irrelevant.
2007-05-21 03:02:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by Kristy 2
·
8⤊
3⤋
Well, first of all... I'm no Bush supporter BY ANY MEANS, but your question as it's worded is more of a statement than a question. Secondly, it was the White House press secretary that said Carter was "increasingly irrelevant", not Bush himself. Now, I think that Carter was a highly underrated President who did a lot more good than bad and is probably the nicest guy who has ever been in the office, and that Bush will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents ever, but I still have to call to issue your question wording. If you just want to say that Bush is an idiot and Carter was exactly right for what he said, then say that.
2007-05-21 03:02:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋
Actually, Carter isn't irrelevant in this matter, his extensive personal experiences with being a horrible President make him something of expert in this domain...
Everything messed up in the world (North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Palestine) either took its turn for the worst when Carter was President or he has made it worse since. Besides Israeli-Egyptian peace the guy is a walking catastrophe.
2007-05-21 03:37:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by floatingbloatedcorpse 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
Mr. Carter was probably the most inept President we have had in the last 100 years. Why you ask? Well:
Basically started the Islamist movement by caving in to the terrorists in Iran when our embassy was invaded.
Overthrew our ally in Iran saying he was for democracy knowing that the Islamists government that replaced the Shah would be dictatorial and anti-democracy.
His economic policies caused an inflation rate of 15 to 20% during his administration.
His reaction to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was to cancel the USA's participation in the Olympics
Terrified by "killer" Rabbits.
Do you need more? The guy is a joke.
2007-05-21 03:11:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋
Carter was a Washington outsider who never learned to play the'' game of lies'' that bush is so well versed in..He was a peanut farmer not a bloodsucking oil man..In short Jimmy Carter did not play well with others..the others being lobbyists and lawyer scum..
Carter could give a $ hit about his ''image''
edit: lets meet back here in 25 years and see who history remembers more favorably.If we are still around.
2007-05-21 03:07:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
Because he is perhaps the worst President in recent US history. Inflation, recession, energy crisis, Iranian Hostage Crisis, The Carter Doctrine (stating the Middle East is a sphere of US interest), rampant unemployment, flaccid foreign policy, devestating economic policy, skyrocketing interest rates, tax gouging, and condecending speeches; all were trademark items of the Carter Misadministration.
Having said that, he has been an invaluable post-President; helping with the Haitian Crisis, various Middle East Issues, Habitat for Humanity, and various charitable org. If he would just stay out of American politics, he'd be cool.
2007-05-21 03:08:20
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋
To the Bush crowd, everybody who doesn't agree with you is irrelevant. Remember how Bush stated that the UN could either agree with the demand to attack Iraq over their massive (phantom) WMD stockpiles or become "irrelevant?"
2007-05-21 06:56:30
·
answer #11
·
answered by Renegade_X 3
·
0⤊
1⤋