Quote Originally Posted by dragonrider
Very true. I don't think the label is going to stick, but even if it came down to an election between Jimmy Carter versus George Bush, at this point Carter would win in a landslide.
Hrm.. I don't know:

In the early 90's Carter went to North Korea to make a deal with then dictator Kim Il Sung. He did this without the approval of then President Clinton, to exchange aid, oil and material to help them build a nuclear reactor for energy.. All this in exchange for them dropping their nuclear program. In 2002 N. Korea announced that it never stopped it's program. Thanks Carter for acting on your own and costing the US time and money. Not to mention risk world safety. We practically handed them nuclear technology. GREAT MOVE.

In the late 70s Carter had really screwed up. I'm not sure how many here are familiar about the situation in Iran at this time. But Carter shying away from the Shah in this area led to the Islamic revolution we see today. This also at the time led indirectly to the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan.. which further led to the creation of Al Queda. Combine this with the botched Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 and it's pretty easy to see that Carter was pretty friggin busy screwing things up in this region of the world.

In addition Carter he was at least partly responsible for the worst economic downturn since WWII and was known to side/support with dictators... examples:

Philippine dictator Fernando Marcos
Pakistani General Zia al Huq
Saudi King Faud
(if you'd like explanation why these men were bad then I'd be more than happy to explain further).

He has been quoted as saying that Marshal Josef Tito "is a man who believes in human rights." For those of you that don't know Marshal Josef Tito was an extreme follower of Joseph Stalin. He was positioned in Yugoslavia. Joseph Stalin was anything but a human rights activist. :P

I mean even today.. he is not a current president or even holding any office that I'm aware of yet he is constantly meddling in US foreign affairs without the approval of the president or anyone in the US government.

He has been continually setting the United States back ever since his term ended.

With all that said... I'd have to say President Carter and George Bush are at opposite ends of the spectrum, but oddly enough at the same time they are like two peas in a pod. Therefore people would probably be looking elsewhere for another nominee. Hell maybe the Independant or Libertarian party would get a shot then. lol

Ironic isn't it.. 30 years later and we find ourselves in a pretty similar situation?


both presidents are equally as crappy.
daihashi Reviewed by daihashi on . McCain Compares Obama to Jimmy Carter McCain: Obama means 2nd Carter term June 09, 2008 From NBC's Mark Murray In an interview to air later tonight on Nightly News, McCain tells NBC's Brian Williams that while Obama might criticize him for representing a third Bush term, Obama seems to be running for a second Carter term. Part of the transcript... Williams: Is it going to be tough to run with an incumbent party for the White House, given this economic backdrop? McCain: I-- I think it's-- it's tough. But I think Rating: 5