Thread: Worse. Than. Carter.

I was never a cheerleader for Obama and while he's not been brilliant (he's compromised in a lot of ways), he's not Carter. Yet.

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter

I was never a cheerleader for Obama and while he's not been brilliant (he's compromised in a lot of ways), he's not Carter. Yet.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, the guy who once got a tingle up the leg at the mere thought of Barack Obama now suggests the President may be “Carteresque.” And there’s no way to interpret that as a compliment.

Here’s a transcript of Matthews conversation with David Ignatius and Anne Kornblut of the Washington Post:

Matthews: Welcome back. The word these days is optics, visuals, signals. In the Carter presidency, the optics were not exactly robust, and Ronald Reagan rode that to a big victory in 1980. Is the Obama White House sending some Carteresque signals these days? Some see that in the deep bow to the Emperor of Japan, an unforced error say critics. Then there was, there was what happened in China: Obama got nothing in the way of concessions over there in spite of playing the polite visitor. And his effort to speak directly to the Chinese was jammed by the government. Third, that decision to try the terrorists up in that federal court in New York City. Again, nothing that had to be done, and critics say it shows that Obama, his team doesn’t understand this is a war we’re in. David, that’s the question. These optics are everything in a president. Carter used to carry that garment bag over his shoulder. This president is he making mistakes like in China like in Japan?

For the last two years Chris Matthews has acted as if Barack Obama is the second coming of Christ. Now even Matthews seems to recognize that he’s the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

Chris Matthews calls Obama "Carteresque" Is the tingle gone? | I Hate the Media - Fun with Liberal Media Bias

We’re conflicted. We don’t know whether to laugh or laugh really hard.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

So, you think he's BETTER than Carter. Even if he were - and he's dam' sure NOT - that's still pretty weak.


As it is, though, even counting you, the Presiden't supporters are peeling away from him faster than any other President has managed to do before, So as far as getting a pass, you can give him one, and the rest of us will be far, far away from this discreditable performance, hoping it gets no worse.

Never gave an opinion one way or the other if I think he is worse than Carter.

Just correcting some of the discrepancies in the articles reasoning. It argues that Obama is worse because of X,Y and Z. But Y and Z are false then the author needs to reevaluate his outcome.

For the record, I'm not an Obama supporter. I disagree with about 95% of the things that he has done. But I will correct lies and distortions against him, as I would any other President. He deserves to be judged by the truth.
Many on the right wing nut job side are doing what those on the left wing Bush-Hitler" groups did.

I thought we were above that

Is he worse than Carter. With almost one year into a 4 year term, its too early to tell.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Never gave an opinion one way or the other if I think he is worse than Carter.

Just correcting some of the discrepancies in the articles reasoning. It argues that Obama is worse because of X,Y and Z. But Y and Z are false then the author needs to reevaluate his outcome.

For the record, I'm not an Obama supporter. I disagree with about 95% of the things that he has done. But I will correct lies and distortions against him, as I would any other President. He deserves to be judged by the truth.
Many on the right wing nut job side are doing what those on the left wing Bush-Hitler" groups did.

I thought we were above that

Is he worse than Carter. With almost one year into a 4 year term, its too early to tell.

That's a great post.

As far as the whole ending the War on Terror bit, I don't have a problem with it. Paul Pillar, the CIA's former CTC chief, wrote that dubbing the struggle against terrorism would be a mistake. He did so in a book he wrote BEFORE 9/11. So far as I know, his opinion has not changed. Paul Pillar, believes the expectations for any campaign against terrorism must be realistic in both its scope and its aims. “If there is a ‘war’ against terrorism,” he writes, “it is a war that cannot be won.”

Such criticisms return us to the question about whether the so-called “war-footing” is appropriate for this political, economic and military undertaking. Specifically, by dubbing the conflict a war, the Bush administration has unconsciously established an unrealistic expectation for how victory against radical Islam and transnational terrorism will be achieved. Unlike the previous wars fought between states, Philip H. Gordon tells us that victory in the War on Terror “will not come when foreign leaders accept certain terms but when political changes erode and ultimately undermine the support for the ideology and strategy for those determined to destroy the United States.” According to J. Martin Rochester, in practical terms, this means that the “war” itself “will consist of the management of terrorism so that what incidents do occur are isolated and relatively minor in their lethality and destructiveness.” For Gordon and Rochester, terrorism is “like violent crime, deadly disease, and other scourges … it can be reduced and contained. But it cannot totally be eliminated. … The goal of eliminating terrorism entirely is not only unrealistic but also counterproductive.”

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

For those who argued such, they ignored the historic lessons of the Mongols against the Assasins and British India against the Thugees.

If the terrorists had an impregnable fortress they gathered in I'd agree

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

If the terrorists had an impregnable fortress they gathered in I'd agree

The Thugees were spread over a wide section of Central India (forests, scrublands, numerous small villages). The Chinese Triads in Malaya were spread out in both rural and urban areas and had international contacts. However British officers of those times, like Col. Sleeman and Capt. Spears, had extraordinary legal powers and their law was enforced by ex-Indian Army men who had nearly unlimited staying power.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

You don't have to go back to the 1930s. Nixon, Bush Sr, Bush Jr Clinton all bowed to the Emperor. Bush Jr also kissed the King of Saudi.

But they are not Obama so I guess they get a pass.

I am so sick to death of hearing about Obama bowing to the Emperor of Japan. And like you said, what about Nixon and Bush Sr bowing to Hirohito of all people?? The one former Axis power ruler still living and still in power.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Also fails to mention that that bust was on loan from the UK Presented by Blair to Bush. Bush didn't return it prior to leaving. Obama did it for him. He also has the right to decorate his office any way he sees fit. Who cares

Another example of "Let's pillory him for anything we possibly can, who gives a damn if it's the truth or not.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

For the record, I'm not an Obama supporter. I disagree with about 95% of the things that he has done. But I will correct lies and distortions against him, as I would any other President. He deserves to be judged by the truth.

Exactly.

I recall when Hillary Clinton was running for the Democratic nomination. My e-mail inbox was always full of lies and nonsense and outright bullshit accusations against her.

I'd always fire back a "Reply All" (usually quoting Snopes) about how it was a lot of bunk...and then asked "Why, with all that's factually objectionable to her based on your political stance, would you have to spam people's inboxes with hoaxes and urban legends?"

Originally Posted by Countezero

Specifically, by dubbing the conflict a war, the Bush administration has unconsciously established an unrealistic expectation for how victory against radical Islam and transnational terrorism will be achieved.

I always shudder at that blunder. I shudder even more when I think of Gordon England's blunder of ordering that the "Don't Tread On Me" navy jack be flown from all USN ships until the end of the War On Terror.

Brilliant move Gordo. Planning on staying SecNav indefinitely to enforce that order? Or maybe thinking that another Administration will say "Well, Gordon ordered it...better keep it in place because gosh he said so"

Was he thinking it'd never get removed after he left office?

Now when that happens, it'll either be a bald-faced lie that War is over/won or just a quiet admission that you shouldn't have ordered something so impossible in the first place?

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Wanna bet that if it is done under Obama he will either be accused of claiming a false victory or 'giving up'.

Of course!

Although it'll be said of anybody - to one degree or another - who does it...thus proving the idiocy of ordering it in the first place.