>>Many historians think that he was the worst president in American history, which is going very far<<

Who?  That's perhaps the most idiotic thing I've read on The Spine (though not as offensive as your Chelsea posts).  To compare Cater to Buchanan or Pierce in terms of badness is so offensive to anyone who lost a loved one in the military as to defy belief.

I've speant 5 minutes on google (both general and scholar) and can't find reference to a single historial who calls Carter the worst in history.

In office, Carter was not (quite) the total disaster Bush has been...post-office (so to speak) he sure could win a contest for worst ex-president....

been a while since the Carter idee fixee...the Grudge Report rebounds...

To the best of my knowledge, Carter usually gets placed low in those silly rankings but I seem to recall that Nixon, Harding, and other non entities rank at the bottom. And GWB will soon join that lowly crew.

But have no doubt, in the fevered mind of the Grudgemeister, he is the worst. That is for sure.

Come on, Lymon, Carter may not have been the worse (Yes, Buchanan, Pierce, or even Bush are also up there) but he was pretty bad.

Still, I don't know Marty is giving Carter so much free publicity.

Nixon's opening up to China will keep him from being considered one of the worst. His foreign policy wasn 't that bad: he cleaned up the mess made by Johnson. His domestic policy was something else.

Interestingly, Johnson was great on domestic policy issues, not so good on foreign policy. Nixon was the reverse.

Here is a ranking list from wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/.../Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

Carter ranks pretty low!

Jack (and others) -- oh, no love lost here for Carter but the gulf between him and others (how could I have left out Nixon?) makes Marty positively unhinged to raise Carter.  And I'll say this much for Carter: had Reagan left his CAFE rules alone we wouldn't import a drop of foreign oil, and he didn't roll over in response to the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan.  

Then there's the second point: I think this is a fib to rival anything Hillary Clinton has been accused of.  "Many historians"?!  At this point I'd settle for 2 -- I can't even find one.  

Somehow a blatant attempt to subvert democracy itself strikes me as deserving the "worst" label regardless of foreign policy achievements -- kind of like knocking in the cue ball in pool before its time.  Though I do have a soft-spot for the argument Franklin Pierce was the worst.  

So, what's wrong with Carter from your point of you?  Obama has committed himself to meet with all worst dictators during his first year in the office. This commitment doesn't prevent you from supporting Obama.

So, why are you so harsh on Carter?

Nixon years saw basic environmental protection laws put into place...not necessarily because he wanted them, but because he sorta had to for political reasons...   But still....

jack,

Thanks for the link. That about squared with my memory: Carter ranked low but not in the bottom tier. Close but not among the low lights of Johnson, Buchanan, and Pierce.

Marty does strike a point. Read Intelligence Agency Reports and you will largely find most persons refer to the Carter Administration as the 'Carter *uck' years.

everyone always forgets how terrible Millard Fillmore was.

Comic Book Guy: "The Worst Ever!"

By a long shot.  Almondjeans finally withdrew from Carter's exposed anus by freeing the American hostages the day after he quit and Ron Reagan took over.

just wattched the dvd on jimmy carter and his book tour and it was fascinating.  i feel he is a brave man  after watching this film.  jerusalem post is becoming an untrustworthy source for me after they maligned obama in an article.  i am increasingly becoming disappointed with israel and how it is being protected by the press here.  whatever happened to the free speech that was such a trademark of the jewish voice.  i guess when you have your own country/state to protect , the real fangs come out.  remember this when you criticize every country on earth as to how they treat  their situation in the world.  keep your mouth shut then with turkey, tibet, china, and what other place if it affects your own.  it has been an interesting history lesson for me. israel for me has abecome just another little country struggling in various ways to preserve itself.  not a pretty picture . and i am beginning to reexamine the entire situation with the palestinians as well, something that seemed impossible for me a while back, because i was such a nationalist.  but at some point, it all changes and the tipping point for me is very near.  the continuous badmouthing of anyone who dares to say something different concerning israel is  bbecoming laughable.  you are losing people that have stood by you for a long time and now your intolerance is beginning to shift the entire thing for me.  as i said  i cant believe i am becoming pro palestine but it is beginning and i have learned my lessons well from jews of the past to respect the world.  very sad for me here .but this maligning of carter is appaling.  do jews build houses for the poor? or just demolish them with caterillars.  

Still wondering -- does *anyone* have an idea who these "many historians" are that Marty refers to?  

check, care to elaborate on how you are "beginning to reexamine the entire situation with the Palestinians"? Like, what new insights have you come up with? What facts have been unearthed for you that made you reexamine?

What is that mysterious point, I wonder, at which it all changes, and the tipping point is getting nearer?

I mean, for once in my life I'd like to hear a sensible fact-based lecture on how and why the Pals are right.  

"you are losing people that have stood by you for a long time and now your intolerance is beginning to shift the entire thing for me.  as i said  i cant believe i am becoming pro palestine but it is beginning and i have learned my lessons well from jews of the past to respect the world.  very sad for me here .but this maligning of carter is appaling.  do jews build houses for the poor? or just demolish them with caterillars."

Any one who can ask  " do jews build houses for the poor?" doesn't know anything about Jews.

You also said:

"i have learned my lessons well from jews of the past to respect the world."

You certainly haven't learned to respect Jews. Nor do you grnat them the right to defend themselves against people who have sworn to kill them.

Lisa H--you are a woman after my father's heart.  Until Nixon's death, my dad did a write-in vote for Nixon every presidential election.  His friends and family were appalled.  Sometimes I wonder whether he did just to elicit those reactions.  In any case, Bush (he calls him Bush with a short "u," just as Reagan once did) has converted dear pops into a rabid Democrat.  

Jimmy Carter holds Israel and the United States and their supporters to a higher standard than say, Syria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, or Cuba and their afficionados. Human rights violations are problems only when Americans and Israeli stand accused. That makes him a jerk, or something else unprintable on this blog. I think it makes him anti-Semitic, anti-American, stupid, and a lot of anti-lots of things good and decent. To hell with him.

Worst president? Well, Marty didn't say that.  Probably not.  With hindsight though, given what he did for liberalism and the election of liberal candidates, he's nothing for liberals to feel nostalgic about.

And Check do you know Bob Dylans song about the Jews and Israel?

Well, the neighborhood bully, he's just one man,<br>

His enemies say he's on their land.<br>

They got him outnumbered about a million to one,<br>

He got no place to escape to, no place to run.<br>

He's the neighborhood bully.<br>

The neighborhood bully just lives to survive,<br>

He's criticized and condemned for being alive.<br>

He's not supposed to fight back, he's supposed to have thick skin,<br>

He's supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in.<br>

He's the neighborhood bully.<br>

The neighborhood bully been driven out of every land,<br>

He's wandered the earth an exiled man.<br>

Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn,<br>

He's always on trial for just being born.<br>

He's the neighborhood bully.<br>

Well, he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized,<br>

Old women condemned him, said he should apologize.<br>

Then he destroyed a bomb factory, nobody was glad.<br>

The bombs were meant for him.<br>

He was supposed to feel bad.<br>

He's the neighborhood bully.</br>

www.bobdylan.com/.../bully.html

I have never voted for a Republican in any Presidential election and I hope I am driven to do so, now.

Still I am having lots of trouble seeing Obama as a good or even decent President.

Off topic, but the album "Neighborhood Bully " is on (Infidels) is one of Dylans best post-60's works -- especially if you replace a couple of tracks on side 2 with outtakes that were released on a 3-CD collection (I forget the name) years later.  

We can sqabble over Jimmy Carter's place in Presidential rankings but I've noticed something in these comments.  Nobody seems to be disputing the main premise - that his trip to Syria is an embarrasment and worse than useless.

Nixon deserves a lot more credit than he deserves, particularly from Israel supporters. He resupplied israel without hesitation during the Yom Kippur War, possibly saving her from disaster. I doubt if Carter would have done that, and certainly McGovern would not have. Nixon may have deserved to be impeached for his reckless use of office against his detractors, but he had real accomplishments. I, for one, do not care about any of his motivations.

Carter was so bad that Ted Kennedy opposed him, a sitting President, in an effort to deny him a second term.  Too bad he failed. Because it ushered in an era of total right wing domination of politics that Nixon and Agnew could only dream about.

Good post Check.

You're not becomng pro-Palestinian, just pro humanity. The same way I'm not an anti..wait if Check was an anti but is now a pro and I'm an anti then doesn't it follow that he's...man I'm confused.

Jack, care to help me out. I need your strong unbending clarity and knowledge of pro anti.

Ig:  Totally off-topic here, but do you have any thoughts on Ryan Air?  It's supposed to be just awful, and yet those prices are beyond tempting.   Asked Luis and ND elsewhere, so ND, if you happen to be here, let me know.

The Ignorant Populist  said:

Good post Check.

You're not becomng pro-Palestinian, just pro humanity.

So you think Israel and America aren't humane? Wow.  This must be the bizarro world Seinfeld keeps talking about where down is up and you say "Bad Bye" not "Good Bye."

How many other countries give a flying F about the condition of people in other countries? You think the average chinese citizen is worried about the poor starving African in the Sudan? We are the citizens of privileged first world countries who have too much time and luxury on our hands that it affords us the opportunity to care about others in this world.  I'm a Republican and I will guarandamntee that I care about humanity just as much or more than most lefty whacknuts out there.  I'm just not delusional about tyrants and bad people on this earth.  You don't freaking talk a mugger out of mugging you.  You carry a sledgehammer.  Not only for your safety but the safety of other good people walking down the street.  Bob Dylan was totally right.  Israel's screwed either way.  Meanwhile, Palestinians keep on cheering 9/11's and want to behead all of us but it's all cool.  Just cause they're the "oppressed. " Lemme see, after being given fully operational greenhouses and farms in the Gaza Strip what did they do? They proceeded to smash them all in a frenzy of insanity and warlust.  Never mind that leftie jews gave them these greenhouses in the hopes that they'd use them to build a better life.

Yea it's getto airlines Molly. Haven't flown Ryanair in a few years but my understanding is that they make you listen to ads on the flight, have uncomfortable seats etc. But look if it's a short flight, go for it. They're hard to beat price wise. Try to think that you are getting a bus, not a flight and you'll be fine.

MollySimon -

I have never flown on Ryan Air - and probably never will - because I have also read many bad stories in the newspaper. The prices may be tempting but one thing to look out for is the exact location of the airport. Ryan Air is notorious for selling say a Paris-Rome flight in the hope that you will be too stupid to notice that the airports are actually nowhere near Paris and Rome. A quick look at its schedules shows that Ryan Air flies out of Paris Beauvais which is a 60-90 minute $200-250 cab ride out of Paris. If you seriously intend to fly on Ryan Air you should check the likely cost and time of getting to an out-of-the-way airport.  I think the core market for Ryan Air is revellers who view every Euro wasted on the flight to Vilnius as a Euro not available for buying the local hooch.

I have flown on another low-price airline, EasyJet, and found that to be more pleasant than SouthWest. EasyJet uses Airbuses which I believe to be slightly better than equivalent Boeing models - the cabins are a little bit wider and higher. Again you should check the precise locations of airports and evaluate the difficulty of getting to the airport over any savings you make - especially if you are accompanying children. If the airport locations were acceptable I would have no hesitation about using EasyJet again.

Another thing to look out for on all these low-cost flights are additional charges such as a charge to bring any luggage on at all.  I once read that the head of Ryan Air wanted to charge extra for any luggage on the grounds that people going to the beach in Spain could just buy a swimsuit and a t-shirt when they got there.

I was not a fan of the Carter Presidency, although I did serve for a period in his Administration. There was a good deal to criticize, although I think the notion that his was the worst Presidency in American history is risible. I think our current president has a far better claim to that title, not to speak of several pre-Civil war presidencies and the ever-illustrious Warren G. Harding.

I think Mr. Carter deserves continuing credit for his essential role in the Camp David process  leading to an enduring (if mostly frigid) peace between Israel and Egypt. That remains a high water mark in the quest for a tolerable Middle East peace.

Mr. Carter also advocated energy policies (including significant taxes designed to reduce consumption and create favorable market conditions to support economically-viable alternatives). Had something like his proposals gone through in the 1970s, we--and the world--would be in a far better position today, both in terms of energy independence and freedom of action in our foreign policy vis a vis oil-producing states.

Carter was prescient on this issue, and showed great political courage (not matched by subsequent Presidents or Congressional leadership of either party, then or in the years since). Sadly, Carter lacked the political skills to force this through (though it is not clear that anyone would have been successful in bringing about such massive change with its substantial short-term economic and political costs).

I did not like Carter's invocation of the word "apartheid" in his recent book on Israel, and think it misapprehends and misleads on the current status in Israel and in the West Bank. Mr. Carter is also rather full of himself, his purity of purpose, and his moralistic piety for my tastes. But I also think a more balanced appraisal of his overall record is appropriate here.--The Wise Bard

"why are you so harsh on Carter?" Maybe he had the dubious experience (as I also did) of actually living through Carter's term. Millard Fillmore looks better all the time...

"A more balanced appraisal of his overall record..."

You're not from around here are you boy?

Dear Ignorant, You got it.

Just here for a quick visit. Not sure I'll settle in this neighborhood.

I did know Marty a bit at Harvard in the late 1960s, before he got religion.

The Wise Bard

Well, you're very welcome Bard. I'm sure Marty would second that as well. I've been too long in this place; I feel like that mad guy in the prision films who's friend is a rat.

You're well written and balanced post reminded me of a time long gone in the Spine, long gone.

Here rattty, rat. Say hello to ratty Mr Bard...pssst, they can see into your mind. Don't answer the pink telephone. Here they come. Beware Mr Dyer, he's a cruel man, cruel, cruel man. Ratty doesn't like him, he doesn't like him at all.

mollysimon -- in case you're still checking in on this thread....not sure what you meant by:

"Lisa H--you are a woman after my father's heart.  Until Nixon's death, my dad did a write-in vote for Nixon every presidential election.  His friends and family were appalled.  Sometimes I wonder whether he did just to elicit those reactions.  In any case, Bush (he calls him Bush with a short "u," just as Reagan once did) has converted dear pops into a rabid Democrat. " ????????

I've never voted for a Republican for president and certainly wouldn't have for voted for tricky dicky. Really. But the Clean Air Act was passed during his presidency.....That's all I was saying. Really..... I am furious at the Democrats for "taking impeachment off the table." But I still ain't gonna vote Republican this year....

Oh, no, LisaH--that's not what I meant.  It was just your appreciation of what Dicky Boy did do.  Personally, compared to this mumzer, Dicky wasn't half bad.  

I would argue that Nixon was  progressive domestically. He signed some  terrific environmental legislation, and he also gave a degree of self-gov't to Native American gov'ts there was unprecedented in US history.

Of course, there was Watergate, and the Christmas bombing of Hanoi. But hey, we all make mistakes peopel. Lets not be so judgemental!! ;)

Thanks, mollysimon...and that's one scary thought about Nixon not being 1/2-bad compared to this crowd....

Weisbard:

I was just a kid during the Carter administration.  I remember really clearly having to keep the thermostat low during the energy crisis--I think Carter asked this of Americans, and my parents complied.  And when I think back, I'm more impressed than anything that he had the guts to ask for sacrifice.  No politician in his right mind would do that today.  

My father, the Nixon lover, is an avid supporter of Israel, but can't muster much dislike for Jimmy.  "The man was too honest--that was his biggest problem," as my dad says.  And sanctimonious, as he recalls the "national malaise" line.  Neat to have your comments here.  You do have a balanced view, which gives your comments that much more weight.

Thanks Ig and ND for the advice on Ryan.  I'm definitely looking into EasyJet, and will try to figure out just how far the airport is.  Now I just have to decide which is the better city for traveling alone, Barcelona, Rome, or Berlin.  I'm thinking Rome.  Barcelona seems too sexy a place to go solo.  

Another day another opportunity for Martin Peretz to shit on Jimmy Carter - and all because he spoke to "Khaled Mashal, the Hamas chief in exile in Damascus." Scary stuff indeed. Of course, if Martin Peretz had bothered to look he might have found that Khaled Mashal has been talking recently to more than Jimmy Carter:

Over on TPM Cafe, Daniel Levy has a post on Khaled Mashal under the heading "Israel and Hamas Test the Waters?"

-- Interesting noises have been coming recently from the leader of the Hamas political bureau, Khaled Mashal, and the Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak. Looking at what they both said in relatively quick succession, one might even be tempted to draw the inference that perhaps this was coordinated and that something is cooking here. Khaled Mashal gave an interview to the Palestinian daily al-Ayyam that appeared on April 2nd (I know, I know, we have to listen to what Palestinian leaders tell their own public in their own language, and not - wait a minute, this was in their own language. This was an interview in Arabic in a Palestinian paper. I guess people will now say you have to start listening to what they say in Yiddish). Being serious again, Mashal in this interview explicitly endorses a Palestinian state within the ’67 borders, he in effect accepts the Arab initiative and reiterates Hamas support for the previous agreements reached with Fatah and the Palestinian national platform (the ‘Prisoners’ Documents’ and Mecca Agreement).

tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../israel_and_hamas_test_the_wate

Gershom Gorenberg, of The Prospect, has a story titled "Hamas: A Silent Partner for Peace?" also brings up this interview:

-- What would happen if Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal gave an interview and nearly no one in the West listened? Well then, it would be possible for the Israeli government and the Bush administration to continue with dead-end policies for dealing with the Islamic movement that rules Gaza, without anyone asking questions about failed strategic assumptions.

-- Meshaal is the Damascus-based head of Hamas' political bureau, its main leadership body. While his precise relationship with the head of the Hamas government in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, is unclear, Meshaal is normally described as Hamas' leader. Last week he gave an interview to Al-Ayyam, a pro-Fatah Palestinian daily. In it, he stressed that he's still committed to the Palestinian unity agreements of 2006, the basis for last year's short-lived Hamas-Fatah power-sharing deal in the Palestinian Authority. He reiterated that he would accept a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 boundaries -- that is, alongside Israel, not in place of it -- though without any commitment to recognize Israel formally.

-- Put differently, Meshaal was saying that his organization is willing to accept the reality of Israel, even if it is not happy about doing so. He's ready for Hamas to rejoin a unity government with Fatah -- reuniting Gaza and the West Bank -- and to be a silent partner while Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas of Fatah negotiates peace. He has not become a dove, but he is sidling his way toward being a pragmatic hawk. At the least, Meshaal's stance is reason for his adversaries to weigh a renewal of Palestinian unity as an alternative to siege of Gaza.

-- The Meshaal interview got brief coverage in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, and was picked up by an Italian news agency. In English language press it was barely covered. That's a shame. Asked by Al-Ayyam reporter Abdelrayuf Arnaout if Hamas sought to eradicate Israel, Meshaal answered: "We are committed to the political platform on which we agreed with the other Palestinian forces and in convergence with the Arab position" - meaning the Arab League proposal for full peace with Israel, based on the pre-1967 lines. "All the international parties," Meshaal said, should treat this as the Hamas position, and not "search in the minds of peoples" for their feelings.

www.prospect.org/.../articles

Funny, isn't it, how this recent Khaled Mashal interview doesn't even get a mention in a blog criticizing Jimmy Carter for talking to Khaled Mashal.  I wonder if rank ignorance had anything to do with it. Of course, for the likes of Martin Peretz and The New Republic it is far better to play the role of Zionist Thought Police and smear Jimmy Carter yet again than it is to try and understand the world as it really is.

(Gershom Gorenberg also co-hosts a blog named South Jerusalem at: http://southjerusalem.com/)

Here's one at least:

johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/.../jimmy-carter-our-worst-president.html

I also found a link (purchase, meh) that said that some military historians ranked Carter as the worst.

I wouldn't say that Carter is the worst president we've ever had.  He didn't dump us into a civil war or anything like that.  He was certainly one of the worst.  A pretty lousy president, all in all.  Bad for the country, bad for the world, bad for Democrats, bad for poor people, just bad.  If you put Carter in the context of American progress, he was the first president to rewind American strength.  He was the first significant step back.  Under Carter, there was serious talk about accepting America's coming #2 role in the world.  Considering our economic, military, and political might at the time, it takes an impressively lousy president to accomplish that.  No other president in the 20th century had the right constellation of ineptness, obtuseness, and aloofness to American self-interest to accomplish that.  If any other president in the 20th century had been president from 1976-1980, we would've been a stronger country for it.  Well, except for Warren Harding. . . but then again, Harding died.  Harding's vice president in 1976 (Dole or Reagan) would've been better than Carter, so even Harding being a lousy president and dying in office would have left  us better off than four years of carter.

I'm not sure I'd call myself a historian, but I gots me a degree in history - it sits on my desks - so you can take this as you will.

jackson,

I hadn't heard of that Dylan song.  Interesting.  Was it from the period when he was embracing Jewish observance?  I can't imagine it was his born-again Christian spell.

Yep, the song's from 1983's "Infidels" which was released a couple years after Dylan abandoned Christianity, took up study with the Lubavitchers, and journied to Israel for his son's barmy.

www.radiohazak.com/Tangled.html

Real historians don't speak in superlatives like "worst president," unless asked to in polls.

So I would note that in WSJ poll of historians, Jimmy Carter averaged 35/39. It would stand to reason that many ranked him in last place.

Just by contrast, George Bush (who many historians have already ranked in last place) averaged 19/49.

Look how universally reviled Bush is, and yet, during his presidency, he has obtained a respectable rank among historians.

By contrast, Carter, during his presidency, was ranked 34/39 in the Siena poll of historians. It is hard to imagine that the favorable rankings he received from liberal historians was not balanced by a large number of moderate and conservative historians ranking him in last place.

A Murray Blessing poll in 1982 also showed that conservatives, on average, ranked Carter among 30th among 36 presidents. Again, since he did not even show up on the liberal historians list of worst presidents, he must have achieved a lot of superlatives in order to rank so low.

This is all from the following link (which took me all of 5 seconds to find):

en.wikipedia.org/.../Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

Liberal historian Douglas Brinkley stated that electing Carter was "as close as the American people had ever come to "picking a name out of the phone book."  And this was before his latest mistakes.

I think Marty is pretty well covered in his claim that many (but clearly not most) historians think that Carter was the worst.

The rest of you guys are just being nit-picky. For example, if he was really only the second-worst of the third worst, does that matter?

Note, by the way, that Bush and Carter both do very poorly, and both lead during times of rising oil prices. It would be interesting to see, during the oil era, if there is a strong correlation between low rank of president and the price of oil.

Marty if you are still reading this thread please address the following report about your golden boy:

"Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama"

"They consider him receptive despite his clear support of Israel."  By Peter Wallsten

Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

www.latimes.com/.../la-na-obamamideast10apr10,1,7516320,print.story

voanews.com/.../2008-04-10-voa42.cfm

"The Bush administration says it has counseled former President Jimmy Carter against having a meeting with the head of the militant Palestinian group Hamas.  Mr. Carter reportedly intends to meet Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal next week in the Syrian capital Damascus.  VOA's David Gollust reports from the State Department."

"The campaign of presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has sharply criticized the reported meeting plans, while spokesmen for Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama have used milder language, saying they do not agree with Mr. Carter's plans."

About that LA Times story of Obama and the Palestinians.

[Ari Berman of The Nation] Debbie Schlussel, an inflammatory right-wing blogger and originator of the "Obama is a Muslim" lie, has identified herself as one of Wallsten's sources. (via Spencer Ackerman)

www.thenation.com/.../campaignmatters

[MJ Rosenberg of TPMCafe] Turns out that Wallsten was trolling for anti-Obama dirt and turned to the far right Kahanist blogger Debbie Schlussel to give it to him. She obliged but because he didn't credit her, she blows the whistle on him

tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../la_times_steals_obama_hit_piec

Figures that the pro Hamas mackenzie would try to attack a story that is not complementary to her point of view.

Here is Mr. Wallstens resume:

From Wikipedia

"Peter Wallsten is a reporter for the Los Angeles Times who covers the White House and national politics. He is also the author, with Tom Hamburger, of One Party Country: The Republican Plan for Dominance in the 21st Century.

A graduate of the University of North Carolina and a Chapel Hill native, he worked previously at the Miami Herald, St. Petersburg Times, Charlotte Observer and the Congressional Quarterly. He lives in Washington, D.C.

Wallsten is partially blind as a result of macular degeneration. In June 2006, this caused an exchange of words with President George W. Bush at a White House press conference. Unaware of the journalist's medical condition, the president questioned Wallsten's need to wear sunglasses when the sun wasn't visible. Bush has since apologized for the incident."

NO, I don't believe that Wallsten's would be "trolling the web for anti Obama dirt."

This would describe the anti-American and antisemitic mackenzie looking for anti-Peretz dirt or anti-anyone who supports Israel.

And The Nation, a cheritable case, is not an impeccable source.

"The Nation magazine has lost money in all but three or four years of operation and is sustained in part by a group of more than 25,000 donors called The Nation Associates who donate funds to the periodical above and beyond their annual subscription fees."

The Nation, a charity, case is not an impeccable source:

"The Nation magazine has lost money in all but three or four years of operation and is sustained in part by a group of more than 25,000 donors called The Nation Associates who donate funds to the periodical above and beyond their annual subscription fees."

Back to the topic, Carter was certainly the worst in my lifetime (1952 and on).  

Remember, he was so inept that even Senator Eugene McCarthy (who as a liberal anti-war Democrat stopped LBJ from seeking re-election in 1968) endorsed Ronald Reagan over Carter for President in 1980.  (link=www.npr.org/.../story.php)

Hard to top that:  Jimmy managed to enrage both the left and the right with his failures and incompetence.  Then, during the 1990s under Clinton, he brokered the deal with North Korea where we gave them food and oil and they promised not to build nukes.  Gee, another great Jim-boy contribution to world peace!  Worked so well!  

I wonder if he can get a similar deal for us with Hamas?   With his proven track record, nothing would surprise me.  

Great point, dlrocdoc,  I forgot about that.