Jimmy Carter will endorse Barack Obama for president tonight. Like most liberals, Carter has trouble discerning intentions from consequences. If he really wanted Obama to win, the former president would have endorsed John McCain.

In many ways, Jimmy Carter is endorsing himself! Ill-equipped, incompetent, unprepared and highly dangerous to the security and health of the U.S.A.

Well said Gayle!

Dan you may agree that Carter's probably the worst President of the last 50 years, and a real "unfortunate" excuse for a human being. Having said that he's never acquired the Clinton's comfort with lying, so his endorsement of Obama makes perfect sense.

I'll bet Barack's unavailable for comment! LOL!

I know you may not have intended it this way Gayle, but I think an alternative interpretation of your comment is that when unpopular figures endorse popular figures they are actually doing something selfish--endorsing themselves. In other words, Jimmy Carter gets the positive rub by being associated with Obama and not the other way around.

I'm with you Morgan--though I don't know if Carter is actually a bad human being (and it's hard for me to think that of Obama as well). I think Carter the most incompetent, and least effective, president of the last fifty years. To loosely paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on your definition of "worst" on whether I think him the worst. I think there are tremendously effective presidents, Lyndon Johnson comes to mind, who unleashed more longterm harm.

Dan you wrote,"...Lyndon Johnson comes to mind, who unleashed more longterm harm."

I'll grant you that. Johnson's "Great Society" is a GREAT DISASTER for sure! We've yet to get the final tab on that one.

On to Jimmmy Carter. It would take me a LONG time to describe the depth of my contempt for this former President. So I'll keep it real short.
He's:

1. A serious leftist who revels in providing cover for leftist tyrants worldwide.
2. A hard-core anti-Semite who views Israel as the bad guy in the Israeli-terrorist conflict, in so many words of course.
3. The one President MOST responsible for giving us the current Iranian Shia terrorist regime and all of it's wonderful spinoffs!

In a nutshell, maybe all of Carter's serious flaws can be traced to the first sentence of #1. He's upside down for sure, and it's to the detriment of America's interests worldwide. I personally think he's an evil SOB. :-)

Morgan

Ex-President Carter may be a "serious leftist," but I don't think that phrase applies to President Carter. This is particularly true with regard to domestic policy. Remember, the increase in defense budgets and the deregulation of the economy--such as the airlines--started under Carter, not Reagan. He had naive foreign policy views, but I don't recall him as such a doctrinaire figure. Your perception of him in points one and two come primarily from ex-President Carter and not President Carter, right?

Just one leftist, regime hugging, America hater endorsing another. That's a shockagh!

I believe it's pronounced Cawta.

That's 'Jimma Cawta' to you. And aside from having a beer drinking brother with a penchant for public urination, he and B.H.O. are very similar.

It was during the Carter Presidency that the Soviet Untion was lured into the Afghan honey trap under the guidance of Zbigniew Brzezinski, which was responisble for giving the Soviet Union "their Vietnam." This policy was continued under Reagan, and it eventually helped bring about the demise of the Soviet system.

We should remember the "malaise" of the Carter years was ended by a marginal tax rate cut and a brief hike in interest rates that killed inflation. We then had the roaring 80s and 90s. Will a tax cut and interest rate hike be sufficient to get our country out of the mess it's in right now? Doesn't seem so. The catastrophic war in Iraq is burdering our economy to the tune of 3 trillion -- probably more -- a balanced budget seems just as unrealistic and impossible as $2.00 gas, and the foreign policy blunders of the Carter years were never as far-reaching as the Iraq war. I hope things will get better, but it looks as though the Bush Presidency has wounded our country far greater than Carter's.

It was during the Carter Presidency that the Soviet Untion was lured into the Afghan honey trap under the guidance of Zbigniew Brzezinski, which was responisble for giving the Soviet Union "their Vietnam." This policy was continued under Reagan, and it eventually helped bring about the demise of the Soviet system.

We should remember the "malaise" of the Carter years was ended by a marginal tax rate cut and a brief hike in interest rates that killed inflation. We then had the roaring 80s and 90s. Will a tax cut and interest rate hike be sufficient to get our country out of the mess it's in right now? Doesn't seem so. The catastrophic war in Iraq is burdering our economy to the tune of 3 trillion -- probably more -- a balanced budget seems just as unrealistic and impossible as $2.00 gas, and the foreign policy blunders of the Carter years were never as far-reaching as the Iraq war. I hope things will get better, but it looks as though the Bush Presidency has wounded our country far greater than Carter's.

eric did you live though the carter yrs? to compare then to now is a joke. if you what a job now you should have no prob, finding one. but 4 dollar gas is all us. we go fat an sassy with big cars and bigger troop carriers, hm i mean suvs.

Yep, just like the Carter years we now have record low unemployment, a robust stock market, record low interest rates and outside of fuel costs (which have gotten out of control since the Democrats took over both houses) the economy is generally booming. Just like the Carter years. Right?

Our economy is much more fragile and precarious now than the Carter years, but honestly this is b/c of a steady increase and continuance of common legislative (and Fed) policies for many decades now well beyond the scope of blame for any single postwar presidents.

We are much more in a sand castle in the sky sort of economy now, all on paper, w/ no indusrial base or self-sufficiency.

Tag, No, I didn't "live" through the Carter years, but I can look at statistics and anyone can cite statistics to make their "agenda" look good. However, our economy is rotten if you look at net private sector job growth and the creation of high paying jobs. Inflation is going up on gasoline and food items, which is much more problematic for most Americans than inflation in other areas.

The stock market is booming only if compare it to the Great Depression. Also we have a huge fiscal problem that is being entirely ignored due to the Iraq war. However, the question I was posing is will tax cuts and an interest rate hike be sufficient to get our economic house back in order? It's going to be almost impossible to justify tax cuts given the spendthrift nature of Republicans and Democrats, and will interest rate hikes do anything to alleviate high gas and food prices? Again, probably cannot happen due to the fragile housing economy.

Interest rates are low as a rememdy to the housing crisis. Spending is out of control. (Thanks to the Republican Iraqi war) And there is no case for tax cuts. (Again, thanks to the Republican Iraqi war) SO given the situation, it seems Bush has ruined our economy far worse than Carter.

Well, I did live through the Carter years and I can tell you first hand that it $ucked! Life in general is much much better these days and although I won't necessarily attribute that fact to our current WH resident, as things have gotten progressively better since Reagan, the reality is that Carter f'ed a lot of things up.

To a degree, I suppose we can thank Carter for being so incompetent across the board as it woke people up to how a bad President can negatively impact an economy, foreign policy and overall national security.

I really hope we don't have to go through an Obama (gulp!) Presidency to re-learn those lessons.

To whatever degree Carter messed up this country, our economic house was put back in order by about 1983, and his foreign policy debacles were no longer significant. However, can the same be said about this Administration? Will we say 99 cent gasoline in a few years, like we did during the Clinton Administration? Will we see an effort to balance the budget? Will Bush's foreign policies catastrophes be swept aside and forgotten in the next three years?

I don't think so. Bush has probably wrecked this country more than any president in recent history. And why think Obama will be like another Carter? Perhaps it will be more like Clinton? Peace and prosperity...

That sounds like change we can believe in.

Eric the clueless, i lived through the carter yrs, wasnt even close to the cake walk today is. you can read all the STATS, you want, i was there.

So how 'wrecked' is this country? Eric seems to believe the 'white knight' theory that the libs/dems spout that things are SOOOO bad that only they can ride in to save the day. With bigger, more expensive and intrusive government or course.

Don't know about you, but life doesn't seem that bad for anybody who I know or see. And I work in a place where government handouts are showered on all of those who seek them. Deserving or not. That's the kind of world the Dems in general and Obama in particular would want to build.

Back to the supposed halcyon days of Bill Clinton? At least Clinton was more interested in chasing skirts than taking an activist role in the government he was responsible to head (pardon the pun). So he couldn’t cause the mischief that a true Socialist like Obama would. Obama's policies would wreak havoc on the American economy.

His economic plan would return us to the failed policies of high taxation along with an expansion of government spending. He’s committed to almost doubling the capital gains rate and makes no bones about his plans to go on a tax rampage. Not only would he increase the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to as much as 28 percent, he wants to allow the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which effectively raises taxes on Americans by tens of billions of dollars.

It’s been estimated that if Obama has a free reign (and with a majority in Congress he could) his policies could cost more than $850 billion over his term.

He also wants to do away with the $102,000 FICA payroll tax cap, which means anyone making over $102,000 would pay an additional 7 percent in taxes on earned income and additionally the loan dividend tax rate George Bush implemented.

Four years of activist Socialism intruding and putting the crunch on energy, healthcare, business, etc. from a guy the National Taxpayers Union rated at 5% would be devastating.

ASDF,

The Clinton years were the most fiscally conservative years since WWII -- more than Reagan and both Bushes.

Whatever damage the Carter Years inflicted on this country, they were mostly resolved by 1983. Can the problems of Iraq, deficits, and high gas prices be solved in just a few years? I sure hope so, but if they are it's because we repudiate the agenda of the Bush Administration.

Clinton years were went well -- I remember 99 cent gasoline, roaring stock market, fiscal restraint, and private sector job growth. Clinton surely doesn't get credit for all of this, but the Clinton years were not a national nightmare or anything.

I suppose Clinton didn't care about oil prices at the time as all that cheap foreign oil was available when he vetoed a bill in 95' that would have allowed domestic oil exploration and refinery production. Since then, Dems and leftist environmentalists have insured that we don't drill, we don't refine, we don't build nuclear power plants so, I don't see our energy problems getting solved anytime soon.

And you might consider that our current military excursion was prompted by Bill Clinton's total disregard for our national security. Khobar, the Cole, the first World Trade Center bombing? And he did nada.

Clinton skated through his Presidency and rode the economy created by the tech bubble and a conservative Congress was in place to keep him out of trouble (remember his 93' tax increase was the biggest ever).

He was in the right place at the right time and certainly didn't have a mandate as President. He also got out at the right time as the NASDAQ was cratering toward the end of his term and gas prices were creeping up to the extent where he started to tap our national reserves and flood the market with cheap oil so Al Gore would have a better chance of getting elected.

The current high price of gasoline is due to the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003. The high oil prices are therefore a direct result of Bush's foreign policy.

The current military excursion in Iraq is due to a dangerous, anti-American Neocon agenda that seeks to perpetuate American hegemony across the global all at the expense of the American economy. Trying to blame Clinton for the invasion of Iraq is Bush Cultism at its worst.

Clinton's tax increase wasn't the largest in real dollars, only nominal. Besides, Clinton and the Republican Congress were actually serious about fiscal restraint and balancing the budget.

George Bush had 6 years of a Republican Congress and 2 years with a Democratic Congress; Clinton had 6 years with a Republican Congress and 2 years with a Democratic Congress, yet Clinton was still far more fiscally conservative. Why?

No. High fuel costs in general and high gas prices in particular are due to a world economy changing making the U.S. not the only customer on the block. It's called supply and demand and countries like India and China are using more petroleum to fuel industry and a middle class.

I know you'd like to think that Neocons, Bush and the Iraq war are responsible for everything including post nasal drip, but there are bigger dynamics in play. There always are.

My point is that we should be energy independent as we have MASSIVE reserves all over our share of the continent. . We’ve needed a serious energy policy for some time now, but most every Democrat and some Republicans have thwarted that effort.

It’s interesting, I get mail from Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and his last missive was a typical Democrat doom and gloomer about how the middle class has been squeezed because of high fuel costs. I looked up his record with regard to domestic development and to call him an obstructionist would be kind.

This is the problem, not the Neocons, Bush or the Iraq war.

But, whatever makes you feel good I suppose.

Eric, this is for you. Perfect example of why the path you follow is sick and flawed:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/the_audacity_of_the_democrats.html