Jimmy Carter the Worst President in American History!

[readwriteblue.livejournal.com]

There maybe some disagreement over which of our past leaders was the worst.
I nominate James Earl Carter. And if his drubbing in the media this past week is any indecation, I am not alone is this opinion. The New York Sun

Comments

[sunpony.livejournal.com]

Um, how does the Federalist Society, that most awesome bastion of hyper-conservatism, produce an "unbiased" report that they themselves "adjusted" based on the people who deigned to reply to their propoganda?

The article itself is a set-up, as it denigrates "liberal" intellectuals and then portrays Bush as a President on the cusp of greatness, who could turn out like Truman to be hugely appreciated for his boldness.

Sorry, that is a crock.

[j0kerr.livejournal.com]

So you are saying you are smarter than than ideologically balanced group of 130 prominent professors of history, law, political science and economics? I know reality isn't your strong point, but that just makes you sound like a smart ass.

[sunpony.livejournal.com]

"Ideologically balanced" and "The Federalist Society" are oxymoronic in combination. And as someone about to get their PhD and who teaches at university, yeah, I probably AM smarter than a lot of these unnamed scholars, and proud of it. I would certainly know better than to give the Federalist Society ammunition for putting Bush in a better light. And that number is not 130; only 85 responded, and we have no information as to the ideological bent of the respondents, nor do we have the criteria for "balancing" their scores. How many were conservative Dems, or super-libertarian Republicans, and why couldn't Independents, Greens, and anarchists participate? All that this does is give some WSJ writer material to try to portray Bush's as potentially better than it is.

See, when you read an article, and critically analyze it, you can figure out all sorts of interesting things.

I guess that's what makes me a smart-ass? As opposed to an intelligent donkey?

[j0kerr.livejournal.com]

You just sound dumb now. You claim to be smarter and more knowledgable than 130 people who study this stuff and make a living out of it.

Try to sound a little smarter next time, or bring some klnd of proof. As far as we know, until you use a source, you are just some 8 year old. Use a source to back up what you say or please go away.

[sunpony.livejournal.com]

Just out of curiosity, what is it that I need to back up? That the Federalist Society has its own ideological bent? OK, here is what their own website (http://www.fed-soc.org/aboutus/) says:

"The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order." It's specific goals are highly conservative in nature, as outlined on their site and discussed in a 2000 Washington Monthly article (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html).

There is no doubt the author of the WSJ article is using the report for ideological purposes, if you closely read the article that it is linked to on the rankings page. That is what I outlined, and I stand by my characterization of it.

Saying that I "sound dumb," that I am an "8 year old," and that I should "go away," are, honestly, things that an 8-year old would say. Your frantic waving-about of this report and your need to reiterate that experts-dammit-experts contributed to this report (and thus, it is somehow above reproach?) is daft. You realize, of course, that these conclusions are quite similar to Schlesinger's in his study of the presidency? Would you like the citation for his book and some analysis of the rankings? How about a comparison between this and the 2000 report that the same author put together for the Federalist Society?

You don't want to debate; you want to dismiss. You aren't even paying attention to the details; you insult with broad strokes and little substance. So, until you are prepared to cite, debate, and analyze the material and issues at hand, perhaps you should take your own advice.

[j0kerr.livejournal.com]

1. You seem to only pick on one of the groups responcible for the poll.
2. You discredit because you don't like the results.
3. You appear to be saying that 130 more people who are more educated than you and study this stuff is wrong because you say they are.
4. When confronted with a child who can't debate, thats you, it is nice to ask them to leave before they embarass themselves. Afer all, the only thing they have left is insults that don't contribute.

Now please go away or try to contribute.

[sunpony.livejournal.com]

1. OK, I can pick on the WSJ too, if you want, but the Federalist Society member is the primary author. I also "pick on" the author of the Opinion Monthly article. Why don't you read what people say fully and THEN react?

2. I discredit because the survey is being used to make an ideological point, and I have yet to find the actual report that also contains the method of selection and "balancing" of respondents' rankings.

3. Holy crap, for the last time, EIGHTY-FIVE people actually responded to the survey! Can you not get that through your head? 85 people (that is about 65% of the people asked) actually gave their opinions. 85 people who are anonymous, pre-selected without details about the process of selection (besides an invocation of party loyalty), and whose responses are adjusted by the author contributed their OPINION. Now, unless they have more than 3 degrees, they are not more educated than me, and without knowing who they are I refuse to say that they are smarter than I am. If they turn out to be 85 crackjack intellectuals, then they get some respect. We all have the capability to be critical thinkers, and we need to exercise that.

And I did not say that the report was "wrong," I said it is being used to make ideological hay. In point of fact, most of the survey agrees with previous surveys, like the one I cited. But it differs in a few important ways, and is then used by the author of the accompanying article to suggest that there is some hidden greatness in Bush's rule. I disagree with that, and given the flurry of problems the administration currently has (some of which it did not have in 2005 when the survey was conducted), I think I have some basis for my disagreement.

And that's ARE wrong, by the way.

4. I think you need to look in a mirror, my friend. The only one engaging in childish behavior here is you, You only EMBARRASS yourself by not engaging my points and by harping on this idea that we should not critique things ourselves, but leave such things to an elite. Think for yourself, for the love of Zeus, and contribute more than cheap shots without substance and a slavish devotion to what some experts said. I have given you several questions, assertions, and sources as a basis for discussion. If you can point to one thing you have said in your comments that is actually debate (that is, to have an argument or discussion wherein you articulate and elaborate a viewpoint and then substantively defend it), please let the rest of us know so that we can actually have a debate, and not an exchange where one person does nothing but invoke the source of the debate as not debatable over and over again and then insults someone else for responding critically. -30-

[j0kerr.livejournal.com]

Wow, you can write a lot that says nothing. Stop being mad becasue Nush isn't thw worse president.

[sunpony.livejournal.com]

Actually, you are far better than I at the art of empty talk. I think this is a fitting coda to our conversation, spelling errors and all.

[j0kerr.livejournal.com]

Last desperate attack of a losing Democrat, personal attacks such as spelling.

You sir are wrong....again.