Mainly, I know that most of the more dramatic comments come from reader who came from the Daou Report, and won’t be back to read my responses.

Although above all else: time.

But, as the link I gave in my previous comment indicates, the crucual difference is that Carter was a uniter. Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike were united in thinking he was a failure. GWB is, of course, the ultimate divider: Democrats despise him, Republicans generally love him, and independents are currently moderately negative towards him.

Worst President EVER!

On yeah, they’re both white men born in the 20th century - so they’re a lot alike.

The attack on Carter is not. Carter had a very troubled presidency in important areas, and he had his flaws, but his big issues were inherited (oil-related issues, economic issues, and the natural rebellion in Iran against the US-imposed 25 years of tyranny from Eisenhower overthrowing their elected president; even the failed rescue operation was a military failure, hardly Carter telling them to screw it up. Or is Pat Tillman’s killing a ‘Bush error’, beyond the war itself?)

Carter was pushing alternative energy and independance from middle east oil decades before Bush’s 2025 address; his symbolic White House solar panel was yanked out by Reagan.

Carter pushed human rights in our foreign policy in a great move for both the people it helps around the world, as well as the US’s standing among nations as the moral leader, pushing for the good of mankind, not selfish power and excusing things such as torture.

Sometimes presidents are not given easy options; Carter’s boycott of the olympics was seen as less than useful to protest the Soviet activities (against radical muslims n Afghanistan, ummm_, but what was he to do?

Indeed, Carter played a key role in the downfall of the USSR in encouraging the USSR to intervene in Afghanistan, which was a large factor in their downfall - perhaps moreso than Reagan’s big crony theft-of-tax-money defense spenidng and a few PR lines ‘tear down that wall’ as he and Bush were caught by surprise at the USSR’s end (the Soviet leaders later said that the claim Reagan’s big defense budgets caused them to bankrupt themselves was absurd, that they saw what he was doing and did not fall for it.)

I guess the American people prefer a president who may well have made secret deals with the Iranians for a political win of the release of the hostages on the day of his inauguration, to an honest president - who knows what price was paid to the Iranians for that?

Just as we’re to this day dealing with a hands-off Saudi policy from Nixon/Kissinger’s secret deal with the Saudis to give them security in exchange for access to their oil, following their embargo.

Carter is not nearly as bad as W. Bush.

And while no major republican would dare stand up to the party and oppose Bush in 2025, the democrats came out better there, too: no less figure than Ted Kennedy ran against him. He didn’t win, but he made the try, and it’s too bad he didn’t, compared to the corruption and beginning of the big-deficit corruption that started under Reagan - sell out the public and smile like any good con man. I won’t say Reagan might not have had some good motives, but when you are literally hiring terrorists to kill innocents to fight democracy in another country (Nicaragua), there’s some accountatibility.

The right all said there was NO WAY the ‘communists’ would give up political power if they lost the election; the terrorism blackmail the US did - vote them out and the contras might stop killing people - worked, and guess what, the Sandinistas peacefully left office.

Accountability for the terrorism? Basically, none.

Criticize Carter but don’t compare him to W.