worst american politician!

[Xzion]

now comes a thread where you can nominate who you feel is the worst american politician currently in office...anywhere from the statehouse to the congress to the supreme court to the whitehouse


for me it was a close call, but i would have to say Tom DeLay, the conservative hypocritical corrupt basterd has done things the staunches blind conservatives cannot even stand behind…he goes from standing against Terri Schiavos right to die (when he pulled the plug on his father in a similar manner) to further supporting the legislation of morality (when he has violated the political code of ethics more then any other politician), that and hes a strong supporter of weakening free speech and even supports legislation to censor cable and satellite television/radio

Runner ups to tom delay include
Paul Wolfowitz
Mel Martinez
Many others and of course, we cant forget GW Bush

[Deward]

I think it would be easier to come up with good politicians and even that would be tough. 99% of them are crooks.

[Nick]

VV's to Deward.

[Xzion]

I think it would be easier to come up with good politicians and even that would be tough. 99% of them are crooks.

i couldnt make that thread i dont think i can even name one

[Animalor]

Prolly easier to start from the top and work your way down.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I would venture to say we don't know truly who the worst politician is. We only here a very small percentage of the truth of what the power moguls have done with their political means.

Anyone we mention could most likely be tied to something corrupt.

[*~*stragi*~*]

condi, hands down.

[Winnow]

I'm going with Jean Chretien. He's North American. That qualifies.

[Tenuvil]

DeLay for the Win.

(FYI Condalezzy isn't a "politician" per se, neither is Wolfowitz...they are political appointees / wonks / hangerson)

[*~*stragi*~*]

ok, i'll second delay then.

[Animalor]

Dick Cheney

http://www.whitehouse.org/administration/dick.asp

[Lohrno]

I'm going with Jean Chretien. He's North American. That qualifies.

If that qualifies, then I am sure there are a whole bunch of Mexican Politicians that are way worse...

[Kargyle]

DeLay for the Win.

(FYI Condalezzy isn't a "politician" per se, neither is Wolfowitz...they are political appointees / wonks / hangerson)

They are still politicians, they just are not elected officials/representatives.

[Chmee]

I don't think I could limit myself to just one, certainly some that have already been mentioned would be contenders.

A few that haven't been mentioned for some variety.

Senator Paul Sarbanes and Representative Michael Oxley for creating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, hugely expensive and of fairly dubious worth.

and of course

Senator John McCain, for being probably the biggest enemy of the First Amendment in Washington (and that is saying something) as well as just a general busybody always willing to bring the weight of government to bear on an issue whether it is any of the government's business or not.

[noel]

How the fuck are ANY of the people named doing bad jobs as politicians? All of them are maintaining office, and all have risen to some of the highest stations in their respective nations. If that's not a successful politician, I don't know what is.

Oh yes, and most of them are fucking assholes, but that's not really the point of the thread....

Bad politicians are like: Gary Hart, Gary Condit, Michael Dukakis, George Bush Sr., Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, etc.

[Lohrno]

Bad politicians are like: Gary Hart, Gary Condit, Michael Dukakis, George Bush Sr., Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, etc.

John Kerry...Al Gore

[Tenuvil]

DeLay is a fucktard who let his near absolute power in the House corrupt him.

He does not represent his constituency in any way. As an example the vast majority of his constituents oppose him bringing the Terri Schiavo incident to Congress, a venue her issue had no place being in.

As far as Chmee's choice of Sens. Sarbanes and Oxley, well I think they meant well when they presented the law. However, the Sarbanes Oxley Act has been manipulated and morphed by the Accounting industry and unfortunately become some kind of monster, more like the "IT Auditor Full Employment Act" than a way to detect wrongdoings by senior management. Trust me I know, having made over 6 figures in about 7 months due to SOA and the severe shortages of IT auditors required to carry out the reviews.

Believe me the most painful times on those engagements came when managers would look me in the eye and ask how a law designed to detect and or prevent corporate fraud and abuse ended up becoming a detailed IT review.

[Jice Virago]

Dem side: Zeb Miller, maybe Leiberman. Keep those two fuckers the hell away from the constitution.

GOP side: Dick Cheney, hands down. The guy has been caught lying multiple times on national TV, let the energy insudstry lobbies craft our public energy policy, and lined his pockets with cash from the Halliburton monopoly on contract work in Iraq. At least GW sincerely believes some of the mighty righty rhetoric he is laying out, Cheney is just in it for the bling.

If we are talking about worst political persona and including non-elected people, then I think Rummy would have to get the nod over Condi Rice. The guy is just plain evil for evil's sake and has made tons of mistakes, both in terms of PR and policy.

Honorable mention goes to Colin Powell, who sold his soul to his neocron Sith Masters, compromising all of his personal integrity in the process. So much for having a black president in our lifetime.

[nobody]

neocon Sith Masters!

[Xzion]

Dem side: Zeb Miller, maybe Leiberman. Keep those two fuckers the hell away from the constitution.

GOP side: Dick Cheney, hands down. The guy has been caught lying multiple times on national TV, let the energy insudstry lobbies craft our public energy policy, and lined his pockets with cash from the Halliburton monopoly on contract work in Iraq. At least GW sincerely believes some of the mighty righty rhetoric he is laying out, Cheney is just in it for the bling.

If we are talking about worst political persona and including non-elected people, then I think Rummy would have to get the nod over Condi Rice. The guy is just plain evil for evil's sake and has made tons of mistakes, both in terms of PR and policy.

Honorable mention goes to Colin Powell, who sold his soul to his neocron Sith Masters, compromising all of his personal integrity in the process. So much for having a black president in our lifetime.

Rumsfeld is bad...bit i have to give him credit for his "ideal" of a smaller, more technically advanced military when the dems are currently trying to increase the size of most military branches manpower wise which i think is a step in the wrong direction...of course i liked the ideal of Bush's tax cuts when i didnt see the reprocussion being that he continued high government spending and we now has historys largest defecit to show for it..
either way the point i was trying to make is Wolfowitz is much worse then Rumsfeld, without him, there probrably wouldnt have even been an iraq

[Metanis]

Jimmy Carter

How did that guy ever become President? What a loser.

[Lohrno]

neocon Sith Masters!

I think regressive is a more accurate label than neocon...

[Lohrno]

Jimmy Carter

How did that guy ever become President? What a loser.

He is a better Ex-President than he was president.

Still, given a choice of him or the chimp, I'd vote for him hands down..

[Drolgin Steingrinder]

Jimmy Carter

How did that guy ever become President? What a loser.

Few people know. If Jenny Sparks had been alive, she could answer you.

/geekery off.

Seriously, what's your problem with Carter? I realize a lot of people blame him for everything from the oil crisis that started 3 years before his inauguration over Reaganomics to the decline of the space program, but...

He was the first president since Roosevelt who actively improved the image of the US outside of North America (and don't say Kennedy, all he did was get shot and claim to be a donut). I realize it may not mean much, but the anti-american sentiment that had blossomed in Scandinavia since LBJ was largely reduced because of Carter. His post-presidential record is stellar - he is a man who takes his responsibility seriously, unlike Bush the first.

For a peanut farmer from Buttfuck, Indiana, he's done a pretty damn good job.

[nobody]

Jimmy Carter

How did that guy ever become President? What a loser.

Few people know. If Jenny Sparks had been alive, she could answer you.

/geekery off.

Seriously, what's your problem with Carter? I realize a lot of people blame him for everything from the oil crisis that started 3 years before his inauguration over Reaganomics to the decline of the space program, but...

He was the first president since Roosevelt who actively improved the image of the US outside of North America (and don't say Kennedy, all he did was get shot and claim to be a donut). I realize it may not mean much, but the anti-american sentiment that had blossomed in Scandinavia since LBJ was largely reduced because of Carter. His post-presidential record is stellar - he is a man who takes his responsibility seriously, unlike Bush the first.

For a peanut farmer from Buttfuck, Indiana, he's done a pretty damn good job.

actually that's Buttfuck, Georgia. Carter is a good person but like Clinton he is too full of his own ego and "legacy" for my tatse.

[Canelek]

Worst American politician... hmmm, name anyone between the ages of 18 and 25. Joo think you are a man, joto?

[Voronwë]

i'm relatively sure Metanis couldn't come up with a justification to truly slam carter. not without googling somebody else's opinions and copying/paste.

whether or not he was an effective president, he is probably the finest human being that has been president in the last 100 years. He was a chaplain in the navy, and has spent a tremendous amount of his time in retirement building houses for poor people. literally building them with a hammer and such.

kind of ironic when you compare him to the various Republican leaders who make such a political point of declaring their religious convictions.

WWJD indeed. probably not go on a trip to Russia funded by a lobbyist for gambling interests (though documented differently) for Russian business interests.

But OMG the Liberal Media (TM) is out to get Delay.

That Leftist rag, the Wall Street Journal!!!

[Neroon]

I find a lot of the most vocal anti-Carter people were'nt even alive during his presidency these days. Granted I was only 10 or so, but I don't remember him being this bumbling idiot most seem to claim he was.

I do, however, remember Reagan being a bumbling idiot. At least in his second term.

[Voronwë]

hey dont diss Reagan. Very normal people have astrologers into their house to guide their decision making...

[nobody]

hey dont diss Reagan. Very normal people have astrologers into their house to guide their decision making...

you mean like, Hillary Clinton?

[Metanis]

i'm relatively sure Metanis couldn't come up with a justification to truly slam carter.

Actually I could... if I wanted to. However the original poster specifically used the phrase "who you feel". My feelings on this are not subject to justification by self-righteous, pompous little pricks like you Voron.

[Drolgin Steingrinder]

haha Metanis. You sure showed Voronwë there!

Pompous and self-righteous? Wow...pot, kettle, etc.

[kyoukan]

Metanis doesn't post very often, so it's easy to forget that he has never backed up a single argument with anything other than rhetoric or childish distraction tactics.

Every once in awhile he likes to crawl out of his little hole of ignorance and stupidity and pipe out his nonsensical horse shit opinions until somebody better than him (ie. anyone other than cartalas, winnow or midnyte) stuffs him back down again.

[Hoarmurath]

the original poster specifically used the phrase "who you feel".

And later in the same sentence, the original poster also says "currently in office".

[Metanis]

Metanis doesn't post very often, so it's easy to forget that he has never backed up a single argument with anything other than rhetoric or childish distraction tactics.

Every once in awhile he likes to crawl out of his little hole of ignorance and stupidity and pipe out his nonsensical horse shit opinions until somebody better than him (ie. anyone other than cartalas, winnow or midnyte) stuffs him back down again.

You aren't the real Kooky. Why bother?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Whats funny is how Met was but the 8th person to say someones name without any backup, yet the Left chose to call out Met and make this thread about him because he chose a sacred leftist politician instead of a right winger white devil.

[Niffoni]

Surely it is a conspiracy of the highest order. We'll get right on investigating that.

[Nick]

"The left"

Get a clue Mid.

[Xzion]

Whats funny is how Met was but the 8th person to say someones name without any backup, yet the Left chose to call out Met and make this thread about him because he chose a sacred leftist politician instead of a right winger white devil.

its not that fact that he chose jimmy carter, its that when asked he didnt give a reason, where everyone else was free to volunteer there reasoning behind there "hated" politicians

[Hoarmurath]

the Left chose to call out Met

Only one person "called out" Metanis, how is that "The Left"?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

now comes a thread where you can nominate who you feel is the worst american politician currently in office

The first bold shows how Mets choice shouldn't be called into question. The second bold shows why his choice should have been called into question. At least if you guys are going to look to bash the righties on this board, do it for the right reasons instead of looking like partisan assholes.

[Pherr the Dorf]

As far as Chmee's choice of Sens. Sarbanes and Oxley, well I think they meant well when they presented the law. However, the Sarbanes Oxley Act has been manipulated and morphed by the Accounting industry and unfortunately become some kind of monster, more like the "IT Auditor Full Employment Act" than a way to detect wrongdoings by senior management. Trust me I know, having made over 6 figures in about 7 months due to SOA and the severe shortages of IT auditors required to carry out the reviews.

Next round is on you!

[Drolgin Steingrinder]

Whats funny is how Met was but the 8th person to say someones name without any backup, yet the Left chose to call out Met and make this thread about him because he chose a sacred leftist politician instead of a right winger white devil.

I asked because I was genuinely curious. I realize that anyone questioning anything is bad form and part of the Vast Leftie Conspiracy, but I wanted to know what was so bad about Carter. Voronwë commented on that, Metanis replied to him by calling him ludicrous names and I laughed.

So,

Why DO YOU FEEL Carter is such an asshat?

[Chmee]

Seriously, what's your problem with Carter? I realize a lot of people blame him for everything from the oil crisis that started 3 years before his inauguration over Reaganomics to the decline of the space program, but...

He was the first president since Roosevelt who actively improved the image of the US outside of North America (and don't say Kennedy, all he did was get shot and claim to be a donut). I realize it may not mean much, but the anti-american sentiment that had blossomed in Scandinavia since LBJ was largely reduced because of Carter. His post-presidential record is stellar - he is a man who takes his responsibility seriously, unlike Bush the first.

For a peanut farmer from Buttfuck, Indiana, he's done a pretty damn good job.

I didn't pay anywhere near as much attention to politics at the time. I was 15 in 1980 so not eligible to vote either. I do remember one of the very few times my Dad (a lifelong Democrat) expressed much of a political opinion while growing up was him saying how much we needed to get Carter out of the White House.

Presidents do often get blamed for things that they didn't cause. Of course they also often get credit for positive things that they had nothing, or very little, to do with. Two of the big negatives during Carter's administration were the energy crisis and the economy in general, particularly the rise of stagflation (high unemployment and high inflation). Both of these had origins starting before his presidency. He even did a couple things that were positive towards addressing them. He removed some of Nixon's price caps on oil and he appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Fed, who would ultimately beat inflation (although not until Reagan's presidency). But his record does have problems on those counts as well. He removed some of the price controls on energy, but not all of them. That wouldn't occur until Reagan, who did it as his first act in office (after which the energy crisis pretty much went away). Volcker wasn't appointed until 1979. He implemented a policy of lower money growth but supposedly was interrupted to some extent by Carter's credit controls in 1980. To aggravate this, in his notorious "malaise" speech, many people feel that he basically blamed the american people for the problems, which didn't make them particularly thrilled (understandably so, since the energy crisis and stagflation were both predominantely caused by bad governmental policies).

Also people weren't happy with some of his foreign policy decisions, like boycotting the olympics in response to the Afghanistan invasion by the U.S.S.R and not coming up with anything effective to do during the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

In the period after his presidency he certainly has done a lot of charitable work. However many people also think that in his dabblings in foreign affairs in this period that he basically has never met a left-wing dictator that he didn't like. Personally I haven't followed it nearly enough to make an opinion about that, but I have seen it expressed so it certainly seems to be effecting some people's opinon of him.

[Marbus]

While the US had "started" a ground special forces program above and beyond the Army Rangers due to the Munic hostage crisis it really wasn't ready yet. By ready I mean they haddn't been tested in combat and their equipment was sub par. Nixon, who I think was actually a pretty good President except that he lied about stealing (which is not personal), was actually responsible for getting them going. However due to the economy they really didn't get what they needed.

Carter actually had the balls to call in a rescue mission to get our people out but as we all know it failed. His fault? Nixon's fault? who knows for sure but more likely it was the inexperience of the crews and men because they didn't have enough training yet.

What we do know is that Reagan really did nothing but send some goob over to make a deal and was seen as a hero for "freeing" the hostiges.

All that being said I don't think Reagan was a bad president, I didn't agree with Reaganomics because it just widened the gap between the rich and poor but I do believe his military spending helped to doom the USSR and there is something to be said for that. Carter just got a bad rap in general, too bad as he has the highest IQ of any president to date.

Marb

[Voronwë]

Metanis i love your response

I could come up with an argument. but i wont

wow awesome post!

then dont get your panties in a twist .

[Sueven]

Chmee, I have two questions.

My impression from your posts is that you are what I would term a market fundamentalist. This is a relatively unusual political position, not so much so among the citizenry, but certainly so among the government. We have certainly never had a market fundamentalist president.

Question 1 is whether you would consider yourself a market fundamentalist.

My brief summary of your position on Jimmy Carter's governing of the economy during his administration is "he did some good things and some bad things." Because of your particular ideology, those "good things" are going to be "those things that match the tenets of market fundamentalism" and those "bad things" are going to be "those things that do not match the tenets of market fundamentalism."

So Question 2 is: Is there a president who you view as either good or bad in terms of their handling of the economy?

Every president, by virtue of not being a market fundamentalist, has almost certainly performed economic actions that you support and that you oppose. Is there enough variation within these presidents that you would term some good and some bad? Or would a president have to be a fellow market fundamentalist before you would declare his economic policy to be good?

I understand that they're not very useful questions in a political sense, they're intended to allow me to understand your thinking a little better.

[Xzion]

can you define "market fundamentalist" in itself, that term could refer to a few economic positions and im curious to see what you consider one ot be

[Sueven]

Basically, people have varying degrees of belief regarding the quantity of problems that inherently exist in markets, and varying degrees of faith regarding the ability of the market system to solve these problems on its own. A market fundamentalist would be someone who feels that markets solve their own problems and that markets have very few problems in general, and believes this strongly.

The attitude can basically be captured by the idea "markets fix everything." It's someone who believes in the value and truth of economic theory to an extent even greater than most economists. It's significantly different, and more radical ideologically, than being a "fiscal conservative" or a "capitalist" and, taken alone, doesn't indicate much about where the individual falls on the American liberal/conservative dichotomy. It's a position that an extreme libertarian might take.

[Chmee]

Chmee, I have two questions.

My impression from your posts is that you are what I would term a market fundamentalist. This is a relatively unusual political position, not so much so among the citizenry, but certainly so among the government. We have certainly never had a market fundamentalist president.

Question 1 is whether you would consider yourself a market fundamentalist.

Short answer, No.

Market fundamentalist is a term I have seen bandied about a little, pretty much always coming from the critics of free-markets to describe people they don't like. It employs the rhetorical trick of sticking fundamentalist in there to basically imply that the free-market types believe in it as a matter of faith rather than because of reason. Now granted, it is not uncommon to paint political opponents with less than flattering terms, but don't expect people to self identify by them.

Politically/philosphically I am a libertarian. I think that people should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm someone else. At least that is the short version. I am also interested in economics, and have read a fair amount about it although I certainly don't consider myself to be an economist. I think that arguments of the free market proponents within economics are pretty solid as to markets being superior to handle the great majority of economic problems. But I really see the economic argument as interesting, but secondary to the moral. I think people should be allowed to make their own economic decisions because it is part of being free. It creating more prosperity in general is important, but to some degree secondary.

My brief summary of your position on Jimmy Carter's governing of the economy during his administration is "he did some good things and some bad things." Because of your particular ideology, those "good things" are going to be "those things that match the tenets of market fundamentalism" and those "bad things" are going to be "those things that do not match the tenets of market fundamentalism."

My post on Carter wasn't meant as much to be a complete overview of his presidency as to throw out some of the reason why people don't seem to like him as a politician in response to Drolgin's question. I am little curious though to your summary though. Even if we replace market fundamentalist with libertarian and set aside the fact that there are variations in idealogy among libertarians you basically say I judge Carter by my ideology. This is basically true, but I guess my question is what exactly am I supposed to judge him by if not by my own beliefs (unless I am trying to do it from a different point of view as an academic excersize or something).

So Question 2 is: Is there a president who you view as either good or bad in terms of their handling of the economy?

Every president, by virtue of not being a market fundamentalist, has almost certainly performed economic actions that you support and that you oppose. Is there enough variation within these presidents that you would term some good and some bad? Or would a president have to be a fellow market fundamentalist before you would declare his economic policy to be good?

I understand that they're not very useful questions in a political sense, they're intended to allow me to understand your thinking a little better.

Judging a president's performance over their whole time of service and giving an overall score is not that easy. There is a lot that happens during an adminstration. Also they don't operate in a vacuum and it isn't always apparent to what degree a President was responsible for a particular policy. Generally looking at individual actions themselves is more useful, but I can make a stab at a more general assessment of some recent presidents from an economic standpoint.

Bush 2 - Generally pretty bad. Spends way too much. Signed the prescription drug benefit, a huge increase in a long term entitlement. The best that can be said for his trade policies is that at least his protectionist measures turned out to be pretty limited bones tossed out for political points instead of broader policy. Although I have read relatively little on it, regulation growth has at least been fairly slow under him, although we did get at least one major stinker in the Sarbanes-Oxley act.

Clinton - Clinton actually turned out to be pretty decent. Its tough to say how much of that was by his intent and how much was circumstance but still, overall things were pretty good and at least some of it was from him. Coming into to office he had some really horrible proposals, but fortunately the big ones like ClintonCare never got implemented. His trade policy was generally good, NAFTA although not really free-trade was at least free-er and got signed by him and in general his trade policy was pretty open. He signed welfare reform as well. He also fooled around with Lewinsky causing Washington to be too busy to actually enact much economic policy for a decent amount of time

Bush 1 - drawing a blank at the moment, going to punt.

Reagan - Pretty good. Not as good as I would have liked, especially considering ideologically he was probably closer to me than anyone else in this list, but still pretty good. Its hard to say how much he was involved with it, but when Volcker changed monetary policy to reign in inflation he didn't stop him, even when the country went into the worst recession since the great depression. He did cut tax rates which was good but even more importantly was the tax simplification that occurred during his second term when a fair amount of the old loopholes etc. got removed. Unfortunately most of them have been added back in but it was good to get at least some of it pruned out for a time.

Carter - Kind of a mixed bag. One positive he did have that is pretty significant is that he was the one that actually got deregulation rolling.

Nixon - Don't remember a lot of his economic policy off the top of my head, but he did implement price and wage controls at least for a time which is bad bad juju.

and going back a ways ....

FDR - Horrible. Keep in mind this is economically speaking, I am more kindly disposed towards his opinion that the Axis needed to be confronted. Economically though he was horrible. Price and wage controls, massive regulation of industry, eliminated the gold standard, including making illegal the private ownership of gold for any reason other than jewelry, research or payment of foreign debts. He created entitlements and programs that we are still saddled with.