[Sosfbay-discuss] Carter as bad as Bush ?

[Gerry Gras]

I was rather surprised and dismayed at the editorial
by the San Jose Mercury News Editorial Board.
And I find it confusing because it seems
self-contradictory.

...

Looking at the individual sentences, I don't disagree
with much.  I question how many historians do think
Carter was the worst, but I suppose that when there
are thousands of historians, then maybe there are
enough to qualify as many, so it might be nit picking
to argue the point.

But overall the editorial bothers me a lot...

Gerry


---------------  SJMN 5/22 page 12 A  ----------------

The opinion of the Mercury News editorial board


Carter has no room to talk


Those too young to recall the Carter years got a
revealing glimpse of Jimmy Carter, the president,
Saturday.

Honest to a fault.  Smarter than the vast majority
of those who have held the office.  And way too
willing to tell you so.

It shouldn't come as a shock that Carter, in an
interview with the Arkansas Press-Democrat,
called the Bush Administration's foreign policy
"the worst in history."

He's got ample evidence to make that case.  But
talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

There are plenty of historians who would argue that
it's Jimmy Carter -- not George W. Bush -- who is
the worst president in U.S. history.  With good
reason.  Voters couldn't wait to send Carter back
to Plains, Ga., after his bungling of the Iran
hostage crisis.  And for making his presidency
synonymous with the word "malaise'.

To his credit, Carter realized Monday that he had
gone over the line of presidential protocol, saying
his remarks were "careless or misinterpreted."  The
small slip shouldn't alter the strong case he has
built as one of the best former presidents in
American history.  He richly deserved the Nobel
Prize he won in 2002.

But at present, we're no more lusting in our hearts
for a reprise of the Carter years that we are for a
George Bush encore.