Framed as Carter II. When libs argue that Bush is the worst President ever, they're arguing that he's removed that title from their guy, Carter.

There are strong similarities between Carter and Obama. Carter had little experience before running for president (just two terms in the Georgia Senate and one term Governor of that state. Both are intelligent, graduating near the top of their respective classes. Carter, also, was a believer in big government, establishing the Department of Education, and the Department of Energy. Carter also had a weak sense of how energy markets worked, and caused massive gas shortages when he attempted to impliment his energy reforms.

Is Obama really Carter II? Probably not. Carter was a successful businessman who had served his country. He had executive experience in the private and public sectors. Obama would be reaching to achieve the same level of competence as President that Carter did.

Wasn't there a Democratic President in there somewhere AFTER Carter?....booming economy....budget surpluses....no 4000+ dead GIs in the Middle East?

hmmm, i remember it more as the iranian revolution causing the '79 energy shocks, not carter's energy policies...

Good luck with that! LOL!

Barry is Dukakis II, but the next president, no matter which, will be remembered as Carter II, just by the nature of the challenges.

Carter was actually a good president in a difficult time; deregulating oil, showing fiscal responsibility, confronting the birth of Islamicism, and cutting off food to the Evil Empire, which hastened its inevitable fall. Also started the military buildup that Reagan took credit for. Used the same zero based budgeting that McCain wants to do. A fiscal conservative. Like McCain, a Naval Academy graduate.

You hate Obama, you're not real big on Gramps, so who in the hell are you supporting for POTUS?

Shows that you haven't gotten much smarter with age.

And in 30 years people will say that Bush freed the Iraqis, kept America safe after the only major attack on U. S. soil in a generation, cured the recession left by Clinton and averted at least one more (possibly two), cut taxes, rebuilt the military that Clinton destroyed...

It's not about facts, it's about perception. People label McCain as Bush II because of the perception of Bush -- Carter's perception is not much better. It should be used against Obama.

FaxMeBeer:

And in 30 years people will say that Bush freed the Iraqis, kept America safe after the only major attack on U. S. soil in a generation, cured the recession left by Clinton and averted at least one more (possibly two), cut taxes, rebuilt the military that Clinton destroyed...

Translation "OH PLEASE GOD, let us be vindicated. Else the memories of Jimmy Carter will fade and the only image of a failed Presidency in the people's mind will be....ONE OF OURS!!!"

so what exactly was it about carter's energy reforms that so screwed up the energy markets and caused massive gas shortages, then?

more than the iranian revolution, that is...

When libs argue that Bush is the worst President ever, they're arguing that he's removed that title from their guy, Carter

It's a pretty persuasive argument actually. (That's if one was to accept your original premise that Carter ever "held" that title).

But Obama's already shown a political deftness that Carter never remotely possessed. If anything, Obama seems more like Clinton II.

while Obama's orgins are disputed. What is not in doubt, is the fact that because his father was a Muslim, billions of Muslims believe he is a traitor to Islam, and worthy of death for denying the faith of his father..

You overlook the fact that BUSH has been assigned the title of "worst president" because he has been. Obama hasn't been a president yet. Get it? Come on, it's simple, think about it.

Why wouldn't we want to be vindicated? Bush has not been a great President, but mostly because his fiscal policy has been liberal. Had he been a fiscal conservative, then he would have been great (but Libs would still hate him).

If we somehow get another .com bubble to make him look good. As time goes on, we get more and more acknowledgement of Clinton's lack of success -- he left office with a recession, the black community made no economic progress (nor did most of the poor), wealth centralization really got it's legs under Clinton, he weakened the military and ignored major threats to our security, and the one time he did seek military action he left the nation looking like fools and gave Bin Laden the idea that with a little blood, America would go running. But, the Economy was great, which had nothing at all to do with the government -- unless you buy the Republican line that cutting capital gains taxes had a huge affect (I'm not at all sure that the capital gains tax made any difference given the huge impact of the technology revolution at the time -- that would have happened either way).

Clinton, though, had so much more experience and smarts than Obama. Hell, even I'd start thinking of voting for Clinton when I'd watch him talk. Aside from the fact that he gets about the same media treatment, Obama doesn't hold a candle to Clinton as a politician.

What's the deal, by the way, with the constant media references to what a great speaker Obama is? It takes the guy 5 minutes to say a single paragraph because of his tedious pace. I've tried listening to him talk, but have decided that reading the transcripts is more efficient and less annoying.