Will Obama Be the 'Jimmy Carter of the 21st Century'?

US President Barack Obama's address from the Oval Office on Tuesday was supposed to be a moment of leadership during the worst environmental disaster in American history. But critics from across the political spectrum wondered afterwards whether he'd shown leadership at all. The geyser of oil in the Gulf of Mexico seems, technologically, to lie beyond anything either BP or the US government was prepared for, and Obama failed to mention any specific new ideas.

spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,701279,00.html

The question ia not will he be the Jimmy Carter of the 21st century-the question is will he be worst?

We’re only a decade into the 21st century. Can’t yet say who will be the worst.

You want “the worst”? Let’s elect some GOP presidents and you’ll have a nice choice among them, whoever they’ll be. Heck, people in 2090 may look back and say that “the best of all presidents of the century” was Barack Obama. Who knows?

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:2, topic:202552"]
We're only a decade into the 21st century. Can't yet say who will be the worst.

You want "the worst"? Let's elect some GOP presidents and you'll have a nice choice among them, whoever they'll be. Heck, people in 2090 may look back and say that "the best of all presidents of the century" was Barack Obama. Who knows?

[/quote]

Both of had the experience of living through the Carter years and kow how bad it was I share the blame as .he as the last democrat i ever voted for fo President. He was also the last pro-life Democrat President. I was hoping to never see such incompetence again. The problem is I dont see a Reagan on the Horizon.

BTW-there is no way that Obama would ever be considered the best President of the 21st Century-Bush beats him hand down. I wish Bush were in charge now-things would be quite a bit better

It is simply too early to call Mr. Obama the worst of the young century. There is no way to predict what that many years could hold. For all we know, there could one day be a president who commits some act that now seems unthinkable.

On the other hand, this, so far, appears to be a flailing presidency. The only demographic in which Mr. Obama has a majority favoring his performance is in those making less than $24,000 per year. Even then, his number is only 52%. People who tend to have tax money shifted to them from the earnings of others are almost evenly split. That has to be a danger sign for the left.

I don’t want to see one, but that’s just my opinion.

BTW-there is no way that Obama would ever be considered the best President of the 21st Century-Bush beats him hand down. I wish Bush were in charge now-things would be quite a bit better

Then, if not the best, one of the best. We still have 90 years to go, and there’ll be a bunch of bums to come, whether flying the GOP or Democratic banner. Who knows? There might even be a good president by 2100. :shrug:

You mean a one-termer? May God grant that it be so.

I'd enjoy seeing him club a giant, oil-soaked swamp rabbit with an oar. That would be good television. Also would probably be his best day in office so far.

The good news is, there are a whole bunch of people who made fun of George W. Bush and yet voted for this... special fellow. Now I never have to respect their opinions about anything ever again. In the Information Age, it's important to have these kinds of filters.

So far-so good.

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

While I agree that it may be too early to call him the worst, it was also too early to give him a Nobel Peace Prize, but they did that anyway....:rolleyes:

So to play by the same rules, he certainly will be remembered more as the man who doubled the national debt (which took more than 100 years to accumulate) in less than 2 years, than anything else. I can't say that will go down in the history books as good leadership.

I pray for a one-termer and a Regan to follow.

He already is.

Or a new banner not yet sewn. Political parties have died before in this country, and they have been born. In ninety years, it all could happen.

Who knows? There might even be a good president by 2100. :shrug:

None of us will ever know, seeing as how we will all be seeing the other life well prior to 2100.

Well, we don’t agree about the first part, which is okay, but the second “prayer” would be horrible if it came true - IMO. Didn’t like the original Reagan, wouldn’t want a wannabe now. :slight_smile:

[quote="GEddie, post:10, topic:202552"]
Or a new banner not yet sewn. Political parties have died before in this country, and they have been born. In ninety years, it all could happen.

[/quote]

Could happen. Even today, the "Tea Party" people might become a new party.

None of us will ever know, seeing as how we will all be seeing the other life well prior to 2100.

So speculation is wholly pointless. Perhaps there's an astute 9 year old today who will live to see if our comments were valid.

If BHO’s successors are so bad that he is considered the best, be grateful you won’t be in natural form to see 2090. Heck, the USA might well be unrecognizable if that became the case.

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:11, topic:202552"]
Well, we don't agree about the first part, which is okay, but the second "prayer" would be horrible if it came true - IMO. Didn't like the original Reagan, wouldn't want a wannabe now. :)

[/quote]

If Ronald Reagan were a Catholic, he'd probably be up for Sainthood.

Nobody's surprised you didn't like him, Rich.

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

[quote="DawnInTexas, post:14, topic:202552"]
If Ronald Reagan were a Catholic, he'd probably be up for Sainthood.

[/quote]

His divorce and re-marriage would have been okay with the Church? I doubt it. :shrug:

Nobody's surprised you didn't like him, Rich.

It's not as though I'm standing all alone on that account. :D

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:15, topic:202552"]
His divorce and re-marriage would have been okay with the Church? I doubt it. :shrug:

[/quote]

If he were a Catholic, I wrote. He wasn't, but if he were.

I'll betcha he's Catholic now.

If he had been while on earth, he might have had grounds for an annulment. If you know anything at all, he didn't want the divorce from Jane Wyman-she left him.

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:15, topic:202552"]
It's not as though I'm standing all alone on that account. :D

[/quote]

That's true. There are a few (here at CAF) who are alot like you, Rich.

Just a few.

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You.
Love, Dawn

Heaven and Purgatory aren’t for Catholics alone.

If he had been while on earth, he might have had grounds for an annulment. If you know anything at all, he didn’t want the divorce from Jane Wyman-she left him.

Being divorced would not have been the problem, the remarriage would have.

That’s true. There are a few (here at CAF) who are alot like you, Rich.

Praise God!

Just a few.

More than you think. Even the conservatives aren’t all Reaganophiles and Palinistas. They think independently, too.

Ah... Reagan? Give anybody eight years and he/she will make enought mistakes to disappoint. There are a number of Democrats who have begrudgingly admitted that Reagan did some good things while in office. Some hardcore partisans will never admit he did anything good, just like hardcore Republican partisans won't admit FDR did anything good. Here's a quote:

"He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Guess who said that? Barack Obama! Even he had some positive things to say about the man. In a nutshell:

1)Reagan restored our country's defenses (neglected after the Vietnam during the '70's),

2)restored our economy (except for a recession in 1992, we had economic expansion from 1983 all the way to 2000),

3)Helped hasten the fall of communism (with a little help from the Pope, Lech Walesa, Thatcher, and SDI)

4) Restored America's national pride (after the malaise of the '70's and the loss in Vietnam).

5) Balanced the budget.

6) Wait, he didn't balance the budget. The price of getting his tax reform through and defense buildup - which helped hasten the fall of communism - came at the expense of the deep domestic cuts that he also favored (that Tip Oneil would not allow) and, a balanced budget. However, a balance budget would come in the '90's with economic growth, a Republican congress, and a pragmatic Democrat named Bill Clinton.

Those are some big accomplishments but he also presided over some debacles: the marine barrack bombing, Iran Contra, and the nomination of justices that voted to uphold Roe V. Wade ( of course if his initial choice for supreme court had been approved, Roe v. Wade might be overturned by now, but Bork was "borked" and abortion on demand remains the law of the land - thanks Democrats!

Of course, Carter was a complete joke of a president, and he has been an even worse ex-president. Obama, however is giving him a run for his money.

Ishii

I didn’t vote for Carter but I made out pretty well in my career during his presidency. In fact, got three pay raises in one year and always had ample offers of employment elsewhere. And Carter appointed Paul Volcker his last year too, so we could make some money in our savings accounts as well. I had no complaints.

Sure, we had the hostage crisis, but look at Reagan, they held more hostages under him. Unfortunately Carter didn’t get along with the press so he got a lot of bad PR. Too bad he didn’t think of selling weapons to Sadam Hussein as Reagan did later, though.

[quote="DawnInTexas, post:14, topic:202552"]
If Ronald Reagan were a Catholic, he'd probably be up for Sainthood.

[/quote]

Hard to see that. He signed a pro-abortion bill in California back in 1967, feeding the bandwagon which ultimately led to Roe vs Wade. Never mind what he said later. I saw the Bork thing as an empty gesture, only political in nature; from the beginning Bork had no chance of getting confirmed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.