Well, if the poll was specifically soliciting opinions of conservative bloggers it does kind of imply that they’re supposed to offer political opinions, doesn’t it?
Presidents can kill way more people than petty serial killers. Conservatives seem to usually cheerlead that sort of thing though so it’s a little weird to imagine that being their issue.
You mean like appointing Paul Volcker to the Fed? Volcker, the guy who is widely credited with ending the stagflation crisis?
A couple of points:
-
I follow the conservative blogosphere pretty closely, and I’ve only even heard of ONE of those bloggers. Most of them are complete unknowns.
-
It sounds like they didn’t just ask, “Who do you think the worst person in history was?”, but rather sent around the list of 20 people shown, and asked people to rank them. Since it’s such an idiotic list, I suspect you’re seeing a self-selected sample of the dumbest, least-educated bloggers, while the rest of them rolled their eyes and threw the poll E-mail in the trash bin.
I’m still laughing my ass off that Saul Alinsky and the Clintons got the same number of votes. What a bunch of maroons.
Isn’t this exactly what my post said? You look like you’re trying to disagree with me for some reason.
And really, most people know that epilepsy and schizophrenia is not the same thing. Hence the “etc.”
Let me be more clear. The implication of the “racist eugenics” charge is that there were a bunch of Nazi-like intellectuals (librul elites, of course wink) hanging around trying to find a way to exterminate the Jews, Blacks, etc. That simply is not true and it appears you agree with me. As you say, she was somewhat a product of her time with stupid ideas and some other very progressive ideas that were right on target. Reading Sanger’s speeches, her major goal appears to alleviate suffering caused by uncontrolled procreation.
Again, any conservative blogger types in that poll that single her out as a worst person simply hate her views on women’s reproductive freedom. The “racist eugenics” charge is disingenuous.
Yes, but the motivation to do so is different. At least, one would hope so.
Not having any idea about conservative bloggers, that’s enough – for me, anyway – to move it from the “patently ridiculous” category and into the “that’s 10 minutes of my life that I won’t get back” category.
Carter, like most Presidents, was a mix of good and bad. On the plus side, he’s the man who appointed Volcker to the Fed, and he’s also the guy who began deregulating the airlines and the trucking industry, for which we are all far better off.
On the negative side, his administration still tried to keep Volcker from shrinking the money supply by enacting policies countering fed monetary moves. It wasn’t under Reagan fully backed Volcker’s policy that inflation began to come under control in a big way. But still, Carter deserves credit for buying in to the tight monetary policy approach, which makes him infinitely better than Richard Nixon in that regard.
Carter also deserves blame for creating the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. Both have been a net drain on the country since they were created, and both have utterly failed in their stated mission. The Department of Energy was created for the sole purpose of reducing American dependence on Foreign oil and to reduce energy consumption overall. It did neither. It had no effect. The Department of Education was enacted with a mandate to improve America’s schools and raise test scores. They have gotten worse.
Carter also deserves blame for signing an executive order prohibiting the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, which hurt the American nuclear industry and helped cause the nuclear waste problem that France was able to avoid by reprocessing.
Carter also imposed a ‘windfall tax’ on domestic oil production which actually increased America’s dependence on foreign oil, and he imposed price controls on gasoline again, apparently forgetting the chaos they caused when Nixon did it. At least he had the sense to cancel them when the gas lines started forming again.
On the cold war side, his fecklessness and general weak posture caused America’s enemies to being moving in earnest all over the world. Cuba became more active in Central and South America. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Iran took Americans hostage. Incidents of terrorism against Americans increased.
Overall, Carter was a mixed bag domestically - better than Nixon, worse than Reagan. On Foreign Policy he was a disaster. As a leader, he was a disaster with his constant whining, his speeches on sacrifice and malaise, etc. He’d make a fine pastor in a Georgia church, but he was no Churchill.
Pretty sure thats not the case. The blurb at the beginning says he merged votes for “Julius Rosenburg” and “The Rosenburgs”, which only makes sense if every blogger made their own list.
I missed that. You might be right. I still maintain that this represents the opinions of some very marginal blogs. But I don’t know how anyone, right or left, can list the worst Americans and not have people like Benedict Arnold, Timothy McVeigh, and Lee Harvey Oswald on the list.
Some of it isn’t surprising. When people on right or left are asked to list the best and worst presidents, the latest ones always get more votes simply because they’re on the minds of more people. So it’s not surprising that the least contains a lot of contemporary people. Still a lousy list, though.
This is one of those fabulous conservative “can’t lose” positions.
Having spent the better part of three decades doing everything possible to hamstring the Department of Education and ensure that it functions as ineffectually as possible, conservatives then point to the Department of Education as an example of why federal government agencies are such a bad idea.
It’s also a beautiful case of mistaking cause and effect. If schools and scores have gotten worse since the Department of Education was founded, surely much of the blame for this needs to be placed not only on the Department, but on states and politicians who have spent so much energy insisting that the Department keep its nose out of state affairs.
I’m not going to spend too much energy defending the Department of Education. There are problems with it, both in principle and in execution, and even under the best of circumstances it will always face a tough battle in a country where so much education policy is decentralized, and so many people are committed to keeping it this way. But when the biggest critics of the Department are the same people who have done everything possible to make sure it fails, you’ll excuse me if i don’t fall all over myself to take their criticisms as gospel.
So who’d be on a liberal bloggers’ list? Reagan? Bush43? Hoover? Oliver North? Ken Starr? I guess Nixon, Booth, McVeigh and Arnold have a shot at appearing on both lists.
Sam, Carter had his faults as a president, but you seriously cannot compare the guy to John Wilkes Booth, Timothy McVeigh, the Rosenbergs* or Benedict Arnold.
Could it have been “freeped?”
heatmiserfl, I didn’t SAY she was racist. I said, her beliefs weren’t simply about extreme cases like schizophrenia, but about people with birth defects in general. (And again, it was a product of her time). And yes, her goals were noble, and I am grateful to her. At the same time, there ARE people who DO deny that she was a believer of eugenics, period. That’s ALL.
She wasn’t a Nazi, nor did she believe in exterminating the so-called “feebleminded”.
*When the evidence was made public later, I believe it stated that Julius was indeed guilty as charged. (Although the information he gave the Soviets about the bomb wasn’t as helpful as he thought it would be.) There’s still speculation about Ethel.
Probably less presidents, and more a long list of various neo-cons and Fox News commentators.
:dubious: You say I’m absolutely correct and then say something that’s the complete opposite of what I said. This “poll” says nothing about any larger group than the respondents. That is the only conclusion one may properly draw.
I did no such thing. I said Carter was like most presidents - a mix of good and bad. I specifically praised him for a number of things that I think were very good. You need to read a little more carefully before throwing out accusations like that.
Pfsh. This isn’t a list of people that are the worst Americans. It’s a list of people that are a combined “bad” and “famous”. It’s not like the question was “Who’s worse: McVeigh or Clinton?” It was basically “Name some bad Americans off the top of your head.” Considering that you’re asking conservative bloggers, and probably said “We’re contacting you because you’re a conservative blogger”, is it any surprise that you get political answers?
If I emailed a bunch of liberal bloggers (and stated that I was) and asked them to name some names in the same manner, I seriously doubt I’d get a list of serial killers and traitors.
And if I polled the Dope, how many would put “G.W. Bush” as a choice, and swear that that’s rational? How many votes do you think Richard Baumhammers would get?
You’re right, and I shouldn’t have accused you of such. Probably because he shouldn’t even be on the list in the first place. (Although I’m surprised Obama didn’t make #1)
While driving through Dallas in March of 2009 I turned to a religious radio talk show (I don’t know why but I listened to it for a while). I believe someone in the news --Hillary Clinton maybe-- won some sort of Sanger Award and the host went on and on about the evils of Margaret Sanger.
This is, in fact, the only time I have ever written a letter to the President. Alas, he paid no attention to my constructive criticism.
I tend to compare Carter to Herbert Hoover, who I expect would show up on a similar poll of unknown liberal bloggers. Both were not very good presidents; both were (are) very good and decent men whose actions outside the presidency were a benefit to humanity.