digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at environmentalgraffiti.com

Top 5 Environmentally Friendly Presidents in U.S. History

environmentalgraffiti.com — While today's presidential candidates might not have any great examples to follow from the past few years (though Clinton would certainly be a contender), there are several U.S. presidents that did a lot for the environment.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ssn697, on 02/29/2008, -10/+56Nixon couldn't even get on the Republican ticket now. He would be labeled a liberal Democrat....
    • sbader, on 02/29/2008, -12/+5Same with Rosevelt.
    • TKOslam, on 02/29/2008, -10/+12Besides both being dead, Nixon is corrupt as hell so I dont think he would be on any ticket. TR, however, during his prime could end up on whatever ticket he wanted; that man was a force rarely seen in this world and could persuade just about anyone to his side. When was the last time you heard about a President running up a hill with a pistol shooting at a bunch of spaniards with rifles? A true American, TR is #1.
      • Berkana, on 02/29/2008, -8/+17By your standards, Dick Cheney would be more American by going about shooting Mexicans with his shotgun?

        If being corrupt as hell would keep him from the ticket, how the hell did Dick Cheney and George Bush get in office, and this years batch of Republicans get on the ticket while Ron Paul, a true defender of the American Constitution and a man of integrity throughout his entire political career, get pushed to the margins. The Republican party is corrupt as hell as a whole. It is time for old-school Republicans to take back the party from sell-outs to corporate interests and war profiteers.
        • lolinyerface, on 02/29/2008, -5/+4I can see the next 4 years. QQ Ron Paul didn't get into office, QQ.
      • OneLess, on 02/29/2008, -7/+6Yeah, TR was great. Pathologic obsession with manliness, wanted to preserve the wilderness so we could exploit it later, and he's been labeled with the false legacy of being a "trust-buster" when even Taft did more anti-trust work than he did. And then of course there's the fact that he was one of the key players in an unjustified war on the same level as Vietnam and Iraq.
        • barfooz, on 02/29/2008, -3/+5How was Roosevelt "pathologically obsessed with manliness"? What a ridiculous statement. And what's with this idea that he wanted to preserve the wilderness for future exploitation? Here's an excerpt from a speech he gave at the Grand Canyon:

          "Leave it as it is. You can not improve on it. The ages have been at work on it, and man can only mar it. What you can do is to keep it for your children, your children's children, and for all who come after you, as one of the great sights which every American if he can travel at all should see.

          We have gotten past the stage, my fellow-citizens, when we are to be pardoned if we treat any part of our country as something to be skinned for two or three years for the use of the present generation, whether it is the forest, the water, the scenery. Whatever it is, handle it so that your children's children will get the benefit of it." (theodoreroosevelt.org)

          Now of course the Spanish American war was an exercise in jingoism and saber rattling, but to say that Roosevelt didn't care about the environment and was "too manly"? Give me a break.
          • OneLess, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1You deny that TR's and Pinchot's basis of conservation was chiefly utilitarian? Let's just be clear- I'm not denying that conservation is better than letting people rape the environment without regulation. The problem is exactly what we see plain as day in environmental policy, though; conservation instead of preservation still leads to mismanagement of natural resources and the permanent damaging of ecosystems.
            For example, the National Forest Service that TR set up allows selective logging in some areas, supposedly to preserve forests and their natural beauty. What happens instead? Fire-resistant trees are removed from old forest areas and millions of acres go up in flames at the slightest provocation. Yes, lumber has to come from somewhere, but was it ultimately better for the environment to be exposed to entirely unnatural forest fires? I think not.
            More on his obsession with manliness under your second reply.
          • MacParrot, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2While I applaud conservation, what exactly are "fire-resistant" trees and "unnatural" forest fires?
          • barfooz, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Older, larger trees can better survive forest fires because they are more resilient and their foliage is higher above the flames. Unnatural forest fires would be ones that are caused directly or indirectly by our sometimes misguided forest management policy (allowing low level brush to build up to unsafe levels because of suppression of small natural fires, etc.)
        • barfooz, on 02/29/2008, -2/+7Sorry, I'm just a little incensed. When you say one has a "pathological obsession with manliness", that's basically insinuating that it is uncivil or somehow "wrong" to have traditional masculine characteristics. These kind of statements and ideas are the reason that boys and young men are so adrift in this modern world. This kind of thinking is the reason why boys have so much trouble in a female-centric education system (You dissent? Why is it that dropout rates are higher for boys and women are outnumbering men at colleges by 10, 15%?). The concept that somehow the feminine way of doing things is better, that conflict is bad and we should just talk everything out... you know, dismissing the masculine perspective is just as bad as giving no credence to the feminine perspective. What is so disconcerting to you about Theodore Roosevelt's masculinity?

          • OneLess, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Well you certainly did an excellent job of reading way further into my statement than I even remotely implied, and lo and behold, +6 diggs as of this post. The system does work!
            I called TR's extreme focus on manliness 'pathological' solely because it was abnormal and, in my opinion, chiefly harmful. That's not to say, as you apparently think I implied, that people need to take a feminine approach to everything and we'll all be gee golly swell. My point is that the man was obsessed with the need to kill things, get into conflicts, and haul brush around to prove how manly he was. Sound vaguely like any presidents who got elected about a century later?
            That very idea plays back into the logic of his conservation policy- "don't cut down that forest, there are precious little animals for me to pump with lead in there!" Indeed, do you deny that he was so enthusiastic about the Spanish-American War in large part because it allowed him to prove to himself that he had masculine grit and that America had the toughness to wage a good war of conquest?
        • barfooz, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Okay, fair enough, I'm glad we're on the same page with that. I don't deny your analysis of the Spanish American war, certainly. However, I do think that Roosevelt had a genuine interest in preserving our country's natural treasures for future generations, not just for monetary gains or to preserve hunting land.

          With regards to the forests issue, I was under the impression that forest fires were more severe because of the lack of natural forest fires being allowed to burn. With overgrowth of brush due to suppression of small fires, the larger fires become more severe. Of course, a confounding factor in this is the ongoing drought in the West. Overall, I think there is some mismanagement going on, but it's better that the National Park Service handles our forests than that we be like Brazil and allow loggers to cut our forests with no regard to preservation.

        • TheWix, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1I feel you are applying a modern standards to people of the past. The point is that the man did all these things at a time when it wasn't happening normally. Many people also never realize that he tried to do what was good for the people and not his party, in fact he would often be at odds with his own party, they hated him that is why they made him Vice President.

          Also, I believe the manliness thing is a bit harsh. What would you have him do so he was not so manly?
      • cawpin, on 02/29/2008, -3/+5"Besides both being dead, Nixon is corrupt as hell so I dont think he would be on any ticket."

        Do you actually think Nixon did anything that EVERY other president hasn't done? The only thing he did wrong was get caught.
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/29/2008, -4/+5Well, thats not true either. Clinton got caught in a dozen different corruption scandals, like trading nuclear secrets to the Chinese for campaign cash. The only difference it that one is a Democrat and one is a Republican. Only now, in the this primary, has everyone realized what conservatives have been saying for years: the Clintons are the most corrupt duo in American history (Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney make up the most corrupt trio).
        • MacParrot, on 02/29/2008, -1/+3If you're referring to Watergate, I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests he knew about it ahead of time. He was certainly neck deep in the cover up afterwards and if impeachment had become necessary to remove him from office the actual charge would have been Obstruction of Justice. History will probably be much kinder to ol Tricky Dick for things like getting the US out of Vietnam, establishing diplomatic links with Red China among other things.
          In case you think I'm being too kind, I'm also aware if his deep ties to Senator Joe Mcarthy and the communist witch hunts of the 1940s/1950s. If Nixon was anything, he was an opportunist. He dumped Mcarthy just as the backlash was beginning. Nixon played politics better than almost anyone else of his generation (he has quite a bit in common with the Clintons in this regard)
    • pjpark, on 02/29/2008, -4/+2...and his last name would be Clinton.
    • flogistan, on 02/29/2008, -2/+1Nixon and Carter at the top of the list? This list is antisemitic.
    • Shiftyeyedgoat, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1say "Labeled a liberal" five times really fast.
    • cotl, on 02/29/2008, -2/+5and Kennedy would not be liberal enough for the Democratic party that we have today. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country" - Hardly the Democratic Anthem!
  • JimmySpaza, on 02/29/2008, -34/+25Carter may have been nice when it came to the environment...but he sucked when it came to everything else. One of the worst presidents of all time.
    • slvrbullet87, on 02/29/2008, -5/+19He might not been the best president(far from it) but i have to give him credit for being one hell of a humanitarian.
    • Kwonza, on 02/29/2008, -10/+11I agree with jimmySpaza he just didn't cut it on anything else
      • rtknox00, on 02/29/2008, -9/+8he sucked on the economy and many issues it's true, but he was also a hell of a diplomat. Camp David Accords and SALT spring to mind. No, he was not a great overall president, but he did more than just the environment well.
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/29/2008, -4/+6Because he did such a great job getting the hostages released from Iran, right?
          • raymondmarble, on 02/29/2008, -5/+5Yes, he did.

            Carter, with Warren Christopher and Algerian diplomat Abdulkarim Ghuraib, negotiated the release of the hostages. They were released shortly after Reagan was sworn in. Literally minutes after the swearing in. So they were released under Reagan, but the deal to release them was Carter's.
          • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/29/2008, -5/+6They were released the minute Reagen was sworn in because they knew Reagen wasn't going to ***** around. The Iranians knew they had nothing to fear from a man who got terrified and ran from a rabbit.
          • raymondmarble, on 02/29/2008, -5/+4Your comment is contradicted by facts, and you misspelled Reagan.
          • pelosislefttit, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3@raymond

            You are blinded by the truth. The iranians did not fear carter. That is why they held the hostages for 444 days.

            Carter was a pacifist and was not going to do anything militarily. He finally decided to send 2 helicopters on a stealth mission that failed and that was it. Nothing.

            Reagan campaigned on the fact that he would take action. And what happens upon his inauguration? The hostages are released.

            Carter deserves no credit for that. He was voted out of office after 1 term for many reasons. This was one of them.
        • BECoole, on 02/29/2008, -1/+5The Camp David Accord? The SALT Treaty? Those accomplished what?
          Absolutely nothing!

          You must be kidding.
    • TheTSArt, on 02/29/2008, -4/+6I seem to remember the word "malaise" being used a lot back then to describe the Carter era.
      • pelosislefttit, on 02/29/2008, -2/+4The term "stagflation" also comes to mind as well.
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/29/2008, -4/+5Its just another example of how being "environmentally friendly" and having a 21st century standard of living are mutually exclusive of each other.
      • Waiting2awake, on 02/29/2008, -4/+4How? What is it about clean air that you don't like.

        Here is a question to you. Ever see what happens to bacteria in a petri dish? See what happens to the life when they start to run out of resources?
      • Berkana, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3You desperately need to take a trip to Denmark, Iceland, and Japan.
    • flashingcurser, on 02/29/2008, -1/+5After watergate the country needed a smiling, friendly, honest man to run the country. Jimmy Carter was perfect to heal a nation. Kind of a Mr. Rogers'ish sunday-school teacher.
      • MacParrot, on 02/29/2008, -3/+4As much as I think Carter was not a good President, blaming him for the state of the economy in the late 70s is not really fair. He inherited a bad economy from the craziness of the Nixon/ Ford years. Add in Japan's manufacturing ascendancy and I doubt any President could have done much better. Blaming Carter for the late 70s economy is like giving Clinton credit for the mid-90s boom years. Too much credit or blame is given to Presidents for US economic health.
    • michael43, on 02/29/2008, -3/+9Carter wasn't perfect, but he certainly beat that bozo in the white house now, and from the looks of the Democratic ticket, I wish he could run again.
      • pelosislefttit, on 02/29/2008, -2/+3You would want a 1 term President that won only 9% of the electoral vote in 1980 to run now?

        Ever hear of stagflation? JC helped make it a part of the vernacular. Most sane people that remember his Presidency also recall voting him out for a reason.
    • michael43, on 02/29/2008, -2/+1@pelosislefttit = Ever heard of "shut the fu*k up? I bet you have.
    • pelosislefttit, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3@mikey43

      Does the truth hurt? Facts not working in your favor? Obviously.

      Wouldn't it be great if people that actually remembered how bad a President he really was, would just keep to themselves while people like you revise history?

      Not a chance.
  • rtknox00, on 02/29/2008, -2/+4also in the running is america's best president ever, Rutherford B. Hayes
    • Arcesius, on 02/29/2008, -2/+4"I died in thirty days!!"
      That guy? Or am I thinking of another one?
      • InorganicMatter, on 02/29/2008, -0/+8You are thinking of William Henry Harrison.
    • rtknox00, on 02/29/2008, -0/+6no, that's william henry harrison. but that's an awesome scene which i will now be humming all day
      • Arcesius, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1"You're next, Chester A. Arthur."
        • cllewis, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2dang, I was just getting over my Chester A. Arthritis.
  • socialpyramid, on 02/29/2008, -12/+33Carter was very forward thinking and truly inspiring on conservation. If Reagan hadn't rolled back his plans out of fear and deference to Big Oil, we were on track to half imports of oil by 1985. Carter's 1977 speech on this is inspiring and sad for what should have been. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_en ...
    • cllewis, on 02/29/2008, -6/+12of course we would also have remained with our economy in the tank, and been paying $5 per gallon for gas.
      • Chahrlie5, on 02/29/2008, -4/+6Okay, so it's a good step forward if they cut back imports, yet they also bitch about high prices?

        Liberals confuse me more and more
    • theclansman, on 02/29/2008, -3/+5carter is my favorite american president
    • pw378, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Me too. I hate good foreign relations and a healthy economy. Carter ensured that neither of those were used to describe the United States during his term.
      Think people have mortgage problems now? Try buying a house with a 18% interest rate... then crush the economy with an 18% inflation rate. Carter was a pure and simple disaster in every facet of Governmental policy.
  • Arcesius, on 02/29/2008, -1/+10I'm sorry, but is anyone else frightened by that picture of Teddy Roosevelt?... something about the teeth...
    • rtknox00, on 02/29/2008, -1/+18teddy roosevelt was the late 1800s/early 1900s version of chuck norris. he ate souls.
      • slvrbullet87, on 02/29/2008, -0/+8Only one time, he was kinda hungry after san jaun hill
      • buhbyebot, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Bully for you!!!
    • Chrispyc1211, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2It definitely looks like they're worn down; the teeth just aren't as tall as they should be, but he closes his mouth to where they would have theoretically met had they not been ground down so severely.
      Doesn't stop me from thinking he's the biggest badass of all time, though.
      • MacParrot, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2TR didn't NEED teeth! He could cut down a tree with his gums!
  • tbk123, on 02/29/2008, -8/+7what - Bush isn't on this list? I'm SHOCKED!
    • BrewmasterC, on 02/29/2008, -1/+7Yes, why not? He devalued the dollar and extended chaos in the middle east so much that Americans will have to cut back severely on their oil consumption to pay for it. I think Bush is really a hippie at heart, wanting to bring us back into the days before the industrial revolution.
      • mbelrose, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2Nyarlathotep is the only true paleoconservative. He wishes to reduce everything back to its primordial ooze! Cthulhu/Paul 08!
    • michael43, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2I think he's just very stupid. Almost as stupid as us for electing him (twice). wait...that's wrong, the first time his daddy bought it for him.
    • SemiSarcastic, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1You really, really shouldn't...
    • Bodhinature, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1They should none of them be on this list. Sure, some of them may have feigned some interest in preserving the environment for the US, but all of them have created and enforced policies that necessarily degraded the environment for the rest of the world. Who cares how pristine our environment is when other countries get *****? It will eventually catch up with us.
      Bush is only worse in that his environmental destruction is complete.
  • wonky73, on 02/29/2008, -21/+12It's like a list of crappy presidents
    • buhbyebot, on 02/29/2008, -10/+6Here is my list of crappy presients

      Ronald Reagan
      Bush I
      Bush II
      Clinton and his bitch wife (President and Co president)

      • atezun, on 02/29/2008, -1/+7So basically you just don't like any president serving since you were conceived. Does anyone make you happy?
      • michael43, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I agree on all except Clinton. You have to admit he was an entertaining *****, and no, I'm not a Democrat.
  • kfed2, on 02/29/2008, -3/+5Repealing the Homestead Act was the worst thing this country ever did for poor people - The Homestead Act was the greatest welfare program ever conceived.
    • Chrispyc1211, on 02/29/2008, -1/+3That's the one where we give out land parcels, right?
      That'd be sweet, if we had that much unincorporated land lying around.
      • mbelrose, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I don't think that would work anymore. Homesteaders were meant to support themselves by farming the land, which is not as appealing a job as it used to be. A better analogy would be to give away small storefronts or mall kiosks so people could start their own businesses, or give out business loans or capital investments.
        • michael43, on 02/29/2008, -1/+4Or quit "giving out" anything, let people earn it. The next thing you know, everybody will want "40 acres and a mule"
          • mbelrose, on 03/01/2008, -3/+1OK, I tried being nice. I didn't mention slave reparations. Never was part of my discussion. The Homestead Act is not slave reparations. Are you just ignorant? Trolling? Intentionally trying to derail the debate? Were you dropped as a child? Did your parents meet at a family reunion? Too much wall candy as a kid? Please, for the sake of yourself, your community, and anyone left out there who is not completely and unabashedly stupid, try, try to read what I actually wrote.
        • mbelrose, on 02/29/2008, -2/+1You seem to think slave reparations is the same thing as the Homestead Act. The motivations were completely different. If you want to mindlessly hate any social program, go ahead, but at least don't get them confused with each other.
          • MacParrot, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1Making inaccurate leaps of logic is what Digg does BEST!
          • michael43, on 03/01/2008, -1/+1What I think is that people need to earn what they get. If there are any slaves alive, it'd be a reparation, otherwise it's undeserved. There are to many lazy people around who want something for nothing. You're probably one of them.
          • michael43, on 03/03/2008, -1/+1What a putrid little dick you are. If you want to resort to insults, come up with something original. If you don't want to hear conflicting opinions, get off the site. I see you would like to play the insult game (normally, weak ***** like you do, especially when you can hide behind the keyboard) so I will oblige you. Now spit your boyfriends dick out, and tell me what you really think.
    • kfed2, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1The homestead act allowed poor people a chance to WORK their way out of poverty - this is what was so great about it.
  • snotrokit, on 02/29/2008, -3/+10Wow, people here remember Carter? I thought I would be the only one. Anyone notice that Obama has grabbed a few folks from the Carter administration as his advisors? :)
    • BigW, on 02/29/2008, -3/+9I wouldn't spread that around too much if I were you. Carter wasn't exactly labeled as a success.
      • Waiting2awake, on 02/29/2008, -5/+5True - amazing how framing the arugement changes the focus of issues.

        People always associate him with the Hostage crisis, but never ask what cause that crisis, nor any credit to Carterfor taking it upon himself to try and solve it - Can anyone Imagine Bush doing what Carter did? Of course not. Why?

        Carter did what he did because he, rightly or wrongly, believed it was the best for the country.
        Bush does what he does, rightly or wrongly, for the benefit of his cronies.

        One worked for the country, one works for his friends.
        • pelosislefttit, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2And what did cause the crisis? The evil, imperialist US? Please do elaborate on that one.

          Carter did try to solve the hostage crisis and failed at it. He was viewed as weak because he was. Nobody feared him because he would not consider using force. Diplomacy only works with the threat of force.

          Our embassy was attacked and we did nothing to retaliate. Great example to encourage others to take actions against us. And they continue to do so.

          Carter felt the US was getting what it deserved during his "malaise" speech. A true liberal pacifist.

          If you feel that carter worked for his country, then consider his country fired him after 4 years for a pathetic job performance.
      • SinisterBunni, on 02/29/2008, -3/+4Carter's debacle with the Iran lasted only about a year and a quarter. And, over all, in my opinion, it was resolved successfully as there was little bloodshed involved. Had it been King of The Stupid ***** (a.k.a, Bush), I am sure that there would have been bombing and a war and we would still be there trying to un-***** what he ***** up. Carter, like Clinton, could run intellectual rings around dubya, he was ethical, led by example and he helped to build respect for the U.S. around the world through diplomacy, not force. History has really undervalued Jimmy Carter and WAY overvalued Ronald Raygun.
        • MacParrot, on 02/29/2008, -2/+3I think you're forgetting that Carter authorized a Special Forces unit to invade Iran and attempt to grab the hostages at gun point. It didn't work because (I believe, someone correct me if I'm wrong) they lost a helicopter in a sandstorm with all hands. I'm not saying that this is way to negotiate but, if you're going to use brute force to solve a problem, you go all in. Otherwise stay home
        • pelosislefttit, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3@bunni

          Your entire comment should scare anyone that loves their freedom. You have it completely wrong.

          Carter's diplomacy displayed our weakness on a world stage. He was a pacifist that would not consider utilizing the military for anything. His 1 attempt at rescue involved 2 helicopters that crashed in the middle of the desert. That was it.

          Diplomacy only works when there is an understanding that force remains on the table. The world knew he was weak and he would not enforce anything. And guess what happened?

          Hostages were taken for ONLY 444 days? Our embassy was taken over for more than a year while carter was paralyzed with inaction. News flash. It was resolved without bloodshed because Reagan was sworn in and campaigned on military action to rescue the hostages. And when were they released?

          Yeah, keep believing that Mr Peanut was an intellectual giant. It frames your argument that much better.
        • pw378, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Only a year and a quarter?? Can you imagine being held HOSTAGE in the hands of radical extremists for 444 days while your pathetic President does NOTHING!!! NOTHING! He abandoned American diplomats, soldiers, and embassy workers who were representing their country all because he was too cowardly to take decisive action. The only time he tried to take action was when the presidential election forced him to, and then he did it as weak, limp, and pathetic as possible resulting in the deaths of 8 brave soldiers.

          I have met Carter, I do respect him for his faith and his humanitarian beliefs and efforts, but he was not capable of performing the duties of Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America.
    • TheTSArt, on 02/29/2008, -1/+6Unfortunately, yes, I remember Carter. There are a few of us here.
    • serif69, on 02/29/2008, -3/+4That's one more reason not to vote for Obama. I don't know which is worse: surrounding yourself with an administration full of evil, or surrounding yourself with an administration full of laissez-faire.
  • TheAngryMob, on 02/29/2008, -1/+4Theodore Roosevelt for President in '08! Sure he's dead, but that won't stop Teddy! Well maybe that two-term limit thing...
    • EntropyGun, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Since his presidency predated the 22nd amendment, he could still be grandfathered in... or maybe great, great, great, great grandfathered in.
    • santiago1, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Just get ahold of Robin Williams....
    • MacParrot, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1He can represent all the under-appreciated Necrotic-Americans! Don't the breathing challenged deserve a voice?
  • LastDitchHero, on 02/29/2008, -4/+0Nixon FTW!!!
    /sarcasm
  • Chahrlie5, on 02/29/2008, -12/+14Any article that labels Carter as a good president in any way is automatically full of *****.
    • SuperVepr308, on 02/29/2008, -7/+6Well said, my good man. The bad thing is, he still won't go the ***** away...
    • pigboyohboy, on 02/29/2008, -7/+9Carter was the victim of character assassination at the hands of the media. I remember. I was horrified. Every good thing that man did was ridiculed and distorted by the press. He introduced us to the idea that energy conservation is a Good Thing, an idea that was universally reviled by the media and Reagan. We are only now beginning to emerge from that choking haze of propaganda.

      The funny thing is, people who weren't even alive when these guys were in office all "know" that Carter was a pathetic loser and Reagan was our holy savior of democracy and the American Way. How the heck did that happen?
      • mbelrose, on 02/29/2008, -5/+5When I see the Carter hate, i realize that too many people's values are so incredibly far from my own. People seem to think the bad he did is just so much more important than the good he did. I know the economy was bad during his presidency, get the ***** over it.
        • Chahrlie5, on 02/29/2008, -4/+4Wow, if you think the Economy is what we're pissed about. It's more the fact that he created modern day terrorists that makes him a monster.

          • mbelrose, on 02/29/2008, -3/+1Like I said, too many people's values are completely different from my own. If you honestly think Carter is responsible for terrorism, what am I supposed to say? You ignore history, culture, religion, geography, and economics, and somehow pin the blame on a single US president. Do you feel the same way when people say Bush created terrorism?
  • Nomad83, on 02/29/2008, -12/+7How about the guy that won in 2000...no the guy who _actually_ won...
    • TheUnlearn, on 02/29/2008, -4/+6Bush _actually_ won. whether being awarded it by the supreme court or getting the most votes he was still declared the winner. if you want to claim it was unfair then you can do that but as it stands it doesn't much matter now, does it?
    • serif69, on 02/29/2008, -3/+3Manbearpig is still a great threat to us all.
    • bschonec, on 02/29/2008, -4/+2Geez. Get over it already.... At least you've got more $$$ in your pocket than if Algore or Kerry had won..
      • petrodollar, on 02/29/2008, -3/+4You've also got more $$$ in your national debt and massive budget deficit, more expensive oil and a declining dollar because Bush throught it would be fun to lose a $trillion war.
  • SuperVepr308, on 02/29/2008, -3/+7Yep, things were great during the Carter years...no wait...
    • Waiting2awake, on 02/29/2008, -3/+6True - but why? What was going on(and the causes of them) that caused Carters term to be so chaotic?

      Not that I am a fan of his, but the dude is far from the worst president, and he surely doesn't deserve the dislike that seems to leveled on him without regard to what messes he was dealing with, and WHO started said messes.
      • Robbothehood, on 03/01/2008, -0/+0I don't know the reasons why, but there are professors here in Canada who teach that Carter was the least effective president of all.
    • petrodollar, on 02/29/2008, -7/+51976-80 was a utopia compared to what we've had under 8 years of the smirking chimp.
      • pelosislefttit, on 02/29/2008, -1/+3Yeah, keep telling yourself that one. Obviously, you weren't alive to remember lines for gasoline or 20% interest rates on mortgages.
        • petrodollar, on 02/29/2008, -2/+1Please. The "oil crisis" barely lasted a few months. The market freaked out over a FOUR PERCENT reduction in global output that turned out to be no big deal. You're an idiot if you're a) pinning that debacle on Carter and b) arguing that that was worse than the SUSTAINED peak prices we've seen for years under Bush.
        • pelosislefttit, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Please? Were you alive to actually live through his term? I suspect you were not. So save your condescension for others who echo your revisionist history.

          Idiot? Who would you pin the 1979 oil shortage on? Do tell. Were you alive to hear the infamous "malaise" speech? Please keep defending him. He lost the 1980 election by a landslide. He won 6 states. 9% of the electoral votes. 1 term.
          The country overwhelmingly wanted him out.

          Speaking of idiots, go to school and take economics while you're at it. See if you can grasp supply and demand. Compare the demand for oil back in the 70s versus the global oil demand today. Also, take a look at the supply of oil while you are at it. Blame Bush all you want for current oil prices. The world is consuming oil like never before. Until you start waiting in line for gasoline, you have nothing to complain about.

          Stop listening to mommy when she tells you that you're so smart. Look in the mirror, you're the real idiot.
          • petrodollar, on 03/01/2008, -2/+1Great job not responding to any of my points! Really, it's commendable how deftly you avoided drawing any definite linkage between Carter's actions and the spike in oil prices. "He lost the 1980 election by a landslide." Yes, a telling figure indeed. Because the American electorate, as always, is the final authority on complex (or not) macroeconomic issues.

            Anyhow, I can't help but notice that a barrel of oil costs $100 now when that same barrel has not become nearly as expensive relative to the Euro or the Yen. Has it gone up since 2001 or so? Sure. Has it gone up for them as much as it has for us? NO IT ***** HASN'T, because our dollar is in the ***** because we blew our wad on Iraq. At least it only took Regan a few years to clean up after Carer. It's going to take a century to clean up after Bush.
          • MacParrot, on 03/01/2008, -1/+2"It's going to take a century to clean up after Bush."
            I love quotes like this. reminds me of all of Reagan's opponents who claimed our grandchildren will be paying off the massive deficients that happened under his watch. Then what happened? Big economic boom under Clinton with the rise of the internet and POOF! Deficients disappeared like magic! Unfortunately for Clinton, it wasn't sustainable and govt spending went back into a sea of red. Ol Georgie boy certainly didn't do us any favors with the incompetent handling of the aftermath of the gulf war (though I shed no tears for the likes of saddam).
            You can believe that it's all Bushie to blame if it helps you sleep at night though
          • petrodollar, on 03/01/2008, -2/+1"Unfortunately for Clinton, it wasn't sustainable and govt spending went back into a sea of red."

            Wow, isn't it amazing how the budget deficit just went and upped itself, without a republican president to help it along?

            In any case, I notice your dumb ass has a little trouble distinguishing between the budget DEFICIT and the national DEBT. Deficits can be addressed rather easily - as you noted, all you need is a sharp president like Clinton to clean up the mess left by the previous two republican administrations - but debts are another thing entirely. Sadly, Bush has done far more to jack up the latter than the former, although to be fair his deficits are atrocious too.
  • JordanTW90, on 02/29/2008, -6/+10Top 5 most big government presidents.
  • ipfree, on 02/29/2008, -2/+6Bush.
    Just wanted too see how badly this will get digged down.
    • nickerbocker, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I don't see why you would get dugg down. Bushes and other forms of plant life are part of the environment.
    • ipfree, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1OK President Bush.
      Got one he implemented new Daylight Savings Time schedule to save on energy use.
  • petebert, on 02/29/2008, -2/+2didnt Clinton set aside a massive amount of land, then GW gave a bunch back to the loggers?
  • alphonseragusa, on 02/29/2008, -8/+18"Top 5 Presidents WMHHGIbCHFBWWASPFT"*

    *"Top 5 Presidents Who May Have Had Good Intentions, but Created Huge ***** Bureaucracies Which We Are Still Paying For Today"
    • Robbothehood, on 03/01/2008, -0/+0So, how is the government supposed to do any good?
  • mattes5, on 02/29/2008, -2/+6I am kinda disappointed Teddy deserves the number spot but probably didn't because he was a hunter. Liberal bs imo. jk
    • MacParrot, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2He may have been a badass, but he was OUR badass!
    • Robbothehood, on 03/01/2008, -0/+0They were in chronological order, not in any order based on their contributions.
  • macromorgan, on 02/29/2008, -0/+6Dugg for Richard Nixon... proof this was a well thought out article and not some contrived hitpiece.
  • tierpinho, on 02/29/2008, -1/+6as long as they fed us more environmental help, who cares if they killed out economy or bombed other countries - wake up, the trees will out live us
  • merdiesel, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3Now thats a set of teeth, Teddy Roosevelt.
  • designer, on 02/29/2008, -8/+6Jimmy Carter is a douchebag.
  • tehxen3, on 02/29/2008, -8/+8Carter was the worst president ever. Stagflation, unemployment, lack of vision for winning the cold war.
    I'll take prosperity over environment protection any time.
    • SinisterBunni, on 02/29/2008, -5/+8Jesus ***** Christ. It's people like you that gave us the retard that is in office now. Endless war, the rise of religious politics, recession, corruption, erosion of human rights and human rights abuses, the rise of corporate welfare and deregulation - just to name a few of dubya's accomplishments in case you forgot. Worst president ever... Jimmy Carter... gimme a ***** break. Go get in your Excursion and run it into a slag pit at the bottom of a strip mine you douche.
      • MacParrot, on 02/29/2008, -3/+4It's the Middle East. There's been endless war there for a bit longer than dubya's stint. Religious politics? Been on the rise as well since the mid 70s. Corporate welfare and deregulation? Welcome to the 80s.
        For someone who thinks Bush is an idiot, you sure give him credit for a lot of stuff. The problems in the US go much further back than GDub and Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame as is their blind supporters.
    • MaximusD, on 02/29/2008, -4/+5Those of us who know better than to scapegoat Jimmy Carter for every economic problem that occurred during his presidency are also smart enough to see a good president doing his best in a bad situation. He wasn't willing to make the quick fix, and made good long-term decisions for the country which were rolled back by Reagan. Besides, even if you don't think much of his presidency, why do people put down a life long public servant and humanitarian activist? Jimmy Carter is good human being and deserves more praise than criticism.
      • cotl, on 02/29/2008, -2/+3Yeah, a wonderful humanitarian and swell all-around guy. I'm sure the victims of the Iranian Hostage Crisis would agree whole heartily
        • mbelrose, on 02/29/2008, -2/+3Yeah, all those illegal arms he gave to the Iranians...wait, who are we talking about again?
    • siszam, on 02/29/2008, -4/+4Same old thing. Republicans tear the country and the economy apart. Then they leave the mess for a Democrat to fix and blame it all on him. Happens over and over.
      • cotl, on 03/01/2008, -0/+0What an absurd statement!
      • pelosislefttit, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1What exactly did JC fix and then get blamed for?

        (I am not expecting any facts from you, since that would refute your own statement)
  • msfayzer, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Well, Roosevelt did designate the lands that are national parks now which is fantastic. What everyone always ignores was that the purpose of this was to use the resources later. I am not saying he shouldn't be on the list since whatever his intentions, the legacy remains, I am just putting that out there as a historical tidbit.
    • Herolint, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Yes, Roosevelt did do this and it is totally wrong. The government should never own land.
  • o0adam0o, on 02/29/2008, -3/+2I think im gonna pass on all the Iron Man trailers from now on...My excitment for this movie is as high as it was when transformers trailers were showing...and we all know how that hype ended up.
  • ksc23, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Yeah, but if you look at California on the map- you will see a large portion is preserved in its natural habitat as a park. California wouldn't have the beauty it has today if it weren't for him. I went home to a small town I grew up in (California) a few years back and remarkably, it really hadn't changed much...still so beautiful charming and right next to a National Park (admittdly-made a park by JFK/LBJ admins). It was as though it had managed to be frozen in time-no big box stores ...just locally owned business in a tight knit community.
    As far as the list, I think it is indicative of why many longtime Republicans take issue with their party these days- conservative used to mean more than less government- it meant conserve what is dear to all of us for the sake of our children and our future.
    And what is 'dear to us,' wasn't limited to the almighty dollar.
    times do change.........
  • Herolint, on 02/29/2008, -5/+3Those of you who think Carter was a good president must have been born in the 80s or later. The economy sucked, inflation was terrible, he screwed up the middle east, and interest rates were through the roof.

    So, Carter was an environmentalist. So what. That is not what the government is for. That is not its responsibility. And, giving the government unwarranted power over business via the guise of environmentalism is NOT something to be praised.
    • MacParrot, on 02/29/2008, -4/+5Carter was not to blame for the state of the economy. While he certainly made some bonehead moves during his stint, you can't put all the blame on him anymore than Clinton deserves all the credit for the mid-90s.
      • Egoist, on 02/29/2008, -3/+4Actually, you can. His protectionist policies directly led to the implosion of the US steel industry, which led to an economic meltdown. By not being a meanie and forcing US steel to compete worldwide by piling on high tariffs, we saw one of the largest economic collapses in our history. His inability at any form of diplomacy and being a complete pushover allowed the Saudis to stop exporting oil to the US, and he refused to act. The oil shortages caused double digit inflation the likes that hadn't been seen in 50 years.

        We can keep going, but I suggest you learn a little more about the single most inept US President in our history. Because if you think Bush was bad, just wait.
    • mbelrose, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1Remember, the President controls the economy, alone. Without even the rest of the government. Outside forces have no effect. Unless of course, the president is a Republican, then the economy is "complex" and "faceted"
    • Robbothehood, on 03/01/2008, -0/+0So you expect companies to act environmentally on their own? You have no idea what you're talking about.
  • jonnyboy1544, on 02/29/2008, -3/+2Presidents that create new departments and more unnecessary bureaucracy = Environmentalist's dream
  • wautrey, on 02/29/2008, -2/+1Lincoln? Environmentally friendly? What's so "environmentally" friendly about setting fire to the entire Tennessee Valley and completely ruining Southern Agriculture!?
    • MacParrot, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4Well seeing how "Southern Agriculture" was mainly on the backs of exploited human beings, some might feel a little different.
  • MaximusD, on 02/29/2008, -3/+5To all Jimmy Carter haters -- step up off his nuts. I hate how he's a scapegoat and punching bag when he was one of the few decent, honest presidents this country has had, that didn't bow to corporate interests at every turn. He wasn't able to stop the military industrial complex, but he wasn't its dutiful servant like every single other president since him (Clinton did nothing about wasteful defense spending). He did have his flaws, but was in no way a "douchebag" or "the worst president ever" or even a "failure." Even if you can't respect his presidency, because you are too attached to blaming one man for a country's problems, respect his dedication to America, humanity and God his entire life. He's one of the few politicians who I deem principled. That deserves a lot of credit. Name another president who continued to work so diligently for his cause after leaving office. I can only hope we get another Carter in the white house -- the benefits for this country and the world would stretch far past four years.
    • WilliamDavis, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2It's a shame that we can look back on Carter as being relatively honest and decide that it was important and good. It should be an absolute prerequsite. Most people don't deal with dishonest people at all if they can avoid it. Yet, somehow it's expected in politics. Really *****. People should expect more. If you understand economics and you're planning to dishonestly screw me somehow, I don't see how it makes anything better.
    • pelosislefttit, on 02/29/2008, -1/+291% of the electoral vote went to Reagan. He carried only 6 states in that election. He was a 1 term President. I guess the country felt he had a few too many flaws. 91%. That is a landslide.

      Love the comment about being too attached to blaming one man for a country's problems. Mention the name Bush and watch the hypocrisy take afoot.

      91%
  • jisc123, on 02/29/2008, -3/+2Nixon - was actually a good president in a lot regards
    he accomplished something that scores of other politicians were deathly afraid to(withdraw troops from vietnam)
    He cut back on many of the wasteful programs of LBJ's "Great Society" that had been squandering the taxpayer's money.
    His firmness helped put an end to a dangerous cycle of ghetto and campus unrest.
    Nixonian diplomacy brought about a cease-fire and negotiations between Arabs and Israelis, and the best chance for a peaceful settlement in Israel's 25-year history.
    http://www.trivia-library.com/a/president-richard- ... (read up you might learn something)
    He was probably guilty for all that was thrown at him, but he seems to get all the flack for being the worst due to scandal. How can we all forget about Bill Clinton too(though the economy was booming, he was not innocent you know) This probably won't matter so lets just say this " Politicians are all corrupt- Bush, Clinton, Nixon etc". Lets at least agree on that ok?.
  • robbiemuffin, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I was wondering why I kept seeing everyone say "reply to this comment" in the comments section! They need to chance the CSS for those links! All I saw were things like:

    Nixon couldn’t even get on the Republican ticket now. He would be labeled a liberal Democrat….
    Reply to this comment.

    @zarnold:
    heh…the page didn’t load right the first time :)
    Reply to this comment.


    Bill Vincent you are retarded.
    Reply to this comment.

    -- I thought, "man these are some pushy people"
  • louiebaur, on 02/29/2008, -1/+4Jimmy Carter Rocks
  • inkswamp, on 02/29/2008, -2/+6You know, I get a little fed up with the beating Jimmy Carter takes at the hands of some of you right-wingers and I see some of you are already pulling out those tired old myths about him. I'll concede that he wasn't the greatest president in U.S. history but he was far from the worst and his presidency occurred during a very difficult time in terms of international relations. And as far as the economy went, Carter was a better president than all of the recent Republicans, including Reagan. And BTW, that's not a matter of opinion. I recently compiled a list of economic indicators for the last few decades based on presidential administrations and Carter came out looking surprisingly good, especially compared to the propaganda you hear about him on the Right.

    Look these numbers over and then tell me how some of you justify bashing Carter, but still hold Reagan and Bush up as exemplary leadership. In all of these cases, Carter does better or comparable to the Republicans you hold dear. Read 'em and weep.

    Percentage of job loss or gain, sorted best-to-worst.

    (D) Roosevelt 5.3
    (D) Johnson 3.8
    (D) Carter 3.1
    (D) Truman 2.5
    (D) Clinton 2.4
    (D) Kennedy 2.3
    (R) Nixon 2.2
    (R) Reagan 2.1
    (R) Coolidge 1.1
    (R) Ford 1.1
    (R) Eisenhower 0.9
    (R) G. Bush 0.6
    (R) G.W. Bush -0.7
    (R) Hoover -9.0

    Change in the national debt, as a yearly percentage of GDP, sorted best-to-worst.

    (D) Clinton -0.76 (reduced the debt)
    (D) Carter -0.70 (reduced the debt)
    (R) Ford 0.20 (no change)
    (R) Bush II 0.90 (increased the debt)
    (R) Reagan 2.31 (increased the debt)
    (R) Bush I 3.05 (increased the debt)

    Median wage increase in constant dollars for last three decades, sorted best-to-worst.

    (D) Clinton 565
    (D) Carter -108
    (R) Reagan -228
    (R) Bush II -588
    (R) Bush I -825
    (R) Ford -894

    Average yearly wage increase for top 20% of earners, by president, sorted best-to-worst.
    This list shows average change in annual wages for wealthy people (i.e., people who make about $150,000. We all know that Democrats like to "screw the rich," right? Check again.)

    (D) Clinton 4115
    (R) Reagan 2442
    (D) Carter 1267
    (R) Bush II 397
    (R) Bush I -147
    (R) Ford -963

    Government Growth per year, as percent of GDP, sorted best-to-worst.

    (D) Clinton -0.46 (Government got smaller)
    (R) Reagan -0.06 (no change)
    (D) Carter 0.08 (no change)
    (R) Bush I 0.23 (Government got bigger)
    (R) Bush II 0.50 (Government got bigger)
    (R) Ford 0.57 (Government got bigger)

    Unemployment rates upon leaving office.

    (R) Eisenhower 6.5% (started with 2.5%)
    (D) JFK 3.5% (reduced unemployment)
    (R) Nixon 7.5% (increased unemployment)
    (D) Carter 7.5% (no change)
    (R) Reagan 5.5% (reduced unemployment)
    (R) H.W. Bush 6.5% (increased unemployment)
    (D) Clinton 4.5% (reduced unemployment)
    (R) W. Bush n/a (not available yet but currently unemployment is going up)

    • ksc23, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3Yeah- looks to me like Ford can carry alot of the blame that Carter has had to endure since his presidency. The republicans did a good job fooling the people on that one- just like they did with the October Surprise.
    • dukeochutney, on 02/29/2008, -2/+3so why does everyone hate the clintons again. o wait thats right cuz there ***** dumb and dont look at the statistics.
      • thedogfatherx, on 02/29/2008, -2/+0Did you forget that he directly and clearly lied to the American people?
        • inkswamp, on 03/01/2008, -0/+2No, I didn't forget that, but I also didn't forget that this lie was in response to being asked about something very personal by reporters caught up in the tabloid frenzy of it all. In the past, nobody would have ever dreamed of subjecting the president to such a demeaning and inappropriate line of questioning. I have no qualms with presidents lying about their personal lives. It's irrelevant to me.
        • dukeochutney, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1i really dont care who he ***** as long as we dont have a recession like bush put us in.
      • Pake, on 03/01/2008, -1/+1Actually, it's because anyone with a brain would discount the internet and e-commerce boom and look at only what Clinton influenced. Take away everything involving the internet and Clinton's statistics drop like a rock.
        • inkswamp, on 03/01/2008, -0/+3That's an interesting, albeit biased, view of the raw data. Okay, let's say your statement about Clinton is right. Now explain why quantifiable economic indicators improve under Democrats and get worse under Republicans. How do you explain that away?
          • Pake, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Look at the statistics based on year. Every democrat's stats drop off big time during the last 2 years of their term.
          • Pake, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Also, the start of each presidents economics has to shift by one year, so that everything has time to start changing. Since Clinton started office, he's economic changes go from Jan. 1, 1994 to Jan. 1 2002, with 2002 being the start of Bush's economic changes.
  • paulc87, on 02/29/2008, -3/+2Shut the hell up about global warming
    • ksc23, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2lol- you're the first to mention it. now look out.....
  • markgl, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1and while saving trees they were killing the earth with massively polluted lead gasoline cars!!!
  • chadfaaborg, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1What's all this garbage about Carter being a good president? He might be a great guy (re Habitat for Humanity), however as a president....umm, no! A liberal that kow-towed to muslim extremists and thought the answer to peace was to sing kum-by-ya & do trust falls with these animals. What'd it get us? Our citizens held hostage in Iran for 444 days. How'd that end? Reagan swearing in on his inauguration day! Nuff said!
  • kds405, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1I think all these presidents are causing global warming by emitting vast amounts of hot air! Get it? and...and...those clowns in congress, they've done it again!
  • mikeyeah, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1President Bush is dead last on this list.
  • jayscot, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1You people are a bunch of lemmings.
    All of the best things in life are made by man. The most terrible things are made by the environment.
    Screw the environment. I hate it.
  • lolo2007, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0Well, Roosevelt did designate the lands that are national parks now which is fantastic. What everyone always ignores was that the purpose of this was to use the resources later. I am not saying he shouldn't be on the list since whatever his intentions, the legacy remains, I am just putting that out there as a historical tidbit.

    http://ladies.paramegsoft.com/
    http://game.paramegsoft.com/
    http://girls.paramegsoft.com/
    http://www.paramegsoft.com/
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.