Libertarian Librarian

Great list, and I'd agree with most of your choices.

Here's my quibbles. JFK wouldn't be on my list. He didn't really accomplish anything, and his administration didn't even finish a whole term. That said, it is too bad there are no more democrats like JFK. The last one, Senator Zell Miller, retired just recently, weary and ashamed of what his party had become.

George W. Bush belongs on this list, and will be once the dust of history settles. Yes, you liberals, you're howling in outrage at the every thought of it. You do the same when people mention Ronald Reagan, and Bush has one thing in common with Reagan; he's kicked your ass time after time.

Bush the 43rd has done everything the historians usually attribute to a top-notch political leader. He's reshaped the government. He's fought a war. He's led the country through difficult times. He's faced challenges from internal and external foes, and triumphed. He's placed whom he wanted in the judiciary. He's enlisted former presidents, of both parties, to lead Americans in good causes.

The Katrina mess, in retrospect, will emerge as a shining gem of his legacy. As will the war on terror. They'll be seen as accomplishments that shaped the country and the world. Oh, and did I mention; he's kicked liberal ass, time after time!

Nixon ought to get an honorable mention. He created the EPA (I hate it, but many liberals worship at the EPA altar), he pulled the country out of LBJ's war, he thawed relations with China, and he had the decency to resign rather than hang onto power at all costs (and what president do we know that moved heaven and earth to keep his job?).

Now a word for Lincoln. True, he wasn't anti-slavery at all. But when the time came he freed the slaves, and he did it for the right reasons. After the civil war, he wanted to show mercy to the rebel states, he wanted to rebuild and get the country back on track. If he had not been assassinated, the reconstruction period would have been very much different than it was. He led the country through what may be argued to be our darkest days. Few leaders have stood up to do the right thing in the face of opposition as Lincoln did.

And a word for Washington. This man and his legacy are proof that there is a God. The amazing things Washington accomplished, and the greatness of his character, could only come from the belief and practice of Christian principals. No other belief system or ideals could shape a man like him.

He led the hopeless fight against a superior foe. He rejected the chance to become king of the new country. He set an example that stands to this day of principal and determination.
 

Excellent critera, John.
Anyone who wins (at least for the conservatives) is a good president.

And I'd really like to see how he is going to make the Katrina mess into a shinig-gem? Even if he throws a ton of money ($100 billion anyone?) at the problem, his homemade department (Homeland Security which runs FEMA) still showed up so late that lots of people died unnecessarily.

And regarding the war, I got one for you. What's the difference between Vietnam and Iraq?


Bush had a plan to get out of Vietnam.
 

One more comment for Nick. The comment on JFK being unfaithful seems a little silly since you didn't even mention FDR's blatant unfaithfulness. JFK did have a little more media to deal with in his day.
Plus, I think it's time that we all agree that men who want power often want the sexual benefits of power.
 

Troy,

I agree with you that the two-term winning thing isn't great criteria. If it was, then Clinton would be on the list, too.

However, regarding Hurricane Katrina, let's keep the facts in perspective and not place the blame entirely upon the federal government. The locals blew it big time in New Orleans. How about the New Orleans evacuation plan that was never followed? How about those buses that never evacuated anyone?

Within the first 24 hours of the hurricane hitting land, according to the Times-Picayune, FEMA did the following:

"FEMA deployed 23 Disaster Medical Assistance Teams from all across the U.S. to staging areas in Alabama, Tennessee, Texas, and Louisiana and is now moving them into impacted areas.

Seven Urban Search and Rescue task forces and two Incident Support Teams have been deployed and propositioned in Shreveport, La., and Jackson, Miss., including teams from Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Three more Urban Search and Rescue teams are in the process of deployment.

FEMA is moving supplies and equipment into the hardest hit areas as quickly as possible, especially water, ice, meals, medical supplies, generators, tents, and tarps."

The efforts of many other federal agencies are listed in that link as well.

Also:

The Louisiana Department of Homeland Security (LDHS) told the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane because the LDHS didn't want assistance from the Red Cross to keep people from evacuating or to encourage others to come into the city. Apparently, this was also the case for the Salvation Army, but I cannot find a link that has the Salvation Army stating that. The LDHS wanted people out, so they weren't going to allow help to come in to those people so they would want to leave. As the situation progressed, they may have wanted to help the victims, but they couldn't provide security for the aid agencies.

And:

Citing paramedic witnesses, the New York Times reports that police agencies to the south of New Orleans were so fearful of the crowds trying to leave the city after Hurricane Katrina that they sealed a crucial bridge over the Mississippi River and turned back hundreds of desperate evacuees.


Then there's the the stop-blaming-FEMA satellite image from two days after the hurricane hit.

Hell, one could even blame Save Our Wetlands for suing the feds to stop improvement to the levees.

Besides, FEMA guidelines state that individuals should be prepared to sustain themselves for at least three days after a disaster.

In light of the facts that continue to come forward, I have a hard time blaming the feds for those hurricane deaths. Look to the mayor and the governor first.
 

JFK didn't accomplish anything? Hmmm... well, in the sense that he only started things, I guess you could say that. In large measure he escalated the Cold War by facing down the Soviets in Cuba-- and I mean "escalated" in the sense that he demonstrated to the Soviets that we were not going to passively sit by and let them do whatever the heck they wanted. In large measure his Civil Rights efforts were what lead to the breakthroughs under LBJ.

The economy began a prolonged and significant period of growth under JFK, and he, much like Reagan, was not afraid to envision the U.S. as a shining light for the rest of the world. "Ask not what your country can do for you-- ask what you can do for your country" is still one of the single strongest lines in a speech ever. And it wasn't mere sloganeering. JFK helped reinvigorate a country that was feeling the stress of the ongoing threat of nuclear extinction. Perhaps he should only be 9th or 10th, but I do think he belongs in the top 10.

W. does not. Not even close. His vision in the Middle East I wholly support, and the only major regret I have over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is that the post-invasion planning was woefully inadequate. I blame Rumsfeld for that, but Bush ultimately takes responsibility for Rummi being there, and particularly for NOT HOLDING HIM ACCOUNTABLE. This is one of my two big peeves with W-- he is a cronyist who ALWAYS puts loyalty before accountability, and while loyalty, in the abstract, is admirable, it is far from admirable when it endangers our country. And it has.

The other really BIG reason Bush is not even close to top 10 (I'm not sure he's even above average at this point) is that he is the most profligate spending President IN HISTORY! Compare him to Reagan? Not even close. Reagan, for all that he drove the deficit up and up and up, did hold the line on spending. Or at least as much as he could with a hostile congress. Bush has Republican majorities in BOTH FRIGGIN' HOUSES of Congress and far from reducing government, he's overseen more pork than Oscar Mayer.

Reshaped Government, John? Oh yes-- it's HUGE now. Spend, spend, spend, spend, spend. Bush makes drunken sailors look timid. Reshaped Government, oh yes-- just be somebody's college roommate and get a job as the top administrator of a major governmental agency.

As to whipping liberal butt-- uhmmm... no, not really. He got elected twice, mostly because Rove is a genius and the Democrats insisted on repeatedly shooting themselves in the head, but really-- what has W. accomplished domestically? Social Security reform? Nope. Permanent tax cuts? Nope. Smaller government spending? Nope. Better security for the nation's citizens? Maybe. But Homeland Security seems like a big old bloated ball of inefficiency for the most part.

Appointment of a conservative judiciary? Nope. Torte reform. Negative. A strong U.N. ambassador? Yes, but only by using a loophole that guarentees that Bolton serves less than a full term as ambassador. Public school reform? Nah. Insurance reform. Hmmm... nope.

And, yes, I do realize that a major reason Bush hasn't been able to accomplish any of those things is because Democrats in Congress have been obsructionists of mind boggling magnitude. I find them appalling and sickening.

But the fact that a MINORITY of Democrats in BOTH houses have thwarted the Bush administration on SOOOOOOOOOOOOO many fronts kind of makes the "kicking liberal ass" meme ring awfully hollow, don't you think? Actually, the more I think about what Bush SHOULD have accomplished with a Republican majority in Congress, coupled with my extreme distaste of his excessive cronyism, the more I have to conclude that W. is a below average President.

Hell, he might be a complete failure. The only solace I can take for voting for him in '04 is that I'm still fairly sure that John Kerry would have been even worse. But Bush is seemingly lowering that bar on a regular basis.

Finally, as to FEMA and Katrina. Yes, much, probably even the majority, of the blame lies with Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco. Two people who completely and utterly failed to answer the bell when it rang. But that does not change the fact that Michael Brown was eminently UNqualified to be the head of FEMA, that FEMA was woefully unprepared for what was an entirely forseeable disaster, and that the Federal response as a whole gave the local inadequacy a run for its money. There IS plenty of blame to go around for what happened to New Orleans and in Mississippi-- and NONE of it resides with global warming-- but a goodly portion of it must fall at the feet of FEMA and other federal agencies.
 

How about some of these:

Banned Partial Birth Abortion

Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy

Stopped foreign aid that would be used to fund abortions.

Supported and upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals

Signed E.O. reversing Clinton's policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act

Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty

Killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court

Killed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off all of the electricity surplus to California

Killed Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules that would have shut down every home business in America

Killed the U.S. - CCCP ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses

Has CONSTRUCTION in process on the first ten ABM silos in Alaska and California so that America has a defense against North Korean nukes

President Bush pledged to Israel on 4/14/2004 that it could keep parts of the West Bank, giving international legitimacy to Jewish settlements there

Denied Palestinian refugees any right of return to what is now Israel, saying they should be resettled in a future Palestinian state instead

Part of coalition (Russia, Israel, EU, Palestine, USA) for Israeli/Palestinian "Roadmap to Peace"

Pushed through THREE raises for our military

Increased Defense Dept funding which had deteriorated during the previous 8 years

Signed TWO bills into law that arm our pilots with handguns in the cockpit

Currently pushing for full immunity from lawsuits for our national gun manufacturers

Ordered Attorney-General Ashcroft to formally notify the Supreme Court that the OFFICIAL U.S. government position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL rights to own firearms, NOT a leftist-imagined *collective* right

Told the United Nations we weren't interested in their plans for gun control (i.e. the International Ban on Small Arms Trafficking Treaty)

Disarmed Libya of its Chemical, Nuclear, and biological WMD's without bribes or bloodshed

Won an agreement that U.S. Navy sailors may now freely board thousands of commercial ships in international waters to search for weapons of mass destruction under a landmark pact between the United States and Liberia, the world's No. 2 shipping registry (signed Feb 11, 2004), and Panama 5/10/2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/11/international/americas/11ship.html).

Successfully executed 2 wars: Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom

Executed a WAR ON TERROR by getting world-wide cooperation to track funds/terrorists (has cut off much of the terrorist's funding and captured or killed many key leaders of the al Qaeda network)

Started withdrawing our troops from Bosnia and has announced withdrawal of our troops from Germany and the Korean DMZ.

Signed the LARGEST nuclear arms reduction in world history with Russia

Reorganized bureaucracy...after 9/11, condensed 20+ overlapping agencies and their intelligence sectors into one agency: the Department of Homeland Security.

Initiated discussion on privatizing Social Security and individual investment accounts.

Improving govt. efficiency with .8 million jobs put up for bid...weakening unions and cutting undeserved pay raises. Wants merit based promotions/raises only.

Orchestrated Republican control of the White House, the House AND the Senate.

GWB signed an executive order enforcing the Supreme Court's Beck decision (re: union dues being used for political campaigns against individual's wishes)

Turned around an inherited economy that was in recession.

Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals.

Signed 2 income tax cuts ---- 1 of which was the largest Dollar-value tax cut in world history

Signed into law the No Child Left Behind legislation delivering the most dramatic education reforms in a generation (challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations)

Reorganized the INS in an attempt to safeguard the borders and ports of America and to eliminate bureaucratic redundancies and lack of accountability.

Committed US funds to purchase medicine for millions of men and women and children now suffering with AIDS in Africa

Passed Medicare Reform (authorized $39.5 Billion per year for preventive medicine such as drugs and doctor visits as well as included a ten year Privatization option)

Urging federal liability reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits

Started the USA Freedom Corps

Initiated review of all federal agencies with a goal to eliminate federal jobs (completed September 2003) in an effort to reduce the size of federal gov while increasing private sector jobs.

Nominated strong, conservative judges to the judiciary.

As part of the national forests clean-up, the President restricted judicial challenges (based on the Endangered Species Act and other challenges) and removed the need for an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) before removing fuels/logging to reduce fire danger.

Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops.

President Bush signed the workplace verification bill to prevent hiring of illegal Aliens
 

Furthermore…

This is rather humorous: you place a no-accomplishment guy like JFK in the top ten, and refuse to grant Bush 43 anything. JFK may be a saint to some (I've actually seen a 'Saint Kennedy' card put out by a Catholic publisher) good intentions don't count. James Carter was loaded with good intentions, and the man may very well be the worst president in our history.

JFK didn't accomplish anything? Hmmm... well, in the sense that he only started things, I guess you could say that. In large measure he escalated the Cold War by facing down the Soviets in Cuba-- and I mean "escalated" in the sense that he demonstrated to the Soviets that we were not going to passively sit by and let them do whatever the heck they wanted. In large measure his Civil Rights efforts were what lead to the breakthroughs under LBJ.

JIH: So, he looked good? He started things? That will not pass the test of history.

The economy began a prolonged and significant period of growth under JFK, and he, much like Reagan, was not afraid to envision the U.S. as a shining light for the rest of the world. "Ask not what your country can do for you-- ask what you can do for your country" is still one of the single strongest lines in a speech ever.

JIH: I also heard him say in a recorded speech: "Republicans are like elephants, they follow each other around with their tails tucked into their trunks." Truly, more lame and inept commentary has rarely been heard.

And it wasn't mere sloganeering. JFK helped reinvigorate a country that was feeling the stress of the ongoing threat of nuclear extinction. Perhaps he should only be 9th or 10th, but I do think he belongs in the top 10.

JIH: Yeah, he was pretty and his wife was pretty, and people loved them. Not much here to put anyone in a top ten of anything.
 

I especially like this one:

Passed Medicare Reform (authorized $39.5 Billion per year for preventive medicine such as drugs and doctor visits as well as included a ten year Privatization option)

Wow! This is considered an accomplishment!?! Even most of AARP was against this bill. In fact, the only people actually for it were drug companies.
But then again, it should be considered an accomplishment that prescription drugs are so expensive in this country and nothing - sorry, NOTHING!!!! - has been done about it, except for a bill that will give more tax dollars to the prescription drug companies.

And I like this one too:

Stopped foreign aid that would be used to fund abortions.

Because the last thing we would want is to have fewer poor children in Mexico that will try to jump the border for a better life here. (That's not going to cost us any money in the future!!)
 

Passed Medicare Reform (authorized $39.5 Billion per year for preventive medicine such as drugs and doctor visits as well as included a ten year Privatization option)

Wow! This is considered an accomplishment!?! Even most of AARP was against this bill. In fact, the only people actually for it were drug companies.

* cough cough * :

http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/medicare/medicare_drug_benefit.html

They describe the program—the biggest expansion of benefits since Medicare began—as "a good deal" and predict that next year about 30 million of today's 42 million beneficiaries will receive drugs either from a Medicare drug plan or from employer coverage subsidized by Medicare.

But today's Medicare administrators may face a steeper uphill struggle with enrollment than those in 1965. Back then, "most people were very anxious to sign up," Ball recalls, because the vast majority of older Americans had no health insurance at all.

Recent opinion polls show that enthusiasm for the new drug benefit is steadily gaining ground among Medicare beneficiaries. But many say they don't understand it and are wary of signing up.


http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/medicare/delaying_enrollment_in_medicare_rx_coverage_is_pre.html
Delaying Enrollment in Medicare Rx Coverage Is Prescription for Disaster

By T. Byron Thames, M.D.

June 2005

As my colleagues on the AARP Board of Directors recently discussed the new Part D Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit that begins in 2006, I surprised them when I said I would be among the first to sign up for this program—even though I am a healthy, 74-year-old, successful family physician on no prescription drugs. I explained that I have seen too many of my patients over the years get hit by sudden, catastrophic health problems, such as cancer or a heart attack, that required prolonged use of potent, highly expensive drugs that sometimes cost more than $500 a day and quickly ate up a large portion of their savings and income and drastically changed their quality of life.

But then again, it should be considered an accomplishment that prescription drugs are so expensive in this country and nothing - sorry, NOTHING!!!! - has been done about it, except for a bill that will give more tax dollars to the prescription drug companies.

It easy to carp about it. Do you have a solution that won't offend the free market?
 

John H in defense of President Bush's Medicare "reform": They [AARP] describe the program—the biggest expansion of benefits since Medicare began—as "a good deal" and predict that next year about 30 million of today's 42 million beneficiaries will receive drugs either from a Medicare drug plan or from employer coverage subsidized by Medicare.

biggest expansion of benefits since Medicare began

Are you sure you're conservative, John? Honestly, how can you quote that as an accomplishment for a Republican-- supposedly conservative-- president? It is pathetic, and if Clinton had forced this through Congress somehow, you would be wailing to high heaven about expansive liberal social policies that create a culture of entitlement rather than encouraging self-sufficiency.

You would.

And thanks, you pretty much just made my point about Bush being the most profligate spending President in history. His record on spending, the deficit, and government expansion is dreadful. Simply dreadful.

As to the rest. Passing anti-abortion legislation with a sympathetic Congress is hardly impressive, though more than Bush has accomplished in other domestic areas. Kyoto was just as dead under Clinton as it is now. Iniating discussion on SS reform is... underwhelming. He failed to make a good case to the American people, nor to even get much support from members of his own party.

And I do give him foreign policy credit, contrary to what you claim. I wholly support the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq-- go back and look at the blog. I do not support the Administration's complete unwillingness to admit that there are problems in Iraq, or to admit that more boots on the ground would be helpful. And I REALLY don't support the fact that Bush has stood behind Rumsfeld despite the fact that his post-invasion planning has been inadequate at best, pathetic at worst.

Bush rates maybe a B/B- on foreign policy, but he rates an F on domestic issues. The man has many ideas and visions for America that I agree with-- but he has failed to realize those ideas on nearly every front. The exception is the War on Terror as embodied by Afghanistan and Iraq, and even there he is risking all the progress he deserves credit for by providing insufficient continuing support.

As to JFK... well, we'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess.
 

The top 5 are chalk, though you could debate 1 and 2, I consider Lincoln to be the "Greatest" American in history. To bad we now get schmucks....so his title is safe.

JFK...please. Cuba. Vietnam. Defiect spending precedent. Buh bye.

FDR...*5 hand claps* OVERATED *5 hand claps* All the social programs, ehhh. It was WWII that got us out of the Depression, not the domestic policy. Oh, lets give Eastern Europe to the UUSR too, good plan, proud to be part of that plan. The vision of a Bear QB.

Truman is under rated.

All Presidents after Lincoln are under rated. Granted they did nothing outstanding, but they grew the country at a fast pace with shrewd spending that made capital investment and re-investment actually work.

Worst President: James Madison.
 

Nick has hit on the new mantra of the Republican party, "All the spending of the Democrats, but we also care about what happens in your bedroom." OK, that's a little harsh, they would probably add, "At least you don't have to deal with those pesky environmentalists. And uppity women."
 

Are you sure you're conservative, John? Honestly, how can you quote that as an accomplishment for a Republican-- supposedly conservative-- president? It is pathetic, and if Clinton had forced this through Congress somehow, you would be wailing to high heaven about expansive liberal social policies that create a culture of entitlement rather than encouraging self-sufficiency.

I was not endorsing the program or the spending to go with it. My point is that this is the sort of thing historians look at when judging presidents. Whether I hate it or not, it is a factor. Kind of like the designated batter or reality shows. Love them or hate them, they affect things. So to reiterate: the creation of a new federal entitlement will be a positive factor when historians judge the Bush administration.

That said, damn tooting I'm a conservative! If it were up to me, I'd slash nearly all the cabinet level agencies.

And thanks, you pretty much just made my point about Bush being the most profligate spending President in history. His record on spending, the deficit, and government expansion is dreadful. Simply dreadful.

Huh. No argument from me. I wish someone would point out that "VETO" stamp lying there unused on his desk.

As to the rest. Passing anti-abortion legislation with a sympathetic Congress is hardly impressive, though more than Bush has accomplished in other domestic areas. Kyoto was just as dead under Clinton as it is now. Iniating discussion on SS reform is... underwhelming. He failed to make a good case to the American people, nor to even get much support from members of his own party.

Even if your statements are true, look at it this way: he did those things. He moved stuff forward. Most presidents called those things "third rails" and went nowhere near them. This courage, then, is a sign of greatness.

And I do give him foreign policy credit, contrary to what you claim. I wholly support the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq-- go back and look at the blog. I do not support the Administration's complete unwillingness to admit that there are problems in Iraq, or to admit that more boots on the ground would be helpful. And I REALLY don't support the fact that Bush has stood behind Rumsfeld despite the fact that his post-invasion planning has been inadequate at best, pathetic at worst.

Rumsfeld, blah blah blah. No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy. It's been what, two years, pacifying a foreign country full of religious fanatics? You sure are impatient.

Bush rates maybe a B/B- on foreign policy, but he rates an F on domestic issues. The man has many ideas and visions for America that I agree with-- but he has failed to realize those ideas on nearly every front. The exception is the War on Terror as embodied by Afghanistan and Iraq, and even there he is risking all the progress he deserves credit for by providing insufficient continuing support.

As you said about JFK, we'll just agree to disagree. But, I would like to paint you a scenario. Thirty years from now, Dr. Nick Weber is sitting on a panel of experts, the topic is "Greatest US Presidents."

Facilitator: Now, Doctor Weber, please rank President Bush, 43, for us.

Dr. Weber: Oh, I'd rank him low, very low. He was a failure.

Facilitator: Really? Can you give us some reasons why?

DW: Certainly, for starters, he didn't fire Rumsfeld.

Facilitator: Who?

DW: Rumsfeld! The idiot who messed up the Iraq aftermath.

Facilitator (aside to aide): Quick, google "Rumsfeld." Ok, Doctor Weber, what other reasons can you give us for your assessment?

DW: Bush was a cronyist who ALWAYS puts loyalty before accountability, and while loyalty, in the abstract, is admirable, it is far from admirable when it endangers our country. And it did.

Facilitator: Interesting. How did it endanger the country?

DW: well, Afghanistan, you see, sent fighters to Iraq, who sent fighters to bomb Iraqis, who sent fighters to blow up election stations, in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the international coalition fell apart, and Tony Blair was re-elected, and…

Facilitator: Ok. Perhaps we should move on.

DW: He was the most profligate spending President IN HISTORY! Well, until President Schwarzenegger annexed Austria and bailed out the former East Germany. Compare Bush to Reagan? Not even close. Reagan, for all that he drove the deficit up and up and up, did hold the line on spending. Or at least as much as he could with a hostile congress. Bush has Republican majorities in BOTH FRIGGIN' HOUSES of Congress and far from reducing government, he's overseen more pork than Oscar Mayer. Well, that is until President Gore initiated the Kyoto treaty, and started that 'buy back' program for all cars owned by Americans, spending the entire GNP for the next twenty years on rusted out hulks.

Facilitator: So, you're saying that each president usually becomes the most profligate spender when in office? In real dollars, or adjusted to some time period?

DW: Yes.

Facilitator: Yes? Er, which? Well, never mind…

DW: Appointment of a conservative judiciary? Well, other than tipping the Supreme Court to the right, nothing! Torte reform. Negative. A strong U.N. ambassador? Yes, but only by using a loophole that guarantees that Bolton serves less than a full term as ambassador.

Facilitator to Aide: Quick, google "Bolton".

DW: Public school reform? Nah. The No Child Left Behind thing was Insurance reform. True, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings did say: "The results from the newest Report Card are in and the news is outstanding. Three years ago, our country made a commitment that no child would be left behind. Today's Report Card is proof that No Child Left Behind is working-it is helping to raise the achievement of young students of every race and from every type of family background. And the achievement gap that has persisted for decades in the younger years between minorities and whites has shrunk to its smallest size in history." But other than that, NOTHING!

Facilitator: Er, OK then. Let's move on. Doctor Corribus, you said that you'd like to, and I quote "dig up Jimmy Carter and yank out his nostril hairs". I wonder if you'd care to elaborate.

Doctor Corribus: I was misquoted! Misquoted I tell you!
 

Geez johnh, you really outta see a shrink. You're well into delusional thinking. In fact, you're scary.

And talk about naive. "could only come from belief and practice of Christian principles. No other belief system or ideals could shape a man like him." You think like a smart child. You need to get out in the big wide world and have someone slap you hard on the face.