Yesterday, George W. Bush took a time out from his grueling schedule of insulting world leaders and playing Xbox to hold a press conference about the economy.

As is typical with a Bush press conference, is was a unicorn pony ride through fields of candy corn.  Follow me over the jump, to revel in wonder and merriment.

For those of you new to this:

Questions from the press are italicized for your pleasure.
Bush's bullshit is thick and bold, like in real life.
My responses are in plain text, which I'm sure means something profound.

Twenty nine years ago this week,
Jimmy Carter gave his famous "Malaise" speech. It almost makes me cry to see how correct he was in hindsight and how stupid we have been.

We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.

This is probably worse news for Obama than McCain given that Americans will usually vote in their short term rather than long term interests. What it really means is that high energy prices are here to stay for awhile, and it will not likely change in most of our lifetimes no matter who wins. That is what the voters need to be told by the candidates and what this country needs to accept in order to confront the problem realistically. The bigger question at this point in time is whether Obama can convince Americans to finally think in terms of future generations while McCain continues to reward our selfishness by refusing to even try.

Before you flame me for dissing the man who is probably our best ex-president - and maybe the nicest, most honest men to serve as president - let me give a quick explanation of my feelings here, above the fold.

Jimmy Carter was an ineffective president.  Remember?  Much as I like and admire the man, he was not effective as a president.  That's why the McCain campaign has been floating the idea that an Obama presidency would be a continuation of the failed policies of President Carter.  And maybe that good man, Jimmy Carter, was ineffective because he wasn't enough of a politician.  Now many are dumping on Sen. Obama because he has shown himself to be a politician.  But, I think a politician is what we need to get anything accomplished.

Over at the National Review on Saturday, Kathryn Jean Lopez suggested a novel future for George W. Bush after he completes his disastrous tenure in the White House.  The most unpopular President in modern times, Lopez insists, would "make an awesome high-school government teacher."  But leaving aside for the moment his obvious aversion to academic study and the English language (as well as the U.S. Constitution), Bush has already made up his mind about his "post-service service."  Upon leaving office, President Bush has said he plans to "replenish the ol' coffers."

In 1973, when OPEC imposed its oil embargo, U.S. oil imports composed 30 percent of our needs; today, they make up more than 60 percent, with a growing proportion of that crude coming from the world's least stable regions. At around $145 a barrel, the United States, by my calculations, will spend more on imported oil this year than it will spend on its own defense budget, and much of that money will flow into the coffers of those who wish us ill.

Okay, we know all that, don't we?  So why I am writing about Gal Luft's Washington Post piece Iran and Brazil Can Do It. So Can We.?  Look at the two countries in that title.  Both are in the midst of lots of oil. Israel is near oil-rich but hostile nations.  Iran produces lots of oil but has no meaningful refining capacity.  And both are moving away from gasoline as the primary means of powering transportation.  How they and other countries are doing it is certainly worth our exploration.

John McCain

[Promoted by DHinMI: Take a little time to read this diary (that started out on the "right side of the site") and ponder blueness' ruminations about clear-eyed commitment to principles, about being honest, but also about having a sense of proportion.]

Over here on the right side of the site things feed on frenzy, and so there have been several self-immolations of late occasioned by Barack Obama's serpentine pronouncements on FISA.

As we watch these Kossacks consume themselves in flames, we hear them roar that on FISA Obama has sounded a Retreat, on a Principle, one that is Not To Be Borne. Better, they snarl, to vote for Nader, or Barr, or no one at all, than to continue to fetch, roll over, play dead for such a man. Better to die like a lion, bay they, than to live like a dog.

Since that Saturday when Senator Clinton at last acknowledged defeat, this site has become increasingly aware that Obama is, uh, Not Perfect. It is going to be a long summer, and an even longer fall. And in that time, Obama will, many times, Disappoint.

What to do, what to do . . . .    

Our favorite, loving and lovely AZ senator is at it again. Calling Barack Obama's presidency James Carter's second term, but this time he just didn't stop at that.
According to CNN:

The Arizona senator has long attempted to portray Barack Obama's policies as in the mold of Carter's, though the Republican has previously held back criticizing Carter so directly.

But in an interview with the Las Vegas Sun published Friday, McCain was decidedly more blunt than he has been in the past. McCain, who is a proponent of nuclear reprocessing, was asked why he thought Carter was against the process when he was president.

"Yes, because Carter was a lousy president," McCain quipped. "This is the same guy who kissed Brezhnev."

Thinking he still has something going with this Obama-Carter comparison, John McCain went a step further today and called Jimmy Carter, a "lousy president":

McCain, who is a proponent of nuclear reprocessing, was asked why he thought Carter was against the process when he was president.

"Yes, because Carter was a lousy president," McCain quipped. "This is the same guy who kissed Brezhnev."

Now, let's be fair about this - many of our candidates have said worse things (deservedly so) about President George W. Bush, a far far far worse president than Jimmy Carter.  So while this is clearly a classless swipe at a distinguished ex-President who has gone on to do impressive work, we have to be honest about this.  However:

I admired him then and voted for him in the first presidential election in which I was able to vote, in 1980.  I admire him now.  I don't appreciate the extent to which he is (and was!) vilified.  His speech of July 15, 1979 was Oracle-like in it's appreciation of things yet to come.  

the speech

Let us review the most recent occasion an insurgent won the Democratic nomination against bitter and organized establishment opposition. It was 1972 and George McGovern, caretaker of the Kennedy delegates after California in 1968, had been given the party rules committee slot that would have gone to RFK and, failing that, should have gone to Gene McCarthy. In the 1972 primaries McGovern used his knowledge of the rules to defeat the presumptive nominee, Hubert Humphrey, with an outbreak of enthusiasm Humphrey could hardly understand, much less emulate.

But then at the convention he tried to reach out to the establishment wing of the party by nominating a labor hack, Tom Eagleton of Missouri, as his running mate. It was a sickening blow that the old politics delivered straight to the reform breadbasket. It also showed that McGovern did not have the strategic cunning or the tactical brass to dance with who brung him.

In all the discussions about Obama's position on FISA, his failure to firmly stand up for what we all know is right, it's important to recall the missed opportunities and failures of President Carter.

Carter was a political outsider, a dark horse candidate who seemed to come out of nowhere. He ran against entrenched political interests, as an honest agent of change, inspiring idealistic grassroots Democrats but alienating party insiders. When he arrived in Washington, having run as an outsider on a mission of reform, he found it extremely difficult to govern. The Congress, perceiving him as its enemy, would not support his initiatives. Before long, the American public came to see him as an ineffective leader, a weakling who couldn't control his own party, let alone stand up for Americans during an international political crisis. Keep this in mind when criticizing Barack Obama.

I got back on Sunday from a trip with my family down to Aberdeen, SD, where I grew up and lived from age 3-10.  It was interesting to see my old hometown, which is almost exactly as I remembered it., save for some new housing additions here and there, different storefronts, a Super Wal*Mart, and a giant new meat-packing plant.  The reason we were down there though is what I want to talk about.  We were down there to see the unveiling of a statue dedicated(in part) to my uncle for work he, along with others did in the 1970's.  Steve at that time ran a field office for Senator James Abourezk in Aberdeen.  There was a planned project to channel the water in the Oahe reservoir into an irrigation system that would span all the way through to Brown County.  The idea was essentially a science project of the Bureau of Reclamation and was a.)expensive, b.)inefficient, c.)destroying natural wetlands and animal habitat, and d.)taking some 110,000 acres of farmland away from farmers in order to irrigate some 190,000 acres of farmland.

Many Americans know little of our treatment of the people who were here when we got here.  I thought I was better than that.  I had read about poisoned blankets, forced marches, stolen land, sterilization, "schools" designed to destroy languages and culture.  I thought I knew what was what.

But I thought all that was in the past.

Sure, I knew American Indians are, in many respects, worse off than any other ethnic group.  But, I thought, that must be residual.  Of course, I knew there was prejudice against American Indians.... but, I thought, surely that was by the same people who hate Blacks, Jews, gays, and so on.  And surely, I thought, episodes of genocide happened long ago.  Not now.

I was wrong.

That's how a Republican friend of a friend of mine responded to an email I sent out using Obama's "Take a stand on civil liberties" tool:

Sean, which would be worst, the third term of GWB, or the second term of Jimmy Carter?

This isn't the first time I've heard that, but it is the first time anyone I know personally has said it and it drove me to write an incredulous and somewhat scornful reply.  My response on the flip.

{Logo and blurb to go here, late tonight}

Now, I have gone from being a critic of Carter, "back in the day", to voting for Carter, in the "he's not great but this other guy is batshit insane" kind of way, to having much affection for post-Presidency Carter ...

... so when Grandpa John says Senator Obama is running for the Second Carter Term, I have a great deal of ambivalence about that.

First ... there's much to be said in favor of Grandpa John's analysis. This should not be an extra-ordinary surprise, since even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so I would not be surprised if Grandpa John is half right at least one more time between now and November.

And second, there's much to be said agin' it, so that it is, at best, half right.

McCain:

Sen. Obama says that I'm running for a Bush's third terms.  It seems to me he's running for Jimmy Carter's second. (LAUGHTER)

Zing! Good one, John!

Carter, in fact, is more popular than Bush Sr. or Bill Clinton. And that was a year ago, with a much more "popular" Bush than today. Now, he's mired in the 20s.

And what is with McCain and always looking back to the last century?

Update: Crasing vor, in the comments, answers the question above:

And what is with McCain and always looking back to the last century?

Easy.  After the William Jennings Bryan line, talking about the 20th Century makes Johnny feel au courant.