Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Was Jimmy Carter THAT Bad?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Bullet1987 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 10:58 PM
Original message
Was Jimmy Carter THAT Bad?
We often hear that Obama is going to be another Jimmy Carter? I've even seen it written on here by DUers. I would understand why the Republicans hate him...they hate all Democrats. But since when did Carter's name become synonymous with failure? Is it purely because he was a 1-term President? But then GHWB (Poppy) was a 1-term President too. His son was an even bigger failure. I don't see people coming on T.V. saying "you don't want to be like the Bushes." I'm only 22, so I wasn't around way back then. Is it because Carter was possibly the last true American President before complete corporate takeover brought to us by Ronald Reagan? Or is it just more of the MSM/republicans dictating to the Democratic Party? I know Carter has said a lot of things that have put him in the news. He's openly called Israel's actions apartheid and that pissed a lot of people off. But Israel has been getting some bad press lately. People aren't as afraid to criticize them or question them now as they once were. They still have a very powerful lobby called AIPAC though.

So what's the big idea?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
PurgedVoter Donating Member (753 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Carter stood up to the oil companies
He was and is an honest and brilliant man. The best president that we have had in my lifetime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bullet1987 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Is there a good, unbiased book out there about him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
78. Read one of the "South-bashing" threads on DU.
Edited on Sun Feb-28-10 01:40 PM by suzie
Then remember that Jimmy Carter was the first president from "the South" basically since the Civil War.

Official and unofficial Washington hated him for that. I lived there during the Carter Presidency.

People wondered aloud why African-Americans supported him, since he was "Southern" and therefore in their eyes more racist than anyone from elsewhere in the country. The fact that he came home in the South and didn't join the White Citizens Council didn't make a difference to those in D.C.

They would talk about how he must be a NASCAR fan, this nuclear submarine, Naval Academy grad.

The Washington elites and the news media HATED Rosalyn Carter and made fun of her constantly. She decorated the White House Christmas tree with handmade ornaments from Appalachia instead of ones fabricated in Asia--it was considered "tacky". She once hosted a big deal luncheon for Congressional wives in which each place setting featured dishware made by American craftspeople, hand blown glassware by American glassblowers. It was beautiful stuff and wonderful for artisans from the various states but there was an outcry about it from the Washington media who thought it showed what a hick she was.

When Carter opened his mouth and spoke with a Georgia accent, the inside the Beltway elite knew he was stupid.

And there was a desire to have another Jack Kennedy, who was this great speech maker. Every Democrat was subjected to some mythical Kennedy standard which no one could measure up to. I say that as a big JFK fan--when he spoke, and in the time that he spoke, everyone had this terrific sense of common purpose and idealism. Democrats wanted that back--Jimmy Carter didn't fit that image at all.

As a president, Carter made mistakes and did good stuff, like any President.

But the Washington Press Corps had an anti-Jimmy Carter thing going from the day he came to office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
83. Two years ago, John Warner said Jimmy Carter was right about energy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

John Warner: Jimmy Carter Was Right

Source: NPR Science Friday

John Warner: Jimmy Carter Was Right
posted by Ira Flatow on Friday, August 1. 2008

It took 30 years, but Jimmy Carter finally has gotten recognition for the wisdom of his energy policies. Speaking on Science Friday, Senator John Warner, a Republican from Virginia who first entered the Senate during Carter's term in office, said that Jimmy Carter "was right" when he called for a massive program of energy conservation and alternative energy research.

Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat from New Mexico, agreed. As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, one would expect a fellow democrat to back the former President. But I must admit I was a bit surprised to hear Warner readily agree. Jimmy Carter has a tough time being called "right" about anything in his administration, let alone from Republicans. Warner has recently discovered the threat posed by global warming through his discussions with Pentagon brass who are concerned about the submerging of Naval ports around the world as the oceans rise. Though he is late to the ball, Warner readily admitted the country was asleep at the switch for the last three decades.

However, concern for global warming is universal on Capitol Hill this week or even bi-partisan enough to extend the tax credits for the development of alternative energy sources like solar and wind. Bingaman, a champion of the credits, complained that huge alternative energy projects on the drawing boards will reamain there, if the credits are not restored. Once again, for the up-teenth time, not enough Senators voted for extension of the credits.

Read more: http://www.sciencefriday.com/blog/index.php?archives/32...


I heard this with my own ears.
Audio archive will be at http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200808011

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
craigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
85. try his memoirs "Keeping Faith". it's a good read
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
86. Robert Parry has books and articles about the October Surprise
His wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry
Here's some articles he did about the October Surprise: http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html
Here's his book about the October Surprise on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Trick-Treason-October-Surprise-My...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harkadog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #86
93. Congress investigated the October Surprise and said it didn't exist.
Edited on Sun Feb-28-10 03:36 PM by harkadog
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst ;jsessionid=LKfXnBFmVJ1KTKqgHypXJ353YRBvNTRJQ7NnyJjpvtvYvQJbplVh!1429477274!1188883306?docId=5000168142 They said the conspiracy was a hoax. Both the Senate and the House issued reports and no credible author or investigator has challenged their findings. Note: for the link to work you have to copy/paste the whole line and then delete the space between qst and the semicolon. I tried to fix it but I couldn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #93
98. Robert Parry has written about that.
See the articles on his website.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #1
19. Carter deregulated airlines, trucking, railroads, oil and interest rates, and set up much of the
deregulation path that reagan used

Carter was intelligent, but in my view he was not a good president



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 05:57 AM
Response to Reply #19
32. Not really, but he was smeared by republicans like they do
all democrats. I suppose they think that's the way to get republicans in office. Go after a democratic president personally. While Carter was trying to get the hostages out of Iran, Reagan sent an envoy in, (after he had won the election in November) to hold up the release so he could get credit for what Carter had done. So he promised Iran the moon, they wouldn't release the hostages til Reagan took office and he, instead of Carter got credit. This is the type of down and dirty politics the republicans have always played.

It makes me angry that the democrats sit back and let republicans run all over them. It wasn't that way when the democrats had the majority for all those years. They, the democrats, stood up to the republicans and kicked butt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Go2Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #32
43. Yes, why does it feel like we are loosing our "generational memory"
the Republican talking points have been incredibly effective. Just do a search on Carter and the first few pages are mostly Right wing think tanks. Boy do they hate him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HillbillyBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #43
70. Yea the old 'tell a lie often enough and it becomes 'true'
Seems that the D voters fell for the old lies and all the vile charm of that corpse Raygun. That was the first election I was old enough to vote in and even as a naive hillbilly I did not fall for it.
I also think very poorly of any who voted for him and even less of Ds that did too.
Carters 'fault' was that he took on the incumbent establishment in congress and actually tried to run things instead of kissin up to the old dixiecrat asses on Capitol Hill
Actually R sent 'negotiators' before the election one being Robert Gates.

I think not only are we losing our generational memory I think we have lost our damn minds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #32
57. Go to the Carter library. Who do you think deregulated the airline industry? /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Go2Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 04:14 AM
Response to Reply #1
24. The hostage crisis that brought him down was contrived
Edited on Sun Feb-28-10 04:14 AM by Go2Peace
Nobody (at the time) could imagine that a competitor would actually risk 300 American lives to win an election. No doubt it caught Carter by surprise.

There are things to like about President Obama, but in real terms Carter was much more revolutionary and forward thinking.

Carter was way ahead of us, but we were not ready for him.

Would he have been right for this time? Probably not. We need someone with his intelligence and wisdom, but with the drive and force of a Kennedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
a kennedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #24
40. "{but with the drive and force of a Kennedy".
actually Jack Kennedy didn't do all that much....it was really Johnson that pushed all the "good" stuff through congress. I don't think Kennedy would have been as effective as Johnson was if he had lived...... JMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hollowdweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #24
48. Also remember Carters stolen debate notes given to Reagan

I think the fact that Reagan had his playbook during the pivotal debate made him look stupid.

Also the hostages and bungled rescue attempt made him look weak and Reagan strong when they were released on his watch. Nevermind that Reagan actually CUT A DEAL with the Iranians to release them during his term as was mentioned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hollowdweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. Debate Gate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polly7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
29. I love Jimmy Carter, I don't know much about his actions as President,
but his humanitarian work and deep caring about conditions in Palestine make him a hero in my books.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. As a survivor of the 70s, I'd say this about sums it up...
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you;

But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.


- Don Marquis US humorist (1878 - 1937)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rufus dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. He had some faults
But honesty wasn't one of them. The dude must have been cleaner than Mother Teresa because the Repubs would have blown up any indiscretion into an impeachable offense. They had to wait for Clinton for that.

He did tend to get a bit too much into the minutia, but to compensate for that he worked his ass off.

The comparisons to Obama started before the election. Because that is their hope, to make any Democrat a one termer and slime the living shit out of them after while saying how good life was under their guy. All in all it is BS. If you take all of the Presidents over the past 50 years and rank them on economic growth (jobs created, stock market increase, standard of living, etc) Carter would rank pretty close to Reagan (the hero of the right) and above Bush 1 and obviously way above W. To be fair you would have to look at a lot of factors to compare, for example strength of economy at inauguration, economic cycles, global events.

But if Ronnie is the gold standard and Carter was a turd, then you wouldn't have a whole lot of room between gold and shit, and W would then be a steaming pile of dung the size of Northern Hemisphere.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #6
20. His only fault was thinking the political opposition was made up of decent humans beings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kltpzyxm Donating Member (135 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 05:53 AM
Response to Reply #20
31. Ding ding ding!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
4. no, he was not
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Go2Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
25. What always surprised me what who hates him most - Conservative Xstians
You would think they would have respected the stands he took.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TuxedoKat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #25
73. That;'s because
he really endeavours to live his life as a Christian, helping others, putting others before self, etc. He does what they can't or won't do. They can't stand their own hypocrasy in comparison so they turn it into hatred towards him. There's probably more to it than that, but maybe that is part of it. Same with Bill Clinton, even with his faults, he's still more of a Christian than 90% of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
5. Republicans crashed the economy
pissed off the Middle East and then dumped it in Carter's lap.

Sound familiar?

No, he wasn't a bad President. If we had listened to him all these years, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.

He did start a lot of the deregulating though. I don't think he was that great of a friend to labor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #5
38. You have something here. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rufus dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
7. sandnsea makes a good point
He put together a plan for Energy independence in response to the Mid East Crisis. St. Ronnie tore it apart to the point of making a big deal of tearing the Solar Panels off the WH. (Nice payback to the Oil Companies)
No telling how much money and lives would have been saved if those policies had been followed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 05:13 AM
Response to Reply #7
27. Yes... I remember Reagan tearing down the solar panels on the Whitehouse...


If we had only gone down that road instead... solar would be widespread by now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brother Buzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
8. The right wing echo machine attacked him from day one undermining his administration
it culminated with the covert agreement between Reagan et al. and the Khomeini regime in Iran to delay release of the American hostages until Carter left office. Some say it boarded on treason; I believe it WAS treason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harkadog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
100. You do know that Congress investigated that charge
and said it was a hoax don't you? Both the House an Senate had separate investigations and they both said it was made up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brother Buzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. Yes, and I believe it was a total whitewash
Swept under the rug.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harkadog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #101
102. Since their report nobody credible has challenged it.
The House report was as big as a phone book. Maybe you can tell us where they whitewashed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveinMD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
9. he wasn't very good
He was way too centrist as President. It wasn't just Republicans that didn't like him. Remember, Ted Kennedy challenged him for President. Carter never even tried to address health care for instance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
waiting for hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
10. All you need to do is look at the character of the
man - he has done some terrific humanitarian work over the years and I have always respected his words concerning the Israel/Palestine conflict. He is a man of faith, but made it very clear that he would not stand with the Baptist church when they changed their doctrine to exclude woman from participating and regulated them as second class citizens. He has a heart of gold, and I honestly believe he tried his best while he was in office, but as you can probably see now, there were forces at work even then to halt any progress and discredit whatever he did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lazarus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
11. His administration
is fourth in jobs creation since WWII. Not shabby at all. I didn't like a lot of what he did, but he gets a raw deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brand404 Donating Member (161 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
12. From what i hear, Carter was more a centrist -- and Obama is definitely a Centrist (more right lean)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
13. Democrats blew it,
turned against him, and that's how we got that fucked-up Reagan, God of the Right....and then Bush Sr.

Clinton slid in, but did a lot of the dirty work that had been started by Reagan,
and then Bush Jr. pushed his way in.

That's what Democrats got for fucking whining about everything and never being satisfied.

May happen again, at the rate we're going.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 04:06 AM
Response to Reply #13
23. Baloney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Go2Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 05:49 AM
Response to Reply #13
30. huh? What history did you live in?
Seriously? It was an entirely different period.

The Oil shortage was the first thing that did him serious damage. Lines at the gas pumps and you could only buy gas every other day. All commerce shut down after darkness and businesses closed on weekends.

Then the hostage crises came on and they screwed him good by getting Iran to keep the hostages.

If not for these two things, even the economy would not have tanked him. That downturn was nothing like what we have now. In "the old days" you might have lost your job, but you ***always** were able to find temp work or work at a store or McDonalds to get by. People weren't nearly as in angst about the downturn, although they weren't enamored with inflation.

But the idea that somehow party infighting did him in is completely a fantasy. I would argue your premise (that internal angst is affecting the party the way you think it is), but regardless, we weren't fighting like we are now. It wasn't like that at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #13
39. The media played
into Republican hands by portraying Carter as indecisive and weak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #39
69. The media certainly affected my father's attitude toward Carter at the time
My father is a die hard Democrat, and I recall him railing against Carter. He voted for him and was in great support of him in the beginning, but grew to absoutely detest him. His main gripe that I remember was that he thought Carter was weak.

I haven't asked him, but I am pretty sure he would recant that opinion now. I know for sure he admires Carter greatly for his post-presidency work, and I'm almost as sure that he has re-evaluated his negative contemporaenous opinion.

So in summary from my own personal observation I think opinion of Carter fell a lot during his presidency, but I agree with you that much of it was media contrived and in hindsight folks would not feel the same way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #69
72. I voted for Carter.
Edited on Sun Feb-28-10 12:03 PM by Enthusiast
During the Carter Administration, for the very first time in my life, I stood in the unemployment line. We never experienced gas lines here but the prices were shocking.

But I think the main issue with Carter was the one of perceived weakness. And much of that was actually a manufactured product of the M$M much like we are seeing the M$M behave toward Obama today. Apparently the right wing had strong control of the media even then.

After Reagan was elected a UN peace keeping force of American Marines was killed by a truck bomb in Lebanon. 250 Marines were killed by terrorists! In what some would consider an act of cowardice Reagan pulled the remaining troops immediately. There was next to zero criticism in the M$M of Reagan at the time for backing out of Lebanon. If it had been Carter pulling troops out of Lebanon the media would have literally crucified him.

The American media has not been independent for a very long time. They tell the American people what to think and they do it in such way that we don't know we're being manipulated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #72
91. Living up to the Panama Canal Treaty sunk him early.
The right went absolutely rabid over it.

Even though John Wayne supported his decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #91
96. Yeah, that too.
And that's my point.

The M$M framed it as of Carter was giving away a U.S. State or something. The media was extremely biased then as they were anti-Clinton and now anti-Obama. There is simply no justification for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #13
55. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #13
59. AMEN n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #13
66. Bullshit. Carter blew it. Good man, bad President.
Edited on Sun Feb-28-10 10:51 AM by tekisui
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmahaBlueDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
14. Carter is a very good man, but was a mediocre President
On paper, he was everything a President should be: Annapolis grad; distinguished Navy career; big state governor; young, wholesome family man.

He had the ability to get people to come together, and this led to his real legacy -- the Camp David Accords. In some ways, he might have been a much better Secretary of State.

Carter was luckless as President. Desert One - a valiant attempt to duplicate the kind of success Israel had at Entebbe - went horribly wrong. The economy was in the dumper due to mismanagement during the Nixon/Ford years, and the bill coming due for Vietnam. He never got to leave any kind of mark on the Supreme Court.

One other thing for which many will never forgove Jimmy Carter: Somebody, eventually, had to pardon the draft dodgers so that we could put the divisions over Vietnam behind us. Ford should have shown some leadership and done it after he lost the election; instead, he left the dirty job to Carter.

Most Presidents could have survived either the hostage crisis or the horrible economy. Carter had both, and got slaughtered by Reagan.

Carter shot straight, and he was right about many things, but he was rarely inspiring. The "malaise" comment is an example that leaps to mind, as well as the energy speech he gave while wearing a sweater - a kind of failed attempt to create a "fireside chat."

Then there was his handling of the Iranian hostage crisis. The kidnappers got exactly what they wanted, which was a protracted event with endless media coverage. Meanwhile, the White House responses (pre-Desert One) seemed like endless hand wringing. We didn't want to invade, we didn't want to bomb, we didn't want to give them the Shah -- we just let it go on and on and on.

One specific thing I remember was Carter not lighting the National Christmas Tree because of the hostages - I appreciated the sentiment, but not lighting a Christmas Tree just made us seem emotionally crippled. We were a nation looking for diversion and inspiration. That's why we loved that Olympic Hockey team so damn much. But then Carter chose not to go to let our athletes compete in the '80 Summer Olympics because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Wrong again - the thing we should have done is gone to Moscow and do what we do best -- win some Gold Medals and insult the host country.

Then there was his Cabinet, which seemed dominated by cronies from Georgia; the Bert Lance scandal; the sideshow of Billy Carter....the list goes on.

By '80, Carter came off as a wonky Debbie Downer. Reagan, by sharp contrast, was a happy, grandfatherly idiot -- all we needed to do, by his reasoning, was accept that government was the root of all our problems, cut taxes, and stand up to those Ruskies -- then everything would be OK. In the end, the US chose the idiot, which the happy-idiot-as-President became the GOP candidate template from 1980 onward.

Ironically, Carter is the best ex-President. Habitat for Humanity and The Carter Center have been brilliant successes, and Carter has made an economic necessity into a virtue, and has become a prolific and insightful political writer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Apt description of Carter's presidency.
Good man, but ineffective president.

:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 01:05 AM
Response to Original message
15. "Jimmy we hardly knew ya"......
he was left with the GOP wet dream of WIN......(Whip Inflation Now) that was the Republican Party platform for combating the economy and the other ill plaguing us then. The sweater thing was part of his un-doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 01:19 AM
Response to Original message
17. Howard Zinn on Jimmy Carter-
Edited on Sun Feb-28-10 01:20 AM by asdjrocky
Carter seemed to be the choice of that international group of powerful influence-wieldersthe Trilateral Commission. Two founding
members of the commission, according to the Far Eastern Economic ReviewDavid Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinskithought Carter was
the right person for the presidential election of 1976 given that "the Watergate-plagued Republican Party was a sure loser..."

Carter's job as President, from the point of view of the Establishment, was to halt the rushing disappointment of the American people with the government, with the economic system, with disastrous military ventures abroad. In his campaign, he tried to speak to the disillusioned and angry. His strongest appeal was to blacks, whose rebellion in the late sixties was the most frightening challenge to authority since the labor and unemployed upsurges in the thirties.

His appeal was "populist"that is, he appealed to various elements of American society who saw themselves beleaguered by the powerful and wealthy. Although he himself was a millionaire peanut grower, he presented himself as an ordinary American farmer. Although he had been a supporter of the Vietnam war until its end, he presented himself as a sympathizer with those who had been against the war, and he appealed to many of the young rebels of the sixties by his promise to cut the military budget.

In a much-publicized speech to lawyers, Carter spoke out against the use of the law to protect the rich. He appointed a black woman, Patricia Harris, as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and a black civil rights veteran, Andrew Young, as ambassador to the United Nations. He gave the job of heading the domestic youth service corps to a young former antiwar activist, Sam Brown.

His most crucial appointments, however, were in keeping with the Trilateral Commission report of Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington, which said that, whatever groups voted for a president, once elected "what counts then is his ability to mobilize support from the leaders of key institutions." Brzezinski, a traditional cold war intellectual, became Carter's National Security Adviser. His Secretary of Defense, Harold Brown, had, during the Vietnam war, according to the Pentagon Papers, "envisaged the elimination of virtually all the constraints under which the bombing then operated." His Secretary of Energy, James Schlesinger, as Secretary of Defense under Nixon, was described by a member of the Washington press corps as showing "an almost missionary drive in seeking to reverse a downward trend in the defense budget." Schlesinger was also a strong proponent of nuclear energy.


More-
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncarebu21.ht...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #17
53. An extremely keen look. Not surprisingly, given the insights of Howard
Zinn and the 5-star acuity of this poster.

Happy Sunday, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #53
62. And a very happy Sunday to you Dude.
I have one question now that I ask myself everyday in life. What would Howard do?

Good to see you! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #62
76. I got to hear Zinn in New York and was a long-distant groupie ever since.
The man rocked the house with a lot of gentle wisdom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. I never got to hear him speak in person, and am jealous of anyone that has.
I am going to seen a disciple of Prof. Zinn, Amy Goodman, in April.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 01:59 AM
Response to Original message
18. Carter was okay, he had some serious flaws
He was completely ineffective at dealing with congress and thus he didn't have much to show for a legislative agenda. His foreign policy was well intentioned but poorly executed in many instances.

But on energy policy he was dead right and I think that's something people often overlook. I think if Carter had gotten a second term he would've had a strong legacy for putting America on a path to ending its dependence on foreign oil and we would be much better off today because of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PhD Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 03:57 AM
Response to Original message
21. Just look up the "Malaise of the spirit" speech
Truly a dark chapter in American political history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Go2Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 06:01 AM
Response to Reply #21
34. Read it here. It was actually an honest and wise speech
Edited on Sun Feb-28-10 06:02 AM by Go2Peace
We just weren't ready to be honest with ourselves. We were more interested in Partying than fixing our problems.

Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on July 15, 1979.

Good evening. This is a special night for me. Exactly three years ago, on July 15, 1976, I accepted the nomination of my party to run for president of the United States.

I promised you a president who is not isolated from the people, who feels your pain, and who shares your dreams and who draws his strength and his wisdom from you.

During the past three years I've spoken to you on many occasions about national concerns, the energy crisis, reorganizing the government, our nation's economy, and issues of war and especially peace. But over those years the subjects of the speeches, the talks, and the press conferences have become increasingly narrow, focused more and more on what the isolated world of Washington thinks is important. Gradually, you've heard more and more about what the government thinks or what the government should be doing and less and less about our nation's hopes, our dreams, and our vision of the future.

Ten days ago I had planned to speak to you again about a very important subject -- energy. For the fifth time I would have described the urgency of the problem and laid out a series of legislative recommendations to the Congress. But as I was preparing to speak, I began to ask myself the same question that I now know has been troubling many of you. Why have we not been able to get together as a nation to resolve our serious energy problem?

It's clear that the true problems of our Nation are much deeper -- deeper than gasoline lines or energy shortages, deeper even than inflation or recession. And I realize more than ever that as president I need your help. So I decided to reach out and listen to the voices of America.

I invited to Camp David people from almost every segment of our society -- business and labor, teachers and preachers, governors, mayors, and private citizens. And then I left Camp David to listen to other Americans, men and women like you.

It has been an extraordinary ten days, and I want to share with you what I've heard. First of all, I got a lot of personal advice. Let me quote a few of the typical comments that I wrote down.

This from a southern governor: "Mr. President, you are not leading this nation -- you're just managing the government."

"You don't see the people enough any more."

"Some of your Cabinet members don't seem loyal. There is not enough discipline among your disciples."

"Don't talk to us about politics or the mechanics of government, but about an understanding of our common good."

"Mr. President, we're in trouble. Talk to us about blood and sweat and tears."

"If you lead, Mr. President, we will follow."

Many people talked about themselves and about the condition of our nation.

This from a young woman in Pennsylvania: "I feel so far from government. I feel like ordinary people are excluded from political power."

And this from a young Chicano: "Some of us have suffered from recession all our lives."

"Some people have wasted energy, but others haven't had anything to waste."

And this from a religious leader: "No material shortage can touch the important things like God's love for us or our love for one another."

And I like this one particularly from a black woman who happens to be the mayor of a small Mississippi town: "The big-shots are not the only ones who are important. Remember, you can't sell anything on Wall Street unless someone digs it up somewhere else first."

This kind of summarized a lot of other statements: "Mr. President, we are confronted with a moral and a spiritual crisis."

Several of our discussions were on energy, and I have a notebook full of comments and advice. I'll read just a few.

"We can't go on consuming 40 percent more energy than we produce. When we import oil we are also importing inflation plus unemployment."

"We've got to use what we have. The Middle East has only five percent of the world's energy, but the United States has 24 percent."

And this is one of the most vivid statements: "Our neck is stretched over the fence and OPEC has a knife."

"There will be other cartels and other shortages. American wisdom and courage right now can set a path to follow in the future."

This was a good one: "Be bold, Mr. President. We may make mistakes, but we are ready to experiment."

And this one from a labor leader got to the heart of it: "The real issue is freedom. We must deal with the energy problem on a war footing."

And the last that I'll read: "When we enter the moral equivalent of war, Mr. President, don't issue us BB guns."

These ten days confirmed my belief in the decency and the strength and the wisdom of the American people, but it also bore out some of my long-standing concerns about our nation's underlying problems.

I know, of course, being president, that government actions and legislation can be very important. That's why I've worked hard to put my campaign promises into law -- and I have to admit, with just mixed success. But after listening to the American people I have been reminded again that all the legislation in the world can't fix what's wrong with America. So, I want to speak to you first tonight about a subject even more serious than energy or inflation. I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy.

I do not mean our political and civil liberties. They will endure. And I do not refer to the outward strength of America, a nation that is at peace tonight everywhere in the world, with unmatched economic power and military might.

The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.

The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.

The confidence that we have always had as a people is not simply some romantic dream or a proverb in a dusty book that we read just on the Fourth of July.

It is the idea which founded our nation and has guided our development as a people. Confidence in the future has supported everything else -- public institutions and private enterprise, our own families, and the very Constitution of the United States. Confidence has defined our course and has served as a link between generations. We've always believed in something called progress. We've always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own.

Our people are losing that faith, not only in government itself but in the ability as citizens to serve as the ultimate rulers and shapers of our democracy. As a people we know our past and we are proud of it. Our progress has been part of the living history of America, even the world. We always believed that we were part of a great movement of humanity itself called democracy, involved in the search for freedom, and that belief has always strengthened us in our purpose. But just as we are losing our confidence in the future, we are also beginning to close the door on our past.

In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.

The symptoms of this crisis of the American spirit are all around us. For the first time in the history of our country a majority of our people believe that the next five years will be worse than the past five years. Two-thirds of our people do not even vote. The productivity of American workers is actually dropping, and the willingness of Americans to save for the future has fallen below that of all other people in the Western world.

As you know, there is a growing disrespect for government and for churches and for schools, the news media, and other institutions. This is not a message of happiness or reassurance, but it is the truth and it is a warning.

These changes did not happen overnight. They've come upon us gradually over the last generation, years that were filled with shocks and tragedy.

We were sure that ours was a nation of the ballot, not the bullet, until the murders of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. We were taught that our armies were always invincible and our causes were always just, only to suffer the agony of Vietnam. We respected the presidency as a place of honor until the shock of Watergate.

We remember when the phrase "sound as a dollar" was an expression of absolute dependability, until ten years of inflation began to shrink our dollar and our savings. We believed that our nation's resources were limitless until 1973, when we had to face a growing dependence on foreign oil.

These wounds are still very deep. They have never been healed. Looking for a way out of this crisis, our people have turned to the Federal government and found it isolated from the mainstream of our nation's life. Washington, D.C., has become an island. The gap between our citizens and our government has never been so wide. The people are looking for honest answers, not easy answers; clear leadership, not false claims and evasiveness and politics as usual.

What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action. You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well-financed and powerful special interests. You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or another. You often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and without friends.

Often you see paralysis and stagnation and drift. You don't like it, and neither do I. What can we do?

First of all, we must face the truth, and then we can change our course. We simply must have faith in each other, faith in our ability to govern ourselves, and faith in the future of this nation. Restoring that faith and that confidence to America is now the most important task we face. It is a true challenge of this generation of Americans.

One of the visitors to Camp David last week put it this way: "We've got to stop crying and start sweating, stop talking and start walking, stop cursing and start praying. The strength we need will not come from the White House, but from every house in America."

We know the strength of America. We are strong. We can regain our unity. We can regain our confidence. We are the heirs of generations who survived threats much more powerful and awesome than those that challenge us now. Our fathers and mothers were strong men and women who shaped a new society during the Great Depression, who fought world wars, and who carved out a new charter of peace for the world.

We ourselves are the same Americans who just ten years ago put a man on the Moon. We are the generation that dedicated our society to the pursuit of human rights and equality. And we are the generation that will win the war on the energy problem and in that process rebuild the unity and confidence of America.

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.

All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to true freedom for our nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our energy problem.

Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this nation, and it can also be the standard around which we rally. On the battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny.

In little more than two decades we've gone from a position of energy independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof. Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous toll on our economy and our people. This is the direct cause of the long lines which have made millions of you spend aggravating hours waiting for gasoline. It's a cause of the increased inflation and unemployment that we now face. This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation. The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them.

What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.

Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over 4-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day.

Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas. I'm announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow. These quotas will ensure a reduction in imports even below the ambitious levels we set at the recent Tokyo summit.

Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun.

I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this effort to replace 2-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day by 1990. The corporation I will issue up to $5 billion in energy bonds, and I especially want them to be in small denominations so that average Americans can invest directly in America's energy security.

Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.

These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans to Americans. These funds will go to fight, not to increase, inflation and unemployment.

Point four: I'm asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our nation's utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source.

Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the red tape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects.

We will protect our environment. But when this nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it.

Point six: I'm proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.

I ask Congress to give me authority for mandatory conservation and for standby gasoline rationing. To further conserve energy, I'm proposing tonight an extra $10 billion over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems. And I'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense -- I tell you it is an act of patriotism.

Our nation must be fair to the poorest among us, so we will increase aid to needy Americans to cope with rising energy prices. We often think of conservation only in terms of sacrifice. In fact, it is the most painless and immediate way of rebuilding our nation's strength. Every gallon of oil each one of us saves is a new form of production. It gives us more freedom, more confidence, that much more control over our own lives.

So, the solution of our energy crisis can also help us to conquer the crisis of the spirit in our country. It can rekindle our sense of unity, our confidence in the future, and give our nation and all of us individually a new sense of purpose.

You know we can do it. We have the natural resources. We have more oil in our shale alone than several Saudi Arabias. We have more coal than any nation on Earth. We have the world's highest level of technology. We have the most skilled work force, with innovative genius, and I firmly believe that we have the national will to win this war.

I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our nation's problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure honesty. And above all, I will act. We can manage the short-term shortages more effectively and we will, but there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice.

Twelve hours from now I will speak again in Kansas City, to expand and to explain further our energy program. Just as the search for solutions to our energy shortages has now led us to a new awareness of our Nation's deeper problems, so our willingness to work for those solutions in energy can strengthen us to attack those deeper problems.

I will continue to travel this country, to hear the people of America. You can help me to develop a national agenda for the 1980s. I will listen and I will act. We will act together. These were the promises I made three years ago, and I intend to keep them.

Little by little we can and we must rebuild our confidence. We can spend until we empty our treasuries, and we may summon all the wonders of science. But we can succeed only if we tap our greatest resources -- America's people, America's values, and America's confidence.

I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for an energy secure nation.

In closing, let me say this: I will do my best, but I will not do it alone. Let your voice be heard. Whenever you have a chance, say something good about our country. With God's help and for the sake of our nation, it is time for us to join hands in America. Let us commit ourselves together to a rebirth of the American spirit. Working together with our common faith we cannot fail.

Thank you and good night.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PhD Donating Member (284 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. He violated a basic rule of communication:
Use positive, constructive language. Calling the country lazy and selfish is not positive language.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #36
45. And sometimes a little bit of truth is useful. He should be praised for this speech, not
blamed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #36
60. "tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption"
And yet he accurately diagnosed the exact problem that would lead to the rise of Rush Limbaugh and those we have been fighting for the last thirty years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tumbulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #34
56. Thanks for posting it
I remember him giving it and thinking it was so wonderful. But then the wrong wing media blitz began and he was destroyed for it.

The attack by the press on everything that does not support the corporate good began a long time ago.

This is one reason our president Obama has such a hard time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 04:02 AM
Response to Original message
22. When it comes to the energy crisis,
Carter was a man ahead of his time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peggygirl Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 04:51 AM
Response to Original message
26. If being right on so many issues makes one "bad"
then JC is "bad."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raspberry Donating Member (377 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 05:43 AM
Response to Original message
28. He politicized the Olympics & reinstated draft registration
Both in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Seriously, those were both ineffective reactions. Just pissed off a lot of people and sure didn't stop the Soviets. I remember listening to that speech and having this sinking feeling that he had just blown his chance for re-election.

Carter may have been right about some things, but he appeared weak and ineffectual, and in way over his head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philly_bob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 05:57 AM
Response to Original message
33. Carter had Inflation of 13.58% in 1980.
(I've always expected double-digit inflation to return -- and have wasted money on some anti-inflation defensive measures -- but it never has. Maybe someday but not yet.)

Carter also had lines at the gas stations, his hostage rescue was bungled, and he canceled U.S. participation in the Olympics.

That said, he was a genuinely good and sincere man, as his post-presidential life has shown, and his criticism of U.S. energy habits and self-absorption were right on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Go2Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #33
42. Inflation did return, it just wasn't reported
The majority of inflation during the Carter administration was in Oil/Gas related products and in housing. EXACTLY like we had in the early 2000s. The only difference is the numbers were reported honestly.

I can't say with housing, but with oil prices those were completely out of his control. The middle east flex'd it's muscles. Classic supply and demand.

Regardless, can anyone really compare that period to this one? Apples and Oranges. I would take that economy over any economy except for the last 4 years of the 90s any day. The last 4 years of Reagan looked good on paper but like this economy it was very split. Not everyone enjoyed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philly_bob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #42
97. Agreed. For me, at least, Carter's economy was secure & safe & offered opportunity. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftupnorth Donating Member (657 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 06:08 AM
Response to Original message
35. To answer your question: No, he wasn't really that bad...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tledford Donating Member (633 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 06:15 AM
Response to Original message
37. Bingo!
"Is it because Carter was possibly the last true American President before complete corporate takeover brought to us by Ronald Reagan?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. From the evidence we see
right before our eyes, the above is true. Carter was the last true American president, independent of corporate control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedRoses323 Donating Member (175 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #41
44. Exactly...
:patriot: President Carter is truly a Wonderful Soul.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
46. It was a terrible time in American politics. The public had been disillusioned about Vietnam
for years before we actually left. Nixon had been elected by a weird coalition of people who disliked the Democrats either (1) because LBJ escalated the Vietnamese war or (2) because LBJ had dealt a death blow to the southern segregationist lifestyle. So Nixon had run on a schizoid "I'm gonna get us out of Vietnam by being a rough-and-tumble mofo" platform. Nixon was well-known for playing dirty: the ugly stories go back decades before his downfall; and the whole stinking $#!%-heap finally collapsed.

What we then got was -- Gerald Ford. A rather popular bumpersticker in the Ford era was Bozo for President! What's another clown in the White House?

By the mid-1970's, everybody was tired and pissed. The civil rights struggle had taken years longer than it should have; we'd gone through the terrors of the nuclear age (which now, for some reason, seems rather less on most folk's minds); we'd had the Cuban missile crisis and the Vietnam war and the assassinations and the riots. Lots of folk agreed the world was going to hell in a hand-basket, though across the political divide people thought so for different reasons: for example, I remember conservatives in the 1970s who were furiously angry at the idea of recycling

Carter inherited this period of exhaustion. In some sense, it may stretch back further than I indicated -- because the generation before mine experienced the Great Depression and World War Two and the McCarthy era: they beat the Depression, and they whipped the Nazis, and they sailed out of World War Two as the only unsmashed industrial power in the world, which meant that the post World War Two era was a time of growing prosperity and rising expectations for everybody; people believed in the inevitability of progress, and damn if we didn't walk on the moon. But the Vietnam War eventually became a huge chunk of our economy, and winding down the war had widespread effects

Carter is an extraordinary bright, energetic, and decent man. Like most people who have held the job, he probably really wasn't prepared for his fishbowl life in the White House, and he was not terribly charismatic. And he held office at at time when the country was as divided as it is now, but the divisions were more bitter because the wounds of the Vietnam War were much fresher. He got smacked by the contracting economy and by the oil shocks that made it worse, and he got no credit whatsoever for his handling of the Iranian hostage situation -- though his unexciting approach ensured that the hostages ultimately came home alive. He also made substantial progress on the Middle Eastern mess

The conservatives trash-talk him but I have a rather higher regard for him than for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or the two Bushes. His post-Presidential career has been inspiring by any standard, and the other ex-Presidents I remember pale in comparison


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
47. Only if you're an asshole Republican or a dimbulb Dem...
If we had listened to Carter, we wouldn't be in our present energy/environmental/endless-war-for-oil mess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
50. My parents hated Carter and loved Reagan. I am glad many people here can set the record straight.
All I ever heard as a kid back then (I was born in '75) was how awful Jimmy Carter was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
51. I was a Udall voter in the 76 primary and supported Ted Kennedy's
challenge in 1980.

I love Carter the man but never thought much of his Cabinet or his political instincts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #51
63. Far better ex-President than he was a President imo.
I did cast my first Presidential vote for him, but historical, where the big things matter, he was part of the regular DC establishment. I did support Ted in the primary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #63
75. Hey Rocky. Good morning.
I like your assessment. As citizens go, Jimmy and Rosalynn are strictly top-drawer. A certain Texan ex-President could learn a lot from them, in fact.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
52. Carter was not that bad. Obama is a nightmare. No comparison. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
live love laugh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #52
81. If Obama is a nightmare what was his predecessor? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #81
89. George W. Bush?
A pathetic moron who allowed himself to be controlled by right-wing players.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
live love laugh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #89
92. But not a nightmare--just a "pathetic moron"? So Obama's worse than Bush? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. It depends on where you stand, I guess.
Both were disasters, as far as I'm concerned. Why the need to rank them?

GWB did not try to force everyone in the nation to buy private health insurance.

He was the enemy of public education, but Obama has escalated the war on public educations to extremes GWB did not attempt.

GWB loved the war on terror, and used it to legitimize his bogus presidency. Obama says he's against "dumb" wars, but doesn't seem to see how, not only "dumb," but corrupt and dishonest the "war on terror" is, and has not only not removed our troops from Iraq, he's escalated our activities in Afghanistan.

And Obama is a Democrat, which yes, makes it worse.

Atrocities from Republicans are business as usual. From Democrats they are a betrayal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #81
90. Ha!! Good one! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
54. To each his own. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tumbulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
58. Carter is still a wonderful person
I went through a phase of short lived fame in the early 90's. During this time I met a lot of reporters. I heard from several that in order to interview President Carter they had to work on his "Habitat for Humanity" house for the same amount of time that they had taken him away from his physical labor on it. Thus, if he spent three hours with them, they had to really work those three hours on the house in his stead.

I was amazed. And I could see why there was such little coverage of what President Carter had to say about anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AwakeAtLast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
61. I was probably a weird kid
but I was six years old when Carter was elected. I really liked him and always paid attention to the news because of him. Then along came Reagan........ <sigh>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawaii Hiker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
64. Carter, along with JFK
Edited on Sun Feb-28-10 10:49 AM by Hawaii Hiker
I think were the only 2 presidents to never appoint anyone to the Supreme Court...Carter was no liberal either, but anyone who he'd have picked surely would have been better than anyone RR appointed...

And i think Chappaquiddick was too fresh in people's minds in 1980 for Kennedy to overcome that...Had he defeated Carter in the primary, the right would have brought up the incident to no end in the general election...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #64
87. Kennedy had no chance of winning in 1980. None.
Unfortunately, some of his "supporters" were also quite happy to have Reagan instead of Carter. There is no way that anyone should characterize Ted Kennedy as the opponent of the "Establishment" Carter. On defense, Carter with his Navy background was generally in the mainstream, though the pardons (on his first day in office) and his scaling back of the war machine made him the enemy of the "bomb them back into the stone age" types and of the defense contractors.

Some of the "big money" encouraging Kennedy in the primaries were using him to weaken Carter. The Dem primary was used effectively as part of the strategy to deny Carter his regional base in the South, keeping issues that played poorly in the South in the forefront. Compare the states carried by Carter in 1976 versus those in 1980.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southernyankeebelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
65. I believe Reagan made a deal with Iran to hold the american prisoners so Carter would lose by
the way he did. But Carter was an honorable man. He spoke to the truth. He was very intelligent and he wasn't part of the Washington DC club. He didn't hold allot of parties and I don't think he drank. You never heard of any bad things about him or his wife. When he left office he got involved with actual projects. Habitian for Humanity was one of the organizations he always works for. He has been a person of peace. No one can question his honor unlike Bush who has none. He didn't like Bush because Carter spoke to the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
67. Short answer: NO!
But just like the WAR HERO Kerry being compared to that AWOL Chickenshit bush* in opposites, it's all the way the CONSERVATIVE WHORE MEDIA wishes to portray it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
live love laugh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #67
82. Agree totally. Carter was and is a good human being--a must for a good president. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cmd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
68. He asked America to give up oil
Never cross a corporation. Jimmy was a very good President. Be proud of him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
71. 12% inflation & 15% interest rates....you decide..... eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
74. He appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed, which eventually led to breaking stagflation
Only problem was that Reagan was President when double digit inflation was finally tamed. So, Reagan got credit for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mstinamotorcity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
79. Jimmy carter was actually too honest
Edited on Sun Feb-28-10 01:48 PM by mstinamotorcity
for the repugs.They had already sold the country out to foreign oil and the iran crisis was only a catalyst to his downward spiral. He was the one who urged us to take a long look at our fuel consumption and the effects that it would have on our environment.He had the national speed limit reduced to fifty five miles per hour. He got people to learn about energy conservation.It even helped Chrysler come out with the k car.The body of the vehicle wasn't worth a damn,but the car got over thirty miles to a gallon of gas.Thats why we know that car company's can produce cars with better mileage features.He did start some deregulation but it was also the start of those savings and loans explosions.He was really the no drama President.The right made fun of him calling him a country peanut farmer and accused him of not being with America on big oil policies.The oil companies were losing money and promised the car companies that we had enough reserves here and that they would lift the highway speed limit to consume more gas and that they could start building bigger vehicles.And with that came the election of ole Ronnie boy. He was against unions,the middle class,and big government and was the product of right wing religious nutarooskis to separate the country by monetary status.Now here comes suv.And the foreign automakers making smaller cars and importing more of them at a lower cost.And eventually building on American soil.Carter was a decent man who in my opinion didnt have the stomach for what would become the start of the I hate big government propaganda ignorance.And as you can see the environment has not changed it has only gotten worse since then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
80. I like him and voted for him twice.
His honesty was refreshing, and stands in stark contrast to the present situation in all branches of our government, including the WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
craigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
84. Carter wasn't bad but his timing for being president was. He was the last gasp of the old new deal
coalition. The democatic party in congress was out for itself and felt like they didn't owe President Carter anything. He was also much more fiscally moderate than they were. Add to that, the repubs were out to get him from day 1. The country was turning conservative by the late 70's and the President had a hard time selling his policies that ran counter to the old consensus. Carter's major problem was that he ran as an outsider and stayed that way and was incapeable of compromising and playing politics. Obama has the repubs after him but it's not clear that the country is swinging conservative like it did in the late 1970's. Plus Obama does play politics and is a democratic insider who has the support of the party in congress. Obama is no Carter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
88. Carter did his best work after his presidency.
And he was a victim of a lot of things beyond his control. And some things that were.

There was the oil embargo, which sent interest rates and inflation through the roof. Then the hostage crisis, after he was clearly warned about letting the Shah into the country.

He initiated paying income taxes on 50% of unemployment benefits. Then Reagan made them completely taxable.

He defused a situation over the Panama Canal, that was ready to explode. The right really went after him for that, but, it had to be done.

And he, and Brzezinski sowed the seeds of today, in Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roseBudd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
95. Carter saw 10.5 million jobs created in 4 yrs. to W's 3 million in 4...
so obviously the repugnants who constantly use him as an example of failure need to look in the mirror
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warm regards Donating Member (350 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
99. I'm afraid so...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
103. before my time, but for the record
my dad, who voted for him, always thought he was kind of hokey and ineffective...

my mom on the other hand loved and still loves him...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul 13th 2014, 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC