Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
He's History's Greatest Monster!
Last week John McCain compared Barack Obama to William Jennings Bryan. This week:
"You know one of his favorite phrases is that I would be a Bush third term. Well I think maybe his proposals could be Carter second term," McCain told Fox.
If we assume that McCain is being clever, it's a nice stilleto stab at Obama's relative weakness with Jewish voters. Jimmy Carter's been working these last 4 years (and arguably longer) to become a Goldstein figure to AIPAC-style Jewish voters, with the publication of Peace Not Apartheid, with his meetings with Hamas, and with slashing rhetoric about the Zionist state.
But if we don't assume that, what is McCain trying to do? The Obama-Carter comparison has been bubbling up on the right, sometimes to talk about Obama's personality, sometimes to talk about the political coalition he could build (for the right) if he failed like Carter, sometimes to talk about energy. But the salience to voters... well, is there any? Reagan defeated Carter when Barack Obama was 19 years old. The Carter presidency predates MS-DOS, VHS tapes, and Cabbage Patch kids. When the Simpsons joked that Carter was "history's greatest monster" back in 1993, and the people of Springfield tore down his statue, it was already ironic.
On second thought, this is an even worse argument for McCain than I thought: He's not rebutting the idea that he's going to continue unpopular Bush policies. It's almost as if the McCain campaign is an echo chamber of well-heeled Republican consultants with very few new ideas. I know, it sounds ridiculous.
UPDATE: To respond to the comments... of course McCain is trying
to link Obama to bad memories of the Carter years. The problem is
that Carter, like every ex-president, has improved his image over
time, and the historical revisionism about his term has been going
on for about a decade now. Yes, there are voters who remember every
painful second of the Carter years and became staunch Alex
Keaton-ish Republicans because of it. But stack them next to the
100 percent of the electorate that's living through the Bush II
years. One argument connects with political junkies and voters who
remember their history, and one argument connects with everybody.
(The Carter revisionism has certainly been sped along by Bush's
failures. It's harder to keep raging about the gas shortage when,
in the here and now, you're paying $4 a gallon for gas.)
Dave W.|6.10.08 @ 9:09AM|#
Another great Weigel post and vid link.
Quibble dep't: Last paragraph should have been left on cutting room
floor. No need to state the obvious.
robc|6.10.08 @ 9:18AM|#
Its the economy, stupid.
Thats what the comparison to Carter means - "If Obama is elected we
will have double digit inflation and unemployment".
It has nothing to do with personality, political coalitions or
energy. Dave, did you live thru the Carter years?
|6.10.08 @ 9:22AM|#
It's such an obvious reference to the perceived(*) failure of
Carter's policies to address the economic issues of the late 70's
that I'm frankly flabbergasted that Weigel doesn't mention
this.
(*) Perceived because many historical observers blame late 70's
malaise on monetary policy far more than Carter's policies.
EDIT: robc beat me to it.
S Dowell|6.10.08 @ 9:24AM|#
I was wondering when McCain folk were going to get around to the
"Carter Second Term" in referencing Obama. It seemed like the very
obvious retort. Too bad the McCain camp's idea of a timeframe for a
comeback to anything Obama says, is two months after the initial
retort.
McCain is still going to lose the election (even as we still lose
as libertarians with either a McCain OR an Obama-nable
presidency).
BakedPenguin|6.10.08 @ 9:26AM|#
I think the Carter reference was also meant to remind people of our relation with Iran at the time.
tarran|6.10.08 @ 9:29AM|#
Sigh
You know Carter gets a lot of crap for the economic fallout of the
JFK, LBJ, RMN trifecta of inflation and in the case of Nixon price
controls.
Carter wasn't a great president. He is a liar and a hypocrite.
However, McCain would do well not to remind people of the 70's -
McCain shares Nixon's contempt for matters economic and is likely
do make the same boneheaded mistakes that produced double digit
inflation and shortages in the mid to late 70's.
Speaking for myself, I am not looking forward to the coming months:
my extended family will probably spend hours debating McCain vs.
Obama as if it really matters. To me, the whole exercise is a waste
of time; no matter who wins the election we're still really
fucked.
|6.10.08 @ 9:33AM|#
I also don't think there's a lot of lingering animosity from the
Clinton years. So you have to go back to Carter to invoke a strong
negative image of a Democratic President.
And as Dave makes apparent, there's a good portion of the
electorate which doesn't have a strong recollection of the Carter
years. Thus, again, McCain shows his advanced age.
Thesheriff\'sanig*|6.10.08 @ 9:34AM|#
THE MAJIC NEGRO WILL FORGIVE YOUR MANY,MANY,MANY SINS, YOU DIRTY, DIRTY, DIRTY BOY
Mark|6.10.08 @ 9:36AM|#
Can't you just be happy there's a guy running who wants to get out of Iraq, restore habeas corpus, and could actually balance the budget? Someone who is smart enough to know a gas tax holiday is a dumb idea and has enough spine to say so?
|6.10.08 @ 9:37AM|#
If we assume that McCain is being clever
John McCain is a man of many virtues. Were I to begin listing them
in order, it might take me some time to get to "clever."
I don't think digging around for subtle meanings in John McCain's
statetments is terribly worthwhile. He's a pretty straightforward
guy.
|6.10.08 @ 9:39AM|#
Is there any truth to the percepion that Carter was such a
decent and good man that he was powerless. That he
couldn't/wouldn't play "the game" in Washington and therefore was
completely innefective?
Yes, I am serious in my ignorance.
Snappy vid btw. The autoharp thru a tubescreamer into a Dumble
would have been keen
tarran|6.10.08 @ 9:39AM|#
I don't think digging around for subtle meanings in John McCain's statetments is terribly worthwhile. He's a pretty straightforward guy.
So basically he's trying to find the last Democrat president who
has a low popularity rating and has to go back a quarter century to
do it. Seems reasonable.
God, we are so fucked.
First Little Pig|6.10.08 @ 9:42AM|#
I am in my 40's and while I certainly "get" the message I can't imagine that it will have all that much impact on anyone under 50 and for the under 40-crowd it will only resonate with those raised in Carter-loathing-Republican households in which the kids took what their parents told them to heart. And these people were already going to vote for McCain.
robc|6.10.08 @ 9:47AM|#
And these people were already going to vote for
McCain.
Some of us are voting for Barr. Of course, my mom was a
Carter-loathing-Democrat so I was raised in a mixed Carter-loathing
household. I also was 7 when Carter came into office, so I was old
enough to loath him on my own.
Dave W.|6.10.08 @ 9:48AM|#
Is there any truth to the percepion that Carter was such a
decent and good man that he was powerless. That he
couldn't/wouldn't play "the game" in Washington and therefore was
completely innefective?
Yes, I am serious in my ignorance.
I second Brotherben's question (although this board probably isn't
the best place to get a fair answer).
And these people were already going to vote for
McCain.
I think the idea is that they need these people amped up enough to
get to the polls.
|6.10.08 @ 9:49AM|#
Yes, there are voters who remember every painful second of
the Carter years and became staunch Alex Keaton-ish Republicans
because of it. But stack them next to the 100 percent of the
electorate that's living through the Bush II years.
Let's not forget that John McCain is really, really, really effing
old.
robc, a "Carter-hating Democrat?" You mean, a Teddy voter?
|6.10.08 @ 9:53AM|#
OMG, Reason knows that AIPAC exists! I thought otherwise, given the stunning silence on last week's confab. Couldn't you guys get AIPAC to sponsor Moynihan to go cover it?
|6.10.08 @ 9:55AM|#
Jimmy Carter appointed both Paul Volker and Alfred Kahn.
McCain's gas tax gimmick makes me think he would be willing to
bring back price controls; tell me how Carter 2 would be worse than
Nixon 1.7.
BakedPenguin|6.10.08 @ 10:00AM|#
Who's this Alex Keaton person?
He was a banker who was friends with McCain and then invested
millions in junk bonds. Also, he hated Woody Harrelson.
robc|6.10.08 @ 10:04AM|#
joe,
I guarantee she didnt vote for Kennedy. Probably voted for Carter
in the primary, anyway. I know she voted for Reagan once and
regrets it.
She voted for Clinton a few weeks back and is now shopping 3rd
party candidates. She will probably vote Barr, but isnt a fan of
his.
If the GOP had been smart and chosen Paul, she would be voting GOP
for prez for the first time since that Reagan vote.
PC|6.10.08 @ 10:04AM|#
Bush and Carter?
I have always found Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson to be closer
comparisons for McDole and Obama.
McCain is like Teddy Roosevelt with nukes, a larger army, and
advisers who embrace empire very much.
Obama, at least it is my suspicion will be like Woodrow Wilson,
raping us domestically with laws and regulations and raping us
again with numerous foreign interventions though not as suicidal as
McCain would be with choosing interventions.
|6.10.08 @ 10:05AM|#
Its the economy, stupid.
I swear to Christ, we need to find whoever coined this and tattoo
"I am a consescending fuck" across his forehead.
Dave W.|6.10.08 @ 10:05AM|#
Quick plug 4 my band:
No, I don't recollect no JFK
But I remember Jimmy Carter and he was okay
He had the Gary Sandy hair
He had a disarming way
Like Japan's Prime Minister, Junichiro Koizumi
[long passage on Japanese politics circa 2002)
Cuz its hard to week tears for JFK
Only meeting the cat yesterday
Shaky in the grains of the siver halide display
Set into the gelatin by Zapruder's Super 8
That song is on the If Not Why Not? album and can be
downloaded (fee) via my sig link).
|6.10.08 @ 10:08AM|#
If Obama wants the troops out of Iraq, it's only because he wants to send them to Africa.
|6.10.08 @ 10:09AM|#
McCain is like Teddy Roosevelt with nukes, a larger army,
and advisers who embrace empire very much.
So, not really Teddy Roosevelt at all, then? Add all that stuff and
all you have left is Teddy's badassery. Hanoi Hilton
notwithstanding, McCain is nowhere near badass enough to take a
bullet from a would-be assassin and keep speaking for 15
minutes.
|6.10.08 @ 10:10AM|#
I swear to Christ, we need to find whoever coined this and
tattoo "I am a consescending fuck" across his forehead.
Is it some sort of mystery that it reply to this
tarran|6.10.08 @ 10:11AM|#
brotherben,
Carter's problem, is seems, was that he did have an internal moral
code which he wanted to impose, but knowing that there would be
internal resistance to his ideas he tried to play his cards close
to his chest. He didn't trust the people below him and he tried to
manipulate them in order to get his way. This became obvious
quickly and resulted in many of the civil "servants" particularly
in the security forces passively opposing him and trying to
undermine him.
The cashiering of Gen Singlaub was a classic case of this: he was
the commander of U.S. forces in Korea but was kept ignorant of
Carter's decision to pull a significant number of troops out of the
country. He was cashiered for stating in an interview that he
thought such a plan would be a bad idea and that it was not the
policy of the U.S. Of course, the people whom carter had told then
went and asked him if he had been yanking their chains when he had
told them he had made the decision, so Carter threw Singlaub under
the bus. This of course earend Carter the ire of all the
"anti-communists" in the govt. Singlaub had a lot of cred with
them.
Singlaub incidentally went on to be involved in supplying the
Contras with weapons and apparently was shunted aside by Ollie
North since Singlaub considered North's preferred arms dealer to be
a charlatan who provided crappy unserviceable weapons. He alleged
in his autobiography that North was getting kickbacks from the
crappy arms dealer to the tune of $200,000 1985-dollars. a lot of
people made fun of Singlaub because in his testimony in Congress he
referred to the citizens of the U.S. as United Statesians.
Singlaub is also the guy who parachuted into a Japanese POW camp
(guarded by a battallion of troops) with a squad of men and
intimidated the camp commandant into surrendering to him (there was
evidence that the commandant was planning to massacre the POW's to
prevent testimony about war crimes). Massively outnumbered, he and
his men then held the camp for several days until reinforcements
could arrive. He's a very colorful character.
|6.10.08 @ 10:12AM|#
Carter also deregulated the airline industry. Carter gets a lot
of bad rap for economic affairs that were plainly either a) someone
else's fault b) an accident of timing. He f'ed up the Iran thing,
but on the economy he was taken for a ride.
Presidents get too much credit and blame for the economy. Clinton
is a prime example who got a ton of credit for something he just
happened to be president at the same time as (and to his credit,
didn't smother it in the cradle). Carter got too much blame and
actually made some good choices that Reagan benefitted from
(picking Volcker was a great choice).
First Little Pig|6.10.08 @ 10:20AM|#
"I also was 7 when Carter came into office, so I was old enough
to loath him on my own."
I hope you were being ironic because if you were not ....
HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHA!
|6.10.08 @ 10:22AM|#
I have one overriding impression of the Carter years. I was a
junior enlisted during the man's administration, due ti rampant
inflation and parsimonious cost of living raises for the military,
I had to get promoted just to stay even.
Of course that is not all Jimmy's fault, there was a Democratic
controlled congress, and the mess from previous administrations
already touched on upthread, that deserves much of the blame as
well.
One other Carter observation -
The Iranians released the embassy hostages when they did not to
spite Carter, but for fear of what the US military would do under
Reagan.
One more humble observation (my last this comment, I promise)
-
The historical revevaluation of the Carter years doesn't get him
out of the lower tier of presidents. Reevaluation of the Ford
presidency has been much kinder.
|6.10.08 @ 10:26AM|#
P Brooks,
There are 160,000 American troops in Iraq. 4100 have died there in
about 1900 days. We have spent have a trillion dollars to
date.
It is estimated that an American-only mission to end the genoice in
Darfur would require 3000 troops, which is roughly the size of the
force in Kosovo. Zero American troops have been killed in combat in
the peacekeeping/enforcement missions in the Balkans.
Whether you like peacekeeping and humanitarian missions or not, it
is beyond absurd to claim that a the difference between Bush's use
of the military and Obama's is merely a change in geography.
There are good arguments against such missions, but "not a dime's
worth of difference" is not among them.
Colin Clout|6.10.08 @ 10:28AM|#
Mo,
The Carter administration if my recollection is correct made a
significant effort to curb the size of the government.
|6.10.08 @ 10:30AM|#
I guess the real question is this: if McCain's comparison of
Obama to Carter gets major airplay, will it provide a net gain or
net loss to his campaign.
example: my folks love Carter to this day. If Bush the 3rd says
Obama is like Carter, then Obama gets their vote. They, like many
others are tired of the war, the economy, the percieved arrogance
or the repubs. They are looking for a breath of fresh air, like
Carter was in 76'. Like Obama appears in 08'
robc|6.10.08 @ 10:35AM|#
I wasnt being ironic in the sense than a 7-11 year old generally doesnt realize how little power the prez really has over things like the economy (see Mo's post above yours).
First Little Pig|6.10.08 @ 10:43AM|#
robc,
Your statement that your parents hated Carter when you were 7-11
years old and hated him "on your own" is ironic. Without your
parents hating him, it is inconceivable that at 7 you would have as
well. Had your parents loved the guy so too would you have. Had you
been raised by bears you would not have had a clue about
Carter.
|6.10.08 @ 10:44AM|#
Carter gets a lot of bad rap for economic affairs that were
plainly either a) someone else's fault b) an accident of
timing.
Ditto George H. W. Bush.
They have both seen their reputations improve, as people have been
able to look back at economic history with cooler heads.
|6.10.08 @ 10:46AM|#
MP-Cut me some slack. I was 8 years old when it was
coined.
Then that means you're young enough to Google first and ask
questions second. :P
robc|6.10.08 @ 10:50AM|#
FLP,
hated? I never used the word hated. I think joe converted my
loathed to hated.
Personally, loathed was too strong, but it was used by someone else
and I took it.
My parents rarely agree on anything politically (except that
neither want to vote for Obama or McCain - its the unity election
:) ) so any dislike of Carter I picked up on my own well before my
mom got around to it.
Heck, the lady across the street who gave me the Ford/Dole bumper
sticker for my bedroom door (I had lots of stickers on it) probably
had more to do with it than my parents.
stephen the goldberger|6.10.08 @ 10:53AM|#
Dave you're off the mark here. Carter is viewed as a naive,
weak, and economically ignorant president by today's standards. All
the historical revisionism/ hard work Carter has been doing is a
result of the disaster of his presidency. He's working overtime to
try and convince the American public that he's worthy of being
liked, despite being an awful president.
McCain is trying to call Obama naive and weak for one, and a
economic liberal with policies remaniscent of Carter. Its not just
about Jewish voters. It could stick, becuase Obama has said/done
some things that make him seem all three, and its certainly a less
flattering comparison than JFK.
TallDave|6.10.08 @ 11:11AM|#
Malaise Forever!
Yeah, I think stephen above nails it. Obama is bringing back all
the Carter economics and foreign policy: government intervention at
home, weakness abroad.
But stack them next to the 100 percent of the electorate that's
living through the Bush II years.
During Carter's admin unemployment and inflation were twice what
they were over Bush's term. We lost Iran to a bunch of religious
nuts, then watched the Soviets invade Afghanistan in response to
our unilaterally cutting arms programs.
Lest people forget, that was the period when a lot of people
thought we were going to lose the Cold War.
|6.10.08 @ 11:11AM|#
I guess I am far more worried that Obama will be more like LBJ than Carter. Just like LBJ he could very well pass legislation that will stay with us and burden and bankrupt our children. LBJ passed medicare/medicaid, which is trillons of dollars in the red. Obama, with a willing democratic congress, could pass Universal Health care and a global warming tax in the form of a tax or a cap/trade program, which is just a inefficient tax at best. These may make Medicare/medicaid look tame.
bubba|6.10.08 @ 11:11AM|#
you're paying $4 a gallon for gas
The whole point is that you can buy all the gas you want for that
$4/gal. There are no rations or shortages.
But Weigel is spot on that the electorate's memory is the
equivalent of a 5 minute tape. Everyone has paid $4 a gallon, and
remembers that it was $1.50 not that long ago. And they have no
idea what Obama's policies would actually do to the price of
gas.
TallDave|6.10.08 @ 11:19AM|#
and its certainly a less flattering comparison than
JFK.
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we
shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support
any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the
success of liberty." -- JFK
"The best way to press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for
their future is to make it clear that we are leaving." -- BHO
Sean Healy|6.10.08 @ 11:21AM|#
I'm an 'Aipac-style' Jew and Obama doesn't bother me at all. Carter is a different story. My first political act, undertaken during the hostage crisis, was to scratch Iran off my mother's antique globe with a penny. Carter didn't even have the guts to do that much.
|6.10.08 @ 11:25AM|#
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh-hstry.htm
Scroll down, and you find the June 1-4 approval poll of
ex-presidents.
Jimmy Carter nets out at +27, meaning his approval rating is 27
points higher than his disapproval.
George W. Bush has been getting about 29% approve, 60% disapprove,
for about a -31.
Colin Clout|6.10.08 @ 11:25AM|#
TallDave,
We lost Iran to a bunch of religious nuts,
That would have happened no matter who was in office. Unless you
are suggesting that we should intervened militarily in the Iranian
Revolution. Anyway, it seems to me that it was the conditions on
the ground which "lost Iran." I don't think those conditions were
the fault of the Carter administration.
...then watched the Soviets invade Afghanistan in response to
our unilaterally cutting arms programs.
If I am not mistaken, the Carter administration started sending
arms to various anti-Soviet elements in Afghanistan in 1979.
|6.10.08 @ 11:26AM|#
Tell my grandparents that Medicare is hurting the country that
they shouldn't have it anymore.
Tell my step-dad that he should have his Medicaid benefits cut,
because it's bleeding the country dry.
Medicaid and Medicare are strawmen arguements propped up by
Republicans that would much rather see their friends make money
instead up helping those that need help... and Libertarians that
really have no clue as to the ramifications that cutting such
programs will harm far more Americans.
Charles|6.10.08 @ 11:31AM|#
Tell my grandparents that Medicare is hurting the country
that they shouldn't have it anymore.
Tell my step-dad that he should have his Medicaid benefits cut,
because it's bleeding the country dry.
Medicaid and Medicare are strawmen arguements propped up by
Republicans that would much rather see their friends make money
instead up helping those that need help... and Libertarians that
really have no clue as to the ramifications that cutting such
programs will harm far more Americans.
???
|6.10.08 @ 11:31AM|#
TallDave,
If the Wiki article is accurate, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
was spurred on by Carter administration moves to suck the soviets
into a Vietnam style debacle.
Some have suggested that the 10 years there are what bankrupted the
Soviets and ended the cold war.
The conclusion being that it was Carter, not Reagan, that triggered
the victory for the U.S. in the cold war. Reagan just enjoyed the
trickle down.
kinnath|6.10.08 @ 11:32AM|#
The Carter Years: Misery index approaching 20% (10% inflation
plus 10% unemployment).
Time magazine ran article about one of Jimmie's economic press
releases with the lede "More Mush From The Wimp" over Jimmies
photo.
One of Ronnie's most powerful comments about Jimmie's term was "You
need to ask yourself: Are you better off now than you were four
years ago?" You young whipper-snappers probably don't understand
how devastating that question was.
robc|6.10.08 @ 11:32AM|#
ThunderMonkey,
Get them to read this:
TM's grandparents and stepdad: buy your own damn healthcare. Thanks
much. If you cant afford it, give a call to your local church and
see if they can help you out.
|6.10.08 @ 11:34AM|#
"We" lost Iran because it, like the rest of the globe, is, of
course, ours.
Barack Obama's foreign policy will be much more like Jimmy Carter's
than like TallDave's. Let the record show that there is no
disagreement about this whatever.
|6.10.08 @ 11:35AM|#
One of Ronnie's most powerful comments about Jimmie's term
was "You need to ask yourself: Are you better off now than you were
four years ago?" You young whipper-snappers probably don't
understand how devastating that question was.
Oh, I think we do. I think that question is going to get a great
deal of play in this election.
|6.10.08 @ 11:40AM|#
Tell my grandparents that Medicare is hurting the country
that they shouldn't have it anymore.
Post their phone number. I'll call them myself.
|6.10.08 @ 11:43AM|#
I'm too young to remember Jimmy Carter's presidency, so I squeak
by, kinnath.
I'm hip. I know about you kids, with your e-pods and your tea
shades.
Chucka-chucka-chucka-chucka...
Colin Clout|6.10.08 @ 11:46AM|#
kinnath,
If the rather ugly 1983 recession had stretched into 1984 then we'd
remember Reagan a whole lot differently. In other words, I think we
can all agree that Presidents (and the Congress) have very little
short-term effect on the state of the economy. Indeed, isn't this
why many economists are wary of the use of fiscal policy as a means
to guide the economy?
|6.10.08 @ 11:49AM|#
["You need to ask yourself: Are you better off now than you were
four years ago?"]
Yeah, I remember that. The answer then, as now, was: no.
But given that Jimmy was 30 years ago, and Bush is still ongoing,
I'm willing to give Obama a shot.
The sad thing is that he might just very well preside over
double-digit inflation and energy problems because it's debateable
whether or not we've truly reaped the results of the Fed and the
government's economic policies the last seven years.
kinnath|6.10.08 @ 11:51AM|#
In other words, I think we can all agree that Presidents
(and the Congress) have very little short-term effect on the state
of the economy.
Perhaps a few percent of the general population acutally understand
that the president has almost no direct influence on the
economy.
kinnath|6.10.08 @ 11:53AM|#
I remember thinking that Reagan sounded really good on economics
but was a total lunatic on foreign policy.
Eight years later the Soviet Union was dead or dieing and Reagan
had increase the budget deficit by more than all previous
administrations prior.
Fluffy|6.10.08 @ 11:54AM|#
then watched the Soviets invade Afghanistan in response to
our unilaterally cutting arms programs.
This actually isn't true. Carter was not in any particular hurry to
actually use the military, but he loved weapons systems
and defense appropriations increased during his term. Most of the
weapons systems that came to fruition during the Reagan years were
planted as seeds by Carter. A good part of Reagan's defense
appropriations increases were moving Carter-era weapons from the
developmental to the acquisition stage.
Kolohe|6.10.08 @ 11:55AM|#
Mo and robc are dead on.
My personal reason to dislike Carter was, as a 6 year old standing
outside in the cold waiting to see the Nat'l xmas tree lighting, he
then wound up not lighting it, due to the hostages. This would have
been nice to know earlier in the day.
His fundamental weakness was he was a inveterate micromanager. His
closest historical analog in many respects was Hoover, who, in what
I believe is no coincidence was also an engineer by training.
He gets full blame for the way the Iran hostage situation played
out, and enabled the Russians to be at their peak post ww2
power.
But on the economy, he gets unfairly blamed. And in many ways gets
insufficient credit. Taking the hard medicine of Volker's policies
fatallly doomed his election prospects for a second term, but
enabled a more or less continuous 20 plus year boom. And the stuff
like deregulation of transportation sectors was invaluable toward
creating modern prosperity.
|6.10.08 @ 11:58AM|#
My first political act, undertaken during the hostage
crisis, was to scratch Iran off my mother's antique globe with a
penny.
So, you wiped Iran off the map?! :-)
kinnath|6.10.08 @ 12:04PM|#
I'm too young to remember Jimmy Carter's presidency, . . .
.
So Bill Clinton is the only democratic president you've
experienced. No wonder your world view is so skewed ;-)
Colin Clout|6.10.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Kolohe,
...and enabled the Russians to be at their peak post ww2
power.
I'm not quite sure how that is possible though. By the late 1970s
the USSR was in economic decline. Now perhaps they were perceived
as powerful when they in fact weren't, but that perception was
going to fade sooner or later.
tarran|6.10.08 @ 12:21PM|#
If you're looking for a President to blame for "losing" Iran,
you gotta go after Eisenhower.
The U.S. lost the Iranian people as allies
in 1953 - it took another 25 years for the process to play
itself out to its inevitable conclusion.
|6.10.08 @ 12:27PM|#
One of Ronnie's most powerful comments about Jimmie's term
was "You need to ask yourself: Are you better off now than you were
four years ago?" You young whipper-snappers probably don't
understand how devastating that question was.
McCain had better hope Obama doesn't ask that. More
people think they are worse off now compared to the prior year
than any time since the question was asked, including the Carter
years.
|6.10.08 @ 1:08PM|#
Carter also tried to kill the B1 bomber program, as I recall, in
order to spend the money on more advanced technologies. What comes
next in this series: B1...?
Do you suppose stealth technology had any effect on the Cold
War?
Carter was fucked up- the stories about him scheduling the White
House tennis courts are a prime example of his "hands on"
management style, but I'm not ready to class him with the current
occupant of the Nation's NutHouse.
|6.10.08 @ 1:20PM|#
If the Wiki article is accurate, the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan was spurred on by Carter administration moves to suck
the soviets into a Vietnam style debacle.
Since this is also what gave rise to the Taliban and was a major
spur to global Islamist militancy, does this mean that 9/11 and the
WOT were also Carter's fault?
Dang, I knew I didn't like the guy, but . . .
|6.10.08 @ 1:44PM|#
R C Dean, since we were allies or at least business partners with several nations in the area, I would think that something after Carter must have happened to change their opinion of the U.S.
|6.10.08 @ 1:54PM|#
"Taking the hard medicine of Volker's policies fatallly
doomed his election prospects for a second term, but enabled a more
or less continuous 20 plus year boom. And the stuff like
deregulation of transportation sectors was invaluable toward
creating modern prosperity.
Carter was even talking about decriminalizing cannabis. Then "Saint
Reagan" came along and took that away from us.
Am I better off under the present regime than I was 8 years ago?
No! At least when Clinton was in office I was employed full time,
now I'm working 2 part time jobs with no benefits. Bush screwed the
pooch and with his hand picked cronies were instrumental in driving
our economy into the dirt.
|6.10.08 @ 1:55PM|#
...or maybe it was the opium they was all smokin, cause it
coulnd't a been Carters fault.
teehee
stephen the goldberger|6.10.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Scroll down, and you find the June 1-4 approval poll of
ex-presidents.
Jimmy Carter nets out at +27, meaning his approval rating is 27
points higher than his disapproval.
Yes people approve of the job he's done as an ex-president, they
think he's done a dignified job in the position but that doesn't
mean they approve of the job he did as president. Any comparison to
Carter as president is a negative one, and not something Obama
wants to be associated with.
|6.10.08 @ 2:13PM|#
It's a reasonable comparison if it causes people to ask whether the windfall profits tax on oil in Carter's term worked. (And how the Synfuels Corp did, for that matter.)
|6.10.08 @ 2:24PM|#
I was 10 when Carter was wrapping up his term. It is my vivid recollection Jimmy Carter was a farter. Oh, and he gave away the Panama Canal, whatever that is.
|6.10.08 @ 4:17PM|#
I was born just a couple of months before Reagan took office.
This message is completely lost on me and everyone in my peer group
and younger. I barely remember Reagan...
McCain can compare Obama to Carter until he's blue in the face, and
I predict it will have no effect at all on the droves of under-30's
clamoring to vote for Obama. To most of them (the ones that will
bother to vote, anyway) the very idea of voting for a black
president is different, while the idea of electing a rather old
white guy cut from the same cloth as the previous old white guy is,
well, not.
TallDave|6.10.08 @ 4:18PM|#
So, you wiped Iran off the map?!
That is a blatant mistranslation of what he said.
|6.10.08 @ 4:24PM|#
stephen the goldberger,
Here is the question that was asked in the June 1-4 2006
poll:
"From what you have heard, read, or remember about some of our past
presidents, please tell me if you approve or disapprove of the way
each of the following handled their job as president."
TallDave|6.10.08 @ 4:25PM|#
"Taking the hard medicine of Volker's policies fatallly
doomed his election prospects for a second term
Volcker was a good choice, probably the best thing Carter did as
President, but he was appointed in late 1979 and the painful
recession actually began in July 1981 and hurt Reagan badly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession
The "Reagan recession," coupled with budget cuts (which were
enacted in 1981 but began to take effect in 1982), led many voters
to believe that Reagan was insensitive to the needs of average
citizens. Reagan's approval ratings sank. In January 1983, Reagan's
popularity rating fell to 35%-approaching levels experienced by
Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter at their most unpopular moments.
Although his approval rating did not fall as low as Nixon's during
Watergate, Reagan's reelection seemed unlikely
TallDave|6.10.08 @ 4:27PM|#
"From what you have heard, read, or remember about some of
our past presidents, please tell me if you approve or disapprove of
the way each of the following handled their job as
president."
I heard he built some houses for the homeless last week, so I
conclude he probably did a good job as President.
TallDave|6.10.08 @ 4:36PM|#
This actually isn't true. Carter was not in any particular
hurry to actually use the military, but he loved weapons
systems
"Democrat Jimmy Carter, reflecting his own party's post-Vietnam
skepticism of military power, called the B-1 a wasteful and
unnecessary program and pledged to oppose it, if elected.
When Carter prevailed in the November election, the B-1 program
entered a new and highly uncertain phase. Ford, departing the White
House in January 1977, left behind a long-range budget that funded
244 B-1s, but Ford's over-the-shoulder bomber plan was of little
consequence. Everyone knew the actual decision would be made by the
new Administration.
The more-dovish Carter took office holding strong views about
national defense generally and manned penetrating bombers in
particular. The new President believed the Soviet Union would react
favorably if Washington unilaterally constrained its strategic
nuclear programs.
Carter, through Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, instructed the
Pentagon to study the feasibility of reducing the US strategic
arsenal. The Democrat believed he should slow down or stop programs
that could derail superpower arms control.
Most observers expected Carter to cancel the B-1, and, on June 30,
1977, he did just that. In explanation, he called it "a very
expensive weapon" that was "not now necessary" because of the
"recent evolution of the cruise missile." Despite the efforts of
Air Force and some Congressional leaders, Carter could not be made
to see the value of a penetrating bomber."
http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2006/0706bombers.asp
TallDave|6.10.08 @ 4:41PM|#
There's a story that after he cancelled it, he asked a Soviet leader if they would reduce their own arsenal in reciprocation, who laughed and said "Sir, I am neither an altruist nor a pacifist."
DJ Voton|6.10.08 @ 5:17PM|#
It's harder to keep raging about the gas shortage when, in
the here and now, you're paying $4 a gallon for gas.
I'd rather pay $44 a gallon for gas than sit in line all day for a
tankful, as I did when that tool Carter was president.
|6.10.08 @ 5:17PM|#
That is a blatant mistranslation of what he said.
First, it was my attempt at humor. Second, I don't think I
mis-translated (blatant or otherwise) his statement one bit.
Here is what he said:
My first political act, undertaken during the hostage crisis,
was to scratch Iran off my mother's antique
globe with a penny.
scratch off = wipe off
globe = map
Now, go genius tell me where did I mis-translate him?
|6.10.08 @ 6:20PM|#
anon,
Ahmedinejad said "Israel will be erased from the pages of history."
It has often been translated as "wiped off the map," and some
people have complained about that.
Dave W. Explains It All|6.11.08 @ 9:10AM|#
Ahmedinejad said "Israel will be erased from the pages of
history." It has often been translated as "wiped off the map," and
some people have complained about that.
I think the idea is that erasing from the pages of history sounds a
bit less immediate and violent than wiping off the map. Neither way
seems that nice, but I think he sees the nation as some sort of
misplaced Holocaust reparation and that is why he is so angry at
Israel.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245