I have heard this over and over and even some Democrats concede this point. And I was wondering how/why he is considered so bad? What happened during his reign to warrant this label?

 

He couldn't have foreseen the Iranian hostage incident? Was it the boycott of the Olympics? The President does not have full power over inflation rates?

 

How in the world could someone have been got to the point of nomination and then elected if he was not capable of being at least a decent President? The other side may disagree with the positions and will politicize them and paint them as they see fit to help get their party candidates elected but that does not mean they are as bad as they say. (see the entire 2000 millenium)

 

I was at the age that I didn't care, (11 thru 15) so I don't really recall anything except the little orange stickers on light switches at school that asked us to conserve energy and turn the lights off when we left the room.

I think Carter was perceived as a “wimp” internationally. Instead of trying to deal with the Russian invasion of Afghanistan diplomatically he did the boycott of the Olympics. That did absolutely nothing but help the Russian’s international perspective that they were the superior super power. I thought that Carter giving up control of the Panama Canal was a very poor decision. Also there was a lot of internal conflict within the Democratic Party during that time. Ted Kennedy almost beat Carter in the Democratic Primary in ’80.

I have heard this over and over and even some Democrats concede this point. And I was wondering how/why he is considered so bad? What happened during his reign to warrant this label?

 

He couldn't have foreseen the Iranian hostage incident? Was it the boycott of the Olympics? The President does not have full power over inflation rates?

 

How in the world could someone have been got to the point of nomination and then elected if he was not capable of being at least a decent President? The other side may disagree with the positions and will politicize them and paint them as they see fit to help get their party candidates elected but that does not mean they are as bad as they say. (see the entire 2000 millenium)

 

I was at the age that I didn't care, (11 thru 15) so I don't really recall anything except the little orange stickers on light switches at school that asked us to conserve energy and turn the lights off when we left the room.

 

LBBC, surely you jest...

LBBC, surely you jest...

Not in the least. How do you get through the political process if you have no abilities to lead? Why would the party want to take the chance to look SO VERY BAD and lead to losing the office, as they Dems did for the next 8 years?

 

Some will take this opportunity to bash GW and we all know who will do that. And like we haven't heard their same tired arguments before.

 

Has GW done some things I have questioned? Most definitely.

Has GW done some things I don't understand? Most definitely.

Does that make him a bad President? Most definitely not.

 

I hardly ever agree with Bill Clinton but I thought he made one of the best comments from a politician that I have ever heard. They asked him if he would be handling/doing/done the same things that GW has done in the Middle East. What a chance to bash GW. But he did not.

 

Instead he answered and I will have to paraphrase, "I am not party to the daily briefings and intelligence that he is, so I cannot say what I would have done."

 

I thought that was a great, great comment. We don't know what the sitting President knows. And whomever thinks they do, is fooling themselves.

I have heard this over and over and even some Democrats concede this point. And I was wondering how/why he is considered so bad? What happened during his reign to warrant this label?

 

He couldn't have foreseen the Iranian hostage incident? Was it the boycott of the Olympics? The President does not have full power over inflation rates?

 

How in the world could someone have been got to the point of nomination and then elected if he was not capable of being at least a decent President? The other side may disagree with the positions and will politicize them and paint them as they see fit to help get their party candidates elected but that does not mean they are as bad as they say. (see the entire 2000 millenium)

 

I was at the age that I didn't care, (11 thru 15) so I don't really recall anything except the little orange stickers on light switches at school that asked us to conserve energy and turn the lights off when we left the room.

 

Well you have to remember the times.

 

Carter was elected in '76, the year of our Bicentennial. He was from a poor farm background, rode his intelligence to the Naval Academy, put his education to good use and was the Peanut Farmer turned Governor of Georgia. Rags to riches story.

 

'76 we were 2 years removed from Watergate and while Ford did a credible job trying to put that behind us he was the victim of the devestation that Nixon left in the GOP and the country. (That and his party was split between himself and the new Goldwateresque leader Ronald Reagan) Carter was an outsider and beyond the beltway so people saw him as an untainted savior from the grass roots.

 

All of that was enough to put him over the top vs. Ford who was even more mundane than Carter. BTW the vote was very close and a few states tilted the other way would have given Ford the election.

 

Carter inherited an economy where inflation was exploding and energy issues were coming to the forefront. His high water mark was being seen as the mediator between Israel and Egypt (Begin and Sadat). But in Post Vietnam budgets the military was scaled back and spending was rolled backwards. Some programs for missles we used later were pushed up but the roll backs would have happened regardless of who was President. (Reagan stopped the roll backs and increased military spending but at the price of a huge deficit and allowing the social Democrats to continue their big spending at the same time.)

 

In the end Carter lacked the charisma, the leadership and the ability to articulate the American Dream that most of America wanted. Couple that with all the events that devestated him and you have the triumph of Ronald Reagan who could do all of the above.

Well you have to remember the times.

 

Carter was elected in '76, the year of our Bicentennial. He was from a poor farm background, rode his intelligence to the Naval Academy, put his education to good use and was the Peanut Farmer turned Governor of Georgia. Rags to riches story.

 

'76 we were 2 years removed from Watergate and while Ford did a credible job trying to put that behind us he was the victim of the devestation that Nixon left in the GOP and the country. (That and his party was split between himself and the new Goldwateresque leader Ronald Reagan) Carter was an outsider and beyond the beltway so people saw him as an untainted savior from the grass roots.

 

All of that was enough to put him over the top vs. Ford who was even more mundane than Carter. BTW the vote was very close and a few states tilted the other way would have given Ford the election.

 

.

Well that sounds very similar to 2000 and 2008. GW wasn't the greatest but he was better than the alternatives.

Well that sounds very similar to 2000 and 2008. GW wasn't the greatest but he was better than the alternatives.

 

 

You probably aren't far off there. I'm not Bush supporter but let's face it, Kerry and Gore didn't have the charismatic appeal of a JFK, Clinton, Reagan or FDR.

 

Watching Kerry and Gore was like looking back at Fritz Mondale in '84 and Doukakis in '88 and thinking "What are the Dems seeing that I'm not?"

You probably aren't far off there. I'm not Bush supporter but let's face it, Kerry and Gore didn't have the charismatic appeal of a JFK, Clinton, Reagan or FDR.

 

Watching Kerry and Gore was like looking back at Fritz Mondale in '84 and Doukakis in '88 and thinking "What are the Dems seeing that I'm not?"

Great comparison. Doukakis may have been the worse choice for a Presidential candidate ever.

 

When was the last time that we had two good choices? Bush I and Clinton? Reagan and Carter? Kennedy and Nixon?

I've read in several places that Carter was possibly the most moral President we've had in a long time.

When was the last time that we had two good choices? Bush I and Clinton? Reagan and Carter? Kennedy and Nixon?

Nixon and McGovern

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:lol:

The Carter presidency was the perfect storm of a bad situation coupled with a president that wasn't up to the job. In 1976 we were suffering from the after effects of two huge blows to our economy. We were running large deficits (at least they seemed large at the time. They were nothing compared to the Reagan and Bush deficits) as a result of not paying for the Vietnam war and oil shortages as a result of the Arab Oil embargo. This lead to huge interest rates and runaway inflation. Carter and Fed Chairman Paul Volker took very aggressive steps to sweat the inflation out of the ecoomy, but the strong medicine they prescribed gave us high unemployment and high interest rates (the misery index that Reagan road to a win). The medicine worked, but the patient didn't recover until the 80s, also aided by the Reagan tax cuts.

When the Iranian hostage crisis came along, Carter had three choices. He could try to negotiate a release, he could try a rescue or he could have said that a great country could not be held hostage and given the Iranians a deadline followed by bombing Tehran. The 50 hostages would have been sacrificed. He tried negotiations and a rescue attempt. The rescue didn't work and that opprtunity was gone. The negotiations worked, but not until a few minutes (literally) after he left office.

 

All in all, I think that Carter was a good man that just wasn't up to the job due to a combination of circumstances, timing, luck and his own limitations.

Not in the least. How do you get through the political process if you have no abilities to lead? Why would the party want to take the chance to look SO VERY BAD and lead to losing the office, as they Dems did for the next 8 years?

 

Some will take this opportunity to bash GW and we all know who will do that. And like we haven't heard their same tired arguments before.

 

Has GW done some things I have questioned? Most definitely.

Has GW done some things I don't understand? Most definitely.

Does that make him a bad President? Most definitely not.

 

I hardly ever agree with Bill Clinton but I thought he made one of the best comments from a politician that I have ever heard. They asked him if he would be handling/doing/done the same things that GW has done in the Middle East. What a chance to bash GW. But he did not.

 

Instead he answered and I will have to paraphrase, "I am not party to the daily briefings and intelligence that he is, so I cannot say what I would have done."

 

I thought that was a great, great comment. We don't know what the sitting President knows. And whomever thinks they do, is fooling themselves.

 

 

I was thinking more along the lines of Harding and Grant.

All in all, I think that Carter was a good man that just wasn't up to the job due to a combination of circumstances, timing, luck and his own limitations.

:thumb: :thumb:

Well you have to remember the times.

 

Carter was elected in '76, the year of our Bicentennial. He was from a poor farm background, rode his intelligence to the Naval Academy, put his education to good use and was the Peanut Farmer turned Governor of Georgia. Rags to riches story.

 

'76 we were 2 years removed from Watergate and while Ford did a credible job trying to put that behind us he was the victim of the devestation that Nixon left in the GOP and the country. (That and his party was split between himself and the new Goldwateresque leader Ronald Reagan) Carter was an outsider and beyond the beltway so people saw him as an untainted savior from the grass roots.

 

All of that was enough to put him over the top vs. Ford who was even more mundane than Carter. BTW the vote was very close and a few states tilted the other way would have given Ford the election.

 

Carter inherited an economy where inflation was exploding and energy issues were coming to the forefront. His high water mark was being seen as the mediator between Israel and Egypt (Begin and Sadat). But in Post Vietnam budgets the military was scaled back and spending was rolled backwards. Some programs for missles we used later were pushed up but the roll backs would have happened regardless of who was President. (Reagan stopped the roll backs and increased military spending but at the price of a huge deficit and allowing the social Democrats to continue their big spending at the same time.)

 

In the end Carter lacked the charisma, the leadership and the ability to articulate the American Dream that most of America wanted. Couple that with all the events that devestated him and you have the triumph of Ronald Reagan who could do all of the above.

 

 

 

Pretty darn accurate.

Because he was a Democrat.:banana:

 

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.