I think I have to agree with TA. He was a good man, but the wrong man for the time. He may have done fine in the 1990's.

 

I really hate that he's trying to rewrite his legacy today. It makes me wonder if Rosalynn is pushing him to be the Jesse Jackson of the 21st century.

I think I have to agree with TA. He was a good man, but the wrong man for the time. He may have done fine in the 1990's.

 

I really hate that he's trying to rewrite his legacy today. It makes me wonder if Rosalynn is pushing him to be the Jesse Jackson of the 21st century.

 

 

I don't know about the legacy rewriting (because who doesn't want to be remembered well) but the reason he is out there is he still believes he has something to offer this world. I think that's a combination of his Christian convictions and his hope that peacemaking can work better than other alternatives.

I don't know about the legacy rewriting (because who doesn't want to be remembered well) but the reason he is out there is he still believes he has something to offer this world. I think that's a combination of his Christian convictions and his hope that peacemaking can work better than other alternatives.

 

 

 

Right again!

I've never rated Carter in the "Bad President" category. He had a lot of things working against him at the time he served and was an "outsider" who didn't work particularly well with Congress. I think overall he has served this country very well , particularly in his later years. A fine man.

Sidebar story.

 

I've met Jimmy Carter on 2 occasions. Both times I was just one of many around there.

 

The second time was at a book signing and I had my son who was 11 at the time and my daughter who was 5 with me. As we got closer to the President my daughter said, "Who is that Daddy?"

 

Never one to resist a humorous moment I replied, "That's Ronald Reagan honey."

 

Carter didn't hear me but the bodyguard, seeing the grin on my face, smiled at my intentional sardonic moment.

Sidebar story.

 

I've met Jimmy Carter on 2 occasions. Both times I was just one of many around there.

 

The second time was at a book signing and I had my son who was 11 at the time and my daughter who was 5 with me. As we got closer to the President my daughter said, "Who is that Daddy?"

 

Never one to resist a humorous moment I replied, "That's Ronald Reagan honey."

 

Carter didn't hear me but the bodyguard, seeing the grin on my face, smiled at my intentional sardonic moment.

 

 

 

Funny story. I bet the former President would have enjoyed your humor as well.

Before I post I caution that I have no political leanings one way or the other.

 

 

 

I've always thought it was a little sad that Carter, who I believed was probably one of the most morale and intelligent men to be in the White House, was an awful President.

 

I actually believe that it was a combination of "being President at the wrong time" and some decisions that just did not work out.

 

What I mean by "at the wrong time" is that the USA cannot sustain "good times" for an extended period of time. Things have to ebb and flow.

 

Decisions made by the President (and Congress) that may be great in some time periods could be awful in others. It depends alot on timing.

 

And good times usually follow bad just as bad times follow good.

Leadership was a downfall for him...the "general malaise" speech he gave cemented his legacy.

I got to vote against Carter the first time I could vote. I thought he was a very nice man but a weak president for several reasons. First, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was "unacceptable" but he accepted it over time. Second, the Iranian rescue was not his fault per se, but he was commander in chief and I remember the Israelis saying 90 men sent should have been 500 or 1000 and the botched rescue showed how weak we had become. Third, he was attacked by a giant rabbit.

 

I loved Ronald Reagan who was no nuclear physicist like Carter was. He was simply a more appealing president to me.

I got to vote against Carter the first time I could vote. I thought he was a very nice man but a weak president for several reasons. First, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was "unacceptable" but he accepted it over time. Second, the Iranian rescue was not his fault per se, but he was commander in chief and I remember the Israelis saying 90 men sent should have been 500 or 1000 and the botched rescue showed how weak we had become. Third, he was attacked by a giant rabbit.

 

I loved Ronald Reagan who was no nuclear physicist like Carter was. He was simply a more appealing president to me.

And I still have the picture!

And I still have the picture!

 

 

I CAN'T believe someone even knew about that!!!!!!!!!!!!! You know...one thinks that he is intellectually superior to others (posting with Jim Schue does that to you) and then you pull this on me.:sssh:

Leadership was a downfall for him...the "general malaise" speech he gave cemented his legacy.

And I thought it would have been the "lusting" comment.

I got to vote against Carter the first time I could vote. I thought he was a very nice man but a weak president for several reasons. First, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was "unacceptable" but he accepted it over time. Second, the Iranian rescue was not his fault per se, but he was commander in chief and I remember the Israelis saying 90 men sent should have been 500 or 1000 and the botched rescue showed how weak we had become. Third, he was attacked by a giant rabbit.

 

I loved Ronald Reagan who was no nuclear physicist like Carter was. He was simply a more appealing president to me.

 

 

I'm not sure what else the US could have done about the Afghanistan invasion. Carter instituted a grain embargo (hurt our farmers as much as the Soviets) and boycotted Olympics (again hurt us more than Moscow) but what else would you suggest? Looking back, Reagan did nothing except what Carter started (funding and supplying the Mouja Hadim) and waiting for the USSR to experience their own Vietnam in Afghanistan.

 

Now the Giant Rabbit was a different matter altogether. :thumb:

 

BTW, for what it's worth, I too think Reagan had a more appealing message and personality.

I'm not sure what else the US could have done about the Afghanistan invasion. Carter instituted a grain embargo (hurt our farmers as much as the Soviets) and boycotted Olympics (again hurt us more than Moscow) but what else would you suggest? Looking back, Reagan did nothing except what Carter started (funding and supplying the Mouja Hadim) and waiting for the USSR to experience their own Vietnam in Afghanistan.

 

Now the Giant Rabbit was a different matter altogether. :thumb:

 

BTW, for what it's worth, I too think Reagan had a more appealing message and personality.

 

I believe it was more of an "ounce of prevention" problem. Carter was perceived by everyone as weak and the Soviets came in knowing he would take no action. I agree once they got IN his options were limited and he had to "accept" or nuke or let them have their own Vietnam; which they did. But there was no fear of Jimmy. Case in point, when Reagan got sworn in, the hostages were released in minutes because purportedly that the Iranians both hated Carter and FEARED Reagan. I think the latter played a great deal in their thinking. And Kaddafi ? straightened up considerably under Ron after a few spankings.

Carter lacked charisma, which is basically the ability to get others to follow you. Plus he has gotten even more liberal in his old age, which may taint his presidency to some degree. Most everyone agrees that Carter was (is) highly intelligent, but that is not enough in politics. I'm conservative, but I will concede that Clinton had the most charisma for my generation (even more than Reagan IMO). I believe that most Americans are more conservative than they sometimes let on, that is to say that outwardly they do not proclaim their opinions because they might not be politically correct. However, when they get to the voting booth they vote conservative. I wrote a paper on carter back when he was campaigning for reelection and I wasn't a big fan of his administration even then. I think it says something for a sitting president when he not only does not win reelection, but he has an independent make an impact (John Anderson).