posted on July 25, 2001 09:06:26 PM
What surprises me, in reading this thread, is that no one has mentioned that President Carter is (and was during his presidency), a deeply religious man. I've heard him in interviews say that many times he prayed to God to help him make the right choices in regard to his job as president.
Just maybe, being a religious person doesn't automatically make one a right-wing, conservative Republican. (As is often implied and assumed on many threads) Just a thought.
posted on July 25, 2001 09:12:18 PM
He walked into a mess. No one could have fixed it except another Clinton. The first fuel crisis was 1973, and there had been no solution to the possibility of more. That he was elected because Ford pardoned Nixon is only a small part of the whole of double digit inflation, fuel issues, and general republican malais. Carter didn't even want the job but the party brought him to it as the perceived best offering based on his idealism and his down home style. He never really had a chance to succeed.
posted on July 25, 2001 09:13:11 PM
His praying was seen as a weakness.
[i]"Just maybe, being a religious person doesn't automatically make one a right-wing, conservative Republican. (As is often implied and assumed on many threads) Just a
thought"[/i]
You call that a thought? Where, because I haven't seen it, have you been able to infer that anyone has posited that religiousity automatically makes one a right-wing conservative republican (talk about a redundancy)?
Being a religious right wing warmongering republican is a hypocrisy. If you find a similarity between republican hypocrisy and a person's belief system that's your doing and your problem.
posted on July 25, 2001 09:19:14 PM
It's a sad commentary on our political system that Bill Clinton could get things done in spite of his lack of morals, and Jimmy Carter couldn't get anything done, at least in part, because of his morals.
What, besides being a decent man, was Carter good at? I can't think of a single triumph or even signifigant achievement of his term in office, did I miss something?
posted on July 25, 2001 10:49:33 PMHis praying was seen as a weakness. So, now you speak for all the people in the US??? Maybe the world???? That may be the way you saw it......but not everyone agrees, believe it or not.
And as far as my other statement, I stand by it. Anyone who reads these political threads sees it all the time.
posted on July 25, 2001 11:12:41 PM
Carter didn't try to inflict his religion into politics and don't forget just recently he has pulled away from those right wing religious nuts.
I really don't remember much about his term as President. But, I do respect him now for what he does and how he conducts himself.
posted on July 26, 2001 01:23:50 AM
Of course, the Camp David Accords mean nothing at all as a Presidential success story ...
What angered most folks was the giving away of the Panama Canal and the abstention of the 1978 Olympics - a political move that had no place being there.
Other than that, I say that he was not the least of our Presidents -- we have that one now in office.
posted on July 26, 2001 06:03:28 AM
Right, both Begin and Saddat received the nobel peace prize for the Camp David achievement, but Carter got nothing at all as far as political recognition.
Ever heard of the Emergency Natural Gas Act? Didn't think so.
"Carter gained a reputation for political ineptitude, even though his actual record in dealing with Congress belied that image. His success rate in getting presidential initiatives through Congress was much higher than that of his predecessors Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and successors Reagan and Bush. One might expect a president with a majority in Congress to do better than presidents facing the opposition party majorities. But Carter was also close to Johnson’s success rates, and higher than Kennedy’s record. Carter did not like to bargain and remained arrogant and aloof, but at the end of the day, he usually wound up with much of what he sought from Congress. His major problem was that the perception of his leadership did not correspond with the reality of his performance.
Camp David Accords
The greatest foreign policy success of the Carter presidency involved the Middle East. After the Yom Kippur War of 1973 between Israel and its Arab enemies, Egypt and Syria, the Israelis had gradually disengaged their forces and moved a distance back in the Sinai Peninsula. They were still occupying Egyptian territory, however, and there was no peace between these adversaries. In the fall of 1978, Carter invited Israel's Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egypt's President Anwar Sadat to sit down with Carter at Camp
David, a rural presidential retreat outside Washington. Between September 4 and September 17, 1978, Carter shuttled between Israeli and
Egyptian delegations, hammering out the terms of peace. Consequently, Begin and Sadat reached a historic agreement: Israel would
withdraw from the entire Sinai Peninsula; the U.S. would establish monitoring posts to ensure that neither side attacked the other;
Israel and Egypt would recognize each other's governments and sign a peace treaty; and Israel pledged to negotiate with the Palestinians for peace.
Not since Theodore Roosevelt's efforts to end the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 had a president so effectively mediated a dispute
between two other nations. Begin made several concessions to Carter, including agreeing to the principle of Egyptian sovereignty
over the entire Sinai, and complete Israeli withdrawal from all military facilities and settlements. In return, Carter agreed to provide Israel with funds to rebuild Israeli military bases in the Negev Desert. Because Sadat and Carter had positions that were quite close, and the two men became good friends as the conference progressed. Sadat also made some concessions to Carter, which alienated some of his own delegation. His prime minister resigned at the end, believing that Sadat had been outmaneuvered by the Americans and Isrealis.
The Camp David Accords, initialed on September 17, 1978 and formally signed in Washington on March 26, 1979, were the
most significant foreign policy achievement of the Carter administration, and supporters hoped it would revive his struggling presidency. Although Begin and Sadat received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 for this action, Carter received no significant political benefit from this achievement.
he Iranians heightened this political tension by making bright promises and then going back on them almost daily.
Finally, Carter approved a secret military mission to attempt to free the hostages.
Unfortunately, three of the eight helicopters carrying the assault force developed mechanical problems. (this, of course, was Carter's doing) One crashed into a transport aircraft in a remote desert in Iran, killing eight soldiers. After the failure, Iran dispersed the hostages to hideouts throughout the country, making rescue impossible. The failure of the rescue mission doomed Carter politically. It seemed to reinforce the widespread notion that he could not get things done, and that America had lost its edge. His approval rating dropped badly and he was up for reelection within a year, when Republicans would make a major issue of his performance in the crisis. Near the end of his administration Carter concluded an agreement that led to the release of the hostages. His executive
agreement with Iran specified that the U.S. would unblock all Iranian funds, and the U.S. and Iran would utilize a tribunal at the Hague, Netherlands, to settle their financial claims. The U.S. also promised not to interfere in the internal affairs of Iran. In return, Iran agreed to release the hostages.
posted on July 26, 2001 06:24:50 AM
President Carter would have and still could make a good President. Alot of you say he was ineffectual and incompetent. I say you have it all wrong. It was made to look that way but the truth is congress is nothing more than a gathering of corrupt game-players and President Carter refused to play. He wanted to accomplish good things without double-dealing, back-room meetings and pork-barrel compromises and his Presidency suffered for it.
So Carter freed the hostages? Only 200+ days later, too. I think if you look beyond the stated you will find that it was the deal by Reagan's people to swap out with the Iranians when Reagan took office that was the deciding factor. By reaching a release deal with Carter as the signee they got to double-dip - remembering that Reagan's deal was still under wraps. The impending arrival of Reagan in the White House may have been a factor as well - cause who could be certain WHAT that man would do?
At the time (as now) Iran had 2 signifigant export industries-oil and pistachios. Their pistachio industry was about to lose its world domination as the groves planted in California 5-7 years before were starting to yield a larger and better quality crop. In addition, the turmoil in the country made gathering and shipping very spotty. My next door neighbor at the time was an Iranian Pistachio broker, he received about 20% of what he ordered that year. California nuts bankrupted him a few years later.
That left oil, its MAIN export for years by a large margin. Virtually ALL of Iran's oil went thru Quarg island- a densely packed complex of refineries, tank farms and shipping facilities. The plans to reduce it to rubble had been ready for months -if you were the Ayatollah and knew what was known about Reagan at the time , would you have been prepared to gamble the existence of your nation on his unwillingness to use force? I think not.
As to Camp David- did it bring peace? Not if what I see on the news each night is any indication. To compare it to TR's Russian/Japanese deal is ludicrous. TR's deal stuck- no more war between the nations involved. What Camp David did was get Egypt the Sinai back, at a huge cost to US taxpayers. In essence, he bought off the Israelis who at the time held the trump hand.
Peace accords that don't bring peace are nothing to crow about- Nobel prizes or not.
posted on July 26, 2001 09:26:39 PM
Actually, no I didn't, particularly given that it is not an auction discussion site and does not offer any services in competition with AW.
-gaffan-
edited to remove link to lame parody of lame auction sites at the request of the moderator, since apparently I was supposed to be aware by osmosis or psychic abilities that links to ezboards are not allowed. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused to the community at large. Sheesh.
[ edited by gaffan on Jul 26, 2001 09:38 PM ]
posted on July 26, 2001 09:31:28 PM
Before you start warming up the instruments of punishment, be aware that I simply forgot to edit my sig file before posting the above.
-gaffan-
With all due respect, you've been hoodwinked. You're certainly not alone in that, but the entire story of Reagan's secret dealings in effecting the release of the first and larger set of hostages from Iran was a hoax perpetrated by one Robert (I think it was Robert) Sick, an approriately named republican publicist and hopeful movie rights recipient.
You see, it didn't happen that way, except in the press, or rather, the conservative press. If it had, you know, Reagan might have spent his time in the hoosegow rather than in the White House.
As to the supposed lasting peace between Russia and Japan, are you sure you don't mean only that TR redirected aggressions? It wasn't so long really, before Japan invaded Manchuria, and then attacked Pearl Harbor. Why, considering the pacts between Germany and Japan would you think that peace lasted between Japan and Russia anyway?
I'm not quite sure what to make of this pistachio consideration which you have brought to roast along with carter in this thread, but since, as you say, California pistachios ruined the market for Iranian pistachios and Ronald Reagan for the larger portion of the relevant time period was the governor of the State of California, the idea of Iran later entering into friendly dealings with him seems a little, well, nuts.
Is it possible that you have mixed your nu..umm... hostages? Reagan was successful in engineering the release of three hostages at a later date from Iran, but he did that by trading arms for them and nearly lost his job over it.
posted on July 27, 2001 01:13:34 AM
The above stories remind me of a tale I once heard. I used to have a customer who was a retired Dutch sailor of the Merchant Marines. He told me a fascinating story -- one that could never be verified.
Back just before WWII, dutch merchant vessals were often used to spy for the west; that is, they reported things that they saw to the British or the Americans. This old guy was a radio man for his ship and used to pass along these reports.
One day, while deep in the Pacific Ocean in the beginning week of December 1941, the Dutch merchant vessal happened to have spotted a large Japanese naval force including aircraft carriers and other capital ships. They plotted the course and speed of the force and saw that it was headed directly for Hawaii.
The captain made out a report that this guy radioed directly to the Naval office in Washington D.C. to warn the Americans about the fleet sailing towards them. After submitting the report, all that they got in acknologement was a brush-off from the Americans. The captain was reported to have said, "God help them now."
The significance, for those of you less astute about history is that this Japanese fleet eventually sailed to Hawaii and attacted Pearl Harbor. To go with all historical accounts, we had no warning whatsoever of the impending attack. That sneak attack prompted us to become involved in WWII and declare war on Japan and also on it's allies, namely Germany.
Just because Cater received the worst media coverage I have ever witnessed, that is no reason to think that Carter was not a good president. He passed some very fine legislation and had his hands dealing with the runaway inflation and unemployment crap left over from two previous Repub lican administrations -- just like Clinton had to clean up after Reagan and Bush, Sr. made a mess of the economy with their Trickle-Down economics that was really an oil-gusher up of the money from the poor to the rich.
posted on July 27, 2001 01:42:33 AM
That's interesting about the Dutchman Borillar, because the question of whether the administration had sufficient warning before Pearl Harbor is still not answered. There is a strong case that Roosevelt was completely aware of the Japanese convoy, and there is supposed to be a similar episode to the Dutch merchant mariner's involving a sighting report from a US submarine. The submarine report apparently was receipted by Pearl and relayed to Washington, but the trail ends in suppositions there. The submarine did not return from the mission as it was reported sunk with all hands. That report has not been verified as having been received in Washington, but Roosevelt may have sat on it. He definitely was working for US involvement in the war but had an uphill fight in congress before Pearl Harbor.
posted on July 27, 2001 05:27:53 AM
Carter was probably the most honest, good hearted man we've had in office in the past 100 years.
The problem was, it takes other qualities to be a top notch President. Being honest and good hearted doesn't make it easy to deal with a bunch of Congressmen and Senators, it makes it harder. A totally honest and good man could be a great President, but he would need a few other qualities also.
Who Need's a stink'n Sig. File?
In defence of Jimmy Carter, he recently cut his ties with Southern Baptists and stated, "I personally feel the Bible says all people are equal in the eyes of God."
posted on July 27, 2001 08:46:36 AM
Jimmy Carter is a hell of a Statesman, my example of a true Christian and the only one of the bunch that I would want living in my neighborhood.
He made errors in leadership when he was president, but he was no worse than any of the other presidents we have had. He was elected in 1976, times were extremely tough for a large portion of the American public. Because the economy did not immediately turn around he did not gain popularity (and that is all that those polls show...not the excellence in leadership factor).
In addition, Iran took hostages and kept them for 444 days (during the time that the election was held). There was a rescue attempt that failed horribly and fatally for some of the rescuers. President Carter took total responsibility for all of it, because he was the top guy. He had a great deal of integrity...a virtue that I find admirable.
His ideas on welfare reform, healthcare reform, etc. would have been much more effective if they had been worked through and initiated during the 1970s. Healthcare costs have skyrocketed since that time. Insurance companies and their investors have made a tremendous amount of money on this. Even today America struggles with the healthcare structure. There are more uninsured people than there were in the 1970s, and costs have escalated. Carter's other reform ideas were no less needed and still haunt us today because no one took them seriously then.
Ronald Reagan was (is) no smarter than George W. Bush. He was no more of a leader and many of their political cronies and their money backers are the same people. I will admit that he was a better communicator than Jr. However, if one is familiar with the early stages of Alzheimer disease it was evident that he had it throughout his presidency. This is the man that won the election in 1980. It was during his reign that our deficit ballooned in a way that it never had (or has) in the history of our nation. It will be centuries before we are out from under its shadow. This is a man that was popular with the American people. It does not mean he was good at his job, he was not.
posted on July 27, 2001 10:18:08 AM
Basically, Jimmy Carter is a guy you want living next door to you and a guy you want to coach your kid's little league team.
So what? He was a lousy president to the point that he was a joke. To the point that Ronald Reagan of all people literally whipped him out of office.
posted on July 27, 2001 10:32:53 AMHe made errors in leadership when he was president, but he was no worse than any of the other presidents we have had.
I think you might have to go as far back as Hoover to find a president who screwed up anything as badly as did Carter. It's pretty clear that Hoover's economic ineptude contributed to the great depression. When judged by "errors in presidential leadership", Carter comes in as the "worst since Hoover".
posted on July 27, 2001 11:05:34 AM
Carter might have been smarter than Einstein, he might have been more spiritual than Gandhi, but as a President he ranked below Milliard Filmore.
Carter thought he could come in with his hometown boys and teach Washington a lesson, instead they taught him a lesson.
For the second half of the 20th century he wins the title of most ineffective president by a landslide.
(As is often implied and assumed on many threads) Just a thought.
