The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-01-2005, 06:59 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,008
President Jimmy Carter: Success or failure

Previous thread on President George H W Bush

President Carter was in office from Jan 1977- Jan 1981

The Good:

Camp David Accords.
SALT II Treaty
Creation of the Department of Energy
Panama Canal Treaty
Paul Volcker as Fed Chairman
Ending diplomatic relations with Taiwan

The Bad:

1980 Olympic boycott
Ineffective response to the Iranian hostage crisis
"Malaise" speech
Poor handling of Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 11-01-2005, 07:58 PM
Renob Renob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
I think it's debatable whether or not the creation of the Dept. of Energy and the ending of diplomatic relations with Taiwan were good things.

Two other bad things for the list:
Two strong US allies being replaced by two regimes that caused us problems during the 80's and 90's (Nicaragua and Iran -- yes, the Shah and Somoza were two ruthless dictators, but they were our ruthless dictators, dammit!)
High inflation and high unemployment

I'm not sure how anyone could really argue that Carter was a good president. Sure, you may disagree that he was "history's greatest monster," as was once claimed on the Simpsons, but it would be hard to say he was a "success." His numerous failures outweigh the few good things he accomplished (I'll even give him the Camp David accords and the Panama Canal Treaty, although the latter was really started under Ford, if I recall correctly).
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-01-2005, 08:12 PM
MLS MLS is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,398
I think Carter was a good, moral, intelligent person. And an ineffective president. He prided himself on not being part of the Washington in-crowd, and thus he was unable to accomplish much since hardly anybody owed him anything.

Some presidents, like Lyndon Johnson, were real sons-of-bitches, but were able to get things done because people didn't want to get on the wrong side of them. Many of the things JFK is credited with were actually put into effect by LBJ. But he was still a nasty SOB when he wanted to be.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-01-2005, 09:12 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 27,186
He was a Washington outsider who was not very effective at getting his agenda pushed through (not that I'm impressed with what he wanted to do in any case). The OPs 'Good' are even debatable and as Renob pointed out some key 'Bad' are missing. I'd say whoever is going to call Carter as President a success is going to have their work cut out for them.

-XT
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-01-2005, 09:18 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42
Previous thread on President George H W Bush

President Carter was in office from Jan 1977- Jan 1981

The Good:

Panama Canal Treaty
Ending diplomatic relations with Taiwan
These are questionable as good at best. Why did we have to give up the Canal? As you remember, when Colombia refused to sell us land for the Canal, we supported Panamanian independence and forced Colombia to accept it. We then bought the Canal Zone from them. I don't recall the Panamanians volunteering to become Colombians to set things right.

Ending diplomatic relations with Taiwan? We deny supporting a (theoretically) republican country to support a communist one in the middle of the Cold War? What purpose did the renunciation of Taiwan serve?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-01-2005, 09:31 PM
Leviosaurus Leviosaurus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
I really like Carter. He seems to be the most genuine person to have occupied the White House in my lifetime. Of all the ex-Presidents, he seems like the one I'd most enjoy sitting next to at a dinner party.

But I just can't square that with the US inaction on the Cambodian Genocide conducted by the Khmer Rouge during Carter's presidency. And the continued support for the Khmer Rouge after they were deposed (most of which happened under Reagan, but it started under Carter.)

I honestly don't know what role Carter played in this. Maybe he tried to do something, maybe he didn't. The fact is, the US stood by and did nothing and he deserves the blame for that. Because of that alone, he makes the list of Bad Presidents for me.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-01-2005, 10:27 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
He lost the 1980 election as an incumbent president of the party in power in Congress. That's a pretty solid indictment of his presidency, issued by the public at the time.

To what extent that result came about solely or mostly from the hostage situation will never be known...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-01-2005, 10:47 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,008
There is no question that it was the right time to end diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Like it or not, we could not and should not ignore mainland China. Trying to pretend that an island is China while ignoring one billion people is just silly. Nixon did the right thing by opening China and Carter did the right thing by continuing in those footsteps.

The energy crisis during Carter's administration showed the need for a federal energy policy. I think that at times the Department of Energy has been badly mismanaged. However, I think the creation of the cabinet level position was necessary.

I'm going to go ahead and call Carter a success in his presidency. I don't think there is any way to overestimate the importance of Camp David. Also, his appointment of Volcker to the Fed Chairmanship was genius. Volcker and Greenspan have helped the US economy maintain stability until today.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-02-2005, 12:48 AM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 25,541
That's the first real election I can remember following. And I recall that Carter was such a lame duck that the Republican primary was seen as a bigger event, almost, than the presidential election, because everyone thought that whoever the Republicans put up was going to crush Carter. He was that bad.

The only thing I can put in the 'good' column for him was his appointment of Volcker to the Fed.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-02-2005, 01:08 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone
The only thing I can put in the 'good' column for him was his appointment of Volcker to the Fed.
Brokering the Camp David Accords was a real accomplishement, too.

But the Dept of Energy? Phhht. What have we gotten for our money out of that thing?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-02-2005, 07:45 AM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace
Brokering the Camp David Accords was a real accomplishement, too.

But the Dept of Energy? Phhht. What have we gotten for our money out of that thing?
Okay, now seriously, folks, that wasn't Carter's fault. With the continuing difficulties over oil embargoes, there was a demand from the public that something be done, and creation of a Cabinet position on the issue was an idea pretty common among those inside and outside the Belt.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-02-2005, 11:53 AM
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Springfield, IL
Posts: 18,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLS
I think Carter was a good, moral, intelligent person. And an ineffective president. He prided himself on not being part of the Washington in-crowd, and thus he was unable to accomplish much since hardly anybody owed him anything.

Some presidents, like Lyndon Johnson, were real sons-of-bitches, but were able to get things done because people didn't want to get on the wrong side of them. Many of the things JFK is credited with were actually put into effect by LBJ. But he was still a nasty SOB when he wanted to be.
I think this is a pretty good analysis.

I also think Carter's term was a tough time to be president, and he didn't really have what it took to effectively address many of the particular challenges that came up then.

On the other hand, I think the fact that the U.S. elected a leader who was so widely perceived as a "good, moral, intelligent person"—one who valued peace and honesty and who tried to do the right thing—helped the U.S.'s worldwide reputation (in a way that, say, GWB's presidency has not). Can any Dopers outside the USA confirm or deny this?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-02-2005, 12:37 PM
Mr. Moto Mr. Moto is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,509
I'd say no. Mind you, I don't live outside the U.S.

The mere fact that Carter was a good man personally didn't keep him from being met with massive anti-American demonstrations when he visited Paris as president. Larger and more violent demonstrations greeted him in Tehran.

A second's thought will illustrate why. America is the target of these demonstrations, not a particular administration. And the weak foreign policy Carter pursued invited more anti-Americanism, not less.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-02-2005, 12:46 PM
Ethilrist Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Add to your list of The Bad, IMO:

Reinstated Selective Services registration.

Cost him my vote in 1980, because I had to register for the draft.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-02-2005, 12:50 PM
Zebra Zebra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
The office of the president was severly weakened by Nixon. The public elected him because they knew he wasn't bold. (he was in ways people didn't imagine)

Another good thing

Amnesty for draft evaders.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-02-2005, 12:58 PM
Mr. Moto Mr. Moto is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebra
Another good thing

Amnesty for draft evaders.
Nope. Bad thing. While I think draft evaders of that era were numerous enough that lenient treatment was a political necessity, the fact remains that they broke the law, and thus ought to have faced some kind of penalty.

A blanket amnesty went way too far. That is why it was so unpopular, especially among those people who did their duty, however unpleasant it turned out to be.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-02-2005, 01:01 PM
Ethilrist Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebra
Amnesty for draft evaders.
So, another Good thing, then: Reintroduced Irony to the oval office.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-02-2005, 01:34 PM
Sal Ammoniac Sal Ammoniac is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Beans, Cod
Posts: 4,459
The 1970s was a lousy decade for America -- the Vietnam war, Watergate, the oil crisis, stagflation, and at the very end, Iran and Afghanistan. Morever, the civil-rights reforms of the '60s had yet to bear fruit for many people. Carter was right -- there was a malaise in America, and we needed to find a way out of it. Carter is accounted as a failure basically by acclamation, and by the judgment of the election in 1980. Notwithstanding, it's hard to say who could have been successful in his situation.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-02-2005, 01:40 PM
Zebra Zebra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
The amnesty for draft evaders was the first, painful, step in the healing process over Viet Nam. Some people still don't want there to be any healing process but that is their problem.


The register for the draft was a response to the hostage crisis. Not a great response and I thought it was sex descrimination against males that they had to register to get federal grants for college but women did not.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-02-2005, 01:46 PM
John Corrado John Corrado is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Posts: 3,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sal Ammoniac
Notwithstanding, it's hard to say who could have been successful in his situation.
True, but that doesn't mean that Carter would have been an effective president in better situations. In his autobiography, Tip O'Neill basically rips Carter and his staff- and especially Ham Jordan- a new one for their attitudes. According to Tip, Carter came into the office assuming he could just railroad the U.S. Congress the same way he had railroaded the George legislature. The massive Energy Bill that Carter proposed had to be completely re-worked by O'Neill just to get it onto the floor of Congress, and then Carter's staff nearly sabotaged it because it wasn't true enough to the President's vision.

The most tell point, according to O'Neill, is at a summer barbecue in D.C. in 1978 where both O'Neill and Jordan were present. After telling a few stories to entertain the crowd, O'Neill heard Jordan tell a friend, "Man! That O'Neill can sure tell a good story!" The fact that the Carter administration had been in office for two years and still didn't know that the Speaker of the House was a great storyteller speaks volumes (according to O'Neill; this is his interpretation, not mine) about how little the Carter White House was interested in working with Congress.

By comparison, O'Neill praises the hell out of Reagan's staff and how they worked with Congress- even though they were different parties. O'Neill laments that the late '70's could have been a golden time for the party if the President had only been someone with Carter's political philosophy and Reagan's personal charm and organization.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-02-2005, 02:24 PM
Mr. Moto Mr. Moto is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebra
The amnesty for draft evaders was the first, painful, step in the healing process over Viet Nam. Some people still don't want there to be any healing process but that is their problem.
Oh, I think there should have been a healing process, all right. But one that imposed no obligations of a draft resister or deserter is way too one sided for my taste. It is forgiveness without atonement, to my mind.

President Ford's approach to this subject was to exchange amnesty for draft evaders for two years of community service, and amnesty for deserters for two years of peacetime military service. That seems like a better approach to me.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-02-2005, 02:26 PM
BMalion BMalion is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 9,604
I thought Ford pardoned the draft evaders.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-02-2005, 02:31 PM
F. U. Shakespeare F. U. Shakespeare is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Baltimore or less
Posts: 3,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMalion
I thought Ford pardoned the draft evaders.
Nope. Carter, in his first week in office.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-02-2005, 02:38 PM
smiling bandit smiling bandit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Quote:
Camp David Accords.
Thinking back, I'm not sure these helped much. I won't say it was a bad thing, just that it alone didn't really change the situation.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-02-2005, 02:51 PM
Who_me? Who_me? is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moto
Oh, I think there should have been a healing process, all right. But one that imposed no obligations of a draft resister or deserter is way too one sided for my taste. It is forgiveness without atonement, to my mind.

President Ford's approach to this subject was to exchange amnesty for draft evaders for two years of community service, and amnesty for deserters for two years of peacetime military service. That seems like a better approach to me.
I think that Carter did it the right way. The country was split too hard. I was a teenager when the war ended. The thought of being drafted and having to go to Nam was all too real. Luckily, by the time I turned 18, the war was over.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-02-2005, 02:51 PM
The Flying Dutchman The Flying Dutchman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
I'm 54 years old. Without getting into specifics, I've never felt so pesimistic of the future during the Carter administration until now.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-02-2005, 03:20 PM
Mr. Moto Mr. Moto is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who_me?
I think that Carter did it the right way. The country was split too hard. I was a teenager when the war ended. The thought of being drafted and having to go to Nam was all too real. Luckily, by the time I turned 18, the war was over.
I understand all of that. I really do. But what about those guys that opposed the war but decided that they had an obligation and did not evade the draft?

They made a sacrifice, often a pretty big one, because our society demanded it from them. And later they came to find out that society would have been okay with it had they just waited for their amnesty.

Even some community service would have been something - a recognition that a score was being settled on both sides.

The Ford amnesty program was moderate and reasonable. The Carter one was not.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-03-2005, 08:05 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
This wasn't part of his Presidency but the Carter brokered/Clinton solution to North Korea's nuclear weapons program was to provide them with a nuclear power plant. What every crazy Dictator wants for Christmas. And they don't even have to thank Jesus for it.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-03-2005, 09:31 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
If the President has a bully pulpit, Carter had more of a "virginal High School Chess Club Treasurer with taped glasses" pulpit.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-04-2005, 04:20 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Corrado
The most tell point, according to O'Neill, is at a summer barbecue in D.C. in 1978 where both O'Neill and Jordan were present. After telling a few stories to entertain the crowd, O'Neill heard Jordan tell a friend, "Man! That O'Neill can sure tell a good story!" The fact that the Carter administration had been in office for two years and still didn't know that the Speaker of the House was a great storyteller speaks volumes (according to O'Neill; this is his interpretation, not mine) about how little the Carter White House was interested in working with Congress.
I don't think that's necessarily fair. Suppose you're a baseball broadcaster and you're doing a game where Bobby Bonds his the ball over 500 feet. You might say "Son of a gun, that Bonds can sure hit." It doesn't necessarily follow that this is a revelation to you, you might just be restating what you already knew full well to be true. Perhaps it was the same with Jordan and O'Neill.

Back to Carter:
Panama Canal Treaty. A big plus. I think it sent a message to other nations great and small that the United States was interested in treating other nations with dignity and respect. Let's face it, the Panamanians weren't given a lot of choice in the original treaty.

Olympic boycott. Plus. The athletes whined, but it was a non-violent way to show violent disapproval.

Camp David. Big Plus. Did it lead to lasting peace in the Middle East? No. But it did demonstrate that progress was possible.

SALT II. Big plus.

Vietnam draft dodger amnesty. Big plus. The war had split the country. Bringing back those opposed to the war was a needed step in the healing process. It was the right thing to do, just as Ford was right to pardon Nixon.

Jimmy Carter was in my opinion the most morally upright person to occupy the Oval Office. I think history will be kind to him.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-04-2005, 12:37 PM
cmkeller cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
smiling bandit:

Quote:
Thinking back, I'm not sure these helped much. I won't say it was a bad thing, just that it alone didn't really change the situation.
You've got to be kidding. Egypt was at the forefront of every attack on Israel prior to Camp David. They had the largest army. The Sinai was the single best avenue for an anti-Israel army to attack through...no mountainous Golan Heights, no Jordan River in need of bridging.

Sure, there were and are still plenty of Arabs who hate Israel. But the scale of hostilities and loss of life were greatly reduced by the CD Accords.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-04-2005, 03:02 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkeller
smiling bandit:



You've got to be kidding. Egypt was at the forefront of every attack on Israel prior to Camp David. They had the largest army. The Sinai was the single best avenue for an anti-Israel army to attack through...no mountainous Golan Heights, no Jordan River in need of bridging.

Sure, there were and are still plenty of Arabs who hate Israel. But the scale of hostilities and loss of life were greatly reduced by the CD Accords.
Yes, apparently the fact that there used to be a Mid-East war about every 7 - 10 years is lost upon today's youth.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-04-2005, 03:08 PM
What Exit? What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 25,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLS
I think Carter was a good, moral, intelligent person. And an ineffective president. He prided himself on not being part of the Washington in-crowd, and thus he was unable to accomplish much since hardly anybody owed him anything.

Some presidents, like Lyndon Johnson, were real sons-of-bitches, but were able to get things done because people didn't want to get on the wrong side of them. Many of the things JFK is credited with were actually put into effect by LBJ. But he was still a nasty SOB when he wanted to be.
MLS post is 100% correct in my opinion and basically what I was going to post.
Poor President/very nice man.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-04-2005, 03:16 PM
smiling bandit smiling bandit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Quote:
Sure, there were and are still plenty of Arabs who hate Israel. But the scale of hostilities and loss of life were greatly reduced by the CD Accords.
But Egypt had a great many reasons to avoid future war with Israel; it had not been to Egypt's interest. More to the point, America has had, for no reason I can understand, a lot of pull with Egypt for a long time, and it had been government policy to lean on The Land of the Nile when they got out of hand.

In short, Egypt wanted to avoid angering Israel and gets its land back, and Israel was OK with that. The Camp David Accords, while nice, were basically a face-saving measure which stamped the politics which everyone already understood were pretty much a done deal. If it had not happened, I still don't see Egypt continuing to attack Israel; they had too much to lose and too little chance of success.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-04-2005, 04:11 PM
cmkeller cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
smiling bandit:

Quote:
But Egypt had a great many reasons to avoid future war with Israel; it had not been to Egypt's interest.
Yet a mere six years earlier, they thought it was in their national interest. And six years prior to that. And nine years prior to that...

Did they have reasons to avoid war? Sure. Did they avoid war? Not until they signed the Camp David Peace Agreement.

Quote:
More to the point, America has had, for no reason I can understand, a lot of pull with Egypt for a long time, and it had been government policy to lean on The Land of the Nile when they got out of hand.
How long is "a long time" to you? The United States has only really had pull with them since they decided to ditch Soviet patronage (which all the Arab nations relied on since the Six-Day War) in favor of American foreign aid and weaponry...in other words, since the beginning of the process that concluded in the Camp David Peace Treaty.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-04-2005, 06:49 PM
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Springfield, IL
Posts: 18,291
FWIW, there's an article on Carter in today's Washington Times.
Quote:
"I can't deny I'm a better ex-president than I was a president," said Mr. Carter
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-04-2005, 07:01 PM
What Exit? What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 25,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink
FWIW, there's an article on Carter in today's Washington Times.

Interesting article, I completely agree with the one part you quoted.
He is definately a better Ex-President than he was as President.
I wonder what sort of Ex-President this Bush will be, I betting on a low profile one.

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-04-2005, 11:22 PM
Johanna Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 11,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink
I think the fact that the U.S. elected a leader who was so widely perceived as a "good, moral, intelligent person"—one who valued peace and honesty and who tried to do the right thing—helped the U.S.'s worldwide reputation (in a way that, say, GWB's presidency has not). Can any Dopers outside the USA confirm or deny this?
I was going to a graduate school of international studies soon after the Carter administration, and I heard plenty of political views from around the world. I gathered that Argentinians praised Carter for keeping up pressure for human rights on their junta, while South African blacks were not at all happy with the lack of effect of Carter's human rights policies on the apartheid regime. Apparently he was more of an international hit in Latin America.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-05-2005, 09:33 AM
Annie-Xmas Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 32,485
Carter was elected after the country had been seriously damaged by the whole Nixon-Watergate-Ford-Pardon debacle. I think any Democrat would have been won that election.

He wasn't a great President, but what he has done since his Presidency has proven him to be capable of greatness.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-05-2005, 10:20 AM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas
Carter was elected after the country had been seriously damaged by the whole Nixon-Watergate-Ford-Pardon debacle. I think any Democrat would have been won that election.
Not that it's completely germane to the point of your post, but this statement is almost certainly untrue. You must be forgetting that the election was not determined until the wee hours of the morning, when Ohio and Hawaii went Democrat. And Governor Carter was able to get as far as he did primarily because he was a Beltway "outsider." Certainly, Mo Udall would have had a tougher time; George Wallace would have been DOA.

Had the President of the United States not said during a televised debate that, "there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration," he likely would have been elected. That blunder, in the second debate, killed the momentum he was gaining after waxing Carter in the first debate. It's kind of ironic that the statement turned out to be true, as events in Poland itself showed starting a mere 4 years later. However, stating it in simplistic terms on national television was the verbal equivalent of having five-o'clock shadow.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 11-05-2005, 03:59 PM
Mr. Moto Mr. Moto is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,509
I don't really think Carter has been a very good ex-president either. But that is another debate entirely.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-06-2005, 07:38 PM
CBEscapee CBEscapee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moto
Nope. Bad thing. While I think draft evaders of that era were numerous enough that lenient treatment was a political necessity, the fact remains that they broke the law, and thus ought to have faced some kind of penalty.

A blanket amnesty went way too far. That is why it was so unpopular, especially among those people who did their duty, however unpleasant it turned out to be.

Nixon broke the law and he got pardoned. No strings attached.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-06-2005, 07:53 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBEscapee
Nixon broke the law and he got pardoned. No strings attached.
Relevant to the discussion of Jimmy Carter and his ability as a president how?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-06-2005, 09:59 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem
Back to Carter:
Panama Canal Treaty. A big plus. I think it sent a message to other nations great and small that the United States was interested in treating other nations with dignity and respect. Let's face it, the Panamanians weren't given a lot of choice in the original treaty.

Olympic boycott. Plus. The athletes whined, but it was a non-violent way to show violent disapproval.

Camp David. Big Plus. Did it lead to lasting peace in the Middle East? No. But it did demonstrate that progress was possible.

SALT II. Big plus.

Vietnam draft dodger amnesty. Big plus. The war had split the country. Bringing back those opposed to the war was a needed step in the healing process. It was the right thing to do, just as Ford was right to pardon Nixon.

Jimmy Carter was in my opinion the most morally upright person to occupy the Oval Office. I think history will be kind to him.
Well you're 2 for 5. Camp David and SALT II were major accomplishments although the CD Accords are probably more of a credit to Sadat than Begin or Carter but all 3 were instramental in its signing so lets put it in Carter's good list.

Panama Canal Treaty - I said earlier that Panama received their independence from Colombia and for this sold us the Canal Zone. Fair exchange I think and from a historical and moral perspective we did not have to give it back. As I remember, giving back the Canal pissed off a lot of Americans, call into question how we would get from one ocean to the other during the next conventional war, and the exchange made the Panamanians happy with the US for about 2 hours.

Olympic Boycott - Way to show the non-political nature of the Olympics, steal the opportunity of a lifetime from our athletes, and lead to the Warsaw Pact boycott of the LA games in 1984. Oh, by the way, did it get the Soviets out of Afghanistan?

Draft Dodgers - If you object to a law, its OK to violate it? Even supporters of civil disobedience (to quote Maddox, "Civil disobedience is still disobedience.") agree that one should accept the consequences for their actions. Those should have filed for conscientious (sp?) objector status. I disagree with having to pay taxes on things other than pay (e.g. gambling wins, windfalls, inheritances, etc.) and it is an unpopular law - so can I get pardoned for tax evasion please?
I agree that the dodgers should have had to serve an amount of time in service. Actually, I would have said 2 years in the Peace Corps and those who went to Canada would lose their citizenship (Have fun under the Maple Leaf, eh.). Refusal to serve in the Peace Corps would be liable for prosecution.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-06-2005, 10:06 PM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintCad
Panama Canal Treaty - I said earlier that Panama received their independence from Colombia and for this sold us the Canal Zone. Fair exchange I think and from a historical and moral perspective we did not have to give it back. As I remember, giving back the Canal pissed off a lot of Americans, call into question how we would get from one ocean to the other during the next conventional war, and the exchange made the Panamanians happy with the US for about 2 hours.
You were wrong then and still wrong now. The Canal Zone was ill-gotten booty and giving it back was the morally correct thing to do. I don't care if it made a lot of Americans angry, it was and is the correct thing to do.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-07-2005, 11:31 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem
You were wrong then and still wrong now. The Canal Zone was ill-gotten booty and giving it back was the morally correct thing to do. I don't care if it made a lot of Americans angry, it was and is the correct thing to do.

Why? It was a fair trade for helping Panama gain its independence from Colombia and was purchased with hard currency and many yellow fever deaths. I'll tell you what, I'll sell you something and then you give it back to me for free if those sort of deals are "morally correct".
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-09-2005, 06:46 AM
Dr. Rieux Dr. Rieux is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethilrist
Add to your list of The Bad, IMO:

Reinstated Selective Services registration.

Cost him my vote in 1980, because I had to register for the draft.
Me too (I was 20). I voted for Anderson.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.