Gerald Ford?
And he wasn’t even elected. You people who complain that Bush wasn’t elected? He’s got nothing on Ford.
Yep, worse even than them…and may I congratulate you on your excellent memory? 
I would if I understood why you would want to… Does remembering the names of the Do-Everything-Badly president and the Do-Nothing president mean I have an excellent memory?
If Starving Artist’s lifetime spans back to the presidencies of Warren Harding and Millard Fillmore, he’s probably entitled to an extreme form of senile dementia by now. Which goes a long way toward explaining why he is unable to recognize George Bush the Lesses as far worse and inept than Jimmy Carter.
Uh…it was a joke! You know, kidding around like you’re old enough to remember them? Like when Ronald Reagan followed a quote of Abraham Lincoln’s by sighing wistfully, shaking his head and saying, “Jeez, it seems like only yesterday.”
You libs…no sensahuma!
Do you really think that Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan were portrayed by the media as being “the height of dishonesty and evil”?
I can remember when Nixon chose Ford as his Vice President that the media commented on what a popular choice he was with Congress and how likeable he was. When Ford pardoned Nixon, there wasn’t a lot of criticism in the media. There was a lot of understanding that it was done to heal the country and get it all behind us. (There were objections in the general population, but not so much in the media.)
Ford was portrayed as bumbling and a little dense but generally likeable. I think he was a victim of the economy just as Jimmy Carter was.
And Ronald Reagan had practically a love affair with the media. That’s why he was known as “the great communicator.” If the media had portrayed him as evil, our memory of him would be quite different from what it is. In his last years he came across as often confused, but that wasn’t the media’s fault – and perhaps not his either.
You have forgotten how much ridicule Jimmy Carter got for being a peanut farmer, talking with a Southern accent, having a beer guzzling brother, “committing adultry in his heart,” wearing sweaters, preferring to be called “Jimmy,” and so on. And, of course, his Presidency is not remembered as having been a very good one. But I truly don’t ever recall his integrity being called into question. I would think in four years there must have been something.
I think that I am generally open to criticism of Democratic Presidents if it is supportable. Give me something to go on!
Nope! I’m still sharp as a tack, and I wouldn’t trade one GWB (while admitting he’s not perfect, but who is) for a hundred Carters. Nations in the helpless grip of “malaise” and governed by a president who says get used to it, while simultaneously presiding over 18% inflation and 22% interest rates, is not one I want fighting the war on terrorism.
Zoe, the points you raise and the things you ask will require quite a lot in the way of explanation, and unfortunately I’m out of time for this evening. I will try to better explain myself tomorrow, but for now know that I’m not necessarily trying to persuade you to be critical of a Democrat president. Rather, I’m just explaining my own views in regard to this one.
uh? SA? You been whoooshed. Talk about not reco’nizing a joke!
I don’ think it’s jus’ lib’rals that need their sensahuma fixed.
Shodan - sorry about the late response, but since you tried to take me out to the woodshed in the GD thread I figure you might want to take another whack at it here… but here it’s more appropriate for me to fight back.
Carter was elected in 1976, took office in January 1977, lost to Reagan / Bush I in 1980, and left office in January 1981.
The USSR invaded Afghanistan in Dec 1979, and you’re right about one thing. Carter had 14 months to respond. He also had, at the same time, crises in Iran (dealing with hostages), an energy crisis, a national ‘malaise’, and all-over worsening international relationships with the USSR and various middle-eastern states. He had to set his priorities to protect Americans first, so Carter’s response was to boycott the Olympics in 1980 in Moscow, attempt to get the UN to place sanctions against the USSR (failed as the USSR had a veto vote on the security council), and then attempted to support the Afghan rebels with humanitarian aid.
It begs the question – what do you think he should have done, nuke Moscow? Of course, Reagan and Bush followed this practice of humanitarian aid with direct support by arms and training of Mujaheddin rebels, including Osama Bin Laden, and support of drug-growing local warlords against the Soviets. When the Soviets left in 1986, we dropped all support programs to Afghanistan like a hot rock and wondered why the Taliban waltzed in so easily to take over.
Now on to the Iranian question… The Ayatollah Khomeini took over in January 1979 and in November 1979 was when the 66 hostages were taken from the embassy in Tehran. The Ayatollah demands apologies from the US for their support of the Shah to release the hostages.
Carter gives permission for a special forces rescue mission, which then runs into trouble in the desert after one of its aircraft crashes and kills some of the rescuers; this is blamed on Carter for authorizing the mission. The final hostage release was associated with an arms-for-hostage deal set up by Oliver North and approved by Reagan in 1981.
So again – what should he have done in your opinion? Invaded Iran? Don’t forget – we had no allies in the region at the time. Saudi Arabia was leading OPEC and helping cause the worsening US energy crisis. Egypt was barely on speaking terms with any Western nation, and was under internal siege from Islamic extremists in government, as was Turkey. Israel was far too busy trying to save it’s own ass to help anyone else. Iraq was a fair-weather-friend, but that is about to change as well. All the rest of the countries in the region that end with -stan were either part of the USSR or didn’t like America any more than Iran did. From your vaunted expertise in declaring him a useless tool, what exactly could Carter have done differently?
The Iran-Iraq war started in September 1980, and lasted until 1988. A bloody stalemate, it started and continued with tacit American approval and funding for the Iraqis, and with the Iranians using much of the military hardware sold / given to them during the reign of the Shah by the Americans (mostly Ford, but Carter as well).
And what exactly could Carter have done about it? He attempted sanctions, and attempted to get both sides to the negotiating table in the short 3 months he had before he was replaced in office by Reagan.
I’ll forget about all your other inane and idiotic premises; Carter had absolutely nothing to do with Gulf War I (as he had been out of office for 10 years by then – blame Bush I for that SNAFU in global-think) nor with the ongoing troop presence there (Clinton, 1993-2001) which so infuriated OBL that he felt he really just had to kill a bunch of people who had nothing to do with it…
Now, since he lost the election in 1980 and left office, what has Carter accomplished that might make him credible to talk about election problems in Florida?
- 1994 - Assisted informally in negotiations with Kim Il Sung to keep North Korea from proliferating nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula; helped reach an agreement with the military regime in Haiti, preventing a US invasion and allowing for a peaceful return to power of the elected president; Helped bring about a ceasefire in the war in the former Yugoslavia.
- 1995 – intervened in the civil war in Sudan; mediated conflict ending talks in Burundi and Rwanda
- Monitored international elections in Jamaica (1997), Nigeria (1999), and East Timor
- 2002 – awarded the Nobel Peace Price for continued commitment and work around the globe in conflict resolution, human rights, and development
- Working on a bi-partisan committee, along with Gerald Ford, in order to deliver recommendations to the President and congress, which responded with the Help America Vote Act of October 2002. Obviously, the majority of congressmen / women and the President of the United States thought it important enough of an issue that the two former Presidents brought up that they made a law about it. Of course, you probably think they’re just silly…
So you think maybe the man has something valuable to contribute to our (admittedly flawed) election process? Or are you so focused on being partisan and assume everyone else is that you can’t think that maybe, even if you feel the messenger is flawed, the message might still be valid?
Why not read the man himself? Of course, that might make your arguments seem just a little mean-spirited, since Carter is so incredibly careful to keep himself (and his bi-partisan committee) above the political fray…
Already answered in the other thread - direct support of the rebels with Stinger missiles was a primary reason the rebels were able to drive the Soviets out. Another was the large growth of the US economy and military that occurred under Reagan. It was not possible for Carter to do those things, because the US electorate (in my opinion, wisely) chose not to allow him another four years of bumbling.
Wrong. The Iranian hostages were all released in January 1981.
You’re missing the point - Carter tried the military option. It failed miserably. The fear would have been that he would botch an invasion of Iran as badly as the rescue mission. Again, fortunately, we were spared that fiasco by electing a different President. And that election was apparently enough to get the Iranian hostages freed.
Correlation isn’t causation, always, but the association is a little hard to deny. Iran holds our people for a year and a half. Then releases them the very day of the Reagan inauguration.
I’ve said the same thing, twice. The “inane and idiotic” premise came from Guinastasia - take it up with her.
And we’ve all seen how successful that was.
Ditto.
Oh yes - he certainly did a wonderful job preventing some 800,000 people from being slaughtered in Rwanda. Only, not.
And because the committee wanted to get in a dig at Bush. And Carter had been lobbying like a beaver to get the Prize - he wanted some validation after being spanked severely in the US elections. Just as he reacted to the elections in Florida in 2000.
And by the way, the recommendation of the committee on elections was that it should be left up to the states how and if to implement the recommendations of the commission. That is what Carter is screaming about - Florida made its own decision, as seems to be their right under the Constitution.
Regards,
Shodan
Bollocks; what would have helped our current situation is if we hadn’t cut and run as soon as the Soviets were beaten. And Carter tried diplomacy rather than warfare, so therefore he’s a failure to hawks everywhere.
And it wasn’t the fact that the Afghans had stingers, as most Soviet aircraft, especially helicopters, were immune to them, but that the Mujaheddin proved to be much like the North Vietnamese - impossible to tie down to fight, and supported pretty widely throughout the general population with arms, recruits, and hiding places.
You’re right - correlation isn’t causation, and it isn’t in this case either. I sincerely doubt the same guys burning American flags and chanting death to America were that scared by some actor and former governor of California who hadn’t even moved in yet coming to kick their ass.
Were you asleep during the Iran-Contra trials? Or just not paying attention 'cause all was well with the world with Ronnie Raygun in charge and that bastard Carter out on his ass?
My apologies on misattributing this quote…
Blame your boy George W for North Korea; he’s the one that did nothing when the inspectors and the TV cameras were taken out except flap about with sanctions on an already isolationist country.
Again, last time I checked, it was W’s total and complete fucking inaction to anything going on in Haiti that allowed this to happen again…
And if you really want to blame someone for this, blame someone who could have done something about it, like, I dunno, Clinton for instance, who was actually, you know, President at the time, unlike Carter, who, y’know, wasn’t!
Carter came in after the genocide and got people to lay down their weapons, which I find pretty fucking incredible, really, considering how pissed off the victims must have been.
So now the Nobel Prize committee is after Bush? I can understand why, him being a warmongering idiot and all, but I didn’t realize that candidates had much to do with ‘lobbying’ for the Prize. I kinda think it’s kept secret until it’s announced. And he really wanted to feel better about himself after loosing the Presidency over 20 years before, and thought that maybe a partisan Noble Prize commitee would help him get the Democrats back in the saddle? I find that hard to believe… seeing as how the Nobel Prize committee is in Norway and all, and doesn’t really have a lot of bearing on the American political process…
And finally, to the original point…
Carter’s not complaining about them making a decision, but that their action isn’t good enough, and that it’s in no way a non-partisan electoral committe in the state, and in fact has changed nothing on the basic problems that caused the Help America Vote act in the first place!
It’s nice that the State of Florida, on it’s own, seems to think it can guarantee fair elections, by appointing a committee to look at all the new and wondeful ways it can fuck up. That’s not the problem - the problem is that when someone else looks over what they have done, and says ‘wait a minute, there’s a problem here’ and no one does anything about it, that I get worried.
I’m not asking you to read between the lines; I am asking you to JUST READ WHAT HE SAYS! You don’t have to spin, or interpret, or anything. You just have to read.
To paraphrase, Carter says that in the 2000 elections, some of the manifest problems were around disenfranchisement and perceived impartiality. He then says that he and others, including former president Ford, helped draft legislation that would tell Florida (and other states) what it should do, then allow them to get on and do it, said legislation was later passed by Congress and signed by the President into law. Florida responds, Carter and co. come back, take another look at what Florida has planned to do, and say, ‘Sorry - not good enough. You still have these two major problems.’
And you say, but that’s bullshit because Carter is a feeb and he has no credibility in this area and he’s a total failure as president and he can’t boss the state of Florida around anyways.
Now the fault in your statements is that if Carter was such a feeb, why did they listen to him in the first place???
If Bush did invite outside observers all I can say is, good for him. It was the right thing to do. I sort of liked Ford, despite what others might say. He didn’t get elected, true. He had it dumped in his lap. Ford came across as “the guy next door”, and most of the problems he had, were inherited from Nixon and Johnson. He just got left holding the bag. You can almost say he was predestined to fail. Toss in the Nixon pardon, and he was a lame duck before he even started.
Well, whaddya know. We agree yet again, Steve.
Welcome to the dark side. 
Equipose:
Simon X.
Airman Doors.
Scylla. (I hope, anyway.)
ExTank.
Bricker.
DCU.
Starving Artist.
gobear.
’Nuff said.
Paladud: *Please cite several objective, reputable politicians or analysts backing up Carter on the Florida thing. *
Did you read the the GD thread linked in the OP? There, BrainGlutton, Zoe, DeadBadger, and others provided several links to news reports citing various criticisms of Florida’s preparedness for the elections. You can read them yourself in detail, but here are some specific references:
Shodan: *And by the way, the recommendation of the committee on elections was that it should be left up to the states how and if to implement the recommendations of the commission. *
What are you talking about? The document that you linked to is a 2002 report from a Florida task force on election reform. It states quite clearly that Florida is required to comply with new federal laws (the “Help America Vote Act”) on election procedure.
Nobody has yet provided a shred of evidence that there aren’t problems with electoral procedures in Florida, and you have been steadfastly ignoring the evidence to the contrary. For Pete’s sake, pay some attention to the actual issues here and stop trying to pretend that it’s just Carter making a fuss about nothing.
Or if you think it is just Carter making a fuss about nothing, then as I said before, come across with some actual evidence for that position. At present you’re just sticking your fingers in your ears and going “La la la, I’m not going to listen to Jimmy Carter, la la la…”
A Nobel Peace Prize, whip-dee-do. Yassir freakin’ Arafat has one, too.
True.
Yes, I want to see a fair and honest count made of the votes in Florida in 2004.
Well, the fallacy of ad hominem is just that. If President Carter’s recommendations are worthy of disdain, I’m sure that point can be made without recourse to personal attacks against the man.
For what it’s worth, I certainly think that, in light of the contentious nature of the 2000 count, and the relatively close polling that exists now, we would be well-advised to agree, ahead of time, that whatever vote counting method is implemented is fair to all.
For example - and not to cast aspersions - the griping in 2000 about the butterfly ballot was misplaced, to the extent that it was directed towards invalidating the count for that election. That ballot was not only prepared by a Democrat, but was available ahead of time for any challenger to comment upon. In my view, the lack of pre-election challenges effectively invalidates any post-election carping, except such carping that says, “Well, we’re stuck with these results; we will fix the flaw next time.”
This analysis does not apply to the hanging chad situation or the method of vote counts, of course, since the problems alleged to exist there were not obvious until after the polls closed.
I agree completely.
Even if his motive is partisan, his point is a valid one. Or as the tongue-in-cheek saying goes, even if you are paranoid, it doesn’t mean they are NOT out to get you. Every one of us that loves “the Republic for which it stands” should support reasonable, non-partisan, goals of ensuring each vote that is cast may be counted.
Now, I would also argue - in another thread, perhaps - that Mr. Carter’s criticism of efforts to secure a place for Mr. Nader on the ballot is misplaced. By the same token I just offered above: even if the motive to include Mr. Nader is partisan (a belief that he’ll draw votes that would otherwise go to Kerry) the point is a valid one: all of us should love the democratic process enough to lean in the direction of giving people the right to vote for the candidate of their choice.
That’s this Republican-leaning voter’s view.
- Rick
Aw, you’re just jealous 'cause you didn’t get one too.