Jimmy Carter, the enigma.

I'm an American and I think Carter was/is laughable. For those that like him, what did he ever accomplish?

His policies set back the U.S. And beyond his policies, he was a very weak, i.e., non-existent leader. The best he could do during the energy crisis was give a speech telling people to wear sweaters to save on energy. Sort of reminded me of Mr. Rogers telling a kid to deal with the neighborhood bully by putting ice on his eye.

Carter is like a combination of George McFly and Mr. Rogers.

By the way, the reason the rest of the world liked him is because he brought the U.S. down to their level of mediocrity.

And one more thing, in case you didn't realize it, Carter was hand-picked by the Rockefellers and the TriLateral Commission, and Carter appointed something like 17 Trilateral Commission members to his administration when elected.

You think an unknown governor from a small southern state gets to be POTUS without the NWO on his side?

[edit on 11-10-2007 by jjohns]

I don't think he was a bad president just a very non descript one,his years in office just kind of flew by,and also my big sister was Mrs and Amy Carter's bodyguard at the time when she was an agent

Originally posted by Oldtimer2
his years in office just kind of flew by

I don't think the Americans that were held kidnapped by Iran would agree that it just flew by.

Originally posted by Oldtimer2
I don't think he was a bad president just a very non descript one,his years in office just kind of flew by,

So that's the best anyone can say for Carter? This is the reason (his years flew by) he's considered great by posters on this thread? Great point by dj77 about the iran hostages probably not feeling that the years (444 days actually) flew by.

And to all the posters that think Carter was so great, I've yet to hear anything concrete to support his "greatness" except that you say you like him and/or he was given a bum rap by history.

Sounds to me like the definition of "greatness" is what really is taking the bum rap here.

[edit on 10/11/2007 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by centurion1211
And to all the posters - including the OP - that think Carter was so great, I've yet to hear anything concrete to support his "greatness" except that you say you like him and/or he was given a bum rap by history.

Would you mind showing me where I said I thought he was "great" or anything else for that matter?

I WILL show one part of my post though:

This is the question, as an American why do you dislike Jimmy? As another nationality why did you like Jimmy? Please guys, let's keep the flaming on simmer.

Originally posted by ar71015
Well, what would you call it?
In sports, when one team scores more points than the other team, they're the winner. Right?
In war, the country that kills more soldiers is the winner.

Deaths in WW2
USSR 13,600,000
Germany 3,300,000

I only meant to say that war also has a cost that is based on how it sets up a country or a people in their future dealings and position in the world. Economically, militarily, and morally.

Carter by avoiding war may have set us up better then many who chose not to.

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Redge777]

For a measure of the economic problems that the US and other countries faced during the mid to late 70's, consider the price of crude oil. Many of you guys will be too young to remember the 70's, but OPEC actually stopped selling crude oil to many western countries, the US included, as punishment for supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur war. A barrel of oil went from about $9 in 1975 to $40 in 1980, a factor of four (and a bit).

Can you imagine waking up tomorrow to learn that half your country's oil supply had just stopped ? And what oil was left had shot up from $80 to $300+ per barrel ? And that there was not a damned thing you or your government could do about it ? Carter was faced with that catastrophe, gas prices went through the roof, that was passed through the economy, prices shot up, inflation went haywire, interest rates went sky high, businesses crashed, unemployment rose along with public spending, borrowing rose .... an absolute economic nightmare. And none of it was Carter's making.

As to him cutting military expenditure, faced with that economic turmoil what choice did he have ? The government had to reign in spending, raise taxes and borrow more just to balance the books. That was in the good old days when governments actually tried to balance the books. And what do we see today ? Taxes cut, borrowing through the roof and expenditure almost out of control ... there's no logic to that either.

You can fault Carter for many things. But in terms of public finances and the overall economy he was dealt a really bad hand - as were most Western countries at that time.

reply to post by intrepid


Corrected. I took that from a "reply to intrepid" which I mistakenly attributed to you.

First off, we did not loose the Vietnam war....It was a Police Action we gave up on...lol....If it had been all out war Nixon would have nuked the north. The sick part about the Vietnam "war" is how we treated the vets. I am 32 and can remember many kids with Dads that were in that horrible place that did not leave the house. They all had the same crazy look in their eyes, and most of them killed themselves. I just remember hearing about "crazy vets" all the time back then. Second Carter sucked. He did nothing good for the economy, and after Nixon and Ford America needed a real leader..........Maybe Carter was a good man, but he was a terrible leader. Iran is proof of this. Failures to hit Iran hard made the US turn it's back on him. Gas prices, and a bunch of other factors...Hey anybody here remember Billy Beer?

Originally posted by Niall197
As to him cutting military expenditure, faced with that economic turmoil what choice did he have ? The government had to reign in spending, raise taxes and borrow more just to balance the books. That was in the good old days when governments actually tried to balance the books. And what do we see today ? Taxes cut, borrowing through the roof and expenditure almost out of control ... there's no logic to that either.

You can fault Carter for many things. But in terms of public finances and the overall economy he was dealt a really bad hand - as were most Western countries at that time.

My bolding in the quote for emphasis.

Take a look at the attached reference on post war spending/deficits, etc., and you'll see that having a budget deficit is hardly a recent (as in Bush) occurence. You'll also see that there was no such thing as the "good old days" when governments balanced the budgets. Many administrations during and after WW II had budget deficits.

reference

So, no, Carter does not deserve a pass on this issue either.




[edit on 10/11/2007 by centurion1211]

Jimmy Carter was a weak and ineffectual President. Few Americans, even politically savvy ones, could (without using an internet search engine) name one meaning full policy he enacted or name one one successful program of his during his entire Presidency.

He, Jimmy Carter the man & former President, may be a humanitarian and scholar, and he may be filled with volumes of wisdom yet to be written, but that does not exempt him from his inability to do anything meaningful or memorable while he was President. Carter as President? Not notable. Carter after political office? A potentially vast source of meaning and wisdom.

And in regards to our Euro friends here. Europeans remembered Carter fondly because during the Reagan years of fear and Cold War escalation, Carter seemed like a peaceful alternative. Now, after 3 terms of Bush Presidents, the same still holds true. Peace under Carter, rhetoric & conflict under the Republican Presidents, successful or not. Small wonder, Europe was to be where WWIII was fought and now where many communities are inflamed w/ conflicts revolving around their Islamic communities. Both situations are/would be a direct result of how international relations are handled by the Republican Presidents. Reagan & the Bush Family will never be dear to the heart of the Euros, but Carter will be.

I also feel that in the current world of political polarization that Carter could, live on network tv, stuff kittens into a blender and Bush could personally save the world from being hit by a meteor and still there would be those that vilify Bush and praise Carter, just out of bitter partisanship.

Originally posted by Dr Love

Originally posted by pavil
Plus, he only wanted to get rid of five of them.

Thanks for clarifying "all" to just "5". "Simple" mistake. I understand.

Perhaps you aren't understanding me, He asked ALL cabinet members to turn in resignations when the only thing he wanted to do was get rid of five. Having your whole cabinet turn in their resignations 3 years into your 4 year term is hardly the sign of a competent leader, maybe you think so.

Stop with the condescending tone please. My statement was an accurate one, yours was making up a wishful rationale for one of Carter's many blunders.

I've always liked the quote in the Simpsons when they unveil a statue of him instead of someone else:

"Jimmy Carter? He's the 20th Century's greatest monster!!"

He was a weak president. He complained that Ford was conducting a "Rose Garden campaign" when he was running against him, then did the same thing when he ran against Reagan.

Long gas lines. High unemployment. High interest rates. Inflation/recession/close to a depression.

Allowed our embassy to be overrun TWICE and hostages taken, which I believe was the start of our troubles in the Middle East. Sorry, that was the time for decisive military action, not just Desert One.

(Side note. I was speaking to a Special Forces Senior NCO about Desert One:

"The president of the most powerful nation on the planet upon being briefed on Operation Eagle Claw asked one question at the end of the briefing:

'Is anyone going to get hurt?'

When we went to Saudi to stage for Desert Storm, he wanted to "negotiate" with saddam hussein. Had we let him he'd still be negotiating while the iraqis raped, killed and tortured every last Kuwaiti. Not only is carter a moron but he's a spineless one.")

I read an interview with him in Newsweek on Wednesday. He said we wouldn't have the energy problems we have now if we followed his policies. He bragged that he lowered our foreign oil consumption while he was in office, only to have it double now. Now, we did cut back on foreign oil (from Iran) after the hostages were taken, but I think he forgot that Clinton was big into the US relying on "cheap" foreign oil. (In fact, John Denver ("Rocky Mountain High" fame) wrote a public letter to Clinton thanking him for using more foreign oil instead of drilling in ANWR)

Carter is a failed president, now a bitter old man tilting at windmills.

reply to post by centurion1211


Well, to be fair I didn't actually say that all post war governments balanced the books. But at least governments up to & including Carter's made an attempt to do that. Public borrowing or surplus will always vary from year to year despite the most meticulous planning by the powers that be - tax receipts might be higher than anticipated leading to a surplus, expenditure might be higher than anticipated leading to a deficit. It's not an exact science.

But consider your link (thanks for that) and look at the years when income & expenditure really start to diverge, leading to a year on year running deficit. What do you reckon ? 1977 ? 1978 ? Sure, it's a Carter deficit. Governments run deficits like that when the economy doesn't run to plan. But they're temporary - hopefully. According to that data, Kennedy had a deficit as did Nixon. But how much more painful would those Carter years have been had he not taken the government into deficit ? It's a balancing act and one that was faced by most of the western governments. Britain had to get emergency funding from the IMF at the same time ... the Chancellor (finance minister) had to go cap in hand to them to get a loan to bail out UK plc. That's how bad those times really were. At least the USA never got to that stage.

The point I suppose I'm really trying to make is that not only did Carter face the most enormous economic challenges, he tried to address them too and suffered at the ballot box as a result. He could've kept everyone happy by simply borrowing even more money than he already did. That would've kept the military happy, they would've got their new ships & aircraft that much earlier. He could've borrowed to fund tax cuts. That would've kept the public happy. But he didn't. His government treated deficits as a necessary evil to ride out the storm and not as the major plank of economic policy. His successors, of both parties incidentally, weren't quite so prudent.

It didn't do him any good, of course. But give the guy some credit.

Originally posted by dakota1s2

Originally posted by tegidfoel
Jimmy Carter…double digit inflation, interest rates, unemployment!
America was (correctly) perceived as having a weak leader that appeased rather than confronted dictators and despots…
And the Panama Cannel…let’s no even go their!
All tolled, his was the most failed American presidency in the countries history…
Little wonder those in the world that wish America ill Cheered Jimmy Carter…The Best man on their team!

This is exactly the real Jimmy Carter. Never have I had the lack of respect for any American leader like I have for Jimmy. Why most non US citizens respect him or his legacy is beyond me. Definately the worst Leader we've ever had

Carter was the greatest appeaser in the presidential history. He could not say no…you want the Panama Canal, sure. You want the Philippine bases, sure. I’m surprised he didn’t give half of Texas to Mexico. We should also not forget that we are still suffering because of Carter's decisions as president. It was Carter's refusal to assist the Shah of Iran that allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini and Islamic fundamentalists to gain power and flourish. He is kind of ground zero for this whole mess over there. I still remember my first car I bought while he was the president and it was 19% interest rate.

reply to post by grover


sorry i think its possible to be truthfull and forcefull both at the same time but if your name is barry goldwater-----you better try holding back what you say just a little bit before you become president.margret thatcher did seem to have the right balance-----she said what she thought and europes leaders just cringed----they were all to weak to take on this iron lady----in a verbal confrontation ! its amazing the power that some peoples personality seems to exude----pres.carter radiated weakness not strength like pres. regan

Originally posted by TheAvenger
In my opinion, Jimmy Carter is a solid candidate to be named the worst U.S. President of the 20th century.

[edit on 10/11/2007 by TheAvenger]

Ummm No .. That "honor" goes to the man in the office right now .....

Of the many things that has been said of President Carter... At one point or another have probably been true.

My own views of Carter are a mixed bag. but the one thing I can say .. In this day and age... The man has some coconut balls.

reply to post by jtc1967


Say what you will about Bush, but he's immeasurably better than Carter. At least he has a backbone and reigned over a fairly good economy. Carter had neither.

reply to post by yahn goodey


I didn't say he said what he thought, I said he told the people the truth... the truth about our energy consumption for one... and the need to conserve as well.

Was Carter a bad president? No. He could have been a lot better this is true. But events such as the rise of OPEC conspired against him.

People forget that.

But given the inability to tell even a simple truth of the current occupant... I'll take Carter.

I certainly agree that Jimmy Carter was an ineffective President to say the least. I have to wonder however, if hadn't been president, would he really have as much sway with people as he does now? The man has won a Nobel Peace Prize, and countless people look up to him for the wisdom he now has. If there has ever been a president that has learned more from the mistakes made while in the White House, please let me know. He wasn't good for our country then, but it will be a sad day for America when he passes. His legacy is that of his humanitarian work. Why they liked him so much around the world when he was the president probably is because he was completely non-threatening. Wasn't good for us necessarily, but I can't imagine America without him. In short, bad president, but one of the best people this country has ever spawned. When he made an appearance on King of the Hill Bobby even mistook him as Jesus. lol