Is it 1976 all over again? Is Obama the new Jimmy Carter?
I get this idea from, of all people, Democratic strategist Bob Beckel. Beckel was on TV the other day saying that Obama was looking a bit like Jimmy Carter in 1976. Beckel intended this as a compliment. After all, Carter came out of nowhere to steal the Democratic nomination and then went on to win the election. Obama too has vanquished a woman who was thought to be invincible for the Democratic nomination.
I think Beckel has a point with his Carter analogy, although Beckel does not seem to have thought it through deeply enough. Actually it goes even further than he imagines. Obama, like Carter, has had no preparation for the high office he seeks. Carter's background was in peanut farming; Obama's is in community activism. Yes, Carter was governor of Georgia and Obama has served briefly in the Senate. But no one can seriously argue that either brings to Washington anything like the experience necessary to run the United States of America.
Second, Obama, like Carter, tries to be all things to all people. Carter campaigned largely on vacuities like "change" and "cleaning out Washington." Sound familiar? Of course Americans after Watergate wanted Washington cleaned up and they wanted change. And of course Carter gave it to them, although it wasn't exactly the change they sought: stagflation, economic recession, runaway interest rates, U.S. hostages in Iran, a Soviet bear on the prowl, and what Carter himself called a national "malaise."
Obama is hoping that once again Americans will fall for his content-free campaign. And so far he seems to have the white liberal intelligentsia completely fooled. A classic example is my former debate opponent Alan Wolfe, who has endorsed Obama on the sole grounds that it's about time America let a black man into the Oval Office. Wolfe is not the brightest light in the academic firmament--I think of him as white America's answer to Cornel West--but he is one of the biggest opportunists this side of the Nile. Consequently his support of Obama shows which way this academic weatherman thinks the wind is blowing.
I don't know if Obama, like Carter, will make it to the White House in November. But the best thing about Carter was that, by being a complete disaster, he helped Reagan get elected in 1980. Even so, America paid a high price for Carter's foolishness--several countries fell into the Soviet orbit, and Iran fell into the clutches of the radical mullahs. Who knows how costly an Obama presidency could be? I for one hope it's not 1976 all over again.
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 25)
31. SEE BOOK - THE REAL JIMMY CARTER BY RONALD KESSLER FOR COMPARISON.
PT TEITEL at 11:54AM on Jun 18th 2008
32. Silly REV.
Everybody knows Dinesh is the Anti Christ!!!
rabidmccain at 11:52AM on Jun 18th 2008
33. Rev since you are bearing false witness, does the 666 number appear on your forehead or your heart?
JefFlyingV at 12:00PM on Jun 18th 2008
34. Robert,
I don't want to pay higher taxes! My taxes are high enough. As a single woman, I don't qualify for tax breaks. Why should I pay higher taxes to support another failed attempt to create a "Great Society"? Barack Obama has these Socialist ideas and thinks the American people should fund them. Well, I am tired of paying for every Marxist pet project of liberals. I would like to keep my money. I don't work hard so people like Obama can implement their liberal fantasies.
janesophie1 at 11:01AM on Jun 18th 2008
Jane, you ignorant slut.
We are currently in a "war." The clown currently in charge, lied and exaggerated us into it. The cost of this "war" so far is about 1 TRILLION dollars. Thats $1,000,000,000,000. Given that the U.S. population is about 300 million, thats $3,333.33 cents for every man, woman, and child in the country. And that's just what we've spent so far.
You should have to pay more for your "great society", as that's what you voted for the last two presidential elections. You saw Bush, "god fearing christian", and ignored everything else. The "great society" you have to pay for isn't ours - It's in Iraq. And it's not that great.
Now, you have a choice. You can choose between another pretender christian, and somebody who is going to try to fix what went horribly wrong for the last 8 years.
Are you a real christian, or one who's principles end at your bank account?
ex-christian at 12:07PM on Jun 18th 2008
35. It is unfair to call jane a slut, she only put out a few times...
P at 12:14PM on Jun 18th 2008
36. "What person under 35 even remembers the good things that Carter did?" - Cecil Jones
Just curious, what were the "good things" accomplished during the Carter presidency?
Anyone?
Monty at 12:16PM on Jun 18th 2008
37. PT:
of course it's common for conservative commenters to use all-caps and sound as looney as a jaybird full of bb's, but is this a deliberate impression? Is this a jest? Are you actually trying to tickle our funnybones? Dear sir, perhaps you should instead focus on upping your dosage, and see what's on the tube? Just wonderin.
best,
mikey
michael white at 12:23PM on Jun 18th 2008
38.
It is unfair to call jane a slut, she only put out a few times...
If you're old enough to remember the Carter administration, you're old enough to know why I called Jane an ignorant slut...
ex-christian at 12:23PM on Jun 18th 2008
39. Obama is as much the New Jimmy Carter, as Dinesh is the New William F. Buckley. Neither comparison is worth the spit you'd expectorate onto them.
m. smith at 12:26PM on Jun 18th 2008
40. Robert, and goddess1prevail,
I don't believe in laissez-faire Capitalism. I believe that there should be some government regulations. I don’t want to pay higher taxes to support expanded welfare, socialized medicine, etc. As far as abortion; there are millions of people that contribute time and money to help women in a crisis pregnancy. Beacon of Hope, in Atlanta will provide any assistance during and after the pregnancy. A better solution for all of the "unwanted" babies that will supposedly result from a repeal of Roe vs. Wade is to be cared for by their parents. Mom and Dad should acquire an education (free public schools open to everyone) and job skills, work (two or three jobs if necessary), marry (novel idea) and support the child they laid down and co-created; not necessarily in that order. There was a time not to long ago when parents took care of their children. They didn’t rely on the government or nearest abortion mill.
PS. Poor countries might prosper if they ended corruption and stopped fighting long enough to develop socioeconomically.
janesophie1 at 12:37PM on Jun 18th 2008
41.
For all your "compassion," Jane, you show your true self when push comes to shove.
You speak often about how great god is, and how bad abortion is. Now's your chance to show how compassionate you are. But you won't.
Since the reasons we're in Iraq have proven to be all lies, the apologists now chant what they're doing for those poor Iraqi's. That trillion dollars has to come from somewhere - and has to be repaid sometime.
You can suck it up and pay for what you wanted, or push that cost onto all those poor, unborn children. Every year it goes unpaid, those poor, unborn children will have to pay more, as money borrowed isn't paid back without interest, and without inflation.
But you couldn't give a rat's heinie about the costs dumped on those poor unborn children. ME ME ME - MY TAXES MY TAXES MY TAXES.
Or is that your rationale behind banning abortion? More babies to pay for what you won't pay for?
ex-christian at 12:45PM on Jun 18th 2008
42. DD writes...
"Obama, like Carter, has had no preparation for the high office he seeks. Carter's background was in peanut farming; Obama's is in community activism. Yes, Carter was governor of Georgia and Obama has served briefly in the Senate. But no one can seriously argue that either brings to Washington anything like the experience necessary to run the United States of America."
DD, you dimwit....two of your favorite presidents Reagan and W had no more qualification than Carter. All three were state governers who had other occupations prior to politics. Why do you constantly harp against the qualifications of Democrats but never Republicans (you did the same thing for Hillary)?
Also consider for a moment that the Founders did not really envision anyone who was a "professional" politician serving in government. They envisioned the Congress as being made up of capable, intelligent lay people who understood the real issues in America and were willing to come to Washington D.C. to serve temporarily as representatives of the common people. They viewed the president as no different.
Capablility in a President can be well described as a person who is a natural leader (i.e. has the personal qualities that make people want to follow that person's vision), someone with enough decorum and charisma to handle the diplomatic side of the office, a good organizer and administrator, a good judge of people so he/she can pick qualified advisors and Cabinet members, an intellect that allows him/her to correctly sort through the complex issues and options that allows for good decision making, and finally somewhat of a visionary who can see the "big picture" in the proper light and steer policy in that direction.
In other words, someone completely unlike your buddy George W. Bush. DD, if you read the above list of qualifications, you'll see that holding public office for many, many years, as McCain has is not on the list as it, by itself, does not guarantee competence.
DD...I could ony get a little ways through your Blog this time because your ideology was clearly driving your point as opposed to any type of objective reasoning. Of late, you really haven't been worth the effort to read.
John Galt
John Galt at 12:43PM on Jun 18th 2008
43. I can't wait for the debates when people will see McBush for the out of touch old fool he is. It's going to be fun.
Larry at 12:43PM on Jun 18th 2008
44. So JS, all you want is for us to turn back the clock to 1952. Gee, is that all?
Since your fifties white utopia is gone forever, and the parents in question are usually ONE parent, one mother with no means to support their children, and perhaps no parental sills at all, and perhaps on drugs, how are you gonna magically make happy healthy families for all the babies? How are you gonna edumacate the parents? No plan, huh? Well, that's okay. Their babies can just die then. Hey, at least they weren't aborted, huh? That way they got to experience starvation and drug addiction and a painful death as an infant. No doubt that was God's plan for them anyhow...
Godless Heathen Brian at 12:44PM on Jun 18th 2008
45. PS. Poor countries might prosper if they ended corruption and stopped fighting long enough to develop socioeconomically.
janesophie1 at 12:37PM on Jun 18th 2008
-----------------------------
So would the US, and that's why we have Obama.
Godless Heathen Brian at 12:46PM on Jun 18th 2008