General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama character assassinations...
Even today, Jimmy Carter has not recovered from the right-wing attacks upon his character in 1980. They were able to portray him as the weakest President in history, who was weak in foreign policy and in economic policies at home. In fact, it was his efforts that got the Camp David accords and agreement between Begin and Sadat. It was his energy policy that was adopted by Reagan and served us well for several years. It was his honesty that was needed after Watergate and the corruption and criminality in the White House under Nixon. But, because of the Iran hostage crisis, the Republicans painted him as weak and unable to govern. Eventually, the hostages came home, after Reagan was elected. But they were not killed, as were the 241 service members in Beirut that were car-bombed under Reagan's incompetence.
Today, they are doing the same type of character assassination against Barack Obama. And, just like with Jimmy Carter, they are succeeding. "Obama is weak. He is incompetent. He is a liar. He is not even an American". And so forth, and so forth...
When in fact, Barack Obama is one of the most involved foreign policy Presidents we have had in a very long time. He has spent most of his time in office cleaning up the mess and disasters left behind by Bush, Cheney, and the Republican war mongers. History will probably record that his major accomplishment in office was in keeping the country from going under after the disastrous market and housing crash of 2008? But, the right-wing will never mention that as they continue to tear him down and to obstruct every idea that he might propose.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
shenmue
(38,597 posts)The vitriol people spew about Carter is unbelievable. I'd send you links to what they say on other boards, but I don't want you to throw your computer out the window. 
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)But make no mistake...Jimmy Carter is a saint compared to Obama. Obama is all about dropping bombs and surveillance on the public while keeping quiet about all sorts of injustices. He also lied through his teeth when he told us he would filibuster the telecom immunity bill which he ended up voting for as well as lots of others lies like demanding transparency and getting rid of lobbyists in government watchdog positions. Someone obviously got to him.
madokie
(51,076 posts)You are so f*ing right.
Yes I had to throw the f word in there for effect.
I don't know of a thing that President Carter did that could not be seen as good but then I'm a good solid Democrat who understands that the President is the president of all people here in the USA
President Obama has done wonders in spite of the pukes and all the obstruction they could and did pull out
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)
NBachers
(19,421 posts)Thanks.
I do that a lot. 
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... work cut out for you.
Dustlawyer
(10,539 posts)coronation to hold the hostages until he was sworn in. Carter would have gotten them home safely if he had not been secretly undercut by Reagan and Bush I!
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)when he leaves office. His impact will truly be felt years from now.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He is human. He has made mistakes, but overall, and especially on foreign policy, he has done a great job. Made some unwise appointments in the economic area.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)There were bad appointments on the foreign policy arena as well.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I was thinking about that ... and have concluded that the "bad appointments" will only come back to haunt, if people believe the BS that they (and the pundit class) spin.
Pick a "bad appointment" ... remove all the after-whist commentary of the pundit class; comments made with the benefit of hindsight and, if contemporaneous, with the benefit of zero accountability should they have gotten it wrong ... can you honestly say these were "bad appointments"? ... and based on what?
Each and every one of these people were highly qualified, highly competent individuals that did what their information led them to believe was the best course.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)is worse, they did not represent a wide enough spectrum of thought. Geithner is a rather rigid man from what I can tell. Bernanke seems to me to be a bit full of himself. And Larry Summers?
Have you read Elizabeth Warren's book? Several of the anecdotes she tells about the period in which she was supposed to be monitoring the use of the bail-out money are telling.
Maybe the most startling is the one in which she went out to eat with Larry Summers, and he gave her a lecture about how if she wanted to be on the inside, she should not criticize those already on the inside. What an effective way to control the information that President Obama would receive from those who were supposed to be auditing or reviewing and in that way assisting with the management of the bail-out.
When Obama was first elected, I heard that he was reading A Team of Rivals, which is about Lincoln's cabinet made up of men who did not agree on some points but whose varied points of view were helpful to Lincoln as he handled a difficult situation.
Obama did not have enough rivals advising him on his relationships with Wall Street.. The team he chose looked an awful lot like a team the big banks or Wall Street might have chosen.
In my opinion, Obama has been brilliant when it comes to foreign policy and domestic issues like healthcare. He also has tried very hard to hold the union together in the face of a terrible lack of cooperation and respect on the part of Republicans -- at times approaching a strike.
But his appointments to deal with the economic crisis and the banks included too many defenders of the banks and too few defenders of the people. And we will pay for that for a long time, I am sorry to say. But then maybe we will wise up and make sure our next president understands economics better and either appoints some people with different points of view or maybe even is a person with some good answers on how to balance the inerests of the banks and those of ordinary working people.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I, still, disagree ...
You seem to be confusing/conflating "Highly Qualified" and "Highly Competent" with "personality" and "Approach." Though I agree that we, probably, would have benefitted if the "Team of Rivals" had been of "wider" opinions.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)You really need to read Elizabeth Warren's book if you haven't already. It is probably available from the library by this time. She describes how her oversight commission was kind of shoved aside and ignored but kept working anyway.
It is not a personal criticism of Obama. It is a criticism of his appointments which, I would guess, were the picks of the very bankers that were to be overseen.
Apparently, Warren was picked for her post by the leadership of the Senate. Harry Reid called her if I remember correctly what she wrote in her book.
The president cannot control every detail, every action by every person in his cabinet. But he or she does need to seek advice on appointments from a variety of different sources and interests. I don't think that has been the custom when it has come to appointments to posts that deal with financial issues. And therein lies the problem.
On the other hand, Hilda Solis for labor was a very good pick for Secretary of Labor in my opinion.
Hillary for Secretary of State was politically savvy, probably unavoidable. Sometimes you do what you have to do.
But the Geithner, Summers and Bernanke picks meant that the recovery was focused on bank recovery and not on the recovery of ordinary Americans or even Europeans for that matter.
The crisis was viewed as a banking crisis. It was much more than that.
A lot of financially illiterate, hard-working people were taken. (Some lost everything.) The ignorance about how mortgages work, how interest rates work, etc. was just unbelievable when you started talking to ordinary people as I did about the crisis. It is the responsibility of the lender to make sure the person to whom they are lending money will be able to repay it or at least will be likely to be able to repay it. The banks and mortgage lenders did not do due diligence on borrowers.
And on top of that the banks and mortgage lenders violated laws and rules that were designed to protect their own investments. Yet we bailed out the banks and mortgage lenders. They committed fraud in a number of ways, but they are still managing the banks.
Had they imported a relatively small quantity of some forbidden drug and brought down someone's life in that way, they would be in prison for a long time. This is justice gone awry, and it goes back to the appointments that were made at the very top.
The appointment to the post of Attorney General was in my opinion mixed, good and bad. There are things about Holder that I liked very much, but others that were very bad for the country.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It is not a personal criticism of Obama. It is a criticism of his appointments which, I would guess, were the picks of the very bankers that were to be overseen.
That speaks to neither qualification, nor competence; nor, does this have to do with personal approach ... this seem more related to "interactive dynamics" where there was/is a failure to hear contrarian voices (i.e., the failure of communication/persuasion of the dissenting voices, that was no doubt a/the result of, as you mentioned, the stacking of ideological voices/scope).
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)apologists for the financial sector. Consumers, ordinary people, were not well represented. That is a fact. And it is very sad because we will be paying for the very narrow view these appointees represented for a long time.
Nobody is perfect. Obama may come pretty close, but nobody is perfect. He took some bad advice. And I think some of it was from the Bush crowd. But that is just my guess.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that the failure to hear contrarian voices was due to the fact that (as in ALL policy/action plan arguments/discussion) the contrarians were unable to frame their argument in a manner, and forcefully enough to be heard.
And, further, the contrarian view is rarely validated until AFTER the fact.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I plan to; but, from the description of her being ignored, it seems that it is unrelated to the qualifications and/or competence of those ignoring her; and (I know this is going to get me into trouble, here), has more to do with (in this case) her inability to make a persuasive and/or forceful enough argument to sway the rest of the "Team of Rivals."
BTW ... I agree ... the composition of the decision-makers should have been more broadly representative.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She doesn't have any trouble getting people to understand her. Obama supported the creation of the Consumer bureau that was her idea. It was people wedded to the financial sector and the powerful and very wealthy people they represent who shut out criticisms and ideas that did not favor the banks and big money.
Whose fault was it that African-Americans' desires for equal rights were not heard for over a hundred years after the Civil War? Was it because they were not good enough at communicating? Or was it the disinterest or perhaps opposing interest of those whose ears were closed, those who refused to be communicated to?
I think it was the latter: the unwillingness to listen to the African-Americans. Here again, you have the great mass of borrowers whose spokespeople were ignored for as long as possible by powerful members of the Obama administration who were appointed at the behest of even more powerful people.
It is not always the fault of the ignored when they are not heard. Sorry. But that is the truth.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)getting people to understand her ... and everything to do with being able to frame an/the argument in persuasive and compelling manner ... which at that level has less to do with what you say to the people in the room and more to do with what you can say, and more so, do to the people that the people in the room listen to.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)Time served.
And what you are going to get are some Reagan people, some of the Bushes people and some Clinton people. And there will always be griping about either of those litters.
Who else could be chosen, someone without a resume? Someone who never worked in government before?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it seems that many think that previous employment represents some form of political/philosophical statement ... it is not! Each of these appointees is/was, undeniably, high qualified and highly competent; but what's more, a professional ... hired to do a job.
(In honor of the Monday after a Sunday of Football) It seems that many here would have had Denver pass on Payton Manning because he once played for Indianapolis!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)After all the abuse President Obama suffered at the hands of Republicans you still think appointing them was a good idea?
Did it curry favor with the GOP to appoint their kind?
Did they treat the President with respect?
I think not.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)each and every one of them is a highly qualified, competent and extremely bright professional ... paid to do a job.
(In honor of the Monday after a Sunday of Football) It seems that you would have had Denver pass on Payton Manning because he once played for Indianapolis!
druidity33
(6,911 posts)and who is married to an Executive Director, i'd have to say i disagree with you strongly. When you are offering a sought after job you end up with MANY qualified applicants. Generally you choose the candidate that best fits the organization you're hiring for. The President's Financial picks supported his agenda. Period. Obama is directly responsible for Geitner, Bernanke, Summers, et al. As Democrats we have to deal with that.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and recognize that for highly sought after positions, there are many qualified applicants. And agree that the successful candidate is, typically, the candidate that the hiring authority "likes best" ... this includes their being minimally qualified and being an organizational fit.
I agree; but would agree, rather than "supported his agenda", they believed they could accomplish his agenda.
It has been my experience that very few people take jobs as political statements, as opposed to another hill to conquer.
I agree with this, too; but we have to deal with that, only with the benefit of hindsight that none of these appointees had.
kentuck
(115,391 posts)..that was a failure of the Party. From the time of the election until inauguration day, about 10 weeks, is long enough time for Party Leaders to help the new President choose a Cabinet - State, Treasury, and Defense - that will promote the agenda of our Party. There are many questions.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)"Cut entitlements, not military spending." My kind of guy.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Jimmy Carter was a good president, he has remained compassionate and steady since he left office. I am still waiting for a Republican presidential to work as hard as Carter and help those less fortunate.
Thank you, President Carter for your service.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)servicing this country while in and out of office. Carter has been a stand-out all the way. A must read.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)and given the terrorists what they demanded in exchange for the hostages. He refused to do any of that.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)
zeemike
(18,998 posts)That was the anti Christ...they did the exact same thing.
The problem is we have not learned how to deal with it...they say outrageous things knowing full well it will upset us and we will then defend it or him/her or whatever they chose...they manipulate us thorough our emotions.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)but when I hear that from so called democrats, I want to puke in their shoes.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Is correct. I think it's all part of the plan ...
As Posted earlier:
could be heard whispered throughout the land. (It seems)
GOP: "Government doesn't work" ... Check!
Libertarians (right and left): "Government is evil" ... Check!
Tea Party: "Government doesn't work and there is no difference between establishment republicans and establishment Democrats" ... Check!
"Liberals/Progressives": "Government is evil and there is no difference between establishment republicans and establishment Democrats" ... Check!
The media has played this narrative on a 7-day, 24-hour loop.
Result: Only 15% of the American people pay close attention to the only mechanism for change.
Nicely played, Oligarchs!
oberliner
(58,724 posts)See Ted Kennedy.
I never trusted Senator Kennedy after what he did to President Carter. The last straw was when he teamed up with Shrub to pass NCLB. NCLB has been a disaster for our children and unfortunately, RTTP is continuing the damage.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)When it was happening, I am not sure President Carter fought back. Both President Carter and Obama are gentlemen. So they are portrayed as weak by bullies. It is pretty classic and has gone on forever.
malaise
(295,735 posts)Still Benghazi flopped big time in 2013 - whereas Reagan and the ReTHUG goons were successful against Carter for the 1980 election.
greatlaurel
(2,020 posts)Things really started to unravel during Bush the first reign. Then we had 8 years of Clinton to try and get some things done. Bush 2 nearly took the country to a place beyond repair with help of Elaine Chao and Mitch McConnell who both worked overtime to outsource jobs to China. While Obama's policies on education and nuclear energy are misguided, he has done much to repair the tremendous damage done by the GOP and their corporate sponsors.
Just like Carter, Obama's foreign policies are derided by both the left and the right. He has steadily improved and strengthened the US's standing in the world. The mess in Syria and Iraq is not just a result of the horrendous mess Bush made, but also a result of the vile colonial policies of Britain and France before and after WW1 and from the House of Saud. The coalition he and Kerry are trying to put together will save tens of thousands of lives, if they can pull it off. The problem is that all these powers he is dealing with are more interested in their own petty interests than saving lives. Just look at what Erdogan is doing letting Kurds be slaughtered while he sits by doing nothing. Erdogan is letting ISIS destroy his Kurdish opposition. He is a monster.
We are lucky to have Obama to try to do the right thing.
brer cat
(27,559 posts)
livingonearth
(728 posts)I agree wholeheartedly.
sheshe2
(97,402 posts)Thank you, great OP!
KoKo
(84,711 posts)But, then, we are going to have a revisit of that one again....dressed in the guise of the "Clinton Global Initiative" and the First Woman President.
You left out what the Clinton's went through, though..starting with "Vince Foster" and on through Monica.
I don't know any Dem Presidents who haven't gone through it with the RW. Johnson with Vietnam (the Left)....and Civil Rights (the Right Wing) and before with Kennedy and his challenge to the Republicans/CIA, etc....and we know what happened to him.
So...in a way, Obama has had it far easier than the rest. He had a better Team/Machine of Dems/Wall Street to back him up and make sure his message and anything he does or says....... he has a team ready to back him up.
So...that's my 2 cents.
rufus dog
(8,419 posts)Before Obama stepped foot into the White House. I remember my asshole RW relatives using this during Christmas 2008. They failed at making him a one term President but the fucking assholes will never quit.
Carter weak = Obama weaker
mopinko
(73,672 posts)right on.
i try to tell people that he was slimed. even as they continue to get away with that shit, people deny.
i also believe he was undermined by the saudis. his push for alternative energy would have starved them a long time ago without the propaganda campaign that was waged against him.
the usual reply is that it was not just the saudis, but opec that crashed the economy. but who were the smaller oil producing following?
and who danced to the saudi tune back then? the usual suspects.
this time i agree w you completely kentuck.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Supposedly a haven for "progressive" Democrats.
I am so sick & tired of posters crowing about being more-liberal-than-thou, then they piss on every real opportunity to get liberal policies enacted. MAINLY BY TARGETING THOSE SUPPORTING DEMOCRATS! Their actions don't help the progressive cause, just the GOP.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)than they will really see how the middle class will "definitely" be more no. I guess they have forgotten the over 700,000 lost jobs per month huh.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)A brilliant example of syllogistic casuistry. Well done!!
PumpkinAle
(1,210 posts)was he was just a really nice, caring gentleman.
And that is just an anathema to republicans.
TNNurse
(7,537 posts)Christian values and they do not understand those.
PumpkinAle
(1,210 posts)to them it is not what Christians should do.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)of the obstructionism that has plagued his two terms. And if we are lucky the gop will not survive the damage they have caused.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Nuh Uh
(47 posts)That you fail to fight back. Keep a list of Obama accomplishment's close at hand and don't be afraid to confront this kind of thing directly. History will certainly be kind to Obama but less kind if you stay silent.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)As part of the program I interned with a Dem Rep. and wrote most of his press releases (among other things), including many explaining Carter initiatives, bills signed, etc.
By the end of that semester it turned out that I needed to relocate to the D.C. area for medical treatment at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and I got a job with NTSB under the leadership of a Chairman appointed by Carter--Jim King of MA--and another Dem, Tuskegee Airman Woody Driver as Vice Chairman. The Carter days were a great time to work at the agency under his appointees.
I only saw Jimmy and Rosalynn once, at a White House Easter Egg Roll--where my son found a special wooden egg signed by the President and First Lady. My son was disappointed that it wasn't one of the eggs with candy like the others he found, but Dad was pretty jazzed.
As I was only a low-level fed agency staffer, not a political appointee (though I was able to advance rapidly under King and Driver), I can't say that I was "in" the Carter Administration--but I worked for it, and I have fond memories of those times. After the Republicans came in I stayed around only a couple of years before resigning in frustration.
I hope that history will give Jimmy Carter the credit he deserves. 
bpositive
(425 posts)I was reading or listening to the news the other day telling me how unpopular Obama was. I guarantee that every state that Obama goes to he would pull in a much greater crowd of friends than any democrat or republican. He should do that just to prove everyone wrong!
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)I thought he was a great man, and it was easy to back that up with a list of his accomplishments. It was even easier to back that up with a look at his goals and priorities. It was a bitter pill to see him defeated by Reagan, and the eight years of crowing that followed, and the "consensus" on his presidency alienated me from the whole nasty affair.
Obama is the first president who's work I have been truly engaged with since. But, it looks like the whole narrative plays out again. In spite of an impressive list of achievements, and a truly admirable set of goals and priorities, he seems to have been similarly tossed aside. Its easier to take this time, having been around the block a time or two myself, but keeping up a basic good attitude toward people in general becomes more effortful.
All else aside, 2000-2008 was a big lesson in how important it is to vote. Give me another candidate like Carter or Obama anytime, but lacking that its still going to be straight party line, and I'll never miss another election.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)But after the constant trashing of Pres Clinton I changed to the Democratic Party in 199(six) and am very pleased with my decision. Voted for Gore, Kerry and voted twice for Obama. Read about Pres Carter and yes, he was a good President, full of compassion and tried his best in protecting the American public. He is a true Christian. As for Pres O I'm behind him, and as Pres Carter, a true Christian.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)A clipping of the hedges, sure, to keep the base occupied, but beyond that ... ZILCH!
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Wall Street has never had a better friend, big oil has never had a better friend, PhARMA has never had a better friend, NSA/CIA/FBI has never had a better friend, than President Obama. He didn't just keep his powder dry, he used it to defend and nourish the most corrupt institutions in America.
As far as working class rank and file? We are truly fucked.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Stardust
(3,894 posts)watched it happen over and over and over...
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Jimmy Carter was an actual Southerner type Christian. He STILL teaches Sunday School at a little church in Plains, Georgia.
Post LBJ the Republicans were infiltrating the fundies in the South who didn't give a DAMN about politics because they were devoted to the "Kingdom of Heaven". These were thousands and thousands of people who never voted before. All of the sudden you had fire and brimstone preachers screaming for "God's People" to "take back America" and the ethereal world was merged into the real world.
Those preachers also told you who the enemy was. Instead of loving your neighbor and setting an example for them of a kind and gentle soul (like Carter,...or Mr. Rogers) they wanted you to recognize the enemy amongst your own neighbors and blame them for the HELL that the country was in.
Look at the map from when Carter got elected.
Ford would have won if Carter had lost New York and Ohio. Just look at the "Left Coast". In fact, a lot of people at the time thought The South had given America "a Hayseed".
Billy Carter was even on "Hee Haw".
It was essential for The South to have a case of collective amnesia about them voting for a "D". The Carter years HAD to be remembered as a complete disaster and to this day there is a shock factor when you show someone from The South the map above.
Or the fact that the only modern president that served more time in the military than Jimmy Carter was Dwight D. Eisenhower.
(Reagan's time doing war movies doesn't count.)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
It's just shocking to compare that electoral map to today.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Guess I won't mention the Trilateral Commission.
BlueMTexpat
(15,688 posts)although not quite as overt as that given to President Obama, I have too often been struck by a sense of "déjà vu" these days, and especially when spineless members of his own political party distance themselves from him.
Carter was always considered an outsider by the inside-the-Beltway pols and by the "conventional wisdom" of the 1970s. He is also a decent human being. The phonies could never stand that with Carter, what you see really is what you get.
President Obama is an outsider to the predominantly white political establishment. IMO, he has managed to steer an extraordinarily successful course in the face of constant obstructionism and sniping from his own "allies" such as that weasel Panetta. His greatest failure, IMO, has been to expect common sense and statesmanship from other politicians and that includes politicians in his own party.
While the GOP projects its worst fantasies onto others, President Obama projects his ideals. That has proven to be a mistake, especially with respect to the GOP.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)It's because the GOP is comprised entirely of weasels.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Sad and ANGRY
tblue37
(68,421 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)conduit to "character assassination". nt
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I am drafting an OP, entitled: "Ignorance really is Bliss" ... with the foundation being the "pining for the good old days" (that weren't really that good) and nihilism that we see is a direct result of the internet's providing a second by second sensationalizing and inflation of the horror moments in society and sausage making that is politics.
spanone
(141,510 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)seeing how the distortions and smears try to paint Obama to be
"weak" ... does remind me of how Carter was treated, especially
during his last few years in office.
good one.
demigoddess
(6,675 posts)listening to Rush Limbaugh I believe he was deliberately doing this propaganda line, that all dems are weak(Clinton listened to Hillary), corrupt (Clinton had a girlfriend, Clinton took bribes) and bad for business (Jimmy Carter had a recession) etc etc. Rush also had this line about we "should never elect another democrat ever again, not even for dogcatcher". That was a quote. I remember it distinctly. I studied brainwashing in high school and it was a blatant brainwashing technique. Also he had a big line of propaganda that being poor or growing up poor was a good thing, that such people would eventually be rich, especially under republican presidents and office holders. Why do you think so many people who are not of the 1% vote for the republicans against their own interests?? answer: Rush Limbaugh
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)czarjak
(13,626 posts)The Annapolis grad, submarine commander, Habitat for Humanity participant, devoted Baptist? Compared to RR and the Bush's. Hell of a man.
mahina
(20,626 posts)
I wish I could recommend it more than once.