I know this isn't purely a ''current politics'' issue--it's been going on since 1980--
But I've noticed from many, if not most, on the right a burning hatred or disdain for Jimmy Carter--an anger or hate they don't even show to Clinton or any other Democrat.
It kind of confuses me--You think that those on the right wing would love Carter since his failings paved the way for the rise of their idol, Ronald Reagan. I would think that more people on the right would hate Clinton more since he defeated their side twice--Yet I see from many right wingers an almost grudging respect for Clinton, the only disdain I've seen coming from his moral failings and the fact that he wasn't convicted in or didn't resign during the Lewinsky issue; Whereas with Carter, it seems many right wingers hate EVERYTHING about the man--His time in office, his post presidency, and even his pre-presidency years, even him as a person--He's mocked more than any other Democrat I've seen on right wing boards or websites.

Because the more they hate him, the more he obviously doesn't give a rats a$$ what they think, and they can't stand it when they can't make someone back down, weep, wail, and ask for forgiveness.  That, and he is everything they say a person should be, smart, independent, a good family man.  He is the man in the mirror whose personal standards they will never live up to.

I think the reason why many right-wingers hate Carter is due to propaganda.  Plenty of younger conservatives that display this fervent hate weren't even old enough to remember him.

For the ones old enough to have actually experienced his term, Carter is generally seen as being very incompetent.  Considering some of his decisions, I wouldn't exactly disagree.

Nevertheless, Carter's term also served well as a way for conservatives to forget about the GOP's own incompetence with Nixon and Ford.  Generally speaking, the 70s produced some of our least effective political leaders among both parties.

I think the reason why many right-wingers hate Carter is due to propaganda.  Plenty of younger conservatives that display this fervent hate weren't even old enough to remember him.

For the ones old enough to have actually experienced his term, Carter is generally seen as being very incompetent.  Considering some of his decisions, I wouldn't exactly disagree.

Nevertheless, Carter's term also served well as a way for conservatives to forget about the GOP's own incompetence with Nixon and Ford.  Generally speaking, the 70s produced some of our least effective political leaders among both parties.



See I don't think Nixon was incompetent--just corrupt. He was a very effective leader, and got quite a few things done--Ended Vietnam, started the EPA, enforced segregation more than any president, increased Social Security benefits by 20%, expanded the NEA and NEH greatly; He was just a vengeful and corrupt guy--that was his downfall. But I wouldn't say in any sense that he wasn't effective.

As for Ford, the guy inherited a very weakened Presidency (The War Powers Act of 1973 had passed, as had the Budgetary and Inpoundment Act of 1974 which limited the President's role in the budget), and a country which didn't trust government at all. His pardon of Nixon didn't help. . Also, since he wasn't elected by anyone, he couldn't create a platform or political identity of his own--He had no mandate to do so, and had a Democratic majority in Congress to contend with.

They hate JC because he said America should rein in her excesses and stop trying to push everybody else around.  So he's a wuss.  They also hate him because he says Israel should stick to UN agreements and stop pushing everybody else around.  So he's an anti-Semite. 

A wuss and an anti-Semite, is that the kind of guy YOU like, huh?

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/elefant.gif

He seems like a likeably guy and President, who got a bad rap, due to the excessive baggage, from Nixon and Ford.

He also advocated solving problems, diplomatically, rather just blowing things, to smithereens.

Carter, also started Habit For Humanity, a non profit organization, that builds houses, for the low income, and down on their luck.

So, the right, pretty much hates him for all the things, listed above, and what others mentioned.

IMO-I dislike Carter because of how he treated the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Then in 1980, he had America boycott the Olympics because of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Carter should've talked to both of them like he did with Israel and Egypt...but he didn't.

That's why people dislike Carter.

See I don't think Nixon was incompetent--just corrupt. He was a very effective leader, and got quite a few things done--Ended Vietnam, started the EPA, enforced segregation more than any president, increased Social Security benefits by 20%, expanded the NEA and NEH greatly; He was just a vengeful and corrupt guy--that was his downfall. But I wouldn't say in any sense that he wasn't effective.

Good points...  although I think you meant to say integration rather than segregation.  ;)

As for Ford, the guy inherited a very weakened Presidency (The War Powers Act of 1973 had passed, as had the Budgetary and Inpoundment Act of 1974 which limited the President's role in the budget), and a country which didn't trust government at all. His pardon of Nixon didn't help. . Also, since he wasn't elected by anyone, he couldn't create a platform or political identity of his own--He had no mandate to do so, and had a Democratic majority in Congress to contend with.


Again, good points.

I think that the major problem people many have with Carter is that:

(a) He reigned over the least effective presidency in modern times.  He could not get any of his important initiatives through (except maybe Israel/Egypt) despite enjoying a majority in the Congress.  Heck, even Nixon got more done in his last 4 years than Carter did.

(b) Despite his abject failure as President, he purports to know more/better than those presidents who followed him

Note that by "least effective" I refer to his inability to press forward successfully with an agenda.  While many people will bash Bush II, Reagan, or Clinton, all three of these presidents were quite effective in getting many major initiatives of theirs put into law... even if you don't agree with what they were... and all of them did so at times when the Congress was controlled by a party other than their own.

Carter, unlike these presidents, was not able to find his ass with both hands during his presidency, yet he is always on a high horse.

Note that by "least effective" I refer to his inability to press forward successfully with an agenda.  While many people will bash Bush II, Reagan, or Clinton, all three of these presidents were quite effective in getting many major initiatives of theirs put into law... even if you don't agree with what they were... and all of them did so at times when the Congress was controlled by a party other than their own.



Right here is where I agree with you....Between 1994 and 2000, Bill Clinton had a House and Senate that were Republican-owned. It wasn't until 2006 when the Democrats took over. I sometimes wonder...

I think that the major problem people many have with Carter is that:

(a) He reigned over the least effective presidency in modern times.  He could not get any of his important initiatives through (except maybe Israel/Egypt) despite enjoying a majority in the Congress.  Heck, even Nixon got more done in his last 4 years than Carter did.

And then there was St. Ronald who taught us all family values, which meant:  The only good family is a rich family, and if you're not rich, take your credit cards and pretend you are...which is what Bedtime-for-Ronzo did with our national policy. 

And then there was St. Ronald who taught us all family values, which meant:  The only good family is a rich family, and if you're not rich, take your credit cards and pretend you are...which is what Bedtime-for-Ronzo did with our national policy. 




Perhaps, but for all the carping abour Reagan, people forget that that when elected for his second term in 1984, he won by an overwhelming landslide.  He carried 49 of 50 states, and got 58.8% of the popular vote.  Heck, even the recent O'bama election, which has been characterized as some sort of cataclysmic landslide was only won by a 53% popular vote and 28 states.

So SOMEBODY thought he was doing something right.

(In fairness note that in '72, President Nixxon won his reelection with 49 states and 60%+ of the popular vote.  "Your mileage may vary"  ;D )

Perhaps, but for all the carping abour Reagan, people forget that that when elected for his second term in 1984, he won by an overwhelming landslide. 


Two words:  Walter Mondale.

'Nuff said.

::)

Anyway, Walt was saying we oughta put away the credit card and start paying for sh*t upfront.  Plus he was whiny.  America doesn't like whiners.  That is, Americans love to whine, they just hate hearing other people do it. 
:D

I think the reason why many right-wingers hate Carter is due to propaganda.  Plenty of younger conservatives that display this fervent hate weren't even old enough to remember him.

For the ones old enough to have actually experienced his term, Carter is generally seen as being very incompetent.  Considering some of his decisions, I wouldn't exactly disagree.


During his term - merely incompetent.

After his term - kowtowing to every tinpot dictator from Yasser Arafat to Kim Jong-Il to Hugo Chavez, and getting a Nobel Peace Prize for effectively handing nukes to the North Koreans - that's where the hate comes from.  (I'm sure I've skipped a few dictators, but those are the big three.) 

If he'd stuck to domestic politics, like damn nearly ever other former President, he'd have rehabilitated himself.  The whole Habitat for Humanity thing, for instance, is a fine idea.  But his constant meddling in international affairs has been a disgrace.  He's been the personification of the "useful idiot" to the detriment of US policy interests for the better part of 30 years, and it's inexcusable.

He seems like a niice guy but he was a terrible president from what I hear.

As for Clinton not being targeted by right wingers  well the ecomomy was pretty good when Clinton was president except for Clinton's first year in office(1993.) The whole ecomomy in the 70's sucked because of the oil crisis especially the 1973-1974 oil crisis.  Interest Rates were sky high  hen Carter was president and we had "stagflation" I think. I don;t think Carter knew anything about running an economy he just knew about foriegn affairs. Interestingly enough Carter was the Governor of Georgia before he was a president.

He seems like a niice guy but he was a terrible president from what I hear.

As for Clinton not being targeted by right wingers  well the ecomomy was pretty good when Clinton was president except for Clinton's first year in office(1993.) The whole ecomomy in the 70's sucked because of the oil crisis especially the 1973-1974 oil crisis.  Interest Rates were sky high  hen Carter was president and we had "stagflation" I think. I don;t think Carter knew anything about running an economy he just knew about foriegn affairs. Interestingly enough Carter was the Governor of Georgia before he was a president.


Carter didn't know much about foreign affairs either, as evidenced by his reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan ("Hey! You invaded Afghanistan so I'll boycott the Olymics, wuss!") and his impotent handling of the Iranian Hostage affair.

Carter didn't know much about foreign affairs either, as evidenced by his reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan ("Hey! You invaded Afghanistan so I'll boycott the Olymics, wuss!") and his impotent handling of the Iranian Hostage affair.


The Iranian Hostage affair would have been handled better if bush1 didn't go behind the back of the country and the have the hostages held in the name of public relations.

The Iranian Hostage affair would have been handled better if bush1 didn't go behind the back of the country and the have the hostages held in the name of public relations.


That has never been proven.

Nevertheless, even if it were true, Carter had the Iranian thing hosed up well before Reagan or Bush were viable players in the 1980 elections.

That has never been proven.

Nevertheless, even if it were true, Carter had the Iranian thing hosed up well before Reagan or Bush were viable players in the 1980 elections.


Oh, yeah,  the release of the hostages on inauguration day wasn't engineered, it happened because they were sooooo afraid of Reagan.  ::)

Reagan and his dream time cut a deal with Iranians to keep the hostages in captivity until Reagan's inauguration.  Thus, Reagan should not have been shot by John Hinckley, jay-ar, 'coz Bedtime-for-Ronzo should have been sitting in a cell in Leavenworth waiting for his treason trial to start on March 30, 1981, along with the rest of them bozos in his camp!

8)

Reagan and his dream time cut a deal with Iranians to keep the hostages in captivity until Reagan's inauguration.  Thus, Reagan should not have been shot by John Hinckley, jay-ar, 'coz Bedtime-for-Ronzo should have been sitting in a cell in Leavenworth waiting for his treason trial to start on March 30, 1981, along with the rest of them bozos in his camp!

8)




Do you believe that for real or were you being sarcastic?

Do you believe that for real or were you being sarcastic?



I say for real. Study up on bush1 and his career during and since his stint as Director of the CIA. 

I say for real. Study up on bush1 and his career during and since his stint as Director of the CIA. 


Oh, I know the government--The CIA, FBI, etc--were doing all sorts of crazy stuff in the 60s and 70s. Not even like conspiracy stuff, stuff that was discovered under the Freedom of Information Act--Like their experiments with LSD, their experiments with mind control, with telekinesis, the 600 attempts to kill Castro, Operation Mongoose, Operation Northwoods etc--They were out of control.

Do you believe that for real or were you being sarcastic?

It happened.  It wasn't Ronnie himself who came up with the idea; he wasn't that bright of a guy.  He was hateful and bigoted, but not very smart.  The chipper grandpa image was honed by handlers and further aided by his senility as the eighties progressed.  If you see Reagan's speeches when he was governor of California, you see more bile and anger. 

I know this isn't purely a ''current politics'' issue--it's been going on since 1980--
But I've noticed from many, if not most, on the right a burning hatred or disdain for Jimmy Carter--an anger or hate they don't even show to Clinton or any other Democrat.


With me, it dates to his behavior in the last 12 years or so.

Even while I did not care for him as President, I never doubted his honesty, nor that he did what he thought was best for the country.  But he made several colossal mistakes (handling of Iran, handling of the Shah, the Olympics) that I thought brought great embarasment to the country.

And once he left office, I thought he became a great statesman for the nation.  He even did several missions for President Reagan.  And his early peace efforts really were wonderful.

But as he got older, I am not sure what happened.  His desire for peace and being non-partaisan early on was well known, and brought a lot of differing factions together.  But more and more recently, he is becomming very antagonistic.  If he had to do a "Camp David Accord" today, I am sure that Israel would tell him to go pound sand.

With me, it dates to his behavior in the last 12 years or so.

Even while I did not care for him as President, I never doubted his honesty, nor that he did what he thought was best for the country.  But he made several colossal mistakes (handling of Iran, handling of the Shah, the Olympics) that I thought brought great embarasment to the country.

And once he left office, I thought he became a great statesman for the nation.  He even did several missions for President Reagan.  And his early peace efforts really were wonderful.

But as he got older, I am not sure what happened.  His desire for peace and being non-partaisan early on was well known, and brought a lot of differing factions together.  But more and more recently, he is becomming very antagonistic.  If he had to do a "Camp David Accord" today, I am sure that Israel would tell him to go pound sand.


That's right.  Israel pounding sand is the problem.  They're pounding sand that doesn't belong to them!
::)

And someday soon Jimmeh Cawtah's gonna be dead, then who will write books about problems in the Middle East, Bristol Palin?
:D

It happened.  It wasn't Ronnie himself who came up with the idea; he wasn't that bright of a guy.  He was hateful and bigoted, but not very smart.  The chipper grandpa image was honed by handlers and further aided by his senility as the eighties progressed.  If you see Reagan's speeches when he was governor of California, you see more bile and anger.  


I remember reading that back in the '70s, hippies had a planned a protest in one of the CA parks and Reagan wanted to send the CA Guard in and have the streets run red with blood.

EDIT: Here it is, defending the shooting death of student James Rector in the People's Park: ng: "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement."

I remember reading that back in the '70s, hippies had a planned a protest in one of the CA parks and Reagan wanted to send the CA Guard in and have the streets run red with blood.

EDIT: Here it is, defending the shooting death of student James Rector in the People's Park: ng: "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement."


But it also helps when you know what had happened in "People's Park" before he said that:

http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048

Over a hundred police were wounded.  They were chased down by people throwing bricks and bottles.  That is not a protest, that is a riot.  By the end of the day, almost 800 law enforcement officers were at the scene, and they were unable to restore order.  The National Guard did step in, and the violence ceased.

The only thing they fired was tear gas, and broke up any group.  Even though the Berkley City Council protested their presence, they did stop the riot.

The quote was made a year after the riots.  And there were no "bloodbaths".  And James Rector was not shot by National Guard troops, but by Law Enforcement (most believe it was a Alameda County Sheriff's deputy) on the first day of the riot.  If not for the Guard, the riots would likely have escalated and grown even more violent.

Then there was his famous meeting with protestors at Santa Cruz.  While going to meet the University Regents, the sidewalk was lined on both sides with students conducting a "Silent Protest".  When Govenor Reagan reached the door, he turned around, put his finger to his lips and told them "Shhhhhh".  His security was on high alert, expecting a more agressive protest.  But the reaction to this by the protestors was smiles and laughter.

I am all in favor of protest.  Hold your signs, have your marches, stand on your soap boxes and scream and shout.  But the moment somebody in the crowd starts to throw things, my support rapidly vanishes.  And when it turns to assaults against law enforcement, any support I may have had vanishes.

But it also helps when you know what had happened in "People's Park" before he said that:

http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048

Over a hundred police were wounded.  They were chased down by people throwing bricks and bottles.  That is not a protest, that is a riot.  By the end of the day, almost 800 law enforcement officers were at the scene, and they were unable to restore order.  The National Guard did step in, and the violence ceased.

The only thing they fired was tear gas, and broke up any group.  Even though the Berkley City Council protested their presence, they did stop the riot.

The quote was made a year after the riots.  And there were no "bloodbaths".  And James Rector was not shot by National Guard troops, but by Law Enforcement (most believe it was a Alameda County Sheriff's deputy) on the first day of the riot.  If not for the Guard, the riots would likely have escalated and grown even more violent.

Then there was his famous meeting with protestors at Santa Cruz.  While going to meet the University Regents, the sidewalk was lined on both sides with students conducting a "Silent Protest".  When Govenor Reagan reached the door, he turned around, put his finger to his lips and told them "Shhhhhh".  His security was on high alert, expecting a more agressive protest.  But the reaction to this by the protestors was smiles and laughter.

I am all in favor of protest.  Hold your signs, have your marches, stand on your soap boxes and scream and shout.  But the moment somebody in the crowd starts to throw things, my support rapidly vanishes.  And when it turns to assaults against law enforcement, any support I may have had vanishes.


The real irony is that a whole bunch of those lousy, stinking, pot-smoking hippies went back to school, got their MBA's, made a schidtload of money via Reaganomics, and voted for the senile old prick in '84.  Like apples?  Howd'ya like them apples?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/06/jinnwink.gif