If a US president went on the air today and told the people

[screembloodymurder]

that are national security and democracy were at stake because of our dependence on foreign oil. And he called for all patriotic Americans to conserve oil/energy. And he offered credits for fuel efficient cars and raised the price (taxed)of gas to $4.00/gal. And he pushed new energy technologies with the taxes raised. What percentage savings do you think we could achieve in 10 years.

[punpirate]

1. Lessee...

... Jimmy Carter told people to drive less and turn down their thermostats a bit and wear sweaters, and the American people pitched him out on his ear.

If Bush said that today, everybody would know it was an April Fool's joke....

[zbdent]

2. Carter got kicked out for not Nuking Iran

over 52 hostages . . . yet he managed to get them released before Reagan legally became President. On a technicality, it happened right after Reagan was sworn in, but all the effort had been Carters.

Extremely few US casualties involved - all in the helicopter fiasco.

[7th_Sephiroth]

3. if the rescue attempt had worked

iran WOULD have been nuked, but the order came down to strip the helicopters of "all un necessasary weight" and jome jackass took the air filters off, for flying low over a desert

[Marnieworld]

6. I believe that GHWB negotiated their release

I don't have a link so don't ask me but I believe that GHWB negotiated with Iran secretly during the October before the election to release the hostages. It was all part of the eventual Iran Contra scandal that the "liberal" media completely forgets happened.

[lastliberalintexas]

10. No, the CIA spook that he is,

he negotiated their continued imprisonment until it could be made to *look* like Reagan freed them. Otherwise, they would have been freed long before January 1981.

[punpirate]

8. Well, that may be the conventional wisdom...

... but I doubt it was because Carter didn't nuke Iran....

I have read that a report from one of the hostages that Iranians were holding stopwatches while waiting to release them.

As far as all the effort being Carter's, I'd suggest this:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html

It's a lot of reading, but is meticulously researched.

Cheers.

[zbdent]

9. I'm not saying that all the credit or blame was Carter's, but

what I'm pointing out is that Reagan essentially ran on threatening to blow up Iran - hostages be damned.

Carter tried negotiations, which did eventually work out (unless the "October Surprise" really did exist). The timing stunk for the release.

Talk about the "liberal media" - Nightline started out as an "America Held Hostage, day nnn".

Because Carter didn't get the US into what could escalate into a nuke showdown (remember, the Soviet Union was still in full force, and in Afghanistan), he was targeted as weak.

Due to the hostage crisis, and the fact that our hands were tied (unless Carter wanted the hostages beheaded), oil prices soared (okay, well, above a dollar a gallon - no outcry now from the Repukes, eh?).

Hence, also, the horrendous inflation.

The Repukes tend to gloss over the fact that US citizens were being held hostage, they just point out that "Hey, remember the inflation under Carter?", ignoring the world situation, and playing on the population not paying attention.

Take it from someone who actually was paying attention.

[punpirate]

11. As was I....

Read Parry's articles....

As for inflation, yup, the Repugs made a point of that... carefully ignoring that it started after the first oil crisis in `73, and was in full swing during the Ford administration. Remember WIN buttons? Whip Inflation Now?

However, I don't recall Reagan ever saying something as blunt as threatening Iran with nuclear weapons. That would have been a wonderful opening for a `64-style ad campaign by the Democrats.

What others forget, as well, was that Carter was just about neck-and-neck with Reagan three weeks before the election. It was only in the last couple of weeks that it sunk in to the public that there would be no hostage release by election time. Reagan should have been further behind, given his background--especially in California.

I don't discount the effect that the hostage crisis had on the election, but the fact is that Carter did what was necessary regarding energy use, and the public didn't like that one bit--it was the right thing to do, but it still represented a significant strike against him, and Reagan ran on it.

Cheers.

[zbdent]

15. Not continuing an argument, but the best evidence for Carter's economic

plan was Stockman's book, "The triumph of politics : how the Reagan revolution failed". In it, he pointed out in no uncertain terms that, had they left it be, Carter's economic plan would be reducing the deficit, unlike Reagan's blowup.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. I heard Carter speak about 15 years ago

and someone asked him why he "didn't do anything" about the hostages.

He said that the admin's advisors on Iranian culture had warned him that the "honor culture" would require the leaders there to defy any kind of public challenge. If, for example, he had said, "Release the hostages or we'll bomb Tehran," the ayatollahs would have said, "Go ahead, bomb us, and then we'll kill the hostages."

What he did instead was telll the ayatollahs through back channels (other governments' diplomatic missions) that if any hostages were harmed, he would bomb Tehran. Since this was not a public challenge, they did not feel obligated to defy it.

You may remember that one of the hostages began showing weird neurological symptoms, and the Iranians released him. They did not want to even risk having a hostage die in their custody. (He turned out to have MS.)

You will also remember that they hostages did come back alive.

[zbdent]

16. I remember that the hostages did come back alive

but I did forget that they did release one before 1/20/1981.

[demokatgurrl]

4. Yep, I'm dreaming of those Carter years too. nT

[UdoKier]

5. "our" national security, not "are" national security.

major pet peeve.

[screembloodymurder]

17. Oops, missed that!

Sorry.

[Poppyseedman]

7. % of saving ? Zero, Nada, Zilch

Even if we do all the above, we still would have growth in oil comsumption in ten years. pricing would still move up because of China growth.









http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/Dem_image_Consumption.htm

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. That is why it will be prudent for all of us

to find ways to reduce our personal dependence on oil.

The owners of SUVs who live 40 miles from their jobs are going to be in big trouble.

[onenote]

13. there'd be an investigation into who pulled a "Dave" with chimpy.

onenote

[oldcoot]

18. Bush should have done this right after 9/11

He probably would have received a lot of support. The White House could have ran ads describing the link between oil and terrorism instead of those stupid anti-drug ads. Since many Americans were horrified by the terrorist attacks, they may have been happy to do their part.

[screembloodymurder]

21. Agreed

We'd have a stronger dollar, a smaller deficit, a better trade balance, less smog, a stronger auto industry, an Artic refuge and on and on.

[TahitiNut]

19. Other: Not necessarily Dallas.

:shrug:

[Swamp Rat]

22. yep n/t

[Norquist Nemesis]

20. Other! 000% Savings

because Congress would still SPEND MORE than was SAVED!