Question: Did the left treat Carter the same way it's treating Obama?

[uponit7771]

I'm too young to know but it's kinda weird that after the worst admin (Nixons, which Ford finished out) in that decade Carter only lasted a single term and then we got RayGun who was even worse then Nixon....MUCH WORSE.

Who in the world would vote for "trickle down"?!?!?!

Thank you for any input

[Deep13]

1. "The left" tried to end the Carter administration during the 1980 primary. nt

[uponit7771]

5. ...dang, more to read...how did this happen?! Why would ANYONE want RayGun as president?!

[Deep13]

8. They didn't want Reagan. They wanted Ted Kennedy. nt

[uponit7771]

10. So the left voted for RayGun in the general cause they wanted Kennedy? This is gettin weirder by..

...the reply

[Deep13]

34. What makes you think the left voted for Reagan?

They voted for Carter. It's just that there weren't very many of them.

[uponit7771]

44. It seems like a person left of Carter got 7% of the liberal vote and that could've been

...a reason but I've heard the "RayGun Democrat" term so many times I believe it foolishly.

I don't know how many progressives voted for RayGun

[WI_DEM]

50. Actually many Kennedy supporters voted for John Anderson.

Check the result in MA where Carter lost by only 4000 votes. Anderson won almost 400,000 votes.

[uponit7771]

55. ...k, I'm convinced that liberals went to candidates further left of Carter. Was Carter THAT bad?

[BurtWorm]

93. Carter was pretty awful as president. He dragged the party and country to the right.

Despite the Begin-Sadat accords, he was awful on foreign policy, undoing detente and setting the conditions for the Reagan doctrine in Afghanistan, Central America and Europe. He projected weakness. In the middle of his term, he took a full week out to confer with staffers and academics about why he was perceived to be a failure as a president. Brilliant PR strategy. He softened the Party's support for labor, for affirmative action, for Keynesian economics. He was, in short, a major disaster for the Democratic Party that we're still trying to recover from.

[quiller4]

115. Too many Dems both left and center just didn't vote in 1980.

We felt the effects not just in the election of Reagan but in the defeat of good Ds in state, local and congressional races.

[Go2Peace]

46. No they didn't. If you want to believe that go ahead though.

All reality seems to come from DU foodfights for some.

[uponit7771]

52. You never heard the term "RayGun democrats"?

[WI_DEM]

56. The Reagan Dems were conservative blue-collar dems usually men--not the left.

[uponit7771]

58. Gottcha, just because they were dem doesn't mean they were liberal...kinda like blue dogs now. Times

...have change or the country is so far right of center in policies that it looks that way.

[laughingliberal]

106. +1 nt

[bananas]

125. Yes. nt

[tjwash]

86. No true scotsman...blah blah blah

The so-call "left" can be more petty, vindictive, hard-headed, condescending, back-stabbing and spiteful than the right could ever dream of being.

The second Carter took office, he was immediately pitted against both aisles of the floor. What you so lovingly refer to as "the left" is just the same "my way or the highway-fuck you this won't pass unless it has exactly everything that I want-zero compromise ever" knucklehead crap that we all just spent 8 years accusing Bush of being.

There's a reason that Reagan pulled 489 EV's in 1980 and 525 in 1984.

[madokie]

68. The only thing I hold against Teddy

was his misguided and only attempt at the whitehouse Otherwise I loved the man

[ShortnFiery]

83. No, the Senatorial "left" did. Others of us in "the left" supported him. eom

[earthside]

2. And how.

Sen. Kennedy challenged Pres. Carter for the Democratic nomination in 1980.

The frustration from the left towards Carter was significant.

[uponit7771]

9. ....are you talking about TED Kennedy?! WOW!! Talking about cutting off your nose to spite your face

...RayGun, with his regressive tax policy ALONE, set the middle class back a couple of generations in this country.

[Go2Peace]

43. let's make up history to fit a political view shall we?

There was no such thing. Carter lost because of the hostage and oil crisis. It has nothing to do with the "dissatisfaction of the left"

[earthside]

102. Well, I was there.

I was part of the Ted Kennedy effort in 1980.

And I was certainly (as I am now) part of the left.

We were frustrated with Pres. Carter on a whole range of issues, but, indeed, a big part of the disappointment was because of Carter's centerist positioning. I also believe that the splintering of some "liberals" to John Anderson hurt Carter in the general election ... but so did the lack of enthusiasm for Carter from the "left".

In the end, however, 1980 was a year when 'change' was in the air ... post Vietnam and Watergate, the Iran hostage crisis, Carter was in trouble from the beginning. But so were all Democrats -- I traveled to South Dakota to help McGovern that election day and he lost, too.

[laughingliberal]

108. True

Even with the primary challenge, Carter was well on his way to winning the general until the hostage situation.

[madokie]

73. And its liable to happen with Obama too

and the thought of that just pisses me off. Rather than work with him in making the changes he spoke of the hard left is demanding he do it all alone, without their help at all. bitch and moan is all I hear from the hard left towards what possibly could be the best President our country has ever had. But due to their blindness the chances of that happening is slim and getting slimmer every day.

[Lilith Velkor]

91. Maybe Obama should have thought of that before he fucked us on:

Health care, education, gay rights, and the war.

Oh, and offshore drilling and sending troops to the border. Funny, I thought we voted against McFail.

As long as he keeps kissing Republican ass and having a chief of staff that shows open contempt for us, he can fucking well do it all alone, and no amount of demanding we kiss the foot that kicks us is gonna change that.

[madokie]

113. Sorry you're so disillusioned

I myself don't see this administration as a failure, in fact I'm inclined to believe that things are changing for the better. I know that I have to trust someone and I trust this man more than any of the others who could be in his place.

[hedgehog]

3. The Left was very hard on Carter. I was mad at him because he seemed like such a breathe of fresh

air, but then he seemed to back track, especially in foreign policy. I think he had a big handicap in that everything then was filtered through the MSM. There was story after story making him and his staff look like buffoons.

[uponit7771]

6. So expectations were set high for him also? ...jus seems to be samething different decade

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. Carter was done in by the Iranian Hostage Crisis

I clearly remember Nightline with Ted Koppel starting every broadcast with Day ____ whatever of the hostage crisis.

It had NOTHING to do wth how he was "treated by the left". You might want to read a little. There is also the element of how Reagan and his guys were working in the background to derail release negotiations.

[uponit7771]

7. Unnn, the left isn't stupid...why would they vote for someone as HORRIBLE as RayGun because of Iran?

...No really, why wouldn't the left show up in droves to vote for Carter despite a botched military effort?

[The_Commonist]

13. The left voted for Reagan?

Something here is very confusing...

[uponit7771]

15. Or didn't show up to vote, RayGun didn't loose by 5000 votes like Bush did...

[Dr.Phool]

32. I voted for Kennedy in the primary.

And Carter in the general.

And yes, I was sorely disappointed in Carter, especially when he decided to tax my unemployment.

[ljm2002]

112. 500,000 votes, not 5000!

Bush lost the popular vote by 500,000 before the Supreme Court intervened and anointed him president.

[hedgehog]

20. This Lefty voted for John Anderson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Anderson

think of him as Ralph Nader V1.0

[uponit7771]

27. Ahhhh, so there's where that 7% went....

[Go2Peace]

53. If you say it often enough it will become true for you LOL

[uponit7771]

57. I like facts, ...John Anderson pull 7% of the left vote that year and another pulled aroud 2 but th

...that still wouldn't have beat RayGun.

RayGun Democrats help spill the vote towards RayGun it seems but that doesn't mean they were left of center.

[hfojvt]

24. the left didn't vote for Reagan - the wealthy centrists did

the left cannot show up in droves to vote for Carter, or anybody else, because the left is not more than 20% of the electorate.

[uponit7771]

29. It looks like they voted for Anderson by more than 5%

[hfojvt]

98. which still was not enough to tip the election

since Reagan won by 50.75 - 41.01 - 6.61

but I see no reason to believe that liberals voted for Anderson, except perhaps in Massachusetts, where they were angry over the primary. Anderson was a former Republican, not another Nader.

[DBoon]

35. bitter racists voted for Reagan

Reagan was their revenge against the 1960's

Reagan was a vote against hippies, feminists, protestors, "welfare queens" and uppity blacks

He was the George Wallace vote amplified

[hfojvt]

99. that may account for Reagan's narrow victories in Alabama and Arkansas

but it does not really explain his victories in Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, New York, Maine, New Jersey, Connecticut, etc. Unless you think those states are full of bitter racists.

A vote for Reagan was a vote for across the board tax cuts - big ones. If you were above 40th percentile in income there was a monetary payday in a Reagan vote. I think, and election polls back this up, although I am not gonna search and link now (I think they are on Wiki anyway) that Reagan got his votes from people who made decent money and those voters saw the $$$$. Reagan bought that election and most Republican candidates, and many Democratic ones, have been copying his technique ever since. "Vote for me, and I will send you a check."

[walldude]

121. Yep.. they set Carter up. Back door deals with Iran

made by the Republicans to keep Carter from negotiating the release of hostages so it could look like it was all Reagan and the Republicans. Which it was. And that led to Iran-Contra. The depths of the shit Reagan pulled was unbelievable.

Not to mention Carter had us on the road to less energy dependance. Had they continued his policies of Solar Power we would already be getting 20% of our energy from solar. Now instead of being ahead of the game we are going to have to start from damn near scratch.

[Art_from_Ark]

127. There was also a daily editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, I believe,

which always featured a caricature of the Ayatollah Khomeini with a beard in the shape of Iran.
It always seemed to be down on Carter and the "weak response" to the hostage situation.

Then there were the bumper stickers-- "'American' ends with 'I CAN', not 'IRAN'", and the failed rescue attempt that might have been sabotaged.

Of course, the high inflation rate didn't help, either, and the entire decade was inflationary, especially after 1971 or so (not that that was Carter's fault, but he got the blame).

[saltpoint]

11. It was an interesting year, 1980. Dem county chairs knew that trouble

was afoot, and they knew long before the insider punditry that Reagan was more viable than he seemed at first glance. They knew they dismissed him as a dimwit at the peril of every Democrat on the ballot.

There are dark whispers that any number of people connected with the Bush family pulled levers and strings overseas to engineer "complications" in Iran. Left-leaning constituencies in the party were uninspired by Carter's less-than-visceral support of their issues. The Kennedy primary challenge left bruises that didn't entirely heal. John Anderson offered himself as an alternative and drew what -- 6 or 7 percent of the general election vote. Barry Commoner and LaDonna Harris ran on a Citizens Party ticket but met with predictable dismissal by the mainstream media.

Carter's profile after he left office has been magnificent. He's globally admired and properly so. But his presidency was wobbly and unfocused, and his Cabinet didn't help much.

[uponit7771]

17. If the left showed up for Carter he would've won, I just don't see why ANYONE would want RayGun as..

...an alternative to anything.

RayGun was that decades Sarah Palin...who the FUCK would want Palin in office?!

[saltpoint]

22. The breakdown for that race gave John Anderson c. 6 or 7 percent,

but that still would not have been enough from the "middle" to defeat Reagan.

My guess is that the left-leaning voters went for Carter in unenthusiastic percentages, with some going for Barry Commoner.

Democrats coast to coast went for Reagan in significant numbers. The specific reason or reasons are always up for debate for why they'd choose Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter, but I'd list widespread dissatisfaction with the Carter administration's refusal to align with traditional liberal constituencies, the public relations fall-out over the Iranian crisis, and a tendency on the part of the electorate to prefer "Daddy" candidates who talk tough.

[uponit7771]

40. "Carter administration's refusal to align with traditional liberal constituencies"...Hmmm, I've read

...about this one in previous replies that inside dem baseball could be a part of Carters fall but why would ANYONE left of center not vote in droves against RayGun?!

RayGuns regressive tax policies and spending on military efforts set America's middle class back a second or two...

Interesting thing about the "daddy" complex, Obama isn't willing to do such with BP's fuck up but should at least be shown to holler at them every now and then...

[saltpoint]

45. Carter lost the electoral college in a massive landslide, although he

did draw around 35 million votes. But Reagan won the popular vote very, very comfortably.

Carter needed 10 percent more of the popular vote and might still have lost the election in the electoral college. The Democratic Party bled its core constituencies that year. Many folks stayed home. John Anderson picked up some of those votes. Barry Commoner a few more.

Voters like to have their blood stirred on issues that define their lives. Reagan's handlers evidently knew this and tapped into it a while ago. Carter did not do a lot of mythic hand-shaking, so to speak, and events conspired to drive him from office.

There was significant disgrace in the way a lot of Democrats broke ranks and went to Reagan. The country they got as a result was a tawdry, brutal one.

[uponit7771]

54. Tax wise RayGuns regressive tax policies hurt the middle class to this day. I susspect folk didn't..

...know what they were voting for when they didn't vote against RayGun

[saltpoint]

62. It's hard to say if they gave Reagan's political posture any thought at all,

considering the huge disparity between how much they liked him and how menacing his administration was to democracy at home and justice abroad.

Unless someone is anti-Union, a vote for Reagan hardly seems justified for a registered Democrat. But Reagan's handlers photo-op'd him with the Statue of Liberty in the background, and Mt. Rushmore, and so forth -- a postcard presidency. Carter never undertook an imaginative campaign. Carter did not stir the national blood. He didn't even do that much to encourage county Dem organizations to accelerate their efforts.

As a result, when Carter went down in flames he took other Democrats down with him in that 1980 race, including for example, Birch Bayh in Indiana, one of the true-blue midwestern Democratic liberals, and any number of other down-ballot candidates who deserved better than they got. In Birch Bayh's case, Reagan's popularity in Indiana put Dan Quayle in that Senate seat.

That's the cost of a detached presidency that does not stir the blood. For all his human virtues (and there are many), Jimmy Carter did not stir the blood.

[uponit7771]

65. Ah...thank you so much for your insite. It also looks like Carters ground game was missing where as.

...RayGuns front game was "Luntz"-esque...for lack of a better description.

"Jimmy Carter did not stir the blood"

Sigh, so much has change and the big things with the DNC has stayed the same...people want to be inspired and it looks like since the 80s the GOP has gotten the front game down pact...

[saltpoint]

71. I could be wrong, but it seems to me the GOP these days has their

wiener caught in the lawn mower.

Ouch.

Their "leadership" has a pack of nitwits and nobodies. Their presidential candidate field is worse, in many cases marginal bordering on non-functional.

They don't inhabit a central idea to define the party or its purpose and they've embraced ideologies a majority of Americans now strongly reject.

If you're a political party and someone like Haley Barbour or Tim Pawlenty present as viable options for your national ticket, you are a political party with your wiener in the lawn mower.

[uponit7771]

74. Pawlenty might be an option for them nationaly if he keeps his mouth shut but he would NEVER win the

...south or the GOP hardliners

[Wednesdays]

103. Carter was too honest...and it made him seem like a downer

Reagan said, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?", implying that he will bring sunnier days ahead. And most of America ate it up. Carter, on the other hand, talked about "malaise", etc., and while it was the truth, it didn't win him any friends. People don't like to hear gloom and doom from the president.

You see, during that period Democrats presented themselves as the polar opposite to Nixon, who even before Watergate had the image of a dishonest used-car salesman. So, Democrats figured that as long as they kept telling the truth--no matter how blunt--everyone would appreciate that and automatically vote for them. Bad mistake--winning the moral high ground doesn't guarantee winning elections. In fact, it's often the opposite.

Dems still hadn't learned this lesson in 1984, when during a debate with Reagan, Mondale told everyone that both candidates would raise taxes. He said, "He (Reagan) won't tell you (he'll raise taxes). I just did." There were other problems with Mondale's run for the presidency, but that moment alone guaranteed he'd be buried in a landslide defeat.

[DaveinJapan]

39. Reagan = Palin doesn't work

Reagan sucked. We know this.

But trying to equate him to Palin diminishes the fact that Palin is dangerously under-qualified by ANY stretch.

Reagan, for all his faults, knew his issues and knew how to talk about them. He was qualified to have conversations with foreign leaders. He understood the world around him.

Palin, even today, ranks "none of the above", and she is infinitely more frightening than Reagan was and even Bush Jr (who, if you really want to make Palin comparisons, ranks much higher).

[uponit7771]

60. Your right, Palin is enept were RayGun could at least learn his lines. What about Rand Paul?

...Just seems like RayGuns regressive tax measures would've sent me running to the hills...

Who in the world would vote for "trickle down"?!?!?!

[girl gone mad]

66. Why don't you find one narrative and stick with it?

You're all over the map.

The left was only 7% of the voting population, but the left abandoned Carter to vote for someone further left, but the left voted for Reagan in droves and Reagan won because of those 7% lefties who now love Palin?

:crazy:

[uponit7771]

69. My replies in conelogical order have been consistent and as I stated in OP I was too young to know..

...what the political cycle back then was about so I'm asking and learning at the same time.

I just KNOW I would NEVER EVER vote for someone like Rand Paul (my revision from Palin) because he's an asshole on top of a lot of other things.

Why would someone vote against FOR someone who was against SS?!

It sounds like Carters ground game was less than organized and the GOPs front game was running on all 8 cylinders along with Carter not throwing enough bones to the left to fend off further left candidates.

[laughingliberal]

109. What are you talking about? We have people right here everyday spouting Reagan philosophies. nt

[wial]

12. no, Carter was deeply annoying

and often incomprehensible. Plus he reinstated draft registration, and just depressed people with his cardigan. Sure he did a lot to acquit himself after his presidency, and did a lot of things for which subsequent presidents took credit, but at the time he was almost unbearable. The arc after Ford and Nixon was different too. They left the country gasping for air, while Bush left us glad to have survived.

As for getting a new Reagan, I think enough people know by now Reagan's neoliberalism was a profoundly stupid idea, even though a lot of dems like Clinton went along with it. Especially after the oil blowout it should be clear corporations need more regulation, not less, and the idea of them being self-policing is just rot.

As for the left not supporting Obama, I think that's exaggerated. Honest leftists feel obliged to criticize what's being done wrong, but you'd have to be a full blown anarchist not to consider Obama the preferable alternative -- and even a full blown anarchist I know voted for him.

[uponit7771]

14. ...so the left voted for RayGun instead?! WTF!? RayGun was HORRIBLE!! His policies affect ME

...today in a negative way along with establishing the culture of hating brown folk he and his minions promoted.

"As for the left not supporting Obama, I think that's exaggerated"

I never said the left isn't supporting Obama...but it seems like from the statement here and the post on DU that could be the case...


I don't think the left would cut their noses off to spite their face but it sure in the hell looks like it did with RayGun. RayGun was unworkable Carter on the other hand could, with some hard pushing, be moved.

[Dr.Phool]

36. Where do you get this horseshit?

I don't know of anybody on the left who voted for Reagan.

You're setting up a bullshit strawman, and making shit up.

[uponit7771]

49. You never heard the term "RayGun democrats"? I have but again I was too young to remember

...anything about that election cycle.

Also, it seems like there was a further left candidate running during that time and he got 7% of the vote Carter would've gotten.

Jus seems like I would've put all efforts into defeating RayGun, he was so horrible.

[Go2Peace]

59. Those would be people we call "Centrist Democrats"... DUH!

It wasn't the "Lefties" who voted for Reagan. Despite the angst that goes on here lefties will vote for Obama too. The ones that cause all the mischief are the centrists in the party who are easily manipulated and swayed.

But of course on DU that won't be the meme because it is more popular to argue strawmen.

[uponit7771]

63. ...I said as much in my post, the left voted 7% & 2% for candidates further left of Carter. It seems

...like the left didn't know that RayGun was so horrible tax wise.

[Go2Peace]

51. Revisionist history on a political forum. Who'd of thought?

DU seems to be dumming down these days.

[izquierdista]

41. Ronnie campaigned in code

Remember, he launched his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, where the 3 civil rights workers were killed. Launched it with all the states' rights and getting government (meaning civil rights laws) "off our backs". And it was well known that the reason Jimmy Carter won in 1976 was because "black people went out and voted". A wink and a nod to the racists was all Ronnie needed to yank the South away from Carter.

[uponit7771]

81. ...damn, do you know of a book to describe that time? So interesting to read some details about...

...Carter and the acceptance of "Trickle Down" which to this day sounds like a buncha bullshit.

[izquierdista]

89. Book?

I don't need to read a book, I remember it. But what you are doing is good, asking people who can recollect, rather than let some MSM hack tell you what you were supposed to think then.

Trickle down and the Laffer curve were obvious lies, just like the teabag whine that "taxes are higher than ever", but millions believed it. Those were the same people that believed Nixon had a "secret plan" to end the war. I was 12 years old when I heard Tricky unleash that whopper and I wasn't gullible enough to believe it.

If you look carefully at history, you will see a pattern of Democrats pulling the country out of problems, and then when the problems have subsided, Republicans can feed enough bullshit to the voters to get in again and start a whole new set of problems.

[Go2Peace]

70. The "far left" as people like to call them, will vote for Obama in the end

And they are very active and will go to the booths in high rates. Despite the "memes" to the contrary on this forum.

It is the centrists that flip/flop on a whim that have cause most of the chaos and helped the Republicans. Don't believe the bullshit thrown about around here.

Try to keep in mind that this is a political forum. People will express a lot of contrary opinions and complain a lot, because it is an open forum and it is made for that. It doesn't translated to real world actions.

[uponit7771]

79. kew, ...another RayGun or Bush seems scary to say the least.

[zipplewrath]

16. The establishment

It's a false presumption to presume that "the left" had much to do with Carter's troubles. His troubles were compelely "Washington" generated. It was an "inside the party" maneuver to try to get Kennedy to replace Carter because the conclusion was that Carter was gonna get creamed in November. It was a "self serving" conclusion because their real complaint was that Carter "didn't play the game". He didn't do political "barganing" and wanted to actually argue policy.

By the by, similar political forces backed Obama early in his campaign, and later support also came from inside Washington. Clinton left alot of bad blood in Washington when he left town.

If you wanna "blame" the left for something, LBJ is going to be your closest example.

[uponit7771]

19. Unnn, I never said the left wanted trouble at all...I just asked if they treated Carter this way and

...didn't indicate what "way" I was talking about IIRC.

It seems obvious though via the replies that the left isn't treating Obama with support measures.

Also, the left in this country isn't Washington...it can organize like everyone else and I would've organized agaist Sarrah Palin becoming president

[zipplewrath]

28. The left voted for Carter

It was the "Reagan democrats" that elected Reagan, not the left. It was the 2nd amendment lovin', affirmative action hatin', "ain't got no ACLU membership card in MY wallet" centrist democrats that elected Reagan. Not sure how the "left" gets off being blamed for any of that.

[uponit7771]

84. right, someone mentioned up top that there were "blue-collar" or blue dog dems at that time

...that voted for RayGun.

[dflprincess]

126. It's an old song

They spend 4 years making it clear they don't need the left but when the election is lost, it's the left's fault.

Go figure. :shrug:

[Go2Peace]

61. deleted

[SoCalDem]

18. When Carter was in office the dems were still firmly in charge of the house & the senate

and had been for decades, and no one thought that was in jeopardy. No matter who was president, republican or democrat, they thought they could still control things, so people did not support Carter that much.

He was an interloper,, an oddity . teddy kennedy loathed him, and helped to undermine him.

NO ONE expected Reagan to win, and people were pretty sick of the whole Iranian hostage saga. It was not Carter's fault, but it stuck to him and the media played up reagan's "solving" it , as a blessing from gawd...and then he was shot..so he was doubly blessed.

there's little doubt in my mind, that Poppy was running the whole show (much like Cheney ran W's presidency) Reagan was just playing a role. I think he had alzheimers for a lot longer than we were led to believe..and I think Poppy knew it too.

Oddly, Carter himself was responsible for a lot of the religiosity in politics, because he was the one who talked about the born-again movement to anyone who would listen, and not long after that we had the Moral Majority folks pushing rightwing religious zealots into every elected position they could.. We are reaping that whirlwind today...

[kirby]

21. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs and Inflation did him in n/t

[uponit7771]

26. UE rate got WORSE with RayGun

[kirby]

96. Unless you were a mind-reader in 1980...

the voter did not yet have that information.

[90-percent]

23. Carter

The Carter years were my college years. I remember Hunter Thompson was at first in love with Carter, but then Carter lost favor with him. Malaise was the operative word. I think Carter bundled up the last of the Viet Nam war efforts and American's were questioning where their "greatness" went away to.Carter seemed to think it better that America take a humble place in the world, instead of aspiring to be the greatest country on earth.

He was all for conservation and green energy and solar panels. He wanted to take America from conspicuous consumption to something more respectful to the earth and the future.

reagan was all about you can have it all and then some because you're a superior American. Carter seemed like a lot of what he tried to do failed - like the failed rescue of hostages in Africa - the helicopters failed from sand in the air or something?

One of the first things Reagan did when he got into the White House was to remove Carter's solar panels on the White House roof. I found that obnoxious. Now the entire world is paying for Reaganomics. Now the whole world is consuming itself to death. And I personally feel America is leading the world down the path to ruin and a wrecked future. Wall Street, global climate change, fascism, needless hyper expensive wars, public policy dictated by the evil needs of corporations over the needs of citizens.

The conservative movement started in earnest with Reagan and part of their goal was to control, or take over, the main stream media. I think we are a center-left nation, but you'd never know that watching MSM these days!

just some ramblings about a happier time in my life. Now I'm a middle aged cynic banished to economic oblivion by layoff from a job I really liked. That I wanted to retire from.

-90% Jimmy

[AllentownJake]

25. Ted Kennedy 1980 nt.

[DaveinJapan]

30. President Carter was the first President I can remember clearly, so here's my take...

As a young kid, I remember watching President Carter on television and always feeling somewhat drained and depressed by what he had to say.

I realize that my outlook was that of a kid, and looking back I realize that he was being pragmatic and all of that, but the impression he left was one of gloom and doom and "life kinda sucks, we have to sacrifice"...at least for my own 6-8 year old brain.

I was "against" Reagan, mostly because my parents were. But I wasn't "for" Carter either (again, more early age indoctrination). I remember being embarrassed when our class in 1980 held a mock-election and the vote count ended up being (I remember this VERY clearly) Carter - 4, Reagan - 16, Anderson - 1 (me!). lol.

In any case, I think that aura of optimism (hand in hand with jingoism of course) was what separated Reagan at the time from Carter. I also recall feeling as though as a nation we were sort of weak, given the fact that Vietnam was still on the minds of many and that coupled with frequent news reports of the ineffectiveness of the U.S. military (the Carter failed effort to rescue the hostages when all the helicopters crashed felt like a very dark, depressing day to my youthful brain...I know more now though). I felt as though we were on a downturn, and Reagan, at first, seemed at the same time to be comforting but also strong.

These are all old, dusty impressions but I thought I'd offer them up anyway.

In any case, in no way do I think the Carter/Reagan situation mirrors President Obama. Complain about his policies all you want, but he is FAR more charismatic a leader than Carter could have hoped to be, and he manages to infuse a modicum of optimism and faith in the future in everything he says (more like Reagan than Carter, certainly!).

So, if somehow the evil (and now we KNOW it's evil, pre-Reagan we just knew that NIXON was evil, not his whole fucking party!) side beats President Obama, it won't be the same way they beat the Democrats in 1980, I'm pretty sure of that.

[ShortnFiery]

85. Yes, people wanted to "feel good" about the nation ... that ushered in Reagan.

Being that hindsight is 20 20, President Carter was truly a treasure. If we would have taken the steps toward energy independence that he has outlined and pushed for, we'd be a much RICHER NATION today ... in more ways than one. Here we were worried about our National Pride and "feeling good"? I think we'd also feel BETTER if we had heeded his sage advice. :thumbsup:

p.s. Unfortunately President Obama often CHANNELS Ronald Reagan. Obama is part of the Corporate team. Carter, for all his boring "walk the walk" Christian values, was truly a man of the people - even today his compassion for HUMANITY is noted.

[spoony]

31. You're blaming Reagan on the left?

I'm trying very hard to read your post any other way, but I can't see another interpretation.

[uponit7771]

72. No, I only asked if the left treated Carter this way...I didn't define "this way" I'm letting ...

..responses do such because that's a bigger tell of attitudes viewed from an external position.

Kinda of a trick question but it's revealing...

It seems like Carter left the...left.....to fend for itself and didn't throw enough bones its way then ran a dismal ground game...

[spoony]

78. ...But it's quite clear what you were talking about

This isn't the first time you've brought up the left and Carter.

[uponit7771]

80. Unnn, I might have but I don't recall of the top of my head...perhaps it's been another poster? TIA

[DBoon]

33. Barry Commoner was 1980's Ralph Nader

I recall he got a reasonable amount of votes for a 3rd party - but couldn't say if it ultimately mattered

At least one part of the left was disaffected enough to support Commoner over Carter

[saltpoint]

38. Commoner ran a focused, issues-directed campaign but got

less attention than he deserved because the media was absolutely not interested in the things he had to say.

I got to hear him speak two or three times that year, and even met him. A very impressive guy, IMO.

[Freddie Stubbs]

95. What states went to Reagan instead of Carter due to Commoner being on the ballot?

:shrug:

[DBoon]

118. OK, I was wrong

the intervening years have been unkind to my political memories

[bvar22]

122. WOW...A DUer admitting they made a mistake.

THAT, sir, is RARE around here,
AND a sign of integrity.
You have my respect.
:patriot:

[PurityOfEssence]

114. Reagan 50.7%, Carter 41%, Anderson 6.6%, Clark 1%, Commoner .27%

Anderson seemed to be mounting a plausible third-party candidacy for awhile, but Reagan won it very solidly, and even if everyone else had voted for Carter, Reagan still would have won.

Commoner got slightly more than a quarter of a percent.

Clark was a Libertarian.

[DBoon]

117. so the 2 people I know who voted for him

made up the .27% ?

Figures.

[marshall]

37. My father, a die hard Democrat, grew to abstolutely detest Carter

He started out loving him as a breath of fresh air after the Nixon/Ford debacle. But gradually he turned on him, seeing him as weak and ineffectual.

I know he admires Carter now, and he probably would deny that he disliked him so much back during his presidency. But I recall only too well the mealtime rants against him.

[uponit7771]

42. Why was he seen as weak an ineffectual? RayGun was such...he double SS tax to pay for military

...efforts and then implemented a regressive tax policy.

I would've voted for Carter as a vote against RayGun

[marshall]

48. This was before anybody had Reagan to compare Carter against

It was mainly foreign policy, but also long gas lines and threats of rationing, as best I can recall.

And it's not always the reality we look back on that is important. It's the perception at the time. It is frightening to think how much control the media had over what people believed. As out of control as the media appears to be now, at least the internet provides some voice for dissenting views.

[uponit7771]

82. gottcha

[WI_DEM]

47. Worse. Actually among Dems even on the so-called left--Obama is quite popular

Carter was not very popular even among the rank & file of democrats at the time.

[uponit7771]

76. Yeap, that's a common theme in replys that Carter never throw the left enough bones to fend off...

...further left candidates from being a viable option.

Kennedy didn't help either

[joeybee12]

64. Did Carter treat the Left the same shitty way Obama has?

:shrug:

[uponit7771]

67. ....so don't vote or vote against Carter and get RayGun....Nose meet knife no?

[girl gone mad]

75. Obama is basically a Reagan Democrat.

He practices Rubinomics, which is extreme Reaganomics. He's expressed his admiration for Reagan. His policies are fairly solidly in line with Reagan Republicanism.

Nose meet knife, indeed.

[uponit7771]

77. I disagree with most of your characterization of Obama but regardless of how you feel IF...

...there was a choice between RayGun and Obama right now which would you vote for?

Jus seems to me that relative to RayGun and Bush 2 there's no way I'd vote 3rd party or stay home or vote against Obama.

[zipplewrath]

88. Kinda a silly choice

Conservatives wouldn't vote for a Reagan today, he wasn't nearly "pure" enough. The Reagan they wax nostalgically about never existed.

The question you're really asking is whether there is a republican candidate that could be seen as "better than Obama". The basic answer is no. But that says little about Obama and ALOT about the current state of the GOP. You're not going to see a member of the GOP like Milliken or Ford or Rockfeller rising to national prominance right now. Heck, Eisenhower wouldn't stand a chance. But as I say, what that means is that there is a TRUCK LOAD of room to the right for Obama to fill, and he has.

But the democrats better watch out. Because they are opening up so much room on their left, a savy, photogenic, young, republican could easily slip in and pull the rug right out from underneath them. A new Colin Powell could easily rise up out of this insanity and lead them away from the baggers and birthers. And he could "out triangulate" this bunch of DLC wanna bees.

Reagan managed to get the endorsement of Ralph David Abernathy of SLC fame, and right hand man to MLK. He also picked up the blue collar/union vote. I suspect it is where Clinton discovered the idea of triangulation.

[joeybee12]

92. Stop with this simple-minded characterization...gee, it could be WORSE...

well, it could be a lot fucking better, and as long as apologiizts for this corporate sell-out keep pushing that meme, YOU are going to be the one contributing to the election of a Repuke prez.

[ShortnFiery]

87. Carter was and still remains *A Man Of The People.*

He was the best HUMAN BEING and true "walk the walk" Christian we had in our White House.

No, he was not a great leader but his message of "energy independence" for our nation was spot on advice. Too bad we let Saint Reagan tear the solar panels off of the WH and turn the government CORPORATE the moment he gleaned office. :(

[tekisui]

90. The centrist Democrats voted for raygun over Carter.

The left did not vote for raygun. It is stupid to suggest they did.

[treestar]

94. The left shoots itself in the foot refusing to admit the right wing exists

In 1980 there may have been an excuse for that, but there is none now. Not after Reagan and the Bushes.

[bvar22]

97. LOL.

"The Left" did NOT cross over and vote Republican.
It WAS the mushy "Centrists" and conservative Democrats who sold out Carter.
Many more of them crossed over and voted FOR the Republican than anyone on "The Left"....
way more than the 5%-7% who voted Independent.

Reagan Democrats = today's "Centrists"
Centrist = almost Republican

The Centrist/Moderate Democrats own Reagan, not "The Left".

[Catherina]

100. And about 6 years ago they returned to the Democratic Party

unpenitent and unchanged.

[laughingliberal]

110. Exactly! nt

[robdogbucky]

101. My take and I was there too

Carter swept into office on the heels of Watergate and Americans' disgust with that and Nixon/Ford. Make no mistake Carter was viewed as a breath of fresh air, but that was perhaps the shortest-lived political honeymoon on record. He had two major strikes against him, he was a DC outsider (real outside with a perceived hillbilly family) and he was different from mainstream pols, in that he had a military and science background and was not a savvy political insider. In actuality he had a diverse, intelligent, interesting, original American family from a small town.

The minute Carter came to DC he was smeared, defiled, dragged down, criticized, laughed at. And that was from the Dems. All this time the Grand Oil Party was re-grouping, consolidating, collecting money, doing everything possible to undermine Carter, not that it was necessary with the way the media portrayed it. They revelled in Billy Beer, Mother Carter (a peace corps original as I remember it) portrayed as a corncob pipe smoking Granny Yokum. Carter could not resist being honest and to naively try to introduce sane policy to DC and the Beltway insiders of both parties. Don't forget this was the time of the birth of political action committees and the explosion of think tanks to set policy, direct fundraising, etc.

Then the Iranian hostage crisis, runaway inflation (forget that inflation had a good sprint under Nixon too but it was now Carter's fault)and more importantly from my recall, the botched rescue attempt by Delta Force. It was after that, and Nightline's constant reminder that it happened on Carter's watch, and voila! The stage was then set for Reagan, their version of a DC outsider to reform things yet again, to stop DC gridlock yet again, to make "America strong again," After a while, Carter could do nothing right. When he appealed to Americans in a cardigan sweater in front of a fireplace and told the nation that we were in the middle of a spiritual malaise, etc., he completely lost any vestige of support to mount anything in 1980. The momentum had swung, he didn't stand a chance in DC with his Georgia Mafia of advisers, Ham Jordan, et al. The national Dem party apparatus had given up and were dead in the water. Just 4 years after he was swept in, he was swept out. His admin was seen as squandering all the post Watergate momentum and in 4 short years the Reagan Revolution came in to take Carter's place.

Americans are so, well, malliable I guess is the word. Easily swayed, easily convinced through media perception to feel and think certain ways. Afraid of being called girly-men, soft on communism, er, I mean soft on terror. Obama = Reagan light.

So sad, Carter could have done great things if he had been supported in unison by his own party. It was not the lefties that voted for Reagan though, it was the centrists who did not want to be perceived as weak, etc.



Just my dos centavos



robdogbucky

[Blue-Jay]

105. That's how I remember it.

Granted, I was only in 7th grade at the time and more interested in looking at Tami Bailey's boobs...

Still, thanks for actually answering the OP in an honest, unbiased manner.

[bvar22]

111. Carter was the FIRST Democrat....

..to be "swift-boated" by the Right Wing Hysterical Propaganda distribution network.

[robdogbucky]

116. Dynamics of 1976 vs 1980 were interesting

the Dems in '76 sported such hopefuls in the wake of Watergate and Nixon's resignation/pardon as Jerry Brown, George Wallace, Mo Udall, Birch Bayh, Sargent Shriver, etc. The mood was anyone but a Repugnant One, hence Carter defeated all the others in the primaries and the anger of the electorate made it easy for him. On the other side, Reagan organized and almost beat out Ford for the chance to run vs Carter, but narrowly lost the nomination. As we all know, he was just getting started.

Much like now, the opposition spent the 4 years undermining the president at every turn. This was in conjunction with the afore-mentioned animosity from the Dem party DC establishment. The Pubs coalesced their forces, formed PACs, raised money and generally began the economic mind game of suppy-side economics is the answer to everything. Especially inflation and slow business growth, etc. Combine the stagnation with the crisis in Tehran and the hostages and by the 1980 election Carter was hung out to dry. He didn't have a chance. By that time public perception swung to the side of the master media manipulators and fund raisers, and Reagan was swept in.

Teddy was a non-factor and the joke I heard most when tending bar at the Sky Harbor Airport's departure lounges that fall was "They found a solution to the Iran hostage crisis, but there is good news and bad news. The good news is that Jane Fonda is being traded for the hostages, the bad news is that Teddy Kennedy is giving her the ride to the airport." See that kind of political genius is a 2-fer. They can stick Teddy and remind everyone that he was perceived gleefully by some as a murdering womanizer and that the Dems are weak on patriotism, just look at Fonda, a Dem.

It was then an eventful few months following that when John Lennon was killed (RIP, Johnny)and the attempt was made on Reagan's life by Hinkley. I do believe GHWB was running things at that point.




Just my additional centavos



robdogbucky

[malaise]

104. Not just the left

It was urban v rural - 'elite' v 'hick', evangelical v establishment church, etc., etc.

[Enrique]

107. the left is very supportive of Obama

for example on this drilling thing, Obama led the democrats to the wrong side on drilling at exactly the worst possible time, and they're not giving him shit for it.

[DailyGrind51]

119. "The Left" supported Ted Kennedy!

[KonaKane]

120. The left is notorious for eating its own.

Sorry, but there is no more polite way to put it. Under the aegis of "open and honest criticism" the left (read that and or left liberal) is much too anxious to tear into the carrion of its own party, whereas the right is far too hesitant to do it.

The bottom line is, the reason we are in power rarely and stay in power even more rarely, is because we are masters of political self sabotage.

[FrenchieCat]

123. The fact that Carter was primaried is what led to his loss.

and gave us Reagan.

There were other factors present, but that was the initial one.....
and it came long before the GE!

[bananas]

124. You should read Robert Parry's articles on the October Surprise

There was a lot going on, this is some of it.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html