QUESTION: Was the left THIS horrible to Jimmy Carter too? Did it help elect RayGun?

[uponit7771]

I wasn't aware back then, too young :)

Thx for your input

[demmiblue]

1. Unrec. n/t

[Joe the Revelator]

57. Why?

[Bladian]

77. He was asking an honest question.

Was that necessary?

[RebelOne]

2. The only thing I had against Carter

was that he allowed the Mariel boat lift from Cuba. Castro opened up all his jails and shipped to Miami. The crime rate soared.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

65. Carter was a very conservative Democrat back then. Much moreso than Clinton or Obama!! n/t

[FormerDittoHead]

121. Letting the Shaw of Iran into the USA was a pretty piss poor move, too.

I'm sure people will say the taking over of the Embassy would have happened regardless, but that's not how I remember it.

[uponit7771]

3. Shameless bump

[kentuck]

4. Very similar.

Unfortunately.

[Mojorabbit]

93. I remember the media going after him but not Dems in particular. nt

[dennis4868]

5. Yes but

there was no internet and 24/7 cable shows of anti Carter bashing....But the dems primaries Carter and it cost Carter and liberals so much...brought us Reagan and his revolution! :-(

[Vanje]

6. I voted for Carter , twice....

because he really was a Democrat.

[Vanje]

7. I'd vote for him again! nt

[Yavin4]

8. The Dems and Congress Were Far More Progressive and Didn't Really Consider Reagan A Threat

Carter lost the election because of the Iranian hostage crisis and a challenge by Ted Kennedy. Funny thing, the hostage crisis actually helped Carter defeat Kennedy because he avoided debating him. Carter used a Rose garden strategy.

However, by the time of the general election, Carter was considered weak on defense when the rescue mission failed.

In the end, Reagan defeated Carter because he gave the public the illusion that he was going to restore post-WWII American economic power. There was a lot of nostalgia for the 1950s during the 1980s. Instead, Reagan allowed the very well educated and the finance industry to dominate our economy.

[aquart]

10. "The very well educated"?

WTF are you talking about?

[Yavin4]

42. If You Had Strong Tech Skills in the 80s, Or Were A Lawyer, Or A Banker

then you did pretty well. However, if you worked in mfg, you got hammered. Reagan Democrats were blue collar union Dems who were disillusioned with the "hippie" young left in the party. So, they voted for Reagan who was going to restore America back to the 1950s.

[Tony_FLADEM]

9. 40% of self identified liberals voted for Reagan or Anderson

[uponit7771]

11. ah...liberals abandond Carter by a notable margin then...

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Carter was ratfucked by Conservatives in both Parties

the end.

[deutsey]

23. Exactly n/t

[libodem]

37. yep

Got that right.

[Kurmudgeon]

26. Textbook example of bitiing your nose off to spite your face.

[Retrograde]

51. I voted for Anderson because Carter had already conceded

Carter conceded the election a few hours before the polls closed on the West Coast. I'd like to see those same numbers just for those states, not that I think it would have made all that big a difference.

IIRC, Carter lost in part due to high inflation (mortgage loans were at 17% in early 1980, down to 12% by September when I got one) and malaise over the Iranian hostage situation, which may have been prolonged due to actions on the part of certain people. We didn't have Fox back then, and I remember local news outlets being more balanced, so I don't particularly blame the media.

[uppityperson]

92. I did also. My father voted repub, first and last time

He said Carter was good at foreign and world stuff, but not so good with domestic stuff. Once raygun started his crap, my dad was quite upset at the whole thing. The media Sexified the Iran Hostage Thingie (tm) and that helped bring Carter down too. I remember the logos, music, and the numbers of How Many Days, etc. I remember during his re-election campaign, people talking about that stupid domino thing, where communism or some such was going to march up from Central America, blame the media for that also. Not as bad a FOX now, but they were biased and Sold the News.

I voted for Anderson, felt we needed a third party though came to appreciate Jimmy much more over the yrs.

[hfojvt]

66. interesting data, thanks

although a baseline would be helpful. For example, what percentage of liberals voted for Ford in 1976?

Also, this one jumped out at me. Anderson took 7% of the male vote and 7% of the female vote but 8% of all votes. Huh?

But liberals were only 17% of all voters, and thus were only 2% of Anderson's 8% total and 4.76% of Reagan's total.

That was, enough to sway the election if they all had voted for Carter, but I would note that 18% of Liberals voted for George Bush Sr. instead of Dukakis and 23% of liberals voted for Ford. So there is always some cross-over. In 1992, 32% of liberals voted for Bush Sr. or Perot.

[dameocrat67]

110. neocons call themselves liberals so it is just more

proof self identified liberal does not mean much.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Why don't you tell us what the right thinks? Or do you identify as

a 'centrist'? Every Democrat I know voted for Jimmy, myself included, and to be blunt with you, all the hoopla around Teddy's endorsement of Obama was a negative for me, because Teddy was a wretch to Carter. When he was called to run, he refused. When he was unwanted, he ran. So when 'the torch was passed' I thought to myself, if I was running for a first term, his is the last fucking Democratic endorsement I'd want, because endorsement runs two ways, and basically, the 'torch' involves unrelenting primary challenge.
The so called 'Reagan Democrats' were today's 'moderate centrists' that is, Republicans then and now. A voter is the vote they cast, and the Reagan voters were Republicans the moment they voted Republican. That is how it works.

[QC]

27. I remember seeing Teddy on the stage at the convention, turning quadruple reverse backflips

to avoid shaking Jimmy Carter's hand.

It was a disgrace.

I admired Ted Kennedy and was sorry to see him go, but that was not his finest moment.

[graywarrior]

13. Consider this-

Neil Young voted for Reagan. That's how bad it was. It was that whole Iran thing that did Carter in, in my humble opinion.

[Demit]

25. Neil Young is still a Canadian citizen.

[graywarrior]

31. He has dual citizenship, as I recall

[Demit]

48. Which would not give him the right to vote in an election in the USA.

[banned from Kos]

14. Carter signed no significant progressive legislation at all

He was the big deregulator (transportation, banking, airlines) and the Superfund was excellent.

Obama is 50x more progressive than Carter (in legislative accomplishments).

[Ter]

29. Not on war and military issues though

Carter loved peace, and was in some ways a pacifist.

[banned from Kos]

36. Agreed. I liked all of Carter's instincts. He is a good man.

But he was in some kind of weird place before Reagan's tax cuts and militarism era.

[Ter]

40. Yeah, you were right on the other things though

Obama is more progressive (besides military issues) than Carter. Carter was also pro-life and anti-Roe vs. Wade, at least when he was in office.

[a la izquierda]

89. And he loved peace so much...

that it took him nearly his entire presidency to do anything about our support for a murderous dictator in Nicaragua.
Sorry, he screwed the pooch there.

[otohara]

15. I Was Only 22 When He Ran ReElection

Never thought in a million years an actor would be elected, but I was naive and clueless to the evil right-wing.
I remember waiting up to an hour for gas though.

I voted for him twice.

It was the 70's, times were different.

[KBlagburn]

17. Yes....Think Ted Kennedy

The dems thought Carter to conservative thus the reason behind Ted Kennedy running in the primaries. Also Carter was unable to get alot of his legislation through the liberal congress. The difference between the dems and the gop? they rally around their own, no matter how bad they are and the dems tend to eat their own because they dont get everything they want. That is why the gop is so strong and getting stronger and the dems are getting weaker. We, unlike the gop, don not stand behind our ppl cuz we expect to much and we get pissed off.

[banned from Kos]

19. KBlagburn NAILS it here ---- and I quote for emphasis

"The difference between the dems and the gop? they rally around their own, no matter how bad they are and the dems tend to eat their own because they dont get everything they want. That is why the gop is so strong and getting stronger and the dems are getting weaker."


Well said!

[MH1]

117. and the repugs get their way little by little

they don't get everything at once but by taking a little here and a little there and accepting setbacks strategically, they've managed to progress toward their goals. (irony - their 'progress' is actually anti-progress)

[treestar]

63. right and it is shooting ourselves in the foot too

Will we ever learn?

[Creideiki]

120. Not exactly. The GOP don't "stand behind [their] people"

They primary the hell out of them until they're afraid of moving.

Why don't Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins break with the super-conservative Repugs on anything? Not because they're super-conservative, but because they're afraid of primaries and not getting party support in their elections.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. My only problem with him was his wearing his 'born again' credentials

on his sleeve - he opened the door that the fundies poured through.

Of course, I wasn't a real lefty then - I was a Dem who went to a couple Democratic Socialist meetings because that's were the hot, smart girls were. I don't remember having any particular problems with him, and even defended the Desert One fuckup despite not knowing how it was sabotaged at the time - extracting a couple hundred people from the middle of a hostile city had a low chance of success no matter how you play it.

I think I supported the Kennedy primary challenge, but that didn't mean I resented Carter for winning.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

But at least he really did live up to those principles. He was and still is a true

Christian in the way that Jesus Christ taught. Nothing like these charlatan Republican/Teabag/Fanatics/Bigots we have today posing as "christians."

[anneboleyn]

97. I agree. The Iran hostage crisis is what really lost the election -- and Kennedy

didn't help with his challenge.

[hifiguy]

20. I don't think so.

What elected Raygun were the inflation and gas lines resulting from the gas shortages and the Iranian hostage crisis (which was manipulated for the Repukes' benefit by dear ole' GHW Boosh and others). There is nothing Carter could have done to get re-elected given the circumstances of the time.

I cast my first vote for POTUS for Carter in 1976, but voted for John Anderson in 1980. I calculated that Raygun would win the election, that Carter would probably win my state, and felt free to vote my conscience. Turns out I was right.

Edited to add:

I am with RaleighNCDUer on his first point. Carter's open religiosity made me more than a little queasy in 1976, which was one of the reasons I supported Frank Church and Jerry Brown through the primaries. I was an ABCer (Anybody But Carter) until the convention. Carter's subsequent support for the Hyde Amendment did nothing for me in terms of my confidence in him.

All that said, his post POTUS career has shown Carter at his very best.

[deutsey]

21. I was in 6th grade when he was elected

I remember I was swept up in the happiness over his election.

By 1979, though, I was as disgruntled as many in the country in general seemed to be over his presidency.

What happened?

I was obviously very young then and wasn't exactly following the news programs very closely at the time, so I don't know firsthand from then what contributed to that shift, aside from the Iran hostage crisis, inflation, and the gas rationing.

I did read an interesting book by Walter Karp called Liberty Under Seige in which he basically said that Carter, being the first modern "outsider" president (he was nominated after substantial reforms took place in the Democratic Party that loosened the nomination process from backroom wheeling and dealing), the political establishment in general (Republican and Democratic) wanted to see him fail.

He starts the book off with the Bicentennial celebration and the election of Carter in 1976 and how they represented (for him) the triumph of small "d" democracy after Vietnam and Watergate. He then traces the "reaction" of the ruling powers against the egalitarianism of the '70s that culminated in the election of Reagan.

It's an interesting book, as I say...short on citations, but thought provoking. I think it was first an essay in Harper's that he expanded into a book.

[Frosty1]

22. Yes they were that horrible

Don't forget Carter had the whole Nixon mess to clean up. Nixon's henchmen ie.. G.H.W. Bush Rumsfeld and Cheny helped engineer the deal that the hostages wouldn't be released till after the election thus taking away any credit from Carter for the work he did. The fat cat oilmen also gave us a totally trumped up oil crisis for Carter to contend with.

[Kurmudgeon]

24. Yes, but with help from Neo-Cons on the right.

The Iraq hostage crisis has never been properly investigated nor all the participants who helped hold the hostages properly punished.

[sinkingfeeling]

28. Yes. n/t

[EC]

30. I was in college at the time

The University of Wisconsin and so many there were for Reagan, I didn't understand it. They were blaming Carter for being whimpy about the hostages...the right-wing sound machine sure knocked that into people's heads every chance they got.

[alsame]

74. Ted Koppel and Nightline, "America Held Hostage" was

on EVERY night. Even before the cable news era, we got the propaganda.

[EC]

84. Yep. n/t

[uppityperson]

95. Remember those big numbers, how many days, the logos and stirring music?

High drama

[alsame]

108. Yes, and this picture every night

[Raksha]

102. "America Held Hostage" - I remember that very well.

And everyone blamed Carter. Even before cable, the RW spin machine worked very well. The Christian Coalition was called the Moral Majority back then, and my conservative Lutheran boss (a former Democrat) was a card-carrying member of the Moral Majority. Guess he was your archetypal Reagan Democrat.

[alsame]

118. Ah yes, the Moral Majority. According to

wiki, they did indeed impact the 1980 election.


The Moral Majority was a relatively early supporter of Reagan, with Falwell announcing the organization’s endorsement of Reagan before the Republican convention. Naturally, the Moral Majority continued working on behalf of Reagan after he gained the Republican nomination. Following the organization’s heed, more than one-fifth of Moral Majority supporters voted for Reagan in 1980 that had supported Carter in 1976. After Reagan’s victory, Falwell announced Reagan’s success was directly due to the Moral Majority and others registering and encouraging church-goers to vote who had never before been politically active. Empirical evidence suggests that Falwell’s claim about the role of Christian Right organizations in Reagan’s victory has some truth, thought difficult to determine definitively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority

[lumpy]

32. Answer to the original question- no

v

[Peacetrain]

33. I was, and I voted for Carter.. and yes they were the first to jump ship

If it is not perfect then they were the first to line up and throw pies..

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[banned from Kos]

45. Disgraceful comment.

I promised to be nice here so I won't tell you what I really think.

[bemildred]

35. Nothing to do with "the left", but this looks pretty similar to Carter and Clinton admins,

in many ways, including the apparent willingness to be a one-term President rather than take on real reform of existing power structures.

[Safetykitten]

38. Oh yes, it was the left that booted Carter out of office. Yes indeedy, it was all us.

Poor guy. We the LEFT handed him his walking papers. We did it all. It's our fault that Reagan was elected. Blame us. We never LOVED Carter.

[slackmaster]

39. Jimmy Carter wasn't nearly far enough to the left for the left of the 1970s

The far left support Barbara Jordan and George McGovern. People just left of center went for Jerry Brown.

Even César Chávez ran that year.

[Safetykitten]

41. Apparently the republicans are not the only ones that re-write history.

[MilesColtrane]

43. Don't know about "the left", but Kennedy's primary challenge helped...

Reagan get elected.

Carter would have lost anyway, but the acrimony of the primaries and the fact that Kennedy took the battle all the way to the convention certainly helped create more than a few of those "Reagan Democrats".

There are other examples of bruising primaries that contributed to winner eventually losing in the general election: the GOP in 1976...the Democrats in 1968

[Rex]

44. Oh please...the drama queens on DU must really get your goat!

:eyes:

[proud patriot]

46. good question

I was born in 1969 and was in elementary school at the time.

[Fire1]

47. NO! n/t

[Rowdyboy]

49. I was 26 in 1980 and followed the campaign passionately...The answer is yes....

And it took me nearly 25 years to forgive Ted Kennedy for his part in the deliberate sabotaging of a Democratic campaign and the destruction of Carter's administration. Ronald Reagan is a disaster from which we will never recover.

[Douglas Carpenter]

50. people are naturally frustrated that there is a pro-Wall Street economically conservative party

called the Democrats and a batshit crazy right-wing extremist party called the Republicans. No one has to convince me that the Republicans are worse, much worse, That is obvious to all but the deaf, dumb and blind. But wouldn't it be something that if instead of having to chose between a center-right and a right-wing extremist party - we would actually have the choice of an actual liberal or progressive party? I knew from the beginning that Obama like Clinton before him would end up doing pretty much as he has done and push a center-right economic and foreign policy agenda. So I am not as disappointed as some. I recognized that the political establishment of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media would not allow an actual progressive to become a viable contender for the nomination - such as someone who actually supports real universal healthcare and who would challenge the power of Wall Street, the insurance companies and the military industrial complex. The last time such a candidate gained the Democratic nomination was in 1972 - more than 39 years ago. Since then the party has steadily moved right-ward on economic and foreign policy issues - each election cycle a bit more to the right than the election cycle before. This is in such contrast to how when the GOP lost by a landslide with Barry Goldwater in 1964 and the ideological right-wing of the Republican Party was then proclaimed dead and buried. Yet time showed that they had only just begun. By the time poor old Senator Goldwater died he had almost become persona non grata in the Republican Party because by that time he was regarded as too liberal.

There was a time in which liberals and progressives played a major role in the Democratic Party. Of course the War in Vietnam to a large degree split the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. LBJ was as we all know America's last liberal President. But unfortunately the tragedy of Vietnam not only un-did his Presidency it also brought an end to liberalism as the dominant political force in American political life.

Of course it was foolish for liberals and progressives to imagine that Barack Obama might be the new FDR, LBJ with a touch of George McGovern - all wrapped into one. I never believed it. But for those of us who still believe in the New Deal and the Great Society and also believe that America must wean itself away from the military madness that led America into its misadventure in Vietnam - many of us still hoped against hope that perhaps President Barack Hussein Obama would be the chosen one. For some the disappointment is just too much to bare. For those of us who have seen other mirage progressives evaporate once taking office - the whole thing is not so disappointing anymore and of course we can only console ourselves with the thought that the only viable alternative actually capable of winning control of the mechanism of state is worse, much worse.

[Rex]

53. Obama is the most powerful corporate suit POTUS we've had since

LBJ. I think he is trying for an impartial record, which would be a first.

[banned from Kos]

71. For whom? And don't fucking tell me Goldman - they are $550 million

in the hole with President Obama.

NN benefited Google. Who is he pandering to?

Bank of America and Citi got a shiv in the gut from Obama. Are you dreaming?

[JVS]

52. The left is being horrible?

[Rex]

55. No just more dirty fucking hippies...dammit take a bath already!

Stinky hippies! All they ever do is drop out and tune in! Er...except for all the millions that became Yuppies, then Guppies in the 80s and sold out to the man! Now those are HORRIBLE!

[Lucky 13]

54. Do you still beat your wife?

Same kinda jacked up question.

[Safetykitten]

60. Really.

[Safetykitten]

56. Just so we can cut to the real issue on this moronic point of the lefties to blame for Carter...

I was there. Carter presided over a period that had challenges that were big. He was the relief from the Watergate shit. The country wanted change. Sound familiar? The country was economically in a bad place, and just like someone we know, he was rather pragmatic and useless in responding to it. Also he was seen as a thinker and not an "action" guy. Sound more familiar? With the economic issues becoming more difficult, the hostage situation and the rescue failure was seen as the proof that the US was an impotent power that lost it's edge.

Enter the Reagan. he said all the right things, he ran on the fact he would do things.

There is a small window of opportunity that is available to deliver the difference, be it in the Carter presidency or the current one, which of course has blown it spectacularly.

So look for the repeat and redux of the "Morning in America" theme that will hammer the current situation that we are in.

then you can post in 2013 how we lefties were to blame on that one, because it is never the President's at that times fault.

[banned from Kos]

68. Bush the Lesser was an "action" guy too. Look how that turned out.

Your depiction of the late 70's is pretty much spot on, though.

[treestar]

58. REc'd

I don't think so. But then he had a real primary challenger. Things were more behind the scenes then, fewer pundits. In fact it was before the pundit age. So I'd think that subjected to today's PL, Carter would get blasted to a point.

[Marrah_G]

59. Ah yes- the mean, mean left

Poor Obama- He is really suffering.

I'd rather stay true to my ideals then switch them on a dime because someone with a D beside their name is in opposition to them.

Politics is not a sporting event. I don't cheer for my favorite fucking team. I care about policies and how they effect people.

Cry me a fucking river.

[SammyWinstonJack]

70. +1000!

:applause:

[deutsey]

Thumbs up

:thumbsup:

[Lucky 13]

72. + Eleventy billion

:hi:

[hifiguy]

75. You speak for me, Marrah_G.

:thumbsup:

[Safetykitten]

78. Big++++

[meow mix]

91. +rec

:thumbsup:

[Desertrose]

101. Bingo!! nt

[Puglover]

119. Say it Sistah.

But sadly it will fall on many deaf ears.

[in_cog_ni_to]

61. There was no internet back then...or Reagan would never have fucking won.

:grr:

[LondonReign2]

62. Jeebus, are you going ask when we stopped beating our wives too?

Horribly transparent. Unrec

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

64. You're too young to remember, but they ran Ted Kennedy against Carter and he (Carter) ended

up losing the election to RAYGUN!

Know the ODSers want the same for Obama! It's ridiculous!

The Left wasn't nearly as bad to Bill Clinton as they are with Obama! As we see to this very day, all is forgiven in Clinton land, even though he was responsible for many of the problems that Obama confronts today.

I can't help but think there's much more to it than just mere differences in policy or philosophy. It is much, much more than that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. Holding public servants to account is not "horrible". It's the responsibility of the citizenry.

If he dislikes criticism from the left that the left finds abhorrent.

[H2O Man]

69. Interesting question.

The dynamics in each case are actually far, far more different than they are the same, that it would be a mistake to view the two as being very similar. But, at the same time, there are very real reasons to look towards Carter's 1980 defeat as holding lessons for Barack Obama.

Carter came to power at a unique time. It is difficult to imagine his being a serious candidate in the era before 1976, or even after 1980. But Watergate had changed the public's perception ofr politics; the war in Vietnam had damaged the US; and both the Civil Rights/Anti-War and the Women's Rights movements had crested. Gerald Ford was weak.

At Carter's gala ball to celebrate his victory, symbols from the "left" -- including John Lennon and Muhammad Ali -- were in attendence. But this was very different from the New Left's role in the 1972 campaign. Carter was liberal in some areas, and rigid in others. Among his rigid positions was his refusal to accept a working relationship with the Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party. His attempts to be an "outsider" in DC amounted to much more than mere talk.

The Democratic Left -- including the progressive wing of the Democratic Party -- never really embraced Carter. He wasn't interested, for example, on Native American issues, which at very least symbolized environmental issues for many. Carter refused to meet with traditional Indian leaders, at tiumes in an insulting manner. (Strange, as he is one of two US Presidents who was an avid collector of Indian artifacts.)

But it was the establishment liberals who withdrew support for Carter by 1979. The Jimmy Carter of today is a great guy. He has an open mind about most things. But he wasn't the same decades ago. He was often rigid in his interpersonal relationships. His religious beliefs caused him to appear rather judgemental at times.

Carter's intense efforts to bring stability in the Middle East -- in my opinion, his biggest area of achievement -- also would alienate some democratic supporters.

These are generally distinct from what is happening these days. Yet, President Obama is struggling with a harsh economic reality, which like with Carter, most rational people recognize as not being entirely of his own making. There is also a high level of distrust of Washington, much as there was then. And the impact of unmet expectations.

Carter was undercut by establishment liberals and moderate Democrats. Obama is supported by the establishment liberals and moderates. His problem may well be a combination of the failure to be seen as even attempting to reach out to the Democratic Left (as Carter ignored and insulted the Kennedy wing), the weak economy, and the unmet expectations.

Also, even his critics viewed Carter as honest. I do not thibnk that applies with Obama.

[SoCalDem]

73. The right wing thinktanks were cutting their teeth on Carter

and of course the media was as well.

Truthfully, media has always "gone after" presidents, but the Carter years were in the warm afterglow of Watergate, so most media thought it HAD to beef up oversight. This was the time too, when media consolidation into the rightwinginess we all know now, began in earnest.

Carter was the test-case, and by the time Reagan was put in office, the right wing media was already in place to protect him (an fellow republicans). Republicans HATED Watergate, and they made sure they would never again leave fingerprints like that again..

The left pretty much went on about their business, thinking they had won, but in reality, they had only poked a very big nest of wasps, who were willing to bide their time, and then strike back with a vengeance..

[mitchtv]

76. the country was in a bad mood,

the hostage rescue made Carter look incompetent,Reagan cut a deal with Iran, and I voted for Carter,

[Stinky The Clown]

79. Jimmy Carter got beaten by lots of right wing dirty tricks . . . and a really shitty economy

Carter's term saw interest rates on mortgages above 21%. It saw gas lines.

And then there was the hostage thing in Oran, with them getting released when St. Ronald was being sworn in.

Jimmy Carter was not with some blame, too. I love the man, but he was much too much of a micromanager. He was also not all that liberal, so that wasn't much of an issue for him back in those days.

[Stinky The Clown]

80. By the way, why do you say the left is "horrible" to Obama?

[JoePhilly]

86. That's a joke, right?

A loud part of the left wants him GONE.

They see him as the enemy, more so that the GOP or Tea party whack jobs.

And their core message is the same as that from the right wing ... "Obama is BAD".

That is the message.

Sure, the far right and the far left are 180 degrees apart on WHY they think Obama hates America ... but they are both sure that he does in fact HATE America.

[UTUSN]

81. K&R #1 (still to Zero) & congrats for asking an honest question w/o too much being flamed. n/t

[dtexdem]

82. Jimmy Carter did not shit all over Dem Party values.

He was not particularly effective, and caught all the RW flack. And some of the left were pushing Teddy Kennedy, who was making inroads and might have made a serious primary challenge had he not specialized in driving cars into lakes and drowning interns. But what did in Carter were: 1) continuing stagflation in the economy, inherited from Nixon; 2) the Hostage Crisis in Iran; and 3) GOP treason, including getting the Iranians to not release the hostages before the election. A failed military incursion to try to release the hostages was a major blow.

And by the way, Carter was one of the smartest presidents we've ever had. And his international work since then has underlined his deep commitment to human values.

[in_cog_ni_to]

83. And he put solar panels on the WH! And the asshole Reagan removed them!

:grr:

BTW...Obama said he was putting the solar panels back on the WH. Did he ever do that? Of course he didn't!

[JoePhilly]

87. Did you not just make the OP's point?

Carter was ripped by Democrats who would rather have the guy who you claim "specialized in driving cars into lakes and drowning interns" as a primary opponent.

If you don't see how STUPID that approach was then, with the "smartest President we've ever had" ...

Maybe, Democrats simply hate to win. No matter who we elect ... they SUCK. They don't kill of the GOP, and we hate them for failing that.

Your post argues with it self.

Obama inherited a WORSE economy than Carter. But Obama has improved it.

Obama is getting us OUT of Iraq. But who cares.

Obama KILLED OBL. Shush.

But damn it, Obama is bad.

[saras]

85. unrec because there's no way to answer that doesn't support the implied smear

[Ezlivin]

88. To be fair, DU was a much smaller site back then

You had to go through Compuserve to get to it.


:)

[Rincewind]

90. Yes,

and Clinton too.

[GOPBasher]

94. No. The Web wasn't around, so it was very different. n/t

[cliffordu]

96. There wasn't the same brand affiliation back then - "the left" and whatnot.

The MSM let us all know that he wasn't a "real man" like Reagan -

Go read about the rabid bunny incident.

[anneboleyn]

98. Except this time the repubs have Romney, not Reagan. and Romney is no "action guy"

Unless something unexpected happens (which is possible of course) and someone like Bachmann wins the nomination, the repubs are stuck with Romney the big business stuffed suit since their big hope (Mitch Daniels) refused to run this time around. Romney is no Reagan (snort, as sad as that sounds). Neither is Bachmann -- she looks crazy, and she has little chance of speaking to middle of the road voters because her radical views will become apparent during the long national campaign (one hopes, anyway).

[Capn Sunshine]

99. The left HATED Carter

he was responsible for everything bad. Certainly you remember that? Oh yeah, back then it was in mimeograph form, not the internets. It was crude 8 mm films. Newsprint. Parks on soapboxes. Bars.

Most of the left back then were the Socialists and Trotskyites, Stalinists like Pol Pot and Leninists like half the intelligentsia in the Mexico City coffee house scene. The other half located here and there in Eurpoe and America.

[upi402]

100. thanks for playing

pffft

[JoseGaspar]

103. That was exactly what happened.

The Left was simply horrid to Carter.

But, to be fair, modern political science was very poorly developed at the time. The concept that Democrats could sweep to power after the total failure of a right-wing government (Nixon) and then essentially codify those very same right-wing principles - that was poorly understood or tolerated by much of the population.

People actually believed that those whom they elected were obligated to represent them, rather than being obligated to support whatever direction elected politicians chose to move in. It was much like the time when it was thought that the sun revolved around the earth. It is embarrassing even to think in such terms today.

It wasn't really until the era of Clinton that the concept of true political entitlement was first discovered. And of course, the possibility of elected officials acting in that way on EVERY issue, and still being entitled to support... that was not really possible until the present era.

It's shameful but it's true. Carter was totally innocent of doing anything more than acting in the opposite way from that for which he was elected.

Perhaps if he had understood the later concept of attacking his own base, he might have shaken the Left out of their superstitions and introduced them to their obligations.

Where is Clinton when you need him?

[WinkyDink]

104. See below.

[WinkyDink]

105. "When did you stop beating your wife?"

[mmonk]

106. Everything is our fault.

Republicans, New Democrats, Libertarians, and Blue Dogs can't be wrong. They're unanimous.

[malaise]

107. Rec but it won't help

Great question

[dameocrat67]

109. Carter lost neocon conservadems over the iran hostage crisis.

had nothing to do with Kennedy, or liberals. Neocon dems are Reagan dems. This is why dems started pandering to neocon dems, since they showed they were swing voters. The dlc was born out of this fact. The idea that he lost because of liberals is pure revisionism. Complete utter bullshit, from Reagan Dem Obama propagandists.

[B Calm]

111. Jimmy Carter had a hell of a lead, then Raygun gave guns for hostages. . .

[Le Taz Hot]

112. No, because Carter was actually

a progressive and a Democrat. Do you not actually read history because you sure as hell weren't there. Unrec. for a word that begins with an "i".

[Edith Ann]

113. JC

YES. Not to mention the treasonous behavior of Reagan when his group went to Iran and interfered with the hostage situation. IE: Keep the prisoners until after the election so Carter will look bad. This act was against the law. No private citizen is allowed to make deals with foreign heads of state. I will never understand how Dems can sell us out by allowing a republican to be elected. You know, at least at this time,that electing a teabagger is a losing proposition for most Americans.

[sendero]

114. No...

.... they were not because they had no reason to be. We do.

[blindpig]

115. Not horribly enough

It was Carter who began the war against Latin America, supporting the worst of criminals against the will of the people. It was the Carter Administration which aided and abetted the crimes against humanity in Timor. After Nixon and Ford he was a massive disappointment and truly proof that nothing good can come from this system.

[southernyankeebelle]

116. We didn't have Fox News then. Carter wasn't a great president but he

was an honest person and left office without cheating on his wife or starting wars. What finally lost it was the Iran crisis. He sent a group to try to get them out and the copter crashed and they never made it. Reagan sent someone to talk with the Irains behind Carter's back not to let them free until after the election. It was funny how all of a sudden they were let free. Now we no there was a deal and Reagan really was a traitor. The economy was in bad shape. We had struggles but not like today. Carter was a really intelligent man. He graduated top of his class at the Naval Academy. He was religious but didn't push it on people and he kept his religion separate from government. Since he left office he has done so many good things for people. He always has been level headed. We all should wish we had men like Carter around in congress. Maybe this country wouldn't be in the shape it is in now. Bush stold the election and that is the real downfall of america. I hope we do not ever elect another Bush. They are nothing but a bunch of crooks and liars. They are only interested in making themselves richer.

[cally]

122. Yes!!!! I didn't vote for him because I thought he was a sellout

I was swayed by the constant bashing from left writers and speakers. I look back now and am ashamed that I did not vote and volunteer time to re-elect him. I see the same thing happening again.

[dameocrat67]

123. The 1980 election had high turnout

so you were not significant factor. Carter lost because of a nationalist, neocon backlash over perceived weakness on Iran.