tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 09:07 PM
Original message |
I've Never Completely Forgiven Ted Kennedy For His Role in Ushering in the Reagan Era |
|
I have always absolutely loved President Carter.
From the moment I read about his campaign I was totally hooked.
He was the first presidential candidate that I voted for to win an election.
Then in 1980 when his administration stood on the edge of collapse, he was stabbed right in the back by Ted Kennedy.
Kennedy waged a vicious primary challenge against the incumbent President that almost toppled him. And lets not fool ourselves, it was an ugly campaign.
It reinforced the media image that Carter was ineffective and on his way out.
The one image that sticks in my mind to this day is a campaign ad I saw on television during the general election where the Reagan people used footage of Kennedy's negative campaigning against President Carter.
At the time I think it was easier for me to blame President Carter's loss on Kennedy, instead of some weird twenty year long right wing movement that seemed to be emerging. I now recognize there were tons of factors working against President Carter, but that brutal primary challenge certainly didn't help.
As time went on and Kennedy continued to rack up accomplishments in the Senate, its a wound that healed considerably, and I am amazed that at his age he continues to do so much good for so many.
However whenever I see him in the news, I can't help but think about that 1980 campaign and the beginning of the Reagan era, just four short years after we thought we had disposed of Nixon and his cronies once and for all.
|
Fresh_Start
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 09:11 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I don't think you can blame Kennedy for Carter |
|
but apparently its okay to blame Kennedy for the failures that led to Reagan era
|
tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. A primary challenge from a Kennedy to an incumbent President |
|
Was nothing to sneeze at.
I still assert that Kennedy should have supported his president and focused in on doing everything possible to keep a nut like Reagan out of the White House.
|
Fresh_Start
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. agreed nothing to sneeze at |
|
but the problems during his presidency were also nothing to sneeze at
I think Carter might have been the most decent President in my lifetime he was certainly a visionary but the economic problems sunk him I also think economic problems would have sunk Bush if they were more evident before 2004
|
calico1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 09:20 PM
Response to Original message |
2. That isn't really fair. |
|
I don't think anyone expected the dufus to win and then to have so much influence and end up being a god to the Republican party. No way Teddy could have forseen that.
|
H2O Man
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 09:29 PM
Response to Original message |
|
larger attempt by many people in the democratic party to dump Carter rgan the general public realizes. It had started in earnest in 1978. There were two other democrats who were giving very serious consideration to running, well before Ted. In fact, he was pressured -- starting in late '78, and more in '79 -- to step in. Part of the idea was to convince Carter to not seek re-election, and also because the other two could have further divided the country.
Believe it or not, in the early days, the concern wasn't that these two other democrats would make it possible for Reagan to be elected. He wasn't considered a top tier threat. But Carter was not doing well, in a range of importantant areas. There are some stories about Iran, for example, that aren't well known to the public, but that indicated to most democrats in Congress at the time that Carter wasn't the right man for the job. It was a strange time, and other factions of the party were going to move on Carter.
|
tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. The Democratic establishment hated President Carter. |
|
Edited on Sun Jan-27-08 09:35 PM by tritsofme
He was outsider that came in and beat them at their own game.
We had relatively large majorities in Congress, but Carter's legislative initiatives were very unsuccessful, the old school establishment leadership wouldn't work with him.
Ted Kennedy personified that establishment, and they were very bent on getting rid of President Carter one way or another.
|
H2O Man
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
the word "hate." But it is true that when he was running for president, Jimmy Carter was not particularly respectful of the leading democrats in Congress who came from certain parts of the country. And that lead to some hard feelings from the beginning of his administration.
But to really appreciate what was happening, one has to look very closely at the mission that George Ball (an all around honest and capable man) had been tasked with, on an informal basis, by the Carter administration. That includes knowing how the State Department and another related agency were left out of some decision-making processes, which could have created far greater problems in both Iran and Saudi Arabia. In a very real sense, those errors resulted in Reagan (re: Bush the Elder) manipulating events for the election.
Ted played a role, and it was not one with a positive outcome. But the two other democrats would have made it worse. And, though I like him as an ex-president, Carter was in over his head as president.
|
Rowdyboy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
10. You define the situation exactly as I remember it....the Dem establishment loathed Carter |
|
and even with large Democratic majorities in congress they made a shambles of his presidency. The only time congress has sickened me more was 1992-1994, Clinton's first two years. Once again, the rulers of the Hill were determined to put a Democratic president in his place.
I never forgave Kennedy for costing Carter that election and giving us Reagan. Over the years my anger has waned but I still carry a small measure of resentment. Guess Nader can hang it up for another thirty years!
|
tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
26. There was a lot of potential for change in those times. |
|
Its a real shame it worked out that way.
|
Skidmore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
35. Yup, Reagan undercut the sitting President by negotiating with Iran |
|
to help throw the election here by holding the hostages until the election was over, knowing that this was Carter's Achilles heel as was his harboring of the Shah. I was living in Iran at the time, and the impact of the hostage situation on the upcoming election and the taking down of Carter was discussed in many a parlor. The man in the street knew it. There were greater forces at play for public sentiment than Ted Kennedy.
|
Texas_Kat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 09:30 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Teddy in a snit at Carter |
|
Contributed to his unpopularity with the South
|
swoop
(169 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 09:35 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I'm from Colorado--and we had one of our professors in Tehran. I never forgave Carter for how he neglected to do something definitive about the hostages.
|
sjdnb
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
13. He did ... it's why they came home |
|
Reagan just greeted the plane.
"The death of the Shah on July 27 and the invasion of Iran by Iraq in September 1980 made Iran more receptive to the idea of resolving the hostage crisis. Despite losing the November 1980 presidential election to Ronald Reagan, President Jimmy Carter, in the final days of his office, negotiated the release of the hostages through Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Algerian intermediaries and members of the Iranian government." from Wikipedia
|
swoop
(169 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
16. It took way too much time. |
|
I remember all those days we waited and those hostages waited.
|
Lydia Leftcoast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
18. Someone asked Carter about this when I heard him speak in 1992 or so |
|
He said that his advisers on Iranian culture had warned him that direct threats would make the Iranians feel obliged to get all macho, especially after the failed rescue attempt.
Therefore he sent private messages through back channels (European and Middle Eastern diplomats) saying that he would order the bombing of Tehran if any of the hostages were killed.
You may recall that one hostage was released early after he started showing neurological symptoms. Obviously, the Iranians didn't want to even risk him dying in their custody.
Have you heard of the October surprise? If not, look it up.
|
goodgd_yall
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #18 |
30. There's much to be said for a president |
|
who listens to experts on Iranian culture. If Bush had been willing to listen to cultural and political experts on Iraq, we would never have invaded.
|
sjdnb
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
19. But, they came home alive |
|
I don't think anyone else, given the circumstances, could have done any better.
|
LanternWaste
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
34. And yet no one died... |
|
And yet no one died. We simply endured a year of so of public humiliation. No big deal-- happened to all the super-powers at one point or another...
|
2rth2pwr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 09:51 PM
Response to Original message |
11. On Ted, Don't forget "No Child Left Behind" nt |
sjdnb
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
12. One of the worst pieces of legislation EVER |
|
Undermining what COULD be the best public education system in the world.
|
kurth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
21. STUPID gigantic waste of taxpayer money |
|
and incredible destruction of teacher morale.
|
sjdnb
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
23. With that taxpayer money going to voucher fraud like |
|
some of the incidents cited here http://www.pasasf.org/charters/charters.htmlAnd, many others just like them or worse ... because they are not held accountable for anything, like the public schools are, it is hard to know.
|
Barack_America
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 10:14 PM
Response to Original message |
14. Then what must you think of Bill Clinton for giving us Bush? |
|
Seriously, his platform was to "restore honor and dignity to the White House".
|
goodgd_yall
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
29. Do you remember Kenneth Starr? |
|
His name seems to have been forgotten. You don't really believe Clinton's shenanigans deserved the rigorous investigation, media attention, and impeachment it received, do you? The Republicans hated Clinton and wanted him out and the Democratic Party disgraced. Clinton is not the first president to have an affair while in office (FDR did--but that was in a time before dirty tricks). All through his presidency they were looking for something to destroy him.
Let's not rewrite history by making it all about Clinton; we can't forget how badly the Republicans want to stay in power. They'll do anything and they won't be sittin by passively if we take the White House again.
|
Bitwit1234
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 10:29 PM
Response to Original message |
15. He was such a drunk back then he probably didn't know what |
|
was going on. He was also a womanizer. But he straightened himself out when he remarried.
|
DURHAM D
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
25. I don't think he straightened out - |
TriMetFan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 11:02 PM
Response to Original message |
17. How right you are about Ted. |
|
He really screwed Carter. I will never forget that, because of him and the way he went after Carter making him look weak, I voted for Reagan.
|
sjdnb
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 11:36 PM
Response to Original message |
20. And, while I know this may be interpretted by some as a RWTP |
|
I always felt he received preferential treatment for the Chappaquiddick 'incident'. But, then again, I had a kid thrown in jail because he hadn't changed the address on his license in the allotted amount of time and a friend's daughter who was convicted of a felony for graffiti (which was actually a senior prank - but, they were LMC and Hispanic in an area where it was felt Hispanics were 'taking over') she spent 18 months in prison ...
|
Buzz Clik
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
32. Funny thing about personal experiences. I have a Freeper friend who can't mention Teddy Kennedy... |
|
without speaking of Chappaquiddick in the same breath.
Funny how that goes.
|
OzarkDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-27-08 11:42 PM
Response to Original message |
22. True, he severely weakened Carter and divided the party |
|
Edited on Sun Jan-27-08 11:43 PM by OzarkDem
Kennedy was not thinking clearly at the time, his own life was pretty out of control. He let his ego get the better of him.
I still voted for Carter, no way I would vote GOP.
|
jberryhill
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 12:08 AM
Response to Original message |
24. Agreed - and it's the same cliff we are hurtling toward now |
|
You read my mind. I've lately had that picture in my head of Kennedy refusing to shake Carter's hand at the convention.
And here we are again.
|
goodgd_yall
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 03:21 AM
Response to Original message |
|
I like this "instead of some weird twenty year long right wing movement that seemed to be emerging"---enough of the Republicans having the ideas spiel.
I agree with you post and do think Carter was one of our best presidents. He should have served 2 terms. But I remember the vicious attacks on him. Republicans are like that---Kenneth Starr and his witchhunt of Clinton. If we win this time, we will be subject to some other attack that the media will participate in as usual.
|
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 03:26 AM
Response to Original message |
28. yeah, right. Teddy Kennedy is responsible for Reagan |
|
dismissed with prejudice.
|
goodgd_yall
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #28 |
31. You didn't read the entire OP carefully |
|
The OP said that it was, in reality, a number of factors, but at the time it was easy to blame it all on Ted Kennedy. He didn't do enough to help keep Reagan from being elected seems a reasonable statement to me.
|
LanternWaste
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 01:27 PM
Response to Original message |
33. I imagine that when a leading progressive Democrat endorses a candidate |
|
I imagine that when a leading progressive Democrat endorses a candidate, he'll become the enemy-of-the-month to many people. I just didn't imagine it would happen so quickly.
|
tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #33 |
36. If you read my OP, you would know this isn't a flavor of the month issue for me. |
|
Did some of the things Mr. Kennedy said about Clinton open some old wounds?
Probably.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 10th 2024, 07:04 AM
Response to Original message |