Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (396954)	7/8/2008 5:03:10 PM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 1575235

but how else was he bad? Something that might clearly show there is at least a contrast to consider are those that think Bush is responsible for the current housing crisis with the current prime rate of 5% yet those same people support Jimmy Carter when the prime rate was 20%. I'd surmise it must have been bad since Ted Kennedy decided he needed to run against Carter in the 1980 democrat primary.

To: SilentZ who wrote (396954)	7/8/2008 9:56:07 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575235

"I mean, it seems he sucked at standing up for himself and his causes" That is a big one. He was very much a lead by example type. Unfortunately, this country doesn't reward that. It much prefers leaders who exhort the masses to do their bidding. Whether or not they actually practice what they preach doesn't seem to be an issue. So you can have, say, a Reagan who talks about God and the importance of God in the country, yet never set foot in a church. Notice how Carter gets ridiculed here because he donned a sweater and actually had the thermostats in the White House changed to reduce energy consumption. It would have worked better if he had given a speech, making allusions to D-Day and a new Manhattan Project on energy, saying how we needed to do new Liberty Gardens by turning down the thermostats with images of flags waving and eagles soaring in the background...

To: SilentZ who wrote (396954)	7/8/2008 11:10:08 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1575235

I'm still trying to figure this out. How so? I mean, it seems he sucked at standing up for himself and his causes, and he didn't win a second term, but how else was he bad? He was defeated on two bases: a) His abject bungling of the Iran Hostage Crisis. After Iran took American hostages, Carter was weak and ineffective, essentially allowing Iran to run over the United States. Instead of taking strong military action against Iran, as a competent president would have done, he stood by, wringing his hands, paralyzed in fear. One feeble rescue attempt failed as a result of poor planning and equipment failures. b) The "misery index" -- a term coined by Reagan, I believe -- which is the unemployment rate combined with the inflation rate. During Carter's administration, it hit a historical high of over 20 (it now stands at 9.5). The extent to which Carter could be blamed for it, I don't know -- but it was definitely important to his defeat. But the big thing was his weak handling of Iran. Americans felt defeated, run over, weak, and generally disgusted by Carter's ineptitude at foreign policy. Edit - on further review, it seems the misery index was actually coined by an advisor to LBJ in the 60s. He has only gotten worse over time.