[aberdeenwriter]

"Can a MORAL President succeed in this geo-political climate?"


[B]


President Jimmy Carter was CLEARLY a moral man. But can a man of morality succeed in the Oval Ofice today?

Why? Why not?



Thanks to LoganCharles for the image.

[OldManMac]

Jimmy Carter failed because he was the last moral president we've had. America has been sold to the corporations, and they pull Congress' strings, so the obvious answer is no. We have a liar in the White House, and we have another one who wants the job. There is no morality in American government.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Jimmy Carter failed because he was the last moral president we've had. America has been sold to the corporations, and they pull Congress' strings, so the obvious answer is no. We have a liar in the White House, and we have another one who wants the job. There is no morality in American government.

A question:

Do you think THAT (your assertion) has anything to do with the terrorist attack of 9/11?

[Millennium]

Politics and immorality pretty much go hand in hand. Not that politics is inherently immoral, but that there is no way to escape making bad deals with loathsome people, for the mere possibility (no guarantees) of a little good in the results.

Power corrupts, but a fair amount of that is logistical necessity, rather than the inherent dangers of power (though make no mistake, there is plenty of that too). Carter, for the most part, refused to be corrupted, which may have been good spiritually but was disastrous politically.

This is why I don't want to see people like Nader as President: we can't afford to have people like him corrupted. He is too important; we need him elsewhere. And if he isn't corrupted as President, then he will suck.

[Twilly Spree]

Damn Carter is looking old on that photo.

[spacefreak]

If Jimmy Carter was so concerned with morals, he would have dumped his association with the DNC decades ago.

[Logic]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If Jimmy Carter was so concerned with morals, he would have dumped his association with the DNC decades ago.

Are you saying that Democrats are immoral? Or could you elaborate on that "thought" of yours.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Logic:
Are you saying that Democrats are immoral? Or could you elaborate on that "thought" of yours.

I specifically said the DNC - you know, Terry McAuliffe & Co. If I wanted to say Democrats, I would have.

[Logic]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I specifically said the DNC - you know, Terry McAuliffe & Co. If I wanted to say Democrats, I would have.

Sorry. I'm not that much into the US politics that I see any difference between the DNC(Democratic national committee?) and Democrats.

What's the difference and what makes the DNC so immoral? Honest question.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Logic:
Sorry. I'm not that much into the US politics that I see any difference between the DNC(Democratic national committee?) and Democrats.

What's the difference and what makes the DNC so immoral? Honest question.

Google and do some research. Hopefully it will become *quite* self-explanatory.

Maury

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If Jimmy Carter was so concerned with morals, he would have dumped his association with the DNC decades ago.

Like the RNC has a better record.

Hint: They sleep in the same bed.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Like the RNC has a better record.

Yeah, but this thread is about Jimmy Carter and his "impeccable" morality.

[Spliffdaddy]

I remember the hostage crisis that Carter totally screwed up. (yes, Virginia, the middle east hated America in the 1970's, too)

Moral? I don't remember him being exceptionally moral.

I remember him being about the same as Ford - only lacking his common sense.

Carter praised God quite a lot. Probably more than any president in that century. Maybe that's why folks consider Carter to be 'moral'.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I remember the hostage crisis that Carter totally screwed up. (yes, Virginia, the middle east hated America in the 1970's, too)

Actually, this situation was the basis for the Train Bombings in Spain several months ago.

The hostages were going to be released... just not to Carter.

It could have been any president... until there was a change, the hostages would have been held.

Carter's mistake was being naive. He kept a phone during the inauguration cerimony... just in case there was an update on the situation. Until his last second in office, he thought it would happen.... despite knowing it wouldn't happen until power was transfered.

Terrorists succeeded in Spain as well. The bombing worked. Got a regime change and policy change.

Worked during Carter's time too. His successor took some of the focus of Iran... just like they requested. And in return, got hostages freed.

Appeasement is funny that way.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Actually, this situation was the basis for the Train Bombings in Spain several months ago.

The hostages were going to be released... just not to Carter.

It could have been any president... until there was a change, the hostages would have been held.

Carter's mistake was being naive. He kept a phone during the inauguration cerimony... just in case there was an update on the situation. Until his last second in office, he thought it would happen.... despite knowing it wouldn't happen until power was transfered.

Terrorists succeeded in Spain as well. The bombing worked. Got a regime change and policy change.

Worked during Carter's time too. His successor took some of the focus of Iran... just like they requested. And in return, got hostages freed.

Appeasement is funny that way.

revisionist

[Spliffdaddy]

I hear ya.

Odd that Carter was hated so much that the hostages were released only after a Republican was elected.

Carter didn't sit idly by and wait for the hostages to be released. He sent two helicopters that got blowed the f*c* up.


Remember the gas crisis? That was Carter.

55MPH speed limt? Carter.

My parents used to swap the license plates on their cars depending on whether it was an 'odd or even' day for gas sales.

Yes, Virginia, they rationed gasoline during the Carter era.

And you're gonna tell me how bad of a job Dubya is doing?

heh. Youngsters.

If Carter is 'moral', then Dubya is a saint.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
revisionist

Sorry, but it's appeasement. The US abided by the terrorists requests. Sorry, but you did it. You did exactly what they wanted. What's shocking is they actually held their end of the deal.

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I hear ya.

Odd that Carter was hated so much that the hostages were released only after a Republican was elected.

Actually it was after a 'non-carter' was elected. Carter an an Iran agenda. Reagan had a much more widespread view. That's what they terrorists asked for.

Carter didn't sit idly by and wait for the hostages to be released. He sent two helicopters that got blowed the f*c* up.

If he didn't you would have b*tched he didn't do anything.

But yes, he did know that was pointless. He just didn't like the idea that the terrorists were turning America against him.

Remember the gas crisis? That was Carter.

Gas crisis he denied for ages that it was as bad as it was... but the fact that it happened was the time period. If Reagan was in office it would have been him. No American president could have avoided that. Reagan would have just admitted the problem was bad earlier. But that wouldn't have avoided or helped the problem.

55MPH speed limt? Carter.

Yup.

My parents used to swap the license plates on their cars depending on whether it was an 'odd or even' day for gas sales.

Thanks to Reagans Middle East policies, Lower manhattan has a giant hole where 2 building stood. So that was good policy eh?

Yes, Virginia, they rationed gasoline during the Carter era.

And you're gonna tell me how bad of a job Dubya is doing?

Dubya has done nothing but create problems. He's yet to do anything about the terrorism issue. There's no Iraq link, Afganistan's a mess. He promised Bin Laden.. but hasn't found him. He promised better economic times, job market is in the toilet. He said the holiday season would be good for merchants. Tiffany's had a record year, but stores for middle class, and lower class had 'lower than expected' earnings (walmart being the big shocker). And apparantly that low spending is a sign of consumer confidence.

Then we are told he's us Iraq is under control... yea, come on. Not even Iraq thinks it can hold Jan elections. Not even Bush's own Admin. thinks it can.

Then you have the issue of Bush's lack of respect for the constitution. Something tthat a president is ethically bound to show respect for.

If Carter is 'moral', then Dubya is a saint.

You can draw a halo on the devel himself, the horns will support it. Doesn't mean it's really a saint.

[vmarks]

Perot came to national attention during the Iran hostage crisis (1979), when he funded an operation that rescued two of his employees from an Iranian prison.

Be careful that you ascribe credit or blame to Reagan or Carter in whole.

President Carter applied economic pressure by halting oil imports from Iran and freezing Iranian assets in the United States. At the same time, he began several diplomatic initiatives to free the hostages, all of which proved fruitless. On Apr. 24, 1980, the United States attempted a rescue mission that failed. After three of eight helicopters were damaged in a sandstorm, the operation was aborted; eight persons were killed during the evacuation. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who had opposed the action, resigned after the mission's failure.

In 1980, the death of the shah in Egypt and the invasion of Iran by Iraq (see Iran-Iraq War) made the Iranians more receptive to resolving the hostage crisis. In the United States, failure to resolve the crisis contributed to Ronald Reagan's defeat of Carter in the presidential election. After the election, with the assistance of Algerian intermediaries, successful negotiations began. On Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan's inauguration, the United States released almost $8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed after 444 days in Iranian detention; the agreement gave Iran immunity from lawsuits arising from the incident.

In 2000 former hostages and their survivors sued Iran under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act, which permits U.S. citizens to sue foreign governments in cases of state-sponsored terrorism. The following year they won the lawsuit by default when Iran did not offer a defense. The U.S. State Dept. sought dismissal of the suit, arguing it would hinder its ability to negotiate international agreements, and a federal judge dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for damages in 2002, ruling that the agreement that resulted in their release barred awarding any damages.

-- http://reference.allrefer.com/encycl.../Iranhost.html

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I hear ya.

Odd that Carter was hated so much that the hostages were released only after a Republican was elected.

Carter didn't sit idly by and wait for the hostages to be released. He sent two helicopters that got blowed the f*c* up.

Actually ... Carter was one of the most liked Presidents by countries in the Middle East in general.

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

Remember the gas crisis? That was Carter.

The gas crisis began in 1973 and was over by 1974 Are you actually stoned while writing this ? This is completely factually wrong.

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

55MPH speed limt? Carter.

Again, completely FALSE. The 55mph speed limit was imposed on 1/2/74 by Richard Nixon. It was bumped back to 65 in 1987 and then given to individual states to set in 1995.

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

My parents used to swap the license plates on their cars depending on whether it was an 'odd or even' day for gas sales.

Yes, Virginia, they rationed gasoline during the Carter era.

And you're gonna tell me how bad of a job Dubya is doing?

heh. Youngsters.

If Carter is 'moral', then Dubya is a saint.

.
How does gas rationing relate to morality, in your opinion ? The President that has the lowest gas prices is the most moral ?? By that measure, Bill Clinton is our most "moral" recent president followed closely by Bush I. Clinton was, apparently, especially moral around 1998 when gas prices were sub $1 in most of the US.

Your version of history is so completely and transparently false, I can only assume that you're too lazy to verify this with a simple Google Search. ALL of the gas crisis/rationing/55mph stuff happened under Nixon. And, I will add ... it wasn't Nixon's fault. Gas prices stayed high (though there was no longer a critical shortage after 1974) through the Carter era and well into the Reagan era until the bottom fell out of the oil market in 1986.

What's next ? We were winning the war in Vietnam 'til Carter decided to pull us out ?

[Spliffdaddy]

"Your version of history is so completely and transparently false, I can only assume that you're too lazy to verify this with a simple Google Search."

ding ding ding

we have a winner, folks.


NixonFordCarter

they were all presidents.

easy to see how I'd get that confused.

I was young, then. Still am, compared to some of the old farts around here.

I do remember one Halloween back in the mid-70's;

I went to school wearing an Arab sheik costume and carrying a quart of motor oil. I won the contest that year.

Oh my, oh my how things have changed. I have, too.

[Sven G]

To say it with a few words... IMHO, a president (of whatever) can, at most, be only as moral (though I'd prefer the term ethical) as his surroundings, ultimately (even if, in the beginning, he tried to be better: power corrupts, as has been said): honest people are always fscked, eventually, in this political system that is forced upon us.

That said, Carter certainly was one of the so-called lesser evils...

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Yeah, but this thread is about Jimmy Carter and his "impeccable" morality.

Well, I just used JC as an example because he's relatively fresh in our collective memories and he was commonly regarded as a man of strong moral principle.

I'm not looking to cast aspersions on any one president, (yet I'm aware that's exactly what I'm doing to ALL of them by virtue of the question's inherent assumption) or party.
The question of political effectiveness in dealing with today's issues (foreign AND domestic) makes me wonder if any world leader HAS to violate common morality as part of the job.

Some related questions arise (one of which may become a new thread starter, but I'll also try them out here in hopes of getting a better grip on how to best frame the question or thread topic):

Some Muslim posters on these pages criticize the US government. But what is the best track record of any Islamic nation in terms of it's dealings with the world?

"Are there any moral Islamic led countries?"
"Do Islamic countries get the short end of the stick when dealing with western countries because of their respective differences in morality?"
"How does rule by Islamic law (omitting the obvious denial of certain human rights and the Islamic customs westerners find objectionable) shake out in terms of foreign policy?"

I'd like some links to articles that might shed light on the pro's and con's of Islamic rule.

I'll be googling it myself after I click...

"SUBMIT REPLY"