Is Obama the next Jimmy Carter?
Written by Brandon Henak on February 13, 2008 – 6:07 pm - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
Watching Obama speak makes me depressed. Why? Because his great political abilities are being used to ply Americans with platitudes when they need real economic changes like tax cuts to save our economy and real spending reform, not socialized healthcare.
Alas, the man can and will sell ice cubes to Eskimos and bad policy to US citizens, many of whom are convinced he is a true “uniter” (although they can provide no evidence of this). James Pethokoukis sums up the situation well when he describes the conservative view of Obama:
Please. Obama is actually Jimmy Carter, a guy elected president by a dispirited country who is then unable to deliver on his promises of “healing.” After a catastrophic four years of higher taxes and more government—who knew “unity” cost so much?—and more division, America will turn to Bobby Jindal/David Petraeus/John Roberts/Mark Sanford/Sarah Palin for true leadership.
This description of the Obama campaign is the most telling:
Obama’s transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system.
Is that the “hope” that is best for America? I think not. I have to agree with this quote from McCain’s campaign manager:
“Davis also commented about Obama being ranked by National Journal (full disclosure, NJ is Hotline’s parent co.) as the most liberal senator: “I don’t know if all 17,000 people who were in his audience last night know that. … But they will.” He also made it clear that he believes McCain can easily compete with Obama’s message of change, saying of McCain: “Nobody has been a bigger catalyst for change.”
How about some real “hope”…
Last 5 posts by Brandon Henak“Hope, my friends, is a powerful thing,” McCain said. “I can attest to that better than many, for I have seen men’s hopes tested in hard and cruel ways that few will ever experience. And I stood astonished at the resilience of their hope in the darkest of hours because it did not reside in an exaggerated belief in their individual strength, but in the support of their comrades, and their faith in their country. My hope for our country resides in my faith in the American character, the character which proudly defends the right to think and do for ourselves, but perceives self-interest in accord with a kinship of ideals, which, when called upon, Americans will defend with their very lives.
“To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.”
- Sarah Palin "Bump" Dominates Google Trends - September 4th, 2008
- 360 Degree Coverage: Tearing the Palin Family Apart - September 3rd, 2008
- 2008 GOP Convention Day 3 - September 3rd, 2008
- 2008 GOP Convention Day 2 - September 2nd, 2008
- Why vote for Obama? A Debate - September 2nd, 2008
Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain
Posted in 2008 Election Coverage |
February 13th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
It is a similar situation to ‘76. A difference would be that the GOP candidate this year, Senator McCain, isn’t as connected to President Bush as President Ford was to President Nixon.
On the flip side Obama is the greatest public speaker I’ve witnessed. President Carter couldn’t touch him. Commanding voice, a sense of humor, hopeful message, and the visual is striking (a black man with a real shot at the presidency).
Senator Obama has his weaknesses though and the McCain campaign has about nine months to pound on them over and over again. As seen in this blog post, it already started last night.
The electorate is much more divided this year then it was in ‘76. For the foreseeable future the dems dominate the northeast and the west coast; the gop dominates the south and the empty quarter. Leaving Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and West Virginia as the swing states.
This election Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico are likely not going to be swings due to it being Senator McCain’s backyard. Wisconsin, Missouri and Iowa probably go Senator Obama for the same reason (but less firmly because the Obama name hasn’t been out as long as the McCain name).
That leaves Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and West Virginia. Win 4 of 6 and you’re the president. Despite what some people are saying I doubt this is going to be a run away. Its going to come down to a handful of states that have a closely divided electorate.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
National Review, December 3rd, fyi
… I hope we turn to Jindal
February 13th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Why does our economy need to be saved after eight years with a Republican President and six years with a Republican Congress?
February 13th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Wow..what a turn around. Now you are quoting from John McCain’s campaign. Seems John was right. He was the right choice to unite the GOP, including you conservatives.
As for Jimmy Carter, most of us are aware of his Middle East policy, the courage to see the Panama Canal issue dealt with correctly, and the correct tone regarding human rights in our foreign policy while he was in the Oval Office.
It would also seem to me, in light of your moral compass on parade often on your blog, that Carter’s close family bonds and real moral foundations, that include working for peace and building homes for the poor, might be the type of President you would support. I am truly surprised you do not. Ford and Reagan did little after leaving the White House that mattered. Clinton is active with world issues, and Richard Nixon was a senior statesman aiding others in power with his keen insights.
So pick away on Jimmy Carter. But be aware the facts are not on your side.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:10 am
dekeriver-
Here are just a few of the reasons Jimmy Carter was one of worst Presidents in American history (and Obama shows every indication of making similar mistakes through the policies he espouses):
Foreign Policy
Upon his inauguration, he provided a “strong defense” by slashing defense spending $6 billion (in 2003 dollars) in the first two years of his administration, canceling the B-1 bomber, and decimating the U.S. fleet. [9] Gerald Ford warned this would devastate military preparedness in their second debate but was instead remembered for quipping, “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.”
Carter boasts as president he set about “convincing the Soviets of our ability and resolve to respond.” [10] Unfortunately, his response was naïvete and unilateral surrender. Carter failed to consult either the Pentagon or the Kremlin before removing U.S. missiles from South Korea within hours of his inauguration, a move Brezhnev interpreted as weakness rather than conciliation. In 1979, Brezhnev refused to remove Soviet submarines and aircraft from Cuba.
Carter further demonstrated his mettle by surrendering the Panama Canal after a few riots. Ports at either end are now controlled by a front for the Chinese military: Hutchison Whampoa Ltd., and this month, President Bush had to plead for “equal access” to the canal. More troubling, it now stands at risk of a potential terrorist attack. In 2001, the canal was visited by Adnan Gulshair El Shukrijumah, a 30-year-old Saudi-born al-Qaeda terrorist dubbed “the new Mohammed Atta.” Last summer, this most-wanted operative surfaced in Honduras, possibly recruiting for the strike. In response, a dozen nations participated in a simulated terror assault on the isthmus. [14]
Domestic Policy Disaster
Today, Carter’s foreign policy failures nearly obscure the mess he made of his country in every other way. President Carter enacted his “conservative fiscal policy ” by running annual deficits more than twelve times larger than Richard Nixon’s and increasing the federal debt by 42 percent, more than previous president who had not fought a world war. Had his agenda been implemented, that total would have been higher yet. (Before Hillarycare, he proposed a national health insurance plan, in 1979.)
Carter has discussed his views on reducing abortion through a combination of social welfare spending (such as WIC, which he created) and economic prosperity. [18] However, abortion increased to near-record highs under Carter, skyrocketing from 1.3 million in 1977 to nearly 1.6 million in 1981.
President Carter’s economic genius created the situation that, by 1980, interest rates stood at 21 percent, inflation at 13.5 percent, unemployment at 7 percent, and the “misery index” he coined during the 1976 campaign reached 20.5 percent.
To read the rest and the end notes, click here.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Carter may be a good person, an admirable trait to be sure, but his policies were a disaster.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Carter, was picking up the mess Ford, Nixon, and Johnson started. To blame all these economic woes on him is wrong. Yes, he should have been wiser in policy, but given the overwhelming nature of what was happening to the economy, I can easily see why Carter made those mistakes.
If you think McCain will solve our problems, I am greatly distressed. Obama has a chance (however small). I have no faith that McCain will come close to fixing the mess were in. He merely repeates Bush policies and we all know how great those were.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I am afraid you are mistaken richard, Carter was not “making up” for anyone, his policies were flawed and he was a poor leader. He was elected because American’s were disenfranchised and bought the same “change” rhetoric that Obama is spewing.
Bush had to deal with the foreign policy faux pax of the Clinton administration (ignoring Al Qaeda, spending less on defense) and McCain will do what is best for America when he is elected.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
“Bush had to deal with the foreign policy faux pax of the Clinton administration (ignoring Al Qaeda, spending less on defense) and McCain will do what is best for America when he is elected.”
Interesting that you didn’t say “and McCain will deal with the economic and foreign policy faux pas of the Bush administration.”
The conservative solution to failed policy remains the same, I see…refuse to admit your policies failed, and then enact more of them.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
It’s okay to say that Bush made bad economic decisions because of the mess Clinton left, but it is not okay to say that Carter made bad economic decisions because of actions by previous Presidents. Unless, we are assuming that Bush handled our economy well… If that is the assumption, then you and I live in different universes. I like to think my universe is a little less biased, but it is hard to prove such a thing.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
That’s where we differ in opinion Kat, I believe the War on Terror was the right choice, we may not have been able to foresee everything and Bush may have made some mistakes but, the war was justified and it is preventing terror here and abroad.
On a domestic level, I 100% agree with the Bush tax cuts and I believe Bush did not make the right decisions on spending. McCain will fix that by making the Bush tax cuts permanent (as he has stated, despite his former disagreement) and limit spending like he has in his time in the Senate.
As a whole, the conservative Republican philosophy of small government, less taxes and more individual responsibility is the best one. McCain is the representative of that we have this year and he is far better than Obama and Hillary, the tax and spend liberals.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Meanwhile we can conveniently ignore that Bush has increased spending to new levels, cut taxes, and put our government in a financial crisis no one can see the end of. Not to mention Bush has expanded government liek no other. Only Roosevelt can claim to have done more. And yet, Bush has expanded government in all the worst possible ways. If McCain says that he will follow Bush’s path, than I have no interest in him. I will pick some one logical and rational.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
As I said richard, “On a domestic level, I 100% agree with the Bush tax cuts and I believe Bush did not make the right decisions on spending. McCain will fix that” I am not ignoring his spending mistakes, merely pointing out he was right on taxes and wrong on spending and McCain will do better.
McCain never said he would “follow in the footsteps of Bush” that’s definitely a bald face lie.
Neither of the Democrats are logical or rational if they believe ballooning spending on healthcare or raising taxes is going to help anything. Look at Obama’s latest plan:
* A $65 billion-a-year health plan
* $15 billion in green energy spending
* $85 billion in tax cuts and credits
* A $25 billion-a-year increase in foreign aid
* $18 billion a year in education spending
* $3.5 billion for a national service plan
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/2/14/obamas-trillion-dollar-spending-plan.html
February 14th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Yes, none of those things are rational at face value. I am not sure where I stand on increasing spending for each of those items. What I do know, is that sometimes government spending is needed to boost positive externalities or remove negative extrernalities. To ignore externalities altogether, and say the market will fix everything is a flawed argument. Many economists over time are reaching this conclusion.
Regardless, Obama is ethical. McCain was ethical, but has sold himself out to the conservative base so he can have a shot at the Presidency. Obama talks about how we need diplomacy more than war to deal with our enemies. This is a wise and true philosphy that many world powers have used to reach equilibrium. Wars should be used as a last resort. Obama makes the right votes when our constitutional rights are at stake. Obama is about giving power back to the people instead of ordering them around. Obama may be a “fairy tail”, but I would rather have a fairy tail then a horror story. Bush has been frightening, McCain shows signs of behaving the same way. I rather the country went down with a fairy tail, than with war music playing in the background.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:54 am
George W. Bush was the “second coming” of Jimmy Carter, with one notable exception.
The Carter Nightmare lasted a single term; the “Bush Lite” Nightmare is still continuing.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Carter made many mistakes, but to his credit, he inherited one hell of a mess that was 30 years in building. Many people blame oil shortages and Carter for the high inflation, dubbed “Carter Era Inflation.” But if you look at the inflation growth curve of the previous fifty years, that trend began in the 1940’s, just after WWII. America had become a manufacturing mecca because of the war, but now was free to manufacture for predominantly civilian uses. The problem, you see, is that we did not produce efficiently. Also, due to a shortage of overseas commercial shipping, markets were limited, with high barriers of entry to foreign producers, and therefore very limited competition. This, in turn, led to systematic inefficiencies in American production. Inefficient production is the single greatest cause of inflation, particularly in an environment where trade is limited. These factors become a constraint on supply. What happens when demand exceeds supply? SHORTAGE. And during a shortage, prices rise.
Compounding this event was a BOOMING population growth in America, whose production capacity increasingly lagged the growth and the rapidly increasing demand. (Note: What an interesting study it would be to compare the economic events leading to the fall of he Roman Empire to the phase of American economic history referenced herein, but I digress.) The end result? Catastrophic exponential inflation.
Sadly, it wasn’t until Paul Volker and Reagan-nomics, as unpopular as both of those were with people uneducated in economics, that, how did Volker put it? We “put a lasso around it and rein it back in.” And the way he did it was by severely tightening the money supply, and Reagan’s policies changed the way we think as a nation; that supply should lead demand, and not vice-versa. This page in history marked the death of Keynesian Economics.
Considering the cards he was dealt, George W. Bush has managed his office and played his hand very well, at least when looking through the prism of conservative economic thought. Though many of us disagree with his policies and politics (and morality), Clinton, likewise, played his hand reasonably well when analyzed on the basis of liberal economic thought.
Anyway, that’s my rant as an economist. I urge all of you to think more critically, that just because something is disappointing (employment, trade deficit, inflation, housing market, poverty, education, etc.), we don’t go blaming whoever sits in the White House.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Took the words right out of my mouth, James. (Though you did a much better job of it with your economic background.)
I’ve been saying for the past few months that the next president may be a Carter-esque figure regardless of who it is: he/she will inherit a tough economy and an unpopular American image worldwide.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I think Obama will do better than Carter. I have no emperical basis for this, but I have yet to hear a President come up with so many good ideas and make it seem feasible. I am hoping to see him have a chnace at implementing them.