Posted on 05/12/2008 9:53:56 PM PDT by Aristotelian
You have to admit it takes guts. Audacity, even.
Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive nominee of the Democrats, has in essence just defeated the heiress of the Clinton era by campaigning as the heir-apparent of the Carter era.
The question for the rest of the year is this: Are there enough voting Americans who survived the disastrous odyssey through the late 1970s that was led by blessedly now ex-president Jimmy Carter? While Ronald Reagan is rated in poll after poll by Americans as a great president, (most recently he rated second only to Lincoln), are there enough people who recall that Reagan's election came about because of Carter's...ahhh..."performance" in the Oval Office? And will they be able to make the Obama-Carter connection for younger voters hearing terms like "windfall profits tax" for the first time? More to the point, can Senator John McCain do this?
The greatest charade of the year thus far is the idea that something "new" is being said in this campaign. By anybody. To be bluntly accurate, the only thing new is that one of the final two candidates is black. It seems to escape some that in a country even as young as America, 55 presidential elections (2008 is the 56th) covers just about all the ground there is to cover in debating any given next four years in the life of the United States. Consider.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
I have known nuclear physicists, and Carter wasn't one. He took courses dealing with specific tasks necessary to be an officer on a machine that real nuclear physicists figured out how to build.
Something like a person who works in the control room of a nuclear power plant might be a great employee, but he isn't a nuclear physicist.
Carter was on that boat for less than a year, as I remember. I expect that the crew saw him as the dork he was and was happy to see him move on.
If they knew what he was going to move on to, they might have kept him.
Obama and his wife are products of affirmative action, making their Ivy League degrees difficult to interpret re their intelligence.
As I said, check his father’s pedigree, not his color.
Barack Obama the elder was a member of the Luo tribe:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luo_%28Kenya_and_Tanzania%29
I have a family member who thinks Carter was the greatest ever. Of course, she was a child when he was president. I was just setting up my first household.
Every so often I talk about the gas lines, the fact there were no jobs, hyperinflation, etc. She looks at me like I have two heads. She doesn’t remember, she has no concept. She’s bought into the MSM spin.
She’s in her 40’s, so anyone her age or younger doesn’t remember. But I also remember the Reagan landslide after Obama.
Think Tanks, probably. But, perhaps, strategically thinking tanks. U.S. is using up a lot of the worlds petroleum reserves while preserving its own. I include Canada and Mexico here.
Think of all that oil, including shale, that is within reach. Meanwhile, we use up everyone elses and pay $4/gal. At the same time EUrotopia pays $8+/gal and all the backward countries only maintain a grip by subsisizing petrol.
yitbos
Age and experience may have a major bearing on this year's election. Those too young and inexperienced may not see the harm in another Carter-like presidency.
And still he pronounced "nuclear" as "nuke-you-ler"...
Barack Obama Sr. poses with his son in the Honolulu airport during Obama Sr.’s only visit to see his son while he was growing up in Hawaii. Young Barack was in the 5th grade when the photo was taken.
Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr., lived at the Atherton YMCA while he was a student at UH.
Well, actually, now that I look at her when she was really young, he does bear a resemblance. He’s lucky things didn’t go the other way.
Perhaps, but Obama is already promoting the same failed foreign policy concepts. If he's smarter, it's not because he learned anything from Carters mistakes.
As for Hillary, I think she is a lot more pragmatic and ruthless than Carter could ever even imagine being, otherwise why would 35 retired high ranking military men be for her?
Gays in the military? Hillary would likely have a great deal of empathy for them...and their jilted wives at home...I'm not just saying that, either. I'm sure there are many high level homosexuals just waiting for an excuse to come out, yet in the military, it would cost them their career. I'm sure there's a large silent group waiting on their tippy-toes who will vote for Hillary on this issue alone.
Just yappin' and continuing the commentary... : )
Robert Novack in his autobiography, The Prince of Darkness, said Dhimmi Carter was the most lying person, not President, but person, he ever met in his life and fifty years of reporting.
Obama has the potential to dislodge Carter from his position as worst president. Hillary may only be able to move Buba out of second place.
I saw a “Re-Elect President Carter” bumpersticker today.
The press has basically tried to hide Carter’s total ineptness - I actually saw a news show where they talk on people’s basic unhappiness with the presidency in the late 70’s as due to bad feelings left over from Nixon!
What young people know about Carter nowadays is that he “builds people houses”. Gee, what a nice guy.
I respectfully submit that Obama IS more dangerous than Carter or either of the Clinton's.
Au contraire! Arabs can be and are sometimes as black as coal too.
“I have no love of Carter....However, I don’t think that Obama is more intelligent.”
Actually, what I said was “smarter”. In fact I do believe that Obama has a lot more people smarts than Carter had. As you said with Carter you had the technocrats limitations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.