Posted on 09/13/2012 7:13:20 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
For months now, the right and the left have argued about whether this year's contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is a repeat of the 1980 race between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. It's a comparison that benefits Republicans, who want to portray Obama as helpless on the economy ('Are you better off than you were four years ago?'), feckless on foreign policy (both Carter and Obama faced attacks on U.S. embassies), and politically vulnerable (Reagan surged ahead of Carter in the homestretch; the Romney campaign has its fingers crossed).
On Wednesday, National Journal's Sophie Quinton argued that Romney's criticism of Obama in the wake of Tuesday's assaults on U.S. missions in Egypt and Libya was a marked departure from Reagan's response to the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and ensuing hostage crisis in 1979-1980. When Carter's effort to rescue the American hostages in Iran failed in April 1980, Quinton points out, Reagan took the high ground, asserting that "this is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united." When Reagan later debated Carter in the fall, she adds, he refrained from answering a question about how he would handle a similar crisis because of the sensitivity of the issue.
That's some impressive restraint. But while Reagan did ocassionally express support on the campaign trail for Carter's responses to the Iranian hostage crisis (praising the decision to freeze Iranian assets, for example), he was far less diplomatic on many other occasions.
In fact, the debate between Carter and Reagan over the Iranian crisis was remarkably similar to the rhetoric we're hearing now from the Obama and Romney campaigns. Let's take a look at some examples:
U.S. weakness at fault...
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.foreignpolicy.com ...
It is all very similar, except Romney is no Reagan. Of course, he doesn’t have to be to win....just won’t be blowout.
Have to disagree, this time around it’s worse than 1980.
Thanks 2ndDivisionVet.
The denial is specifically about the consulate in Benghazi, not US missions in the region in general, which is essentially an admission that the UK story is accurate.
I don’t believe that Carter thought that his backing of Khomeini over the Shah would lead to the 1979 taking of hostages.
I truly believe that BO knew that bad was going to happen and he plans to use it to his advantage.
Carter was a naive idiot (yeah, he’s evil, but that happened after he was president), but the people pulling BO’s strings are evil and think nothing of having someone die a horrible death for their political advantage.
Having worked for both of them, let me tell you, it was “night and day” like you wouldn’t believe.
I truly believe that BO knew that bad was going to happen and he plans to use it to his advantage.
I believe you might be correct. If there are muslim attacks in the US, what are the odds Obama declares martial law to stop the election...or to retain power when he loses to Romney?
I believe. I was in college in 1979 so I remember Carter’s presidency. BO is ten time worse!!
One “small” difference: government debt was about 40% of GDP, now it’s over 100%. Congress keeps approving more bonds to be issued by the Treasury. Then they take the cash and spend it.
They don’t even make a “minimum payment” that includes at least “some” principal payback.
Only interest is being paid back.
Walks like a ponzi, quacks like a ponzi.
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.