Why was Carter so despised? Any why did Christians support Reagan when...

[NAO]

...Jimmy Carter was a self-proclaimed "Born-Again Christian"?

I remember becoming politically aware during the 1980's and Raygun worship was at it's peak. Everyone despised Carter. He was loathed. What was it that made so many people lose respect for Carter, and hold him in contempt?

Carter was, after all, the first truly honest president we had since JFK. After JFK, we had LBJ, who many say was as corrupt as Tom Delay, then we had Nixon, whose name is synonymous with corruption. And then came Jimmy Carter, an honest man.

Even more perplexing, Carter was also the first "self-professed Born-Again Christian". But the Christians strongly supported Raygun rather than Carter. They took credit (and really did have a large part in) the election of that most un-Christian president.

Somehow I think the contempt of Carter and the worship of Raygun were central factors in the ascendancy of the Repugs that reached it's ugly peak in November 2004 and has been destroying everything we hold dear in the United States ever since January 1981.

So, why was Carter despised, and Raygun worshiped? And how did the Christians get tricked into supporting a non-Christian over a Christian?

[Gyre]

1. Because Jimmy was, and is, the real deal.

A real Christian that practices what he preaches. He makes all the fakes uncomfortable exactly because he is what they pretend to be. Now Ronnie; fake thru and thru. Made them feel right at home.

Gyre

[Dulcinea]

43. Because taxes went up.

I live in Georgia, & when Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, there were a startling number of letters to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution complaining that he didn't deserve this honor because their taxes went up when he was governor.

As if one had anything to do with the other!

[imenja]

2. the hostage crisis was primary

When Iran's revolution broke out, the US embassy was seized and a large number of American hostages held for a long time, over a year.
Gas prices were very high, in real terms higher than today, inflation was high, as was unemployment. They were tough times.

Jimmy Carter is a good person and a great ex-president. It's very difficult to argue he was a strong president, though clearly he did some important things during his administration, principally the Camp David accords.

The hostages were turned over the day Reagan took office. George Bush I helped engineer that. The Ayatollah despised Carter and would not return the hostages under his watch.

[NAO]

9. "hard to argue he was strong"...How did he display such dramatic weakness?

I mean, the hostage crisis was at the tail end of his presidency.

He did things for three years (Jan 1977-Nov 1979) before that happened. Did he do anything else during his term that exemplified weakness, or was it just the hostage crisis?

What would have been considered a "strong" response to the hostage crisis? A full-scale military assault on Iran that would have guaranteed the death of the hostages? Would that have been seen as "a strong response from a strong president"?

The corruption, manipulation and trickery behind the Reagan/Bush "October Surprise" was so obvious - the hostages were released within 1 hour of Reagan's inauguration - it should have been apparent to everyone that a deal had been cut. The idea that Reagan was "strong" and would have "kicked their asses" is so ridiculous because they could have just killed or torture the hostages if Reagan so much as moved a carrier group in their direction. It was a deal among demagogues, in fairly plain view of the world.

So anyway, what did Carter do that was so exemplary of "weakness"?

[imenja]

12. I'll simply conveying to you how it was perceived at the time

Which is what you asked. You did not ask for a historical assessment of his presidency. Carter seemed unable to deal with the hostage crisis because the hostages were in Iranian custody so long. He gave speeches saying the economy was in permanent decline and we needed to deal with it. I'm not saying he was personally weak, I'm saying he was unpopular. People felt he was an ineffective president. His approval ratings were very low.

Now you can examine historical sources to put things in a different context, but that is not what your OP asked. You asked why he was unpopular, and as someone who lived through that time I can tell you. I voted for Carter in his reelection bid, the first time I ever voted. Obviously I was in the minority. I also seriously doubt that any historians will rank him in the top quarter of US presidents.

So if you want to argue people didn't know what they were doing, fair enough. But to imagine this was all the result of the Christian right is absurd. That group simply did not have much power in those days. The country was a very different place.

Carter is an example of the fact that just because someone is a good person, does not make him a great president.

[gumby]

22. Didn't Jerry Falwell (along with Paul Weyrich and other

hard righters) establish the "Moral Majority" for the single purpose of getting RayGun elected?

I remember seeing signs at the time that were basically promoting the notion that "religious" 'Murikans should vote for RayGun.

Once RayGun was in office, his 'governing principles' were directly provided to him by Weyrich and the Heritage Foundation.

Getting Ronnie elected was one of the right-wing Christian's (along with the CIA and Father Moon) great accomplishments.... whose power has just grown over the years without opposition.

[imenja]

24. yes, they were active, but they were still seen as a fringe then

it was nothing like today.

Reagan won the white working class vote, traditional Democrats who went Republican because of Reagan. That's the NASCAR crowd that Dean wants to win back.

[gumby]

35. Your term of "fringe" is interesting.

I saw the Moral Majority all around me. NAO saw it in church. And everyone saw it through Ted Koppel on their nightly news.

I don't think this documentation is "fringe."

It may be that the fascism that started then didn't have a recognized name. Since that time, it's been mainstreamed as "conservatism."

Yes, Reagan won previous Democrats, but maybe this was because the "fringe" racists really were/are the mainstream.

The racists in this country have never been the "fringe." Maybe Reagan/Weyrich/Falwell are all about racism (in the fascist sense) rather than religion or political party.

[imenja]

37. perhaps you're right that it wasn't the best choice of words

I certainly knew no one in the Christian right, but I was in College at the time. You have to admit though, they had no where near the power they do today. The Reagan years were the beginning of their public alliance with the Republican party, but today that power is much stronger.

And in terms of voting numbers, there numbers were not large then, nor are they huge today. Today much of their power resides in their ability to dominate media. They had not done so in 1980. This was before the rise of right wing talk radio and cable news.

If your reference to racists means the Dixiecrats who went Republican, fair enough. Only they weren't enough to cost Carter the election. They began to abandon the Democratic party in 1964-65 when LBJ pushed through Civil Rights legislation. Reagan won significant numbers of Northern union members. He also faced a serious primary challenge from Ted Kennedy. The left weren't huge fans of Carter. He was by no means a traditional Democrat and certainly more conservative than the congressional caucus. Personal abilities mean a great deal in politics, the ability to persuade someone to your opinion even when they don't want to go there. Carter lacked that quality and Reagan had it. And the place where Carter's personal political skills were most striking was among fellow Democrats, Tip O'Neill being the most obvious since he was Speaker of the House, and a fairly powerful Speaker at that.

It's convenient to see a racist-Christian right plot beyond everything that one finds lamentable in recent history, but it doesn't really help us understand the full range of factors leading to the rise of Reagan and the weakening of the Democratic party. And explaining the whole phenomenon because of "racism" and "fascism" strikes me as a deliberate effort to avoid an honest assessment. I'm not even going to get into the whole fascism discussion, but racism is hardly an explanatory factor. We live in a society where racism is entrenched. Why should that help explain the election of 1980 in relation to previous or subsequent political developments?

[Binka]

56. KKK=Moral Majority=Christian RW=Culture Of Life

These fuckers just keep changing their name and code words. But it is the KLAN.

[NAO]

27. My Fundamentalist Baptist Church Shilled Shamelessly for Raygun in 1980

and they were already telling us 24/7 in church services and in the Christian School that I attended, that all good Christians were Republicans and voted Republican. That was in 1980.

Sometimes people think the Religious Right came about in the late 80s and came into it's own in the last few years. But they were hammering kids in a K thru 12 school in 1980.

My parents, who were dedicated Fundamentalist Christians, had grown up in the Great Depression and would have none of the 'God is a Republican' crap. They told me that God's two greatest gifts to mankind were the New Testament and the New Deal. They were very submissive to everything that Church taught, EXCEPT the Republican crap, which they just dismissed without any serious consideration.

[imenja]

16. and keep this in mind, he was on the right of the Democratic party

He was not a traditional liberal, and further to the right of most if not all the other Democrat candidates in the race in 1976. I understand people feel a need to celebrate all historical figures simply because they have a D after their name, but I frankly don't see any point in that.

Jimmy Carter is a great humanitarian. He is one of our nation's greatest citizens, but that is a legacy he has forged since leaving office.

[Yupster]

36. Why Carter was perceived as weak

1. He said he was not going to be defensive and worried about the USSR, then when they invaded Afghanistan, he said he was wrong and should have been firmer.

2. The perception was that we were quickly losing the Cold War. In that brief four year period, comminist governments took over in Mozambique, Angola, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, and there was an insurgency in El Salvador. Then came the invasion of Afghanistan. It appeared that communism was on the march throughout the world.

3. His public responses of a grain embargo and Olympic Boycott were seen as hurting us more than them.

4. Claiming there was a "National malaise" in the country, Carter seemed defeatist and without solutions.

5. During the Iranian hostage crisis, he kept himself hostage in the White House, adopting the "Rose Garden Strategy" to his campaign.

Reagan's optimistic "We can do anything" attitude just contrasted very well with Carter's seeming petrification.

[BlueIris]

38. I'm but a wee 25-year-old, but my impression has always been

that neither the fake, nor the true patrons of the Christian mindset could be persuaded of Carter's competence in the face of the massive inflation, stag-flation, and the energy crisis during his term. I've always thought that was what (unfortunately--I like Carter) sank him, more than perceptions of the way he handled foreign policy crises, or their opinions of his approach to governing overall.

[cidliz2004]

65. Two words DEMOCRAT and HYPOCRITE

Carter was demonized back then because he wasn't a Republican - the start of the media blitz against Democrats.

Christians didn't support Carter, but supported Reagan? Hypocrites. That is why pure and simple.

The spin machines were working back then to.

[BlueIris]

40. self-delete

[housewolf]

10. In addition

interest rates were sky-high because inflation was so high, we had gas rationing (you could only by gas every-other day) and hours-long gas lines, very hard times.

[leesa]

45. The Ayatollah may have despised him, but it was Bush who made the

hostage rescue fail. There was a general who came out and admitted that a few in the military sabotaged the rescue for political reasons...to get Reagan in power and jumpstart this current nightmare we are in.

[imenja]

50. yes, I had heard that

though of course the American electorate knew none of this at the time.

[coloradodem2005]

3. Probably because Carter was real.

He talked the talk and walked the walk and is one of a select few who proclaims himself a Born-again Christian that I can trust.

[unblock]

4. not "christians" but the "religious right"

the religious right is, first and foremost, right-wing. the christian bit is secondary. for some of their leadership, it is a completely cynical means to an end.

given a choice between a right-wing jewish, islamic, or buddhist candidate or a born-again liberal candidate, they would support the right-winger every time.

if the right-wing candidate was a professed atheist, ok, then they might consider sitting out that election.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

5. Carter didn't pander to the religious right.

Remember, they got very political in the late 70's...they wanted to be pandered to.
Also, many didn't think that Carter was "tough enough" on the Soviets...they didn't like the idea of the US signing SALT II.
Lastly, the Iran hostage crisis. Carter wouldn't campaign while this was going on...a fatal move.

[htuttle]

6. It was Sun Myung Moon's doing

He (and more importantly, his money and manpower) was crucial in 'activating' the religious right wing in 1980, and getting them to support Ronald Reagan (who, may I remind people, was both divorced AND from Hollywood).

His money and power have been pulling their train ever since.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. I was already 30 for that election, and I still can't figure it out

Carter was partly done in by the hostage crisis and partly by lack of cooperation from the Dems on Capitol Hill who resented him for not kissing the right asses.

But why the fundamentalists loved Reagan, a Hollywood actor who had been divorced and was never known to attend church, is something I have never figured out.

[imenja]

19. well that is a point,he didn't get along with the hill Dems

Tip O'Neill most importantly. It's not just a question of not "kissing their asses." There were two factors: 1) Carter opposed the social spending the Hill Dems wanted to defend and 2) he lacked the necessary political skills to get them on his side. Apparently Reagan met with Tip O'Neill far more often than Carter did, and they were obviously very different politically, despite their enduring friendship as old Irishmen.

[NAO]

20. The Fundamentalists loved Reagan partly b/c of abortion

The anti-abortion movement was really picking up steam then and it was becoming the "single-issue" that many people honed in on to the exclusion of all other domestic and foreign policy issues.

Christians had a way to "evaluate" politicians without becoming educated on the issues. All they had to do was to look at their voting record and public statements on abortion.

Reagan claimed to be "pro-life" even though he had enacted some hardcore pro-abortion legislation as Gov. of CA. But saying he was pro-life was all it took to energize the single-issue Christian voters.

[imenja]

33. You also have to ask why the Democrats disliked Carter

That was no small part of the scenario. This entire thread reveals a tendency to use a lens of contemporary American politics to view the historical past, twenty five years ago, as though the same power groups and cultural dynamic were at play. That simply is not the case.

Carter governed to the right of the Democrats but still left the Republicans unhappy.

[Nite Owl]

8. Jimmy Carter was a true Christian.

I think it actually comes down to hate. It's easier in the short term to hate than to actually do the right thing. These phony Christians bring out the worse side in people.

[Erika]

11. Reagan was the patron father of the rich

who told them the rich were blessed or they wouldn'nt be rich.

Reagan was actually the one who did away with the Golden rule and any Christian duty to take care of the needy. He was the beginning of the downfall of social conscience in this country. He is buried upon a top scenic locale mountain in California with health care in the last ten years that only the most elite in this country can afford.

[NAO]

23. Reagan also pandered to the working class whites with race hatred rhetoric

Remember "welfare queens in Cadillacs"? That was a way for him to allow people to blame all of their problems on blacks (for those with open or closeted race hatred) or alternately to blame all of their problems on a government that tried to help people and provide services to them.

Recently I read that despite all of his rhetoric, Reagan DID NOT shrink government, HE GREW IT. He shifted spending from social programs to defense, and cut taxes for the wealthy.

I really wish we could have seen some news footage of some of his "welfare queens in Cadillacs" statements during the worship fest around his death and funeral. People might have actually seen what a despicable greed-encouraging race-bating hate-monger he really was, and how he appealed to the lowest, most base motives of people.

[imenja]

39. I think it's important to try to understand the successes of Reaganism

One of the ways to make sure one never understands politics or history is to adopt a position that assumes those we examine are idiots. If we truly want to learn from this period of American history in a way that strengthens progressive politics, we need to ask ourselves what the Republicans did right and what the Democrats did wrong. Reagan won. He tapped into a sentiment in American society in a way that had meaning for many people. We saw that manifested again in his funeral. The question is do we want to simply dismiss it by calling the overwhelming numbers of Americans who voted for Reagan (in 84 anyway) racist morons, or do we want to try to understand the political implications of the period?

There is no question Reagan used racial politics effectively. But he also tapped into more positive aspects of the American psyche. Yupster's post above points to some of the specific ways in which Carter transmitted a lack of confidence in the American nation. As reasoned as you might think Carter's positions are, they were not politically effective, whereas Reagan was.

[sendero]

48. Well said...

.... and I wonder who in the current sphere of Dem 2008 nominees has the ability to tap into America's consciousness.

Or if there is anything positive to tap into.

I can only think of one, and for the sake of avoiding a thread hijacking I'll keep it to myself :)

[PassingFair]

58. Oh, BS!

America's consciousness=ME FIRST.
I think its as simple as that.

I know loads of people who's parents sank in the 80's, but when the media tells them it was a "feel-good" era, they believe it.
Mention soaring deficits and Iran-Contra, and their eyes just glaze over. They know NOTHING, so they believe ANYTHING.

[sendero]

59. Yes...

... but a person with skills can point out that what is good for some of us is good for all of us.

Certainly, it should be a fucking no-brainer to convince the American public that the Iraq war was a stupid, costly debacle that has gained us little and costed us enormously.

But you can't do that if you voted for the fucking war.

[imenja]

69. that would seem an obvious point

so why did so many Democratic party primary voters ignore it?

[imenja]

68. that's a fine way to keep from winning elections

and make sure the Republicans stay in power.

[kenny blankenship]

13. oh that's easy

Carter's Christianity was the kind that included concern for the fate of the poor, concern about the state of the environment, and which never cast itself as superior and never spoke of those outside its value system as wicked or evil or perverted from God.

Reagan didn't push Christianity by name, but alluded to it constantly. His Christianity was one that agrees with white Protestant fundamentalism in viewing one's neighbor as damned by God (most likely) before birth even, irredeemably damned--thus justifying the separation of our fates, the rich from the poor, forever, even before death, and which constantly portrayed those outside of or opposed to its value system as demon-driven, wicked, and destructive or defiant of the divinely ordained order.

Carter was if I may say it, somewhat Christ-like in humility. Ok that may be laying it on a bit thick. But his style of leadership and exercise of virtue was characterized by the quietness of his examples. By contrast, Reagan was Pauline in his intolerance, his thundering arrogance in declaring his values as absolutes that left no room for alternative views, and in celebrating any of his political successes in a manner one would suppose should be reserved for celebrating the glorious victories of God, and his tendency to view his mission as a military style imposition of Heavenly order over heresies. They said he'd give you the shirt off his back if you were on hardtimes--if he could stop congratulating himself for passing the measure that put you out of work.

[vpigrad]

14. Those idiots like fake xtians better than real xtians!

They worship appearance more than than do substance.

[gumby]

15. The best explanation to that question that I've found

is George Lakoff's book, "Moral Politics."

This is my own interpretation:
People operate through mythology. How one perceives this mythology has to do with their understanding of how a "family" functions.

The Fundies are completely adhered to the 'strict father' model. Carter, even though genuinely devout, represented the 'nurturing' parent -- which right-wingers see as female. Nothing is more abhorrent to wingers than identity to women.

Right-wing Christians are not so much "tricked" as psychologically exploited and tweaked by politician who hold basically the same principles. It's all about supremacy and who is perceived as the 'strict father.' In other words, it's about 'racism' of another color.

This is the disease that infects our culture.

[eallen]

17. Gerald Ford gets no respect. Carter suffered thedouble-digit misery index.

[KT2000]

18. hostages and gas shortge

Remember, Koppel kept the daily toll of the time the hostages were incarcerated. Every single day he reported the number of days and his show was about anything to do with the hostages.
The gas shortage, with rationing and long lines really scared people.

The RW jumped in and took advantage - they started to ridicule him and the media jumped in too.
The media wanted to get rid of him in my opinion.

[gumby]

25. That's exactly how "Nightline" got it's start.

So much for Ted's "journalistic" credentials. He did to Carter what Limbaugh and Ken Starr did to Clinton. "Liberal Media" my ass.

[stopbush]

21. My perspective

involves some forgotten facts...and my mom. She's a born-again, and she loved Carter. Loved the fact that he taught Sunday school every week. Loved the fact that he was very open about being a born-again.

But once the hostage crisis hit, she slowly moved away from him. I think she felt a little embarrassed or betrayed that this born-again wasn't handling things in the slam-bang American way. Interest rates were high and gas was being rationed. Carter made the mistake of saying the country was in a "malaise," and the press had a field day.

Then, along comes fucking Reagan. He talks about how Carter's $50-billion deficit is "mortgaging our children's future." He throws the words "god" and "family" around, though he never goes to church and had basically disowned his kids through negligence. He makes a career out of faking righteous indignation at ANYTHING that can be seen as portraying America as going downhill.

As the election nears, Carter basically wipes the floor with Reagan in the debates. But he makes a huge mistake in assuming that the print media will tear apart Reagan's outright lies and bungling of the facts during those debates. Saying that Carter was dismantling the military and making the USA less safe when in fact Carter added more nukes to our stockpiles than any peacetime president before him, etc. The result: Reagan keeps on hammering home his lies like they're facts and Carter starts slipping in the polls.

And then, there's the treasonous "October Surprise" scenario. Reagan's team knew that if Carter got those hostages home by the election that they would lose in a landslide. So they illegally made a deal with the Iranians to not release the hostages until Reagan was elected. The said they'd give Iran a "better deal" than Carter. And it worked. The hostages were released the day Reagan was inaugurated.

In a way, Carter was the first time that the born agains felt they had one of theirs in the WH. When he slipped, they transferred their allegiance to Reagan and, eventually, the Rs (don't forget how many Reagan Democrats there were!), ie: God's party.

[imenja]

30. and then there was John Anderson

He drew votes away from Carter.

[cestpaspossible]

26. Carter wasn't despised.

[Porcupine]

28. He told us we were fat, spoiled and needed to diet.

He was absolutely right. The U.S. was spending beyond it's means environmentally, educationally and politically. We were relying on ever increasing imports of Arab oil. The corporate media attacked him with a vengence.

Reagun told Americans that they had unlimited credit cards. The corporate media ignored any connection between his policies and the plauge of homelessness. There were effectively no homeless by today's standards in the 70's. The media (excepting Doonesbury) completely refused to acknowledge his obvious senility and advancing Alzheimers.
Today James Earl Carter is possibly the most respected person on the planet. (the pope died) Neither George Bush or W. dare walk into a unscreened crowd anywhere on the planet. Bill Clinton waded into a crowd in Africa without fear!!!

The Bush'es know the true score. That's why they have such tight security. Stalin didn't have security as tight as W's.

[kenny blankenship]

31. and he also warned us that we needed to apply science

and politcial willpower to our looming dependency on foreign oil.

We used much less of it back then, but we had hit the peak of our domestic oil production in the early 70s. The now familiar backslope plunge of Hubbert's Peak appeared on the elite class's radars. Carter tried to motivate the country to take a Manhattan Project approach to developing syth-fuels while switching to more efficient standards of building transportation and housing. They booed him.
Americans wanted to listen to the siren song of the Reagan bunch instead. Bigger cars! Less safety--more consumption! Indulge yourselves, America! Don't worry just keep buying! The planet's resources will go on and on forever!

We could have a quarter century head start on alternative fuels developement going for us now, but instead we have Chimpy and his "nuke their ass--take their gas strateg(er)y."

[Lisa]

34. not just that -- the US could have maintained (and widened) its lead ...

... in solar power, and even cornered the market on fuel cells, and even geothermal and wind power generation technologies. Just think of the jobs, and the billions of dollars! I recall that in the 1970s, Japanese cars were still having some problems with pollution and reliability. Instead of laughing at them and building more guzzlers, the US should have copied the best things and set about improving them. Even something like improving mileage standards could have saved several times as much oil as ANWR holds, by now.

[Lisa]

29. well, some self-proclaimed true believers get nervous ...

... when somebody drives the money-changers out of the temple, warns them that just being seen in attitudes of prayer isn't the same thing as being genuinely pious, and actually treats poor people as equals rather than a convenient backdrop for pseudo-charity.

I realize that Jimmy Carter, a modest person if ever there was one, would be embarrassed by any such comparisons to ... another guy with the same initials. But I suspect that candidates like Ronald Reagan (and especially, George W. Bush) do not make troublesome demands like asking them to examine their own motives, and encouraging them to question injustice and their role in perpetuating it.

They only ask for money, and votes. Carter seemed to be quite willing to make difficult decisions -- even if it cost him both of those things.

[NAO]

32. Possible explanation of Carter's percieved weakness - Killer Rabit Attack

Jimmy Carter Attacked by Killer Rabbit (April 20, 1979)
http://www.newsoftheodd.com/article1021.html

excerpt...

Today in Odd History, President Jimmy Carter was attacked by a rabbit during a fishing trip in Plains, Georgia. The rabbit, which may have been fleeing a predator, swam toward his boat, "hissing menacingly, its teeth flashing and nostrils flared." President Carter was forced to swat at the vicious beast with a canoe paddle, which apparently scared it off.

Upon his return to the White House, Carter told his staff about the furry amphibian's assault. Most of them refused to believe him, insisting that rabbits can't swim (although since most mammals can swim, there's no reason to believe that rabbits cannot), and that even if they could, they certainly wouldn't attack humans, and certainly not presidents. Fortunately, a White House photographer had been on the scene, and had recorded the bizarre attack. The photograph showed Carter with his paddle raised, warding off a small creature which might, or might not, have been a rabbit. One staffer was quoted as saying, "You couldn't tell what it was." Undaunted by their skepticism, Carter had the image enlarged, and there it was--a killer bunny rabbit, apparently bent on assassinating the president.

full article at above link

[Love Bug]

62. Carter should have used the Holy Hand Genade of Antioch

to defeat the "killer" rabbit. That would have saved his presidency!

[Steely_Dan]

66. LOLOLOLOL - ROTFLMAO

[NAO]

67. He could have slain the rabbit AND pandered to the religious right

in one fell swoop!

Blowing the rabbit to bits (in thy mercy) would have demonstrated strength and shown Carter to be capable of using the military option when the situation required it.

[murielm99]

41. The people who show contempt toward Carter fail to mention

that he created the Energy Department as a cabinet-level position. He also approved the Chrysler bailout. Iaccoca always said that that would never have happened under a repuke.

Carter pardoned all the Vietnam era draft dodgers who had gone into exile. What could have been more Christian that that?

I sat in gas lines during those years. I voted for Carter twice.

[Wabbajack]

42. If circumstances were different

he could've gone down as a great/near-great President.

[leftofthedial]

44. they are gullible

and the RW disinformation industry started up in earnest after Nixon

[MiniMe]

46. I think his family had something to do with it also

Good old Billy was part of his downfall. Also, his style of speech. Remember, he was going up against an actor. And the actor played the part very well.

He was also way too honest, the buck stopped with him. Take the attempted rescue of the hostages where the helicopter crashed. He stood up and said, I ordered it, I am responsible. What would the Bushies have done? What obscure figure would take the blame for it?

[MollyStark]

47. Because Carter did his job and didn't make excuses

Republicans are cons, they con everyone about everything. Ronnie was a movie Christian, hardly serious about his faith.
Carter did his job and he took responsibility honestly for the bad things that happened in the country.

[rman]

49. I suspect you didn't exactly talk to "everyone"

but rather got the impression of Carter loathing and Reagan worship from the MSM. Obviously it'd be the same people/groups who'd both loath Carter and worship Reagan. And as you might know what the MSM say isn't exactly representative of what the people think, at least since the early 70's or so.

[imenja]

51. what counts are election returns

and think for a second what "MSM" was in those days. The three networks and the major newspapers like the Times. People didn't even conceive of the media as they do today.

[sendero]

52. America didn't deserve..

.... a good man like Carter, and we still don't.

To my eternal regret, I voted for Reagan in 1980. I bought into the bullshit.

As far as pure admiration on my part, (and I am not a Christian) Carter is probably the president I most admire in my lifetime, which started with Eisenhower who probably be a close second.

[ClassWarrior]

54. Bullshit. Corporate America didn't deserve Carter...

...and please don't paint ME with the brush reserved for those scumholes.

NGU.

[sendero]

57. Far be it from me..

... to paint you with anything. But it wasn't the corporations who put Reeagan into office.

[ClassWarrior]

60. Like PT Barnum, corporatist extraordinaire, said...

...well, you know where this is going.

NGU.

[imenja]

70. though the chemical industries were huge backers of Reagan

And when he got into office he dropped or overturned the environmental legislation Carter had started. Bill Moyers had a special on that a few years ago. My mouth remained dropped open throughout the entire show. Apparently scientific knowledge about chemicals that corporations dumb everywhere clearly identifies causal links to cancer, yet the corporations bought their way out of regulation. Even when I think I'm about as cynical as it can get when it comes to politics, something comes along that shows me it is so much worse than we even imagine. Baby Bush is one of those things. :cry:

[MollyStark]

55. I voted for Anderson

I have no idea why now that I think of it.

[ClassWarrior]

53. Because he was the Radical RW's first target...

...after they developed their character assassination machine.

NGU.

[THUNDER HANDS]

61. my uncle (ex Navy) despises Carter

He was in the Navy under Carter's term and hates him to this day. Says he was clueless about the military and ran a timid presidency.

[MsAnthropy]

63. Wasn't it Carter who cancelled the Olympics

or our participation in it anyway? (I can't remember that far back.) I think he had a hidden mean streak, too--I remember him introducing Hubert Humphrey at a big event once and he accidentally used his own nickname for him--"Hubert Horatio Hornblower".

[ArkDem]

64. He wasn't despised really. The country was just in a malaise.

[VOX]

71. Because he was about peace, instead of "Let's bomb the shit outta them!"

I am serious.

Post-Vietnam, post-Watergate America was a very pissed-off place: inflation, gas shortages (inflation and gas shortages occurred under Ford, it should be noted, again and again), the "taxpayer revolt," Iranian hostage crisis, etc. etc.

Carter showed intelligence and patience -- he was a negotiator, as his role in the Camp David Accord clearly shows.

Unfortunately, America was starting into its "cowboy-up" mode, screaming for vengeance anywhere it was taking a hit. And it got a little taste under Saint Ronnie, when he threw some red meat to the masses with Grenada.

[JerseygirlCT]

72. Because the kind of Christians who supported Reagan

over Carter HATE nuance. They can't deal with thoughtfulness. They want black and white. They want rules. They want good guy/bad guy.

Jimmy Carter made a whole country have to stop and think. For that he was roundly reviled. It was played as indecisive, wishy-washy. Jimmy Carter said: we've got problems, folks, and we need to work together to solve them. Reagan smiled his movie star smile and promised everything would be just dandy -- it was "morning in America" after all.

[Igel]

73. In addition to much of what saner voices said above,

he talked to people working in heavy industrial about the post-industrial economy. In terms they couldn't easily understand. You tell steelworkers not just that their jobs are going away for good, but that it's a *good* thing ... you don't get their votes.

In fact, he seldom "connected" with common folk. His Southern accent didn't always come across as proper for a nuclear engineer.

He also negotiated the Panama Canal treaty. It barely won passage; it wasn't a popular thing, and many took it as his giving it away. Combined with the hostages in Iran, a truly sucky economy, the appearance that we were helpless against OPEC, the USSR, apparently even Panama ... many people really did despise him.

[WillowTree]

74. Good book on the '80 election.

Blue Smoke & Mirrors: How Reagan Won & Why Carter Lost the Election of 1980" by Jack Germond & Jules Witcover (Viking Press). It may be out of print by now, but it was a very good, and very enlightening, read. The library might still have it.

There is also a portion of one of President Carter's speeches in the soundtrack of the movie "Miracle" that brought back images of some of the "malaise", talking in his own words about how negative people's outlooks were toward the end of his presidency. Long gas lines, Cold War seemingly never-ending, hostages in Iran, high unemployment, economy in the tank. How much he was responsible for and how much he could have done differently to prevent or end it has long been debated, but by November '80, he was taking most of the blame, justifiably or not. But the book explains a lot of the inner workings of the campaign and election that weren't really obvious to the rank-and-file voters at the time.