A Case For Carter

What a retarded statement in response to Damo's. The sole reason why it will be close at all is that 90-95% of blacks will vote for The Obama no matter what, and he can always count on his socialist base along with white guilt-ridden liberals, with you as the perfect example. :good4u:
The other reason it will be close is because of who the GOP will nominate. Nominate Romney, or Johnson and people like me will vote for a Republican for President. Nominate Palin and I, along with millions of other moderates will vote for Obama. Anyone that thinks any different is fooling themselves.
 
The other reason it will be close is because of who the GOP will nominate. Nominate Romney, or Johnson and people like me will vote for a Republican for President. Nominate Palin and I, along with millions of other moderates will vote for Obama. Anyone that thinks any different is fooling themselves.

Yes. You will only vote for a solidly reliable globalist anti-american traitor. Good for you and your failed character and morality.
 
Something that strikes me as I've read this thread and some internet stuff about Carter.

He's a Christian; started out in the military; took over and grew the family business; became involved in local politics; became a state senator; became a governor; and then ran for president.

Now taking out the military and state senator parts, who does this remind you of, minus the intellect?

Sarah Palin.

The right was always touting her "management" experience from being mayor of Wasilla and governor of Alaska. This was supposed to make her a superior presidential candidate and head and shoulders above Obama, a constitutional lawyer, state senator and U.S. senator. Yet she has less "management" experience than the president conservatives revile.

So all that "management" experience doesn't really matter unless you're a repub candidate. I'll be sure to draw the Palin-Carter parallels constantly if she decides to run, so everyone prepare yourselves. :D

Maybe I've missed it but I've never really seen people complain that Carter wasn't 'qualified' to run for President just that he wasn't successful as President. I still think management experience is important but its not a guarantee that one will be successful as President.
 
I noticed that haven't even attempted to refute that the fact that Paul Volcker was the architect of fiscal policy and that he deliberately instigated a recession.
They don't care about the facts Tom. They just want to beleive was Fox News and Rush Limbaugh tells them because it validates their own position and the facts be damend.
 
yet, many believe Carter WAS the second coming of Jesus, he was white and he still couldn't get elected.....what does that do to your argument?......
Well considering he was challenged for reelection I'd have to wonder what kool-aid you were sipping to think that anyone but a wingnut would believe that but to be honest with you considering how W verged on meglomania with his beliefs and how no supporters, in my lifetime, have ever walked as fanatically in lock step with a politician who ended up being one of the worst Presidents ever as well as a failed one as those on the right who walked blindly over the cliff.

So I'd have to surmise that your comment "many believed Carter was the second coming of Jesus" is wholly a product of your hypocritical imagination.

The only politician in my life time who's followers were so blinded by fanatical faith in him was George W. Bush. No one else, not even the myhtologized Regan comes even close.
 
Maybe I've missed it but I've never really seen people complain that Carter wasn't 'qualified' to run for President just that he wasn't successful as President. I still think management experience is important but its not a guarantee that one will be successful as President.
Absolutely right Wacko. I view Carter and W as studies in opposites. Carter was an below average to poor president and W was a failed one. Carter was a very capable and experienced "hands on" manager, executive and policy maker. He was also an incredibly naive politician which led to his downfall. W on the other hand was brilliant politically. He motivated a very narrow base of supporters into the Presidency, no mean feat, but proved so inept and incapable as both a manager and an executive in which he had an over realliance on ideology for decision making and was over dependent on delegating to others in which, unlike Regan who had the same flaw, he proved a very poor judge of talent and appointed one unqualified political appointee after the other for positions in which they lacked qualifications, talent and ability which ultimately cost his legacy and the American people dearly.

So yes, both executive/managerial/legal ability and political skill are required to be successful as a holder of the office. Neither Carter or W came even remotely close to being in the same league as Clinton, despite Clinton's moral short comings, in having the required combination of executive ability and political skill.
 
The Volkerites have always told me that Paul Volker actually is responsible for ending the recession, and like to give him all the credit over the likes of Reagan and Greenspan both for ending the recession and ushering in the Bull Market.
 
Maybe I've missed it but I've never really seen people complain that Carter wasn't 'qualified' to run for President just that he wasn't successful as President. I still think management experience is important but its not a guarantee that one will be successful as President.

Admittedly I was giddy and immature at the time ( ;) ) and had only a superficial interest in politics, but I do distinctly remember people making really scornful remarks that Carter was only a "peanut farmer" and what could he possibly know about running a country.
 
Back
Top