Because there seems to be some confusion, let me just edit this post to state, at the outset, that I have an enormous amount of respect for Jimmy Carter as a human being, as do the vast majority of the people who have posted in this thread. There is really no need to post something defending him by pointing to all of of his post-presidential humanitarian efforts, although you are of course more than welcome to if you feel like it needs saying. Just know that you'll be adding your voice to a chorus of "he's a great guy!" type posts, rather than being his sole defender or anything like that.
Now, having said that, let me return you to the previously scheduled post (alredy in progress).
In the "Barbara Bush: 'they were underprivileged anyway'" thread, bev wrote
quote:I am desperately hoping for a candidate in 2008 that I can actually respect.
But those sorts of human beings don't run for president, do they?
I was all set to chime in with "Jimmy Carter. And possibly John Anderson." when I came to Olivet's post saying "...I honestly believe that, say, Carter, was trying to do the right thing. Look where that got us.", which prompted me to start this thread.
I was pretty young during Carter's presidency, and don't really have that great of a handle of what kind of a president he was. For those of you who are a bit older than me, and witnessed the events of his presidency as teenagers or adults (or for those of you who have studied the political history of the mid to late 1970s), what do you think of the job he did as president? Was he an effective leader who was dealt a bad hand and did the best he could with it, or was he the weak, ineffectual leader he is often remembered as having been?
[ September 09, 2005, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
My understanding is that Carter was a smart and well-intentioned guy... but that his biggest problem was that he wasn't a good schmoozer -- he wasn't able to make friends with Congressmen and win their loyalty and support.
[edit to fix typo]
[ September 09, 2005, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: plaid ]
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I was pretty young during the Carter administration too, but I've heard that he was an extreme micromanager and had a lot of trouble with delegation. The example that was given was at the beginning of the hostage crisis, he spent an entire afternoon being intermediary between feuding members of the white house domestic staff.
My impression was that he was well intentioned (as I believe most people are) but utterly inefficient.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Jimmy Carter was the last great decent president this country has had. I have tremendous respect for him, something I have not had for any president since. He led during difficult times and accepted the responsibility when things went wrong.
I had the opportunity to sit and talk with while I was at Emory University, and I believe that he really is the man that he represents himself to be -- decent, caring. A mentch. A 100%-dyed-in-the-wool-all-American mentch.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I certainly have enormous respect for Carter as a man--I'm just trying to figure out how able of a president he was.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: He led during difficult times and accepted the responsibility when things went wrong.
Ironic, because a lot of people feel that the nail in his coffin, politically, came when the American people felt he was blaming them with his "Malaise" speech.
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
I was pretty young during his presidency, so take this FWIW. He may have been dealt a bad hand in the hostage crisis, and insofar as be didn't have the cooperation (or respect) of Congress, but I think his handling of events such as the hostage crisis and the Mariel boatlift show him to have been a weak, ineffectual president. His actions since then, however, convince me that his heart was in the right place and that he is a great person. I believe that decent people are fundamentally unsuited for the hypocrisy and politicking necessary to be an effective modern national-level politician. The answer to this, though, isn't to keep electing ambitious jerks, because their brand of leadership isn't really leadership in any meaningful way. Hopefully someday we can figure out a way to make it so that the skills required to be effective and successful in politics on the big stage aren't the ones that make one unsuitable for leadership. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
He was neither weak and ineffectual (which describes his predecessor GeraldFord) nor a victim of circumstance (which describes RonaldReagan, admittedly victim of good circumstance, set up by Carter). If either of the two bookending the CarterPresidency had been in power instead, the country woulda tanked.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
The widely believed image of Carter as a poor leader, yet a decent human being might be effectively contrasted with Bill Clinton, who was seen as a good leader yet a somewhat less-than-decent human being (names like "slick Willy", Monica Lewinski scandal, etc.).
Do good deceivers make better leaders? Look at this.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:He was neither weak and ineffectual (which describes his predecessor GeraldFord) nor a victim of circumstance (which describes RonaldReagan, admittedly victim of good circumstance, set up by Carter). If either of the two bookending the CarterPresidency had been in power instead, the country woulda tanked.
I would very much like for this to be the case, given the respect and admiration that I have for Carter as a person. Could you flesh it out a bit, provide me with some concrete examples?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
To begin with, I'd like to see a president that upon election doesn't act like he just won the lottery. Someone that seems just a little scared of the enormous responsibility that he now has while still confident of his abilities.
Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
I personally have a strong hatred towards Carter for creating a ban on breeder reactors. He is an idiot that was willing to destroy safe and clean methods of generating power for essentially forever in the U.S. to score a few political points.
Jesse
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Jesse,
Your phrase "safe and clean" is very subjective. Sticking nuclear waste in a pond for 10,000 years or so is not my idea of clean.
But forgive me for jumping on this derailment. I would also like to see evidence that Carter was neither weak nor ineffectual.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Jimmy Carter is an extremely kind, decent, and intelligent man. His presidency was marred by some unfortunate issues, but his work and achievements over the last 25 years has more than erased anything that may have happened. I've had the good fortune to meet with him a handfull of times, and have always been impressed with his insight into the issues at hand (plus he so kindly autographed a copy of his book for my father).
So, having said that...you can villainize any other president that you'd like to...but leave Jimmy Carter alone. He's off limits. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think most of us are not vilifying him. The consensus seems to be that he is a great guy.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think most of us are not vilifying him. The consensus seems to be that he is a great guy.
I understand that, I just thought I needed to get that point out there. No villainizing Jimmy Carter. He's a nice guy and he always picks up the tab for dinner Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I think the "Nice Guy," is a way to call him impotent. I don't know if that's the truth, but then again, you have to understand that my favorite Candidate was Adlai Stevenson, there is a man who lost two elections and changed my life in a powerful way.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Not at all, Irami. At least, not in my case. Rather, it's a completely inadequate way to express my admiration for the way he has walked the walk since leaving office. I have all the respect for him in the world as a human being, and frankly, being a great human being may be higher praise than being a great presidcent.,
Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
JonnyNotSoBravo: Your phrase "safe and clean" is very subjective. Sticking nuclear waste in a pond for 10,000 years or so is not my idea of clean.
I'm amazed you were motivated to respond to my post after your exhaustive research on breeder reactors. Do you give that much effort to your other posts on here? If so, please let me know so I will avoid them in the future.
Here are a few links that may help you. It took me all of 15 seconds to find them on Google.
TheHumanTarget: So, having said that...you can villainize any other president that you'd like to...but leave Jimmy Carter alone
While Jimmy Carter may be a decent man, he was horrible as president. I have and will continue to regard his presidency as one of the worst in the 20th century.*
Jesse
*Not to imply that most other presidents were a great deal better than President Carter.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
heh...Gerald Ford?
You think he was better than Carter?
Really?
And we won't even get into folks like Harding and Hoover.
edited to add: 2666! muahahaha!
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Of course, that nifty plutonium developed from breeders is also one step closer to a nuclear weapon. Which creates an even larger security risk for nuclear plants than already exists.
And even if we converted all energy production to nuclear, we are still utterly dependent on a resource that will also end up depleting itself in half a millenia or so. I'm a nuclear proponent, but it's not the final answer to energy needs, and we need to go into new development of nuclear plants with that in mind.
-Bok
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
If you think it will deplete itself in half a millenia you don't understand nuclear reactors or the concept of "Half-life" at all.
AJ
Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
Megan - I thought I covered that in my disclaimer, that he was not the only president I disapprove of, but that he is the one we are currently talking about.
Bokonon, the only way someone would be able to obtain the plutonium is to take it directly from the reactor, thus our current security is more than enough to handle it.
Also, your figure of 500 years is off by a factor of 1000. Using the current known reserves of uranium, we would have over 500,000 years of power generation (at our current levels) using breeder technology. I can find evidence backing my assertions if you would like to read more about it.
Jesse
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Eisenoxyde, I would like to see the evidence for that because the source know maintain that 500 years is an optimistic estimate even with breeder technology.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Carter took a lot of crap about not trying to rescue the hostages, but he had tried....it was top secret though, so he just took it, and that effectivly ended his Presidency. Turns out that we knew little or nothing about operating in a desert, adn our helicopters weren't equipt to handle sandstorms.
Contrast that to this administration, where the CoS releases top secrect information about CIA operatives just to smear hsi political opponants....
If we had to deal with OPEC during any presidency (I mean the formation of it and it flexing it's muscle for the first time) it would have caused the same things to happen...
With the hostage situation, gas shortages for teh first time, and his weird "I have sinner in my heart" speach it is no wonder he didn't do so well in office.
I still feel he did fairly well, and that he has done some of his most important work since leaving office.
He is one of the few people I respect so much that I would like to meet him in person. Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
There is a quick link for you The Rabbit. I'll try and find a few more for you.
Jesse
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Is that including extracting cost? Getting uranium from tseawater, or thorium from the earth's crust, ain't free.
-Bok
Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
Bokonon, #2 on the list focused on that:
quote: Breeder reactors use uranium more than 100 times as efficiently as the current light water reactors. Hence much more expensive uranium can be used. At $1,000 per pound, uranium would contribute only 0.03 cents per kwh, i.e. less than one percent of the cost of electricity. At that price, the fuel cost would correspond to gasoline priced at half a cent per gallon.
Jesse
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
If ya wanna learn something truthful about nuclear reactions and nuclear reactors, Eisenoxide, please start another thread.
Sorry, didn't mean to ignore your questioning, Noeman. I'll be back later. But start thinking about the Return of US Capitalism, the Arab-Israeli conflict and expensive oil, the Internet and Glasnost, cruise missiles, GPS, stealth, Iran-Iraq and cheap oil, the USSR in Afghanistan and cheap oil and the Fall of the Soviet Economy... There are probably other things I haven't thought of as yet.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I've been reading this thread carefully, because I am interested in what I can learn from it.
quote: I believe that decent people are fundamentally unsuited for the hypocrisy and politicking necessary to be an effective modern national-level politician.
The idea that this might be true makes me very sad. I am the sort of person who enjoys John Grisham plots where main-character lawyers are moral, honest people who come out on top. But it is so much easier to believe that you can't be a really, fantastically successful lawyer unless you are a slimy crook (with apologies to Dag, who is a character straight out of a Grisham novel).
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
It's easier because it's true. I just think of the evidence of the last two (at least) presidents. I think of the people I knew in college who went into politics--friends of mine, insofar as we liked tpo go to the same parties, but morally empty and dishonest people. I think of the politician I know personally now whom I like because he is gutsy enough to take on the even worse politicians in our county, but he's not someone I would really trust if there was the chance that he could score some points by deceiving people.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Eis, that quote only states that $1000/pound (in 1983 dollars) uranium is around, without any references to back it up. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.
I'm not a nuke-hater, I'm an energy realist.
-Bok
Posted by jasonepowell (Member # 1600) on :
Wikipedia is a great resource for this sort of thing.
It's always neat to read encyclopedia articles on events you remember . . . Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
Bokonon, it was saying that if the price of 1 pound of uranium reached $1000, it would add a negligible cost to each kWh. Right now the going price of uranium is in the $13-20/lb range.
Jesse
Posted by MoralDK (Member # 8395) on :
quote:It is my great honor to announce the winner of the First Annual Robert Fisk Award for Idiotarian of the Year (Fiskie for short). And the winner is ... the man known to Simpsons fans as “history’s greatest monster” ... the 39th President of the United States ... Jimmy Carter.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I just think of the evidence of the last two (at least) presidents. I think of the people I knew in college who went into politics--friends of mine, insofar as we liked tpo go to the same parties, but morally empty and dishonest people. I think of the politician I know personally now whom I like because he is gutsy enough to take on the even worse politicians in our county, but he's not someone I would really trust if there was the chance that he could score some points by deceiving people.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)