Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Ryan Is Still on that Obama = Carter Crack

Posted by on Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:56 AM

Politico:

Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan told House GOP lawmakers in a closed meeting Thursday that this election was just like the 1980 contest between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.
Ryan said Carter lead Reagan late in the race, and Republicans have taken to comparing 2012 to the campaign three decades ago.
The problem is not comparing Obama with Carter. The problem is this: No one believes, not even the members of your own party, that Romney is Reagan.

 

Comments (19) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Bring it on. Carter, while his actual term in office was underwhelming to put it kindly, has had one of the greatest EX-Presidencies ever. Not only have people reevaluated his actual Presidency much more favorably in recent years, to anyone under thirty he's that kick-ass global peacemaker and elder statesman who builds houses for the homeless.

And even after Republicans making his name a byword for presidential failure, he's stayed out there, doggedly continuing to do vast amounts of good in the world. More power to him.
Posted by Pope Buck I on September 20, 2012 at 8:24 AM
DOUG. 2
Former Governor Romney is closer to the REAL Reagan (a social moderate who was willing to raise taxes) than the version of Reagan that today's Republicans seem to remember.
Posted by DOUG. http://www.dougsvotersguide.com on September 20, 2012 at 8:45 AM
Urgutha Forka 3
Pardon me, but the conservatives always going back to comparisons of Carter v. Reagan is really starting to wear out. They've overused it.

When you apply a criticism to everyone then you've essentially applied that criticism to no one.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on September 20, 2012 at 8:53 AM
reverend dr dj riz 4
i heart jimmy carter
Posted by reverend dr dj riz on September 20, 2012 at 9:04 AM
5
Also, gotta give him credit, Jimmy Carter totally broke Jon Stewart once, which not everyone can do: bit.ly/ca8azg
Posted by zorac on September 20, 2012 at 9:05 AM
6
It's more of the "I miss the good old days".

When we knew who the enemy really was (it was the Soviets!).
And our only social problems were welfare queens.
And there was no way a black man could be president.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on September 20, 2012 at 9:14 AM
7
The last time a Republican defeated an incumbent Democrat for the presidency before 1980 was when Harrison defeated Cleveland in 1892. So really, it's all they've got.
Posted by decidedlyodd on September 20, 2012 at 9:19 AM
8
The last time a Republican defeated an incumbent Democrat for the presidency before 1980 was when Harrison defeated Cleveland in 1888. And even then Cleveland won in the rematch 4 years later. So really, it's all they've got.
Posted by decidedlyodd on September 20, 2012 at 9:19 AM
9
Chuck-
why didn't you post that Obama's CounterTerrorism Director said the murder of Chris Stevens was a terrorist attack?

Not the result of a protest riot.....

That Stevens was on a terrorist hit list?

And knew it?

And spent the last weeks of his life fearing for his life?

And that Obama did not protect him?

Why didn't you post that?
Posted by don't be a houseboy for the Democraps on September 20, 2012 at 9:24 AM
internet_jen 10
The only thing I know about Carter is that he was the first modern ex-POTUS to criticize the then sitting POTUS (GW).

Posted by internet_jen on September 20, 2012 at 9:28 AM
Gus 11
Also, Reagan led Carter for months before the debates where the Republicans like to claim he came from behind. It's just part of the mythical Reagan.

Also, it shows that Ryan is still crap with numbers.
Posted by Gus on September 20, 2012 at 9:42 AM
COMTE 12
Romney is to Reagan what arsenic is to rice...
Posted by COMTE http://www.chriscomte.com on September 20, 2012 at 10:07 AM
Pope Peabrain 13
Obama doesn't have a hostage crisis and the economy IS recovering. Besides, everyone remembers where we were at the end of every Republican: at war and in debt.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on September 20, 2012 at 10:08 AM
14
@10 that's all you know? It's odd you'd readily admit to such colassal ignorance. But it's at least honest. So then I'd suggest you read more about American history and the important events that have shaped your society.

Hold back on commenting until you're more informed.
Posted by tkc on September 20, 2012 at 10:09 AM
Cascadian 15
There's really no comparison. The bad economy under Carter was inflation--which he inherited from Nixon and Ford, and the 1980 recession, which was the result of the Fed raising interest rates to fight inflation. To the extent that Carter had a hand in that, by appointing Volcker, it was for the long-term good of the country. Reagan bobbled the handoff and the country plunged into a much deeper recession after he was elected, which again was in part due to actions of the Fed.

The current situation is not caused by restriction of the monetary supply by the Fed, as it was under Carter. It's caused by lack of demand, with long-term roots in growing inequality which left most people without enough income and thus reliant upon consumer and mortgage credit, both of which now must be paid down. The best government policy in these conditions is pretty much the opposite of what it was back then.

As for foreign policy, Jimmy Carter had one of the biggest successes of any president with the Camp David agreement, and relations with the Soviet Union improved under his presidency as well. His big negative was Iran, and that was out of his hands. In Cold War conditions, a war against Iran was even more stupid than it is today. His only options were diplomacy and negotiation to get the hostages back, or a special ops rescue. He tried the latter, and it failed. And his negotiations led to the release of the hostages on Inauguration Day 1981. Reagan had nothing to do with it; in fact, it's likely that his campaign's behind-the-scene efforts actually prevented Carter from effecting the release before the election.

Take those elements away and Carter wins the election. And we would be much better off today if he had.
Posted by Cascadian on September 20, 2012 at 10:48 AM
16
Isn't it strange how they keep going all the way back to 1980, but anything from January, 2001 to November, 2008 is ancient history and completely irrelevant?
Posted by johnjjeeves on September 20, 2012 at 10:55 AM
dirac 17
@15 Yeah, but didn't America's collective adolescent mentality play into that election? Middles Americans bristled at the engineer "lecturing," telling them the most truth I've ever seen spoken from that office (except in Eisenhower's farewell address) while the B-movie actor turned God Emperor (sound familiar) told them it's morning in America.
Posted by dirac on September 20, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Sir Vic 18
I take Ryan's remark to mean he's hoping for another foreign affairs disaster that his party can exploit and manipulate for their own benefit. Mitt tried with the Libya consulate tragedy, and botched it badly. They're hoping for a do-over.
Posted by Sir Vic on September 20, 2012 at 1:19 PM
Sandiai 19
What @15 said.
Posted by Sandiai on September 20, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy