Mitt Romney’s “Attempt” to Compare Obama to Carter – Romney’s Clear Sense of History – “Those who Ignore the Past are Doomed to Repeat It”

Carter and Obama Comparison - from the Wall Street Journal

In an article from Reuters this morning, the headline “Romney wants voters to see Jimmy Carter in Obama”, leads into an article that makes anyone with a sense of history (or who lived in reality during the Carter Administration) shrug – the story line:

“Romney accused Obama of being anti-business and compared him to Carter, seen by Republicans as an example of a weak Democratic president. Carter served from 1977 to 1981.”

(Reuters)

During the Carter Administration errors were made that had not only “Republicans”, but a majority of the voters sitting up and taking stock of one Ronald Reagan (or anyone actually could have replaced Carter) – at the time, Democrats were so disenfranchised from the administration that they voted for Reagan in droves, coining the term “Reagan Democrats” – after four years of Carter, Ronald Reagan made a clean sweep of the electoral map, and one has to note, that included Massachusetts. There were the bailouts, the jobs bills, the budget, the cost of oil and gasoline, and then the scarcity and the gas lines, the Middle East fiasco and Iran – from the economy to foreign policy – Jimmy Carter was a disaster. That is not, however, how he is portrayed by the modern day press nor by the Progressive professors – Carter is portrayed as someone who got the raw end of a deal. It is best to blame the Republican predecessor - familiar? Those “rascally Republicans” getting the blame once again for something they warned the public about!

However, in the late 1970’s, individuals were introduced to the misery index (a combination of the rate of inflation and the unemployment rate under Jimmy Carter), a man who was elected as a nice Governor, who was a peanut farmer, and purportedly had a sense of busies and government combined – he was also a first term Governor.
Warning bells should have gone off left and right, however, desperate to see a fresh face (the American Way) in office, the people duly voted party line, (hook and sinker) for the man who would “save America”. They did so without thinking that someone with little to no experience might not be the best fit for the job of CEO – it’s a risk American’s take, when choosing a President, one might have reams of experience or not, a vision or plan or not, and in Carter’s case, the systematic destruction of the economy, his bailout of Chrysler, his jobs plans that relied heavily on the government rather than the private sector – one could go on.

The problem is – it sounds all eerily familiar – as if someone took a blueprint of what not to do to the United States of America, and did it anyhow. Surely Mitt Romney (given his age) would have seen some of the effect of the Carter era; many others might recall giving up a car for public transportation since there was little use in paying for insurance on a mode of transportation for which there was no fuel. Hamburger became the new steak, and those on fixed incomes, well; they started to find cat food to be quite the delicacy. Although at the present time, we are nowhere near that catastrophe, we are at a point where there are significant numbers of people out of work; we see the costs of groceries, and clothing rising, due to the rise in gasoline and diesel prices (bringing the goods to market). We do see bailouts, and we do see Job’s programs, and we do see a pattern. Some are Republican’s, others are not.

Therefore, Romney is not looking to make it appear that Obama is like Carter, he’s just giving everyone a simple history lesson. It is not as if the Obama Campaign isn’t comparing Romney to Bush (of course, they are using Bush as that is considered recent history, and it is quite obvious to those who have followed the Obama Administration from day one, that Romney’s comparison is – honest.

It is not that this blog is enamored of Mitt Romney, one only needs to read the material contained herein to understand there may be some flaws involved when it comes to Romney’s path to balancing budgets (get ready for fee’s!), however, set that aside, and one finds a man who actually understands business, and the business of running a government, (States, even small Sates like the Bay State count), and now we find, understands history – making him less likely to repeat mistakes made by say, George W. Bush. Therefore, comparing historical knowledge of both candidates for Presidency and the ability of one to grasp facts, while the other ignored the facts, and followed the Carter path, makes Romney infinitely more appealing to those who would prefer not to live in “misery”, and in addition more qualified from the perspective of being able to look at past mistakes and take a different tactic.

As to Carter-Obama Comparisons, one is invited to peruse this blog, and one would think others, whose opinions link to credible news sources from the late 1970’s – with a bit of personal historical recall included. Exhibit A: ”Obama - Shades of Jimmy Carter! – Unemployment at 8.5%, Government Creates 60,000 Temporary Jobs – Cuts Defense – Analysis” (the Date: May 9th 2009)

Exhibit B: ”Obama Repeating History – Calls for Increase in Tax Revenue – Increased Public Sector Stimulus, Recipe for both Fiscal and Electoral Disaster” (the Date: Sept. 19, 2011)
(There are more, depending upon the year, but available in search of blog or simple Google)

It was in amazement that one was able to watch the Obama Administration mirror the tactics of the Carter Administration, knowing full well that there was sufficient data available that would have allowed one to read and understand – what one was about to unleash on the American Public, had been tried before and filed – miserably.
Therefore, in fairness to the Obama campaign comparing Romney to Bush – yes, they are both Republicans. However, Romney on the other hand, is going a bit beyond the party affiliation and to the core of what went wrong, and how it could have gone so right – had President Obama done exactly the opposite of Jimmy Carter, he may have been extremely successful, (yes, even the deficit under Carter, adjusted for inflation, is equal to the current deficit), and Romney merely a foot note.

However, as it stands now, one can see the writing on the wall come November, even if, there is a miracle and the economy makes a slight recovery – to have that happen, gas prices would have to drop significantly before summer, otherwise, there simply will not be enough time for the economy to adjust, specifically when it comes to prices of food and necessities that are driven to market, and affect the daily lives of the population. Cutting the corporate tax rate to zero now, would not show effect until 2013 – again too late (See the Reagan plan, and the rocket that was the economy in his hands.)

Therefore, to all those who know that Carter was well-meaning and a giving and caring man (see Habitat for Humanity), as the leader of the free world, he was – in a word- disastrous – One can re-write history, but one cannot erase the memories of millions of Americans (now in the largest voting bloc in history (baby boomers) who saw the similarities from the beginning. To Mitt Romney, kudos for the history lesson, although the Press is not pleased that you may have gotten a point or to right and that you have the nerve to try to equate Obama and Carter – as if on purpose!


Bush Romney Comparison - rather old/new tactic from the Obama Administration - it may have worked on McCain - but that is history - image via Salon dot com

Jimmy Carter Believes “Racism Drives Opposition to Obama” – The Delusional Inability of the Left to Accept Opposition to Progressive Ideology

Carter with Arafat, image theyeshivaword

Former President, Jimmy Carter, remarking on Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R- S.C.) “outburst” during the Presidents recent address to Congress, has decided that it must be racism that drove the House Member to yell “Lair” during remarks made by the President regarding certain aspects of the Democrats Health Care Reform plan. Although it is generally accepted that the respect of the Office of the Presidency should have precluded Wilson from such an “outburst”, one can also accept the fact that Wilson’s gaffe was based more on emotion over a program that is not being well accepted by the general public, and not on the fact that the President is, as Carter put it during an NBC interview: “that he is a black man, that he's African American.”

Although one can agree with Carter that bigotry, still exists in the United States to some extent – one cannot believe this truly applies to this President – who was elected to office by winning, not only African-American votes, but the votes of all citizens, including those who reside in the south. It is Carter’s denial of the fact that Obama’s policies, which are a mirror image of his own, are the cause of opposition, and that opposition is not confined to the President’s ideology but the ideology of certain members of Carter’s political party – Frank, Pelosi, Reid, etc.
What Obama enjoys, at the moment, is the backing of a like-minded press, something that Carter failed to achieve – that said, while Carter was in office decimating the economy through failed job stimulus programs, auto bailouts, disastrous budgets, the destruction of our military and intelligence forces and a foreign policy that was an embarrassment, he still enjoyed a bit of a break from certain major news outlets – once the economy became untenable, certain organizations still believed he would surely best that actor from California, Ronald Reagan. It is called denial and this cry of “Racism” from Carter borders on the delusional.

Barack Obama with Chavez, image: theage, Austrailia

Carter, an avowed Progressive, broke decorum during the Bush Presidency by actively critiquing the President – one was treated to headlines such as Bush is the Worst in History in Foreign Relations, Carter Says” and, perhaps, the best in a comedic sense, ” Carter Criticizes “Radical Changes” in U.S. Policy”. When one Google’s “Carter Criticizes Bush”, page after page of articles appear – while one can assume that Carter, a former President, would understand that decorum would prevent direct criticism of a sitting president, his remarks could not possibly have been based on “Race”. Granted Carter did not make these remarks during a Bush address to the Congress, and two wrongs, so to speak do not make a “right”, but the premise, a disagreement with ideology, is what drove both remarks. To label Wilson as a racist is, in a word ridiculous.

Further, Wilson, immediately after uttering the infamous “Liar” during a lull in the "boos" coming from the opposing floor of the House aimed at the President, apologized - to the President and the President accepted his apology. Wilson also explained ad naseum that he was driven by emotion over the policy of the administration – this was not enough for Carter, apparently, nor for the current bunch of lunatics in charge of the asylum formally known as the U.S. House of Representatives. The House has taken precious time from the work they should be doing for the people (not their political party), to write a set of Guidelines regarding what one can and what one cannot say on the floor of the House while the President is paying a visit.
From Politico:

Disgrace" and "nitwits" -- okay.
"Liar" or "sexual misconduct" -- ixnay.
Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:
• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”
Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”

Apparently, those who took the time to write this nonsense, had three administrations in mind (Bush, Carter and Obama), that said, once Wilson had made the apology, the matter should have been dropped, by sensible people. Unfortunately, political opportunism runs counter to sensibility. It is not for nothing that, while the Office of the President deserves respect, regardless of the political ideology of the person holding the office, it also behooves the Congress and those former Presidents to stop acting like children, and move on to the more pressing problems facing the nation – many of which can be directly laid at their doorstep. Pulling combat troops out of Iraq, leaving behind regular forces, has caused that country to go to “hell in a hand basket” – this based more on a “Campaign promise” than any specific strategy. The addition of, as yet undefined, troops to Afghanistan (unwinnable from the ground – historically speaking), in order to fulfill another “campaign promise” to “get Bin Ladin”, has the unfortunate potential to turn into yet another “Viet Nam”, the mismanagement of the Stimulus program, the growing ACORN scandal, and a host of issues more pressing that what a member of Congress from South Carolina, who just happens to be a Republican (key politically charged word) called the President (it was not a persona attack) from the floor. It was wrong, Wilson apologized, and the Congress and Carter should move on. Why won’t they? It’s a perfect stop gap to keep the media appeased, keep their names in the paper, and beat up the opposing party at the same time, or so they believe.

Due to the unprecedented hoopla from the left (Congress) Wilson has, to date, received over a million dollars in contributions. According to Carter, those must be racist donations, not donations from individuals who have had enough of Obama’s Carter-like qualities. The two, Carter and Obama, are so like-minded (and incidentally, inexperienced going into the office), that comparisons were made prior to Obama’s election, and once the legislative process began to take shape, the similarities were eerily similar – the word “doppelganger” is apt in this case. This is something Carter should be celebrating – perhaps in his next interview, he might revel in the fact that President Obama and he are so much alike, and commiserate with Obama that, those policies that Carter employed, the same progressive mentality, was soundly rejected by the American voting public, after one term in office – he should be counseling Obama now, that it is a likelihood that even the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will not be carried by Obama in 2012. (He should also note that it is also a possibility that both the House and the Congress will change hands in 2010 and that the opposition will put the nail in the coffin of their ideology in 2012 (This is should Obama continue to follow Carter, if, and only if, Obama moves to the center, with a Congress that is in direct opposition, does he stand a snowball’s chance in Hades of seeing a second term – (likability factor that Carter lacked). The aforementioned scenario is possible, but not probable, given both men’s deep rooted progressive (sic: Communist-Socialist) beliefs.