Turning Obama Into Jimmy Carter
Late in the summer of 1976, President Gerald Ford and his inner circle huddled in Vail, Colorado, facing the grimmest general election outlook for a Republican since the L.B.J. landslide of ‘64.
An unelected president, Ford had barely secured the Republican nomination against a fierce challenge from Ronald Reagan, leaving the party’s conservative base dispirited and even more distrustful of Ford than they already had been. And the stench of Watergate—and Ford’s politically damaging pardon of Richard Nixon—stubbornly hung in the air. After eight years of Republican rule, an amorphous but potent yearning for change had taken hold.
At the Vail strategy session, the Ford team zeroed in on the chief vulnerabilities of their Democratic opponent, Jimmy Carter: His lack of experience, his lack of accomplishments and his lack of specificity on the issues. These had to be exploited mercilessly.
And they were. Ten weeks later, Ford came within an eyelash of a political miracle. After trailing by 33 points around Labor Day, he was edged out by a handful of electoral votes—and just two points in the popular vote. If the campaign had lasted even a week longer, many believe, Ford would have won.
Thirty-two years later, the G.O.P.’s chances of retaining the White House for a third straight term may hinge on recycling that old Ford recipe.
Once again, the fall landscape looks miserable for them. In John McCain, they are poised to nominate a candidate who does just as little for the base as Ford did. And twice as many voters—many of them independents, and more than a few registered Republicans—have participated in this year’s Democratic primaries than in the G.O.P. contests. After eight years of George W. Bush and five years of war in Iraq, change is once again in vogue.
And once again, the Democrats seem ready to nominate a candidate whose appeal is rooted more in the emotions that he stirs than in the details of his 12-point plans. For Jimmy Carter in 1976, the operative word was trust. For Barack Obama in 2008, it is hope.
Actually, the similarities between Carter and Obama are considerable. Like Obama, Carter’s resume included service in a state Legislature (rare for a president), and only a very brief stint in high-profile office, his single term as Georgia’s governor from 1970 to 1974. Obama, of course, has only been in the U.S. Senate since 2005, after an eight-year run in the Illinois state Senate.
Both also outsmarted their intra-party foes when it came to primary strategy. In ‘76, Carter was the lone Democrat to comprehend the opportunities that attended the proliferation of state primaries and caucuses, entering the race early and targeting every state, a tactic that produced weekly victories, hordes of delegates, and a gathering sense of momentum that left his late-starting rivals in the dust. Similarly, the wisdom of Obama’s decision to contest small caucus states and all of the mid-size contests between Super Tuesday and March 4—and the lack of wisdom in Hillary Clinton’s decision not to do so—is only now becoming clear.
Most significantly, both men came along at exactly the right time. Carter’s peanut-farmer-from-Plains simplicity and his oft-repeated promise that he “will never lie to you” were powerful political weapons after Nixon and his wiretapping, his plumbers and his pardon from Ford. And Obama’s message of hope—and his own life story—resonates with an electorate that, after these past eight years, feels utterly disconnected from its government and simply wants to believe in someone again.
In the ’76 primaries, Carter’s Democratic foes at first ignored his trust theme and then—when it was too late—brayed against it, warning that he’d been maddeningly vague about what he’d actually do as president. Hillary Clinton’s warnings about Obama, it appears, have been just as tardy and futile.
But the ’76 example tells us that criticisms that don’t stick during the primary season can still work in the general election. Day after day in fall campaign, the Ford forces pounded away at the experience question and painted Carter as a political illusion, an affable-seeming politician who was terrified of expressing his opinion on any controversial topic.
“It is not enough to say, ‘Trust me,’” Ford said at one rally. “Trust must be earned. Trust is not having to guess what a candidate means. Trust is leveling with people before the election about what you’re going to do after the election. Trust is not being all things to all people, but being the same thing to all people.”
The media eventually caught on too, scrutinizing Carter with a daily intensity that was absent in the primary season, and Carter’s lead steadily eroded.
McCain is readying the same kind of attack against Obama.
“I’m not the youngest candidate,” he said last week. “But I’m the most experienced.” And at a different event, he charged that Obama is offering “an eloquent but empty call for change.”
Obama may prove a more durable fall candidate that Carter. He’s been more specific in his proposals than Carter was (see: health care and diplomacy with hostile nations), and his personal bond with the electorate may prove deeper and more intense than Carter’s ever was.
But if you’re tempted to think Obama has too much working in his favor to lose in November, just remember what very nearly happened in 1976.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Not to mention Jimmy Carter was the worst president in the history of the US.
And Carter had a lot more business experience and administrative experience. Carter became a millionaire farming peanuts and served as governor of Georgia before winning the presidency. Obama has done nothing. This is a good example at just how lousy a candidate Obama is--Carter was more qualified. I'm no McCain fan but I think Obama should bow out and work on his resume for the next four years.
Carter was the worst modern day President. James Buchanan and U.S. Grant were the worst Presidents.
Ha, ha. Well, Mr. Kornacki, someone in the Democratic party has been reading their history. I feel sorry for those Democrats who feel this election is in the bag...they are in for quite a shock. Whether or not the template used by Republicans is from the Ford era, one thing is certain, Obama better batten down the hatches.
You all see the picture of Obama (Osama?) on Drudge looking like an Imam?? You can bet that picture will reappear come October, as well as a friendly new video from bin Laden the weekend before the election, as well as more calls for Obama to cough up specifics which will certainly leave him mute. Being president is more than speechifying (otherwise, GWB would not have been reelected.) Getting elected, in this day and age, is about how safe the electorate feel about putting you in charge; you know emotions. I know that to liberals who love ideas that this is heresy, but it's the simple fact of the matter. Sad, but true.
People thought Reagan would protect them better than Mondale; People thought Clinton would protect them better than Dole; People thought Bush would protect them better than Kerry; and so it goes.
It will be close as usual; and because of the electoral college, it's going to come down to a few battleground states.
McCain wont be spoting Obama 33 points
Obama may win, but it won't be easy. Remember that Arnold got 60% of the vote in 2006 (a year that was terrible for the GOP), AND McCain is pretty close with Arnold.
That could put CA in contention and that would be very bad for Obama.
Furthermore, if 2008 is like 1976, then after 4 terrible years, we will have another generation of GOP dominance from 2012 onwards. Rememeber that after Jimmy Carter, Democrats never again got 50% of the popular vote in SEVEN subsequent elections. The GOP got 50% or more FOUR times out of sever (1980, 1984, 1988, 2004).
Another thing to keep in mind about primary vrs general vulnerabilities is that you're both running against different people and courting a different electorate in the General.
On the experience issue, people can reasonably claim that Hillary only really has her six years in the senate as true experience. Even if you claim her First Lady years as experience, it has a distinctly murky feel to it. Edwards, what has he done, aside from being Kerry's VP, and son of a millworker? The people he's running against just don't have all that much experience
McCain, on the other hand, has been around the band more than a few times. You can argue that he's been around the wrong barn, or went around barns the wrong way, but you simply cannot argue that he hasn't been around barns at all. McCain's been in the public eye for, what, fifty-odd years now? That's a far cry from two terms in the senate.
Different people, different field, different battle.
Look to the future, the past is irrelevant!
It's more like Obama 2008 = Roosevelt 1936
"Look to the future, the past is irrelevant!"
Wow... those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it. Looks like Obama's fans are going to follow him off the progressive cliff into statism just like that charismatic Italian fellow in the early 20th. Binding the people together for a common purpose, subservience of corporations for the good of the state ('corporate patriotism', in Barackwords), and all that stuff.
Wrong. Obama won't be another Reagan '84, 49 state landslide. If Obamer wins it will be because he picks up Ohio and Florida, or some combination of states that Kerry and Gore lost.
Let's hope the Republicans are up to eviscerating Obama through the internet and other dirt to dig up. They seem down, but once Obamer's liberal record get more light, the masses will wake up.
Warren G. Harding was probably the worst president ever...Until George W. Bush. History will not be kind to Dubya, nor should it be.
Can America really afford another Jimmy Carter?
If Richard Nixon can become rehabilitated, then George W. Bush can too. History will be kind (er) to GWB...you heard it here first.
I don't think Navy Annaopolis Engineer, and as Robert Novack wrote about him in his book, 'The Prince of Darkness', the most lieing person he ever met, that Carter had much cultural zeitgiest with the media. He didn't like them, and they him. Where as Obama is their dream, and Obama knows it. His whole affirmitive action life is in response to liberal wish fullfilment. Obama knows how to push lib's buttons.
On the other hand, MSM isn't just three liberal networks, no one under fifty reads a newspaper and who trusts the New York Times anymore.
So, Obama is hot, but can the lefty media pull the dream over the top?
I doubt it.
Paul in Florida
Screw you, Kornacki. Let's see you run for POTUS and win.
Let's review on Obama: endorsed by Farrakhan as choice of "world" and "black men." His wife is only now proud of America (despite a fabulous career and wealth). He won't say the Pledge of Allegiance or act respectful during the National Anthem (pictures galore to show it). He wants a "Muslim Summit" to "apologize for America." He wants a world tour to apologize for America to dictators. He wants a meeting with no preconditions with Nutjob who routinely threatens another Holocaust and attacks on America. He hangs out with Weatherman terrorists.
Not to mention his one bill: "Global Tax on America" spending over 800 billion USD for foreign aid, his desire to confiscate and ban all handguns and semi-auto rifles (aka the mother of all GOTV for the NRA).
On that issue alone Obama could decisively lose Ohio and Florida.
Now we have visual proof that Obama likes to dress up as a Somali Muslim (aka celebrating "Blackhawk Down") on Drudge.
Every one of these actions and issues are Lee Atwater attack ads that symbolize to harried and frustrated voters what the man's character is. He lacks a long record of accomplishment and familiarity to insulate himself from this (like Dukakis and Kerry before him). Willie Horton told Americans that Dukakis lacked the political will to stand up to the weak-on-crime leftists and so lost him the election.
If Obama wants to win he better get out and denounce Muslim terror, jihad, honor killings, female genital mutilation, etc. at length and then for good measure Farrakhan (promising a hate crime prosecution of the guy and another look at his involvement in Malcolm X's murder). Otherwise he's defined himself as the Hate-America candidate and will not only lose but drag down many of the blue dog dems.
Jennifer Rubin has written an article stating that it looks like 1972 all over again, i.e. Obama is the Democrats most liberal candidate since McGovern.
Just think, the more we get Obama's opinions and votes out there, exposed to the light of day, the more independents he will turn off, who might lean toward McCain!
"Call President McCain, calling President McCain!"
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12792
To all of you who believe that Barack Obama has no accomplishments:
Not true.
Barack Obama has been an elected official for 11 years. Senator Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996. He resigned from the Illinois Senate in November 2004 following his election to the U.S. Senate.
Here's just a smattering of some of accomplishments:
* S.2590: The Coburn-Obama Transparency Act, now known as the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (signed into law September 26, 2006)
* The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (signed into law September 14, 2007)
* S.453: A bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections, including fraudulent flyers and automated phone calls (20 co-sponsers)
* S.2132: A bill to prohibit the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of children's products that contain lead, and for other purposes. (6 co-sponsers. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation)
* S.1811: A bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to assess and reduce the levels of lead found in child-occupied facilities in the United States, and for other purposes (2 co-sponsers. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works)
* S.713: A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries. (34 co-sponsers)
* S.768: A bill to increase fuel economy standards for automobiles and for other purposes. (6 co-sponsers)
* S.2330: A bill to authorize a pilot program within the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development with the goal of preventing at-risk veterans and veteran families from falling into homelessness, and for other purposes. (1 co-sponser. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs)
* S.2347: A bill to restore and protect access to discount drug prices for university-based and safety-net clinics. (31 co-sponsers. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance)
* S.1977 : A bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology. (2 co-sponsers. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations)
Amendments:
* S.AMDT.923 to S.761: To expand the pipeline of individuals entering the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to support United States innovation and competitiveness. (Amendment SA 923 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent)
* S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976: To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries (8 co-sponsers. Amendment SA 2588 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent)
There's more, look it up at: http://thomas.loc.gov/
Our government moves at a snail's pace. There are good ideas from both sides of the aisle, but it takes a tremendous amount energy (and time) to see them through. And by the way, Clinton was a co-sponser on a few of these bills, so when she's says that Obama has no experience...
Judging from his record, it's obvious that Senator Obama cares about his fellow Americans.
That's good enough for me.
Maybe its time to reassess Jimmy Carter. The world would be a very different place if his energy independence plan had been implemented. His negotiation of the "cold peace" between Egypt and Israel saved many Israeli lives. Can you imagine what life would be like if Israel had a hostile border on its west side?
He may not have been the best, but he certainly wasn't the worst.
George W. Bush, on the other hand, WILL be remembered as the worst, besides Buchanan.
Gimme a break with the Bush bashing...other than the Iraq war, Bush has some impressive accomplishments to stand on...unfortunately some of those are a bit liberal (like Prescription drug, which will bankrupt us.)
People get on the band wagon and that's all we've heard since Katrina...Bush this, Bush that. Christ, give it a rest.
Wait til Obama raises taxes, comes up with no answers to the mortgage mess (which really isn't a government problem), can't bring the soldiers home from Iraq in short order, CAN'T bring manufacturing jobs back to Ohio; then we'll see what all the brain dead Obamaniacs say.
Carol
kevinyc, you are delusional and obiviously someone who doesn't have a living memory of what the Jimmy Carter years were like. They were bad in every sense of the world. Perhaps you would enjoy sitting in lines for gas, but I didn't and neither did the rest of America. Perhaps you would like running away inflation, skyrocketing interest rates and double digit unemployment but I didn't and nor did the rest of America. Carter was a terrible miserable excuse of a President. He was a naive fool of the first order whose misguided foreign policies still haunt us today. Iran-Afghanistan-Iraq all trace back to him and his idiotic 'can't-we-all-just-get-all' policies. There was a reason why a B-actor absolutely crushed him when he ran for re-election in 1980. We couldn't wait to get the bum out of the White House. And now the Democrats are about to nominate someone just like him. Heaven help us.
Egads! The prospect that there is another Jimmy Carter on the horizon is terrifying! No one should have to live through that nightmare again. It's really a horror that someone like that could get within sniffing distance of the Presidency.
The economy was in shambles by the time he was finished.
RichardFrei, you sure got that one right. Anyone that has lived through the Carter years would realize what it would mean to have a similar episode repeated. For those of you that don't remember, just hold onto your wallets. Jimmy Carter wrecked everything he touched, and gave away the Panama Canal to boot. (I believe the Chinese now control it--thanks again, Jimmy)
Obama is being promoted by the very same people that took that unknown peanut farmer and put him in the White House. Ziggy Brzezinski, Former National Security Advisor for Carter, is a Obama advisor and he brings the powerful group of ultra-rich eastern liberals like David Rockerfeller and George Soros. Take a look at a piece in the NEW YOUR MAG. (nymag.com) April 16, 2007 called "Money Chooses Sides", it shows a photo of George Soros at an Obama fundraiser. Look at the media coverage Jimmy and Obama received from the eastern liberal press, most is very positive, they never show anything negative.
Talk about revisionism, I guess that the Iranian Hostage situation that continued for 444 Days escapes your memory? Carter was weak, indecisive and in way over his head, he spent 4 years wringing his hands instead of making decisions. Obama IS JIMMY CARTER.
Talk about revisionism, I guess that the Iranian Hostage situation that continued for 444 Days escapes your memory? Carter was weak, indecisive and in way over his head, he spent 4 years wringing his hands instead of making decisions. Obama IS JIMMY CARTER.
Jimmy Carter, like Bill Clinton is trying to redefine his legacy. Carter comes across as a "know it all" and very self righteous. Remember what his Russian grain embargo did to the American Farmer?
The Clinton presidency was like Animal House....
The current Bush has guts and is willing to take an unpopular stand -- whether right or wrong. Bill Clinton was gutless and governed by opinion polls.
the biggest similarity between osamba and carter is that ted kennedy and bobby KKK byrd are still there to denut osamba.
peanut brain let those two idiots walk all over him. he went in as a reformer and they knifed him in the back.
those morons are still there.
Carter was ineffective. Ask folks who insist that Carter (or W) is the worst president to name the worst five. This will usually show that they really don't know what they are talking about.
My worst five (for differing reasons and not in any order)
George "W." Bush
Grant
Hoover
Harding
Pierce