2007-04-17 03:11:15 · 9 answers · asked by Always Needing Help 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I agree with Leogirl, but I assume you're looking for a positive for the Carter administration. I believe peanut butter consumption went up from 76-80. " The popularity of and curiosity about the peanut grew significantly during the successful 1976 presidential campaign that put Jimmy Carter in the White House. The image of the peanut in caricature was seen around the world as a symbol of not only a president, but also the towns of Plains." Other than that-he was a complete failure. He should have never left the farm!
2007-04-17 04:02:01 · answer #1 · answered by Cherie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jimmy Carter was not an effective President. Before President George W. Bush, he was justifiably considered the most incompetent President since Ulysses S. Grant.
The glaring difference between their qualifications was Carter's legitimate military service compared with GWB's being AWOL from the guard-duty position his father called in favors to get him. Bush did NOT serve his country in any legitimate military capacity.
Carter was a micromanager who didn't know how to delegate authority and Bush is an absentee manager who can only do what Karl Rove & DICK Cheney tell him to do.
2007-04-17 11:22:59 · answer #2 · answered by BOOM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He left office. He was effective at doing that. Oh and he was so bad that the country voted Reagan into office in a landslide. He was effective at being a poor President.
2007-04-17 10:33:55 · answer #3 · answered by garfieldkat 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
All of our presidents did something good. Presidents are just like peoples they all have good and bad. He pushed for world peace. He fought for people problems. He helped the common person. He is a humanitarian.
2007-04-17 10:59:24 · answer #4 · answered by bart2004 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He wasn't. Everything he touched turned to crap. From pardoning draft dodgers to the 18% interest rates, oil embargo's, to the Iranian hostages and let's not forget taking social security and putting it in the general fund to balance his budget. He sucked.
2007-04-17 10:17:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
he signed a law allowing you to brew your own beer in 1978
2007-04-17 21:01:33 · answer #6 · answered by the d 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
gold prices soared,interest rates really took off,effective ,not very
2007-04-17 10:51:29 · answer #7 · answered by tom the plumber 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think so
I was kind of young then
2007-04-17 10:15:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no not at all, he was a total failure. he did of course mean well, he was not evil or whatever, just incompetant.
2007-04-17 11:03:31 · answer #9 · answered by rbenne 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋