Long gas lines and video of exploded helicopters attempting to save the hostages plastered all over the television. Those poor hostages blindfolded and giving confessions 24/7. Would that have made his popularity in the single digits?
2007-07-26 03:49:25 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
PIP= Why not answer ? You know the truth! thanx for making my point.
2007-07-26 03:57:07 · update #1
Michael young man.....There are newsapaloozas going on today. Back then there were only 3 news sources on tv shown 3 times a day. Go turn on your tv and you cab find a dozen stations slamming our government right now. Even from England gimme a break!
2007-07-26 04:01:20 · update #2
TRUTH GOOD POINTS
2007-07-26 04:01:56 · update #3
Westhill you make a valid point!!!Carter did do wonderful things with Sadat and the peace accords.
2007-07-26 04:03:14 · update #4
Don't forget stagflation.
To a degree Carter gets too much of the blame -- he didn't help matters but the problems of the late 1970s were the results of failed New Deal policies finally washing up on the beach. Again, he supported those policies but one of the great myths is that everything was OK until Carter came along and wrecked it.
The problems were mostly inherited and they were systemic - they'd been building for decades.
And that's why we owe so much to Reagan.
YES it was Volcker who sucked all that money back up and put the money supply on a tighter leash - - - and that necessarily caused a deep recession in '82 - - - but if it weren't for the tax cuts the result of Volcker's ultra-tight interest rate policy would have been to plunge the country into a repeat of the Great Depression - - - - either such a Depression would have occurred or Volcker would have eased off - - - - and if he'd eased off the conditions of the mid-to-late 1970s - the stagflation - would have continued and only gotten worse.
I do have to laugh at the denialists here, those who say "well it's a business cycle, Reagan came in at the bottom of it" - - like it's a train going up or downhill on the same tracks - - NO, in the late 1970s the train came OFF the tracks, and Reagan put it on a new set of tracks that has tended to have smoother and longer uphill climbs and fewer and easier downhill runs.
This is because lower tax rates enable the economy to reinvest its own earnings to fuel growth, thus there is less of a need to rely on Fed policy to fuel growth - - - less punch, less hangover.
I guess I don't understand the stubbornness of the Libs here - - - the whole notion of coming at it with a conclusion already in hand, because you "identify" with one "side," and then deciding to believe whatever "facts" you can arrange to come to that "side's" conclusion - - - rather than researching the facts and seeing where they clearly lead - - - I guess I don't understand the mentality.
This is really not a question on which reasonable minds can disagree - - nor do they.
And Westhill, funny, people say the USSR was bankrupt and HAD to call it quits (though, who bankrupted them???) - - - Egypt was bankrupt and had to call it quits.
2007-07-26 03:55:55 · answer #1 · answered by truthisback 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No, people would be glad for some peace in the middle east and his poll numbers would rise with more coverage. The Camp David accords that Carter negotiated, resulted in a lasting peace between Egypt and Israel. That may not sound like a lot to you as a Republican, but Egypt was the main aggressor against Israel in the wars of 1956, 1967 and 1973. Carter also signed the SALT arms treaty and would get credit, even today for limiting nuclear weapons.
By the way, the hostage crisis in Iran was covered on CNN and broadcast TV every day back in 1980.
Truthishack: being "bankrupt" has not prevented the Palestinians from fighting for 60 years.
2007-07-26 11:00:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's the same media climate. What are you talking about?
"Long gas lines and video of exploded helicopters attempting to save the hostages plastered all over the television. Those poor hostages blindfolded and giving confessions 24/7."
That was done constantly back then. It'd be no difference.
2007-07-26 10:56:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
One knows it is bad off for a party when people go looking for worse poll numbers than a current president, eh?
2007-07-26 10:53:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
running so low on defenses of this administration that you are having to ask hypothetical questions to try and make someone else look even worse.. making this administration look good by comparison? I smell desperation.
But who knows.. it's impossible to correctly answer a hypothetical question. The only answer the asker is looking for usually is the one that reinforces their own views.
Edit: actually, who knows is an answer. It is a perfectly legitimate answer to a hypothetical question.
2007-07-26 10:53:39 · answer #5 · answered by pip 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Single digits...perhaps negative numbers. He was an embarassment when he was in office and an even bigger embarassment as a private citizen. Of course, as a staunch Republican, I like him...his insane comments and rhetoric just bolster the fact that democrats are completely out of touch with reality.
2007-07-26 10:55:35 · answer #6 · answered by Dr_M_VanNostrand 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
They would be bout the same. He is an excellent former president. His works as a former president was so excellent that as a democrat I wished he skipped the presidency and went to former presidency.
2007-07-26 10:53:26 · answer #7 · answered by eric l 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋