Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In 1976 America was ready for change. After Vietnam, Watergate, the Nixon pardon, the fall of Saigon, gas lines and runaway inflation the American people wanted a president who promised that things would be different. That turned out to be Carter and, yes, things were different once he got elected. The country went from bad to worse under the leadership of a well-meaning but essentially clueless president. The Carter presidency was a disaster from start to finish. Is Obama going to be the Carter of a new generation? The parallels are pretty stark. America needs to think long and hard before it again puts an inexperienced utopian in the White House.
In 1976 America was ready for change. After V The parallels are pretty stark. America needs to think long and hard before it again puts an inexperienced utopian in the White House.
Carter is a good comparison, while this thread is still new please allow me to throw in, though it may not mean much to many on here because he's older, Obama also reminds me of a Warren G. Harding. Very inexperienced, largely state legislator when he took over office who was known for good looks and great speeches, and it was a disaster mainly because he wasn't prepared for the job.
In 1976 America was ready for change. After Vietnam, Watergate, the Nixon pardon, the fall of Saigon, gas lines and runaway inflation the American people wanted a president who promised that things would be different. That turned out to be Carter and, yes, things were different once he got elected. The country went from bad to worse under the leadership of a well-meaning but essentially clueless president. The Carter presidency was a disaster from start to finish. Is Obama going to be the Carter of a new generation? The parallels are pretty stark. America needs to think long and hard before it again puts an inexperienced utopian in the White House.
The Wall Street Journal recently drew comparisons to Ronald Reagan in this piece.
Is it a fair comparison? Are the parallels just as stark? By what measure do we choose a President or maybe more appropriately - what would be the optimal range of experience in your estimation that qualifies one to be President and whom do we use as the litmus test?
Coolidge was picked for VP as a result of one famous aphorism and went on to succeed to the bully pulpit.
Nixon chose Agnew because he was so impressed with how Agnew talked back to black folk after the MLK assassination (check the US senate website for verification) and then Agnew came within an ace of being president.
The Wall Street Journal recently drew comparisons to Ronald Reagan in this piece.
I would agree with that. Reagan was supposed to be the Conservatives' last, best hope. He failed in many regards, but he talked a fine game. Real fine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.