Yesterday I wrote a post that began with Jimmy Carter's comment that elections in Florida were unlikely to be unfair and went on to discuss what I remember best about the Carter presidency...double digit inflation, high interest rates, long gas lines, the Olympic boycott, and the Iran hostage crisis. It was one of my best posts. Ever. Really! (Okay, no comments about how being better than most of what I've written so far wouldn't be that difficult.)
I clicked "publish" and left my computer, expecting MT magic to do its thing. There must have been a server problem because when I came back it hadn't published (there was a page not found error) and my post was lost.
I had spent a lot of time on the post and was in no mood to try to duplicate it but I'll summarize the main points.
- What does Carter mean by "conditions for a fair election still do not exist in the state of Florida"? Still? I'm not convinced it was unfair before or that it is now. When my kids say something isn't fair they mean it isn't favorable to them. Carter seems to think the same way.
- Carter was another "anybody-but-candidate". In his case it was anybody but a Republican. We know how well that kind of reactionary voting turned out. Not that his failure as a president was all bad. It helped get Ronald Reagan elected.
- Carter's first act when he became president was to pardon all draft evaders. Shouldn't that have made Vietnam service, or lack of service, a moot point? Maybe it is only for those who avoided service altogether but not for someone who joined the National Guard and volunteered to go to Vietnam.
"Whenever you have a chance, say something good about our country." - Jimmy Carter, July 1979 (A Crisis of Confidence aka National Malaise speech)
...unless you're a Democrat and a Republican is the president. - Marybeth, September 28, 2004
Posted by marybeth at September 28, 2004 09:29 AM BloggingRemember the hostage crisis when Carter was president? His peaceful ways didn't do much to get them freed. It took a Republican, Ronald Reagan, to put fear into the hearts of their captors to free them. Diplomacy has it's place, but actions speak louder than words.
Posted by patty at October 1, 2004 11:56 PMIt illustrates the difference between the people who won't act until every diplomatic option is exhausted and those who will give diplomacy a reasonable amount of time to work and then take other action.
As long as we aren't willing to do more than talk, people such as the Iranian hostage takers, Saddam, and others can do as they like. They will stall, negotiate, make concessions and then back out of them...they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by continuing talks.
For any diplomatic talk to succeed, there has to be a point where both parties can agree, where each feels as though they have won their main goals without having given up anything important. If that can be done, wonderful. If it becomes evident that it can't be done, it's time for other actions.
Posted by marybeth at October 2, 2004 10:57 AM