Who is he???

Time Magazine said of him:

A catalog of contradictions: Liberal, moderate, conservative, compassionate, ruthless, soft, tough, a charlatan, a true believer, a defender of the status quo, a populist Hamlet... A Democrat who thinks like a Republican... he also considers himself a fiscal conservative...

Other facts concerning him:

A former State Senator, he was elected Governor by running to the right of the other Democratic candidates. "I was never a liberal," he told state voters that year. "I am and have always been a conservative."

He campaigned against school busing.

A supporter of the Viet Nam war, as Governor he declared "American Fighting Man's Day" in support of Lt. William Calley after his court martial on charges of massacring civilians.

At the 1972 Democratic convention, he was a delegate for Henry "Scoop" Jackson's (said by some to be the father of the DLC) presidential campaign, and he worked with Al From of the DLC on economic issues as well.

One of his campaigns was endorsed by Pat Robertson, who aired a profile of him on the 700 Club.

No cheating by using Google. Who is this guy??

.

I am almost always at a loss for words to describe how the media has made certain to dumb this nation down to react only to soundbite journalism and THEIR definition of who the Democrats are and what policies are discussed.

I might have voted for Anderson if I did! I now understand why he was so hard on Kerry in some of his after the election comments (about faith, values etc) - He may do a lot for Habitats for humanity but these things are pretty bad.

The fact is that people (Dems) in other parts of the country don't share all of your political beliefs. "Bad" is an opinion not a fact.

I'm not speaking "political" values here, but "moral". You can say that it was wrong that no one higher was held accountable, but what he did defied reason and can not be justified by anything. He led a slaughter of a village. If conservatives think otherwise I never want to hear them whine about liberal "relativism.

that I remember concerning Calley. But its obvious that many did not believe the charge if the OP is correct.

You think OJ was innocent or guilty?

Lt Calley was convicted. As to OJ, he was found innocent, but there was very impressive DNA evidence. Even if you don't believe the charge for Calley, why would you honor him?

the time frame is an important distinction I think.

I imagine it would be to show support for the troops is my answer to the second question.

But I am not familiar with news accounts from that time period. But I think you are reading too much into the short blurb above, if you are suggesting Carter knowingly supported a massacre of innocents. Seems to me that would be against his nature.

It seems hard to believe now, but he was a crafty maneuverer back in the day.

to those supporting the troops whatever they do. He has evolved in that he has spoken against Abu Ghraib.

But, this year we saw the kneejerk RW reaction to Senator Durbin expressing his disgust with the way prisoners were treated, What he said, parsed correctly was absolutely true - but a political nightmare.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/SurveyResults.html

I can't vouch for the site at this point.

QUESTION: Do you agree or disagree with the decision of the military court which found (Lt. William) Calley guilty (in connection with the My Lai incident) and gave him a life sentence?

Agree 7%

Disagree 78%

No opinion 15%


From a telephone survey of 1,090 adults from across the United States conducted for President Nixon on
April 1, 1971.

QUESTION 002: Do you think Lt. Calley is being made the scapegoat for the actions of others above him or not (with regard to the My Lai incident)?

Yes 70%

No 12%

No opinion 18%


There were many people who resented that no one above Lt was charged - when clearly higher level people were thought to know. The results of this question are consistent with my memory as a college student horrified by the story. Incidently, if you read much of the anti war movement - a very large % of the the antiwar movement agreed with the he was scapegoated.

None of this justifies honoring him. At best, they're saying the burden of the crime was unfairly on his shoulders.

Maybe being on a college campus insulated me from the support. There was NO support for Calley that I saw. It was like an unvirtual DU, people wanted the blame to go upward - as it was too large for only Calley to have been quilty.

Anyways, thanks for the discussion it was enlightening.

It doees explain a lot to me - the colleges were very anti-war at that time. (IU actually voted over 90 % US out of Asia around that time.) Clearly, not typical of the population at large.

And he was for some bad foreign policy measures, but tried to rise above his own military fundamentalism eventually.

The Calley thing was as bizarre as the honoring of the swftliars.

I'm embarrased.

Mostly because the internet would have certainly rallied behind the IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning investigations resulting in the entire Bush criminal empire being exposed to the American people.

:(

:evilgrin:

It may well have been good I didn't - I wanted Kennedy in the primary and was very close to voting for Anderson. There is something wrong when,

A supporter of the Viet Nam war, as Governor he declared "American Fighting Man's Day" in support of Lt. William Calley after his court martial on charges of massacring civilians.

has no impact on the Presidential race, but Kerry's incredible speech to the Senate is. (Honoring atrocities is less bad than admitting they occured?)

how they define our Dem leaders - as if corporate media is on OUR side. (choke)

I will never forgive him for that...
or for all of his talk about his "personal realationship with Gawd" He broke that longstanding taboo, and the repubs have run with it.

man. i would expect him to have supported the Viet Nam War. He made a mistake in supporting Wm Calley IMHO, but at least he was consistent in supporting our men and women in uniform. Lot's of good and smart people supported Scoop Jackson...who hasn't supported some poor choices. As for Pat Robertson supporting his campaign, so what. That doesn't make Carter a bad person. The real point is what has he done as he matured in life? Is he a decent person whose choices weren't always in agreement with yours or mine? Are his intentions noble or evil? I'll take Carter over most others in politics today.

I think the OP's point is that there have been several posts around DU recently calling Carter one of our most liberal presidents of the century, which is categorically false. A good guy, and yes, a better ex-president than president, very moral and sincere, but not "liberal."

It's so easy for some to cast stones at someone for something they did 30 years ago....

The world was different then....

The people were different then....

That was two generations ago....

They came of age four generations ago....

Look at all that has changed in the last 30 years....

No that I've garnered a fair amount of responses to this thread with a few responses a bit surprised this is Jimmy Carter and others saying essentially, "so what?" - I can now tell you my take:

So what!?

See, everytime I read the latest anti-Clinton thread (both Bill and Hillary), or any thread that bashes any Democrat, I always think, "these people wouldn't have even supported Jimmy Carter if they'd been on their high horse then."

And believe me, there is a lot more to Carter that would ruffle a progressive feather or two.

But I liked/like the guy.

And that automatically reduces Dems to caricatures, no matter what.

He supported the Shah when the Shah's troops were firing on demonstrators. IIRC, that was the straw that broke the camel's back in Iran. The students rebelled, the Shah fled and our embassy was taken hostage. Had he withheld support for the Shah's policies, we might not have nearly the mess we have now.

in regard to Iran's "democracy" while most adult Americans are still puzzled by the hostility towards us.

Thanks to post WW2 machinations of Dulles, Harriman and Bush who led efforts to overthrow the ELECTED leader of Iran so the brutal Shah could be re-installed as head of state.