McCain Compares Obama to Jimmy Carter

McCain: Obama means 2nd Carter term

June 09, 2008 From NBC's Mark Murray

In an interview to air later tonight on Nightly News, McCain tells NBC's Brian Williams that while Obama might criticize him for representing a third Bush term, Obama seems to be running for a second Carter term. Part of the transcript...

Williams: Is it going to be tough to run with an incumbent party for the White House, given this economic backdrop?

McCain: I-- I think it's-- it's tough. But I think the American didn't, people didn't get to know me yesterday. They know me. They know that I have fought for restraining spending, which Senator Obama has been a big part of, with earmarking (UNINTEL) projects. They know that I have been a strong fiscal conservative, and they know I understand the challenges that they face.

They need a little break from-- from their gasoline taxes, and they -- and they know that -- we've got to get spending under control. And we've got to become independent of foreign oil. Sen. Obama says that I'm running for a Bush's third terms. It seems to me he's running for Jimmy Carter's second. (LAUGHTER)

McCain: Obama means 2nd Carter term - First Read - msnbc.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


McCain Compares Obama to Jimmy Carter

June 09, 2008 7:45 PM

ABC News' Bret Hovell Reports: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., opened up a new line of attack on presidential rival Barack Obama Monday night â?? tying the Illinois Democrat to former President Jimmy Carter, a one term president who battled low approval ratings.

"Senator Obama says that Iâ??m running for [President George W.] Bush's third term," McCain told NBC News's Brian Williams, alluding to a line of attack that Democrats have launched against the Arizona Republican. "It seems like Barack Obama is running for Jimmy Carterâ??s second."

The idea that Obama is similar to Carter is one that has been percolating in conservative circles for a few weeks. And earlier Monday at a fundraiser in Richmond, Va., McCain backer Lawrence Eagleburger brought it to the Senatorâ??s attention by directly suggesting he make that comparison.

"I do have a suggestion," the former Secretary of State said to a room full of McCain donors. "It occurs to me that the Democratic candidate does remind me a great deal of Jimmy Carter. And perhaps we should make that identification stick."

McCain, it seems, agreed. When asked in the NBC News interview why he made the comparison, McCain criticized Obamaâ??s economic plan as being like the former Presidentâ??s.

"Because spend, spend, tax, spend. Heâ??s got a proposal that willâ?¦ raise spending by $1.4 dollars over 10 years, thereâ??s no way to pay for those programs," McCain said.

Political Radar: McCain Compares Obama to Jimmy Carter

Holy Crap!


That's what I've been saying over here all along! McCain is absolutely right. Mr.Peanut and Obama are two very, very liberal men.

Tax, Tax, Tax

Give, give, give (to anyone with their hand out)

True analogy or not, I still think most of us would like a 2nd Jimmy Carter presidency than a 3rd George W... :hippy:

DrSpiggity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

"Because spend, spend, tax, spend. Heâ??s got a proposal that willâ?¦ raise spending by $1.4 dollars over 10 years, thereâ??s no way to pay for those programs," McCain said.

---

Well, if it's only going to cost an extra buck forty over ten years, I think we'll find a way. Hell, I'll kick in at least half that myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrSpoof

True analogy or not, I still think most of us would like a 2nd Jimmy Carter presidency than a 3rd George W... :hippy:

DrSpiggity

---

Very true. I don't think the label is going to stick, but even if it came down to an election between Jimmy Carter versus George Bush, at this point Carter would win in a landslide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Very true. I don't think the label is going to stick, but even if it came down to an election between Jimmy Carter versus George Bush, at this point Carter would win in a landslide.

---

Hrm.. I don't know:

In the early 90's Carter went to North Korea to make a deal with then dictator Kim Il Sung. He did this without the approval of then President Clinton, to exchange aid, oil and material to help them build a nuclear reactor for energy.. All this in exchange for them dropping their nuclear program. In 2002 N. Korea announced that it never stopped it's program. Thanks Carter for acting on your own and costing the US time and money. Not to mention risk world safety. We practically handed them nuclear technology. GREAT MOVE.

In the late 70s Carter had really screwed up. I'm not sure how many here are familiar about the situation in Iran at this time. But Carter shying away from the Shah in this area led to the Islamic revolution we see today. This also at the time led indirectly to the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan.. which further led to the creation of Al Queda. Combine this with the botched Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 and it's pretty easy to see that Carter was pretty friggin busy screwing things up in this region of the world.

In addition Carter he was at least partly responsible for the worst economic downturn since WWII and was known to side/support with dictators... examples:

Philippine dictator Fernando Marcos
Pakistani General Zia al Huq
Saudi King Faud
(if you'd like explanation why these men were bad then I'd be more than happy to explain further).

He has been quoted as saying that Marshal Josef Tito "is a man who believes in human rights." For those of you that don't know Marshal Josef Tito was an extreme follower of Joseph Stalin. He was positioned in Yugoslavia. Joseph Stalin was anything but a human rights activist. :P

I mean even today.. he is not a current president or even holding any office that I'm aware of yet he is constantly meddling in US foreign affairs without the approval of the president or anyone in the US government.

He has been continually setting the United States back ever since his term ended.

With all that said... I'd have to say President Carter and George Bush are at opposite ends of the spectrum, but oddly enough at the same time they are like two peas in a pod. Therefore people would probably be looking elsewhere for another nominee. Hell maybe the Independant or Libertarian party would get a shot then. lol

Ironic isn't it.. 30 years later and we find ourselves in a pretty similar situation?


both presidents are equally as crappy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

both presidents are equally as crappy.

---

Well, I think you are probably right there. My comment was more of joke about how bad I view Bush to be --- the idea that even an unpopular president like Jimmy Carter could beat him.

To the point of the thread, I think McCain is going to have trouble getting any traction with the idea that Obama is the same as Carter, while Obama will have no problem at all linking McCain to Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I think McCain is going to have trouble getting any traction with the idea that Obama is the same as Carter, while Obama will have no problem at all linking McCain to Bush.

---

You hit the nail on the head.

Carter linked Ford to Nixon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutch Pimp

Carter linked Ford to Nixon.

---

Not hard to do either considering the way the Watergate scandal turned out with Ford giving a full pardon. Linking McCain to Bush will be a hell of alot harder considering these two past historys with each other.

Now linking Obama with racists and a terrorist will be EASY.:D

Have a good one!:s4:

Just visited an AOL website poll that showed Obama 46% to McCain 54%.

Obama only carrying the states of WA, OR, CA, IL, NY, CT, MD and DC..... I believe it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Linking McCain to Bush will be a hell of alot harder considering these two past historys with each other.

---

I don't think it will be that hard. There has been no problem linking them so far. McCain and Bush do sort of hate each other, and McCain has differed from Bush on policy in the past, but recently on issues related to the war and the economy, there is no difference between the two.

I was watching an interview the other day with a congressman or senator who was speaking on McCain's behalf. The interviewer asked him if there was any significant policy difference between McCain and Bush on the war. He mentioned that McCain had advocated the "surge" when Bush was against it. The interviewer said something like, "Yes, but Bush did implement the surge, and now Obama says there is no difference between Bush's plans for the war and McCain's. Is the any difference at this point?" Blub, blub. He had nothing to say. It was almost as if he had never considered the question and was totally surprised. Maybe he was just a bad spokesman.

If McCain is going to escape the label, he will actually have to SHOW how he is different from Bush, because so far I think the strategy of linking him to Bush's policies is working pretty well. How would McCain handle the war differently from Bush? How would McCain handle the economy differently from Bush?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

If McCain is going to escape the label, he will actually have to SHOW how he is different from Bush, because so far I think the strategy of linking him to Bush's policies is working pretty well. How would McCain handle the war differently from Bush? How would McCain handle the economy differently from Bush?

---

While I do not Support Bush, Mccain or Obama... I would hope that the general public would be intelligent enough to take a look at McCain's voting record and his political history.

He is very much different from Bush and would be a god send in comparison.

McCain is not stupid and understands War, unlike George W. He understands that we cannot just simply leave Iraq after creating the huge mess Bush has.

If we leave the current situation there at hand with a still developing Iraqi government and military then you may very well end up with a similar situation that we have in Afghanistan. Similar to after the Soviet Union pulled out that is and Al Queda was able to step in and control the region.

Occupying is a smart move in my opinion. While I have never been for this war, I would sincerely hate for all of our time,money and American lives lost to be wasted and have the country of Iraq fall prey to outside forces or terrorist groups within their own country due to the extremely vulnerable nature of Iraq right now.

We have a responsibility to, at the very least, ensure the Iraqi people are safe after we stomped into their home and tore it apart.

Also of interesting note.. McCain has said before that if he does not see visible signs of progress by the time it comes for him to take office that he may be forced.. even if just by public demand/opinion, to end the United States involvement in the Iraq War.

I think that goes to show you that he does understand that the people are not happy about this war and that if necessary he will pull out to satisfy Americans under the condition that things are not progressing for the better in Iraq.

At least he's not totally obtuse and understands that there is a Gray area.. not just black and white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

I would hope that the general public would be intelligent enough to take a look at McCain's voting record and his political history.

He is very much different from Bush and would be a god send in comparison.

McCain is not stupid and understands War, unlike George W. He understands that we cannot just simply leave Iraq after creating the huge mess Bush has.

If we leave the current situation there at hand with a still developing Iraqi government and military then you may very well end up with a similar situation that we have in Afghanistan. Similar to after the Soviet Union pulled out that is and Al Queda was able to step in and control the region.

Occupying is a smart move in my opinion. While I have never been for this war, I would sincerely hate for all of our time,money and American lives lost to be wasted and have the country of Iraq fall prey to outside forces or terrorist groups within their own country due to the extremely vulnerable nature of Iraq right now.

We have a responsibility to, at the very least, ensure the Iraqi people are safe after we stomped into their home and tore it apart.

---

McCain is a very different person from Bush in a lot ways. If he had prevailed in the 2000 election, we would not be in nearly as much of a nightmare as we are now. But for purposes of the election he is going to have to make his case, which I don't think he has done very well. I think if you look at his RECENT voting record, it toes the Bush line pretty closely. He needs to draw the distinction between himself and Bush more clearly or he is doomed.

I also partly agree with you on our responsibilities in Iraq. We should have never gone into Iraq in the first place, but as Colin Powell warned Bush before it even started, "You break it, you buy it." We should not leave it in chaos, and we should not allow it to become another Afghanistan. The big question is how do we do that. Is our occupation a stabilizing force or a destabilizing force? Is there any amount of money or lives we can expend that will restabilize that country? Is it our responsibility to pull it together now after five years, or the Iraqis? I don't know. One thing is for sure though --- this war has been a disaster and never should have happened, and if McCain gets linked to the blame for it without offering a vision of a way forward, he's not going to win the election. I don't think war should be subject to politics, but the fact is that people's feelings about it are so strong, and we are in an election year, so the war will likely have a bearing on how people vote, and the results will affect the conduct of the war going forward. Politics will affect this war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I also partly agree with you on our responsibilities in Iraq. We should have never gone into Iraq in the first place, but as Colin Powell warned Bush before it even started, "You break it, you buy it." We should not leave it in chaos, and we should not allow it to become another Afghanistan. The big question is how do we do that. Is our occupation a stabilizing force or a destabilizing force? Is there any amount of money or lives we can expend that will restabilize that country? Is it our responsibility to pull it together now after five years, or the Iraqis? I don't know. One thing is for sure though --- this war has been a disaster and never should have happened, and if McCain gets linked to the blame for it without offering a vision of a way forward, he's not going to win the election. I don't think war should be subject to politics, but the fact is that people's feelings about it are so strong, and we are in an election year, so the war will likely have a bearing on how people vote, and the results will affect the conduct of the war going forward. Politics will affect this war.

---

I've always like Colin Powell. Very smart man.

In regards to whether or not our occupation will stabilize the country or not.. the answer is that no one really knows.

McCain has stated that there are essentially two options and I believe this to be true. Add more troops to secure and ensure the safety of the area until it stabilizes or Pull out competely; there is no sense in fighting a war with 25-50% of the manpowr that is needed to be on the winning side.

Like McCain has said before, he will either Add more troops or pull out of Iraq depending on whether or not signifigant progress is made by the time he comes into office.

Honestly I feel that this is a somewhat acceptable answers. Determining what to do in order to clean up the mess over there is a very difficult decision to make indeed.

Yeah Pretty funny to compare Obama and Carter. I guess that means you have to compare McCain to Bush jr. Bush and Carter. I wonder which won killed more innocent civilians? Which one has butchered the constitution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrSpoof

True analogy or not, I still think most of us would like a 2nd Jimmy Carter presidency than a 3rd George W... :hippy:

DrSpiggity

---

Only extreme liberals wouldn't mind another Jimmy Carter, nearly everyone else believe Carter was a total dunce.

It is very unlikely McCain with be another Bush, he is much to liberal for that.

If you want to be taxed more and don't mind our government adapting even more socialist agenda's, than vote for Obama.

I however will be casting a protest vote for Bob Barr. I don't think he stands a shot in hell at winning but I hate the other two options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaggedEdge

Only extreme liberals wouldn't mind another Jimmy Carter, nearly everyone else believe Carter was a total dunce.

It is very unlikely McCain with be another Bush, he is much to liberal for that.

If you want to be taxed more and don't mind our government adapting even more socialist agenda's, than vote for Obama.

I however will be casting a protest vote for Bob Barr. I don't think he stands a shot in hell at winning but I hate the other two options.

---

I am actually a libertarian who was for ron paul but cannot fathom voting for bobb barr as he voted FOR the patriot act, the war and has a history of being against MMJ. This sudden turnaround Is a good thing but makes him just like the rest of the politicians who can never give straight answers or stick to there guns. Man i wish Paul would have ran independant....

I liked Ron Paul a lot as well. I honestly haven't really looked much into Barr's views, it doesn't really matter to me. I know I despise Obama and greatly dislike McCain and would just like to make the point that I'm feed up with both of the major party's.

Overall though, Bob Barr's views don't matter to me since there is no way he is going to win unless both Obama and McCain are assassinated before the election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaggedEdge

Only extreme liberals wouldn't mind another Jimmy Carter, nearly everyone else believe Carter was a total dunce.

It is very unlikely McCain with be another Bush, he is much to liberal for that.

If you want to be taxed more and don't mind our government adapting even more socialist agenda's, than vote for Obama.

I however will be casting a protest vote for Bob Barr. I don't think he stands a shot in hell at winning but I hate the other two options.

---

Agreed. Everyone has apparently forgotten about the gas lotteries...

And McCain is far too liberal to be another George W. Bush (not that Bush is even remotely close to what a Republican SHOULD be). McCain has stuck his finger in the eye of every Republican that he could. He's only suddenly changing his semi-liberal views for new "Republican" ones.

Mind you, these men are NOT really Republican. That's only what they deem themselves. Real Republicans are Libertarians.

I have a feeling it's going to another looooooooong 4-8 years.

I'm Voting Republican

This cartoon was published in the Indianapolis Star on June 8, before McCain made the Carter/Obama comparison.

http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/06082008.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

Agreed. Everyone has apparently forgotten about the gas lotteries...

And McCain is far too liberal to be another George W. Bush (not that Bush is even remotely close to what a Republican SHOULD be). McCain has stuck his finger in the eye of every Republican that he could. He's only suddenly changing his semi-liberal views for new "Republican" ones.

Mind you, these men are NOT really Republican. That's only what they deem themselves. Real Republicans are Libertarians.

I have a feeling it's going to another looooooooong 4-8 years.

---

Wow you really throw me back sometimes! A hot pot-smokin chick with libertarian views? Tell me about it, the real republican party has totally lost what it once stood for. From the patriot act to the DEA to crazy NAFTA regs. I really dont know what to do this election, I always vote but it seems to be such a lose-lose situation. I would breakdown and vote Obama but I cannot justify voting for someone just for there MMJ views, because that is pretty much the only thing I agree with him politically... And i Cant vote mccain because he is a poor excuse for a republican and someone to support civil liberties... blah!

I'm still going to write in Ron Paul. Not that it makes any difference but if you get enough people to write in a candidate it gets there attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobPA

Wow you really throw me back sometimes! A hot pot-smokin chick with libertarian views? Tell me about it, the real republican party has totally lost what it once stood for. From the patriot act to the DEA to crazy NAFTA regs. I really dont know what to do this election, I always vote but it seems to be such a lose-lose situation. I would breakdown and vote Obama but I cannot justify voting for someone just for there MMJ views, because that is pretty much the only thing I agree with him politically... And i Cant vote mccain because he is a poor excuse for a republican and someone to support civil liberties... blah!

---

Hahaha. Don't let my looks fool you. I absolutely love Politics and History. I'm a total nerd.

And Republicans have lost their souls. Instead of reducing government they create even more of it with their personal earmarks and pork barel spending. Not to mention the fact that religion has taken over.

The parties are beginning to merge into one, big massive blob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

Instead of reducing government they create even more of it with their personal earmarks and pork barel spending. Not to mention the fact that religion has taken over.

The parties are beginning to merge into one, big massive blob.

---

I have always found it funny that Republicans are "supposed" to support less government, yet, like you stated, they only give "Big Brother" more power.

I also find it funny how so many liberals in California and other states vote Dem, yet whine and complain about the Feds busting their clubs and a lack of gay rights. Voting Dem and than complaining about a lack of states rights is just humorous.

Generally, Republicans support drilling in Alaska, but it failed to pass in the Senate. I think 7 Republicans voted against it, but am not positive. Alaskans, from what I hear, seem to support drilling because they feel it will boost their economy and create more jobs. Why shouldn't "they" have the right to decide rather to drill in their territory. The Federal Government has to much power.

Isn't McCain against drilling in ANWR?

You are correct that both parties are fussing into one giant ball of crap.

I find Politics rather confusing and pathetic. Next step Totalitarianism. Welcome to 1984.

*end mindless doomsday rant*

This is what our founding fathers warned of, a HUGE government.

Politicians today have lost their way. They need to get back to the constitution and the federalist papers.

What we need is a good purge of our government. Kind of like having to clean out your closet every once and a while. The way it's set up now the politicians just vote themselves more power.

The states themselves should have the most power. That is how it was supposed to be damnit. The central government was only there to protect all the individual states during war (and a few various things, like printing money for example).

I am all for drilling in Alaska and the coast. As long as we also work on finding a new fuel source.

ANWAR is not a good idea at all. At it's max potential, it has enough oil to sustain us for 2 years, at it's low potential, 3 months. It will also take TEN years for any oil from ANWAR to reach to consumer. At best, it will result in a 3.5cent drop at the pumps. Is 3.5 cents worth the damage to the environment?


Lets look at the numbers now, people seem to forget them...

The cost outweighs the benefits with ANWR. However, while they are some parts of the interested area that harbor important ecosystems, much of it is wasteland. Some parts of that area can be drilled with minimal impact to ecosystems.

It will boost Alaska's economy and will provide us with more oil, despite how minimal you claim. If they would have began drilling in 1998 we would currently be experiencing a slight relief from rising oil prices. What is wrong with building up the reserves or lowering prices in the future, and damage to the environment would be minimal. Polar Bears are not endangered, just more BS propaganda from the left.

I agree we should look for alternative resources but we shouldn't be irrational. We won't miraculously replace oil with the snap of a finger. Fuel is very important to our military and the consumer would have to be able to afford these new "green" vehicles.

Not to mention, I love how the intellects can't predict a corn shortage because of their green fuel, ethanol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaggedEdge

It will boost Alaska's economy and will provide us with more oil, despite how minimal you claim. If they would have began drilling in 1998 we would currently be experiencing a slight relief from rising oil prices. What is wrong with building up the reserves or lowering prices in the future, and damage to the environment would be minimal. Polar Bears are not endangered, just more BS propaganda from the left.

I agree we should look for alternative resources but we shouldn't be irrational. We won't miraculously replace oil with the snap of a finger. Fuel is very important to our military and the consumer would have to be able to afford these new "green" vehicles.

Not to mention, I love how the intellects can't predict a corn shortage because of their green fuel, ethanol.

---

Your correct. Polar Bears are NOT endangered. Actually, there are more Polar Bears now than ever!

And did you know that 1/3 of the corn we grow is for ethanol? Hello food shortages! Ethanol is not the way to the future, that is for sure.