Should Democrats use the "Carter model" for next election ?

[kentuck]

I'm not debating whether or not Carter was a good President, I happen to think he was much better than what he is accorded. But it was the manner in which he was elected. America was coming off a very corrupt Republican Administration, because Ford was only an extension of the Nixon Admnistration. The people were looking for a change. They were looking for honesty in government and someone they could trust. Jimmy Carter was a person they could trust. Would that work for the Democrats once again?

[zanne]

1. I don't think we could ever trust like that again.

I hate to say it, but our naivete is gone. Kaput. Finis.

[fishwax]

12. very true n/t

[blm]

2. GOP didn't control the broadcast media the way they do now. Jesus Christ

would be turned into a craven opportunist who lies about his record - RevMoon would pour billions into the GOP to make sure it happened.

[Laelth]

6. Too true.

n/t

-Laelth

[blm]

8. That says it all.

Thanks - I hadn't seen that graphic, but it really tells the story, doesn't it?

That's what ANY Dem has coming at them - no matter what the facts, no matter what the record clearly states.

[Eric J in MN]

11. It's from Mad Magazine. Instant classic. (nt)

nt

[Laelth]

13. It's better to laugh than to cry.

It's pretty clear that the party of the fundinazis isn't very Christian.

And their control of the media is a major hurdle to any progress in the US. The left needs its own television network, a left-wing version of FOX. We can't trust corporate media to give us a fair shake.

-Laelth

[mitchum]

3. Honesty AND anger....

because more and more people ARE angry about the corrupt sonsofbitches running this country off a cliff

[Radical Activist]

4. Yes, we should.

That means the kind of spineless Democrat who always takes the most convenient position won't be electable in 2008. It will take someone consistent in their views that shows real conviction. It also rules out anyone who voted for the Iraq war and still defends their vote.

[karynnj]

5. I would think that having a person you can trust should be standard

but I know that it's not.

Last election people had a choice of a man who was easily one of most honest, cleanest men in politics. He said very often that he would not lie to us and there was nothing in anything that he said that could be pointed to as a lie. The other choice was a man who seemed incapable of telling when he was lying. The outcome is known.

[Telly Savalas]

7. What's the alternative?

Running someone who is seedy and suspicious?

[karynnj]

14. Absolutely agree - We should never ever accept a candidate

who is not honest and trust worthy - and I would give almost all the Democratic candidates for 2004 credit in this regard. All the main candidates were honest men of good character. It is a basic minimum.

[loyalsister]

9. The "have a nice day 70s" are long gone

These 20 and 30 somethings are either cynical or fundies.
But, the truth is both qualities may crave a candidate with exactly Jimmy Carter's appeal.

[last_texas_dem]

10. I think it could definitely work

The Repugs have definitely given us plenty of corruption to run an anti-corruption campaign against. It seems like the public is receptive from time to time to these sorts of campaigns; the Dems succeeded in the midterm election after Watergate and with Carter's election, while the Repugs were helped by fallout from the House Banking Scandal in the early nineties (the Dems were the Congressional majority so had more members involved) and, to a degree, in the Newt-led "Contract on America" midterm of '94. It's more of an uphill battle in terms of swinging a large number of seats into the Dem column with more "safe" seats than ever before due to gerrymandering, but historical trends (the Pres. party generally losing seats in midterms, especially during second terms) and an unusually high number of scandals disproportionately concerning Republicans could make a difference. The Dems' biggest problem is, as it has been as long as we've been out of the majority in Congress and especially since we've been out of the presidency, getting the message out and not letting the Repugs and the corporate media define what we stand for.

[karynnj]

16. The danger is that the Republicans could

position McCain as the reform candidate of impeccable honesty - even though McCain is not anywhere near as genuine and clean as he appears. In reality, Feingold and Kerry have far better credentials on this. Neither have ever taken PAC money and neither have any scandals in their pasts. McCain was one of the Keating 5. Feingold is the other half of McCain/Feingold. Kerry and Wellstone sponsored a far more comprehensive reform - the clean elections act. Feingold spoke in favor of that bill. (To Feingold, McCain/Feingold was likely what was passable at that point in time.

Kerry's fight against his own party in his determination to bring down BCCI which was very involved in money laundering, drug running and terrorism could really be turned into a great story.

[yurbud]

15. carter with more bark = Howard Dean

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Carter ran as an outsider

If the American electorate is still unhappy with the way things are going in 2008, someone like a Governor (or former Governor) may be just what voters are looking for.