We’ve seen the MSM’s work over the last eight to ten years. They harrassed Bush on every policy topic (some of it deserved). When they couldn’t dig up dirt on him, they used forged documents to try to steal an election. They were persistent; covering or exagerrating failures, and refusing to cover successes. We all watched it. In the end, they carried the Democrat’s narrative to the people, turning the perception from a mediocre presidency, to a terrible one.
Then came Obama. Triumphs, real or imagined, were touted. Failures and past associations were ignored. Lies were glossed over, and blatent contradictions were neglected. As we have gone through the first 18+ months of the current administration, we’ve seem them carry water, ignore key details of Democratic legislation, get all “tingly,” smear and openly lie about his opponents, and the like. It’s as if they’ve become the modern day equivalent of the Soviet era Pravada, or Tass, with some Alinsky thrown in for good measure.
As their “progressive” peers in government have had their arses handed to them again and again, are in real jeopardy of losing HUGE in November, we seen the mouthpieces becoming increasingly shrill. The propaganda has become more desperate. I have to be honest, it’s been fun to watch.
And just when you thought that the unreality bubble couldn’t get any thicker, then comes this.
(Lets have some fun and parse some of this fail…)
Noting an “image of ‘a failed President’ haunts the Carters,” Stahl trumpeted: “Carter argues that despite the image of failure, he actually had a long list of successes, starting with bringing all the hostages home alive,” as if that wasn’t because of Ronald Reagan’s inauguration. Stahl proceeded to tout as a success his installation of “solar panels on the roof of the White House.”
Wow, I mean, solar panels are not a viable energy sourse now, but the technology of 40 years ago had to be better, right? It was a symbolic gesture, and it’s ignored that Reagan left them up there until 1986, that means SIX years.
Absolving Carter of responsibility, Stahl contended he “was cursed by a dismal economy, poor relations with Congress, and a nightmarish standoff over 52 Americans held hostage by Iran.” Yet, “when all is said and done, and many will be surprised to hear this,” Stahl insisted, “Jimmy Carter got more of his programs passed than Reagan and Nixon, Ford, Bush 1, Clinton or Bush 2.” She empathized with his treatment from an unappreciative public: “And yet, as I say, there’s the sense that you were a failed President.”
And the results of those programs?
- Double digit inflation.
- Doulbe digit interest rates
- Gas lines
- The CRA (that eventually led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis)
- The Department of Education (Billions spent, and it seems that the only beneficiaries have been the teacher’s union).
- The rust belt (Trust me, I grew up there).
Apparently wrecking the country wasn’t taken into account in that success, or was it? Come to think of it, if that is they define success, how do they define failure? I mean, you can pass a whole lot of stuff, but if it’s either ineffective or destructive, is that really something to brag about?
STAHL: Carter argues that despite the image of failure, he actually had a long list of successes, starting with bringing all the hostages home alive. He normalized relations with China, brokered a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, deregulated railroads, trucking, airlines and telephones; and his energy conservation programs resulted in a 50 percent cut in imported oil, down to just 4.3 million barrels a day.
I rather thought that Reagan’s election scared the you-know-what-out of the islamofascists. Funny that they were realeased right after Reagan’s inauguration.
Cutting imported oil? Could it be that the Iranian revolution cut the supply? Or will he acknowledge that the cost went sky high? And those gas lines? Great fun for all, let me tell you.
Did I mention that he also gave away the Panama Canal?
Balance: He did help broker the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. That can be interpreted as an acomplishment.
I could go on forever on this. The documentation of Carter’s failure is a mile wide, and just a deep. The fact that the MSM is trying to spin this into something else is moving beyond naïve and into psychosis.
On the other hand, maybe this is similar to how Nixon was treated when he re-emerged before his death. Folks, and even the media, were generally kind to him. Carter, while he has been public, and controversial, is nearing the end of his life, so perhaps he’s getting the same “doddering old man pass” that Nixon received. While Nixon was a crook, Carter was worse. Carter was the kind that committed evil while he thought he was doing good. Of course, that nuance is completely beyond our left’s ability to comprehend.