Obama: The Second Term of Jimmy Carter
By Dan | May 21, 2008 - 12:36 pm - Posted in Best Of, Edukashun, Foreign Affairs, Liberals, Politics & Policy, Reagan

Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama is fond of calling John McCain’s candidacy the “third term of George Bush.” John McCain lacks the flair necessary, but he would be far more justified in calling Barack Obama’s candidacy the second term of the Jimmy Carter failure. I would love to see a side-by-side comparison of Jimmy Carter’s and Barack Obama’s idiotic policies, but I just don’t have the time or emotional capacity to re-live the horrors of the 1970’s. Without doubt, however, the most obvious similarity between the two is their naked willingness to meet with dictators, fascists and terrorists.

Although the Obama campaign is now retreating from the dangerously naive policy set forth by Obama himself, the fact remains that Obama is open to meeting with Iran, without precondition. Preconditions, of course, are those “barriers to diplomacy,” such as “Before we meet with you, you have to stop killing U.S. soldiers and innocent civilians in Iraq,” or “Stop building your nuclear plants, or we won’t meet with you.” Obama now says that how would, of course, have “preparations” before meeting with a man who has called our ally a “rotting corpse” and promised its annihilation.

The term “preparation” is a wonderfully naive term. It makes it sound as if Obama has such a childish view of the world that he thinks McCain is criticizing him for not planning an itinerary. “Of course we’re going to have preparations. We’ve booked the flight, we have a suite of hotel rooms, and I even brought a pen and a notepad, so I can take dictation copious notes from my dear friend Mahmoud.”

In a speech on Sunday, however, Obama betrayed the depth of his naiveté.

(You should watch the video, as Obama’s “come on” demeanor speaks volumes of his attitude). Three things jumped out of his speech:

  1. Negotiations brought down the Berlin wall. This is a fundamental misstatement of history. President Reagan’s unflinching anti-Communism, aggressive expansion of our military capabilities and his refusal to talk with Soviet hardliners like Chernenko lead to the internal and external reforms. And, not to be too dramatic, but Reagan’s demand to Gorbachev that he “tear down this wall”, was not made over an ornate conference table in a quiet Swiss hotel. It was made in front of the damn wall to a cheering crowd of Germans.
  2. “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union did.” This is absurd. During the Cold War, the USSR could annihilate the United States and its allies, and vice versa. This stalemate, known as mutually assured destruction, only works with rational people. The Soviets were horribly brutal, but they were not about to cause the extinction of mankind to prove a point. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, has never been successfully accused of being a rational person. While it is true that the Iranian military poses no serious threat to the United States military, the Enola Gay, similarly posed little or no threat to the Hiroshima police force. It was the nuclear device it carried that did all that damage. Obama’s idiotic assertion that these “tiny” countries “don’t pose a serious threat to us” begs the question, how many Israeli, European or U.S. cities would have to be sacrificed in nuclear holocausts before Obama realized that one man with a bomb is a serious threat to us?
  3. “Iran spends 1/100th of what we spend on their military. If they ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they would’nt stand a chance.”I have to admit, this took me all of three minutes to debunk, most of which was spent looking for my calculator. According to publicly available data on the CIA website, Iran’s military expenditure in 2008 will be (2.5% of GDP) $21.3 billion (not sure if this includes their “peaceful nuclear program”). The U.S. military expenditure in 2008 (including fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and deployments on every continent) will be (4.05% of GDP) $561.3 billion. No matter how you cut it, Iran spends way more than 1/100th of what America spends on their military. In real dollars, Iran spends 1/25th of what the U.S. does on it’s military (four times what Obama implies). In terms of percentage of GDP, Iran spends more than half of what the U.S. spends. Per capita, Iran spends 1/6th what the United States spends. Anyway you look at the numbers 1/100th isn’t even close.

Obama has proven himself, again and again, to be naive on foreign policy (even suggesting we invade an ally and nuclear power, Pakistan). Although he seems to be backing off of his ridiculous policy now, who will be the voice of reason when, God forbid, President Obama’s ridiculous and dangerous ideas are not reigned in by an opposing nominee?

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 21st, 2008 at 12:36 pm and is filed under Best Of, Edukashun, Foreign Affairs, Liberals, Politics & Policy, Reagan. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


  1. May 21, 2008 @ 4:52 pm

    Does any of this sound familiar?

    “[This] will not be a year of politics as usual. It can be a year of inspiration and hope, and it will be a year of concern, of quiet and sober reassessment of our nation’s character and purpose. It has already been a year when voters have confounded the experts.

    “There is a new mood in America. We have been shaken by a tragic war abroad and by scandals and broken promises a home. Our people are searching for new voices and new ideas and new leaders.

    “We have been without leadership too long. We have had divided and deadlocked government too long.

    “It is time for America to move and to speak not with boasting and belligerence but with a quiet strength, to depend in world affairs not merely on the size of on arsenal but on the nobility of ideas.

    “It is time for us to take a new look at our own government, to strip away the secrecy, to expose the unwarranted pressure of lobbyists.

    “It is time for a nationwide comprehensive health program for all our people.

    “We can have an American government that does not oppress or spy on its own people but respects our dignity and our privacy and our right to be let alone.”

    These are not quotes from Obama, although he has expressed the same. These are actually excerpts from “Our Nation’s Past and Future:” Acceptance speech delivered by the Democratic Party nominee, Gov. Jimmy Carter, July 15, 1976.

    Posted by Been There Done That
  2. May 21, 2008 @ 5:48 pm

    I would take a different route to debunk Obama’s great theories.

    Mr. Koolaid has absolutely no idea of how absurd some of his comparisons sound in hindsight (His grandma being scared of a black guy to his reverend’s public racist rants being one that can’t be be beat but this one may take the cake).

    The term 1/100th has nothing to do with what it can provide in return. It is like saying Al Queda had no money to go against US before 9/11.

    It was estimated that it cost Bin Laden less than one million (I remember 650k) to cause greater than several billion dollars of direct damage and several hudndred billion in indirect damage. So how does what one spends relate back to what US spends?

    A nuclear bomb is not that expensive to build once you can get the technology. So military budget is irrelevant. All it takes is one sneak attack with a good bomb to make unbelievable damage. So what sane person in their right mind would think this way? I have seen middle school debaters make better points than this crap Mr. Bridge is making. We have such great MSM that not one took offence to this stupidity.

    Posted by who cares
  3. May 21, 2008 @ 7:07 pm

    So what do you propose we do about Iran? Invade it as we did with Iraq? That has turned out just great! 34,000 dead and wounded. Close to $1 trillion spent–spending $200 billion per year (all borrowed by the way from China, Saudis etc who just get richer at our expense). Our National Debt has soared from $5 trillion to almost $10 trillion. How about oil–up from $30/barrel to over $130/barrel. Gas up from $1.30 to almost $4/gallon. America’s standing in the world at its lowest point since Vietnam.
    Yeah, you’re right, things have gone so well with invading Iraq that we should just invade Iran. And watch oil go to $500/barrel and gas to $20/gallon.
    The credibility of you war-mongers is at an all-time low. The American public ain’t buying what you, Bush, and McCain are selling.

    Posted by Mike S
  4. May 21, 2008 @ 7:28 pm

    Face the facts, Obama screwed the pooch on foreign policy during one of the Democratic debates when he said he, the President of the United States, would sit down and meet face-to-face without preconditions with countries like Iran. He must love that pooch because he’s back at it again. He now claims there will be no pre-conditions prior to meeting face-to-face with the likes of Iran, but there will be “preparation”. Preparation? Sounds like Preparation H to me.

    Posted by Occam
  5. May 21, 2008 @ 8:19 pm

    What is wrong with face-to-face meetings with our enemies? Didn’t we meet with the Soviet Union’s leaders? Didn’t we meet with the Chinese? No one says you have to be weak in negotiations–but why are Bush and McCain afraid to talk to the Iranians? It’s better than starting another unnecessary war like Iraq!

    Posted by Mike S
  6. May 21, 2008 @ 10:06 pm


    You speak as if there is no other option, meet without precondition or go to war.

    That is not the way it works. You simply do not meet “leaders” of rogue nations without precondition. That is a very immature notion. Inexperience causes this type of statement. Now he is prancing about presumptously announcing himself King before the votes are even inHE is afraid to debate Hillary so he decides in his ever so arrogant, passive aggressive, misogynistic way to try to ignore her He personally blocked the revote in Fl and MI disenfranchising millions of voters instead of fighting FOR them to vote and tried to bribe Hillary into quiting by offering her 25 mil.
    It’s the only way he knows how to run a campaign, bribes and legal manuevering. Just look at his record, look at all the races he’s run prior to this. Every one of them, he used legal manuevers to get his opponents removed from the ballot. Hillary is his first actual competitor. He is too chicken to debate her, how do you think he will do up against the leader of a rogue nation? He’s too wimpy to be President, he can’t even handle debating.

    Posted by Kathryn
  7. May 21, 2008 @ 10:47 pm

    I keep hearing it is debate he will win with McCain and everytime he says that it sounds ridiculous coming from a guy who is scared to debate a woman who said she will debate him anytime, anywhere with no moderators so they won’t ask the tough questions. Same guy who made sure a woman was nt his opponent on a techicality and trying to make sure Florida and Michigan did nt count until they don’t matter. This is the guy who is supposed to change the culture in Washington, one who wants to take advantage of every political opportunity he can make use of?

    Iran is in trouble without people having to go fight them. There are lot of ways America can take care of it without an invasion or having to meet a moron. Either way, the justifications provided by Mr. Bridge are so silly (the countries are too small to have an impact, makes me puke to think that he might actually become US president but we did elect Mr Rove twice). I have nt seen an original idea out of this pretender either so far other than messianic speeches and stupid similes.

    I guess we will never see another balanced budget in our life time. One wants to keep fighting and the other wants to tax the golden goose until it dies to fund a lot of people never to work again.

    Posted by who cares
  8. May 28, 2008 @ 10:17 am

    Obama’s presidency will bring about a new era of conservatism. This is why we must allow Obama to become the “2nd term of Jimmy Carter.” The Republican party needs to be overhauled and turned back into what it once was: a “big tent” that housed social, fiscal, and neo-conservatives.

    Currently, the social conservatives have been ignored and driven out of the party. The fiscal-conservatives have also forgotten what it really means to be a fi-con (economically responsible, less government, less taxes - they’ve become just less tax, more government, and spend, spend, spend). The neo-cons are the only ones left in the Republican establishment.

    We need a “wake-up” call similar to what the Democrats/liberals have had. That “wake-up” call will be Barack Obama. When he becomes President, he will ruin this country, thus, bringing about true “change.” A true conservative will be elected after Obama’s failed presidency. Bet on it.

    Posted by ClickClick
  9. June 5, 2008 @ 10:28 pm

    ClickClick: excellent point. We may have to suffer through a second Carter term before we can enjoy a third Reagan term. Let’s just hope we don’t go bankrupt or suffer a total collapse during those four dark years.

    Posted by IGnatius T Foobar

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.