Talk:Jimmy Carter

What was Carter's "Southern Strategy"

Carter won "the slave states" and kept the south solid after Nixon and before Reagan. Obviously he must have gone to some amazing lengths to stoke racism in the region. His "dog whistles" must have been positively audible. Any thoughts?

First elected from the deep south since 48?

Trumam was from Missouri. Some people consider Missouri the South, but it is definately not the Deep South. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.95.47 (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not the geographical location what makes it the deep south... Xmzx (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Scaling of Jimmy and Lillian Carter.gif

The thumbnail of the image "Jimmy and Lillian Carter.gif" isn't scaled properly despite having the "thumb" tag. If you check the image properties of the thumbnail, it's still at a resolution of 600px × 409px. This makes the image look distorted and unprofessional. But I'm not sure how to fix it. Deepblue9000 (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Carter leaves Southern Baptist Convention

"Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God. I have been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service. [...]" Jimmy Carter, Loosing my religion for equality

I think this is worth to be integrated into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.36.139 (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Every few months there's a new news story about Jimmy Cater "leaving" the Southern Baptist Convention. In fact, Cater's only actions concerning the SBC happened almost a decade ago, and these new news articles are stale and have lost their newsworthiness. While the former president's religious views may be worthy of Wikipedia notability, it should be noted that the above suggested quote only appeared as new "news" sparked by a recent article from the London Observer, which was subsequently picket up in other British-influenced news agencies. (The citation above isn't even to the original article, only a syndication.) The problem with this quote, and with further reference to Jimmy Carter and SBC, is that Jimmy Cater was never a member or otherwise affiliated with the SBC in any way. The SBC has no membership and no means of individual affiliation on any level, whether formally or informally. (The SBC has member churches as well as employees for internal operations, but there is no level of membership or affiliation for individuals whatsoever. Carter himself was never an employee or other agent of the organization.) In essence, Carter's actions back in 2000 are nothing more than the former president's personal views on a particular denomination. Perhaps if there was a separate section on Carter's criticism of denominations, such quotes would be more appropriate. However, whatever the reference may be, it should be noted that there were never any "ties" to sever with the SBC; rather, Carter's merely announced his beliefs in conflict with a particular organization.

Finally, the above notwithstanding, I don't think that an op-ed piece written by an individual even remotely meets Wikipedia's citation standards. In essence, this is nothing more than an opinion letter to the editor of a newspaper. It happens to be an op-ed piece written by a former US president, but I don't think that justifies giving it more credence.168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Reelection bid

The sentence in question reads: "Ultimately, the combination of the economic problems, Iran hostage crisis, and lack of Washington cooperation made it easy for Reagan to portray him as an ineffectual leader, causing Carter to become the first president since 1932 to lose a reelection bid."

I made a small change, adding the words to the end of the sentence: "after securing his party's nomination." Truman and LBJ both withdrew after poor performances in the primaries.

This was reverted by Unitanode because, "redundant; u can't lose the election UNLESS you win ur party's nom."

Fair enough. Except we were talking about "bids," not "elections." The purpose of this sentence is to show that Carter's 1980 loss was something that hadn't happened in 48 years. That would be interesting, if both Truman and LBJ didn't win renomination after making a reelection bid. But they did make those bids, and failed, if not lost. You can't keep both "lost" and "bid" in this part of the sentence. In light of Truman and LBJ, it's misleading. My correction removed the misleading angle, and now has been reverted.

I'd recommend removing the "1932 angle" altogether and simply say, "causing Carter to lose the national election." Or something like that. (Note from 7/31: I removed the angle altogether. Was Ford's 1976 loss a "reelection bid." In fact, Carter was the third of the previous four presidents to fail in a reelection bid.)

Train60 (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is terrible

His term as Governor and after the Presidency are covered in fair detail. His presidency is less than an inch on my computer screen. This is terrible and unbalanced. This needs fixing. User F203 (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I lived through the Carter Administration and think the "one-inch" segment about covers it. Face it, he did not accomplish much except place the U.S. in dire straits with the USSR, exhibited weakness in the Middle East and did nothing to strengthen the American economy. The failures of the Carter Administration are some explanation for Reagan's landslide victories. bf2002 talk) 16:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that the information during his presidency, specifically the economic issues need to be addressed, from inflation rates, interest rates, gasoline shortages, windfall profits tax (which decimated the oil exploration and production of the US) etc. Do you not remember the "its the economy" mantra that killed his re-election.70.167.47.106 (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Carter's Book

As Carter's book on Israel has been derided by his own former employees of the Carter Center and experts like Alan Dershowtiz the section should reflect that in that section.Tannim1 (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz is an expert in American criminal law. That doesnt mean he is an expert in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And many, many people have also lauded Carter's book. And the book has its own article and even responses to the book has its own article. This is a biography of Jimmy Carter and how Alan Dershowitz feels about a book Carter wrote is not a detail that is needed in this article. nableezy - 08:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Carter was a mediocre President what makes him an expert? Dershowits has written several books and unlike Carter gives a more balanced view. At first I thought you were trying to be helpful to a new user but it seems you have a PC agenda.Tannim1 (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldnt cite Carter on facts about the Middle East, but he does have one of these which your favorite "expert" lacks. Dershowitz is an expert in his own opinion on the conflict, not much else. But you didnt respond to what I wrote, just kept carrying on a pretend argument. What Dershowitz thinks about Carter's book is not relevant to a biography of Carter. nableezy - 16:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I most certainly would cite Carter as an expert on the Middle East. How many peace treaties for Israel has Dershowitz negotiated? Frankly, this whole section should be deleted as a talk page is not the place for substantive discussion of political issues. Academic38 (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)