Roger Sharp Archive: President Jimmy Carter on 1980 Campaign (3/21/1980)

Source:The New Democrat

As much trouble as President Jimmy Carter was in politically in 1979-80, having an approval rating somewhere in the thirties and looking very vulnerable to Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential election with all of the economic problems and the Iranian Hostage Crisis, President Carter whipped Senator Ted Kennedy in most of the Democratic presidential primaries. Senator Kennedy didn't win many if any states outside of the Northeast in 1980.

With a better stronger more personally disciplined presidential candidate with the same popularity in the Democratic Party as Ted Kennedy had, President Carter would've been a lot more vulnerable and perhaps isn't renominated for president. But Ted Kennedy turned out to be a lousy presidential candidate for a few reasons.

He didn't want to be president and was running out of some obligation he believed he had to the Democratic Party.

He didn't even know why he wanted to be president as Roger Mudd made clear in the CBS interview.

And he had a lot of personal issues that he was dealing with at that time. Like getting divorced and rumors around he was involved with multiple women.

William Shanley: Jimmy Carter Discusses His Presidency (1983)

Source:The New Democrat

I'm not going to try to make the case that Jimmy Carter was a great president, or one of our best president's, because he clearly wasn't. I have a lot of respect for Jimmy Carter as a man and even to a certain extent for him as president. But he had so much on his plate when he came into the White House in 1977 and that just grew with the economy going down and even into recession in 1979-80 and with everything that came up in foreign affairs, that I'm not sure anyone would've been very successful as president in just four years on those issues.

A big reason why Jimmy Carter was elected President of the United States in 1976 was because he was an outsider. Washington was very unpopular in the mid 1970s with Congress and the Federal Government more broadly because of Watergate and the gridlock that was going on. And here comes this Washington outsider who had never worked or served in Washington, who was a successful Governor of Georgia who had a lot of appeal because he was an outsider. And who ran as someone who would always tell the truth and would always do what he believes was right.

The fact that Jimmy Carter was such a complete outsider to Washington I believe was part of his downfall. It was not just that he was an outsider, but most of his White House staff except for a few including his Vice President Walter Mondale were outsiders as well. People with little to no experience in how the Federal Government works and how Congress works. And not knowing how to deal with Congress. One of President Carter's classic mistakes was when he ran against Congress as President as someone who would take on Congress.

The Problem with that strategy was that his own party controlled Congress both the House and Senate and with big majorities in both chambers. And he needed to be able to work with his own party to get his policies enacted. He not only ran against Congress, but he was a liberal New Democrat back in the late 1970s when that didn't become popular until the early 1990s, dealing with a progressive New Deal/Great Society Democratic Congress that wanted to expand the safety net in America. And go back to the 1960s economically.

Jimmy Carter is one of those classic examples as someone who would've done much better as President had he had some real experience in Washington before he became President. George W. Bush falls into this category as well. But had Carter served in Congress before the White House in either chamber or both chambers and then went back to Georgia to run his business and serve as Governor before he became President. Or served in the executive branch like in the cabinet or a combination of both executive experience at the Federal level and Congressional experience before going back to Georgia he would've had the experience to do much better as President.

I see Jimmy Carter as an underrated President because of his success's in foreign policy as it did with the nuclear arms agreement with Russia. His dealings with China, the Middle East peace agreement with Egypt and Israel, the Panama Canal Treaty, keeping America out of war as President, making human rights the priority of his foreign policy which contributed to the opposition in Eastern Europe gaining strength and being able to take on the authoritarian regimes in Eastern Europe. And with energy policy in trying to move America off of foreign oil. So I would give President Carter a B or perhaps even a B+ as President, but not one of our great president's.

Warner Brothers: Helter Skelter (1976) Story of The Charles Manson Family

Source:Warner Brothers- Looks like part of the filming of the 1976 Helter Skelter movie.

Source:The Daily Press

"Helter Skelter - Trailer"

From Warner Brothers 

"The investigation and trial of the horrific Tate-LaBianca mass murders orchestrated by the psychotic pseudo-hippie cult leader, Charles Manson."

Source:INDB- "Helter Skelter (TV Mini-Series 1976)"

From IMDB

In 1976 there was a two-part TV mini-series I believe on CBS about the Manson Crime Family from the late 1960s and even after their leader Charles Manson was arrested in late 1969 for his role in the Tate murders and other murders during the Manson Family murder spree from the summer of 1969, a summer Los Angeles will never forget.

The Manson Family was still in business so to speak in the early 1970s and even up to 1975 with Lynette Squeaky Frohm's attempt to assassinate President Gerald Ford.

And this mini-series was about the murders of the Manson Family in the Summer of 1969 and other business about the Manson Family. It was not a religious cult, there was some spirituality in it. But it was basically about a petty thief, pimp, career criminal who was never very good at staying out of prison. Who would get released from prison for the last time in the mid 1960s and work his way to the San Francisco area, pick up some girls in their late teens early 20s who ran away from home.

These were young adults late teens for the most part who seemed somewhat lost and build a family made up of high school and college dropouts. People that they believed were kissed off from society and Charlie Manson finally found a group of people who seemed like him, somewhat lost in the World. That didn't seem to fit in with mainstream society and he founded his soldiers that would take out their anger against mainstream society.

Charlie Manson wasn't intelligent in the sense that he was well-educated, he didn't get through high school or make it to high school. He grew up in prison basically, in juvenile hall and probably didn't spend much time in school there. He never knew his father and his mother was a prostitute who didn't spend much time with her son and Charlie got moved around a lot as a kid. And probably didn't feel very loved, as an FBI profiler once said about Manson on NBC Dateline: "Charlie Manson is an example of what happens when we don't raise our kids well".

Society in a sense has some blame here for creating Charlie Manson. Not to excuse Manson because he's exactly where he belongs and will and should never leave prison. But society isn't innocent here in the creation of Charlie Manson.

And what Manson had in his crime family were the people who would take out revenge for him against society: "If you were part of the establishment and successful in life, living in the Los Angeles area and they knew about you, you were a target of the Manson Family". To paraphrase Vince Bugliosi who prosecuted the Manson Family. Charlie wasn't stupid but he wasn't educated either.

Charlie Manson had talent to play and write music, but also to read people and know how they work and how he could work them up to the point where he could make people kill for him, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwenkell, Leslie Van Houten, Susan Atkins and others. And they found their targets in actress Sharon Tate, Karen Folger and others and killed them.

The Manson Family murders were some of the worst murders ever committed. Adolph Hitler, Saddam Hussein would've been proud of these murders.

The Manson victims literally being stabbed and hanged to death in their own homes and their blood being spread around their homes. The Manson Family literally left their mark and were begging for the death penalty with their murders. And we're given the death penalty before the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty in I believe 1973. The only reason why these serial murderers are alive today. Their lives being spared something they didn't do for their victims and they are the poster children for why we need to raise our kids well.

And the Manson Crime Family had to be stopped for them to pay their debt to society. But to put them out of business so they couldn't strike again. 

HBO Sports: Lombardi: How Vince Lombardi Impacted the Washington Redskins

Source:The Daily Press

In the 1960s the Redskins weren't bad at least starting around 1964 when they traded quarterback Norm Snead to Philadelphia for future Hall of Famer Sonny Jurgenson. They also picked up tailback/receiver Charlie Taylor who would also end up in the Hall of Fame and you could make a good case that he's the best WR of his era and of all time. And they picked up TB/WR Bobby Mitchell in 1962, who's also in the Hall of Fame. Drafted tight end Jerry Smith who should also be in the Hall of Fame. Drafted linebacker Chris Hamburger who just went in to the Hall of Fame. Hall of Fame LB Sam Huff was still there.

The Redskins weren't bad in the 1960s, but they weren't very good either, they only had one winning season, 1969 Vince Lombardi's only season in Washington and had several 7-7 seasons and a few 6-8 seasons, but they were building a lot of the success that the Redskins had in the 1970s started in the 1960s with the players that they drafted, including tailback Larry Brown in 1969 the Redskins first 1000 yard rusher. The Redskins had some of the best passing offenses in the NFL in the 1960s from 1964 and on, but they never had a solid running game until 1969 with Larry Brown.

But they also had some of the worst defenses in this decade unlike the 1970s and 80s when they were always in the top 10 in defense with George Allen and then Joe Gibbs where they win five NFC Finals from 1972-91 and three Super Bowls in that same period. Which is why Vince Lombardi and George Allen were so important for the Redskins to change the culture in how they operated.

When George Allen took over the Redskins in 1971 as head coach/general manager, I believe he knew he had a good nucleus, but that he had to add to it to make the Redskins a winner and contender. Which is what he did, he did not come to Washington from Los Angeles, where he was one game away from the Super Bowl a few times to have a 500 team or a team that barely has a winning record, but he wanted to build a champion win the NFC East, the NFC Final and the Super Bowl. He had very good teams with the Rams that always had one of the best defenses which was his background. He was George Halas's defensive coordinator with (da Bears) before he went to Los Angeles to be the Rams head coach.

His philosophy was simple. Tough take charge defense that takes away the run to attack the QB. Run the ball on offense, protect the QB and take a few shots down field on offense off of play-action and win the turnover battle. That if you do these things well you'll win much more than you lose and when he came to Washington that's what he wanted to establish. He knew he had a good group that he had to add a few pieces to make them winners and contenders,which is why he brought in some Rams, like defensive tackle Diron Talbert who reminds me a little of DT Dave Butz who Allen also brought to Washington. As well as linebacker Jack Pardee who would later be the Redskins head coach from 1978-80 and others. 

The Redskins in the George Allen era were nicknamed the "Over the Hill Gang", not because his players couldn't play anymore, but because most of them were in their thirty's when they got there. Or were going bald or were coming from teams, like QB Billy Kilmer's case that no longer wanted them and when you get released from the New Orleans Saints like Kilmer did in 1971 you are starting over and trying to find a place for yourself. Because the Saints were awful their first few years, but it all worked for Allen in Washington because he sold them on the idea that they are here to win. "Thats why I brought you here and kept you here to win and become champions". Something a lot of these players had never done before.

NFL Films: The 1972-73 Washington Redskins

Source:NFL Films- Washington Redskins Head Coach/General Manager George Allen (1971-77)

Source:The Daily Press 

"This is old footage from 1972 that shows George Allen as Washington Redskins head coach and running-back and kickoff return specialist Herb Mul-Key (#28) filling in for an injured running back Larry Brown against the Buffalo Bills in 1972.  Mul-Key was a walk-on who would have had a much more notable career if he wasn't always playing hurt.  O.J. Simpson is also shown briefly in this video as well as old-timers Sonny Jurgensen and Billy Kilmer are also shown but the commentator seems to focus on Herb Mul-Key. I am not sure, but I think the last clip shown is Herb Mul-Key running back a 97-yard kickoff return against the St. Louis Cardinals in 1973.  The next evening on ABC Monday Night Football 09/24/73 Howard Cosell made one of his verbal gaffs using the term "little monkey." 

From Howard Cosell Fan

The 1972 Redskins didn't win the NFC Eastern Division Championship their first in thirty years or win the NFC Final their first in thirty years because they had overwhelming talent. They had very good talent with wide receivers Charlie Taylor, WR Roy Jefferson, tight end Jerry Smith and tailback Larry Brown. And on defense with people like defensive tackle Diron Talbert, linebacker Chris Hamburger, LB Jack Pardee and others, one of the best defenses in the NFL. I believe the best in the NFC that only gave up 217 points. They didn't accomplish these things because of great talent. They weren't the Cowboys Doomsday Defense, or the Vikings Purple People Eaters or the Rams Fearsome Foursome or the Steelers Steel Curtain.

They were a bunch of tough guys who could play who all had character, that all wanted to win and never were champions before. Thats why George Allen the Redskins head coach/general manager brought them to Washington to become champions. George Allen's whole philosophy was about the team, "how do I get forty men (as was the case back then) to play the best that they can and play together". (And I know this sounds corny)

But thats how George Allen operated. His favorite drink was milk probably because he didn't spend much time drinking other things or even thinking about other drinks that he liked, because he was all about his team. "How do I get them to play the best that they can and play together at the same time". And everything else including his family came after his team as his kids would tell you. In the 1960s the Redskins had a pass first explosive offense that was built around QB Sonny Jurgenson, WR Charlie Taylor, WR Bobby Mitchell and TE Jerry Smith. That didn't run the ball very well or play a lot of defense, sort of like the Miami Dolphins with Dan Marino in the 1980s.

But George Allen came from the Chicago Bears and Los Angeles Rams where they played tough defense always had one of the best defenses in the NFL. With ball control offenses so thats exactly what he wanted to establish in Washington, but the difference being that he was able to bring those defenders to Washington. Diron Talbert, Jack Pardee, but had a lot more offensive talent to go with his defense, which made the Redskins very explosive on both sides of the ball.

Allen inherited a team that was like 5-9 in 1970 the year Vince Lombardi died and took them to 10-4 and into the NFC Playoffs and 11-3 in 1972 as they won the NFC East, beat the Cowboys in the 1972 NFC Final, became NFC Champions. And went to Super Bowl 7 where they lost to the undefeated Miami Dolphins, but I believed the Redskins had the better team. The 1972 Redskins were a team that represent what a good team looks like, with star players, but other players on the team who are also good. But know their roles and everyone playing together and playing their roles.

George Allen was not perfect, the way he handled Sonny Jurgenson and Billy Kilmer and then later Joe Theisman. All three of them playing at the same time was a tragic mistake, that I believe cost him a championship. Sonny Jurgenson was clearly his best QB and should've led his teams until he retired instead of splitting time with Billy Kilmer. Who was at best a journeyman QB and a part-time starter and Joe Theisman should've replaced Jurgenson when Sonny retired. But George Allen's whole philosophy was built around "how to get the most out of my team at the same time to win as many games as possible" and he had a lot of success with that philosophy.

Lewis Black: In God We Rust

Source:The Daily Press

If you want to know what demagoguery, paranoia, exaggeration is, or what being obsess is, then just watch the Glen Beck Show or whatever he calls it now. Just don't ask me to help you spell those things. Because there you have it unless you're severely learning disabled, blind and death you'll get an excellent idea of what all of those things are. Glen Beck has a habit of taking minor things and making them look like tragedy's or crisis's, the exact type of person who shouldn't be President of the United States.

Glen Beck shouldn't be an executive in any other type of government because he lacks an even keel, the ability to see things as they are and not freak out about them. Like with the health care reform debate in 2009-10, where Glen Beck accused President Obama of hating Caucasian people because he wanted to tax tanning salons which I'm guessing is something that Mr. Beck doesn't use very often. Or may not even know where one is.

Which is like saying people who believe the Palestinians deserve their own state must mean that they hate the Jewish people which is nonsense .You need more to go on then just that. I've never taken Beck seriously and have chosen not to. I prefer to see him as a libertarian comedian which he is rather than some intelligent political analyst. I just prefer to do that before I label someone ignorant as a sack of bricks. Or has an IQ below freezing, makes both George W. Bush and Sarah Palin look like genius's. You can add Sarah Palin to that list with Rick Perry towards the top as far as new applicants.

I don't listen to Glen Beck very often except for on YouTube, I've made that decision. Because even though I find him to be funny, my level of tolerance for nonsense is very low. I have that same policy for a lot of the Republican Party right now except for their leadership and presidential candidates. Because as a blogger I feel the need to keep up to date with them. I've made the decision not to listen to a lot of these people, because the amount of what they don't know is enough to fill up the Rose Bowl in Pasadena a Stadium with 100K Seats. For all you non-sports fans like my mother.

Or as Ronald Reagan said, but about the Democrats, "they know so much that is not true". I do listen to what Beck has to say about progressivism and socialism, because he's funny when he goes off on them. And his facts tend to be pretty good, its just when he relates the entire Democratic Party with these politics he loses me like Chris Rock cracking a redneck joke at a KKK rally. Because again it gets back to his demagoguery and hyperbolic rants. When he speaks about things like that, he tends to be as off the mark as an auto mechanic giving a lecture on brain surgery. He tends to speak out of his ass which makes him funny because of how ignorant he is.

A lot of times when I hear Glen Beck speak, I think about George Carlin when he says that we can't blame our politicians. Because they are us, they come from the same places that we do. Schools churches, neighborhoods etc. He's as ignorant as a lot of people that send our politicians back to office. Or I think damn our education system really has fallen to have people like Glen Beck speaking about key issues and attracting followers.

Video Activist Network: The Best Man (1964) Some Things Never Change

Source:The Daily Press

I saw The Best Man the 1964 version for the first time in late 2008, during that presidential election between Barack Obama and John McCain on Turner Classic Movies which was doing a special where they showed political movies all night one night a week in October. The Best Man is about essentially a divided party and they aren't sure who they should nominate for President. 

One candidate from the liberal or progressive wing of the party Henry Fonda and the other candidate played by Cliff Robertson coming from the more conservative wing of the party. It reminds me of political battles that the Democratic Party had back in the 1960s, 50s and 40s where a more progressive candidates like Adali Stevenson, John Kennedy or Hubert Humphrey going up against someone like Strom Thurmond when he was unfortunately a Democrat or George Wallace someone like that and of course the Progressive would always win at least going back to Woodrow Wilson.

And the progressive would always win because the Democratic Party going back to the 1920s or so has always been the liberal party in America, even though for a long time they've had a right-wing faction from the South and this movie was very realistic because it was an example of how presidential nomination battles were in the past up until the 1970s or so, where you didn't know for the most part who the party would nominate. And these things would be decided at the convention because the convention delegates could then vote for whoever they wanted.

The Best Man was a movie about looking in to what presidential politics looked like at least into the primary process of what presidential candidates go through and have to do in getting nominated for president even the dirty politics of it where both candidates know that the convention is split. And that they both need an extra edge to put them on top and they both find potential scandals in the others past. With the Henry Fonda character, his scandal was about him seeing shrinks or being on medication for depression.

With Cliff Robertson who was the right-winger a big believer in traditional values. His potential scandal was pretty ironic because apparently he had a homosexual affair when he was in the military and both candidates knew that if their scandal got out that their chance of winning the presidential nomination were over right there. So it became a question of who would leak the story about the other first or not leak the story and they spend a lot of the movie, trying to scare the other one and get them to drop out of the race, the Cliff Robertson character even offers the vice presidential nomination to the Henry Fonda character if he drops out. 

To me the The Best Man represents presidential nomination contests the way they used to be and should be when conventions actually meant something and they were worth watching. Especially if you're a political junky like myself, because you didn't know who the convention was going to nominate for president until they held vote and I wish we got back to that type of convention for both parties. Today political conventions are more of a formality and realty TV more than anything else, the presidential nominee already has wrapped up the nomination now by March or April.