Politics & Government » Politics » Since they couldn't throw the race card, how did the Libs discredit those who were against Carter's policies?

Since they couldn't throw the race card, how did the Libs discredit those who were against Carter's policies?

How did they discredit those who were against Clinton's?

I was a youngin during the Clinton years and wasn't quite alive yet for the Carter years.

What did they do to discredit critics since they couldn't throw the race card out?

They have nothing else - and frankly, the argument has worn so thin, that the call of "racism" doesn't mean anything anymore.

It's a shame, because when it really is an issue, no one will care.

Hey i remember those long lines to get gas what a hoot! Also his brothers beer. But you could get 11.75% for your money with a bank repo repurchase agreement and that was great!..

In the 70's- it was framed around the poor. During Clinton--it was the typical partisan dartboarding.

They're not Liberals. They're Progressives.
Libertarians are Liberal.

Back then it was a different America, we were still recovering from the War and it was very divided, liberals back then under Carter were fairly mellow as I recall.Even they were upset over the long gas lines and other economic problems as his approval rating dropped like a rock

Wait, the GOP suddenly thinks it's an espouser of race justice and equality because it voted Black and Latino candidates into office *gasp* just like everybody else? Please, get over yourself. Both parties have been voting in non-Caucasian candidates for a long time, and I for one am sick of both parties trying to use race to get ahead of each other.

Well, they couldn't use the hick angle with Carter...They probably feel the Carter administration was the worst Democratic administration since they had no BS to use! During the Clinton administration, his opponents were "Angry White Men"...it was an actual phrase, and of course those talk radio hate radio guys blew up the OKC building. Clinton more or less said that himself before backing off of it later, so you had a sitting President accusing an entire party of being terrorists. But you remember how badly Anti-Bush people whined about him supposedly blaming everything on them, right? They were idiots, they didn't know anything then and they don't now.

Not being a registered Democrat is racist!

That's one of the reasons I think so little of the modern Lieberals who blame Anti-Obama sentiments on racism. I know they're lying opportunists. You know they're lying. Crap, they know they're lying. Anyone who has been on YA Politics for 30 seconds knows what I'm talking about. You don't even have to try to come to this section, you could accidentally click on it while searching for something else and even that short period would let you know what I was talking about.

Lieberals "wonder out loud" or openly state these things. They ask "Why do they hate him so much!?". And I think "Are you 12...?". People hated Bush. They even had fantasy assassination-porn. Did you see that "Death of a President" movie? I mean, should I conclude that the NAACP's opposition to Bush was because of racism? I'd have to, to follow their standard. They act like ragging on a President is a new thing, and then wonder why we call them Lieberals. It happened under Bush. It happened before then. Republicans HATED Clinton, and he was a white hick. Do they really think we needed an excuse to make cracks about Obama..? He was backed by people like Ted Kennedy for pete's sake. It goes back further than that. I used to have a book on political mudslinging in the late 18th century and the 19th century, and people were pretty nasty back then as well. It's nothing new, no matter how the Leftards like to spin it. They're lying. And they know it, too.

Of course, we have to remember nasty comments and even political cartoons(with exaggerated "racial" features) about Condi Rice and others. Yet somehow, none of those guys were ever racist.

EDIT: Vince is right..I try to never call them Liberals. It gives them credence, and allows them to lie about history as well. I know the Right will probably never be able to reclaim the term, but that doesn't even matter to me. "Progressive" is a little bit too much of a self-jerking term for them though. Especially considering the late 19th/early 20th century nature of the ideology, at this point "Progressive" hardly fits...at a certain century mark, they could qualify as "conservatives" by now.