If Carter's raid had freed the hostages in Iran, could he have won?

If I recall, Jimmy Carter was ahead in most of the polls throughout the summer, but sank below Reagan after the failed attempt to free the hostages made him look weak and a better than expected Reagan performance in the debates (didn't George Will have something to do with Carter's stolen notes or something?) However, I was born in 1966, so my memory of 1980 elections is that of a 13 going on 14 year old.

Just wondering, if the special forces had sprung a daring rescue of the hostages, would Carter have had enough momemtum to stay ahead of Reagan defeat him?

I'm only asking because I was just thinking about how different our country would have been if Reagan had never been elected.

To this day, I suspect that there was some dirty dealing with that mission.

--p!
In a Conspiratorial mood

If so, it all falls into place.

That would make North a murderer, as well as a traitor.

So natch, they were awarded with plum assignments to the Reagan White House's shadow foreign policy dept, instead of being shitcanned for fucking up.

And I kind of wish I still didn't. Yet another conspiracy theory type thing to keep me wondering for a while.

it is the SAME conspiracy that started AT LEAST as far back as DuPont approaching General Smedley Butler to lead a fascist coup against the u.s. gov't.

it is the same conspiracy that killd JFK, MLK, et al.

After the first mission failed, he should have sent another, more overwhelming raid immediately, IMO.

Just leaving it like that made it even that much more of a failure. People would've respected Carter if he had gotten back up from that blow and started slugging.

He needed an image consultant, too - the cardigans, etc. made him look a bit too wimpy.

A big part of the problem was that the hostages were separated and secreted in many cells throughout Tehran. A surprise strike, armed with the latest intelligence of their whereabouts could have an acceptable chance of rescue with a minimal number killed or left behind. Once cover was blown though, extraction would be impossible, it would just be a blind assault on the city. We'd be at war with Iran. And the hostages would be dead. Unnecessarily. I understand Carter's decision.

separated, but had in truth remained at the compound the whole time. I wonder where that disinformation came from. The story of their being split up came out after the failed raid, to forestall any further attempts. IIRC.

If it happened right before the election and got him a large bounce.

The economy really, really sucked.

It was Iran that really cost him. The economy was struggling, but it would have rebounded faster farther better without Reagan's horrible voodoo economics and further militarization of the economy.

Now, military service contracting is the only growth sector we have.

was sworn in. They were basically bought back by the pukes.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0825448.html

of his swearing in. Of course, Americans couldn't countenance the obvious, that it was orchestrated, and instead settled for the willful self-delusion of the resolute cowboy scaring the Iranians into kowtowing to Reagan's might.

...it was literally MINUTES after the oath was given!:grr:

And the repugs at the time said it was because the Iranians FEARED Reagan (kinda like the recent Libya/WMD deal)...:eyes:

I guess even then people were stupid and the press was complicit.

so Reagan could win the election. If Carter had brought the hostages home he would have won. I think the repukes, as you call them, made a deal with Iran.

he would have been reelected. The economy was really bad. Believe it or not but I thought Carter really damaged himself by boycotting the Olympics. By completely polticizing the Olympics and by denying a feelgood moment he made everyone unhappy.

Carter was ahead in the polls most of that summer, if I recall. We'd had high inflation almost all of the 70s thanks to Nixon. It was not just Carter's fault.

I think the failed raid kind of symbolized the end of the Vietnam era & all the peace & love of the anti-war movement and made Democrats seem weak on defense because of it.

Of course it is not always possible to determine things by polls, and this requires a bit of speculation. But there are several good books about the hostage situation, at least two of which are authored by individuals who were part of the Reagan administration. In fact, there is substantial evidence to show that the Carter people were foiled in their attempts to negotiate the release of the hostages by underhanded efforts made by people tied to the (future) Reagan administration. Without the interference, the hostages would likely have been released before the election, without a rescue mission, and Carter would have won.

Even with the interference, if there had been a rescue more than 48 hours before the election, it is probable that Carter would have won.

I have never heard that Ollie North had any connection to the rescue mission. While I have read a great deal about the entire situation, I have never heard that even hinted at before reading this thread. I'd be curious if the DUer who posted that has a link to a good source? It would, for obvious reasons, be pretty important information, if it were true and well documented.

but he was not famous till Iran/Contra which took place later - so I doubt I would remember the name from the original news reports.

Carter was weak enough and people were unhappy enough with him that Ted Kennedy ran against him in the primaries. The hostage crisis was blown out of proportion by the nightly coverage (Nightline started specifically to cover this - each show started with Day "n") and Carter early on made statements that he would stay in the White house working to resolve this - and unless my memory is really faulty, he kept this promise - so he didn't campaign much.

Also, a liberal/moderate Illinois Republican also ran and he took some of the more liberal vote from Carter. (The parties did not have the clear liberal / conservative divide of today.) I do know social liberals who voted for Anderson, because they were sick of Carter and did not consider the magnitude of the damage Reagan could do. I think the scope of Reagan's victory caught people by surprise.

He normally votes for the Democrat, but didn't like Carter.

was as bad as it had been in the late Nixon years where price supports had to be used on food items.

During that time you could get interest on Certificates of Deposit as high as about 14%, the down side is that when I bought a condo in 1981, the interest rate was 16.5% for a 3 yr balloon mortgage. The terms were that there would be no points when the rate was computed from index rates in 3 years and you could either pay off the mortgage or accept the new rate. It then fell to slightly less than 9%. The mentality of that time period was such that they offered a fixed 30 yr mortgage at 17% and strongly argued that I take it to avoid the risk of the rate going up! (I know the election was in Nov. 1980 - these rates were about 1/2 year into Reagan's administration. I do think for younger people, the numbers will be shocking.)

...the hostages were the icing for Rayguns victory. It was a sad time for me, I really loved Carter.

did not own the machines... it is ver probable that he would have won the elections, i think. and wouldn't this be a very different world today if the bushes had never gotten their dirty criminal hands on the white house?

But overall, the trends were against him. And in the long run it was his support and funding of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan that has guided events in the past couple decades.

Then again, that policy might have changed if he'd dumped Berzinsky(sp) in his second term. Facing a weaker insurgency, the Russians might have pulled out in the name of glasnost -- but they couldn't afford to look like they were being pushed out.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but they were pretty much pro-American because we had promised them we'd help to rebuild their country once the Soviets were out... then, Reagan & Bush 1 reneged on that promise, which led to the creation of Al Qaeda.

If we had been able to keep our pledge to help rebuild Afghanistan, what would have happened? That was part of my what if thinking?

(sorry for the question, I just bought a good counter-factual book recently and it got me thinking about other situations)

is perhaps not accurate. There were some common interests. There was the potential for continued efforts in the areas where there were common interests, which could have created a foundation for future relationships. And you are correct that by abandoning efforts to rebuild Afghanistan, the USA lost the ability to work with substantial portions of the militant Islamic world.

But it isn't a simple relationship. Even when aspects of the working relationship crumbled, there were still economic interests that involved the US energy corporations and Islamic nations and Islamic organizations that were not defined by geographic boundries. A common mistake made by democrats/leftists is to assume that these relationships imply American "control" of those Islamic interests who were involved in commerce, especially those that were groups, not nations, and who traded for weapons.

Perhaps the biggest error was to move beyond our "support" for some of the more brutal, undemocratic leaders in the Middle East, and to try to maintain military bases in the Holy Lands of Saudi Arabia.

I'm in favor of having a strong relationship with Israel. But that does not have to preclude having good relationships with Islamic countries that are no "pro-American" in the sense of wanting our cultural influences.

I never thought we had "control" of them - just that they were likely expecting some quid pro quo in regards to carrying out their insurgency against the Soviets... however, I was mistaken to call them pro American when anti-Soviet would have been more accurate.

hundreds of other comments on DU, not yours, as far as "control". I should have been clearer. There is a false belief, for example, that Usama bin Laden was connected with the CIA in Afghanistan. He wasn't. There is no evidence that he was. When I've pointed this out, others have quoted articles etc that are recent publication. There are no articles from the period in question connecting UbL with the American efforts. When I've pointed out that that there is no evidence of this, others have noted that the lack of evidence is meaningless.

The reasons I focus on this issue are twofold: first, we need to recognize that the USA can co-exist with even the more extreme interpretations of Islam, and even find some issues that are of mutual interests; and second, when we recognize that people like UbL exist separate and distinct from the USA/CIA, we can have a more rational grasp of the polical dynamics that create the problems between our cultures.

Again, I did not mean you when I responded about the "control," which I should have made clearer .... sorry about that.

didn't believe in him. This is the same fate that the elder Bush had. A key component to being reelected is if people believe you. It is the same component that a salesman has to have when he is in the process of competing for a sale. Both Carter and elder Bush had crossed the line into skepticsm

IMO, if the raid had been successful, even partially successful with a loss of 20% of the hostages, he could have been re-elected. When the rescue tanked and negotiations didn't pan out (see other posts here on that, re: Ollie North and Richard Secord, and the mysterious release the day of Raygun's taking office) he was toast.

The country might not have been fully satisfied with Carter, but there was still a large percentage of people that viewed Reagan with alarm. He was considered much in the mold of Goldwater, although he actually lacked any of Goldwater's redeeming qualities. Television allowed Reagan to project an image that didn't match up to his true nature, and the hostage situation led too many people to think that the kind cowboy would make us safer. Carter never was able to project his true nature on television, either; he was in many ways too smart for the voting public. His communication skills were lacking the glib quality of Reagan. When he spoke about talking to Amy (who I think became a great citizen), it was a poor attempt to convey family values. That cost him with the people who simply didn't get what he was actually saying.

them into eternity like most Americans wanted back then, he would have won hands down. Then Saddam could have invaded Iran and we would have both nations oil right now.

couple thousand soldiers.

How could we argue against the Russians invading Afghanistan while we were busy invading Iran?

If certain parties had not interfered and made promises to the Iranians, Carter would have ended the hostage crisis six months earlier and gotten re-elected. But promises and payoffs were made, and the hostages were released the day Raygun took office.

I will always be convinced that certain traitors in the republican party conspired with the Iranian government to hold the hostages, thus ensuring Carter's defeat. I do not doubt it a bit.

at least, I think I recall hearing that... that they worked to hold the hostages from prior to the election until Reagan's inaugeration.

the economy sucked, and he let the hostage crisis continue to long before attempting to do anything about it. Then the incompetence of the raid was just the icing on the cake. Then, nothing more was done. No, I think JC was cooked whatever had happened.

it was sabatogue. ollie north and richard secord were the planners of desert1.

was incompetence. Even if all that were so, why did he have these men in charge? The buck stops in the Oval Office. But the rest of JC's presidency shows that he was incompetent for the office. And, in any event, it doesn't really matter. The American public thought that he was, and that's all that counts.

This is part of our problem, and has been for the last few decades. We don't pick the best man for the job, we pick someone we think is "electable". Just my opinion, of course.

People he trusted to handle the rescue operation had a vested interest in it not succeeding. Those same people were doing back-door negotiations with the Iranians to prevent the release of the hostages until Carter left office.

Perhaps it is incompetence to not expect Americans to be traitors.

OTOH, he handled the return of the canal zone to Panamanian sovereignty, defusing a potentially explosive situation there, and making a first attempt at rejecting American imperialism. He made overtures to Cuba about normalizing relations with them -- had that not been undercut by Reagan, Cuba might be a very different place today. Under glasnost, we could deal with the fucking soviet union, for god's sake, but we can't talk to Cuba? He was instrumental in ending the constant cycle of wars between Israel and Egypt -- there were three wars between them between '48 and '73, but none since then.

It was the republicans who were pissed about relinquishing control of the canal zone -- which due to the size of our new ships was no longer the military asset it had originally been -- that caused the meme that Carter was incompetent. In very real terms of accomplishments, he was better than Clinton, even if he didn't get re-elected. And he was far better than any of the repubs in our time, from Nixon on.

He may not have been one of the great presidents of the 20th century, but he was one of the best.

thanks for responding to this, as i had left the computer by the time he/she replied.

i have often found that, even among those that like carter, few can say much positive about his administration, and always remember the hostage rescue and the panama canal. but then, when reminded of the facts (such as you have) they then recall. This is a result of the press/propaganda that NEVER mentions all of the good.

also, he came closer to legalizing marijuana than anyone before or since.

came closer. But in the end, he didn't. Incompetence.

incompetent about Carter's administration? The whole damn thing!!! What a disappointment to those of us who voted for him. I was there. The incompetence was no 'meme', but an accurate description of the man. He really had hit his Peter Principle limit. I'll grant that his heart was in the right place. He just didn't know how to get where he wanted to go.

I'm not saying Reagan was an improvement, but Carter was a disaster.

with his administration was that he brought in a group of people who lacked the connections needed to work with the congress. This wasn't simply a matter of not working well with republicans; Carter did not have good relations with the democrats in the House or Senate. Hence, while he was an individual with good ideas, and was capable in many domestic areas, he wasn't able to connect with a congress that was in a post-Watergate mood for change. I think that the argument could be made that had Carter entrusted more power to Mondale, the chances are that the administration would have done much better.

It also needs to be stressed that the hard-core right-wing virus that had taken Agnew then Nixon out of power, did everything possible to make sure that neither Ford nor Carter could succeed in any major area. In order to fully appreciate the extent of their efforts, you need to go beyond the books that focus on the presidency, and study their links in congress and in the unelected bureaucratic halls of Washington, DC.

I followed the news. I make by own decisions and form my own opinions. The man was a failure, hence incompetent. The country was a mess, and he basically turned it over to Reagan.

HOw much worse do you suppose he could have screwed up?

agreeing with you. I think that he was not up to the challenges of the job. My belief was that although he was a highly intelligent man, he did not understand the workings of Washington. I'd say that he failed to make the grade in both domestic and foreign policies. I think that he was set up for failure in some cases, and that the growing virus known as "neoconservatives" found him an easier target than Ford.

with Carter involved his policies with Native Americans. Clearly he did not cause the terrible history of relations between the USA and the Indians. But, of course, a severe policy that sought to steal the mineral wealth from Lakota territory in the Dakotas, as well as from Navaho and Hopi people in the southwest, intensified in the mid-1970s.

When the elders from these Indian Nations, as well as the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy in the northeast, traveled to Washington, DC to speak to President Carter, he absolutely snubbed them. His refusal to even meet with them was more than rude; it showed the 3rd and 4th world peoples that Carter was able to point fingers at the USSR for the same policies he oversaw in the USA.

Do you think that Reagan's Presidency was marked by "competence"? All of the crap that went on in Regan's admin. (like how many of his staff were indicted and/or sent to prison?) (economy) (Iran/Contra)

Even back then the spin doctors were at work.

Reagan was an "actor" all the way, he told the American People what they wanted to hear and they thought he was great.

Carter didn't play that game and suffered for it. He was crucified in the press and any mistake that he made was put in neon lights and exaggerated.

All administrations make mistakes, some are just more corrupt then others and we know that Reagan's was more corrupt than was Carters.

Integrity was missing from Reagan's admin. and in abundance in Carters'.

Incompetent doesn't mean too much as far as I am concerned, it all depends on how their administrations are SPUN and Carter wasn't into Spinning, he was into truth and integrity and he was annihilated over that.

If I'm not mistaken, Reagan had more members of his administration indicted & convicted of crimes than all other presidents in the 20th century put together. Scary thought when you look back at the likes Harding & Nixon

(at least) imcompetent?

I'm sure the RW said that he needed to bend a few rules to get around the incompetent Congress... after all, Reagan is a deity to them.

it competently. Dishonest and slimy, yes.

for my answer.

Nothing Reagan did affects Carter's basic incompetence, which, as I stated, plainly turned the country over to Reagan. Whatever his (Reagan's) faults as president, the man was a master politician, and knew how to make the best of his opportunities, something Carter was not. Yes, Reagan ran a competent presidency if the goal was to get re-elected and then get his vice-president elected after him. That cannot be disputed by a fair-minded person.

As far as competence and incompetence, didn't we run a whole campaign, not on the issues, but on our candidate being more 'competent'? Dukakis, I think it was, although I am not sure. So, some people disagree. We got our ass handed to us that time, too.

Still, I've gotten side-tracked. The issue is Carter's competence, not Reagan's. The issue is not the integrity of either.

Carter was in over his head.

It was a very long time ago, but I remember corporates interst rates being 20%+. Mortgages were 19% 20% and 21%. I don't blame that all on Carter, but on a lot of other influences, including Paul Vloker who was Chairman of the Fed Reserve then. The entire country was upset about that!

Sure the hostages played a part, but I don't think it was the major reason Carter lost the election.

'ought' to have interest rates of 12%+

OPEC was hamstringing us too. It was the Perfect Storm, economically speaking. High oil prices and high interest rates=Carter's economic doom.

Remember Ford's 'Whip Inflation Now'?

that is just how it goes.

...for some reason, the choppers were sent in to Iran without their vent dust covers. If you want to fly anywhere back then in the Middle East without your intakes clogging up you kept the dust covers on.

The dust covers were taken off on the carrier from which they flew their mission. Why? Nobody seems to be able to answer that question.

But I suspect, and so did a lot of us at Camp Pendleton, it was to make sure the mission failed. The rightwingers could not have Carter being responsible for rescuing the hostages, and their subsequent negotiations with Iran to delay the release of the hostages certainly made sure of it.

You can't fly with the dust covers on. They block ALL air. The copters ran into a sandstorm.

Face it. Shit happens, and usually at the worst time.

The economy was in terrible shape. And under his watch numerous countries had been pulled into the Soviet orbit. Carter had said that the American people suffered from a "malaise", and that we had, "an inordinate fear of communism." When the Soviets invaded Afganistan he was shocked that they would do such a thing. The communists were supposed to be peace loving. People had decided Carter was too naive. Reagan projected strength and confidence and the President is, among other things, a sort of cheerleader for the public. FDR understood that extremely well and used his fireside chats to instill confidence. Carter blamed the people - not what he is supposed to do.

The rescue operation was a mess from the planning stage. It was planned so that everybody got a share of the glory. Army, Navy, Air Force, & Marines were ALL involved. Why? Marines pilots were flying Army helicopters. Why not Army pilots who knew the craft better? Why helicopters at all? Why not trucks? A good operation can be put together quickly and simply, like Entebbe in 76.

The plan was overly complex and therefore almost certain to fail.

Oliver North was NOT involved. That is pure tinfoil hat bullcrap. Of course, the conspricy theorists will claim that he was secretly the mastermind and that it was all planned at the undercover meeting he had with Howdy Doody in 1954.

believe it or not it had been a very close race - and the issue of the hostages made it easy to paint him as "inneffectual."

One of the biggest differences would have been in the area of energy. Carter started the Dept of Energy... and was pushing for heavy r & d into alternative energy sources. This was an era where gas efficient cars were in growing demand as well - suggesting that the era of the behometh vehicle as the choice de jour (and gas gobbling no point of concern to owners who have no real "need" for them).

His micromanagement of the hostage situation- and failure to act decisively, even when he tried was only part of why he lost.

Had Gerald Ford won in 1976, the country would have been a much different place. The lunatics would have remained on the fringe.

Carter more than anyone is responsible for the state we find ourselves in today.

said it much better than I have been able to.

military rescue, wasn't there? I seem to remember that from about a year ago. Entirely political to get Reagan in office and kick off the current nightmare we are trapped in.

I doubt it.