Politics
A Legacy From Carter That Democrats Would Prefer to Escape
Since his death, Jimmy Carter has been lauded for brokering the Camp David Accords and for his post-White House mission to help the poor and battle disease. But glossed over amid all the tributes is the burdensome legacy that Mr. Carter left for his Democratic Party: a presidency long caricatured as a symbol of ineffectiveness and weakness.
This perception has shadowed the party for nearly 40 years. It was forged in the seizure of American hostages by Iranian militants in 1979 and the failed military attempt to free them, as well as the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. And it lingered in memories of Mr. Carter wearing a cardigan as he asked Americans to conserve energy, or bemoaning what he called a “crisis of confidence” in an address to the nation that became a textbook example of political self-harm.
Over the decades, these events have provided endless fodder for attacks by Republicans, who reveled in invoking Mr. Carter’s name to deride Democrats. And that mockery, in turn, influenced the way Democrats have presented themselves to voters. Without Mr. Carter’s image of weakness on national security and defense, for example, it is hard to imagine the party’s war-hero candidate for president in 2004 introducing himself with a salute at its nominating convention and saying, “I’m John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty.”
Mr. Carter’s political legacy produced what many analysts argue was a kind of conditioned response: an overreaction among Democrats anxious to avoid comparisons to him on foreign policy issues. This was evident in the roster of prominent congressional Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, who voted for the 2002 resolution that authorized President George W. Bush to take the nation to war in Iraq, a vote many said they came to regret.
It could even be discerned in the taciturn response from President Biden after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 descended into chaos, said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of political history at Princeton.
“Democrats always feel defensive about these messy situations,” Professor Zelizer said. He linked that reflex to the taking of the Iranian hostages and to the raid Mr. Carter ordered to save them, which ended in a helicopter crash that killed eight Americans.
“They don’t act with command in talking about tough foreign policy events,” Mr. Zelizer said, pointing in particular to the struggle by Democrats in Congress over Iraq. “The instinct when things go bad is to either be silent or apologetic.”
Historians and Democrats say the characterization of Mr. Carter as weak is in many ways unfair and exaggerated, ignoring some of the major accomplishments of his four years in office. He ordered an American boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow and a grain embargo against the Soviet Union after its invasion of Afghanistan.
Nonetheless, “He became an exemplar of why you had to look tough and not weak in foreign policy,” said Robert Shrum, a Democratic consultant who worked for Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts when Mr. Kennedy challenged Mr. Carter for the presidential nomination in 1980.
Indeed, more than 30 years after Mr. Carter left office, Republicans reached back to the Carter years to dismiss a momentous decision by President Barack Obama that delivered a forceful rebuttal to the idea of Democrats as weak or ineffective: approving the American raid to assassinate Osama bin Laden in 2011.
“Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order,” said Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for president.
(None other than Mr. Biden, as Mr. Obama’s vice president, made that raid a staple of his speeches in their 2012 re-election campaign. “Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive,” Mr. Biden said often.)
This aspect of Mr. Carter’s legacy was ultimately set in cement by his defeat at the hands of Ronald Reagan, a former actor and governor who presented himself as a decisive and forceful contrast to the sitting president. “He was the standard by which Democrats and Republicans judged political effectiveness,” Tim Naftali, a presidential historian, said of Mr. Reagan. “So by definition, Carter, whom Reagan had beaten, was the opposite of effective, the model to be avoided.”
“The killer Reagan line, ‘Are you better off than you were four years ago?’ was first aimed at Carter,” he said.
So it was that from the moment Mr. Carter left office — on the day Iranian militants released the hostages — Democratic candidates for president have sought, with word and action, to escape his shadow.
Bill Clinton frequently invoked strength in talking about both international and domestic issues when he ran for president. During his 1996 re-election campaign, he boasted of putting 100,000 police on the street and promised to keep America “the world’s strongest force for peace and freedom and prosperity.”
For her part, Mrs. Clinton, who as the Democratic candidate in 2016 also had to allay voters’ doubts about whether a woman had the fortitude to be president, repeatedly cited her experience as secretary of state under Mr. Obama, and made “Stronger together” her campaign slogan. She used the words “strong,” “stronger” and “strength” 13 times in her speech accepting the party’s nomination.
In last year’s presidential campaign, Kamala Harris, the vice president and Democratic candidate against Donald J. Trump, boasted of owning a Glock pistol, and left little doubt about her belief in military might as she accepted her party’s nomination in Chicago.
“As commander in chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world,” she said.
But some efforts to escape the Carter legacy only seemed to reinforce it.
Michael S. Dukakis, the former governor of Massachusetts, was ridiculed when he donned a green tank helmet and “military coveralls over his Filene’s suit,” as a New York Times report said at the time, to ride a 63-ton M1 tank around a field at a manufacturing plant in front of a battery of television cameras. “Rat-a-tat,” Mr. Dukakis said.
“Dukakis was trying to demonstrate strength,” Mr. Shrum said. “Instead, he demonstrated weakness. People are always fighting the last campaigns, and they are often wrong.”
In the case of Mr. Kerry, who, like Mr. Kennedy, was a Shrum client, Republicans sought to turn his decorated military record against him by accusing him of fabricating details of his Navy service, in an advertising campaign — later discredited — that was launched by a group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. (One producer of those ads was Chris LaCivita, a co-manager of Mr. Trump’s 2024 campaign.)
To be fair, the seeds for this line of attack against Democrats predated Mr. Carter: In 1972, four years before Mr. Carter burst on the national scene, Republicans invoked the “weak on defense” argument against George McGovern, the Democratic senator from South Dakota, when he challenged Richard M. Nixon for the presidency.
“The 1972 presidential campaign and the landslide defeat of McGovern made the weak-on-defense argument a centerpiece for the G.O.P.,” Mr. Zelizer said. “The problems that Carter faced in the final year — Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan — cemented this political imbalance, placing Democrats in a position to constantly stress that they would be tough on defense.”
Politics
Schumer knocks Trump on Iran, plan to send ICE to airports: ‘Asking for trouble’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., condemned President Donald Trump’s plan to deploy U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to U.S. airports on Sunday.
Schumer made the comments while speaking on the Senate floor Sunday, saying Trump’s decision is “impulsive” and could make the situation at airports worse.
“Today, Donald Trump and [Tom] Homan are saying they will deploy ICE agents to airports starting on Monday. This is really disturbing. ICE agents who are untrained and have caused problems everywhere they’ve gone lurking at our airports. That’s asking for trouble, and it will certainly make the chaos at the airports even worse,” Schumer said.
“No one has any faith in ICE agents. They haven’t received training. They don’t know what it is to be a TSA person and do what you need to do,” he continued. “And the real problem here is they have no plan for using these ICE agents. Trump says, send them there. They send them there. And Homan says they’re still drawing up plans with less than a day’s notice. What is this? We know what it is. It’s another impulsive action by Donald Trump.”
SCHUMER GAMBIT FAILS AS DHS SHUTDOWN HITS 36 DAYS AND AIRPORT LINES GROW
President Donald Trump and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are clashing over funding plans for the DHS. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images; Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
“Some idea pops into his head and he announces it. And then the people working for him, a few of whom do have some degree of talent and ability. Not many underlings. They have to rush to try and implement what they know is an idiotic plan,” he said.
The ICE deployment is Trump’s latest move in the battle with Democrats over funding for the Department of Homeland Security.
Schumer also used his time on the Senate floor Sunday to criticize Trump’s actions in Iran.
“Donald Trump said, ‘you know, I may have a plan or I may not for a war,’” Schumer said. “There’s people’s lives are at stake. Billions are being spent on an almost daily basis. And he says, you know, ‘I may have a plan or I may not.’ These are the words of the commander in chief in the middle of a war involving one of the most dangerous regimes on Earth. ‘I have a plan, or I may not.’”
“That’s unhinged and dangerous. Lives are on the line. The president says he may not even have a plan. Tens of billions are being wasted. No plan. Troops being killed and injured, no plan. Civilians being killed and injured. No plan. Gasoline costs $3.94 a gallon on average. And Trump, ‘I have no plan’,” Schumer said.
Meanwhile, Schumer and his allies have refused to approve DHS funding without reforms to immigration enforcement.
TSA agents across the country have gone more than a month without a paycheck, with no clear end in sight.
Travelers wait in line at a TSA checkpoint at William P. Hobby Airport in Houston, Texas, on March 9, 2026. (Mark Felix/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Trump first threatened to deploy ICE to airports on Saturday, demanding that Democrats “immediately sign an agreement” to fund DHS.
DHS SHUTDOWN TRIGGERS TSA ‘EMERGENCY MEASURES’ AS LAWMAKER WARNS AIRPORTS COULD FEEL ECONOMIC PAIN
Airports across the country have reported huge numbers of employees calling out sick or not showing up for work. More than 400 TSA employees have quit their jobs.
TSA Agents scan luggage at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in Arlington, Virginia. (Valerie Plesch/Getty Images)
“On Monday, ICE will be going to airports to help our wonderful TSA Agents who have stayed on the job despite the fact that the Radical Left Democrats, who are only focused on protecting hard-line criminals who have entered our Country illegally, are endangering the USA by holding back the money that was long ago agreed to with signed and sealed contracts, and all,” Trump wrote Sunday on Truth Social.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Trump also predicted blowback from Democrats, saying they would complain “no matter how great a job ICE does.”
Politics
Commentary: California can have both easy voting and quicker election results. Here’s how.
SACRAMENTO — Every two years, elite athletes compete in the Olympics, biennial plants — like carrots and onions — produce seeds and people across America look on with consternation and mounting impatience as California counts its election ballots.
The prolonged tally has become as much a part of electioneering in the Golden State as wall-to-wall advertising, high-flown promises and overstuffed mailboxes groaning beneath the weight of endless campaign fliers.
The tabulation — which can last weeks past election day — is the product, in large part, of a commendable objective: Encouraging as many people as possible to vote.
California, which mails a ballot to every eligible voter, ranks near the top of states in the ease of its elections. That’s something to be celebrated. Voting is a way to help steer the direction of our state and nation and invest, as an active participant, in its future.
Yay, participatory democracy!
Unfortunately, the lag time between election day and the final results has led to all sorts of wild, unfounded claims, peddled mainly by Republicans seeking to curry favor with the sore-losing President Trump by parroting his conspiratorial gabbling.
“They hold the elections open for weeks after election day,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said recently, falsely suggesting that chicanery cost the GOP three House seats in California in 2024. “It looks on its face to be fraudulent.”
That’s a lot of, um, hooey.
There is no rampant cheating or election fraud in California. Period. Full stop.
Still, those sorts of phony statements have deeply diminished faith in our elections and our increasingly rickety democracy.
So — what if it were possible to preserve California’s friendly voting system while, at the same time, speeding up the tabulation of its many millions of ballots?
Kim Alexander believes it’s possible to do both.
“We need to stop explaining why it’s taking so long and start figuring out how to [produce election results] in a more satisfying way,” she said. “There are a lot of things that we could do better and do differently. It just takes some creative thinking and some will.”
Simply put, “The longer it takes to count ballots, the more voter confidence erodes.”
Alexander, head of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, has spent more than three decades working to make the state’s elections more efficient, more transparent and more accountable.
Her interest in politics and election mechanics came about while growing up in Culver City, where her father served as a councilman and mayor.
As a 7-year-old, stationed in the garage, it was Alexander’s job to track the returns in her dad’s first campaign, toting up the numbers at an election night party while her mom, posted in the kitchen, called the city clerk for updates. Even at that young age, Alexander learned the importance of a fair and efficient tabulation process.
Over the years, she watched as her father’s political career was stymied by a Democratic gerrymander, which blocked any hopes he had of being elected to Congress or the Legislature as a moderate Republican. She saw firsthand the influence of money in politics. (Her father told her of turning away donations that came with strings attached.) That helped turn her into a political reformer.
After working as a legislative staffer and serving a stint at Common Cause, the good-government lobbying group, Alexander took over the California Voter Foundation in 1994.
As a political noncombatant, Alexander won’t say how it feels, and whether these days she’s more or less optimistic, watching as reckless attacks on our elections come from inside the White House. “I like to describe myself as a realist with high goals,” is all she’d allow.
There are good reasons why it takes California so long to count its ballots.
First off, there are a lot of them; more than 16 million residents voted in the last presidential election, more than the population of all but 10 states. Voting by mail has exploded in popularity and it takes longer to count those ballots, as many don’t arrive until after election day. Also, there are a number of safeguards to prevent fraud and ensure an accurate count. “We’re checking all the signatures,” Alexander said. “We’re making sure nobody votes twice.”
Simply explaining those facts can help build trust, she said. However, that won’t speed up the state’s vote counting. Here, Alexander suggested, are some things that can:
— Increase funding for California’s 58 counties to expand equipment, staff and the space needed to process ballots. In recent years, the state has been asking local election officials to do more and more without reimbursing their costs.
— Educate voters and encourage them to turn their ballots in earlier. Along those lines, a system called “sign, scan and go” allows voters to return their mail ballots in person at a designated polling place. A pilot program in Placer County found that that shaved three to four days off processing time. The system could be implemented statewide.
— Better manage California’s voter database, doing so from the top down in Sacramento, rather than having counties oversee their data and feed it into the system. That bottom-up approach creates delays and a lag time in processing ballots.
— Create “ballot swap” days to speed delivery of out-of-county ballots where they belong, also saving time. (Under California law, voters can return their ballot anywhere in the state, but it must be routed to their home county to be tabulated. That process can now take more than a week.)
The problem, apart from perennial budget pressures, is that interest in election mechanics — a technical and arcane subject if ever there was one — is episodic and fleeting. It’s like worrying about a leaky roof when the temperature is 95 degrees outside and the sun is blazing.
But even without voters clamoring to address California’s slow-poke vote count, lawmakers should act.
Gov. Gavin Newsom recently rose to defend the state’s “safe and secure elections” against one of Trump’s many unwarranted attacks. If he wants to burnish his credentials for a 2028 presidential run — which Newsom very much does — one way would be to speed up delivery of its election results.
That way the rest of the country won’t be asking again in November: What the heck’s with California?
Politics
Trump gives Iran 48-hour ultimatum to reopen Strait of Hormuz or face strikes on power plants
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Iran on Saturday, warning the U.S. would strike its power plants if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened.
“If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.
The president’s threat represents a notable escalation in rhetoric as tensions surge over the strategically vital waterway.
Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a global choke point for oil and gas transport that supplies roughly one-fifth of the world’s crude oil, has been largely limited since early March, shortly after the war with Iran began.
US SIGNALS READINESS TO ESCORT TANKERS THROUGH HORMUZ AS TRAFFIC THINS BUT NO MISSION LAUNCHED
President Donald Trump warned on Saturday that the U.S. could strike Iranian power plants if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened. (Getty Images)
Trump’s post comes after he told reporters Friday that reopening the strait was a “simple military maneuver.”
“It’s relatively safe, but you need a lot of help in the sense of you need ships, you need volume,” he said.
The president added that NATO hasn’t had the “courage” to assist the U.S. with reopening the waterway.
TRUMP SAYS US ‘OBLITERATED’ TARGETS IN STRIKE ON KEY IRANIAN OIL HUB
The Callisto tanker sits anchored as the traffic is down in the Strait of Hormuz, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Muscat, Oman. (Benoit Tessier / Reuters)
“NATO could help us, but they so far haven’t had the courage to do so, and others could help us,” Trump said. “But, you know, we don’t use it. You know, at a certain point, it’ll reopen itself.”
Earlier Friday, Trump ripped NATO on Truth Social as “cowards,” saying they “complain about the high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz.”
A growing group of countries has signed onto a joint statement signaling their “readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage” through the strait.
The joint statement said, “We express our readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait,” and, “We welcome the commitment of nations who are engaging in preparatory planning.”
The statement was attributed to leaders from more than 20 countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada and the United Arab Emirates.
“We condemn in the strongest terms recent attacks by Iran on unarmed commercial vessels in the Gulf, attacks on civilian infrastructure including oil and gas installations, and the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iranian forces,” the statement reads.
NATO HEAVYWEIGHTS BALK AT HORMUZ MISSION AS TRUMP WARNS ALLIANCE AT RISK
A satellite image shows the Strait of Hormuz, a key maritime passage connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, vital for global energy supply. (Amanda Macias/Fox News Digital)
“We express our deep concern about the escalating conflict. We call on Iran to cease immediately its threats, laying of mines, drone and missile attacks and other attempts to block the Strait to commercial shipping, and to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 2817,” the statement continued.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Earlier this week, U.S. forces struck Iran’s anti-ship missile sites near the Strait of Hormuz with 5,000-pound bunker-buster bombs, according to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM).
Fox News Digital’s Greg Norman-Diamond contributed to this report.
-
Detroit, MI4 days agoDrummer Brian Pastoria, longtime Detroit music advocate, dies at 68
-
Oklahoma1 week agoFamily rallies around Oklahoma father after head-on crash
-
Nebraska1 week agoWildfire forces immediate evacuation order for Farnam residents
-
Georgia6 days agoHow ICE plans for a detention warehouse pushed a Georgia town to fight back | CNN Politics
-
Alaska1 week agoPolice looking for man considered ‘armed and dangerous’
-
Science1 week agoFederal EPA moves to roll back recent limits on ethylene oxide, a carcinogen
-
Science1 week agoH5N1 bird flu spreads to sea otters and sea lions along San Mateo coast, wildlife experts say
-
Movie Reviews4 days ago‘Youth’ Twitter review: Ken Karunaas impresses audiences; Suraj Venjaramoodu adds charm; music wins praise | – The Times of India