Gay Patriot Header Image

Carter–Departing from the Policies of all Previous Ex-Presidents

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 12:11 am - November 6, 2005.
Filed under: American History,Annoying Celebrities,Bush-hatred,Liberals

Busy leveling overheated charges against the elected president of the United States, Jimmy Carter, proves (once again) that he lacks what columnist George Will called the “grace and restraint” required of an ex-president. His recent public remarks are laced with “venom.” And now this man claims that President Bush “has radically departed from (the policies) of all previous presidents.”

No, Jimmy, you got that wrong. It is you who have radically departed from the policies of all previous presidents. They showed enough respect for the office not to lash out at their successors. And not to use their position to meddle in foreign policy.

Although he left the White House in disgrace, Richard Nixon at least had the courtesy to clear his foreign travel with his successors whenever he left the country. When he met with foreign leaders, he made clear he was not doing so in an official capacity.

Despite the failure of his own foreign policy, Carter, however, thinks it’s his business to meddle in world affairs, even if (or perhaps especially if) his policies differ from those of the elected president. In 1990, he lobbied members of the United Nations Security Council to vote against the First Gulf War, that is, Carter urged nations to vote against using force to liberate a sovereign nation which had been invaded. And it wasn’t just Republican presidents he undermined. In 1994, against the wishes of the Clinton Administration, he went to North Korea to negotiate a deal on nuclear arms.

Not only that. Carter has given his blessing to tainted elections in such nations as Venezuela while, with animus but no evidence, has leveled charges of fraud in American elections.

Perhaps Mr. Carter feels he needs to so viciously attack the president because he realizes that if he followed the example of Gerald Ford, the man he defeated in 1976, few would pay much attention to him. Before his health took a turn for the worse, that Republican frequently traveled the country, speaking to a variety of groups. But, he did not lash out against his successors as Carter has — even against Bill Clinton, his Democratic successor.

So, maybe he’s just doing this to get attention because he knows the MSM is eager to feature celebrities who attack President Bush, even when their attacks are rooted in emotion rather than substance. Or maybe Carter is still trying to convince himself that he was a good president. Or maybe he’s still bitter over his loss to the Gipper in 1980. The fact remains that he has been behaving badly. And his actions hurt the country and help undermine the policies of his elected successor.

Well, it could be worse. He could still be president.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Share

57 Comments

  1. Let’s face it…Carter NEVER really was presidential material so now he is trying to be the president he never was. But he continues to capture headlines with stupid remarks…something he always was good at.. A man without a “clue”…

    “What goes around comes around…”

    Comment by benj — November 6, 2005 @ 6:27 am - November 6, 2005

  2. And what do we expect from one of the worst presidents of the 20th century, who even then, never met a Marxist thug he didn’t love?

    Comment by rightwingprof — November 6, 2005 @ 7:51 am - November 6, 2005

  3. Let’s see:

    Carter — restored honor and truth to the WH after 8 years of Nixon/Agnew/Ford; prescient on America’s energy future; no wars at all; freed 52 American hostages via patience and diplomacy; restored American reputation as a beacon of human rights; brought Israel and Egypt to peace; added virtually nothing to the national debt. We could do a lot worse…

    And we now have, with Bush the 2nd – who ignored warnings of imminent terrorist attacks pre-9/11, then fled across the skies of the country the day of the attacks, frozen in fear with his “Pet Goat” until he realized he had his “trifecta”; has used the attacks and color-coded terror warnings ever since as a political tool; restored Nixon legacy of running dirty tricks operation inside the WH (outing CIA agents and authorizing FBI investigations of ordinary American citizens); turned America into a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton, Inc.; took weak CIA intelligence — which a better President did NOT use to go to war — and presented it deceitfully to the American public in order to take us into an unnecessary war, result to date being over 17,000+ US casualties (2,000+ dead), America’s reputation in tatters, no plan for withdrawal, and a President who can’t leave our shores without setting off riots; has added 2 trillion and counting to America’s debt, making debt service payments one of the top drains on America’s resources. As 65% of us now know – we’ve got our Worst President Ever.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — November 6, 2005 @ 8:50 am - November 6, 2005

  4. QP, let’s not go overboard and try to turn Carter into some godly president. He was mediocre at best. Right now, however, I’d settle for a mediocre president over what we have now…

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 6, 2005 @ 9:14 am - November 6, 2005

  5. Agreed, Mr. Moderate. He was no god, but he was — and still is — a good man, doing many good works, and in the face of constant disrespect by petty little partisans such as Gay Patriot West (in the above diary).

    And yes, his otherwise mediocre Presidency stands in happy contrast to the ignominy into which we’ve fallen with the man they call Shrub.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — November 6, 2005 @ 9:42 am - November 6, 2005

  6. QP:
    You forgot that Bush is also stupid.

    Dang, guys. Can’t you keep all your tripe in line?
    Countering every tired cliche in your post would take more effort than it’s worth.

    Seriously. In the interest of brevity, someone should propose a short (one- or two-word) phrase the Angry Left can use that encapsulates all their moonbat unsupported charges against Bush/Rove/Rumsfeld/et. al. so they don’t have to retype it every time and we don’t have to scroll past it every time.

    I’ll start the suggestions with simply: “BusHitler”. No, it doesn’t, just in the word, encapsulate the whole tired litany of their fabrications, but it gets to the heart of it, that Bush is just plain evil. That’s what they’re saying after all, right?

    Any other suggestions?

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — November 6, 2005 @ 9:46 am - November 6, 2005

  7. Perhaps, it’s time to link to the definitive takedown of ‘History’s Greatest Monster’: http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-nordlinger101102.asp
    and post a few choice excerpts.

    The ex-president is known as Joe Human Rights, but he’s mighty selective about whose human rights to champion. If you live in Marcos’s Philippines, Pinochet’s Chile, or apartheid South Africa, he’s liable to care about you. If you live in Communist China, Communist Cuba, Communist Ethiopia, Communist Nicaragua, Communist North Korea, Communist . . .: screw you.

    Carter has long enjoyed a reputation as a Middle East sage, owing, of course, to his role in the original Camp David accords. That reputation, however, rests on shaky grounds. Truth is, Sadat and Begin had their deal worked out before ever approaching Washington. When they had their plan essentially worked out, however, they called the White House (whose occupant just happened to be J.C.) (initials not accidental, he and his most fervent admirers have seemed to think for years).

    While in office, Carter hailed Yugoslavia’s Tito as “a man who believes in human rights.” He said of Romania’s barbaric Ceausescu and himself, “Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and politics . . . We believe in enhancing human rights.” While out of office, Carter has praised Syria’s late Assad (killer of at least 20,000 in Hama) and the Ethiopian tyrant Mengistu (killer of many more than that). In Haiti, he told the dictator Cédras that he was “ashamed of what my country has done to your country.” He did even better in North Korea, singing praises to Kim Il Sung, one of the most complete and destructive dictators in history. Then there’s Carter’s notorious friendship with Daniel Ortega, former strongman in Nicaragua. In 1990, of course, Carter traveled to Managua to monitor the elections and to certify what he figured — and hoped, it seemed — would be a Sandinista victory. When the democratic opposition won instead, Carter was remarkably churlish, even bitter. (Remember that fantastic P. J. O’Rourke piece for The American Spectator on all this?) As Kirkpatrick says, “You’d have thought a democrat would be happy.” But Carter is not completely blinkered when it comes to brutal dictators. Here’s what he said to his interviewer and admirer James Zogby (one of America’s foremost PLO advocates) in 2001: “I think the sanctions are hurting the people of Iraq, and not Saddam Hussein, whom I consider to be a dictator, and I think an insensitive dictator [!], and he is able now to blame all of his maybe self-induced problems [“maybe self-induced”!], economically and socially, on the United States because of our sanctions and because of our fairly infrequent aerial attacks.

    Comment by V the K — November 6, 2005 @ 9:58 am - November 6, 2005

  8. CP how about something that doesn’t sound so Nazi-like? I know you want to pretend that all people who dislike Bush & Co. are running around calling them Nazis, but that isn’t the case. The far left wing is doing that, and also calling them fascists, but the charge doesn’t hold water for the majority of people who don’t like Bush. Personally, when I get really torqued up about him I just call him Chimpy for that blank chimp like stare he frequently shoots at the camera.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 6, 2005 @ 10:04 am - November 6, 2005

  9. Speaking of Nazi-like, who here remembers this example of Carter’s flaming anti-Semitism:

    Mr. Carter, defeated in his quest for re-election by Ronald Reagan in 1980, speculated that “had I been elected to a second term, with the prestige and authority and influence and reputation I had in the region (the MidEast), we could have moved to a final solution.”

    Comment by V the K — November 6, 2005 @ 10:10 am - November 6, 2005

  10. VK, that sort of hyportical position goes to both sides. Just look at the flip-flop we’ve had on Mussharef in the last several years. He is as brutal a dictator as Chavez, but it is politically expedient for us to call him a friend. The U.S. government supported Saddam through 1989, despite knowing the attrocities he was committing against his own people. we again did this for political expediency to have him defeat Iran for us by proxy. I guess I’m saying both sides should get off their moral high horse about these matters and accept the historical reality.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 6, 2005 @ 10:13 am - November 6, 2005

  11. #10 — I’d say the difference is most presidents tolerate dictators who have strategic value to the United States. Jimmy Carter embraces dictators who are sworn enemies of the United States.

    Comment by V the K — November 6, 2005 @ 10:20 am - November 6, 2005

  12. His 2001 statement about Saddam is actually accurate. Having read it fully now. The failure of the UN to properly administer the sanctions and Oil for Food program left Iraq’s population in abject poverty while allowing Saddam to build palace after palace and amusement parks for himself. He was able to parlay that and our military strikes into sentiment againts us. If the sanctions and OF program were properly administered we could have been putting Saddam into abject poverty while supporting his people more.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 6, 2005 @ 10:29 am - November 6, 2005

  13. I think, as far as foreign policy goes, Carter’s lobbying in favor of Saddam Hussein at the UN and his gullible work on the Agreed Framework non-agreement, which did nothing more than give the North Koreans a free hand to continue their nuclear program while getting a free Westinghouse reactor, will stand on their own right as signs of his knowledge in that area.

    And, as far as the domestic front goes, perhaps QP and Mr. Moderate would like their 17% interest car payments and mortgages back.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 6, 2005 @ 10:31 am - November 6, 2005

  14. Oh, and I know what will end Carter’s sainthood in the eyes of the left….. his latest statements on abortion and liberalism.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 6, 2005 @ 10:33 am - November 6, 2005

  15. #12. Do you think that the thoroughly corrupt, incompetent, and feckless United Nations was even capable of properly administering the Oil-For-Palaces program? Note also, Carter is not placing blame on the UN, but on (surprise surprise) the United States.

    And in addition to the 17% mortgages and car loans, Mr. Moderate and QP also probably long for the Carter Era 70% income tax.

    Comment by V the K — November 6, 2005 @ 10:43 am - November 6, 2005

  16. NDT,

    a. I don’t think Carter was a good president
    b. As you may remember, stagflation began in the Nixon administration and continued into the Reagan administration. The federal reserve rate peaked in the middle of 1981 at over 19% intertest, and oscillated it’s way into and out of the 10% bracket all the way through 1989.
    c. I’m praying that the consumer and government attitudes towards increasing debt don’t end up crushing us back into a stagflation scenario. No, that wouldn’t be Bush’s fault, just an observation.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 6, 2005 @ 10:44 am - November 6, 2005

  17. The 70% tax bracket was Carter’s doing? He certainly didn’t undo it, like Reagan did, but he simply maintained it. The 70% tax rate for the top bracket was set back in 1971, as a reduction from a 71.75% tax rate set in 1970 which was down from the 75-77% tax rate set in 1968 and 1969. The maximum tax rate peaked in thed 1954-1963 era, that would be under Eisenhower (a Republican I believe ;-) ) and JFK at near 90%.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 6, 2005 @ 10:48 am - November 6, 2005

  18. As you may remember, stagflation began in the Nixon administration and continued into the Reagan administration.

    Yeah, the difference is, Reagan fixed it. Carter just said, it’s malaise, deal with it.

    Comment by V the K — November 6, 2005 @ 10:49 am - November 6, 2005

  19. VK,

    Yes he did. What’s your point, that Reagan was a good president and Carter was mediocre at best? No shit, what have I been saying since the first post?

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 6, 2005 @ 10:51 am - November 6, 2005

  20. You know, MM, I really don’t give a sh*t what Republican politics were Eisenhower’s time. If modern Democrats supported tax cuts and a strong national defense (like Kennedy, at least rhetorically, did) and Republicans were the opposite, I’d be inclined to vote Democrat. I’m a policy guy, not a party guy. And I only said that 70% tax rates were an artifact of the Carter Era, not something Carter imposed. Reagan saw the iodicy of imposing confiscatory taxes on a dying economy. Carter (and Ford, and Nixon) did not.

    Comment by V the K — November 6, 2005 @ 10:56 am - November 6, 2005

  21. I’d say Reagan was a great president and Carter is probably in the bottom five.

    Comment by V the K — November 6, 2005 @ 10:57 am - November 6, 2005

  22. #3

    Wasn’t Carter the one who sent those six (that’s 6, for you liberals) helicopters into Iran to free the hostages. Smooth as Ex-Lax. BTW, slick, last I checked, they were still captive while Carter was president.

    Didn’t he also don a sweater and told the American people to suck it up during his energy crisis?

    Yeah. Carter. Didn’t spend a dime. It took Reagan to pay the military and make them proud to wear their uniforms again. I heard tell they didn’t even wear their uniforms in the Pentagon. Then again, I know how you libs don’t give a damn about the military anyway, so I can see how you would leave that out.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 6, 2005 @ 11:08 am - November 6, 2005

  23. I thought you said clinton was the first to last out at his successor!

    AHH! Can’t you keep your own tripe straight?

    Comment by Joey — November 6, 2005 @ 11:14 am - November 6, 2005

  24. I’m a policy guy, not a party guy.

    I am too. That’s why I can’t fathom why you love the current GOP leadership so much. I can understand why you don’t vote Democrat, but why you sit here and continually carry water for Bush, DeLay and the rest of those bobbleheads up there is beyond me.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 6, 2005 @ 12:33 pm - November 6, 2005

  25. QP’s comment #3 is so filled with errors and innuendo, it’s more worth a laugh than a response. It seems all his references to President Bush come from Michael Moore’s deceitful movie.

    And to suggest that Carter was responsible for the release of the hostages is to ignore the sheer failure of his Administration in standing up to a rogue nation which violated international law in seizing and embassy. In dithering and in failing to act in the immediate aftermath of that takeover, Carter did anything but restore honor to the White House. Had the Iranians not feared a more aggressive U.S. policy under Ronald Reagan, they likely wouldn’t have released the hostages. It’s no coincidence they were released on the day of Reagan’s inaugural.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 6, 2005 @ 1:24 pm - November 6, 2005

  26. Taking foreign policy advice from Jimmy Carter is akin to taking marital advice from Liz Taylor. I wish he’d just stick to building houses.

    Comment by Andre — November 6, 2005 @ 2:21 pm - November 6, 2005

  27. #24 — Just to remind you, I have made more critical comments in this forum about Bush and Republicans than you, QP, PP, Heather, Joey, Kevin, Gryph, and GCB combined have directed at democrats.

    Comment by V the K — November 6, 2005 @ 2:43 pm - November 6, 2005

  28. I direct my criticism of Democrats in left wing blogs. In here it is just joining a chorus, where it is missing. I also am more critical of the party in power, be they Republicans or Democrats, as they are the ones that have real control over the strings. That included Clinton and the Democrats through 1994, and began with the Republicans in 1996, after the religious right started to show over representation in the party leadership. I am now a fan of their neither Republicans nor Democrats. What I would like to see is the moderates of both parties, together representing over 60% of the electorate, form a new party and let the fringes of the Democrats and Republican parties fight over the scraps. Then we could have some rational, analysis backed policy rather than invective filled ideologically driven tripe.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 6, 2005 @ 3:27 pm - November 6, 2005

  29. Carter — restored honor and truth to the WH after 8 years of Nixon/Agnew/Ford

    By telling the President of Mexico and his guests that he was stricken with “Montezuma’s Revenge” the last time he was in Mexico?

    has used the attacks and color-coded terror warnings ever since as a political tool

    Please explain your babbling.

    restored Nixon legacy of running dirty tricks operation inside the WH (outing CIA agents and authorizing FBI investigations of ordinary American citizens)

    What CIA agents were “outed” under Nixon? (Or Bush for that matter.)

    Which “ordinary American citizens” have been wrongly investigated by the FBI under Bush?

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 6, 2005 @ 3:28 pm - November 6, 2005

  30. #27, I’ll have to look more closely at your posts, filtering out the garbage from some other posters here that shall remain nameless. I have a hard time remembering a single scathing criticism of the GOP coming from you. I’m not saying that it didn’t happen, but I believe something like that would have stood out in my mind.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 6, 2005 @ 3:29 pm - November 6, 2005

  31. I give Carter credit for one thing – unlike Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, he actually sent troops onto Iranian soil.

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 6, 2005 @ 3:32 pm - November 6, 2005

  32. I have a hard time remembering a single scathing criticism of the GOP coming from you.

    Here’s a few from just the last month: I linked to them so I don’t bore anyone else: http://reactionaryparrot.blogspot.com/2005/11/miers-nomination-does-show-that-1.html

    And if by ‘scathing’ you mean that ‘Chimpy Bushitler’ crap that passes for criticism for most of the others, I don’t do that. And if it isn’t ‘scathing’ it is, at a minimum, much more than you or any of your gangs have said about the Democrats.

    Comment by V the K — November 6, 2005 @ 3:46 pm - November 6, 2005

  33. Nice post Dan… JimminyCricketCarter is so far out of the main stream of presidential procotol that he forgets “the rabbit stole his paddle” too –not just his presidency.

    Aside from the foreign relations snaffus that put America behind the 8ball, and aside from his failed domestic policies that crippled the US economy and hog-tied investment, and aside from his family’s antics (BillyBeer, trailer trash, et al) that embarassed everyone with character, and aside from his slimy felon-prone advisors who seemed to find every opportunity to violate federal laws, and aside from his penchant for undercutting the military and intelligence establishment while getting nearly every single issue flat out wrong, he was a mediocre president… not as bad as VanBuren, but not as memorable as Coolidge.

    I hope historians don’t rewrite history like they have with Truman and make Carter another “great” president. He’s a schmuck now; he was a schmuck then. I still can’t find anyone who voted for him… either time.

    The dictionary should read: “Failed Presidency, see Carter.” He’s the posterboi.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 6, 2005 @ 4:04 pm - November 6, 2005

  34. …much more than you or any of your gangs have said about the Democrats.

    Just last week I recall calling the Clinton & Co group a bunch of dirty pool playing pathological liars. [sarcasm] I know that can only be read as criticism if one looks at it *just* right, but it is criticism nonetheless[/sarcasm]

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 6, 2005 @ 4:29 pm - November 6, 2005

  35. Weak

    Comment by V the K — November 6, 2005 @ 4:54 pm - November 6, 2005

  36. No. 9, you called Pres. Carter “anti-semitic”, which is quite a stretch for someone known locally as Vlad The Klansman.

    Nos. 13-14, Thirty…no, don’t want Pres. Carter’s tough luck economy back…want Pres. Clinton’s golden economy back. And re: Pres. Carter’s position on abortion…we’re a mighty big tent over here. You should consider switching, especially after what Republican Senator Tom Coburn of your neighboring state, Oklahoma, had to say on MTP today about us gay folk. The exchange with Russert, in case you missed it:

    “MR. RUSSERT: But voicing his opinion, as he did there on gay rights, you recall in the campaign back in Rogers County, when you made comments like this, telling a group of local Republicans that– “[Coburn] told a meeting of local Republicans that `the gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power. They are the greatest threat, that agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom we face today.’”

    SEN. COBURN: It’s a threat to undermine the family. It does undermine the family. And if you look at the structural problems with our country today, what is happening to us at every level as a nation and in our culture? Our families are falling apart. If you look at how we spend money in the federal government, the increasing amounts that we’re spending are to attack–attack–the very problems where the family is falling apart.”

    And No. 29, Frank, you must have missed today’s header in WaPo:

    The FBI’s Secret Scrutiny: Bureau Examines Records of Ordinary Americans
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html

    You’re cute Frank, especially with your No. 31, but apparently not well-read.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — November 6, 2005 @ 6:13 pm - November 6, 2005

  37. Sounds like the FBI is taking a lead from the Clinton White House.

    Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — November 6, 2005 @ 7:59 pm - November 6, 2005

  38. #36 QueerPat, you take the cake for ironic overstatements… “we’re a mighty big tent over here”. The only tent the GayLeft habits is now on fire and the canvas is dripping down around you… anyone who is even nominally religious has left your camp, anyone who is moderate or conservative has left your camp, and nearly everyone else who doesn’t ascribe to the failed Democrat litmus tests of pro-choice, pro-victimhood, pro-ACLU, pro-big govt, and anti-military is roundly beaten out of camp.

    No QueerPat, the most intolerant camp with the smallest tent –albeit, one on fire– is the GayLeft. You guys don’t even understand what tolerance is all about… to you it’s walking with union goons and finding something good to say about their hunting boots while ignoring their patent homophobic attitudes –talk about laying down with the enemies of gay civil rights.

    “Big ten over here”, indeed. Now you sound like DanRather saying he’s a credible journalist.

    The sheer irony.

    Or the utter gall.

    Probably both.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 6, 2005 @ 9:00 pm - November 6, 2005

  39. …because you love Bush.

    I don’t, I just voted for him because the Democrats are even worse.

    Hey, quit bashing the Democrats, you name-caller! You’re just doing that because you love Bush.

    Let me explain something here… I would be happy to vote for someone who was better than Bush, but there are currently only two viable political parties, and the other party’s candidate in last year’s election was much worse.

    Hah, I knew it, you Republicans just blindly love Bush.

    I’m not a Republican. I’m an Independent. I voted for third-party candidates in both 1996 and 2000.

    You rich Republican – go back to your trailer park!

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 6, 2005 @ 9:55 pm - November 6, 2005

  40. Study history, my friends. Not only did James Earl Carter have nothing to do with freeing the hostages (among whom was a neighbor of mine), he was responsible for the Shah being overthrown (who we now know was certainly not the worst leader Iran has had). And I knew the USAF general who made sure it happened.

    Yes, the marginal income tax rate was 90 percent under President Dwight D. Eisenhower and he would have lowered it but Democrats controlled both house of Congress for most of Ike’s two terms.

    Don’t blame President Richard M. Nixon for “stagflation”. Economic problems under Nixon can be traced back to (my friend) President Lyndon B. Johnson’s decision to try to fight two costly wars at the same time, one in Vietnam and one against poverty. (And if that was bad, wait until one of President George W. Bush’s successors has to deal with the coming problems caused by a combination of a costly war in Iraq, massive tax cuts and the lack of a single veto of runaway deficit spending.)

    President Carter is a petty man who’s never recovered from being soundly defeated by President Ronald E. Reagan, whom Carter and his aides considered little more than a washed-up B-film actor. He wants to meddle and Reagan, President George H. W. Bush and President William J. Clinton all took barbs from Carter.

    Carter was also a hypocrite. Prior to a visit to Great Britain the White House instructed our Embassy in London to remove all liquor. But Carter and the First Lady were hardly settled when they wanted their martinis and staff from the Embassy and Air Force One were combing London to restock the Embassy’s bar. Now, that’s not really important in the scope of things, but it did give some insight to the real character of that phony, faux-pious little man.

    I was just a small child for some of their tenure, but in my lifetime (so far) there have been 12 presidents. Based on what I know from studying the history of several and the firsthand knowlege of observing the others, James Earl Carter is the only one for whom I have no respect whatsoever.

    Comment by Jack Allen — November 6, 2005 @ 10:11 pm - November 6, 2005

  41. #33 “Failed Presidency, see Carter.”

    Funny, I thought the man who tried to bring down the nation and resigned / was forced out mid-term for it would be a failed presidency. (Nixon for those of you who don’t re-call)

    Comment by Kevin — November 6, 2005 @ 10:24 pm - November 6, 2005

  42. #10 — I’d say the difference is most presidents tolerate dictators who have strategic value to the United States. Jimmy Carter embraces dictators who are sworn enemies of the United States.

    Really? I saw a nice little picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands and smiling with Saddam Huessin in the 80s when we were helping to build his military power, even knowing then how he treated his citizens.

    Comment by Kevin — November 6, 2005 @ 10:29 pm - November 6, 2005

  43. “If modern Democrats supported tax cuts and a strong national defense (like Kennedy, at least rhetorically, did) and Republicans were the opposite, I’d be inclined to vote Democrat.”

    How exactly do we pay for all that national defense when we keep cutting taxes? The tax code, incidentally, allows mainly rich individuals and corporation to keep more money than the middle class and poor of this country pay in taxes. Some of them, if they have enough tax lawyers, seem to get away without paying any taxes at all. doesn’t seem fair to me.

    Some simple math here: If the government keeps spending more than it takes in, then we’re in trouble. I always thought a tennet of the Republican party was fiscal responsibility. Guess I was wrong.

    Comment by Kevin — November 6, 2005 @ 10:36 pm - November 6, 2005

  44. #28, Mr. Moderate,

    I initially missed your comment about needing a realistic alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties. Amen!

    Traditional labels mean nothing today. If alive, and still believing in what they believed in their time, Barry M. Goldwater would be a “liberal” today, John F. Kennedy a “conservative” and Hubert H. Humphrey a “moderate”.

    I remain a registered Republican only because I live in a county where there are no elected Democrats and the election year contests, if any, are in the Republican primary.

    I frequently want to crawl under a rock and hide in shame for living in the state that foisted Senator Sam Brownback on an unsuspecting America. But then I remember that Pennsylvania is stuck with Rick Santorum (at least until after the ’06 election), Florida with Mel Martinez, Oklahoma with Tom Coburn, Texas with Tom DeLay, and so forth. They’re enough to make a Democrat out of me, but then I think about Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Charlie Rangel, Howard Dean, John Kerry, et al.

    Before I pass on, I’d love to see the centrists from the two major parties form a third party, one, preferably for me, at least, that tilts to the right on domestic fiscal policy and to the left on social issues.

    The federal government spends too much — how much is debatable among reasonable men — but taxes have to be maintained at a level to pay the bills; we can’t afford to borrow from the Chinese, etc., forever.

    Comment by Jack Allen — November 7, 2005 @ 12:07 am - November 7, 2005

  45. #33, Michigan Matt,

    I’ve been up in my library and can’t seem to find any of that “rewritten” history about President Harry S Truman. I can’t believe there’s a Republican so partisan he is blind to how great Democatic Truman was. For god’s sake, Matt, even Ronald Reagan admired Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

    In my humble opinion Truman edges FDR as the greatest president of the 20th Century.

    Truman was left out of the loop in FDR’s White House but stepped into management of the War without missing a beat. Americans today can debate whether the decision was right or wrong, but Truman had the guts to use atomic weapons to bring the War to an end. His Marshall Plan clearly prevented communist domination over all of Europe. He challenged Stalin with the Berlin Airlift. He integrated the Armed Forces at a time segregationist southern Democrats controlled the Senate. He established a separate Air Force in face of a major challenge from the Navy and its supporters in Congress and the press. He had the guts to face communist aggression in Korea (‘tho he misjudged Chinese involvement and his hands were tied because we were not in a position to go to war with China — and maybe the USSR). etc., etc.

    Having ties to the military for much of my life, I think one of the greatest things Truman did was to fire General Douglas MacArthur. Conservative Republicans in congress were dangerously close to blurring the line between civilian and military authority and when MacArthur challenged his authority as commander-in-chief Truman had no choice but to fire the five-star egotist. In doing so, Truman re-established and reinforced civilian control of the military.

    Comment by Jack Allen — November 7, 2005 @ 12:40 am - November 7, 2005

  46. The tax code, incidentally, allows mainly rich individuals and corporation to keep more money than the middle class and poor of this country pay in taxes. Some of them, if they have enough tax lawyers, seem to get away without paying any taxes at all. doesn’t seem fair to me.

    Could you give a few examples of this tired talking point.

    Comment by John — November 7, 2005 @ 1:09 am - November 7, 2005

  47. You seem to have trouble with the concept of “sworn enemy”, Kevin.

    At that time, Iraq was NOT a “sworn enemy”, Iran WAS.

    They did not become a sworn enemy until Bush Sr. kicked them out of Kuwait.

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 7, 2005 @ 1:28 am - November 7, 2005

  48. Kevin -

    Are you in favor of the Balanced Budget Amendment? Line-Item Veto?

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 7, 2005 @ 1:30 am - November 7, 2005

  49. #47 — Aw, Frank, it’s unfair to pick on Kevin. Complete ignorance of history is a prerequisite for being a liberal.

    Comment by V the K — November 7, 2005 @ 5:45 am - November 7, 2005

  50. #44 Before I pass on, I’d love to see the centrists from the two major parties form a third party, one, preferably for me, at least, that tilts to the right on domestic fiscal policy and to the left on social issues.

    Amen!

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 7, 2005 @ 7:48 am - November 7, 2005

  51. Yeah, I hear this blah-blah about “all the centrists should come together and form a third party.” So, what is this moderate centrist party going to stand for? What will its position be on abortion… bearing in mind that any position it takes is going to alienate about half the electorate. How about gay marriage? Again, any position it takes will alienate a big chunk of the electorate. Will the centrist party want to cut-and-run in Iraq, or stay the course. Really tough to split the difference on that one, isn’t it? How will the centrist party deal with illegal immigration? 80% of the population wants illegal immigration ended and legal immigration curtailed. But, if you embrace those positions, a lot of people are going to say you’re a bunch of racists. And moderates, historically… not so good at standing up to opposition. How is a moderate party going to address the problem of the deficit? Tax increases? Spending Cuts? Some of both? Whatever you go with, somebody’s gonna be pissed.

    Seriously, how do you create a cohesive political movement based on, ‘we don’t have any real principles, we just want to avoid conflict?’

    Comment by V the K — November 7, 2005 @ 8:00 am - November 7, 2005

  52. Q: Why did the Moderate Centrist chicken cross the road?

    A: To get to the middle.

    Mr. Moderate – maybe you’re not a “moderate”, someone who holds no strong views for fear of being labeled an “extremist”, but actually a Libertarian?

    The Democrats would actually stand a chance of winning libertarians who typically vote Republican, by emphasizing their libertarian values (“your rights”) instead of their socialist values (“your money”).

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 7, 2005 @ 10:01 am - November 7, 2005

  53. BTW, does anyone remember how in 1991, many Democrats were critical of Bush Sr. for not “finishing the job” and removing Saddam?

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 7, 2005 @ 10:02 am - November 7, 2005

  54. Jimmy Carter also awarded the Medal of Freedom to man who said, “I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produce wealther. Communism is the goal!”

    Figures, doesn’t it?

    Comment by V the K — November 7, 2005 @ 10:11 am - November 7, 2005

  55. I think we’re all coming out at the same place: that the Carter and Bush2 admins. share one thing in common — bad fortune/karma. At least Carter had some major accomplishments to point to after 4 years — Human Rights, Mideast Peace, Saving 52 Hostage Lives. After 5 years, I don’t anyone here can name a single accomplishment of Bush2, other than getting reelected. And what is that worth, when you consider all the damage he’s done? Which is why more and more Americans now consider this poorly prepared politician to be The Worst President Ever.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — November 8, 2005 @ 8:02 am - November 8, 2005

  56. QueerPat, please tell me: Did you write that with a straight face? Not even you could accomplish that feat standing hip-deep in the BS you just spun. “Human rights”? Carter? “Saved the hostages”? Carter?

    Time for your pills and oxygen QueerPat –today you need them more than ever.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 8, 2005 @ 9:20 am - November 8, 2005

  57. I wonder how much bongwater you have to drink before you start thinking like QP.

    Comment by V the K — November 9, 2005 @ 11:15 am - November 9, 2005

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.