Many Democrats and media members (pardon the redundancy) have stated, with enthusiasm and wishcasting, that Truman was unpopular in 1948, yet he won re-election. The hope is that President Zero (as in zero jobs created) will be able to replicate that approach. However, Jay Cost has a great piece explaining why that is impossible for B.O. to do.
It’s a great piece, and I encourage you to read it. But for me, I liked this part about how the Man-Child is going to run his campaign:
In fact, the party’s only substantial domestic achievement since the Beatles broke up is Obamacare, which is massively unpopular. The RealClearPolitics average has the bill pulling in just 36 percent support, while the recent Fox News poll found approval for Obama on the health care issue at a measly 41 percent. So, Truman could tour the country saying that a vote for Dewey would destroy the New Deal, but Obama can’t go around saying that a vote for Perry or Romney will destroy Obamacare because that might actually help the GOP nominee!
Broadly speaking, Truman could win amid tough times in 1948 because the country had confidence in the Democratic party’s ability to govern. That simply does not exist today, which is why the Truman model won’t work for Obama.
Instead, it looks more and more like Obama is actually going to run Carter’s 1980 campaign. Sure, he has nothing popular to show for his four years in office, but he’s still better than the out-and-out radical the GOP just nominated. Will that work for Obama?
Well … did it work for Carter?
Worked out well for the country, not so well for Carter.
That will, by default, be Obama’s strategy: “Vote for me, because while I certainly do suck, I suck much less than that guy.”
I don’t wanna like her. OK, the fact is I don’t like her. But I gotta give the she-devil her due on this one:
Former President Jimmy Carter and former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari were hoping to visit the State Department this week to brief officials on their recent trip to North Korea, but nobody at the State Department was available to meet with them…
It’s no secret at all that the Elders’ trip to North Korea was viewed as extremely unhelpful by the governments both in Washington and Seoul. Chris Nelson reported on April 29 that Clinton reacted strongly when asked in a morning meeting if she wanted to meet with Carter. From the Nelson report:
“The performance of President Carter and his delegation in N. Korea this week was either shameful or fatuous…or both…and exemplifies why Carter had no…zero…USG support going in, and even less coming out, per an alleged eye witness account of Sec. St. Clinton at the morning meeting the other day:
“‘Do you want to meet with Carter?’ Clinton is looking at papers, and just says ‘No.’ Then she pauses, looks up and adds, ‘HELL no!!!’”
Jimmy the Dhimmi is persona non grata among national Dems. Savor the aroma of that for a moment.
Jimmy Carter sends flowers to Helen Thomas, both reminisce on how their careers ended because of their anti-Semitism
Birds of an anti-Semitic feather flock together, no? Details:
From the Falls Church News-Press, which is Helen Thomas’s new employer, comes an interesting bit of gossip. In an otherwise mundane column, the paper’s editor, Nicholas F. Benton, reports on the “handful” of Thomas’s friends and supporters who reached out to her during her controversy last summer — and apparently, one of these supporters, oddly enough, was former president Jimmy Carter:
[Rosie] O’Donnell sent Thomas, now age 90, flowers in sympathy for the highly upsetting incident and, along with President Jimmy Carter, was one of only a handful of her longtime colleagues and friends to reach out to her.
If true, this is certainly fitting. Both Thomas and Carter have been accused of anti-Semitism for their statements about Israel, although Carter hasn’t gone as far as to say that the Jews should “go back to Germany.” Could the former president have contacted Thomas to commiserate about his own experiences?
No word as to whether the two of them drank a toast to Arafat or anything.
More than four years after its publication, five disgruntled readers have filed a class-action lawsuit against President Jimmy Carter and his publisher, Simon & Schuster, alleging that his 2006 book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” contained “numerous false and knowingly misleading statements intended to promote the author’s agenda of anti-Israel propaganda and to deceive the reading public instead of presenting accurate information as advertised.”
The suit accuses Carter and his publisher of violating New York consumer protection laws because they engaged in “deceptive acts in the course of conducting business” and alleges that they sought enrichment by promoting the book “as a work of non-fiction.”
In a press release, one of the attorneys, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner stated: “The lawsuit will expose all the falsehoods and misrepresentations in Carter’s book and prove that his hatred of Israel has led him to commit this fraud on the public. He is entitled to his opinions but deceptions and lies have no place in works of history.”
By the way, if you want an indication as to how the Washington comPost author feels about the merits of this lawsuit, look at this bit of editorializing in the “article”:
The five plaintiffs named in the lawsuit are seeking at least $5 million in compensation. The hard cover edition cost $27.
WTH does the cost of the book have to do with the lawsuit? I don’t seem to recall the comPost reporting on the dope who spilled McDonalds coffee on herself in a similar manner: “A woman spilled hot coffee on herself in a McDonalds drive-thru window. The woman now seeks $3 million in damages. The coffee cost 49 cents.” Nope…no liberal media bias!
Anyway, here’s hoping that Jimmy the Dhimmi’s anti-Semitism finally catches up to him.
Grab the spatula. You’ll need it to get your jaw off of the floor. Details:
America is no better off now than it was in the late 1970s and early 1980s, says former President Jimmy Carter. From national politics to relationships with other nations, there is a lot of room for improvement.
“We had almost complete harmony with every nation on Earth,” the Nobel Peace Prize winner said of his administration. “We not only preserved peace for our country, we never went to war. We never dropped a bomb. We never fired a missile.”
Iran was unavailable for comment.
Seriously, this tool believes that because we didn’t drop bombs on anyone during his four years of dhimmitude in office, that constituted “complete harmony”? How ever did he lose 44 states in 1980? For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.
Dude. I don’t know what else to say, really, except…dude. Excerpt:
I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents. Primarily because of the activism and the– and the injection of working at the Carter Center and in international affairs, and to some degree, domestic affairs, on energy conservation, on– on environment, and things of that kind. We’re right in the midst of the– of the constant daily debate.
He’s right. I mean, those tinpot dictators aren’t going to hug themselves, are they? Good grief, some American has got to go give credence to shady elections in Zimbabwe and Venezuela (among other places) while trashing elections in America, right?
If you thought Jimmy the Dhimmy was a few fries short of a Happy Meal with that comment, wait until you see this one:
But I hope that Obama will have as successful a term as I had in dealing with our nation’s domestic and international affairs. And if he does, I’ll be very proud of him, as I happen to be proud of myself, having had a successful administration when I was in office.
For the sake of our country and her survival, I’m hoping B.O. has set the bar much higher than that. Although at this rate, I’m thinking he hasn’t.
If, by “having had a successful administration when I was in office”, Carter means this, then yeah…”successful”! It’s a shame that schools no longer teach history, or else the voters two years ago would have realized what a Carter clone President Kick#ss was and perhaps this generation’s “malaise” could have been avoided.
Jimmy the Dhimmi is fretting over Monday’s Supreme Court ruling about providing material support to terrorist groups. Details:
Former President Jimmy Carter has voiced concern that Monday’s Supreme Court ruling on “material support” to terrorist groups may criminalize his “work to promote peace and freedom.”
Carter, whose advocacy has entailed contact with groups designated by the U.S. government as “foreign terrorist organizations” (FTOs) – notably Hamas and Hezbollah – said he was disappointed by the court decision.
The high court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld a federal law that forbids providing “material support” to an FTO, ruling that it can be applied to U.S. organizations whose engagement with terrorists involves promoting non-violent solutions to conflicts.
The law, part of the post-9/11 USA Patriot Act, forbids the provision of any aid, defined as including “service,” “training” or “expert advice or assistance,” to a designated FTO.
In a statement reacting to the decision, Carter said, “We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that inhibits the work of human rights and conflict resolution groups.”
Yeah, because when I think of “human rights and conflict resolution groups”, I naturally think of Hamas and Hezbollah.
Carter, the most anti-Semitic president this country has ever had the shame in electing, has a history of playing kissyface with thugs, dictators, and terrorists. Now, he fears criminal prosecution for it. Sucks for him. Schmuck.
Exit question: Do you think that Jimmah sees President Kick#ss quickly gaining ground on his own legacy as America’s worst president ever, and thus is trying to keep his reign in tact with this horrendous publicity stunt? “Darnit, The Won just may make people forget me. I’m not going to stand for that!”
Such is the column by Claudia Rosett, and it is absolutely awesome! Excerpt:
Every time it seems he’s said much, much more than enough, Jimmy Carter is back in the news — this time defending his handling 30 years ago of the Iran hostage crisis. Speaking while on a visit to Thailand, Carter told reporters that when the hostage crisis began in 1979, “My main advisers insisted that I should attack Iran.” Carter says he decided not to risk the loss of life (there’s no reference in this latest story to the American lives lost in the botched rescue attempt he authorized and then aborted).
The result was the gross humilation of the U.S., as the hostage crisis dragged on for 444 days — until Ronald Reagan took office. And from those beginnings on Carter’s watch came an emboldened Islamic Republic of Iran, a terror-based regime which for 30 years has been brutalizing its own people, setting up global networks of terrorist finance, weaponry and murder, and is now closing on the nuclear bomb. How many lives has this cost already? How many more will this cost in times ahead? There may be no way to assign a precise number, but the answer is definitely “many” — including Iranians themselves, among them the five now sentenced to death for their roles in the June pro-democracy demonstrations. As Iran continues to export its message and tactics of terror, possibly soon to be turbo-charged with a nuclear arsenal, the odds keep climbing of devastating tolls to come. …
Do yourself a favor and read the rest of it. Or you suck. Your choice.
Obviously, we normal Americans knew months ago that any opposition to B.O.’s collectivist policies would be tarred as some form of racism. Never mind that the most active leftist politicians B.C. (Before “Change”) were lily-white barons like Hillary, Ted Kennedy, Jean-Francois Heinz-Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Vietnam), Babs Boxer (that would be “Senator”, and not “ma’am”, General), etc. No, if you continue to espouse the conservative philosphy you’ve always maintained over the years before we had a black president, then that philosophy is now racist…it wasn’t then, but it is now. Got it?
Over the last 24 hours, we’ve seen perhaps the most desperate attempt thus far from the left to revive ObamaCare and shield the increasingly unpopular clotheless emperor in the Oval Office. That attempt is codified in DNC talking points, dutifully parroted by the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy). To recap, here are some examples of such shameful, yet not at all unexpected, rhetoric we’ve seen from the left in the last day or two:
1. Jimmah Carter says that the “overwhelming” majority of people who are opposed to ObamaCare or to B.O.’s Marxist policies are racist. Judging by this Rasmussen poll, that would mean that 55% of Americans are racist, right? Or maybe just the numbers are racist? Anywho, the thick, fudge-coated sugary irony of a failure of a former president whose anti-Semitic book was endorsed by Osama bin Laden himself lecturing us on bigotry is enough to put me into a diabetic coma.
2. Rep. Maxine Waters (Moonbat-CA) is begging her accomplices in the MSM to investigate the racial views held by normal Joes and Janes who oppose ObamaCare. I didn’t know that racial views (or any views, for that matter) could be illegal, but apparently the thought police feel otherwise. Anyway, unlike her liberal brethren, she’s not content to just scream “racism”. No, she actually wants the MSM to look into “those people”. (Sidebar: Didn’t Ross Perot get into trouble for referring to “you people”? Just sayin’.). Also, she said that referring to ObamaCare as “ObamaCare” is evidence of racism, so by logical extension, referring to Hillary’s health care plan in 1993 as “HillaryCare” must be sexist. Man, are “these people” (leftists, that is) that intent on destroying the English language?
3. This race-baiting nervous breakdown is dividing even the Democrats themselves. Senators Jim “Fellating Cambodian Boy” Webb, Kay “Presbyterian Elder Courting Atheist Votes” Hagan, and Dick “Our Soldiers are Like Pol Pot and Stalin” Durbin, in addition to B.O. himself, are falling over themselves to keep Carter at arm’s length and not ascribe racism to political opponents of B.O.’s policies.
4. NYT op-ed hack Maureen Dowd, known for editing quotes via “Dowdification” to convey the context she wants, plays the race card…while she bellyaches about the need for civility. I’m sorry, but “You’re a bunch of mouthbreathing, knuckledragging bigots…can’t you just be nice like me?” doesn’t seem like the best way to win friends and influence people to your argument. I’m kinda funny that way.
5. Hank Johnson (D-GA) defeated Jihad Cynthia McKinney in the Democrat primary 2006, but his election proved only that you can take the nutbag out of GA’s 4th district, but you can’t take GA’s 4th district out of the nutbag. Or vice versa. Whatever. Don’t be racist! Anywho, he said that if the House didn’t admonish Joe Wilson for screaming “You lie!” to the guy who was lying at the podium in the speech to Congress, it would be like “…folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside, intimidating people. That’s the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude is not rebuked.” Johnson was rebuked by AJC columnist Cynthia Tucker, a black woman known to see racism where it doesn’t exist.
6. Chris “Thrill in the Leg” Matthews said…aw, skip it. That’s just too easy.
7. Victor Davis Hanson recognizes this as political suicide, and he’s right. However, I see two big things that can come out of this, one of which is good and the other of which is not good.
Good: Perhaps finally, the race-baiting in this country will finally be ignored, as it should have been for the last few decades. Every time a black person gets arrested or charged with a crime, we hear that race must be involved, guilt or innocence be damned. Jesse and Al have made lucrative livings in the race-baiting industry, and fomenting racial animosity where there need be none has paid them well over the years. At the town hall protests, we saw people who have never been involved in politics before were showing up and angry that their voices are being marginalized. They…nay, we…will not be shamed into silence by bad faith accusations of racism. It is quite possible, if not likely, that fair-minded normal Americans will now finally see this “crying wolf” charade clearly, and will henceforth ignore such knee-jerk baseless claims.
Bad: After Americans finally begin ignoring the race-baiters, there will inevitably be some real cases of racism…and they will likely be ignored. Again, “crying wolf” will have been the culprit. You can only scream so many times about racism that are untrue before people begin to ignore you, and then when real racism comes along, the average Joe or Jane will go “Yeah, sure, heard that one before.” So congrats, liberals! Your baseless race-related rantings over the last couple of decades has possibly blunted any efforts in the future to address real acts of racism. Hope you’re satisfied.
Anyway, if the left thinks they can somehow “shame” the same country that voted a black man into the Oval Office into supporting anything and everything said black man wants to do, then they are political kamikazes. I, for one, welcome that tactic.
Anti-Semitic former president Jimmy the Dhimmi Carter never met a dictator or terrorist thug that he didn’t like. The same foreign policy genius that gave us gas rationing, a “wear a sweater” energy policy, a 444-day American hostage standoff, and legitimizing Arafat has decided that Hamas really isn’t such a bad group of guys. I mean, if you can just get past their whole “death to Israel” charter and stuff, they’re practically jonesing for peace!
Former President Jimmy Carter will urge the Obama administration to remove Hamas from the terrorist list, FOX News has learned.
Carter, a chief defender of the U.S.-designated terror group, said Tuesday he will meet with officials in the Obama administration in two days to discuss his latest trip to the Middle East.
The international community has asked Hamas to recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept previous peace deals as part of ongoing efforts for Palestinians overall to acquire their own country. Hamas has refused.
And just how stupid is Carter? This much:
According to two eyewitnesses, including a 15-year-old boy, the bombs that were found were intended to hit Carter’s vehicle as he exited Gaza. There is some suspicion that Hamas extremists (redundant much? – Ed.) linked to Al Qaeda may be behind the attempt.
“Hey, let’s remove from the terrorist list a group that is trying to kill me!” No wonder he lost 44 states to Reagan.
Barry O decided to borrow a page from Jimmah Carter’s energy expertise in the 1970′s. Carter felt the best way to overcome the energy crisis was to wear a sweater. The Obamessiah’s take? See for yourself:
Proper Tire Inflation? Great. How About the Other Two out of Every Three Drivers?
The RNC is chuckling over Obama calling for voters to make “sure your tires are properly inflated” because “we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling if everybody was just inflating their tires.”
RNC spokesman Alex Conant responds, “Obama’s solution to America’s energy crisis is inflating tires?! Maybe he’s been out of the country too long.”
I’ll give Obama a smidgen of credit, in that yes, having properly inflated tires can get you a few more miles per gallon.
“Running a tire 20 percent underinflated – only 5 to 7 pounds per square inch (psi) – can increase fuel consumption by 10 percent. That can easily cost motorists two or three miles per gallon. Not only that, but running underinflated also reduces the tire’s tread life,” said Bob Toth, Goodyear’s general manager, auto tires.
However, this doesn’t mean everybody can inflate their tires and get more mpg tomorrow. Survey information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) shows that about one in every three cars has a significantly under inflated tire. …
Barry thinks this man was an underappreciated pioneer in thoughtful energy policy
“You know one of his (Obama’s) favorite phrases is that I would be a Bush third term. Well I think maybe his proposals could be a Carter second term,” McCain told Fox.
Someone tell me again how this #sshat isn’t considered anti-American. From Ed Morrissey (video clip in link):
Jimmy Carter appeared on the Tonight Show last night to offer his view on the upcoming credentials fight at the Democratic National Convention. The world-renowned election observer, who has argued for the legitimacy of Hamas, argued against the legitimacy of seating delegates from Florida and Michigan in Denver. He told Jay Leno that those voters had “disqualified themselves” by moving their primary dates ahead of the limitation of the DNC:
Who knew Steve Doocy had such passion in defending Democrats in Florida and Michigan? He makes a couple of decent points in this rant, especially ridiculing the notion that the voters disqualified themselves; those decisions got made by party leaders and state legislatures, and also by Howard Dean and the DNC. The national party botched this exercise in discipline by completely negating the impact of the two states. The RNC handled it appropriately by reducing their impact but still allowing the states to seat delegates and have some impact on the results.
Carter isn’t entirely wrong here, in that the parties had to take steps to punish states that broke the rules. However, the smug dismissal of American votes as illegitimate coming just after his insistence that a terrorist group should be recognized because it won an election provides a mind-bending irony that may just be too large to contemplate all at once. Maybe if Florida and Michigan voted to endorse Hamas, Carter’s opinion would change?
What a complete fool Carter is! No wonder he dropped 44 states to Ronaldus Magnus in 1980.
Jimmah is as useless today as he was 30+ years ago. From the AP:
Former President Jimmy Carter said Monday that Hamas — the Islamic militant group (the MSM just can’t bring themselves to say “terrorist”, can they? – Ed.) that has called for the destruction of Israel — is prepared to accept the right of the Jewish state to “live as a neighbor next door in peace.”
Carter relayed the message in a speech in Jerusalem after meeting last week with top Hamas leaders in Syria. It capped a nine-day visit to the Mideast aimed at breaking the deadlock between Israel and Hamas militants who rule the Gaza Strip.
Hamas leaders “said that they would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders” and they would “accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbor next door in peace,” Carter said.
Wow…so the Peanut Putz got the terrorists to abandon their organization’s charter and recognize the right of Israel to exist? What a miracle worker! Um, except…
Carter said Hamas promised it wouldn’t undermine Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ efforts to reach a peace deal with Israel, as long as the Palestinian people approved it in a referendum. In such a scenario, he said Hamas would not oppose a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.
Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri in Gaza said Hamas’ readiness to put a peace deal to a referendum “does not mean that Hamas is going to accept the result of the referendum.”
“We accept a Palestinian state within the June 4 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital — a sovereign state without settlements — as well as the right of Palestinian refugees to return, but without recognition of Israel,” he said.
Terrorists ignore the will of the people, and they lie? Gee…who knew? Apparently, Carter didn’t.
Carter said that ‘The present strategy of excluding Hamas and excluding Syria is just not working”, and I just want to know this: virtually everything that man did in his four years of miserable leadership was an unmitigated failure, so what in the hell would he know about what works and what doesn’t?
He didn’t change Hamas’ minds a single bit. They re-emphasized their commitment to slaughtering innocent Jews. All Carter did was legitimize their horrific existence in the eyes of the world. Even while he’s no longer president, Jimmy the Dhimmi is still making messes in the world that will take generations (if ever) to clean up.
Wow. Just “wow”! Straight from the peanut farmer’s mouth, via WSJ:
Former President Jimmy Carter has an interesting way of saying more than he intends. He lusts in his heart. He turns to his 13-year-old daughter for foreign policy wisdom (Now THAT explains a lot! – Ed.). He titles a book, “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.” What Mr. Carter means to say is that he is a flesh-and-blood human being, a caring father, a missionary for peace. What he actually communicates is that he is weirdly libidinal, scarily naive and obsessively hostile to Israel.
Now the 2002 Nobel laureate is in reprise mode. “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels,” he said over the weekend, responding to a question from an Israeli journalist who noted that Mr. Carter had been snubbed by most of Israel’s top leadership and reprimanded by its president, Shimon Peres. “When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.”
This will further boost his anti-Semitic credentials. From FNC:
Former President Jimmy Carter is reportedly preparing an unprecedented meeting with the leader of Hamas, an organization that the U.S. government considers one of the leading terrorist threats in the world.
The Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Tuesday that Carter was planning a trip to Syria for mid-April, during which he would meet with Khaled Meshal, the exiled head of the Palestinian terror group Hamas, on April 18.
Deanna Congileo, Carter’s press secretary, confirmed in an e-mail to FOXNews.com that Carter will be in the Mideast in April. Pressed for comment, Congileo did not deny that the former president is considering visiting Meshal.
Exit observation: Jimmah endorsed Barry O last week, and since Barry O has an anti-Semitic military adviser prone to Zionist conspiracy theories, this is the last thing that Osamabama needed.
Not only does Jimmy the Dhimmi like to coddle evil maniacal dictators, he apparently would have preferred Satan to be coddled, too. To think that this senile, egocentric buffoon was once the president!
From the American Spectator:
APPROPRIATELY ENOUGH, to Carter’s mind, the biggest trade-off of the Crucifixion may have been gaining eternal salvation while losing a potentially great bureaucratic overlord. During a meditation on the temptation of Christ, Carter muses over the attractiveness of Satan’s offer to allow Christ to rule the world if he rejected God:
What a wonderful and benevolent government Jesus could have set up. How exemplary justice would have been. Maybe there would have been Habitat projects all over Israel for anyone who needed a home. And the proud, the rich, and the powerful could not have dominated their fellow citizensâ€¦As a twentieth-century governor and president I would have had a perfect pattern to follow. I could have pointed to the Bible and told other government leaders, “This is what Jesus did 2000 years ago in government. Why don’t we do the same?”
That Carter assumes, first, he would be a worthy successor to Christ in political office — what, Jesus returns to implement…term limits? — and, second, that the Messiah would spend his post-presidency years doing precisely as Carter did — building Habitat for Humanity homes, apparently — tells you everything you need to know about the Man from Plains’ outlook on this world and the next.
Go ahead, you Carter defenders: try your best with this one!
Jimmah likes his cats like he likes his Jews: dead. Check out the letter (image and all) that he wrote to his sister-in-law after blasting her cat:
Lamentably, I killed your cat while trying just to sting it. It was crouched, as usual, under one of our bird feeders & I fired from some distance with bird shot. It may ease your grief somewhat to know that the cat was buried properly with a prayer & that I’ll be glad to get you another of your choice.
What a dumb#ss! Birdshot is meant to kill birds from a distance, not “sting” them. The idiot thought that a shotgun would have little to no effect on a cat? Did he watch too many episodes of Tom and Jerry where Tom would get shot in the butt with buckshot and just howl in pain, with Jimmah thinking “Hey, that gives me an idea on how to deal with that pesky cat outside!”? Dude, get a freakin’ water gun or garden hose and soak the little bugger…no need to kill it!
Folks, this is a real glimpse into the sheer level of inherent boneheadedness inside Carter’s gourd. That would certainly help to explain the lack of thought that chronically plagued his administration.
The film did about as well as Jimmy the Dhimmi Carter did during his 1980 campaign. That is to say, it was a thumping of near historic proportions. From Bryan:
Hollywood director Jonathan Demme seems to have too much money and too little sense. Demme, who directed The Silence of the Lambs and Swimming to Cambodia (no, that second one is not about John Kerry’s Rambo-like exploits and achievements in time travel, fighting under the illegal orders of a president who hadn’t taken office yet) bankrolled Jimmy Carter: The Man from Plains. It’s a documentary that follows the ex-president around as he tours to promote his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.
On its first weekend, the film did a whopping 10 grand at the box office in 7 theatres. That works out to about $1500 per theater, not enough to cover a single screening fee.
How surprising. Who wouldn’t want to sit through two hours watching an old man dodge questions about plagiarism, his book’s extreme anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian bisa, his illogical equation of Israel with South African apartheid, and his repeat offenses of snuggling with anti-American tinpots? Who wouldn’t want to see the self-righteous man who helped usher in the Iranian mullahcracy hug his Nobel and chastise the president who is having to clean up the mess that Carter left for all of his successors?
How could Demme have misjudged the movie-going public so badly?
Well, he’ll always have public schools and universities sell The Man From Plains to. It’ll probably end up in double features with An Inconvenient Truth with a year.
Despite the MSM’s spin to the contrary, the irrefutable fact is that Americans do not hold Carter in the same high regard as the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy).
Allah nails Jimmah on this one.
“There is a legal definition of genocide and Darfur does not meet that legal standard. The atrocities were horrible but I don’t think it qualifies to be called genocide,” he said. Washington is almost alone in branding the 4 1/2 years of violence in Darfur genocide. Khartoum rejects the term, European governments are reluctant to use it and a U.N.-appointed commission of inquiry found no genocide, but that some individuals may have acted with genocidal intent. Carter, whose charitable foundation, the Carter Center, worked to establish the International Criminal Court (ICC), said: “If you read the law textbooks … you’ll see very clearly that it’s not genocide and to call it genocide falsely just to exaggerate a horrible situation I don’t think it helps.
The point here isn’t that he think Darfur fails to qualify as a textbook case of genocide; other international bodies agree, although most prominent American politicians do not. The point is that he’s resorting to a textbook definition in the first place. If you’re dealing with murder on a scale so massive that it might arguably constitute genocide, by what insane logic is it preferable to err on the side of saying that it isn’t genocide and thereby eschew the tremendous moral force that comes with that term? If it’s genocide then thoughts turn to the Holocaust and the world is compelled to intervene. If it isn’t then it’s a civil war gone bad that’ll work itself out — eventually. Jimmeh likes the latter approach because it appeases the Sudanese government and, theoretically, makes them more amenable to negotiations. After they’ve already killed 200,000 people.
That’s one reason why using the textbook definition is offensive. There’s another reason, too: namely, that Carter hasn’t always been such a stickler for precision when applying that vaunted moral yardstick of his. If it’s so desperately “unhelpful” to go throwing around the concept of genocide even when it arguably applies, explain this.
The last link above shows where Peanuthead says that Israel is doing much worse than what’s happening in Darfur. But no, Jimmah isn’t an anti-Semite who coddles dictators and mass murderers while poormouthing his own country! Why would anyone think otherwise? For those of you on the left, the prior two sentences were sarcasm.
Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro is tipping Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up and win the U.S. presidential election.
Clinton leads Obama in the race to be the Democratic nominee for the November 2008 election, and Castro said they would make a winning combination.
“The word today (from whom? – Ed.) is that an apparently unbeatable ticket could be Hillary for president and Obama as her running mate,” he wrote in an editorial column on U.S. presidents published on Tuesday by Cuba’s Communist Party newspaper, Granma.
Who’s your buddy, Fidel?
Castro said former President Bill Clinton was “really kind” when he bumped into him and the two men shook hands at a U.N. summit meeting in 2000. He also praised Clinton for sending elite police to “rescue” shipwrecked Cuban boy Elian Gonzalez from the home of his Miami relatives in 2000 to end an international custody battle.
He said his favorite U.S. president since 1959 was Jimmy Carter, another Democrat, because he was not an “accomplice” to efforts to violently overthrow the Cuban government.
The commie dictator just loves him some Democrats, doesn’t he?
Former President Jimmy Carter has gotten himself into more hot water, although it seems quite unlikely that any in the media will pay much attention to this recent faux pas (h/t LGF).
In a seemingly absurd response to a call by The Simon Wiesenthal Center for members and supporters to send letters to Carter concerning his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” the former president penned a handwritten note to the organization’s well-respected founder and Dean.
In it, Carter suggested that the Center lied about him and his book in order to raise money.
Think I’m kidding? Well, put this in your Middle East peace pipe and smoke it:
To Rabbi Marvin Hier
I don’t believe that Simon Wiesenthal would have resorted to falsehood and slander to raise funds.
In reality, there was absolutely nothing in the Center’s news release concerning Carter’s book asking for money. And, there was nothing disrespectful about the letter the Center was encouraging recipients to send to the former president:
Dear President Carter:
We respect your historic achievement in forging peace between Egypt and Israel in 1979 which only deepens our disappointment and concern over your one-sided book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.”
President Carter there is no Israeli Apartheid policy and you know it. I join with the Simon Wiesenthal Center in respectfully reminding you that the only reason there is no peace in the Holy Land is because of Palestinian terrorism and fanaticism.
In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak went to Camp David and offered Yasser Arafat 95% of the West Bank, 100% of Gaza and part of the Old City of Jerusalem, along with $30 billion in compensation for Palestinian refugees. Arafat’s response was the launching of the bloody Intifada which targeted innocent civilians in restaurants, malls, schools, and religious services with suicide terror attacks. Had Arafat accepted Israel’s offer at Camp David there would have long been a Palestinian State alongside Israel.
Mr. President, when the Palestinian people repudiate their fanatics in favor of a course of moderation, then there will be peace in the Middle East.
Pretty innocuous letter to elicit such a response from a former president, wouldn’t you agree?
Nothing in the letter to indicate that the Jewish center was asking for money? Why, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that Jimmy the Dhimmi was insinuating that Jews are obsessed with money! Nah, that couldn’t be the case! I mean, that would be stereotyping, and we all know how Carter has no history of anti-Semitic thought or behavior, don’t we? It’s not like he and Wesley “Call them ‘New York Money People’ and not ‘Jews’” Clark have a habit of poormouthing Jews, right?
By the way, with the exception of an AP story on Tuesday, the MSM was quieter than Hillary’s bedroom. Nope…no liberal media bias!
Jimmah with his usual “deer in headlights” look
Just when you think that Jimmy “the Dhimmi” Carter’s anti-Semitism knew no bounds, he exceeds those bounds even further. From the Israel Insider:
The more we learn about Jimmy Carter’s one-sided and biased views towards Israel and her supporters in this country, the more reason we have to be deeply troubled by what he represents and the dangerous mischief he continues to foment.
There is not enough space to repeat the detailed and well documented critiques of his best selling book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. They are, however, aptly summarized by Dr. Kenneth Stein, one of the many former aides and colleagues publicly to have disassociated themselves from the former president, who charged that: “[the book] is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments.”
One of the book’s most egregious – and now infamous passages — is found at page 213, where Carter advises “the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups” to make clear that “suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism” will end once when Israel accepts the ultimate goals of the “Roadmap.” Thus the former president sanctions — indeed encourages — continued suicide bombings until Israel meets Arab demands. In fact, what seems to trouble him most about such Arab acts is not that they kill innocent Israeli civilians, but that they may damage sympathy for the Palestinian cause.
Despite the in depth criticism of his thesis, Carter has dug in, stubbornly insisting that his book is both “accurate and needed,” blaming the firestorm he has triggered on Jewish American organizations and while he accuses the pro-Israel community of trying to stifle him or any debate on Middle East policy.
And, let’s not ignore his interview on the Al Jazeera network during which he astonishingly proclaimed that Palestinian missile attacks against Israeli citizens do not, to his way of thinking, constitute acts of terror. Even his apparent condemnation of the killing of children and bombing buses is problematic, as it is couched in terms of damaging sympathy for the Palestinian cause. This approach is reminiscent of that employed by Arafat who, to the extent he ever was in any way critical of acts of terror, complained only because he thought it was tactically disadvantageous.
Not surprisingly and very tellingly, Carter’s frontal attacks have been warmly embraced by a nasty cast of scoundrels, including white supremacists groups and websites such as Stormfront and Aryan Nations as well as David Duke and the notorious Holocaust denying Institute of Historical Review.
It is with good reason that Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers and Howard Dean have publicly distanced themselves from Mr. Carter, a lead which hopefully others will follow. No Democratic leader or official has come to Carter’s defense, and partisan attempts to use his comments to smear all Democrats as anti-Israel and anti-Semitic should not be tolerated.
The ongoing controversy, including the Carter Center’s acceptance of millions of dollars from anti-Israel Arab sources, including the Saudi royal family, and the Bin Laden family prompted me last month to reveal to the JTA a disturbing 1987 encounter I had with Mr. Carter, while I was the Director of the Office of Special Investigations in the Justice Department, as he took up the cause of the family of an admitted Nazi SS concentration camp who had been stripped of citizenship by a federal court and removed from the country. (Read about it here.)
If one didn’t know better, you’d think that we were not talking about a former president, but rather Pat Buchanan. After all, it was Mr. Buchanan, was it not, who over the years: denigrated Israel by calling it, among other things, an albatross around this country’s neck, as he blamed her for the wars in Iraq; demeaned the pro-Israel lobby for having turned Capitol Hill into what he calls “Israeli occupied territory”; and came to the aid of Nazi criminals being pursued by our government, even while serving as communications director in the Reagan White House.
As troubling as all of this is, there is more. I have received correspondence which ineluctably leads to the comparison of Jimmy Carter to the darkest side of Richard Nixon.
In response to my earlier Op Ed, on December 27 of last year I received an email from Professor Monroe Freedman, a distinguished member of the faculty of Hofstra Law School in New York. He had been the first executive director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, which had been created during the Carter administration. Working closely with Elie Wiesel, Freedman put forward to the White House a list of Council members. The recommendations came back disapproved, and Freedman remembers well the reason: “In the top corner, in Carter’s handwriting and with his initials was the notation: ‘Too many Jews’.”
It certainly looks like Mr. Carter took a page right out of the playbook of the disgraced Nixon, who, in a most paranoid and bigoted of moments, instructed an aide to count the Jews in the Labor Department where he believed his economic policies were being obstructed.
To all those who doubt that Jews are an extraordinary people or that Israel is an extraordinary nation, I ask: who else could bring together and find common cause between the likes of Richard Nixon, Pat Buchanan David Duke and Jimmy Carter? Enough said.
In related news, Jimmah also complains that maternity wards have “too many babies being born”, high school proms have “too many teenage kids dancing”, zoos have “too many animals”, schools have “too much learning going on”, doctors’ offices have “too many sick people”, and Code Pink rallies have “too many moonbats”! OK, that’s a bit of a stretch…he’d never think there’s a such thing as too many moonbats!
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett