Jimmy Carter says he would have defeated Reagan had he been more ‘manly’
By Paul Bedard | October 1, 2014 | 10:58 am
Former President Jimmy Carter claimed Wednesday that he would have been re-elected and beaten Ronald Reagan in 1980 if had been more “manly” in his dealings with Iran.
Interviewed by the show “CNBC Meets,” Carter repeated his belief that the failed mission to free American hostages held in Tehran killed his chances, but then added that had he gone to war, America would have rewarded him with a second term in 1980.
“I could’ve been re-elected if I’d taken military action against Iran, shown that I was strong and resolute and, um, manly and so forth,” said the former president, who has established himself as a world human rights leader.
“I could have wiped Iran off the map with the weapons that we had, but in the process a lot of innocent people would have been killed, probably including the hostages and so I stood up against all that all that advice, and then eventually my prayers were answered and every hostage came home safe and free. And so I think I made the right decision in retrospect, but it was not easy at the time,” he said, according to a transcript provided to Secrets.
Interviewed with his wife, Carter said he also had to ignore Rosalynn’s pleadings to “do something.”
In the end, she said that she was proud of her husband. “Peace is very difficult. War is popular in our country,” said Mrs. Carter. Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner’s “Washington Secrets” columnist, can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org. -End
This story was originally posted here.
Today just happens to be Jihad Jimmy’s 90th birthday.
He is also the longest surviving ex-president in history.
It shows. -Dave
No, you do not have dyslexia. James Earl Carter, the 39th POTUS, and at least the worst president of all those I have lived under (if not the worst in the history of this country), really said that.
This was the same Jimmy Carter that was run out of office in one of the most lop-sided elections in the history of…elections, yet actually said this about the Kenyan Boy Blunder currently occupying the domicile at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
You can read all about it here: https://dailycaller.com/2013/11/02/epic-fail-now-jimmy-carter-is-calling-obama-an-incompetent-loser/.*
LOL – I sure hope Jimmy Earl has his taxes paid up – well beyond what he actually owed.
Somewhere in Hell, there is a blizzard brewing.
(h/t: My buddy Earl)
*Note: I was recently stupid enough to perform software updates on my browser and my security software at the same time, and they are both giving me fits at the moment.
The faculty of most colleges and universities in the United States, especially the top-tier Ivy league ones, are registered Democrats. Some are outright Marxist socialists or communists.
The University of Southern California (USC) is no different.
A month ago, I wrote about an aging loser of a political science professor at USC, Adjunct Assistant Professor Darry Sragow, who used classroom time to bash white people, Republicans, and conservatives, although he himself is white.
How is Sragow an academic loser?
“Assistant Professor” is the title of the lowest rung of professorship — typically of young fresh-out-of-grad-schools Ph.D.s. “Adjunct” means Sragow is hired only on a year-by-year basis. All of which means that Sragow was hired as a junior Assistant Professor in another college or university many years ago but was denied tenure there. So now he makes his living drifting from one university to another as an Adjunct. In other words, Darry Sragow is a loser — a failure in academe. How can I say this so confidently? Because I know academe, having gone through the ranks, from young assistant professor, to tenured associate professor, to full professor, to full professor emeritus. I had never ever misused my authority as a professor to use the classroom to advance my partisanship or to hurl insults at political figures. Now comes news that another USC political science prof, Richard Dekmejian, has also been caught on video using his class as a platform for bashing conservatives. Oliver Darcy and Josiah Ryan report for Campus Reform, May 7, 2013, that student Tyler Talgo secretly recorded Dekmejian’s 20-minute rant in a political science class in Fall 2012.
In the video, Dekmejian claims former President George W. Bush suffered from mental instability and stupidity during his time in office. He said Bush was bound by “serious intellectual and mental problems” and must have been “stupid or lying” to initiate Operation Iraqi Freedom for the reason of promoting democracy.
Dekmejian also leveled a number of derogatory comments against members of the Bush administration, alleging both Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice “lied” to the American people during their service. The professor instructed his students that “You have to use that term [lying] people. Don’t use that term mislead.” Dekmejian also accused Christians of salivating over violence in the Middle East: “The right wing evangelical community… these are the people who get happy on television every time there is a conflict in the Middle East. They think that the book of revelation tells them that the messiah…the Christian messiah, Jesus is going to come…all we need is a war in the Middle East involving Israel and the Arabs.”
Dekmejian did, however, praise former President Jimmy Carter (D) for his service during and after his presidency: “He’s still going around doing good things by the way, Carter. That Carter, very respectable.” Elizabeth Garrett, provost and senior vice president for Academic Affairs at USC, told Campus Reform in a written statement that “faculty members are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects. The freedom to take unpopular positions and the freedom to express those positions publicly are at the foundation of what it means to be a faculty member of a university. One of the most important principles of an academic community has been that academic inquiry and discussion be free from censorship or undue outside control.”
Blah, blah, blah.
But for Garrett, “academic freedom” seems only to apply to faculty but not to students. She noted that USC’s student code of conduct “expressly prohibits” students from videotaping their professors in the classroom, but declined to say whether Talgo would be disciplined for releasing his video of Professor Dekmejian to the public.
Here’s the video of Dekmejian:
Richard Dekmejian is a full professor of political science. Surprisingly for a full professor, Dekmejian’s faculty profile lists only his “conference and other presentations” and his university service, but no book or even a refereed journal article. On Rate My Professors, on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 signifying “excellent”), he scored an overall rating of a decidedly mediocre 3.4.
Here’s Dekmejian’s contact info:
Look around you.
4 of every 10 working-age adults you see on the streets don’t work.
That’s because more than 8 million Americans have dropped out of the U.S. labor force in just four years, during the POS’s first term as POTUS.
The result is that only 6.3 of every 10 adult working-age Americans now work, which means those who work have even a heavier tax burden.
Terence P. Jeffrey reports for CNSNews, Jan. 20, 2013, that the number of Americans age 16 or older who decided not to work or even to look for a job increased by 8,332,000 to a record 88,839,000 in Barack Obama’s first term, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
To be in the labor force a person must either have a job or actively sought one in the previous four weeks.
When Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, there were 80,507,000 American civilians age 16 or older who did not have a job or seek one. In December 2012, there were 88,839,000—thus, the increase of 8,332,000.
The increase in drop-outs resulted in a decrease in the labor force participation rate from 65.7% in January 2009, the month Obama was first inaugurated, to 63.6% in December 2012, the latest month reported. Before Obama took office, the lowest the labor force participation rate (63.6%) was in 1981, the year President Ronald Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter — the worst president America’s ever had until Barack Obama.
In the comparable period of George W. Bush’s second term, the number of Americans choosing not to participate in the labor force went from 76,808,000 in January 2005 to 80,380,000 in December 2012—an increase of 3,572,000 in absolute numbers, but not as a percentage of the labor force. The rate of participation in the labor force was the same in January 2005 as it was in December 2008—65.8%.
More Hope and Change Despair and Ruin!
H/t California Political News & Views ~Eowyn
A reader sent me the link to an essayby Paul Joseph Watson on Alex Jones’ Prison Planet website.
Watson’s article of Nov. 26, 2012, carries this very attention-grabbing title: “Brzezinski: ‘Populist Resistance’ is Derailing the New World Order.”
“New World Order” (NWO) is a loaded term that refers to a conspiratorial plan by a group of global elites to abolish nation-states and replace them with a one-world government.
Zbigniew Brzezinski is the former National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter. Before he joined the Carter administration, Brzezinski was a political science professor at Columbia University and a protegé of Henry Kissinger.
Watson began his essay with:
During a recent speech in Poland, former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski warned fellow elitists that a worldwide “resistance” movement to “external control” driven by “populist activism” is threatening to derail the move towards a new world order.
Brzezinski had delivered that speech at the European Forum For New Ideas (EFNI), an organization that Watson describes as advocating “the transformation of the European Union into an anti-democratic federal superstate.”
In concluding his essay Watson then reiterates the NWO theme:
This is by no means the first time Brzezinski has lamented the burgeoning populist opposition to external domination by the global elite. During a 2010 Council on Foreign Relations speech in Montreal, Brzezinski also warned that a ‘global political awakening,’ in combination with infighting amongst the elite, was threatening to derail the move towards a one world government.
Watson’s essay got my attention because Brzezinski’s speech:
Confirms that there really is a global elite who have a plan for a “new world order”; and
The alternate media of the Internet, blogs, and talk radio have so succeeded in informing Americans about the NWO that we have “derailed” the elite’s plan!
So I got to work writing a post with this introduction:
If you’re still skeptical that there’s a global elite or that this elite has a plan to install a New World Order under one government, this news should turn you into a believer.
Watson’s article on Prison Planet includes a YouTube video of 6+ minutes from Brzezinski’s speech. Wanting to know more about what Brzezinski said beyond the bare bones that Watson conveyed, I decided I would watch the video and transcribe what Brzezinski said. So I spent half a morning playing and stopping the video so that I could write down what Brzezinski said.
Imagine my surprise when, after listening to the entire 6:24 minutes long video and reviewing my transcription, I discovered that NO WHERE IN HIS SPEECH DID BRZEZINSKI EVER MENTION THE WORDS “NEW WORLD ORDER”!
Instead, his speech was about how the 20th century had been the American Century but that the 21st century likely will not be. America can no longer dominate the world because of a worldwide “populist resistance,” especially in the Middle East and southwest Asia.
This is a standard and not particularly novel thesis held by academics in the political science subfield of international politics and foreign relations. I myself had said this countless times in teaching my university students on World Politics.
It may turn out that Zbigniew Brzezinski in fact is an elitist who plots for a New World Order, but he didn’t say or do that in his speech at the European Forum For New Ideas. By mischaracterizing Brzezinski’s speech in NWO terms, Paul Joseph Watson had misled his readers, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Doing that ill serves those among us who have a legitimate concern about the NWO because it plays into the hands of our opponents who then use this to bash and dismiss us as tinfoil-hat conspiracy kooks.
You can see for yourself. Here is the video of Brzezinski’s speech, followed by my transcript of most of what he said (I stopped transcribing toward the end because it was clear Brzezinski was not talking about the NWO):
Zbigniew Brzezinski: “A truly American domination is no longer possible. That is so for several reasons. In recent decades, worldwide social change has experienced an unprecedented worldwide acceleration, particularly because of instant mass communication, such as radio, television, and the Internet, which cumulatively have been stimulating a universal awakening of mass political consciousness. The resulting widespread rise in worldwide populist activism is proving inimical to external domination of the kind that prevailed in the age of colonialism and imperialism. Persistent and highly motivated populist resistance of politically awakened and historically resentful peoples to external control has proven to be increasingly difficult to suppress, as guerrilla warfares in Vietnam, Algeria, or Afghanistan have amply demonstrated. And as the rising turmoil in both the Middle East and Southwest Asia are foreshadowing. At the same time, the acquisition by major powers of weaponry of increasingly destructive capabilities has made the notion of victory in a nuclear war prohibitively costly. That has prompted a degree of self-restraint that was absent in the pre-atomic age in relations among major powers. Last but not least, the ongoing shift in the center of gravity of global political power from the West to the East, dramatized by the rise of China and of Asia more generally, signals conclusively the onset of a historically new and more complex distribution of global power. In that much more complex historical and geopolitical setting, democratic America admittedly is still the world’s most powerful, the richest, and the most influential state. Therefore much depends on how America conducts itself in world affairs….”
Brzezinski then proceeds to lament how the partisan divide in the United States has become increasingly bitter, which makes more difficult the conduct of America’s foreign relations and the formation of our foreign policy. He ends this segment in the video by naming the other world powers — China, Russia, Germany, France, Great Britain, Japan, Australia — who have transformed the world from a unipolar world of a single superpower (the USA) to a multipolar world of several great powers.
H/t Joseph ~Eowyn
The one bright spot in what otherwise has been the most dismal, not to mention dangerous presidency in American history has been Obama’s willingness to continue to arrange meetings between 7th Century, bass-ackward illiterate camel-washers, and Allah.
I have to admit, even if half-grudgingly, this is the one thing Obama has gotten right – regardless of his motives.
Now along comes Jimmy Carter, the 39th POTUS, and the person I hold responsible for rekindling the 14 century-long Jihad that had pretty much laid dormant since WWI.
Apparently, Jimmy Earl is most displeased with Obama’s use of drones to dispatch the Jihadists to Hell:
Carter attacks Obama over assassinations and drone attacks
David Usborne Wednesday 27 June 2012
Former president Jimmy Carter has blasted the United States for anti-terror strategies such as targeting individuals for assassination and using unmanned drones to bomb suspected targets, saying they directly flout the basic tenets of universal human rights and foment anti-US sentiment.
In an article written for the New York Times headlined “A Cruel and Unusual Record”, Mr Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his work trying to resolve conflicts around the globe, suggested that the US is in violation of 10 of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a rare attack by a former commander-in-chief on a sitting President – especially of the same party.
While Mr Carter does not name President Obama, there is little disguising that he is the principle target of his stinging words. Recent weeks have seen a slew of media reports detailing how Mr Obama has grown increasingly dependent on drones to take out suspected terror cells and describing how he has the final word to approve names on a “hit-list” of most-wanted terror suspects overseas for assassination. “Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended,” Mr Carter wrote, concluding that the US is “abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights”.
In the past, Mr Carter, 87, has meted out similar criticisms, most notably George W Bush. This latest assault is embarrassing for Mr Obama as it will serve as a reminder that he specifically pledged to adjust America’s posture in the war on terror. He began by banning interrogation techniques he considered to be torture, such as water-boarding, and by closing down Guantanamo Bay. On the latter, of course, he has failed to deliver.
It is poignant, moreover, that both men are Peace Prize winners. Critics believe Mr Obama has proved himself unworthy of the honour which he received soon after taking office. His supporters believe however that he has pre-empted criticism of his foreign policy performance. Under his watch, Osama bin Laden has been killed and much of the top echelons of al-Qa’ida have been gutted. -End
James Earl Carter was defeated in one of the most lopsided presidential elections in the history of elections.
Thirty-two years hence, I still do not think he gets it. -Dave
The latest Gallup Poll has Obama’s approval numbers falling to the lowest he’s ever received, dipping below 40%, at 39%. (74% of Democrats, 36% of Independents, 9% of Republicans approve of Skippy.)
The even better news is how Obama compares to his predecessors at the same juncture in his presidency. Only Jimmy Carter had worse ratings than Obama:
The Bad News
Gallup’s first measure of the 2012 congressional elections shows Democrats leading Republicans, 51% to 44%, in registered voters’ preferences for which party’s candidate they would support in their district “if the elections for Congress were being held today.” Worse still, twice as many voters say Tea Party endorsements are a negative rather than a positive.
Take heart, friends! Remember these words of George Washington, in his letter to James Madison, 1786:
“No morn ever dawned more favorable than ours did; and no day was ever more clouded than the present! Wisdom, and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm.”
Carter: ‘Probably superior’ to other ex-presidents
NBC News did an interview with former President Jimmy Carter in which he said: “I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents.” Carter, who is out with a new book defending his legacy, backed up his assertion by saying the Carter Center goes where the United States government does not, “to fill the vacuums in the world.”
“The Carter Center has decided, under my leadership, to fill the vacuums in the world,” Carter said. “When the United States won’t deal with troubled areas, we go there and we meet their leaders who can bring an end to a conflict, or an end to human rights abuse, and so forth. So I feel that [I] have an advantage over many other former presidents in being involved in daily affairs that have shaped the policies of our nation and the world.”
Apparently realizing how absurd this statement was, Carter issued an update to “clarify” his statement: “What I meant was, for 27 years the Carter Center has provided me with superior opportunities to do good.”
We all know about Jimmy Carter’s past and Joe Queenan of the Wall Street Journal summed it up quite well in his piece from October 2010.
You Mr. Carter are a legend in your own mind.
This essay by Joe Queenan on Jimmy Carter’s literary diarrhea is so on-target and plain hilarious.
Jimmy Carter tries hard to paint himself as some virtuous dude, but the reality is that he is hypocritical and cruel. When he was President, Carter treated with contempt the Secret Service agents who would take a bullet for him. He told them not to look at him or speak to him even to say hello when he went to the Oval Office. Carter once tried to kill a small stray dog with a bow saw because the terrier ate some food his wife had put out for their cat in their home in Plains, GA. The dog managed to dodge Carter’s attack, but Carter then insisted that Secret Service agents take the dog away. The agents instead gave the orphan dog to the press corps. This is what a bow saw looks like:
By Joe Queenan – Wall St. Journal – October 9, 2010
In November 1980, the American people made a disastrous decision whose reverberations are still being felt today. Rather than biting the bullet and re-electing the glum, uncharismatic, hopeless Jimmy Carter to the White House—thereby ensuring that he would return to Plains, Ga., at the conclusion of his second term and keep his blabberpuss shut—they turfed him out into the street.
That made him mad. Really mad. By giving one of America’s dopiest presidents the bum’s rush, the American people ensured that Mr. Carter would spend the rest of his life trying to even the score, trying to persuade them that they had made a huge mistake when they cast their lot with Ronald Reagan, trying to convince them that they were a bunch of jerks.
The particular form of retribution Carter chose was as sinister and cruel as any known to man. He took his pen in hand and began to write books. Long books. Boring books. Dour books. Yes, long, boring, dour, numerous books. Books with sanctimonious names like “Keeping Faith” and “Living Faith” and “Leading a Worthy Life.” Books with pompous names like “Turning Point,” “Our Endangered Values” and “Always a Reckoning.” Books with hokey names like “Christmas in Plains” and “Everything to Gain: Making the Most of the Rest of Your Life.” And yes, even books with names like “The Little Baby Snoogle-Fleejer” that defy classification.
He has not set his pen down since.
With the recent release of the exquisitely pointless “White House Diary,” his 25th entry in the literary sweepstakes, Mr. Carter has now written more books than James Joyce, Jane Austen, Gustave Flaubert, George Eliot, Virgil, Homer and Jonathan Franzen. He has also written more books than Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, Woodrow Wilson, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and a whole lot of other presidents who got more points on the scoreboard than he ever did. Most ex-presidents have the good grace to stop at a single publication after they leave office, though more than a few have obligingly opted for the public’s favorite number in this lethal genre: zero.
The Oval Office equivalent of the Edsel, Mr. Carter has spent three decades in the wilderness retrofitting his image as the best, the brightest, and the noblest ex-president of them all. This is like trying to get credit for touchdowns 30 years after the clock has run out, with the score reading Eureka College 50, Navy 0.
Being history’s most admired ex-president is like being the most beloved former skipper of a torpedoed aircraft carrier. If the ship sank while you were at the helm, it doesn’t really matter what a great job you did manning the inflatable lifeboat afterward. Mr. Carter inhabits some weird parallel universe with people like George Foreman, who were despised when they were at their peak and then manufactured a touchy-feely post-career aura that made some people forget how much they disliked them when they were famous. But George Foreman, unlike Jimmy Carter, is funny. And George Foreman could throw a punch.
Carter’s extraneous exhumation of the musty old diary he kept during his four long, horrid years in office suggests that he is scraping the bottom of the barrel for material. Publishing a diary describing the four years in office that were so awful they got you booted out into the street is like George Pickett publishing “Gettysburg Diary” or Mike Brown publishing “Quiet Days in Katrina: A FEMA Diary.” And if Carter’s gone back to the dismal years 1977-80 to exhume diary material, what comes next? “Tuesdays with Bert Lance”?
This is a classic case of being careful what you wish for. The American people wanted Jimmy Carter out of office in the worst way, and to this day they are paying the price. If we had to do it all over again, I think a lot of people would vote to amend the Constitution and allow presidents to run for five, six—as many terms as they wanted. That wouldn’t leave them much spare time to write books.