Page 1 of 1 pages
I can scarcely think of anyone less qualified to offer advice or analysis than Jimmy Carter.
Appease Prize
Posted by Natalie on Dec 17, 2005 at 1:57 PM
Hmm, so Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists embody the spirit of Antichrist, do they…?
Who knew?
Unfortunately anything Prez Carter might say, no matter what it is, will always be interpreted in light of his presidency, and the fact that his successes (e.g. brokering the end of hostilities between Israel and Egypt) will never get the sort of attention his failures will always continue to get (e.g. the hostage crisis in Iran, including the deaths of those in the rescue mission). It’s because the successes mean less to most Americans than the failures, whether the failures were directly due to his leadership or not.
Actually, I see no reason why the Dems or any party needs to shed or de-emphasize their secular humanist facets. Not being a Dem, it’s sort of all the same to me, but from the view of an outsider, perhaps it would be enough for a political party with a national scope to demonstrate that it can provide an ideological home to secularists as well as Christians. But I suppose that’s part of the point, isn’t it? What does the Dem party stand for? What binds it as an ideological and political force? That seems like the prior consideration, and frankly the more urgent need.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 19, 2005 at 5:16 AM
I cannot think of anyone more qualified to offer advice or analysis than Jimmy Carter. The FrontpageMag link offered by Natalie is, as usual, pure distortion.
Posted by davinci on Dec 19, 2005 at 6:41 AM
Americans believe that Carter was a failed president because the press told them to believe he was a failed president and because Rupert Murdoch was hopelessly in love with Reagan, whose five day funeral overshadowed the loss of a much better “American”—-Ray Charles.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 19, 2005 at 12:49 PM
I agree. Carter has gotten a terrifically bad and unfair rap. He had the only rational energy policy this country has ever pursued, dedicating (as I recall) $10 billion a year to alternative sources. The Repugs are bought and sold by Big Oil, and the price of oil is hardly benefited by alternative energy. (Nuclear is a special case which I won’t go into here.)
Carter was the victim of his own inability to project the machismo Americans seem to crave. He came across very poorly on TV. The mainstream press really killed him in the hostage crisis, which like 9-11 became a national trauma largely because the press and the right-wing blew it out of proportion and used it to fan hysteria and despair—ideal conditions for growing the dictatorship they’ve been working on since 1980.
As for Carter’s view of modern American Christianity, I myself grew up in the Christian tradition and used to respect it. I find it almost impossible to maintain that respect as the whole institution seems to have been hijacked by liars and fools—and mean ones, too. The Jesus I heard about would have thrown the Pat Robertsons out of the church just as fast as he threw the money-lenders out of the temple. They are a disgrace to the spiritual tradition they profess to represent.
Posted by druid on Dec 22, 2005 at 2:44 PM
Hi, druid. Me and my compadre were going to celebrate Christmas with friends today, but one of them is busy coughing up a lung, so now I have time on my hands to scroll through the threads.
I saw a sign on a church billboard today that said, “Without Christmas, there would be no Easter.” I could almost hear Jesus groan.
I read that the megachurches won’t be having services this Christmas because it falls on a Sunday. What is it? God? Or Mammon? Jesus? Or Santa?
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 23, 2005 at 8:36 PM
The FrontpageMag link offered by Natalie is, as usual, pure distortion.
No, I think it’s pretty accurate, for the most part. Carter’s crushing landslide defeat in 1980 is I think a better barometer of the soundness of Carter’s judgement and analysis than is a book by the loser himself.
Not to mention the positive results that came from a 180 degree turn in foreign and domestic policy.
Posted by Natalie on Dec 24, 2005 at 7:06 PM
“Carter
Posted by davinci on Dec 26, 2005 at 2:32 AM
Ok, since FrontpageMag is as ideological as In These Times
FrontpageMag is published by David Horowitz, who is one of the most hateful men I’ve ever had the displeasure of encountering. Anger seems to be his only motivation, and it’s the only consistent feature of his ideology from his days as a leftist to his current incarnation as a right-wing demagogue.
If anyone wishes to discredit President Carter, surely they could find a more credible source than David Horowitz, couldn’t they?
Posted by marcello09 on Dec 27, 2005 at 1:46 PM
” Not to mention the positive results that came from a 180 degree turn in foreign and domestic policy.”
Yeah, killing nuns in South America, funding the Contras, illegally waging war, AGAIN, ignoring the Constitution, AGAIN. Firing air traffic controllers, raping Social Security, cutting taxes for the rich AGAIN. Yeah, positive if you’re rich. Or a goddamn Nazi.
What consoles me is your monkey hero is going down fast, along with all of his buddies. Oh, poor Tom Delay. Ha! Two down, plenty more to go.
My wish: bush would have to work two jobs to make ends meet, worry about getting health insurance, paying the rent, or maybe getting out of a flooded city he’s ignored. That’s right HE IGNORED.
I wish only the worse for this piece of shit who calls himself “president”.
Posted by Ammonia D on Jan 9, 2006 at 11:34 PM
My useless vision—-that they would all be stripped of the right to use currency, and forced to hold up their “will work for food” signs at busy corners and have no recourse but their evangelical “base” for all other needs, or drink the damned hemlock.
Actually, I want them to be tried in accordance with the good laws they have flouted. Matters not to me whether the death penalty goes before the cabal or after.
(Wouldn’t wager on it, but wouldn’t wager against divine intervention either.)
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 10, 2006 at 12:45 AM
http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/rants/fuckthetroops.html
Posted by Ammonia D on Jan 14, 2006 at 1:02 PM
Uh, Natalie, the FrontpageMag article blames Jimmy Carter for creating Osama bin Laden. How about assigning at least a little blame to Ronald Reagan, who chose to equip and support radical Islamists to fight the Soviet invaders, rather than more pro-democracy forces. (We won’t even get into Iran-Contra here). The radical right chooses to ignore these facts as they push to elevate Reagan to sainthood.
Posted by DrSamba on Jan 15, 2006 at 10:09 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
I can scarcely think of anyone less qualified to offer advice or analysis than Jimmy Carter.
Appease Prize
Hmm, so Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists embody the spirit of Antichrist, do they…?
Who knew?
Unfortunately anything Prez Carter might say, no matter what it is, will always be interpreted in light of his presidency, and the fact that his successes (e.g. brokering the end of hostilities between Israel and Egypt) will never get the sort of attention his failures will always continue to get (e.g. the hostage crisis in Iran, including the deaths of those in the rescue mission). It’s because the successes mean less to most Americans than the failures, whether the failures were directly due to his leadership or not.
Actually, I see no reason why the Dems or any party needs to shed or de-emphasize their secular humanist facets. Not being a Dem, it’s sort of all the same to me, but from the view of an outsider, perhaps it would be enough for a political party with a national scope to demonstrate that it can provide an ideological home to secularists as well as Christians. But I suppose that’s part of the point, isn’t it? What does the Dem party stand for? What binds it as an ideological and political force? That seems like the prior consideration, and frankly the more urgent need.
I cannot think of anyone more qualified to offer advice or analysis than Jimmy Carter. The FrontpageMag link offered by Natalie is, as usual, pure distortion.
Americans believe that Carter was a failed president because the press told them to believe he was a failed president and because Rupert Murdoch was hopelessly in love with Reagan, whose five day funeral overshadowed the loss of a much better “American”—-Ray Charles.
I agree. Carter has gotten a terrifically bad and unfair rap. He had the only rational energy policy this country has ever pursued, dedicating (as I recall) $10 billion a year to alternative sources. The Repugs are bought and sold by Big Oil, and the price of oil is hardly benefited by alternative energy. (Nuclear is a special case which I won’t go into here.)
Carter was the victim of his own inability to project the machismo Americans seem to crave. He came across very poorly on TV. The mainstream press really killed him in the hostage crisis, which like 9-11 became a national trauma largely because the press and the right-wing blew it out of proportion and used it to fan hysteria and despair—ideal conditions for growing the dictatorship they’ve been working on since 1980.
As for Carter’s view of modern American Christianity, I myself grew up in the Christian tradition and used to respect it. I find it almost impossible to maintain that respect as the whole institution seems to have been hijacked by liars and fools—and mean ones, too. The Jesus I heard about would have thrown the Pat Robertsons out of the church just as fast as he threw the money-lenders out of the temple. They are a disgrace to the spiritual tradition they profess to represent.
Hi, druid. Me and my compadre were going to celebrate Christmas with friends today, but one of them is busy coughing up a lung, so now I have time on my hands to scroll through the threads.
I saw a sign on a church billboard today that said, “Without Christmas, there would be no Easter.” I could almost hear Jesus groan.
I read that the megachurches won’t be having services this Christmas because it falls on a Sunday. What is it? God? Or Mammon? Jesus? Or Santa?
The FrontpageMag link offered by Natalie is, as usual, pure distortion.
No, I think it’s pretty accurate, for the most part. Carter’s crushing landslide defeat in 1980 is I think a better barometer of the soundness of Carter’s judgement and analysis than is a book by the loser himself.
Not to mention the positive results that came from a 180 degree turn in foreign and domestic policy.
“Carter
Ok, since FrontpageMag is as ideological as In These Times
FrontpageMag is published by David Horowitz, who is one of the most hateful men I’ve ever had the displeasure of encountering. Anger seems to be his only motivation, and it’s the only consistent feature of his ideology from his days as a leftist to his current incarnation as a right-wing demagogue.
If anyone wishes to discredit President Carter, surely they could find a more credible source than David Horowitz, couldn’t they?
” Not to mention the positive results that came from a 180 degree turn in foreign and domestic policy.”
Yeah, killing nuns in South America, funding the Contras, illegally waging war, AGAIN, ignoring the Constitution, AGAIN. Firing air traffic controllers, raping Social Security, cutting taxes for the rich AGAIN. Yeah, positive if you’re rich. Or a goddamn Nazi.
What consoles me is your monkey hero is going down fast, along with all of his buddies. Oh, poor Tom Delay. Ha! Two down, plenty more to go.
My wish: bush would have to work two jobs to make ends meet, worry about getting health insurance, paying the rent, or maybe getting out of a flooded city he’s ignored. That’s right HE IGNORED.
I wish only the worse for this piece of shit who calls himself “president”.
My useless vision—-that they would all be stripped of the right to use currency, and forced to hold up their “will work for food” signs at busy corners and have no recourse but their evangelical “base” for all other needs, or drink the damned hemlock.
Actually, I want them to be tried in accordance with the good laws they have flouted. Matters not to me whether the death penalty goes before the cabal or after.
(Wouldn’t wager on it, but wouldn’t wager against divine intervention either.)
http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/rants/fuckthetroops.html
Uh, Natalie, the FrontpageMag article blames Jimmy Carter for creating Osama bin Laden. How about assigning at least a little blame to Ronald Reagan, who chose to equip and support radical Islamists to fight the Soviet invaders, rather than more pro-democracy forces. (We won’t even get into Iran-Contra here). The radical right chooses to ignore these facts as they push to elevate Reagan to sainthood.
register a new account »Posting Security