In response to questions of why I dislike Jimmah Carter - it's because I remember the Jimmy of the 1970s and '80s.
In 1970 Carter made his second and successful attempt at Georgia's governor mansion. He won by saying what all good bible thumping segregationists wanted to hear. He posed as a George Wallace supporter, he told "little white lies" and had a reputation of being very slick about it all. Jimmy posed as a conservative democrat, telling his fellow Georgians he was "basically a redneck." Another man of the southern people in blue work shirt who loved his momma and had been "born again" after losing the 1966 bid for governor.
With a big gnarly farmer's finger gauging the wind, Jimmy bigoted up his rhetoric to ride into the governor's mansion on Georgia red necks and backs, and the democrat's closet racists. Jimmy had kind words, when votes were needed, for Lt. Governor Lester Maddox. Maddox was the poster boy for segregationists, who passed out autographed axe handles in the restaurant he owned so "blacks would not be served."
(Carter's dad, the man he admired most, was the family segregationist, polite word for original fathers of racist skinheads, who treated his "black and white sharecroppers equally". Jimmy's momma has since been described as the family progressive who opposed racial inequality.)
Carter shocked the redneckers he had pandered to when, in his governor's inaugural speech, he said Blacks deserved equal opportunity in education and justice – that racial discrimination must end. Here enters the most hilarious progressive defense of Carter : He had to lie to get elected so he could do good things in office. I'm certain all politicians believe that's why they lie, hahahaha.
"But no sooner had he won office than he executed his remarkable shift on race, a move that landed him on the cover of Time as the apotheosis of the “new South” and made him a nationally recognized figure. The cause of this about-face is still a matter of conjecture. Since he was barred from running for re-election, it is possible that he was already weighing a presidential run and thinking in terms of a national audience. Or he may have long harbored liberal views that he had deliberately concealed. In any event, one of his associates later explained that it was Carter’s way to “run conservative and govern liberal.” He was soon to put that formula to use again.
In pursuing his party’s 1976 presidential nomination, Carter not only kept his ideological profile low, he also made it blurry. On Vietnam, for instance: as governor, he had had no need to say much about the war, but what he did say seemed none too dovish, especially his ardent defense of Lieutenant William Calley, a Georgian convicted of the slaughter of Vietnamese civilians at My Lai. In the 1976 primary campaign, Carter distanced himself from the passel of doves—Congressman Morris Udall, Senator Frank Church, former New York Mayor John Lindsay, among others—competing for the mantle of George McGovern, leader of the antiwar Democrats. Instead, he stressed his background as a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and, because he had served on a nuclear submarine, as a disciple of Admiral Hyman Rickover, the "father of the nuclear navy."
From the October 1980 Reagan debate - MR. CARTER: ... one of the blights on this world is the threat and the activities of terrorists. At one of the recent economic summit conferences between myself and the other leaders of the western world, we committed ourselves to take strong action against terrorism. Airplane hijacking was one of the elements of that commitment. There is no doubt that we have seen in recent years - in recent months - additional acts of violence against Jews in France and, of course, against those who live in Israel, by the PLO and other terrorist organizations. Ultimately, the most serious terrorist threat is if one of those radical nations, who believe in terrorism as a policy, should have atomic weapons. Both I and all my predecessors have had a deep commitment to controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In countries like Libya or Iraq, we have even alienated some of our closest trade partners because we have insisted upon the control of the spread of nuclear weapons to those potentially terrorist countries. When Governor Reagan has been asked about that, he makes the very disturbing comment that non-proliferation, or the control of the spread of nuclear weapons, is none of our business. And recently when he was asked specifically about Iraq, he said there is nothing we can do about it. This ultimate terrorist threat is the most fearsome of all, and it's part of a pattern where our country must stand firm to control terrorism of all kinds."
In Carter's latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, page 62, Jimmy writes that Yassir Arafat told him in 1990 that, "The PLO has never advocated the annihilation of Israel." But but but ... Jimmy, years ago you said the PLO was a terrorist organization who committed violence against Jews. Oh, I get it, 1980 terrorists and violence against Jews is not 1990 annihilation.
Carter 2004: I never have believed that Saddam Hussein was a direct threat to the security of the United States..." but but didn't it bother you when Reagan said there was nothing we could do about Iraq, the ultimate terrorist threat?
Remember too that one item in Carter's recent solution to US election irregularities is a national voter ID card. But Carter wants the card issued free as it would otherwise be a good ol' boy "poll tax" (good luck with guvmint not making you pay for that photo ID card, it's called r-e-v-e-n-u-e). That's how "they" do things – make policy appear to benefit you while servicing the status quo agenda.
In the 27 years since leaving office, James Earl Carter has continued to collect millions in farm subsidies, write 29 books, mostly self-promotional books (he's good), photo-op in work shirt with hammer at habitats 1 day a year, and offer false comfort and political rhetoric to whatever audience is his latest target.
According to a May 2007 NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush sank to 28 percent ... the last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979.
With numbers that low – ya really think Republican operatives needed the "October surprise"? Inflation, gas lines, economic stagnation, the beginning of urban flight and blight sank Carter. Nothing would have given Carter a second term. He simply was not liked or respected by most of America.
And for all Carter's proselytizing about apartheid now - in the late '70s his administration opposed UN economic sanction on South Africa, even after the torture and murder of Steve Biko – however, they did agree to an arms embargo – but South Africa was a weapons plantation producing 75 percent of it's own armament and 100 percent of its needed ammo. Ouch ouch sanction. Carter was supportive of certain nations struggle for freedom – but if it could be "proven" the country was receiving aid from Cuba or Russia - then Carter no longer supported them, i.e. Zaire, Nicarauga, El Salvador (killing Salvadorans and raping and murdering American nuns was downplayed under Carter administration). In his final days as president, Carter increased military aid to El Salvador and sent additional American advisors. Once out of office, he says "I think the government in Salvador is one of the bloodthirstiest in [the] hemisphere now."
You see, out of office, they can say anything - especially if there's a sucker audience who will buy the book. And the only worldly change they make is in the estate size they leave their heirs, who usually go on to play the same game on your heirs.
