On Saturday, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported that former-President Jimmy Carter characterized the Bush White House as the "worst in history." Today, Carter seemed unable to make up his mind whether his disrespectful remarks were "careless or misinterpreted." According to his recollection, he merely said Bush was worse than Nixon, but, evidently, the audio record confirmed the accuracy of Carter's quote, which indeed emphasized that the Bush administration was "the worst in history" (AP story here).
An aside: is any one else fatigued with the MSM-Democratic drumbeat to couple the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Bush-43? Never mind the irony of one of the worst presidents in history piling on the current President during his current trials.
My thoughts on former-President Carter's prowess as an historian?
It takes great humility to be a great historian, which is a quality the former-president lacks in massive quantities. More importantly, it is supreme folly to write history as it unfolds and/or in the future tense, but the grievous error in judgment further speaks to Carter's hubris. Needless to say, I do not hold great stock in former-President Carter's predictions.
Why is former-President Carter so determined to take broadsides at President Bush?
As I have said before, Jimmy Carter believes he drew a raw deal from the American people, who lacked the vision to recognize his superiority. Combined with his evangelical sense of obligation to share his wisdom with a less-enlightened and mostly unappreciative American public, Carter’s need for vindication propels him into the arena time after time. Waiting for the day that Americans will come to see him (as his friends in the international community do) for the great man that he really is, Jimmy Carter takes every opportunity to remind us of his discernment.
For many years, the memory of President Carter's inadequacies remained fresh in our minds. During the Clinton administration, he made something of a comeback--but, even then, the former president seemed uncomfortable sharing the spotlight with a current president. He was sidelined once again. He had still not come into his own as elder statesman.
Then, with the advent of George W. Bush, former-President Carter found the perfect foil. He had always sniped at his successors--but, generally, no one had listened very much. However, his pronouncements against the plan to invade Iraq brought Carter new life as an oracle. Suddenly, the Sage of Plains, Georgia, was alive and well, speaking truth to power and winning Nobel Peace Prizes. Where had this humble visionary been for so long? Carter was back enjoying a revival, even speaking at a Democratic National Convention (in 2004) for the first time since his embarrassing defeat of 1980.
Former-President Carter has an insatiable appetite for public acclaim and veneration. Regrettably, he has found a hallelujah chorus regarding his willingness to lambaste the current president. One could imagine that the former-president's Christian compassion might compel the famously born-again Baptist to offer a helping hand to, or perhaps a silent prayer for, the struggling current president. One might assume his own experience as an embattled Chief Executive might lead him to a more empathetic pose toward the current occupant of the office that reduced him to ignominy. On the other hand, for those of us who have watched Jimmy Carter over the last quarter century, his lack of humanity comes as no surprise. In fact, despite my stated reluctance to predict the future, I think it is safe to say that former-President Carter will continue to exhibit this behavior for as long as he has a public platform.
Until the next time.
-------------------------
Note: Part of this post was drawn from previous offerings on former-President Carter. My reaction to an earlier swipe at the President here and his battle with Alan Dershowitz here.
An aside: is any one else fatigued with the MSM-Democratic drumbeat to couple the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Bush-43? Never mind the irony of one of the worst presidents in history piling on the current President during his current trials.
My thoughts on former-President Carter's prowess as an historian?
It takes great humility to be a great historian, which is a quality the former-president lacks in massive quantities. More importantly, it is supreme folly to write history as it unfolds and/or in the future tense, but the grievous error in judgment further speaks to Carter's hubris. Needless to say, I do not hold great stock in former-President Carter's predictions.
Why is former-President Carter so determined to take broadsides at President Bush?
As I have said before, Jimmy Carter believes he drew a raw deal from the American people, who lacked the vision to recognize his superiority. Combined with his evangelical sense of obligation to share his wisdom with a less-enlightened and mostly unappreciative American public, Carter’s need for vindication propels him into the arena time after time. Waiting for the day that Americans will come to see him (as his friends in the international community do) for the great man that he really is, Jimmy Carter takes every opportunity to remind us of his discernment.
For many years, the memory of President Carter's inadequacies remained fresh in our minds. During the Clinton administration, he made something of a comeback--but, even then, the former president seemed uncomfortable sharing the spotlight with a current president. He was sidelined once again. He had still not come into his own as elder statesman.
Then, with the advent of George W. Bush, former-President Carter found the perfect foil. He had always sniped at his successors--but, generally, no one had listened very much. However, his pronouncements against the plan to invade Iraq brought Carter new life as an oracle. Suddenly, the Sage of Plains, Georgia, was alive and well, speaking truth to power and winning Nobel Peace Prizes. Where had this humble visionary been for so long? Carter was back enjoying a revival, even speaking at a Democratic National Convention (in 2004) for the first time since his embarrassing defeat of 1980.
Former-President Carter has an insatiable appetite for public acclaim and veneration. Regrettably, he has found a hallelujah chorus regarding his willingness to lambaste the current president. One could imagine that the former-president's Christian compassion might compel the famously born-again Baptist to offer a helping hand to, or perhaps a silent prayer for, the struggling current president. One might assume his own experience as an embattled Chief Executive might lead him to a more empathetic pose toward the current occupant of the office that reduced him to ignominy. On the other hand, for those of us who have watched Jimmy Carter over the last quarter century, his lack of humanity comes as no surprise. In fact, despite my stated reluctance to predict the future, I think it is safe to say that former-President Carter will continue to exhibit this behavior for as long as he has a public platform.
Until the next time.
-------------------------
Note: Part of this post was drawn from previous offerings on former-President Carter. My reaction to an earlier swipe at the President here and his battle with Alan Dershowitz here.
Tocqueville and I disagree sharply on immigration. He has been sending highlights from the discussion on the web, which are noteworthy:
1. This powerful video.
Tocqueville says: The people in this video don't look like they are interested in compromise or consensus on the issue of amnesty for illegal immigrants:
Watch and hear the chilling images here.
2. From Fred Thompson:
"Most Americans know that we have an illegal immigration problem in this country, with perhaps as many as 20 million people residing here unlawfully. And I think most Americans have a pretty good idea about how to at least start solving the problem - secure our nation's borders.
"But there's an old saying in Washington that, in dealing with any tough issue, half the politicians hope that citizens don't understand it while the other half fear that people actually do. This kind of thinking was apparent with the "comprehensive" immigration reform bill that the U.S. Senate and the White House negotiated yesterday."
Read in full here.
3. Tocqueville says everyone should read this account of the legislation from Mark Steyn (read here).
Thanks Tocqueville.
UPDATE: Tocqueville continues to add resources to this list in the comments section. I invite you all to keep an eye on this link for the latest and most provocative commentaries (read here).
1. This powerful video.
Tocqueville says: The people in this video don't look like they are interested in compromise or consensus on the issue of amnesty for illegal immigrants:
Watch and hear the chilling images here.
2. From Fred Thompson:
"Most Americans know that we have an illegal immigration problem in this country, with perhaps as many as 20 million people residing here unlawfully. And I think most Americans have a pretty good idea about how to at least start solving the problem - secure our nation's borders.
"But there's an old saying in Washington that, in dealing with any tough issue, half the politicians hope that citizens don't understand it while the other half fear that people actually do. This kind of thinking was apparent with the "comprehensive" immigration reform bill that the U.S. Senate and the White House negotiated yesterday."
Read in full here.
3. Tocqueville says everyone should read this account of the legislation from Mark Steyn (read here).
Thanks Tocqueville.
UPDATE: Tocqueville continues to add resources to this list in the comments section. I invite you all to keep an eye on this link for the latest and most provocative commentaries (read here).
Where Are We Now?
1. Our system of regulating immigration (especially immigration from Mexico) is so dysfunctional as to be non-existent.
2. We have no idea how many illegal aliens we are currently hosting in our nation, but most credible estimates indicate somewhere around 12,000,000 undocumented persons.
3. If we do nothing, immigration will continue to exist as an unrestrained force of nature, disturbed only by market variables.
4. The hard-line stance of many conservatives (an impermeable fence, massive deportations, an army on the border capable of maintaining complete security, etc.) is not politically possible in the foreseeable future.
Why?
The Democrats control both houses of Congress. They are content to allow the current system to continue unmolested.
The Republicans are divided on the issue between nativists and market-oriented, Wall Street Journal type conservatives, who believe that a large segment of the undocumented (illegal) population are essential to our economy.
The rest of America is mostly divided, ambivalent or apathetic; there is no national consensus for action at this moment.
5. Doing nothing means the continuation of a regime all of us (conservatives) can agree is bordering on disastrous.
6. We cannot get everything we want. We cannot even decide on what it is exactly that we want.
For the record, here is what I want:
--secure borders (as much as that is possible)
--national ID cards
--tough penalties for employers who employ illegal workers
--some humane system for allowing workers from Mexico to work for American employers as the need arises
--some humane system for allowing a larger percentage of those workers to become American citizens, recognizing our special relationship with Mexico and other neighbors to the South
What to do?
Join the process with reasonable expectations and honest intentions. Let's get in the game and help solve the problem.
An aside: Senator John McCain has shown himself an intrepid statesman on immigration--but a deaf, dumb and blind politician. His principled stand makes his already challenged campaign to win the Republican nomination even tougher. Nevertheless, I admire his grit.
1. Our system of regulating immigration (especially immigration from Mexico) is so dysfunctional as to be non-existent.
2. We have no idea how many illegal aliens we are currently hosting in our nation, but most credible estimates indicate somewhere around 12,000,000 undocumented persons.
3. If we do nothing, immigration will continue to exist as an unrestrained force of nature, disturbed only by market variables.
4. The hard-line stance of many conservatives (an impermeable fence, massive deportations, an army on the border capable of maintaining complete security, etc.) is not politically possible in the foreseeable future.
Why?
The Democrats control both houses of Congress. They are content to allow the current system to continue unmolested.
The Republicans are divided on the issue between nativists and market-oriented, Wall Street Journal type conservatives, who believe that a large segment of the undocumented (illegal) population are essential to our economy.
The rest of America is mostly divided, ambivalent or apathetic; there is no national consensus for action at this moment.
5. Doing nothing means the continuation of a regime all of us (conservatives) can agree is bordering on disastrous.
6. We cannot get everything we want. We cannot even decide on what it is exactly that we want.
For the record, here is what I want:
--secure borders (as much as that is possible)
--national ID cards
--tough penalties for employers who employ illegal workers
--some humane system for allowing workers from Mexico to work for American employers as the need arises
--some humane system for allowing a larger percentage of those workers to become American citizens, recognizing our special relationship with Mexico and other neighbors to the South
What to do?
Join the process with reasonable expectations and honest intentions. Let's get in the game and help solve the problem.
An aside: Senator John McCain has shown himself an intrepid statesman on immigration--but a deaf, dumb and blind politician. His principled stand makes his already challenged campaign to win the Republican nomination even tougher. Nevertheless, I admire his grit.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Some bad news:
Wolfowitz.
No confidence vote and other embarrassments brewing for Gonzales and Justice.
On the other hand, this week offered some much-appreciated bright spots for the President.
1. The economy continues to hum along. The predicted Depression has yet to materialize. New records on Wall Street this week.
2. The President is getting closer on an immigration bill. He has worked long and hard for something substantial in this regard. He sees progress in this area as key to his presidency.
3. He is winning the battle with Congress over Iraq. Once again, the village idiot is out-generaling the Democratic brain trust. I cannot imagine that delicious scenario ever getting old for him--no matter how many times it happens.
4. Tony Blair visited this week.
It is nice when an old and loyal friend comes to town. It must be some comfort to the tongue-tied President that the most articulate man on the world scene today has the same approval rating in Britain as the President has in the USA.
It must be comforting to discuss the future of the world from the perspective of the TRUMAN balcony.
It must help to hear the following words.
Blair on Bush:
"Thank you also for the strength of your leadership over the past few years. You have been a strong leader at a time when the world needed strong leadership. You've been unyielding and unflinching, and determined in the fight that we face together. And I thank you for that."
More personal:
"I've admired him as a President and I regard him as a friend."
A Blair Observation:
"[P]eople understand that there is a battle that we are fighting around the world today. [I]t's a battle about the type of values that govern the world in the early 21st century. You don't win those battles by being a fair-weather friend to your ally, you don't win those battles by being hesitant or withdrawing support for each other when the going gets tough. You don't win those battles by losing the will to fight if your enemy's will to fight is very strong, and very powerful."
Bush on Blair:
"What I know is the world needs courage. And what I know is this good man is a courageous man.
"Thanks for coming."
Amen to that.
Press Conference transcript here.
AFTER THOUGHT: And, don't forget to catch the "George and Tony Show," which the players have down to a high art now, finishing each other's sentences and playing the straight man for one another:
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: In Europe...if you want to get the easiest round of applause, get up and attack America, you can get a round of applause if you attack the President, you get a --
PRESIDENT BUSH: Standing ovation. (Laughter.)
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Yes. And...
Wolfowitz.
No confidence vote and other embarrassments brewing for Gonzales and Justice.
On the other hand, this week offered some much-appreciated bright spots for the President.
1. The economy continues to hum along. The predicted Depression has yet to materialize. New records on Wall Street this week.
2. The President is getting closer on an immigration bill. He has worked long and hard for something substantial in this regard. He sees progress in this area as key to his presidency.
3. He is winning the battle with Congress over Iraq. Once again, the village idiot is out-generaling the Democratic brain trust. I cannot imagine that delicious scenario ever getting old for him--no matter how many times it happens.
4. Tony Blair visited this week.
It is nice when an old and loyal friend comes to town. It must be some comfort to the tongue-tied President that the most articulate man on the world scene today has the same approval rating in Britain as the President has in the USA.
It must be comforting to discuss the future of the world from the perspective of the TRUMAN balcony.
It must help to hear the following words.
Blair on Bush:
"Thank you also for the strength of your leadership over the past few years. You have been a strong leader at a time when the world needed strong leadership. You've been unyielding and unflinching, and determined in the fight that we face together. And I thank you for that."
More personal:
"I've admired him as a President and I regard him as a friend."
A Blair Observation:
"[P]eople understand that there is a battle that we are fighting around the world today. [I]t's a battle about the type of values that govern the world in the early 21st century. You don't win those battles by being a fair-weather friend to your ally, you don't win those battles by being hesitant or withdrawing support for each other when the going gets tough. You don't win those battles by losing the will to fight if your enemy's will to fight is very strong, and very powerful."
Bush on Blair:
"What I know is the world needs courage. And what I know is this good man is a courageous man.
"Thanks for coming."
Amen to that.
Press Conference transcript here.
AFTER THOUGHT: And, don't forget to catch the "George and Tony Show," which the players have down to a high art now, finishing each other's sentences and playing the straight man for one another:
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: In Europe...if you want to get the easiest round of applause, get up and attack America, you can get a round of applause if you attack the President, you get a --
PRESIDENT BUSH: Standing ovation. (Laughter.)
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Yes. And...
Last September (read original post here), I chastised Republicans for eschewing the opportunity to craft meaningful immigration legislation; instead, they chose to cast themselves as hardliners on immigration, portraying Democrats as soft-headed multiculturalists in favor of an open-border. The problem with that strategy, I said back then, was that it was a low-percentage gamble on an unpredictable future.
What if the 110th was the last Congress in which a GOP majority ruled both Houses with a Republican president holding forth at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue? Eschewing a thorny compromise in favor of a short-term boost of political adrenaline risked that nothing got done on immigration, for a long time. Back then, as well as now, doing nothing meant de facto amnesty and affirming a status quo that almost all of us agree is unacceptable.
As I predicted, the vaunted immigration gambit as a defining and motivating difference between the parties turned out to be 100 percent impotent as a political strategy. Bad politics and bad policy.
Now the Democrats are in control of Congress, and we are getting a fairly weak immigration bill; nevertheless, as Senator Jon Kyl points out, a flawed bill is better than nothing).
So, looking back, the Republican House and the conservative grassroots declined the opportunity to create an imperfect but necessary law through a process that they controlled. Today, they wake up to find themselves on the outside looking in, befuddled and angry.
What if the 110th was the last Congress in which a GOP majority ruled both Houses with a Republican president holding forth at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue? Eschewing a thorny compromise in favor of a short-term boost of political adrenaline risked that nothing got done on immigration, for a long time. Back then, as well as now, doing nothing meant de facto amnesty and affirming a status quo that almost all of us agree is unacceptable.
As I predicted, the vaunted immigration gambit as a defining and motivating difference between the parties turned out to be 100 percent impotent as a political strategy. Bad politics and bad policy.
Now the Democrats are in control of Congress, and we are getting a fairly weak immigration bill; nevertheless, as Senator Jon Kyl points out, a flawed bill is better than nothing).
So, looking back, the Republican House and the conservative grassroots declined the opportunity to create an imperfect but necessary law through a process that they controlled. Today, they wake up to find themselves on the outside looking in, befuddled and angry.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
This story from the BBC.
After the Bolsheviks took power in Russia, and set about creating the Soviet Union, they had to consider the problem of the Russian Orthodox Church. After initial attempts to crush Christianity failed, they adopted the strategy of exerting control over the Church (the Bolsheviks were, after all, totalitarians) and hoping that through continued indocrination in the schools Christianity eventually would wither away.
Some Russian Orthodox, fearing State influence over the Orthodox Church, formed a Russian Orthodox Church in exile. Today good news. The two churches are reuniting. Another Cold-War era wall comes down.
It gets better.
At the ceremony on Thursday the Patriarch of Moscow, Alexy II, joined the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Metropolitan Lavry, in celebrating Mass at the Christ the Saviour Cathedral. It was blown up by the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, and rebuilt after the collapse of communism.
Tempering the celebrations are memories of suffering under communism.
On Saturday, the two will jointly consecrate a new church on a site in southern Moscow, where the Soviet secret police shot thousands of Orthodox priests.
As always, the Christian church has survived its oppressors. Thanks be to God.
After the Bolsheviks took power in Russia, and set about creating the Soviet Union, they had to consider the problem of the Russian Orthodox Church. After initial attempts to crush Christianity failed, they adopted the strategy of exerting control over the Church (the Bolsheviks were, after all, totalitarians) and hoping that through continued indocrination in the schools Christianity eventually would wither away.
Some Russian Orthodox, fearing State influence over the Orthodox Church, formed a Russian Orthodox Church in exile. Today good news. The two churches are reuniting. Another Cold-War era wall comes down.
It gets better.
At the ceremony on Thursday the Patriarch of Moscow, Alexy II, joined the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Metropolitan Lavry, in celebrating Mass at the Christ the Saviour Cathedral. It was blown up by the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, and rebuilt after the collapse of communism.
Tempering the celebrations are memories of suffering under communism.
On Saturday, the two will jointly consecrate a new church on a site in southern Moscow, where the Soviet secret police shot thousands of Orthodox priests.
As always, the Christian church has survived its oppressors. Thanks be to God.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
17/05: Another Step Closer to Hell
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
The British government has given the go-ahead for human-animal embryos. Story here.
Paging H.G. Wells. We need you to write an update of The Island of Dr. Moreau.
Paging H.G. Wells. We need you to write an update of The Island of Dr. Moreau.
17/05: I agree with McCain
Let me belatedly associate myself with Senator McCain's remarks from the debate this week:
"Spending is out of control. We didn't lose the 2006 election because of the war in Iraq; we lost it because we in the Republican Party came to Washington to change government and government changed us. We let spending go out of control. We spent money like a drunken sailor, although I never knew a sailor drunk or sober with the imagination of my colleagues."
Amen.
"Spending is out of control. We didn't lose the 2006 election because of the war in Iraq; we lost it because we in the Republican Party came to Washington to change government and government changed us. We let spending go out of control. We spent money like a drunken sailor, although I never knew a sailor drunk or sober with the imagination of my colleagues."
Amen.
17/05: Chuck Hagel? So What?
Dana Milbank's column in the Washington Post today considers the potential for a Chuck Hagel campaign for President as an independent (read here).
As Milbank notes, Hagel keeps hinting he will run. More puzzling is the fact that pundits keep reacting to this flirtation as if the question had some relevance to the 2008 race.
A better question: Who would vote for Hagel?
Hagel is currently vying with Ron Paul for the dubious distinction of Republican least-likely to succeed with Republican voters. Paul is on top right now as a result of name recognition following this week's debate--but, if Republicans knew Hagel better, there is no doubt that they would despise him just as much.
And then there are the Democrats, who, for the first time in a generation, feel confident that they are on the brink of a fortuitous electoral swing back in their direction. Why would they embrace Hagel? True enough, Democrats enjoy his attacks on the President, and he is something of an anomaly as a defeatist Republican, but given the opportunity to vote for John Edwards or Barack Obama or any number of truly retreat-oriented Democrats, Hagel immediately loses his uniqueness.
There are no votes out there for Hagel. Why do we keep talking about this guy?
As Milbank notes, Hagel keeps hinting he will run. More puzzling is the fact that pundits keep reacting to this flirtation as if the question had some relevance to the 2008 race.
A better question: Who would vote for Hagel?
Hagel is currently vying with Ron Paul for the dubious distinction of Republican least-likely to succeed with Republican voters. Paul is on top right now as a result of name recognition following this week's debate--but, if Republicans knew Hagel better, there is no doubt that they would despise him just as much.
And then there are the Democrats, who, for the first time in a generation, feel confident that they are on the brink of a fortuitous electoral swing back in their direction. Why would they embrace Hagel? True enough, Democrats enjoy his attacks on the President, and he is something of an anomaly as a defeatist Republican, but given the opportunity to vote for John Edwards or Barack Obama or any number of truly retreat-oriented Democrats, Hagel immediately loses his uniqueness.
There are no votes out there for Hagel. Why do we keep talking about this guy?
