No Carter thread?

[Killick]

Surprised to not see a thread on James Tiberius Carter's weekend comments on the Bush admin.
For those who missed it: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/20/carter.bush.ap/index.html

... and I've got to note, the White House's response irks me. "Increasingly irrelevant?"
When you're in power and you're talking about an elder statesman, you take a pass on that question. "He's entitled to his opinion, but we disagree" or "We respect his opinion, blah, blah, blah..." That's the way to sidestep that question, not get into a playground battle of words and belittle a man who was a so-so president but a much better man since leaving office and -- by the way -- a Noble Peace Prize winner as little as five years ago.

Thoughts?

 

[Football_Bat]

Tony Snow shows how Bush league he is.

 

[cranberry]

The White House believes Carter's so irrelevant that it needed to trash the former president and Nobel Peace Prize winner immediately. Good for Jimmy calling out the cowards.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

Surprised to not see a thread on James Tiberius Carter's weekend comments on the Bush admin.
For those who missed it: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/20/carter.bush.ap/index.html

... and I've got to note, the White House's response irks me. "Increasingly irrelevant?"
When you're in power and you're talking about an elder statesman, you take a pass on that question. "He's entitled to his opinion, but we disagree" or "We respect his opinion, blah, blah, blah..." That's the way to sidestep that question, not get into a playground battle of words and belittle a man who was a so-so president but a much better man since leaving office and -- by the way -- a Noble Peace Prize winner as little as five years ago.

Thoughts?

You're wrong. Protocol is for ex-presidents to keep their mouths shut about current administrations. Bush took the high road for a heck of a long time, until it became clear that Carter, like a 5 year old, was going to keep raising the stakes until he got a reaction. He got one, an accurate one in my opinion, and then he started backtracking.

 

[DanOregon]

Protocol isn't that ex-prezes keep their mouths shut - its that they don't trash the current occupier of the Oval Office. They can say what a great job the prez is doing all they want. And even though I've got a friend who works at the paper - if you're going to take on Bush, do it in an editorial in the NYT or the WashPost.

 

[leo1]

the rove administration has done a masterful job of selling the public on the concept that to criticize the president (or the war) is tantamount to treason.

this notion was laughable - not to mention obviously very, very wrong - until september 11, 2001.

but now it's accepted by the general public as true. it's seen as fact, thanks to the spin machine.

this, after the loss of life in iraq and everything that suffered due to the money being spent in iraq, will be the most drastic lasting consequences of this administration. 10 years from now who's to say that it won't be an actual crime to criticize the president.

(i know this doesn't particularly relate to carter's comments but it's the general lack of comprehension that THIS IS A DEMOCRACY WHICH MEANS CRITICISM IS PERMISSIBLE that i'm speaking to).

 

[DanOregon]

Spoken like a true terrorist. Just kidding. Part of me thinks Karl Rove is a Democratic "Yuri" sent to infiltrate a Republican administration and bring about the demise of the GOP with a series of decisions meant to inflict long-term damage on the party.

 

[dooley_womack1]

Surprised to not see a thread on James Tiberius Carter's weekend comments on the Bush admin.
For those who missed it: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/20/carter.bush.ap/index.html

... and I've got to note, the White House's response irks me. "Increasingly irrelevant?"
When you're in power and you're talking about an elder statesman, you take a pass on that question. "He's entitled to his opinion, but we disagree" or "We respect his opinion, blah, blah, blah..." That's the way to sidestep that question, not get into a playground battle of words and belittle a man who was a so-so president but a much better man since leaving office and -- by the way -- a Noble Peace Prize winner as little as five years ago.

Thoughts?

You're wrong. Protocol is for ex-presidents to keep their mouths shut about current administrations. Bush took the high road for a heck of a long time, until it became clear that Carter, like a 5 year old, was going to keep raising the stakes until he got a reaction. He got one, an accurate one in my opinion, and then he started backtracking.

No, the protocol is to use your first amendment rights as you see fit. If that's being a 5-year-old (and I well know your feelings on Carter), that's not an accurate view of the first amendment.

 

[Ace]

The truth is a powerful defense.

Somewhere, Andrew Johnson is smiling, realizing that he won't be at the bottom of the lists of worst presidents much longer.

 

[alleyallen]

Carter's comments were not the best, and certainly he should have been much more diplomatic about his criticism of the Bush Administration. A sitting president should never been publicly sniped by an ex-president, and that's a poor reflection on Carter.

That being said, the "increasingly irrelevant" comment was in equally poor taste and shows a real unprofessionalism.

There's no winners in this one, folks.

 

[Ace]

Carter's comments were not the best, and certainly he should have been much more diplomatic about his criticism of the Bush Administration. A sitting president should never been publicly sniped by an ex-president, and that's a poor reflection on Carter.

That being said, the "increasingly irrelevant" comment was in equally poor taste and shows a real unprofessionalism.

There's no winners in this one, folks.

Ironic that one of the worst diplomats we've ever had in the White House would whine about someone else being undiplomatic, though.

 

[cranberry]

I believe that years from now people will be wondering why prominent and influential Americans didn't do more to stop a runaway Bush administration. Jimmy (the Fay Vincent of politics?) won't be considered one of those leaders who failed us.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

Protocol isn't that ex-prezes keep their mouths shut - its that they don't trash the current occupier of the Oval Office.

What I meant.

the rove administration has done a masterful job of selling the public on the concept that to criticize the president (or the war) is tantamount to treason.

this notion was laughable - not to mention obviously very, very wrong - until september 11, 2001.

but now it's accepted by the general public as true. it's seen as fact, thanks to the spin machine.

this, after the loss of life in iraq and everything that suffered due to the money being spent in iraq, will be the most drastic lasting consequences of this administration. 10 years from now who's to say that it won't be an actual crime to criticize the president.

(i know this doesn't particularly relate to carter's comments but it's the general lack of comprehension that THIS IS A DEMOCRACY WHICH MEANS CRITICISM IS PERMISSIBLE that i'm speaking to).

Surprised to not see a thread on James Tiberius Carter's weekend comments on the Bush admin.
For those who missed it: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/20/carter.bush.ap/index.html

... and I've got to note, the White House's response irks me. "Increasingly irrelevant?"
When you're in power and you're talking about an elder statesman, you take a pass on that question. "He's entitled to his opinion, but we disagree" or "We respect his opinion, blah, blah, blah..." That's the way to sidestep that question, not get into a playground battle of words and belittle a man who was a so-so president but a much better man since leaving office and -- by the way -- a Noble Peace Prize winner as little as five years ago.

Thoughts?

You're wrong. Protocol is for ex-presidents to keep their mouths shut about current administrations. Bush took the high road for a heck of a long time, until it became clear that Carter, like a 5 year old, was going to keep raising the stakes until he got a reaction. He got one, an accurate one in my opinion, and then he started backtracking.

No, the protocol is to use your first amendment rights as you see fit. If that's being a 5-year-old (and I well know your feelings on Carter), that's not an accurate view of the first amendment.

No one suggested that he is not permitted to speak his mind or should be prosecuted for it. I assume that the criticism of the WH for responding didn't mean to do that either, or to otherwise infringe on their first amendment rights. Protocol means unwritten, unenforced rules of etiquitte. That is where this entire discussion is taking place, so enough of this 1st amendment martyrdom nonsense.

Somewhere, Andrew Johnson is smiling, realizing that he won't be at the bottom of the lists of worst presidents much longer.

Ironically true & relevant, & has been for 25 years.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

I believe that years from now people will be wondering why prominent and influential Americans didn't do more to stop a runaway Bush administration. Jimmy (the Fay Vincent of politics?) won't be considered one of those leaders who failed us.

I'll take that bet.

 

[Point of Order]

Gerald Ford's criticism became known only when he died. I'm glad Carter decided to speak up now.

 

[cranberry]

I believe that years from now people will be wondering why prominent and influential Americans didn't do more to stop a runaway Bush administration. Jimmy (the Fay Vincent of politics?) won't be considered one of those leaders who failed us.

I'll take that bet.

I'm sure you and the rest of the 27 percent who approve of the way the Bush administration would feel that way. There are still people who defend Hitler, too.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

I believe that years from now people will be wondering why prominent and influential Americans didn't do more to stop a runaway Bush administration. Jimmy (the Fay Vincent of politics?) won't be considered one of those leaders who failed us.

I'll take that bet.

I'm sure you and the rest of the 27 percent who approve of the way the Bush administration would feel that way.

As a matter of fact, I'm in the majority of those who disapprove, though I'm guessing we have different reasons.

There are still people who defend Hitler, too.

I don't remember you as being a jerk, does he just bring out the worst in you, or was I not paying attention?

 

[DanOregon]

Uh, oh, here comes the Hitler talk...

 

[PhilaYank36]

I think it's good that Carter is speaking his mind, etiquette and protocol be damned. This current administration has done a good job in making people think that if they're criticizing the prez, they're anti-American, as some of you have pointed out. As Tony Soprano said last night, "Let's stop ignoring the ****in' 500-lbs elephant in the room.' (Hilariously under-rated line in this last episode) Bush and his band of liars and theives have been the worst people to run this country in the last 100+ years.

I'm too young to remember Carter's presidency, but since he lasted only one term, I'm guessing it wasn't too grand. But the work he has done since then is beyond remarkable. If any ex-prez should be allowed to publicly criticize Gee-Dumb, it should be Carter.

 

[wickedwritah]

There are still people who defend Hitler, too.

Hitler was good when he came into power, he just got a little carried away. [/margeschott]