Dressing Down Jimmah
Our favorite (cough, cough) ex-President is getting an earful from the New York Post editorial board this morning:
Jimmy Carter may or may not have been the worst president of the 20th century — history will have the final word on that — but his disgraceful performance yesterday at Coretta Scott King’s funeral marks him as the most shameless.
Maybe of all time.
There is, after all, a time and place for everything — but not for Carter.
In a reprehensible (albeit typical) display of tone-deafness, the former president used the funeral of Dr. Martin Luther King’s widow to score cheap points against President Bush. (He wasn’t alone in that regard, more of which in a bit.)
Carter warmed up by conjuring the outlandish conspiracy theories that still linger from Hurricane Katrina: “We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi who are most devastated by Katrina to know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans.”
Then he segued on to the Bush administration.
In what could only be taken as a direct attack on Bush’s electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists — a program Carter has repeatedly denounced as “illegal” — the ex-prez said of Mrs. King and her slain husband, Martin Luther King, “they became the targets of secret government wiretapping and other surveillance.”
True enough — though Carter couldn’t quite bring himself to note that the wire-tapping was conducted under Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and was originally ordered by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, all Democrats.
Rev. Lowery does’t escape criticism, either:
Rev. Joseph Lowery, who once upon a time was a figure of some note among Dr. King’s colleagues, was even more pointed in his hectoring.
“We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there,” he said. “But Coretta knew and we knew that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor.”
To be sure, Mrs. King probably would have agreed with the sentiments — though she was far too gracious to openly insult a president of the United States to his face.
Just how partisan has Carter become (not to mention ignorant of nuances)? Read on:
“Under the Bush administration, there’s been a disgraceful and illegal decision we’re not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we’re spying on the American people,” Carter told reporters. “And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act.”
Carter made the remarks at a union hall near Las Vegas, where his oldest son, Jack Carter, announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate.
The former president also rebuked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for telling Congress that the spying program is authorized under Article 2 of the Constitution and does not violate the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed during Carter’s administration. Gonzales made the assertions in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which began investigating the eavesdropping program Monday.
“It’s a ridiculous argument, not only bad, it’s ridiculous. Obviously, the attorney general who said it’s all right to torture prisoners and so forth is going to support the person who put him in office. But he’s a very partisan attorney general and there’s no doubt that he would say that,” Carter said. “I hope that eventually the case will go to the Supreme Court. I have no doubt that when it’s over, the Supreme Court will rule that Bush has violated the law.”
UPDATE 11:29 a.m.: Lowery responded to Tucker Carlos last night:
CARLSON: It’s not hard to hear that [your remarks] and not draw the obvious conclusion that that’s an attack on President Bush, which of course is your right to do, and I think completely fair. But again, it seemed very uncomfortable to say something like that in a funeral with the president right there. It seemed like bad manners.
LOWERY: Well, I don’t think so. I certainly didn’t intend for it to be bad manners. I did intend for it to — to call attention to the fact that Mrs. King spoke truth to power. And here was an opportunity to demonstrate how she spoke truth to power about this war and about all wars.
And I think that, in the context of the faith, out of which the movement grows, we have always opposed war. We’ve always fought poverty. And we base our — our argument on — on the faith, on the fact that Jesus taught us. He identified with the poor. “I was hungry; you didn’t feed me. I was naked; you didn’t clothe me. I was in prison; you didn’t see about me.” He talked about war. He talked about he who lives by the sword.
So I’m comfortable with the fact that I was reflecting on Mrs. King’s tenacity against war, her determination to witness against war and to speak truth to power.
Uggh – there’s that phrase, ‘speak truth to power’ – I cringe whenever I hear that…Lowery says the right things here with Carlson, but really, his comments don’t jibe with his confrontational tone at the ceremony.
Still, enough…it’s not a big deal, in the scheme of things…it’s just a little rude, that’s all, and civility should have its place, and a funeral should be that place…
No need to reprise the preceding thread, but there are things in the Post editorial which are especially silly.
1) Saying that Carter “may or may not have been the worst president of the 20th century” is a cheap shot, considering the stiff competition he faces from Harding, Nixon, and Bush II. For starters, Carter never invaded a country on false premises. Also, “may or may not” is flaccid logic. I could write that George Bush may or may not be a pedophile and be logically correct. It’s a way to make a charge without having to support it.
2) MLK died in 1968 and the wiretaps stopped during the Johnson administration. How is this an attack on Bush?
3) The fact is that the overwhelming majority of people who were abandoned in Louisiana were black. How does this imply an “outlandish conspiracy theory”?
The Post, of course, is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and has the same editorial bent as Fox News. It is akin to the phony “War on Christmas:” the object is to stir up a lot of passion and resentment, but it is long on conclusions and short on facts.
Well, peter, I agree with point one…but I showed in the second excerpted article how Carter is in fact making the comparison with wiretapping on King with the wiretapping on terrorists that Bush has initiated.
As to point 3, I couldn’t agree less. The reason so many people died in Louisiana is because they were poor, not because they were black. There were plenty of poor white people devestated by Katrina, too, but they didn’t get the headlines because they mostly lived in rural Mississippi.
It’s time to start condemning people who insist on framing this debate in racial rather than economic terms…yes, there is a lot of inequality in this country…and the reasons are economic more than a result of discrimination…
OK, I’m missing something — the second excerpted article (ABC News) was from Las Vegas, not the King funeral — sorry to be dense here
I agree with you about race vs. class: it is a class issue much more than a racial issue. It certainly appeared to me that the overwhelming majority of Katrina victims were black — but if, as you say, a substantial number were rural whites from Mississippi, then this should have been acknowledged.
Bush did not invade on false premises either, he invaded on facts. Carter and all other limp wristed Demos would rather give the country away rather than stand firm. I guess you do not remember 9/11 ? I think terrorists killing thousands of our people on our own soil isn’t reason enough to defend freedom. Carter is a joke, the example he used of wire tapping against King was done by his own party. What a hypocrite. Alleging the a hurricane has anything to do with equal rights is absurd. White people were affected also, yet they are not the ones crying racism. The majority of people affected were black because the majority of the city is black. Thats not racism its called the law of probability. IT WAS ALSO BLACK PEOPLE WERE WERE SHOOTING GUNS AT WHITE RESCUE TEAMS trying to help people. iT WAS ALSO a black mayor that didnt handle the situation correctly…he is a democrat along with a democrat Governor and a democrat chief of police. Bottom line is that using a funeral to take political jabs is pathetic and classless and only members of the dumbocrat party would do it.
Well, I’m not trying to nitpick you to death…Carter didn’t make the connection explicit – I’m just saying in context, his comments have a definite subtext that I’m sure all of the attendees understood.
As for Katrina – I’m sure the vast majority of the deaths were of black Americans – after all, it’s far easier to escape a rural area than a city, and there’s not doubt New Orleans was a predominantly black city. My point was only that several states were devestated by the hurricane, yet media coverage (understandably) focused on the city…
So it is just a coincidence that Carter has been an outspoken critic of the NSA surveillence program AND he mentions that Mrs. and Dr. King had been targets of warrentless wiretaps? I can’t say for certain what was in Carter’s heart when he made those comments, but it strikes me as nonsensical and beyond reasonable to ignore the obvious connection. As for his legacy as a President, history will tell that tale finally, but so far the assessment has not been kind.
The simple fact is that President Bush went to Mrs. King’s service to show respect for a well known, well thought of, and accomplished civil rights leader. I would argue that he also had no choice but to go – but that is for another day. That Carter and Lowery would take the opportunity to hurl cheap shots at the man in that situation, and at a time when he is incapable of defending himself, is the epitomy of classlessness and a window into their character.
Jason, how brainwashed are you? Iraq was not involved in 9/11…remember? Everyone, even the 9/11 Commission, concedes that fact. You merely sound stupid when you should be stating facts to support your absurd argument.
Is no one going to point out to Peter that the second President Bush was never, even for a second, president in the 20th century? If you want to say he’s the worst president of the 21st century, I’ll gladly agree.
As for the Post’s admittedly vacuous claim, I have to point out that Harding may have been corrupt and ineffective, but there’s no evidence that he was grossly incompetent. Ditto Nixon. Not so, Carter. If sheer incompetence is a measure of how bad a president is, surely Carter ranks right near the bottom of the 20th century’s heap.
Also, is no one going to point out to Peter how exceedingly tiresome it is to hear the same talking points over and over again? BUSH LIED OH NOES! Enough is enough already.
Peter-
(1) Without addressing the merits of your disgust for our current President Bush, it’s difficult to imagine anyone would consider him one of the worst presidents of the 20th century. Or, for that matter, one of the best presidents of the 20th century. Check your calendar and get back to me if you can’t figure out why.
(2) Given that President Carter has been touring the country bashing “Bush” (odd that a man whose sole claim to importance is his holding the office would have so little respect for it) for his supposedly illegal wiretapping… what other motive could he possibly have for bringing up President Kennedy’s wiretapping of MLK? Was it somehow an important part of honoring the life of Coretta Scott King?
(3) I’m halfway there on the Katrina thing — I still think it’s an “outlandish conspiracy theory” but I agree that President Carter genuinely believes it (the dingbat!). Given that, it does make sense in the context of Coretta Scott King’s life and work.
The idea that I should listen to lecturing from conservatives about how people should behave at Coretta Scott King’s funeral is pretty absurd on its face. Can you come up with a rational argument saying that she wouldn’t have been outspoken about Katrina, the Iraq War, or the wiretapping scandal? Or that, as she devoted her life to it, she’d want to be remembered as an inspiration in the context of the issues facing us today?
I guess “propriety” (read: making the President more comfortable) takes precedent over that.
To Steve and Clint: wiretapping King was the most egregious thing the government did, and it was appropriate for Carter as a former President to acknowledge it. So any time someone even mentions a wiretap — even if it ended over 30 years ago and took place under Democratic administrations — it’s a slam at Bush?
To Ryan and Clint: you are, of course, absolutely correct — I was thinking last hundred years, not 20th century –
To Ryan: do you really think George Bush’s admininistration was more competent than Carter’s?
Fargus, why conservatives? We can’t have an opinion on Correta Scott King’s funeral? Even though it was Republicans who pushed through the Voting Rights Act against the opposition of southern Democrats? Even though it was Democratic officeholders that spied on King?
Or is that all conservatives are racists underneath? I’d really be interested in your elaboration of this point…
peter, you’re not going to convince me that Jimmy Carter, who has been running around in public screaming about the illegality of Bush’s wiretaps, just happened to bring it up at the funeral of Martin Luther King’s widow…if you want to believe that, your prerogative, but I’m not buying it for a minute…
Not a race thing at all. I’m just responding to those who’ve taken umbrage, which have been pretty much exclusively Republicans and conservatives.
And you know as well as I do that the makeup of the Republican and the Democratic parties are nothing near what they were 40 years ago. That’s as much of a non-sequitur as anything.
But isn’t Bush II both the best AND worst President of our current century? Just as my daughter is my favorite daughter (ignoring the fact she is my only daughter).
For goodness sake, it was a funeral (or maybe memorial service); attacking and insulting someone who has come to show respect is reprehensible. There are plenty of appropriate times and places to criticize the President, a funeral isn’t one of them, regardless of the speaker’s political affinity with the person being eulogized.
I won’t go into the baseless accusations and cheap shots being taken here as a result of accusations and cheap shots taken at Coretta King’s funeral and afterward, because I for one am appalled at the politicization of both her funeral AND her husband’s recent day of memory by small minded people. And we wonder why the rest of the world laughs at us?
A funeral or day of rememberance should be an opportunity to honor the life and accomplishments of a person. Not an excuse or platform to snipe at contemporary ideological enemies. I saw it happening on both sides in the blogosphere as well. How long has it been since her husband died? And how much has been said about her since? Not much. But now that she’s passed away, some felt it was as good a reason as any to grab a microphone and call other people names.
Have these people no shame? Hardly a word was mentioned about her that wasn’t peppered with some snide partisan remark or innuendo toward someone else. It’s embarrassing and I won’t take part in it. Would it have been so hard for them to talk about her accomplishments and how far we’ve come while also saying we still have a way to go? You know … words of encouragement and progress?
I’ll leave now. Go ahead and blast me.
Well, Fargus, fair enough: and again, I don’t want to make this into a bigger deal than it is…but the President, like him or hate him, is the President, and I think a little class is not out of the question…
I don’t particularly care for politics at funerals, in any event…right or left…but then, it wasn’t my funeral, so I guess I should just let it go…but insulting guests, especially so prominent a guest, just isn’t cool in my book…
Mark: well, I’ll concede a little ground here, and say that Carter made an oblique reference. The phrase the Times used today was “apparent allusion.” Still, you would think that Carter was a Danish cartoonist based on the reaction he received. I suppose insult is in the eye of the putatively insulted, but to my eyes it’s no big deal. Simon Cowell has a lot more bite than that.
One other thought: this is the first occasion I can think of since Bush was elected when he faced an American audience which was not a fund-raiser, the military, or a pre-screened audience at a campaign rally. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is the first time that Bush spoke at an assembly where someone else determined who would be there. Given the recent polling which shows that 55% of Americans think that the Bush administration is a “failure” – and who knows what the percentage is in the black community – you could make the case that the reaction to Bush was more restrained than it otherwise might have been.
Poor Peter. Harding happened to be in office when the demographics changed, the population fell, the money supply contracted and blaming him is as silly as blaming Wilson for WWI.
Nixon won by huge majorities and while he certainly botched the investigation of Watergate, no one will write him off as a failed President–except maybe people who confine their reading to anti-nixon screeds (I’m a fiscal conservative, social liberal etc but I don’t regard Clinton as a failed President).
Carter was and is a loser. He won because Ford did the right thing and pardoned Nixon. For that we got 4 years of monotonous hectoring about our “malaise,” an evisceration of the CIA’s humanint, a demoralized military from a man geared to preside over a failed company, a bankrupt family or country. His “Dixi Chick” willingness to lambaste the US and debase the currency of being an ex-Prez is disgraceful–classless. Beneath contempt.
The real downside? It reminds me of why I haven’t voted for a Democratic Presidential nominee since Clinton in 1992. They are overly partisian; they don’t like the US; they are eager to bash us to please the UN and any foreign power that deems itself morally superior to us (especially those that have a fleeting acquaintance with the 1st, 4th and 6th amendments to our bill of rights). Democrats could win an election in Hollywood–thats about it.
So Rev. Joseph Lowery said regarding his compatriots “we have always opposed war”.
I wonder if that statement also includes opposing the United States Civil War, which freed African-Americans from slavery, though at the cost of hundreds of thousand of dead.
Or maybe he thinks that war is OK when it frees yourself, but not when it frees others. Perhaps he might consider whether or not he’s glad that abolitionists and white farmers in the North in 1861 didn’t share the opinion that he apparently holds today.
Like the bumper sticker says:
“Except for ending Nazism, Slavery and Communism, WAR NEVER SOLVES ANYTHING”
Mark: Guess what, I think your absolutely right. Carter has made his stance on what he insists (without things like hearings or high-level briefings) is the “illegal” NSA terrorist surveillance program perfectly public and perfectly clear. He made the remark about the surveillance of the Kings to needle Bush. But the Post’s comment that it was the Brothers Kennedy and LBJ who ordered that surveillance is well-taken–although forgotten by Carter because he wasn’t really tallking about Mrs. King–he was using her funeral to stick it to Bush, Ashcroft and Gozales.
What a class act. I think he’s like a moonbat version of Mr. Rogers.
Let’s see. Harding: Teapot Dome, first cabinet officer to be sent to prison, and (according to Wikipedia) one of the four worst Presidents (“Frequently ranking at the bottom of most polls are Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Warren G. Harding.”)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_U.S._Presidents
Nixon: first President to have his VP resign in a bribery scandal; high inflation; Cambodian incursion; helicopters leaving the rooftops of Saigon; first President to be resign from office to avoid conviction for impeachment. Sure sounds like a failed Presidency to me.
I think Carter was a mediocre President, but he showed leadership in the sense that he was willing to say and do unpopular things. You may find him hectoring and be disinclined to hear about malaise or watch him in a Cardigan sweater. Most people would far prefer to have a President who tells them everything is hunky dory, give out tax cuts, and tell them that Americans are the greatest people on Earth. That is following what the public wants – in my opinion, a true leader will try to shape public opinion rather than follow it. He also had to fix the systemic inflation which he inherited from Nixon (wage and price controls) and Ford (giving out WIN buttons to stop inflation). When the Fed raised interest rates to 20%, it was hardly a popular thing to do – but it fixed what seemed at the time to be an incurable problem
Peter -
You ask, do you really think George Bush’s admininistration was more competent than Carter’s?
To which I have two responses:
1) My comment was about the 20th century, so we’re still in the wrong timeframe. (I’m assuming you mean George W. Bush, in that I’m not under the impression that George H. W. Bush was at all incompetent. In fact, his problem was that he was far too competent for the Republican Party.) This, of course, is a cop-out.
2) I am really not sure how to actually answer the question, but I can give it a shot. As Mark and his readers surely know, I am no great fan of the current president. I think the most common criticism of him is off-base – that is, I think the Iraq War was absolutely the right thing to do and lazy Americans who cry about their own freedom and ignore everyone else’s are just plain offensive. BUT I do think there’s plenty not to like. No doubt the Katrina response was botched (but it was botched at pretty much every level, so it’s really more appropriately a “pox on both houses” situation). And no doubt his don’t-tax-but-spend-anyway policies have the entire nation reeling like a drunken sailor. In retrospect, I have a feeling we won’t look back on this presidency nearly as harshly as some would like. Remember that 2005 was the best year for international democracy since 1972. That will mean something one day and it’s not clear to me that his scandals will really be remembered as vividly as they are now.
Actually, ex-President Jimmy Carter serves a very important purpose in life. If one will merely take note of his positions in the political arena of the U.S., as well as his international political beliefs, it is easy to do the right and proper thing………do exactly the opposite and you know you are right. Iran?, Central America?, Korea?, the economy?, national defense?, ad infinitum/ad nauseum. Worst Prez? Incompetent? No question/no contest. Hands down winner. Used to think maybe nice guy with heart in the right place…just didn’t have any common sense or guts. Ends up he’s just a sore loser/incompetent boob who speaks softly, in a syrupy fashion, and fools fall for that garbage. Apparently, too many have forgotten the misery he has caused….thanks for today’s Iran stalwart ally………..AAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
It is difficult at the moment to determine the effects of the Carter presidency. We simply do not have enough perspective. While we can criticize Nixon for what he did (Vietnam, bugging) we need to consider Carter in the light of what he didn’t do. It is certaintly wrong to take the USA into war without just cause (I think we had cause in Iraq but we’ll let that go for the moment) but it is worse to take a cowardly tack when there was cause. Let’s go back and replay the video tape. Can we begin to imagine how history might have been different if Carter had stood up to the Islamofascists in 1979? After Munich Chamberlain was met with cheers but the evaluation of his appeasement was much clearer in 1945. I suggest that we are in an early period of this conflict.
I find the contrast between liberals and conservatives on how one should behave at a funeral to be very interesting. We have someone like Cindy Sheehan who refuses private grief and opportunists like the Clintons who never miss an opportunity for self promotion. The private has become political and we are not better (more empathetic, kinder) as a result. People were critical of Bush for his smirk. I don’t see that. I see a lot of grace under pressure. His stature rises as the liberals shrink in self parody.
To Ryan: Chiang Kai Shek, when asked in 1950 for his opinion of the French Revolution, famously said “it’s too soon to tell.” This may also be the case with Carter and Bush.
Also, I think Bush I was a competent President who did a fairly good job – so you’re correct about that.
To Michael: I’m not sure how Carter should have “stood up to Islamofascists.” Storm the embassy? Bomb Tehran? Say what you will, but there are about 450 people who are alive today who would almost certainly be dead if we attacked Iran.
Also, I don’t see how the Clintons were opportunistic yesterday. Hillary gave a basic eulogy, and Bill draw attention away from politics and towards Coretta King (“there’s a woman in there”).
Peter, you are incapable of swallowing your pride and admitting the obvious: that Jimmy Carter’s behavior at the funeral was boorish. Carter was wrong to bring up politics and criticize the standing president at a such a setting- period. Would you have each speaker start debating the merits of the prior speaker and have the solemn ceremony descend into chaos? There are moments in life when those assembled agree to put down their weapons and call a truce to honor a fallen comrade. Those who can’t or won’t abide by common manners need to be castigated.
Your attempt to attack the ethos and ignore the logos of the NY Post is insipid. By your logic we should ignore anything the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times Time, Newsweek, US News and World Report and ABCNBCCBSPBSMSNBCCNN say because of their well-documented left wing bias.
Hey, ABCNBCCBSPBSMSNBCCNN is my favorite channel!…
“…but he showed leadership in the sense that he was willing to say and do unpopular things.”
“…in my opinion, a true leader will try to shape public opinion rather than follow it.”
Peter, this is kinda like what Bush II has done regarding the cesspool known as the middle east, No?
Also, if the public wants tax cuts, shouldn’t the public get tax cuts? …of the people by the people and so forth. According to the all-knowing Dems, I am somehow rich, and therefore shouldn’t get tax cuts. Oh, and one more thing, 20% interest rates fixed nothing, they stifled growth just as an overtaxed populace stifles growth.
History’s Greatest Monster
The New York Post sounds as angry at Jimmy Carter, as well, The Simpsons:Jimmy Carter may or may not have been the worst president of the 20th century history will have the final word on that but his…
I think from now on that every time I hear the phrase “speaking truth to power” I’m going to mentally replace it with the phrase “running my mouth and stating my opinion, in as obnoxious a manner as possible, regardless of whether or not said opinion bears any relation at all to actual fact.” It’s not as concise, but much more accurate.
peter says,
I think you’re mistaken, peter; seems to me he faced an American audience comprising the voting public again in 2004, and won. [Insert boilerplate claim that Kerry actually won Ohio here.] Handily, the CNN/USA Today/Gallup telephone poll to which you refer without citation didn’t report on the political leanings or affiliations of its 1,006 “National Adult” (age 18+) respondents, though it certainly must have ascertained at least minimal demographic data in order to ensure that respondents actually were 18+ and in the United States; seems as if that information would’ve been useful, doesn’t it, to help analyze the responses? That, or they didn’t actually care whether respondents were 18+ and in the U.S., preferring just to assume that whoever answered the phone was hunky-dory, which is also possible, given that there’s no record in the poll discussion that any demographic question was asked.
They sure did play fast and loose with the questions they did ask, though. For instance, the poll asks what issues people think the president and Congress ought to deal with in the next year, and the results indicate (1) the situation in Iraq (92% thought this “extremely” or “very important”), (2) terrorism (89%), (3) health care policy (86%), (4) the economy (87%), (5) corruption in government (82%), (6) the problems caused by Hurricane Katrina (71%), and (7) immigration (64%). Follow-up questioning – “whom do you trust on these issues,” though disingenuously phrased in some cases, for instance asking “Bush or Democrats in Congress?” as if those two entities are equivalent – was limited to corruption in government and health care. No mention of who’s more trustworthy about Iraq, terrorism, the economy, Katrina, or immigration. Hmm. Imagine that.
The poll closes with, in essence, “Did Bush lie?” and in spite of all actual evidence and findings to the contrary, the results are 53% yes, 46% no. So it sounds to me as if the poll does a fine job of gauging how successful the whispering (all right, strident screeching) campaign against Bush has been. (Incidentally, the numbers haven’t changed by a percentage exceeding the stated sampling error at the 95% confidence interval since at least April 2005, possibly as early as July 2004 depending on what the sampling error was at that time. While I’m no statistician, it would appear that it’s the “no opinion” column that’s been responsible for changes since that time rather than changes in the opinions of people who actually had opinions.)
Link to the poll here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/26/bush.poll/. Be sure to follow the links to the complete poll.
Coretta would never have stood for that!
What an insult to her memory! Aside from being a staunch Bush supporter, she was completely apolitical.
<snerk>
I appreciate the recent posts. Regrettably, I have an imminent meeting with software engineers, compared to which getting involved in this discussion will be a breath of fresh air. Hence I will respond, but not immediately.
Peter – I see you’re still using the oft – maligned Wikipedia. Can’t you get some other cites for your many strident observations here?
1) Ferd (Fred?): Well, I don’t find Carter boorish because (as noted elsewhere) I’m a little mystified how acknowledging a wiretap which ended when George Bush was graduating from Yale is a slam at Bush. At most it is an oblique criticism. Then again, I’m pretty boorish myself, so I should probably recuse myself from passing judgment.
What’s wrong with wikipedia? I have no axe to grind for or against them – however it seems to be a useful and comprehensive source – is there a better one?
2) The point I was trying to make about Murdoch-owned media is that they both strive to create a sense of outrage over inconsequential events. There is, in fact, no war on Christmas. There was, in fact, no reference to conspiracy theories in Carter’s eulogy. It is true that I conflated the Post and Fox News and posited guilt by association. However, I discussed the substance of the Post editorial earlier and I did not want to be repetitive.
3) The idea of a liberal media is a widely disseminated myth, but it is a bunch of crap. If anything, the media are so bullied that they are flaccid. One example: the media’s failure to ask tough questions about the putative weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
4) JP: you raise a very interesting point. I think that Bush had widespread support when he launched the war, as most Americans will support the President in declaring war. The best evidence is the nearly unanimous vote in Congress. However, there are a few problems with this. First, the casus belli was based on false information and discredited assumptions. Hence the support was based on the misinformation which the administration promulgated. Secondly, when it became evident that the war was based on false premises and the occupation was disastrous, Bush stayed the course despite the disapproval of a majority of Americans. You could charitably consider this to be leadership, but you could also describe it as stubbornness or the inability to admit mistakes. (Also: Jimmy Carter got an agreement between Arafat and Begin. In your opinion, was that leadership?)
5) To quote Herman Talmadge: “don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree.” If you ask people if they want their taxes cut, they will say yes. If you ask them if they want Social Security or defense appropriations cut, they will say no. A President (and Congress) has to make a decision between contradictory public sentiment. Leadership implies making the wisest decision, not necessarily the most popular one. Of course, you could do what Reagan and the Bushes did, and simply borrow the money (and, in Bush I’s case, wait for a Democratic administration to bail us out and return the budget to surplus).
6) Jamie: as you know, facing an audience means being in the same physical location. Also, I’m not a statistician either, and I don’t know the methodology of the survey. However, it is broadly in line with lots of other recent surveys, so I think it’s reasonable to say that the results are accurate within a tolerance.
7) Evidence and findings which show that Bush told the truth? I don’t want to get into an argument as to whether Bush deliberately lied – I can’t look into his heart – but the administration said many things which were untrue. So it’s no wonder that a majority of Americans think Bush lied (or however the question was phrased).
Well, it was recently discovered that a congressman’s staff had been editing it (without disclosure) concerning their patron, and many other episodes like that seem to occur there fairly frequently.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5182883
It doesn’t have a rep rignt now for being too objective – there are many other valid sources you can easily find using Google and the rest.
I heard about that, but I thought that wikipedia found some way to block it — I guess with anything that’s free, you get what you pay for –
True enough.
Peter-
Wikipedia is usually a quick way to find objective facts — but it’s a very, very bad place to look for support for subjective opinions.
If you want to find out who Harding’s Secretary of the Army was — you’ll find it on Wikipedia, and the answer will probably be right. If you want to find out whether there’s a consensus among historians as to who are the “best” and “worst” Presidents, you will often find a very slanted opinion — by the very nature of how Wiki works. It’s a useful tool — when used properly.
Beyond that, the very notion of citing experts to prove a subjective opinion is a bit silly. Whether President Harding did a better or worse job than either President Roosevelt is a judgement call — one we could debate at length (Each Roosevelt led us into a “War of Choice” after all…) not a fact.
I agree to the extent that a judgment call is not quantifiable or provable. You could make the judgment call that Western music reached its apogee with the song “God Didn’t Make Little Green Apples,” and I can’t disprove it. However, if you polled people knowledgeable about the subject, it is unlikely that you will find Roger Williams ahead of Mozart or Beethoven (or even Tammy Wynette). I think reasonable people would therefore agree that an informed judgment would exclude Little Green Apples from the Top 100. Similarly, if historians and scholars are asked who the best and worst Presidents are – and the same names repeatedly appear at the top and bottom of the surveys – then I think there is the basis for an informed opinion.
Peter-
I don’t entirely disagree that it is possible to find a consensus among experts on subjective judgement calls — but Wikipedia isn’t the right source to go to for such information.