creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
William Murchison
William Murchison
14 Feb 2012
Power Vs. Liberty

"Compromise," in President Obama's lexicon, has a funny meaning. It means — with respect to … Read More.

7 Feb 2012
Planned Parenthood's Grand Delusion

Go the website PlannedParenthood.org. You know, Planned Parenthood, around whose rippling banner enlightened … Read More.

31 Jan 2012
How to Split and Spoil a Party

What's all this "Republican establishment" vs. "grassroots populist" business; would … Read More.

There He Goes Again

Share Comment

"Pot calling the kettle black" is how we might feel tempted to characterize Jimmy Carter's embarrassing assault on George W. Bush and Tony Blair for their part in liberating Iraq: "overt reversal of America's values," "abominable," "subservient," blah, blah, blah.

Giving way to such a temptation would amount to putting Bush and Blair on the same level as Jimmy Carter. No way. When it comes to incompetence, Carter stands splendidly alone among modern presidents.

It was never the way of James Earl Carter Jr., to keep his moral pronouncements to himself, but this past weekend's tirade — petty, vain, spiteful — is bad even by Carter's low standards. In conversing with BBC radio and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, he shows not the least concern for the spectacle of a former U.S. president calumniating one of his successors, together with a loyal American ally.

We really shouldn't wonder. Jimmy Carter is better, purer, nicer, holier and, especially, smarter than just about anybody you ever heard of, and we might just as well get used to it.

So, in "adverse impact on the nation around the world, [the Bush] administration has been the worst in history"? So very Carter-esque, a declaration like this. However did our onetime moral leader hold back so long from wising us up?

The Dallas Morning News, back in the '70s, called Jimmy Carter "the worst president in U.S. history" — or words of like import. About right, I would judge. It wasn't that James Earl didn't try to be a good president. It was a lot of things; first, his capacity for moralism.

We weren't adverse to that after Watergate, nor were Carter's Southern inflections unpleasant when he was speaking the language of right and wrong. With Carter, nonetheless, you always got the impression that the right side was his side. He might be Southern Baptist, but he resonated most often as hard-core Calvinist, in the 17th century, sword-swinging style.

You wouldn't have wanted to see those pale eyes staring at you from beneath a magistrate's wig.

With all that moralism went an almost unexampled capacity for naivete. If Richard Nixon was too crafty by half, Jimmy Carter was so wide-eyed you wondered if the town con man couldn't have talked him into buying that wallet the two of them just happened to find lying on the sidewalk. Carter knows everything except, apparently, the things worth knowing.

Came the energy crisis of the late '70s, caused in large part by government punishment of the energy companies via regulation and taxation. How did Carter propose to lead us out of this crisis? By further punishing the companies — confiscating their "windfall profits" from the higher oil prices that supplied the capital requisite to finding more oil and gas.

The moralist-in-chief had diagnosed the problem. It was less an economic or foreign policy problem, he told the American people, than it was a "crisis of the American spirit." We Americans "needed to have faith in each other." And the government needed to order utility companies to use less oil.

Then there was foreign policy. We cut adrift the Shah of Iran, a reliable American ally, because presumably the clergy trying to overthrow him were more moral than he. Then the Ayatollah Khomeini took over, and the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis followed. The Carter administration twisted, turned, agonized — and failed utterly to retrieve the hostages. Almost the minute the tough-talking Ronald Reagan took over the reins, Khomeini decided the game was up. He set the hostages free.

Carter's psychic need for post-1980 redemption must be profound beyond reckoning. He was a good boy for a while, promoting fair elections and democracy abroad — for which he got the Nobel Peace Prize (in part probably because the judges wanted to show up Bush).

Why, then, the ant-Bush tirade? With Jimmy Carter one never knows. It suffices, perhaps, to know that he's smarter than all of us put together. That much you figure out just by listening to him.

To find out more about William Murchison and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

21 Comments | Post Comment
He went back on his word by sending the "surge troops" in the first place. Gitmo is still open. Unemployment went over 8%. Obamacare has more people waivered out than the plan was supposed to add in, etc, etc, etc. What alternate reality is Susan living in?
Comment: #1
Posted by: David Henricks
Fri Jun 24, 2011 3:31 AM
The only reason BHO would be re-elected is if the 50% idiots in this country vote for him, and that includes the columnist. You can be educated and still be an idiot.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Early
Fri Jun 24, 2011 4:51 AM
Uh, when exactly did we get "universal access to health insurance"? No regular insurance company will sell me a policy because of pre-existing conditions. Even if they would, I don't have the money. Theoretically I could buy in to a high-risk pool -- if I had any money.

I remember Candidate Obama talking about a single-payer system. Didn't say anything about caving almost immediately if opposed. What we needed was: a) Medicare extended to cover everybody; b) removal of the income cap on contributions; c) various other New Deal reforms and programs. What we've got is a joke, and a sad one. From the President down, Democrats have consistently started at a compromise, then moved almost all the way to the Republican position.

I remember a lot of other things Candidate Obama said, too. Closing Gitmo. Repealing the obscene insults to the Constitution that have accumulated in the past decade. Lot of hot air, apparently.

Yes, obviously he's preferable to his predecessor, and to any of the Republican candidates. So would a hat rack be.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Steven Doyle
Fri Jun 24, 2011 5:18 AM
Meant to add -- the economy is not improving. Oh, if you're a broker on Wall Street, or a banker, it's great. But the economy where people need regular jobs is still slowly sinking. The jobs I'm applying for (and have been for two years) pay, in adjusted dollars, about 30% less than comparable jobs twenty years ago.

We're in a depression. If it gets even worse, it could drag Obama down with it. (Obviously a Republican would be even worse, but sometimes people get fed up and just spin the wheel.)
Comment: #4
Posted by: Steven Doyle
Fri Jun 24, 2011 5:25 AM
Meant to add -- the economy isn't improving. Sure, if you're a Wall Street broker or a Goldman Sachs executive, it's peachy and you're richer than ever. But for 95% of the population, it's a depression that hasn't bottomed out yet. It could take Obama down with it. Obviously, a Repubican would be even worse, but sometimes people get fed up and just spin the wheel.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Steven Doyle
Fri Jun 24, 2011 5:33 AM
Sorry for the duplicate post. The website keeps switching from Ms. Estrich's column (about Pres. Obama as a candidate) to some ill-informed column vilifying Pres. Carter.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Steven Doyle
Fri Jun 24, 2011 5:35 AM
Suzie has long since gone around the bend. Don't take her seriously poor thing.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Paul
Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:11 PM
You sure?
Comment: #8
Posted by: Paul
Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:12 PM
Obama keeps his eye on the ball alright....golf ball that is! We're in the middle of an economic disaster (apparently to the liberals it has been improving for two years now) and several wars and this guy finds the time to play more golf than me! And he is the President!
Comment: #9
Posted by: E Ortiz
Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:21 PM
Susan, you have to be kidding us??? Obama told us he would END the war in Afghanistan not surge in more troops and then bring back SOME of them in a long protracted drawdown. ??? I'm tired of hearing about neighbor's kids who have been killed in these wars and kids who have hardly had a chance to experience real life. I see all to many Hispanic names on the rolls of those who have been killed and yet, Obama is slow on the draw on his promise to move on legislation to give Hispanic kids citizenship rights if they have been here for decades and are productive citizens????? C;mon Susan take off the rose colored glasses. The only reason to re-elect Obama is that the clowns the Republicans are now considering are beyond belief... In fact they are not believeable.. Newt? Mitt? The other Mitt? then the third Mitt?? Crazy Michelle Bachmann mother of 28 who wants to dismantle the EPA and raise her children in a nation so polluted that rivers will catch fire again like the Cuyahoga in Ohio??? Rick Santorum who is more interested in what's in someone else's pants than minding his own business....Too Many Uterus issue candidates and Zero with any credibility on foreign policy and economic issues....Please don't give me that bull about Mitt being an economic genius,,,,he only knows how to make money with leveraged buyouts and selling off companies and destroying jobs.....Ron Paul ??? Well you can't win being as nutty sounding as he is...Herman Cain??? Paleeeze?? Simpleton statments and racist comments from a black man??? Obama may win re-election by default as no credible candidate is emerging who can win middle America. But Please Susan, don't tell us Obama has done the right thing in Afghanistan... the longer we stay there the more likely we are to join the Soviet Union on the bankrupt dung heap of history. The candidate who emerges and starts talking about nation building in America, will be the victor. When we have more money to build schools in Afghanistan and no money to pay Social Security that people have earned by paying for it, something is very wrong. Very wrong.
Comment: #10
Posted by: robert lipka
Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:42 PM
1. Promised to get us out of the 2 wars, we are now in 3 (Libia)
2. Promised to repeal the Patriot act, instead it is worse.
3. Promised to fix the economy, unemployment is at an all time high counting all the people who have given up, or have been cut off.
4. Budget, we have no signed budget yet. Bush overspent 4 trillion dollars in 8 years. Obama oversent 8 Trillion in 2 years, The country we will leave our kids will be FLAT BROKE, would you let your husband overspend that much or would you divorce him. I bet you would give him the boot!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment: #11
Posted by: david
Sun Jun 26, 2011 7:50 AM
All this arguing about Obama's accomplishments, or lack thereof, in regard to whether he'll be given a second term is really a waste of time. As an incumbent Obama's future will be decided the same way all incumbents have been. ask yourself the following questions: 1) Will Obama be challenged from within his party? 2) Will Obama have enough money behind him? and 3) Does Obama have enough organization and ground support (or as much as he had last time)? If the answers to these three are 1) no- and 2) & 3) yes- then like his predecessors Obama will most certainly be given four more years. I, for one, can't see anyone challenging him from within the party (political suicide for a Dem)- he certainly has the money and his organization was legendary in his first election. Unless you think somehow his crew has slipped- (possible)- prepare for Obama 2. Before you blow a gasket, find me an incumbent who lost who fit all three of my criteria- Clinton, &Bush (the younger)both won re-election , with high negatives- and neither won with the margin Obama did the first time.
Comment: #12
Posted by: ABIndy
Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:42 PM
Love the optimism Suze.
Sounds just like a Jimmy Carter supporter in 1979.
Just keep the faith and maybe B.O. will find you a job when he is a member of the U of Chicago
faculty working on his Presidential Library in 2013.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Brad McNeal
Sun Jun 26, 2011 7:22 PM
Liberalism is a disease. Truth and facts are the anecdote that they refuse. It's sad but true.
Comment: #14
Posted by: Early
Mon Jun 27, 2011 7:01 AM
Why would a President give firm dates to withdraw troops? Event-driven time lines (free elections, estblishment constitution, etc) make sense, but this is the second time Obama has put political gain above troop safety.
Calendar dates tell the enemy – stay calm and quietly build up your base because most of our troops will
be out by Month/Year. By the way, since they'll only be a few American soldiers left then,
they'll be easy to slaughter.
It's tragic Americans are so polarized, they will defend this unconsciousable
act as long as its committed by a Democrat.
Comment: #15
Posted by: affenpinscher
Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:58 AM
Only a true-believer could write a column as delusional as this.
Comment: #16
Posted by: pb1222
Tue Jun 28, 2011 4:27 AM
I can do no better than to quote the unassailable words of a truth teller from the Czech Republic " The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and to undo the follies of an Obama presidency that to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a DEPRAVED ELECTORATE willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Obama who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast CONFEDERACY OF FOOLS that made him their prince. The Republic can [and will] survive Obama, who after all is merely a fool. IT IS LESS LIKELY TO SURVIVE A MULTITUDE OF FOOLS [parasites, moochers, liberals, progressives, Marxists, anchor babies, blacks] SUCH AS THOSE WHO MADE HIM THEIR PRESIDENT" {emphasis added}.

All liberals, all progressives and all those who voted for Obama or who would even consider voting for him again are "enemies domestic" of the Constitution and of this Republic. Note who they are and remember them.
Comment: #17
Posted by: joseph wright
Tue Jun 28, 2011 5:28 AM
Re: joseph wright
Amen! The truth hurts! We must eliminate the DOE!
Comment: #18
Posted by: Early
Tue Jun 28, 2011 5:53 AM
Did a little birdie tell you?
Comment: #19
Posted by: L1307
Tue Jun 28, 2011 5:57 AM
Re: L1307
Yes. It was an American Eagle.
Comment: #20
Posted by: Early
Thu Jun 30, 2011 5:46 AM
Susan, you must be blinded for the lack of light reaching your eyes while you have your face inserted so far up barack obama's butt.( lower case intentional) Or maybe your blind stupidity is from the obamalaid you're drinking. What ever it is is you are getting stupider by the day. You should go see a plastic surgeon or something. Maybe he can remove that big growth on your shoulders.
.
Bruce Wakefield
Comment: #21
Posted by: bruce
Fri Jul 1, 2011 2:21 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
William Murchison
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 27 Feb 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Feb 2012
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 18 Feb 2012

20 Mar 2007 The Democratic Implosion

13 Sep 2011 Gov. Perry and the Ponzi Scheme

29 Mar 2010 How to Stave Off Economic Recovery