The Smallest Raisin
LivindonSouth
1,358 Posts
Predictably, about every 6 months, Jimmy Carter finds a microphone somewhere and criticizes America and the current administration. He's done it with every president except Clinton
Like the very smallest raisin in the whole new box of Raisin Bran, Jimmy Carter is basking in his own irrelevance and he simply cannot stand it. Other than Millard Filmore, Jimmy Carter arguably presided over pretty much the worst, most benign, most meaningless presidency in American history. Well, other than the failed helicopter rescue mission in Iran and teaching the world how NOT TO pronounce the word nuclear (nucular). But, in fairness, he did introduce the world to his dunce, lush brother, Billy, and The South got Billy Beer as a result. And we learned where Plains, Georgia was and that there really are such things as peanut farmers.
Carter is so pained by his legacy of irrelevance that he's been on a decades long crusade to somehow make it not so. One can't really get much lasting spotlight by awkwardly swinging a Craftsman hammer. After all, this is the same man who won the Nobel Peace Prize after declaring that Yassar Arafat's election was a Democratic breakthrough for the Middle East, that Castro was a warm statesman and Khadafi had turned his life over to a higher power.
It's like the smallest of raisins, just before you pour it down the kitchen sink with the last bit of milk and rinse it away, shouting, 'Hey, what about me? Wait. I'm relevant. I'm a raisin here. I used to be a date. Whadaya think I am here, a midget prune? Hey, you can't ignore me like this!'
Or maybe the one odd nail in the five pound box of 16d 3 1/2 inch coated deck nails I bought Saturday. The one with part of the shank deformed and half a head. The one I pushed between the deck boards to serve eternity meaninglessly in the damp, dark dirt down under the deck.
Like the very smallest raisin in the whole new box of Raisin Bran, Jimmy Carter is basking in his own irrelevance and he simply cannot stand it. Other than Millard Filmore, Jimmy Carter arguably presided over pretty much the worst, most benign, most meaningless presidency in American history. Well, other than the failed helicopter rescue mission in Iran and teaching the world how NOT TO pronounce the word nuclear (nucular). But, in fairness, he did introduce the world to his dunce, lush brother, Billy, and The South got Billy Beer as a result. And we learned where Plains, Georgia was and that there really are such things as peanut farmers.
Carter is so pained by his legacy of irrelevance that he's been on a decades long crusade to somehow make it not so. One can't really get much lasting spotlight by awkwardly swinging a Craftsman hammer. After all, this is the same man who won the Nobel Peace Prize after declaring that Yassar Arafat's election was a Democratic breakthrough for the Middle East, that Castro was a warm statesman and Khadafi had turned his life over to a higher power.
It's like the smallest of raisins, just before you pour it down the kitchen sink with the last bit of milk and rinse it away, shouting, 'Hey, what about me? Wait. I'm relevant. I'm a raisin here. I used to be a date. Whadaya think I am here, a midget prune? Hey, you can't ignore me like this!'
Or maybe the one odd nail in the five pound box of 16d 3 1/2 inch coated deck nails I bought Saturday. The one with part of the shank deformed and half a head. The one I pushed between the deck boards to serve eternity meaninglessly in the damp, dark dirt down under the deck.
Comments
>to be president because of his shortcomings: He
>is not ruthless, he's not dishonest, he's not
>manipulative, he's not a crook, a lush or a
>womanizer - all of which appear to be minimum
>qualifications for being president these days.
You're right; we're hard-pressed these days to find leadership (near or far) with many of these qualifications.
(And by the way, Don, you might want to send "W" a phoenitic dictionary so he can learn how to say "nuclear".)
As for Habitat, I respect your right to respect the man for that. Every president should at least be respected for something, no matter how minimal the personal investment. Shame he couldn't have reorganized and redirected the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) when he had the absolute authority to do so. But, he left it as Lyndon Johnson had intended, an everlasting, self-perpetuating, exponentially growing bastion of socialism and disdain for self help and personal responsibility.
Disclaimer: This message is intended to offend only Democrats and Englishmen posing as locals.
Geez, Don, don't you think he might have had some other things on his mind? Consumer interest rates around 14%, extreme unemployment, high inflation, American hostages being held in Iran for 444 days, Persian Gulf-created "energy crisis"? Not to mention the only reason he won the election was because his predecessor, Gerald Ford, voted to pardon Nixon (I voted for Ford, incidentally - my first vote ever at the age of 18 - never voted for a 'winner' until I voted for George W the first time).
But, all that aside, I think presidents in my lifetime, of both parties, have contributed something - no matter how crooked or corrupt they might have been. For example:
Dwight Eisenhower (R): Definitely the caretaker of the 'feel good' prosperity following WWII and the advent of modern convenience for all housewives, including dishwashers, washing machines, and other 'time-saving appliances.'
John Kennedy (D): First effective proponent of the Civil Rights Movement and the architect (or at least motivator) of the successful race to the moon ahead of the Russians. Too bad we didn't listen to him when he wanted to get out of Vietnam.
Lyndon Johnson (D): Carried on the Great Society envisioned by JFK, which led to Title VII, also known as the Human Resources Professional Full Employment Act - the reason a lot of us have jobs now (is that cynical?)!
Richard Nixon (R): The greatest (IMHO) foreign policy president in US history. He opened the door to China and established a relatively peaceful coexistence, created detente with the Soviets and managed not to piss off Brezhnev, Andropov, etc. He was the US equivalent of Gorbachev...
Gerald Ford (R): A nice guy, never given a chance.
Jimmy Carter (D): See originating post. Just too decent and principled to be an effective president. He did deserve the Nobel Peace Prize for the treaty between Egypt and Israel - don't care what anyone else says. Not his fault Sadat was turned into Swiss cheese by terrorists.
Ronald Reagan (R): Forced the Soviets to outspend themselves and ended the cold war without firing a single shot. How much more politically savvy can you get?
George Bush (R): Well, he was OK. Desert Shield, Desert Storm and the fall of the Berlin Wall occurred on his watch - although Reagan did the work on the Berlin Wall matter and the fall of Communism. Don't forget high unemployment, huge deficits (from the Reagan administration). (personal note - he really pissed me off when I was recalled to active duty).
Bill Clinton (D): A master of the camera, the press, pretty effective diplomacy in a pinch, and getting out of tight situations (especially under his desk in the Oval Office). Did a good job with the Dayton Accords. Commanded an air bombardment over Bosnia that accomplished an end to the war without the involvement of ground troops, further legimitizing the value of an "air only" war (sorry, NG). Also, for a draft-dodger, he used the US military and the Reserves more frequently than any other president (see really irritated personal note re George H.W. Bush, above - the whole thing began to get me mad).
George W. Bush (R) - Very effective at deflecting attention from things that need attention. WMD? Where? Bolton? Love his music! Where's the dog? Sorry, I can't really answer that, because I won't discuss matters of "nucular" options. It's "strategery."
Is that really why you think the man made absolutely no mark during his presidency; because he was too decent and principled? As if fine, Christian, decent and principled people are somehow restricted from principled action? Jimmy Carter was/is a Southern country boy who probably was always at his best in Khakis and a forest green shirt at the Thursday Rotary meeting in Plains or at highway ribbon cuttings in the Georgia countryside. He was a victim (or poster boy) of the Plateau Principle years before we erred in electing him to the presidency. But hey! It's not the man's fault. It is our fault.
My point is that the man is consummed now in his old age by his personal irrelevance and he chooses the oddest ways to call attention to it.
But, he is not the first ex-president consummed with writing his legacy after he left office. The last one spends all day, every day doing that too. Neither really gave any thought to legacy while in office. Both were concerned primarily with the Ipana smile.
rather than campaign hard for a second term, he focused on releasing the Iranian hostages. Which I believe occured during election week (someone verify)...
He is a good man and I believe that his legacy will be much more humanitarian than political...nothing wrong with that!
If we needed a humanitarian as president, we ought to have elected Billy Graham or Mother Teresa or Meryl Streep.
Disclaimer: This message is not intended to offend or attack. It is posted as personal opinion. If you find yourself offended or uncomfortable, email me and let me know why.
Cheryl C.
>exponentially growing bastion of socialism and disdain for self help and personal responsibility.
Ouch - I'll try not to take that personally. (Whisper: My sole income comes directly from HUD.)
x0:)
Damn, you are good :oo
Ever think about writing presidential speeches. Can you just imagine!!!!! lol
scorpio
Disclaimer: None of my posts are intended to discombobulate any persons. Should this happen, I would suggest taking a "mental health day" and getting over it.
Talk about selling guns to the Indians………
[url]http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_cr/h920205-october-clips.htm[/url]
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but, Jimmy Carter is the first president ever in history to have done that and he's done it like bowel movements, with regularity.
I mean it's a great concept and everything (on parchment paper at least) and it sure comes in handy when we feel the need to sanctimoniously criticize others that don’t espouse to its principles the way we do. But come on, admit it, don't ya just hate it when someone you don't like actually exercises his/her right to use it.
I guess poor Jimmy didn’t get the memo that made it tacitly clear that while ex-presidents were allowed to have opinions, unless they were complimentary in nature to the current administration, probably just best to keep-em to yourself. You have to wonder how someone that dense ever graduated from the Naval Academy with a degree in nuclear physics. That boy will be burnin flags next.
What we are talking about here is not the right to have or express an opinion, but the first ex-president in the history of this nation who, on a regular basis, lets his jaybird mouth override his hummingbird ass. No other president in history has taken foreign country podiums (or any other podium) to criticize this country, our military and our direction or a current or past administration. None, but Jimmy Carter. Whenever Carter feels himself getting irregular, he tends to bloat up and get gaseous and since Maalox apparently isn't available in the woods of Georgia, he let's his gas go by mouthing off. I do wonder what effect he thinks his comments might have. They can only have a negative one.
Zell Miller, Georgia state democrat senator, said yesterday, "I no longer recognize the man. I served in the state legislature with Jimmy Carter and helped elect him to the presidency. This is not the man I once knew. He is not serving our nation well."