a little about a good man..

nobull

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
402
Typical revisionist history by the liberals.

I pretty much always liked Jimmy Carter - until very recently. And, even now, it's not that I dislike him, or feel even the slightest animosity towards him - I do not. I'm just disappointed that all he ever stood for has somehow devolved into shilling for modern American liberalism. That's about as low as anyone can sink.

So, let's back up a bit, and take another look-see at Jimmy and his legacy.

Jimmy Carter is, and always was, a devout believer in God, so, of course I like him. And I would say the same thing about Joe Lieberman.

Jimmy Carter and Joe Lieberman have a lot in common, besides the fact that a lot of religious people like them. They are both Democrats who have been crucified by their own party.

It's not the Republicans who vilified Jimmy Carter. Carter was vilified by the same liberalism that recently tried to unseat Lieberman.

Ever since Lieberman ran with Gore in '00, I have said to countless Democrat friends that Lieberman is one Democrat whom I would be willing to have in the Oval Office. You would think that, just once, the response to that would be, "Well, good for you, Maniati. I'm glad to hear there's at least one Democrat you would support." But, have I ever heard such a thing uttered in response by the countless Democrats I have spoken with? No, not once. Without fail, the response has been, "God, I can't stand him."

Joe Lieberman is still very liberal. But, he's a thoughtful person, and wants to be fair. He's intellectually honest, even when that is unpopular. He could have attempted to finesse the Iraqi issue in a Clintonesque way, or evade the issue in a Kerryesque way, but he faced it straight on, liked the good Jewish kid that his mother raised. And, for that, he was crucified by his own party. The Democrats ousted him from their ranks the way a banana republic overthrows its government, and attempted to install their own puppet liberal in his place. But, Lieberman made it back to the Senate, no thanks to the Democrats, but thanks to the independents and the Republicans of Connecticut.

Well, this is just history repeating itself. It happened to Jimmy Carter back in 1980, but the difference is that the blood-letting that occurred during the 1980 primary couldn't be mitigated in time to save the election.

Jimmy Carter was intelligent, decent, honorable, honest and humble. When he chose to keep a vigil in the White House so long as those Americans were held hostage in Iran, he was quite sincere about it. It wasn't some kind of cheap gimmick, like Bill Clinton pretending to find those rocks on Omaha beach and fashioning them into a cross. Jimmy Carter was the real deal, and any and all religious people knew it, and don't let any liberal atheist tell you otherwise.

One can disagree with whether that was the correct strategy from a geopolitical perspective, but at a human level, I understood where he was coming from, the same way I understand if someone doesn't feel right going to a party after there has been a death in the family. I understand that sensibility.

But, Jimmy Carter was challenged in the primary by Ted Kennedy. And, let's face it, Ted Kennedy can not hold a candle to Jimmy Carter. He can't shine Carter's shoes. When they finally got up on stage together, it was really Carter doing Kennedy the favor, so that Kennedy wouldn't look like the total ass that he really was.

Let's not forget that this good and decent peanut farmer was challenged by the guy who drove Mary Jo Kopeckne off a bridge and let her drown. You want to talk about a lack of respect, how about mounting a primary challenge against a member of your own party when he's the incumbent President of the United States!!! Hey, said the rest of the country, if even the Democrats aren't sure they want to re-elect him, then why should we? Ted Kennedy, more than any other human being, including even Ayatollah Khomeini, is the one who destroyed Jimmy Carter's presidency.

That, my friends, is the Kennedy gall. And it is the primary objective of all modern liberals, and all liberal institutions across America - and universities in particular - to take that Kennedy gall and bottle it and then serve it to all the youth of this country from K to 12, and then on into college and beyond.

When you hear about this so-called "kool-aid" that some conservatives accuse liberals of drinking, and you wonder what's in that kool-aid that makes it so appealing, it's pure, unfiltered, undiluted Kennedy gall.

That's the same gall that says that a very senior, incumbent Senator, who was recently on the Presidential ticket, can and should be ousted by a know-nothing schmuck who couldn't articulate a cogent plan to toast bread if his life depended on it, simply because said schmuck is willing to goose-step to the liberal tune in the finest Ivy League tradition.

Jimmy Carter's vigil in the White House was not unlike George H. W. Bush's romping on his motor boat off of Walker's Point, even as our military was amassing half a million men and women in Saudi Arabia in the days leading up to the Gulf War. At the time, my initial reaction was that it seemed grossly insensitive. But, Bush said in an interview that, far from being unconscious or unaware, his actions were quite deliberate, and calculated to send the message that life around here wasn't going to change just because some tyrant half way around the world thought he was going to invade his neighbor and take the oil. Again, one can debate the effectiveness of the method employed, but the message was well thought out, sincerely believed, and took courage to convey, whether you liked it or not. And you have to respect people who are willing to do that, whether it's Bush romping on his boat, or Carter keeping vigil.

It's the liberals who don't understand that kind of behavior. People with the courage of their convictions scare liberals, because they can't be had. They are immune to the pervasive, patronizing, pandering, poll-taking pomposity of the Kennedy School of Government set.

Even today, I listened to Maya Angelou on a morning news show, as she spoke movingly and eloquently about peace and togetherness - only to then go on to say that that was how Bill Clinton made her feel. Clinton? What? Did I miss something there? Did someone in the control booth queue the wrong reel? This is the same Bill Clinton who, just down the hall from his wife and daughter, was having his johnson sucked by some intern. Gawwwlly, it sure is fun being pres-i-dent. This is the same Clinton who carpet-bombed the orthodox Christians of Europe - something that never would have happened had the Serbs been lucky enough to be Baptists. The same Clinton who gave guided missile technology to the Chinese. The same Clinton who fiddled with his privates while the World Trade Center burned, then sat back while al Qaeda created the largest terror organization the world has ever known. But, to Maya, it's a no-brainer that peace, love and happiness is embodied in Bill Clinton, the man who never found a mirror he didn't like, our narcissist-in-chief.

So, you may ask, what does this have to do with Jimmy Carter?

Everything.

The better question is what doesn't this have to do with Jimmy Carter?

Why is it that, when speaking of world peace, of love, of togetherness, one does not mention the name Jimmy Carter? Jimmy Carter is the guy who risked his re-election in order to keep vigil over those hostages. Jimmy Carter is the guy who built houses for the poor literally with his own bare hands. Jimmy Carter is the guy running off to all parts of the world because he genuinely wants everyone to get along. Jimmy Carter is the guy who is happily married to his wife, and you can tell by the way she looks at him, even today.

As between Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, who goes to bed praying for world peace, and who goes to bed praying to be the one that history remembers as having brought it about. Jimmy Carter wants to live a life that serves god, and Bill Clinton wants to be god.

No, I would say that Jimmy Carter has a lot to do with peace and love and togetherness. But, it's not me you need to ask; you need to ask Maya Angelou. She's the poet laureate of the liberal set. Ask her by what perverse method of reasoning she overlooks Jimmy Carter in favor of Bill Clinton.

I'll tell you why, but you already know. Bill Clinton is better looking, Bill Clinton is sexier, Bill Clinton is younger, Bill Clinton is a better speaker, Bill Clinton has more "charisma," Bill Clinton is more of a b.s. artist and a con artist. But, none of these things are the true measure of a man. All these traits are utterly meaningless.

Well, don't ask me. Ask the poet laureate of the liberal cause. You want to know why Jimmy Carter gets no respect, don't ask me; I'm conservative, and I respect him. You want to know why he gets no respect, ask the liberals who threw him under the bus in 1980; ask the people who threw Lieberman under the bus in 2006; ask the people who fawn all over Bill Clinton.

Jimmy Carter had a lot of great qualities. But, he had no Kennedy gall. Bill Clinton, in contrast, is full of it. And that's why liberals like Maya Angelou love Clinton and treat Jimmy Carter like a dish rag. And that is contemptible, which is why they now want to blame it on the conservatives.

doug
 
Werbung:
Sorry nobull, but Jimma Carter was the worst president in recent history...excluding of course, the current guy in the WH.
 
Before obozo broke all records for worst this and worst that, I said that Carter's administration was tied with Woodrow Wilson's for the worst presidency in american history. Now they're tied for second place.
 
Before obozo broke all records for worst this and worst that, I said that Carter's administration was tied with Woodrow Wilson's for the worst presidency in american history. Now they're tied for second place.

Yeah the old anti-Semite from Plains has to be happy about BO being the worst pres in recent history. Jimma no longer carries the badge of worst for all time...:D
 
Before obozo broke all records for worst this and worst that, I said that Carter's administration was tied with Woodrow Wilson's for the worst presidency in american history. Now they're tied for second place.

Gipper.. I agree , but he was one of the most honorable..and just an all round good guy..My post was more about the Kennedy's and the liberals throwing him under the bus..

doug
 
Gipper.. I agree , but he was one of the most honorable..and just an all round good guy..My post was more about the Kennedy's and the liberals throwing him under the bus..

doug

Oh please nobull...you have bought the liberal lies about Jimma.

He is and was not honorable or a nice guy. He is without question an anti-Semite, has ties to Hamas and Hezbollah, sucks up to tyrants all over the world.....

He is and was a bitter little man with no ability to be president.

He was sold to the American public by the lib media at a time when the Rs were in trouble due to Nixon and the doofus Ford. He won thanks to the media plastering his smiling face everywhere. He and BO have much in common...SUCKERS

thumbnail.aspx
 
gipper..As of late I disagree with all his policies, but I will stick with honorable..
 
Werbung:
Back
Top