Carter with Arafat, image theyeshivaword
Former President, Jimmy Carter, remarking on Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R- S.C.) “outburst” during the Presidents recent address to Congress, has decided that it must be racism that drove the House Member to yell “Lair” during remarks made by the President regarding certain aspects of the Democrats Health Care Reform plan. Although it is generally accepted that the respect of the Office of the Presidency should have precluded Wilson from such an “outburst”, one can also accept the fact that Wilson’s gaffe was based more on emotion over a program that is not being well accepted by the general public, and not on the fact that the President is, as Carter put it during an NBC interview: “that he is a black man, that he's African American.”
Although one can agree with Carter that bigotry, still exists in the United States to some extent – one cannot believe this truly applies to this President – who was elected to office by winning, not only African-American votes, but the votes of all citizens, including those who reside in the south. It is Carter’s denial of the fact that Obama’s policies, which are a mirror image of his own, are the cause of opposition, and that opposition is not confined to the President’s ideology but the ideology of certain members of Carter’s political party – Frank, Pelosi, Reid, etc.
What Obama enjoys, at the moment, is the backing of a like-minded press, something that Carter failed to achieve – that said, while Carter was in office decimating the economy through failed job stimulus programs, auto bailouts, disastrous budgets, the destruction of our military and intelligence forces and a foreign policy that was an embarrassment, he still enjoyed a bit of a break from certain major news outlets – once the economy became untenable, certain organizations still believed he would surely best that actor from California, Ronald Reagan. It is called denial and this cry of “Racism” from Carter borders on the delusional.
Barack Obama with Chavez, image: theage, Austrailia
Carter, an avowed Progressive, broke decorum during the Bush Presidency by actively critiquing the President – one was treated to headlines such as Bush is the Worst in History in Foreign Relations, Carter Says” and, perhaps, the best in a comedic sense, ” Carter Criticizes “Radical Changes” in U.S. Policy”. When one Google’s “Carter Criticizes Bush”, page after page of articles appear – while one can assume that Carter, a former President, would understand that decorum would prevent direct criticism of a sitting president, his remarks could not possibly have been based on “Race”. Granted Carter did not make these remarks during a Bush address to the Congress, and two wrongs, so to speak do not make a “right”, but the premise, a disagreement with ideology, is what drove both remarks. To label Wilson as a racist is, in a word ridiculous.
Further, Wilson, immediately after uttering the infamous “Liar” during a lull in the "boos" coming from the opposing floor of the House aimed at the President, apologized - to the President and the President accepted his apology. Wilson also explained ad naseum that he was driven by emotion over the policy of the administration – this was not enough for Carter, apparently, nor for the current bunch of lunatics in charge of the asylum formally known as the U.S. House of Representatives. The House has taken precious time from the work they should be doing for the people (not their political party), to write a set of Guidelines regarding what one can and what one cannot say on the floor of the House while the President is paying a visit.
From Politico:
Disgrace" and "nitwits" -- okay.
"Liar" or "sexual misconduct" -- ixnay.
Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:
• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”
Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”
Apparently, those who took the time to write this nonsense, had three administrations in mind (Bush, Carter and Obama), that said, once Wilson had made the apology, the matter should have been dropped, by sensible people. Unfortunately, political opportunism runs counter to sensibility. It is not for nothing that, while the Office of the President deserves respect, regardless of the political ideology of the person holding the office, it also behooves the Congress and those former Presidents to stop acting like children, and move on to the more pressing problems facing the nation – many of which can be directly laid at their doorstep. Pulling combat troops out of Iraq, leaving behind regular forces, has caused that country to go to “hell in a hand basket” – this based more on a “Campaign promise” than any specific strategy. The addition of, as yet undefined, troops to Afghanistan (unwinnable from the ground – historically speaking), in order to fulfill another “campaign promise” to “get Bin Ladin”, has the unfortunate potential to turn into yet another “Viet Nam”, the mismanagement of the Stimulus program, the growing ACORN scandal, and a host of issues more pressing that what a member of Congress from South Carolina, who just happens to be a Republican (key politically charged word) called the President (it was not a persona attack) from the floor. It was wrong, Wilson apologized, and the Congress and Carter should move on. Why won’t they? It’s a perfect stop gap to keep the media appeased, keep their names in the paper, and beat up the opposing party at the same time, or so they believe.
Due to the unprecedented hoopla from the left (Congress) Wilson has, to date, received over a million dollars in contributions. According to Carter, those must be racist donations, not donations from individuals who have had enough of Obama’s Carter-like qualities. The two, Carter and Obama, are so like-minded (and incidentally, inexperienced going into the office), that comparisons were made prior to Obama’s election, and once the legislative process began to take shape, the similarities were eerily similar – the word “doppelganger” is apt in this case. This is something Carter should be celebrating – perhaps in his next interview, he might revel in the fact that President Obama and he are so much alike, and commiserate with Obama that, those policies that Carter employed, the same progressive mentality, was soundly rejected by the American voting public, after one term in office – he should be counseling Obama now, that it is a likelihood that even the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will not be carried by Obama in 2012. (He should also note that it is also a possibility that both the House and the Congress will change hands in 2010 and that the opposition will put the nail in the coffin of their ideology in 2012 (This is should Obama continue to follow Carter, if, and only if, Obama moves to the center, with a Congress that is in direct opposition, does he stand a snowball’s chance in Hades of seeing a second term – (likability factor that Carter lacked). The aforementioned scenario is possible, but not probable, given both men’s deep rooted progressive (sic: Communist-Socialist) beliefs.
