Hey, Drew, this is the crazed Ruth Buzzi with a handbag like old lady who harassed you the other night about KOKOKloown and the Tea Party invitation. As you probably know there was a thread the next morning that has lived up to my prediction of “plenty of action”.

As for this thread I find this from Carter’s response very telling:

“An especially aggravating error is his claiming, “by the end of his tenure he was supporting the resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, increasing the defense budget, and laying the groundwork for an expanded U.S. presence in the Middle East.” None of these were late decisions based on a TARDY REALIZATION OF MY EARLIER ERRORS AND MISJUDGMENTS.” (emphasis mine)

Wow, what a defense! That is the Jimmy Carter I knew and despaired of back in the seventies.

As he said, except for a few surprises along the way that were, well, SURPRISES, such as “the fall of the shah, Iraq’s invasion of Iran, and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan” I eventually figured out what was going on BUT I lost the election before I could fix my “errors and misjudgments” in what could have been a very timely manner if I hadn’t lost.

Hannity said: ““Carter Angered to Be Compared to Obama.” Clever, but not quite right.”

Compared to my analysis I think Hannity treated the old gentleman quite well.

Intellectual lightweights like Hannity and the accompanying right wing Wurlitzer have had quite the field day with rewriting history the last thirty years, discounting Carter’s contributions and attributing many of the accomplishments of his policies to a for the most part clueless Reagan.

Of course, his intellect and honesty were anathema to the Democratic establishment in Washington so he continually took it from both sides; but from appointing Volcker, to SALT II, to Panama and China and the Middle East, et al, the under-reported story of those years is that things could have turned out much worse.

Mr. Mead doesn’t take President Carter to task so much as he points out the dichotomies and overlaps between Wilsonian, Jacksonian, and Jeffersonian foreign policy within the Democratic Party, and his clear preference for the black and white Hamiltonian policies now favored by Republicans.

President Carter is perhaps overly sensitive to criticism of his foreign policy, justifiably so, and rebuts Mr. Mead’s preference for an immediate, massive military confrontation during the hostage crisis, regardless of the probable assassination of the hostages or the deaths of thousands of innocent Iranian civilians.

Both the article, response, and Mr. Mead’s brief response to that are great reads that serve to educate rather than obfuscate, obviously NOT Mr. Hannity’s cup of tea.

Carter was so great that the American people gave him one term, figuring there was no way Carter could top himself.

Intellectual lightweights like Hannity and the accompanying right wing Wurlitzer have had quite the field day with rewriting history the last thirty years, discounting Carter’s contributions and attributing many of the accomplishments of his policies to a for the most part clueless Reagan.

—

This is one of the best-written, most accurate thoughts I have ever seen at Mediaite. Thank you.

Hannity notwithstanding, history is making a judgment on Carter, far more positive than his contemporaries, and is making a judgment on Raygun, an accurate judgment I believe, which will probably end up declaring him “affable, but mediocre, and generally ineffective.” All of the Raygun clique, even Nancy, knew this was going to happen. Why else the huge rush to rename institutions after him, to put him on the coinage? All of those efforts have ground to a complete halt. History doesn’t share Hannity’s blind passion for the man.

And, passion is all it is. I learned Raygun had died shortly after I arrived in London for a prolonged business trip, followed by a vacation with my family. I was struck by the nonchalant reaction. This man who I had been led to believe was much beloved by the British and the Europeans, scarcely merited front page coverage the next day.

Hannity seems to confuse personal passion with history. Often.

Thanks, The Real Royal King, I had actually assigned the award for the best cogent comments here to you and look forward to what you have to say on topics of interest.

Having endured the eighties from the perspective of the lower middle class, with the tax increases and loss of savings due to the 1983 “worst recession since the Great Depression” (a title now owned by Bush II); I was always amazed at the hagiography surrounding Reagan.

It turns out the historical revisionism, aside from being the well known MO of the right in general, was in particular a carefull strategy developed by the right regarding Reagan to further their agenda in the long term, regardless of conservatism’s abject failure to address any of the problems faced by average Americans.

Thanks again!

If Jimmy Carter had died shortly after the end of his single term, his reputation would have had 30 years to recover. Instead Carter has spent these 30 years reminding us why we thought he was the worst president ever (or at least one of the bottom five or so).

When senior staff at his own library/think tank resign in protest against his pro-Palestinian bias.. when only the looniest of the left find cause to praise him… then it’s clear that Carter has marginalized himself.

It is not and can never be a good thing when any Democrat is described as “the worst since Carter” or “even worse than Jimmy Carter.”

There’s worse than Carter? Even when Reagan was winning in forty-nine state landslides, the far left despised him. They never see themselves as the ones out of touch.

is he related to keitho? lololol! Morons!