It is not difficult to understand why Democrats wanted the publication of Jimmy Carter’s slim new book (216 pages of text, large print and no footnotes)

Cause it has lots of pictures and no big words?!

Granted, most of these liberal Jewish voters are secular “Jews”, but frankly, I don’t know what that means; there is no such thing as a “secular” Christian, is there?

I don’t think we can blame his profession, but I do think it is at least important for the farmer to have more sense than the peanut.

Coyote D. on November 17, 2006 at 3:08 PM

Alas, I think his dog buried it somewhere in the field.

At least I can add this nugget to my Billy Beer collection.

How to take advantage of a former peanut farmers view of world events. Extra credit for understanding why he wasn’t elected to a second term.

I don’t think we can blame his profession, but I do think it is at least important for the farmer to have more sense than the peanut.

Or is it just that he’s so mind-warpingly, bone-shateringly stupid that neither he nor anyone else can tell the difference?

I suggest a test… find a small group of people and give them IQ tests on three separate days to establish a baseline. Then have them engage in a “town-hall-style” discussion with Carter for no less than three hours. Then re-test.

Any bets on average IQ loss?

Required reading in terrorist school. How to take advantage of a former peanut farmers view of world events. Extra credit for understanding why he wasn’t elected to a second term.

As for this book, it will be of no use to those interested in a responsible discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But it may be useful to historians pondering the perspective of a U.S. president who presided over the 1979 fall of a strategic ally in Iran and his replacement by a theocracy now pursuing nuclear weapons. At the time, Carter may have been impressed by the new leaders’ deep religious convictions.

…good read about a man who was able to overcome his inconsequentiality to become one of the real petty annoyances of the 20th Century.

Evil.

Bryan has a great roundup at HotAir. A commentor sums it up for me… “Why can’t Carter just stay with building houses?”
Related:
President Carter Could Lead U.N. Investigation of Israel

Nancy Pelosi Carter…

who voted for that nutso…

http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/abp_forum/viewtopic.php?t=2978&start=30

Here is current results

Who is more obnoxious ?

Henry Waxman (2) 14%
Al Sharpton (12) 86%

Jimmy Carter (8) 53%
Ted Kennedy (7) 47%

Al Gore (9) 60%
John Murtha (6) 40%

Hillary Clinton (9) 56%
John Kerry (7) 44%

Micheal Moore (16) 100%
Madonna (0) 0%

Sean Penn (2) 13%
Cindy Sheehan (13) 87%

Rosie O Donnell (13) 87%
Barbara Streisand (2) 13%

Jane Fonda (9) 60%
Baldwin Brothers (6) 40%

Osama Bin Laden (10) 67%
Nasrallah (5) 33%

Fidel Castro (3) 20%
Saddam Hussien (12) 80%

Ahmadinejad (11) 73%
Kim Jong Il (4) 27%

Hugo Chavez (5) 33%
Kofi Annan (10) 67%

Al Franken (13) 100%
Eleanor Clift (0) 0%

Markos Zuniga (6) 43%
Bil Mahir (8) 57%

Ted Rall (5) 38%
Keith Obermann (8) 62%

Helen Thomas (6) 40%
Dan Rather (9) 60%

This way, somebody can begin to extol the virtues of the *WORST* president this nation’s had since…er…Pierce?…and I don’t have the stomach-churning waves of disgust sending ripples into my chi anymore.

Then again, there’s, “Hear about Jimmy Carter? (music starts)(*BHWOW-BIP-BIP-BHWOOOOW-BHWOOOOw*) Anyway, the brakes on your truck are hosed, and I wouldn’t recommend driving it. Have a nice day.”

…I hate when that happens….

This guy is proof that democracy is not infallible.

By a fluke of history and inattention on the part of the electorate, we’ve been stuck listening to drivel from this jumped-up former nuke-you-lerr scientist for a generation and a half. The worshipful treatment he unerringly receives from the “unbiased” press and academia would, had he the ability to process things mentally, cause a normal man to go into diabetic shock.

This guy was once the *WORST* of men: a weak man in a position of great trust.

Since then, he’s been that most dread of creatures: a Leftist icon. He seems “down-home”, but he’s really “down with the revolution”. To put it in Southern rural argot, he’s a “Trojan hog”.

As it is, overseas and at within precincts of the UN, he’s trading on his international status as an arbiter of what’s fair, open and gullible. He’s like a political Jerry Lewis…the French think he’s a *GENIUS*, but the folks back home know him better.

(Apologies to Mr. Lewis for the comparison. Loved you in Cinderfella, man.)

Richard Nixon could write. He could really write. That makes him unique among Republican ex-presidents. He didn’t take the saccharin tacks that Mr. Carter seems to think the linchpin of his “legacy”. That’s one of the problems with conservatism. Reagan didn’t write. Bush pere really didn’t write (except for that book by his dog). I doubt that Bush fils will write. But, Carter and Clinton both wrote (and will no doubt continue to write) self-fascinated, self-excusing tripe until the man with the scythe take them out of our misery.

When he finally becomes eligible to have his mug put onto a coin or stamp, count on the eulogies to be full of what he *TRIED* to do. Like a plucky little salmon, he braved the uphill, upstream tide of human nature, power politics, and the violent tendencies of his time, and — brave little fishy that he was — waggled his tail powerfully…until he finally fell flat on it.

Once upon a time, when anyone really cared, mimics used to tease him unmercifully. Dan Ackroyd I remember had a good take on him. Mr. Ackroyd’s need no longer bother losing the weight nor fixing his face in that idiotic smile, as the man’s a walking/talking parody of himself.

Worst of all…he accepted that Nobel after the committee had itself *ANNOUNCED* that it was a protest vote against Mr. Bush. He’s since violated every rule of post-presidential protocol (to say nothing of common decency), and capped it off by accepting that poxy, meaningless award.

Mind you, Le Duc Tho, Arafat and Rigoberta Menchu also received that award, Comrade Cindy’s been considered, and bin Laden’s probably up for a Nobel or a Cannes Palm d’Or next year, so the word “laureate” has little practical meaning anymore.

James Earl Carter…former governor, former president, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, renowned of stage and screen…and, ground into little tiny bits, he wouldn’t be useful as chum.

…success with the book, bud…there’s one born every minute, I hear….

This is great! UPDATE: While we’re on the subject of funny photos, check out this classic at Crossing the Rubicon3. And while we’re on the topic of Jimmy Carter, Pillage Idiot recommends HotAir’s synopsis that includes a link to the book review by J…

Yasir Arafat said:
In 1969, we said we wanted to establish a democratic state where Jews, Christians, and Muslims can all live together.

I recently saw (again) the documentary on the Olympic games of 1972 (Not the new one either).

I “think”, although I’m not really sure, that those athletes were Jewish AND they were targeted as such. Wasn’t that started by one of those PLO groups (sarcasm).

I’m still amazed that the Israeli hostages were killed in 1972 and 4 years later when Carter is elected, it’s completely forgotten by him.

I’m amazed, simply amazed!!!

Red China stands on its own side, and it’s closer to the Islamists than us.

China has its own Islamic threat. but China loves the money it gets from arms sales.

Both statements are true when speaking financially, but it remains to be seen what China would do if it came to war between terrorist nations and the rest of the world.

We saw how quickly things changed with North Korea last month. China is not interested in war and they’re definitely smart enough to know that the spread of Islamic extremism is not far from their door.

They veiw backing Iran the same as us backing Taiwan.

China is the key. If China decides to stand on the side of civilization … World War 3 might be exactly what we need.

Gregor on November 17, 2006 at 12:02 PM

Red China stands on its own side, and it’s closer to the Islamists than us.