Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Criticism from the peanut gallery
Posted by: McQ on Sunday, January 21, 2007

He just won't shut up. He's like Chatty Cathy on steroids. And now he's managed to drag old "Landslide" Mondale in with him:
Former President Jimmy Carter and ex-Vice President Walter Mondale sharply criticized the two men that currently hold the jobs they once did, in an exclusive interview with CNN Friday.

Carter said President Bush must address the "mistakes" he has made and specifically referenced the Bush administration's policy regarding domestic eavesdropping.

"Obviously what needs to be done is to reassess some of the mistakes that have been made that are patently obvious to everyone," Carter told Wolf Blitzer. "The violation of basic law, some of which Fitz Mondale and I passed — that is the getting judicial approval before you start spying on American people."

Mondale criticized the amount of influence Vice President Cheney wields in the current administration.

"The current vice president seems to have stepped across the line that we thought was important in our time," Mondale said. "I tried to work as a representative of the president, I didn't go around volunteering my own policies."
Good lord, Fritz, get a clue. Perhaps if you had you wouldn't have been a part of the awfulness that was the Carter administration and subsequently lost 49 out of 50 states when you ran for President.

I mean you didn't learn anything from that?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
"I tried to work as a representative of the president, I didn’t go around volunteering my own policies."
....because that would have made Jimmy Carter’s presidency even more of a disaster?

yes, I went for the easiest gag available, I will leave it to others to have more fun with this.
 
Written By: DS
URL: http://
I think Bush and Cheney should apologize for their horrible mistake of bypassing FISA just as soon as Clinton and Mondale apologize for their even more horrible mistake of enacting it.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Man, McQ, you just love to go on personal attacks with people who publically don’t share your views. "He shouldn’t criticize because he lost an election badly and was part of an awful administration thirty years ago." How lame is that? It sounds frustrated and bitter, when a legitimate policy criticism inspires you to make a silly personal attack. Face it, the consensus across the political spectrum is that Iraq was a mistake, it was mismanaged, there are huge blunders, and President George W. Bush’s administration will likely be judged as worse than that of President Carter.

But all that said, we still have a difficult situation, and it impacts all Americans, it affects the world my two sons will have when they grow up. Somehow we have to be able to talk about this reasonably, with legitimate criticisms of past and current policy, without having to end up in the realm of ad hominem attacks.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Welcome to liberal double-speak. First of all, this is an internet magazine. Dry pedantic posts do not attract readers; there must be a little style and pizzazz. Colorful language is entirely appropriate, whether devoted to ad hominem or issues. Professor Erb obviously does not know the difference, or, more likely, chooses to ignore the difference in order to launch his own ad hominem attack. Allow me to elucidate:
“He just won’t shut up. He’s like Chatty Kathy on steroids.
The issue is that the tradition of ex-presidents not comment on the policies of current holders of that office has been violated. Colorfully stated, but not ad hominem.
“...old "Landslide" Mondale...”
The issue is the credibility of a politician who rather dramatically failed to attract votes. Colorfully stated, but not ad hominem.
“...Fritz, get a clue. Perhaps if you had you wouldn’t have been a part of the awfulness that was the Carter administration and subsequently lost 49 out of 50 states when you ran for President.”
The issue is the legacy of a past administration and a reminder of just how bad the political defeat actually was. Colorfully stated, but not ad hominem. Now I will give you some real ad hominem:
“Man, McQ, you just love to go on personal attacks with people who publically (sic) don’t share your views.”
Any issue here other than the personal proclivities of Mr. McQuain?
“It sounds frustrated and bitter...”
Any issue here? Any response to the content of the post? Yes, Professor Erb,
“Somehow we have to be able to talk about this reasonably, with legitimate criticisms of past and current policy, without having to end up in the realm of ad hominem attacks.”
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
Doesn’t the term ’Mudslide’ sound more appropriate.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
McQ....LOL figures....if its a post all hatin’ on Jimmy while missing the point totally, its got to be The Big Mc

You huff and puff about what a bad man Carter is, as if the country totally rejected Carter/Mondale in 1980 because he ’caused’ inflation, the Iran ’crisis’ Ford/Nixon based recessions and high gas prices (gee, what presidental administration does THAT sound like?). He got your boy Reagan elected, wheres the love here?

Carter lost because of the negative campaign and 3 years of bad mouthing of a do-nothing Republican power base. Lets not forget that convenient timing of the ’hostage’ release, a la Iran-Contra. True Hollywood PR!

Lets not get into the whole record peacetime deficit ’supply side’ voodoo-economics of your heroic-yet-never-served-in-the-military half-witted cowboy who saved America from the...uh..evil Navy Veteran peanut farmer. Pardon me while pause and snicker at the memory of that election campaign.

Yeah, Carter was really the worse of the lot (rolling eyes) and now he Hates The Jew .

Right.

Dude, their message is not tarnished by the messenger (cases of lapdog conservative lackeys such as yourself exempt). Bush has to reach out for help. Even ’your people’ say so too.

What we need, is what they call in the ’drug rehab’ business is a tough-love-come-to-Jesus meeting with GWB. The man seriously requires help.

At least Mr. Carter and Mondale have never tried to increase their powers during a time of crisis, as the first (and so far, only) response.

Cheney DOES have too much power. Bush IS stretching the constitution past the tearing point.

Do you really want say Hillary to have all those powers and authority? Or your Manchurian Candidate McCain?

Your smack-the-Carter mack is getting really REALLY stale. What else do you have for us today?

Oh and notherbob2, you weak excuse of a ’witty yet bitterly ascerbic poster’ a la Rush O’Reilley: Please try harder next time to be witty. For today, you fail as did the Republicans in 2006. F-

Dry pedamic lapdog double-speak aside...
 
Written By: Rick Day
URL: http://goplobby.org
Uh, oh! McQ brought out Erb and Bong-boy in the same day. I’ll check to see if there’s a full moon.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Anyone else savor the irony of a Carter defender calling someone else "frustrated and bitter"?
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Doc, you keep popping up in these Jimmy Carter threads raving about how great Jimmy Carter is because, you know, he does all kinds of, like, humanitarian things, and then accusing others who don’t like Carter of lacking substance.

The fact is, if you will review the previous threads, the people here who have criticized Carter have provided far more substantive reasons for their criticisms than you have for your gushing praise.

I will give you a recent example of the way Jimmy Carter handled a foreign policy crisis that illustrates why I cannot respect the man:

In 1992 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the U.N. discovered that the North Koreans had been illicitly separating plutonium for bombs. The IAEA arranged for an inspection team to investigate.

In February, 1993, one month into Bill Clinton’s first term as President, North Korea unexpectedly denied the IAEA team access to the nuclear facilities that were supposed to be open to examination according to the terms of the inspection agreement that NoKo had signed the previous year. Clinton Defense Secretary William J. Perry called this a "very substantial near-term crisis."

Clinton sent Jimmy Carter to negotiate with the NoKo’s. According to Clinton Chief of Staff Thomas F. (Mack) McLarty III (LA Times 1-19-03) Clinton was frustrated that Carter committed the administration to negotiations with North Korea over this issue, and "wrongly suggested that economic sanctions against North Korea would be lifted."

Worse, Carter promised the NoKo’s that the US would build them two light-water reactors, which were supposedly "proliferation resistant" to help the North Korea meet its energy needs, and, until the reactors were up and running, Carter promised to provide North Korea with billions of dollars worth of fuel oil.

As McLarty admitted, "Some would call this appeasement." That was far from the only problem with the deal, though. First of all, the project never made any sense in terms of its supposed goal: the light-water reactors would be far too large to operate on the flimsy NoKO electric grid.

Second, the light-water reactors could make more nukes than the ones that they were intended to replace. Nuclear non-proliferation expert Henry Sokolski, (Los Angeles Times, 1-19-13):
Light-water reactors make less plutonium than other reactors of the same size. But they are so much larger than the reactors the North Koreans were operating or building - nearly 10 times larger - that they could make twice as much plutonium as the North Korean ones they replaced. The North Koreans would not have much trouble extracting it.
Not surprisingly, the Agreed Framework that Carter negotiated came apart at the seams like a cheap suit. Sokolski:
In fact, what triggered the deal’s breakdown was North Korea’s realization that the Bush administration was going to enforce the Agreed Framework’s inspection provisions. Pyongyang had gotten the idea from the Clinton administration that the United States would treat "full compliance" as a political determination, rather than as a technical one based on intensive inspections.
It is Carter’s loopy naivete that makes some of us want him to get off the stage and go away.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
“...you weak excuse of a ’witty yet bitterly ascerbic poster’ a la Rush O’Reilley...”
Thank you, Mr. Day, for the comparisons, although I blush at them. I cannot take the hit for not being witty as I was striving for clever. Speaking of which, several of your lines were really good - colorful, yet on point:
“...if its a post all hatin’ on Jimmy while missing the point totally, its got to be The Big Mc...”

“...Your smack-the-Carter mack is getting really REALLY stale. “
A welcome relief from your usual “talking points” stuff.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
McQ....LOL figures....if its a post all hatin’ on Jimmy ...
Heh ... It’s called chumming.

And it never fails to bring out the trash fish.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
If Mr. Carter and Mr. Mondale wish to put their money where their mouths are, they would run again for President.
 
Written By: Jeff Medcalf
URL: http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
So does that make them Chicken-Politicians?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ,

I thought you pulled Day-sies circuits so he could not post anymore
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I thought you pulled Day-sies circuits so he could not post anymore.
Nope. It was Davebo after he fabricated a quote.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog

The issue is the credibility of a politician who rather dramatically failed to attract votes.


Really? Do you know how many elections Mondale won? Do you know his accomplishments in the Senate? And geez, where does that leave Gerald Ford, if this is your criteria for determining credibility — he lost to those two!?

What is sad (and perhaps telling) is that the personal attacks on Mondale and Carter really are a way to avoid responding to the substance of their claims. Rather than do the rational thing — say, "Walter Mondale says X, but in my view this is wrong because of Y and Z," the response is nothing but a personal attack.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb
Do you know his accomplishments in the Senate? And geez, where does that leave Gerald Ford, if this is your criteria for determining credibility — he lost to those two!?
Aawwww, Dr. Erb Ford BARELY lost to "these two" and Mondale was BURIED his last two runs for office....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
What is sad (and perhaps telling) is that the personal attacks on Mondale and Carter really are a way to avoid responding to the substance of their claims.
Like Carter’s claims about the fairness of the Venezuelan elections? Carter put his reputation on the line there. Is he turning into another Ramsey Clark, or is he just addled?

Hey, don’t get me wrong, Habitat For Humanity is a fine charity. I don’t begrudge the guy a few photo ops with a tool belt and a hammer, but let’s face it, Carter is about as sharp as a ball peen.

 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Really? Do you know how many elections Mondale won?
Do you mean how many elections he won counting elections for class president and the yearbook awards?

Do ya? Huh, do ya?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
....and President George W. Bush’s administration will likely be judged as worse than that of President Carter.
A dubious distinction indeed.
 
Written By: DS
URL: http://
....
Man, McQ, you just love to go on personal attacks with people who publically don’t share your views......

Somehow we have to be able to talk about this reasonably, with legitimate criticisms of past and current policy, without having to end up in the realm of ad hominem attacks...
So, let’s hear you say it, Scott:

"Bush is not even remotely like Hitler."

You can do it.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
"So, let’s hear you say it, Scott:

Bush is not even remotely like Hitler."

You can do it.
Bush isn’t even remotely like Hitler. But man, that’s setting the bar low. How about this: my opinion of Bush is about as negative as my opinion of Clinton.

The problem with partisan glasses is that you tend to judge people by how they adhere to your partisan beliefs, rather than how they really are. Those who veer far from what you (or others with such a view) get insults and attacks hurled at them, those who think like you get praised. That seems to be all too common, and of course completely irrational.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Bush isn’t even remotely like Hitler. But man, that’s setting the bar low
I’m being considerate. Look at what you had to go through to get over even THAT minimal hurdle. Can you see yourself saying that a year or two back?

As for the remiander of your comments, the irony meter just melted. I’ll have to get back to you.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
“That seems to be all too common, and of course completely irrational.”
“...the irony meter just melted.”
I have read Professor Erb’s last comment over and over. Having reviewed all of his comments in this thread, I guess the literal meaning is the right one: He is saying: “I am ...irrational.”

OK. Not everyone is that frank about their shortcomings. I think we should applaud his candor.

In the alternative, we might review: “wiki/Psychology“, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a “defense mechanism“ in which one attributes ("projects") to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
(....applause....applause.....applause....)

Meanwhile it seems to be essential that we, especially those of us who lived through the Jimmy and Fritz show, validate our opinion of their capabilities to the satisfaction of Herr Professor Doktor Erb.

One would think that Jimmy’s success with the democratic Hugo Chavez show election validation would be sufficient to call his perceptions into question (yet again). Of course I suppose he could argue that Hugo was an honest guy then, and has only recently, uh, lost control of his previously sublimated tyrannical urges.

Here’s a golden oldie from QandO, just to, sorta, remind folks of Jimmah’s actions as ex-Presidente.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=1156
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Anyone else savor the irony of a Carter defender calling someone else "frustrated and bitter"?
I do . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
How about this: my opinion of Bush is about as negative as my opinion of Clinton.
And both are much better than Carter, and Carter is still digging.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
And geez, where does that leave Gerald Ford, if this is your criteria for determining credibility — he lost to those two!?
How much credibility did Ford have? Was Ford a forign policy loose cannon, like Carter?

Ford certainly had the good sense to not fawn over every two-bit anti-American dictator. Carter has no clue when to shut up.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
So, the main criticism you have of Carter is of his Presidency (which I’d agree had some real weaknesses) and the Chavez election? That’s it? Everything else here is just fluff — some insults, attacks, etc., but no substance. I really think partisan thinking has trumped rationality with a lot of people posting. You are so into the "competition" that you have forgotten how to have a reasonable debate with people you disagree with.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
So, the main criticism you have of Carter is of his Presidency (which I’d agree had some real weaknesses) and the Chavez election? That’s it?
Well, no.

First, scroll up to see my long and detailed analysis of Carter’s handling of the North Korean crisis during the Clinton administration. His handling of foreign policy goes beyond inept; It is utterly appalling. A man with a foreign policy track record like Carter’s is in no position to be lecturing others on the subject.

Second, off the top of my head I can think of several other criticisms of Carter that have been raised here, such as his history of going abroad to undermine the official foreign policy of our government, the factual errors and inaccuracies in his recent book, his acceptance of money from Arab sources with a record of anti-semitism, etc.

Finally, for a guy who claims to be looking for substantive debate, it is odd that you dismiss the Chavez election issue without comment. Carter’s attempt to provide a fig leaf of credibility to those rigged elections should really lead a rational guy like yourself to question his judgment, no?



 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
“What is sad (and perhaps telling) is that the personal attacks on Mondale and Carter really are a way to avoid responding to the substance of their claims. ...the response is nothing but a personal attack.

Everything ... here is just fluff — some insults, attacks, etc., but no substance. I really think partisan thinking has trumped rationality with a lot of people posting. You are so into the "competition" that you have forgotten how to have a reasonable debate with people you disagree with.”
I believe there is more of a lesson here than merely pointing out that Professor Erb shares the common lack of comprehension demonstrated by liberals when trying to discuss an issue with those outside the liberal cocoon who do not accept standard liberal framing of the issue at hand.

In other words, his head is so far up the Liberal Narrative that he fails to comprehend that some “rational” people judge political opinion by those who spout it. Liberals (of the “fake, but true” stripe) contend that “rational” people should ignore the source and simply take words at face value (provided they support the LN). Hence, their reliance on luminaries such as Cindy Sheehan and Al Sharpton. Oh, and don’t forget the Congresswoman from Georgia. “Rational” people should really care what she has to say about any topic she might care to comment upon?

The second option to explain his obtuseness would be that he rarely discusses issues outside the liberal cocoon and therefore has a basic problem understanding other-than-other-liberals when they respond in a way that does not reflect the liberal framing of an issue. For instance, I would contend that there was a great deal of “other than fluff” in this thread.

Professor Erb is totally oblivious to the importance of the Carter/Chavez issue. He claims that it is non-substantive. After all, in the liberal frame, that issue is a matter of little importance and is usually never brought up or dismissed with a wink and a nod or the equivalent, i.e., it is mere “fluff“. I contend that to any really rational person it is a good deal more than that. Rather than responding to the evident frame of the thread, he resorts to personal attacks and dismisses the framing in which the Carter/Chavez issue is of prime importance, as "non-substantive" (a common liberal dodge).

You need to get out more, Professor.. You are a poster boy of cocoonitis.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
So, the main criticism you have of Carter is of his Presidency (which I’d agree had some real weaknesses) and the Chavez election? That’s it?
Reminds me of "Reg" from Monty Python’s Life of Brian -
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Reminds me of "Reg" from Monty Python’s Life of Brian -
So stating one minor thing reminds you of a list of a bunch of really major things. I guess if that’s how your mind work, it explains a lot ;-)
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Nope - actually there were a lot of things in these various discussions about Carter, but you keep marginalizing them all (either explicitly or by omission) - much as Reg does the Roman contributions.

Hence, why I am reminded of the character Reg. 8^)

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Nope - actually there were a lot of things in these various discussions about Carter, but you keep marginalizing them all (either explicitly or by omission) - much as Reg does the Roman contributions.
My point is that there doesn’t seem to be anything real against Carter except that he didn’t agree with some who claimed problems in the Chavez election. What else specific was said against him?

But Life of Brian is my favorite movie of all time, so unless you want to provide a list of specific complaints against Carter, I’ll let you have the last word. I would, however, note that Reg’s comments do illustrate an important point. No matter how much good a conqueror may intend or even may do, a conquered people resist anyway.

Best line in the movie: "I’m not."
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
No matter how much good a conqueror may intend or even may do, a conquered people resist anyway.
A free populace will resist being conquered and enslaved, but will an enslaved populace resist being freed? The Iraqi people, with the exception of a few chosen Sunni tribes, already were conquered.

What we are seeing now is not resistance against a conqueror, but jockeying for power within the vacuum that was created when the tyrant was overthrown.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Heh Scott, it wasn’t my favorite, but it’s up there.
As to examples, folks gave them - Jimmy’s stint as a Non-Presidental negotiator during the 1st Bush Administration for the Persian Gulf War was a classic example that Jon Henke posted and I linked.
No matter how much good a conqueror may intend or even may do, a conquered people resist anyway.
What we are seeing now is not resistance against a conqueror, but jockeying for power within the vacuum that was created when the tyrant was overthrown.
Still, a valid point. There was resistence under Hussein, and he gassed, and shot, and opened up new scenic mass grave sites for those weary of his rule.
He just applied his guiding touch on a regular basis, much like Tito did in Yugoslavia, and the Soviets did in the Eastern Bloc.

Making both your points valid.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"Here’s a golden oldie from QandO, just to, sorta, remind folks of Jimmah’s actions as ex-Presidente."

You are wasting your time, looker. He doesn’t do links. I guess he doesn’t do research without a grant.

"` Everything else here is just fluff — some insults, attacks, etc., but no substance."
"What else specific was said against him?"

Problems with short-term memory?


 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider