Monday, August 13, 2012

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner The Convention

What political party convention would be complete without the Israel-hating, Jew-baiting, malaise-producing, America-denigrating, stagflation-creating, foreign oil-loving, proto-Obama President Jimmy Carter? It is appropriate that Jimmy will be at the Democratic convention since he is Barack Obama's mentor and role model on failed government. Carter will appear at the convention and speak via videotape.

Known as a do-nothing President who drifted with the political winds, Carter is an excellent choice for an appearance at the convention. Incumbent President Barack Hussein Obama learned a great deal from Carter, and is now giving the former president due deference. Both presidents managed to change the proverbial question “who's in charge here?” into the simple statement “nobody's in charge here.”

Obama and Carter share very thin skins. Even a moderate suggestion that the president might be off-target produces bristling and condemnation, although Obama has been more successful at using his Justice Department to silence critics and reward loyal disciples. Many Democrats have joined Republicans in proclaiming Carter near the top of the list of worst presidents. He has the clear title of worst ex-president ever. Obama is trying to steal both of those crowns, but he wants to be sure that people know he owes it all to his role model.

Carter did better on job creation. His record was miserable, but he places tenth or eleventh in that area among the past twelve presidents. Obama holds the title of worst job-producer. Carter showed small gains in job-creation, while Obama has lost far more jobs than were created in his first three and a half years. Carter did everything right to make himself a one-term president, and Obama is working hard to follow his lead.

Carter at least waited until he left office to alienate an important part of the liberal Democratic base. Obama has not been so circumspect. Jewish voters clung to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and Obama by 78% in 2008. After slighting Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while spouting moral equivalencies between the Palestinian thugs and Israel, Obama's support is now down to around 64% or 65%.

In the past few weeks, the Obama administration realized it was bleeding votes from its very important Jewish constituency. Obama began what has been called a charm offensive to win them back. He actually spoke respectfully with Netanyahu, and promised more aid to Israel in light of the current situation in Iran. It was having a small effect right up to the announcement that Carter would be speaking at the Democratic convention.

National Jewish Democratic Council President David Harris had this to say about the Carter invitation: “When it comes to Israel and the Middle East, President Carter has unfortunately embarrassed himself—as his analysis has been stubbornly wrong, harmful to the peace process, and getting worse all the time.” What goodwill Obama was gaining was lost almost overnight. Before Obama became the official head of his party, smarter and cooler heads determined that Carter should not be invited to the 2008 convention to speak or as an honored guest. Nothing has changed much since then, except that an anti-Israel speaker seems to appeal to The One.

Obama has also followed Carter's lead in refusing to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's proper capital. Pandering to the so-called Palestinians is a Carter-Obama shared value. Though he has not outright endorsed it, Obama clearly favors Carter's view that Israel should seek peace by withdrawing to its pre-1967 borders. There are those who suggest that if anything, Obama is even more anti-Israel and more pro-Arab than Carter. And at least Carter never declared America to be “one of the world's largest Muslim nations.”

All things considered, it seems to me that Obama is not intentionally challenging his Jewish base. It seems more like another example of his complete tone-deafness. If he wanted to honor an ex-president from his own party, having Carter sit in the gallery would have been more than sufficient. But in a speaker's list which includes Sandra Fluke (the Georgetown Law student who can't afford $7 a month for birth control), and Elizabeth Warren (non-Native American Native-American), I suppose nothing should surprise me. But then, I'm not Jewish.

24 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

It's funny, Hawk. When he was (I'm) potus, I always thought Carter was a decent, moral, man, even if misguided and incompetent. Later on, his shrew like wife, herself bitter at the way they were the laughing stock of Washington, turned his into Jimmuh Carter who sticks his nose into everything. Republican ex-presidents, even Nixon, understood they should not criticize the current occupant of the WH, and become elder statement. Not this dork. Oh, and don't forget he probably is an unindicted felon as a vilator of the Logan Act during the run up to Desert Storm.

Tennessee Jed said...

oops, (im)potus was what I meant to write, but you got the drift, I'm sure.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: He had me fooled right up until it looked like Ted Kennedy was going to mount a serious challenge to his reelection. Like you, I saw a helpless incompetent, who really only wanted good things to happen but didn't know how. Some of the rumors of his viciousness and political wheeling and dealing started to come out during his first year or so. The profanity also came as a bit of a surprise. By the time Reagan decided to run, I had more than Carter's incompetence to get me to cross party lines. In the end, I saw his religiosity to be a lot like Jimmy Swaggart--a seemingly decent fellow except when he was visiting whorehouses.

Don't trust anyone who claims to be a nuclear expert who pronounces it "nucular."

tryanmax said...

The only thing I did in the 70s was gestate, so my perspective on Carter is entirely historical. I'm just astonished that The 0ne still manages 2/3 of the Jewish vote, even taking into account secular Jews.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: I figured that was where you were headed. LOL

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: There was an upside. I got to spend a lot of time getting close to my kids while we were waiting for hours in rationing lines at the gas stations.

I'm with you in amazement on 2/3 of the Jewish vote still clinging to Obama. It makes no sense. I've seen many expositions on why Jews tend strongly to be liberals, and those I understand. But I don't understand any reasoning that could cause a thinking Jew to continue to support a [barely] closet anti-semite like Obama.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

It amazes me as well what the Jewish voter do. It is almost as if they court a new holocaust.

Remember when Jimmah recommended we wear sweaters? It is almost as bad as Obama recommending we make sure our tires are full of air. Back then, I think the MSM felt they could easily control who gets into the White House so therefore could treat Jimmah's administration rougher with the misery index. Reagan proved them wrong. :-)

Still, if the Democrats are going to have Jimmah, and Fluke, plus maybe Warren, we should be grateful and not look too closely at the free horse proffered.

One thing I didn't hear, but I heard after Jimmah left, is his antisemitism. That was kept deeply hidden by the MSM.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: I had almost forgotten about the Carter sweater thing. Yep, that'll defeat those evil OPEC thieves. The tire-inflation Obama thing is just the same nonsense spiffed up. He really did learn a lot from Carter.

Like most good bigots, Carter disguised his antisemitism as a "disagreement with Zionism." The simple fact is that he is a plain, old-fashioned throwback antisemite. Obama is following that lead as well.

AndrewPrice said...

I can't wait to see Carter do his thing. I'll bet he ends up blasting Obama as much as Romney.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: You're so right. Carter is absolutely delusional. He truly thinks he was a great president, and now everyone else is stealing his thunder.

rlaWTX said...

I was around in the 70s, but not aware at all - so my knowledge is historical as well. Looking back, it is impossible for me to understand how Rev. Jimmah got elected POTUS. He's atrocious as a President, as an ex-President, and as an American.
Our current TOTUS certainly has big shoes to fill!

StanH said...

Jimmy Carter my God, the GA Peanut rises. As a Georgian I will indeed be pleased when we fire Barry, the presidential dud award will move to Illinois.

Individualist said...

You know it is funny......

Who do you think would if given his druthers and the power to decide would do more harm to the state of Israel.

Jimmy Carter or Mel Gibson.

I got to think that Mel might shoot his mouth off and say stupid crap but Carter would put the stupid crap Mel says without thinking in motion. Something Mel if you gave him the authority and power would eventually reject.

Yet Carter is a media darling. Goes to show that Racism is about ideology first and bigotry and supremacy of identity second when it comes to the left.

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: There were many factors that produced the Carter presidency. The main one was that it was "the Democrat's turn," and the taint of the Nixon administration still lingered. Ford's terrible campaigning rivaled the later Dole and McCain campaigns for lethargy. Carter had managed to keep his nasty side hidden back in Georgia. And Ford's gaffe about Poland not being a satellite state under the heel of the Soviet Union certainly didn't help.

Obama will indeed have to work hard to best Carter as worst ex-president. But I have faith that he can do it. Yes, he can.

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: You'd like to get the heat off Georgia, huh? LOL

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: I see Gibson as a man with serious emotional problems that cause him to drink and use and make outrageous statements. When sober, he's a decent guy, and doesn't rave about the Jews killing Christ. Carter is just plain evil, and he's sober while spouting his anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian nonsense.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Excellent post, LawHawk!

The donks sure make a lot of elementary mistakes when they are in panic mode. Carter? Fluke? Why not add Roger Ebert and Sheila Jackson Brown? LOL!

There's a significant number of nominal liberals that will probably be shaking their heads when Carter and Fluke speak.
Maybe it will disgust them?

At any rate, those speakers will only appeal to the far left. Independents and undecideds won't have an iota of empathy for those two.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Sorry, Sheila J. Lee not Brown. I was thinking of Jackson Brown, another liberal, and his democratic anthem: running on empty, LOL!

LawHawkRFD said...

USSBen: I can't wait to hear what the reaction is to Fluke and Carter. They may tame Carter a bit, since it's on videotape. But Fluke will be saying the things willfully deaf people want to hear--the gummint won't give me what I need to screw around, and that's a violation of my civil rights. Odd how they don't care that rich witches at Georgetown Law still want freebies. I hope they turn off a whole lot of moderate Democrats and Independents with their whining and socialist schemes.

LawHawkRFD said...

USSBen: I still like your "running on empty" remark. LOL

Anthony said...

Carter's before my time, but nothing I've seen or heard of him has impressed me.

That being said, there were a couple Presidents between Carter and Obama so either all modern presidents have been antisemetic or there are reasons besides hostility or indifference to Israel that our Embassy hasn't moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

I go with option 2. The stated reason the US has never moved its Embassy is that it doesn't want to be seen as prejudicing final status talks. I've never heard of Israel making a serious push for such a move probably because they have more serious things on their plate.

Obama going against Netanyahu was just hilariously naive. Support for Israel is wide and deep, so any American president who butts head with Israel is going to lose unless America has a direct stake (think tech transfer or arms sales to a potentially unfriendly country).

LawHawkRFD said...

Anthony: If you believe that the issue of Jerusalem as the capital is the only indicator of Jimmy Carter's antisemitism, you have missed nearly every one of his speeches on the Middle East since he left office. Confirming Jerusalem as the nation's capital has been a development which occurred as as a result of the Second Intifida as the Palestinians demanded nearly half the city, long after Carter left office and well into the Clinton administration.

As a matter of permanent policy, Israel considers Jerusalem as both its historic and religious capital. Israel's official position is that it will not formally declare Jerusalem its official capital until the Palestinian question has been fully resolved.

Carter is unalterably opposed to that position under any circumstances, unequivocally favoring the division of Jerusalem. The American position has been that until Israel formally declares Jerusalem as its capital, the US will refrain from provoking the Muslims by moving its embassy to Jerusalem (that would be recognizing Jerusalem as the capital before Israel itself does). So any equivalence between Carter and all the presidents in-between then and now is simply wrong. The only one who comes close to showing Carter's hostility toward Israel and sympathy with the Palestinians is a certain Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama has only recently ordered any new tech and arms sales, and he did so reluctantly in order to shore up his Jewish base. His reluctance to assist Israel as Iran prepares its final nuclear plans was becoming apparent even to his most ardent Jewish supporters. So he put a band-aid on the problem. But since day one, he has refused to share one major arms improvement to assist Israel. He has denied Israel the super-bunker buster bombs that are needed to insure that if Israel is forced to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, it will actually wipe out the heavily reinforced deep nuclear bunkers. That has made a dangerous situation even more dangerous.

Since Hamas took over the district adjacent to Israel's portion of Jerusalem from Fatah, Syria and Iran have joined them in demanding the destruction of Israel. The Islamists may be the ones who force Israel into defying them and naming Jerusalem as the official capital. Moreover, how can America not have a direct stake in assisting its only true Middle East ally and only genuine secular democracy in the same region?

Anthony said...

I never said Carter wasn't an antisemite, I just stated that supporting the US's position that the division of Jerusalem needs to be negotiated is one all American presidents have held, so that position isn't evidence of antisemitism.

Also, how much damage has Hamas does to Israel since taking over the Gaza Strip? IIRC its a lot less damage than they did back when Fatah was in charge. As I've stated before Islamists in presidential palaces tend to make very different calculations than Islamists in caves.

Even if they haven't formally renounced terrorism or what have you, in practice they seem to have decided that terror wouldn't be worth the price Israel would no doubt make them pay.

Also, the Syrian government seems to have larger problems at the moment. Hezbollah, the government's favorite catspaw, has intervened in the civil war on the side of the government. If the rebels win, that will put Hezbollah in a bad spot. Even if the relationship doesn't crumble completely, Hezbollah won't be as tightly tied to the government or well funded as they once were.

As for bunker busters, the most powerful ones are some of our most advanced technology. Such transfers to Israel are always sensitive because Israel sells arms and tech to anyone who isn't an enemy of Israel (its a small country so its internal market isn't large enough to support the massive tech investment it makes to stay ahead of the game) including countries which are quite possibly future enemies of the US such as China.

So yes, the US has an interest in assisting Israel in its fight against Iran and all of its other regional enemies (who are almost invariably our enemies), but we need to be a bit cautious when doing so (everybody spies on everybody, and tech secrets are some of the msot prized).



LawHawkRFD said...

Anthony: Standing by itself, the official policy of the United States and its string of presidents isn't an indication of antisemitism. Most of the presidents saw non-recognition of Jerusalem as the capital as a diplomatic necessity. But Carter did it with relish (as it seems Obama does as well).

I don't see a choice of making nice-nice with Hamas as any better or worse than doing the same thing with Fatah.

As for the super bunker busters, I find the balance to be in favor of sharing the technology with Israel. Exigent circumstances. Sharing technology is always a calculated risk. It isn't as if Israel will turn on us later the way Iraq did.

Given the state of our current security measures, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that China and Russia have already stolen that technology. I don't see Israel selling the secrets to any of its neighbors.

Post a Comment