April 08, 2005

silhouette3.JPG From the desk of Jane Galt:

A waste of a perfectly good snit

Okay, so as long-time readers know, I'm not a huge fan of Jimmy Carter's attempts to conduct his own foreign policy while Bush was in the White House, or what I consider to be his really quite dishonorable attempt to prepare the ground for fraud accusations in Florida prior to the 2004 elections, at the expense of ludicrously likening his own country to a banana republic in a national newspaper. Nonetheless, I was prepared to get all huffy because the Bush administration didn't invite him to the Pope's funeral; such a move struck me as strictly declasse. Now it turns out that Bush did invite him, but may--or may not--have "subtly discouraged" him from attending. What am I supposed to do with all this righteous indignation?

Posted by Jane Galt at April 8, 2005 11:41 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links
Comments

In reading the article it occurs to me that the further away from the conversation one is the more indignant one becomes. Which, of course, makes me infinitely indignant! In fact, I am so indignant that I can't compose myself long enough to tell you which side I'm on.

Posted by: too many steves on April 8, 2005 12:45 PM

Of course, if Carter was as concerned with presidential solidarity as the indignant busy-bodies that populate this story, he shouldn't have accepted his Nobel Peace Prize given the anti-American -- and explicitly anti-Bushie -- subtext that underwrote the committee's decision.

And, let's face it, there simply wouldn't have been enough room for Carter's ego on that "strong enough delegation".

Posted by: andrew on April 8, 2005 01:12 PM

Well, I hear there's a thriving, if perhaps overserved, market for indignation at Democratic Underground.

Perhaps you could sell yours?

Posted by: Sigivald on April 8, 2005 01:56 PM

So Carter was once POTUS. Big deal. So were LBJ and Nixon. Would you want those slithering snakes to represent the nation if they were alive? Attaining high office and being a decent representative of one's nation are two different things.

Speaking of slithering snakes, having Clinton represent the U.S. was bad enough, then he has to mouth off about the Pope's legacy. You know, if you don't believe in the Church's teachings, you can always walk away* from the Church or, if you're POTUS, actively undermine its teachings. Clinton, as POTUS, had far more power than did the Pope, and we know how Clinton used that power.
__________
* I walked away, many years ago, and I'm still here to talk about it. The Church isn't a democracy, after all, it's a religion.

Posted by: Tom on April 8, 2005 01:58 PM


Why does Carter even *want* to go a Pope's funeral?

He didn’t choose to go to either the funeral of Pope Paul VI or the funeral of Pope John Paul I, both of whom died while Carter was president.

Why is the funeral of a pope suddenly a big deal NOW? Because Bush has decided that it is, and whatever those evil neo-cons are doing has to be either bashed, or upstaged?

Posted by: TJIC on April 8, 2005 02:27 PM

My first reaction to the news of President Bush's dissing of President Carter was that the odds were at least 25 to 1 that it was even remotely true.

I was just hoping there'd be enough media hype about the alleged insult that there would have to be a follow-up story explaining the full details of the Carter blarney.

Posted by: Matthew Goggins on April 8, 2005 04:16 PM

TJIC - Yes, two popes died while Carter was in office. Neither of them cast nearly as large a shadow as did John Paul II. Carter had not met either of them. He met with John Paul II in the Oval Office. So, as much as I dislike Carter, there's no need to assume insincere motives on his part in wanting to attend the funeral. Heck, I'm not Catholic and I would have wanted to go.

Posted by: David Walser on April 8, 2005 04:43 PM

I'm about as surprised at how this is developing as I am that the finger that lady found in her Wendy's chili was actually that of her aunt. That's the rumor anyway...

Posted by: Brad Hutchings on April 8, 2005 04:43 PM

OK, I can't resist... President Peanut will have the last laugh in this when he is called in to oversee the voting for the next Pope. Ba-da-bing!!

Posted by: Brad Hutchings on April 8, 2005 04:47 PM

David So, as much as I dislike Carter, there's no need to assume insincere motives on his part in wanting to attend the funeral. Heck, I'm not Catholic and I would have wanted to go.

I'm not sure what was keeping Carter from going. He can (I assume) afford a ticket. If he wants a special place _in_ the proceedings he surely has enough pull to get a seat.

Posted by: Brian on April 8, 2005 05:45 PM

Brian - I don't know that it was Carter who raised the fuss. As the article pointed out, it appears that it was Democrats several times removed from Carter who were offended. As ready as I am to dump on the former president, I just don't think this is the right time or issue.

Posted by: David Walser on April 8, 2005 06:01 PM

From what I understand, it was actually Carter who first denied that he'd been snubbed, in response to some vitriol from would-be supporters who assumed that his absence from the delegation was a snub.

Frankly, other than being _about_ him, this whole thing really has very little to do with him.

Posted by: Matt on April 9, 2005 02:45 AM

I have in this instance adopted the policy that saw me through the unforunate Peanut Years: ignore the sanctimonious twerp and pray for a high reproductive rate among killer rabbits.

Posted by: Axel Kassel on April 9, 2005 08:12 AM

So Carter was once POTUS. Big deal. So were LBJ and Nixon. Would you want those slithering snakes to represent the nation if they were alive? Attaining high office and being a decent representative of one's nation are two different things.

Amen to that! We have Bush!

Posted by: Sir Hosis of the Liver on April 9, 2005 11:35 AM

Wow, people with personal knowledge of the conversations on both the Carter and Bush sides agree that Carter was invited and welcome but decided not to go.

It's only "partisans without direct knowledge" who "found that hard to accept."

This is therefore just a story about uninformed partisans being mad at Bush. If the Post had limited itself to proper reporting, there would have been no story. Surprised, anyone?

Posted by: AT on April 9, 2005 01:19 PM

"If the Post had limited itself to proper reporting, there would have been no story. Surprised, anyone?"

If the Post contained only proper reporting, there would be no Post! That would likely be an improvement.

Posted by: Ed Reid on April 9, 2005 06:59 PM

Carter could just buy a plane ticket.

Posted by: mark on April 11, 2005 09:12 AM

Comments are Closed.