Couric & Co.
May 21, 2007 11:12 AM

Is President Carter Irrelevant?

(AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
Former President Jimmy Carter and the Bush administration traded jabs this weekend. Mr. Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette he thinks President Bush is the "worst in history." The White House countered, saying the former president is "increasingly irrelevant."

Mr. Carter followed with a "my bad" moment on NBC's "Today" this morning, saying his remarks were "careless or misinterpreted."

So is Mr. Carter becoming irrelevant? I talked to CBS News consultant and presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, who says definitely not.

"He's not only a Nobel Peace Prize winner but he's listened to all over the world," said Brinkley, citing Mr. Carter's efforts around the globe to battle disease, poverty and political corruption through his work with the Carter Center.

"(The administration) may find him annoying ... or say his actions are disparaging to the troops, but irrelevant he is not."

However, Mr. Carter himself may feel otherwise. In his "Today" interview he said, "I don't claim to have any relevancy. I have a completely unofficial capacity."
Tags:
carter ,
bush ,
irrelevant
Topics:
In The News
Add a Comment See all 52 Comments
by jcorbin1958 May 22, 2007 5:54 PM EDT
Ha! Ha! I suppose Jimmy Carter thought of himself as a good President! He was a joke! How dare he criticize President Bush! Mr. Peanut brain needs to shut up!
Reply to this comment
by shebagrafton May 21, 2007 11:17 PM EDT
If a former President is irrelevant to Bush, how relevant do you think a citizen is?
Reply to this comment
by norcalruss May 21, 2007 11:10 PM EDT
How ironic that a spokesman for a lame duck president with a 28% approval rating, and whose stupidity in Iraq cost his party both houses, would refer to someone else as IRRELEVANT. The CHIMP is IRRELEVANT not Carter
Reply to this comment
by spike55_bmw May 21, 2007 10:20 PM EDT
I've never sat in the chair as the president of the most powerful nation on the earth but Jimmy Carter has. He, like you and me, can say what he wants because it is still a free country, although it seems many don't see it that way but that percentage decreases daily.

With all of the recent revelations by Geo. Tenet, etc., it is amasing to me that so many don't see how unwise it is to have a staff, a party, a country of only "Yes-Men" & "Yes-Women". Anyone with a successful business knows this is a recipe for problems when no one challenges the institutional thinking.

So when someone of Carter's experience voices his concerns / impressions that reflect 49-50% of the 2004 presidential voters, and that percentage has grown since then, he is relevant.
Reply to this comment
by wandomannie May 21, 2007 10:18 PM EDT
Carter is a mean-spirited old man who failed as a president. He is pathetic. As another poster noted, Slick and Peanut broke with tradition and have blasted Bush with impunity. I have no doubt that future Republican presidents will do the same to the Dems. This doesn't help us as a nation. I expect a former president, even a failed one like Carter, to grasp such a simple fact. Obviously, I expect too much. He's been spending way too much time on Moveon.org.
Reply to this comment
by sty1 May 21, 2007 9:17 PM EDT
If God and truth are irrevelant then Jimmy Carter is too..YOU G D fool
Reply to this comment
by ericmichael1 May 21, 2007 8:46 PM EDT
It is just not right to sum up the total of a man's life by one statement he has made. Especially when he is aging.

I did not appreciate the man when he was in office. Inflation raged like at no other time in American history. In the post-Vietnam world, the U.S. was at its lowest ebb militarily and in status.

He was my commander-in-chief for the end of his term. He could have sent troops in en masse after the taking of the hostages at the U.S. embassy in Iran. But he did not. He relied on diplomacy. And he was derided when the day Reagan came into the picture. The agreement was followed through by Iran and the hostages came home, but not until after they had humiliated him and his successful efforts.

Still, all of these years later, I must admit that perhaps, through his patience and faith in diplomacy, many 18 year olds' lives were spared, including mine.

Many forget that Reagan made a tragic blunder by forcing his way into Lebanon and it cost many good men their lives. But I cannot forget, because a good friend of mine died there.

I cannot agree with everything that Mr. Carter has done in his life. But, on the other hand, I am alive today to not agree.

So, if you do not mind, although I am not a Democrat or a fan of his, I will forgive him his words said and his deeds done.

Eric
Reply to this comment
by onegreensix May 21, 2007 7:37 PM EDT
If anyone, or anything, is becoming irrelevant it would have to be CBS News.
Reply to this comment
by May 21, 2007 7:36 PM EDT
I have to disagree with Johnpatrick9 in that this is not an issue of free speech at all. The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This is not about Congress attempting to remove Carter's right to express himself. Of course Jimmy has the "Right" to say whatever he feels. What we are discussing here is etiquette. If you were a bride one day and then the next day you were invited as a guest to a wedding. Would you walk around the reception of the wedding you were attending as a guest and tell the other guests how ugly the wedding dress and boring the wedding was compared to yours. You had your time; and now either enjoy or not, but be gracious.

This "Free Speech" argument is lame and not well thought-out enough to even read the Constitution before saying such nonsense and as such is just an emotional statement that says more about the ignorance of the commenter.
Reply to this comment
by cornelis2 May 21, 2007 7:36 PM EDT
President Carter is far more relevant to the world I want to see than the lame-duck president currently trying to impose his self-serving and ill-advised policies. I am trying so very hard to deal with what this country has become under the Bush administration but I increasingly feel abandoned, betrayed and lost. It will take a very strong and moral person to step up and bring us back to the America I loved for so many years.
Reply to this comment
by r9119111 May 21, 2007 7:16 PM EDT
Sorry. When I saw how the copy looked I had to try to clean it up. Here it is again----

Not one living person is irrelevant.

irrelevant

irrelevant
adj
not applicable: not relevant or important



-irrelevance, n
-irrelevancy, n
-irrelevantly, adv
Encarta . World English Dictionary ) & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Unfortunately this administration has made everyone who doesn't agree with it unimportant. That is the problem. Millions of people are being left out of the decision making process and that is bound to have repercussions. That is reality.

repercussion

repercussion
(plural repercussions)
n
1. result of action: something, especially an unforeseen problem, that results from an action (often used in the plural)
2. rebound: the rebounding of a force after impact
3. physics reflection: the reflection of light or sound
4. music point of reappearance in fugue: in a fugue, the return of the theme after an episode


[Mid-16th century. Directly or via French from Latin repercuss- , the past participle stem of repercutere , literally %u201Cto strike back through,%u201D from percutere %u201Cto strike through.%u201D]



Encarta . World English Dictionary ) & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Reply to this comment
by r9119111 May 21, 2007 7:10 PM EDT
Not one living person is irrelevant.

ir7rel7e7vant

ir7rel7e7vant [i rill%u0259v%u0259nt]
adj
not applicable: not relevant or important



-ir7rel7e7vance, n
-ir7rel7e7van7cy, n
-ir7rel7e7vant7ly, adv
Encarta . World English Dictionary ) & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Unfortunately this administration has made everyone who doesn't agree with it is unimportant. That is the problem. Millions of people are being left out of the decision making process and that is bound to have repercussions. That is reality.

re7per7cus7sion

re7per7cus7sion [r%uF7FDp%u0259r kzsh%u2019n]
(plural re7per7cus7sions)
n
1. result of action: something, especially an unforeseen problem, that results from an action (often used in the plural)
2. rebound: the rebounding of a force after impact
3. physics reflection: the reflection of light or sound
4. music point of reappearance in fugue: in a fugue, the return of the theme after an episode


[Mid-16th century. Directly or via French from Latin repercuss- , the past participle stem of repercutere , literally %u201Cto strike back through,%u201D from percutere %u201Cto strike through.%u201D]



Encarta . World English Dictionary ) & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Reply to this comment
by postamerican May 21, 2007 6:43 PM EDT
Bush was the 1st appointed POTUS in history, presided over the worst attack in history, he has borrowed more money from foreign creditors then all other POTUS combined, together, in history, he presised over the worst human disaster in history, he is responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in Iraq in History. Bush will end up like all Tyrants do, at the end of a noose. The American People are cowards. Never Forget Nine Eleven Remember? Where is UBL?
Reply to this comment
by muzzlebush May 21, 2007 6:14 PM EDT
I think the Bush administration is doing a good job of keeping to its well-scripted party line by calling President Carter irrelevant. In the eyes of George, ***, Carl and the rest of the current gang of thugs running our country, anyone who is not directly involved with lining the pockets of them or their supporters is irrelevant.
I do find the concept of calling a Noebel Peace Prize winner irrelevant even more laughable given Carter's efforts for peace in the Middle East and Bush's efforts to inflame the area.
Reply to this comment
by dontbasucka May 21, 2007 5:59 PM EDT
Let's list Jimmy's accomplishments:

Gave away the Panama Canal.

Attacked by "killer rabbit" while fishing - had to be saved the secret service - Yes google this!

2nd president to be openly critical of a current sitting president ( Bubba another president from the south started this tradition ) Except for Jimmy & Clinton I don't recall seeing another president seek out the limelight on the world stage to make bizarre criticisms of a sitting president.

Lost election to that idiot Bonzo actor Ronald Reagan.

Made our military a laughing stock during his four years. Embarrassing failed Iranian rescue mission where we left our helicopters behind in the desert.

Reply to this comment
by ReasonableGuy May 21, 2007 5:50 PM EDT
Bush's Economic Success is a Fraud.

The government is spending hundreds of billions more than it is taking in each year. That spending gives the economy a bump. It's a great scheme to make the economy look strong now, but it robs the future.

Check the national debt figures.

Unnecessary war in Iraq + HUGE increase in national debt warrantless spying on Americans condoning torture incompetence in Iraq limiting of stem cell research = WORST PRESIDENT EVER.
Reply to this comment
by aicohnx2 May 21, 2007 5:46 PM EDT
fast2k:

One more thing. The fed has hidden M3 for the past 6 or 8 months. They still have the data, they just don't publish it. They need a bit of secrecy to make sure folks don't rip money out of the banks & buy gold just yet.

Nevertheless, you can get a reconstructed figure for M3 that has a .99999 correlation with the old M3 at this URL:

http://www.nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html

So you have an economy that was growing 4% but is slowing and a money supply growing at 11% annualized.

That spells "WEIMAR REPUBLIC".
Reply to this comment
by austin2638 May 21, 2007 5:43 PM EDT
Carter is losing it. First he goes raving partisan at the '04 Convention (I was shocked), and then he alienates those vested in the only meaningful part of his legacy with his "apartheid" book, now he, being the worst recent president in memory, tries to claim someone else is "the worst" thereby making him second worst(?).

Isn't it out-of-bounds for the worst to declare a new "worst". Aren't they disqualified by common sense "conflict of interest" rules?
Reply to this comment
by aicohnx2 May 21, 2007 5:42 PM EDT
fast2K:

Your rose colored glasses are skewed by a sea of green. The fed has been exploding M3 to keep the markets from crashing, the dollar is at multi-year lows & the trade imbalances are at record levels.

Take a good look at the dow in euros or any other non-devalued, non-trashed currency & the scenario ain't so rosey. The fed is pumping up the dow to mitigate the effects of the housing collapse. The inflation numbers have been heavily massaged. We're getting set up for an inflationary Weimar republic here. That's the big picture.
Reply to this comment
by andranik-2009 May 21, 2007 5:40 PM EDT
Ever since his one term in office, Carter has been trying to boost his standing among historians and the American public. He has certainly been involved in some good activities, such as Habitat for Humanity, but his diplomatic adventures overseas have usually ended in failure, such as his debacle in North Korea.



While he was President, Carter allowed the Soviet Union to advance around the globe; our American hostages to be taken in Iran and held for over 400 days. During his four years at the helm, our military declined significantly and morale was poor both in the armed forces and throughout the country. In the Carter years, our economy was in shambles with the misery index of a high inflation rate and a high unemployment rate making economy conditions miserable. Interest rates were out of control, taxes were high, and Americans were facing soaring prices and a lack of real buying power.



Carter left all of this mess to Ronald Reagan, who, fortunately, was able to turn around the economy, the military, our standing in the world and the mood of the American people. History should always view Jimmy Carter as one of the worst U.S. Presidents of all-time, not based on opinion, but on his lousy record.

Reply to this comment
See all 52 Comments

About Couric & Co.

Go for a look behind the scenes at The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric for stuff we like and for surprises. It's also a place for you to post comments and join our conversation about the news.

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn