What a wonderful speech from octogenerian President Jimmy Carter tonight.
While he certainly was not the most effective president, he is a wonderful human being and a true inspiration.

If you missed it, here is a highlight from his speech:

"In repudiating extremism we need to recommit ourselves to a few common- sense principles that should transcend partisan differences. First, we cannot enhance our own security if we place in jeopardy what is most precious to us, namely, the centrality of human rights in our daily lives and in global affairs. Second, we cannot maintain our historic self-confidence as a people if we generate public panic. Third, we cannot do our duty as citizens and patriots if we pursue an agenda that polarizes and divides our country. Next, we cannot be true to ourselves if we mistreat others. And finally, in the world at large we cannot lead if our leaders mislead."



You are going to hear this line, again and again in the coming months as Kerry travels toward his fate to be president:

IN THE WORLD AT LARGE, WE CANNOT LEAD IF OUR LEADERS MISLEAD.

Jimmy Carter was a joke while President, and remains a joke to this day. It is absolutely inappropriate and I believe unprecidented for former Presidents to give political speeches. Former Presidents rise to the level of statesmen and should no longer be viewed as politicians. It is a shame that this old joke of a man should have done it. I watched his speech on PBS, and one of the commentators basicly said the same thing, and that Bush 41 would not have made such a speech.

Sir, you are INCORRECT.

Former presidents make speeches at political conventions QUITE OFTEN.
Of course, the real star last night was CLINTON. Simply an incredible speech especially on the subject of the Bush tax cuts for the super rich.

A miserable BLEEDING HEART FAILURE, who blamed America first in a certain speech.

Let's put Jimmy Carter's dark, failed Presidency behind us shall we?

To be so insulting to a sweet old man like Jimmy Carter, who is universally loved in America for his good works for world peace and building housing for the poor, is morally equivalent to KICKING A PUPPY.

Shame on you!

Universely loved

Carter was a complete loss as a President. The human rights issues that he exported to Iran in November 1977 are directly responsible for the downfall of the Shah of Iran and the founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran. His failure to accurately assess the potential results of his attempts at diplomacy are clear examples of his overall weak presidency.

His bumbling diplomacy led to the sacking of our Embassy in Tehran and the first hostages taken by Islamic radicals. The ill-conceived and failed rescue attempt was yet another example of his lack of leadership.

We are still in a mess due to his mishandling of the situation then and are still concerned about Iran to this day.

He should not be revered, he should be ignored.


For those of you that weren't there, this link may help:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/953667/posts

If that's the case, then why did they wait for over twenty years to finally invite him as speaker? Could it possibly be his irrational pro-EuroSocialist, anti-Bush rantings of late? Inquiring minds are just dying to know the truth.

I hope Blair keeps making speeches when he retires. he is always on the ball when it comes to foreign affairs.

It may sound silly, but I saw no reason to divest of the Panama Canal. Teddy Roosevelt built it. The country of Panama would not exist if there was no canal, it would still be part of Columbia. We had a treaty to FOREVER operate it. And thanks to Carter it is gone, and after we turned it over, it was then turned over to China to operate. Thanks Jimmy.

Jimmy Carter's good works are as phoney as Diana's caring about land mines. They are totally self serving. In fact for a former US President to go to another country to monitor elections is just wrong. All he is really good for is pounding a few nails, and cutting a few lawns. A puppy is harmless and pure, but Carter is neither.

Niagra, actually, that was one of the only things I agreed with him doing. The canal is really of no strategic value today. We do not have a single aircraft carrier that can slip through the canal.

And, we have an agreement with Panama that in the event of national security emergency, we can assume priority status.

As for the Chinese presence, China could do what they do even if they were not officially there. You have heard of the old saying "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer"? Further, if we wished for noone to know what we were doing, we would not use the Canal anyway? Too many places for spies to observe our movements.

Also, the Canal was a part of Panama, whether we liked it or not. That's the same thing as if France owned the Mississippi River and the surrounding area. How would you like to have to go through check points, in your own country, just to get from one part to another? You wouldn't, would you?


Why? It means that he isn't here causing trouble. I think that he should be required to spend over 300 days annually out of country, and causing heartburn "over there". Perhaps he should start in Zimbabwe, followed by Sudan, then perhaps..............................

Carter is the worst president of my generation.

I can not think of a lower time for American morale, and our standing in the world. Whenever I think we are heading the wrong way, or times are bad, whether George W or Clinton, I can always look back on Carter and know the times are not that bad.

The only worthwhile thing he has done is Habitat for Humanity.

That said, he also takes the title for being the worst post-President of my generation. There used to be a standard among past-Presidents in not judging current Presidents. Carter cannot be more vitriolic, and full of disrespect for Bush. He is more in lines of Teddy and Gore, and makes Clinton look like a softy, while Clinton only shows a modicum of respect.

That is only a small trangression compared to his constant cozying up to dictators and human rights abusers.

As a President and past-President he should be an exemplar and a standard, and to me he has very much been one- for failure.

All right, now I go back into hiding, but no more Carter or I will be compelled to come back. Agreed TQ?

John L, of course you are right in your analysis. I do not think, however, that Carter got rid of the Canal for your reasons. He thought he would play statesman. If the ten mile canal zone was a problem for Panamanians, take down the fence. The fact remains that Teddy Roosevelt created it. It was, and remains as much a part of American heritage, as it does Panama's. The Canal could and should still be in American control, more so than Chinese. The whole thing is akin to giving the American Indians rights to operate casinos so they can have jobs, and after they are built, when you go into one, there are no indians working the tables.

By the way John L, what new position would take you away?

At the casinos I have seen almost all employees are native Americans.

By the way, I can walk right past hundreds of one armed bandits to get to the $2 breakfast.

For 20 years, the Democrats wouldn't let Jimmy Carter within 100 miles of a Convention podium. The fact that Carter is now their most respectable speaker tells you where that party is today. Maybe they just want to remind Americans who got us into this Middle East mess in the first place. We've got millions of fanatical Muslims trying to slaughter Americans while shouting "Allah Akbar!" Yeah, let's turn the nation over to these guys.(Democrats)
Quote: Ann Coulter

I have been to three: Foxwood (Conn), Turningstone (Syracuse NY), and one outside Miami. I know one of the dealers at Seneca Niagara (NFalls NY) who is not native and everyone he talks about is not native. At all the others except Miami where they appeared hispanic, they all appeared caucasian.

I do not know what casino you have been at, but the days of the $2 breakfast and long gone.

For the $2 breakfast try the Hacienda Hotel and Casino near Hoover dam, on the Nevada side.