Thanks, Richard Hine, for a well-written story about Jimmy Carter's well-deserved acclaim at Kepler's. The man has conducted himself since leaving office in a way that, to me, is beyond reproach. He may occasionally annoy some, notably with his comments about Israel and the Palestinians, but he speaks his truth and hasn't ceased trying to do some good in the world at 84 years of age.

And of course he explained just when the Third World would shower us with love for giving away the Panama Canal. The actual beneficiaries of that largess, the Red Chinese, have yet to thank us.

Carter is ranked in the bottom 1/3rd of US Presidents:

Web Link

Wonder what the US would be like today if he had stayed a peanut farmer, rather than getting into politics--where here was successful in winning elections, but not very good administering large organizations.

I hope that all those parents who took their kids to stand in the street to watch a car go by also took those kids to see a former President in the flesh. Politics aside, meeting a former President and seeing that they are still important people is a very good thing to do.

> meeting a former President and seeing that they are still
> important people is a very good thing to do

How are former Presidents important? Particularly one-term Presidents who failed at about every thing that he attempted when in office? The US Constitution affords former Presidents no particular power. Carter has been a bit of an embarrassment by virtue of his trying to insert himself into national, and foreign, affairs where he has no place to be. It's a shame that someone in the media didn't ask Carter what he thinks about the Chinese Communists having so much influence in the Panama Canal Zone?

Wonder how many people will go to see the current President, in thirty years, trying to hawk books about his failed Presidency?

All of these bitter people who look at Carter as a lousy President but no doubt, voted for George W, the worst President in history.

Wondering. It is down to who or what is a president? We teach our kids to honor the electoral process and to respect authority. Regardless of the political views, a former president is still a former president and they still do things in their lives. If you take kids to see Obama's car pass then take them to this event also. This country has no royalty and the only symbol of power is a person who has come out of the rank and file and for 4 or 8 years to lead the country. Taking an elementary aged child to see a former president teaches that child that although we do not have a king or queen, that we do not have an automatic replacement for president, and that honoring this leader for the rest of his life is as good as it gets. Otherwise, who will these kids respect? Most likely, sports stars or hollywood stars, both with inflated egos and less than ideal lifestyles.

> Otherwise, who will these kids respect?

What an odd question. At the very minimum, kids should respect their parents. While there are those who suggest that we should "respect the office of the President", where is it written that we (or our children) should respect the people who were President. Certainly the vile acts of William Jefferson Clinton should be reason enough to see the validity of this point. Sadly, this man still seems to have a fair following among Democrats.

Respecting other people would seem to be a validation of one's own (or one's parents') values. Given how little most of us know about any President (at least during his lifetime), it's difficult to respect such a person whose actions rising to the heights of a bid for the Presidency leaves so much in the dark. How many people really believe that the infidelities of John F. Kennedy are such that we should teach our children to "respect" this slain President--meaning that we endorse his actions, and encourage our children to "be like JFK"?

Or there was the convoluted past of Lyndon B. Johnson. And what about an impeached, and convicted, President. Would this blanket respect cover our genuflecting to such an individual too?

Simply engaging in the political process, making promises that one can not keep, and possibly accepting money from dubious sources with promises of access to the high office if the candidate wins, hardly seems like the basis for "respect" that is based on anything that most people would call good, honest, or endearing.

Wondering

I take it then that since you don't respect the office of President that you don't vote in elections or teach that to your kids.

None of us are perfect, but it takes a lot to live a life under a microscope - particularly in the present times of instant media coverage with the internet.

I expect you have a few skeletons in your cupboard that you wouldn't like to see broadcast to your family and friends, let alone the whole country!

No, Mike, we voted against Gore, without question the worst presidential candidate, husband, scientist, and war correspondent in history. Both Bushes failed in that they worried too much about pleasing their enemies and not enough on helping their friends.

In fact Carter has done a very good job of promoting fundamental American best interests in the Mid East since his Presidency according to General Petreaus-- who has publicly applauded his efforts in the region to further America First interests.
Foreign lobby groups have attacked Carter because he accurately described the state of Apartheid in the Holy Land---he is an American Patriot.

As President Carter had limitations-- but as a nuclear engineer he knew the consequences of war with the USSR, which was imminent after their invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran debacle.
In retrospect his strategy to avoid nuclear war was a wise decision.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

"In fact Carter has done a very good job of promoting fundamental American best interests in the Mid East since his Presidency according to General Petreaus-- who has publicly applauded his efforts in the region to further America First interests.

Foreign lobby groups have attacked Carter because he accurately described the state of Apartheid in the Holy Land---he is an American Patriot."

Here we go again--SHaron injecting her factoids regarding General Petreaus--after all these months we are still waiting for Sharon to post a real link that shows that Petraeus actually said anything of the sort.

As for Carter and the Holy Land--well what can one say when someone is so one-sided and anti-israel, that he absolves Hamas from any responsibility for the situation in the Middle East, while denying Israel their right to defend themselves from terrorists. Carter is so out of it, that he must actually believe that demonizing Israel with the "apartheid" label will help matters. Bottom line, it is kind of shocking that an ex-president of the US has no idea what apartheid really is--there is no apartheid in Israel--there is in the other arab countries of the Middle East. AS when he was president, Carter comes across as a fool and now he is also a pawn for terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qeida.

"Certainly the vile acts of William Jefferson Clinton should be reason enough to see the validity of this point."

Vile acts? Yeah, by their actions, right wingers think ACTUALLY balancing a budget, instead of talking about it and then going into debt, is vile to them.

"Sadly, this man still seems to have a fair following among Democrats."

And pretty much all Americans. Look at Slick Willy's approval numbers. Bush made Clinton look great: turning deficit into surplus, 23 million jobs, a great economy, etc...

The hard right, teabagger 30 percenters will always have their kooky theories and blinders on with their hatred of Clinton, but the rest of America recognizes them for what they are.

Talking of ex POTUS-- it is admirable that GW Bush has avoided all criticism of Obama in his new book.

In terms of Carter his foreign policy looks better and better over time at lot of that is due to his adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski
Web Link

Who is also a very influential foreign policy adviser to Obama along with Samantha Power
Web Link

Good to see Carter so bright and active at his age.

"Good to see Carter so bright and active at his age."
Which Carter are we talking about here? Not, Jimmy Carter. Clearly Carter misses the spotlight, so he visits areas and offers opinions that have no relationship to reality (has anyone checked to see if he has Alzheimers--his medical records should be made available to th epublic if he is going into the business of trying to sway public opinion).
Looks to me that he is selling his services to the highest bidder in order to advocate for those that pay him the most--how else to explain his cozy relationship these dyas with known terrorist organizations. The justice department may want to look into his finances and dealings with groups associated with Al Qeida and the axis of evil