White House fires back: Jimmy Carter 'irrelevant'

Worldnetdaily ^ | May 20, 2007 | May 20, 2007

[Roberts]

" . . . in my opinion, he also received the most votes in Florida," Carter continued There is absolutely no evidence to support this "opinion" by the worst President of the last 80 years.

[Christian4Bush]

"[Gore] received the most votes nationwide, and in my opinion, he also received the most votes in Florida,"

Does this cager mierda know that the President is not elected by popular vote? And does he also realize that the networks called the election for Gore while the polls were open in BOTH OF FLORIDA'S TIME ZONES? And is he also aware that the Florida Supreme Court was making up election law as it went, on - how did he say it - "highly partisan basis"?

What a hucking feadcase!

[DogBarkTree]

Jimmy is quite relevant. All the bad stuff started on his watch. Hey Jimmy! Remember the 444 days?

[SittinYonder]

The White House has this all wrong.

Carter is and always has been irrelevant.

Bush is increasingly irrelevant.

[digger48]

I can’t wait to empty my bladder repeatedly on this asshats grave!

[Vigilanteman]

Jimmy Carter 'irrelevant'

Why focus on his most positive quality?

[eleni121]

Irrelevant irresponsible and irreverent peanut pooper farmer.

[M203M4]

"And the decision was made as you know by a 5-4 vote on a highly partisan basis by the U.S. Supreme Court, so I would say in 2000, there was a failure."

Whereas if the SCOTUS vote was 5-4 "for Gore" (to delay a results announcement until yet another recount was complete - not to prevent a recount), Jimmuh would have declared it a success instead.

There is only one scenario in which peanut brain could be correct - if essentially every ballot with multiple votes that included Bush was assigned to someone other than Bush, and every ballot with multiple votes that included Gore was assigned to Gore. Ballot has Gore AND Nader or Bush or whoever marked? Vote goes to Gore. Ballot has Bush and Nader/Gore/etc marked? Vote goes to Nader/Gore/etc. If that is a logical scenario to Carter...wow. "Mental institution, Jimmah. Something you might want to think about."

[ValerieTexas]

Jimmah monitors elections in other countries to verify that the results are legitimate. What a crock! How can anyone respect this bag of peanut slime?

[dinasour]

Go Tony...

Not that Tony, but good for you.

[lowbridge]

Carter was quoted as saying, "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history."

Pot, meet kettle.

[henbane]

. . . five years after the controversial 2000 presidential election, ex-President Jimmy Carter announced he was certain Al Gore actually defeated George W. Bush.

Somebody hold this guy for psychological evaluation.

[grey_whiskers]

Look at the last bunch of Presidents.

JFK - Bay of Pigs, lost Berlin, assassinated.

LBJ - Great Society, Viet Nam

Nixon - Watergate, opening up to China

Ford - D'oh.

Carter - Iran, 21% interest, double-digit inflation, gave Panama Canal away.

Reagan - (Heavenly Chorus) but still f'ed up on Immigration

Bush '41 - Stopped Saddam, "read my lips" gave us Clinton,
started the globalist stuff in earnest

Clinton - The Hillary / Monica Show. All our technology
to the Chicoms.

Bush '43 - Stopped Saddam, sold out the GOP, and supports destruction of US Sovereignty.

Something is SERIOUSLY F*cked up with what the two-party system gives us in the way of candidates.

[willk]

Reuter’s had the nerve to report “Sunday’s sharp response marks a departure from the deference that sitting presidents traditionally have shown their predecessors.”.
So what about Carter’s and Clinton’s constant criticism of a sitting president?

[grey_whiskers]

IF Bush pushes Amnesty he will make Jimmy Carter look like Ronald Reagan.

[ValerieTexas]

That response is barely a spitball, and does not qualify as “firing back.”

[RetiredSWO]

"There's no doubt mind in my mind doubt that Al Gore was elected president."

There -- fixed it.

[lowbridge]

Something is SERIOUSLY F*cked up with what the two-party system gives us in the way of candidates.

The Republican party was founded in 1854. A scant six years later it won the Presidency. What is it about politics today that prevents third party alternatives from achieving such high office?

[SJackson]

Does this cager mierda know that the President is not elected by popular vote?

My first reaction, he does and simply doesn't care.

Then again, he's getting old.

IMO, he's cementing his legacy as a fool.