On MSNBC, Cramer asked if Carter "play[s] for another nation" or "his own fifth column"
On the May 21 edition of MSNBC's Jim Cramer Live, while discussing former President Jimmy Carter's criticism of President Bush, host Jim Cramer asked: "Who does he play for, Carter? Does he play for himself? Does he play for another nation? Does he play for his own fifth column?" According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, a "fifth column" is a "clandestine group or faction of subversive agents who attempt to undermine a nation's solidarity by any means at their disposal."
Cramer was referring to an exchange involving Carter and the White House over the weekend, which began when the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette published an article on May 19, quoting Carter as having said, during a telephone interview with the paper, "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history." The next day, the White House responded by reportedly calling Carter "increasingly irrelevant."
On Jim Cramer Live, MSNBC Live anchor Amy Robach asserted: "I ... think it's funny that Jimmy Carter, of all people, is telling people who the worst president in history is. If he could recall -- maybe I don't know -- was that threat -- or that was leveled against him as well, correct?" Earlier, during the news wrap, Robach had said of the exchange, "[T]his is probably going to be my favorite story of the day." Co-host Willie Geist said that Carter "wants to be the greatest ex-president of all time ... because he wasn't the greatest president of all time -- clearly, maybe the worst." Responding to Cramer's question as to "who" Carter "play[s] for," Geist asserted, "I think he'd tell you he plays for us. A lot of people would disagree."
From the May 21 edition of MSNBC's Jim Cramer Live:
ROBACH: And I think this is probably going to be my favorite story of the day. Former President Jimmy Carter, leveling some scathing accusations at President Bush, and the White House is firing right back.
In an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Carter described the Bush administration as "the worst in history" in terms of international relations and accused the president of overseeing an overt reversal in America's basic values.
Well, the White House issued a biting rebuke, calling Carter's comments "reckless" and describing him as "increasingly irrelevant" in modern politics.
[...]
CRAMER: OK, Amy, let's understand this: "increasingly irrelevant" is what -- no, that's actually not a bad thing --
ROBACH: Ouch!
CRAMER: -- in the sense that they could've really just slammed the joker but they chose not to, right? They just --
ROBACH: I also think it's funny that Jimmy Carter, of all people, is telling people who the worst president in history is. If he could recall -- maybe, I don't know -- did -- was that threat -- or that was leveled against him as well, correct?
GEIST: Yeah, he's looking for a successor, I think. He wants somebody to fill his shoes.
ROBACH: He's giving the tiara --
GEIST: Exactly.
ROBACH: -- to President Bush.
GEIST: Exactly.
CRAMER: Who does he play for, Carter? Does he play for himself? Does he play for another nation? Does he play for his own fifth column? Who is he speaking for?
ROBACH: He's working on his legacy, I don't know.
GEIST: Yeah, legacy. He wants to be the greatest ex-president of all time --
ROBACH: Right.
GEIST: -- because he wasn't the greatest president of all time -- clearly, maybe the worst. He wants to be the greatest ex-president of all time.
I think he'd tell you he plays for us. A lot of people would disagree, but he's doing -- you can't really argue, he's doing good out in the world, but the question is, does that contradict our foreign policy and that's -- those are a lot of the questions that are being thrown out there.
Bush makes Carter look like George Washington.
Yeah, if anyone knows about a failed presidency, it would be Jimmy Carter.
Yes, he failed to keep that senile old dolt Reagan out of office which led to Bush I which led to Bush II.
Transitively, I think we should blame Carter for 9/11.
Randy
Jimmy Carter probably should have included this opinion in a book to be released after his death.
He may be correct in his assessment of the Bush administration, but his backpedaling today on what he really meant didn't ring true and made him look foolish.
Basically he should have either stuck with his original remarks or just not opened his mouth in the first place.
I didn't hear about the backpedaling. What did he say?
Hey Val,
Carter appeared on the Today Show [I didn't see it, but heard about it elsewhere] and basically said he was careless in what he had said, and that it had been misinterpreted.
Here's a link. See what you think.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18781703/
Yeah, that would qualify as a backpedal in my book.
I tend to agree with you Jeter... one should either back up one's remark or not make it in the first place. I am very fond of the ex-President, and I was happy to see him as this old, crotchety Jimmy that just spits whatever is on his mind, politic or not.
Yeah I wouldn't have had an issue with the commit if he would have just stood by what he said.
And if anyone knew about being irrelevant, it would be the Bush Administration.
Really, does anyone who's not a member of their Kool-Aid swilling base really believe anything these people say any more?
What a cheap shot, and ridiculous assessment. It reflects poorly on the two above posters, not Carter.
How mature and how responsible to give so much coverage to low level petty party bickering while the whole Middle East flames on and families are falling into despair in the U.S. over the rising price of gas and other goods.
I am glad someone is calling the media out on this weak shallow insider self indulgence.
But don't you see? The fact that no one in the media called the politicians out on such as Iraq in the past is a major reason we are there now.
It may seem like low level party politics to you, but it was a telling remark (at least until he backpedaled, that made me more angry than if he had said nothing or supported the administration.)
Perhaps if the media had been more willing to listen to those who had the courage to go against the very idea of the war, we would be talking about other things today (like Bush's latest verbal blunder, or how we were glad that (because we didn't go to war) we had those extra resources to devote to Katrina clean up....etc.)
Indeed, Carter was not a good president, but he certainly calls out what has been reported over and over again and is nothing new and still not acknowledged by the white house and many Bush loyalists. But, politically, how could you have reacted another response from the white house and republicans, no matter how true the remark may be. Of course, calling Carter irrelevant is just a weak response and asking who carter speaks for (which Cramer perhaps jokingly does) is a question of someone who is deaf of what is happing in America and in the world.
I understand that these are transcripts of unscripted babble sessions, but is this really a complete thought by somebody who makes her living as a commentator?
ROBACH: I also think it's funny that Jimmy Carter, of all people, is telling people who the worst president in history is. If he could recall -- maybe, I don't know -- did -- was that threat -- or that was leveled against him as well, correct?
Translation, please. Anyone?
If you ignore the phrase-was that threat- it seems a little clearer. Maybe he's hung up on the word threat.
Nope- tried ignoring each phrase separately. Still sort of drugged out free verse poetry.
"If you ignore the phrase-was that threat- it seems a little clearer."
-----
OK, let's try that:
ROBACH: I also think it's funny that Jimmy Carter, of all people, is telling people who the worst president in history is. If he could recall -- maybe, I don't know -- did -- or that was leveled against him as well, correct?
Just as incoherent as before. Perhaps we should ignore all the stupidity that comes out of the mouths of the right-wing incompetents.
Hey... Yellow Bird... good to see you back.
It's interesting that attacking a Republican President means you're "playing for another nation", but attacking a Democratic President is perfectly okay. Welcome to the fair and balanced world of cable news.
Did you miss the signing statement? Dissent is unpatriotic now, as is criticizing THIS president.
Our country right or wrong.... These three talking heads are pigmies compared to President Carter.
Cramer is a money guy, Carter is more of a Christian so Cramer does not like Carter.
But there is no getting around the fact that Bush Jr. is the worst person in the world. (Sorry Keith)
Perhaps this is straying from the subject but does Cramer seem crazed?
Those eyes are weird.
Is this guy Michael Savage's illegitimate son? I see a resemblance...
MadMoney@cnbc.com
Having campaigned for Carter in my first election, I see him as disappointing now as he was then. Next time around I voted for John Anderson.
Jimmy brought this country to one of its lowest points ever. The economy was completely tanked, the days of gas rationing, and the belief that America had seen its best days. He was a poor leader. But he has made himself more of a disgrace with his unwelcome injections into public life are a lame excuse for trying to salvage his place in history.
I used to think that the antics of his brother, Billy, was the ultimate embarassment, but Jimmy now trumps his 'Billy Bee' little bro.
Oh please Bush is the most incompetent moron ever to set foot in the White House. You people should be rounded up and deported to Mississippi for trashing our country with your chimp.
Carter understood the danger that America was falling into by allowing ourselves to become more & more dependant on Middle Eastern oil. He urged Americans to buy more fuel efficient cars, to lower their thermostats, & to waste less energy. He urged the development of alternative energy. He also worked hard to bring about less violence in the Middle East through the Camp David Accords, resulting in a peace between Egypt & Israel that has survived to this day.
Carter also attempted to change US foreign policy by insisting that we would no longer establish close working relationships with nations that did not respect the human rights of their own people. It was no longer going to be good enough to proclaim yourself anticommunist. you also had to be pro-democracy.
The truth is, Carter proved himself to be prophetic in many ways, & nearly thirty years ahead of the curve.
The worst president in American history? Carter would hardly qualify for that. After all, what disastrous, hair-brained foreign adventures did Carter ever saddle us with? What domestic disasters did Carter ignore at the cost of death & ruination for countless Americans?
No, Dubya' owns the undisputed champion of Worst American President of All Time.
Righties seem to only judge effectiveness by aggressive action. They don't see the wars we didn't fight or oil we didn't use. They like people like Reagan and Bush the Greater and Lesser because they SEEM to be dealing with the problem.
Jimmy Carter's a nuclear engineer.
W can't even pronounce that correctly, let alone understand what it is.
Jimmies Presidential history is I think more than three vauge accusations. I wish I time and more info to put out, but one thing he did do was alienate the culture in washington. This does not make for cooperation from this culture. His history afterwards is much harder to be negative about, and I'm willing to entertain the thought that he maybe one of the best Xpresidents we've ever had and has a place in the national debate on what ever subject he might want to put an oar in on.
Jimmy Carter is a true blue American and decent fellow. His opinion is always valid and usually well thought out. I'll allow him the gaffe of backpedaling on his correct assertion regarding the idiot in chief now occupying the WH. He has done more good in his lifetime than just about any other ex president or person of any political stripe. And the man has some morals unlike this criminal now in the WH. I wouldn't be too proud to be a conservative these days since these jokers took charge. Anybody with a functioning cerebral cortex (channeling Salon now) wouldn't post what you just did, sir.
Jimmy Carter was naive enough, or overestimated the character of the American people enough, to tell the truth, even when it wasn't pretty.
America was scared, and Carter was no match for a washed up old actor who could smile and tell us it was Morning in America.
Not that politics wasn't always about BS, but that election of 1980 (my first as well) marked a turning point in the voters of our country letting it be known how easily they could be lied to.
I think it divided the country too. A lot of people had to decide if they wanted to create a country they could be proud of, or just tell everybody they were proud to be an American.
First off, the Carter Admin was not the greatest but it did make some important changes in US policy. Anybody ever heard of the Camp David Accords? Also, before you go making claims about "worst president" you need to do some scholarly investigation. Andrew Jackson ordered the theft of vast Cherokee lands in violation of a stack of treaties and ordered a forced march that lead to the deaths of thousands of people who were supposed to effectively be wards of the US government. James K Polk sent the US Army to provoke and then invade Mexico in order to steal California after Mexico refused to sell it. Look at the jerks who have joined the POTUS club. This is a small group of men but it's impressive as much for its shiftiness as for its greatness.
President Carter may not have been as effective a president as he should have been, but I believe that he has more than made up for those four years he spent in the White House. In the twenty-seven years since he left office he has been our greatest statesman, and knows more about foreign policy than George Bush could ever hope to comprehend. He has every right to criticize Bush for the horrendous situation he's put us all in. It's about time somebody spoke up about this mess. Who better than an ex-president who understands the job? I actually DON'T understand why our leaders in the Senate and the House aren't up on their feet screaming bloody murder, because that's just what is happening every day over there. Not to mention the disregard the Bush Administration has for the citizens of this country--remember NEW ORLEANS? Oh, yes there's another situation where President Carter has surpassed George Bush. Through Habitat for Humanity he has helped build a thousand homes for people who were displaced, and is in the process of building a thousand more. Thousands of FEMA trailers still sit--rotting, unused, costing you and me millions in our tax dollars, just literally wasted. I could go on and on, but what would be the point? More power to Jimmy Carter I say, and I hope more of our past and present leaders join him in their criticisms.
Well, first and foremost, Jimmy Carter is a decent human being, which I could also say of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford but certainly not the current occupant of the White House.
Carter was somewhat an enigma, an advocate of peace in so many ways, but also the architect of the missile buildup at the border of the the soviet block and west Europe. But he made a valiant attempt to alter the course of US foreign policy in the middle east and central america away from supporting despots and terrorists at our convenience, to aiding those who had the support of the will of the people.
But he was saddled with runaway inflation, a stagnant workforce, gasoline shortages and then the hostage crisis. Overall, probably not the greatest president, but not the worst by a long shot.
I would agree with the assessment that Carter was neither the best nor the worst and further from the latter than the former.
His two biggest shortcomings as president, which served to undermine his reputation, were these:
- Like Clinton, he was an outsider, automatically disliked and dissed by the DC establishment. But unlike Clinton, he was not skilled enough as a politician to work his way around that.
- More importantly, he did not know how to delegate authority. He tried to do too much, handle too much, cover every detail, himself with the result that he got overwhelmed and bogged down, damaging his ability to be effective.
In fact, I will dare to say that if the US had continued down the path Carter had embarked upon, there may not have been a 9/11. Chew on that.
To suggest that he "plays for another nation" is a grotesque insult.
Pres. Carter as others have said, had strengths and weaknesses as president. His grasp of policy was extensive, but he was ridiculed by the Washington press Corp. The old boys club just didn't like someone that honest and sincere. According to reports he tended to micromanage too much. Perhaps not the best politician, but a great human being. Too many citizens want to be lied to and enjoy the facade (Reagan)
He is actively and currently improving the lives of many people both in the U.S. and around the world through his work with Habitat for Humanity, the Carter Center (preventing river blindness and treating other diseases) and working to promote peace and democracy.
He's the real deal.
Just recall the Reagan campaign deliberately violating the law and making side-deals with the Iranian government during the hostage "crisis" in the run-up to the election, insuring that it could not be resolved prior to the election...fanning the flames of this manufactured crisis of course was the insipid media coverage and the imbecility of the p.o.v. about the fruit-cake Reagan...all the silly flag-waving and puffed-up chests of so-called "patriots"...Carter had his faults--mainly in perpetuating the insane foreign policy related to Central and South America, but was saddled with the crimes of Ford and Nixon before him and the right-wing media's darling coverage of Reagan...indeed, the "lag" effect of the economic policies of the previous administration (loaded [or "larded"] up with, of course, DUI Cheney and Rumsfield the Righteous), led to serious problems in managing the macro economy...remember, it was borrow and spend under the incompetent Republican party...
As for Cramer, ho-hum, just another bizarro wingnut calling anyone who criticizes Shrub a traitor. What a carload of losers.
Smashthestate, et al.,
Just a update from those who lived through the Carter years:
When he lost to Ron Reagan in 1980, 50 million voters voted against him. A crushing defeat by those who ived and suffered under his presidency.
He failed on the middle east. He did NOT bring Egypt and Israel together. Sadat and Begin neogiated this historic visit in 1977. They had already vowed no more war, 1 year before they ever came to Camp David. His inability to define our interests in the Middle East showed when he allowed Khomeni to bring his Islamic/Marxism fanatiscism to Iran. He let an ally, the Shah, to be dethroned by encouraging the release of terrorists and criminals jailed and sympathetic to Marxists and extreme Islamists. Rather than support the moderate state of Iran, he fed him to the wolves because he believed, WRONGLY, that the Iranians would become a 'socialized democracy' despite facts that presented how Khomeni would rule if given the chance. When the radicals were loosed, they attacked anything modern or moderate, including those hostages from our embassy that kept for 400 days or so. His ineffectiveness was never more apparent than dealing with these radicals. Even Ross Perot got his people out from prison, but our country failed because his weakness and ineptness kept them there. No surprise that the hostages were freed the day of REAGAN'S INAGURATION, when they realized that the days of malaise were over.
I agree that Carter had the opportunity to prove his decency. Even though I had campaigned for him I believed that his ineptness was cause to vote him out as 50 million others did too. Habitat for Humanity was and is a wonderful cause but rather that remain in dignity, he foisted himself upon Clinton (Remember he was the one who gave North Korea the means to make nuclear material, ahead of Clinton's own State Dept). If he had stuck to building dreams through home ownership for the poor, he would have salvaged his presidency rather than inflate and soothe his own ego. Now, his bufoonery only enhances his poor performance as president.
We are armchair observers here. It seems rather amazing timing does it not, that the hostages were released the minute Reagan was inaugurated, eh? http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/coupreaganbush.htm
From online PBS special American Experience state, "As the thirteen days at Camp David demonstrated, no agreement would have emerged without Carter's determination and deep personal involvement. Israeli Defense Minister Ezer Weizman later noted that Carter had earned his respect "with his bulldog-like persistence and his ability to deal with the tiniest details." Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan testified, "Were it not for him... I do not see that there would have been a possibility of arriving at this agreement." "
I think it's already been established and agreed upon here in these posts that Jimmy Carter has a pretty poor record as a President, but that was a very long time ago. His works as a statesman and humanitarian since then have more than made up for mistakes that were made during his administration. What the conservatives on this blog are avoiding speaking about are the horrendous mistakes that have been made and are still being made RIGHT NOW under the Bush administration. I can't understand how any person these days can support George Bush and his cabal of advisors who have taken this country in the direction it has, and caused so much destruction in Iraq, and so much divisivness and discord in our country. I fear them and the harm that they can still do in the next 20 months till they're finally gone, as much as I fear those terrorists who attacked the World Trade towers. Those really responsible for those attacks should have been long gone by now, and if someone other than Bush had been in charge they probably would have been. Now that President Carter has spoken out against the actions of this administration, then maybe that will give impetus to others of similar stature to speak out in turn. It's been a long time coming, and I onlly hope it continues in the voices of others.
I have lived during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and so on years. Living during those eras does not in itself confer wisdom. That is up to us.
Mary,
Your comments about the Camp David Accords corrected that part of my posting. However, my response was to smashthestate's statements that inflated Carter's performance as president. I believe he was unfortuantely a poor leader and his attempts to bring peace, while well meaning, ushered in the violent leadership presently in Iran.
As for the 'October Surprise'. Rumors, never close to substantiation, were debunked. Bringing that up was pretty weak, and please don't tell me that you believe that Bush knew about 9-11 junk too?!? If so, this is a lost cause but still check out the refutation of the aforementioned rumor. http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/92/2/october.asp
Rumors, never close to substantiation, were debunked.
No, they weren't and the question still hangs. Did you even read your own link? It does no "debunking" at all, rather it is supposed to be about considering the quality of evidence in three October Surprise magazine articles (two said there was no conspiracy, one said there was) and found reasons to question all three.
The author concludes by committing a very sin of which others were accused - making a charge without providing a basis for it - by calling Gary Sick's book on the issue "flawed" without providing a single example, much less an unarguable one.
Frankly, it struck me more as an ego piece, a "you're not up to my standards" piece, than any investigation of various claims and counter-claims. And it certainly was no "debunking."
Right on. That the Reagan administration cut a deal to delay the release of the hostages by Iran is obvious and the book provides proof of this...and it has not been debunked, despite efforts to divert and mislead. And how obvious does it have to be? The hostages are released minutes after Reagan's inauguration? Come on. The cartoonish explanation of looking into Regan's eyes is ridiculous. There is the theatrical performance of the politicians on the world stage, and then there is the dark and murky underbelly of what really goes on.
Along those lines, I agree that Carter performed poorly relating to the events leading up to the hostage taking. Although the situation evolved through many years (we often go back to the 1950's and the overthrow by the British and US operatives of the democratically elected government of Iran) Carter was the Pres. and did not deal well with the situation there.
However, his overall intentions and accomplishments in balance lead me to conclude that he was not given enough credit as president. He was certainly right on with fuel efficient cars and energy conservation.
As far as the current government of Iran, that is a direct result of Bush's bellicosity.