About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Reporting Carter comments, media repeat myth of "unwritten rule" against ex-presidents criticizing successors

May 22, 2007 4:23 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

74 Comments

On the May 21 edition of NBC's Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams teased a segment on former President Jimmy Carter's (D) recent criticism of President Bush by asking, "[D]id a former president break an unwritten rule when commenting on the current president?" Williams later asserted that "[t]he thought has been there are four guys alive who know the pressures of" the presidency -- "three former, one current president" -- and "there's kind of an unwritten rule about criticism." Similarly, during the May 21 broadcast of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes asserted that "Carter's remarks were unprecedented," and also claimed that one of the things "former presidents didn't do" was "criticize their successors." In fact, as The New York Times reported May 22, "there have been several instances of 'when ex-presidents attack' over the years" and "presidential scholars roll their eyes at the notion that former presidents do not speak ill of current ones."

From the Times article, headlined "When Former Presidents Assail the Chief":

Nothing rattles Washington quite like a good violation of unwritten rules, especially when the violator and the violated are both presidents (past and present, respectively).

[...]

"I love how because of our short memories, we come up with these eternal rules that don't really apply," said the historian Tim Naftali, the director-designate of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum.

Indeed, there have been several instances of "when ex-presidents attack" over the years. As recently as a few months ago, former President Gerald R. Ford criticized Mr. Bush's Iraq policy, albeit from the grave. In an article in The Washington Post, Bob Woodward quoted from an interview he conducted with Mr. Ford with the understanding that he could only publish Mr. Ford's remarks after he died.

Eisenhower was critical of John F. Kennedy's domestic policies, the first President Bush pounded on Bill Clinton, now his pal, for his Haiti policy, and Nixon chided the first President Bush (for comparing himself to Harry Truman in his 1992 re-election campaign).

Theodore Roosevelt was brutal in his assaults on Taft and Woodrow Wilson, said Patricia O'Toole, author of "When Trumpets Call," a book about Roosevelt in the years after he left office. She pointed out, however, that Roosevelt would run for president again, putting him in something of a different category than Mr. Carter (who by all accounts will not).

Still, Mr. Carter did not call President Bush a "puzzlewit" and a "fathead" as Roosevelt did Taft, according to "When Trumpets Call."

Yet, despite this well-documented history, many in the media have regularly insisted, as Williams did, that an "unwritten rule" exists which prohibits former presidents from speaking out against current ones, often while discussing a former president doing exactly that. For instance:

  • A November 16, 2005, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial on Carter's book, Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis (Simon & Schuster, 2005) asserted that Carter had violated "[o]ne of the great unwritten rules of modern political life" which "is that former presidents do not publicly criticize the policies of a sitting successor."
  • Similarly, a November 4, 2005, Post-Gazette news article on Carter's book and publicity tour asserted that "Mr. Carter has chosen to speak out harshly against Mr. Bush this week -- breaking an unwritten rule that past presidents do not publicly criticize the current one."
  • A November 4, 2005, Christian Science Monitor review of Carter's book stated that "[i]t is decidedly unusual for a former president to publicly castigate the policies of a sitting president." The review also noted that Carter "saved some criticism for his own Democratic Party" by noting his opposition to some members' allegedly "overemphasizing the abortion issue."
  • On the September 19, 2005, edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Brit Hume claimed that Clinton, in an interview on ABC, did something that President George H.W. Bush "did not do, and that is criticize the sitting president and his administration." In fact, as Media Matters for America noted, former President Bush repeatedly made comments critical of Clinton, while Clinton was in office. Hume later issued an on-air correction.
  • In his September 11, 2005, column, Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jim Wooten stated of Carter's criticism of the federal government's slow response to Hurricane Katrina: "The willingness of a former president to stand on foreign soil and criticize a sitting president, as Jimmy Carter did, redefines the presumed rules of political engagement."
  • A September 14, 2003, Los Angeles Times article discussed the alleged "unwritten rule" while reporting on Clinton's criticism of "President Bush's tendency to discount longtime allies and such organizations as the United Nations in making foreign policy decisions." In making such judgments, according to the Times, "Clinton carefully tested the unwritten rule against former presidents criticizing the current officeholder."
  • On the May 29, 2003, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, NewsMax.com columnist and former Rep. John LeBoutillier (R-NY) claimed, unchallenged, that "both before it [the Iraq war] and during it, Bill Clinton was very critical of the Bush administration, violating an unwritten but usually honored rule by ex-presidents not to criticize their immediate successor."
  • A November 3, 2002, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial again claimed "[t]here is an unwritten rule that former presidents and secretaries of state don't criticize current foreign policy."
  • An October 15, 2001, Daily Oklahoman editorial stated of Carter's criticism of "President Bush's Iraq policy": "Carter, as he has done before, broke the unwritten rule that former presidents do not criticize the current chief executive."
  • In an August 1, 2002, article on a "Rose Garden ceremony" in which Bush accepted "the recommendations of a blue-ribbon election reform commission" of which Carter was co-chairman, the New York Daily News reported that "[n]o mention was made of Carter's" recent criticism of Bush's "policies," which "violated the unwritten rule that former Presidents don't bash their successors."
  • Another Daily Oklahoman editorial, this one from July 30, 2001, claimed that Carter's "comments" critical of Bush's "positions on global warming, missile defense and the Middle East ... broke a tradition of former presidents not publicly criticizing their successors."
  • A June 8, 1999, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article stated of Ford's and Carter's criticism of Clinton's Kosovo policy: "There's an unwritten rule that former presidents refrain from criticizing the current occupant of the White House. But President Clinton's policies in Kosovo have prompted two former commanders in chief to speak out." Ford had said "that Clinton 'miscalculated the potency, the potential success' of an exclusively air war with Yugoslavia, amongst other things, and, according to the Sentinel, Carter "accused Clinton of failing to exhaust negotiations before using a bombing campaign that included cluster bombs that 'kill or maim' Serbian troops."

From the May 21 edition of NBC's Nightly News:

WILLIAMS: And when we come back here tonight, did a former president break an unwritten rule when commenting on the current president? We'll have the White House dustup when we continue.

[...]

WILLIAMS: And, David, while we have you, let's talk about Jimmy Carter. In one interview, he criticized President Bush. In another, in a BBC interview, he criticized Bush's relationship with Tony Blair. The thought always has been there are four guys alive who know the pressures of that office -- three former, one current president -- that there's kind of an unwritten rule about criticism. What has the White House said in return?

GREGORY: Well, the president tried to play all of this down. It goes back to the former president's comments about this administration perhaps being the worst in history because of its foreign policy and America's position in the rest of the world. Jimmy Carter appeared on Today this morning with Meredith Vieira, saying perhaps those words were misinterpreted or careless, he said. The president today said, "Look, I get criticized a lot, and I'm trying to do the right thing here." But inside, there really is a feeling that this went over the line as Carter accused Blair of being subservient. They felt that was "sad," and here -- and they think that Americans, frankly, Brian, are tuning out former President Carter on some of the other criticisms.

WILLIAMS: All right. David Gregory from the White House tonight. David, thanks as always.

From the May 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

BARNES: Yeah, he didn't -- but I think he believed them, though. That's what he does think about Bush. Look, Carter's remarks were unprecedented. These are the harshest ones from him. They may be the harshest that an ex-president has aimed at his successor --

HUME: At a sitting president.

BARNES: At a sitting president. And there used to be two things that presidents -- former presidents didn't do: they didn't criticize their successors, and they particularly didn't criticize them when they were overseas.

HUME: Well, he wasn't overseas.

BARNES: He wasn't this time, but he has done that in the past.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by snoopy (May 22, 2007 4:28 pm ET)
         

      How can it be a rule if it's unwritten?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sagra (May 22, 2007 6:14 pm ET)
           

        How can it be unwritten if it's in the transcript?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (May 22, 2007 6:21 pm ET)
             

          I guess there is some super secret handshake wink wink thing the old and new presidents do.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by princeofwheels (May 22, 2007 9:45 pm ET)
               

            Here goes..."Ex-Presidents are hereby permitted to badmouth other Presidents"..hence, it is written.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by djasper2761 (May 23, 2007 1:08 pm ET)
             

          More right (wrong) wing propaganda. The right never misses out on an opportunity to demonize a Demo. or a Progressive. I wonder at what point in time the word progressive has become synonymous with: evil, wrong, loony, absurd, laughable, crazy, Californian, West Coast etc. when a right wing talking head uses the word? Especially on false noos. I am starting a new trend and expect it to sweep the world. When I say bush, republican, right wing, b.o., hannity etc. I flatulate. I believe in time the right will be linked with human waste or at least a lot of hot stinky air. Or is it already?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by mr. l (May 22, 2007 4:29 pm ET)
         

      The very first sentence is so telling-'Nothing rattles Washington quite like a good violition of unwritten rules...' Yeah, and what are we to make of all the WRITTEN rules being broken by the riiighthouse and all its cronies...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by kevin1007 (May 22, 2007 4:35 pm ET)
         

      Is MMFA really going to defend Cater's remarks? Heck, Carter won't even defend them. He's made the ridiculous claim that his comments were taken out of context. Carter and his wife are extremely bitter and vile people. Who would have guessed that Billy was the one with class.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mr. l (May 22, 2007 4:38 pm ET)
           

        the point is... OTHER past presidents have said things about current presidents, regardless of their content and validity...

        Report Abuse
      • Author by peghen1428 (May 22, 2007 4:40 pm ET)
           

        Kevin I agree with you on this one. How DARE Jimmy Carter a man who was a failed President (This does not mean I am defending Bush) but Jimmy Carter helped the Shah, a disgusting man. Jimmy Carter toasted the Shah on New Years even 1977 while his SAVAK was outside the palace killing thousands of Iranians. Jimmy Carter a man who now thinks he is the Nations authority on Foreign Relations. He is a disgrace. President Clinton is the one I look to that speaks for former Presidents, not a man who toasted the Shah.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by DorisRussell (May 22, 2007 4:54 pm ET)
             

          Peg, the Shah was supported by American Presidents since the 1950s. It was a decision based on the cold war. What would have been your alternative? Do you want to attack Nixon, Ford and Eisenhower?

          Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (May 22, 2007 4:54 pm ET)
             

          Can you provide a legitmate link that explains your point a bit more cogently?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by peghen1428 (May 22, 2007 5:01 pm ET)
               

            Sure

             

            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/peopleevents/e_hostage.html

            Report Abuse
            • Author by open_mind (May 22, 2007 7:15 pm ET)
                 

              From your link:

              Did the Carter administration "lose" Iran, as some have suggested? Gaddis Smith might have put it best: "President Carter inherited an impossible situation -- and he and his advisers made the worst of it." Carter seemed to have a hard time deciding whether to heed the advice of his aggressive national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who wanted to encourage the Shah to brutally suppress the revolution, or that of his more cautious State Department, which suggested Carter reach out to opposition elements in order to smooth the transition to a new government. In the end he did neither, and suffered the consequences.

              Considering this "impossible situation" Carter "inherited", it is pretty difficult to second guess Carter here ingenuously.  Carter had the "choice" of supporting a brutal despot or the Iranian Islamist Revolution.  Precisely which of those two "options" would you have prefered to do?  I actually think Carter may have made the best choice by doing neither.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by fantagor (May 23, 2007 5:58 pm ET)
                   

                Carter's critical mistake was allowing the Shah to enter the USA and receive medical treatment, which triggered the 444 day hostage crisis.

                Giving aid and comfort to a despot was the last straw in Tehran.

                Notice, however, that the Shah was another secularist, like Saddam, who advocated women's rights.

                Why can't the USA ever pair support for democracy with women's rights in the Middle East?

                Randy

                Report Abuse
      • Author by ChessGuy (May 22, 2007 4:42 pm ET)
           

        Does anybody really take Kevin seriously?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by peghen1428 (May 22, 2007 4:43 pm ET)
             

          Does anyone take Jimmy Carter seriously?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by ChessGuy (May 22, 2007 4:45 pm ET)
               

            I'm guessing a few million people who are better off because of him. Go donate your time and see if you can get a couple yourself.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by peghen1428 (May 22, 2007 4:46 pm ET)
                 

              Yeah those Iranians slaughtered by the SAVAK are doing real well today.

              Report Abuse
          • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (May 22, 2007 4:56 pm ET)
               

            Peg is that your only argument against Carter?

            Have you heard of the guy who started peace between Israel and Egypt? Do you take his actions as a whole or just one thing to judge him by? Glad you don't have the power to make judgements.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by peghen1428 (May 22, 2007 5:25 pm ET)
                 

              It is not an argument, its a fact. Toasting the Shah who was a criminal was an outrage.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Lynn (May 22, 2007 5:38 pm ET)
                   

                This obsession with Carter and his relationship to the Shah is kind of strange sine the US government assisted in the over throw of a legitimate government in Iran to re- establish the Iranian monarchy and install the Shah. Multiple US administrations propped him up ever there after until those crazed revolutionaries kicked him out.

                <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi>

                Report Abuse
              • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (May 22, 2007 5:39 pm ET)
                   

                Peg IS that your only fact about Carter?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by open_mind (May 22, 2007 7:17 pm ET)
                     

                  Apparently peg was looked over by the Nobel Committee and has some issues with Carter as a personal grudge.

                  Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (May 22, 2007 5:00 pm ET)
               

            Aside from the Nobel Committee taking Carter seriously, the Bush Administration also took some time out of their busy schedule (destroying the world) to ironically address something they at least ostensibly deemed was "irrelevant".

            Report Abuse
      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (May 22, 2007 4:52 pm ET)
           

        Kevin, it's one thing to say Carter was bitter and vile and show NOTHING as proof but now you want to include his wife as well. When you guys lay down with the dogs you wake up with more than fleas

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Lynn (May 22, 2007 5:10 pm ET)
           

        Vile? Oh I forgot do-gooders are vile in winger world. When is the last time you built a house so that someone less fortunate might have decent shelter?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by peghen1428 (May 22, 2007 5:24 pm ET)
             

          When was the last time you toasted a man as his secret police were killing thousands in the street?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Lynn (May 22, 2007 5:27 pm ET)
               

            Never , when is the last time you did?

            Report Abuse
          • Author by jjamele2880 (May 23, 2007 2:29 pm ET)
               

            You mean Putin?  That wasnt Carter toasting him, that was Bush.  Get your eyes checked.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (May 24, 2007 11:39 pm ET)
               

            Let me tell ya..If I had a nickel for every time that happened...

            Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (May 23, 2007 5:18 am ET)
           

        Kevin,

        I don't want to know why it is that people like you can say "Carter and his wife are extremely bitter and vile people." when the reality is that he and his wife have done more with the first swing of their hammers (to help build homes here in America through Habitat for Humanity) than GW, Gonzo, Rove, and Cheney combined!

        Are you and your neo-con hero's so angery with the world that you take it out on those trying to help rebuild it?

        Carter certainly wasn't a great prez but short of Taft and/or Nixon, Bush really is the WORST prez we have ever had. Period!

        What is really funny about the whole thing is how defensive and childish not only the White House got but how people like you so easily take your cue's from the WH, Fox Noise and Rush and repeat the same crap over and over.

        Yes, Carter has back-pedaled on this and he is wrong to do so as what he said IS and always will be TRUE!

        Dude, grow your own brain, you are becoming your own punchline every time you post here on MMFA

        Report Abuse
      • Author by achrispage6992 (May 23, 2007 12:12 pm ET)
           

        Kevin,

        That comment sir, is one of the most unbelievable things I have ever read. I have read the positngs here for some time and have posted her often recently. Although I routinely disagreed with you on issues such as Iraq, I felt you did a good job of defending your position. I know it is not easy to have an opposing opinion here, or at least is is not easy to get away with generalities as they relate to an opposing opinion. But, to call Jimmy and Rosaline Carter VILE? So, I am happy to take the opportunity to ask you what specifically about them is VILE. What have they specifically done which is VILE? Is helping the poor VILE? Is excersising your first amendment rights VILE? Is being an honorable man who undoubtedly is the truest form of a real "christian" we have ever had in the Whitehouse considered VILE? Dissent is not VILE. I say this becasue I assume you call the Carter's VILE because of their political beliefs. And you call them VILE. Unbelievable. No I take that back. It is definitely believable. The other posters here were right about you all along.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (May 24, 2007 3:27 am ET)
           

        Oh please Carter is FAR from vile. You are flat out ignorant. Carter was right. He does seem to be backing away from what he said I dont know why. History will call Bush the worst American president EVER. Especially in foreign policy. VILE is lying us into a war. Vile is defined by Bush. Carter is a gentleman and something Bush will NEVER be, a statesman. VILE is a moron like YOU slandering a man like Carter whose boots YOU arent good enough to lick

        Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (May 24, 2007 11:37 pm ET)
           

        Bitter and vile?  It is fine to have a political disagreement, but to call the Carters "bitter and vile" demonestrates you have no class at all.  You are an Anne Coulter wannabee at best.  If you had any class left at all, you would retract your idiocy.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by DorisRussell (May 22, 2007 4:36 pm ET)
         

      Bush and Carter can team up just like Bush sr. and President Clinton have done, it has gotten to the point where Bush Sr invites Clinton to Maine and they hang out together. Bush sr. looks at Clinton like the son he wishes he could have. Bush Jr. They could eventually do good things like Bush Sr and Clinton have done. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Lynn (May 22, 2007 5:21 pm ET)
           

        I think you have a point Doris. Clinton is affable, competent and a super smart guy. He isn't perfect no one is. Too bad for Daddy Bush, but I wish that he would have pulled his son  aside and said Your Mom and I love you dearly but son you'll make a lousy president why don't you go and see if you can find oil one more time; or maybe they could have bought him a couple of Starbuck franchises to keep him busy. Your family members are the closest people to you and they are intimately aware of your strengths, weaknesses, and faults. They must have known this guy couldn't do this job yet they unleashed him on the world.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Kaleun (May 23, 2007 12:11 am ET)
           

        Yup... Jimmy is the understanding and caring father W wishes he had. There may be a heart in him after all. 'Course, he still lacks a cerebral cortex. Maybe Carter can tutor him, he was always one of the smart guys...

        Report Abuse
    • Author by tommy (May 22, 2007 4:40 pm ET)
         

      Even Carter backtracked pitifully from his comments, so apparently he believes in the unwritten rule.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (May 22, 2007 4:42 pm ET)
           

        So is there like a secret handshake or something to seal the deal?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (May 24, 2007 3:34 am ET)
           

        Maybe he does. Its hard to see how since its clear Eisenhower, Bush, Nixon and Teddy Roosevelt didnt.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by patrick.walsh5000 (May 22, 2007 4:45 pm ET)
         

      I though you americans had freedom of speech?

      Or is that another thing Bush has discarded?

      Your news is so blunt compared to ours here in the UK. There's still loads of BS but theres so much fear of 'offending' someone.

      Is there anything like media matters for the UK?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mr. l (May 22, 2007 4:50 pm ET)
           

        Go BBC!!

        Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (May 22, 2007 5:16 pm ET)
           

        The media got bought by among others Mr. Murdock, And 20 or so major industries, over the last 20-30 years. If you'd like something from the left try Air America on satelite radio.

        I'm pretty much embaressed by what I imagine our media looks like overseas and I don't know of any media matters type organisation overseas, don't know if you need one. If so my condolenses. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Kaleun (May 23, 2007 12:24 am ET)
             

          Actually, it is pretty embarassing for you guys. As I keep boring people with, I'm from Germany (and I'm going back this summer!).

          Guess what: We do have people like Coulter, Savage, and Beck over there. They're called Nazis and they never, ever, ever, get a public platform to spread their hate. Instead, we ridicule them and hold pro-tolerance rallies.

          The American Media Actually kind of freaks me out. There's a whole bunch of stuff, actually, that you guys are kind of backwards on, and its sad, because you could be so much greater. Now us Euros have to find a way to save the world from Global Warming, the Chinese, AND possibly the Russians, on our own. I should start building the tanks (like in Life is Beautiful).

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mthalo (May 23, 2007 6:21 pm ET)
               

            Well, I for one am glad the Germans seem to have gotten over that little problem of attempting to exterminate entire races of people.

            Please, please,  don't start building the tanks, you guys have already done enough damage. 

             

            Report Abuse
    • Author by kevin1007 (May 22, 2007 6:23 pm ET)
         

      That MMFA had to go back to Teddy Roosevelt, it appears that the rule Carter broke has indeed been unwritten for a century. (The other, more recent examples were definitely not in the same league as Carter's foolish words.)

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Dr Rick (May 22, 2007 6:29 pm ET)
           

        The rule isn't just unwritten; it doesn't exist.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by conleytgwinn (May 22, 2007 6:38 pm ET)
           

        Personally, *I* never thought it foolish to call a pig a pig. Thank goodness Carter didn't call Bungle a pig, for Edwards would have to drop out of the campaign for President, in order to bring action on behalf of pigs everywhere.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by michael.franco3237 (May 22, 2007 6:52 pm ET)
           

        Kevin,

        Do you believe in the unwritten rule?  If so, why?  Bush is a big boy.  Maybe his daddy will stick up for him.  What is the difference in me saying that Bush is the worst president ever versus Carter?  Who do you think is the worst president?  Matter of fact lets poll the rest of America with the same question.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by kevin1007 (May 22, 2007 9:59 pm ET)
             

          "What is the difference in me saying that Bush is the worst president ever versus Carter?"

          When were you president? 

          "Who do you think is the worst president?"

          Carter. No contest.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Blue Dog (May 22, 2007 10:37 pm ET)
               

            Okay dude. Two things: First, I'M the only Kevin on this site (just a name gag....I thought it might be funny)

            But second, and more seriously, I don't understand your answer. One can argue that carter's presidency was mediocre, or even "bad," but do you honestly believe that he was the worst president EVER? I don't believe that you think that. Nixon? Bush? Clinton? Bush? Surely you would have more reason to despise one of them more than carter.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Kaleun (May 23, 2007 12:39 am ET)
                 

              Your handle is misspelled: It should have two "n". ;D

              Okay, joking aside, we must never forget the failed disastrous presidencies of Coolidge, Taft, Andrew Johnson, and Hoover.

              And I'm sure there are many presidencies during which America fell on hard times. IMO, this is all revisionism, making Reagan look good and Carter bad, when it was really the opposite.

              My dad was about 18 when Reagan got Inaugurated, and says that from our European standpoint, Ronni was an embarrasment for the Americans: Carter had been intelligent, clever and good-natured, and had done a lot of good even before he became president. Reagan was this actor, radical right, a puppet at best, who often seemed to be out of ouch with reality and was good at BSing.

              I think they had a song about Reagan even performed at Woodstock), back when he was governor (I think) in california--it went like this:

              He's the Pharmacy Drug Drivin' Man,He's the head of the Ku Klux Klan,When summer comes rolling aroundWe'll all be lucky to get out of town.

              Ah, those poor souls, little did they know...I tried googling the song, but nothing related came up (except stuff 'bout  pharmacies). Does anyone know this tune?

              Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (May 24, 2007 3:39 am ET)
               

            Compared to Bush the dimmer Carter was Thomas Jefferson.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (May 22, 2007 6:55 pm ET)
           

        Please they sound interesting, what are the examples you arn't telling about?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Blue Dog (May 22, 2007 10:44 pm ET)
           

        Do you mean foolish words like, "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again?"

        Bush is a fool, if nothing else.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (May 24, 2007 3:37 am ET)
           

        The words werent foolish they were 100% true. Bush is a catastrophe that walks like a man.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Dr Rick (May 22, 2007 6:38 pm ET)
         

      "(The other, more recent examples were definitely not in the same league as Carter's foolish words.)"

      However, the other, more recent presidents were definitely not in the same league of fools as Bush is.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by bingvangorden (May 22, 2007 8:28 pm ET)
         

      "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president... is morally treasonable to the American public."

      Teddy "Bully!" Roosevelt

      Criticizing the President is one of the perks of living in a free society. Though it has become more popular to do so now that his many failures are as obvious as Trotsky's ice pick, in the past you risked being shouted down or pummeled for daring to criticize King George. And this includes former Presidents; as Teddy was directing his animosity towards his former pal President William Taft.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (May 22, 2007 10:34 pm ET)
           

        Right-O, Bing. The current crop of hypersensitive Republican media monkeys seem to have a very short memory.To make special rules for an Ex-President giving his opinion on a sitting Prez while swarms of conservative talkers bashing Clinton during his presidency is a little weak.

        But at least they  apply the special rules fairly- actors, musicians, ex-presidents- basically anyone who is not conservative but has a public forum is prohibited from criticizing the GOP figureheads.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by asnet (May 22, 2007 11:23 pm ET)
         

      Nobody gets it: Democrats are not supposed to criticize Republicans but it's OK for the Reps to bash Democrats.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (May 23, 2007 9:25 am ET)
         

      But that's different!!! Actually Carter criticized Clinton heavily over Monicagate but the right of course didn't mind that.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mary59 (May 23, 2007 10:23 am ET)
         

      Carter has a world view that I very much support...that the U.S. should be a world leader in promoting peace and democracy around the world.  And putting action behind one's convictions.

      I think that U.S. citizens should take responsibility for what they want.  If people want empire, they can not say that they promote democracy.  As far as whether a former president should criticize the current one...of course!  They did not drop citizenship and responsibilty when they left that office.

      The press goes along again with some stupid idea.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by roger_chase (May 23, 2007 10:28 am ET)
         

      The rule is unwritten because it is unknown, or was, until ignorant editorial writers and opportunistic television hacks invented it. As for Jimmy Carter's relevance, his book on the Israel-Palestine question stands at number 378 on Amazon's ranking of tens of thousands of books for sale with 597 persons considering his views to be relevant enough to deserve a review. His work as an exemplar for environmental causes and for democratic practice around the world is generally - not universally - admired. For Carter to be described by a third string White House propagandist as "irrelevant" is laughable.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Missouri Democrat (May 23, 2007 11:03 am ET)
         

      This is to point out Peg's selective memory. You deplore Carter "toasting" with the Shah. Peg I have a question for you then, if that were so horrible, was it ok for Rumsfeld to be photographed smiling and shaking hands with Hussein while Hussein was killing thousands of his own people? Or is it just bad because Carter is a democrat and it's ok since Rumsfeld is a republican? Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mr.raggers4927 (May 23, 2007 11:39 am ET)
         

      Selective memory works both ways.  Let me think, I wonder which event has more clout and image power around the world?  Rumsfeld, acting as a U.S. special envoy at the time being photographed smiling and shaking hands with Hussein or the President Jimmy Carter the Leader of the free world and President of the United States the most powerful nation in the world "toasting" with the Shah.  Look when you are President of the United States everything you do is magnified and instantly reported around the world.  You know very well that Rumsfelds photo was not even report on at the time only dug up later out of the archives to hammer Rumsfeld.    Rumsfeld has never been voted into any public office by the people and he does not represent the people but Carter was voted for and he is the one that the world forms there opinion.  Get real some dam US special envoy will never hold the prestige as the president of the United States.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by achrispage6992 (May 23, 2007 12:24 pm ET)
           

        So I guess it is more important ot bring up Carter toasting the Shah, then it is to bring up Reagan selling arms to the radical Ayatollah's in Iran to fund a war in South America. Have you ever thought those arms that Reagan sold to Iran are being used against our troops right now. But, you know maybe it is alright if Carter could just say he had no clue or don't remember toasting the Shah.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (May 23, 2007 4:25 pm ET)
           

        "Rumsfeld has never been voted into any public office by the people and he does not represent the people" --mr.raggers

        from wikipedia:

        After a two-year stint with investment banking firm A. G. Becker from 1960 to 1962, [Rumsfeld] was elected to the United States House of Representatives for Illinois' 13th congressional district in 1962, at the age of 30, and was re-elected by large majorities in 1964, 1966, and 1968.

        Never say "never".

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mr.raggers4927 (May 23, 2007 5:29 pm ET)
             

          What are you trying to do, make me work and do research before I say something.  That is no fun; I like to just go with my own memory.  Unless congress asks to testify then I do not recall.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by psmarc93 (May 23, 2007 12:54 pm ET)
         

      BUT TO THE POINT OF MMFA's POSTING .... I actually agree that there is a tradition that former presidents refrain from open criticism of the sitting president. I wouldn't call it a "rule," but the tradition has been breeched , as the NYT reveals, many times before. However, doesn't this breech make Carter's words all the more urgent and hearlding? He broke with tradition to sound the alarm. He found the danger in Bush's policies outweighed traditional decorum. If Carter is being rude to this murderously incompetent meglomaniac who has sacrificed America for his personal gain and the enrichment of his cronies -- I applaud him. Which is more rude: an administration that has given us the death of Habeus Corpus and Legitimizing torture and Pre-emtive war sold to the citizens on lies -- or the violation of a courtesy not to speak out against it?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by gh0st (May 23, 2007 1:34 pm ET)
         

      I am no MM hater, in fact, I am more a fan than not.

      However, there is a very simple logical fallacy at play here.

      Simply because some choose to break a rule, does not therefore prove that no rule exists.

      Just sayin...

      Report Abuse
      • Author by ChristianDemocrat (May 23, 2007 2:00 pm ET)
           

        Not quite.  Probably the only way to establish the existence of an unwritten rule is through evidence of a pattern of observance.  Therefore, evidence which casts doubt on the existence of a pattern is not fallacious.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by jjamele2880 (May 23, 2007 2:28 pm ET)
         

      Well, I guess we can add "Former Presidents are not supposed to criticize current Presidents" to the growing list of "rules" that have magically appeared since Bush took office:

      1.  You're not supposed to criticize the President's foreign policy (politics "stops at the water's edge.")

      2.  You're not supposed to criticize anything the President does in Wartime.

      3.  You're not supposed to criticize the President while you are overseas.

      4.  Senators and Congressmen (of the opposing party) are not supposed to meet with foreign leaders.

      5.  Regardless of what the issue is, Remember 9/11.  Doesnt matter if it has nothing to do with 9/11.  Just remember it. 

      Any and all transgressions of these rules may be considered "treason," by the way.

      I'm sure I missed a few.   

      I think all of these rules could be replaced with the simple repeal of two-thirds of the First Amendment.  Just leave in that stuff about Freedom of Religion (for now.)  Toss the rest out.  Don't like that idea? You need to shut up and Remember 9/11. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (May 23, 2007 7:50 pm ET)
           

        Great comment, thanks.  Oops, forgot to add, remember 9/11!

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace