A quarter of a century has passed since 44 states said "No, thanks" to Jimmy Carter's offer to serve a second term, yet he still evidently thinks his loss is explained not by foreign policy debacles, such as invading Iran with eight helicopters, and a misery index -- inflation plus unemployment -- of 22, almost triple today's index...
The role of ex-president requires a grace and restraint notably absent from Carter. See, for example, his criticism of the United States when he is abroad, as in England two weeks ago. Having made such disappointing history as president, Carter as ex-president should at least refrain from disseminating a historical falsehood.
So strong, however, is the human impulse to believe comforting myths that Carter probably will continue to promulgate the fiction that I gave Reagan the utterly unimportant briefing book, thereby catalyzing the 1980 landslide. But to be fair: As a candidate, Carter promised only that as president he would never tell a lie, thereby leaving himself a loophole for his post-presidential career as a fabulist.
The fact that Carter thinks he lost to one of the best candidates in recent memory (Clinton was a great candidate because he was given a pass on his Vietnam experience, a helpful pass not granted to President Bush) because Reagan had some knowledge of what Carter might say in a debate is absurd. Hell, I know what Carter would say in any debate..."Weapons are bad mm kay. We should give up all our weapons and other will follow mm kay."
Yeah, brilliant man that Carter. I tried to read his historical fiction on the Revolutionary War and just couldn't make it through. Boring as all hell. THat has nothing to do with the fact that he is a sore loser, but it is in context of the article. Read the article.
