The Democrats Owe Jimmy Carter an Apology By RALPH NADER

November 25, 2008

The Democrats Owe Jimmy Carter an Apology
Don't Suppress Carter (or the Opportunities for Middle East Peace)
By RALPH NADER


At the Democratic National Convention in Denver, the Party denied Jimmy Carter the traditional invitation to speak that is accorded its former presidents.

According to The Jewish Daily Forward, “Carter's controversial views on Israel cost him a place on the podium at the Democratic Party convention in late August, senior Democratic operatives acknowledged to the Forward.”

Silencing Carter, who negotiated the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement, involved behind the scenes tensions between supporters of the hard-line AIPAC lobby and those Democrats who argued both respect and free speech to let Carter join Bill Clinton on the stage and address a nationwide audience.

It is false to attribute this shutdown to the opinions of American Jews, a majority of whom polls show support a two-state solution and disagree on other issues with the AIPAC lobby, as recently documented by The Nation Magazine's Eric Alterman.

Jimmy Carter—the early peacemaker between Israel and Egypt (for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize)—has remained the most steadfast, prominent American friend that the Israeli and Palestinian peoples have in securing a stable peace in that region. The new President Obama should welcome Mr. Carter's wise and seasoned counsel.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader11252008.html

Fuck him and the unsafe at any speed horse he rode into town on.

TlalocW

And I hope Mr. Nader doesn't get his nose caught in the door on his way out!

I'm sorry to hear that you supported the silencing of Jimmy Carter at the Democratic convention.

However, this is not the appropriate place for hate posts against Ralph Nader or any other progressives that you hate.

If you still think that Al Gore "lost" the 2000 election, and that it was not stolen by the Bush government perhaps you need to post somewhere else.

As for Gore, the evidence is that he won the election, but so narrowly that it was easy to steal. Without Nader, he might have won a victory so decisive as to be fraud-proof.

I think he may be suffering from a racist hatred of Nader who happens to be an Arab.

I've noticed over the years that much of the hatred directed against Nader is racially motivated and has little to do with Nader's lifetime of work devoted to progressive causes. It's disguised racial hatred delivered by conservative Democrats like DLC types.

In any case, the poster obviously doesn't want to discuss the subject matter because he opposed Jimmy Carter's approach to the conflict.

Number 1: I didn't know Nader was of Arabic heritage nor do I care now.
Number 2: How do you feel about Lieberman? Do you jump on people for not liking him? He's got a pretty good record on progressive causes, but he, like Nader, had a massive ego and went to the dark side and tried to screw over this country.

So, yes... Fuck Nader. I hope that like Lieberman, he fades into obscurity and has enough self-awareness to realize that he chucked a lifetime of fighting the good fight in order to be a self-aggrandizing tool for the status quo, and that's how he will always be remembered.

TlalocW

gore and bush in that election would have made a strong case for writing in nobody.

Every big crime needs a diversion to help pull it off. They got the diversion they needed with Nader. 'nuff said.

He kills baby puppies and starves little orphans in Bangladesh. I'm sorry to hear you support Republicans who drown puppies and orphans.

You should have blamed yourself for fronting two candidates that were as good as taking the dive in a rigged fight.

Had the piece been written by ANYONE else, what would your response be?

If Jesse Helms had written an article demanding that other republicans owed a Black man an apology for their racist treatment of him but was still unrepentant over his own actions?

TlalocW

Certainly, Nader has a LOT to apologize for. That has nothing to do with THIS subject.

I can understand the Obama camp wanting to control the message - did not want anybody feeding the "he's Muslim/anti-Israel" flames, and while Carter was absolutely correct in what he said it was not the time or forum to say it. Now that Obama is president-elect, he can open up the discussion about the undue influence of AIPAC and the hawks from the only man to broker a lasting peace in the Middle East in the past 50 years.

I'm not sure i believe that Obama "shut him up" so much as simply asked him to not address that issue. I'm sure that Pres Carter is smart enough to know that it was one of the compromises needed to get Obama elected in a close race.

What bothers me is that instead of talking about the issue of middle-east peace, everyone is just using this to slam Nader.

Kind of misses the point.

At the time of the convention I heard that Jimmy Carter didn't want to speak.

He says that his limited presence at the convention was his idea.

Nader is. Worship Nader, don't question him.

Nor is the Counterpunch website.

So you decide to attack Ralph Nader!

Well, spread your right-wing hate and "swiftboating" attacks somewhere else.

This is a progressive website in case you didn't notice.

Nader's only purpose is to split the party. Mine is to point out his.

What is yours? Is your support of the Republican-funded corporate millionaire Nader right-wing driven, or are you just ignorant of his real goals? This is a Democratic website that includes progressives, which is why Nader is so hated here.

This is a website that supports Democrats running for office (especially President) in case you didn't notice.

would be listing others much further down the list.

Nader is an Lebanese Arab.

Perhaps that explains your hatred of the man.

are you brain damaged? Still George Bush being close enough to steal the White House from Gore and all the death and destruction that followed, is what Nader owes the world a HUGE apology for.

Do you think Hillary Clinton "owes the world a HUGE apology for" her vote in support of the Iraq invasion "and all the death and destruction that followed"?

And if you have an opinion on the article please post it. Perhaps someone can write it for you.

Go kill puppies on a conservative web site.

that brain damage has you reading things that are not there. The only statement I made is that Nader is literally the LAST person to be talking about who owes anyone an apology.

1. I wanted Obama to win the election and not McCain.

2. I consider Carter to be a fool, and I would not want the Democratic Party taking advise from him.

3. I believe his ideas on foreign policy are naive and hurtful to the US, and I would not want them to become policy.

4. His recent statements on the Israel/Palestine dispute are dishonest, noxious, and generally unhelpful

So if someone doesn't like Joe Lieberman they're antisemitic, and if they don't like Clarence Thomas they're racist, and if they don't like Sarah Palin they're sexist?

I understand that you like Nader; but that doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't has some evil racist motive.

www.forward.com/articles/14110

Apparently, Carter stated that the decision to reduce his role (he did have some role) at the conference was his own. He may of course be lying diplomatically, but I'd trust him more on the subject than Nader. I doubt that most Dems even speak to Nader, so how would he know what's going on?

I have never had much faith in anything published in Counterpunch, and have even less since I've discovered that they still include columns by Paul Craig Roberts, an all-round right-winger and one of the group responsible for Reaganomics and thus for the current economic mess. It's by no means a consistently progressive journal.

As for Carter: I respect him enormously; don't agree with him on everything; but consider it a tragedy that he was defeated by St Ronnie.

Ya. They let Carter and his spouse walk on the stage and wave.

I'm sure that's all President Carter really wanted to do.

Of course! That's the ticket!

Do you agree with Carter on the Israel/Palestine conflict?

On a different subject, perhaps, in a proper forum, you can explain why you think the Clinton administration had nothing to do with the deregulation of the financial and banking industry and therefore nothing to do with this economic crisis.

Now that ought to be interesting!

Well, perhaps it's a subject you're not familiar with.

That's rich. The most honest president we've ever had, and you call him a liar and support drowning puppies and orphans. Typical of a Naderite.

"He may of course be lying diplomatically"

Lie may be a bit strong .... let's say he just spoke as a diplomat would. You surely didn't expect him to launch into a huge attack on the leadership of the Democratic Party .... did you? Especially during or right after the convention.

He has his own motives for disliking the Democrats.

and Carter is not known as a liar, even by Republicans like Nader.

He may have thought rightly or wrongly that his giving a long speech at that stage could lead to divisions that might affect the party's chances. He wouldn't be the only person ever to take a backseat under such circumstances.

'Do you agree with Carter on the Israel/Palestine conflict?'

About 75% of the time; but I suspect from your posts that you don't 'do' such nuances.

As in the following statement:

'On a different subject, perhaps, in a proper forum, you can explain why you think the Clinton administration had nothing to do with the deregulation of the financial and banking industry and therefore nothing to do with this economic crisis.'

I have never said anything of the sort. I consider that Reagan, Thatcher and their collaborators set the tone that started the disaster. I consider that many of their successors of the left and centre carried on with some of the same policies, and at best didn't do enough to reverse them. My country is still suffering from 'New Labour's continuation of many Thatcherite policies. But that doesn't mean that the primary responsibility doesn't rest with the *originators* of the policies

And Counterpunch is an anti-Democratic Party web site.

Carter has said that his limited role at the convention was his own idea.

<snip>

"Why didn't Jimmy Carter speak from the podium at the Democratic National Convention? Alan Dershowitz said he had something to do with it.

In an interview with Shalom TV, the Harvard Law School professor says he "pushed" Barack Obama "very hard to make that decision," Dershowitz said in an interview with Shalom TV. "Barack Obama had to make a choice between his Jewish supporters and his anti-Israel supporters like Jimmy Carter, and he did not choose Jimmy Carter. And that was an embarrassment for Jimmy Carter and a show of disrespect."

"It was a good decision, a wise decision, a moral decision," Dershowitz added.

Carter did appear in the convention hall after a video of the former prersident helping with Katrina relief was shown at the Denver gathering. But he did not make any remarks from the podium."

more

"But enough about me, what do YOU think about me?"

Not an unknown phenomenon in 'celebrity academics', in all areas.

If he had appeared at the convention it would have latched on to and promoted by the GOP and their supporters such as the so called PUMA's as proof positive that now PE Obama was an antiSemite and would never ever "support" Israel not to mention as a tool to promote the "secret Muslim" meme.
As for Dershowitz himself he is a shining example of the so called "wise and moral" least when it comes to self promoting BS.

On domestic issues.

When carter opens his mouth on foreign issues democrats, everywhere, in every race, suffer. Most often for positions they don't even hold (Anti-zionism ones).