Jimmy Carter: Basic requirements for a fair election are missing in Florida

From the Washington Post, September 27, 2004, by former President Jimmy Carter, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52800-2004Sep26.html (registration required but free); also available at the website of the Carter Center, http://www.cartercenter.org/doc1832.htm:

So, what do you think? Is Jimmy C. right or wrong? Can we have a fair, honest election in Florida this November or not?

There’s been some more recent irregularies here, too. From Greg Palast’s website, story dated August 31, 2004, http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=366&row=1:

I’m relieved she lost anyway, but still . . .

The question I’d more like to ask is this:

When was it in America that which party won the election became more important than the sanctity of the democratic process?

I mean, didn’t you guys used to care about democracy. How can this be allowed to happen? And happen again after it’s already happened once? I’m sure a few people will bitch and whine, but this sort of thing should be causing riots all over Florida. Does no-one really give much of a toss anymore?

Jimmy Carter is a man of unquestionable integrity. If he says something, I take it to the bank. The Florida electoral system is an absolute shambles. Nothing that they can come up with surprises me. Ex prisoners get their voting rights challenged, but only if they are black. They fight tooth and nail NOT to have a paper trail on electronic ballots. Someone counts the ballots in their own election? Come on, how crooked can one state be?

About 1798, if not earlier.

The United States has a long history of electoral fraud, manipulation and corruption. Still, the system works most of the time.

Not quite true. Sorry.

If his integrity were unquestionable, he wouldn’t be writing speeches for Yasser Arafat and making nice with dictators all over the world.

He similarly wouldn’t be persuing his goals at the expense of American foreign policy, infuriating Democratic and Republican administrations alike.

He certified the election in Venezuela after only a cursory check, despite evidence of massive voter fraud bu Chavez forces all over the country.

Forgive me if I don’t have as much faith in his integrity as you have.

Interesting that Palast doesn’t mention Lepore ran as a Democrat in 1996 & 2000 & then changed to “no party affiliation” after the 2000 election.

That Jimmy is a well-meaning and incompetent dolt, given unwarranted delusions of adequacy by being awarded the Nobel Prize by a committee more interested in taking political pot shots at Bush than genuine merit.

He’s a partisan, trying in advance to discredit a likely Bush win and set up yet another round of whining, as in 2000. Remember him telling us that Zell Miller was a traitor for being insufficiently partisan? And he is the one complaining that the Florida Secretary of State obeyed the law?

Jimmy is a very nice man, but he was a very bad President, and now that Reagan is dead, he is doing his best to get revenge on the Republicans who trounced him. For heaven’s sake, this is the guy who came within a whisker of being beat by Jerry Ford after Ford pardoned Nixon.

Iran, North Korea, Florida - anyone who takes Carter’s advice seriously on anything but peanut farming and building houses for poor people deserves whatever they get. Thank God we only got four years of it back during the 70s.

Regards,
Shodan

Damn those political potshots! Damn them I say!

Jimmy Carter brought the Egyptians and Israelis together and brought peace between those two nations. Egypt got the Sinai back without bloodshed. The Nobel Prizes were a just reward for those involved.

Jimmy Carter treated other nations with respect, notably in the negotiations to cede the Panama Canal to Panama while Reagan was calling it the American Canal in Panama.

If the American people had chosen correctly in 1980, the Reagan-Bush deficits would never have happened and the national debt would be a fraction of what it is today. Our economy would be stronger and America would be both more liked and respected throughout the world.

Shodan, is there any of the substantive points made that you wish to dispute or is it just the political pot shots for you too?

Are any of you going to contest my points?

Jimmy Carter has his virtues, but he has his vices as well. The man is not a saint.

Think what you will, I’m confident that history will be kind to Mr. Carter. In my opinion, he is in the top 5 of the 20th century presidents.

Bwahahaha!

Misery index! Malaise! Desert One! Killer rabbits!

Twenty percent interest for a shitty car!

Waiting in a gas line after paying that twenty percent!

Not being able to do that the next day, because of the rationing!

Yeah, those were boom years!

History has already judged Mr. Carter. That’s why he’s been scrambling for a Nobel Peace Prize, so that history’s judgement will be tempered somewhat.

And certainly a better president than Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

And it has truly been said of him that he is the first politician in American history to use the presidency as a springboard to higher things.

And if he’s not a saint, he’s the closest thing we’ve had in the White House since anyone now living can remember.

I got the idea for this thread when I heard Greg Palast interviewed on my local community radio station (WMNF 88.5 FM “Not a member of the Big Brother Broadcasting Network!”) this afternoon, and he mentioned Carter’s editorial. He also said that the media is ignoring the fact that thousands of Florida voters who were disfranchised by the fraudulent “felons list” in 2000 are still off the voting rolls. I didn’t know that and can’t find a cite at the moment. Does anybody know if this is true?

You’ll have to show me a non-partisan site that lists Carter as a better president than Reagan. C-SPAN’s ranking lists Reagan #12 and Carter #24. Reagan was re-elected by a landslide. Carter was( rightly) kicked out during his re-election bid.

Once again we go after the accuser rather than the wrongdoer. I suppose all this Carter-bashing means that the Florida elections will have air-tight integrety after all. :rolleyes:

Exactly, sqweels. How 'bout we ignore the messenger, and critically examine if the message is accurate? I don’t care if Charles Manson says the situation in Florida wouldn’t pass international inspection - what’s the evidence?

Camp David Accords. Panama Canal Treaty. Habitat for Humanity.

Perhaps, if he had been reelected-September 11 would never have happened. No one to step up arming those who would become the Taliban in Afghanistan. No Iran-Contra. No Gulf War and Saddam Hussein.

Wishful thinking IMHO…except (perhaps) the Iran-Contra thing.

Depends on your definition of ‘better’. Certainly I rank him above Ford, and probably Nixion…but the rest?

No chance…he’ll be middle or lower in the pack of Presidents. His best bet is to be ranks high or even at the top of EX-Presidents. He’s certainly been a better ex-President than he ever was in office. :slight_smile:
To the OP.

Well, leaving aside the question of whether Carter is A) Unbiased ( :dubious: ), B) Qualified and C) Knowledgable enough to make a solid determination, I’d have to say that, with certain qualifiers, I DO think there will be a ‘fair’ election in Florida. Most of my qualifiers boil down to ‘fair’ being equal to ‘as fair as in any other state in the Union, within a certain small margin’. Understand that election shanagans have been going on in the US for ever, and neither sides hands are clean. Dirty tricks abound…they always have and probably always will, as a fool proof, un-corruptable and ‘fair’ election process is probably beyond humans capability to create…people will ALWAYS look for ways to cheat. All we can hope for is that such things are kept to a minimum and that they balance out in the end…and that we don’t have yet another close, down to the wire election this time so that we don’t have to hear 4 more years of whinning. At this point I really don’t care which of the two major candidates win (my candidate probably won’t even get 2% of the vote so it doesn’t matter to me)…as long as they win big.

-XT

“Insufficiently partisan”?!?! Yeah, right. He wasn’t accusing him of being insufficiently partisan. He was accusing him of being extremely partisan, so partisan in fact that he lied and made wild and false accusations:

All because Zell is still in the Democratic Party does not mean that you get to characterize him as an “insufficiently partisan” Democrat when in fact what he is, in all but name, is a very partisan Republican. As I pointed out in the thread about Zell’s speech at the RNC, he has not just broken with the Democrats on a few issues…He has broken with them across the board. For example, he has supported Bush’s economic policy including all aspects of the tax cuts and his LCV (league of conservation voters) rating for the past few years puts him on par with Sen. James “Global warming is a hoax” Inhofe who is pretty much evil-incarnate for the environment. It is far far below that of many Republicans like McCain, Snowe, Gregg, …