President Spaz

Back in January, Jimmy Carter defended his book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid," at Brandeis University. His book had been out for two months, and he took occasion (after prompting from a member of the audience) to apologize for a passage in his book. The passage stated that suicide bombings against Israel should be halted after Israel accepted the "ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace." The word "after" is not a trivial one, nor is it a detail that anyone with even a remote interest in the subject would be likely to overlook. The entire road map is based on the idea that Palestinian terrorism must stop (and that efforts must be taken by Palestinian security forces to prevent such attacks) in the initial phase before a two-state solution can be achieved in the third and final phase.

Carter said, "The sentence was worded in an absolutely improper and stupid way. I apologize...it was a mistake on my part."

Whoops. I didn't mean to believe that!

Jimmy Carter hadn't made much noise since then. However, over the weekend he was all over the news. In addition to repeating to the BBC his characterization of Tony Blair as "subservient" ally of the United States, he was interviewed by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, supposedly for the purpose of promoting an audiobook set of Sunday school lessons.

During the interview he was asked to compare Richard Nixon's presidency to that of the current president. His response was that "this administration has been the worst in history." A spokesperson for Carter confirmed the comments after they were published on Saturday, and then Carter appeared on Monday's Today Show claiming that his remarks were "careless or misinterpreted." In response to being called "increasingly irrelevant" by the White House, he said that he doesn't claim to have any relevancy.

I'm not surprised by Carter's original comments. In recent years, Jimmy Carter has shown himself to possess the discretion of an old white Kanye West, offering outrageous comments to the public who is at first bewildered and then comforted by the realization that nobody actually cares what he says. I can't say that the comments about President Bush were especially offensive either. They are quite tame compared to criticism of Israel, or even his suggestion that Prime Minister Blair is making no pretense to act in the United Kingdom's best interests, which one could logically conclude makes Blair guilty of treason against his country.

What kind of an image does Carter hope to project? If he wants to be loved by the radical left who see the United States and Israel as enemies of civilization, he needs to stop apologizing, or at least choosing more easily defensible words to explain his views.

If he wants to be appreciated by mainstream America, or even mainstream liberal America, he needs to invest in a book editor, a publicist, and possibly a muzzle. When you're a former president, you're not supposed to get tripped up in a phone interview with the religion editor of the 61st largest newspaper in the country.

In a polarized society, a comment that alienates many people is likely to garner favor with many others. However, if you then backtrack and claim incompetence, you succeed in alienating most everyone, and making the rest suspicious of your intentions. If Carter is not concerned about relevancy, he should find himself a new hobby and stop embarrassing the people of Georgia.