Uh-oh, Jimmah…

CRAWFORD, Texas â€”  Former President Jimmy Carter backed off Monday from harshly critical comments he made of President Bush over the weekend after the White House offered a biting rebuke to the former president by calling him “increasingly irrelevant.”

“My remarks were maybe careless or misinterpreted but I wasn’t comparing the overall administration and certainly not talking about anyone personally,” Carter said in an interview Monday when asked to explain.

The comments “were interpreted as comparing this whole administration to all other administrations when what I was actually doing was responding to a question about foreign policy between [President Richard] Nixon and this administration, and I think that this administration’s foreign policy compared to Nixon’s was much worse. … I wasn’t comparing this administration with other administrations throughout history but just with President Nixon’s,” he told NBC’s “The Today Show.”

Carter, whose administration was plagued by sky-high inflation and a 444-day American hostage crisis in Iran, was filling in a quote Saturday in which he said, “I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.”

You’re an idiot, Jimmah. Always have been; this just proves the point.

Looks from here as if someone reminded you that the problems of Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan which the Bush administration is dealing with now, started under your misadministration.

Actually, SEVERAL someones.

Addendum:  (David L)   Additional rebutal to Jimmy, in two parts   Like Bitsbox, itself, we like to travel all roads, provided they takes us to some destination we desire.   The nice thing about this road, is that it doesn’t take three dollars a gallon to get there.

First the high road, Scott, Power Line, “No man can be a judge in his own case.”

Second, the low road, Christopher Hitchens, Slate, “Peanut Envy.”

from the mailbag:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) delayed until May 21 the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1348, immigration legislation very similar to last year’s Senate-passed amnesty bill (S. 2611). The vote was delayed to buy Senators more time to negotiate a “compromise” bill and draft its language.

The “cloture” vote is the rule that allows a bill to be brought to the Senate floor for a vote without going through the discussion, debate and amending of a committee. Because some Senators have promised to filibuster the Rule 14, Reid will need 60 Senators voting YES on cloture (which means an end to debate on the rule) to allow the debate on the actual bill to begin.

Our greatest hope is that Reid will fall short of the 60 votes.

If Reid gets the 60 votes, there will be several days of debate and probably a lot of amendments. Then, Reid will have to have another cloture vote to end debate and allow a final vote on the amnesty.

Your key request should be:

“Vote NO on cloture on Rule 14 on S. 1348 … and vote NO on cloture on any bill that would give legal residence to illegal aliens … Don’t let any of these bills be brought to a vote.”

You should constantly be saying that there is no reason to rush through an amnesty — especially hundreds of pages that haven’t even been passed out yet.

US SENATORS – use toll free number 866.340.9281

Akaka, Daniel K.- (D – HI) (202) 224-6361

Alexander, Lamar- (R – TN) (202) 224-4944

Allard, Wayne- (R – CO) (202) 224-5941

Baucus, Max- (D – MT) (202) 224-2651

Bayh, Evan- (D – IN) (202) 224-5623

Bennett, Robert F.- (R – UT) (202) 224-5444

Biden, Joseph R., Jr.- (D – DE) (202) 224-5042

Bingaman, Jeff- (D – NM) (202) 224-5521

Bond, Christopher S.- (R – MO) (202) 224-5721

Boxer, Barbara- (D – CA) (202) 224-3553

Brown, Sherrod- (D – OH) (202) 224-2315

Brownback, Sam- (R – KS) (202) 224-6521

Bunning, Jim- (R – KY) (202) 224-4343

Burr, Richard- (R – NC) (202) 224-3154

Byrd, Robert C.- (D – WV) (202) 224-3954

Cantwell, Maria- (D – WA) (202) 224-3441

Cardin, Benjamin L.- (D – MD) (202) 224-4524

Carper, Thomas R.- (D – DE) (202) 224-2441

Casey, Robert P., Jr.- (D – PA) (202) 224-6324

Chambliss, Saxby- (R – GA) (202) 224-3521

Clinton, Hillary Rodham- (D – NY) (202) 224-4451

Coburn, Tom- (R – OK) (202) 224-5754

Cochran, Thad- (R – MS) (202) 224-5054

Coleman, Norm- (R – MN) (202) 224-5641

Collins, Susan M.- (R – ME) (202) 224-2523

Conrad, Kent- (D – ND) (202) 224-2043

Corker, Bob- (R – TN) (202) 224-3344

Cornyn, John- (R – TX) (202) 224-2934

Craig, Larry E.- (R – ID) (202) 224-2752

Crapo, Mike- (R – ID) (202) 224-6142

DeMint, Jim- (R – SC) (202) 224-6121

Dodd, Christopher J.- (D – CT) (202) 224-2823

Dole, Elizabeth- (R – NC) (202) 224-6342

Domenici, Pete V.- (R – NM) (202) 224-6621

Dorgan, Byron L.- (D – ND) (202) 224-2551

Durbin, Richard – (D – IL (202) 224-2152

Ensign, John- (R – NV) (202) 224-6244

Enzi, Michael B.- (R – WY) (202) 224-3424

Feingold, Russell D.- (D – WI) (202) 224-5323

Feinstein, Dianne- (D – CA) (202) 224-3841

Graham, Lindsey- (R – SC) (202) 224-5972

Grassley, Chuck- (R – IA) (202) 224-3744

Gregg, Judd- (R – NH) (202) 224-3324

Hagel, Chuck- (R – NE) (202) 224-4224

Harkin, Tom- (D – IA) (202) 224-3254

Hatch, Orrin G.- (R – UT) (202) 224-5251

Hutchison, Kay Bailey- (R – TX) (202) 224-5922

Inhofe, James M.- (R – OK) (202) 224-4721

Inouye, Daniel K.- (D – HI) (202) 224-3934

Isakson, Johnny- (R – GA) (202) 224-3643

Johnson, Tim- (D – SD) (202) 224-5842

Kennedy, Edward M.- (D – MA) (202) 224-4543

Kerry, John F.- (D – MA) (202) 224-2742

Klobuchar, Amy- (D – MN) (202) 224-3244

Kohl, Herb- (D – WI) (202) 224-5653

Kyl, Jon- (R – AZ) (202) 224-4521

Landrieu, Mary L.- (D – LA) (202) 224-5824

Lautenberg, Frank R.- (D – NJ) (202) 224-3224

Leahy, Patrick J.- (D – VT) (202) 224-4242

Levin, Carl- (D – MI) (202) 224-6221

Lieberman, Joseph I.- (ID – CT) (202) 224-4041

Lincoln, Blanche L.- (D – AR) (202) 224-4843

Lott, Trent- (R – MS) (202) 224-6253

Lugar, Richard G.- (R – IN) (202) 224-4814

Martinez, Mel- (R – FL) (202) 224-3041

McCain, John- (R – AZ) (202) 224-2235

McCaskill, Claire- (D – MO) (202) 224-6154

McConnell, Mitch- (R – KY) (202) 224-2541

Menendez, Robert- (D – NJ) (202) 224-4744

Mikulski, Barbara A.- (D – MD) (202) 224-4654

Murkowski, Lisa- (R – AK) (202) 224-6665

Murray, Patty- (D – WA) (202) 224-2621

Nelson, Bill- (D – FL) (202) 224-5274

Nelson, E. Benjamin- (D – NE) (202) 224-6551

Obama, Barack- (D – IL) (202) 224-2854

Pryor, Mark L.- (D – AR) (202) 224-2353

Reed, Jack- (D – RI) (202) 224-4642

Reid, Harry- (D – NV) (202) 224-3542

Roberts, Pat- (R – KS) (202) 224-4774

Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D – WV) (202) 224-6472

Salazar, Ken- (D – CO) (202) 224-5852

Sanders, Bernard- (I – VT) (202) 224-5141

Schumer, Charles E.- (D – NY) (202) 224-6542

Sessions, Jeff- (R – AL) (202) 224-4124

Shelby, Richard C.- (R – AL) (202) 224-5744

Smith, Gordon H.- (R – OR) (202) 224-3753

Snowe, Olympia J.- (R – ME) (202) 224-5344

Specter, Arlen- (R – PA) (202) 224-4254

Stabenow, Debbie- (D – MI) (202) 224-4822

Stevens, Ted- (R – AK) (202) 224-3004

Sununu, John E.- (R – NH) (202) 224-2841

Tester, Jon- (D – MT) (202) 224-2644

Thomas, Craig- (R – WY) (202) 224-6441

Thune, John- (R – SD) (202) 224-2321

Vitter, David- (R – LA) (202) 224-4623

Voinovich, George V.- (R – OH) (202) 224-3353

Warner, John- (R – VA) (202) 224-2023

Webb, Jim- (D – VA) (202) 224-4024

Whitehouse, Sheldon- (D – RI) (202) 224-2921

Wyden, Ron- (D – OR) (202) 224-5244

Toll Free Congressional switchboard: 1-800-862-5530 or 202-224-3121

Or could it be that Mitt Romney killed this deal on Tuesday night when he said the McCain-Kennedy bill would do to immigration what the McCain-Feingold bill did to campaign financing.

Don Surber, on the Kennedy-McCain Shamesty bill.   If Romney is right, and I hope he is, this dooms both Shamesty and McCain’s campaign.

McCain has virtuallly abandoned his duties in the Senate.  Will a a person who won’t show up for work as a Senator be expected to show for work as President?   The only bill in which McCain has invested support is Shamesty.   Take the Shamesty bill down, and McCain with it.

By now Fred Thompson’s thirty-eight second video response to Michael Moore, which we blogged on Tuesday, is famous.  What may be even more impressive than the video itself is the process, or  better yet, the lack of process behind it.

Salena Zito, Pittsburg Tribune-Review, gives a behind the scene look at the production of “Fred’s watershed“:

On the day of the first Southern-state Republican debate on the Fox News Channel, one undeclared GOP candidate performed a media leapfrog.

With the help of one 38-second video clip and a great sense of humor, Fred Thompson, the former U.S. senator from Tennessee who is one sock away from dipping his toe into the race for the White House, remained just as relevant as the other GOP candidates.

Great leaders, in any field, be it military, industrial, political, share a comon trait.   They are instinctive and their instincts are right.   Fred’s response to Moore’s challenge was instinctive and dead on target.  It appears the biggest delay was getting a camera into Fred’s office.?

Still haven’t got the plugin working right, but thought I’d post it this way.

This is a vid taken yesterday, of  Ray, one of our cats here at Casa De Bit. That’s a 32 Hi def flat screen he’s sitting in front of, and the vid is from Discovery Channel, their Sunrise program, of Cape Cod. Those are Terns, in case you can’t make it out.

Ray loves to watch this stuff.

Personally I’m waiting for someone to make an hour long vid of a bird feeder.

Linked at OTB

As you may have determined that by simply reading this morning, on finally going through some of my days old mail.  It’s been kind of money around here, of late, and I haven’t had the chance. A Bit’s Ball Cap tip (BBCT) to a reader, who has requested to remain nameless for bringing this to my attention.

This article from Klein, can be considered nothing less than what we used to call a “target rich environment” . Some examples:

With Proposition 13 and the famous California tax revolt, and with presidents whose entire domestic programs amounted to mindless tax-cutting, and with Congresses that have been happy to pass cuts and stack deficits, we have systematically deprived the government of the revenues it needs to provide basic services, even as we’ve come to need it to do so much more.

Had this idiot done his homework, he’d have found that the income supposedly ‘lost’ was more than regained within a year as the economy rebounded from the oppressive taxes… in direct relation, as it turned out, to the amount of tax CUTTING applied.

His claims as regards the federal government and the tax cutting applied to it are similarly defeated. Every tax cut that has occurred over the last 30 years, at the Federal government level, has resulted in an increase in the amount of money being taken at the Federal coffers.  Every. Single. One.

As a matter of fact, Klein’s entire argument is that big government should be “given a chance” can be defeated just as easily; government, has never been bigger than it is right now. The trend has NEVER really turned towards ‘smaller government’. We are as a matter of both per capita spending and overall spending, giving the government more of our individuals income than at any time in history.

One wonders, then, what is it that Klein is complaining about?

I mean, if this were record level of spending isn’t working to his satisfaction, what level of spending would?  You would think that he’d get the hint that maybe we ought to be going in the opposite direction.  Of course, then, he wouldn’t be a “liberal columnist”, now would he?

Today Move America Forward hosted 3 rallies protesting the recent actions of Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with regard to their defeat-retreat-surrender antics concerning the war on terrorism.

We’ve had enough of talk such as “the war is lost” from Harry Reid and efforts from Reid and Pelosi to cut funding for our troops serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom.  We decided to fight back against these “Surrender Monkeys” and hundreds of people turned out, led by a contingent of living, breathing, monkeys – mocking Reid & Pelosi.

All the pictures and video clips and news accounts of the rallies can be found online here

John Hawkins over at Right Wing News passes on that he’s got the May Poll results up.

Some interesting questions; Here’s a few:

2) Which of the two following groups better represents your stance on illegal immigration.

A) George Bush, John McCain, the Wall Street Journal.
B) The Minutemen, Tom Tancredo, Jeff Sessions.

7) If we absolutely had to have a President chosen out of the Big 3 Democratic contenders, which one would you most prefer to see as the POTUS.

A) Hillary Clinton
B) John Edwards
C) Barrack Obama

8) If you had to pick the presidential contender that you would LEAST like to see as the party’s nominee in 2008, who would it be… (Note: This is the LEAST liked candidate, not your favorite candidate)

For your Sunday moring reading pleasure, Sister Toldjah has a good description of the worst president of the previous century, Jimmy Carter.

Addendum:(Bit) McQ does, as well.

And as Bruce’s headline suggests, what’s really going on here is the worst president in American history, is trying to hand off his crown to President Bush. Of course it doesn’t work, but it’s instructive to watch the attempt.

* OK, I admit it; I’ve been kinda wrapped up in the Sabres the last few months.  And yes, I’m disappointed they didn’t win, this afternoon. and I’m not going to lay the blame for the loss on the officiating. The team dug their own hole. the Sabres didn’t end up behind three games to none in this series because they were outclassed.  They got that far behind by not playing up to their ability.
But, you know, when even the NBC announcing crew… who is traditionally less than unbiased about Buffalo teams… be they Football or Hockey…. starts questioning the quality of the officiating, you need to wonder if if the referees weren’t part of the ‘bury ’em’ crew.  I counted at least a half a dozen penalties, that should have been called.  One in particular, was clearly interference on the part of Ray Emery. another was a boarding call that got missed.  More than once I heard somebody question whether not the referees were part of The Sens penalty killing team.

That said; the Buffalo Sabres for these last two games, actually played fairly close to their ability.  If any team I’m associated with, even in the simple act of being a fan,  is going to go out at the end of the season, that’s the way I like to see them go out.  Not like they did in game one through three.

* Jesse Macbeth stands as a prime example of the left latching onto any liar willing to tell them what they want to hear.

* But you see, Billy, that’s when it’s the most fun… when you’re able to rise to the challenge, like that, and you still manage by sheer talent to turn in a good show.  Any moron can do a good show… or at least a passible one… when the people and equipment you’re working with are all top notch. With all those bucks, you’re expected to. But I have to tell ya… Some of the most fun I ever had in the business was when one thing or another or sometimes… MANY things fell apart. If you still manage somehow to get the crowd into it, it’s the best feeling in the world. They’re into it not because your equipment is good, but because YOU are.

Oh, and …. Welcome home.

* First Pet food… and now poisoned toothpaste coming from China What the beep is going on over there? Look at some of this report:

Diethylene glycol is the same poison that the Panamanian government inadvertently mixed into cold medicine last year, killing at least 100 people. Records show that in that episode the poison, falsely labeled as glycerin, a harmless syrup, also originated in China.

…

Two weeks ago, The New York Times reported that a Chinese factory not certified to make pharmaceutical ingredients had sold 46 barrels of syrup containing diethylene glycol that had been falsely labeled as 99.5 percent pure glycerin. That syrup passed through several trading companies before ending up in Panama, where it was mixed into 260,000 bottles of cold medicine.

At least 100 people died as a direct result, according to Dimas Guevara, a Panamanian prosecutor who is leading the investigation into the deaths.

Over the years, counterfeiters have found it financially advantageous to substitute diethylene glycol, a sweet-tasting syrup, for its chemical cousin glycerin, which is usually much more expensive.

I’ve seen in passing, within the last week, information that the melamine found in the pet food coming from China, was placed there intentionally to raise the measured protein value of the food.

Melamine is an industrial chemical that animal feed producers here say has been intentionally mixed into feed to cheat farmers into thinking they are buying higher protein meal, even though the chemical has no nutritional value. A similar practice took place in the United States and in China involving a related compound called urea, but that compound is now more widely tested for and banned from certain feeds in the United States.

High protein value, in dog food for example, is a big deal.  Don’t believe me?  Take a stroll down the pet food aisle.  Read the labels.  It’s not just pets, either; livestock, too, is affected by this nonsense.

All of this is monstrous, certainly.  But here’s the thing; None of this was supposed to be happening under such a strict governmental controls.  This is supposed to be the socialist paradise.

And, by the way, look at the first paragraph in the section of quotes above.  Notice that the Panamanian government is involved in the deaths of about 100 people, killed by cold medicine, issued by the Panamanian government.
Dave Schuler notes this whole thing and asks at OTB:

As you must surely know by now for the last two months I’ve been producing daily updates over at my place on the pet food recall which, far from winding down, appears to be about in midstroke. In today’s update, I commented on an LA Times editorial which got me to thinking. The Food and Drug Administration is more than a century old, established to cope with the food and drug safety issues of a century ago. What would a 21^st century FDA look like? What problems should it be dealing with? How would it function?

IMO our government, generally, is firmly moored to a 1950’s organizational and performance model. Should this be changed? Can it be changed?

My answer, strictly speaking, is no… there’/s no way to change it.

I will take the answer further; there is no way that government of any design can deal with the problems being forced upon it.  The issue is not the design of government, it is not the design of the hierarchy within the different governmental fiefdoms , it is not how efficient or inefficient each one of these is , the problem is that government simply cannot handle these tasks.  Particularly, government cannot handle these tasks alone.  Which is the position that it finds itself in, after generations of usurping all authority in the field.

And in any event, government cannot guard against these events, strictly from a governmental authority perspective.  Our founders, most certainly knew about this problem, and addressed that early on… John Adams, for example:

We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.

What we’re dealing with here, in the end, is an over- reliance on government. Government, supposedly the salvation , the protection against such events, is instead the proximate cause of these things. Not because they were not doing their job; they’re simply doing what governments do.

So how is it that so little of that happens here in the west? Culture, mostly. Here in the west, because of cultural influence more than anything else, we have people actually give a crap. But don’t worry, our government is slowly taking care of that problem, too.
* I haven’t said much all day on this misbegotten immigration sell-out., having said most of it yesterday. by will, however point you at , Neal, who does a fair job with it. make no mistake about this, my friends; we have been sold out.

And I want you to consider something very seriously with me, here; would this monstrosity even been under discussion if the democrats hadn’t come to power?  Yes, this too, is yet another example of the benefits of “mixed government”.  no question that there are a number of republicans acting stupidly on this, President Bush among them.  But this entire deals smacks to me of go long to get along.  Something that would clearly not be necessary, were the republicans in power.  And I mean seriously in power, not just by one or two votes. Am I getting through, yet?

By the way, I should mention winning (For reasons I don’t understand) the most recent Caption Contest at OTB.

In fact, being afraid of “the religion of peace” after the innumerable acts of violence, terror and depravity committed in the name of Allah is not exaggerated; not inexplicable; and most certainly not illogical.

 Dr. Sanity.

?

I have a soft spot in my heart for 1sg’s, so This tale from McQcaught my attention right off.

It stands as yet another example of the heroes America already has.

The National Center for Public Policy Research has challenged Greeneeace’s assertion that donations affect a group’s policy positions.   Greenpeace has criticized groups which accept donations from Exxon/Mobil, because the company often supports positions at odds with those of Greenpeace.

NEW YORK (Reuters) — Exxon Mobil gave more than $2 million in 2006 to groups Greenpeace says are global warming skeptics, even as the oil company campaigned to improve its climate-unfriendly image.

Nevertheless, Exxon (Charts, Fortune 500), the world’s largest publicly traded company, cut its donations to such groups by more than 40 percent from 2005.

The company still funds about 40 “skeptic groups,” according to the report from Greenpeace, but Exxon disputed that many of the organizations were “global warming deniers.”

The NCPPR, holds that a group that claims, as Greenpeace does, that a advocacy group positions can be bought, should immunize herself from such a charge by having transparent donations.   Yet Greenpeace does not reveal the indentity of her donors.

Today The National Center for Public Policy Research is challenging Greenpeace and its affiliates to disclose the sources and amounts of its 2006 donations exceeding $50,000.  If it does so, The National Center for Public Policy Research will do the same.

We’re making this challenge in light of allegations in Greenpeace’s May 17 report, “ExxonMobil’s Continued Funding of Global Warming Denial Industry,” which suggests that it is improper for 41 groups, including The National Center for Public Policy Research, to accept contributions from ExxonMobil because the positions of at least some of them on climate issues is not precisely in accordance with those of Greenpeace.

It is time for Greenpeace to either come clean with who funds her, or shut-up about other groups’s funding.

More, Bluto, Jawa Report.

(H/T photo:  Pictures for Schools )

Just a few days ago, I told you……….

The lighter the vehicle is, the more miles per gallon it will get, but it’s also far more dangerous to those inside said tin can when they have a wreck, air bags and seatbelts not withstanding.

Sorry; I chose LIFE.

… and now others are saying the same thing. Steven Milloy, as an example.

This week President Bush announced his plan to reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years. Five percent of this reduction — 8.5 billion gallons per year — is to come from increased gas mileage requirements for new cars and light trucks, known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.

Increasing CAFE standards sounds like a no-brainer. Just mandate new standards and, somehow, auto company wizards will find a way to meet them with new technology, right?

The unfortunate reality, however, is that the only practical way automakers can meet higher CAFE standards at present is by the rather low-tech method of reducing the weight of automobiles.

And lighter cars are deadlier cars.

The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 2001 that existing CAFE standards increased traffic deaths by 1,300 to 2,600 per year. A Harvard University/Brookings Institution study put the figure at between 2,200 and 3,900 deaths per year.

And that situation can do nothing but get worse.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has estimated that since CAFE was implemented, more than 46,000 traffic deaths would have been avoided if people had been driving heavier cars. Many tens of thousands more, of course, have been needlessly injured.

The NHTSA concluded in an October 2003 report that CAFE standards are even deadlier than the agency previously thought.

Every 100-pound reduction in the weight of small cars (those weighing 2,950 pounds or less), for example, increased annual traffic fatalities by as much as 715, according to NHTSA. For larger cars and light trucks, the agency estimated that each 100-pound reduction in weight would increase annual traffic fatalities by as much as 303 and 296, respectively.

At some point, the reality of the situation is going to settle in… people are literally killing themselevs over a few gallons of fuel. About that time, the population is going to figure out the reason we have a fuel problem just now, which will cause a full blown rebellion.

Meanwhile, I’ll continue to drive a body- on -ladder-frame vehicle, and to hell with the MPG not meeting some government hack’s arbitrary standards. They don’t have to drive what the death traps they want us driving.

?

Ann Althouse blogs about a horrible way for women to meet eligible men. “When women take classes in tennis, wine-tasting, sailing, etc., in the hope of meeting men:”

Men prefer to look at something they have decided to do and figure it out on their own. They like to observe, analyze, and discover. They accept the risks and enjoy the excitement of trial and error. They don’t like sitting around having someone tell them what to do, and they aren’t intrigued by the prospect of meeting women who spend so much time doing something they loathe.

What the professor fails to mention is that men are willing to break things on the learning curve.  Who needs classes when you are not afraid of failure.