August 26, 2004

THE CARTER STAMP OF APPROVAL, AVAILABLE TO DICTATORS EVERYWHERE:

The Carter-Chavez Connection (Steven F. Hayward, August 26, 2004, FrontPageMagazine.com)

In this morning’s Wall Street Journal online edition, Jimmy Carter attempts to respond to critics of his role in legitimizing the recent Venezuelan referendum on the loathsome Hugo Chavez regime. The nub of the problem is this: While exit polls conducted by the very reliable American firm of Penn, Schoen, and Berland showed Chavez losing by a large margin (59 – 41), the official results put Chavez free and clear by a vote of 58 to 41 percent.

How could the exit polls be nearly 40 points off? The short answer is, they weren’t. Chavez, whose anti-democratic, pro-Castro sympathies are openly proclaimed (he tried to block the constitutionally-mandated referendum for months), stole the election. [...]

Carter has a long history of coddling dictators and blessing their elections, and among his complex motivations is his determination to override American foreign policy when it suits him. In the famous 1990 election in Nicaragua, Carter, along with most of the liberal Democratic establishment in Washington, openly hungered for a Sandinista victory as a way of discrediting the Reagan-Bush support for the Contras. Sandinista strongman Daniel Ortega had visited Carter in the U.S. and called him “a good friend,” and Carter consistently downplayed or excused reports of Sandinista pre-election thuggery and voter intimidation. When the early vote count showed the Sandinistas losing by a landslide, the Sandinista junta ordered a news blackout and appeared on the brink of canceling the election. Although Carter pressured the Sandinistas to relent, he also told opposition candidate Violetta Chamorro not to claim victory until Ortega had conceded defeat—potentially disastrous advice if Ortega had ignored Carter and nullified the election. Carter returned to the U.S. bitterly disappointed that his Sandinista pals had been turned out. (Among other ridiculous things Carter said about Nicaragua under Communist rule was that there was “as much free enterprise, private ownership, as exists in Great Britain.”)

There is speculation that Carter blessed Chavez’s stolen election to prevent further violence, but it should also be kept in mind that Carter also enjoys seeing the interests of the United States, especially when defined by Republican presidents, humiliated. Chavez’s anti-Americanism will now intensify, thanks in part to the worst ex-President in American history, who has never been content to let his four years of ruinous rule be his last public deed.


Why couldn't the rabbit have won the fight?

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 26, 2004 4:54 PM
Comments

Jay Nordlinger nicely summed up Jimmuh's tyrant butt-kissing here.

Heck, you could write a book on this subject. Luckily, Hayward has.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at August 26, 2004 6:24 PM

Not that I ever beleived the moniker of "Greatest Ex-President" the press gave to Jimmy Carter, but I think that title has long since been replaced by "Bitterest Ex-President".

He might still be fighting for that one if the 1800 tie-breaker had gone Aaron Burr's way instead of Jefferson's, but then Carter still has time to go south of the border and try to plot an overthrow of the U.S. government...

Posted by: John at August 26, 2004 9:48 PM

The rabbit did win - but now people around the world are losing (NK, VZ, etc.).

It helps to think of Carter as a sidelined Episcopal Bishop: he still loves to "preach" and wear his robes, but he doesn't have a flock and he has forgotten where he came from.

Posted by: jim hamlen at August 26, 2004 11:43 PM

The key aspect of Chavez regime, is not Castro, it's Nasser or Baathist Iraq. That's not a coin-
cidence, a report in the Miami Herald, some years
ago, indicated his campaign was supported in part
by contributions from the Mukharabat

Posted by: narciso at August 27, 2004 10:29 AM
« THE MESSAGE GEORGE BUSH DOESN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR | Main | SPOT THE OXYMORON »