[.ca] The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex-President ... (ISBN 0895260905)

hayward and dan quale: 2 sides of the same phony coin:
when former vp dan 'potatoe' quale heard that former president jimmy carter was being sent by the president bill clinton to negotiate peace talks, all mr quale could say was ' hes just trying to win a nobel peace prize'. hayward is of the same ulra right mentality. his previous book which practically cannonized ronald reagan, completely ignored the reagan regime's 'suprise' release of the hostages on the eve of reagans inaguration and the whole of reagans activites in the iran contra hearings. hell, hayward even negelected to mention that reagan once coddled with joseph mccarthy and turned many 'suspect commuinists in to the house unamerican committe and destroyed many lives. of course hayward likens carter to the 'despicable' clinton and kerry and worships at the feet of dubya; the most radical extreme militant right wing president in history. instead hayward goes after that 'softie' carter. for a man supposeldy having liberal ulterior motives carter 's forming of 'habitat for the humanities' seems perplexing. of course hayward doesnt go there. instead he echoes the sentiments of possibly the dumbest vp in history; dan quale (who began his illustrious career in the senate with this: he was running against birch bayh and ran a plethora of tv ads portraying bayh as lazy and uncaring about his constituants. his evidence in these ads? well bayh had missed more days in the senate in the previous year than any other senator. of course quales ads forgot to mention that bayhs wife was at home dying of cancer during that previous year. so what did dan family values quale criticze bayh for? for having family values. the unpardonable hypocricy of the conservative party is blatantly obvious in types like hayward, quale and the bushs and they scream vehemently ugly accusations whenever a liberal like carter or clinton or kerry makes an attempt towards change. but progress is inevitable and when the smoke clears and history has its say clinton and carter will go down as two leaders who strived for humanitarian progress

Shameful Book from a man without Honor:
I have a real problem with these types of authors and character assassins. These are people that live in the shadows, finding fault with others. If you want to be critical of a public figure that is fine. However, to go at it with such a hate-filled diatribe, what is your problem. Jimmy Carter was not the greatest President ever, but he was 1000X more honorable than Ronald Reagan. No, he did not trade arms with Islamic extremists to get hostages back or supply cocaine traficking rebels in Central America, like Reagan. What he tried to do was serve with honor and make the US a more honorable place. And the career politicians tore him up for it. How dare you, Hayward! I suppose Mr. Carter could have just charged a trillion dollars worth of spending to remedy the economy, but he knew that would come back to haunt us later. Mr. Carter wanted real solutions, not quick fixes like Reagan. And by the way, Hayward, what about those Marines that died in Lebanon? What reaction was there of Reagan? He cut and ran, like the coward he was.

Short, But Entertaining and Accurate:
This book could be better as a "book". This is an interesting book and the idea is good, but the contents do not exactly match the advertising and book jacket - plus it is very short. The text on the cover of the book implies that the book is about the former President Carter and his mostly unwelcome meddling in foreign affairs since 1980. But that it not exactly what the book is about. As acknowledged by the author on page 233 this book is really just a short biography of Carter just 193 pages long to bring younger readers up to speed on Carter to the year 1980, and this covers all of Carter's life to that point in time including his runs in Georgia. The same or similar biographies are available elsewhere in a number of lengthy books. What is new here is an added further 38 pages in the final three chapters about Carter post 1980 and his mistakes in foreign affairs - to bring the book to 231 pages plus notes and comments. So the book is short, does not match the advertising and hype for the book, but still the book is interesting and a good read. The concept for the book is great and long overdue. The author obviously has a strong negative bias - but he is not writing fiction - the facts speak for themselves and they are not pretty. Many things such as Carter's help at Habitat for Humanity have been exemplary, along with acting as an election monitor and fighting disease in the third world. These are clearly acknowledged in the book and are well known. If Carter had stopped there he might have been the greatest former president. But he has not had the self control to stop with good works. He has undertaken at best what can be described as a misguided and ill conceived foreign policy interefence of both democratic and republican administrations, from Reagan to Clinton, to Bush, and I stress all administrations post 1980. He has made a series of solo trips largely against the wishes of the US government, befriended tyrants, accepted cash from the likes of BCCI, encouraged the PLO, and attempted to broker peace deals on his own but portraying himself as a US government agent. The Carter story is bleak and hidden behind much false PR and Carter's ego and his inability to let go of his short time in power (1976-1979), especially in foreign affairs. I found particularly funny the inside joke (in the book) that in the Clinton administration that the leader of North Korea died of laughter after signing an agreement with Carter over nuclear weapons. That pretty well sums up the situation. One is left shaking one's head in amazement and one really must ask the question: what is he doing? He has fooled Mandela and others and won his Nobel prize. But sadly after 24 years out of power he believes his own PR and propaganda. If he would just stick to charities, the third world, and the homeless he would be great. Good read but just 3 or 4 stars as a book, maybe 3.5 stars. Jack in Toronto

Lesser Person Trying To Bring Down A Great Person:
You know things are bad, when Stephen Haywood, an American Enterprise Institute (AEI) man, has to take a hatchet to the Noble Peace Prize winner, James Earl Carter. I never experience America so divide... I wonder where it all will lead? But the AEI, with the likes of James Woolsey, Richard Perle, Henry Kissinger and other et al neocons who believe that the new world order must includes preemptive attacks/wars around the globe, make yours and my foreign policy, rather than the US Senate and then complain when Mr. Carter tries to affect global change by strengthening democratic institutions/health care, in a nonviolent fashion. I read the book, but I just don't buy it!

He's preaching to the choir - but what about the rest of us?:
The United States has had several 'bad' presidents, ranging from the corrupt (Nixon, Grant) to the inept (Andrew Johnson) to the inefficient (Harding, Harrison). So when I picked up this book and saw the hyperbole of the subtitle, I immediately decided that the author had better make a good case for why he considered Jimmy Carter not simply a 'bad' president, but the 'worst' Unfortunately this book happens to be short on insight and long on venom. It's decent if you're preaching to the choir, but those looking for a fair and legitimate argument would be best off going elsewhere. Although Hayward does acknowlege some of Carter's achievements for charity, such as Habitat for Humanity, he derides any good that came out of Camp David, the peace talks, etc and consistently chooses to assign only the worst, most calculating speculations towards Carter's motives. Hayward also ignores that some of his charges towards Carter may be levelled against each and every president that has ever sat in the Oval office. For example, he lashes Carter for negotiating with and 'coddling' dictators. However, this can also said about Reagan (South Africa and Apartheid, Gorbachev), Nixon (the China talks), Roosevelt (ignoring the rise of Hitler), Bush Jr (Negotiations with North Korea). Negotiations and compromise - what Hayward calls 'coddling' is part of being a skilled politician Hayward also fails to discuss both the pros and cons of Carter's policies, refusing to analyze whether the peace talks in Korea suceeded in delaying the rise of nuclear weapon development and the climate of optimism and hope that was briefly created from the talks in th Middle East. He also complains that Carter has 'undermined US foreign policy' but fails to make a good case for why. US foreign policy is constantly evolving and Carter worked FOR it as ambassador during the Clinton Years. Finally, he fails to analyze Carter the man and understand him with all the faults, virtues and contradictions that any person has. Hayward judges Carter as a man with a mean streak by the company Carter keeps and citing particular incidents in which Carter acted petty and/or self-centered. But where is the balance? How did Carter then develop a reputation for kind-heartedness and integrity? Saying that he 'got a pass from the liberal media' is not a good argument, it's prejudiced and just plain lazy. All presidents have contradictions and complications - Reagan 'the family man' whose relationship with his own family was tenuous at best, Freedom advocate and slaveholder Jefferson -where's the complete picture of Carter the man? Anyone who has ever done a research paper knows that in order to make a good case, you must present the facts, analyze them and then present your conclusion. This book starts out with the conclusion, then concentrates on presenting facts that support its conclusions and any study that approaches its subject in this manner must be taken with a pound of salt. I could make a very good case for why Jesus Christ was one of the most inept leaders to ever live, were I to ignore all he achieved and instead concentrate on the high mortality rate of his disciples, the 'calculating nature' of his actions and how he 'undermined' the Old Testament by encouraging us to forgive rather than judge. Would it be convincing? Perhaps, but it would not be fair, conclusive or comprehensive. The same goes for this book - the author should have just printed up a pamphlet instead - his agenda would have seemed more honest