Jimmy Carter Endorses Donald Trump

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Share on digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Share on print




Well, he would if the only choice were between Trump and Cruz.  His rationale for his choice is revealing:


“I think I would choose Trump,” the liberal former president said to the House of Lords, when asked about the U.S. presidential race, “which may surprise some of you, but the reason is Trump has proven already that he’s completely malleable. I don’t think he has any fixed opinions that he would really go to the White House and fight for.”

By contrast, Mr. Carter said, “Ted Cruz is not malleable. He has far right-wing policies, in my opinion, that would be pursued aggressively if and when he would become president.”

Go here to read the rest.  In other words, Trump is a complete fake saying whatever is necessary to get elected, while Cruz is a man of conviction who says what he believes and who will fight for what he believes.  The view of Carter is shared I think by Republican elites who can tolerate Trump as standard bearer, a man who is not a Republican or a conservative, while gagging at Cruz who is both.

More to explorer

Brightness to the Sun

  This is the one hundred and tenth anniversary of the birth-day of Washington. We are met to celebrate this day. Washington

Hate Crime

News that I missed courtesy of The Babylon Bee:   WASHINGTON, D.C.—In a statement to D.C. police given Tuesday, senator and presidential

PopeWatch: Cardenal

  Hattip to commenter Greg Mockeridge.  Pope John Paul II shaking his finger at Ernesto Cardenal, Culture Minister for the Sandinista government


  1. My (Carson supporting) husband listened to me read the part about liking Trump because Cruz is not “malleable” and throw his hands in the air– “That’s what I’ve been saying the whole time!”

    Even my not-much-time-for-news mom, who listens to NPR most of the time, knows Trump is fake.

  2. Jimmy nit wit Carter never ceases to plum the depths of asininity and stupidity. He is Admiral Hyman G Rickover’s one mistake for selection as a Naval Nuclear Propulsion Officer – a mistake he learned to regret when the incompetent jerk underneath him became as President the incompetent jerk above him. I was aboard the USS Jacksonville SSN-699 as a reactor operator when Ronald Reagan won the election against Jimmy the peanut Carter. Every enlisted man aboard cheered. The officers smiled. By protocol they were not allowed to show their political leanings. But nonetheless they smiled. That was a good day to be a nuclear submariner – when we finally got a President worthy of the high office he would take instead of a ding bat.

  3. Paul, I don’t think it really mattered to Rickover who was president. He would get what he wanted regardless. He was that necessary. Rickover had more power than tne CNO. I take it you were a nuke MM (that’s Machinsts Mate to all you civilians and land lubbers).

  4. Hi, Greg. Maybe you are right. Nevertheless, Carter was and is a mistake.
    BTW, I was an ET (Electronics Tech) and an RO (Reactor Operator), not a Machinist Mate, I did however qualify as Throttleman (an MM position) and an EO (Electrical Operator normally filled by EMs or Electrician’s Mate). In fact, I qualified on all major watchstations back aft.

  5. I remember MM, EM (Electricians Mate) and ET were the three nuke eligible rates. I was a BT (boiler technician, a rate that was folded into the MM rate about twenty years ago). I was I the Navy from Feb. 85 to March 93. Obviously, I was a skimmer (surface sailor). I was on the USS Dubuque (LPD-8) an amphibious dock landing ship home ported in Sasebo, Japan from September of 85 to May of 88. Then I was on an Adams class guided missile destroyer USS Robison (DDG-12) from July of 88 to Jan. of 91. Both ships have since been decommissioned.

  6. Foxfier, you talking about that park where you could cross the Albuquerque Bridge to Sailor Town? I think we called it MacArthur Park.

  7. It’s now the Friendship Bridge, and most of Sailor Town is now The Strip. Did the guy have an Elvis Shrine bar when you were there? If so, it’s now on the far end of sailor town nearest the bridge, and that’s the only “block” of bars left.

    I am oddly reassured that the horribly lame names are not that old. 😀

  8. The bridge was originally called the Albuquerque Bridge because Albuquerque and Sasebo were named sister cities. I don’t remember an Elvis bar when I was stationed there in the Eighties. Nor do I remember seeing it when I took a Pilgrimage to the Past trip back there in 2005.

    When were you there Foxfier, what ship were you on?

  9. I agree with Jimmy.

    1). Trump–malleable, i.e., flexible, practical, without principle and an egomaniac. Conclusion: Just the guy we need to bring peace and prosperity.

    2). Crux–rigid, inflexible, impractical, ideological. Just the guy to keep the country from coming together and maybe get us in a war.

    Rubio is a much better alternative to Trump than Cruz. The Buckley rule needs to be applied here.

  10. I am rethinking the Cruz sticker for the same reason, the Buckley Rule. Does anyone recall whether Buckley pronounced his rule before or after the Goldwater campaign? Now don’t be shy various of you younger than I, a knowledge of history requires no gray hairs.

  11. I think Buckley regretted the Buckley rule with Nixon. Buckley vigorously supported Reagan in 1976 and 1980 when the same arguments as to electability that are being made against Cruz were made against Reagan. In the haze of Reagan hagiography since his Presidency, we forget what a despised figure Reagan was among the “mainstream Republicans” of his day. Back in 1980 Bob Dole got a whole one percent running against Reagan in the New Hampshire primary. He then urged former President Gerald Ford to jump into the primaries to save the party from the disaster of a Reagan nomination. RINOs never honor conservatives until they are safely dead.

  12. About 20 years after you were, on the Essex.
    Too bad you didn’t get to see it– I loved that when I was doing shore patrol because it was like walking into the 50s or something, and the guy manning the bar would actually smile. It was like walking into a holodeck program. (I guess if I got to LARP every day, I might smile, too.)

  13. Malleable preferred to Rigid – really depends upon about what one is malleable or rigid.

    It’s kind of like being pro-choice. I may be pro-choice or not, depending entirely upon what is being chosen.

  14. Many RHINOS in NH, the least religious state. The problem facing the country is a moral crisis most of all.

  15. Foxfire and Greg. I was in Sasebo (Boiler Tender on the Lake Champlain CVA 39, Essex class)…..for a one-night liberty back in 1953 (Korea) and at my tender age, and a very long awaited liberty as a combo, I can only ask, “What park?”

  16. Donald, at your recommendation, “The Devil’s Pleasure Palace” by Mike Walsh arrived the other day. I cannot put it down. It should be required reading before the election. It seems to capture well our national dilemma. His reference to Wagner’s “Tristan Chord” is intriguing. F-B-D#-G# seems demonic on the guitar. can anyone tell me, is it an Ab minor sixth? I may have to fill my guitar case humidifier with Holy Water.

  17. “I think Buckley regretted the Buckley rule with Nixon. Buckley vigorously supported Reagan in 1976 and 1980 when the same arguments as to electability that are being made against Cruz were made against Reagan. In the haze of Reagan hagiography since his Presidency, we forget what a despised figure Reagan was Amon the ‘mainstream republicans’ of his day.”

    True enough. However, Reagan had one going for him Cruz doesn’t: a very likeable personality. Reagan didn’t come as thin skinned when being unjustly attacked. The way Ted went about accusing the moderators of trying to get the other candidates to attack him during the last debate made him look like a whineabus. Abd as good a debater as Cruz is, I am surprised he hasn’t done a better job of going after Rubio regarding the Gang of Eight. He needs to force Rubio to answer the question of whether or not the country would better of if G8 would have signed into law and if a President Rubio would veto a Gang of Eight-like Bill should it reach his desk. Rubio can’t answer that question without looking like being stuck on stupid at best and two-faced political sellout at worst. I have thought for a long time Rubio is the latter.

Comments are closed.