I don't know how history will rank Jimmy Carter among the presidents (my guess will be pretty low, definitely in the bottom quarter), but there's not question in my mind that he's absolutely the worst ex-president we've ever had:

Mr. Carter said he made a personal promise to ambassadors from Egypt, Pakistan, and Cuba on the U.N. change issue that was undermined by America's ambassador, John Bolton. "My hope is that when the vote is taken," he told the Council on Foreign Relations, "the other members will outvote the United States."

...Asked yesterday about his views on religion, Mr. Carter said, "The essence of my faith is one of peace." In a clear swipe at Mr. Bush's faith, and to a round of applause, he then added, "We worship the prince of peace, not of pre-emptive war." Mr. Carter then went on to attack American Christians who support Israel.

Shameful.

I'm not sure what's going on here. But it appears to me that Carter thought he had official backing to make that promise. It does look like a big mistake on his part.

OTOH, I respect Mr. Carter a lot more than I respect Mr. Bolton. Carter may have been a lousy president, but I strongly disagree with you, Rand on his "career" as an ex-president.

Jimmy was the first female President. He was content to work with Habitat for Humanity until he attended Nixon's funeral. You could see his body language screaming at the attention Nixon was getting. That was the day he decided to go for his Noble Peace Prize. Every thing since then has been to that end. The award speech in Stockholm identified his many efforts to be worthy.

Jimmy Carter is the distilled essence of everything loathesome about politicians.

He coulda been great, but it wasn't in him. He has -chosen- to be small and insignificant. He grows ever more so with each public foray.

Andy - this female takes that as an insult. I would have been a better POTUS when I was in diapers that Cahtah ever was.

He keeps nosing in where he's not wanted, or welcome. He screwed over Clinton too - remember North Korea?

He and his malaise are definitely on the other side. :-(

Andy, is there something wrong with being female?

And though I disagree with the sentiment (I'm a self-confessed liberal, and was thrilled when Carter was awarded the Nobel Prize), there's no reason to suggest that whatever you didn't like about Carter had anything to do with qualities you attribute to a gender you don't actually have.

Barbara and Jane, I agree--that was a low blow and an insult to women.

Karl, name an ex-president who's done more damage to this country, and been more of a thorn in the side to current presidents (remember the problems Clinton had with him and Haiti?) than Carter, as an ex-president. The man never met a dictator he didn't like, and want to appease.

Is Carter's promise a violation of the Brown Act if he did not have the sanction of President Bush to make it? I think some of the diplomatic efforts of Carter in recent years (under Clinton as well as Bush) have been perilously close to conducting a foreign policy separate from the United States.

Much of what Carter has done, with Habitat for Humanity and his early work as an eleciton monitor, seemed to be the kind of thing an exemplerary ex-president would do. But he now seems affected by Bush Derangement Syndrome, and I fear that he is no longer the fine ex-president he once was (and he was never a fine president, though he may have always been well-intentioned).

Lets not forget Carter's treasonous act of lobbying the Kermlin to help stop Reagan in the early 80's.

Pardon me, but I have trouble recalling the last active ex-president we've had. I guess there haven't been many since Taft or T. Roosevelt, excluding G. W. Bush's interesting appointments of his father and Clinton to aid the recent disaster relief efforts (the Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunamis and Hurricane Katrina).

Being a thorn in the side of presidents isn't necessarily a bad thing. And many entities in the US pursue their own foreign policies. Frankly, I think some of Carter's recent trips (particularly visiting North Korea) have been ill-advised, but I'm not prepared to say he's a bad ex-president because of it.

Now applying the Gottschalk-Gleser scales, we probably will indeed find that Bush derangement syndrome has stolen Carter's ability to speak in comprehensible sentences. I personally will abstain from the study since the deterioration is probably too painful to watch.

Is Carter's promise a violation of the Brown Act if he did not have the sanction of President Bush to make it?

When I googled for "Brown Act", I got some California law on requiring open meetings for California state and local officials. If I knew what you really meant, then I could see how that applies.

Also looking at this some more, I really don't see what Carter was doing. There's no way that the Bush administration would have given him that kind of leeway. He should have known.

Being a thorn in the side of presidents isn't necessarily a bad thing. And many entities in the US pursue their own foreign policies.

That doesn't make it a good idea.

Frankly, I think some of Carter's recent trips (particularly visiting North Korea) have been ill-advised, but I'm not prepared to say he's a bad ex-president because of it.

I obviously am (though it's hardly the only reason).

Carter is pretty bad, but John Tyler did serve in the Confederate Congress, so I'm not prepared to give Carter the title of the worst ex-president ever. Actually joining the government of an enemy nation has to take the prize.

Karl,

Keep eating the peanuts. And when you're finished, you can get off your knees.

Not sure what's more pathetic... Carter's inability to resurrect his name... or the hacks who scamble over themselves at the Carter alter.

"scramble" vice "scamble".

Karl, I think Sisyphus it talking about the Logan Act (U.S.C. Title 18, Part I, Ch. 45, § 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments), a law of the land since 1799.

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." (Emphasis added)

I suppose it's too much to hope his sorry ass will get thrown in jail, but I wish President Bush would very calmly, quietly announce to the world that EX-president Cahtah in no way represents the duly elected government of the United States, and that any foreign government who listens to him is a fool.

We stopped being a nation of laws long ago or Carter would already have had several 3 yr. vacations. The problem is that putting him in jail would make him more popular. This country is going to either fight or fade. Historically, we've needed our 12/7's and 9/11's to wake to that fact. Ex-president Carter is more than a shameful disgrace, but president Carter almost destroyed this country. Clinton, as bad as he was, doesn't hold a candle to Carter.

More and more I'd like to see citizenship come to mean something and have traitors stripped of it, deported and have no right of return. I believe every person born on this planet has the right to opportunity for success and as much help and encouragement as we can give. However, when they make it plain they have no gratitude, our obligations to provide support to them stops. Strip him of his pension and let him be a citizen of the world, but not of the U.S.

Once again my ex-Commmander-in-Chief shoots America in the foot. This time however he did it by shoooting through our Presidents foot first. He is clearly on a mission of his own, and its never clear which side he is on.

Many people have said Mr. Reagan was having signs of dementia while he was in office. Carter had no signs of a thought process at all while there. But it is a glaring sign to me that somehow he has begun to spiral in thought wise for the last time.

He questioned another mans RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Without, as far as we know, going to that man and asking him about it. Christians are supposed to call each other to task. Especially if we think a brother in Christ has strayed or is looking that way. But it should be face to face. NOT IN THE PRESS FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY!

Jimmy Carter is wrong. End of story.

Andrew -
I agree with you re: John Tyler, but I think it has to be said that at least he had the courage of his convictions and openly joined the Confederate government.
Although I voted against Carter, for many years I believed history would judge him as a good and decent man who was simply overwhelmed by events. Over the last few years I have changed that opinion, and now feel - most strongly - that he feels that he MUST ACTIVELY UNDERMINE this nation's policies, because he (and his ideological successors) should still be in the White House. Don't forget that until just a couple days before the 1980 election his own internal polls were showing him with a comfortable lead over Reagan - and he has never quite been able to shake the idea that he was betrayed out of a second term.

Mike