Connect with us

Politics

Column: History gets Jimmy Carter wrong, both underrated and overrated

Published

on

Column: History gets Jimmy Carter wrong, both underrated and overrated

In the lives of public figures a tale often takes hold and that narrative becomes their story.

In the case of Jimmy Carter, it goes like this: A humble peanut farmer and former Georgia governor defies extraordinary odds and wins the White House, through a combination of virtue, decency and a post-Watergate political cleansing.

Over the next four years he is overwhelmed and overmatched by inflation and Iran’s ayatollah. He scolds his countrymen and wears a sweater like a hairshirt. He’s attacked by a “killer rabbit” and loses reelection — in an electoral college landslide — to the buoyant and swaggering Ronald Reagan.

But, then, in a great and noble second act, the former president travels the world spreading goodness, peace and light while helping build safe and affordable housing for the needy and fighting the twin scourges of poverty and disease.

There is much that is accurate about that account. But it also overlooks a good deal and distorts some of the rest.

Advertisement

“There’s been this easy shorthand about him that is actually a real disservice to the complex truth,” said Jonathan Alter, a political journalist and author of the 2020 biography “His Very Best: Jimmy Carter, A Life.”

In Alter’s considered judgment, Carter, who died Sunday at 100, “was an underrated and under-appreciated president and an appropriately appreciated but slightly overrated former president.”

Politics is a zero-sum profession, its scorekeeping writ in black and white. Either you win or you lose.

“If you’re president and you’re defeated for a second term — that, in our system, is the definition of failure,” said Les Francis, a California Democratic strategist who worked in the Carter White House and both his presidential campaigns.

Francis, now retired in the Sierra foothills, is quite mindful of the Carter narrative — lousy president, sainted ex-president — and reacted to its mention in a tone that mixed weariness with resignation.

Advertisement

“It rankles those of us who worked for him,” Francis said, “and I know it rankled him because it ignores the substantial accomplishments of his presidency.”

Those include a doubling of the national park system; the first national legislation funding green energy; major civil service and government ethics reforms; creation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency; the Middle East peace accord between Egypt and Israel; normalization of relations with China; and moves that helped bring about the end of the Soviet Union.

In their most recent survey, released in February, presidential historians ranked Carter’s performance 22nd among the nation’s 46 presidencies. To give some perspective, Abraham Lincoln was first and Donald Trump came in dead last.

Of course, there were plenty of reasons that Carter lost his 1980 reelection bid.

President Carter holds up the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which declared 104 million acres in Alaska as national parks, wildlife refuges and other conservation categories, after signing it into law at a ceremony at the White House in 1980.

Advertisement

(Associated Press)

A stiff primary challenge from the liberal leviathan, Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

The toxic mix of high inflation and high unemployment, dubbed “stagflation.”

Gas lines.

Advertisement

The Iran hostage crisis and, in particular, a failed rescue attempt that ended in wreckage and humiliation in the country’s Great Salt Desert.

Carter also had a self-righteousness that could present as starchy and sanctimonious, a trait he exhibited even in his good works once he left the White House.

“Sometimes, as a former president, he operated as a kind of freelance secretary of State and he did some things to complicate the lives of his successors that don’t look so great in retrospect,” Alter said. “I think he sometimes let his own ego get in the way a little bit.”

The body language on those occasions Carter gathered alongside presidents past and present was telling. He stood among them but always seemed somehow apart.

“There’s been this easy shorthand about him that is actually a real disservice to the complex truth.”

— Jonathan Alter, Carter biographer

Advertisement

At bottom, Carter was a fundamentally good and caring man, who lived his Christian faith and whose uprightness and personal probity offer a model for those who’ve followed him into the Oval Office.

(His more than yearlong survival after entering hospice and refusing further medical treatment was both stirring and surprising. Carter’s last formal appearance came in late November last year, at the funeral of his wife, Rosalynn, who died two days after entering hospice at age 96.)

In 1976, during the presidential campaign, there was a flap when Carter told Playboy magazine he “looked on a lot of women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times.”

Advertisement

The controversy seems quaint now, compared with Trump’s 2016 boast of grabbing women “by the pussy” and his milestone as the first president to be criminally convicted (for trying to influence an election with hush money payments to a porn actor). It’s just one example of how low our politics have sunk, and it casts some of the criticisms of Carter in a fresh light.

Democratic presidential nominee Jimmy Carter speaks to reporters.

Democratic presidential nominee Jimmy Carter speaks to reporters on his arrival at Hobby International Airport in Houston in 1976. He said that his remarks in a Playboy magazine interview about the late President Lyndon Johnson were misinterpreted, and that he did not mean to put Johnson and Richard Nixon in the same class.

(Jack Thornell / Associated Press)

Maybe being a micromanager and a little uptight weren’t such horrible things after all.

After news broke that Carter had entered hospice, writer and GOP political consultant Stuart Stevens was one of many offering public reappraisals of the former president.

Advertisement

“The first article I published in a national magazine was a snarky piece … calling Jimmy Carter a failure,” Stevens said on Twitter, as the site was then known. “Looking back on it, my smugness was disgusting. I can’t imagine he read it & if he did, I’m sure he didn’t care but still, I wish I had found a way to apologize.”

In a follow-up email, Stevens said his original piece came “from the perspective of a Southerner who felt that Carter was an embarrassment. Not in a policy sense but just his manner and approach.

“There was no appreciation,” Stevens said, “for the basic decency of a man trying to do what he felt was right.”

In the summer of 1984, after his forced exit from the White House, Carter paid a return visit to Washington.

It was a rarity. The former president was never much liked inside the Beltway, and the feeling was mutual.

Advertisement
Former President Carter prays during Sunday school at Maranatha Baptist Church.

Former President Carter prays during Sunday school at Maranatha Baptist Church in his hometown of Plains, Ga., in 2015.

(Branden Camp / Associated Press)

But Carter, as dutiful Democratic soldier, headlined a reception and chicken dinner to raise money for his former vice president, Walter Mondale, while Mondale prepared to accept the party’s presidential nomination. (And, it turned out, the opportunity to be buried a few months later in yet another Reagan landslide.)

With the leadership mantle passing from the former president to his understudy, Mondale offered a laudatory summation of the Carter administration. “We told the truth,” he said. “We obeyed the law and we kept the peace. And that’s not bad.”

Not bad at all.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Published

on

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

new video loaded: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

transcript

transcript

Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

“Cause we don’t know when the video will be out. I don’t know when the transcript will be out. We’ve asked that they be out as quickly as possible.” “I don’t like seeing him deposed, but they certainly went after me a lot more than that.” “Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify. So we’re once again going to make that call that we did yesterday. We are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify in front of the Oversight Committee.” “Ranking Member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, ‘Should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee?’ And President Clinton said, that’s for you to decide. And the president went on to say that the President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved. “The way Chairman Comer described it, I don’t think is a complete, accurate description of what actually was said. So let’s release the full transcript.”

Advertisement
Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

By Jackeline Luna

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

Published

on

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accused Everett, Washington, Mayor Cassie Franklin of escalating tensions with federal authorities after she issued a directive limiting immigration enforcement in the city.

Franklin issued a mayoral directive this week establishing citywide protocols for staff, including law enforcement, that restrict federal immigration agents from entering non-public areas of city buildings without a judicial warrant.

“We’ve heard directly from residents who are afraid to leave their houses because of the concerning immigration activity happening locally and across our country. It’s heartbreaking to see the impacts on Everett families and businesses,” Franklin said in a statement. 

“With this directive, we are setting clear protocols, protecting access to services and reinforcing our commitment to serving the entire community.”

Advertisement

ICE blasted the directive Friday, writing on X it “escalates tension and directs city law enforcement to intervene with ICE operations at their own discretion,” thereby “putting everyone at greater risk.”

Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new citywide immigration enforcement protocols are intended to protect residents and ensure access to services, while ICE accused her of escalating tensions with federal authorities. (Google Maps)

ICE said Franklin was directing city workers to “impede ICE operations and expose the location of ICE officers and agents.”

“Working AGAINST ICE forces federal teams into the community searching for criminal illegal aliens released from local jails — INCREASING THE FEDERAL PRESENCE,” the agency said. “Working with ICE reduces the federal presence.”

“If Mayor Franklin wanted to protect the people she claims to serve, she’d empower the city police with an ICE 287g partnership — instead she serves criminal illegal aliens,” ICE added.

Advertisement

DHS, WHITE HOUSE MOCK CHICAGO’S LAWSUIT OVER ICE: ‘MIRACULOUSLY REDISCOVERED THE 10TH AMENDMENT’

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement blasted Everett’s mayor after she issued a directive restricting federal agents from accessing non-public areas of city facilities without a warrant.  (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

During a city council meeting where she announced the policy, Franklin said “federal immigration enforcement is causing real fear for Everett residents.”

“It’s been heartbreaking to see the racial profiling that’s having an impact on Everett families and businesses,” she said. “We know there are kids staying home from school, people not going to work or people not going about their day, dining out or shopping for essentials.”

The mayor’s directive covers four main areas, including restricting federal immigration agents from accessing non-public areas of city buildings without a warrant, requiring immediate reporting of enforcement activity on city property and mandating clear signage to enforce access limits.

Advertisement

BLOCKING ICE COOPERATION FUELED MINNESOTA UNREST, OFFICIALS WARN AS VIRGINIA REVERSES COURSE

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new directive is aimed at protecting residents amid heightened immigration enforcement activity. (iStock)

It also calls for an internal policy review and staff training, including the creation of an Interdepartmental Response Team and updated immigration enforcement protocols to ensure compliance with state law.

Franklin directed city staff to expand partnerships with community leaders, advocacy groups and regional governments to coordinate responses to immigration enforcement, while promoting immigrant-owned businesses and providing workplace protections and “know your rights” resources.

The mayor also reaffirmed a commitment to “constitutional policing and best practices,” stating that the police department will comply with state law barring participation in civil immigration enforcement. The directive outlines protocols for documenting interactions with federal officials, reviewing records requests and strengthening privacy safeguards and technology audits.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin issued a directive limiting federal immigration enforcement in city facilities. (iStock)

“We want everyone in the city of Everett to feel safe calling 911 when they need help and to know that Everett Police will not ask about your immigration status,” Franklin said during the council meeting.
”I also expect our officers to intervene if it’s safe to do so to protect our residents when they witness federal officers using unnecessary force.”

Fox News Digital has reached out to Mayor Franklin’s office and ICE for comment.

Advertisement

Related Article

White House slams Democrat governor for urging public to track ICE agents with new video portal
Continue Reading

Politics

Power, politics and a $2.8-billion exit: How Paramount topped Netflix to win Warner Bros.

Published

on

Power, politics and a .8-billion exit: How Paramount topped Netflix to win Warner Bros.

The morning after Netflix clinched its deal to buy Warner Bros., Paramount Skydance Chairman David Ellison assembled a war room of trusted advisors, including his billionaire father, Larry Ellison.

Furious at Warner Bros. Discovery Chief David Zaslav for ending the auction, the Ellisons and their team began plotting their comeback on that crisp December day.

To rattle Warner Bros. Discovery and its investors, they launched a three-front campaign: a lawsuit, a hostile takeover bid and direct lobbying of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress.

“There was a master battle plan — and it was extremely disciplined,” said one auction insider who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Netflix stunned the industry late Thursday by pulling out of the bidding, clearing the way for Paramount to claim the company that owns HBO, HBO Max, CNN, TBS, Food Network and the Warner Bros. film and television studios in Burbank. The deal was valued at more than $111 billion.

Advertisement

The streaming giant’s reversal came just hours after co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos met with Atty Gen. Pam Bondi and a deputy at the White House. It was a cordial session, but the Trump officials told Sarandos that his deal was facing significant hurdles in Washington, according to a person close to the administration who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Even before that meeting, the tide had turned for Paramount in a swell of power, politics and brinkmanship.

“Netflix played their cards well; however, Paramount played their cards perfectly,” said Jonathan Miller, chief executive of Integrated Media Co. “They did exactly what they had to do and when they had to do it — which was at the very last moment.”

Key to victory was Larry Ellison, his $200-billion fortune and his connections to President Trump and congressional Republicans.

Paramount also hired Trump’s former antitrust chief, attorney Makan Delrahim, to quarterback the firm’s legal and regulatory action.

Advertisement

Republicans during a Senate hearing this month piled onto Sarandos with complaints about potential monopolistic practices and “woke” programming.

David Ellison skipped that hearing. This week, however, he attended Trump’s State of the Union address in the Capitol chambers, a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The two men posed, grinning and giving a thumbs-up, for a photo that was posted to Graham’s X account.

David Ellison, the chairman and chief executive of Paramount Skydance Corp., walks through Statuary Hall to the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026.

(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

Advertisement

On Friday, Netflix said it had received a $2.8-billion payment — a termination fee Paramount agreed to pay to send Netflix on its way.

Long before David Ellison and his family acquired Paramount and CBS last summer, the 43-year-old tech scion and aircraft pilot already had his sights set on Warner Bros. Discovery.

Paramount’s assets, including MTV, Nickelodeon and the Melrose Avenue movie studio, have been fading. Ellison recognized he needed the more robust company — Warner Bros. Discovery — to achieve his ambitions.

“From the very beginning, our pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery has been guided by a clear purpose: to honor the legacy of two iconic companies while accelerating our vision of building a next-generation media and entertainment company,” David Ellison said in a Friday statement. “We couldn’t be more excited for what’s ahead.”

Warner’s chief, Zaslav, who had initially opposed the Paramount bid, added: “We look forward to working with Paramount to complete this historic transaction.”

Advertisement

Netflix, in a separate statement, said it was unwilling to go beyond its $82.7-billion proposal that Warner board members accepted Dec. 4.

“We believe we would have been strong stewards of Warner Bros.’ iconic brands, and that our deal would have strengthened the entertainment industry and preserved and created more production jobs,” Sarandos and co-Chief Executive Greg Peters said in a statement.

“But this transaction was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price,” the Netflix chiefs said.

Netflix may have miscalculated the Ellison family’s determination when it agreed Feb. 16 to allow Paramount back into the bidding.

The Los Gatos, Calif.-based company already had prevailed in the auction, and had an agreement in hand. Its next step was a shareholder vote.

Advertisement

“They didn’t need to let Paramount back in, but there was a lot of pressure on them to make sure the process wouldn’t be challenged,” Miller said.

In addition, Netflix’s stock had also been pummeled — the company had lost a quarter of its value — since investors learned the company was making a Warner run.

Upon news that Netflix had withdrawn, its shares soared Friday nearly 14% to $96.24.

Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House

Netflix Chief Executive Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House on Feb. 26, 2026.

(Andrew Leyden / Getty Images)

Advertisement

Invited back into the auction room, Paramount unveiled a much stronger proposal than the one it submitted in December.

The elder Ellison had pledged to personally guarantee the deal, including $45.7 billion in equity required to close the transaction. And if bankers became worried that Paramount was too leveraged, the tech mogul agreed to put in more money in order to secure the bank financing.

That promise assuaged Warner Bros. Discovery board members who had fretted for weeks that they weren’t sure Ellison would sign on the dotted line, according to two people close to the auction who were not authorized to comment.

Paramount’s pressure campaign had been relentless, first winning over theater owners, who expressed alarm over Netflix’s business model that encourages consumers to watch movies in their homes.

During the last two weeks, Sarandos got dragged into two ugly controversies.

Advertisement

First, famed filmmaker James Cameron endorsed Paramount, saying a Netflix takeover would lead to massive job losses in the entertainment industry, which is already reeling from a production slowdown in Southern California that has disrupted the lives of thousands of film industry workers.

Then, a week ago, Trump took aim at Netflix board member Susan Rice, a former high-level Obama and Biden administration official. In a social media post, Trump called Rice a “no talent … political hack,” and said that Netflix must fire her or “pay the consequences.”

The threat underscored the dicey environment for Netflix.

Additionally, Paramount had sowed doubts about Netflix among lawmakers, regulators, Warner investors and ultimately the Warner board.

Paramount assured Warner board members that it had a clear path to win regulatory approval so the deal would quickly be finalized. In a show of confidence, Delrahim filed to win the Justice Department’s blessing in December — even though Paramount didn’t have a deal.

Advertisement

This month, a deadline for the Justice Department to raise issues with Paramount’s proposed Warner takeover passed without comment from the Trump regulators.

“Analysts believe the deal is likely to close,” TD Cowen analysts said in a Friday report. “While Paramount-WBD does present material antitrust risks (higher pay TV prices, lower pay for TV/movie workers), analysts also see a key pro-competitive effect: improved competition in streaming, with Paramount+ and HBO Max representing a materially stronger counterweight to #1 Netflix.”

Throughout the battle, David Ellison relied on support from his father, attorney Delrahim, and three key board members: Oracle Executive Vice Chair Safra A. Catz; RedBird Capital Partners founder Gerry Cardinale; and Justin Hamill, managing director of tech investment firm Silver Lake.

In the final days, David Ellison led an effort to flip Warner board members who had firmly supported Netflix. With Paramount’s improved offer, several began leaning toward the Paramount deal.

On Tuesday, Warner announced that Paramount’s deal was promising.

Advertisement

On Thursday, Warner’s board determined Paramount’s deal had topped Netflix. That’s when Netflix surrendered.

“Paramount had a fulsome, 360-degree approach,” Miller said. “They approached it financially. … They understood the regulatory environment here and abroad in the EU. And they had a game plan for every aspect.”

On Friday, Paramount shares rose 21% to $13.51.

It was a reversal of fortunes for David Ellison, who appeared on CNBC just three days after that war room meeting in December.

“We put the company in play,” David Ellison told the CNBC anchor that day. “We’re really here to finish what we started.”

Advertisement

Times staff writer Ana Cabellos and Business Editor Richard Verrier contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending