Covering the faux pas of Jimmy Carter could easily be a full-time job for any reporter.
It has nearly become one for me.
Ronald Reagan figured out how to handle his outrages in the presidential debates of 1980: "There you go, again," he would say with a characteristic smile following each one of President Carter's offenses against his opponent and truth in general.
Carter did it, again, this week.
After receiving a thoughtful rebuke from the Simon Wiesenthal Center for a literary apologia of his extremist, Saudi Arabia-financed Middle East views, the former president responded tersely in a handwritten letter in a way certain to renew concerns about anti-Semitism.
Carter's book is called, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." The very title is a vicious, cartoonish, ridiculous criticism of Israel, which has never practiced anything remotely resembling apartheid, even while its enemies advocate and practice ethnic cleansing with the full support of the international community.
In his letter to Carter, Rabbi Marvin Hier got straight to the point.
"President Carter, there is no Israeli apartheid, and you know it," wrote the president of the center. "I join with the Simon Wiesenthal Center in respectfully reminding you that the only reason there is no peace in the Holy Land is because of Palestinian terrorism and fanaticism."
In one paragraph, Wiesenthal dispassionately reviewed recent history in the conflict. Then he concluded: "Mr. President, when the Palestinian people repudiate their fanatics in favor of a course of moderation, then there will be peace in the Middle East."
Not exactly a blistering character indictment like I would have written. Nevertheless, here is how Carter responded – in totality: "To Rabbi Marvin Hier: I don't believe that Simon Wiesenthal would have resorted to falsehood and slander to raise funds. Sincerely, Jimmy Carter."
Was Carter actually reading the letter written to him by Hier? Or was his response a general dissing of the work of the respected center that fights anti-Semitism? Either way, it's tough to explain without accepting the probability that a recent U.S. president is today a hateful, rock-ribbed anti-Jewish bigot doing the bidding of his paymasters in Riyadh.
I remember back when Carter was president, we all had a good laugh over the antics of his beer-guzzling brother, Billy. It may turn out that the late Billy Carter was the moral and intellectual light of the family.
Notice what Carter does in his response to Hier. He raises the issue of money. He raises the issue of fund raising. He suggests he is being attacked by the Wiesenthal Center for some unexplained profit motive.
The accusation by Carter comes completely out of left field – like most ideas reflected by his words.
What is it in Hier's polite letter to Carter that evokes a reference to money?
Is Carter speaking in code here?
Does the former president see Marvin Hier and the Wiesenthal only as money-grubbing Jews?
Is that what this is all about?
It may seem like a stretch to characterize Carter's response as anti-Semitic. Maybe someone else can explain it more charitably. As for me, I'm out of excuses for this peanut farmer under the control of the oil sheikhs.
He's a disgrace to his former office. He's a disgrace to his church. He's a disgrace to his country.
Worst of all, he's probably not that much different from the kind of man or woman we will see in the White House beginning in 2009.
America is suffering from a dearth of leadership, a dearth of morality, a dearth of wisdom and a dearth of intellectual honesty. Jimmy Carter is a walking, talking personification of all four shortcomings.
Related special offer: