Jimmy Carter enters hospice care

[Roadgeekteen]

We had five former presidents alive:

• From March 4, 1861, to January 18, 1862: Van Buren, Tyler, Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan during the Lincoln Administration.
• From January 20, 1993, to April 22, 1994: Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and GHW Bush during the Clinton Administration.

So for over a century and a quarter, there hadn't been at least five alive?  Could this be the result of advances in medical science and technology during the 20th century?

For those of us who were born during the James Carter administration (between 1977 and 1981), I feel rather proud that he's setting a new record for life longevity.

Part of the reasons why so many Presidents were alive during the early 1860s is that most presidents were only serving 1 term, often less.

[roadman65]

Great that he lasted this long. I'm saddened to see anyone go through old age suffering no matter who is the patient. Hope he does well in his final days.

[jgb191]

When I was born the oldest living former and future presidents were in their late 60s (Ford, Nixon, and soon-to-be Reagan).

This century, the expiring presidents were in their 90s with Carter approaching the century mark; James Carter is just a year-and-a-half away from being the first political leader in American (maybe even World) history to complete a full century.

[kphoger]

It all depends which side you're on, doesn't it?

It all depends on what you value.

Actually, it all depends on whether or not you win the war.

It actually depends on who controls the narrative. In this case, it's America.

The ones controlling the narrative are usually the ones who won the war.

[Takumi]

When I was born the oldest living former and future presidents were in their late 60s (Ford, Nixon, and soon-to-be Reagan).

This century, the expiring presidents were in their 90s with Carter approaching the century mark; James Carter is just a year-and-a-half away from being the first political leader in American (maybe even World) history to complete a full century.

This is the second time you’ve referred to him as James Carter in this thread? Is there a reason? Do you also refer to our 42nd President as William Clinton? Or our current President as Joseph Biden?

[jgb191]

I guess I also should have referred to the previous WH occupant as Don or Donnie Trump.  But I like 'William' and 'Joseph' better than 'Bill' or 'Joe' but that's just me; just sounds more presidential I guess.  And officials record do indicate that 'James' is indeed his first name so technically I'm not wrong by calling them that.

[1995hoo]

When I was born the oldest living former and future presidents were in their late 60s (Ford, Nixon, and soon-to-be Reagan).

This century, the expiring presidents were in their 90s with Carter approaching the century mark; James Carter is just a year-and-a-half away from being the first political leader in American (maybe even World) history to complete a full century.

This is the second time you've referred to him as James Carter in this thread? Is there a reason? Do you also refer to our 42nd President as William Clinton? Or our current President as Joseph Biden?

I'd be more interested in knowing how many people refer to former presidents Grant, Cleveland, Wilson, and Coolidge by their real first names. (I'm deliberately not including Eisenhower and Ford on that list.)

[kkt]

guerrilla fighter (read:  terrorist)

It all depends which side you're on, doesn't it?  A couple of months ago, I was giving a very brief explanation of Hanukkah to my sons, and one of them asked what 'guerrilla warfare' was.  It's...  ummm...  kind of terrorism, but also kind of not...  ummm...

I think "Asymetric Warfare" is the preferred euphemism

and it tends to be used by any side, if they feel too strongly to forget about it but cannot win through the political process or through conventional war.

[hbelkins]

We had five former presidents alive:

• From March 4, 1861, to January 18, 1862: Van Buren, Tyler, Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan during the Lincoln Administration.
• From January 20, 1993, to April 22, 1994: Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and GHW Bush during the Clinton Administration.

So for over a century and a quarter, there hadn't been at least five alive?  Could this be the result of advances in medical science and technology during the 20th century?

Also that Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama were relatively young when they were elected and thus could be expected to be alive.

Assuming that those three remain alive for a couple of years, and if neither Biden nor Trump win next year, we'll once again have five living ex-presidents, assuming age doesn't catch up with either of the latter two.

[KeithE4Phx]

guerrilla fighter (read:  terrorist)

It all depends which side you're on, doesn't it?  A couple of months ago, I was giving a very brief explanation of Hanukkah to my sons, and one of them asked what 'guerrilla warfare' was.  It's...  ummm...  kind of terrorism, but also kind of not...  ummm...

Exactly. You think that the founding fathers weren't viewed as terrorists by the English? It all depends on what you value.

Champ Ferguson brutally murdered civilians, and had a well-documented sadistic streak.  Did George Washington or any of the other Founding Fathers? 

Ferguson was convicted of murdering 53 people.  That's what got him Death By Rope Burns.  He was even accused of murder of an official by the Confederate government, although he was eventually released without being convicted.

[JayhawkCO]

guerrilla fighter (read:  terrorist)

It all depends which side you're on, doesn't it?  A couple of months ago, I was giving a very brief explanation of Hanukkah to my sons, and one of them asked what 'guerrilla warfare' was.  It's...  ummm...  kind of terrorism, but also kind of not...  ummm...

Exactly. You think that the founding fathers weren't viewed as terrorists by the English? It all depends on what you value.

Champ Ferguson brutally murdered civilians, and had a well-documented sadistic streak.  Did George Washington or any of the other Founding Fathers? 

Ferguson was convicted of murdering 53 people.  That's what got him Death By Rope Burns.  He was even accused of murder of an official by the Confederate government, although he was eventually released without being convicted.

Probably not a ton of civilians killed by Americans in the revolution, but we did lay siege to several towns so I'm sure some died. For the sake of argument here though, terrorists can kill troops too.

[triplemultiplex]

The terrorist is the person who intentionally targets unarmed civilians because they are incapable or unwilling to engage the armed forces of their declared enemy.
The guerilla is the person who uses asymmetrical warfare tactics to attack their enemy's armed forces.  Civilians may get caught in the crossfire, but they are not the guerilla's intended target.

Set off a bomb in a public market, you're a terrorist.  Set off a bomb under an enemy vehicle that also harms some civilians, you're a guerilla.



No one has yet to match the ex-Presidency of Carter.  His attempts at peace while in office were admirable, but that Habitat for Humanity quest; that's just solid. Rings even more worthy today as housing increasingly becomes an issue in this real estate bubble-blowing economy of ours.  There's a guy who put his money where his mouth is.

[formulanone]

guerrilla fighter (read:  terrorist)

It all depends which side you're on, doesn't it?  A couple of months ago, I was giving a very brief explanation of Hanukkah to my sons, and one of them asked what 'guerrilla warfare' was.  It's...  ummm...  kind of terrorism, but also kind of not...  ummm...

I just tell people it's about the miracle of fuel economy.

[mgk920]

Actually, it all depends on whether or not you win the war.

Eh, don't know if that's the case necessarily. Are the VC viewed fondly, given that they essentially won the war?

Any Taliban fighters, given that Afghanistan is now firmly under Taliban control?

From my knowledge of history and politics, it isn't really that the VC won the War, but rather that the USA's politicians lost it.  At one point, the 'north' was on the verge of surrendering.

As for Carter, I will agree that aside from some successes, especially WRT foreign affairs, he was generally clueless in office.  IMHO, the failures in both domestic policy and foreign affairs definitely outweigh them.

It is amazing to me that he is still alive at 98 and until fairly recently was sufficiently active to teach Sunday School bible classes every week at his local church.

Mike

[Roadgeekteen]

Jimmy Carter for sure personifies the good man, bad politician mantra. I like him better than his sucessor, but that's a discussion for another forum.

[kkt]

Part of the problem in his presidency was lack of federal political experience.  He had been governor of Georgia, but didn't have any friends or acquaintances in the House or Senate or the bureaucracy.  He didn't know what levers to pull to get his ideas acted on.  House and Senate rules are pretty obscure at first, but understanding them is vital if you want to get legislation passed.  Most successful presidents have at least some experience in at least one chamber of Congress.  There's some things you can order the civil service to do, and some you can't, so you have to know how to get what you want within the rules.

[Scott5114]

There have been plenty of Presidents who were able to get quite a lot done despite coming to the job from the governor's office of a state. Carter's successor, for example.

[Roadgeekteen]

There have been plenty of Presidents who were able to get quite a lot done despite coming to the job from the governor's office of a state. Carter's successor, for example.

And VP Mondale was a senator, so he should have at least been able to help.

[kkt]

There have been plenty of Presidents who were able to get quite a lot done despite coming to the job from the governor's office of a state. Carter's successor, for example.

True, but they usually have some important connections.  Carter's successor's vice president was George H.W. Bush, who had been in Congress himself and was a past president of the Republican National Committee.

[hbelkins]

Part of the problem in his presidency was lack of federal political experience.  He had been governor of Georgia, but didn't have any friends or acquaintances in the House or Senate or the bureaucracy.  He didn't know what levers to pull to get his ideas acted on.  House and Senate rules are pretty obscure at first, but understanding them is vital if you want to get legislation passed.  Most successful presidents have at least some experience in at least one chamber of Congress.  There's some things you can order the civil service to do, and some you can't, so you have to know how to get what you want within the rules.

One of the biggest arguments I hear in favor of governors over senators or representatives in presidential races is that executive experience at the state level (or in the private sector level) is more of a qualification for the title of the nation's chief executive than is legislative experience at the federal level. In other words, it's the type of experience, not where the experience was acquired.

[KeithE4Phx]

Part of the problem in his presidency was lack of federal political experience.  He had been governor of Georgia, but didn't have any friends or acquaintances in the House or Senate or the bureaucracy.  He didn't know what levers to pull to get his ideas acted on.  House and Senate rules are pretty obscure at first, but understanding them is vital if you want to get legislation passed.  Most successful presidents have at least some experience in at least one chamber of Congress.  There's some things you can order the civil service to do, and some you can't, so you have to know how to get what you want within the rules.

One of the biggest arguments I hear in favor of governors over senators or representatives in presidential races is that executive experience at the state level (or in the private sector level) is more of a qualification for the title of the nation's chief executive than is legislative experience at the federal level. In other words, it's the type of experience, not where the experience was acquired.

We just saw what a private-sector executive can do.  It must never happen again. 

Any changes to eligibility to become President/VP would require a Constitutional amendment.  I'm in favor of restricting the Presidency and Vice Presidency to the following:
1.  Sitting or former President, if eligible to run for another term.
2.  Sitting or former Vice President.
3.  Sitting or former United States Senator.
4.  Sitting or former member of the House of Representatives.
5.  Sitting or former Cabinet official.
6.  Sitting or former Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
7.  Sitting or former state Governor.
8.  Sitting or retired Military officer of pay grade O-3 or higher (Captain in the Army, Air Force, and Marines, or Lieutenant in the Navy and Coast Guard).

Category #8 would only apply to those who have never held any Federal office or is/was a state Governor.  Military service shall never be a requirement for civilian office.  An officer on active duty or in the reserves would have to resign/retire his/her commission before taking office.

And get rid of the Electoral College.  Give the vote directly to the people, rather than to the states.  I've had mixed feelings about this for years, but Bush and especially Trump have made this necessary.  The possibility of a state legislature taking over the selection of Electoral College members could happen in some states between now and November 2024, depending on how a state's Constitution is written.  It hasn't happened since the Civil War (South Carolina was the last state that had their State Legislature pick the electors, in 1860), but all bets are off now.

Of course, since it takes 2/3 of each house of Congress, or 34 states in a Constitutional Convention, to create an amendment, and 38 states to ratify, the chances of any of this happening are orders of magnitude less than zero.  The states have the ultimate power to elect the President, and have no desire to give it up.

[Bruce]

This century, the expiring presidents were in their 90s with Carter approaching the century mark; James Carter is just a year-and-a-half away from being the first political leader in American (maybe even World) history to complete a full century.

The second Prime Minister of Croatia, Josip Manolić, is 102 years old and still alive. He's listed under the "unclear status" section of the Wikipedia list due to Croatia being a semi-presidential republic at the time.

Carter is third on the main list behind former Laotian Prime Minister and President Khamtai Siphandone and former Japanese Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama (the only socialist to have held the office).

[Scott5114]

Okay, back to Jimmy Carter... (The discussion of other elderly government executives is fine. Discussion of political opinions is not.)

[bwana39]

Hospice does not NECESSARILY mean death is imminent. For some, it is just days. For others, it is just  a decision to forgo life extending treatments. THe general idea is to make the patient comfortable so their quality of life is valued more than quantity of life. Hospice care can last from days to two years. Some patients actually stay the maximum (2 years) and others are discharged from the program because they are not  declining (getting less well off.)

I have no personal knowledge of President Carter's particular state, but just because you opt for hospice, does not mean you are going to expire imminently.