Why didn't Bush engage Carter on substance instead of using Ad Hominem attacks?

Question

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/20/carter.bush.ap/index.html

Why didn't Bush address the issues Carter brought up such as the middle east, Iraq, faith-based funding, environment?

"White House spokesman Tony Fratto shot back Sunday from Crawford, Texas, where Bush spent the weekend.

"I think it's sad that President Carter's reckless personal criticism is out there," said Fratto. "I think it's unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments."

Carter was in Arkansas promoting "Sunday Mornings in Plains," a collection of weekly Bible lessons from his hometown of Plains, Georgia.

"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber Wilkerson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman.

She said it was hard to take Carter seriously because he also "challenged Ronald Reagan's strategy for the Cold War."

And why are the Bush supporters here repeating the same strategy? Have you no rational arguments?

Answer 1

Because when you have nothing of substance with which to defend yourself, the only thing to do is resort to ridiculous ad hominem attacks that are best left in a sandbox.

Think about it. If Bush was really confident in his policies, he'd be able to say, "Well, here's why you're wrong..." and talk issues.

Instead, he hides behind his press secretary and whines about being personally attacked.

It ISN'T personal. He's the freaking PRESIDENT. I don't care what kind of PERSON he is - I care what kind of PRESIDENT he is. And I hope to God, for the sake of his family, that the kind of President he is is not indicative of the kind of person he is.

Answer 2

Bush didn't engage Carter on substance instead of using Ad Hominem attacks, because Bush doesn't even know the definition of substance or Ad Hominem.

Answer 3

Because Carter does not have the standing to warrant a debate on the substance. He does not have the credibility to make reckless comments attacking any president. Maybe if he had a wildly successful administration I could stomach what he said a little more but he has no standing to criticize anyone.

And for Carter to claim the president is the worst in history sounds like an attempt to have someone move past himself on the list because Mr Carter if it wasn't for the utterly corrupt Harding administration you would be at the top.

Answer 4

It is still a free country and President Carter, who has held the office of president and should know something about it, has freedom of speech.

When George W. Bush wins a Nobel Peace Prize for brokering peace between more Arab countries and Israel as Carter did then we can talk. Until then I don't think the Bushies have anything to talk about.

Answer 5

What did Carter do?

Double digit inflation
Double digit unemployment
Gutted the military
Fired his Cabinet
Boycotted the Olympics
Gas line were miles long
Did nothing while Russian rolled into Afghanistan
Did nothing about the Hostages in Iran
Was a spineless coward...

No wonder the Liberals love him today.

Answer 6

I am starting a new Program for former President Carter, who is actually a wonderful man, yet was a horrible President. It's called "Habitat for Insanity". We will build Group homes for former Public figures, who desperatly crave attention, and who have been forgotten by most.
They can grow old gracefully, telling eachother how they saved the world, while negotiating with Terrorists and giving Americans the "Privledge" of paying 18% for a Home Mortgage, 19% for a car loan, and only getting gas on odd/even days. Yep. And they could all actually believe the points they make matter. I mean look how peaceful the Middle East is now?
What do you think? Who's with me???

Answer 7

All politicians are unable to get down to the real issues because of fear of loss when it comes to re-election, which comes down to wanting power. The best they can do is deflect. Who knows what the solution is? Maybe one help would be effective finance reform.

The answers I see here are simply expressing anger and perhaps even hatred. Little seems to be directed to what is wrong with politics. I don't know that I trust the American public when it comes to sorting out the issues.

Answer 8

you're fake effect 'advert hominem' some individuals are idiots that have faith in magic or obvious hypocrisy, and it does easily devalue their argument. evaluate the source.

Answer 9

Personally I find it comical that a President with a horrible "foreign diplomacy" track record like Carter could possibly be criticizing anyone else. Did everyone forget that little Iran-Hostage Crisis that lasted 6 months longer than it should have?

Answer 10

Because Bush couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag with the "substance" he has.

In all probability because the Bush administration would wind up having far too much explaining to do on the Iraq war, the "war on terrorism", the lack of rebuilding in New Orleans after Katrina, etc.