Finally, Jimmy Carter?a man who has given the thumbs up to the ?elections? of some of the world?s worst tyrants?has found an election with which he can take issue.

Too bad the one place in the world he is willing to single out for scolding?preemptively?is Florida.  (And expect the DNC to be waving it in the event of a close race there.)

In an op-ed piece in yesterday?s Washington Post, the former peanut farmer with a fondness for despots warned that a travesty might be brewing in the sunshine state.  Capturing the essence of the polemic is its second paragraph:

The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely, even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair.

What Carter doesn?t say directly?but spends 700 words implying?is that the balloting the Carter Center has overseen in 50 nations is universally superior to what happened (and he believes will happen again) in Florida.  Which might not be so bad if his outfit had been battle-tested in places like the United Kingdom or Australia.

But no, his expertise comes from giving credibility to terrorists and tyrants, like Yasser Arafat and Hugo Chavez.

Mr. Habitat for Humanity?s chief concern with Florida is the ?highly partisan? nature of the state?s election officials:

Four years ago, the top election official, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was also the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney state campaign committee. The same strong bias has become evident in her successor, Glenda Hood, who was a highly partisan elector for George W. Bush in 2000.

All that was missing was the usual blather about how Bush was ?selected, not elected? or that he was ?elected President by five men in robes.? 

None of this is to suggest that what happened in Florida was a shining moment for American balloting, but never in the history of the world has so much scrutiny been applied to any electoral process.  And guess what?  Notwithstanding doctored news articles in Fahrenheit 9/11, every single analysis by every major news organization found that no matter the rules for a recount, President Bush won, fair and square.

Was Florida perfect?  Of course not.  Not even Jimmy Carter could point to an election anywhere that ever was.  But if anybody could talk about dictators disguising themselves as democrats through fixed elections, it would be our 39th President.

Because of provisions in the infamous Oslo Accords, Palestinians in 1996 had their first?and to date, only?opportunity to elect their own leader.  Not that they had much of a choice, though.

Controlling all major television and radio, Yasser Arafat made sure that he dominated the airwaves.  Editors and reporters at newspapers not directly under Arafat?s thumb were threatened and intimidated with beatings and arrests.  And Arafat?s sole opponent was a 72-year-old woman, a social worker named Samiha Khalil who got, in the words of the New York Times, a ?surprisingly high? 9% of the vote.

Hardly the stuff of a real election, yet Carter described this mess as ?open and fair.? Continued...