I guess everyone has heard by now the quote from Barack Obama during his recent fundraiser in San Francisco. But, for the benefit of those who may have been cut off from civilization the past week, here it is:
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…;And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
The condescension is utterly mind-boggling. And it hasn’t taken HRC long to respond. Here’s a recent ad of hers from Pennsylvania:
Now, the politics of this are pretty obvious: Obama’s image as the candidate of Hope and Unity is getting a little tarnished. Hillary is trying to take advantage to save her candidacy (though her attempts to portray herself as a bible-toting sportsman ring a bit hollow). I suspect that Obama has just handed HRC a LARGE victory in PA and IN, and maybe NC too. This will also surely make the superdelegates think twice about his ability to carry states like PA, OH, and MI, which the Dem nominee MUST carry to win.
However, all that said, what’s most interesting to me about this is the worldview that BHO has with regard to Christianity. Every reference I have ever heard him make to what drew him to his church are all vaguely political. Almost invariably, they center around the social outreach programs (what we’d call mercy ministries) that the church had. I have yet to hear him mention his own salvation, or, much less, the name of Jesus.
So, it seems that Obama thinks that big city churches that engage in social projects are OK, but people in small towns who “cling” to their religion are just doing so out of bitterness at being out of work. Got that? No, I don’t either. There’s an obvious double standard, and I suspect that the real truth of it lies in how much a church centers on sin, redemption, and Christ. Those that actually mention those things (like in those small PA towns) can’t actually be drawing people to hear that stuff. They MUST have other motives. The must just be all exercised about their bank balance being too low (these small town folks don’t have Ivy League law degrees after all - else why on earth would they be in a small town?). It’s their poverty that makes them need Jesus. Urban churches with educated congregations don’t go in for all that stuff because they’re more sophisticated. They occupy themselves with nobler pursuits - like social outreach.
(For clarity’s sake, I’m NOT slamming social outreach. But, it’s not the reason for church.)
I think that Obama has a typical elitist attitude toward Christianity: it’s OK, so long as it knows its place and stays in it. And that place can’t intrude on anyone’s personal choices for living their life, or, worse, on public policy. But that’s not real Christianity. Christianity is knowing your sin and how Christ redeemed you from it without you even deserving it in the least. How can that knowledge stay contained? As I’ve written before, real Christianity is going to take over the whole person, and not be kept in a nice compartmentalized box where it merely runs a food bank or a clothes closet. A robust Christianity is going to assert itself beyond that, into the political, into the personal, into education and childrearing, into everything. For believing people, that’s a wonderful truth. For the unbeliever, it’s frightening.
That’s how I see it, anyway. But maybe I’m just bitter about being in this small town…….
If Barack Obama comes out of Denver the winner this August, one of his biggest liabilities is going to be his wife, Michelle. If I were advising the Obama campaign, my very first piece of advice would be that she get out from behind the microphone. She has this tendency to say things that Obama really doesn’t need to be associated with his campaign.
For instance, remember her comment earlier this year that for the first time in her life, she’s now proud of America? I suppose that the fall of the Berlin Wall had no effect on her.
Then she whined about the financial stress that folks like her have to live under these days, noting that she and Barack were in debt with student loans - until he wrote two best-selling books - and how now they have to spend $10,000 per year on after-school and summer activities for their kids.
She’s pooh-poohed those who [shudder] work in corporate America:
“We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do,” she tells the women. “Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond.” Faced with that reality, she adds, “many of our bright stars are going into corporate law or hedge-fund management.”
Like going into corporate law (a la yours truly) is tantamount to selling your soul to the devil. Oh, but, nevermind the corporate boards that she sits on making fat directors’ fees. And the $300K plus salary she makes working for a hospital. Those don’t count.
And it’s not just what she’s saying now. She’s got a paper trail. From a 2004 interview with the Chicago Tribune:
What I notice about men, all men, is that their order is me, my family, God is in there somewhere, but me is first. … And, for women, me is fourth, and that’s not healthy. (Emphasis mine.)
That’s bound to reel in LOTS of male votes.
But here’s her most recent pronouncement, on the subject of economics:
If we don’t wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership…for how we want this country to work, then we won’t get universal health care,” she said. “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.
Wow. Does everybody get that? The solution to education and healthcare is - SOCIALISM!! We’ll take from those who have too much of that “pie” and give to those who don’t have enough. And guess who will do this? The government - you know, because their track record of spending money efficiently is just SO GREAT.
This is wonderfully clarifying. John McCain is no Reagan when it comes to being a free-market supply-sider, but he’s Adam Smith compared to this nonsense. Ed Morrisey does a fantastic analysis of the vast increases we’ve seen in government expenditures on healthcare, education, and veterans services with almost zero increase in quality to show for it.
What bothers me most, though, is the completely static understanding she displays (remember this woman has a law degree from Harvard) of economics. The metaphor is a pie. Pies don’t grow or shrink - the only question is how they get divided. And, naturally, they need someone to do that dividing - the government.
I reject all of this. If anything should be obvious to even the most casual observer of the American economy, it’s that it is always changing - mostly growing, sometimes contracting. As the economy grows, and more folks earn more income, they pay more income taxes. Thus, revenue to the treasury always increases. The inconvenient truth is that the folks in the federal government are spending faster than the rate of increase, and with little to show for it. So, she’s either ignorant or dishonest.
McCain’s ad folks should be following her around with a camera every day.
I write a lot about politics here on the Riverblog. In a reply comment to my last post on the subject, I acknowledged that it might be in order some time for me to explain my views on the intersection of faith and politics. Today, I had in mind to do my taxes and had expected the effort to take all day. Happily it only took a couple of hours, so with the extra time, I’m going actually attempt to address those two least polite of dinner conversation topics – religion and politics.
Before starting, I want to make two points. First, I’m limiting my comments to how this issue plays out in the US, with all our First Amendment baggage in tow. Second, and as always, these are nothing more than my views. That and $1 will buy you a coke. Obviously, I think they’re correct, or I wouldn’t hold them. However, being the believer in depravity that I am, I don’t believe that they’re infallible.
There seem to be two popular schools of thought on how religion and politics should mix, and I don’t subscribe to either. The first group could fairly be characterized as the religious right. They seem to believe that the problem with our government and our politics is that we’ve divorced them from Christianity. This group seems to hold to the theory that the US is an inherently Christian nation, and that Christian concepts should play a role in politics and government.
The second group could fairly be characterized as secularists – maybe call them the irreligious left. They want no recognition of religion in public life, and believe that there should be a strict separation of church and state (a concept, I might add, that is extra-constitutional – go read the first amendment and see if that’s what’s mandated.) The secularists, since they tend not to be people of any particular faith themselves, believe that religion tends to be a generator of discord, and that it is best banished from public life and restricted to private activities.
Now, if you go look at data from the last presidential election, the best predicter of voting behavior was the frequency of attendance at church. Given that fact, it should not be surprising that Democrats are considered the secularist party and the Republicans the party of the religious right. Thus, a casual observer, seeing my unabashed GOP cheerleading, might assume me to be religious righter; that, however, would be way off the mark.
I disagree with the notion that this nation is a “Christian nation” to the extent that that means that it has always been populated by faithful Christians and has thus been rewarded by God for that faithfulness with prosperity. I disagree with that view of history and with that view of God. Many of the founders were not Christians, but rather deists. Their writings refer frequently to a “creator” or “providence”, but rarely to a savior, and almost never to Christ by name. Even if I’m wrong on the history, I cannot accept the premise that this country’s prosperity has anything to do with the relative religiosity of its citizenry or government. If prosperity is an indicator of Christian faithfulness, then what about the ancient Romans, or the Babylonians? Prosperous beyond any measure for their day, but utterly pagan.
So I disagree with the premise of the religious right. I disagree more with the secularists, because I find their arguments to be illogical. To say that all religious influence must be expunged from public life is as ridiculous as it is impossible. Christianity influences the whole person, including his worldview, and I’m sure any other religion would make the same claim. How can that be expunged if a person of faith is to hold public office or participate in politics? I suspect that the advocates of this position truly prefer to be free from certain policies and positions that are opposed or supported by religion (abortion being a good example) and seek to win by banishing the religious adherent from the debate altogether. Furthermore, for better or worse, most people in this country subscribe to a religion, and the vast majority of those are Christian. Isn’t it unreasonable to say that the government or politics can’t reflect that?
So where does that leave me? As I said above, true Christianity informs one’s outlook on everything because it works a transformation in one’s heart and mind. It certainly influences my thinking on issues such as abortion. It informs my views on the rights of parents to control the upbringing of their children, which makes me disinclined to support sex ed in the schools, or the providing of birth control without the parents’ consent. Christianity causes me to believe that the government should use its military power to defend the country.
My Christian outlook even leads me to believe in free-market capitalism, because I believe in total depravity. Markets need predictability to function, and if folks are free to make choices, they will choose what is in their interests, which is pretty doggone predictable. The converse of this is why socialism doesn’t work – it relies on the assumption that people will act for the good of the group as a whole and not themselves individually. I think that some elements of the church – the Roman Catholic church in particular – gets confused about this and urges more socialistic policies because they believe that since Christians are to put others before themselves that capitalism is wrong. To me, this both ignores the abysmal results that socialism, when historically attempted, has always produced, and the totally depraved nature of man (even Christians), which explains those historical failures.
Now, differing views of Christianity can produce different politics. Certainly so can other religions. So, my view is to get aligned politically with the party that reflects who you are and is going to be most likely to work to enact policies in which you believe. For me, that’s the GOP. For other Christians, it may be the Democrats or the libertarians, or whatever. Because God gave us all the ability to reason, I only expect Christians to be able to intelligently explain why their Christian views lead to their affiliation. (I once had a Christian friend argue to me that her faith supported her pro-choice views. I heartily disagreed, but she argued logically, and I cannot question her Christianity.) Party affiliation is not, to me, a litmus test for faith. Rather, the views that faith informs should dictate the party affiliation.
As always, I look forward to anyone’s comments on these issues.
So, it’s been a while since I’ve done one of these posts. One of the reasons for my reticence has been a fear that I just won’t be able to control my thinly veiled glee at what’s transpiring on the Dem side of the aisle. What a fantastic time to be a Republican! We may yet lose, but we’re going to have MONTHS with a spectacular view of the Dems twisting in the wind.
On the one hand, there’s Obama and his spiritual mentor, the race-hate spewing Jeremiah Wright. If you reverse the races involved, any person saying such things would be rightly condemned and ostracized from polite society, like David Duke. Everyone knows that, and yet, somehow Obama’s trying to avoid doing that, which brings me to his speech.
I have often lamented the downfall of the teaching of formal logic. Obama’s speech would be a wonderful place to have a logic lesson. He said that, while condemning Wright, he could no more disown him than his own white grandmother. Haven’t we all known folks who, for good reason or bad, disowned a relative? He could have disowned either his pastor or his grandmother. Certainly it should seem an easier task to disown the pastor, to whom he wasn’t related, than the grandmother. But, more to the point, consider this hypothetical: if any pastor at Riverwood had said the things that Wright said, over and over, from the pulpit, how many of us would have sat idly by?
Today, Barack was on The View, and suggested that Wright has apologized:
Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying at the church…
Um, did I miss this? When did the apology to the offended happen? Surely this would have been front page news, no? This is Clintonian double-speak at its finest: just say it enough, and it’ll be true. No wonder he and Hillary are at each other’s throats - they’re cut from the same cloth.
Oh, yes, and it has now come out that Wright is building a 10,000 square foot house in a suburb of Chicago. Perhaps the “white greed” that Wright railed against in one of his sermons (acknowledged and recounted in Obama’s own book - see here) isn’t so racially limited after all.
So where does this leave the race? Contrary to what had been predicted by the MSM’s fawning coverage of Obama’s speech, Obama’s negatives are now almost as high as HRC’s. Here are the latest Rasmussen polling numbers (favorable rating first, then unfavorable):
Obama
Clinton
McCain
March 13
51%-46%
48%-50%
51%-45%
March 18
52%-44%
47%-50%
53%-43%
March 24
46%-52%
42%-55%
55%-42%
Note the tank in BHO’s favorable’s and rise in unfavorables. Anyone care to take bets on whether HRC is leaking out one damaging Wright revelation every few days? What of HRC anyway, will she bow out gracefully for the sake of the party? Consider her words to Greta Van Susteren:
VAN SUSTEREN: And if he says, no, I won’t do it, that leaves Michigan and Florida out. And does that leave you out?
CLINTON: No. Not at all, because we are going to make sure those votes get counted, one way or another.
VAN SUSTEREN: How?
CLINTON: Well, you know, you can always go to the convention. That is what credential fights are for. You know, let’s have the Democratic Party go on record against seating the Michigan and Florida delegations three months before the general election? I don’t think that will happen. I think they will be seated. So that is where we are headed if we don’t get this worked out.
If a credentials fight erupts at the Dem convention in August, I will be GLUED to the TV. I may even live-blog it, for the sheer joy it will bring to me as a Republican.
Meanwhile, John McCain has been traveling to Iraq and the middle east looking and sounding, uh, presidential.
Since it’s all over but the exact computation of the delegates, I’ll opine on the state of the race post 2/5.
On the Democrat side, what a contest! The dems have this requirement that delegates be absolutely proportionally allocated. So, since HRC won a few big states, and Obama won more smaller states, they just about evened out, once you proportionally allocate the delegates at stake. Many commenters I’ve read suggest that a brokered convention is a likely outcome for the dems, and I think their arguments are plausible.
What’s interesting is whether the Democrats will heal up or explode at a brokered convention. If HRC wins and does not choose (or is not required to do so by the super-delegates as a condition for their support) Obama as a running mate, or if he wins and does not choose her as a running mate, then I suspect there will be a massive party split, with women and Latinos offended at HRC’s exclusion, or black Democrats offended at Obama’s exclusion, as there are fairly pronounced splits along these demographic groups in the exit polls. However, if by choice or compulsion, one chooses the other, and especially if Obama is at the top, then they will be extremely difficult for the Republicans to beat.
Speaking of the Republicans, I suppose we’re all McCainiacs now. Huckabee and Romney split what McCain didn’t win, but he won the big important states like IL, CA, and NY. Rush argued today that this demonstrates his weakness, as those states have been written off by the GOP for the last few election cycles - i.e., he can only win in the bluest of blue states, and may not be able to win in the south, which is a sine qua non for the party to win in November. That seems a flawed argument to me since McCain came in second in the south, and was the second choice of many according to the exit polls.
Much is being speculated about McCain choosing Huckabee for VP to make up for perceived southern weakness. I sincerely hope not. McCain is weakest not with social cons (he’s always been and voted pro-life; he just doesn’t advertise it, a fact that I suspect will change), but rather with economic conservatives. Given the fragile state of the economy, and his lack of interest or expertise in this area, a good solid economic conservative/supply-sider would be a more logical choice. What if you could find one that could self-fund? Maybe who had been the choice of the conservative talking heads, had a private sector background, and could possibly heal the party rift? But can McCain be gracious enough to extend the olive branch to Romney? I doubt it. Look instead for Florida Gov. Crist, SC Gov. Sanford, MN Gov. Pawlenty, or, who knows, maybe even former FL Gov. Jeb Bush (who, but for his last name, would be the nominee this time anyway).
McCain will give a speech to the Conservative Political Action Committee tomorrow. Look for him to invoke Ronald Reagan (who would be 97 years old today, had he lived) repeatedly. No surprise there. A little toning down of the class warfare rhetoric by McCain would be good. Perhaps even an acknowledgment of the contributions of the private sector to America. He might want to consider adding this nugget of info I ran across today to his speech: Exxon Mobil, the much maligned energy conglomerate, paid 30 BILLION DOLLARS (that’s $30,000,000,000) in corporate taxes in 2007. Here’s some context for that staggering number: If you take the total amount of taxes paid by the bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, it would roughly equal what this one (1!) evil, greedy, wicked corporation paid in one year. How’s that for paying your fair share?
Oh, yeah, and in case you’re interested, that’s a 41% effective tax rate (and before anything is paid to any state). Find all the Exxon number crunching here.
I somehow suspect that no one, not even the Republican presidential nominee, will bring that up.
A follow up to my last post. Survey USA has new poll numbers out for Alabama. You can find them here. The summary:
McCain 40
Huckabee 31
Romney 21
Paul 5
Again, assuming for the sake of argument that the conservative Huckabee voters would go for the more conservative Romney rather than the more moderate McCain were Huckabee to withdraw, then Romney would be winning 52-40.
As it stands, the conservative split may even deliver Alabama to McCain.
BTW, Huckabee will be speaking at Open Door Baptist on Saturday.
Since my last entry on the topic, the presidential race has seen the departure of both John Edwards and Rudy Guliaini. The former is really no surprise; the latter, however, had been the candidate I thought would carry the day on the Republican side. Politics is strange and unpredictable.
Speaking of strange and unpredictable, the man with the momentum on the GOP side now appears to be McCain. I will confess that I never in a million years would have expected him to be nominatable, since he really hasn’t been a very good Republican for the last 10 years or so. But, following Romney’s loss to McCain in Florida, Romney faces an uphill battle to pull it out. The reason is that, even though it looks like a two man race, it really isn’t.
Huckabee remains in the race, and his supporters, mostly evangelicals, hold Romney’s fate in their hands. One would expect that evangelicals would be most indisposed toward McCain. Their signature issue, abortion, might suffer with McCain making nominations to the US Supreme Court. Recently, McCain has been quoted (though he disputes this) as saying that Justice Alito (widely thought to be anti-Roe) was too conservative for his tastes in a nominee. From Bob Novak:
“In fact, multiple sources confirm that the senator made negative comments about Alito nine months ago. …
“I found what McCain could not remember: a private, informal chat with conservative Republican lawyers shortly after he announced his candidacy in April 2007. I talked to two lawyers who were present whom I have known for years and who have never misled me. One is neutral in the presidential race, and the other recently endorsed Mitt Romney. Both said they were not Fund’s source, and neither knew I was talking to the other. They gave me nearly identical accounts, as follows:
“‘Wouldn’t it be great if you get a chance to name somebody like Roberts and Alito?’ one lawyer commented. McCain replied, ‘Well, certainly Roberts.’ Jaws were described as dropping. My sources cannot remember exactly what McCain said next, but their recollection is that he described Alito as too conservative.”
Wow. So here’s the calculus for evangelicals (that means us - Alabama votes Tuesday, and is predicted by all polling to be going for Huckabee): Huckabee cannot win, but is in the race still. With Rudy’s departure, moderates have one candiate in the race. Conservatives have two - Romney, who could still win, and Huckabee, who can’t. Should conservatives abandon Huckabee for Romney, then it’s a real fight that could stretch into April and May. If they stick with Hucakbee, they effectively insure the nomination of McCain. It will be interesting to see what develops.
For the politico-nerds like me, some interesting calculations about the delegate count can be found here. The long and short of it is that McCain will only be about halfway to the delegates needed to win the nomination after Tuesday, assuming current polling is accurate.
Now, if the Republican race looks interesting, it pales beside the dems. The Clinton machine versus the politics of hope. My money’s on the machine, but with Teddy Kennedy endorsing Obama, who knows anymore?
I had resolved not to blog anymore about politics until after the SC election on Saturday, but this is just too much to pass up.
Check out this video of the former president unloading on a CNN reporter.
Wow. Duane Patterson fisks this tirade here, if you’d like to see line by line analysis.
I have two comments. First, what goes around comes around. Of all the people who have no right to be complaining about others manipulating the media (even if it were happening, which it’s not), Bill Clinton has got to be at the top of that list.
My second comment is made from my well-publicized position as a Republican. The more folks see and hear junk like this, the less likely they will be to vote for 4 more years of it on their TV screens. I believe people will vote against her just to avoid the paranoid, egomaniac melodrama all over again. To any Democrats reading this: PLEASE NOMINATE HILLARY CLINTON.
It’s been a while since I opined on the presidential race, and much has changed since then. So, here goes:
The Democrats first. Boy oh boy did HRC and Obama go after each other last night in that debate. Here’s the video in case you missed it.
As a Republican, that’s just about the best thing that’s happened this campaign season. The Dems are on the verge of doing something historically stupid: fracturing their coalition. Hillary (Bill too, for that matter) is insulting Obama, and for some reason that I can’t divine. She’s the frontrunner. It makes her look desperate, and it looks like she’s picking on the first viable minority candidate for president. Minority voters don’t seem to like this too much, even if they’re not inclined to vote for Obama in the first place. The demographics of the Democrat party are such that without MAJOR support from minorities, they can’t win. I think the Clintons may wind up splitting the party to secure her nomination.
Oh, and this picture (running in the NY Post and on Drudge) of Bill snoozing at a MLK celebration while MLK III is speaking can’t help either:
Now, for the GOP. Fred Thompson is out. Because Huckabee didn’t win in South Carolina, it is now apparent that he will not be the nominee. After all, if a southern evangelical can’t win there, where can he win?
That leaves Rudy, Romney, and McCain. I have always thought that Rudy would be the nominee. I am beginning to wonder, though. Rudy made a very explicit strategic decision not to compete in any primary until Florida, which votes on Jan. 29. Given how muddled the field is, this could be seen as brilliant, since there’s no clear frontrunner, and he’s conserved his resources for the truly large delegate-rich states. On the other hand, all the press has been talking about lately are Romney, Huckabee, and McCain, since they’ve actually been competing. The other downside for Rudy is that if he loses Florida, which he acknowledges is his firewall, can he continue?
We should learn a lot from Florida. It is open only to registered Republicans. Crossover independents in NH and SC have benefited McCain tremendously. He will not have that advantage in Florida. Moreover, Florida is a winner-take-all state in awarding delegates to the Republican convention.
So, if Rudy wins, it will likely take the wind out of McCain’s sails (both of them appealing to moderate and swing voters and national security-minded voters), and validate Rudy’s strategy. Rudy will be hailed as a strategic genius and his candidacy reinvigorated. If Romney wins, he will begin to amass a large lead in delegates (he already leads all other candidates), and can rightly claim to have defeated McCain and Rudy in a true test among Republicans. It would also demonstrate that Romney can win in the South. If McCain wins, Rudy is sunk, and we have a two-man race between McCain and Romney, which McCain will likely win on momentum and favorable mainstream press coverage.
So, all eyes on Florida. It should be an interesting week.
That you don’t live in Iowa or New Hampshire or any of the other early voting states, or else you’d have to see drivel like this every time you flick on the TV:
This is just about the worst political commercial I’ve ever seen. Is this supposed to be part of her charm offensive? Should we be like small children, eager to get the goodies she’s promising? Like she’s the political version of Santa Claus? I guess it’s really nice to promise to give out gifts that will be paid for with other people’s money.
How unbelievably patronizing. No wonder her poll numbers are tanking.
The latest boomlet in the GOP primary belongs to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Gov. Huckabee is a former Baptist minister, and with the fading of Fred Thompson’s campaign, has become (supposedly) the darling of the Iowa Christian conservatives. He now leads in most polls of Iowa GOP voters.
You know, the Republican party has historically had two really identifiable wings. The first are Christian social conservatives. These are the ones that the mainstream press loves to write about, but has not a clue about, because most of them don’t know any actual Christian conservatives. The other wing of the party are the economic conservatives. These used to be the east coast Rockefeller types, who didn’t really care much for the social cons, thinking they were a bunch of religious whacko hicks. Nowadays they’re more libertarian - think “South Park” conservatives. They aren’t too crazy about the social cons either.
The political revolution of Ronald Reagan was to be acceptable to both the economic cons and the social cons. Since Reagan, most GOP presidential aspirants have sought to mimic this feat (whether or not it seemed terribly genuine). Dole, who had never been much of a tax cutter, never could seal the deal. George W did a fair job of it, at least at first.
But an interesting thing is happening this time. There is a champion of each wing, and neither seems to be too terribly interested in becoming Reagan. Guiliani is obviously the economic con. He’s pretty unapologetic about being pro-life, pro-gay rights, etc. - things that just don’t set well with social cons. He has made some conciliatory gestures (especially on appointing judges, which in my view is where it counts most). But, unlike Romney, he does not profess conversion to the pro-life side.
Now the social con wing seems to have a champion - and of all the unlikely candidates in this race, it’s Mike Huckabee. Huckabee raised taxes in Arkansas when he was governor. Much is being made about stuff like that by the Club for Growth, and other folks of like mind who really like Rudy better in the first place. And Huckabee does champion the National Sales Tax (aka the “Fair Tax”). I personally favor the flat tax instead (maybe I’ll detail why in a future post), but any tax reform that simplifies cannot do anything but help matters, IMHO. The economic cons don’t like Huckabee, though.
What’s shocking to me about Huckabee’s embrace by the social cons is that he’s taking some positions that I would expect to be deal-killers, yet his support is only increasing. For instance, he advocated giving the children of illegal immigrants in-state tuition when governor, and has not backed off this position. Additionally, he’s now saying that he’d ban the use of waterboarding for interrogations of terrorists, and would close Guantanamo Bay. Doesn’t this seems like a Democrat position? Get this quote:
I’ve been to Guantanamo, I was there, I guess it’s been about a year and a half ago. I think the problem with Guantanamo is not in that its facilities are inadequate. It’s the symbol that it represents. It’s clearly become a symbol to the rest of the world as a place that has become problematic for us as a nation. I was quite frankly impressed with the quality of the facilities and even the attention to care that was given to the detainees, but that aside, it doesn’t alter that Guantanamo to the rest of the world is a symbol that is not in our best interests to continue pursuing.
Wow. It’s like Obama talking or something. Video here. (HT: Hugh Hewitt)
So the Christian cons, at least in Iowa, seem to be latching on to one of the weaker candidates in the field. Why? I can only conclude that it’s because he’s “Christian.” After all, Rudy is a lapsed Catholic at best, Romney is a mormon, McCain is, well, McCain, and Fred is sinking like a stone. I frequently bemoan the lack of wisdom that evangelicals seem to display, especially in the sphere of public affairs, and others on this blog have addressed the need for “Christian” versions of everything. It appears that we’ve got to have a “Christian” candidate, even if he’s the weakest in the field, splits the party on some pretty critical issues, and has some pretty poorly conceived positions (no word on where he’d put the Guantanamo detainees, AFAIK).
I think that, in the long run, social cons rallying to Huckabee will weaken Romney, which, in turn, strengthens Guiliani. Regardless, the winning Reagan formula seems to be falling away, with only Romney trying to use it.
For those not familiar with the verb “to fisk”, it means to analyze a (typically absurd) written piece on the internet, ripping it to shreds logically, frequently line by line. I think it came from a bad writer whose last name was Fisk, whom other bloggers frequently held up to ridicule for factual errors, agenda journalism, poor logic, etc.
The fisking in this case is done by Univ. of Wisconsin - Madison Law Professor Ann Althouse, and can be found in its entirety here. The article being fisked is this one from the AP, which purports to analyze the performance of Hillary Clinton in yesterday’s hostage drama.
Here’s a key quote:
Afterwards, she [Clinton] used the occasion to make a show of her emotions (or did you think she was cold and mechanical). She said:
“It affected me not only because they were my staff members and volunteers, but as a mother, it was just a horrible sense of bewilderment, confusion, outrage, frustration, anger, everything at the same time.”
Is that what you want in a President? Someone who feels extra confusion because she’s a mother? … She probably wanted to make sure not to confirm the widely held belief that she’s unemotional, and, while she was at it, delight all the ladies out there who lap up emotional drivel.
Just a hunch, but I don’t think Prof. Althouse has much use for either the AP or Hillary.
Apparently the “surge” in Iraq is working. According to the Rasmussen polling group (which is, as near as I can tell, just about the best in the business), support for the War is up.
The latest Rasmussen Reports tracking poll finds that 47% of Americans now say the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror (see crosstabs). That’s up from 43% a month ago and reflects is the highest level of confidence measured since December 2005. Over the past 35 months, confidence in the War on Terror has been higher than today only twice, in November and December 2005.
And:
In what may be just as significant a finding, only 24% of voters now believe the terrorists are winning. That’s down from 30% a month ago and represents the lowest level of pessimism recorded since 2004.
Couple that with the recent declaration from formerly stauch war opponent, Democrat Rep. Jack Murtha, that “I think the surge is working.” Read about his comments here.
All of this must just be terrible news for the Democrats, whose Senate leader, Harry Reid, said on the floor of the US Senate earlier this year that the war in Iraq was lost. Their leading presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, has also had a bad couple of weeks, with the latest polls out of Iowa showing her running behind Obama. She’s also got some fundraising scandals brewing, Bill making idiotic and provably false statements about whether he supported or opposed the Iraq war back in 2003, and she’s been found out to have planted questions at her own campaign events. Suddenly, she looks less than invincible.
Capping it all off is the latest whiney audiotape from Osama’s cave:
Bin Laden said it was unjust for the United States to have invaded Afghanistan for sheltering him after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, saying he was the “only one responsible” for the deadly assaults on New York and Washington.
Doesn’t your heart just bleed at the injustice?
If this keeps up (a big IF), the 2008 election dynamic will be even more interesting. If we wind up with a Hillary versus Rudy matchup (which I still think is most likely, though less certain than a month ago), I like Rudy’s chances a lot.
I noted last week the return of the cross to the St. John’s Church in Baghdad, and Michael Yon’s dramatic picture. Today Yon has another post, which I recommend that everyone read in full. There are some more great pictures.
The first services have been held in the church since it was closed. Strikingly, the church was filled with Muslims. They want very much for their Christian neighbors who fled to come home. So, to demonstrate that it’s OK to do so, they went to mass. The pictures are remarkable.
Here’s one, followed by Yon’s description:
Today, Muslims mostly filled the front pews of St John’s. Muslims who want their Christian friends and neighbors to come home. The Christians who might see these photos likely will recognize their friends here. The Muslims in this neighborhood worry that other people will take the homes of their Christian neighbors, and that the Christians will never come back. And so they came to St John’s today in force, and they showed their faces, and they said, “Come back to Iraq. Come home.” They wanted the cameras to catch it. They wanted to spread the word: Come home. Muslims keep telling me to get it on the news. “Tell the Christians to come home to their country Iraq.”
Yon says he hasn’t seen a gunfight in months. He’s in Baghdad. Remember the civil war going on there, what, six months ago? The local al Qaeda goons would have killed any muslim for walking into a church then. What an astonishing turnaround - doggone near a miracle, if you ask me.
Two thoughts come to mind, one political, the other not. Has anyone seen mainstream press coverage of anything so remarkable? Ought not this to be front page news? This is a military and strategic turnaround (assuming it holds) of the most dramatic kind. But, I am convinced that those running the mainstream media outlets are so hostile to the concept of victory in Iraq (and especially to a resurgence of any semblance of Christianity there) that they couldn’t bear to publicize this remarkable event.
As a Christian, though, I cannot help but be moved by this. God works in ways so mysterious and yet wonderful. I would have thought that Iraq (Baghdad, even) would be one of the most hostile places on earth for believers. I would certainly never have dreamed that muslims there would be filling a church to essentially beg their Christian neighbors who fled persecution to return. But, God always preserves for himself a remnant, doesn’t he? And in the most unlikely of places and at the most unexpected times. It’s not the way I or any other human would go about building a kingdom. But it’s just beautiful, and amazing to watch unfold.
For the record, I remain officially undecided about the GOP primary. Frankly, I think that all four Republican front-runners would make such better presidents than HRC or Obama that it’s somewhat difficult for me to choose among them.
Rudy Guiliani continues to intrigue me the most. He’s pretty out of step with some of my views, but I like his leadership style so much that I can’t strike him off my list. In fact, if I lean in any direction right now, I lean slightly in his.
I ran across an interview with him on ABC’s website that illustrates pretty well why I like him. It’s been all over the press lately that his ally and former NYC Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik has been indicted on corruption charges. Some may recall that Kerik was, on Guiliani’s urging, initially appointed by Bush to be the Secretary of Homeland Security, a nomination that was ultimately withdrawn during the vetting process, likely on account of the same facts that lead to this indictment.
Now, all of this is not good for the Guiliani campaign. After all, one of Guiliani’s most impressive resume lines is his time as US Attorney in NYC, when he aggressively worked to bring down some major organized crime rings. (In fact, it was recently revealed that the five crime families he went after took a vote on whether to kill him - it was 3-2 against the hit. Rudy discusses this in the interview linked below.)
Now, there’s lot of spinning a politician could do when confronted with a fact scenario like the one with Kerik. Stop and imagine what Bill Clinton would have said. It would all be about how the vetting process failed, how he never knew - yada, yada, yada. Contrast with Rudy:
In a press conference today in Dubuque, Iowa, Giuliani told reporters, “I have made a mistake, I made a mistake in not clearing him effectively enough.”
Wow. Was that a politician admitting a mistake that I just heard? The reporter then questioned whether the Kerik affair would taint Guiliani’s reputation, both as Mayor (when Kerik was police commmissioner) and US Attorney:
“I think that people are capable of looking at all of that and saying we have to judge that in the overall context of everything that I did,” he said. “And the balance is very much in favor of ‘I must have been making the right decisions if the city of New York turned around.’”
Giuliani even defended Kerik’s performance as police commissioner.
“You know, people are complex,” he said. “But the fact is that the results for the city of New York were excellent results.”
When asked if he thinks highlighting those results diminishes or excuses the potential crimes Kerik committed, Giuliani said, “of course not.”
“How about, it’s realistic? It’s the complexity of human life and the reality of human life,” Giuliani said. “Richard Nixon had this very serious problem, but was his breakthrough with China one of the historic things that happened in the 20th century? Can’t take that away from him — it was.”
To me, this is really refreshing. Rudy first admitted it was his own mistake. Then he went on to acknowledge, without using these words, the fallen nature of humanity. And that, despite that fallen nature, sometimes good things come about anyway. Now, I see this all through the lens of my reformed world view - depravity, and yet God’s grace at the same time. Rudy may not understand it in those terms, and he certainly isn’t in sync with all my other views, but I think he gets some very basic facts right about the world we live in. And that’s something I can’t say about most politicians on the stage today.
I’m hardly the first person online to make this observation, but I think that the photo below may just turn out to be one of those that achieves true icon status. It was taken by a guy named Michael Yon. His blog is here. He’s an independent blogger-journalist. He’s supported entirely by donations, and has been in Iraq a LOT during the course of the war. His views are purely his own.
I’m going to copy and paste Yon’s description of the circumstances surrounding the photo:
I photographed men and women, both Christians and Muslims, placing a cross atop the St. John’s Church in Baghdad. They had taken the cross from storage and a man washed it before carrying it up to the dome.
A Muslim man had invited the American soldiers from “Chosen” Company 2-12 Infantry to the church, where I videotaped as Muslims and Christians worked and rejoiced at the reopening of St John’s, an occasion all viewed as a sign of hope.
The Iraqis asked me to convey a message of thanks to the American people. ” Thank you, thank you,” the people were saying. One man said, “Thank you for peace.” Another man, a Muslim, said “All the people, all the people in Iraq, Muslim and Christian, is brother.” The men and women were holding bells, and for the first time in memory freedom rang over the ravaged land between two rivers.
It’s really encouraging to see something like this. I really believe that Iraq is turning around.
One final note: As you’re watching CNN or reading mainstream press, see if you come across this picture or this story. Yon’s making it available for free. I suspect that you won’t, and I suspect I know why.
Because I’ve written so much on this blog slamming Dr. Dobson and some of his fellow travelers about their third-party rumblings, I thought I’d note that there are some high profile social conservative figures who are living in the “reality-based community” and are making endorsements for various primary candidates.
Interestingly, Romney seems to be commanding the majority of those endorsements, at least until today. The latest big name to endorse Romney is Paul Weyrich, who founded, among other things, the Heritage Foundation. According to the NYT (of all papers), Weyrich joins Jay Sekulow and Bob Jones III (among some others) who are prominent among social/Christian conservative activists supporting Romney. Personally, I think this must be something of a coup for Romney, to have these folks support him despite his Mormonism. I just never thought they’d do such a thing.
Today, though, the latest big name in Christian political circles came down off the fence. I’m assuming that you’re sitting down - if not, you need to be. Ready? Pat Robertson is endorsing Rudy. Seriously. Link is here.
Now, a couple of caveats. First, none of this means anything to me as far as influencing my vote, nor do I think it should have any influence on anyone else’s vote. However, this being a fallen world and all, there are some folks who will pay attention to what these folks do. Secondly, I think that most of these folks are WAY too entrenched in the political power structure of this world, and that as a Christian, I don’t know how they can really play the game the way they do. By pointing out all these endorsements, I don’t mean to suggest that I approve of their MO.
The thing that is important (and slightly encouraging) to me is that not everyone is following Dobson’s lead off the political cliff. I’m very happy to see that an element of pragmatism is finally coming to the surface.
Finally, note that no big-time endorsements seem to be heading Fred or McCain’s way. I’m thinking that the Republicans may just be heading for a two-man race. Romney is leading in all the polls in NH and IA, and Rudy is leading in the national polls, and in big early states like Florida. Fred’s performance over the next two months will tell whether my speculation is correct or not, but if so, it will be very interesting to see how a Rudy/Romney race plays out.
Everybody reading this blog knows that I consider myself a pretty staunch Republican. That said, the Republican party frustrates me to no end with its failure to do the smart thing. I’ve blogged before about the S-CHIP reauthorization, which you can read here.
It appears that the Republicans won that battle - the Congress failed to override Bush’s veto of the bill. However, they played it with the green eyeshades - it costs too much, it’s ineffective, etc. That’s not always the winning approach, even when you’re right.
This morning, I found this video at the Captain’s Quarters blog (which I highly recommend). This illustrates one of the Republicans’ problems, I think. They have the better part of the issue on the facts. The other side’s proposals are absurd. Yet, Republicans don’t put clever stuff like this on TV, where ordinary folks will see it and laugh - relegating it to YouTube:
I’m sure there are highly-paid consultants in DC and NY who churn out the crappy political ads that show up on TV these days. This guy’s doing it free on the internet. Who’s better? If the GOP were smart, wouldn’t they have someone trolling around to find this type of talent?
I love the internet. The GOP has yet to exploit it to their maximum advantage.
PS - The same guy’s got another of these here. Pretty funny.
An interesting thing happened over the weekend in Louisiana (besides the Auburn game). That state elected a new governor, whose name is Bobby Jindal. Read the wire dispatch here.
Jindal, currently a Congressman from subsurban New Orleans, can claim several firsts. He’s the first non-white governor in Louisiana since reconstruction. He’ll be the youngest sitting governor in the nation in January at the age of 36. He’s also the first governor of Indian heritage in American history.
Most interestingly to me from a political point of view is that, as a Republican in a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1, Mr. Jindal won on the first ballot, avoiding a run-off for the first time in decades. He got 54% of the vote in a field of eleven candidates.
He ran on a platform of ending corruption and cronyism, a tall order for Louisiana (as it would be for Alabama, too).
I think, though, that he’s a name you may want to watch.
I’ve been pretty hard on Dr. Dobson for his political activities, especially in this cycle. Basically, I’ve accused him of being too desirous of political influence. I probably shouldn’t beat a dead horse like this, but Dobson’s statements display at best political miscalculation, and, at worst, a betrayal of one of his most loudly proclaimed issues.
Dr. Dobson is VERY pro-life. I am too. As a Christian, I believe abortion to be morally wrong. As a lawyer, I believe that Roe v. Wade was based on shoddy legal and constitutional reasoning, and should be reversed. So, know that in all I’m about to say, Dobson and I share the same goal, ostensibly.
Here’s a key excerpt from Dr. Dobson’s op-ed piece from the New York Times:
If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate.
Now, let’s reason this thing through, shall we? The most basic political reality of the universe is that neither party can hope to win if its base doesn’t support it. Pro-life and religious conservatives are the base of the GOP. So, if they go voting for a minor party with no chance of winning, then they’ve basically ensured the victory of the Democrat. Putting this into simpler terms, a vote by Dobson for a minor party is a vote for Hillary Clinton.
Now, contrary to the way everyone talks, the president can do one and only one thing to hope to meaningfully influence abortion policy in this country: appoint judges who think that Roe was wrongly decided to the US Supreme Court.
Let us grant for a moment that Rudy Guiliani is not in perfect harmony with the base on abortion. Here is the real crux of the matter: who is more likely to appoint a justice that will reverse Roe - Rudy or HRC?
The chances of HRC appointing anything but a raving liberal (her husband’s first appointment was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former general counsel for the ACLU - that’s a clue) are absolutely zero, and everyone with a pulse know it.
Rudy’s spokesman on judicial appointments is Theodore Olson, who was solicitor general under GWB and a legal advisor in the Reagan administration. His conservative bona fides are challenged by no one. Ted Olson has said that Rudy is committed to appointing federalism-minded justices (who would return the matter to the states, as the law was pre-Roe), like Roberts and Alito. This is far more likely to produce an anti-Roe judge than HRC.
Not only is supporting Rudy more likely to produce a Roe reversal, but even a candidate like Fred, who’s expressly pro-life, won’t guarantee a vote to overturn. After all, Reagan appointed Sandra O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, and GHWB appointed David Souter, all three of whom refused to vote to overturn when given the choice.
So, my question is, what’s up with Dobson and this issue. If he truly cared about getting Roe overturned, any Republican, Rudy included, is infinitely more likely to move the court in that direction than Hillary. Yet, he’s bound to know that urging Christian conservative voters, with whom he carries a great deal of influence, to vote third party, that he’ll insure the election of a president who will use SCOTUS nominations to keep abortion legal. How does this advance the cause?
A wise man I know named George Kelley once told me that whenever a politician proposes to do something “for the children,” that you’d better watch out for your wallet or your freedoms, because they’re coming for one of the two. I propose that the current debate over the S-CHIP program proves out Mr. Kelley’s thesis. It also provides a sad commentary on the way we debate political issues these days.
S-CHIP is the latest political football being kicked back and forth between the Dems in Congress and Bush. Its laudable goal is to provide health insurance to children whose folks make too much money to qualify for medicaid and too little money to afford private insurance. That sounds great, but, to quote Ross Perot, the devil is in the details.
The S-CHIP program is up for renewal, and the Dems in Congress (naturally) want to expand it. Their proposed expansions would include within the definition of eligible families those making up to $80,000 per year. It would also cover “children” up to age 25. It would cover the children of illegal immigrants. It would allow states to use the money to cover adults (over 25). Finally, over half the children covered in the expanded version are currently covered by private pay insurance.
The program now costs $25 billion per year. Bush proposes expansions that would increase the cost to $30B. The Senate version (ultimately adopted in the final bill) expanded it to a cost of $60B per year, and the House would have gone up to $75B. You may ask how this is going to be paid for, and the Dem answer is by increasing tobacco taxes. Some additional details are here. Notably, cigar taxes would go from 5¢ per cigar to 53% of the price, capped at $3 per cigar.
Now, when this bill made its way to Bush’s desk, he vetoed it, claiming it was too expensive. An override vote is set for later this month. To try to rally support for the override, the Democrats had a twelve year old boy, Graeme Frost, who is a beneficiary of the program, deliver their response to the President’s weekly radio address last weekend. In the address, Graeme claimed his family was unable to afford private coverage.
Now, this is the age of the internet. However, the implications of what can be done over the net have apparently not sunken in with everyone, especially the folks who decided to give young Graeme the political mic.
You see, an enterprising blogger at the Free Republic decided to start digging and get a little background on the Frost family. Here’s part of what he found out:
1. Graeme and his sister Gemma attend the Park School, a private school that costs $20,000 per child.
2. Brown wrote that the family lives on $45,000 per year, but icwhatudo notes: “Halsey Frost has owned his own company ‘Frostworks’ since…1992 so he chooses to not give himself insurance. He also employed his wife as ‘bookkeeper and operations management’ prior to her recent 2007 hire at the ‘medical publishing firm.’”
3. His business is housed in a $160,000 building — that he owns.
4. The Frost family lives in a recently remodeled 3,000-square-foot home that cost $485,000.
Now, if true, this obviously means that the Frost family does not prioritize health coverage as much as it does property ownership or private schooling.
But is it true? Who knows? Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin has some contrary information indicating that perhaps the property values above are exaggerated and that extended family members are footing the bill for the private schools.
My point in this post is not necessarily to condemn the Frost family for their financial choices. However, some very calculating adults, including his own parents who are very obviously politically oriented against Bush (a bumper sticker on their car says “1-20-09” - the last day GWB is president), allowed this to happen. These adults decided to use their unfortunate circumstances to play on the emotions of voters and legislators to influence the legislation, which, I’d assert, would fail if subjected to analysis on its facts.
Now the Frost family, their personal medical issues, and their family finances, are subjected to a debate over the airwaves and internet. Shame on them. Shame on the Democrat party for allowing this to get started in the first place.
Politically, is this the best we can do? Has debate over government policies come to this low level? Is everything from now on going to be driven by who can come up with the best sad story? Will politics be forever driven by anecdote? Can we not argue a policy on facts and rational needs without pulling out the emotional trump card every time?
I fear that I know the answer. You smokers (and the rest of us too, since the number of smokers continues to decline) had better heed Mr. Kellley’s advice and watch your wallets.
In my previous posts entitled Core Competency and Dobson on McCain, I’ve commented on Dr. James Dobson’s dalliances in Republican presidential primary politics, and found his comments on both occasions to be improper.
Recently, it was reported that Dobson, Tony Perkins, and several other politically active evangelicals got together and met to discuss what on earth they’re going to do about the GOP and 2008. Read all about it here, but I can save you the bother: they really hope Rudy’s not going to be the nominee, and they floated the threat of a third party candidate if he is. I’m sure that the man who helped break up the Gambino crime family when he was the US Attorney in Manhattan is REALLY scared.
Even though Dobson has backed down from the third party threat, the long and short of it is that Dobson is dissatisfied with the four major candidates on the GOP side (Rudy, Romney, Fred, & McCain). I suppose they aren’t Christian enough, or something.
Particularly mystifying to me has been Dobson’s hostility toward Fred, who, on the moral/social issues Dobson cares about so much, is the most closely aligned of the four with Dobson’s views. But no more. I think I understand now. On an interview on Fox last night, Fred was asked about Dobson, his attacks on Fred’s Christianity, and whether he (Fred) wants to talk to Dobson. Here’s what Fred said:
A gentleman who has never met me, who has never talked to me, I’ve never talked to him on the phone. I did have one of his aides call me up and kind of apologize, the first time he attacked me and said I wasn’t a Christian …
I don’t know the gentleman. I do know that I have a lot of people who are of strong faith and are involved in the same organizations that he is in, that I’ve met with, Jeri and I both have met with, and I like to think that we have some strong friendships and support there… .
I don’t particularly care to have a conversation with him. If he wants to call up and apologize again, that’s ok with me. But I’m not going to dance to anybody’s tune.
Ouch. Personally, I respect Fred for having said that. As for Dobson, his seat at the political power table will be gone after November 2008, and he’s hating it.
I’ve written before about the disturbing inability of our culture - especially our supposed elites - to make even the most basic moral judgments. That inability is on display again for the world to see at Columbia University.
The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will be in NYC this week to address the United Nations General Assembly (who, I suppose, must tolerate his appearance). Yet, inexplicably, Columbia University has extended an invitation to him to speak at a forum.
This probably isn’t necessary, but for the benefit of the morally dense at Columbia, this man is evil, and represents an evil regime that is bent on the destruction of the US and our allies. He’s not even shy about it. He has repeatedly denied the holocaust, threatened the annihilation of Israel, is working feverishly for nuclear weapons, and holds to a very radical, apocalyptic view of his role in ushering in the return of the “hidden imam,” (their equivalent of the final judgment) by starting war with us infidels in the West. These statements are made in public, and frequently in English (though our press just as frequently ignores them). Ahmadinejad is also accused of having been one of the student captors of the US hostages in Tehran in 1980. The Iranian regime he represents is listed by the US State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, is widely credited with the bombing of the US Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon in the 80s, and, just last week, US commanders in Iraq testified to Congress that Iranian munitions are being supplied to insurgents by Iranian special forces and are used frequently in attacks that kill and wound US soldiers. Finally, the litany of executions, floggings, torture, political repression, and enforcement of barbaric sharia law is too gruesome to detail here. Google it if you can stomach it.
Now, sadly predictably, the powers that be at Columbia, all the way up to its president, Lee Bollinger, when confronted with this outrage hide behind the canard of freely exchanging ideas. The whole concept of a university as a platform for the exchange and debate of ideas is centered around the pursuit of truth. This man represents everything that is antithetical to truth, and every other Western and, especially, Christian value. When one of the most prestigious universities in the US says that it is participating in constructive dialogue, but in fact are allowing a sworn enemy of this country to use them as a platform for his obvious propaganda, what is one to conclude about that university? As if exhibiting pride in their moral obtuseness, one of the deans at Columbia has said that they would have invited Hitler to speak, given the opportunity.
How about adding this to the mix: this same university, Columbia, that warmly welcomes a murderous tyrant, bans the US military’s ROTC programs from its campus. So, the military is banned, but the leader of a nation who is actively working to kill our soldiers is welcomed. We should, then, be very clear. This is NOT about simple relativism, or else the ROTC would be allowed just like Mahmoud. This is what Jeanne Kirkpatrick so accurately referred to as the “blame America first” mentality.
Lest anyone think that this is just another of my GOP-slanted rants, none less than the speaker of the NYC city council has condemned Columbia for this outrage.
These people have no discernment, no wisdom, no moral compass, and no shame.
UPDATE: The folks at the Daily Kos, the leading liberal blog and virtual mouthpiece of the Democrat party, are really jazzed up about Mahmoud’s visit. Check out this post, by a Jewish lesbian who confesses to having a crush on Ahmadinejad, because he’s so right about how evil George Bush is. Money quote:
Monday, when Ahmadinejad speaks at Columbia University in New York, I’ll be listening. Maybe with a bottle of wine and some soft music playing in the background. If I can get past the fact that, as a Jewish lesbian, he’d probably have me killed, I’ll try to listen for some truth.
For about the first time in my life, I have literally no idea what to say.
At the risk of seeming obsessed with this topic, I just had to post this, for two reasons, really. First, it’s a defeat for prohibitionism, which I say is a good thing. Second, it’s too shining an example of works theology to leave alone.
On Tuesday of this week, the good folks in Athens, Alabama, held a referendum on whether to return the city to prohibition. Three or four years ago, Athens voted to go “wet.” Evidently, the “dry” forces got enough support to put the measure on the ballot again, hoping to undo the last vote.
The AP ran a story on this. You can read it here. It would seem that some of the local churches were behind the “dry” campaign. Get this:
The Rev. Eddie Gooch feels good about the chances of ending alcohol sales in Athens, but he isn’t taking any chances. A leader of the petition drive, Gooch urged members of his United Methodist Church to pray and fast on election day and the two days leading up to it. Church volunteers have sent thousands of letters and made phone calls encouraging people to vote “dry.”
Of all the things that a church could spend three days praying and fasting about! Reckon there’s been such prayer and fasting for the soldiers dying overseas or their families? How about the miners out in Utah who (apparently) died in the cave-in and their families? How about their fellow Christians in Sudan being murdered and enslaved by the Muslims? The persecution of Christians in China? Maybe they did, but somehow, I doubt it.
Confronted with the possible loss of an upscale restaurant that moved to Athens from a neighboring dry city so that they could sell alcohol, and the loss of tax revenue:
Gooch isn’t worried about the city losing businesses or tax revenues if alcohol sales are banned. Normal economic growth and God will make up any difference if residents dump the bottle, he said. “We believe that God will honor and bless our city,” Gooch said.
If there was ever a better example of viewing God as a vending machine, I’d like to see it. This would be bad theology even if the activity being shunned was sinful. Rev. Gooch seems to think that if we behave, God will respond by bestowing blessing. I’d like to see Rev. Gooch explain Job’s plight in light of Job 1:1:
In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil.
Now see, since Job was upright and shunned evil (I’m sure, in Rev. Gooch’s world, Job would have voted dry), Rev. Gooch might expect Job to have been “honor[ed] and bless[ed]” by God. Yet it didn’t quite work out that way, did it?
I might add that several astute commenters on the AP story linked above also noted more than a bit of hypocrisy on the church’s part, citing Jesus turning the water to wine and the use of wine in the last supper.
Now, unlike my previous Carrie Nation posts, this one has an ending a bit more to my liking. Carrie went down at the ballot box in Athens, 68/32. So that’s good news.
However, I think the high profile of the churches involved here and the religious overtones they brought to this political matter has done much to reinforce the stereotype of hypocritical Christianity. Here’s commenter GunOwnerDan:
Why are so many “crhistians” [sic] such total hypocrites? Jesus, their “lord and savior” was a wine-maker. According to the Bible, Jesus actually turned water into WINE!
Dan doesn’t seem like a believer, but it’s hard to fault his analysis.
So one step forward on the political side, but two steps back for the church.
I’d probably better stop posting on this topic, lest I be accused of being a lush, but it just burns me up.
According to sources quoted on Don Surber’s blog, the California Council on Alcohol Policy will be using federal grant money to convene at some posh resort in Mission Bay, CA, to educate other tax-exempt groups on how to lobby the California Legislature to increase taxes on beer and decrease its availability.
I don’t know what enrages me more, that they’re picking on beer or that they’re doing it with my federal tax money. Why is beer all of a sudden the whipping boy? I personally think that it’s because it’s something that the politician/bureaucrat types that propose this sort of nonsense don’t drink. I don’t hear any calls - especially in wine producing California - for doing the same with wine. Also, I doubt any politicians will be lining up to limit the availability of bourbon or scotch.
Would anyone care to wager whether this event will be dry? And if it is officially, I’m betting the attendees belly up to the bar after the seminar presentations are over. (And when they do, probably nobody is ordering Bud Light.)
Finally, the federal agency kicking in the sponsorship money is the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Why is it that so many government agencies who appear to have a genuine mission end up spending money on junkets like this, and advocating tax increases? Am I the only one who sees the obvious contradiction here? Yeesh.
I know that Ron Paul says equally kooky things on the GOP side, and that the minor candidates in a presidential nomination are really cheap shots, but I just couldn’t resist this.
Citing the ancient Spartans, Mike Gravel has some ideas about making our military men more effective fighters by not only allowing, but in fact encouraging homosexuality in the military.
I’m not making this up. Go here and watch the video.
If I were to survey the good people of Tennessee about what the worst problems facing their state were, I think I know what I’d see: jobs, economy, health care, education, taxes, security, etc. I’m pretty certain that underage drinking would not make anyone’s top 10.
Yet, this seems to be much on the minds of the legislature and governor in Nashville. Tennessee has apparently become the first state in the nation to require proof of age to purchase beer in stores. According to the Knoxville News Sentinel, this applies only to sales of beer, not wine or liquor, and only where the beer is to be consumed off-premises, i.e., it’s not applicable in bars or restaurants.
Get this quote from the Governor of Tennessee, Phil Bredesen (whom some have mentioned as a future Democrat presidential nominee), who is 63, on how he’d feel being carded to buy a six-pack:
“I’ll be very pleased when I’m carded, and in my mind I’ll just imagine it’s because I look so young.”
Puh-leeze. The ostensible reason for this nonsense is (of course) stopping underage drinking. Yet, this rings somewhat hollow when bars and restaurants are exempt, and when it doesn’t apply to virtually every other stronger alcoholic beverage.
So what gives? Surely the folks in charge in Nashville have bigger fish to fry. Perhaps that’s it, actually. It’s hard work to lower taxes, provide more services, and keep the books balanced (though businesses do this every day, in addition to complying with idiotic governmental mandates). Agreeing to make Joe Six-Pack show his ID is easy in comparison. And all under the guise of protecting our minors - er, make that underage drinkers, or something, since you legally become an adult in TN at age 18.
But it seems more than that to me. Carrie Nation’s tactics were somewhat crude, with that whole ax routine and all. This is much more subtle, yet the aim is, I believe the same. Implicit in this and the Alabama legislature’s refusal to lift the alcohol content cap in beer (which 48 other states have done now) is that drinking beer is EVIL. It’s just a kinder, gentler revival of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union mentality if you ask me. And, this time, it’s working incrementally. First, keep grown men and women from drinking until they’re 21. Then, make all college campuses alcohol-free. Then, get those nasty bars off the strip. Then, make all beer buyers show their ID, even if they’re 87. And, heaven forbid that any gourmet beers be sold in Alabama. And it’s all for “the children” - who, in many cases, are, as noted above adults.
I’m not in favor of boozing up 10 year olds or anything. But, this is just getting ridiculous.
I am an unabashed fan of Ronald Reagan. I think he was a great (not perfect) president in a time that desperately called out for great leadership. In many ways, his ghost haunts the Republican Party to this day, which is searching for the next great leader of that caliber.
Twenty years ago today, Ronald Reagan stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate, on this side of the Berlin Wall, and gave a speech in which he uttered the now famous line, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Here’s a clip of that speech:
Isn’t it amazing how much the world has changed since then? There’s now one Germany, not two. That wall was torn down, and shortly after it, the entire “Iron Curtain.” Reagan, once reviled by many politically, has since died, and was given a hero’s burial, being credited even by his former adversaries for his role in bringing down communism.
Yet, in many ways, the world has not changed much at all. In this speech, Reagan asserted that when nations allow their people to live in freedom, the cause of peace is advanced. Consider how similar this is to George W. Bush’s more recent speeches where he argues that freedom is best antidote for middle eastern dictatorships and Islamic fascism. I think Reagan was right (and, by extension, so is Bush 43) that tyrannies are generally destabilizing in the world, and that free democracies rarely make war on each other, thus advancing peace. But note that the problem remains the same today as in Reagan’s time (as it was in FDR’s time, etc., etc. all the way back through history): oppression and tyranny. We who are reformed are likely to see this as an affirmation that, over history, the depravity of mankind is unchanging and constant. That’s certainly how I see it.
Yet, God is gracious to us here in the West and in the US in particular. We today enjoy freedom, liberty, and prosperity almost unheard of in human history. I believe that God has worked through ordinary, imperfect men like Reagan to give us that blessing. This speech just reminded me of that. The Powerline guys are friends with the author of this speech, Peter Robinson. Over on their site, he recalls the story of how the speech came to be delivered over the objections of many in the government at the time. Fascinating stuff. You can read it here.
It isn’t terribly often that I find myself sympathetic to any of the statements of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, but this may be one.
This all centers around the latest idiotic statement coming out of a televangelist’s mouth - or, rather, computer. Bill Keller runs a minisitry through an internet site called “LivePrayer.com.” Keller sends out daily devotionals to his site’s subscribers. The May 11 devotional was a doozie. You can read the whole thing here. The point of it was to trash Mitt Romney, his campaign for President, and his religion. I don’t want to be misunderstood as being sympathetic theologically to Mormonism - I’m definitely not. But, regardless of anyone’s feelings about Mormonism, I think that most fair minded folks will find these statements from Keller’s devotional to be over the top:
If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for satan! This message today is not about Mitt Romney. Romney is an unashamed and proud member of the Mormon cult founded by a murdering polygamist pedophile named Joseph Smith nearly 200 years ago. The teachings of the Mormon cult are doctrinally and theologically in complete opposition to the Absolute Truth of God’s Word. There is no common ground. If Mormonism is true, then the Christian faith is a complete lie. There has never been any question from the moment Smith’s cult began that it was a work of satan and those who follow their false teachings will die and spend eternity in hell. This message is about the top Christian leaders in our nation who are supporting this cult members quest to become the next President of the United States.
And that’s just the first paragraph.
Now, the reaction from Americans United for Church and State was predictable. They’re calling for Keller’s organization’s tax-exempt status to be revoked for engaging in political activities. Read about that here.
I think that Keller has definitely crossed the line. And, for whatever it’s worth, I think lots of churches and Christian ministries with tax-exempt status are doing this too, though perhaps not as egregiously and boldly as Keller did. Perhaps the draconian remedy of revocation isn’t quite called for yet. That’d be hard to say definitively without knowing what the ministry’s history has been with the IRS. But, I’m much more in agreement with AUSCS than I typicaly find myself on this one, for sure.
Interestingly, I just got a new ruling from the IRS on this very issue on Friday. The ruling gave guidance to non-profits about what does and doesn’t cross the line into prohibited politicking. Here are some of the hypotheticals the IRS gave in the ruling:
Situation 5. Minister C is the minister of Church L, a section 501(c)(3)
organization and Minister C is well known in the community. Three weeks before
the election, he attends a press conference at Candidate V’s campaign
headquarters and states that Candidate V should be reelected. Minister C does
not say he is speaking on behalf of Church L. His endorsement is reported on
the front page of the local newspaper and he is identified in the article as the
minister of Church L. Because Minister C did not make the endorsement at an
official church function, in an official church publication or otherwise use the
church’s assets, and did not state that he was speaking as a representative of
Church L, his actions do not constitute campaign intervention by Church L.
Here’s another:
Situation 9. Minister F is the minister of Church O, a section 501(c)(3)
organization. The Sunday before the November election, Minister F invites
Senate Candidate X to preach to her congregation during worship services.
During his remarks, Candidate X states, “I am asking not only for your votes, but
for your enthusiasm and dedication, for your willingness to go the extra mile to
get a very large turnout on Tuesday.” Minister F invites no other candidate to
address her congregation during the Senatorial campaign. Because these
activities take place during official church services, they are attributed to Church
O. By selectively providing church facilities to allow Candidate X to speak in
support of his campaign, Church O’s actions constitute political campaign
intervention.
One More:
Situation 21. Church P, a section 501(c)(3) organization, maintains a web
site that includes such information as biographies of its ministers, times of
services, details of community outreach programs, and activities of members of
its congregation. B, a member of the congregation of Church P, is running for a
seat on the town council. Shortly before the election, Church P posts the
following message on its web site, “Lend your support to B, your fellow
parishioner, in Tuesday’s election for town council.” Church P has intervened in
a political campaign on behalf of B.
As a general matter, the IRS says, “A communication is particularly at risk of political campaign intervention when it makes reference to candidates or voting in a specific upcoming election.” Given these examples and the Service’s generalization, I think that Keller ought to be worried. And that’s probably a good thing.
The Hillary Clinton - Barack Obama race promises to be great fun, especially if you’re a Republican like me who’s basically not invested in the outcome. It’s gotten off to a great start, but in a decidedly 21st century way - on YouTube.
Someone, operating under a pseudonym, whose identity has yet to be revealed, has posted what I think is one of the most devastating political ads I’ve ever seen. Check it out:
Now, for the under 30 crowd, this is a take-off on an ad that Apple ran during the 1984 superbowl to introduce the Macintosh and this newfangled thingie called the mouse. To see the actual Apple ad, go here.
Everybody loves a mystery. Obama’s campaign swears that they had nothing to do with this ad. Some have speculated that a Republican actually did the ad. If the Obama camp is lying, they should stop immediately and run this on TV - frequently. If not, they - more than anyone else - need to find out who did it and put that person on the payroll.
Mystery political ads on YouTube - I love the internet.
I’ve been paying attention to politics pretty much all of my adult life. I cannot remember a presidential campaign season starting so early or having as many doofus candidates as this one. But hey, lots of blogging material, right?
The doofus du jour is John Edwards. Let me supply some background here for readers with better things to do that read about this junk on a daily basis. (I know, it’s a sickness - I should seek treatment.)
Edwards is probably best known politically for being John Kerry’s running mate in 2004. On the stump, he argues that there are “two Americas” - one inhabited by the rich, with all sorts of comforts and luxuries, and the other inhabited by the poor, who endure something like the lives led by the Joads in the Grapes of Wrath to hear Edwards tell it. You can read his campaign’s position on ending poverty ( - really!) here.
He’s got something of a prima donna reputation, though. Rush Limbaugh mockingly refers to him as the Breck girl. (College students and younger: google that, you’ll understand). It’s somewhat deserved, I think. Back in the 2004 campaign, a video surfaced on YouTube of Edwards fixing his hair before some event . It seemed to last an hour. You can see it, if you must, here.
John Edwards is a very wealthy man. He’s a plaintiff’s lawyer, and has made lots of money practicing law. Not knocking it, just pointing out a fact. By reputation, he was quite a good trial lawyer. Recently, he sunk some of his fortune into a new home. It’s 28,000+ square feet. It will be the most highly appraised piece of residential property in the county, according to local officials. You can read about the house (and see pictures of it) here. I suppose we know which of the two Americas he lives in.
Now, this might be bad enough, but to prove to you that I’m not calling Mr. Edwards a doof without just cause, consider his recent comments about how Jesus would view the whole “two Americas” that we have. Here’s an excerpt of his interview with BeliefNet:
What parts of American life do you think would most outrage Jesus?
Our selfishness. Our resort to war when it’s not necessary. I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs. I think he would be appalled, actually.
Seriously, somebody in Rudy’s, Romney’s and McCain’s campaigns should all be taking note of this blog post. There is one issue so powerful, it can, if properly executed, propel whichever one of them is the eventual Republican nominee straight to 1800 Pennsylvania Avenue. And no, it’s not the war, the economy, or anything trivial like that. No, this issue hits much, much closer to home than ANY of those.
What is it, you ask? Easy - Having to buy Sudafed from behind the drug counter.
I had no idea, but it turns out that none other than Sen Barack Obama and Sen Hillary Clinton co-sponsored the bill that required this. If properly publicized, this would surely DOOM their political aspirations. No one could possibly vote for any politician who caused so much inconvenience. And aside from that, this bill has apparently served to radically empower the Mexican drug cartels who operate outside its limitations (and who could have seen that coming, right?)
Because the elections are in November, right in full swing of cold season, this issue will be a sure fire winner for the GOP. It could be a Reaganesque landslide.
There’s an interesting article on the web today about one man’s view on the 2008 Republican presidential primaries. The one opining is Richard Land, who is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and a sometime informal adviser to President Bush. You can read the whole article here.
Now, the reason I post this is not because I find his view persuasive. Quite the contrary, I find it self-contradictory. By conventional wisdom, at this point, there are three major candidates for the Republican nomination: Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Each has well identified issues that don’t exactly square with the stereotypical Republican primary voter (i.e., Evangelical Christians). Guiliani is a social liberal on many issues. McCain hasn’t reliably supported popular positions within the party (like his support of the McCain-Feingold legislation and his refusal to support the Bush tax cuts in 2001). Mitt Romney has in the past either espoused some socially liberal positions or at least failed to advance the conservative ones, and he’s a Mormon.
Mr. Land was asked to comment on how Evangelicals would view each of the three candidates and how they’d respond in the general election if each of the three were the GOP nominee. Interestingly, Mr. Land suggested that social conservatives could support McCain or Romney against Hillary (the presumptive Dem nominee), but not Rudy. He outright predicted that the “vast majority” of Evangelicals wouldn’t vote for Rudy, even against Hillary.
Assuming the article quotes him correctly, the big problem he sees for the Mayor is that he’s been married and divorced (or annulled) several times:
Land said the mayor’s annulment, divorce and subsequent third marriage will seal the deal against hizzoner for social conservatives.
That’s it. Now, consider that Mr. Land believes that Evangelicals can get over the fact that Romney’s a Mormon (!) and that McCain has betrayed conservative causes in the Senate many, many times, and support either of them against Sen. Clinton.
I think this is ridiculous. Social conservatives voted for Reagan, who had been married twice. Is that really such a big deal? A bigger deal to a conservative Christian than a Mormon president? I’m not poo-pooing, Romney, either (in fact, were I to have to cast a vote today, he’d be my choice, with Rudy a close second), but come on.
Personally, I think that as long as the GOP nominee has not assumed room temperature, if the Dem nominee is HRC, then social conservatives will turn out in DROVES to vote against her. Frankly, the issue of the times is the war with Islamo-fascism. Rudy and Romney definitely get that, and probably so does McCain. I think that, especially in the general election against a candidate perceived not to get who the bad guys are and what they’re capable of, Evangelicals would support any of the three GOP contenders. I’d like to think that Christian conservatives are savvy enough to understand that if those bad guys get their way, it won’t really matter who’s been divorced and who hasn’t.
I’ve heard conservative bloggers refer to “Bush Derangement Syndrome” - a condition where, out of sheer blind hatred for George W., his opponents are compelled to oppose everything he supports, regardless of whether that’s good for the body politic or not.
I now believe quite firmly that this condition actually exists. Here’s my proof. Fox News conducted a poll this week (full results here) and asked the following question: “Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week succeed?”
Now, the way that this question is phrased is quite telling. They didn’t ask “do you want the Iraq plan to succeed?
