Generally speaking, I am of the opinion that, when it comes to presidential nominations, the President should get his nominee. The only exceptions to that rule that I think legitimate are when the person is corrupt or demonstrably incompetent or unqualified. Up until yesterday, in keeping with my general rule, I thought Elena Kagan, Obama’s nominee to replace John Paul Stevens, should be confirmed, though I profoundly disagree with her politics.
After this response in her confirmation hearings yesterday, though, I now believe that she fits within the exception of being demonstrably incompetent:
That’s right. The person that the President thinks should sit on the Supreme Court cannot find it within herself to say that the Congress lacks the power under the constitution to force the citizens of the country to eat three fruits and three vegetables per day. What limits are there to Congress’s power if such a law is allowable? And besides, what specifically enumerated power in the constitution could possibly allow such a law to be passed? The regulation of commerce? Really?
Not to mention the fact that liberals, which politically Kagan admittedly is, who once championed the right to privacy, cannot admit that Congressional power must necessarily be checked if the privacy right is to have any meaning at all. Why can Elena Kagan not admit these things?
There is only one reason. She intends to allow the Congress such a power (and, incidentally, these will be the central questions on the table when Obamacare gets to the Supreme Court). This is the destruction of the doctrine of limited powers. That doctrine has been significantly abused, but Kagan’s apparent views on this will kill it.
Because the constitution is clear that Congress’s powers are limited, and because Kagan cannot admit that, she is clearly not competent to have the job for which she has been nominated, and I think she should be rejected.
So says Tina Brown. This is what passes for analysis on the mainstream news nowadays. No wonder their ratings are swirling the drain.
This little gem comes from Good Morning America, where George Stephanopolous (whose career in journalism appears to have sprung from being Bill Clinton’s political hack) interviews Tina Brown, the editor of the lib website the Daily Beast. The topic (among others) is the victory of women in this week’s state primaries.
Did you catch that? The alleged feminist Tina Brown seems only to see progress for women if LIBERAL women are elected. What a phony.
As I am the resident political geek on the blog, I’ll give some background on the four women who won the big races this week, whom Brown dismisses as “wingnuts.”
Let’s start with Nevada. Sharron Angle, a former teacher and state legislator, who was decidedly NOT the establishment candidate came out of nowhere to beat both Danny Tarkanian (son of the basketball coach) and a current state legislator. Angle was a tea party favorite.
California had two high profile races. Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay, beat the sitting state insurance commissioner (a man) in the Republican gubernatorial primary. She’ll now run against Jerry Brown in November (yes, the very same “Governor Moonbeam” from the 70s).
In the senate primary, the Republicans nominated Carly Fiorina (shown in the clip above), who is a former CEO of HP. She beat two men, a former congressman and a sitting state legislator, without a runoff.
Reckon how these wingnuts managed to run such big, high profile companies?
The best, though, was in South Carolina. Nikki Haley is the daughter of Sikh immigrants. Despite smears of affairs that were never proven, she will be in a runoff, narrowly missing winning outright. Eveyrone expects her to crush the guy she’s in the runoff with. (Note that if she wins out, there will be two states from the former Confederacy with governors of Indian descent. Clearly racism still rules Southern politics; after all, these folks are conservative Republicans, so they don’t count. But that’s another post.)
All of this success for women, and it’s not good enough for Tina Brown. This is because modern feminism is a front for political liberalism, and one that’s aided and abetted by the mainstream press, because they’re all liberals too. (Note that no one in the interview challenged Brown’s ridiculous assertion). If this interview doesn’t prove all these points, I don’t know what can.
I have refrained from commenting on the healthcare debacle thus far, principally because I didn’t know whether I’d be able to stop once I got started. And besides, the opinions of the people of this country proved entirely irrelevant to the intentions of those who govern us.
However, since the deed is done, I think it’s time to start putting it all in perspective. Let’s start with the cost. Of all of the laughably ridiculous parts of this bill, the fact that it’s going to save one crying dime is the most preposterous. The folks over at Reason’s blog have put up a helpful graphic comparing the estimated costs of various health-related government programs compared with their actual costs. Here it is:
Note that Medicare is over 9 times its cost estimate. That would put the current plan at a cost of 9 trillion - no, wait, let’s write that out for effect - $9,000,000,000,000. And that’s not even entirely accurate. Since this bill has only 6 years of benefits for its $940 billion price, a full 10 years would be 1.56 trillion. If it were to actually come out at 9 times that amount, we’d be looking at a 10 year cost of 14 trillion - $14,000,000,000,000.
There is simply not enough money in the world to do such a thing.
From my partisan, Republican perspective, the only redeeming feature of this legislation is that it demonstrates with stunning clarity exactly who exactly will have been responsible for the bankrupting of the United States of America.
Many folks I know fear China. They are afraid that China, with its billion-plus population, strong economic growth, and command and control government, will soon overpower the US. I recall similar sentiment about the Japanese from the late 80s and early 90s. History, however, has proved the fears about Japan unfounded. I have always thought that the similar fears about China are likewise unfounded (with the possible exception of China’s military, but that’s another post).
Here’s a great article that expresses what I think. The author argues that China is not just a bubble (like our housing or tech stocks were), but a superbubble, given the scale on which it operates. The thing we in the US have learned about bubbles is that when the pop, bad things happen. As the author points out, imagine what will happen when the superbubble pops.
Senator Bunning (R-KY) is getting a lot of press about blocking a fairly non-controversial bill on the quaint grounds that no one has said how the $10 Billion provision will be paid for. Here is a great blog post by Ed Morrisey explaining what is really going on. Lots of wonky parliamentary explanation, but the long and short of it all is that Bunning is quite inconveniently exposing the fact that most everyone wants to pass a bill spending a lot of money for something most concede is desirable, yet, no one is even bothered to try to find a source of funding. Read the whole thing.
Here’s the intro paragraph from a Politico story on the upcoming testimony of Toyota executives before Congress this week:
Internal Toyota documents derided the Obama administration and Democratic Congress as “activist” and “not industry friendly,” a revelation that comes days before the giant automaker’s top executives testify on Capitol Hill amid a giant recall.
Is this big news? That the administration and Congress are not friendly to Toyota? They own two of Toyota’s competitors, for heaven’s sake. This observation would hardly be scandalous even if they didn’t.
Surely there’s some real news somewhere to be reported.
I am (predictably) thrilled that Scott Brown won on Tuesday. That said, it never ceases to amaze me how people get so totally overwrought about the least little nothing in the aftermath of such big stories. Two points to consider.
First, people are already speculating about whether Brown will run for President or be Sarah Palin’s VP in 2012. Good grief. The man hasn’t even been sworn in as a senator yet, let alone cast a vote or participated in debate. Why on earth would anyone get this far ahead of themselves?
Second, there’s a pretty dumb kerfuffle going on in certain quarters of the blogosphere about a one-liner in Brown’s victory speech about his daughters being “available.”
Thankfully, Ayla Brown, one of the available daughters, has given an interview where she shows that she has a better grasp that many commentators do:
“I had no idea he was going to do that. I saw the script and there was definitely no mention of that. It was totally off script,” Brown said in a phone interview squeezed in between classes at Boston College.
She admitted that she was slightly embarrassed. “But that’s what gives people a chance to see my real dad.”…
“That is incredible. It just surprises me that people can be so negative,” Ayla said. “I feel as though all fathers across the nation can relate to having daughters and having these conversations…That’s our dad. There’s nothing creepy about it at all.”
Really, this is nuts. I think these people need to lighten up.
This is starting to break into the mainstream press, so perhaps you’ve seen this already. However, it’s such a fascinating potential development, that I have to comment.
Scott Brown is the Republican nominee for the senate seat from Massachusetts that is open as a result of Ted Kennedy’s death. The election is next Tuesday, and pits Brown, a state senator, against Martha Coakley, the sitting state attorney general. Now, MA is probably one of the bluest states in the union. However, the last few polls out on this race have shown it incredibly close, with one poll even showing Brown ahead by a point.
Making matters even more interesting, Brown has made the race an open referendum on ObamaCare, stating forthrightly that he would be the 41st vote to filibuster the existing bill. This has made him an internet phenom - he raised $1M yesterday, mostly in small donations of $5-10 and most coming from out of state.
Yesterday was the last debate, and by all accounts, Brown did very, very well. Quoth Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:
While most of the post-debate attention has focused on Scott Brown’s Reaganesque moment in declaring that the Senate seat doesn’t belong to the Kennedy family or the Democrats but to all Massachusetts voters, Coakley had a Gerald Ford-esque moment on the war in Afghanistan. She declared Afghanistan to be terrorist-free and wants the troops to come home now:
Wow. Sometimes in politics, there are moments that really show you that a tide has turned. I thought Obama’s election was one of those times. Interestingly, now it seems not so much. In fact, if MA elects a Republican to the senate, that will be more than the tide turning - it will be a political tsunami.
Though this seems impossible, it was twenty years ago today that the Berlin Wall fell. By the time I studied in Germany in 1993, what had been THE symbol of the iron curtain had been reduced to a small patch in the concrete in front of the Brandenburg Gate. As the wall fell, I remember the utter shock that this was actually happening, since of course before 1989 the conventional wisdom was that such was impossible. It was, in many ways, a whole new world. The “Evil Empire” was about to vanish.
Twenty years later, I’m not sure very many people remember this or even care. President Obama couldn’t be bothered to attend, sending Hillary in his stead. I suppose that Germany was OK for a campaign rally, but not so attractive when the celebration turns to the defeat of communism.
So to commemorate, I post again what was one of the best speeches ever delivered by my political hero, Ronald Reagan.
Try to imagine this sort of clarity of purpose coming from any contemporary politician. If you can, your imagination is more vivid than mine.
Camille Paglia has a new column out today in on Salon.com. You can (and should) read the whole thing here. I do not share many of Paglia’s views - she is a liberal Democrat. However, her analysis of her own party is one of the most devastating indictments I’ve ever read, especially the connection between the politics and the ossified educational system we have. Here are the key parts, but read the whole thing.
Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.
How has “liberty” become the inspirational code word of conservatives rather than liberals? (A prominent example is radio host Mark Levin’s book “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto,” which was No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list for nearly three months without receiving major reviews, including in the Times.) I always thought that the Democratic Party is the freedom party — but I must be living in the nostalgic past. Remember Bob Dylan’s 1964 song “Chimes of Freedom,” made famous by the Byrds? And here’s Richie Havens electrifying the audience at Woodstock with “Freedom! Freedom!” Even Linda Ronstadt, in the 1967 song “A Different Drum,” with the Stone Ponys, provided a soaring motto for that decade: “All I’m saying is I’m not ready/ For any person, place or thing/ To try and pull the reins in on me.”
But affluent middle-class Democrats now seem to be complacently servile toward authority and automatically believe everything party leaders tell them. Why? Is it because the new professional class is a glossy product of generically institutionalized learning? Independent thought and logical analysis of argument are no longer taught. Elite education in the U.S. has become a frenetic assembly line of competitive college application to schools where ideological brainwashing is so pandemic that it’s invisible. The top schools, from the Ivy League on down, promote “critical thinking,” which sounds good but is in fact just a style of rote regurgitation of hackneyed approved terms (“racism, sexism, homophobia”) when confronted with any social issue. The Democratic brain has been marinating so long in those clichés that it’s positively pickled.
Anyone who’s as geeky as me has probably read by now about how the Obama administration has revised its budget and economic forecasts, and not for the better. The basic gist is that, at the beginning of this year, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had made some fairly rosy assumptions about growth and spending, whereas the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had made what many considered much more realistic assumptions. Here’s a chart comparing their results:
Now the OMB is admitting that the numbers are more in line with the CBO’s. This has generated headlines about the projected debt over the next 10 years rising from 7 to 9 trillion dollars.
This morning I learned that even the CBO’s numbers are based on some not-too-realistic assumptions either. For example, the CBO assumes that the Bush tax cuts will expire for all tax brackets. Perhaps this could be defensible for the top bracket or two, but not the low end. We’re going to raise taxes on the poor? Doubtful. Another: CBO assumes that the latest “fix” of the alternative minimum tax will be allowed to expire, subjecting millions of middle-class taxpayers to the higher rates of the AMT. Republican and Democrat congresses for the last 10 years and more have been patching this, each time on a “temporary” basis. Nobody wants to make it permanent, because that destroys the budget projections. Neat trick, huh? Anybody believe that this time will be different? Also, CBO assumes that spending will only increase at the rate of inflation. Even without counting the stimulus, last year, spending increased 8% (inflation was 2% or lower).
Now, as bad as all that is, that’s only the “cash method” picture. For you non-accounting geeks out there, there are two methods for looking at your financial picture - cash and accrual. Cash is the way normal people keep their checkbook. You take an item into account as income or expense when the cash is actually received or sent out. Accrual accounting is what most larger businesses use. Under the accrual method, you take an item of income into account when your right to receive it becomes fixed, and you take an expense into account when your obligation to pay it becomes fixed - the actual date of payment is irrelevant. Accrual accounting gives a more accurate picture of what’s coming, whereas cash shows what’s actually there.
Budget numbers like these are generated on a cash accounting basis. They don’t take into account the underfunding of America’s vast entitlement programs and the annual changes in the net present value of those programs.
Calculated on an accrual basis, much as a corporation would estimate its pension and healthcare liabilities, the annual deficit number would be at least $6 trillion this year. In 2008, for example, the headline budget number — the one calculated on a cash in, cash out basis — was $454 billion. But if you ran the number as the federal deficit plus the net present value of all those unfunded liabilities, the deficit was $5.1 trillion with total fiscal obligations at $66 trillion. As Elmendorf [the CBO director] dryly puts it: “Putting the nation on a sustainable fiscal course will require some combination of lower spending and higher revenues than the amounts now projected.”
Stated differently, even the 9 trillion ($9,000,000,000,000) deficit over the next 10 years does not even begin to take into account the fact that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are or soon will be flat broke.
Can someone explain to me how it is that, with the country in as deep a financial hole as we are, anyone suggesting that we create a new entitlement to healthcare isn’t laughed off the stage?
I read this morning about the demise of the government’s “Cash for Clunkers” program. The idea started off pretty simply: get old, fuel-inefficient cars off the road and stimulate new car buying at the same time. If a buyer trades in a “clunker” they get a credit of $3,500 to $4,500 toward the purchase of their new ride. Sounds straightforward enough, right? The dealers were required to destroy the engine of the clunker and submit proof of that and various other paperwork to the Department of Transportation, who would then reimburse the dealer. The deal was supposed to last until $1 billion dollars was spent, or November 1, whichever came first.
What could possibly go wrong?
It turns out, the government pretty much doesn’t need anything to go wrong to screw something simple up completely beyond all recognition. The program turned out to be wildly popular. But, really, who could have possibly foreseen that the government giving four grand off a new car would be attractive to many people? So, the government is overwhelmed with these applications from dealers. Payments to reimburse the dealers are slow. Quickly, the government realizes that it’s running out of money for the program. So the Congress hurries up and increases the budget to $3 billion.
But, shockingly, the popularity of the giveaway continues, and more applications pour in. So the government has finally thrown in the towel. Cash for clunkers ends Monday. A grand total of seven percent of the applications for reimbursement have been paid out to date. Dealers are angry, since they’re out of pocket with no reimbursement. And, to cap this all off, yesterday, news came out that the Department of Transportation was going to reassign workers from the FAA (you know, the folks who oversee air traffic) to try to clear out the backlog of applications for payment. But, don’t worry, they assure us that it will only be non-essential personnel reassigned.
So let’s review. The program has gone 200% over its original budget. The government’s projections of how many applications there would be were wildly far off. The DOT has only made payments to a tiny fraction of those requesting it. And, there were not enough workers in place to handle the demand. And, since this is Congress and the bureaucracy, you can rest assured that no one will be fired or held to account in any way for this woeful underperformance.
Now, is there any reason not to view this as an object lesson for what a government-run health insurance plan will be like? I’m sure there’s not. Government-run health insurance will be TOTALLY different. It’ll be just as efficient and well run as, say, the postal service.
Doug Wilson had a fun take on Sarah Palin’s influence on the health care debate with her “death panel” comments. He also links to her own FB comments. Couldn’t keep all the fun to myself. Read and enjoy.http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?
Here’s a political palate cleanser. Remember Hillary Clinton? You know, the Secretary of State? I know, she hasn’t really been in the headlines much, what with Bill swooping off the North Korea to get those two Americans released and all.
Apparently this has gotten under her skin. Watch this video. It is quite amazing.
You know, if beer is involved, I suppose I just can’t resist commenting about it.
I reckon that everyone in America has heard about Gates-gate - that is, the incident concerning Henry Louis Gates, the prominent professor of African-American Studies at Harvard, and Jim Crowley, the cop who arrested Gates for disorderly conduct last week. This was just a local incident until President Obama was asked about it during a prime-time press conference last week, where he commented that Crowley acted “stupidly” in arresting Gates. Obama admitted that he did not know all the facts surrounding the arrest, despite deciding to opine on the policeman’s conduct.
All hell erupted in the press, on cable, and on the web about the incident. The furor was so great, that Obama decided to invite Gates and Crowley to have a beer with him at the White House. Obama says that he hopes this is a “teachable moment” for the country, though declining to say what he thought should be learned.
I do not intend to comment on the racial aspects of the arrest, which, frankly, bore me because everyone projects their own racial views onto the matter. I’m more interested in the politics of it, and, of course, the selections of beer that the participants made.
Put yourself in Obama’s place. You’ve opened up your mouth and stuck your foot in it by commenting on something you admittedly did not have all the facts about in the first place. Therefore, you find yourself in a hole. What is the First Rule of Holes? Stop Digging. Put into the context of this issue, since opening up his mouth and talking about it is what got him into the hole, shutting his mouth would be the equivalent of putting the shovel down, no? I ask you is inviting Gates and Crowley to the White House for beers more or less likely to make the talking heads and bloggers like moi keep talking about it and reminding people of Obama’s boneheaded comments?
Why, oh why, can politicians not learn and live by the First Rule of Holes? It’s really so simple.
But, nevertheless, Obama invited the guys over for beers this afternoon. There’s a picture of the sit-down that the press has released:
Politico has an article that’s pretty boring reading that you can look at here. No earth-shaking revelations. No grand apologies or breakthroughs in racial understanding. Just two really uncomfortable-looking guys with the President and VP who are trying too hard to look comfortable. So, no results, just a reminder of the past mistake on Obama’s part, and keeping the whole thing in the press for another day or two. I thought Obama was a smart politician, but I’m not so sure that if his ego is involved, that his judgment doesn’t go out the window.
Now, let’s get to the really interesting stuff - the choice of beers. First, Gates is said to have selected Red Stripe. That’s a Jamaican lager that’s pretty widely available. If you have a Beer Advocate account (and if you don’t, why not?), you can read the reviews here. It earns a C average. Not so great. For as learned a man as he seems to be, he should have done better. Crowley had a Blue Moon, which BA reviewers give a B-. Better, but brewed by Coors, so there’s only so much that can be done there. Mr. Crowley turns out to have the best taste of the three, though.
Yes, it’s sad, but true. The President of the United States had a Bud Light, which garners a D- (deservedly, I say) from BA reviewers. Honestly, I thought he was supposed to be urbane and sophisticated. What gives with Bud Light? I know it would have to be an American brew, but there are some mighty fine American brews. My wife’s favorite beer in the world comes from Newport, Oregon - a Rogue Chocolate Stout (which earns an A from BA). I recently discovered the Coffee Oatmeal Stout from the Good People Brewing Company in Birmingham. It’s AWESOME (gets an A too). So, having to drink American is no excuse for having Bud Light.
Well, I really timed that last post well, didn’t I?
On Friday of last week, Sarah Palin announced that not only would she not seek reelection as governor of Alaska in 2010, but that she would also resign the governor’s office at the end of July. You can read the whole write-up here.
Now, it’s no secret that I’m a fan of Palin’s. I thought that choosing her for VP was the only thing about his whole entire presidential campaign that John McCain got right. However, the campaign handled her selection disastrously. Honestly, why on earth would any Republican think that the best place to start out a newbie on the national stage is with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson? They hate Republicans, and everyone knows it - or should. It was totally predictable that they were going to play gotcha with her, and they did. And the rest is history - the media and Jon Stewart types spun it that she was stupid, and so that’s the mainstream media narrative on her.
However, I think that anyone who looks objectively at her can tell that she has much political talent. Moreover, she seems to understand what the issues of the day really are - produce energy domestically, have strong national defense, and keep the government living within its means and out of everyone’s lives. These themes are not in vogue right now, with the ascent of Obama. The emperor has on no clothes, though, and soon enough that fact will become clear. And when the government’s house of financial cards comes crashing down, the urbane, smooth-talking sophistication of Obama will have worn pretty thin, and the country will start looking for the opposite. That’s Sarah Palin - plain spoken, common sensical, and a lot less slick.
So how does her resignation fit in? There are two theories. The first is that quitters don’t get elected president, and so she’s now finished as a national candidate. This is the talking head theory of the moment. Even the usually supportive Ed Morrisey over at Hot Air thinks she’s cooked.
However, there’s a contrary view that I think is more persuasive. Generally, those who listened to her resignation speech and believed it are those who hold to this view. (Mary Matalin is one of those in this category). In a nutshell, she resigned because the constant drumbeat of ethics complaints filed against her by the national Democrats, who have made it their mission to destroy her (- an odd reaction to someone so allegedly stupid). None of these have been successful, but they have cost the state of Alaska over 2 million dollars to defend. She has another $500,000 of her own personal legal bills to pay on top of that. Given that cost, the time she and her staff spend dealing with that nonsense, and the effect on her family of being the butt of late-night comedy on a constant basis, she decided that there was nothing to be gained for anyone but her opponents to continue. To my way of thinking, all of this is undeniably true. In fact, the only reason for her to stay in the office was to continue to pad her resume for higher office. Viewed in this manner, her staying on was the truly selfish course of action, and resignation was best for returning state government to normalcy, and getting her own family out of an unwanted spotlight.
Now, those who bother to listen and consider will not hold this against Sarah Palin. I do not think we’ve seen the last of her, either. She may not run in 2012. If she does, she will have a difficult time with Mitt Romney, who’s already way ahead toward the nomination. After all, Republicans always nominate the guys whose turn it is, and that’s him. However, she’s young, the camera loves her, and she’s strikingly similar to Ronald Reagan in a lot of ways. Think about it - the press hates her like they hated him; they call her a stupid hick like they called him a dumb actor; they’ve made her family life into a circus, much like Reagan’s dysfunctional relationship with his children was exploited; but, like him, she can go directly over their heads and speak directly to the people of middle America and connect - not with flowery rhetoric devoid of any meaning like Obama, but with core principles and actual personal conviction.
Today looks bad. But 1960 looked bad for Nixon, and 1976 looked bad for Reagan. That’s the thing about politics that fascinates me. Today’s hero is tomorrow’s goat - and vice versa.
The Michael Jackson freakshow isn’t the only game in town, it seems. Just a day before MJ’s death, Mark Sanford, the governor of South Carolina, admitted that he’d been having an affair. Not just any affair either. The governor had disappeared without telling his wife or his staff where he was going (or telling them a lie - that he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail). Turns out he had jetted off to Argentina for a rendezvous with his mistress.
Now, obviously, this is very bad. Infidelity doesn’t really go over very well with the electorate in the US (unlike France, where it’s some sort of badge of manhood). However, Bill Clinton survived it politically, so perhaps there was a chance for a man once considered to be a possible presidential candidate. Then, the news leaked out that Mrs. Sanford knew about the affair, having discovered it in a letter from the paramour to the Governor. They had separated; he was told to end the affair, and said he would.
But he didn’t. He apparently went on his jaunt to Argentina afterwards. So, today, Mark Sanford grants an interview to the AP, which results in the following:
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford declared his Argentine mistress his soul mate Tuesday but said he is committed to reconciling with his wife in hopes of saving his family and what is left of his political career.
Sanford, who also admitted meeting his lover more times than he had previously claimed, told The Associated Press in emotional interviews that he "crossed lines" with a handful of other women during 20 years of marriage.
But he said he never went as far as he did with Maria Belen Chapur, the woman at the center of the scandal that has derailed his once-promising political future.
Even with the latest revelations, Sanford maintains he is fit to govern and has no plans to resign. And he insisted his relationship with Chapur, whom he met at an open air dance spot in Uruguay eight years ago, was more than just sex.
"This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story," Sanford said. "A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day."
Wow. That ought to make Mrs. Sandford come running back. The paramour is his soul mate? Are you serious? Does he really expect reconciliation by saying something like that, much less in public? Seems doubtful, no?
So, strike one potential Republican governor off the list for 2012. I say good riddance. Better to know about this stuff before the voting starts. Besides, there’s another Republican governor to think about. How about this?
Yes, indeed she is running. The whole photo shoot for Runner’s World, complete with a shot of her holding Trig, is here.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the political left in this country has either (a) lost its stomach for advocating freedom or (b) doesn’t even recognize true repression when it happens. Witness the events going on right now in Iran. Actually, that’s a fairly difficult thing to do now, isn’t it? There simply isn’t a whole lot going on right now in the mainstream press about it. A visitor to the NY Times website this morning will be greeted by this picture:
The associated story, at the top of the webpage, is about last night’s Fashion Awards. This while one of the most repressive regimes in the world is on the verge of being toppled. It is not inconceivable that the aversion of nuclear war is on the line here, and yet, the lefties’ paper of record can’t seem to be bothered to post a picture of the beatings and killings of the protesters.
Why is that? As I speculated above, one explanation is that they just don’t really have the stomach for the fight. After all, the Iraq affair has been a long and draining experience. None can realistically deny this. Yet, for the US, the question should be whether we care to be, if not an active agent for freedom and democracy, at least its cheerleader. What does it cost anyone here in the US, left or right, to say publicly that nonviolent protesters shouldn’t be beaten and killed by government hit squads?
I suspect that the true explanation is that the left has lost the ability to recognize true repression when it sees it. Over the last seven years especially, the left has been so engaged in trying to paint the US as some type of fascist state that they’ve lost the ability to know what one truly looks like. Well, the folks in Iran know. That’s why 2 to 3 million people took to the streets of Tehran yesterday to protest this ridiculous sham of an election. And while those protesters are beaten, killed, and the government tries its best to shut off the flow of information to the outside world, the best that President Obama can do is to say that he is “troubled” by the situation. Super weak. Can he not at least muster the decency to say that no government should murder its own citizens in cold blood for participating in political protest? Pathetic. We’ve come a long way from Reagan’s daring Gobachev to tear down the Berlin Wall.
But, nature abhors a vacuum. Almost miraculously, Iranians are still able to use Twitter, and are letting the rest of the world know what’s going on, one 140-character tweet at a time. If you’re interested go here or here to read the tweets yourself. Also, as is increasingly the case these days, new media is beating the pants off mainstream media. The very best I’ve found is Michael Totten, a freelance journalist/blogger, whose posts are here at the Commentary magazine blog. Another good roundup is provided by (of all bloggers) Andrew Sullivan. Finally, if you’d like to read some interviews with some people who aren’t TV talking heads or administration shills, but instead actually know what they’re talking about, then check out Hugh Hewitt’s links here.
I hope this rotten regime follows the Soviets and Saddam right into the dustbin of history. If that happens, it will be no thanks to President Obama or the American left.
Earlier, Clay Staggs put up a blog posting from the Belmont Club. I would like to take the time to unpack some of the things mentioned.
First and foremost, credit is, for better or worse, the blood of the economy. Everyone uses credit every single day. If you don’t believe me, look at your electricity bill. You do not pay ahead of time; instead, after checking your CREDIT, the utility extends you CREDIT so that you don’t have to either pre-pay for the month or make a payment at the end of every day. Because of this, utilities go into the CREDIT market and borrow money. They may issue commercial paper, bonds, or may sell the accounts receivable at a discount in order to obtain funds. What would happen if your utility could not get credit? It would go out of business and you wouldn’t have electricity. This is why TARP was necessary. TARP is the Troubled Asset Relief Program. I may disagree with how the Administration used the funds, but overall, it was necessary.
So what caused this credit crisis? It is true that interest rates were probably too low, which allowed individuals and firms to borrow excessively, which in turn led to a higher-than-average default rate that occurred all at once. We know what caused the higher-than-average default rate (excessive lending) but what caused it to happen all at once. James Hamilton, a prominent economist at the University of California-San Diego, argues that the high gas prices of last summer caused defaults to increase suddenly. You can read the paper here.
In my humble opinion, TARP and the purchase of assets by the Federal Reserve was necessary and sufficient. We’ll collectively call these the Bailout. If only the Bailout was used, the economy would have recovered. However, it wouldn’t have recovered soon enough for the likes of politicians. So we got the Stimulus, which includes the projects and government ownership of car companies. This was not necessary, and definitely not sufficient.
Finally, let’s talk about the Federal Reserve. We hear all these stories about the Fed being controlled by banks, the Bilderbergers, the Hamburglar, etc. All policy of the Federal Reserve is set by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). Who comprises the FOMC? It is made up of 12 individuals, 7 of whom are from the the Board of Governors, which oversees the entire Federal Reserve System, which includes the 12 regional banks. Each of the 7 is confirmed by the Senate. The other 5 are Federal Reserve Bank presidents, one of whom is always the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of NY; the other four rotate on a yearly basis. While it is true that banks make up a large part of the board of each bank, it is those who have been confirmed by the Senate that make up a majority. So even if the Hamburglar wanted to bring about the end of the United States via the Bank of International Settlement in Switzerland, which is the new alleged puppetmaster of the Fed, it can’t be done. Independence of the Fed is necessary to ensure that it does not do unnecessary things.
Our latest issue of the Salt & Light (available here) centers on economic issues this month. So, I’ll take this opportunity to add onto the pieces there.
I was reading a piece sent to me by my friend Herb Saunders from the Belmont Club blog. I commend the post to your attention. One of the comments to that piece was called out by the post’s author for special consideration, and indeed it is quite thought-provoking. I am taking the liberty of reproducing it in its entirety. The writer is Leo Linbeck III.
As we’ve discussed before at the BC, the housing bubble (which triggered the overall financial crisis) was caused by decades of government policies directed at increasing the rate of home ownership. These policies - pursued with gusto by both Republicans and Democrats [Ed.: isn’t bipartisan good? Not when it’s bipartisan stupidity] - had the effect of greatly loosening lending standards. IOW: government encouraged, and then abetted, then forced, easy mortgage money.
I won’t retell the whole story here on what happened next, but wide swaths of the credit market just about shut down. Interbank lending, commercial paper, commercial lending, real estate lending, corporate bond market, municipal bond market, credit derivatives, everything - everything, that is, except for United States Treasuries, backed by the full faith and credit (i.e. the taxing authority) of the Federal Government.
This shutdown of the short-term credit market was the real financial crisis, the true danger to the economy. Short-term credit is the blood supply of the economy. Blood cells are not the “coolest” cells in the body - everyone swoons over the smooth muscle cells and (of course) the sperm and ova. But you can live without muscle, sperm, and ova; you can’t live without blood. The same thing is true of short-term debt and the US economy: no debt, no economy.
So something had to be done. Problem is, like all panics, it was far from clear at the time what had happened, why, and what to do about it. But one thing was certain: we needed to get debt flowing again.
Into the breach stepped the Federal Reserve Bank. It injected staggering quantities of liquidity into the system in an attempt to restart lending. The patient was bleeding (to continue the analogy), and while we didn’t know where the wound was, we knew that blood pressure was dropping and unless we started giving him lots of blood his body would begin to shut down.
The Fed set up, on the fly, huge new programs to absorb illiquid assets into its balance sheet. It bought residential mortgages (prime and subprime), commercial paper, and money market assets, lent money to banks, non-bank financial companies, and even non-financial companies, all in an attempt to bring the short-term credit markets back to life by giving banks liquidity secured by just about any asset. Treasury “helped” by putting capital into banks, and the FDIC helped by raising insurance limits; but the heavy lifting was done by the Fed. Its balance sheet ballooned to over $2T in a matter of weeks, and it held its breath.
Slowly, the system started to work again. Banks started lending to each other; commercial paper markets reopened; mortgages started being underwritten again (although with much tighter standards); etc. We’ve gradually been seeing money come back into the market. The thaw is real.
Essentially, the Fed went “all-in” with liquidity. It was a huge gamble, but it looks like it is paying off. In fact, some of these Fed programs are beginning to shrink - total Fed assets actually fell by $130B in April, and more than $60B of that was a drop in commercial paper alone.
Now, however, the initial game - restart short-term credit markets - is evolving into a new game: keep Treasury rates low during the next year so that the ARM resets don’t bring the system back to its knees. This is a big reason, IMHO, why the Fed has jumped into the long-bond market; it has pushed short rates as far as the can go, so it needs to push long rates down to keep the overall yield curve low and affordable for ARM resetters.
This is a much bigger gamble, and it’s too early to tell if it will pay off.
In summary, as we’ve discussed before, the Fed, with the tight OODA loop of monetary policy, stepped in to try to fix the immediate problem.
But fiscal policy is another matter. The Obama Administration, almost from the moment it occupied the White House, set about increasing government spending in an attempt to “stimulate” the economy. But fiscal policy is much different than monetary policy.
A lot of folks might think, “Well, the Fed injected $1.2T into the economy, and President+Congress injected $800B, so the Fed is a bigger stimulator.” But this misses a key difference. The Fed, when it lends to banks and takes collateral, does not really “inject” anything into the economy. It simply swaps one asset (say, a mortgage) for another asset (cash). The “stimulative” effect only comes when the bank finds someone who will borrow the cash (which, in turn, is usually secured by assets).
The Fed’s actions are also, therefore, easy to reverse. Right now, banks are happy to borrow at 0% against illiquid (but paying) mortgages. They can turn around and lend out at 5% or more, and make good money. But if the Fed raises the interest rate it charges, say to 4%, the banks will pay off those loans, and most of that liquidity will get sucked back out of the economy. And it will happen fast (although hopefully not as fast as it was added).
Fiscal policy, on the other hand, is a transfer of money (not an exchange of assets) from one group to another. The government collects taxes (or prints money) and spends it. Once the spending commitment is made, it’s almost impossible to reverse. It also takes a lot longer to have an impact; as an example, the vast majority of “stimulus” funds will not be spent this year. IOW: big, slow OODA loop.
—
So what’s coming? A showdown between Congress and the Fed.
The Fed is an independent entity. It is a network of 12 Regional Federal Reserve banks. The Presidents of these Regional Fed banks are chosen by an independent board of directors. Each Regional Fed bank is owned by member banks, but the board is controlled by non-bankers (6 non-bankers, 3 bankers).
This means that the control of the Fed banks is in the hands of private citizens, and not Congress. Each President works for their respective board, which hires and fires them.
Some folks complain about this arrangement, but it has saved our bacon, IMHO. This independence has allowed the Fed to act without having to go to Congress or the White House for permission. This keeps its OODA loop tight, and helps shelter it from partisan political fights. Its independence has also allowed the US dollar to be the world’s reserve currency.
But here’s things get sticky. The Obama Administration is proposing the most dramatic expansion of Federal spending in history. Trillions of dollars will be added to the Federal Debt during the next 3-4 years, and if they pass healthcare reform, it will get even worse. In addition, by increasing marginal tax rates, economic growth will slow, and growth is the only way we can eventually pay off the debt we have accumulated.
So here’s the scenario. In the next 12 months we will see all of these factors come together:
1. Dramatic expansion of government spending.
2. Falling tax receipts due to recession and increased marginal tax rates.
3. A projected $10T increase in Federal Debt.
4. Continued unsustainable structural deficit from entitlement programs.
5. Stabilized of financial markets.
6. More “green shoots” of growth creating early signs of inflation.
All of these factors will lead the Fed to conclude that interest rates must be increased, to drain excess liquidity out of the financial system. Unless rates get raised, there will be huge inflationary pressure. The party will be starting, and it will be time to take away the punchbowl.
However, there is one more fact that will come into play:
7. Unemployment will still be high.
This means that Congress and the President will NOT want interest rates to increase, lest the young “recovery” be hurt.
The result will be a showdown, and it will determine whether the dollar will continue to be the world’s reserve currency, and the US the largest financial services provider in the world.
In the coming weeks, you will start to see calls for Congressional influence or approval of the Fed Presidents. To set this up, there will be an increasing drumbeat from folks like Frank and Dodd as well as the Obama Administration (yes, Insty, the country’s in the best of hands) railing against the Fed, and blaming them for every little hiccup or setback, while taking credit for anything good. This will all be part of an effort to undermine the Fed, and position it for a Congressional takeover.
And when the takeover attempt is made, that will be the moment of truth, the time at which we will determine whether the housing bubble bursting will trigger just a really nasty recession, or the next Great Depression.
If Congress gets control of the Fed, the game will be over. Everyone in the world will know that the US is going to inflate its way out of its problems so that it doesn’t have to confront its lack of fiscal discipline. Bond prices will plummet, the dollar will collapse, and the economy will go back into the ICU. Inflation will punish the working man, while the investor class will be fine (inflation can be a good thing for equities and real estate).
If the Fed maintains its independence, interest rates will rise and Democrats will have to face the music and give up on most of their expansionist dreams. If they continue to spend, rates will continue to rise and we’ll get stagflation just in time for the 2010 elections. And they’ll get hammered, just like in 1980.
So Congress can tax and spend responsibly, or they can take over the Fed. Guess which they’d prefer.
From such a crisis of a nation comes the test of a generation.
I have to say that I have a difficult time finding a hole I can poke in Mr. Linbeck’s facts or logic. Therefore, I think his prediction of the coming conflict is totally foreseeable. At this point, I think that the Congress and President would lose such a showdown. However, I thought that the country would never elect a president as liberal as Barack Obama, so what do I know?
I’d be interested to hear anyone else’s take on this.
Two events this week illustrate perfectly the absurdity that the Obama administration is becoming.
First, as almost everyone has heard by now, Supreme Court Justice David Souter is retiring. I, for one, will not miss Justice Souter. He is obviously of a very liberal political and judicial mentality, yet accepted the nomination of a president who certainly expected him to be exactly the opposite. I consider this to be a fraud and a betrayal. I’d rather have the honest lib that Obama will appoint than the duplicitous Souter. He didn’t even extend the party of his nomination the courtesy (as most do) of allowing a president of that same party to name his successor. But I digress.
I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives — whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.
Got that? “Empathy and understanding” are the essential qualities neceesary to arriving at “just decisions and outcomes.” Please allow me to translate this out of liberal-speak. He wants someone who will not feel constrained by the letter of the law if that letter would result in an outcome that liberals don’t want. The actual text of the constitution be hanged. This is as much as admitted in the last sentence - “a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.” Of course, reading the text of the Constitution and applying it as written isn’t “thoughtful” - that’s what Republicans do. It’s so not relevant to “our time” - since, you know, human nature has changed so much since 1789. Besides, if something in the Constitution needs changing, it’s not like there’s any way to amend it or anything. Clearly, we must have liberal activist judges to save us from things like banning third trimester abortions.
Now, contrast this posture with the administration’s position on foreign criminal prosecutions of former government officials. Earlier this week, the Attorney General answered a few questions on the subject:
In speaking to reporters Wednesday, Holder also said it is possible the United States could cooperate with a foreign court’s investigation of Bush administration officials.
Holder spoke before the announcement that a Spanish magistrate had opened an investigation of Bush officials on harsh interrogation methods. Holder didn’t rule out cooperating in such a probe.
“Obviously, we would look at any request that would come from a court in any country and see how and whether we should comply with it,” Holder said.
“This is an administration that is determined to conduct itself by the rule of law and to the extent that we receive lawful requests from an appropriately created court, we would obviously respond to it,” he said.
Pressed on whether that meant the United States would cooperate with a foreign court prosecuting Bush administration officials, Holder said he was talking about evidentiary requests and would review any such request to see if the U.S. would comply.
The day after Holder made these comments, a Spanish magistrate announced that he was beginning an investigation of crimes committed by former Bush administration officials relating to the interrogation techniques used on detainees. Spain apparently takes the position that certain of its criminal laws apply anywhere in the world. If such a position were to be respected by another country, that country would have effectively surrendered its sovereignty to Spain. And, apparently, this is exactly what the Obama administration intends to do. This is certainly (yet another) attempt to get back at its political enemies in the Bush administration, but letting the Spaniards do the dirty work instead. Pathetic.
But consider the contrast between these two. The new Supreme Court justice need not feed constrained by the letter of our own constitution, but we’re doggone well going to follow the letter of Spanish law, despite fact that Spanish courts have no jurisdiction here, especially criminally.
Perhaps on second thought, there’s more similarity than difference. In both instances, liberals like Obama disregard anything inconvenient to the pursuit of their political agendas.
Well, at least for now, the Gourmet Beer Bill is dead, the victim of a filibuster in the Alabama Senate. If there is any governing body that can rival the Alabama Senate for dysfunction, I’d like to know what it is.
The purpose of this blog post is to hold up the arguments of the senator leading the filibuster, Hank Erwin, Republican [sigh] of Montevallo, to as much public ridicule as I can heap on them. To say that they are specious is to do them an undeserved compliment. These arguments are the weakest, flimsiest, most palpably ridiculous assertions ever to enter the realm of political discourse. They are so weak that they are very clearly nothing more than pandering of the worst kind for Senator Erwin’s campaign for Lieutenant Governor.
Sen. Erwin says that he opposes the bill because it will lead young people to “blow (their) brains out with alcohol.” Let’s consider that for a moment, shall we? The bill in question would raise the alcohol limit in beer from the current limit of 6% to 13.9%. Wines sold in Alabama currently can have an alcohol content of 14.9%. Are our yutes “blowing their brains out” with wine?
Wine isn’t even the worst counterexample. Consider that one can buy Everclear (that’s pure grain alcohol - 190 proof) in any ABC store you come across. Hunch punch anyone?
Let’s come at this from another angle. Sen Erwin phrases his arguments in terms of “young people,” an argument frequently raised in this debate - i.e., that this will encourage underage drinking. How exactly is that? How will this entice anyone to drink that’s not already inclined to do so? What is the pied piper magic of a Belgian Ale that’s going to lead young Johnny into the gutter of alcoholism, that Bud, Miller, Coors, and PBR don’t possess?
And as bad as all of these gross failures of logic are, the very worst of all of it is the moral preening that comes with Sen Erwin’s pose. Consider this quotation:
“Young people might be enticed to disaster,” he said. “I don’t want it in my conscience that I put someone in a lack of safety.”
Well, well. Isn’t that convenient? I will make an assumption that Sen. Erwin adheres to an Arminian view of free will, where all are free to choose between good and evil without the constraints of Calvinistic total depravity. Given that view, how would anyone’s choices regarding gourmet beer be on Sen. Erwin’s conscience? It makes no sense whatsoever. The hypothetical person in a “lack of safety” could simply choose not to drink, right? He’s got free will, doesn’t he? Even if you reject that argument, we’ve already got laws against public intoxication, drinking under the influence, open containers, contributing to the delinquency of minors, and drinking under the age of 21 (even though in Alabama you’re legally an adult at age 19). Assuming these laws are enforced, then where’s the lack of safety?
This is so completely preposterous I just can’t stand it. And lest someone accuse me of selective outrage because my beer ox is the one being gored, Sen Erwin is also filibustering a bill that would raise the alcohol limit in wines from 14.9% to 16.5%.
I, for one, cannot vote for anyone this obtuse for Lt. Governor (or any political office, for that matter). I will be emailing Sen. Erwin with thoughts along these lines. If anyone else cares to do that, a commenter on the article linked above has helpfully provided the senator’s email address.
Exit question: who ELSE is running for Lt. Governor?
Honestly, the Obama administration is even more fertile ground for blog material than even I dreamed possible. I thought his performance at the Summit of the Americas this past weekend was awful. Not because he shook Chavez’s hand, but because he failed to stand up for what we as American ostensibly believe in - you know, freedom, democracy - and to condemn those things that we oppose - you know, communism, the crushing of political dissent, etc. No, Obama could not be bothered to defend those things in the face of Hugo Chavez’s propagandizing book gift or Daniel Ortega’s stemwinder condemning American imperialism.
I thought that was bad. But what came yesterday is arguably the very worst yet.
Obama, reversing an earlier position, now says that he is open to the possibility of the Attorney General prosecuting the Bush administration officials who authorized “enhanced interrogation techniques,” such as waterboarding. This is a radical departure from 200+ years of American tradition. We do not criminalize policy differences with the previous administration. That’s what banana republics do, and it’s also why those countries are resistant to democratic reforms - the dictators fearing that the folks who win the election will prosecute them for political differences the same way they have done. Up until now, this has been wisely resisted in the US. We don’t even prosecute those who should be prosecuted - Nixon was pardoned, you know.
Anyone with a shred of wisdom and an ounce of common sense can understand why this policy is desirable. Who would go to work for a president of party X if the next president of party Y is liable to have him prosecuted for his policy work? It is wrong in every philosophical way for a policy difference to be turned into a crime. But this goes beyond philosophy - this is politics, and stupid politics at that.
Obama’s own Director of National Security has admitted that the interrogation techniques used - only on a very few high value detainees - yielded extremely valuable information, and, in fact, disrupted a terrorist plot on the scale of 9/11 that was aimed at Los Angeles. This is what our allegedly brilliant president proposes to criminalize. He even thinks that the lawyers within the Bush administration who wrote legal memos opining that such methods were not illegal (and they have yet to be criminalized by Congress) should be open to prosecution. How does that make everyone feel? A lawyer can be prosecuted for rendering a legal opinion that’s politically out of favor? How would such a policy have affected, say, the civil rights movement?
This is all blindingly stupid. The only explanation for this is raw political payback. Obama’s political power base is slobbering at the chance to scalp those who authorized waterboarding, despite the fact that LA could have been up in smoke without that. Rather than call out his own side’s blind spots, he’s pandering to it in the most destructive way I can possibly imagine.
I have tried to give this president the benefit of the doubt. I have thought that it was not in the interests of conservatives to have a knee jerk reaction to every policy difference with Obama, and I still think that. But this issue is of such an order of magnitude of difference that no one should hold back on their criticism. And, for starters, check out Hugh Hewitt’s blistering condemnation of Obama on this issue here and here.
I do not want this country to become a cross between a European social-welfare state and a banana republic, but I fear with every passing day that this is exactly where we’re headed.
During Clinton’s terms, folks of my political stripe were fond of calling CNN the Clinton News Network because of its, well, friendliness toward an administration more to its liking than Reagan and Bush had been. Media bias is nothing new for conservatives to bemoan. I am firmly convinced that all major mainstream media (with the exception of Fox News and the WSJ) are hopeless leftwingers and cannot be trusted to report anything fairly.
Now, before I offer proof positive of such bias, l think I should clarify that I am not opposed to someone having a bias. In point of fact, we all have biases, and I think it’s a fool’s errand to go about purporting to be free of bias. That’s what infuriates me about the mainstream media (MSM). They prance about with the attitude that they are truly free of bias, when anyone willing to acknowledge the obvious can see that they are not.
It would be better for CNN, LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, etc., to acknowledge that they are reporting the news from a politically liberal perspective (and for Fox & WSJ to do the same on the other side) and let folks choose with biases fully disclosed. However, the big names will never do this because it would admit something that they cannot allow, namely that they’re not the fair-minded referee in the game of politics. That role is still critical for them, because the independent voter is still massively influenced by them. This is a state of affairs that will not long endure, for various reasons, but the one pertinent to this post is that their sycophantic loyalty to Obama is getting in the way. It so consumes them that they are letting their mask of objectivity slip.
Consider CNN’s reporting on Wednesday’s TEA Parties. The latest counts that I saw put the number of participants nationwide at over 330,000 - and that’s on a work day. Clearly, this is a threat to Obama and the Democrats, not because the Republicans are innocent - they aren’t - but because the Democrats are the party in power and have so exceeded even the drunk sailor levels of spending by Bush 43. I think this is the official graph of the TEA Party protesters, showing Federal deficits:
So, clearly, CNN perceives - correctly - that there is political danger for their guy. If they were unbiased, they would have to report honestly the concerns of the protesters - which are completely legitimate even if one ultimately comes to the conclusion that this level of debt is a necessary evil. But to do so would give valuable air time to those opposing CNN’s guy, and allow them to make their (very valid) point against Obama’s runaway spending.
So, what does CNN reporter Susan Roesgen do when sent out to cover the event? See for yourself:
Now, let’s take this apart. Consider the guy with the Obama/Hitler sign. I find that to be out of bounds. There’s much to criticize about Obama without resort to such an inflammatory and unfair association. I think most folks would agree. How does one suppose that Ms. Roesgen selected him for confrontation? Blogger Michelle Malkin (on whose bad side I would not want to be) has done a little digging through the web and found a report by Ms. Roesgen from 2006 where she covered an anti-Bush protest where a guy was wearing a GWB mask with a Hitler mustache and horns added. Ms. Roesgen not only did not find this bothersome, her report even made the guy sympathetic. Video here. Compare and contrast. Double standard proved.
Then there’s Ms. Roesgen’s encounter with the guy with the baby. The man tries to make a point about the principles of Lincoln and, apparently forgetting that she’s not the Obama Treasury Secretary, her response is to lecture the man about how much money he ($400) and the State of Illinois ($50B) are getting in stimulus money. Ignorant, condescending, and pathetic.
Finally, there’s her closing rant against Fox and the protesters. “Right wing,” “not family viewing,” “anti-government,” “anti-CNN.” She’s not paranoid - everybody’s just out to get her. Maybe seeing the latest ratings got her off her game:
FOXNEWS O’REILLY 3,980,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,239,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,947,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,740,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,401,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,185,000
COMEDY DAILY SHOW 1,777,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,499,000
COMEDY COLBERT 1,446,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,336,000
CNN KING 1,292,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,149,000
CNN COOPER 1,021,000
And, because this is a family-friendly blog, I won’t even go into the sex puns made by CNN and MSNBC in their derisive coverage of these protests. But you can go here for a summary.
Susan Roesgen and her superiors at CNN - indeed almost the entire MSM - are hopelessly biased. And to the extent that it hasn’t already driven them into the ratings cellar, it will eventually. No one likes a partisan hack posing as fair-minded neutral. And Susan Roesgen proved decisively on Wednesday that that’s what she and her employer are.
After all, if you’re going to give the Queen of England an iPod loaded with showtunes, then that one simply must be included, right?
Honestly, having appeared in the press yesterday (April Fools’ Day), one might have hoped that this story was just a sad joke. Alas, the sad joke is the President of the United States and whatever’s left of the White House protocol office. In his meeting with the Queen, Obama gave her an iPod, loaded with showtunes. A full list of the tunes included is here.
Audio of then-state senator Obama’s speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and
Audio of President Obama 2009 Inauguration address
Nevermind that the Queen already has an iPod, and has since 2005. Bet hers didn’t have The One’s speechifying on it.
Is it just me, or is this megalomania on display for the entire world to see? Am I the only one noticing this? Can you imagine the wall-to-wall coverage on CNN if Bush had done something like this?
Isn’t it a good thing that we have the smart people running the country now? Aren’t we glad that the rubes have been sent packing to Hicksville, so that those more sophisticated and erudite can carry out national affairs without embarrassing us all?
At least with George Will anyway. You might recall that, prior to the election last fall, George Will was one of several (supposed) conservatives to trash the McCain/Palin ticket and praise the cool, smart post-partisanship of Obama.
Well, so much for that. Today Will rips into Congress (calling them the “toxic assets we elected”) and Obama too. Excerpt:
Another embarrassing auditor of American misgovernment is China, whose premier has rightly noted the unsustainable trajectory of America’s high-consumption, low-savings economy. He has also decorously but clearly expressed sensible fears that his country’s $1 trillion-plus of dollar-denominated assets might be devalued by America choosing, as banana republics have done, to use inflation for partial repudiation of improvidently incurred debts.
Ouch. That’s going to leave a mark.
How long have we had the smartest people evah in charge of the government now - 60 days? And this is the way that one of their cheerleaders is reacting?
Just a few short comments on some things I’ve been seeing and reading this week on the subjects of politics and economics and their inextricable intertwining of late.
1. Fed Printing Over a Trillion Dollars out of Thin Air. This is the most recent installment in the continuing and abject panic over the state of the economy. As we have seen so far, the cures for the diseases caused by easy credit and overspending are, naturally, more credit and more spending. The Fed yesterday decided to buy up over $1 Trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) worth of mortgage-backed securities and Treasury bonds. The obvious question is where all that money is coming from. The answer is that they’re just printing more. I heard on an NPR report this morning that in the last year, the Fed’s balance sheet had quadrupled. When the inevitable, totally predicable, raging case of inflation comes, remember you heard it here first.
2. About those AIG Bonuses…. Tim alluded to this in his post below. The bonuses in question are just over $163 million, and were contractual obligations that AIG could have been sued for breaching. Besides, we just handed AIG over $30 BILLION. Why are we outraged at 163M instead of the $30B (which is really just the latest installment - overall, it’s much more than that)? This is the economic version of straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel.
One last point: this latest AIG bailout installment - the $30B given without any strings attached about whether it could be used to pay bonuses or not - was planned and executed by the Obama administration and its tax cheat Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. You remember, the ones that were so much smarter than the neanderthals in the Bush administration? To quote Glenn Reynolds, the country is in the best of hands.
3. Obama Admin to Vets: Pay for those Injuries Yourself! Yes, you did, in fact read that right. As incredibly politically suicidal as that sounds (remember: these are the smart people - the dumb ones have gone back to Crawford), Obama is proposing that, for Veterans with private insurance, the VA not cover their service-related treatment, forcing the private insurer to do so instead. Obama even met with the commander of the American Legion, who (naturally) argued against the plan, but Obama would not budge! The commander was reportedly “angered” by the President’s intransigence. I’m sure that’s an understatement.
Tellingly, even Jon Stewart has attacked this latest piece of idiocy (WARNING: language alert!):
Wow. When Jon Stewart is ridiculing Obama, something’s wrong.
4. Shelby Steele hits the Nail on the Head. Professor Steele wrote in Monday’s WSJ on the reasons that conservatism (and, by extension, the Republican Party) has a hard time attracting the support of minorities. His reasoning seems sound to me, and I found the article very thought provoking. I recommend it highly.
Paraphrasing Admiral Stockdale, this seems to be the question that the Republican party, and conservatives in general, are asking themselves. And boy is ink (and pixels) being spilled debating this question. So I’ll add mine to it.
As a Republican and a conservative, I find the whole debate somewhat perplexing. Unlike our friends across the aisle, we generally have no need to debate what the meaning of is is. Said differently, we seem to understand that objective truth exists and that the only question on the table is what that truth is.
Considering where most of post-modern society is, the ability to recognize that truth exists ought to be a huge advantage. Yet, the party and the movement (if I can describe conservatism as such) seems oddly unable to come together and move itself forward. I’ve been reading several things over that past few days that make me wonder what’s wrong with us. I am leaning toward the idea at this moment that our logic is muddled right now and our thinking not clear. Perhaps this is to be expected. Republicans and conservatives understand leadership better than our opponents do, and we actually crave and need strong leaders (a la Reagan or Thatcher) who can articulate what we believe. George W. Bush, whatever his virtues may have been, was not that person, and, frankly, much like Alabama did after Bryant, we’re still casting about for the next inspiring leader.
This brings me to Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh gave a speech at the CPAC convention this past weekend that by all accounts brought the house down. You can see the whole thing here and read a transcript here. I personally have not had the time to see it, but have read excerpts. It seems to me to be pretty standard Limbaugh fare. Here are a couple of quotes of Rush defining what conservatives believe:
Let me tell you who we conservatives are: We love people. [Applause] When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don’t think that person doesn’t have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government. [Applause]
…
We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. [Applause] We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. [Applause] Liberty, Freedom. [Applause] And the pursuit of happiness. [Applause] Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We conservatives think all three are under assault. [Applause]
Now, think what you like about what he says, but anyone who’s ever listened to his show can attest that this is just standard Rush. In my view, it’s fairly Reaganesque: small government, individual liberty, freedom, optimism. Having been a Republican my whole life, it is bizarre to me that conservatives would argue with this definition. But that’s exactly what’s happening.
Here are two articles to contemplate. The first is by Rod Dreher. Rod used to write for National Review; now he writes for Beliefnet. He is an observant Roman Catholic. I understand that he approaches things from a Christian, albeit not reformed, point of view. Commenting on the first paragraph above, Dreher writes:
This is a comforting lie. It is Rousseau conservatism: the idea that man is born innocent, but corrupted by society, or government. Remove the chains of government, and man will return to his natural, good state, which is one of limitless possibility. This denies two bedrock truths of philosophical conservatism, which are that 1) human nature is fallen, and 2) man must learn to live within limits. A conservatism that is not founded on a conscious recognition of those two truths is a false conservatism, and has a shaky foundation from which to criticize liberal utopianism.
Now, you will find no one more in harmony with the idea of total depravity than me. However, this critique of Limbaugh’s speech is deeply flawed. First of all, it’s dishonest. Rush said this two paragraphs later:
We don’t want to tell anybody how to live. That’s up to you. If you want to make the best of yourself, feel free. If you want to ruin your life, we’ll try to stop it, but it’s a waste. We look over the country as it is today, we see so much waste, human potential that’s been destroyed by 50 years of a welfare state. By a failed war on poverty.
That’s not a failure to recognize human sinfulness. It’s a critique of what governmental policies have done to exacerbate those failings. In point of fact, he recognizes that some people, despite all human efforts, will destroy themselves. He argues, though, that the government should promote the good, or at least not punish it. No one disputes Dreher’s call for limits on human behavior. After all, it’s not for nothing that the king bears the sword, right? The question on the table is what those limits should be. The limits and policies that the government sets influences behavior. Limabugh was not arguing against limits (he isn’t an anarchist), merely that the policies enacted by the government be empowering, not destructive.
Dreher continues his critique, which I don’t have time to fisk here in full, but I will say that, in my view, he completely misapplies Christian beliefs to the political situation in which conservatives find themselves.
Another semi-conservative commenter is David Brooks. Brooks comes at the current situation not from a Christian perspective but from a self-described “moderate-conservative” position (whatever that is). Brooks, who was warm to Obama during the campaign, finds to his shock (really) that the Obama handing down $3.6 Trillion budgets with $1 trillion deficits as far as the eye can see is “not who we thought he was.”
Wow. Who could have foreseen this? Brooks and his ilk, who can’t rationally defend the tax-and-spend proclivities of modern liberalism, but can’t bear to be associated with those redneck conservatives, make my blood boil. They have this holier-than-thou attitude that fairly drips with condescension, yet sounds oh-so-reasonable, in a Rodney King lets-just-all-get-along way. Consider:
You wouldn’t know it some days, but there are moderates in this country — moderate conservatives, moderate liberals, just plain moderates. We sympathize with a lot of the things that President Obama is trying to do. We like his investments in education and energy innovation. We support health care reform that expands coverage while reducing costs.
Got that? We non-moderate conservatives, by implication, are against health care reform because we want high costs and limited coverage. We also don’t want to invest in education (guilty as charged if that means throwing ever-more money at failing government schools) or alternative energy. That us: we like the kids stupid and the planet polluted! How deeply disingenuous and insulting. This is the posture of moderates that offends me. Yet, Brooks finds himself in a moderate quandry:
Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”
Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between. On the left, there is a president who appears to be, as Crook says, “a conviction politician, a bold progressive liberal.” On the right, there are the Rush Limbaugh brigades. The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.
Those of us in the moderate tradition — the Hamiltonian tradition that believes in limited but energetic government — thus find ourselves facing a void. We moderates are going to have to assert ourselves. We’re going to have to take a centrist tendency that has been politically feckless and intellectually vapid and turn it into an influential force.
Reckon why moderates have been politically feckless and intellectually vapid? Could it be that they have no guiding principles on which to base their continually shifting views? Note the sneer at Limbaugh and his listeners. You may not like Rush’s schtick, and I know it turns some folks off, but on politics and policy, he’s down the line Reagan-style conservatism. What about that is unfit to govern?
This post has gotten far longer than I ever intended it, but my basic point is this. Rush (and those who agree with him politically by extension) is being attacked from the left and even from some Christians as being conservatism’s problem. In point of fact, we haven’t had a Reaganite conservative leading the party since Reagan himself. Moderates like Bush 41, Dole, McCain, have been more of the type of leader we’ve produced since then, and hasn’t that worked out swell? Even Bush 43, while strong on defense, was really a big-government conservative.
A true Reaganite conservative will be necessary to rescue this country from the unfolding financial disaster that is in front of us. And it is just beginning. And Obama’s administration is doing exactly the wrong thing, trying to spend our way out of profligacy. After the hard crash that’s coming, someone, in the mold of a Reagan or Thatcher (Palin? Jinal? Jeb?), will have to slash and burn a lot of big government power and spending if the country is ever to recover. The sooner that the Republican party and conservatives realize this and quit trying to kill the messenger, the better.
I’ve been eager to find a few minutes to post on President Obama’s stimulus plan. For those who have not had a TV or internet connection for the past few weeks, Obama proposes to spend $825 billion - let me write that out; it’ll be more fun - that’s $825,000,000,000 - to stimulate the economy, presumably to jolt it out of the recession.
There’s so much material here that one hardly knows where to begin. How about stimulus money for birth control? Apparently the Obama plan has about $300 million to go for increased medicaid funding for states that elect to provide increased “family planning” services to the poor. Oh, wait, only it may not be for just the poor. It may be for the children of any family - no need to consider family resources or spousal resources. Read all about that here, if you have the stomach. Pelosi was on This Week yesterday and actually defended the stimulative effects of increased family planning funding. I suppose that depends on what’s getting stimulated, doesn’t it? Honestly, if a Republican said any of this…….
But, as entertaining as all of that is, I want to return to a favorite theme of mine - the complete and utter banishment of logic from the public debate. Let’s consider the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves, shall we? This all started with the housing bubble. I don’t think that many would dispute that. What caused the housing bubble? Rapid expansion of demand for the purchase of homes. Now, what caused the expansion to be so rapid? The availability of credit, very easy credit, credit to buyers that heretofore would have been considered ineligible borrowers. So these new buyers flood the market, housing prices start going up rapidly because of increasing demand. Prices rise. Then homeowners, feeling pretty wealthy on account of the rapid rise of their equity, borrow out the equity and decide to spend it. After all, interest rates were low, historically speaking. All that consumer spending fueled business growth, which in turn provided jobs, etc. Until…….
The problem with all bubbles is that they pop. Thus did the housing bubble. And, like so many dominoes, things began to fall - all the complicated mortgage-backed securities that had been created with bundled subprime mortgages suddenly looked not so good on the balance sheets of the financial institutions that had been making obscene amounts of money on them. These institutions began to falter and fail. Banks, uncertain of what their exposure to the imploding bubble really was (principally because they didn’t even understand the assets they owned, I think), stopped lending. Credit dried up. Business, no longer able to borrow, started to suffer and lay off workers. Homeowners, now not feeling so wealthy with home equity starting to turn negative, have laid off their formerly profligate consumer spending. Many are now in homes on which they owe more than the property is worth. The decreased consumer spending decreased demand for goods and services. Thus, the recession in which we find ourselves.
So, with this factual background in mind, what’s the logical solution to the problem? The Obama administration is proposing to combat the problems created by easy credit, excessive debt, and spending beyond our collective means by ….. more credit, more debt, and more spending. If you thought the private sector could screw things up by doing those things, just wait till the government ups the ante on a nation-wide basis.
All sarcasm aside (is that even possible for me?), suppose that the government gets what the president wants, which is very likely. How will the government spend money that is not in the treasury? There are only three options - spend less on other items (like Social Security or Medicare? Nevah), raise taxes (not yet - there’s a recession on - maybe later), or borrow, which is exactly what’s going to happen. The Treasury will sell off more government bonds and spend the money on things like birth control. But who in their right mind would buy these bonds? The country is already $10 trillion in debt, and adding $1.2 trillion (before the stimulus) per year. Isn’t it a phenomenal assumption that there will be a trillion dollars’ worth of buyers (read: suckers) out there? Peter Schiff explores this theme here, concluding that there’s no real reason to expect foreigners (particular the Chinese and Saudis) to underwrite limitless amounts of American debt forever.
But, to question the stimulus plan these days as being unwise and ineffectual is met with approximately the same reaction as one might receive if one suggested the earth were flat. Its supporters essentially respond with the argument that, well, we have to do something. What kind of an argument is that? Without knowing what to do, there could be serious damage done if we proceed in the wrong direction. Perhaps the policymakers could take a cue from the Hippocratic oath: first do no harm. Battling the unpleasant consequences of excessive debt and spending with even more excessive debt and spending should bring about more of the same bad consequences, right? Right?
And that doesn’t even begin to address the issue of the inflationary effect that all of this extra cash flushed into the system will have down the road.
To me, it’s more logical to do nothing than to do more of the same thing that brought you to ruin. I would love to hear a logical argument to the contrary. I won’t hold my breath, though.
UPDATE: Here’s a great video that makes the case against this stimulus package much better than I did:
I have long believed that, in general, liberals don’t see the United States as anything particularly special, and, instead, see it as something bordering on evil. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to think of America as a special, unique country - generally a force for good in the world that they’re pretty proud of. Conservatives thus have a difficult time wrapping their head around the notion of an American who doesn’t care for America too much - it just doesn’t compute.
In a piece in the LA Times today, Joel Klien admits all of the above. Here’s a sample quote:
Conservatives feel personally blessed to have been born in the only country worth living in. I, on the other hand, just feel lucky to have grown up in a wealthy democracy. If it had been Australia, Britain, Ireland, Canada, Italy, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan, Israel or one of those Scandinavian countries with more relaxed attitudes toward sex, that would have been fine with me too.
Now, though I laud Klein’s honesty, I really could do without the snark. While admitting his lack of love for country, he makes those who do have such love into unthinking, intolerant rubes:
I still think conservatives love America for the same tribalistic reasons people love whatever groups they belong to. These are the people who are sure Christianity is the only right religion, that America is the best country, that the Republicans have the only good candidates, that gays have cooties.
For someone who would profess tolerance above all, this doesn’t sound very tolerant of us America-lovers. But I suppose consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Great ones like Klein’s needn’t be bothered by such.
I’d like to offer a concrete example of why I think America is great. Everyone is aware of the difficulties the military and CIA are having in Afghanistan with trying to win over the tribes and get information about the Taliban and other assorted bad guys. So what do the Americans do? We get resourceful:
The Afghan chieftain looked older than his 60-odd years, and his bearded face bore the creases of a man burdened with duties as tribal patriarch and husband to four younger women. His visitor, a CIA officer, saw an opportunity, and reached into his bag for a small gift.
Four blue pills. Viagra.
“Take one of these. You’ll love it,” the officer said. Compliments of Uncle Sam.
The enticement worked. The officer, who described the encounter, returned four days later to an enthusiastic reception. The grinning chief offered up a bonanza of information about Taliban movements and supply routes — followed by a request for more pills.
I suppose everyone has heard that Bush has decided to use money from the bank bailout to bailout the Big 3 automakers. (Nevermind how this is legal, I guess.) Now these companies get $17.4 billion. That’s $17,400,000,000.
Our lame duck leader (emphasis on LAME) reassures us that these are just loans and that the administration has “set a deadline of March 31 for the companies to prove they can restructure sufficiently to ensure their survival or else the loans will be called back.”
Got that? If the borrowers can’t demonstrate that they can survive by 3/31/09, then the loans are called due. Now, suppose this comes to pass and the loans are called. But the reason they’re called is that the borrowers can’t survive, so how’s a company that can’t survive going to repay the treasury? If they were creditworthy, a bank would lend them the money and they wouldn’t need a government bailout. Let’s just call it what it is - a flat out giveaway to failed private businesses.
But is sounds so much nicer to call it a loan, doesn’t it?
And what it is ain’t exactly clear. Politically speaking, that is.
The supposed coronation of Barack Obama may - just may - not be all that was advertised.
Now, I’m not predicting a McCain win, much though I hope for one. But, I think that several things are happening that no one could have foreseen that just don’t fit with a landslide Obama victory. I think at we’re looking at a close contest.
First, there are the polls. Wow, there are a lot of polls. Having read a good bit about them, I can confidently say that nobody knows what’s going to happen. Pew’s latest poll has Obama up by 13. Rasmussen and Gallup yesterday said Obama +3, which is within the margin of error. How to reconcile this? I can’t reconcile it, but I think I can explain the discrepancy. Every poll weights the respondents by affiliation - a certain number of Democrats, a number of Republicans, and the rest independents. How you weight those groups can wildly affect the outcome of your poll. This year, many pollsters assume that there will be a crush of newly registered voters - many college age - who will upset historical turnout patterns. Pew is obviously weighting the Democrat portion of the sample much more heavily, with the predictable result. Gallup, acknowledging that this year could have an electorate more in conformity with historical norms, has two polls - an “expanded voter” model and a traditional model. But, as anyone can see, it’s all guesswork.
The McCain campaign’s internal pollster has supposedly written a memo seeing the race MUCH differently than the public pollsters. The WSJ published it yesterday. It’s a fascinating read, and it explains why McCain and Palin do not have the same attitude that Dole had in 1996. Go read it here, especially if you’re a Republican in need of a bit of encouragement.
Whether the polls are accurate or not, they definitely show a trend in McCain’s favor. Now, Obama raised $150M in one month (September - more on that below), the mainstream media is totally in the tank for him, and the economy is in the toilet. Oh, and all citizens everywhere seem to hate George Bush and the Republican party. So how is it that McCain is even close? Curious, no?
Some things have come out in the last few days that I think are giving folks some second thoughts. First, Obama’s outsized ego seems to be getting out there more. Last night, he bought 30 minutes of air time on all four broadcast networks and several other cable outlets. With that, he presented an infomercial. Does anybody like those? It also delayed the start of what turned out to be the final game of the World Series. I suspect that will alienate more folks than it attracts.
He’s also begun speculating about the composition of his cabinet. Story here. That doesn’t exactly scream humility.
Then there are some things creeping out that are just kinda shady if not downright illegal. Remember Joe the Plumber? Ohio Democrat officeholders have apparently gone snooping - without probable cause - to see if Joe’s doing anything illegal - like not paying child support. Turns out he doesn’t owe any. The official -who’s an Obama supporter and contributor - explained that his high profile in the media prompted the search. Orwellian, isn’t it? Read about it here and here.
Then there’s Obama’s 2001 public radio interview where he talks about how the Supreme Court under Earl Warren failed to”break free of the essential constraints imposed by the founders” in the Constitution and get around to “redistributive change” as part of the civil rights movement. You can listen to the interview where Obama makes these astonishing assertions here. It really perfectly underscored the “spread the wealth” line of attack by McCain.
But the worst is the utterly outrageous scandal of Obama’s campaign contributions. Apparently, if you go to Obama’s website, put in your credit card number, but give a made up name and address, your contribution will be accepted. Have any of you ever bought anything on the internet with a credit card without having to give the billing address? You haven’t, because there’s a system called Address Verification System (AVS) that the credit card companies have established that verifies that the card number matches the name and address on file with the issuer. Folks have tested this on Obama’s site and had the transaction clear their card. See here for a first-hand report. This basic security precaution has been INTENTIONALLY DISABLED on Obama’s website. Obama also allows contributions via prepaid credit card (perfect for the foreign national who wants to contribute despite those pesky laws against that sort of thing). McCain’s site does not accept prepaid cards and uses AVS. Even the Washington Post has reported on this, though they put it on page two. Of Obama’s $150M haul in September, $100M were internet credit card donations. Reckon who those came from? What’s to stop a hacker from writing a bot to randomly generate credit card numbers with fake names? This is outrageous.
All this is percolating. Whether it will be enough to put McCain over the top remains to be seen. However, this has been easily the most fascinating election cycle of my life.
By profession, I am a tax lawyer. So perhaps these questions interest me more than others. Please bear with me as I explore the depths of my dorkiness here.
I ran across this post by Ed Morrissey, one of my very favorite bloggers, who writes at the excellent Hot Air blog. The subject of the post was a comparison of the tax plans offered by McCain and Obama, with an emphasis on how many taxpayers would be taken completely off the rolls of the federal government.
Despite what anyone may claim, the tax burden in this country (for the federal government - Alabama is a completely different story) is steeply progressive. That means that the wealthy pay far more in taxes than the not wealthy do. According to the Tax Foundation, under current law, in 2009, an estimated 47 million people will either pay no tax or pay a negative tax (i.e., get money back despite having paid none in - through the magic of refundable credits). That number will represent a full one-third of the population.
For the most recent year available (2006), according to the IRS, the top 10% of earners (that is, folks with adjusted gross income over $109,000), paid almost 71% of all personal income tax paid. There are some really interesting charts giving further details here.
Now, my question is whether this is a good thing or a fair thing. Morrisey (who is a Christian, BTW) makes the argument in his post that except for the very poorest among us, all should contribute something to the functioning of the government, because all benefit from it. His idea is that everyone should have a stake in it. Moreover, if current trends continue - especially under the plans proposed by Obama and McCain, the realm of the taxpaying public will be a minority of its population.
I think I agree with Morrissey. I do not mean to suggest that I think the poor should be taxed heavily. In fact, I think that the truly poor ought to be exempt. But after that, everyone ought to pay something.
In my ideal world, I’d support a Steve Forbes-style flat tax, with an exemption for the first $35K or so of income for a family of 4, and then a flat 17% on all income above that. The only other exemption would be for (unlimited) contributions to traditional IRAs or 401(k)s. This actually would result in a consumption tax, because all income earned is either spent or saved, and if you get to deduct what you save, then all that’s being taxed is what you spend. This would put me, as a tax lawyer, out of business, but there’s lots of other law I can practice anyway.
I’d be interested to hear anyone else’s perspective on this issue, particularly with regard to the basic propositions of fairness with regard to the low and high end earners.
This is just really, really creepy. Reminds me of one of those videos you see of all the children singing for some communist dictator. You be the judge:
Did you get those lyrics:
We’re gonna spread happiness
We’re gonna spread freedom
Obama’s gonna change it
Obama’s gonna lead ‘em
We’re gonna change it
And rearrange it
We’re gonna change the world.
The woman in question is Sarah Palin. Check out this article from the NY Sun. It chronicles the reactions of some women in New York upon Gov. Palin’s selection as McCain’s running mate. Here is a representative sample:
“All of my women friends, a week ago Monday, were on the verge of throwing themselves out windows,” an author and political activist, Nancy Kricorian of Manhattan, said yesterday. “People were flipping out. … Every woman I know was in high hysteria over this. Everyone was just beside themselves with terror that this woman could be our president — our potential next president.”
“What I feel for her privately could be described as violent, nay, murderous, rage,” an associate editor at Jezebel, Jessica Grose, wrote just after the Republican convention wrapped up. “When Palin spoke on Wednesday night, my head almost exploded from the incandescent anger boiling in my skull.”
and
Eve Ensler … said she was disturbed by the chants about oil and gas drilling during Mrs. Palin’s speech to the Republican convention. “I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination.”
Add these to the quote that serves as the title of this post.
What is wrong with these people? Are they mentally ill? I know I’m one-sided about politics, but I don’t know anybody on my side who goes into a “murderous rage” on the sight of Obama.
I think reactions like this are a lot of what’s wrong with politics today. It’s OK to disagree with the other side, but this is just crazy. Thank God, there’s a lot more to life than politics.
Everyone who’s even a casual reader of this blog knows how much I love watching political drama. This, however, is going completely off the rails. I know nothing of Rep. Cohen, whether he claims to be a Christian or not. If he does, then he is in serious need of rebuke about who Jesus is and what he was on this earth to do. It wasn’t “community organizing.” Suggesting such (on the floor of the House of Representatives, no less) either demonstrates shocking levels of ignorance or the cynical manipulation of his own religion for political gains.
If he’s not a Christian, then he’s the dumbest politician EVER (and that’s a prize for which there are many competitors). How many Christians will be offended by this? How many ordinary folks (especially women) who are not rabid partisans will be put off (or insulted) at Gov. Palin being likened to Pontius Pilate? Comparing your party’s candidate to Jesus? And the opposing Veep is Pilate? Disrespecting the religion of the overwhelming majority of people in this country is idiotic.
The reaction to Sarah Palin seems to be overwhelmingly positive, judging by the poll numbers. McCain/Palin now leads among the totally-crucial independent vote in Gallup’s latest survey by a whopping 15 points. McCain also has improved his standing with women voters to almost tied. I highly recommend this Bill Kristol article on Palin’s appeal as a Wal-Mart Mom. The basic thesis is that Palin’s appealing because she lives a life not terribly different from most ordinary folks, and they can identify with her. This makes it extremely problematic for her opponents to attack her. And, they should be especially careful of condescension. Enter Michelle Obama.
Now, remember that the First Rule of Holes is that when in one, it’s best to stop digging. Obama’s polls are slipping, as mentioned above, his fundraising appears to be declining, and Palin is out there connecting with ordinary folks really well. With that backdrop, Michelle Obama went to a Hollywood fundraiser, where a pool reporter named Patrick McDonald, was in attendance. Mr. McDonald works for LA Weekly, a gay magazine. Here’s the important quote from his article:
Obama then moved on to politics, where she first brought up her husband’s vice-presidential choice. “I think it was a really good pick—Senator Joe Biden,” she said, and later added, “People say they have amazing chemistry, and it’s true.” Obama continued with talk about Biden when she said, “What you learn about Barack from his choice is that he’s not afraid of smart people.” The crowd softly chuckled.
Wow. What a dumb thing to say. I have long thought that Michelle would wind up being a net liability for her husband in the long run (recall her comments about being proud of her country for the first time?). I offer this tidbit in further support of that view.
So, you all knew that I couldn’t keep silent over the Palin nomination for too long. Personally, Palin was my pick all along, but I never dreamed that McCain would actually have the guts to pick her. McCain is proving me wrong more and more often. As I’ve said before, despite several significant policy differences with him, I’m coming to really like McCain.
I delayed in commenting on Palin to see what the media and blog reaction to her would be. I knew she’d be controversial, but I never knew it would be anything like what it’s been. I have never seen anything like this before. We are witnessing a media and liberal meltdown the likes of which this country (though perhaps not the UK) has never been through.
Where to start? I could spend hours providing links, but I’ll try to keep it to a minimum. I suppose everyone who hasn’t been in a cave for the last week has heard about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy. Everyone also knows that Trig Palin, the 4 month old child with Downs Syndrome, was rumored by the Daily Kos to really be the child of Bristol, not Sarah, and that Sarah had faked her pregnancy to cover up Bristol’s - just like a recent Desperate Housewives plotline (not that I’d ever watch that or anything). This prompted the earlier-than-planned announcement of Bristol’s real pregnancy. I would link to this on Kos, but, in typical fashion for them, it’s been deleted. Here’s a Huffington Post story with a link to the original.
Now, if you’re the Obama campaign or a leftie in general, Sarah Palin presents a huge problem - how to you attack her? If you try the Kos stuff, you just look trashy. But, as the title of this post indicates, the woman hunts moose and knows how to use an M-16. Liberals have no paradigm for this. So, they’ve apparently decided that they’ll point out all these things that will upset religious conservatives or suburban moms. Case in point: Sally Quinn. Here’s a link to her completely over the top opinion piece on Palin. Money quotes:
And now we learn the 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. She and the father of the child plan to marry. This may be a hard one for the Republican conservative family-values crowd to swallow. Of course, this can happen in any family. But it must certainly raise the question among the evangelical base about whether Sarah Palin has been enough of a hands-on mother… . Evangelical women also will have to decide if they will vote against their conscience by voting to put the mother of young children in a job outside the home that will demand so much of her time and energy.
and
Is she prepared for the all-consuming nature of the job? She is the mother of five children, one of them a four-month-old with Downs Syndrome. Her first priority has to be her children. When the phone rings at three in the morning and one of her children is really sick what choice will she make?
Unreal. Isn’t it amazing how post-modern liberal relativists like Sally Quinn have zero understanding of Christians? Bristol’s situation isn’t damaging to Palin among evangelicals at all. We didn’t just fall off a turnip truck. We know how easy it would have been for a politician to send her pregnant daughter off to the abortion clinic and have the problem quietly go away. But she didn’t do that. She’s living out what she believes, despite it being embarassing and potentially damaging to her political career. Not that this needed further proof, since she didn’t abort her son Trig, when over 80% of Downs Syndrome babies in this country are aborted.
Note also the condescension to all working parents - especially women. The obvious answer to the 3am question is that you get the dad to go see about the kid and take the call, if it’s that important. Believe this or not, even a CNN (!) anchor fired this rejoinder back at Quinn during an interview about this column:
Today’s latest kerfuffle involves a video that has surfaced of Palin addressing the church she grew up in (horrors!) and asking for prayer for the troops (of which her older son is one) and that their mission might be in accord with God’s will. Video is here. Is this supposed to upset someone? Pretty tame stuff, I think.
Bottom line is that the media (read: liberals) are in complete meltdown mode. (Michelle Malkin details the four stages of sexism against conservative women here. I think she’s dead on.) They have no paradigm for her and I think she scares the bejeebers out of them.
Exit predictions: Palin will not back down. Her speech tonight (to which yours truly will be GLUED) will be a grand slam homerun. The base of the party will be fired up like nothing McCain’s ever seen (he raised $7M in the 24 hours after her announcement, BTW). A week after the convention, McCain/Palin will be even with or outpolling Obama/Biden.
I’d like to hear anyone’s impressions of this situation, especially from women. Fire away!
Barack Obama has an ego problem. Remember his own presidential seal? McCain has even ridiculed Obama’s messiah complex in his ad “The One” which I linked earlier.
Now, if you were Obama, and were being ridiculed by your opponent (to some effect) for having too high an opinion of yourself, what type of stage would you construct for yourself for delivery of your acceptance speech?
Naturally, a Greek temple. I kid you not:
McCain’s campaign, when they first heard of this, suspected it was from the Onion.
But, politics is stranger than that, and apparently Obama’s ego really is that big. That sound you hear is digging at the bottom of the hole.
According to Ed Morrisey at Hot Air, Mike Huckabee, during a recent interview, criticized Mitt Romney for not ignoring a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage when Romney was governor. Huckabee essentially argues that Romney would have been within rights to simply disregard that decision.
We’ve had some experience with elected officials ignoring court orders here in Alabama. Perhaps Gov. Huckabee should get himself to a computer and google the names “George Wallace” and “Roy Moore.”
So, unless you’ve been under a rock for the past week or so, you probably already know that Obama is traveling in the middle east and Europe. This has created a frenzy of mainstream media attention unlike anything I’ve ever seen before. I’ve found a couple of items from his trip that I thought were worth posting.
The first is a flyer advertising his campaign rally - oh, I’m sorry - his speech in Berlin. Now, the Obama campaign is noted for its piles and piles of campaign contributions, but I think that spending money doing ads directed at folks who can’t even vote is a little over the top. Apparently this is being plastered up all over Berlin:
Note the official campaign logo in the top right. In addition to the mind-blowing hubris of doing such a thing as this, I’m surprised at it on a tactical level. Doesn’t this risk the average voter looking at this and reacting against it, preferring that we Americans choose our own president (in English) rather than Europeans?
The second thing is a remarkable clip from an interview that Obama gave regarding Iraq. The interviewer asks Obama whether, knowing what he knows now about the surge’s success, if he had it to do over again, he would support it. And Obama says no!! I didn’t believe it myself until I saw the video, so here it is:
So, given the benefit of hindsight, he wouldn’t change his position. That’s either completely dishonest or so intellectually rigid as to make him unfit to lead. If a Republican had said such a thing, he’d have been scolded by the interviewer for being so callous about the continued loss of life that the surge turns out to have stopped.
Obama is turning out to be an exceptionally bad candidate, masked only by a press that fawns over him and gives him cover. Given what a terrible year this is shaping up to be for Republicans, he ought to be ahead by a mile. He’s not. The polls are dead even. If Obama loses, it will be on account of a perception (which appears to be at least somewhat justified) of egomania that even the media can’t cover. From holding campaign rallies in Europe to refusing to admit his own fallibility, it’s just not an appealing picture he’s painting of what the next 4 years would hold in store if he wins.
I’ve bemoaned the fact that no one teaches or learns logic so many times that I’ve lost count. But examples of people saying and doing things that are totally irrational just keep on coming. The latest one was at the President’s press conference yesterday.
The question you are about to read actually came from a White House correspondent - that is, someone who has been afforded the privilege of questioning the leader of the free world.
Q `You never mention oil companies. Are you confident that American oil producers are tapping all of the sources they have out there, including offshore?
Now, I don’t believe that a great deal of formal education in economics is necessary to know the answer to this question. Some simple logic should do. The price of oil is $140+ per barrel - a historic high. Why on earth would company fail to tap their resources and cash in? The President then obliged with an answer that should have gone without saying:
THE PRESIDENT: What about them — do I think they’re investing capital to find more reserves with the price at $140 a barrel? Absolutely. Take an offshore exploration company. First of all, it costs a lot of money to buy the lease, so they tie up capital. Secondly, it takes a lot of money to do the geophysics, to determine what the structure may or may not look like. That ties up capital. Then they put the rig out there. Now, first of all, in a federal offshore lease, if you’re not exploring within a set period of time, you lose your bonus; you lose the amount of money that you paid to get the lease in the first place.
And once you explore, your first exploratory, if you happen to find oil or gas, it is — you’ll find yourself in a position where a lot of capital is tied up. And it becomes in your interest, your economic interest, to continue to explore so as to reduce the capital costs of the project on a per-barrel basis. And so I — I think — I think they’re exploring. And hopefully a lot of people continue to explore so that the supply of oil worldwide increases relative to demand.
I probably make too much of this, but the fact that someone in the White House press corps lacks this much rational thought really bothers me. Of all the questions that could be put to George Bush, the fact that this one would have been asked is just pathetic.
Barack Obama gave a speech in Colorado recently on the subject of service. You can read the whole text here. I’d like to focus on his comments on service for those in middle and high school:
Finally, we need to integrate service into education, so that young Americans are called upon and prepared to be active citizens.
Just as we teach math and writing, arts and athletics, we need to teach young Americans to take citizenship seriously. Study after study shows that students who serve do better in school, are more likely to go to college, and more likely to maintain that service as adults. So when I’m President, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year. This means that by the time you graduate college, you’ll have done 17 weeks of service.
We’ll reach this goal in several ways. At the middle and high school level, we’ll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities. At the community level, we’ll develop public-private partnerships so students can serve more outside the classroom.
Much criticism has been leveled at the No Child Left Behind Act, and most of it justified. In my mind, the most insidious thing that it did was to insert the ever-incompetent US Department of Education even further into what has historically been local decision-making where grade school education is concerned. It did this essentially through a bribe: Accept this increased federal funding if you want, but you have to do X Y and Z to get it. No state had to accept the funding, but if they did (as always) there was a catch.
It appears that, if elected, Obama would take that one step further. Federal aid would be dependent on the schools compelling community service from their middle and high school students. I’d like to make two points about this. First of all, the schools have all they can say grace over to actually, you know, teach the students the basics, and many are even failing at that. Is it not absurd to place yet another mandate on these schools? Is there no amount of social engineering that we won’t foist on the public schools?
On top of that, perhaps this is my reformed thinking coming through here, but if “community service” becomes mandatory, does it not lose something of its character? I thought this when Clinton did AmeriCorp - if you’re getting a reward for doing a job (in the case of AmeriCorp, reduced student loan debt) then isn’t that just employment and not true community service? Maybe I’m off base here, but I think of true community service as being at least in some measure voluntary, or maybe done without the motivation of profit. Once we make community service just another course in school, won’t it become about as noble as your 10th grade health class? Maybe it will, and nobody cares. I’m not sure which is worse.
For those interested, Paul Mirengoff at Powerline does an excellent fisking of some other aspects of this text, too.
Exit question: With all the homework requirements, accelerated reading, incessant testing, extracurricular activities, and now possibly mandatory community service, do kids ever get the chance to just be kids anymore?
Barack Obama’s campaign has created a seal, of sorts. Here it is, compared to the real presidential seal (hat tip to CNN for the graphic):
Now, from the US Code, 18 U.S.C. 713:
(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
In law school, one of the things the student should learn is to take a statute and construe whether it applies to a given set of facts. Obama’s seal presents exactly such an exerciase. What say you all, guilty of the crime, mere bad taste, both, or neither?
BTW, the Latin on the logo means “Truly, We Can.” Si se puede.
Anybody whose read my political commentary for the past year knows that I haven’t been a huge John McCain fan. That said, I have to admit that he is grudgingly earning my respect, despite my continuing policy differences with him.
Here’s something else to add to my growing admiration: He’s an ABBA fan. I’ll probably be teased mercilessly for this, but I like ABBA too. I went to see the Mama Mia musical last year and LOVED it. (I highly recommend it, BTW).
So, I think this will make a great theme song for McCain’s campaign - way, way better than “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow”:
I haven’t opined on politics in awhile. And, I probably should just quit talking about it because my track record stinks. (I did predict that this fall we’d see HRC v. Rudy, after all.) However, it’s like watching a train wreck - I just can’t look away.
So, yesterday, HRC crushed Obama by 41 percentage points in West Virginia. Ouch. Here’s a little statistic for you: The Democrats haven’t elected a president without WV since 1916. Winning only 26% (!) of the Democrat vote hardly leads one to believe that he can carry the state in November.
Yet, Obama’s lead in pledged delegates is insurmountable now, and the superdelegates seem content to follow the will of the voters (leaving the question of purpose of the superdelegates in the first place wide open). So Obama will be the nominee. Why’s HRC doing what she’s doing then?
I believe that Charles Hurt has hit the nail on the head: She’s setting up an I-told-you-so for 2012. She must truly expect Obama to lose in November (and, knowing the Clintons’ m.o., will work diligently behind the scenes to ensure it). Then, next cycle, she can plausibly say that she warned the party that you can’t write off working class white voters (like those in WV) and expect to win. Then, she can coast to the nomination to run against McCain.
Is this the stuff of conspiracy theorists? Maybe. But maybe it’s just crazy enough to be true.
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?”; rather, the question got to the same point, but asked the respondent whether he or she personally wanted Bush’s plan to succeed. Objectively and logically, since Bush is the commander in chief, if his plan succeeds, the military succeeds, and the country is victorious over the enemy. So, if one is thinking rationally, one must answer yes, unless, of course, one actually wants to see our enemies succeed. But then there’s the fact that for the plan and the military to succeed, it will necessarily mean that Bush has succeeded. The brilliance of the phrasing of the question is that it tests whether BDS exists.
The answers were 63% yes, 22% no, and 15% don’t know.
That means that a full 37% of the citizenry can’t bring themselves to wish for success (note that all they’re being asked to do is “want” success, not actually do anything to achieve it themselves, like plant a victory garden or anything). That 37% either actually wishes for the success of the jihadists or suffers from BDS. I would suggest that the 15% that doesn’t know is suffering from BDS. What’s there to even think about? Either you want us to win, or them. At least the 22% is honest and forthright, though whether they’re actually behind the enemy or BDS sufferers themselves is impossible to say.
I don’t know which is worse - BDS or pulling for the enemy - and it probably doesn’t matter anyway. If anyone doubts that the American dominance on the world stage will come to an end (like Britain, Rome, etc.) - and soon - just think about this poll. After all, a house divided against itself……
If everything goes as planned, after next week, all the investitures for public and civil offices will be completed. These ceremonies make everything official, honorable, and serious, and they culminate in “the swearing in” of our candidates for public office. Traditionally, the oaths have been made while the candidate places his/her right hand on the Judeo-Christian Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (aka the Bible).
Last month The American Family Association (AFA) sent out an email alert to all American Christians decrying the intentions of Representative-elect Keith Ellison (Muslim, D-MN) to use the Koran during his swearing-in ceremony. You can find most that email’s contents here:
The AFA was ignited mostly by Jewish columnist Dennis Prager’s article earlier that week. Prager insisted that, regardless of faith, the United States should use the Bible for all inductions, ceremonies, and swearing-ins. You can find his article here:
However, since we are a nation of laws, (as Clay Staggs often reminds me) there is no law that conscripts any official-elect to use the Bible for any vow/oath as a requisite for office. He found an excellent clause in the U.S. Constitution that was very plain:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
In fairness, the AFA finally figured out that they could do nothing (legally) except express outrage—outrage which I believe is unfounded and unbiblical. But they did manage to issue an action point for all concerned Christians:
Take Action
1. Send an email asking your U.S. Representative and Senators to pass a law making the Bible the book used in the swearing-in ceremony of Representatives and Senators.
Now, several things first: 1) I want people to become believers in Christ—the exclusive and only Savior of souls. 2) I can appreciate activism. 3) I like America 4) I like families. With that out of the way, my statement is this: The duties of the office dictate the requirements for the office. Simple, I know. Additionally, I am against petitioning for such a law that would propose this as requirement. I know this may bring up the aged discussion in regards to the separation of Church/State, but this is another example where belief simply does not have the biblical mandate to force others (alien beliefs, persons, or cultures) to comply with God’s laws. It is only within the context of the covenant community (read: Church universal) can these be made requirements.
Great Observation from the guys at Powerline this morning. I can’t add to this (aside from perhaps wondering how the UN can do anything like a global ban on anything), so I’ll simply copy and paste:
CNN Europe reports that Italians are shocked—shocked!—by the cell phone video of Saddam Hussein’s execution, and are calling for a United Nations ban on all capital punishment:
Italy will campaign at the United Nations for a global ban on the death penalty, Prime Minister Romano Prodi said on Tuesday, after graphic images of Saddam Hussein’s hanging shocked people around the world.
Italian politicians of all political parties expressed disgust at Hussein’s execution, with even former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi calling it a “political and historic error.”
Pressured by a week-long hunger strike by a 76-year-old campaigner against Hussein’s execution and the death penalty in general, Prodi said Italy would push the U.N. for a “universal moratorium” on capital punishment.
Iraq’s government made the obvious rejoinder:
The Iraqi government has hit back at Italy for its criticism of Hussein’s execution, accusing it of hypocrisy, especially after World War Two dictator Benito Mussolini was killed by partisans and hanged upside down in a Milan square in 1945.
“They have no right interfering in the affairs of another country,” government official, Yaseen Majeed, was quoted as saying in La Repubblica daily. “Mussolini’s trial only lasted one minute.”
I really enjoy a good political argument. But, to paraphrase Ecclesiasties, there’s a time and a place for everything. And a funeral is NOT the place for cheap political shots.
Here’s an excerpt from the AP report about former President Ford’s funeral service at the National Cathedral:
In his homily, Episcopalian minister Robert G. Certain touched on the fractious debate in the church over its growing acceptance of homosexual relationships, and said Ford did not think the issue should be splitting Episcopalians. He was Ford’s pastor at St. Margaret’s Church in Palm Desert, Calif.
“He asked me if we would face schism after we discussed the various issues we would consider, particularly concerns about human sexuality and the leadership of women,” Certain said. “He said that he did not think they should be divisive for anyone who lived by the great commandments and the great commission to love God and to love neighbor.
The Episcopal Church has been under pressure from traditionalists for its 2003 consecration of the first openly gay bishop. Several prominent Virginia parishes have recently broken away from the church in protest.
Is this really necessary? Can the country not have a day without an argument over gay rights or whatever the issue du jour is? Has our level of debate become so intolerable that the dead can’t even be properly euolgized without these potshots?
I’m sure that no one agreed with him all the time, but by all accounts, Gerald Ford was a decent human being. It’s a shame that each side of the political aisle has so little respect for each other (and the dead) that we can’t even take a day to simply reflect on and honor the life of a good man who happened to be the President of the United States.
After all, the battle will pick right back up tomorrow.
From where I sit, this can only be construed as good news. And I think that most folks would agree. But yet, there is a not insubtsantial segment, even of the non-arab/non-Muslim world, that is bemoaning this development.
First, and not surprisingly, is the fringe radical left. Somehow, they all see this as George W. Bush’s FAULT. You can find a good roundup of posts from the far left of the blogosphere here. A sample:
[P]lease tell me what [obscenity omitted] moral standing does the US (or any other country for that matter) have to go into another country and do what we just did to Saddam? The fact that it is the US - that “shining beacon of freedom” is even worse. What does that say? What message does that send? And who made us World Police anyway? This is a mockery of justice.
So, maybe that’s to be expected from the Daily Kos types. But then, the Vatican apparently has a not totally dissimilar position:
The execution is “tragic and reason for sadness,” the Rev. Federico Lombardi said, speaking in French on Vatican Radio’s French-language news program.
In separate comments to the station’s English program, Lombardi said that capital punishment cannot be justified “even when the person put to death is one guilty of grave crimes,” and he reiterated the Catholic Church’s overall opposition to the death penalty.
Saddam terrorized his neighbors and his own people for decades, torturing his enemies (real and perceived) in the most horrific ways imaginable. He started at least two major wars. He was utterly unrepentant for any of it, even to the last. As long as he drew breath, Iraqis had sound reason to fear the possibility of his return to power.
I can’t see this as anything other than a merciful relief to folks who have suffered under this monster.
In 1969 America’s largest employer happened to be General Motors: Then CEO, James M. Roche made $4.2 million per annum. His average employee (adjusted to account for inflation) brought home $45,000.
Welcome to 2006.
Wal-Mart is now the nation’s largest employer. CEO H. Lee Scott takes home $23 million. (Which does not bother me.) The average Wal-Mart employees pulls down $18,000 a year. (Which bothers me)
Question: Why is this the case?
[from: Economist Paul Krugman’s book “The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century”]
Full Disclosure: I do not like Jimmy Carter. Those who think Jimmy Carter is such a great humanitarian as to be beyond criticism may want to skip this post.
I ran across a devastating review of Carter’s new book, entitled Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid, in the Washington Post. In fairness, I have not read this book, but based on what’s being said about it, it doesn’t seem that I’m missing much.
A couple of quotations pulled from the book and cited by the WaPo reviewer were absolute jaw-droppers. Check this one out:
On his first visit to the Jewish state in the early 1970s, Carter, who was then still the governor of Georgia, met with Prime Minister Golda Meir, who asked Carter to share his observations about his visit. Such a mistake she never made.
“With some hesitation,” Carter writes, “I said that I had long taught lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures and that a common historical pattern was that Israel was punished whenever the leaders turned away from devout worship of God. I asked if she was concerned about the secular nature of her Labor government.”
Where, oh, where, to start with this? Should it be Carter, a Southern Baptist, lecturing an Israeli on the finer points of the Hebrew scriptures? Or, maybe the Democrat (the US’s more secular party) criticizing Meir’s Labor Party for its secularism? Or, perhaps worst of all, the Christian faulting the Jew for not sufficiently keeping the Law?
Unbelievable. Judging just from what’s cited in the review (and I can only imagine the corkers that the reviewer didn’t have space for), one has to wonder if the man isn’t addled. Case in point:
On his fateful first visit to Israel, Carter takes a tour of the Galilee and writes, “It was especially interesting to visit with some of the few surviving Samaritans, who complained to us that their holy sites and culture were not being respected by Israeli authorities — the same complaint heard by Jesus and his disciples almost two thousand years earlier.”
I suppose that the small historical footnote of the Roman Empire simply slipped the former president’s mind? Really, can these be the reflections of someone playing with a full deck, or, are they the crass attempts of an aging politican to manipulate history to serve his own egotistical ends? Lest you think that I, as an admitted Republican partisan, am just taking cheap shots, I’d point out that (1) former Clinton Adminstration envoy Dennis Ross has charged Carter’s book with plagiarism of maps, (2) liberal Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz calls the title of the book “indecent”, and (3) former Emory Univ. Carter Center Middle East Fellow Kenneth Stein resigned that fellowship, writing in his resignation letter that, “President Carter’s book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments.” This is not a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Perhaps Carter, in years gone by, did some genuinely good deeds. However, this book is over the top on many, many levels and should be criticized and repudiated on political and theological grounds.
UPDATE: It just gets worse. Now Carter has met with a group of Rabbis, who were understandably angry about his book, and, according to the AP, prayed with them and “invited them to help him teach Sunday school.”
Just when you think that politics can’t get any weirder when it comes to its intersection with religion, along comes something to prove you wrong. Perusing Hugh Hewitt’s blog (which I recommend to all interested in politics, especially on the GOP side of the aisle), I found a link to a little video of Harold Ford, Jr., who is the Democrat candidate for the Senate in Tennessee, giving a campaign speech. In it, he says:
My friend Lincoln Davis who chairs our campaign says there are, there’s one big difference between us and misfortunate Republicans when it comes to our faith: he said that Republicans fear the Lord; he said Democrats fear AND love the Lord.
Go watch the video if you don’t believe it.
As a Christian and a Republican, I probably should be offended by this. But, it’s so silly, and probably, from Harold Ford’s perspective, self-destructive electorally, that I can’t get too worked up about it.
A column in the Tuscaloosa News that I almost never miss is that of Cary McMullen, who appears each Saturday on the Religion page. I’m not sure why I’m so faithful to read him because He is obviously a bit to the left of my stance on most things. Maybe it’s because he’s thoughtful and articulate, and that’s relatively rare today; maybe it’s becaue he’s obviously a believer; maybe it’s simply because, looking at his picture, he’s at least close to my age. He writes for a newspaper in Florida and has been picked up nationwide.
His column today is written in the style of C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters (with, he notes, apologies to his memory,) and in it, he discusses Jerry Falwell’s latest faux pas during a meeting of the Value Voters Summit. It seems that Falwell stated that Hillary Clinton would “energize ‘my’ constituency” even more than if Satan himself ran. McMullen discusses this as a memo between the two demons Lewis used in his book, Screwtape and Wormwood. Wormwood, the underling, had written his boss, Screwtape, complaining that this was an insult to their leader, Satan himself. Screwtape tells him not to worry, that “Insults are our domain.” He says that Christians were led to believe that “hating this woman is an act of serving our enemy,” who is, of course, God.
There is more, but McCullen’s final argument from Screwtape’s perspective is fascinating and, to me, right on. He has Screwtape, Satan’s demon, say this: “You see? Any time we can persuade people that their faith must be tied to a particular political platform or party, we distract them from the practice of what one of their more influential writers called ‘Mere Christianity.’ And the more they think Christianity has to do with comfort, political influence and something nebulous like values, rather than the hard disciplines of unselfish worship, prayer, study of scripture and service to the less fortunate, why then, the better our chances of making them ours.”
I think “distract” is putting it mildly. What happens is all too often we develop a wrong view of our faith and a wrong view of the gospel when it becomes part of some kind of secular crusade. Christians are free to vote on and support political causes they believe in but I believe none of them are a part of our faith. When we make them part of our faith, just as when we make patriotism part of our faith, we then have to accept the bad and even the downright evil that is in them also as part of our faith because the world will insist on it. Since we set the terms of the argument, there is no logical way out of it.
I’ve been reading a lot recently about the furor in the Muslim world over the pope’s speech. For those who may not know, the pope gave a talk at Regensburg University in Germany. In it he said the following:
In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: There is no compulsion in religion. It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.
But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels,” he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words:
Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.
The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.
God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death….
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.
The emperor to which the pope referred is Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus. The conversation quoted happened in the 1300s between the emperor and an “educated Persian.” You can read the full text of the speech here.
Once this quote made its way around certain quarters of the Islamic world, riots ensued. Since then there have even been fire-bombings of churches (though not Roman Catholic ones).
This is most surely a sign of my fallen nature, but this is getting kinda old. I’m sick of seeing riots at the least little nothing of a perceived offense. It was just a 700 year old quotation, already.
I’m obviously coming at this from my own reformed viewpoint, but if muslims belive that they’ve had the truth of the universe revealed to them, they sure aren’t acting like it. What they are acting like is spoiled children.
The pope has apologized. I know there’s an argument to be made that this was the Christian thing to do. However, I really wonder whether it wouldn’t do the world a great favor for someone of the pope’s stature to just stand up and tell them to get over it. It seems to me that at some point, all of the world’s hypersensitivity just makes the problem worse.
Hugh Hewitt is one of my favorite bloggers to read. He asserts this morning that the country, or at least certain parts of it, are profoundly morally confused regarding the decision by Harvard, the University of Virginia, and others to invite former Iranian president Khatami to speak. Now, I agree with Prof. Hewitt that this is tremendously wrong-headed and, indeed, morally confused. Sad to say, though, that I don’t find this terribly surprising for these big-name universities today. I almost expected as much, since academia seems to have long ago driven off the cliff of moral relativism.
However, what really shocked me was when I learned that Khatami will also be speaking at the National Cathedral. According to the Washington Times, his speech will focus “on how the three ‘Abrahamaic faiths’ — Christianity, Judaism and Islam — can work together for a Middle East peace.” Lest anyone doubt Khatami’s real views, according to the Harvard Crimson,
Khatami has criticized Israel in the past and once called it an “illegal state” and a “parasite in the heart of the Muslim world,” according to newspaper accounts from 2000 and 2001.
I’m really having a kind of a Bob Dole moment about this - where’s the outrage? I haven’t heard anything about this until I read it on Hewitt’s blog this morning. Does no one care? The National Cathedral is part of the Episcopal Church USA. Is it just that no one expects different from ECUSA, given their well-publicized liberalism?
There seems to be one person who does get it, though. The governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, a presidential aspirant, has ordered the state not to provide any security services for his visit. Good for him. It really does seem, though, that those who are “morally confused” greatly outnumber those who are not.
Anyone who knows me knows that my politics are broadly conservative. As such, I find myself firmly in the Republican camp. I generally consider myself to be a good party guy, and, generally support the party’s candidates. Lots of “generallys” in that last sentence, and that’s because I’m about to diverge from the party line.
Florida is a red state. One of their Senators, Bill Nelson, a Democrat, is up for re-election. Normally, this should be an excellent pickup opportunity for my side of the aisle. However, the Florida Republican party seems content to drive off a cliff by nominating Katherine Harris. Now, I respect her for doing what I consider was the right thing in the 2000 presidential election. However, that respect notwithstanding, I think she needs to be defeated (assuming she wins the GOP nomination).
Consider her recent comments on the role of religion in politics as reported in Carol Platt Liebeau’s Townhall column:
Harris insisted that America was not intended to be a “nation of secular laws,” called separation of church and state a “lie we have been told” and asserted that, “If you’re not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin.”
I think that speaks for itself. Where do I get my Nelson ‘06 bumper sticker?
