I am beginning to feel sympathy for George Allen.
1. Last month when the "macaca" scandal broke, I asserted (in this post) that the incident demonstrated poor judgment and a lack of discipline. In fact, the unfortunate exchange illustrated that he was unsuited for the enormous demands of the presidency (and the exhausting campaign to be president). In essence, I called him out on one strike.
2. Then last week, in what can only be described as a bizarre exchange, a local reporter asked him if he was Jewish. He fumbled and fumed and denied the assertion. Later we learned that his mother is Jewish, and his grandfather, for whom Allen gained his middle name (Felix), survived the holocaust. To further confuse matters, in his answer to the original question, Allen alluded to his grandfather's "incarceration by Nazis," even as he claimed ignorance of his Jewish heritage. Then he later admitted that he knew of his Jewishness on the night of the debate--but had only recently learned of his lineage (presumably still in the process of digesting the revelation).
If there can be a lighter side to this excruciating series of misadventures, the whole story reminds me of the gag line from the old Steve Martin movie, the Jerk, (referring to Martin's character): "He was the son of poor black sharecroppers who never dreamed he was adopted."
Since the disclosure, the Senator has gone on to make a few lame jokes about ham sandwiches and Hebrew National hot dogs. No harm; no foul. Odd and disquieting but not damning.
3. But enter now, the piece de resistance, an accusation of racial violence. The astonishing charge accompanies a new string of allegations that Allen employed racial epithets in earlier times, which purport to confirm a racial insensitivity that has long been rumored.
An aside: we would have called these long-running shadowy imputations a "whispering campaign," if Allen were a more media-protected public official.
The charges: Allen used racial epithets back in the 1970s, and possibly even as late as the early 1980s, claim several ex-friends and acquaintances. Among the witnesses for the prosecution is celebrity Political Science professor and TV pundit, Larry Sabato, who admits not knowing Allen very well, but says he "knows that Allen used the n-word" (Washington Post story here).
Much more extraordinary, one witness (an old teammate) alleges that Allen, back in 1974, after a successful hunting trip, stuffed a decapitated deer's head into the mailbox of a random African American family (Washington Post story here).
Allen categorically denies all the charges. Could they be true?
The deer-head story seems a bit farfetched. As some have pointed out, that is the kind of rampage story that would have made the rounds on a football team, and there is no evidence that anyone else on the team ever heard an account of that before this week.
As for the racial epithet accusations, they are much more credible but certainly not conclusive. Marc Fisher of the Washington Post asserts that these stories have power because they resonate with what people in the know really believe about Allen. Added to Allen's history of reverence for the Confederacy, playing a Confederate officer in a movie (Gods and Generals) and opposition to the MLK holiday in Virginia, these new charges weave together a story that some have been drafting in their heads for years.
Yet, there is a sense of "piling on" here. Personal foul. Unsportsmanlike conduct. How much is too much? For ten years, Allen has represented the voters of Virginia in its two highest offices. He has a voluminous public record. Chasing down racial epithets from 1974 may be important, but what of his four years as governor and his six years as senator? Those histories strike me as better indicators of his ability to represent the state of Virginia and what the next six years of his tenure might look like. What about his stand on the issues of the day? What about Iraq?
As I have said, Allen is not presidential timber. But what of Virginia and 2006?
Americans have a keen (if sometimes quirky) sense of propriety and justice. I think the people of Virginia have seen just about enough of this national media feeding frenzy. I look for Allen's fortunes to bottom out very soon and begin a slow but steady uptick through Election Day. My prediction: Allen beats Webb in November.
One caveat: if the deer-head story proves to be True (with a capital T), Allen is justifiably finished in this country.
1. Last month when the "macaca" scandal broke, I asserted (in this post) that the incident demonstrated poor judgment and a lack of discipline. In fact, the unfortunate exchange illustrated that he was unsuited for the enormous demands of the presidency (and the exhausting campaign to be president). In essence, I called him out on one strike.
2. Then last week, in what can only be described as a bizarre exchange, a local reporter asked him if he was Jewish. He fumbled and fumed and denied the assertion. Later we learned that his mother is Jewish, and his grandfather, for whom Allen gained his middle name (Felix), survived the holocaust. To further confuse matters, in his answer to the original question, Allen alluded to his grandfather's "incarceration by Nazis," even as he claimed ignorance of his Jewish heritage. Then he later admitted that he knew of his Jewishness on the night of the debate--but had only recently learned of his lineage (presumably still in the process of digesting the revelation).
If there can be a lighter side to this excruciating series of misadventures, the whole story reminds me of the gag line from the old Steve Martin movie, the Jerk, (referring to Martin's character): "He was the son of poor black sharecroppers who never dreamed he was adopted."
Since the disclosure, the Senator has gone on to make a few lame jokes about ham sandwiches and Hebrew National hot dogs. No harm; no foul. Odd and disquieting but not damning.
3. But enter now, the piece de resistance, an accusation of racial violence. The astonishing charge accompanies a new string of allegations that Allen employed racial epithets in earlier times, which purport to confirm a racial insensitivity that has long been rumored.
An aside: we would have called these long-running shadowy imputations a "whispering campaign," if Allen were a more media-protected public official.
The charges: Allen used racial epithets back in the 1970s, and possibly even as late as the early 1980s, claim several ex-friends and acquaintances. Among the witnesses for the prosecution is celebrity Political Science professor and TV pundit, Larry Sabato, who admits not knowing Allen very well, but says he "knows that Allen used the n-word" (Washington Post story here).
Much more extraordinary, one witness (an old teammate) alleges that Allen, back in 1974, after a successful hunting trip, stuffed a decapitated deer's head into the mailbox of a random African American family (Washington Post story here).
Allen categorically denies all the charges. Could they be true?
The deer-head story seems a bit farfetched. As some have pointed out, that is the kind of rampage story that would have made the rounds on a football team, and there is no evidence that anyone else on the team ever heard an account of that before this week.
As for the racial epithet accusations, they are much more credible but certainly not conclusive. Marc Fisher of the Washington Post asserts that these stories have power because they resonate with what people in the know really believe about Allen. Added to Allen's history of reverence for the Confederacy, playing a Confederate officer in a movie (Gods and Generals) and opposition to the MLK holiday in Virginia, these new charges weave together a story that some have been drafting in their heads for years.
Yet, there is a sense of "piling on" here. Personal foul. Unsportsmanlike conduct. How much is too much? For ten years, Allen has represented the voters of Virginia in its two highest offices. He has a voluminous public record. Chasing down racial epithets from 1974 may be important, but what of his four years as governor and his six years as senator? Those histories strike me as better indicators of his ability to represent the state of Virginia and what the next six years of his tenure might look like. What about his stand on the issues of the day? What about Iraq?
As I have said, Allen is not presidential timber. But what of Virginia and 2006?
Americans have a keen (if sometimes quirky) sense of propriety and justice. I think the people of Virginia have seen just about enough of this national media feeding frenzy. I look for Allen's fortunes to bottom out very soon and begin a slow but steady uptick through Election Day. My prediction: Allen beats Webb in November.
One caveat: if the deer-head story proves to be True (with a capital T), Allen is justifiably finished in this country.
25/09: Clinton Undone
Thinking Out Loud:
I spent my Sunday morning getting ready for church and watching President Clinton get red in the face on my TV screen. Some observations:
1. I had almost forgotten about the "Clinton paranoia." Everybody is out to get him. Fox News. Right-wingers. Neo-Cons. Right-wing conservative television producers. That diabolical Chris Wallace. ABC. The 911 Commission. Everybody except Richard Clarke.
2. I had almost forgotten the disdain that I felt for President Clinton from 1998 until on or about the presidential portrait unveiling in 2004 (archived here).
A note on that event in the WH: With charm and grace, President Bush attempted to rehabilitate the former President among conservatives (which was not a popular endeavor with many of my brethren). Nevertheless, President Bush modeled respect for the office and the system that investigated President Clinton and found him "not guilty." If you have never watched the ceremony, it is a must-see for students of the presidency.
Anyhow, the disdain is back. I am having flashbacks of the Clinton attack mode (grenades lobbed indiscriminately while he bemoans the "politics of personal destruction"). President Clinton is personally vicious and relentless in this state, entirely lacking the ability to see the field from outside his immediate self interest. Yesterday, his abject rudeness toward Wallace was extremely uncomfortable to watch.
3. He looked very bad. Gray, tired and craggy.
4. I am reminded that President Clinton was not the smooth operator that we often remember. He went more than a year without granting one interview during the Monica imbroglio. He proved adroit at avoiding hostile media questions, but not especially skilled in confronting or besting the press. Rather, he was insulated from the press, and expert at using them to deliver his message of the day. Without his phalanx of media advisors and operatives, he seemed much more vulnerable (even disoriented). One wonders how he would fare at this, if he had to do it for a living.
The full transcipt from Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace (from RealClearPoltics).
I spent my Sunday morning getting ready for church and watching President Clinton get red in the face on my TV screen. Some observations:
1. I had almost forgotten about the "Clinton paranoia." Everybody is out to get him. Fox News. Right-wingers. Neo-Cons. Right-wing conservative television producers. That diabolical Chris Wallace. ABC. The 911 Commission. Everybody except Richard Clarke.
2. I had almost forgotten the disdain that I felt for President Clinton from 1998 until on or about the presidential portrait unveiling in 2004 (archived here).
A note on that event in the WH: With charm and grace, President Bush attempted to rehabilitate the former President among conservatives (which was not a popular endeavor with many of my brethren). Nevertheless, President Bush modeled respect for the office and the system that investigated President Clinton and found him "not guilty." If you have never watched the ceremony, it is a must-see for students of the presidency.
Anyhow, the disdain is back. I am having flashbacks of the Clinton attack mode (grenades lobbed indiscriminately while he bemoans the "politics of personal destruction"). President Clinton is personally vicious and relentless in this state, entirely lacking the ability to see the field from outside his immediate self interest. Yesterday, his abject rudeness toward Wallace was extremely uncomfortable to watch.
3. He looked very bad. Gray, tired and craggy.
4. I am reminded that President Clinton was not the smooth operator that we often remember. He went more than a year without granting one interview during the Monica imbroglio. He proved adroit at avoiding hostile media questions, but not especially skilled in confronting or besting the press. Rather, he was insulated from the press, and expert at using them to deliver his message of the day. Without his phalanx of media advisors and operatives, he seemed much more vulnerable (even disoriented). One wonders how he would fare at this, if he had to do it for a living.
The full transcipt from Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace (from RealClearPoltics).
As many of you know, I am a devoted alumnus of Baylor University. From a safe distance, on an independent and non-competitive hill outside the orbit of Baylor, I have watched the recent trials and tribulations of my beloved alma mater. From what I know presently, I am pleased to report that the current state of the institution seems healthy and positive and upbeat. My hope is that Baylor has survived the recent civil war.
Last month, the controversial former president of Baylor and lightning rod for Vision 2012, Robert Sloan, whom a diverse coalition of opponents pushed out in 2005, accepted the presidency of Houston Baptist University. The move, I Believe, is a good one for Sloan and Baylor.
Many Baylor faculty and staff, so thoroughly convinced over time that he was pure evil, could not feel safe as long as Sloan loomed within striking distance. Before he took the HBU post, he was serving as Chancellor, which was an honorary face-saving post. But in the minds of too many, he was lurking in the corridors, most likely scheming to wrest back power from the heroes of the recent Revolution. For a whole host of reasons, Sloan and Baylor very much needed a clean break.
Two summers ago, during one of the peaks of Baylor unpleasantness, I penned an op-ed piece, in which I offered my sincere admiration for then-President Sloan as a compassionate and motivating teacher and his bold vision for improving Baylor. But I conceded that his window for effective leadership at the university had closed, and I argued that the circumstances demanded that he step aside.
Notwithstanding, the still vigorous Sloan has much to offer to the world; it would be a shame to waste his energy. His unfortunate experience at Baylor does not necessarily preclude him from succeeding grandly at another institution. I sincerely wish him and HBU a success-filled future.
Some thoughts on the post-Sloan years and the Cross of Baylor:
Last month, the controversial former president of Baylor and lightning rod for Vision 2012, Robert Sloan, whom a diverse coalition of opponents pushed out in 2005, accepted the presidency of Houston Baptist University. The move, I Believe, is a good one for Sloan and Baylor.
Many Baylor faculty and staff, so thoroughly convinced over time that he was pure evil, could not feel safe as long as Sloan loomed within striking distance. Before he took the HBU post, he was serving as Chancellor, which was an honorary face-saving post. But in the minds of too many, he was lurking in the corridors, most likely scheming to wrest back power from the heroes of the recent Revolution. For a whole host of reasons, Sloan and Baylor very much needed a clean break.
Two summers ago, during one of the peaks of Baylor unpleasantness, I penned an op-ed piece, in which I offered my sincere admiration for then-President Sloan as a compassionate and motivating teacher and his bold vision for improving Baylor. But I conceded that his window for effective leadership at the university had closed, and I argued that the circumstances demanded that he step aside.
Notwithstanding, the still vigorous Sloan has much to offer to the world; it would be a shame to waste his energy. His unfortunate experience at Baylor does not necessarily preclude him from succeeding grandly at another institution. I sincerely wish him and HBU a success-filled future.
Some thoughts on the post-Sloan years and the Cross of Baylor:
24/09: An Evil of Free Trade
I oppose Free Trade, as it is generally practiced. I'm in favor of Fair Trade. Here's one reason why: here in the U.S., and in some other countries, we have come to understand the dangers of pollution. We now have laws in place regulating air and water pollution. These laws increase the cost of manufacturing in the United States. Many other countries do not have laws like this, or do not enforce them, and so have lower production costs. Therefore American manufacturers cannot compete against nations with lower production costs. What American consumers are doing is choosing clean air and water for us, but consigning many members of the third world to lives threatened by manufacturing pollution. This does not seem fair and just.
Much of our manufacturing is now done in China, at great environmental cost. Here is a UPI story, linked on Drudge, on the new Chinese record set in August for days of acid rain. China currently leads the world in sulfur dioxide emissions, which forms acid rain when mixed with water. If things continue, I think we soon will see airborne pollution over the US from China.
Answer: fair trade, not free trade. I think we should not import goods manufactured by plants that would not meet US safety and pollution standards. To do otherwise is to destroy our own manufacturing base, and to help create pollution abroad.
Much of our manufacturing is now done in China, at great environmental cost. Here is a UPI story, linked on Drudge, on the new Chinese record set in August for days of acid rain. China currently leads the world in sulfur dioxide emissions, which forms acid rain when mixed with water. If things continue, I think we soon will see airborne pollution over the US from China.
Answer: fair trade, not free trade. I think we should not import goods manufactured by plants that would not meet US safety and pollution standards. To do otherwise is to destroy our own manufacturing base, and to help create pollution abroad.
Dear Heavenly Father,
We come to you as a nation at war. We confess the sin of arrogance. In great contests it is common for each party to claim to act in accord with the will of God. In the present war it is altogether likely that your purpose is something entirely different from the purpose of either party – yet, we pray that the human instrumentalities, working as they do, may be working toward your purpose.
We pray humbly but fervently for peace. With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as you give us the vision to see the right, give us the strength to finish the work we are in, to bind up the wounds of the nations, to care for those who have borne the battle and for their widows and their orphans, AND to do all in our power to achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
We ask these things in your holy name.
Amen
A note on sources: Lincoln's "Meditation on the Divine Will" and Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.
We come to you as a nation at war. We confess the sin of arrogance. In great contests it is common for each party to claim to act in accord with the will of God. In the present war it is altogether likely that your purpose is something entirely different from the purpose of either party – yet, we pray that the human instrumentalities, working as they do, may be working toward your purpose.
We pray humbly but fervently for peace. With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as you give us the vision to see the right, give us the strength to finish the work we are in, to bind up the wounds of the nations, to care for those who have borne the battle and for their widows and their orphans, AND to do all in our power to achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
We ask these things in your holy name.
Amen
A note on sources: Lincoln's "Meditation on the Divine Will" and Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.
23/09: Birthday of John Coltrane
On this day in 1926 jazz legend John Coltrane was born. (Hat tip to The Writers' Almanac for reminding me of the day.) He died in 1967. His Downbeat biography is here. The first paragraph of the bio sketch attempts to give his importance:
Few artists have been as influential in jazz music as saxophonist John Coltrane. Each of the several major periods of his career produced classic works that remain to this day models for jazz musicians worldwide.
Classic albums include Blue Train, Giant Steps, My Favorite Things, and A Love Supreme. You can hear some of his music at the John Coltrane site here.
For part of his life, Coltrane was addicted to drugs, especially heroin (a scourge among jazz musicians in the '50s) though he did get clean through a rededication of himself to the Christianity of his family and childhood. Following a period of spiritual growth and search, he recorded A Love Supreme, an album that, in the words of one writer, "attests to the power, glory, love, and greatness of God." If you have never heard this album, you have missed a powerful expression of Christian religious experience. His funeral, held at St. Peter's Lutheran Church in New York City, was a powerful service of jazz and worship. A scholarly essay on Coltrane's religion and music is found here.
Here is a portion John Coltrane's own words about A Love Supreme from the original liner notes: (below)
Few artists have been as influential in jazz music as saxophonist John Coltrane. Each of the several major periods of his career produced classic works that remain to this day models for jazz musicians worldwide.
Classic albums include Blue Train, Giant Steps, My Favorite Things, and A Love Supreme. You can hear some of his music at the John Coltrane site here.
For part of his life, Coltrane was addicted to drugs, especially heroin (a scourge among jazz musicians in the '50s) though he did get clean through a rededication of himself to the Christianity of his family and childhood. Following a period of spiritual growth and search, he recorded A Love Supreme, an album that, in the words of one writer, "attests to the power, glory, love, and greatness of God." If you have never heard this album, you have missed a powerful expression of Christian religious experience. His funeral, held at St. Peter's Lutheran Church in New York City, was a powerful service of jazz and worship. A scholarly essay on Coltrane's religion and music is found here.
Here is a portion John Coltrane's own words about A Love Supreme from the original liner notes: (below)
Today some moronic conservative called up and accused Brian of left-wing bias and lumped him in with Chris Mathews and the MSM. I always cringe when I hear someone from my side of the political fence say something that stupid. Of course, Brian was unflappable, patiently hearing him out, and then: "Peoria, Illinois; you're next. What do you think about...."
The truth is, of course, Brian Lamb and C-SPAN have provided the most unrestricted forum for conservative intellectualism in the brief history of electronic media. All the while, they have provided a similar forum for liberal ideas, but with much less impact, as liberal thought already had numerous esteemed channels to disseminate messages.
Today the topics on the viewer call-in hour were the detainee deal and Hugo Chavez. I tend to use C-SPAN calls as a barometer of the radically misinformed in America; that is, citizens who are fully engaged (bless their hearts) but dangerously misguided.
Random thought: kudos to Charlie Rangel for not hugging Chavez.
Even so, as a string of African American callers chimed in to praise the Venezuelan president and agree vehemently with his characterization of George Bush, I had to wonder if Bush's numbers with black voters would appreciate noticeably, if he had run against Hugo Chavez. Maybe not. My guess: Chavez could have done better among African American voters than John Kerry (88 percent) but probably not as well as Al Gore (92 percent).
And, of course, there were the usual number of shaky-voiced zealots calling in to endorse websites offering "the truth" about the Bush conspiracy that organized the attacks of 9-11. "What about Tower #7? Coincidence? I think not..."
Yesterday on C-SPAN, I heard an interesting twist on the usual tale of 9-11 intrigue, which involved the President building a mansion in Jerusalem in which he would await Armageddon. The coverage of "Christian Dominionism" and "Christian Nationalism" and "Christian Zionism" seems to be increasing (at least on NPR's "Fresh Air"). Perhaps we can look forward to a whole new strain of paranoia.
The truth is, of course, Brian Lamb and C-SPAN have provided the most unrestricted forum for conservative intellectualism in the brief history of electronic media. All the while, they have provided a similar forum for liberal ideas, but with much less impact, as liberal thought already had numerous esteemed channels to disseminate messages.
Today the topics on the viewer call-in hour were the detainee deal and Hugo Chavez. I tend to use C-SPAN calls as a barometer of the radically misinformed in America; that is, citizens who are fully engaged (bless their hearts) but dangerously misguided.
Random thought: kudos to Charlie Rangel for not hugging Chavez.
Even so, as a string of African American callers chimed in to praise the Venezuelan president and agree vehemently with his characterization of George Bush, I had to wonder if Bush's numbers with black voters would appreciate noticeably, if he had run against Hugo Chavez. Maybe not. My guess: Chavez could have done better among African American voters than John Kerry (88 percent) but probably not as well as Al Gore (92 percent).
And, of course, there were the usual number of shaky-voiced zealots calling in to endorse websites offering "the truth" about the Bush conspiracy that organized the attacks of 9-11. "What about Tower #7? Coincidence? I think not..."
Yesterday on C-SPAN, I heard an interesting twist on the usual tale of 9-11 intrigue, which involved the President building a mansion in Jerusalem in which he would await Armageddon. The coverage of "Christian Dominionism" and "Christian Nationalism" and "Christian Zionism" seems to be increasing (at least on NPR's "Fresh Air"). Perhaps we can look forward to a whole new strain of paranoia.
Category: Religion & Public Policy
Posted by: an okie gardener
Should U.S. public policy reflect viewpoints arrived at because of religious beliefs? What is the role of religion in national debate? Do religious viewpoints have a place in the public square?
Prompted by the many debates over legal recognition of same-sex marriage on this blog, I undertook to try to answer these questions. I do not claim to be an expert, but, have thought about these issues for over thirty years. I also am a trained Christian pastor (Master of Divinity, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1983), and trained scholar of religion (Ph.D. in Religion, outside area American History, Baylor University, 2000). I undertook this writing project as well to help me clarify my own thought. I grew up in the Primitive Baptist tradition, historically a strong supporter of the Separation of Church and State. My parents even were members of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. My earliest thinking on the issue, therefore, was in a strongly separationist mode. The last ten or fifteen years, however, I have moved to the opinion that a strict separationist position is too simple, and too naive. I am not, however, and probably never will become a Christian Theonomist, advocating that the laws given to Israel on Sinai should become the law of our land and of every land. (The terms "Theonomy," "Dominion Theology," and "Christian Reconstructionism" often are used imprecisely as synonymns.)
So, where do I stand? (cont. below)
Prompted by the many debates over legal recognition of same-sex marriage on this blog, I undertook to try to answer these questions. I do not claim to be an expert, but, have thought about these issues for over thirty years. I also am a trained Christian pastor (Master of Divinity, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1983), and trained scholar of religion (Ph.D. in Religion, outside area American History, Baylor University, 2000). I undertook this writing project as well to help me clarify my own thought. I grew up in the Primitive Baptist tradition, historically a strong supporter of the Separation of Church and State. My parents even were members of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. My earliest thinking on the issue, therefore, was in a strongly separationist mode. The last ten or fifteen years, however, I have moved to the opinion that a strict separationist position is too simple, and too naive. I am not, however, and probably never will become a Christian Theonomist, advocating that the laws given to Israel on Sinai should become the law of our land and of every land. (The terms "Theonomy," "Dominion Theology," and "Christian Reconstructionism" often are used imprecisely as synonymns.)
So, where do I stand? (cont. below)
22/09: What's Your Point?
Once again the President has managed to put the Democratic party over a barrel on national security and the war on terror; this time on the detainee legislation. Yesterday, the Washington Post carried this AP story, "Democrats Sit Out Detainee Debate," in which the news reporter offered this piece of analysis to explain Democratic ambivalence and paralysis:
"Influencing their [Democratic leadership] strategy are memories of the 2002 defeat of Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., who was ousted by Republican Saxby Chambliss following a TV ad campaign that attacked Cleland's patriotism. Cleland, a severely wounded Vietnam veteran, had voted against creating the Homeland Security Department.
""Max Cleland _ having lost three limbs in Vietnam _ thought the voters in Georgia wouldn't fall for" such charges, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Richard Durbin, said Wednesday. "They did and he lost his Senate seat. We're not going to make that same mistake.""
This is an oft-repeated line from reporters, pundits and party faithful. But what is the point? What does the loss of three limbs or Vietnam have to do with the Department of Homeland Security? It is a non sequitur.
An aside: Robert Byrd criticized Cleland for voting for the Iraq war resolution in 2002 even as Cleland, according to Byrd, knew it was the wrong thing to do. If Byrd is right, then for no other reason, we are well rid of Cleland. Moreover, the resistance to the Homeland Security came mostly from the Labor lobby, a traditionally powerful interest group for Democrats. What was so courageous about bowing to the will of labor unions?
Republicans and Democrats need to stand up and speak from the heart and vote their consciences. If Cleland voted for the war when he thought it was wrong, he was wrong and deserved defeat. If he voted against the Homeland Security bill because he thought it was the right thing to do (not because he was gaining credibility with a group that could potentially further his national ambitions), then he went down to political defeat as a hero. That brand of personal sacrifice makes the system work.
We need statesman. If Democrats believe the detainee bill is a violation of American principle, and they vote for it anyway to evade the wrath of voters, then they deserve to lose.
"Influencing their [Democratic leadership] strategy are memories of the 2002 defeat of Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., who was ousted by Republican Saxby Chambliss following a TV ad campaign that attacked Cleland's patriotism. Cleland, a severely wounded Vietnam veteran, had voted against creating the Homeland Security Department.
""Max Cleland _ having lost three limbs in Vietnam _ thought the voters in Georgia wouldn't fall for" such charges, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Richard Durbin, said Wednesday. "They did and he lost his Senate seat. We're not going to make that same mistake.""
This is an oft-repeated line from reporters, pundits and party faithful. But what is the point? What does the loss of three limbs or Vietnam have to do with the Department of Homeland Security? It is a non sequitur.
An aside: Robert Byrd criticized Cleland for voting for the Iraq war resolution in 2002 even as Cleland, according to Byrd, knew it was the wrong thing to do. If Byrd is right, then for no other reason, we are well rid of Cleland. Moreover, the resistance to the Homeland Security came mostly from the Labor lobby, a traditionally powerful interest group for Democrats. What was so courageous about bowing to the will of labor unions?
Republicans and Democrats need to stand up and speak from the heart and vote their consciences. If Cleland voted for the war when he thought it was wrong, he was wrong and deserved defeat. If he voted against the Homeland Security bill because he thought it was the right thing to do (not because he was gaining credibility with a group that could potentially further his national ambitions), then he went down to political defeat as a hero. That brand of personal sacrifice makes the system work.
We need statesman. If Democrats believe the detainee bill is a violation of American principle, and they vote for it anyway to evade the wrath of voters, then they deserve to lose.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
As those of you who read this blog know, I refer often to the military nature of Islamic expansion: spreading the faith through conquest. Lest you think I write from a uniquely Christian perspective, allow the following paragraph from the official website of the Government of Oman to present an Islamic view of Muslim expansion into Oman. Hat tip Little Green Footballs
If you do not click the link and read the whole article, then at least read this paragraph. The boldface highlights are mine intended for you skimmers.
After God empowered Muslims to enter Mecca, Islam became the prevailing power and was spread by use of fear. This was particularly evident in the tribe of Quraysh, who had responded to the Prophet Muhammad’s new message of Islam with unrelenting persecution, eventually putting its resources in the service of the ever growing new religion. The Prophet then saw it preferable to contact neighbouring kings and rulers, including the two kings of Oman, Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, through peaceful means. History books tell us that the prophet had sent messages to the people of Oman, including a letter carried by military escort from Amr Inn Al Aas to Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, in which he wrote: ‘In the name of God the Merciful and the Compassionate, from Muhammad bin Abdullah to Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, peace be on those who choose the right path. Embrace Islam, and you shall be safe. I am God’s messenger to all humanity, here to alert all those alive that non believers are condemned. If you submit to Islam, you will remain kings, but if you abstain, your rule will be removed and my horses will enter your arena to prove my prophecy’.
Remember, the one using the terms must define the terms. Islam calls itself the Religion of Peace. By "peace" Muslims mean submission to Allah. This "peace" is to be extended not merely by free conversion, but through force or its threat as well. Mainstream Islam, both Sunni and Shia, does not define religion as a matter merely of the private heart, but of the totality of life, including culture and government.
If you do not click the link and read the whole article, then at least read this paragraph. The boldface highlights are mine intended for you skimmers.
After God empowered Muslims to enter Mecca, Islam became the prevailing power and was spread by use of fear. This was particularly evident in the tribe of Quraysh, who had responded to the Prophet Muhammad’s new message of Islam with unrelenting persecution, eventually putting its resources in the service of the ever growing new religion. The Prophet then saw it preferable to contact neighbouring kings and rulers, including the two kings of Oman, Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, through peaceful means. History books tell us that the prophet had sent messages to the people of Oman, including a letter carried by military escort from Amr Inn Al Aas to Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, in which he wrote: ‘In the name of God the Merciful and the Compassionate, from Muhammad bin Abdullah to Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, peace be on those who choose the right path. Embrace Islam, and you shall be safe. I am God’s messenger to all humanity, here to alert all those alive that non believers are condemned. If you submit to Islam, you will remain kings, but if you abstain, your rule will be removed and my horses will enter your arena to prove my prophecy’.
Remember, the one using the terms must define the terms. Islam calls itself the Religion of Peace. By "peace" Muslims mean submission to Allah. This "peace" is to be extended not merely by free conversion, but through force or its threat as well. Mainstream Islam, both Sunni and Shia, does not define religion as a matter merely of the private heart, but of the totality of life, including culture and government.
