Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Today Drudge cites this story from CNN and splashes the headline: "HOLY OBAMA: 'WE CAN CREATE KINGDOM ON EARTH'"
As Barack Obama crafts an appeal to "Kingdom People," it seems appropriate to revisit the Okie Gardener's excellent thumbnail explanation of American evangelicalism and its various eschatologies.
From October 10, 2006, quoting the Gardener:
"Premillennial: believing that when Jesus Christ returns he will usher in a long period of peace and justice (the millennium). In other words, there is a radical discontinuity [the return of Jesus] between present human history and the evident reign of God on earth in human history (Shalom). After the millennium comes the fulfillment.
"Amillennial: believing that Jesus will return and then usher in the fulfillment, without a period of God’s evident reign within human history. In other words, hope for Shalom will be met only beyond human history.
"Postmillennial: believing that the return of Jesus will be preceded by a period of peace and justice in which God’s reign on earth will be seen. Then comes the return of Jesus and the fulfillment. In other words, there will be a continuity between present human history and the establishment of Shalom.
"A while back, in the context of some posts on George Bush’s postmillennial theology, I mentioned that postmillennialism had been the majority opinion among evangelical Christians of the nineteenth century. Given the beliefs of contemporary evangelicals, holding to a postmillennial position seems unimaginable. In response to a comment by Joab, I promised to attempt a defense of each of these major positions. (Personal disclaimer, I am not a fully persuaded believer of one position; I tend to alternate between amillennialism and postmillennialism.)
"All Christians are optimistic in an ultimate sense: we believe that Jesus will return and triumph over his foes, and ours, including death and suffering. But is there reason for optimism before the End? In other words, do Christians expect there to be any real, overall progress within human history? The answer given to this question will vary between Christians holding differing millennial views."
To continue reading, click on the full post here.
As Barack Obama crafts an appeal to "Kingdom People," it seems appropriate to revisit the Okie Gardener's excellent thumbnail explanation of American evangelicalism and its various eschatologies.
From October 10, 2006, quoting the Gardener:
"Premillennial: believing that when Jesus Christ returns he will usher in a long period of peace and justice (the millennium). In other words, there is a radical discontinuity [the return of Jesus] between present human history and the evident reign of God on earth in human history (Shalom). After the millennium comes the fulfillment.
"Amillennial: believing that Jesus will return and then usher in the fulfillment, without a period of God’s evident reign within human history. In other words, hope for Shalom will be met only beyond human history.
"Postmillennial: believing that the return of Jesus will be preceded by a period of peace and justice in which God’s reign on earth will be seen. Then comes the return of Jesus and the fulfillment. In other words, there will be a continuity between present human history and the establishment of Shalom.
"A while back, in the context of some posts on George Bush’s postmillennial theology, I mentioned that postmillennialism had been the majority opinion among evangelical Christians of the nineteenth century. Given the beliefs of contemporary evangelicals, holding to a postmillennial position seems unimaginable. In response to a comment by Joab, I promised to attempt a defense of each of these major positions. (Personal disclaimer, I am not a fully persuaded believer of one position; I tend to alternate between amillennialism and postmillennialism.)
"All Christians are optimistic in an ultimate sense: we believe that Jesus will return and triumph over his foes, and ours, including death and suffering. But is there reason for optimism before the End? In other words, do Christians expect there to be any real, overall progress within human history? The answer given to this question will vary between Christians holding differing millennial views."
To continue reading, click on the full post here.
07/10: The SCHIP Dilemma
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
A few months ago, my five-year-old son suffered from a case of torticollis (wry neck). In effect, torticollis is a muscle spasm that leaves ones neck immobilized and in great pain. The malady struck him suddenly during church, and by Sunday afternoon we found ourselves in the emergency room of one of our local hospitals.
I am happy to report that we received excellent care; it was professional, kind, and swift (we signed in, underwent triage, saw a doctor, received a diagnosis, and were on our way to the pharmacy with a prescription for pain medication in approximately 90 minutes).
There are two major hospitals in our community of approximately 200,000 inhabitants. One is located in the heart of the city. The other is located across the highway on the edge of the area's two most successful suburban towns. Both are state of the art medical facilities with world-class doctors and personnel.
However, our urban hospital has recently secured approval for its longtime goal of following the other into the suburbs (The suburban hospital moved away from its urban location twenty years ago).
Part of the problem for our urban hospital? Emergency Care. Unfortunately, the facility in the city has a near-monopoly on non-paying clientele.
I am not a rich person, but I am privileged to have health care subsidized by my employer (FYI: I chose the suburban emergency room).
I am not unsympathetic to those families who do not share my good fortune. I would like every person in America to have good healthcare.
What can be done?
For the life of me, I cannot get my arms around this SCHIP face-off. Like so many other Washington smack downs staged for cable news networks and hyper-interested partisans, this veto drama has been politicized to the point of confusion. Generally, in these moments I consult some of the less-political, more common-sense oriented pundits and pols--and see what they say.
This one is tough because a lot of the Senators I like (Orrin Hatch for one) have weighed in against the White House. The President's team seems confused and off their game on the facts and politics of all this. Of course, with the Bush administration that does not necessarily mean they are wrong; it is often just "situation normal...."
Some other voices of note:
George Will says: "[the bill] is a proxy fight over the future of the welfare state, meaning the trajectory of government and the burdens it will place on the economy, which, by its dynamism, must generate the revenues to pay the bills" in full here via Newsweek.
David Brooks calls the program expansion cowardly, dishonest, and an undue burden on those least able to pay here.
My favorite straight-talking pragmatist-conservative, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, is against here.
Even "Farmer's Cousin,” who has been full of insight lately, inveighs against the measure here, describing the bill as a shameless overreach disguised in maudlin rhetoric.
Bottom Line:
We seem determined to have universal care in this country, which gives me great pause. Government healthcare, in a nation that does not do big-government programs very well to begin with, is going to mean a dramatic loss of quality for most of us. Perhaps it would be more Christian for me to sacrifice first-rate care for my family so that other families might have access to merely adequate services--but, frankly, I am inclined to hold out for a better solution.
Having said that, I do so with a sense of uncertainty and more than a modicum of guilt.
I am happy to report that we received excellent care; it was professional, kind, and swift (we signed in, underwent triage, saw a doctor, received a diagnosis, and were on our way to the pharmacy with a prescription for pain medication in approximately 90 minutes).
There are two major hospitals in our community of approximately 200,000 inhabitants. One is located in the heart of the city. The other is located across the highway on the edge of the area's two most successful suburban towns. Both are state of the art medical facilities with world-class doctors and personnel.
However, our urban hospital has recently secured approval for its longtime goal of following the other into the suburbs (The suburban hospital moved away from its urban location twenty years ago).
Part of the problem for our urban hospital? Emergency Care. Unfortunately, the facility in the city has a near-monopoly on non-paying clientele.
I am not a rich person, but I am privileged to have health care subsidized by my employer (FYI: I chose the suburban emergency room).
I am not unsympathetic to those families who do not share my good fortune. I would like every person in America to have good healthcare.
What can be done?
For the life of me, I cannot get my arms around this SCHIP face-off. Like so many other Washington smack downs staged for cable news networks and hyper-interested partisans, this veto drama has been politicized to the point of confusion. Generally, in these moments I consult some of the less-political, more common-sense oriented pundits and pols--and see what they say.
This one is tough because a lot of the Senators I like (Orrin Hatch for one) have weighed in against the White House. The President's team seems confused and off their game on the facts and politics of all this. Of course, with the Bush administration that does not necessarily mean they are wrong; it is often just "situation normal...."
Some other voices of note:
George Will says: "[the bill] is a proxy fight over the future of the welfare state, meaning the trajectory of government and the burdens it will place on the economy, which, by its dynamism, must generate the revenues to pay the bills" in full here via Newsweek.
David Brooks calls the program expansion cowardly, dishonest, and an undue burden on those least able to pay here.
My favorite straight-talking pragmatist-conservative, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, is against here.
Even "Farmer's Cousin,” who has been full of insight lately, inveighs against the measure here, describing the bill as a shameless overreach disguised in maudlin rhetoric.
Bottom Line:
We seem determined to have universal care in this country, which gives me great pause. Government healthcare, in a nation that does not do big-government programs very well to begin with, is going to mean a dramatic loss of quality for most of us. Perhaps it would be more Christian for me to sacrifice first-rate care for my family so that other families might have access to merely adequate services--but, frankly, I am inclined to hold out for a better solution.
Having said that, I do so with a sense of uncertainty and more than a modicum of guilt.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Much has been made recently about "not counting the votes" in the 2004 Election. A few weeks ago, we were subjected to the crazy college kid who berated John Kerry for not contesting the re-election of George Bush.
Now Elizabeth Edwards reveals that she too was:
"very disappointed, not just because we did not count the votes, but because we promised people that if they stood in line and fought for the right to vote, that we would fight with them. And I was very disappointed that the decision was made by the campaign, over John’s [presumedly Edwards] objection, not to fight."
Source: the quote comes from an interview on Air America via a post on Politico here.
Reality Check: George Bush beat John Kerry by over 3,000,000 votes.
Granted, the rub is Ohio, where George Bush out-polled John Kerry by a mere 118,599 votes--but come on folks. If the Dems could have somehow gotten that 118, 599 vote advantage thrown out and won Ohio, which would have given John Kerry an electoral college victory, Kerry would have still lost the popular vote by 2,893,897.
Angry Democrats continue to call the Election of 2000--in which Al Gore out-polled Bush by 539,947 ballots but lost by 3 electoral votes--the "stolen" election. It escapes me how Mrs. Edwards and other nutcases can honestly posit that an election they lost by THREE MILLION VOTES was somehow given away in the hectic moments following the tally.
Give it a rest.
Now Elizabeth Edwards reveals that she too was:
"very disappointed, not just because we did not count the votes, but because we promised people that if they stood in line and fought for the right to vote, that we would fight with them. And I was very disappointed that the decision was made by the campaign, over John’s [presumedly Edwards] objection, not to fight."
Source: the quote comes from an interview on Air America via a post on Politico here.
Reality Check: George Bush beat John Kerry by over 3,000,000 votes.
Granted, the rub is Ohio, where George Bush out-polled John Kerry by a mere 118,599 votes--but come on folks. If the Dems could have somehow gotten that 118, 599 vote advantage thrown out and won Ohio, which would have given John Kerry an electoral college victory, Kerry would have still lost the popular vote by 2,893,897.
Angry Democrats continue to call the Election of 2000--in which Al Gore out-polled Bush by 539,947 ballots but lost by 3 electoral votes--the "stolen" election. It escapes me how Mrs. Edwards and other nutcases can honestly posit that an election they lost by THREE MILLION VOTES was somehow given away in the hectic moments following the tally.
Give it a rest.
03/10: What's Old Is New Again
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Hello 1814 and 1861. Chattanooga is the site of this year's Secessionist Convention, a gathering of groups and individuals who wish to see their state and region secede from the United States. Noteworthy is the coming together of the modern New England secessionist movement, centered in Vermont, with the Southern secessionist movement, exemplified by the League of the South. Other secessionists are expected from Hawaii, Alaska, and Texas. Story here. Link from Drudge.
The complaint that links these groups together--Yankee liberals and Neo-Confederates--is that the Federal government has grown overbearingly strong in relation to the states.
While secessionist movements may be fringe groups at present, we need to listen to them, because they do have a point. For the last 100 years the Federal government has gained power at the expense of the states. Today that power is exercised especially through money. The Feds collect taxes that are then given back to the states and localities through grants--that have strings attached. What would it be like to cut Federal taxes by the amounts that flow through the grant process, including administrative costs, and let the states decide to tax or not to make up the difference?
The complaint that links these groups together--Yankee liberals and Neo-Confederates--is that the Federal government has grown overbearingly strong in relation to the states.
While secessionist movements may be fringe groups at present, we need to listen to them, because they do have a point. For the last 100 years the Federal government has gained power at the expense of the states. Today that power is exercised especially through money. The Feds collect taxes that are then given back to the states and localities through grants--that have strings attached. What would it be like to cut Federal taxes by the amounts that flow through the grant process, including administrative costs, and let the states decide to tax or not to make up the difference?
President Clinton made news on Anderson Cooper (CNN video here) last night defending Democrats who would not condemn MoveOn.org by attacking "Republicans" as "disingenuous" for their "feigned outrage" regarding the General Betray Us ad.
President Clinton, evidently, thinks it inconceivable that politicians could actually get mad about scurrilous accusations of treason meant to dishonor a no-nonsense, straight-shooting military commander.
When we cry the blues about the "politics of personal destruction," we don't really mean it, right? This is how the game is played.
Even as he criticized the opposition for "feigning outrage," he worked himself up into an angry performance. President Clinton's talent for getting red in the face is impressive--but I think he has started to go there too often. He reminds me of Pacino. How many more times can I watch another variation of: "I should take a flame thrower to this plaaaaaace!"
President Clinton stoked his righteous indignation by retelling the increasingly mythological tale of Max Cleland, who "lost half his body in Vietnam," the President asserted, only to be compared to Saddam and Osama by dastardly Republicans. Ironically, that overly simple and distorted Democratic narrative can only be described as disingenuous. The ad was crude—but accurate.
FYI: see the ad here via YouTube.
The bottom line: if Max Cleland wanted special status accorded to him for his sacrifice and service, he should have avoided politics. Unfortunately, and Bill Clinton has as much to answer for in this regard as any other American politician, American political life is a street brawl.
As for President Clinton, known and praised the world over for his incisive ability to explain events in a nuanced way, regrettably, he chose to broadly assail congressional Republicans and the President as liars and scoundrels. Not very subtle or conciliatory.
A disappointing performance from the President--but not especially out of character. We are likely to have plenty of opportunities to watch him reprise this role over the course of the next nine years.
President Clinton, evidently, thinks it inconceivable that politicians could actually get mad about scurrilous accusations of treason meant to dishonor a no-nonsense, straight-shooting military commander.
When we cry the blues about the "politics of personal destruction," we don't really mean it, right? This is how the game is played.
Even as he criticized the opposition for "feigning outrage," he worked himself up into an angry performance. President Clinton's talent for getting red in the face is impressive--but I think he has started to go there too often. He reminds me of Pacino. How many more times can I watch another variation of: "I should take a flame thrower to this plaaaaaace!"
President Clinton stoked his righteous indignation by retelling the increasingly mythological tale of Max Cleland, who "lost half his body in Vietnam," the President asserted, only to be compared to Saddam and Osama by dastardly Republicans. Ironically, that overly simple and distorted Democratic narrative can only be described as disingenuous. The ad was crude—but accurate.
FYI: see the ad here via YouTube.
The bottom line: if Max Cleland wanted special status accorded to him for his sacrifice and service, he should have avoided politics. Unfortunately, and Bill Clinton has as much to answer for in this regard as any other American politician, American political life is a street brawl.
As for President Clinton, known and praised the world over for his incisive ability to explain events in a nuanced way, regrettably, he chose to broadly assail congressional Republicans and the President as liars and scoundrels. Not very subtle or conciliatory.
A disappointing performance from the President--but not especially out of character. We are likely to have plenty of opportunities to watch him reprise this role over the course of the next nine years.
News flash from the Hill via Drudge:
"House overwhelmingly condemns MoveOn ad."
This is a smart move. Was it sincere? Who knows what lurks in the hearts of men? I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Regardless, mark one down for Democratic leadership. They are clearing the decks in preparation for the impending storm over SCHIP. Regardless of principle or specifics, the President et al find themsleves in a particularly vulnerable place on the "insurance for children" bill. Expect an all-out blitzkrieg from the Democrats and their allies.
The "General Betray Us" controversy is at the sunset of its political viability. As I have said previously, I doubt that the Petraeus-MoveOn tempest impacts the political landscape in a long-term meaningful way.
On the other hand, if the President sticks to his guns, the Children's Health Insurance Program veto likely marks the beginning of an extended season of uncomfortably hot and devastating political rhetoric directed at "heartless Republicans."
"House overwhelmingly condemns MoveOn ad."
This is a smart move. Was it sincere? Who knows what lurks in the hearts of men? I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Regardless, mark one down for Democratic leadership. They are clearing the decks in preparation for the impending storm over SCHIP. Regardless of principle or specifics, the President et al find themsleves in a particularly vulnerable place on the "insurance for children" bill. Expect an all-out blitzkrieg from the Democrats and their allies.
The "General Betray Us" controversy is at the sunset of its political viability. As I have said previously, I doubt that the Petraeus-MoveOn tempest impacts the political landscape in a long-term meaningful way.
On the other hand, if the President sticks to his guns, the Children's Health Insurance Program veto likely marks the beginning of an extended season of uncomfortably hot and devastating political rhetoric directed at "heartless Republicans."
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I am right now watching just a snippet of Alan Greenspan on C-SPAN2.
I cannot help but think that Vice President Dick Cheney miscalculated in his Wall Street Journal retort to the "maestro." A better strategy might have been embracing him. It seems to me that the former Fed chairman is much more upset about profligate spending than he dislikes the Bush tax policy. I keep hearing Greenspan say tax cuts are okay. Giving back the surplus was a good thing. The war debt is no big deal. But he is really mad at George Bush for 1) allowing (encouraging, instigating) big spending and 2) not attacking some of the massive entitlement programs looming as economic time bombs.
An alternative strategy for the White House might have gone something like this: "Alan Greenspan is absolutely right. A free-spending Congress and its unwillingness to eschew politics and solve the serious problems confronting the next generation has done great damage to the nation." A more politically adept Bush team could have used the moment to frame more favorably for history the President's failed attempt to reform social security.
On Friday I caught up with the Terry Gross interview on Fresh Air from earlier in the week. I was struck by her palpable disappointment with Greenspan’s vaunted comments on Bush failures. The always cryptic Greenspan does not tarry long on those much ballyhooed disagreements. In fact, if you keep him on those subjects long enough, he offers up assertions quite troubling for the Bush lynch mob. For example, he is not shy about affirming that he viewed the ouster of Saddam as absolutely necessary at the time. But, in the most general way, his selected comments move forward the anti-Bush drumbeat; therefore, Greenspan is getting a friendly reception from the MSM and usual suspects.
Moreover, the libertarian sage fits in with a favorite storyline: even smart Republicans and conservatives think Bush is an idiot, and they don't like him personally.
Another example of this re-emergent template a la Fresh Air again:
Terry Gross also interviewed Jeffrey Toobin last week. Toobin’s latest book, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court , explains how Sandra Day O'Connor, instrumental in making Bush president through judicial fiat, came to regret her perfidy as she got to know the wild-eyed Texan and come to understand his assault on the Constitution. When asked how he knew this to be true, Toobin responded: "You're just going to have to trust me on that one."
As for the bigger picture, is there a kernel of truth in this increasingly popular Bush-bashing MSM convention? Are Republicans really deserting the sinking ship? Only those who can read a poll. Are GOP Washington insiders saying they knew all along this guy was no good? Every minute of the day.
Is that surprising? Does it mean a whole lot? Not really.
This is life on the Potomac. Outsiders infuriate insiders. When things go bad, like in the case of Jimmy Carter, the insiders pound on the country bumpkin for a lack of sophistication and a reliance on his crude and boorish cronies. By the way, when things go bad for insiders, like the first George Bush, your friends pretty much desert you then as well—although they are forced to come up with different explanations for your failings and be more creative as to why they are not connected to you.
On the other hand, the Beltway “smarties” had to bite their tongues during the Reagan and Clinton administrations. They would have deserted Clinton and Reagan too, with gusto--but those outsider presidents succeeded grandly, and enjoyed protection as a result of high popularity, overwhelming reelection, and savvy communications operations.
Nobody said being president was going to be easy.
I cannot help but think that Vice President Dick Cheney miscalculated in his Wall Street Journal retort to the "maestro." A better strategy might have been embracing him. It seems to me that the former Fed chairman is much more upset about profligate spending than he dislikes the Bush tax policy. I keep hearing Greenspan say tax cuts are okay. Giving back the surplus was a good thing. The war debt is no big deal. But he is really mad at George Bush for 1) allowing (encouraging, instigating) big spending and 2) not attacking some of the massive entitlement programs looming as economic time bombs.
An alternative strategy for the White House might have gone something like this: "Alan Greenspan is absolutely right. A free-spending Congress and its unwillingness to eschew politics and solve the serious problems confronting the next generation has done great damage to the nation." A more politically adept Bush team could have used the moment to frame more favorably for history the President's failed attempt to reform social security.
On Friday I caught up with the Terry Gross interview on Fresh Air from earlier in the week. I was struck by her palpable disappointment with Greenspan’s vaunted comments on Bush failures. The always cryptic Greenspan does not tarry long on those much ballyhooed disagreements. In fact, if you keep him on those subjects long enough, he offers up assertions quite troubling for the Bush lynch mob. For example, he is not shy about affirming that he viewed the ouster of Saddam as absolutely necessary at the time. But, in the most general way, his selected comments move forward the anti-Bush drumbeat; therefore, Greenspan is getting a friendly reception from the MSM and usual suspects.
Moreover, the libertarian sage fits in with a favorite storyline: even smart Republicans and conservatives think Bush is an idiot, and they don't like him personally.
Another example of this re-emergent template a la Fresh Air again:
Terry Gross also interviewed Jeffrey Toobin last week. Toobin’s latest book, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court , explains how Sandra Day O'Connor, instrumental in making Bush president through judicial fiat, came to regret her perfidy as she got to know the wild-eyed Texan and come to understand his assault on the Constitution. When asked how he knew this to be true, Toobin responded: "You're just going to have to trust me on that one."
As for the bigger picture, is there a kernel of truth in this increasingly popular Bush-bashing MSM convention? Are Republicans really deserting the sinking ship? Only those who can read a poll. Are GOP Washington insiders saying they knew all along this guy was no good? Every minute of the day.
Is that surprising? Does it mean a whole lot? Not really.
This is life on the Potomac. Outsiders infuriate insiders. When things go bad, like in the case of Jimmy Carter, the insiders pound on the country bumpkin for a lack of sophistication and a reliance on his crude and boorish cronies. By the way, when things go bad for insiders, like the first George Bush, your friends pretty much desert you then as well—although they are forced to come up with different explanations for your failings and be more creative as to why they are not connected to you.
On the other hand, the Beltway “smarties” had to bite their tongues during the Reagan and Clinton administrations. They would have deserted Clinton and Reagan too, with gusto--but those outsider presidents succeeded grandly, and enjoyed protection as a result of high popularity, overwhelming reelection, and savvy communications operations.
Nobody said being president was going to be easy.
18/09: Out-Fooled Again
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
George Bush is often described by his opponents as the dumbest human on the planet.
But, once again, the President is in the process of proving himself the dumbest human on the planet--except for Democratic Party leadership and the New York Times.
In the drama to replace the sufficiently scorched Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, the President signaled that he might elevate Ted Olson, former solicitor general and counsel of record for the Supreme Court case that ended the election of 2000, Bush v. Gore.
Oh, the howls that nomination was set to elicit. Democrats were sharpening the long knives, painting their faces for ritualized torture, and preparing for a long and painful non-confirmation hearing.
But, then, out of nowhere, the imbecile president emerged on Constitution Day to nominate straight arrow, non-friend, non-politician, experienced, competent, and all-around nice guy, Michael Mukasey.
Who?
From this Washington Post article: Mukasey is an Orthodox Jew from the Bronx, and the son of a coin laundry operator. Mukasey graduated from Columbia and then Yale Law School during the 1960s, practiced law for 20 years in New York, met and befriended Rudy Giuliani, and accumulated an 18-year brilliantly conservative record at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Is he conservative enough?
I love this quote from the Post attributed to Mukasey: Civil libertarians who criticized the detention campaign as an unprecedented or unauthorized use of federal powers were spreading "breathless half-truths and outright falsehoods."
Notwithstanding, Mukasey's record and endorsements are so stellar and unimpeachable that he keeps appearing on New York Senator Chuck Schumer's list of acceptable Republican nominees for various top legal posts.
The rub?
Somebody forgot to tell Patrick Leahy and the New York Times.
The senior senator from Vermont, chair of the Judiciary Committee, is threatening to block the President's nomination until he is allowed to extract a pound of flesh off the acrid political corpse of the former Attorney General.
As for the New York Times, they find the nominee "troubling." Evidently, quotes like the one above give the editorial board at the NYT great pause, calling him "too deferential to the government" and finding him not nearly obsequious enough to the American Library Association in their courageous mission to save unsuspecting readers from an inchoate police state.
So, the President now occupies the enviable position of presenting a nominee every one in the legal universe seems to admire personally and professionally (even the proudly liberal, Chuck Schumer), while a cranky but powerful senate Democrat and the unofficial party organ of the DNC attempt to head him off at the pass.
Bring it on.
But, once again, the President is in the process of proving himself the dumbest human on the planet--except for Democratic Party leadership and the New York Times.
In the drama to replace the sufficiently scorched Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, the President signaled that he might elevate Ted Olson, former solicitor general and counsel of record for the Supreme Court case that ended the election of 2000, Bush v. Gore.
Oh, the howls that nomination was set to elicit. Democrats were sharpening the long knives, painting their faces for ritualized torture, and preparing for a long and painful non-confirmation hearing.
But, then, out of nowhere, the imbecile president emerged on Constitution Day to nominate straight arrow, non-friend, non-politician, experienced, competent, and all-around nice guy, Michael Mukasey.
Who?
From this Washington Post article: Mukasey is an Orthodox Jew from the Bronx, and the son of a coin laundry operator. Mukasey graduated from Columbia and then Yale Law School during the 1960s, practiced law for 20 years in New York, met and befriended Rudy Giuliani, and accumulated an 18-year brilliantly conservative record at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Is he conservative enough?
I love this quote from the Post attributed to Mukasey: Civil libertarians who criticized the detention campaign as an unprecedented or unauthorized use of federal powers were spreading "breathless half-truths and outright falsehoods."
Notwithstanding, Mukasey's record and endorsements are so stellar and unimpeachable that he keeps appearing on New York Senator Chuck Schumer's list of acceptable Republican nominees for various top legal posts.
The rub?
Somebody forgot to tell Patrick Leahy and the New York Times.
The senior senator from Vermont, chair of the Judiciary Committee, is threatening to block the President's nomination until he is allowed to extract a pound of flesh off the acrid political corpse of the former Attorney General.
As for the New York Times, they find the nominee "troubling." Evidently, quotes like the one above give the editorial board at the NYT great pause, calling him "too deferential to the government" and finding him not nearly obsequious enough to the American Library Association in their courageous mission to save unsuspecting readers from an inchoate police state.
So, the President now occupies the enviable position of presenting a nominee every one in the legal universe seems to admire personally and professionally (even the proudly liberal, Chuck Schumer), while a cranky but powerful senate Democrat and the unofficial party organ of the DNC attempt to head him off at the pass.
Bring it on.
What's wrong with initiating the next presidential election in earnest immediately after the last one concludes?
Joe Biden.
I am guessing that most of our reading community does not understand my admiration for Joe Biden. You see the grandstanding, bloviating, self-absorbed senator always mugging for the cameras. I see that Joe Biden too, of course. But I also see the Joe Biden who is talented, diligent, and dedicated to good government. I admire the America-loving public official who has spent almost his entire career learning foreign policy and the judiciary in order to be a constructive element of the solution. He is, in fact, quite good at and what he does, and he oftentimes offers incredibly astute analysis on the topics to which he had dedicated his life.
But then you wave the White House in front of him, and he contracts a classic case of "Potomac Fever," which causes him to froth at the mouth.
Today on Fox News Sunday (see note below on FNS), when asked to comment on John McCain's assertion that congressional control of the military was unconstitutional, Biden launched into a tirade against George Bush (not McCain): "The President doesn't understand the Constitution."
Biden further allowed that the President held a "unitary" view of executive power in relation to the other branches, cleverly using a phrase (unitary executive) that has become a code word for calling the President an inchoate dictator.
Why do that? Clearly, Candidate Biden hoped to make a little headway with the most strident and adamant Bush-haters.
"Did you hear what Biden said about Bush?"
"Yeah. That was fantastic."
Next Topic: "General Betray Us" and MoveOn.org.
Biden said: "MoveOn.org was wrong." Give him some credit for admitting the obvious. Many of his colleagues could not summon the courage to go that far. But Biden went on to qualify his statement: The Move-On folks are good Americans whose frustration got the better of them. The wanton misleadership of the President drove his patriotic opponents to do this unsavory thing--but come on fellas--this is no "capital offense."
So, while gently criticizing MoveOn, the senator made clear he was with them all the way .
My beef with the system? Biden is better than that. If he were not under intense pressure to please the unhinged wing of his party, he would certainly offer words and actions more in keeping with his desire to bring positive change. This current election cycle is the logical extension of the Clinton (42) brain trust’s innovation to American politics: the "permanent campaign." If a sitting president must campaign constantly while in office, the opposition must campaign constantly to counter the President, and the would-be presidents must campaign constantly, forming a shadow government.
Accountability is good for the system--but ultra-democracy snuffs out republican statesmanship. Sometimes the people's representatives must do necessarily unappetizing things (remember the sausage analogy) in order to make the system work. The twenty-four hour news cycle and the permanent campaign threatens good government by shining too much light on the system. In essence, modern politicians are all public performance now.
More to the point, if Joe Biden weren't out running for president and courting the most destructive element of the American electorate, he might be in the Senate helping to lead our nation through one of the most treacherous moments in our long and proud history.
One more thing: Will the "General Betray Us" ad affect the election of the next president?
John Edwards never saw it.
Hillary and Obama ignored it.
But all three embraced it tacitly.
Does it matter?
Only if the war turns around. If the war continues to flounder a year from now, David Petraeus will be as despised as George Bush. The ever-present but lightly used Westmoreland comparisons this time around will be the unquestioned template a year from now--if the current direction fails. Therefore, a year from now (under the gloomy scenario) castigating the dirty dog general will have seemed the appropriate reaction.
However, if the war turns around (the biggest "if" there ever was), then perhaps the Democrats will pay a price with a few (but important) reasonable voters whose support will be up for grabs.
Note on Fox News Sunday: this unique program continues to be the best network Sunday morning talking-head show. Partly a result of the ideologically "balanced" team of news analyzers, and partly because of its conservative perspective on the issues, FNS consistently delves into topics of interest to me that all the other Sunday shows miss completely. Special kudos to Chris Wallace for his steady leadership.
Joe Biden.
I am guessing that most of our reading community does not understand my admiration for Joe Biden. You see the grandstanding, bloviating, self-absorbed senator always mugging for the cameras. I see that Joe Biden too, of course. But I also see the Joe Biden who is talented, diligent, and dedicated to good government. I admire the America-loving public official who has spent almost his entire career learning foreign policy and the judiciary in order to be a constructive element of the solution. He is, in fact, quite good at and what he does, and he oftentimes offers incredibly astute analysis on the topics to which he had dedicated his life.
But then you wave the White House in front of him, and he contracts a classic case of "Potomac Fever," which causes him to froth at the mouth.
Today on Fox News Sunday (see note below on FNS), when asked to comment on John McCain's assertion that congressional control of the military was unconstitutional, Biden launched into a tirade against George Bush (not McCain): "The President doesn't understand the Constitution."
Biden further allowed that the President held a "unitary" view of executive power in relation to the other branches, cleverly using a phrase (unitary executive) that has become a code word for calling the President an inchoate dictator.
Why do that? Clearly, Candidate Biden hoped to make a little headway with the most strident and adamant Bush-haters.
"Did you hear what Biden said about Bush?"
"Yeah. That was fantastic."
Next Topic: "General Betray Us" and MoveOn.org.
Biden said: "MoveOn.org was wrong." Give him some credit for admitting the obvious. Many of his colleagues could not summon the courage to go that far. But Biden went on to qualify his statement: The Move-On folks are good Americans whose frustration got the better of them. The wanton misleadership of the President drove his patriotic opponents to do this unsavory thing--but come on fellas--this is no "capital offense."
So, while gently criticizing MoveOn, the senator made clear he was with them all the way .
My beef with the system? Biden is better than that. If he were not under intense pressure to please the unhinged wing of his party, he would certainly offer words and actions more in keeping with his desire to bring positive change. This current election cycle is the logical extension of the Clinton (42) brain trust’s innovation to American politics: the "permanent campaign." If a sitting president must campaign constantly while in office, the opposition must campaign constantly to counter the President, and the would-be presidents must campaign constantly, forming a shadow government.
Accountability is good for the system--but ultra-democracy snuffs out republican statesmanship. Sometimes the people's representatives must do necessarily unappetizing things (remember the sausage analogy) in order to make the system work. The twenty-four hour news cycle and the permanent campaign threatens good government by shining too much light on the system. In essence, modern politicians are all public performance now.
More to the point, if Joe Biden weren't out running for president and courting the most destructive element of the American electorate, he might be in the Senate helping to lead our nation through one of the most treacherous moments in our long and proud history.
One more thing: Will the "General Betray Us" ad affect the election of the next president?
John Edwards never saw it.
Hillary and Obama ignored it.
But all three embraced it tacitly.
Does it matter?
Only if the war turns around. If the war continues to flounder a year from now, David Petraeus will be as despised as George Bush. The ever-present but lightly used Westmoreland comparisons this time around will be the unquestioned template a year from now--if the current direction fails. Therefore, a year from now (under the gloomy scenario) castigating the dirty dog general will have seemed the appropriate reaction.
However, if the war turns around (the biggest "if" there ever was), then perhaps the Democrats will pay a price with a few (but important) reasonable voters whose support will be up for grabs.
Note on Fox News Sunday: this unique program continues to be the best network Sunday morning talking-head show. Partly a result of the ideologically "balanced" team of news analyzers, and partly because of its conservative perspective on the issues, FNS consistently delves into topics of interest to me that all the other Sunday shows miss completely. Special kudos to Chris Wallace for his steady leadership.
08/09: The Real Sin of Larry Craig
Tying up some lose ends. Last Saturday, I drafted a sub-heading for this post:
"It is finished. The Ordeal of Larry Craig is Over."
But this week contradictory signals continued to emanate from the senator's camp. At week's end, however, the long, strange journey of Senator Larry Craig seems to be nearing its terminus.
Who is responsible for the tragic demise of this career public official?
1. Larry Craig. From any angle, the Senator from Idaho committed egregious errors in judgment and/or conduct.
2. Republicans. At the heart of this matter is the deportment of Craig, but give the panicking Republican Party a big assist. So frightened by polls and the upcoming elections, GOP politicians abandoned loyalty and compassion in the rush to throw an embarrassing friend overboard post haste.
3. The Axis of Liberalism. The shameless inconsistency of Democrats and the so-called progressives was even more revolting than Republican cowardice. The shock troops of "tolerance" declared open season on Craig. Formerly fastidious mavens of open-mindedness tossed aside all previous protestations that the sex lives of public officials should be off-limits to scrutiny and inquiry from the unsophisticated mob.
Craig was not just fair game for these erstwhile sophisticates, they ravaged the wounded senator with a sense of righteous entitlement and a palpable giddiness.
Why was it suddenly appropriate to delve into the private sexual affairs of public figures?
"It is finished. The Ordeal of Larry Craig is Over."
But this week contradictory signals continued to emanate from the senator's camp. At week's end, however, the long, strange journey of Senator Larry Craig seems to be nearing its terminus.
Who is responsible for the tragic demise of this career public official?
1. Larry Craig. From any angle, the Senator from Idaho committed egregious errors in judgment and/or conduct.
2. Republicans. At the heart of this matter is the deportment of Craig, but give the panicking Republican Party a big assist. So frightened by polls and the upcoming elections, GOP politicians abandoned loyalty and compassion in the rush to throw an embarrassing friend overboard post haste.
3. The Axis of Liberalism. The shameless inconsistency of Democrats and the so-called progressives was even more revolting than Republican cowardice. The shock troops of "tolerance" declared open season on Craig. Formerly fastidious mavens of open-mindedness tossed aside all previous protestations that the sex lives of public officials should be off-limits to scrutiny and inquiry from the unsophisticated mob.
Craig was not just fair game for these erstwhile sophisticates, they ravaged the wounded senator with a sense of righteous entitlement and a palpable giddiness.
Why was it suddenly appropriate to delve into the private sexual affairs of public figures?
