Please consider this excellent Andrew McCarthy analysis piece from NRO, which comes highly recommended by Tocqueville.
Excerpts (mostly in McCarthy's own words) :
"Of all the Bush-administration controversies, the tempest over the termination of eight United States attorneys, the top federal prosecutors in their jurisdictions, may ultimately rank as the most damaging. And not because it was the most serious, but because it was the most revealing: about the administration’s ineptitude and Washington’s hypocrisy."
McCarthy's main points in summary:
1. [This] system is political. It is intended to be. Establishing [prosecutorial priorities] is a quintessentially political determination.
2. These are political judgments. They reflect what an administration thinks is important and will resonate with the voters who put it in power.
3. They are precisely the type of judgments for which an administration ought to be accountable.
4. Having said that, the President is at the top of this command pyramid. The Justice Department, including the attorney general and all 93 U.S. attorneys, are high-ranking officers in one of our two political branches. The head of that branch, the executive branch, is the president. Under our Constitution, he is vested with all of the executive power, including the police power. That power is not divided among several players; it is singularly reposed in him. The president chooses all the U.S. attorneys, and, after Senate confirmation, they, like all executive-branch officers, serve at his pleasure. He doesn’t need a reason to fire any of them....
5. Often, the administration’s judgments are bad.
6. There are countless points of tension in the dynamic between the president and the U.S. attorneys he chooses.
7. Being an act of political discretion, the removal of eight U.S. attorneys can and should be critiqued as wise or unwise; [notwithstanding], to be legitimate..., the removal requires no explanation.
8. [T]he Gonzales Justice Department has committed Washington’s worst sin: It has acted like its reasons were noble when in fact they were political, it has misled Congress about that fact, and, when called on it, it has caved … as if the act itself — rather than the dissembling about the act — was illegitimate.
9. The administration's pretense that this political act was, in fact, high-minded or a performance-based decision created this media firestorm.
10. So we have classic Washington farce. The politicians on Capitol Hill theatrically castigate the politicians in the administration for making political decisions about political appointees based on political considerations. The politicians in the administration reply, “That would never happen,” before conceding that it precisely happened … without their knowledge, of course. And the political press is aghast."
Read the entire article here.
Excerpts (mostly in McCarthy's own words) :
"Of all the Bush-administration controversies, the tempest over the termination of eight United States attorneys, the top federal prosecutors in their jurisdictions, may ultimately rank as the most damaging. And not because it was the most serious, but because it was the most revealing: about the administration’s ineptitude and Washington’s hypocrisy."
McCarthy's main points in summary:
1. [This] system is political. It is intended to be. Establishing [prosecutorial priorities] is a quintessentially political determination.
2. These are political judgments. They reflect what an administration thinks is important and will resonate with the voters who put it in power.
3. They are precisely the type of judgments for which an administration ought to be accountable.
4. Having said that, the President is at the top of this command pyramid. The Justice Department, including the attorney general and all 93 U.S. attorneys, are high-ranking officers in one of our two political branches. The head of that branch, the executive branch, is the president. Under our Constitution, he is vested with all of the executive power, including the police power. That power is not divided among several players; it is singularly reposed in him. The president chooses all the U.S. attorneys, and, after Senate confirmation, they, like all executive-branch officers, serve at his pleasure. He doesn’t need a reason to fire any of them....
5. Often, the administration’s judgments are bad.
6. There are countless points of tension in the dynamic between the president and the U.S. attorneys he chooses.
7. Being an act of political discretion, the removal of eight U.S. attorneys can and should be critiqued as wise or unwise; [notwithstanding], to be legitimate..., the removal requires no explanation.
8. [T]he Gonzales Justice Department has committed Washington’s worst sin: It has acted like its reasons were noble when in fact they were political, it has misled Congress about that fact, and, when called on it, it has caved … as if the act itself — rather than the dissembling about the act — was illegitimate.
9. The administration's pretense that this political act was, in fact, high-minded or a performance-based decision created this media firestorm.
10. So we have classic Washington farce. The politicians on Capitol Hill theatrically castigate the politicians in the administration for making political decisions about political appointees based on political considerations. The politicians in the administration reply, “That would never happen,” before conceding that it precisely happened … without their knowledge, of course. And the political press is aghast."
Read the entire article here.
11/03: A Libby Post Mortem
Was the conviction of I. Lewis Libby on charges of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice grounded in strong evidence and what appeared to be careful deliberation by a jury ?
Or, was the fall of a skilled and long-respected public servant...propelled not by actual wrongdoing but by inflated and frequently false claims, and by the aggressive and occasionally reckless response of senior Bush administration officials -- culminating in Mr. Libby's perjury ?
Last Wednesday, the Washington Post answered that "either/or" question with a resounding "YES."
Portions of the Post editorial were everywhere on the conservative blogosphere this week (read the full opinion here).
Perhaps the most quoted line: [The Libby tragedy] is particularly sobering because it arose from a Washington scandal remarkable for its lack of substance.
The least quoted portion:
The former chief of staff...told the FBI and a grand jury that he had not leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame to journalists but rather had learned it from them. But abundant testimony at his trial showed that he had found out about Ms. Plame from official sources and was dedicated to discrediting her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Particularly for a senior government official, lying under oath is a serious offense.
An assertion I made three weeks ago: I have no sympathy for public officials who lie to grand juries. If Libby lied, regardless of the rationales or extenuating circumstances, justice will be served with his conviction for that offense (read my entire post here).
I stand by my statement. Moreover, from everything I can discern, Libby was brilliant and tough-minded. I am forty-two years old, and I have an appreciation for the limits of memory that increases every day. Notwithstanding, to accept the Libby memory defense, one must imagine the vice president's office as a madcap 1950s sitcom: "Don't Leave it to Scooter."
On the other hand, does Mr. Libby deserve to rot in jail for his crimes against the state?
Robert Novak, not an impartial observer but whose proximity to this scandal makes him a columnist of interest, reinforced an emerging consensus that the tragedy of this conviction is that it arises from a misguided prosecution (read entire column here).
What Now? The President has three choices:
1. Abide by the eventual verdict of the American justice system.
2. Pardon Libby at the least vulnerable political moment.
3. Pardon Libby now.
Today, Bill Kristol argues forcefully for an immediate pardon (here), which is not a huge surprise as he is extremely personally connected to Libby and the Cheney gang. In addition, he argued for a presidential pardon before the court proceeding began.
Not withstanding, Kristol is on the right track. Here's why:
The President must weigh the possibility of vindication for Libby and the White House through appeal. However, even victory on appeal has its downside. As Kristol argues, the process will keep the story on the front page of the American political consciousness for months to come. And, without a shadow of a doubt, a reversal will not attract the wall-to-wall media coverage that this conviction garnered.
I recommend a Presidential Pardon plus.
The plus? The plus is a full-court media press. For months, the White House has been mute, refusing to comment publicly on an ongoing legal proceeding.
A pardon would end that self-imposed silence. The President should come clean with everything he knows. Now is the time for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If the White House has a story to tell, let them tell it. If this is a travesty, then let the President and his administration make that case. Let the facts be submitted to a candid world.
Conceivably, the President would lay out the real story of what happened. He would admit wrong doing in the White House on some levels, but he would expose the malfeasance of the prosecution, partisan opposition, unfriendly media and other persecutors. A Presidential Pardon in that vein would be honest and straightforward. And it just might work. The American people are often shocked into sympathy by that brand of openness.
Or, was the fall of a skilled and long-respected public servant...propelled not by actual wrongdoing but by inflated and frequently false claims, and by the aggressive and occasionally reckless response of senior Bush administration officials -- culminating in Mr. Libby's perjury ?
Last Wednesday, the Washington Post answered that "either/or" question with a resounding "YES."
Portions of the Post editorial were everywhere on the conservative blogosphere this week (read the full opinion here).
Perhaps the most quoted line: [The Libby tragedy] is particularly sobering because it arose from a Washington scandal remarkable for its lack of substance.
The least quoted portion:
The former chief of staff...told the FBI and a grand jury that he had not leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame to journalists but rather had learned it from them. But abundant testimony at his trial showed that he had found out about Ms. Plame from official sources and was dedicated to discrediting her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Particularly for a senior government official, lying under oath is a serious offense.
An assertion I made three weeks ago: I have no sympathy for public officials who lie to grand juries. If Libby lied, regardless of the rationales or extenuating circumstances, justice will be served with his conviction for that offense (read my entire post here).
I stand by my statement. Moreover, from everything I can discern, Libby was brilliant and tough-minded. I am forty-two years old, and I have an appreciation for the limits of memory that increases every day. Notwithstanding, to accept the Libby memory defense, one must imagine the vice president's office as a madcap 1950s sitcom: "Don't Leave it to Scooter."
On the other hand, does Mr. Libby deserve to rot in jail for his crimes against the state?
Robert Novak, not an impartial observer but whose proximity to this scandal makes him a columnist of interest, reinforced an emerging consensus that the tragedy of this conviction is that it arises from a misguided prosecution (read entire column here).
What Now? The President has three choices:
1. Abide by the eventual verdict of the American justice system.
2. Pardon Libby at the least vulnerable political moment.
3. Pardon Libby now.
Today, Bill Kristol argues forcefully for an immediate pardon (here), which is not a huge surprise as he is extremely personally connected to Libby and the Cheney gang. In addition, he argued for a presidential pardon before the court proceeding began.
Not withstanding, Kristol is on the right track. Here's why:
The President must weigh the possibility of vindication for Libby and the White House through appeal. However, even victory on appeal has its downside. As Kristol argues, the process will keep the story on the front page of the American political consciousness for months to come. And, without a shadow of a doubt, a reversal will not attract the wall-to-wall media coverage that this conviction garnered.
I recommend a Presidential Pardon plus.
The plus? The plus is a full-court media press. For months, the White House has been mute, refusing to comment publicly on an ongoing legal proceeding.
A pardon would end that self-imposed silence. The President should come clean with everything he knows. Now is the time for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If the White House has a story to tell, let them tell it. If this is a travesty, then let the President and his administration make that case. Let the facts be submitted to a candid world.
Conceivably, the President would lay out the real story of what happened. He would admit wrong doing in the White House on some levels, but he would expose the malfeasance of the prosecution, partisan opposition, unfriendly media and other persecutors. A Presidential Pardon in that vein would be honest and straightforward. And it just might work. The American people are often shocked into sympathy by that brand of openness.
06/03: Rudy Giuliani's Church
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
As the 2008 presidential campaign is now underway, we begin a series on the religion of the candidates.
Some clarifications: (1) we do not rank or recommend candidates based on religious membership; (2) we are not presuming to label candidates saved or unsaved; (3) the full task of relating a politician's religious beliefs and his/her political positions and actions is the work of biographers a generation hence. These things said, we offer some provisional thoughts on each candidate.
In a previous post I briefly raised the question whether Obama's church membership would be an issue. In summary: he belongs to a very Afro-centric congregation belonging to the liberal United Church of Christ denomination. I concluded that it would not be an issue in seeking the nomination, but probably would be in the general election.
Today, Rudy. Official biographical sketch here. TIME magazine profile.
Rudy is Roman Catholic, and earlier in his life considered the priesthood. His public comments refer to a belief in God. His private and public life, however, have estranged him from his church--he is on his third marriage; his public support of abortion rights and gay rights also stands at odds with church teaching and has led to controversy. Perhaps Giuliani is best described as a nominal Catholic.
Will this matter in the nomination process, or in a general election? Probably not. Rudy is like a lot of American Catholics, shaped by their church in significant ways, but picking and choosing which parts to abide by in private and public life.
American conservatives already can see his Law-and-Order record as mayor of New York City, his strong support of the war against militant Islam, and his transformation of the welfare culture of NYC. If conservatives believe that he will nominate and fight for the kind of judges they want, the fact that he is a nominal Catholic will not bother them. They overlooked Reagan's divorce and spotty church attendance.
Some clarifications: (1) we do not rank or recommend candidates based on religious membership; (2) we are not presuming to label candidates saved or unsaved; (3) the full task of relating a politician's religious beliefs and his/her political positions and actions is the work of biographers a generation hence. These things said, we offer some provisional thoughts on each candidate.
In a previous post I briefly raised the question whether Obama's church membership would be an issue. In summary: he belongs to a very Afro-centric congregation belonging to the liberal United Church of Christ denomination. I concluded that it would not be an issue in seeking the nomination, but probably would be in the general election.
Today, Rudy. Official biographical sketch here. TIME magazine profile.
Rudy is Roman Catholic, and earlier in his life considered the priesthood. His public comments refer to a belief in God. His private and public life, however, have estranged him from his church--he is on his third marriage; his public support of abortion rights and gay rights also stands at odds with church teaching and has led to controversy. Perhaps Giuliani is best described as a nominal Catholic.
Will this matter in the nomination process, or in a general election? Probably not. Rudy is like a lot of American Catholics, shaped by their church in significant ways, but picking and choosing which parts to abide by in private and public life.
American conservatives already can see his Law-and-Order record as mayor of New York City, his strong support of the war against militant Islam, and his transformation of the welfare culture of NYC. If conservatives believe that he will nominate and fight for the kind of judges they want, the fact that he is a nominal Catholic will not bother them. They overlooked Reagan's divorce and spotty church attendance.
04/03: Murtha Meets the Press
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Two questions concerning public relations 101 come to my mind right now:
1. Why do organizations concerned with promoting global warming awareness (and alarm) keep scheduling their conferences in places like Upstate New York and Minneapolis in the dead of winter?
2. Why do presumably intelligent Democratic Party leaders keep sending John Murtha out on Sunday talk shows to argue their point?
From Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe it [our mission in Iraq] is totally hopeless?
REP. MURTHA: Tim, I, I believe that we can’t win this militarily. I believe it has to be done diplomatically. That’s why I think redeployment is the first move...So it’s a matter of, you can’t win it militarily. It has to be done internationally; it has to be diplomatically.
MR. RUSSERT: But to the point, why not take the chance, the glimmer of hope? Or do you just think it’s totally hopeless?
REP. MURTHA: I, I don’t see any chance of us winning this militarily. I think they’re going about it the wrong way. They’re finally starting to change. They’re talking to Iran. That’s what’s going to—going to prevail there. That’s where you’re going to have stability. You’re going to have international communication....
And on it went (full Meet the Press transcript here).
If the Democrats really have overplayed their hand and lost their momentum, Murtha is a big part of that development. Although she is a deft leader in so many ways, Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave the President and his stalwarts a rich and unexpected political gift with her decision to feature Representative Murtha as the unofficial Secretary of State for the House.
In contrast, Lindsey Graham came on air afterwards and gave his customary flawless performance as a pragmatic voice of reason. Never a sure thing when it comes to support for the President, Graham expertly leverages his reputation as a McCain-like maverick to give credibility to supporting the mission.
SEN. GRAHAM: The truth is that Jack Murtha’s a wonderful fellow. [But] He is using the readiness issue to stop the surge. And I want to work with Jack on readiness, but this is not about the readiness issue. He said publicly this is about stopping something he’s against. The Democrat Party is the dog that caught the car. What do you do now? The left is saying get out yesterday. The reason we don’t have a vote on cut off funding is because the American public understand that’s [ir]responsible.
So all of these efforts to micromanage the war—I’ve been a military lawyer for 20-something years. Some of these resolutions are just nightmares for a commander. You can fight al-Qaeda, but you can’t fight people involved in sectarian violence. You can go here, and you can’t go there. The Congress cannot—there’s a reason there’s only one commander in chief.
So, if you’re not willing to cut off funding, which is the Congress’ responsibility, then everything else really hampers General Petraeus. It’s really a signal to him that, “We have no faith in you.” Either stop him from going or give him the resources to do their job. Everything is else is just political theater. That’s dangerous.
1. Why do organizations concerned with promoting global warming awareness (and alarm) keep scheduling their conferences in places like Upstate New York and Minneapolis in the dead of winter?
2. Why do presumably intelligent Democratic Party leaders keep sending John Murtha out on Sunday talk shows to argue their point?
From Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe it [our mission in Iraq] is totally hopeless?
REP. MURTHA: Tim, I, I believe that we can’t win this militarily. I believe it has to be done diplomatically. That’s why I think redeployment is the first move...So it’s a matter of, you can’t win it militarily. It has to be done internationally; it has to be diplomatically.
MR. RUSSERT: But to the point, why not take the chance, the glimmer of hope? Or do you just think it’s totally hopeless?
REP. MURTHA: I, I don’t see any chance of us winning this militarily. I think they’re going about it the wrong way. They’re finally starting to change. They’re talking to Iran. That’s what’s going to—going to prevail there. That’s where you’re going to have stability. You’re going to have international communication....
And on it went (full Meet the Press transcript here).
If the Democrats really have overplayed their hand and lost their momentum, Murtha is a big part of that development. Although she is a deft leader in so many ways, Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave the President and his stalwarts a rich and unexpected political gift with her decision to feature Representative Murtha as the unofficial Secretary of State for the House.
In contrast, Lindsey Graham came on air afterwards and gave his customary flawless performance as a pragmatic voice of reason. Never a sure thing when it comes to support for the President, Graham expertly leverages his reputation as a McCain-like maverick to give credibility to supporting the mission.
SEN. GRAHAM: The truth is that Jack Murtha’s a wonderful fellow. [But] He is using the readiness issue to stop the surge. And I want to work with Jack on readiness, but this is not about the readiness issue. He said publicly this is about stopping something he’s against. The Democrat Party is the dog that caught the car. What do you do now? The left is saying get out yesterday. The reason we don’t have a vote on cut off funding is because the American public understand that’s [ir]responsible.
So all of these efforts to micromanage the war—I’ve been a military lawyer for 20-something years. Some of these resolutions are just nightmares for a commander. You can fight al-Qaeda, but you can’t fight people involved in sectarian violence. You can go here, and you can’t go there. The Congress cannot—there’s a reason there’s only one commander in chief.
So, if you’re not willing to cut off funding, which is the Congress’ responsibility, then everything else really hampers General Petraeus. It’s really a signal to him that, “We have no faith in you.” Either stop him from going or give him the resources to do their job. Everything is else is just political theater. That’s dangerous.
28/02: Alarming History (Reprised)
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
In light of the Stock Market uncertainty, I am reprising this analysis piece from the summer:
From July 2006:
I refuse to push the panic button on the economy, and I hate Vietnam parallels, but a growing chain of events gives me cause for concern.
The stagflation and misery of the 1970s arrived, in part, as a result of the belief that we could have "guns and butter" without sacrifice. During an extended and expensive overseas military expedition, the US attempted to leverage the Vietnam War and the Great Society with little concern for revenue. At the same time, American manufactures suffered from an increased period of competition from emerging industrial nations. And, finally, the American economy, heavily dependent on foreign oil, suffered mightily from the rise of OPEC, which attempted to punish the United States for its support of Israel.
I firmly believe that history does not repeat itself--but sometimes the present is eerily reminiscent of the past.
We are in the midst of a protracted and expensive military engagement, a huge event on which we are divided but strangely detached. We continue to run-up budget deficits to pay for the war and our pampered national lifestyle. Our manufacturers are in much worse shape than thirty-five years ago, evidenced by our ever-increasing trade deficits and changing labor reality. Add Israel and oil to this equation, during a time when we are more dependent on foreign fuel than ever before, and there are serious reasons for concern.
You have heard my numerous exhortations in the past to stay the course in Iraq. I am not backing away from that line of thinking. But there is real danger ahead. Although the President's approval ratings in general (and on Iraq specifically) have turned dismal, his initiative in the Middle East has moved forward despite its diminishing popularity (mainly because Iraq seems disturbing but peripheral to most Americans).
Added commentary: The above is obviously much less true in the early months of 2007 than it was last summer.
But an economic crisis would end all that. A deep recession would completely break America's will for war. The Iraq commitment survives precariously on the crest of this fortuitous economic wave. If this economy is as fragile as some have speculated, then the support for the war is just that tenuous.
More added commentary: Even more so today, an economic downturn would bring the war effort to a panic stop.
From July 2006:
I refuse to push the panic button on the economy, and I hate Vietnam parallels, but a growing chain of events gives me cause for concern.
The stagflation and misery of the 1970s arrived, in part, as a result of the belief that we could have "guns and butter" without sacrifice. During an extended and expensive overseas military expedition, the US attempted to leverage the Vietnam War and the Great Society with little concern for revenue. At the same time, American manufactures suffered from an increased period of competition from emerging industrial nations. And, finally, the American economy, heavily dependent on foreign oil, suffered mightily from the rise of OPEC, which attempted to punish the United States for its support of Israel.
I firmly believe that history does not repeat itself--but sometimes the present is eerily reminiscent of the past.
We are in the midst of a protracted and expensive military engagement, a huge event on which we are divided but strangely detached. We continue to run-up budget deficits to pay for the war and our pampered national lifestyle. Our manufacturers are in much worse shape than thirty-five years ago, evidenced by our ever-increasing trade deficits and changing labor reality. Add Israel and oil to this equation, during a time when we are more dependent on foreign fuel than ever before, and there are serious reasons for concern.
You have heard my numerous exhortations in the past to stay the course in Iraq. I am not backing away from that line of thinking. But there is real danger ahead. Although the President's approval ratings in general (and on Iraq specifically) have turned dismal, his initiative in the Middle East has moved forward despite its diminishing popularity (mainly because Iraq seems disturbing but peripheral to most Americans).
Added commentary: The above is obviously much less true in the early months of 2007 than it was last summer.
But an economic crisis would end all that. A deep recession would completely break America's will for war. The Iraq commitment survives precariously on the crest of this fortuitous economic wave. If this economy is as fragile as some have speculated, then the support for the war is just that tenuous.
More added commentary: Even more so today, an economic downturn would bring the war effort to a panic stop.
Guest Blog: Tocqueville
I am interested to see Hugh Hewitt agreeing with me that John McCain is toast and for the reasons Hewitt cites:
The GOP base has a trust issue with McCain, one that flows from the 2000 campaign, McCain-Feingold, the Gang of 14, the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, the September 2006 derailing of the Republican end-game strategy.
McCain is fading, and not because of his age or energy level, but because the GOP electorate has to absolutely believe that the next president will be as committed to victory as Bush has been. Senator McCain's avoidance of new media has been reinforcing the impression that he is unwilling to provide the assurances he needs to in order to regain the trust he has repeatedly broken with the GOP electorate over the years. There is time to turn that around, but Senator McCain is not making the effort, an effort that would begin by a relentless courting of the base rather than the Hardball/Meet The Press audience. Every week that Senator McCain delays launching that effort is a week in which the mayor and the governor gather more pledges and momentum. The big three could be the big two by Memorial Day.
Simple fact: McCain cannot win a head-on with Giuliani and perhaps is hopeless against others.
Giuliani hasn't the political and malodorous traits that pervade McCain (I can't stand him) and I doubt the public cares about The Mayor's divorces.
HH offers no insight on how important McCain's support and (supposed) supporters will prove in tipping the balance among whatever contestants remain. Also, lurking is the question whether McCain's neutralization might induce an entry by someone else.
Cited by Hewitt, here is Dick Morris's take.
~~Tocqueville
I am interested to see Hugh Hewitt agreeing with me that John McCain is toast and for the reasons Hewitt cites:
The GOP base has a trust issue with McCain, one that flows from the 2000 campaign, McCain-Feingold, the Gang of 14, the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, the September 2006 derailing of the Republican end-game strategy.
McCain is fading, and not because of his age or energy level, but because the GOP electorate has to absolutely believe that the next president will be as committed to victory as Bush has been. Senator McCain's avoidance of new media has been reinforcing the impression that he is unwilling to provide the assurances he needs to in order to regain the trust he has repeatedly broken with the GOP electorate over the years. There is time to turn that around, but Senator McCain is not making the effort, an effort that would begin by a relentless courting of the base rather than the Hardball/Meet The Press audience. Every week that Senator McCain delays launching that effort is a week in which the mayor and the governor gather more pledges and momentum. The big three could be the big two by Memorial Day.
Simple fact: McCain cannot win a head-on with Giuliani and perhaps is hopeless against others.
Giuliani hasn't the political and malodorous traits that pervade McCain (I can't stand him) and I doubt the public cares about The Mayor's divorces.
HH offers no insight on how important McCain's support and (supposed) supporters will prove in tipping the balance among whatever contestants remain. Also, lurking is the question whether McCain's neutralization might induce an entry by someone else.
Cited by Hewitt, here is Dick Morris's take.
~~Tocqueville
21/02: Obama's Church
As the Democratic primary intensifies, it will be interesting to see if anyone raises the religion issue with Obama. If he becomes the Democrat candidate, then I am sure his church membership will be an issue.
According to his official bio sketch on the website Obama '08, he and his family "live on Chicago's South Side where they attend Trinity United Church of Christ."
Regular readers of this blog have heard of the UCC before, arguably the most liberal American denomination. Official website here. Positions include support for abortion on demand and same-sex marriage.
Trinity UCC, the congregation named by Obama's website as the family church, is truly an interesting church. The official church website features an outline of the continent of Africa upon entering the site. (more below)
According to his official bio sketch on the website Obama '08, he and his family "live on Chicago's South Side where they attend Trinity United Church of Christ."
Regular readers of this blog have heard of the UCC before, arguably the most liberal American denomination. Official website here. Positions include support for abortion on demand and same-sex marriage.
Trinity UCC, the congregation named by Obama's website as the family church, is truly an interesting church. The official church website features an outline of the continent of Africa upon entering the site. (more below)
Earlier I linked to an article from Newsweek that explored Hillary's Christian faith a bit. Later I posted on the way the article had been written in a way friendly to Hillary.
Now, a few more thoughts.
Does Hillary have a geniune Christian faith? On the one hand, I cannot see into her heart, and, Jesus will be Judge on the Last Day, not me. So I cannot and will not claim infallibility on the question. On the other hand, Jesus said that we are to make provisional judgments in this life. We are to judge trees by the fruit they bear.
The question we can address is this: is Hillary Clinton's behavior consistent with the Christian Faith? I have my doubts. She has been part of the Clinton "hit machine" for years now. The Clinton team has responded to any allegation by smearing and attempting to discredit all accusers and witnesses. Not Christian behavior. I also have my doubts that the windfall she made in futures trading was on the up and up. And, where were those documents before they were found in the presidential living quarters. This does not sound like Christian honesty. She also, as Dick Morris noted recently, finds it impossible to say "I'm sorry." She's stubborn. Not very good Christian behavior.
I am not perfect and do not claim to be. Again, I do not claim to know the depths of Hillary Clinton's heart. But this tree does not seem to bear good Christ-like fruit.
Now, a few more thoughts.
Does Hillary have a geniune Christian faith? On the one hand, I cannot see into her heart, and, Jesus will be Judge on the Last Day, not me. So I cannot and will not claim infallibility on the question. On the other hand, Jesus said that we are to make provisional judgments in this life. We are to judge trees by the fruit they bear.
The question we can address is this: is Hillary Clinton's behavior consistent with the Christian Faith? I have my doubts. She has been part of the Clinton "hit machine" for years now. The Clinton team has responded to any allegation by smearing and attempting to discredit all accusers and witnesses. Not Christian behavior. I also have my doubts that the windfall she made in futures trading was on the up and up. And, where were those documents before they were found in the presidential living quarters. This does not sound like Christian honesty. She also, as Dick Morris noted recently, finds it impossible to say "I'm sorry." She's stubborn. Not very good Christian behavior.
I am not perfect and do not claim to be. Again, I do not claim to know the depths of Hillary Clinton's heart. But this tree does not seem to bear good Christ-like fruit.
19/02: McCain Revives
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Positive stories about Senator John McCain are increasingly rare (he seems to be on the MSM and conservative media hit list), but Dan Balz in the Washington Post offers a reprieve from the new template:
"In Limbo in Washington, McCain Comes Alive in Iowa"
"But as he campaigned across Iowa this weekend, there were flashes of the old McCain. During town hall meetings in Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Davenport, he staunchly defended his position on the war, decried a Republican Party that he said has lost its way and punctuated question-and-answer sessions with his particular brand of humor" (read the full article here).
FYI: I watched this appearance on C-SPAN, and the Senator was everything Balz asserts. He was honest, funny, self-deprecating and appealing. All of these traits are signature McCain. When he is on his game, he is very becoming. McCain is still the candidate to watch, if things improve in Iraq.
"In Limbo in Washington, McCain Comes Alive in Iowa"
"But as he campaigned across Iowa this weekend, there were flashes of the old McCain. During town hall meetings in Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Davenport, he staunchly defended his position on the war, decried a Republican Party that he said has lost its way and punctuated question-and-answer sessions with his particular brand of humor" (read the full article here).
FYI: I watched this appearance on C-SPAN, and the Senator was everything Balz asserts. He was honest, funny, self-deprecating and appealing. All of these traits are signature McCain. When he is on his game, he is very becoming. McCain is still the candidate to watch, if things improve in Iraq.
The Washington Post sees it like this:
"Senate Republicans for a second time blocked a symbolic attempt by Democrats to reject President Bush's troop increase yesterday, but GOP defections were higher than before, suggesting Republican cracks as the Iraq war dominates Congress's agenda" (read the full story here).
FYI: The Republican defectors:
John Warner (Va.)
Chuck Hagel (Neb.)
Gordon Smith (Ore.)
Norm Coleman (Minn.)
Arlen Specter (Pa.)
Olympia J. Snowe (Maine)
and Susan M. Collins (Maine).
Here are a few things that the Post and much of the mainstream media missed:
1. Most news agencies erroneously reported Democratic unanimity--but Joe Lieberman voted against the Resolution.
2. The most under-reported story of the week: the real division in Washington is developing among Democrats, and it involves how far Congress should go in undercutting the President's control of this war. A large number of Democrats are looking to defund the mission, or at least apply enough budget pressure on the President and the army to cripple our capacity to continue. The so-called Murtha Plan envisions a "slow bleed" strategy to end our military operation in Iraq. But not all Democrats are ready to go that far.
"Senate Republicans for a second time blocked a symbolic attempt by Democrats to reject President Bush's troop increase yesterday, but GOP defections were higher than before, suggesting Republican cracks as the Iraq war dominates Congress's agenda" (read the full story here).
FYI: The Republican defectors:
John Warner (Va.)
Chuck Hagel (Neb.)
Gordon Smith (Ore.)
Norm Coleman (Minn.)
Arlen Specter (Pa.)
Olympia J. Snowe (Maine)
and Susan M. Collins (Maine).
Here are a few things that the Post and much of the mainstream media missed:
1. Most news agencies erroneously reported Democratic unanimity--but Joe Lieberman voted against the Resolution.
2. The most under-reported story of the week: the real division in Washington is developing among Democrats, and it involves how far Congress should go in undercutting the President's control of this war. A large number of Democrats are looking to defund the mission, or at least apply enough budget pressure on the President and the army to cripple our capacity to continue. The so-called Murtha Plan envisions a "slow bleed" strategy to end our military operation in Iraq. But not all Democrats are ready to go that far.
