From Buchanan's new column, dated Friday, May 30:
Looking back on the years since 9-11, it is hard to give the Bush foreign policy passing grades. We pushed NATO eastward and alienated Russia. We have 140,000 Army and Marine Corps troops tied down in Iraq in a war now in its sixth year, from which our NATO allies have all extricated themselves. We have another war going in Afghanistan, where the situation is as grave as it has been since we went in.
The Bush democracy crusade was put on the shelf after producing election triumphs for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. And the Bush Doctrine of preventive war, after Iraq, appears to be headed there, as well.
America remains the first economic and military power on earth. But after seven years of Bush, we no longer inspire the awe or hopes we once did. We are no longer the world hegemonic power of the neocons' depiction. And the reason is that Bush embraced their utopian ideology of democratic empire and listened to their siren's call to be the Churchill of his age.
Of Bush, it may be said he was a far better politician and candidate than his father, but as a statesman and world leader, he could not carry the old man's loafers.
How can you argue with these sentiments? The last sentence is especially poignant, given the fact that Buchanan was a one-time rival of Bush 41 for the GOP Presidential nomination.
Read the whole column.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The Electoral Map
Hannity & Colmes rolled out a new feature on their show last night called "The Big Map". In the longest segment I've ever seen on their show (I think probably 10-12 minutes), they went painstakingly state by state, with Hannity chalking up the states in the McCain column and Colmes placing the pertinent states in Obama's ledger. They followed this by placing a number of states in the "Leaner" category, again with Hannity providing the names of the ones leaning McCain and Colmes giving us the ones Obama seems likely to win. They closed with a handful of tossups that are just too close to call. Their projection was that if the election were held today, Obama would garner 237 electoral votes, with 227 going to McCain. This left 77 electoral votes up for grabs.
It was all very interesting, but I like Bob Novak's map better. Not just because of the ultimate outcome, but because his analysis is more in-depth. Hannity & Colmes kidded each other about repeating verbatim all of the projections they had just provided, which of course, neither one could do without prompting from a cheat sheet. I will guarantee that Novak could recite from memory every piece of data on every state that he provides in his Political Report.
The man is a genius, but then again, he has been covering politics longer than Sean has been alive or if you prefer, since Alan was in the first grade.
Look at the map very closely. It sure seems as though we're headed for another cliffhanger election, and turnout will make the difference.
It was all very interesting, but I like Bob Novak's map better. Not just because of the ultimate outcome, but because his analysis is more in-depth. Hannity & Colmes kidded each other about repeating verbatim all of the projections they had just provided, which of course, neither one could do without prompting from a cheat sheet. I will guarantee that Novak could recite from memory every piece of data on every state that he provides in his Political Report.
The man is a genius, but then again, he has been covering politics longer than Sean has been alive or if you prefer, since Alan was in the first grade.
Look at the map very closely. It sure seems as though we're headed for another cliffhanger election, and turnout will make the difference.
The Selling of Scott McClellan
I think it is important, if at all possible, to observe the news cycle of a controversial story for at least 24 hours before forming a hardened opinion.
I have watched and listened to a number of commentators discuss Scott McClellan's book, due out next week. Increasingly, it seems that there are 3 narratives that are coming out in response to McClellan's allegations. The juiciest of the assertions include: Cheney is a less than honest administrator ("No one knew better how to orchestrate what was behind the curtain"), Karl Rove and Scooter Libby undermined McClellan as a press spokesman by feeding him false information about the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity and the case for war in Iraq was made on a basis that was later found wanting.
Now, to the 3 narratives:
First, the White House response, which seems to be universal surprise. President Bush himself is said to be puzzled and saddened. I have seen Ari Fleischer on Hardball with Chris Matthews and Mary Matalin on Hannity & Colmes; he conveyed an aura of bemused hurt while stolidly defending Bush's character. Matalin was even more aggressive, and declared that it was payback time for McClellan since he was essentially fired. Matalin gave more details on the ostensible dismissal than I had heard from anyone else, saying that McClellan's replacement by Tony Snow was an integral portion of Josh Bolten's staff shakeup when he came in as the new chief of staff in the spring of 2006.
Then, the media response, which ranges from skeptical to full-blown embrace of all charges (think Chris Matthews!!). I thought David Gregory's comments yesterday afternoon on Hardball were especially interesting. Some of you fellow junkies may recall the famous exchange between McClellan and Gregory back when McClellan was spokesman. McClellan accused Gregory (to his face in the White House press room) of playing up his questions for the cameras, which led to a furious exchange, for which David Gregory ultimately apologized. Now McClellan says the press wasn't aggressive enough in its reporting on the Iraq War? Gregory wasn't buying it. UPDATE: You can read about the exchange between Gregory and McClellan here; look at the date, by the way. It occurred just a few weeks before McClellan left.
And finally, we have McClellan's own version, which none of us will fully know until we read his book. He did sit down this morning, though, for his first LIVE interview since the book's publication, with Meredith Viera of NBC's Today Show. He will also be with Keith Olbermann tonight on MSNBC, which means I'll probably be viewing that show for the first time, and he'll be with Tim Russert on Meet the Press on Sunday. Viera teased that McClellan might as well camp out at NBC for the next few days. I do wonder about the network choice McClellan has made for his debut. NBC seems currently to be the most hostile network to Bush of the big 3.
McClellan struck me as fairly straightforward in his interview with Viera, and Viera, to her credit, didn't spare the tough questions. I actually could buy McClellan's explanation of being in the White House bubble and thus failing to realize sooner than he did that he was in disagreement with key policies and thus would be an ineffective spokesman in violation of his own conscience. Power is very seductive and no place on earth exemplifies this axiom more than the Washington Beltway culture. But if McClellan was able to keep his reservations to himself while he was employed by the White House and even continue to defend the Bush Administration for a year afterwards, couldn't he at the very least have waited until President Bush was a private citizen to cash in on his former boss?
It would all be easier for me to swallow if McClellan's bank account wasn't being simultaneously strengthened as this book is released, probably by an exponential dollar figure. It looks like book sales will be on pace to match his advance; the book has shot to the top of Amazon.com's list and will probably debut close to or at the top of the NYT list. (McClellan's advance was probably decent, but I don't know how much it was and can't find it anywhere.) But would this book have sold as well if it had come out a year later?
There are no new revelations in McClellan's book, based on what we know so far. The frenzy has been caused because of the source, not the substance.
My sense is that no one will even remember this in a month or probably less, except for hardcore Bush loyalists and President-elect Obama or President -elect McCain as they pick their press secretaries.
McClellan has a right to tell his story. I don't believe he is doing wrong in taking the chance to do so when he feels he will gain a larger audience, but neither do I blame the Bush White House for feeling betrayed by someone they viewed as one of their own. McClellan had been a friend of Bush going back to the Texas gubernatorial days. Furthermore, McClellan's ire seems to have been raised over what he was told about Valerie Plame??? This I don't get. The Plame story is more reflective of the bitter partisanship of Washington than any other of which I'm aware. I have yet to meet an average American anywhere who even brings up the Plame affair; I wonder how many even understand it, let alone care about it. It was a manufactured political tempest in a teapot; Plame wasn't even covert at the time she was supposedly "outed", and had never been in any danger. Plame and Wilson made millions off of the whole controversy, and probably are continuing to do so. The only one to suffer from it all was Scooter Libby, who was given a jail sentence and fine not for outing Plame, but for giving contradictory testimony to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (see why people's eyes glaze over?).
I have already given this story more space than it deserves; maybe this will up my ratings along with Hardball.
I have watched and listened to a number of commentators discuss Scott McClellan's book, due out next week. Increasingly, it seems that there are 3 narratives that are coming out in response to McClellan's allegations. The juiciest of the assertions include: Cheney is a less than honest administrator ("No one knew better how to orchestrate what was behind the curtain"), Karl Rove and Scooter Libby undermined McClellan as a press spokesman by feeding him false information about the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity and the case for war in Iraq was made on a basis that was later found wanting.
Now, to the 3 narratives:
First, the White House response, which seems to be universal surprise. President Bush himself is said to be puzzled and saddened. I have seen Ari Fleischer on Hardball with Chris Matthews and Mary Matalin on Hannity & Colmes; he conveyed an aura of bemused hurt while stolidly defending Bush's character. Matalin was even more aggressive, and declared that it was payback time for McClellan since he was essentially fired. Matalin gave more details on the ostensible dismissal than I had heard from anyone else, saying that McClellan's replacement by Tony Snow was an integral portion of Josh Bolten's staff shakeup when he came in as the new chief of staff in the spring of 2006.
Then, the media response, which ranges from skeptical to full-blown embrace of all charges (think Chris Matthews!!). I thought David Gregory's comments yesterday afternoon on Hardball were especially interesting. Some of you fellow junkies may recall the famous exchange between McClellan and Gregory back when McClellan was spokesman. McClellan accused Gregory (to his face in the White House press room) of playing up his questions for the cameras, which led to a furious exchange, for which David Gregory ultimately apologized. Now McClellan says the press wasn't aggressive enough in its reporting on the Iraq War? Gregory wasn't buying it. UPDATE: You can read about the exchange between Gregory and McClellan here; look at the date, by the way. It occurred just a few weeks before McClellan left.
And finally, we have McClellan's own version, which none of us will fully know until we read his book. He did sit down this morning, though, for his first LIVE interview since the book's publication, with Meredith Viera of NBC's Today Show. He will also be with Keith Olbermann tonight on MSNBC, which means I'll probably be viewing that show for the first time, and he'll be with Tim Russert on Meet the Press on Sunday. Viera teased that McClellan might as well camp out at NBC for the next few days. I do wonder about the network choice McClellan has made for his debut. NBC seems currently to be the most hostile network to Bush of the big 3.
McClellan struck me as fairly straightforward in his interview with Viera, and Viera, to her credit, didn't spare the tough questions. I actually could buy McClellan's explanation of being in the White House bubble and thus failing to realize sooner than he did that he was in disagreement with key policies and thus would be an ineffective spokesman in violation of his own conscience. Power is very seductive and no place on earth exemplifies this axiom more than the Washington Beltway culture. But if McClellan was able to keep his reservations to himself while he was employed by the White House and even continue to defend the Bush Administration for a year afterwards, couldn't he at the very least have waited until President Bush was a private citizen to cash in on his former boss?
It would all be easier for me to swallow if McClellan's bank account wasn't being simultaneously strengthened as this book is released, probably by an exponential dollar figure. It looks like book sales will be on pace to match his advance; the book has shot to the top of Amazon.com's list and will probably debut close to or at the top of the NYT list. (McClellan's advance was probably decent, but I don't know how much it was and can't find it anywhere.) But would this book have sold as well if it had come out a year later?
There are no new revelations in McClellan's book, based on what we know so far. The frenzy has been caused because of the source, not the substance.
My sense is that no one will even remember this in a month or probably less, except for hardcore Bush loyalists and President-elect Obama or President -elect McCain as they pick their press secretaries.
McClellan has a right to tell his story. I don't believe he is doing wrong in taking the chance to do so when he feels he will gain a larger audience, but neither do I blame the Bush White House for feeling betrayed by someone they viewed as one of their own. McClellan had been a friend of Bush going back to the Texas gubernatorial days. Furthermore, McClellan's ire seems to have been raised over what he was told about Valerie Plame??? This I don't get. The Plame story is more reflective of the bitter partisanship of Washington than any other of which I'm aware. I have yet to meet an average American anywhere who even brings up the Plame affair; I wonder how many even understand it, let alone care about it. It was a manufactured political tempest in a teapot; Plame wasn't even covert at the time she was supposedly "outed", and had never been in any danger. Plame and Wilson made millions off of the whole controversy, and probably are continuing to do so. The only one to suffer from it all was Scooter Libby, who was given a jail sentence and fine not for outing Plame, but for giving contradictory testimony to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (see why people's eyes glaze over?).
I have already given this story more space than it deserves; maybe this will up my ratings along with Hardball.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The importance of hearing both sides
Here is a prime example.
Michael Gerson is the chief wordsmith of "compassionate conservatism" and how it was championed and ultimately implemented in the Bush White House, especially the first term. He now writes a weekly syndicated column for Newsweek, which is also carried on Townhall.com.
Gerson, in his May 14 column, took to task what he refers to as the "Coburn Seven" for failing to reauthorize the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The Coburn Seven, all Republicans, includes Senator Tom Coburn (OK), and fellow Senators Jeff Sessions (AL), Richard Burr (NC), Jim DeMint (SC), Saxby Chambliss (GA), David Vitter (LA) and Jim Bunning (KY).
An initial read of Gerson's column does indeed make it all seem ominous. I believe Christians should not only care about AIDS and the suffering it has caused (especially to many innocent victims in Africa), but should act to offset it if it is within our power. Visits to Africa have completely changed the ministry fundraising efforts of such evangelical leaders as Rick Warren and Bill Hybels' wife, Lynne. I am confident that similar convictions are what inspired Gerson's efforts here. I don't question his intentions.
I'll admit that I have HUGE respect for Tom Coburn. His book Breach of Trust is one of the best on the 1994 Republican Revolution and although it was written in 2003, it shows why the Republicans are in the quandary they are today. Coburn is a man of deep integrity and principle, so Gerson's protests didn't feel quite right.
As it turns out, what an illustration this debate provides us on how fundamentally unfair it is to only hear out one side of an argument.
Senator Tom Coburn replied with an op-ed, evidently dated the same day (so he must have gotten the article in advance and been given a chance to respond?) Here are the two money paragraphs:
The fact is each of the "Coburn Seven" regard PEPFAR as America's most significant foreign policy accomplishment since the Marshall Plan. Since the enactment of PEPFAR in 2003, AIDS treatment has been so successful that it has literally given new life to millions with HIV who were barely clinging to life, a phenomenon referred to as the 'Lazarus effect.' Each of us also is committed to working with the President and our colleagues to pass a reauthorization that will meet the original goals of PEPFAR.
Part of Gerson's moral outrage is focused on my controversial stance that AIDS treatment dollars be spent on treatment. I want to preserve PEPFAR's original formula that sends at least 55 percent of all dollars to AIDS treatment so widows and orphans and actual patients, not program officers and consultants, will be the primary beneficiaries of the program. This formula is made all the more important because the new authorization calls for a three-fold increase in funding from $15 billion over five years to $50 billion over five years. Moreover, this smart and well-designed policy, which Gerson once supported but now scorns, is a major reason why PEPFAR has been a Marshall Plan-like response, rather than a Katrina-like response, to the AIDS crisis in Africa.
Read both Gerson's column and Coburn's response and weigh the arguments equally.
Michael Gerson is the chief wordsmith of "compassionate conservatism" and how it was championed and ultimately implemented in the Bush White House, especially the first term. He now writes a weekly syndicated column for Newsweek, which is also carried on Townhall.com.
Gerson, in his May 14 column, took to task what he refers to as the "Coburn Seven" for failing to reauthorize the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The Coburn Seven, all Republicans, includes Senator Tom Coburn (OK), and fellow Senators Jeff Sessions (AL), Richard Burr (NC), Jim DeMint (SC), Saxby Chambliss (GA), David Vitter (LA) and Jim Bunning (KY).
An initial read of Gerson's column does indeed make it all seem ominous. I believe Christians should not only care about AIDS and the suffering it has caused (especially to many innocent victims in Africa), but should act to offset it if it is within our power. Visits to Africa have completely changed the ministry fundraising efforts of such evangelical leaders as Rick Warren and Bill Hybels' wife, Lynne. I am confident that similar convictions are what inspired Gerson's efforts here. I don't question his intentions.
I'll admit that I have HUGE respect for Tom Coburn. His book Breach of Trust is one of the best on the 1994 Republican Revolution and although it was written in 2003, it shows why the Republicans are in the quandary they are today. Coburn is a man of deep integrity and principle, so Gerson's protests didn't feel quite right.
As it turns out, what an illustration this debate provides us on how fundamentally unfair it is to only hear out one side of an argument.
Senator Tom Coburn replied with an op-ed, evidently dated the same day (so he must have gotten the article in advance and been given a chance to respond?) Here are the two money paragraphs:
The fact is each of the "Coburn Seven" regard PEPFAR as America's most significant foreign policy accomplishment since the Marshall Plan. Since the enactment of PEPFAR in 2003, AIDS treatment has been so successful that it has literally given new life to millions with HIV who were barely clinging to life, a phenomenon referred to as the 'Lazarus effect.' Each of us also is committed to working with the President and our colleagues to pass a reauthorization that will meet the original goals of PEPFAR.
Part of Gerson's moral outrage is focused on my controversial stance that AIDS treatment dollars be spent on treatment. I want to preserve PEPFAR's original formula that sends at least 55 percent of all dollars to AIDS treatment so widows and orphans and actual patients, not program officers and consultants, will be the primary beneficiaries of the program. This formula is made all the more important because the new authorization calls for a three-fold increase in funding from $15 billion over five years to $50 billion over five years. Moreover, this smart and well-designed policy, which Gerson once supported but now scorns, is a major reason why PEPFAR has been a Marshall Plan-like response, rather than a Katrina-like response, to the AIDS crisis in Africa.
Read both Gerson's column and Coburn's response and weigh the arguments equally.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Senator Kennedy diagnosed with cancerous brain tumor
I saw the news a few minutes after it came across the wire, at about 3:45 this afternoon.
Beyond the somewhat clinical AP new story, what is even more telling is the reactions in the subsequent 2 hours that I've seen. The commentators are all talking and swapping stories, most quite emotional and heartfelt. John McCain is blinking away tears in the clip I've seen from his campaign bus. Sen. Mitch McConnell issued a grave message of concern, with Senators Jon Kyl and others standing behind him in the Capitol Rotunda (I think). Chris Dodd's voice broke as he spoke to the press and 90-year-old Sen. Robert Byrd bowed his head at his Senate desk and sobbed.
A doctor consulted on CBS top-of-the-hour news roundup said that typically the prognosis for this type of tumor is measured in months rather than years. I have no idea as to the veracity of this assessment or lack thereof.
As Pat Buchanan opined, news like this "completely changes the political furniture with which we've populated our minds for the last 40 years."
I know seeing Kennedy on the Senate floor was one of the most memorable moments of our visit there when Pam and I stopped by during our 2001 Washington trip, so I will personally vouch for what Buchanan is saying.
I think we all wish Ted Kennedy the best at this time and that our hearts go out to his family.
Beyond the somewhat clinical AP new story, what is even more telling is the reactions in the subsequent 2 hours that I've seen. The commentators are all talking and swapping stories, most quite emotional and heartfelt. John McCain is blinking away tears in the clip I've seen from his campaign bus. Sen. Mitch McConnell issued a grave message of concern, with Senators Jon Kyl and others standing behind him in the Capitol Rotunda (I think). Chris Dodd's voice broke as he spoke to the press and 90-year-old Sen. Robert Byrd bowed his head at his Senate desk and sobbed.
A doctor consulted on CBS top-of-the-hour news roundup said that typically the prognosis for this type of tumor is measured in months rather than years. I have no idea as to the veracity of this assessment or lack thereof.
As Pat Buchanan opined, news like this "completely changes the political furniture with which we've populated our minds for the last 40 years."
I know seeing Kennedy on the Senate floor was one of the most memorable moments of our visit there when Pam and I stopped by during our 2001 Washington trip, so I will personally vouch for what Buchanan is saying.
I think we all wish Ted Kennedy the best at this time and that our hearts go out to his family.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Is it really this bad?
Tim Russert asked Mike Huckabee yesterday about Congressman Tom Davis' (R-Virginia) comments, comparing the Republican brand to dog food that should be taken off the shelf. Huckabee forthrightly admitted that Davis was right and Republicans are in deep trouble. His solution, as you would expect, is "Elect John McCain because he's the new kind of Republican."
Bob Novak's Monday column gives all the reasons why Huckabee may be right, if McCain sticks to his promises to veto all earmark proposals.
Novak's inestimable reporting prowess never ceases to amaze me and the facts he reports are always cause for angst. What he says makes me wonder what kind of echo chamber these Republicans who go to Washington eventually enter?
I want to believe that most people go into public service for noble motives. What they become is frightening, though. Do these GOP caucus members not mind the idea of permanent minority status as long as they retain their parking spaces and country club memberships and ultimately land a multi-million dollar gig in lobbying after they leave politics?
The talk now is that after the November elections, we may be down 70+ seats in the House, and may no longer have a filibuster option in the Senate due to the presence of less than 41 GOP Senators. Even if McCain wins, he will have no coattails. Under this scenario, would McCain's win even mean anything of substance to conservatives?
When you compare our quandary now to 2002 or even 2004, the mind reels.
I will have more on this soon....MUCH more, if time allows, and I think it will as a holiday weekend approaches!
Bob Novak's Monday column gives all the reasons why Huckabee may be right, if McCain sticks to his promises to veto all earmark proposals.
Novak's inestimable reporting prowess never ceases to amaze me and the facts he reports are always cause for angst. What he says makes me wonder what kind of echo chamber these Republicans who go to Washington eventually enter?
I want to believe that most people go into public service for noble motives. What they become is frightening, though. Do these GOP caucus members not mind the idea of permanent minority status as long as they retain their parking spaces and country club memberships and ultimately land a multi-million dollar gig in lobbying after they leave politics?
The talk now is that after the November elections, we may be down 70+ seats in the House, and may no longer have a filibuster option in the Senate due to the presence of less than 41 GOP Senators. Even if McCain wins, he will have no coattails. Under this scenario, would McCain's win even mean anything of substance to conservatives?
When you compare our quandary now to 2002 or even 2004, the mind reels.
I will have more on this soon....MUCH more, if time allows, and I think it will as a holiday weekend approaches!
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Ted Kennedy hospitalized
I found out very accidentally around noon today on MSNBC that Ted Kennedy had been hospitalized for a possible stroke.
Since then, I've had the TV on in the background while facilitating my online class and monitoring a few other things (including Carli and her little friend, Victoria Leeder). Of course, I quickly switched to Fox, which is only fitting. :) They have had a great set of guests on, both by phone and in person through the day since then, including Michael Barone, Brit Hume, former Arizona Senator Dennis DeConcini, Trent Lott, John Breaux, Cal Thomas (who is a good friend of Kennedy's, oddly enough; he told the very compeling story of how it all came about) and others.
It sounds at this point like the Senator will be OK; he has had 2 seizures this morning. Brit Hume told about his own bout with seizures 40 years ago, as quite a young man, and apparently, they stopped as mysteriously as they started and were never that serious in their long-term effect. And Senator Kennedy made a call on his own at 10:30 to cancel a lunch appointment (Hat Tip to Mark Halperin's excellent site, The Page, on Time.com).
The political junkie in me loves all of this and I have always been intrigued by Ted Kennedy. Seeing him on the Senate floor when we visited the Capitol in 2001 was a highlight of the day. I can't say I like him, though, but apparently the reverse is true for many Republicans. He has a very warm relationship with Sen. Orrin Hatch from Utah and has worked closely with John McCain, Trent Lott and others.
It is hard for me to get past the belief, though, that Ted Kennedy has benefited from a wealthy family and deep connections to high places in ways that no one else would have that have enabled his longevity in the Senate in spite of a personal life that has been tawdry and sordid. Would anyone else have survived the Chappaquiddick incident and been able to run not only successfully for 7 additional Senate terms, but to mount a competitive Presidential campaign (1980)? I don't believe that Kennedy intentionally committed murder, but how would Joe Blow have avoided prosecution for such an incident, not to speak of jail time, as Kennedy did?
Is this unfair and unkind to mention in an hour of physical struggle? I guess it must be commonly considered off-limits in journalistic circles, even on Fox, since everyone is singing from the same page on this, namely that "he gets things done", "he reaches across the aisle", "he is very warm in person", etc.
I do wish the Senator a quick recovery, though I wouldn't mind seeing him become a private citizen. :)
Since then, I've had the TV on in the background while facilitating my online class and monitoring a few other things (including Carli and her little friend, Victoria Leeder). Of course, I quickly switched to Fox, which is only fitting. :) They have had a great set of guests on, both by phone and in person through the day since then, including Michael Barone, Brit Hume, former Arizona Senator Dennis DeConcini, Trent Lott, John Breaux, Cal Thomas (who is a good friend of Kennedy's, oddly enough; he told the very compeling story of how it all came about) and others.
It sounds at this point like the Senator will be OK; he has had 2 seizures this morning. Brit Hume told about his own bout with seizures 40 years ago, as quite a young man, and apparently, they stopped as mysteriously as they started and were never that serious in their long-term effect. And Senator Kennedy made a call on his own at 10:30 to cancel a lunch appointment (Hat Tip to Mark Halperin's excellent site, The Page, on Time.com).
The political junkie in me loves all of this and I have always been intrigued by Ted Kennedy. Seeing him on the Senate floor when we visited the Capitol in 2001 was a highlight of the day. I can't say I like him, though, but apparently the reverse is true for many Republicans. He has a very warm relationship with Sen. Orrin Hatch from Utah and has worked closely with John McCain, Trent Lott and others.
It is hard for me to get past the belief, though, that Ted Kennedy has benefited from a wealthy family and deep connections to high places in ways that no one else would have that have enabled his longevity in the Senate in spite of a personal life that has been tawdry and sordid. Would anyone else have survived the Chappaquiddick incident and been able to run not only successfully for 7 additional Senate terms, but to mount a competitive Presidential campaign (1980)? I don't believe that Kennedy intentionally committed murder, but how would Joe Blow have avoided prosecution for such an incident, not to speak of jail time, as Kennedy did?
Is this unfair and unkind to mention in an hour of physical struggle? I guess it must be commonly considered off-limits in journalistic circles, even on Fox, since everyone is singing from the same page on this, namely that "he gets things done", "he reaches across the aisle", "he is very warm in person", etc.
I do wish the Senator a quick recovery, though I wouldn't mind seeing him become a private citizen. :)
Monday, May 12, 2008
Voting for "God's judgment"
I cannot overemphasize how much Bob Novak's new column disturbs me. The best I can hope for is that it gets some details wrong and is alarmist in nature and not a serious threat. Knowing how thorough Novak is and has been for over 50 years of journalism, though, I'm not optimistic.
For those who don't take a few minutes to read the whole piece, Novak writes that many former Huckabee backers secretly predict and are rooting for an Obama victory as God's judgment on a sinful nation. The ultimate goal is a successful Huckabee run in 2012.
This is impressively foolish on so many levels that it is hard to comprehensively cite them all, but I'll address a few of the latent fallacies in this ridiculous gamesmanship.
People said the same thing about Bill Clinton in 1992, that God was punishing America for its sins by denying Bush 41 a second term. Presumably, God's ultimate political strategy was national purification over 4 years of suffering so that we would be ready for a GOP President again by 1996. Wow, that worked out well, didn't it? (Think "oral sex in the Oval Office.")
In the grander scheme of things, though, I fail to comprehend the view that an imperfect political leader is God's punishment on a sinful nation. If this is true, we've been punished more or less continuously, except for when Washington, Lincoln and Reagan were in charge, maybe. (Wait....that theory doesn't work either, because Lincoln presided over the bloodiest conflict in American history, Washington was a Freemason and Reagan didn't pass any anti-abortion legislation.)
But worst of all, these Christians are attempting to engineer a spiritual outcome by tampering with the political process. This is putting the cart before the horse, at best, and at worst, is cynical religious profiteering.
Jesus told His followers to be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves, but all too often, we're tempted to invert the equation. I don't think we obey this injunction when we do other than strive in straightforward fashion for righteousness and justice. Hoping and even rooting for an Obama win, if you believe that his election is a step in the wrong direction, as I do, seems to me like "doing evil that good may come." (Let me clarify; I am not saying that people who vote for Obama are evil. I know too many Christians who will probably do so to make such an assertion. I am simply describing the thought process referenced in Novak's column.)
I highly recommend that everyone read the fictional Prologue to Chuck Colson's non-fictional bestseller Kingdoms in Conflict. It is more timely today than ever, and illustrates the tendency of many evangelicals to try to influence God's timetable through political machinations.
For those who don't take a few minutes to read the whole piece, Novak writes that many former Huckabee backers secretly predict and are rooting for an Obama victory as God's judgment on a sinful nation. The ultimate goal is a successful Huckabee run in 2012.
This is impressively foolish on so many levels that it is hard to comprehensively cite them all, but I'll address a few of the latent fallacies in this ridiculous gamesmanship.
People said the same thing about Bill Clinton in 1992, that God was punishing America for its sins by denying Bush 41 a second term. Presumably, God's ultimate political strategy was national purification over 4 years of suffering so that we would be ready for a GOP President again by 1996. Wow, that worked out well, didn't it? (Think "oral sex in the Oval Office.")
In the grander scheme of things, though, I fail to comprehend the view that an imperfect political leader is God's punishment on a sinful nation. If this is true, we've been punished more or less continuously, except for when Washington, Lincoln and Reagan were in charge, maybe. (Wait....that theory doesn't work either, because Lincoln presided over the bloodiest conflict in American history, Washington was a Freemason and Reagan didn't pass any anti-abortion legislation.)
But worst of all, these Christians are attempting to engineer a spiritual outcome by tampering with the political process. This is putting the cart before the horse, at best, and at worst, is cynical religious profiteering.
Jesus told His followers to be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves, but all too often, we're tempted to invert the equation. I don't think we obey this injunction when we do other than strive in straightforward fashion for righteousness and justice. Hoping and even rooting for an Obama win, if you believe that his election is a step in the wrong direction, as I do, seems to me like "doing evil that good may come." (Let me clarify; I am not saying that people who vote for Obama are evil. I know too many Christians who will probably do so to make such an assertion. I am simply describing the thought process referenced in Novak's column.)
I highly recommend that everyone read the fictional Prologue to Chuck Colson's non-fictional bestseller Kingdoms in Conflict. It is more timely today than ever, and illustrates the tendency of many evangelicals to try to influence God's timetable through political machinations.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Obama Videos
Jed here again, pinch hitting for Glen.
Glen actually waited in the rain to see Obama...
Carson bashing our state.
Obama just figured out how term limits work...
Apparently Our income went down last year...
We shouldn't be there...heard this before...
But didn't he just spend 10 minutes "tearing down" Bush and America?
Stevie was worth the night
Think he has this same speech everywhere he goes with the names changed?
the passing out incident...
Glen actually waited in the rain to see Obama...
Carson bashing our state.
Obama just figured out how term limits work...
Apparently Our income went down last year...
We shouldn't be there...heard this before...
But didn't he just spend 10 minutes "tearing down" Bush and America?
Stevie was worth the night
Think he has this same speech everywhere he goes with the names changed?
the passing out incident...
Obama Rally Pics (Jed posting)
And these were only the guys we saw... I imagine there were more on other buildings.
Glen is on the edge of his seat waiting to see Obama.
Stage before setup. YellowShirt union Guy must think he's at a Hillary Rally.
Glen overlooking the little people who had to stand all evening.
Stevie Wonder being wondrous.
One of those people up front passed out.
We sat in front of this sign. It sort of reminded me of when someone gives you "bunny ears" in a picture.
In case you want to give money go to this website.
The man... The legend.
That's glen in the hoodie...Just kidding!
He shook hands afterwards. Didn't see any baby-kissing though.
Barack up close!
WELL.... :)
Danny called me back a few minutes after I posted last and said that he couldn't make it. Jed and I were both sorry about that, though we knew how busy he is. Had he been able to accompany us, however, things could have turned out quite differently.
We left Kokomo as soon as Jed got off of work and arrived on Monument Circle in Indy right at 6:00 p.m. Mind you, the gates to the American Legion Mall didn't open until 7:30, but it didn't take long to see that the turnout was going to be massive. In fact, the lines were already stretching over several city blocks on both sides of the mall. I didn't say it out loud at first, nor did Jed, but I know we were both thinking that we didn't stand a chance of even getting in the gates.
Nonetheless, we had come an hour's journey at $3.65/gallon gas and we weren't turning back without trying so we parked the car and began trudging toward the back of the line for those who had no tickets.
As we were standing on the corner of New York and Pennsylvania Avenues, a young girl with a "VOLUNTEER" pass around her neck approached us from the right and began to chat with us. We told her we had driven from Kokomo for the rally which seemed to please her. It was crowded, even on the sidewalk, so I fell a little behind while she walked beside Jed, talking to him. I watched as she pulled a couple other guys out of line, then beckoned the four of us to follow her. Before I knew it, we had ducked behind a wall and she proceeded to hand us green wristbands. She told us to be discreet about it, but to head back across the mall to the ticketed line and to go through the metal detectors with everyone else. Once we were through, we'd be directed where to go.
Liz (for that was the name of the young enthusiast) was an IU journalism grad who had interned in Obama's office in Washington and is now getting ready for law school somewhere. As she walked us back towards the other line, she questioned me, "So when did you become an Obama supporter? (I gulped...) And when did you first hear about the Senator?" In one of my wiser moments, I chose to ignore the first part of the question and replied that I had first heard about Senator Obama when he gave his speech to the Democratic convention in 2004.
Liz departed the scene soon with pleas for us to be ready to cheer and smile as much as possible. As soon as Jed and I could talk somewhat privately without the other two gentlemen overhearing us, we exploded in muffled guffaws. It didn't take long for us to piece together that we would be in designated seating; in other words, we had drawn the equivalent of the lottery ticket of the year just by being on the right street corner at the right time.
Indeed....we went through security with no problems and were promptly escorted to the special seating area directly behind the stage, no more than 10 feet away. There were about 100 of us there, maybe 150, in a total crowd of 6,000-8,000 (I'm not sure how many actually, but there were people as far as I could see). Jed and I kept turning to each other and saying, "What are the odds?"
We endured a good rainstorm or two before Congressman Andre Carson ascended the stage to warm up the already-frenzied crowd. Carson isn't far shy of a socialist. His first words were "Have we had enough tyranny in this country?" and it went downhill from there, as he announced that he and Obama were going to do a Batman and Robin act on America, and save everyone from the evil of the Bush Administration (the Batman and Robin analogy was his, not mine).
Carson then announced singer Stevie Wonder. Now, I'll admit this was a highlight for me, even though I'm not sure Wonder was completely sober. Wonder's vocal power and range are impressive, and he wowed the crowd with 3 songs or so. When he first walked onto the stage, he kept doing a scale ride with Barack Obama's name, ala "Do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti", except he was bellowing "BA-A-RACK-O-BA-MA!!!", then back down the scale the same way. A bit unnerving, but highly entertaining. In case you're wondering, he didn't sing "I Just Called to Say I Love You", but he did do the song that contains the line "I'm signed, sealed delivered...I'm YOURS!" (I just Googled that phrase and I guess that's the title. Give me a break, everyone; Stevie Wonder was a bit before my time.)
Once Stevie was led off the stage by his handlers, the platform was swept and all of the musical equipment was removed. The crowd was at fever pitch by the time an omnipresent announcer's voice intoned, "Ladies and gentlemen: The next President of the United States! BARACK OBAMA!!!!" And there he came down the rope line shaking hands, just a few feet down from us, then he bounced up onto the stage with his characteristic wave.
No doubt about it, Obama has a magnetic presence and knows how to work an audience, but I still found his speech unremarkable. Most of it was boilerplate that I'd already heard in some clip or other. I think, though, that this was the first I'd heard him refer to the potential election of John McCain as George Bush's third term. This went over very well with the crowd in terms of response (think "BOOOOO!"); I've heard him use it several times in the succeeding 48 hours.
Both Jed and I thought Obama seemed weary, but energized, odd as that may sound. I was close enough to him to see that the back of his light blue dress shirt was very wrinkled, which is understandable since it had probably seen a long day since it got pulled out of the closet. Also....the man is very thin. He doesn't look it so much on TV, but it is striking in person, enough that Jed wondered if he is eating right on the campaign trail? (Probably not.)
We got handed the standard "Change we Can Believe In" signs, but passed them on to others or laid them down on the bench. We also clapped hard when things were said that we agreed with (i.e., what a wonderful job our soldiers do and how much they deserve our respect) since there was much that I couldn't honestly clap for (i.e., the bashing of the oil and insurance companies and George Bush and Dick Cheney and the immorality of the lack of universal health care, etc., etc.). We saw a couple people pass out, one right in front of him; he stopped his speech momentarily while he called for a paramedic and threw a bottle of water to the young lady's comrades. I don't think it was excitement that led to the fainting; the crowd was very tightly packed and it was a bit warm, around 70 degrees.
Barack Obama is a master storyteller, and has honed his speaking abilities to an even finer degree after 16 months on the campaign trail. The crowd was rooting for him as I have literally never seen. If enthusiasm holds any portent for the general election....well, I'd rather not finish this sentence, if you know what I mean. Yet, at the end of the night, I have to say that I could recall nothing of substance being said in terms of how to actually accomplish all that he is promising to do (including have the troops out of Iraq in 2009!).
All in all, a night for the history books and one that I was pleased to be a part of, but a disheartening one, too. We McCain supporters will have a real battle on our hands that we must win.
Danny called me back a few minutes after I posted last and said that he couldn't make it. Jed and I were both sorry about that, though we knew how busy he is. Had he been able to accompany us, however, things could have turned out quite differently.
We left Kokomo as soon as Jed got off of work and arrived on Monument Circle in Indy right at 6:00 p.m. Mind you, the gates to the American Legion Mall didn't open until 7:30, but it didn't take long to see that the turnout was going to be massive. In fact, the lines were already stretching over several city blocks on both sides of the mall. I didn't say it out loud at first, nor did Jed, but I know we were both thinking that we didn't stand a chance of even getting in the gates.
Nonetheless, we had come an hour's journey at $3.65/gallon gas and we weren't turning back without trying so we parked the car and began trudging toward the back of the line for those who had no tickets.
As we were standing on the corner of New York and Pennsylvania Avenues, a young girl with a "VOLUNTEER" pass around her neck approached us from the right and began to chat with us. We told her we had driven from Kokomo for the rally which seemed to please her. It was crowded, even on the sidewalk, so I fell a little behind while she walked beside Jed, talking to him. I watched as she pulled a couple other guys out of line, then beckoned the four of us to follow her. Before I knew it, we had ducked behind a wall and she proceeded to hand us green wristbands. She told us to be discreet about it, but to head back across the mall to the ticketed line and to go through the metal detectors with everyone else. Once we were through, we'd be directed where to go.
Liz (for that was the name of the young enthusiast) was an IU journalism grad who had interned in Obama's office in Washington and is now getting ready for law school somewhere. As she walked us back towards the other line, she questioned me, "So when did you become an Obama supporter? (I gulped...) And when did you first hear about the Senator?" In one of my wiser moments, I chose to ignore the first part of the question and replied that I had first heard about Senator Obama when he gave his speech to the Democratic convention in 2004.
Liz departed the scene soon with pleas for us to be ready to cheer and smile as much as possible. As soon as Jed and I could talk somewhat privately without the other two gentlemen overhearing us, we exploded in muffled guffaws. It didn't take long for us to piece together that we would be in designated seating; in other words, we had drawn the equivalent of the lottery ticket of the year just by being on the right street corner at the right time.
Indeed....we went through security with no problems and were promptly escorted to the special seating area directly behind the stage, no more than 10 feet away. There were about 100 of us there, maybe 150, in a total crowd of 6,000-8,000 (I'm not sure how many actually, but there were people as far as I could see). Jed and I kept turning to each other and saying, "What are the odds?"
We endured a good rainstorm or two before Congressman Andre Carson ascended the stage to warm up the already-frenzied crowd. Carson isn't far shy of a socialist. His first words were "Have we had enough tyranny in this country?" and it went downhill from there, as he announced that he and Obama were going to do a Batman and Robin act on America, and save everyone from the evil of the Bush Administration (the Batman and Robin analogy was his, not mine).
Carson then announced singer Stevie Wonder. Now, I'll admit this was a highlight for me, even though I'm not sure Wonder was completely sober. Wonder's vocal power and range are impressive, and he wowed the crowd with 3 songs or so. When he first walked onto the stage, he kept doing a scale ride with Barack Obama's name, ala "Do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti", except he was bellowing "BA-A-RACK-O-BA-MA!!!", then back down the scale the same way. A bit unnerving, but highly entertaining. In case you're wondering, he didn't sing "I Just Called to Say I Love You", but he did do the song that contains the line "I'm signed, sealed delivered...I'm YOURS!" (I just Googled that phrase and I guess that's the title. Give me a break, everyone; Stevie Wonder was a bit before my time.)
Once Stevie was led off the stage by his handlers, the platform was swept and all of the musical equipment was removed. The crowd was at fever pitch by the time an omnipresent announcer's voice intoned, "Ladies and gentlemen: The next President of the United States! BARACK OBAMA!!!!" And there he came down the rope line shaking hands, just a few feet down from us, then he bounced up onto the stage with his characteristic wave.
No doubt about it, Obama has a magnetic presence and knows how to work an audience, but I still found his speech unremarkable. Most of it was boilerplate that I'd already heard in some clip or other. I think, though, that this was the first I'd heard him refer to the potential election of John McCain as George Bush's third term. This went over very well with the crowd in terms of response (think "BOOOOO!"); I've heard him use it several times in the succeeding 48 hours.
Both Jed and I thought Obama seemed weary, but energized, odd as that may sound. I was close enough to him to see that the back of his light blue dress shirt was very wrinkled, which is understandable since it had probably seen a long day since it got pulled out of the closet. Also....the man is very thin. He doesn't look it so much on TV, but it is striking in person, enough that Jed wondered if he is eating right on the campaign trail? (Probably not.)
We got handed the standard "Change we Can Believe In" signs, but passed them on to others or laid them down on the bench. We also clapped hard when things were said that we agreed with (i.e., what a wonderful job our soldiers do and how much they deserve our respect) since there was much that I couldn't honestly clap for (i.e., the bashing of the oil and insurance companies and George Bush and Dick Cheney and the immorality of the lack of universal health care, etc., etc.). We saw a couple people pass out, one right in front of him; he stopped his speech momentarily while he called for a paramedic and threw a bottle of water to the young lady's comrades. I don't think it was excitement that led to the fainting; the crowd was very tightly packed and it was a bit warm, around 70 degrees.
Barack Obama is a master storyteller, and has honed his speaking abilities to an even finer degree after 16 months on the campaign trail. The crowd was rooting for him as I have literally never seen. If enthusiasm holds any portent for the general election....well, I'd rather not finish this sentence, if you know what I mean. Yet, at the end of the night, I have to say that I could recall nothing of substance being said in terms of how to actually accomplish all that he is promising to do (including have the troops out of Iraq in 2009!).
All in all, a night for the history books and one that I was pleased to be a part of, but a disheartening one, too. We McCain supporters will have a real battle on our hands that we must win.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Rich Galen brings back an "Ohio days" memory for me
I remember, over a decade ago now, listening occasionally to a Friday night show on 570 WKBN out of Youngstown. WKBN was Rush's flagship station in northeast Ohio back then, and Rush was just about the only talk show host who was widely syndicated on a national basis, so the rest of the time, local hosts filled the 21-hour gap.
Anyway, on Friday nights, Marc Dann would host a show with his law partner, Dave Betris, where they would answer legal questions that callers would pose. Seemingly, anyone who was able to find an open line and call in was permitted to get on the air, which made for entertaining radio at times and snooze button occasions otherwise, about a 60%-40% mix respectively.
I knew Marc Dann had left Betris' firm (which, I believe, is known today as Betris, Maruka, Kopp and Harshman, LLC), but I had no idea that Dann had been elected Ohio Attorney General in the election of 2006. Even more importantly, Rich Galen shows in today's column how portentous this event may turn out to be.
Read it all here. It is indeed quite juicy and should truly give Ohio Republicans cause for at least a covert smile; they have had precious little reason to do so for the last few years, thanks to former Governor Bob Taft.
On a completely unrelated note, I am headed to Indy with friends Jed Hutchison and Danny Bryant to observe a Barack Obama rally this evening, probably the final one of a very full campaign day for him. The primary is rumored to be too close to call tomorrow, so I'm guessing we'll watch a piece of history in the making, one way or the other. Details to follow.
Anyway, on Friday nights, Marc Dann would host a show with his law partner, Dave Betris, where they would answer legal questions that callers would pose. Seemingly, anyone who was able to find an open line and call in was permitted to get on the air, which made for entertaining radio at times and snooze button occasions otherwise, about a 60%-40% mix respectively.
I knew Marc Dann had left Betris' firm (which, I believe, is known today as Betris, Maruka, Kopp and Harshman, LLC), but I had no idea that Dann had been elected Ohio Attorney General in the election of 2006. Even more importantly, Rich Galen shows in today's column how portentous this event may turn out to be.
Read it all here. It is indeed quite juicy and should truly give Ohio Republicans cause for at least a covert smile; they have had precious little reason to do so for the last few years, thanks to former Governor Bob Taft.
On a completely unrelated note, I am headed to Indy with friends Jed Hutchison and Danny Bryant to observe a Barack Obama rally this evening, probably the final one of a very full campaign day for him. The primary is rumored to be too close to call tomorrow, so I'm guessing we'll watch a piece of history in the making, one way or the other. Details to follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
