How much do brains matter in a President?
Bookworm on Sep 06 2008 at 10:03 pm | Filed under: Barack Obama, Presidential elections
Another long, hot day, this one augmented by a nasty little migraine that’s so far rebuffed treatment. Blogging has therefore been minimal and what blogging I’ve done has been for other sites to which I owe commitments. Nevertheless, what I blog there, I can reprint here, right? Here’s the start of a post I did at Bloggers for John McCain. Because we’re trying to build numbers at that new blog, I’ll just print up a little bit here and, if you’re interested, please head over to that blog to read the rest:
It happens pretty much like clockwork: In every presidential election that I can remember, voters are assured that the Republican is a brainless buffoon, and the Democrat a savvy intellectual. I first saw this with the 1976 election, when I was 15 years old and, for the first time, politically aware. Gerald Ford was presented as a big, dumb jock, who couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time. Jimmy Carter was a brilliant, analytical engineer.
In 1980, as you recall, Ronald Reagan was the actor/jock who had simplistic ideas. I remember going around parroting the line that you could wade through Reagan’s deepest thoughts without getting your ankles wet. Carter, of course, despite his abysmal Presidential record was still, as the media repeatedly assured us, so much smarter.
By 1984, Reagan’s intellectualism had fallen even lower in the media’s and pundit’s estimation. The guy was dumb as a rock, and spoke in stupid, infantile terms about evil, and freedom, and simplistic things like that. He had no nuance. Fortunately, the savvy (but pure) Walter Mondale was going to save us from the guy with the obvious 2 digit IQ.
Fast forward a few years to 1988, and you’ve got the inarticulate George H.W. Bush, who was obviously too dumb to communicate in basic English, despite his illustrious career. And on the other side, you’ve got the pedantic Michael Dukakis, who really did sound like a hyper-analytical university professor. He was obviously smart.
I don’t need to remind you of the Clinton years. For me, they pass in a blur of paeans praising his extraordinary intelligence. The press wrote reams of laudatory columns about his ebullient wonkishness, his extraordinary ability to master complex ideas, and his lust for knowledge. The only person smarter than he was, the press assured us, was his wife, a woman who intelligently subordinated her own career to exponentially expand the power of his through their combined brains.
Wait! I forgot, there was one person smarter than Clinton — Al Gore! Al Gore, the great genius who made Dukakis look like a fluent, witty speaker. Al Gore, the all seeing, all knowing internet inventor. It was unthinkable that George W. Bush, the ultimate buffoon, a man with a West Texas accent and a habit of speaking about “nukular” weapons, could beat this Ivy League genius. And yet the unthinkable happened. And it happened again when the even smarter and more intellectual John Kerry also went down before that buffoon. (Never mind that subsequent investigation revealed that the “buffoon” did better at Yale than either of these two shining lights.)
It should be no surprise at this point that the exact same pattern is shaping up here. Obama, as we know, is even smarter than all of his Democratic predecessors put together! He is a luminous speaker (as long as he has a script). He’s a luminous writer (although his off-script speaking skills are beginning to tell me that, as much as anything else, he had a good editor). He’s just plain luminous. Palin, with her non-Ivy League degree, her slightly goofy Alaska accent, her beauty queen credentials is, of course, laughable when compared to Obama, right?
Email This Post To A Friend
103 Responses to “How much do brains matter in a President?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
See my post Is John Kerry Smart? from the last election; also this analysis.
Also when only the glib win, we all lose, and the smart-talk trap.
Book, David Foster touches my theme. You seem to be equating glibness with intelligence. There also seems to be a suggestion that an Ivy League education, or comparable, is necessary to demonstrate intelligence. I dont’ agree. However, at the risk of stating the obvious I remind the world that Bush 41 and Bush 43 clearly had Ivy League credentials.
Some commentator remarked recently that a President does not need to be conversant with, and involved in, a myriad of issues. He/she needs to focus on a few important ones– and protect the Constitution. The Reagan model. It worked pretty well.
I have said many times on various forums over the past several days that judgement and decisiveness trump experience. I might add that they also trump intelligence, as many pundits define intelligence.
Palin, with her non-Ivy League degree, her slightly goofy Alaska accent, her beauty queen credentials is, of course, laughable when compared to Obama, right?- book
I read that she attended five colleges in six years to get her B.A. Some say it was six colleges in six years.
She’s the idea candidate: Not terribly inquisitive, malleable, with no qualms about distorting the truth.
She’ll spend the next few weeks being “educated,” in much the way George Bush was. (Although with Bush, it wasn’t nearly as obvious).
David Frum and Charles Krauthammer and spoken out against this ridiculous ploy, truly putting country above party. Meanwhile others, like Peggy Noonan, have only called it “B.S’” when they thought nobody was listening.
But this is where this country has been headed for quite some time.
Some of us think it’s a shame.
You’ve written a very good read! I hope you sent the link — or at least the blog’s link — to Lucianne.
Four years ago, I was co-blogging with Pat Curley at his blog Kerry Haters. At the time, Kerry was in the news bragging about all the foreign leaders who supported him. I posted: When he speaks these days about those nebulous foreign leaders who’ll gladly support him as president, you might consider his previous contacts in worldly affairs. A reader noticed a problem with Kerry’s timeline, which quickly led Pat to exposing Kerry’s Christmas In Cambodia as a complete and utter lie. It was Pat Curley, lowly blogger from Phoenix, who did the yeoman’s work of actually reading Kerry’s bio, “Tour Of Duty,” several times to provide the proof.
I am still flabbergasted at the hubris of Kerry. He was supposed to be so intelligent, and yet he was an absolute idiot for lying, especially about things his own biography could not support.
Hubris is just one hallmark of the half-vast left-wing, MSM included. They learn nothing from their collective mistakes as evidence in their treatment of Sarahcuda. BO’s handlers are trying to cauterize the backlash, but the flash fire of PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) in the blogosphere can not be extinguished. BO’s lay-off-the-family pleas will not be heeded.
And while I’m on the subject, BO is a total dud of a speaker. But that’s just me.
Btw, I love that picture on top. So you know where it was taken? It reminds me of the drumlins around the Finger Lakes region near where I live.
…
Ozzie, Ozzie, Ozzie. Have you, Obama, and his media surrogates still not realized that you have fallen into the trap of comparing our party’s VP candidate to your party’s POTUS candidate? And even that doesn’t work so well.
Read my lips–virtually speaking. To my earlier comment about judgement and decisiveness, I will add one more quality; actual accomplishments (results).
Your problem is that the records are out there to in the public domain for comparative purposes.
I listened to your man’s mouthpiece, Axelrod, on FN Sunday this morning trying to sell the notion that although BHO does not have any verifiable legislative accomplishments, he was in fact working very effectively “behind the scenes”. (That is the tried and true excuse that every Senator uses to cover ineffectivenss) Never mind that no one could see him or verify. Never mind that he actually spent pitifully few days on the job. What a pitiful argument.
Of course there is the argument he has put out there that the process of running for POTUS constitutes significant experience in itself. Excuse me, I just cracked myself up.
The Bright Democrats Dumb Republicans theme is even older, going back to at least to the “intellectual” Adlai Stevenson II and Eisenhower. Eisenhower was pictured as the absent-minded golf player who mangled the English language at press conferences- sound familiar ? While many of Stevenson’s followers bought into this theme, Adlai II did also.
Fifty years later, Eisenhower has much higher ratings among historians than he was given at the time.
As far as Obama, he is bright and informed as long as he has a prepared speech and a teleprompter. Such as his air in tires gaffe. What is disturbing about this incident is not only did he pretend to know more than he did, he later refused to admit that he had been mistaken that air in tires and tune-ups could substitute for “all the drilling.” Pretension and later hubris. That doesn’t concern you, Ozzie?
Of the fifteen Presidents who were previously Senators, only one had an experience metric that Obama shares. None of the following: military, US Vice President, US Cabinet member, state governor. That would be Warren Harding. ( Source: Wikipedia, various pages) That doesn’t concern you, Ozzie?
Obama’s only administrative experience: handing out Annenberg Challenge grant money, with no results. Millions of money down the drain. Throwing money at a problem, not solving it. That doesn’t concern you, Ozzie?
At least Sarah Palin has administrative experience, and contrary to Obama, has a track record of competent performance at administration. She took on corruption in Alaska. How did Obama fare regarding corruption in Chicago? It would be a euphemism to reply, “not that well.”
It is interesting here that we are comparing the competence of a Vice Presidential candidate to that of a Presidential candidate.
While the Vice President is a heartbeat away from the Presidency, the Speaker of the House is two heartbeats away from the Presidency. That is scary. Nancy Pelosi as President? God help us. Nancy Pelosi, by force of example, completely smashes the Bright Democrats theme, and subverts the Social Darwinists who maintain that rich people are brighter.
“Of course there is the argument he has put out there that the process of running for POTUS constitutes significant experience in itself.”
If that were the case we should elect Axelrod, should we not? He’s the one actually *running* the campaign.
FWIW, this is one of the better take-downs of Obama’s inflated tires subsittuting for drilling gaff.
http://www.deanesmay.com/2008/08/04/inflated-claims/
Ozzie, Ozzie, Ozzie. Have you, Obama, and his media surrogates still not realized that you have fallen into the trap of comparing our party’s VP candidate to your party’s POTUS candidate? - Old Flyer
Actually, Old Flyer, I was just responding to something in Bookworm’s post, where she compared Palin’s level education to Obama’s.
In case you missed it, this is what she wrote:
“Palin, with her non-Ivy League degree, her slightly goofy Alaska accent, her beauty queen credentials is, of course, laughable when compared to Obama, right?”
In response, I pointed out that Palin went to five colleges in 6 years to get her B.A..
I’m a registed independent, I dont have a party, but I’ve watched John Mccain’s shift over the past few years and the Palin pick spoke volumes.
(The Daily Show’s McCain retrospect “Reformed Maverick” was almost as funny as their parody of the convention hype that surrounded Obama
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184113&title=john-mccain-reformed-maverick&byDate=true )
The kind of rhetorical trick you just pulled (acting as if I’m making a point based on something Obama and/or the media has said, rather than discussing what Book had written) also speaks volumes.
Intellectual dishonesty is on the rise.
A glorious future awaits.
Everything else being equal, the smarter the candidate the better. But of course, everything else is never equal. I find it hard to separate intelligence from judgment, since the former is required for the latter. But some highly intelligent people lack good judgment, so clearly there are other elements at play. Also, intelligence is notoriously difficult to measure, so what do you rely on? Ivy degrees? IQ tests? I find the entire which-candidate-is-more-intelligent arguments deeply dissatisfying. I think it’s safe to assume that all of the candidates have an IQ of roughly 100 or higher, and that they have the intellectual horsepower for the job. The questions should focus more on the ideas rather than the mental capacity for processing them…
Gringo, let’s not forget that, according to American Presidential historian Michael Beschloss (no conservative), the only book found by the “intellectual” Adlai Stevenson’s bedside when he died was the Social Register. Meanwhile, the “amiable dunce and former actor” Reagan (B.A. in economics from tiny Eureka College in Illinois) was to have been a prolific reader, writer and thinker (”Reagan: In his own Hand” - http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-His-Own-Hand-Revolutionary/dp/074320123X), after he passed away.
Ozzie, it’s these types of arguments that make me wonder if you are simply trolling. C’mon - young student doesn’t know what she wants, changes colleges, changes majors? Big whoop-di-doo!
Ozzie, it’s these types of arguments that make me wonder if you are simply trolling. C’mon - young student doesn’t know what she wants, changes colleges, changes majors? Big whoop-di-doo!- Danny
It’s that along with several other factors, Danny. (No Interviews for Two Weeks? Are they serious?)
I’m certain partisan hacks will continue to overlook trouble spots and/or make excuses, while side-stepping Peggy Noonan’s “B.S” slip
As I said, Intellectual dishonesty is key.
I also think it is safe to assume that the candidates are all about equally intelligent. But in my opinion, what is most important is not intelligence but wisdom, which is something not necessarily attained in school.
Deana
Have you ever watched that New England carpentry show? I’ve watched it a couple of times. He makes it look so easy. He has such neat tools.
Now, if I had all those neat tools in my garage, do you suppose I could turn out the neat stuff he does? I think not. First, you have to learn to use each tool in a general sense. Then you have to know where the use of each is appropriate. Then you have to learn the “tricks” of each machine that allow your work to have that finished look. You have to have a good eye…measure twice, cut once.
I think intelligence is much the same. It’s a tool. Some people have a better “tool” than others, but if you don’t learn how to use it, it’s of little value other than for show. I think the phrase “paralysis by analysis” is super. You can “know” all kinds of facts. How you make use of those facts is something else. Why is it that some people who aren’t particularly brilliant invent stuff, and some people who really are brilliant just never get much done? Kerry is a perfect example. There’s no doubt that he has a fine mind…he’s very learned. But what has he accoomplished? Look at Ben Franklin. A fine mind, no doubt, but brilliant? I’ve never heard that description…but look at what he accomplished. What makes the difference?
I wish I knew.
So…yes, I think it’s important for a president to be intelligent, but I think it’s more important that he knows what he thinks needs to be done, and he knows how to focus on those important things. You can hire brains…you can’t hire judgement.
I also think that as important as public appearance - speaking ability - is, it may not be a mark of intelligence. I’d really like to have Tony Blair as the presidential “speaker”…I think he’s terrific. But I’ve seen what his policies have done to his country, and I’d rather have Bush - even if he can’t speak particularly well.
Nobody’s perfect.
What job do we want the president to do?
Ozzie:
As I said, Intellectual dishonesty is key.
Agreed.
1) Example. Obama’s making the claim that “all the oil” from increased drilling could be substituted for by inflating tires and tune-ups, when he knew no such thing. (my previous quote about “all the drilling” was incorrect- from memory.)
Obama’s inability to admit that he was wrong about that claim, when it was easily documented that he was wrong.
2) Some commenters on this blog brought forth the point that Governor Palin admitted in December 2006 that she didn’t know that much about Iraq.(from memory)
3) McCain, when asked how many houses he owned, said he didn’t know. (from memory)
dg nailed it.
Not terribly inquisitive, malleable, with no qualms about distorting the truth.
Why are you describing Palin as if she was you?
The kind of rhetorical trick you just pulled (acting as if I’m making a point based on something Obama and/or the media has said, rather than discussing what Book had written) also speaks volumes.
Intellectual dishonesty is on the rise.
A glorious future awaits.
The only future that people like you, Oz, who tears down everything they can see that can produce good in this world, will create is a future born of death and misery.
You don’t criticize Obama or point out his defects because he serves the same cause as you do. You just don’t want to accept that fact in public. So you speak, glibly, about Palin as if all you were doing is taking a “sit on the fence independent” stance. As if you, were independent of the issues, when you are intimately tied to them in terms of loyalty, prejudice, and bias.
I read that she attended five colleges in six years to get her B.A. Some say it was six colleges in six years.
In case you hadn’t noticed, that is not an argument relevant to what Book said.
Palin, with her non-Ivy League degree, her slightly goofy Alaska accent, her beauty queen credentials is, of course, laughable when compared to Obama, right?- book
That is a nihilistic knee jerk reaction, rather.
“Some” say, as if Oz was just repeating known knowledge. “I read”, as if Oz doesn’t have an opinion on this but is just espousing other people’s propaganda and political talking points.
She’s the idea candidate: Not terribly inquisitive, malleable, with no qualms about distorting the truth.
For some people, this kind of claim is justified by Oz’s pretensions acclamations of proof and evidence. For others, higher standards for civilized conduct are manifest.
When you answer Book’s question using your own opinions, not the regurgitated propaganda of your Leftist allies and your so called Republican equal opportunity adversaries, then we’ll evaluate how much intellectual honesty is required of a person claiming intellectual dishonesty on the part of others.
How much do brains matter in a President?-In case you needed a reminder.
Points to dg for addressing a topic that matters to everyone, in addition to addressing it in a rather accurate fashion.
I’m certain partisan hacks will continue to overlook trouble spots and/or make excuses, while side-stepping Peggy Noonan’s “B.S” slip
You actually think Noonan’s comments support your position? Amazing.
Hey Book, there’s something you should think about concerning intelligence. Intelligence increases in direct proportion to how much sentience and sapience a being has. Meaning, how self-aware they are. Are they totally self-aware of themselves, that they exist, that they can die, where pain and pleasure comes from? If yes, then they are self-aware.
But realize this, Book, what happens when you are self-aware, but you have a conscience redactor that periodically blots out certain thoughts and memories you have. Are you still self-aware, sentient, and sapient, Book with such a redactor?
The answer is: no.
Your intelligence is incredibly handicapped by any self-deception you choose or, as the case may be, do not choose to indulge in. Allowing your conscience redactor to choose what ideas and thoughts are allowed or not, is just as bad as doing it to yourself.
It doesn’t matter how intelligent Obama is potentially nor does it matter how intelligent Palin is or what her educational record demonstrates. What matters is the fact that Obama has so many conscience redactors, even on top of the ones that regular Democrats have, that Palin’s intelligence is super genius compared to Obama’s and his follower’s.
That is true, Book, and I believe you have suspected something of this sort for awhile now.
Palin, with her non-Ivy League degree, her slightly goofy Alaska accent, her beauty queen credentials is, of course, laughable when compared to Obama, right?- book
That is a nihilistic knee jerk reaction, rather.- Ymar
I’m confused. What’s a knee jerk reaction?
I’d love to know what Sarah Palin thinks and am quite surprised she’s not going to be giving any interviews.
Is “Meet the Press” too demanding?
For you consideration:
SCARBOROUGH: Yesterday Nicolle Wallace suggested that she was sitting right there and told Jay Carney of Time magazine ‘Sarah Palin doesn’t have to talk to you, she doesn’t’ have to talk to the press.’ … Can we expect Sarah Palin on Meet the Press and other one on one interviews throughout the course of this campaign?
DAVIS: We’re going to do whatever we think is the best to win. We have 60 days left and if we think it’s a good idea to go out there and do those shows, we’ll do them.
SCARBOROUGH: Can you avoid it? Meet the Press?
DAVIS: We can afford anything we want to do. … We’re going to do what we think is in our best interest. If that means access to the press, we’ll give it to you.
Hmmm, Ozzie. You’ve got a good point. Maybe Palin should agree to do the Sunday talk show interviews when Obama agrees to do Town Hall meetings with John McCain. Given that they have said no news shows for two weeks (training period?), perhaps we should let Obama say “no town hall meetings for two weeks.”
Sounds fair to me - how about you? Deal?
Oz can’t make any deals and Oz would use exactly that not to make one.
I’d love to know what Sarah Palin thinks and am quite surprised she’s not going to be giving any interviews.
Is “Meet the Press” too demanding?
Maybe you need to start thinking for yourself by doing your own research, instead of waiting for people like Democrats and Republicans to hand you their talking points on a platter so you could regurgitate them on forums like this, while at the same time claiming independence status.
Some people are able to make decisions and judgments, free of guilt, without having to rely upon a Katie Couric, you know.
Hmmm, Ozzie. You’ve got a good point. Maybe Palin should agree to do the Sunday talk show interviews when Obama agrees to do Town Hall meetings with John McCain. - Danny
That would be fine. I am not an advocate for Obama. I am definately anti-Palin, however, as are people like Ben Stein and David Frum.
If a candidate can’t think on his or her feet, they shouldn’t represent the people of the United States.
And Geeze Louise…when a campaign stretegist decides that the country doesn’t need to know more about a potential VP because it might make them lose the election, it feels particularly creepy, especially since that campaign’s slogan is “putting country first.”
No talking points. My own views. And my own disgust.
My own views. And my own disgust.
I guess that means you need to stop deceiving people. You don’t care about Palin telling you her views. You don’t like how she won’t put herself up as a target for your attacks and the attacks of people who think just like you.
Your own views? Didn’t know your “own views” required Palin to tell you what your views of what she thinks are. If you had your own views, you would already have an opinion and a “view” on how Palin thinks and acts and believes.
I am definately anti-Palin, however, as are people like Ben Stein and David Frum.
I’d love to know what Sarah Palin thinks
You’re not intellectually honesty, Oz. Somebody that actually tries to flat out deceive and say something like “I’d love to know what Sarah Palin thinks” while at the same time saying “I am definitely anti-Palin” is not just a liar. A liar says things the liar knows to be false, as if they were true.
You’re not a liar. You’re intellectually dishonest. And the fact that you don’t even know what “intellectual dishonesty” even means, is another strike against you, Oz.
it feels particularly creepy, especially since that campaign’s slogan is “putting country first.”
That’s another vindication of what I told Book about Democrats’ reaction to placing trust in a cause greater than their bitter selfish goals.
You don’t care about Palin telling you her views- Ymar
I would like for her to prove that I’m wrong. I would like for her to be asked tough questions, without tutoring, to show me that she’s actually thought about foreign policy and is “ready” for the job.
“That’s another vindication of what I told Book about Democrats’ reaction to placing trust in a cause greater than their bitter selfish goals. ‘ - Ymar
The McCain campaign ADMITTED that winning the election is the most important thing. And to win the election, Ms Palin cannot appear on Meet the Press until she becomes educated.
Shouldn’t the American people get to see how if/how she’s thought about the issues?
Today’s GOP: Putting Republicans first, Putting Country last.
I would like for her to be asked tough questions, without tutoring, to show me that she’s actually thought about foreign policy and is “ready” for the job.
In order to make up for your lack of thought on Sarah Palin’s thought son foreign policy and readiness for the job? She has to make up the deficit in your own thinking and researching, Oz? That’s fine, so long as you admit it that you are the one requesting a service of her.
Not even a public servant has a duty to do your thinking for you, and if you want her to do your thinking and analysis of her readiness, in order to disprove the conclusion you convinced yourself of, using little information and consideration, then by all means.
But you might have to wait a bit. Your impatience is no sign of fault on her part.
Shouldn’t the American people get to see how if/how she’s thought about the issues?
The American people, which also includes you, Oz, needs to learn patience as a virtue. Instant gratification might have been funny as infants, but this is adult time now.
The Left was fast in reacting and calling and demanding for Palin to use time to defend herself when she was selected. You are fast in demanding that Palin present herself in public, after the Convention speech.
You don’t see a similarity, of course.
I would like for her to prove that I’m wrong.
You’d like her to prove to you that your beliefs of the hero, the anti-corruption crime fighter and prosecutor, ultimately falling to darkness, hate, and crime is true.
Don’t try to deceive people about this, Oz. You’ve been here too long.
By the way, unless you’re for McCain, why do you even care whether Sarah Palin is ready for the VP slot or not? Is the answer going to make you vote for McCain as opposed to Obama or a third party choice?
Not even a public servant has a duty to do your thinking for you- Ymar
No. But when they say they “havent really thought” about one of the biggest issues facing the country, I dont think they are qualified to hold office.
“By the way, unless you’re for McCain, why do you even care whether Sarah Palin is ready for the VP slot or not? Is the answer going to make you vote for McCain as opposed to Obama or a third party choice.”- Ymar
The reason I care is that the Vice President has suddenly become president nine times in this country’s history. It could happen again.
I was torn before McCain picked Palin.
But I see it as a political ploy that is bad for America.
If Palin had given interviews this Sunday and held her own, maybe, just maybe, she could have swayed me.
She need to be “educated,” however. And the GOP knows they have a better chance of winning if they manage who she talks to.
Not a good sign.
But I see it as a political ploy that is bad for America.
If I had remembered you saying something about Barack and his blackness being a bad political ploy for America, then I might take your comment here as an honest worry.
No. But when they say they “havent really thought” about one of the biggest issues facing the country, I dont think they are qualified to hold office.
You haven’t really thought about Sarah Palin or McCain. By your logic, that invalidates you from even attempting to decide on whether such folks are qualified or not.
After all, ignorance of a subject before hand, invalidates their competence on the subject in the future. If it applies to Palin, then it sure as heck already applied to you, Oz. Even if you don’t want to admit it, because you have double and quadruple standards of how your logic should work.
I note that in my posts 6 and 15 I made some observations about Obama to Ozzie, and he ignored them. I asked his opinion, and he did not reply. That gives me the impression that Ozzie is attacking Palin to avoid having attention focused on Obama. Else why would he attack Palin and not reply to questions about Obama? After all, this thread is about Presidential candidates.
Here is another take from Bloomberg on the interview issue.
IMHO, “piranhas” describes it rather well.
Governor Palin will be doing an interview with Charles Gibson of ABC most likely on Thursday or Friday. She has been on the campaign trail, so it is not as if she has been holed up getting briefed. There are journalists out there on the campaign trail. Given the hostility of the MSM, IMHO she is justified in being available for local journalists but not for the MSM doofuses. ( yes that is somewhat opinionated, but is Olberjerk, e.g., not a doofus?)
Note that in spite of directives from Obama to keep family out of the campaign, a member of his national finance committee brought up the issue of her family recently. Is Obama unable to control his people, or has he wink-wink told his people to ignore what he told the public? What is it?
There you are, Obama goes to Russia with Lugar to examine nuclear sites and his tutelage complete, he is pronounced expert and drafts major legislation that is so monumental it passes on voice vote. Sometimes being too smart is a curse, because it absolves the person, in their own mind, of the necessity of actually doing work– like holding any hearings in the commitee they chair for the last 18 months. I suppose that he was just trading foreign policy experience for executive experience– you know, like running a campaign.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/29/obama_europe/
Ozzie said:
Hey, I went to five colleges in 6 years to get my B.A. You wanna make something of it?
Some of us just take a road less traveled.
She should go on Meet the Press the same Sunday Obama does Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. Although FNS offers more balance in POV than MTP.
That gives me the impression that Ozzie is attacking Palin to avoid having attention focused on Obama. Else why would he attack Palin and not reply to questions about Obama?
Oz is a she, or at least that is what Oz has claimed in the two times that I recall that Oz wanted to make an issue of it.
Oz only likes to make an issue of it when Oz thinks it can net Oz some debate points. However, I just tell her that I only bring up the issue when she brings it up. And it doesn’t really matter that Oz wants to point to me using the pronoun “he” to describe Oz, as an indication of my accuracy on political matters. For if Oz doesn’t care, why should I when it facilitates ease of communication with actual other people on this blog?
This is for BrianE’s benefit, of course, not Oz’s.
As for what other reason why Oz would seek to destroy Palin’s candidacy or wish to see it destroyed in an interview, the reason is rather simple, if not very admirable.
Oz likes to see heroes, like The Dark Knight and the golden boy prosecturo, fall prey to evil, corruption, and what not. It vindicates Oz’s belief that even the best of intentions to improve the world, like Iraq, will only fall to despair and death in the end. But to Oz, this isn’t just a cynical world view based upon pessimism. Oz actively seeks this kind of conclusion out. Oz feels a sort of vindication and joy after watching a movie like Batman: The Dark Knight, end as it did.
Since Palin provides a better hope of renewing America and improving upon things, Palin must be destroyed. Obama has a higher chance of proving false on his promises, just like other fallen heroes, so Oz has not too many problems with him.
Btw, Oz, the more you learn about Palin, I promise you that the less you will like her.
She won’t convince you of much, for your beliefs are not exactly beliefs she will cater to.
She should go on Meet the Press the same Sunday Obama does Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace- Brian
Obama did Biil O’Reilly and held his own. I’m not asking that Palin appear on Keith Olbermann’s show. Every politicians goes on Meet the Press, though.
“As for what other reason why Oz would seek to destroy Palin’s candidacy or wish to see it destroyed in an interview, the reason is rather simple, if not very admirable.” - Yamr
Palin’s candidacy is par for course. the GOP can’t win an election with the Religious Right and she delivers.
Yes, I’d like an America where educated citizens care about the issues (as opposed to the dog and pony show), and the wall between church and state is firmly in place.
I’d like politicians to speak to citizens like adults, instead of children..Go back and listen to Eisenhower or Kennedy’s speechs and the difference bewteen then and now is stunning.
We have devolved as a nation and we will continue to devolve.
“Oz likes to see heroes, like The Dark Knight and the golden boy prosecturo, fall prey to evil, corruption, and what not. ” - Ymar
I like complexity, Ymar. Others like everything to be black-and-White.
On Obama’s failure to hold a single hearing as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on European Affairs:
So at a time he could have held hearings, listened to real experts on issues affecting US-European relations, he’s running for president. Shouldn’t the experience come first?
Like Prof. Harold Hill in “The Music Man”, Obama is going to rely on the ‘think system’ to get him through any foreign policy crisis. Let’s all say it together: “Think, Barack, think!”
“That gives me the impression that Ozzie is attacking Palin to avoid having attention focused on Obama. Else why would he attack Palin and not reply to questions about Obama?”
I didnt care who won this election before the Palin pick. I’m not crazy about either candidate, and was relieved that the Religious Right would have less clout.
George Bush was probably pandering to the End Timers, while Palin is one of them.
If I haven’t read so much about the influence and danger posed by the Religious Right, I might not even take notice.
I was sitting this election out, now I’m not.
Ozzie said:
He looked like a kid sitting in the principals office.
Fox News Sunday is not Olberman. Obama would be treated with more respect on Wallace’s show than Palin on Meet the Press. Oh, that’s right, in Ozzie’s mind there is no media bias.
And you the daughter of a newspaper man.
On Obama’s failure to hold a single hearing as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on European Affairs: –Brian
Spare you Google finger, Brian. I wasnt going to vote for Obama. I now feel it’s my duty, however, to vote against Gov. Palin.
Both parties are owned by special interests and political candiates are liars who distort just about everything.
I stopped buying into political b.s. ages ago.
The special interest that scares the crap out of me, however, is the Religious Right.
I didn’t vote in 2006 and was sitting this one out, too.
President McCain would be an improvement over George W. Bush.
President Plain would be WORSE.
Ozzie - “If I haven’t read so much about the influence and danger posed by the Religious Right, I might not even take notice”.
Be careful, Ozzie, there may be one under your bed tonight. You’re in danger.
- “George Bush was probably pandering to the End Timers, while Palin is one of them.”
And your evidence for this…what exactly? Are was this just a snarky Tourette’s-like outburst?
Oh, that’s right, in Ozzie’s mind there is no media bias- Brian
There was media bias during the run up to war, when propaganda drowned out truth-tellers.
I watch very little TV and dont expect any in-depth interviews with Palin anywhere else.
When she finally does grant an interivew, it will be with those who lob soft-ball questions as she delivers stock answers.
Like I said, we have devovled as a people.
We deserve the politicians we get.
And your evidence for this…what exactly? Are was this just a snarky Tourette’s-like outburst? - Danny
Years of reading, Danny, verified most recently by the fact that Palin was vetted by the Council for National Policy.
(George Bush’s White House actually met with End Time zealots before making decisions, though I suspect they were just pandering as McCain would be, too. She, however, apepars to be a true believer based on videos that have been scrubbed and others that remain).
I need to vote against her. And you need to vote for her.
My google pointer finger got itchy again, Ozzie.
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2502
You fear the Christian right? Here’s Obama’s statement of faith. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
You fear the Christian right? Here’s Obama’s statement of faith. Be afraid. Be very afraid.- Brian
There is a difference between saying something and having organizations with MUCHO political clout and a scary agenda endorse you.
The Council for National Policy distrusted McCain, which made him A-OK in my book. If they endorsed Obama, I’d have to vote againt him, too.
I always though the religious right was a fringe group whose only mission was to overturn Roe V Wade, until I did boatloads of research and learned otherwise….
They are extremely powerful, motivated and active.
And Sarah Palin is exactly what they’ve been looking for.
>>You fear the Christian right? Here’s Obama’s statement of faith. Be afraid. Be very afraid.>>
I think the reason she’s not is the same thing we all think, but don’t say…we question the sincerity and depth of that faith.
When people say things that are unverifiable, we have to look to their actions to see the truth of their thoughts. People of faith can’t attack Obama on the veracity or depth of his faith - it’s a personal thing. All we can do is observe the man and draw our own conclusions. Many christians have questioned the sincerity of his “conversion” to Christianity.
Oz, in her way, has just confirmed this. She doesn’t fear _his_ Christianity.
Oz, in her way, has just confirmed this. She doesn’t fear _his_ Christianity- suek
I dont fear Christians or Chrisitanity. I was born and raised a Catholic and attended a Catholic college.
I fear the Christionist agenda, and the organizations involved.
If Obama was endorsed by CNP, I’d vote against him, too. McCain was on their crap list, until he picked Palin, which is WHY he picked Palin.
I also realize you have no idea what I’m talking about and it’s far easier to paint me as a Christian-hating, Obama-loving Democrat.
I am an agnostic and somewhat pro choice on abortion- banning abortion in the last three months seems reasonable to me. If one doesn’t want to become pregnant, there are plenty of contraceptive alternatives before an abortion. While an abortion may be a necessity, in most instances its being a necessity is unfortunately a consequence of individual irresponsibility.
I don’t hang out with the religious right , but they scare me a lot less than the “politically correct let’s pass another regulation and create another social program give peace a chance and if you disagree with me you’re a bigoted ignorant racist” crowd.
After all, in the last 28 years, we have had 20 years of Republican Presidents, all of whom were to some degree allied with the Religious Right. What horrible thing has occurred as a result?
What horrible thing in Alaska has occurred as a result of Governor Palin’s religious beliefs?
What horrible thing in Alaska has occurred as a result of Governor Palin’s religious beliefs?
What horrible thing in Alaska has occurred as a result of Governor Palin’s religious beliefs?
Please inform me, Ozzie.
Perhaps it is because I have had fundamentalist Christian relatives who agreed to disagree with me and to maintain cordial relationships with me nonetheless. I just don’t see getting all up in arms about them.
Getting all up in arms about VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE Palin’s lack of experience, while ignoring PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE Obama’s similar lack, is something I do not understand. Moreover, she has 2 years as Governor, of making decisions, and has apparently done a good job, compared with Obama’s executive experience. Throwing $ in the air as chair of the Annenberg Challenge. Great executive experience.
What horrible thing in Alaska has occurred as a result of Governor Palin’s religious beliefs? Please inform me, Ozzie.
Nothing horrible has happened in Alaska because of Palin’s religious beliefs.
Oh, sure she’s said things about the war in Iraq being God’s plan or something along that lines and her pastor told the congregation that people would be flocking to Alaska during the upcoming End Times, but I’ve come to expect that from Rapture-Ready Christians.
When JFK was running for President, he had to assure Americans that he’d seperate religion and politics. These days, the Relgious Right is counting on the fusiion of church and state.
These religious organizations have a political agenda and are deeply entrenched. They’re not aiming for Alaska. They’re aiming for the USA.
In 1985, the Rev Billy Graham said, “I’m for evangelicals running for public office and winning if possible and getting control of the Congress, getting control of the bureaucracy, getting control of the executive branch of government,” — and looking back over the last decade or so, it’s amazing how far they’ve come.
But back to the biggest player, the one that vetted Sarah Palin.
The Council for National Policy, which was founded by Timothy LaHaye, is an EXTREMELY powerful and has an agenda to tear down the wall between the church and state and change America forever.
They had a champion in George W. Bush, but he may have been pandering.
In Sarah Palin, they seem to have a true believer.
Ozzie:
Nothing horrible has happened in Alaska because of Palin’s religious beliefs.
My point precisely. So what are you so scared about? By their fruits ye shall know them, and all that.
Oh, sure she’s said things about the war in Iraq being God’s plan or something along that lines
If you are going make reference to what Governor Palin said about the war in Iraq, and this is at least the second time you have brought this up, I would suggest that you closely examine what she actually said. I refer you to my previous comment, where I went to the link you gave and actually read what she had said.
For all this brouhaha, recall several points. 1) “Render unto Caesar.” etc. for the last two thousand years. 2) First Amendment.
Your bogeyman under the bed is the religious right. As I previously stated, 20 out of the last 28 years of Republican Presidents in alliance with the religious right is a pretty good track record for what would happen: not much.
I am reminded of those who voted against Al Smith in 1928 because he was Catholic, fearing that he would be taking orders from Rome. A lot of people did so. It may have cost him the election. Much fewer voted against JFK in 1960 for that reason.
IMHO, you are just as bigoted as those who voted against Al Smith because of his Catholic faith. Given the track record for the last 28 years, I do not see a rational reason for your fears. Again, I am an agnostic.
My point precisely. So what are you so scared about? By their fruits ye shall know them, and all that. - Gringo
You’d have to read about the religious right’s agenda, and how deeply entrenched they are in the U.S government.
i recommend Kevin Phillips’ “American Theocracy” for starters.
There has been a systemastic assault on the wall between church and state in the past couple decades by groups once thought as fringe.
These groups are now so powerful that a GOP candidate cannot get elected without them.
That’s why Plain was selected.
It’s not bigotry to want to perserve the wall between church and state and fear those who are hellbent on destroying it.
Your bogeyman under the bed is the religious right. As I previously stated, 20 out of the last 28 years of Republican Presidents in alliance with the religious right is a pretty good track record for what would happen: not much. — Gringo.
Are you kidding me? Presidental candidates are now holding debates in churches and nobody is batting an eye.
The Relgious Right is deciding who the vice presidential candidate will be.
(McCain wanted Lieberman but cound not get elected with Lieberman as his running mate.)
President Bush meant with End Times Zealots to discuss his foreign policy.
The decision to “take down” President Clinton started with he Council for National Policy.
Before people found out what a snake oil saleman he was, Tom Delay was funneling “Christian Nation” legilslation to Congress.
Ozzie said:
Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, etc. have campaigned in churches for years and nobody batted an eye.
McCain could have picked Lieberman, but he wouldn’t have won. I’m not sure what your recourse would be, some sort of irreligious test?
You’re only allowed to vote if you haven’t thought about God in the last ___ Year ____2 Years ___ Never?
So a secular humanist (religion) is allowed to petition his/her government, but a Christian is not?
Actually, Lieberman had a certain appeal to it, but he still wouldn’t have won.
Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, etc. have campaigned in churches for years and nobody batted an eye.- Brian
Brian,
you keep making the erroneous assumption that I am a Democrat. I’m not. But since you mention it, Hillary Clintons membership in “the Family” bothered me, too.
“McCain could have picked Lieberman, but he wouldn’t have won.”- Brian
Exactly.
And the Relgious Right threatened to disrupt the convention if he picked Lieberman.
“So a secular humanist (religion) is allowed to petition his/her government, but a Christian is not?” )b rain
There is a difference bretween “petitioning the government” and wanting to fundamentally change it. Which is what the fundamentalists want to do.
It’s just a rehash of the old paranoid conspiracy theories: the Masons, the Illuminati, the CFR. Instead of the John Birchers making the charge, it’s the left.
Ozzie said:
Now, that’s what I always though “petitioning the government” meant– changing it. So you’re only objection when Christians do it is they want to “fundamentally” change it?
Such as?
It’s just a rehash of the old paranoid conspiracy theories: the Masons, the Illuminati, the CFR. Instead of the John Birchers making the charge, it’s the left.- Gringo
Former GOP strategist and “the Emerging Republican Majority” author Kevin Phillips is a lefty?
Who knew?
Now, that’s what I always though “petitioning the government” meant– changing it- Brian
And here I thought it meant addressing grievances.
The Religious Rights wants to tear down the wall between church and state and change the fundamental nature of the country - from Republic to Christian nation.
“These days, the Relgious Right is counting on the fusiion of church and state.”
Funny, I know many people on the “Religious Right” and I have never heard any of them preach “fusion of Church and State”. Quite the contrary, the one’s I know don’t want the State anywhere near their religion (”render unto Caesar…”, and all that). Most Religous Right fundamentalists that I know recognize all too well what happens when a State adopts and promotes religion - the religion (like the state) get corrupted and, eventually, both the State and Society suffer (look at Europe or the Middle East).
I even know so-called End-Timers (a tiny fringe) and many fundamentalists who believe that the world is only 4,000 years old (I fully disagree) and that Darwinian evolution theory is flawed (as a trained scientist, I partially agree). However, bottom line, these ideas have no impact whatsoever on my here-and-now and, no matter what any of us believe, the world and its evolutionary processes are what they are. And, we have no trouble disagreeing with one another without it affecting our friendship and respect for each other as human beings.
Fundamentally (get it?), I find my religious right friends to be very good people who try very hard to do the right thing, day after day. We may see the world differently, but I don’t question either their good intentions and their commitment to fiid favor in God’s sight by improving who they are.
Even with the big hullabaloo about abortion. You may not agree with them, but can you really question the fundamental goodness of people that oppose what they perceive to be the killing of human babies? It is not as if they were advocating on platform of hatred for others, you know?
Argue if you must on definitions of life, social policies, health of the mother, the right to decide whatever, but I don’t find it difficult to accept at face value the good intentions of people protesting what, deep in their hearts, they believe to be the killing of innocent life. This is as distinct from another group of people that refuses to even recognize or at least consider the possibility that abortion represents the taking innocent life. One group advocates in favor of protecting innocent life, the other group advocates in favor denying the possibility of innocent life is even an issue, usually in terms that suggest that the primary motivation for their views is expediency (now, that’s a scary thought).
So, bottom line, I am proud to count many people of the so-called Religious Right as my personal friends, just as I have friends of other faiths, including Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. We don’t have to agree but we can still respect each other.
Sorry, Ozzie, but you really do sound like a religious bigot when you go on one of these rants.
Sorry, Ozzie, but you really do sound like a religious bigot when you go on one of these rants.- Danny
That’s because you havent paid attention to some of the legislation that’s been introduced, while I have.
I’m all for freedom of religion and “live and let live” and letting people believe whatever it is they want to believe.
They’re not.
Floor fight! Ah, the way conventions are supposed to be run! How I long for the good old days of multiple ballots, deadlocks, back room deals with the power brokers. The little people cheering their favorite candidate on.
Ozzie, you’ve led a sheltered life. It’s all part of the political process.
On the other hand, the democrats (the hard-left marxist wing of the party) rig the rules to favor their candidate, and just in case something goes awry, have enough party elites to control the outcome of their process. Now that’s democracy in action. Hillary won most of the state with ballots, Obama won the caucus states (where the hard core party faithful make the difference).
Floor fight! Ah, the way conventions are supposed to be run!- Brian
I remember the way they used to be run, Brian. Now conventions are just a dog and pony show.
But then again, you thought McCain picked Palin on his own.
“On the other hand, the democrats (the hard-left marxist wing of the party) rig the rules to favor their candidate, and just in case something goes awry, have enough party elites to control the outcome of their process. Now that’s democracy in action.”
Both parties are “rigged.”
The most FUN, however, was when Reagan had to rush to the convention floor late at night to dispel rumors of a Ford-Reagan “co-presidency.”
He didnt want George H.W Bush as his running mate.. and PROMISED that Bush wouldn’t have a position in his cabinet. And before you knew it, everyone was suggesting he share his presidency with Gerald Ford.
George H.W. Bush became his VP. Ha!
That’s because you havent paid attention to some of the legislation that’s been introduced, while I have.
Please do us the favor of informing us, but providing us the source instead of a biased summary ( such as your summaries of Palin, God, and Iraq.) Had you done so in the beginning, your arguments would have sounded more plausible than they have thus far.
Yes, Kevin Phillips is of the right. OTOH, Chris Hedges has published similar material, and he is decidedly not of the right. As I and others have repeatedly said, render unto Caesar and the First Amendment make those claims rather implausible to me and to others.
It wouldn’t just have been the religious right protesting Lieberman. Having a Democrat as Republican vice presidential candidate? THAT is not going to produce problems?
Suppose that Obama had proposed a Republican as Democratic vice presidential candidate. Are you going to inform me that would have been accepted without dissent?
That’s because you havent paid attention to some of the legislation that’s been introduced, while I have.- Me
Please do us the favor of informing us, but providing us the source instead of a biased summary — Danny
The source for Sarah Palin’s quote on God and Iraq was a video of her speaking at the Assembly of god church. I can find it if you wish.
But Katherine Yurika of Christianity Today and Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Counstitution Journal come readily to mind, as journalists who initially alerted me to some of the more startling legislation that was introduced back in 2004 and 2005, when the GOP ruled the roost..
In 2004, after the defeat of the Federal Marriage Amendment banning gay marriage, House leaders cited “an obscure and largely untested provision” of the U.S. Constitution (Article III, Section 2) and voted 233-194 to pass the Marriage Protection Act (H.R. 3313), a bill which would have prevented the Supreme Court from considering the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
Jay Bookman, of the Atlanta Contitution Journal noted how easily Congress could use the same provision to pass a law making the U.S a Christian nation, while undercutting the Supreme Court. . “it would give legislators a free hand to do whatever they wished, without worrying about whether it violated the Constitution. The whole idea of a separation of powers could be rendered null and void if that happened, ” he wrote.
Meanwhile Rep. William E. Dannemeyer wrote an Op-ed in the Washington Times, calling for Congress to use the untested provision to tear down the wall between church and State. “Congress should use Article III, Section 2, clause of the U.S. Constitution to recover what has been stolen,” he wrote, citing “Enacting a wall of separation between church and state” as one of the things that needs to be remedied.
The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 (and again in 2005) raised the hackles of former Christianity Today correspondent Katherine Yurica.
Heralded as “the most important piece of legislation in the last fifty years” by radio host Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Restoration Act, was, as Yurica expained, “drawn broadly and expressly includes the acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law. . .,” which could, in the scariest of scenarios, turn America into a theocracy wherein judges could “institute biblical punishments without being subject to review by the Supreme Court or the federal court system.”
Columnist James Heflin also underscored the hidden subtext:
“The agenda of these Christians of the Far Right is brazen and clear.. . . This is not a wild-eyed conspiracy theory; their plans are preached in pulpits weekly, and have now taken shape as proposed legislation. Look no further than the recently introduced “Constitution Restoration Act.” If we do not pay attention to their manipulation of American democratic processes now that they have gained remarkable power among Republicans, the principles of our democracy will eventually be as distant a memory as the kinder, gentler Southern Baptist Convention of my childhood. . . .”
Another bill (HR 3920 IH) “to allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court” was yet one more example of extreme maneuvering, which was endorsed by the Christian Coalition.
Please do us the favor of informing us, but providing us the source instead of a biased summary - Gringo
I coundt find originals for many of the articles I cited, but the Washington Times article is still in tact.
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/oct/06/20031006-085845-5892r/
Please do us the favor of informing us, but providing us the source instead of a biased summary - Gringo
Here’s the Jay Bookman article I cited
Published on Monday, July 26, 2004 by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
House Vote Doesn’t Only Threaten Gays
by Jay Bookman
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0726-08.htm
Please do us the favor of informing us, but providing us the source instead of a biased summary - Gringo
And here’s former Chrisitianity Today reporter Katherine Yurika on the Constitution Restoration Act
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/ConstitutionRestorationAct.htm
There’s no actual way to remove bias, when two people are arguing while at the same time utilizing diametrically opposed philosophical views on life and reality.
It doesn’t matter if you can see the same sources as the other guy, the interpretations and conclusions are still going to be mutually exclusive.
President McCain would be an improvement over George W. Bush.
President Plain would be WORSE.
You know something is going right when people are feeling the fear that Palin brings to the scene.
They didn’t feel it before with McCain. They do now. They feel that need. But you should ask yourself, why. Why do they feel then need now, with Palin, when they didn’t feel the need before.
Both Jeffrey at Villainous Company and Grim’s Hall and Oz have reacted extraordinarily strong to Sarah Palin: strong as in negative.
When you have the real deal, you also have a real danger, don’t you.
Oh, sure she’s said things about the war in Iraq being God’s plan or something along that lines
If you are going make reference to what Governor Palin said about the war in Iraq, and this is at least the second time you have brought this up, I would suggest that you closely examine what she actually said. I refer you to my previous comment, where I went to the link you gave and actually read what she had said.
Oz wouldn’t change Oz’s view even if Oz had closely read it, Gringo. Oz cannot interpret the same facts, the same way as you do, Gringo. Impossible.
Ozzie:
Regarding the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005.
Why am I supposed to get so alarmed about a proposed bill that some years ago never made it out of committee?
Just wondering.
Pay attention if it comes up again, yes indeed, but otherwise, why get lathered up? It was dead in the water.
Regarding the wonders that our legislators can come up with, a congressman from coal-mining West Virginia last year tried to kill wind energy with some onerous regulations. Example: a homeowner who wished to install a wind turbine for personal use would have had to file an environmental impact statement, and lacking a permit from the EPA for said wind turbine, would have been fined a substantial amount for installing the turbine without the EPA permit. The uproar over the proposed regulations stopped them dead in their tracks.
Recall the famous line, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” We need to keep a keen eye on what our legislators propose. We can trust our legislators as far as we can throw them, be they Evangelical Christians or stone-cold atheists. I certainly would trust an Evangelical Christian congressman no more - and no less- than I would trust an atheist congressman.
Why am I supposed to get so alarmed about a proposed bill that some years ago never made it out of committee?
Just wondering.
- Gringo
You dont have to get alarmed. I’m trying to explain why I’m alarmed.
That such legislation — which would change the very structure of the U.S. government - was even proposed is frightening to me. Let me put it this way: If legislation designed to turn the U.S into a Communist country was introduced, I’d doubt the people behind the legislation would be choosing our vice president for us.
I just gave you a glimpse of things I’ve been researching and paying attention to.
It’s the teensy tiny tip of the proverbial iceberg..
“Recall the famous line, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” We need to keep a keen eye on what our legislators propose. We can trust our legislators as far as we can throw them, be they Evangelical Christians or stone-cold atheists. I certainly would trust an Evangelical Christian congressman no more - and no less- than I would trust an atheist congressman.”– Gringo
I dont trust politicians either and have invoked the “eternal vigilence” sentiment many times in recent years.
The problem I have with the Religious Right is that they are very motivated and very determined and truly want to change the structure of the U.S government.
And they’ve come a long way since 1985.
But I assure you that my issues with the Religious Right don’t arise out of bigotry.
Timothy LaHaye, James Dobson and others have been VERY Busy and grown very powerful. .
And no GOP presidental candidate can get elected without them.
Ozzie -
I suppose you could consider me a member of the religious right. I’m a social and fiscal conservative. Weekly, my family attends a church that openly preaches we live in a fallen world, and that salvation and eternal life are through Jesus Christ alone. Just a couple of weeks ago, I listened to a sermon saying that we can look to the Bible for guidance on the question of when human life actually begins. The week before that there was a sermon speculating on how Jesus would have us vote**.
I’m very afraid that the legal barriers between church and state are tottering and about to fall.
I’m very afraid that the courts in my state will, in the near future, tell my pastors that they cannot, under penalty of law, conduct marriage ceremonies unless they agree to conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples.
Yes, that wall is tottering… You laugh? While not directly on point, this article demonstrates what may be coming to a church near you, and (to my knowledge) New Jersey is not even a state where same sex marriages are legal, only civil unions.
Yes, the First Amendment protections, the anti-establishment clause, are being increasingly breached, but it is the religious among us who should be worried.
**Just for any IRS trolls or radical secular humanist activists in the audience: “No specific candidates or positions were endorsed” - the message was more about how faith can inform political choices in our secular government.
I suppose you could consider me a member of the religious right- Bob
When I speak of the Relgious Right, I’m referring to the poltical movement and its leaders, not individual citizens.
But yes, when Church and State become intertwinced, church and state both lose.
Ozzie said:
They are intertwined, in the sense that our values, morality and hence our code of conduct (yes, laws) most often come from our religious faith.
Let’s say I believe that lying is wrong. I think it so harmful to others and would like to discourage it by passing a law prohibiting lying. If a majority of citizens agree with me, lying would be illegal. Would the fact that my values came from my religion invalidate the benefit of making lying illegal, since it can clearly be demonstrated that lying hurts other people?
Of course not. It might be hard to enforce a general ban on lying, but the fact is that lying is a crime in several contexts– the ones that society has determined to be the most harmful.
Without an arbiter, choas follows. The ultimate arbiter is God. When we abandon this principle and determine that our reason only will determine our conduct, what will necessarily follow will be authoritarianism and ultimately totalitarianism.
Europe has moved to authoritarianism as they have abandoned the biblical roots that built their societies.
Without fighting the battle all over again, the separation of church and state related to fears of a national religion favoring one state against the other.
And no, I am not advocating stoning. I think hanging is much more civilized.
And as an aside, James Dobson has political power, such as it is, because people listen to his radio show, buy his books and AGREE with him. He merely represents a certain segment of the population. Nothing particularly sinister about that.
They are intertwined, in the sense that our values, morality and hence our code of conduct (yes, laws) most often come from our religious faith.- Brian
And as an aside, James Dobson has political power, such as it is, because people listen to his radio show, buy his books and AGREE with him. He merely represents a certain segment of the population. Nothing particularly sinister about that.- Brian
I’m sure this is what many citizens think, but it’s 100% untrue.
Ok, it’s a slow day. I’ll bite.
100% untrue? Not 93% untrue?
They are intertwined, in the sense that our values, morality and hence our code of conduct (yes, laws) most often come from our religious faith.- Brian
Would if that for so.
For you consdieration, here are some excerpts from an op-ed by John Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri and an Episcopal minister.
In the Name of Politics
By JOHN C. DANFORTH
Published: March 30, 2005
St. Louis — BY a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. .. .
. . . I am and have always been pro-life. But the only explanation for legislators comparing cells in a petri dish to babies in the womb is the extension of religious doctrine into statutory law.
. . . The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.
During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with each other. But there was much that held us together. We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade. These were principles shared by virtually all Republicans.
But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/30danforth.html?partner=rssuserland
Ok, it’s a slow day. I’ll bite- Brian
I tried to make my case yesterday, as to why the Religious Right is more powerful than a lot of people believe.
You can go back and read what I’ve already posted, including pieces by Jay Bookman and Katherine Yuirka.
If that’s not enough, there’s a lot of information out there.
For an over-the-top fun-filled lesson in the Relgious Right’s clout, Rollingstone wins hands down, with its “Reverend Doomsday” article from 2004
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/5939999/reverend_doomsday
In 1999, ABC News had a more staid look at the Council for National Policy, which they referred to, if my memory serves me, as “the most powerful group you’ve never heard of.”
It’s still online of you want to google it and check it out
Not suprisingly, James Dobson and other members of CNP vetted Sarah Palin, as they did George W. Bush.
When we abandon this principle and determine that our reason only will determine our conduct, what will necessarily follow will be authoritarianism and ultimately totalitarianism. - Brian
Dont terroists believe that they are doing God’s work?
I mentioned Kevin Phillips book, and he believes that while we’re not going to be as theocratic as Iran anytime soon, we’re headed for a”soft theocracy,” which is the hallmark of a civilation in decline.
What I like about Phillips is that I sense a real love of country behind his concern, and not political posturing.
I’ve been paying attention to the Religious Right since 2000, and think Phillips nailed it with this book.
From Salon.com, March, 2006:
“. . . There’s a sad irony to the fact that Phillips has come to write this book. [American Theocracy] His 1969 book, “The Emerging Republican Majority,” both predicted and celebrated Republican hegemony. As chief elections and voting patterns analyst for the 1968 Nixon campaign, he is often credited for the Southern strategy that led to the realignment of the Republican Party toward Sun Belt social conservatives. Today’s governing Republican coalition is partly his Frankenstein.
Phillips has been disassociating himself from the contemporary GOP for some time now — his last book, “American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush,” attacked the presidential clan as a corrupt threat to American democracy. His concern with the growing power of religious fundamentalism was evident then. As he wrote in the introduction, “Part of what restored the Bushes to the White House in 2000 through a southern-dominated electoral coalition was the emergence of George W. Bush during the 1990s as a born-again favorite of conservative Christian evangelical and fundamentalist voters. His 2001-2004 policies and rhetoric confirmed that bond. The idea that the head of the Religious Right and the President of the United States can be the same person is a precedent-shattering circumstance that had barely crept into national political discussion.”
Since then, there’s been much more attention paid to the role of evangelical Christians in the Republican Party. In “American Theocracy,” though, Phillips brings something important to the discussion — a global historical perspective on the relationship between growing religious zeal and the end of national greatness. “[T]he precedents of past leading world economic powers show that blind faith and religious excesses — the rapture seems to be both — have often contributed to national decline, sometimes even being in its forefront.” . . .
He’s much more interested in what it portends — a kind of soft theocracy that itself is an indication of an empire in decline. What he’s talking about is not a Christian version of Iran, but a country ruled by an evangelical party whose electoral machinery is integrated into a network of fundamentalist churches
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2006/03/16/phillips/
Ozzie,
Good post. What the corrupt Democratic machine did with labor unions in much of the 20th century, the GOP now does with evangelical churches. The government could revoke their non-profit status if they continue to break the laws against participating in political campaigns. Amazingly, under the Bush administration, the IRS’s threat was only used against a liberal church in Pasadena, CA when its minister spoke out against the Iraq War before the 2004 election. But even if used to address the real problem–GOP campaign mobilization–there is a bigger problem of attempting enforcement without chilling free speech. It’s going to be a tough fight to reverse this worrying trend.
It’s going to be a tough fight to reverse this worrying trend.- dg
Phillips believes it’s not going to be reversed and cites historial evidence to make his case.
He discusses “five critical symproms of decline” and suggests that when all five are present, a “power is already at its peak and starting to decline.”
They are:
1. Widespread concern over cultural and economic decay, with its many colloralaries.
2 Growing religious fervor, church-state relationship, or crusading insistence
3. Rising commitment to faith as opposed to reason and a downplay of scinece
4. Popular anticipation of a millennial time frame (suich as Armageddon or the appearance of an antichrist)
5. Hubris- driven national strategic and miltary overreach, that the nation cannot afford economically or politicallly.
Dont terroists believe that they are doing God’s work?
Palin must have made people very insecure in the new millenium if they are now entertaining notions of making her equivalent to terrorism and terrorists.
Each thousand years, society starts feeling the pressure of mortality and change. The response is to create doom’s day cults, such as “Palin is scary” ideological movements.
I’ve been paying attention to the Religious Right since 2000, and think Phillips nailed it with this book.
Back when you first thought Bush stole the election?
Back when you first thought Bush stole the election?- Y-Mar
Now that you mention it, Kevin Phillips also discussed the way the Bushes operate:
“The Bush Family’s] sense of how to win elections comes out of a CIA manual, not out of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.”
Before reading American Theocracy, I read American Dynasty.
Phillips is a true patriot.
dg -
I don’t know if you followed the link in my last post (I know that all readers here have nothing better to do than follow my links
), but it points to an article discussing how the state tax-exempt status of a United Methodist owned property was not merely threatened, but actually REVOKED, because of the denomination’s policy regarding same sex unions. And here’s what the story said regarding a leader of the advocacy group pushing this matter:
Get that? It’s not merely a matter of equity, this particular group is seeking to penalize - punish - the United Methodist church because they don’t agree with their doctrine, and they’re using the government to do it. The tyranny of the minority looms with regard to religious expression - and it’s not coming from the ‘Religious Right’. Perhaps we should feel more threatened by the ‘Secular Left’.
BrianE -
I’ve noted that neither Ozzie nor dg have taken the bait and replied to your argument concerning authoritarianism (including alarming racism and nationalism) in Europe. It’s a great example, because we clearly see in Europe an example of a culture in decline (birth rates, high unemployment, street riots, confiscatory tax rates, cultural surrender to immigration, the list goes on…). While correlation is not causation, it seems that many of their problems could reasonably be linked to their abandonment of the Christian identity and ethos.
Want to take it up, Ozzie or dg? I’d like to hear your opinions on this.
BobK, why do people worry about whether the threat is from the left or the right? Do you ask the burglar what his party affiliation is? I believe that church’s can hold whatever views that they want and the government should not pressure them into some other view. If a church wants to ban Jews from employment in their organization, then they are and should be free to discriminate as they want to. Personally, I think it’s wrong, but it is their right. And I agree that the example you cite is also wrong.
But it is equally bad when the IRS threatens to revoke the non-taxable status of a liberal church when its minister speaks out against the war, all while tolerating conservative churches printing voter guides to tell their parishoners how to vote, is it not? The license was not revoked, but the speech was chilled ahead of the election–mission accomplished. When will I hear a conservative voice decry this threat as well? Another personal example, my in-laws parents’ church in Florida hosted a representative from the Bush campaign, who told the congregation that Kerry wanted North Korea to take over South Korea–this is absolutely true, as I have the hand-out they passed out–and discouraged all of them (all Korean worshippers) from voting Democratic in the 2004 election. This type of organizing within the church is expressly illegal under the laws governing 501(c)3 nonprofits. Yet this is tolerated. Why? Because winning at all cost is the strategy of the GOP (and the Dems). Thoughtful people should guard against threats of tyranny of the majority or the government ON BOTH SIDES. All I see on this blog are attacks on the left, but the right is as great a threat to democracy. It also silences, disenfranchises, subsidizes, lies, et. al.–basically, all of the ills that politicians and ambitious men of power undertake you find on both sides. Only people living in an ideological bubble think the threats to democracy come from one side of the political spectrum. It’s time for people to be less partisan but remain appropriately vigilant to all threats to our democracy. Especially ignorance.
I’ve noted that neither Ozzie nor dg have taken the bait and replied to your argument concerning authoritarianism (including alarming racism and nationalism) in Europe - BobK
I’ve not read a single book about authoritarianism in Europe, while i’ve read a great deal about the melding of Church and State in America.
I’m also interested in America’s history over European history (though I prefer British Literature to a huge chunk of American Literature because early American literature is God-awful)
American movies are better, too.
I read what interests me and try to stick with what I know.
“Taken the bait” sounds rather snotty, though, Bob.
Only people living in an ideological bubble think the threats to democracy come from one side of the political spectrum. - dg
Amen and pass the beans.
It’s this type of thinking that keeps partisans from admitting that President Clinton was/is a liar, or that George W. Bush has been a disaster.
BobK, what, exactly, is the question concerning authoritarianism in Europe today, and why is this an important one?
dg -
Very well! - “I decry the IRS’s repressive tactics regarding political speech from the pulpit! The repression is wrong whether the message comes from the left or the right! IRS - hands off our churches!!!!!” (ducking and looking for the lurking auditors…)
I actually mean that sincerely. For many years I attended a church where there were more sermons on gun control than on personal salvation through Jesus Christ. Should I have notified the IRS about the political messages being preached from the pulpit? No. I voted with my feet and left the church. Freedom of religious expression means I’m free to attend any church, and publicly worship as I deem appropriate as long as that worship does not deprive a fellow citizen of their freedom of religious expression.
I agree completely with the premise that liberty should be protected - and religious liberty is the FIRST of our rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Your posts, and Ozzie’s, in this thread have been focused on the threat from the ‘Religious Right’ with implications of the looming threat of ’soft theocracy’. (BTW, do you have a link to anything regarding that church and the IRS action? I vaguely remember it, but I’d like to refresh my mind on the details). Given your point, I provided a specific counterpoint: not a mere threat, but an actual infringement, spurred on by people trying to suppress freedom of religious expression, succeeding through the use of governmental action, and wanting even more stringent punishment.
I’ve noticed that Book does not have a site-specific Fairness Doctrine, but the market provides balance to the commentary. And I applaud your decision to make your views known in an (intellectually) hostile environment. It takes guts, and I sincerely admire that!
Ozzie and dg -
It wasn’t a question, it was a comment from BrianE in post #80. He said:
Sorry, Ozzie, I didn’t mean to get snotty. Bad form, there.
BobK, here is one news article on the subject, which notes that both left and right leaning churches have been threatened: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0918-05.htm
Also, I think the chilling effect on speech is as bad as the loss of tax-exempt status; either way, the church cannot operate as it wants to–it needs financial means and free speech to operate. I understand the risk of entities obtaining tax exempt status for overtly political organizations, but both sides need to be careful in balancing interests and balanced in enforcing it against left and right wing speech.
While you believe freedom of religion is the most important right, I worry about the establishment of religion (i.e., my freedom from it), which is actually the first freedom established in the Bill of Rights (yours is the second). But the bigger point is that all rights should be respected, not just those that serve narrow political ends, and that they must be guarded against left and right-wing ideologues, of which there are many.
Sorry, Ozzie, I didn’t mean to get snotty. Bad form, there- BobK
No problem, Bob. You seem like a very nice guy. Which is why I was taken aback.
“But the bigger point is that all rights should be respected, not just those that serve narrow political ends, and that they must be guarded against left and right-wing ideologues, of which there are many.- dg
Ideologues abound.
I found an extreme blog, in which posters are literally praying for the election of McCain/Palin, and then the subsequent death of McCain.
My jaw is still on the floor.
These people pray every day that liberal justices on the Supreme Court die. You should not be surprised.
It’s this type of thinking that keeps partisans from admitting that President Clinton was/is a liar, or that George W. Bush has been a disaster.
That is hilarious. Equating subjective criteria, lying, with objective criteria, success and failure.
Before reading American Theocracy, I read American Dynasty.
Phillips is a true patriot.
Didn’t know your love for complexity included listening to people only to reinforce your own opinions, Oz. True patriots are people who conform to your standards and expectations, aren’t they.
True patriots are people who conform to your standards and expectations, aren’t they.- Ymar
Of course.
In my mind, true patriots care about honesty, truth and democratic principles.
They loathe the blurring of Church and State, the military/industrial complex and the revolving door between “public service” and $$$$$$$
And they’re sad to see a once-great nation bowing to the lowest common denominator and heading south.
Maybe he’s just trying to make up for past sins, but his concern truly seems to stem from love of country.
So, yes. . . He’s met my standards and exceeded my expectations.