Scarborough invokes the "kool-aid" metaphor

Yeah, but he didn't mean it about following Bush:

Scarborough said he first met Huckabee more than 30 years ago, while both were students at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Scarborough said there was "significant liberalism" on the campus, and students typically responded in one of three ways. Some "drank the 'Kool-Aid'" of the latest liberal fad, others were conservative but tried to avoid conflict, and some "were there on a mission to prepare to change the world and for whom Christ was their first love and winning souls their passion."

It must have been Rick's love of sharing the love of God that led him to endorse George W. Bush, remain silent on torture, AND tour with Tom DeLay:

"'I believe the most damaging thing that Tom DeLay has done in his life is take his faith seriously into public office, which made him a target for all those who despise the cause of Christ,' Scarborough said, introducing DeLay yesterday. When DeLay finished, the host reminded the politician: 'God always does his best work right after a crucifixion.'"

Wow, his discernment is so telling. If I were Mike Huckabee, I would be ever so grateful that someone as idiotic as this man endorsed me.

But then again, if I were Huckabee, I wouldn't be trying to convince the evangelical pro-torture, pro-war, bomb-Iran people to vote for me.

"I suggest that God may be sending us a lifeline," he said. "Who better to lead a nation nearing moral collapse and perhaps World War III than a president who is also a pastor with 10 years of senior executive experience as a governor?"

Sigh. Yeah. I wonder if Ricko considers a President who has turned us into America the Torturing Nation part of that moral collapse. I suspect he does not. Now if only God would send us a lifeline away from pastors like Rick Scarborough.

Hey, what do you know?

Reading Jon Swift and I see that he nominated my blog for "Best of the Top 3501 - 5000 Blogs" in the The 2007 Weblog Awards.

Cool.

While I am at it

Marty Lederman has a great, and succinct retelling of the Daniel Levin story. You will love this--especially the part that Al Gonzales plays in making sure we torture people and that Bush/Cheney/Addington simply disregard any information that does not support their claim.

In short, the story is this: Jack Goldsmith left OLC before he could complete the "replacement" torture opinion. Daniel Levin succeeded him. OLC had previously opined that waterboarding was lawful. Levin apparently (and understandably) was a bit skeptical -- so much so that he asked the military to subject him to waterboarding! (This is not your parents' OLC -- can you imagine what it would take for anyone after this to want to be Assistant Attorney General there?) Naturally, Levin concluded that the procedure was, well, torture, at least "unless performed in a highly limited way," and under guidelines the Administration had failed to implement. (No doubt Levin did suffer severe physical suffering, and that's in a situation far removed from being a detainee.)

At this point, Alberto Gonzales nevertheless insisted that Levin include in his December 30, 2004 opinion the footnote about how the legal analysis did not affect all previously approved techniques! It's not clear why Levin assented to this -- it's an outrageous and inappropriate thing for a White House Counsel to do -- but the footnote was included.

Levin then set about to write another opinion, one that would cut back on the approved techniques (and that would, at a minimum, repudiate or temper the previous OLC advice on waterboarding).

Unfortunately, at this point Gonzales was confirmed as AG -- and he fired Levin, replacing him with Steve Bradbury, who was more than happy to give Gonzales the legal advice they wanted. (No word -- yet -- on whether Bradbury was waterboarded.)

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime

Yeah, I can't let this go. When your own country has become evil, it is hard to just look the other way. Former JAG Evan Wallach writes about teaching soldiers about waterboarding and other torture. There was no mystery about torture--it was illegal. Illegal, that is, until George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, and Alberto Gonzales got their hands on our government:

"The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death.""

So we fought the big war to defeat Fascism only to get a morally challenged President who drank his way through college?

*****

BTW, some have suggested that Bushco can't call torture illegal because it would result in prosecutions throughout the CIA and even the military. But Jack Balkin says that is wrong, and Scott Horton agrees:

"The initial draft makes clear that the White House sought impunity for crimes arising as a result of the use of three techniques that the Bush Administration (and, from the remarkable wording of one of Bush's press conferences, Bush himself) authorized and which constitute grave breaches under Common Article 3: waterboarding, long-time standing (or as it was called by its NKVD inventors, in Russian: stoika) and hypothermia or cold cell. The use of these techniques is a criminal act. The purported authorization of these techniques is a criminal act. The larger effort to employ them constitutes a joint criminal enterprise. "

Balkin nails it:

"The real reason why Judge Mukasey cannot say that waterboarding is illegal is that Administration officials have repeatedly insisted that they do not torture, and that they have acted both legally and honorably. If Judge Mukasey said that waterboarding is illegal, it would require the Bush Administration to admit that it repeatedly lied to the American people and brought shame and dishonor on the United States of America. If Judge Mukasey were to say waterboarding is illegal and not just 'a dunk in the water' in Vice President Cheney's terminology, he would have announced that, as incoming Attorney General, he is entering an Administration of liars and torturers."

George W. Bush's Administration of Liars and Torturers (brought to you by James Dobson and Focus on the Family). Now, there is a t-shirt! It would be comical if it weren't so damn serious. The next time you hear a conservative rant about opposing evil or fascism or islamofascism--just remember that they have aided and abetted the transformation of our judicial system into one that endorses the torture of others.

Gregory Djerejian on Mukasey

The Belgravia Dispatch: Schumer/Mukasey: "Chuck Schumer: "No nominee from this administration will agree with us on things like torture and wiretapping...The best we can expect is somebody who will depoliticize the Justice Department and put rule of law first, even when pressured by some of the administration. If Mukasey is that type of person, I’ll support him.” [my emphasis]

Mr. Schumer, "putt(ing) rule of law first" means outlawing torture. I well understand that (especially compared to Gonzalez) Mukasey is a veritable paragon of competence. And I know how desperately the Department of Justice needs fresh leadership of such caliber. But torture speaks directly to the civilizational values of this country in most fundamental fashion. There can be no compromise on this point, even on behalf of a very talented lawyer from your home state. Torture belongs to the pre-Enlightenment era, hundreds of years past. The notion that the U.S. Congress would approve as Attorney General--the chief law enforcement officer of the United States--a man who can not declare an ancient, disgraced torture technique such as water-boarding illegal is simply unacceptable. Please stand firm on behalf of our country on this point."

Former JAG lawyers write Leahy

"Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal."Key quote:

This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. All U.S. Government agencies and personnel, and not just America’s military forces, must abide by both the spirit and letter of the controlling provisions of international law. Cruelty and torture - no less than wanton killing - is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance.

Saturday tired

Little worn out. I will post pictures later, but we have been working on a rock path out to the pond. Starting yesterday and then into this morning, I moved (via wheelbarrow) approximately 2 tons of rock. I expected to be very sore this morning but didn't feel too bad. Perhaps my yoga is helping out.

*****

I know I keep talking about torture, but I can't get over it. I cannot get beyond the fact that Bush has turned us into something closer to the former Soviet Union than the America of my youth.

Jack Goldsmith, in his critique of this administration, suggested that the Bush people were scared to death of allowing another attack. Understandable, I guess, though it does not explain some of their actions--like pulling off their search for bin Laden, or capitulating to the chemical industry on security.

But ultimately, the Bush administration's insistence on torture is indefensible. As several have noted, it is immoral and doesn't work. And the Bush people seem to ignore evidence of either. Now this ABC story about "Daniel Levin, then acting assistant attorney general," who underwent waterboarding to understand the experience. He related back to the White House that it was a horrifying experience even though he knew he was not going to die. He concluded that it could be illegal torture, and called on the Bush admin to make very clear guidelines on the use of waterboarding.

The administration at the time was reeling from an August 2002 memo by Jay Bybee, then the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, which laid out possible justifications for torture. In June 2004, Levin's predecessor at the office, Jack Goldsmith, officially withdrew the Bybee memo, finding it deeply flawed.

When Levin took over from Goldsmith, he went to work on a memo that would effectively replace the Bybee memo as the administration's legal position on torture. It was during this time that he underwent waterboarding.

In December 2004, Levin released the new memo. He said, "Torture is abhorrent" but he went on to say in a footnote that the memo was not declaring the administration's previous opinions illegal. The White House, with Alberto Gonzales as the White House counsel, insisted that this footnote be included in the memo.

But Levin never finished a second memo imposing tighter controls on the specific interrogation techniques. Sources said he was forced out of the Justice Department when Gonzales became attorney general.

There is something pathological about people who simply fire people who disagree with them.

******

Dan Froomkin - Bush: It's Mukasey or Nothing - washingtonpost.com: "Scott Horton blogs for Harpers: 'There has been no shortage of litmus tests in the past: abortion, gay marriage, the flag amendment--whatever hot-button issue the G.O.P. cooks up for its next election campaign. But the torture litmus test is new, and it seems to be key for lawyers. It really is an exercise in Kool Aid drinking. If you're prepared to hedge on whether waterboarding is torture, then you might be counted upon to do anything. Indeed, there is no question about it. Waterboarding is torture and has been understood to be torture in a formal sense for over a hundred years. Soldiers who used it were court-martialed, and the attempted defense of military necessity was smacked down by the Army's Judge Advocate General in 1903. There is no shortage of other precedent. This is why Mukasey's dodge on the issue--first a very primitive dodge, and then a more sophisticated one--is so troubling.'

The Washington Post editorial board writes that Bush yesterday "bemoaned the imperiled state of Mr. Mukasey's nomination without one iota of self-awareness that the nomination is in trouble because of the president's own warped policies on torture."

And yet, the editorial advises: "Those senators who truly want to bring the nation back from the disgrace of Mr. Bush's interrogation policies should do two things. They should confirm Mr. Mukasey, who is far more independent and qualified than either of Mr. Bush's previous two nominees. And they should do something which, for all the rhetoric, they have so far declined to do: ban torture, by passing the National Security with Justice Act sponsored by Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-Del.)."

But legal blogger Marty Lederman points out that Congress has repeatedly banned torture in the past. In fact, he writes, "if there is any single thing imaginable that the Senate, the Congress, and the world community have not'declined to do,' it is to ban torture categorically."

Lederman adds: "That's not to say it would not also be a good thing to enact the Biden bill, which would specifically require all United States personnel, including the CIA, to use only interrogation techniques authorized by the Army Field Manual. That would be yet another step that would help prevent the Bush Administration from violating the current bans on torture by doing things such as implausibly characterizing its torture as 'not torture.'"

Oh, and Bush compared his critics to those who ignored the rise of Hitler and Lenin.

Yesterday on CNN, Jack Cafferty let loose: "Where does he get this stuff? We're talk about confirmation hearing in congressional committee for a cabinet officer and he's babbling about Lenin and Hitler? I mean -- come on! I'm tired of being told to be afraid. The people are tired of being told to be afraid. Just get off of it. Either win the argument on the merits or go away and leave me alone."

Bush rules like an abusive tyrant. He is not a good person and shame on every Republican who enables his abuse and every Democrat who cowers before it.

Thinking Americans? Do they still exist?

Talking Points Memo | Dean on Mukasey
A Last Thought Before the Senate Judiciary Committee Confirms Judge Mukasey
By John W. Dean

As the Senate Democrats complete another sad concession to President Bush, and confirms a nominee who refuses to declare “water-boarding” torture, allow me to offer a brief historical reminder: the Senate Judiciary Committee has conspicuously forgotten that there are direct situational and historical parallels with Judge Mukasey’s nomination to be Attorney General and that of President Richard Nixon nominating Elliot Richardson to be Attorney General during Watergate.

Nixon’s Attorney General had been removed (and was later prosecuted for lying to Congress) – a situation not unlike Alberto Gonzales’s leaving the job under such a cloud. Nixon was under deep suspicion of covering up the true facts relating to the bungled break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate, not to mention widespread rumors that he had engaged in abuses of power and corrupt campaign practices. Today, Bush is under even deeper suspicion for activities far more serious than anything Nixon engaged in for there is evidence Bush has abused the laws of war, violated treaties, and ordered (or approved) the use of torture and political renditions, which are war crimes.

Since Judge Mukasey’s situation is not unlike that facing Elliot Richardson when he was appointed Attorney General during Watergate, why should not the Senate Judiciary Committee similarly make it a quid pro quo for his confirmation that he appoint a special prosecutor to investigate war crimes? Richardson was only confirmed when he agreed to appoint a special prosecutor, which, of course, he did. And when Nixon fired that prosecutor, Archibald Cox, it lead to his impeachment.

Before the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee completely cave-in to Bush, at minimum they should demand that Judge Mukasey appoint a special prosecutor to investigate if war crimes have been committed. If Mukasey refuses he should be rejected. This, indeed, should be a pre-condition to anyone filling the post of Attorney General under Bush.

If the Democrats in the Senate refuse to demand any such requirement, it will be act that should send chills down the spine of every thinking American.

Sullivan on the illegality of torture

To address the question of whether the Bushies have a point about the definitino of torture and waterboarding. Sully suggests the answer is clear:

"There is a broad and easily understandable legal ban on the infliction ofsevere mental or physical pain or sufferingon any prisoner in wartime as a means to extract 'information.' Yes, to thrash a horse in advanced stages of rigor mortis, as a philosophical matter, this might, in a million-to-one scenario, still allow a president to authorize illegal torture if the entire republic was at stake or if a major city was about to go down in nuclear flames, and we knew we had an individual who knew how to stop it. But the president would still subsequently have to subject himself and all those who did such a thing to legal punishment. That is what the rule of law means, guys. It means there is no exception. We either live in a republic of laws or the imperium of one man. We cannot live simultaneously under both. The oath of the president is to enforce such laws, not to avoid them. And that is why it is insane to say we have no right to demand that the attorney-general nominee assure us in advance that he will uphold the rule of law in office. We do not merely have the right. We have a duty to ensure that an attorney general of the United States will uphold the law.

There is no question whatsoever that "simulated drowning," "water-boarding" or whatever name we give to a technique routinely deployed by the Khmer Rouge is illegal however it is done, whoever does it, and whomever is subjected to it. If the attorney general cannot say this in public without equivocation before he is nominated, then the Congress is indicating that it condones the Bush administration's contempt for the rule of law and routine use of illegal torture. I cannot see how Republicans who impeached a president for perjury in a civil suit cannot see what the issue is here. It is the most bedrock principle of a free society. Do the laws apply to the highest executive authority? Do we live in a tyranny or a republic?

Alas, the president almost certainly will never be prosecuted for the war crimes he has committed. He has already seen to that and so, shamefully, has the Congress by passing a law that retroactively granted him immunity. Surely that is bad enough. To compound that by allowing an attorney general to take office by refusing to say whether he will uphold the law in the face of the Cheney-style Protector-Presidency is inexcusable. This is history in the making. Who will defend the rule of law?"

Oh good god

I think this last year of having to listen to this idiot will be the longest year in human history! Crooks and Liars � Bush %u201CPlaying the 9-11 card%u201D to force the Mukasey nomination through: Attacks Bloggers!

Bush: “The job of Attorney General is essential to the security of America” … “Some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden, and the requests of our commanders on the ground, and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters.”

Of course, he is the same person who not only disbanded the CIA unit dedicated to finding OBL, but also said

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”

And that isn't all. Evidently, Bush is threatening to not appoint another AG if the Senate doesn't confirm Mukasey. Because he is a uniter, right?

USNews.com: Political Bulletin: Friday, November 2, 2007: "Media reports particularly noted Bush's suggestion that if Mukasey is rejected by the Senate, he will not nominate a replacement. The Washington Times titles its front-page story "It's Mukasey Or No One, Bush Warns." NBC Nightly News reported Mukasey's nomination "does look increasingly shaky ahead of next week's vote, and if it does fail, the President suggested today that he may not nominate anybody else, leaving him without an attorney general, potentially, for the rest of his term." ABC World News also reported the President "spent much of his day trying to save the nomination."

By "save" they mean challenge the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with him. This man is not only a bad President--he is a bad person.

And let's just remember that the Senate is upset because Mukasey won't say that waterboarding is torture. He says it is repugnant and if torture, then is illegal, but since he hasn't been briefed, he can't say. The NYT suggests that Mukasey can't be clear, because he would open the door to prosecutions throughout the Bush administration, a fact that Jack Goldsmith said was a constant worry inside the Administration. And with good reason.

Bush and Cheney have made us all complicit in torture. They have undermined our very moral character. Shame on them. And shame on us for allowing them to do this.

Baptists support Republicans, not Christians

Another good oped from Ethics Daily.com! by Jeannie Babb Taylor. She compares the Baptist response to Carter v. how they approach Bush. As she notes, most Baptists hate Carter. Not that there weren't problems with his presidency, but the response is telling.

Carter always showed himself to be a statesman, a faithful husband and a strong Christian. He was never caught using lewd words when he did not realize the microphone was on. Carter has published numerous devotional books.

Since age 18, he has taught Sunday school at a Baptist church. Even while in Washington, he taught a Sunday school class there. Do you think our current president even attends church on Sunday? Hint: No.

It's not that Bush's pew is empty. He doesn't have one. The man who claims God speaks to him directly, has no church at all. And don't tell me the free leader of the world can't find time to go to church. If he can find time to spend a third of his presidency on vacation, he can find time to go to the House of God.

Reagan did not bother with church either, even though he was often called the nation's "pastor." Reagan's excuse for being unchurched was that the security detail required to protect him would be a burden, causing parishioners to leave. The Clintons, who were active members of Foundry United Methodist Church during Bill Clinton's term in the White House, had no problem attending.

According to his biographers, Carter may be the most personally devout president America ever had. Yet Baptist leaders inexplicably loathe Carter. Many preachers have called him godless, denying that he was ever a Christian.

Meanwhile, these same people support President Bush as God's man of the hour, even though he has rarely darkens the door of a church, supports killing and torture rather than working for peace, has demonstrated no knowledge of Scripture, and would have trouble coming up with a bedtime prayer without help from Karl Rove.

The fact is, Baptist leaders don't support Baptists. Baptist leaders support Republicans.

Just more outrage from these people

Is this what conservatives want from government? Less protection? Because those tasked with protecting consumers from, oh, you know, lead paint in toys or flammable cribs doesn't want to protect us from anything:

'The nation's top official for consumer product safety has asked Congress in recent days to reject legislation intended to strengthen the agency, which polices thousands of consumer goods, from toys to tools."

Compassionate conservatism, evidently, doesn't give a shit if your kids get lead painted toys, or if one of their toys kills them or a friend. That is what conservatism means to Bush and his cronies.

Sigh.

*****

Also from Obsidian Wings this take on our AG nominee. Who, by the way, won't define waterboarding as torture. He says it is repugnant to him personally, but until he finds out what the CIA has been up to, he won't say because he doesn't want to get them in legal trouble.

There is an easy way for Mukasey to get around the fact that he has not been briefed on what the CIA did: just define waterboarding, say whether waterboarding so defined is torture, and add that not having been briefed on what the CIA did, he doesn't know whether or not what they did meets his definition. That Mukasey has not taken this obvious route suggests that he is not motivated by his own uncertainty, but by the desire to keep people he believes have engaged in torture from being punished for their crimes.

That we are even having a debate about this question, and that it is not a foregone conclusion that someone who claims not to know whether waterboarding is torture cannot possibly be confirmed as Attorney General, is a testament to the moral degradation of our country, and of our political discourse.

We prosecuted Japanese for war crimes for using this technique. Everyone knows it is torture.

Imagine what we would think of a country where candidates for high office and nominees for the highest law enforcement position in the country had earnest debates about whether or not the rack was torture ("hey, I do stretching exercises before I go jogging, and it doesn't hurt me!"), or whether disembowelling living prisoners shocked the conscience ("I had my appendix out, and I'm doing just fine!") We would think that the people who said such things had utterly lost their humanity. Yet for some reason, altogether too many of our fellow citizens seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable for politicians and their appointees to have the same debates about waterboarding.

These people make me more than a little ill. And what bothers me more is that people I know see this as just a political disagreement. The first item above about regulation is a political issue. I find the Bush admin's approach ridiculous, but there is an argument to make about regulation and reasonable people can disagree. But, thanks to Bush and Cheney, Americans are arguing about torture like it is discussing different tax plans. People who should know better are parsing, and justifying torture. They are deferring to people with no moral compass.

I have said this before, but I grew up at the end of the cold war. I remember fearing nuclear (sorry, nukular) attack. I learned about our system always in contrast to the Soviet Union. We valued open government, rule of law, rule of the people, and an actual judicial system. They jailed people on a whim and denied them rights. They tortured people.

Now we do all of that. Our President sees the Constitution as a piece of paper he can ignore. And people who should know better shrug.

Values voters?

Pass. These values are not very nice:

"If anything, the movement seemed more extreme and paranoid than it did four years ago. Rev. Lou Sheldon, dubbed "Lucky Louie" by his former paymaster Jack Abramoff, told me that homosexuality is a "pathological disorder" and "a groove" that is difficult to escape from. He proceeded to passionately defend his friend, Senator Larry Craig, from allegations of homosexuality.

Star Parker, a former welfare cheat who had multiple abortions, claimed to me that abortion is the leading cause of death among African American women between the ages of 25 and 34. Then she described her wish for the forced quarantine of all "sodomites." Parker was not a lone wacko milling around in the hallway; she was a speaker invited by the Family Research Council.

Neoconservative activist Frank Gaffney appeared at the Summit as well. Before a standing room audience, Gaffney exclaimed that "by not being bigoted and not being racist, [George W.] Bush has embraced Islamofascists on several occasions." Phyllis Schlaffly echoed Gaffney's comments, declaring that there are too many mosques in America."

Death Penalty review

Just another list of reasons why capital punishment is immoral in the US:

"Serious problems in state death penalty systems compromise fairness and accuracy in capital punishment cases and justify a nationwide freeze on executions, the American Bar Association says.

Problems cited in a report released Sunday by the lawyers' organization include:

_Spotty collection and preservation of DNA evidence, which has been used to exonerate more than 200 inmates;
_Misidentification by eyewitnesses;
_False confessions from defendants; and
_Persistent racial disparities that make death sentences more likely when victims are white.

The report is a compilation of separate reviews done over the past three years of how the death penalty operates in eight states: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee."

Not sure how I missed this

One of my golf partners had this in bumper sticker form, and I realized I had never heard this story. To be fair, I am not sure it happened, but according to some witnesses, Bush responded harshly to some Republicans who opposed the Patriot Act renewal back in 2005.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

Did this happen? I have no idea. But it certainly represents how many of us see him approaching the constitution. This man should have never been president. Never.

Rudy the candidate

One of the scarier parts of the positive trends I noted earlier in evangelical voting, is the popularity of Rudy as candidate. Put aside his three marriages and stances on social conservative issues and simply look at what he says about torture.

The Reality-Based Community: Sadist-in-Chief: "They talk about sleep deprivation. I mean, on that theory, I’m getting tortured running for president of the United States. That’s plain silly. That’s silly."

yes, that same tactic was used by the KGB and was guaranteed to lead to psychosis if carried on long enough. And Rudy laughs it off and compares it to a busy schedule.

Religious conservatives, if you actually cared about religious values you would have to look no further to see why voting for Rudy is a horrible idea. That is, if you care about anything except maintaining power.

Change in the Evangelical Movement?

A very interesting piece on evangelical politics in the NYT. Evidently, some of the firebreathers from the right have found resistance from within the evangelical movement. Several hardliner political activist pastors have been pushed out by their congregations.

Fox, who is 47, said he saw some impatient shuffling in the pews, but he was stunned that the church’s lay leaders had turned on him. “They said they were tired of hearing about abortion 52 weeks a year, hearing about all this political stuff!” he told me on a recent Sunday afternoon. “And these were deacons of the church!”

Very interesting trend. And the piece takes us back to that dark place when these same evangelicals believed that Bush was God's own President, or some similar nonsense.

Every time I visited an evangelical church in 2004, it seemed that a member’s brother or cousin had just returned from Iraq with reports that much greater progress was being made than the news media let on. The admiration for President Bush as a man of faith was nearly universal, and some talked of his contest with John Kerry as a spiritual battle. It would have been hard to overstate the Christian conservative leadership’s sense of the presidential race’s historical significance. In the days before the election, Dobson told me he believed the culture war was “rapidly approaching the climax, with everything that we are about on the line” and the election might be “the pivot point.”

But things are shifting beneath the feet of people like Dobson and his little attack dog--Tony Perkins. The younger generation is moving away from them politically and in just a three year time.

White evangelicals under 30 — the future of the church — were once Bush’s biggest fans; now they are less supportive than their elders. And the dissatisfaction extends beyond Bush. For the first time in many years, white evangelical identification with the Republican Party has dipped below 50 percent, with the sharpest falloff again among the young, according to John C. Green, a senior fellow at Pew and an expert on religion and politics. (The defectors by and large say they’ve become independents, not Democrats, according to the polls.)

Some claim the falloff in support for Bush reflects the unrealistic expectations pumped up by conservative Christian leaders. But no one denies the war is a factor. Christianity Today, the evangelical journal, has even posed the question of whether evangelicals should “repent” for their swift support of invading Iraq.

“Even in evangelical circles, we are tired of the war, tired of the body bags,” the Rev. David Welsh, who took over late last year as senior pastor of Wichita’s large Central Christian Church, told me. “I think it is to the point where they are saying: ‘O.K., we have done as much good as we can. Now let’s just get out of there.’ ”

Yes, what "good" they have done. I hope they keep that in mind if Bush opens up another war with Iran. Well done, church.

“There was a time when evangelical churches were becoming largely and almost exclusively the Republican Party at prayer,” said Marvin Olasky, the editor of the evangelical magazine World and an informal adviser to George W. Bush when he was governor. “To some extent — we have to see how much — the Republicans have blown it. That opportunity to lock up that constituency has vanished. The ball now really is in the Democrats’ court.”

At least Olasky is honest about it. But the reality is that the evangelical movement blew it too. They signed on with Bush and now we all reap the consequences.
But at least there are some shifts happening. Frank Page, new SBC President has pledged to make that body less political. He was asked about a Bush-Cheney reception at the 2004 SBC convention for pastors

He sounded appalled. “That will not be happening with me,” he said, repeating it for emphasis. “I have cautioned our denomination to be very careful not to be seen as in lock step with any political party.”

Well, no time like after the disaster to say, "hey, we shouldn't have done that."

But at least there is a shift. Evangelicals are now talking about some social justice issues including poverty and the environment. They still owe me a constitutional government complete with checks and balances, and I would like a damn apology for this war. But this is better than where we were even a year and a half ago.

Friday continued

Just a couple of more items. First is another reason why religion in politics is such a bad idea. I used to assume that religious conservatives were moral. I guess I grew up that way. And so many people around me growing up were and are highly moral and principled people. Bush and those religious conservatives supporting him have all undermined that belief. As I have said repeatedly, the fact that religious conservatives have been silent on torture has completely undermined many of my assumptions.

But not all. I have to admit that because Mike Huckabee is a nice guy, funny and charming, I just assumed that he was a highly principled person. I knew I disagreed with him on many issues and shudder that we could have a President who doesn't believe in evolution overseeing how science dollars are spent (as if our current president isn't bad enough), but basically assumed that he would bring a genuine morality to the office. His attack on Hillary over the Moveon Petraeus ad was a warning, but The American Spectator suggests that he has serious ethical problems:

Fourteen times, the ethics commission -- a respected body, not a partisan witch-hunt group -- investigated claims against Huckabee. Five of those times, it officially reprimanded him. And, as only MSNBC among the big national media has reported at any real length, there were lots of other mini-scandals and embarrassments along the way.

He used public money for family restaurant meals, boat expenses, and other personal uses. He tried to claim as his own some $70,000 of furniture donated to the governor's mansion. He repeatedly, and obstinately, against the pleadings even from conservative columnists and editorials, refused to divulge the names of donors to a "charitable" organization he set up while lieutenant governor -- an outfit whose main charitable purpose seemed to be to pay Huckabee to make speeches. Then, as a kicker, he misreported the income itself from the suspicious "charity."

Huckabee has been criticized, reasonably so, for misusing the state airplane for personal reasons. And he and his wife, Janet, actually set up a "wedding gift registry" (they had already been married for years) to which people could donate as the Huckabees left the governorship, in order to furnish their new $525,000 home.

I am sure some of this can be explained. But all of it? And shame on me for simply assuming that a Baptist minister (no offense to Tony) is more moral than the other politicians in this mix.

*****

And speaking of politicians, let me say the first positive thing on this blog about Fred Thompson. His support of Scooter Libby was and is indefensible. And his other defense of the Bush administration tactics makes him unelectable in my mind. But at least he disagrees with Cheney:

"Thompson agreed that he didn't share the views of Vice President Cheney when it comes to the supremacy of the executive branch.

"No, I think the constitution in times of war, especially, is very definitive about that," he said. "The president is the commander in chief, but the Congress has the power of the budget. The power of the purse. So everything has to go through that prism. So it’s divided power in the constitution. Our founding fathers divided that up. Divided it up at the federal level, the idea being that things like Watergate should be made very difficult to happen. So no one branch of the government can misuse power.""

Now if Republicans would only live by these ideals.

More Democratic spine

The TPM DOCUMENT COLLECTION - Letter from Senate Judiciary Committee to Michael Mukasey re: waterboarding

Shorter version. Here is what it is, now why in the hell can't you admit it is torture? Oh right. Cheney told you not to.

Friday morning (updated)

Couple of notes. The weather has turned cool and crisp here in Oklahoma and we are loving it. We invested in some new windows over the last few years and this is our first cold weather will all the windows and attic insulation. Last night, the temp dropped down to the mid 30s and both of us talked about how much warmer it seemed. We are doing the best we can on our own footprint, and that is a nice little bonus.

*****

Coming up on two years of yoga for me this November. I think I expected to be further along in my flexibility, but I also don't think I can see my own progress. I have certainly had less back problems in the last few years, and think that my hamstrings are starting to loosen. I can touch my toes (even cold) which I could not do when I started.

All of that is good, but I must say that the real bonus has been the new friends. Some of the best people I know, I know because of yoga.

****

Ok, now for the damn news. Andrew Sullivan had the best line describing Rudy Giuliani the other day: "a short man in search of a balcony." Not only has Rudy made an entire career out of 9-11, (At least Toby Keith had a few hit singles prior to using the disaster to sell barbecue) but he seems to be bending over backward to embrace the failed policies of the Bush administration--including hiring neocons to oversee his Middle East policy. Then the other day he was asked about torture and responded:

"It depends on how it's done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it. "

A conservative recently reiterated to me that we have lost moral absolutes (he said based on the Bible) and have slid into moral relativism. I am still waiting to hear how this explains the conservative justification of torture. People who told me that liberals were moral relativists have bent their own moral compass to justify everything from pre-emptive war, to constitutional violations, to the torture of other human beings. I must say, at this point in my life, I am not terribly impressed with conservatives lecturing me on moral relativism.

*****

Speaking of such moral clarity (or lack of it) I am still amazed that Bush and his crowd want to give some kind of blanket immunity to the telecoms, except, of course to cover their own ass. Blatantly counter to our system, of course, and ridiculous given we still don't know the extent of the crimes committed. Bushco says none--of course, they are ass-deep in this. Kind of like the wolf assuring the farmer that the chicken-house security is fine.

So, it is good news, and credit to Chris Dodd, that some Democrats are growing spines. Election Central | Talking Points Memo | Obama Camp Says It: He'll Support Filibuster Of Any Bill Containing Telecom Immunity. I think the Democrats misunderstand their low poll numbers. They are low because they give in to Bush. More bowing and scraping to these idiots won't help their poll numbers.

*****

Update. I think John McCain is a tool, but at least on torture he has been consistent. Melissa Rogers catches his response to Rudy's "its okay if we do it" take:

"“Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak,” said McCain after a campaign stop at Dordt College here.

“People who have worn the uniform and had the experience know that this is a terrible and odious practice and should never be condoned in the U.S. We are a better nation than that.”"

No Demagoguery here

Bush defended his torture policy again the other day. Of course, he claims that we don't torture, though he can't define it:

"Q The word “torture.” What’s your definition?
THE PRESIDENT: That’s defined in U.S. law, and we don’t torture.
Q Can you give me your version of it, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Whatever the law says."

But he sure can defend it:

"'"This program has produced critical intelligence that has helped us stop a number of attacks -- including a plot to strike the U.S. Marine camp in Djibouti, a planned attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi, a plot to hijack a passenger plane and fly it into Library Tower in Los Angeles, California, or a plot to fly passenger planes into Heathrow Airport and buildings into downtown London," Bush said.

"Despite the record of success, and despite the fact that our professionals use lawful techniques, the CIA program has come under renewed criticism in recent weeks. Those who oppose this vital tool in the war on terror need to answer a simple question: Which of the attacks I have just described would they prefer we had not stopped?""

Nevermind that some of those plots have disappeared into neocon fantasy. Just note that this is how Bush's mind works, and always has. Anyone who is not with him is against him. Anyone who disagrees with his policies wants the terrorists to kill people. It is abusive and manipulative language.

Update. And according to a new book Bush and Rumsfeld played an active role in our torture policy--directly ordering aggressive interrogation techniques.

Sigh.

Updated again. Sunday Forum: Two problems with torture. Not to give it away, but the two problems are that torture is wrong, and doesn't work.

Huckabee is starting to bug me

Of course, I am not a Republican and likely won't vote for one until the GOP repudiates the Bush administration's tactics and policies, but Mike Huckabee is really starting to annoy me:

"During the Republican debate, Mike Huckabee said he believes one of the defining issues facing the country is the sanctity of human life. Arguing that the issue is of historical importance, he invoked the Declaration of Independence's rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and said that most of the signers of the declaration were clergymen.

Not even close."

This is the need to appropriate the past for conservative Christianity. That really bugs me. Were Christians involved in early American history? Absolutely. For good and for ill. But this country is not solely the property of conservative Christianity and every time they claim it they do an injustice to our history and to our contemporary political dialogue.

Not a bad thing

Via Tony, this concise defense of separation of church and state. When did that become some kind of bad thing?

Bush's compassion?

Two stories from C&L that point to serious disconnect between the supposed morality of this President and his policies. First, just a note on how Bush's economy is effecting people not connected to Haliburton:

"The calculus of living paycheck to paycheck in America is getting harder. What used to last four days might last half that long now. Pay the gas bill, but skip breakfast. Eat less for lunch so the kids can have a healthy dinner.

Across the nation, Americans are increasingly unable to stretch their dollars to the next payday as they juggle higher rent, food and energy bills. It's starting to affect middle-income working families as well as the poor, and has reached the point of affecting day-to-day calculations of merchants like Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 7-Eleven Inc. and Family Dollar Stores Inc.

Food pantries, which distribute foodstuffs to the needy, are reporting severe shortages and reduced government funding at the very time that they are seeing a surge of new people seeking their help."

The ripple effects are also scary. People are cutting fruits and vegetables out of their diet because of the expense, which means that nutrition suffers. And how does the President feel about this? Hoover-esque:

"An unidentified low-income senior explained to the president that, in his last two budgets, he has tried to eliminate the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), terminating food assistance to 420,000 low-income seniors in an average month. Bush joked about not knowing anything about the program, or the budget cuts, before asking, “Why did you ask that question?”

The senior stuck to the point: “With a half-a-million seniors who rely on this food, and the food stamp benefit for seniors who live in poverty, it comes nowhere near this benefit that they receive — how do we make sure that our seniors have the food that they need?”

BUSH: Well, where do you get most of your food from in the food bank? Private donations, right?

Q Well, we’re fortunate, yes.

BUSH: Yes. That’s the way it ought to be. Food banks ought to be supported through the generosity of individuals."

And there is more:

Q The supplemental commodity food program — there’s nothing to replace it with. Food stamps aren’t going to work and we’re talking about folks who live in poverty –

BUSH: Right.

Q They already made all the mistakes which they can’t fix –

BUSH: Yes, look, if somebody is poor, we want to help them. And the fundamental question is what’s the proper balance between federal help and private help. And when it comes to food banks, look, I don’t know the program. Maybe I shouldn’t make this admission, maybe I should try to bull my way through. I don’t know the program; I’m sorry. I’ll be glad to look into it. But just from a philosophical perspective, one of the wonderful things about the country is when there’s a need, the average citizen steps up and helps fill the need through private charity. And your program, I suspect, really functions well because the food bank is a dear cause for people. People say, how can I love my neighbor? Well, one way to love your neighbor is the food bank.

And the truth of the matter is I suspect that if seniors are suffering here in Lancaster County and you put out the call, people are going to help.

This is Bush's answer. If local food banks can't help, then the elderly poor are on their own. As this blogger put it:

This is what the White House used to call the “ownership society.” If you’re a low-income senior who needs food, you “own” your poverty, and it’ll be up to others who “own” food to give you a hand. If they don’t? You’ll “own” your hunger, which no one can take away from you.

I’m being flippant — and given the subject matter, perhaps I shouldn’t be — but I found Bush’s response quite striking. Here was an elderly person who can’t work, but wants to eat to survive. The president not only failed to justify his budget priorities, he also admitted that he doesn’t see any reason for the government to worry about whether seniors living in poverty get food or not — that should be up to the kindness of strangers.

This from the man who made “compassionate conservatism” a basis for his campaign.

Book banning

Sadly, No! points us to a Focus on the Family discussion about "Banned Books Week." Suffice it to say, they don't like that term and ask, "Is Banned Books Week about censorship or parents’ rights?"

This does seem like a fundamental question. Jillian (the blogger from Sadly, No!) answers:

"Let’s help them out here, shall we? Banned Books Week is about censorship. If you don’t want your child to read a book, then you simply forbid them to check it out from the library. If they disobey you and read it anyway, then you have a parenting problem. "

I remember reading "Catcher in the Rye" simply because it was on a banned book list, so perhaps I am not the one to address this. And not being a parent, I can't be too flip about this, but it does appear to be censoring for all, as opposed to saying "I don't want my kids to read this." It reminds me of school prayer where it sure seems like Christian parents (who already get to pray with their kids at home) are not so much wanting them to pray, but that heathen kid from down the street. And maybe it is my lack of parenting experience that makes me ask this, but why do parents fear that their kids will read one book and then reject their parental influence? Does it work that way?

Seriously, I want to know.

Romney at "Panderfest"

Tony has blogged about this recently--"that" being evangelicals supporting (or not) Mitt Romney for President with the kicker being his Mormon faith. I am not a fan of the Mormon Church as an institution, and I find the faith not very convincing. But the bigger problem appears to me that evangelical voters are rather, um, whorish. And selectively so. They appear willing to vote for whoever as long as they will give them the bullshit campaign speeches. And look at those topics.

"Romney was right on target for what this crowd wanted to hear. Nothing about Iraq, nothing about reinstating the gold standard, nothing about S-CHIP--just abortion, marriage, porn, and families. He even mentioned the fact that he's Mormon and that some people might think he shouldn't be the GOP candidate for that reason rather jokingly, brushing it off as a non-issue. He's figuring his 'family cred' speaks for itself -- I wish I'd tallied how many times the word left his mouth -- and it fared quite well with the crowd."

Even this far into this disastrous war, and given what we know about climate change, this crowd would frankly re-elect George Bush if they had the option--as long as he quoted a few bible verses and pledged to keep hating the gays. He can undermine healthcare for children and is a hero to this crowd. Yet, Romney panders away. Forget that he is Mormon. Let's just recognize what a flip-flopping panderer he is. And that he is exactly the kind of moral voice these people want.

Sigh.

Chris Dodd for President?

He doesn't really have much of a chance--at least right now. He seems like a decent enough guy, but President? I don't know. But then he shows himself apart from just about everyone by standing up against this telecom immunity bill. He has threatened to put a hold on the bill, but Reid (supposedly on our side) has threatened to go around the hold. Why do the telecoms need immunity? Here is how the President explained it:

"Now, the law needs to be changed, enhanced, by providing the phone companies that allegedly helped us with liability protection. So we found common ground there." (emphasis mine)

What the hell did he mean by "allegedly?" If they didn't help the intelligence community, they sure as hell don't need immunity. And if they did nothing wrong, there is no "allegation" to be "alleged."

Maybe we need to give Chris Dodd another look. I heard elsewhere that he raised nearly $150,000 in small donations since taking this stand which suggests what we have suspected--standing up to the Prez is better than not.

The Onion on Presidential candidates

Just too funny.


Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

Stay Classy, McCain. Stay Classy.

Remember when we thought McCain was a good Republican? Well, clearly he isn't.

SPARTANBURG, S.C. (AP) — Republican presidential candidate John McCain took one look at a nursing school's training mannequin and asked if the dummy's name was Hillary.

Campaigning Thursday at the University of South Carolina Upstate nursing school, McCain couldn't resist a swipe at Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"I was very glad to meet the dummy, named 'Hillary,'" McCain said to laughter after a tour of the school. "Is that the name?"

Former Joint Chiefs Chair Crowe dies

I have a William Crowe story that is really kind of embarrassing--to me. He taught at OU for a while and I rode the elevator with him one time. I was a little nervous and said, "You are Admiral Crowe, right?" He nodded. I said "I loved you on Cheers." Referencing, of course, his one appearance on the show. He was very gracious to someone who said such a stupid thing and made some kind of comment about how that one appearance overshadowed his career.

It was a funny moment, though I have always regretted the trivial comment. Like I said, I was nervous. But I genuinely admired the man and it was rather thrilling to be in the elevator with someone of his experience.

Talking Points Memo | Former Joint Chiefs Chair Crowe dies: "In the early 1960s, Crowe turned down a chance for assignment to nuclear submarines to study for a doctorate in politics and international affairs at Princeton. Angered by Crowe's decision, Adm. Hyman Rickover, the autocratic head of the nuclear Navy, turned against him.

For his part, Crowe said the studies transformed him. 'As I studied political science at Princeton, I began to learn that things aren't black and white, they're usually gray,' he said later.

Back in uniform, he angered a Pentagon superior by suggesting a policy change. 'He called me in and said, `We didn't send you to graduate school to come back here with a lot of ideas on how to run the Navy. What we sent you to graduate school for is to come back here and help us perfect and articulate what we want better. But we're not interested in your original thinking.''"

He later endorsed Bill Clinton for President and was angered by Republican attacks on Clinton's lack of service in Vn. I can only imagine what he thought of the Swift Boat ads and the attacks on Max Cleland. This man served Reagan and Bush as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and served his country with distinction. In the modern political world, Rush Limbaugh would call him names, but he is the stuff that makes me proud to be an American. He will be missed.

Finally, someone agrees with me, dammit

Thanks to CIL for this story, though I am puzzled why he thought to send it to me:

"Regular swearing at work can help boost team spirit among staff, allowing them to express better their feelings as well as develop social relationships, according to a study by researchers.

Heh. Reading from my relationship/employment/survival manual, are they?

I love swearing. I must admit it. But, as this next graph shows, that doesn't mean it is appropriate everywhere.

The pair said swearing in front of senior staff or customers should be seriously discouraged or banned, but in other circumstances it helped foster solidarity among employees and express frustration, stress or other feelings.

"Employees use swearing on a continuous basis, but not necessarily in a negative, abusive manner," said Baruch, who works in the university's business school in Norwich.

That last point is huge. Big difference between swearing as humor, swearing as frustration, and swearing as abuse. I think we all know the difference.

Ah, maybe now we see why Bush nominated him

TPMmuckraker | Talking Points Memo | Is Waterboarding Torture? Mukasey: Yes, if It's Torture: "Mukasey has firmly established that he's against torture -- yesterday he even compared it to the Holocaust. But what exactly does that mean? Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) asked Mukasey if he thought waterboarding was Constitutional. 'If waterboarding is torture... torture is not Constitutional,' he replied.

Whitehouse wasn't satisfied. 'That is a massive hedge.... It either is or it isn't.' Doesn't Mukasey have an opinion on whether waterboarding is torture? He went on to describe the technique, which involves using a wet rag to make the detainee feel like he's drowning. Mukasey replied with the same answer: 'If it amounts to torture, then it is not Constitutional.'"

Hmm. Quite a dodge. As long as Bush can continue to redefine torture, then this AG will go along with him.

*****

But hey, the Republicans can hold their heads up high. They upheld Bush's veto of health insurance for poor kids!!!!

: "The final vote was 273 - 156, 16 votes short of the necessary 2/3 to override Bush’s veto. Democrats Jim Marshall and Gene Taylor crossing the aisle to vote against SCHIP and 44 Republicans voting for SCHIP (which is one less than the initial vote)."

Way to go, GOP. Way to stand up for....

Ok, a little more

From the same 'I Am Relevant' press conference:

"Newsweek's Richard Wolffe asked Bush exactly the question I would have asked:

"QUESTION: Thank you, sir. A simple question.

"BUSH: Yes?

"QUESTION: What's your definition of --

"BUSH: It may require a simple answer.

"(LAUGHTER)

Yes, Mr. President, because most of your answers are so deep and thoughtful. Sigh

"QUESTION: What's your definition of the word torture?

"BUSH: Of what?

"QUESTION: The word torture, what's your definition?

"BUSH: That's defined in U.S. law, and we don't torture.

Me thinks thou protest a bit much...

"QUESTION: Can you give me your version of it, sir?

"BUSH: No. Whatever the law says.""

But he knows we don't do it? Is he deluded or is he simply lying?

Later, this funny moment:

Baker asked if Bush should get tougher with Putin -- and "what it would mean for Russian democracy if, when you leave power -- assuming you do in January 2009 -- (laughter) -- that Vladimir Putin is still in power?"

Bush responded vaguely: "My leadership style has been to try to be in a position where I actually can influence people. And one way to do that is to have personal relationships that enable me to sit down and tell people what's on my mind, without fear of rupturing relations."

Bush added that Putin doesn't like it. "You know, nobody likes to be talked to in a way that may point up different flaws in their strategy."

Yes, that is true. Some of them only give their interviews to Fox or hide in "townmeetings" with the 24% of America who thinks Bush is still great.

Bush: 'I Am Relevant'

No real comment needed is there?

Bush: 'I Am Relevant': "Asked how he found himself vetoing a children's health insurance bill that had passed Congress with bipartisan support, Bush insisted that using a veto is 'one way to ensure I am relevant.'"

Only Bush would think this was a good idea

And it should be "idea" since I am no longer convinced the man thinks at all.

WSJ.com : Contraception Foe Named to Contraception Post: "The Department of Health and Human Services appointed Susan Orr--who has spoken out against contraception--to a post responsible for U.S. contraception programs."

First, the WHO just reported that outlawing abortions didn't stop them (duh) but made them more dangerous. Contraceptives were one of the ways to reduce abortions, which I was informed, conservative Christians care about. Evidently, not enough to actually think this through, mind you. And Second, thanks to President Jesus, we get people appointed to the UN who want to blow it up, people appointed to oversee mine safety who want less, and idiots who oppose birth control to oversee the programs on birth control!

And it gets worse. Yesterday, I read that Bush found a group of 29 percenters in Arkansas. Yes, the man who claims to be driven by principle, can't abide having to answer questions from those who doubt him and constantly seeks out people who agree that vetoing health insurance for poor kids is a good idea. And the group he found must have been in line for a lobotomy elsewhere:

"'One man began by commending Mr. Bush 'on your steadfastness and your faith.' Another concluded by saying, 'Thank you for being my president for the last seven years,' with an emphasis on the word 'my.' A third expressed dismay that Mr. Bush could not run for president again. . . ."

Good Holy God. In what universe is this man a good leader? On NPR I heard that his SCHIP veto is likely to be sustained by idiot Republicans and the polling among Republicans backs them up. 6 of 10 think the veto should be upheld because they think the President has information they don't. Seriously? What in the last 7 years tells you that this man has any information that is sound? Has he been right at all?

At this time, I am sure glad that the President thinks Jesus is his favorite political philosopher. Think what he would do otherwise?

Happy Birthday to SOF

You can send her good thoughts on her blog.

Cheney

SOF tricked me into watching part of cheney's law. I knew most of the story. For all the bashing of lefty blogs, Talking Points Memo and others have done a fantastic job of sorting through all the lies. Jack Goldsmith appeared in much of this piece and that should really bother the conservatives who only listen to Lynn Cheney and Rush Limbaugh. Goldsmith has great credentials as a conservative, and for him to have problems with this President and Vice President asserting essentially secret "unlimited" powers should bother conservatives. True conservatives.

Great quote

A British writer suggests that the greatest threat to Western democracies is from Western democracies.

To portray Islam as a whole as a concerted threat to western security, and to imply that the West’s democratic institutions and freedoms are not proof against that threat, is absurd and close to treason. Then to demand that western freedoms be dismantled and stored away for the duration of a “war on terror” is to wave the flag of surrender.

This defeatism led the American Congress to allow its president to authorise torture and detention without trial in what Senator Robert Byrd called “the slow unravelling of the people’s liberties”. It enabled a British Home Office to curb free speech and habeas corpus. It arms police, fortifies buildings and impedes the free movement of citizens. It makes every Christian suspicious of every Muslim.

Krugman on the right

And I think he is right on how the right has responded to Gore's Nobel Prize:

"And at National Review Online, Iain Murray suggested that the prize should have been shared with “that well-known peace campaigner Osama bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore’s stance.” You see, bin Laden once said something about climate change — therefore, anyone who talks about climate change is a friend of the terrorists.

What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration.

And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job — to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda’s recruiters could have hoped for — the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme.

The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right."

Income-Inequality Gap Widens

Income-Inequality Gap Widens - WSJ.com: "The wealthiest 1% of Americans earned 21.2% of all income in 2005, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service. That is up sharply from 19% in 2004, and surpasses the previous high of 20.8% set in 2000, at the peak of the previous bull market in stocks.
The bottom 50% earned 12.8% of all income, down from 13.4% in 2004 and a bit less than their 13% share in 2000.

• Widening Gap: The wealthiest Americans' share of national income has hit a postwar record, surpassing the highs reached in the 1990s bull market, and highlighting the divergence of economic fortunes blamed for fueling anxiety among American workers.
• Behind the Numbers: Scholars attribute rising inequality to several factors, including technological change that favors those with more skills, and globalization and advances in communications that enlarge the rewards available to "superstar" performers whether in business, sports or entertainment.
• Political Fallout: The data pose a potential challenge for President Bush and the Republican presidential field. They have sought to play up the strength of the economy and low unemployment, and the role of Mr. Bush's tax cuts in both. Democrats may use the data to exploit middle-class angst about stagnant wages."

Bush said that we had always had income inequality and said that renewing NCLB was the answer. Yeah, because it has done such a good job. And of course, Bush is not willing to perhaps question his tax cuts for the rich.

Bush and our own complicity

Columnist Frank Rich suggests that we can no longer simply blame this on Bush. Yes, he has lied and tortured, but we have allowed it. And every new revelation that he and Cheney approved torture, or ignored intelligence, or are pushing for expanding the war leads not to public outrage, but to a further yawn as Americans look for a new OJ story or naked pictures of Britney Spears. We find out that our torture manual was written by the Gestapo and the KGB, and shrug.

Call me cynical, but when Laura Bush spoke up last week about the human rights atrocities in Burma, it seemed less an act of selfless humanitarianism than another administration maneuver to change the subject from its own abuses.

As Mrs. Bush spoke, two women, both Armenian Christians, were gunned down in Baghdad by contractors underwritten by American taxpayers. On this matter, the White House has been silent. That incident followed the Sept. 16 massacre in Baghdad’s Nisour Square, where 17 Iraqis were killed by security forces from Blackwater USA, which had already been implicated in nearly 200 other shooting incidents since 2005. There has been no accountability. The State Department, Blackwater’s sugar daddy for most of its billion dollars in contracts, won’t even share its investigative findings with the United States military and the Iraqi government, both of which have deemed the killings criminal.

Rich notes that the American public was fooled into this war by a clever and fear induced campaign that played on our shock of 9-11. He contends that our checks failed--that the press and Congress failed to speak. But now, with all that we know, the American public are as culpable as anyone. Time to hold them accountable for everything from how our troops have been ill-equipped to the free fire zone established for our mercenaries in country, to our continued use of torture techniques. (You didn't think that Bush was telling the truth when he said "we don't torture" did you?)

Sure, the plan was a good one--as far as deluding and deceiving the public.

It was always the White House’s plan to coax us into a blissful ignorance about the war. Part of this was achieved with the usual Bush-Cheney secretiveness, from the torture memos to the prohibition of photos of military coffins. But the administration also invited our passive complicity by requiring no shared sacrifice. A country that knows there’s no such thing as a free lunch was all too easily persuaded there could be a free war.

Instead of taxing us for Iraq, the White House bought us off with tax cuts. Instead of mobilizing the needed troops, it kept a draft off the table by quietly purchasing its auxiliary army of contractors to finesse the overstretched military’s holes. With the war’s entire weight falling on a small voluntary force, amounting to less than 1 percent of the population, the rest of us were free to look the other way at whatever went down in Iraq.

That may be the phrase that describes America during the Bush war--"They looked the other way." For the first time in our history, our President endorses and defends the torture of other human beings, while saying with a straight smirk that "we don't torture." The American public seems to have forgotten not only the horrors of Nazi Germany, but the more recent knowledge of what the Soviet Union and China did/does to prisoners. I will resent this President for many things, but turning us into our enemies has to be high on the list.

Our humanity has been compromised by those who use Gestapo tactics in our war. The longer we stand idly by while they do so, the more we resemble those “good Germans” who professed ignorance of their own Gestapo. It’s up to us to wake up our somnambulant Congress to challenge administration policy every day. Let the war’s last supporters filibuster all night if they want to. There is nothing left to lose except whatever remains of our country’s good name.

Speaking of Bush

Seems like those those who lost relatives in this disaster deserve a prayer team.

Tears rolled down George W. Bush's cheeks. Twice, Hildi Halley handed him a tissue. Otherwise, she didn't let up on the president.

``I hold you responsible for my husband's death,'' she says she told him as they sat facing one another, alone in a teacher's lounge, their knees almost touching. ``You made a mistake, and it's your responsibility as a Christian man to end this war.''

``I'm really not here to discuss public policy with you,'' she says Bush told her at the meeting in August 2006, two months after her husband, Army National Guard Captain Patrick Damon, died in Afghanistan.

As the president rose to leave after 20 minutes, he said he hoped the visit would help the Falmouth, Maine, woman heal. Halley, 42, replied, ``What would really help my healing is if you'd start finding a way to bring our troops home.''

Bush meets with many relatives, to his credit. What is amazing, however, is that he only seems to hear the resolve of those who mirror his belief in his war. When meeting family members who affirm the war and tell him to continue, that strengthens his resolve, but when he meets with those who are angry about the war, he "doesn't want to talk policy."

Participants and witnesses say the sessions provide a window onto Bush's compassionate side. ``There are few things as heart-wrenching,'' says former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, who attended many meetings. ``Every single time, he'd be moved to tears.''

They also reveal his distaste for engaging those who question his policies. Rather than entering into a substantive debate with angry relatives, he disengages.

Why should he be any different with them than he is any critic of his policies?

Another person who criticized Bush to his face was Elaine Johnson of Orangeburg, South Carolina. Her son, Army specialist Darius Jennings, died with 15 others when their Chinook helicopter was shot down near Fallujah, Iraq, on Nov. 2, 2003.

In her meeting later that month, she says, she repeatedly pressed Bush for a rationale for the war. She says he failed to deliver a satisfactory answer.

`A little Hostile'

``Miss Jones, you sound a little hostile,'' Bush said, according to Jones, who was an industrial quality inspector.

``Of course I feel hostile. My only son was killed and I can't get an answer,'' Jones, 44, says she replied.

Bush moved on to a different cluster of family members in the large meeting room at Fort Carson in Colorado. As Bush departed, Jones says, she tried again.

``Could you tell me what is the mission?'' she called out. Bush didn't respond.

This isn't resolve. It is denial.

Little sluggish this morning

Just worn out, I think. This week I turned in a course development proposal, another application to change a course's status, finished grading two sets of exams and papers, and gave another exam and paper assignment. Oh, and finished up one course. Then I finished the week helping a former student on a documentary project.

We finished the week with a lovely sushi dinner at the home of our good friends. But I am still in first gear this morning, and that may not change until Monday morning. Of the next week.

*****

Saw that former commander Ricardo Sanchez has some sharp criticisms for this war. How long until Fox News and Glenn Beck say he is a traitor?

The Washington Note: "~ In a sweeping indictment of the four-year effort in Iraq, the former top American commander called the Bush administration's handling of the war incompetent and warned that the United States was "living a nightmare with no end in sight."
~ "After more than fours years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war-torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism," Mr. Sanchez said, at a gathering here of military reporters and editors.

~ "There was been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders," he said, adding later in his remarks that civilian officials have been "derelict in their duties" and guilty of a "lust for power.""

*****

And evidently there are people within the CIA who think the same thing

it turns out that a former senior CIA legal official quit in protest over the administration’s use of “enhanced interrogations.” This official, whose name I have promised not to publish, previously worked as a deputy IG for investigations under Frederick Hitz, who served as CIA IG between 1990 and 1998. From there, the official moved on the CIA’s Office of General Counsel.

What’s interesting is that this official was generally known as something of a hardliner. I haven’t been able to pin down the date of his departure, which may have occurred a year ago or more. However, the sources tell me he couldn’t stomach what he deemed to be abuses by the Bush Administration and stepped down from his post.

Hardliner who finds Bush/Cheney too much. How does he still have this image?

More telling, perhaps is how this CIA insider explained the divide within the agency.

This person went on to describe a split at the CIA, saying, “There’s an SS group within the agency that’s willing to do anything and there’s a Wehrmacht group that is saying, ‘I’m not gonna touch this stuff’.”

Given that we learned the phrase "enhanced interrogation" from the Nazis, how nice that the entire comparison is in use.

******

Speaking of Bush and faith, when I searched for that above image, I ran across a website devoted to praying for Bush. In fact, it is called "prayforbush.com." And while I have no problem with people praying for this man (God knows I have prayed that he not invade another country or undermine our Constitution any more), the way they see him is straight out of fantasy land.

"While many politicians flaunt their "faith" and claim to be Christians, not as many live their faith, with Jesus Christ living in them. We believe George W. Bush is a man after God's own heart. He is a man who lives in Christ, and obeys God. Like King David, he is not perfect, but he is repentant, humble, and full of the mighty courage that results from trusting the Lord. We believe George W. Bush is a merciful gift from the Lord to an undeserving people. We ask you to join us in constant prayer for our President, his family, his administration, and his country. "

Created in 2000, this website really displays how much poeple thought they were voting for one of theirs. Or, as they say on their "about" page:

"We believe more prayer went into Election 2000 than for any other election in recent memory, and we believe the only reason George W. Bush is President is because of the prayers of the Saints, and the unmerited favor given to us by God."

Now, with torture, war and attacks on our Constitution, I wonder how many of them still think that Bush is a man of God? As I have said multiple times, when I first heard of the torture allegations, I said this would cause problems with the religious conservative base. And I can't tell you how disappointed I am to be so very wrong about that.

Thursday morning blogging

In the middle of a hectic week. Or toward the end. Hell, I can't tell. Anyway, this morning, I am still uncomfortable after last night's Daily Show. I have never liked Lynn Cheney, and seeing her on the show didn't help.

But in the news, I can't help but remind everyone that Bush has turned us into a torture nation. I can't quite get over that. I can't quite put that together with conservative evangelicals rallying around this man as some representative Christian. Who can forget when "values voters" chastized the rest of us, bragged about how church goers voted for Bush in huge numbers, and books like The Faith of George W. Bush were everywhere. Well, evidently the "faith" of George W. Bush allows him to subvert he constitution, American and International law, and have his administration issue an "expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency."

Sigh.

One of Sully's readerswrites in

Number One: The government of the United States of America is torturing human beings.
Number Two: The "evidence" gained from this torture, from any torture, is deeply suspect. We have sold our soul for nothing.
Number Three: We should be willing to die for the freedoms we hold so dear. We should be willing to die for the Constitution. From the beginning, we have asked Americans to spend their lives to preserve the ideals of liberty. Yet today, we hysterically trade those ideals for fleeting security. We tell ourselves not to worry about the Constitution, or habeas corpus, because American lives are worth more than that.
They are not.

Sullivan adds to his reader:

I would add a fourth: we didn't exactly decide these things at all. They were decided for us - and for generations of Americans and Westerners - in secret, by a handful of people, pushed through against the law, against the advice of many decent people in the government, and then lied about systematically. Yes, by re-electing the Decider, we perpetuated it, and we knew what was at stake at the time. But this was ultimately a function of ceding the rule of law to the rule of one man - not for a one-off emergency, but permanently, indefinitely, because this war has no end, and the Republican establishment believes that the president has no limits on his power in a permanent state of war.

*******

In other news, the right wing blogosphere and punditry continues to amaze. Malkin and company continue attacks on the Frost family (who the Democrats used to put a face on the SCHIP program). As I have said, I think the SCHIP program is a solid one and a nice use of government to try and mitigate against the rising cost of healthcare. I am increasingly frustrated at how so many conservatives seem to dismiss the fact that we have nearly 50 million Americans uninsured, and that adds to all our costs. But even if you disagree with the program--criticize the program. Malkin and others have stalked this family to find some reason to undermine their message. They have gone after the messenger, not the program it self. As one moderate put it:

"But no, it’s easier to go after a 12 year-old. After all, these days, anyone who is in the way of an agenda has to be discredited so that no one listens to them anymore. Yet, once upon a time, American society would pull out all stops not to go after a kid. The bar has been lowered yet again. This time it has been lowered so far, it has struck oil amid the sleaze"

*****

Finally, back on the theology of gender, Martin Marty speaks out on the Baptist effort to push women back into the mythical 1950s (Paige Patterson style):

"Because this is a "women-only" curricular track, one is tempted to shout "discrimination" and call in the feds. Yet the separation-of-church-and-state ethos would protect the seminary from legal enforcement. Only God's inspired word in the Bible should count. And precisely here is where one worries about the Bible sources and these Baptists. The seminary courses are on clothing construction, textile design and meal preparation. In the Bible these tasks were as much part of the family and gender roles of men as of women.

Bible-believing Baptists have to ask: How do we square Matthew 6:25-26 with a 23-hour course on "taking thought for what you should wear" or "eat and drink"? What about the resurrected male Jesus cooking fish and baking bread for the disciples on the beach at the sea of Tiberias (John 21: 9-14)? How about the apostle Paul, who made a living as a tentmaker? From what I know about (us) male ministers today, I'd say that if we cannot cook like Jesus, if we cannot sew like Paul, then it's we who need homemaking lessons. How about men-only or mixed gender courses? They'd be inspired, even biblical."

Wow

Anyone else watch the Jon Stewart with Lynn Cheney? I think that was the most uncomfortable interview I have ever watched. I thought she might asplode when Jon asked her if Dick had trouble admitting when he was wrong at home. And what the hell was she doing on the show? Are we really the demographic for her book?

Freaked me out. Now I hope I can sleep.

Hmm, Bush bad for Christianity?

That's unpossible. A Christian in India thinks that Bush's war policies have set back Christianity in that country:

"President George Bush is the darling of most born again Christians in the US of A. But in India many regard him as a liability to the Christian cause. His identification as a believer and his advocacy of the war that the rest of the world regards as unjust has embarrassed Christians who are in a minority in India."

Patriotism and Stupidity

Evidently, Barak Obama dared to not wear an American flag lapel pin. He said:

"'Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel,' the Illinois Democrat said in a statement. 'It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country.'"

Of course, the idiots at Fox are up in arms. And not only Sean Hannity, but that crew of complete idiots on their morning "show" won't stop questioning Obama's patriotism.

Just when you think these people can't get dumber. Any idiot can wear a lapel pin. And many do. I think it was Samuel Johnson who said that "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel," yet our country wants to define loyalty and competence purely by these superficial displays.

*****

In other news, I believe I dreamt about Rudy Giuliani last night. I am pretty sure he said something and I asked, "is this about 9-11?"

Race again

At the risk of another attack for somehow painting the entire Republican South as racist, I point you to this Talking Points Memo that is just too funny:

"I don't know how Fred Thompson's naming of former Virginia Sen. George Allen as one his three campaign co-chairs can be seen as anything other than a nod and a wink to a certain brand of racially-charged Republican voters.

As for Allen, he's apparently focused on another run for Virginia governor--and on escaping the shadow of his macaca comment:

"I'm trying to help out candidates in Virginia," [Allen] said, mentioning GOP House member Dave Nutter in the New River Valley and "a fella named Omarh Rajah running for the school board in Chesterfield. We've got some really good folks running."
A fella named Omarh Rajah. Does it make me a cynic if I think Allen didn't slip that name in there by accident?

Late Update: The Omarh Rajah campaign website lists his endorsements. Allen's is not among them."

When Republicans attack--updated

Actually, this should be "right wingers" attacking, but the first example is Republican Mike Huckabee. A man, btw, who I would never vote for but have respected. But here (and Colbert had a good bit on him last night) we see that Huckabee responded completely differently to Rush Limbaugh denouncing "phony soldiers" and then calling a wounded vet who did an ad for VoteVets.org a "a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into." You know, like a suicide bomber.

Anyway, Huckabee said that free speech applied to Limbaugh and it wasn't the government's job to tell him what to say. And I agreed completely. As big of a jackass as Limbaugh is, he has the right to be that jackass on the air. (I think Wesley Clark is well within his rights to try to get Limbaugh off Armed Services Radio, but not sure it accomplishes anything).

But wait, let's see how Huckabee responded to the MoveOn.org controversy. He lambasted Hillary Clinton for not supporting a Senate amendment that condemned that MoveOn.org ad. So, while the government rightly should not be involved in telling a jackass talkshow host what or what not to say, they SHOULD tell a group of American citizens what to say in an ad? Come on, Mike.

But then again, Conservatives feel free to challenge the patriotism of the left. See this Chris Wallace interview of Nancy Pelosi

Wallace: You said the other day that you pray for President Bush to change his mind about vetoing SCHIP…Ahhh, do you pray for our soldiers to win in Iraq?

Pelosi: Of, course I do.

Wallace: To win?

Pelosi: Of, course. What a question….

Exactly. What a question.

But that is mild compared to what the right wingers have evidently done in response to a Democrat radio response given by a 12 year old boy who talked about how SCHIP allowed him to get health insurance after a car accident. Right wing bloggers followed by Michelle Malkin went after the kid and his family, saying they were frauds who owned too nice of a house (that they have owned for years and has gone up in value), or went to too nice of a school (on scholarship) or the father owned his own company (which is supposed to make him filthy rich, right?) .

Anonymous Liberal explains why:

"Implicit in the attacks on the Frosts and Michael J. Fox and certain anti-war veterans (and countless other examples) is the notion that if you can someone manage to discredit a spokesperson for a particular policy, then somehow the policy itself will be discredited. That's a really bizarre way of viewing the world, if you think about it. I mean, if Michael J. Fox had been exaggerating his Parkinson's symptoms, as Rush Limbaugh suggested, would that have had any bearing whatsoever on the empirical data suggesting that stem cell research can help lead to treatments for Parkinson's disease? And if it turned out that the Frosts were indeed capable of paying for private health insurance, would that change the undisputed fact that there are thousands of families out there who could not afford health care without S-CHIP? Of course not."

We can credit Bush for at least recognizing that compassion is a good thing, even though he obviously was unable to sustain something approaching "compassionate conservatism." But the veneer of compassion is gone now, replaced by almost open hostility for anyone who isn't conservative enough.

UnAmerican idea

Upper Left: "“Just trust us” is not within the American tradition. If anything, it’s an ancient royalist concept of obedience to divinely ordained authority. If all we needed was to trust that our masters were doing the right thing, there would be no need of representation by legislatures, or trial by jury, or a Constitution, or for that matter, the vote."