« October 22, 2006 - October 28, 2006 | Main | November 5, 2006 - November 11, 2006 »
Saturday, November 4, 2006
Divide and Govern II
04 Nov 2006 10:08 pm
Another sane American in a conservative paper draws the same sane conclusion as Jon Rauch:
People in power simply can't be trusted. If we're going to have a Republican executive branch, we need a Democratic legislature to hold its feet to the fire. And vice-versa.
So on Tuesday, I'm neither voting Democratic or Republican. I'm voting for the oldest party in the republic. Its name never appears on the ballot, but it's always there and it has always served us well. Divided government.
If you're a Republican concerned about national security who still (somehow) believes the Republicans are better at it, your president won't change. But he will be forced out of denial and compelled to face reality. The Democrats, in a divided government, will also have to take responsibility for the hard choices involved in wartime. So divided government is win-win right now.
Vote Democratic next Tuesday, or if you just can't, abstain. For the country's sake - and for the soul of conservatism.
Frum Blames the NSC
04 Nov 2006 09:52 pm
Not the president (who appoints the NSC). That's his spin. Watch David spin. Spin, David, spin.
Vive La Resistance
04 Nov 2006 08:27 pm
A reader writes:
I am a moderate living in Colorado Springs. The main thing that bothers me about those on the far right is their hypocrisy, with Ann Coulter and Ted Haggard being the latest two examples. Another comes to mind here locally as well: ads for the local Republican candidate for the House that classify his opponent (a retired lieutenant colonel by the way) as a liberal, yet the administration that he is supporting has run up the greatest debt in our history.
I drive my kids and two of their friends to school in the morning and yesterday I was originally not supposed to pick my daughter's friend up as she was to greet her father returning from Iraq. She called and told us she needed a ride as they had evidently received a call that her dad would not be coming home yet, and we did not question as we were hoping nothing happened to him. Today I believe that I saw the reason why. Mr. Cheney will be here for a campaign stop this weekend part of which will be to greet the troops as they return.
So their reunion should be delayed for political purposes.
Yep. That sounds like Cheney to me.
Now, the Cover-Up
04 Nov 2006 07:18 pm
From the Washington Post today:
The Bush administration has told a federal judge that terrorism suspects held in secret CIA prisons should not be allowed to reveal details of the "alternative interrogation methods" that their captors used to get them to talk.
The government says in new court filings that those interrogation methods are now among the nation's most sensitive national security secrets and that their release -- even to the detainees' own attorneys -- "could reasonably be expected to cause extremely grave damage."
It couldn't be because they would reveal the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld policy of torture and abuse, would it? I've said it before but the possibility that these three men will one day face charges of war crimes is a distinct possibility. Their desperate attempts now to hide what they have done in our name is predictable. If you re-elect them, their abuse of power will only metastasize, as torture always does.
Ooops
04 Nov 2006 07:03 pm
National Review as occasionally a glorified press release from the Bush administration? Nahhh.
The View From Your Window
04 Nov 2006 06:50 pm
Stockholm, Sweden, 8.45 am.
Pastor Ted
04 Nov 2006 06:11 pm
The Harper's profile from May 2005.
Now, Doogie
04 Nov 2006 06:10 pm
Another gay American, standing up for honesty and integrity. More, please. You know who you are.
(Photo: Getty Images.)
Benedict XVI and Europe
04 Nov 2006 06:09 pm
The theocon Pope gets modernity totally wrong:
The troubling truth is that on the most pressing issue currently facing the democratic governments of the West - how they should respond to the formidable challenge posed by militant Islam at home and abroad - Pope Benedict gets things exactly backward. Abandoning liberalism in favor of the strictly orthodox Catholicism favored by the Pope is the last thing Europe needs today. Such a development would almost certainly lead the continent back to a world of religiously inspired social and political strife - a world from which it only recently managed to extricate itself - while diminishing the chances that pluralism could ever make significant inroads in the Muslim world.
That Europe's remarkable political and economic achievements over the past 60 years have been made possible in large part by its belated embrace of liberal ideals - including the ideal of public secularism - is something that Benedict seems not to appreciate or even comprehend. Luckily, his fellow Europeans appear to know better - to recognize that, far from being the source of our most intractable problems, liberalism remains our best hope for a solution.
And by liberalism, Damon Linker means freedom - of thought, conscience, speech and moral choices in private matters like heterosexual sex, first-trimester abortion, and the painful decisions families have to make about the end of life.
I go into hand-to-hand logical combat with the theocons on abortion, heterosexual sex and end-of-life theology in Chapter Three of "The Conservative Soul."
Beyond Belief
04 Nov 2006 05:44 pm
Haggard on a secret gay life - to his own congregation. The man is in pain.
The Voice of Jesus
04 Nov 2006 05:32 pm
It's slowly prevailing over Christianism and the poison of political power. Listen to Tony Campolo, a moderate evangelical leader. He gets it. The Christian response to Haggard must not be demonization of him. It must be to reach out to this damaged soul and to help heal the terrible damage done to his family. (The kids were in the car during that interview!)
Please: Don't exculpate him. But don't demonize him either. He is human; and our calling as Christians is to understand, help and love. That's hard, so hard. The Christian calling is to love one another. Not to pass laws or elect parties. Do we understand how hard it is to simply love one another? Isn't that enough for Christians? Isn't that enough to fill our lives, without politicizing the world?
Listen to this. And pray.
Fire. Rumsfeld. Now
04 Nov 2006 04:51 pm
According to sources, the Army Times is about to run an astonishing editorial, openly calling for Rumsfeld to resign mere days before an election. That's how desperate the military now is. Here it is in full:
Time for Rumsfeld to go
"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."
That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.
But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we're doing, are a few choice examples.
Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.
Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.
Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war."
Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on "critical" and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.
But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.
For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.
Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.
And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.
Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.
This is a mistake.
It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.
These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.
And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.
Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.
This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:
Donald Rumsfeld must go.
(Photo: Haraz Ghanbari/AFP/Getty.)
Divide and Govern
04 Nov 2006 04:42 pm
Jon Rauch makes, as usual, a superb case for having different parties control different parts of gvoernment. If one party rules, both parties suffer. Here's what happens when one party dominates:
In September, Congress was very, very busy not passing appropriations bills. It managed to pass only two fiscal 2007 appropriations bills on time. This was partly because it was busy passing a ban on online gambling -=- a pre-election gift to the casino industry and Christian populists, one of Washington's least endearing coalitions. (Jack Abramoff, call your office.) It was also busy passing the Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006, which requires schools throughout the country to allow random searches of students for weapons and narcotics, on pain of losing federal dollars.
Not content with trashing freedom and federalism in separate bills, the House efficiently trashed both together by voting to make it a federal crime to slaughter horses for human consumption. The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act would effectively shut down three slaughterhouses. It was reportedly brought to the floor as a favor to Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y., whose district, according to National Journal's CongressDaily, "includes the Saratoga racetrack and a strong horse community."
You want more of these priorities? Vote Republican again. You want reform? Vote Democratic. And I'd say exactly the same if the parties were in opposite places. One party hegemony produces corruption and unaccountability. You now have a chance to end it.
Haggard Latest
04 Nov 2006 04:42 pm
I didn't realize he was featured in "Jesus Camp," the disturbing documentary about scaring children into rigid fundamentalism:
Haggard put out the word to evangelical groups to avoid the film. In it, he is seen telling a crowd, "We don't have to have a debate about what we think about homosexual activity. It's written in the Bible." Shortly after that, Haggard looks mockingly into the camera to say, "I think I know what you did last night. If you send me a thousand dollars, I won't tell your wife." The crowd responds with peals of laughter. Then he says with a wide smile, "If you use any of this, I'll sue you."
Kent Lemburg, a gay massage therapist, says he knows Jones. "He'd always advertise himself in the back of Out Front," a local publication that is a directory and guide to the local gay scene. "He's a body builder. He definitely is an escort."
Clinical. And sad.
(Photo: Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty.)
Exchange of the Day
04 Nov 2006 04:16 pm
It's a beaut:
"MAUREEN DOWD: A fake news show, "The Daily Show," spawned a fake commentator, Colbert, who makes his own fake reality defending the fake reality of a real president, and has government officials on who know the joke but are still willing to be mocked by someone fake. Your shows are like mirrors within mirrors, using a cycle of fakery to get to the truth. You've tapped into a sense in society that nothing, from reality shows to Bushworld, is real anymore. Do you guys ever get confused by your hall of mirrors?
JON STEWART: I didn't know we were going to have to be high to do this interview."
From Rolling Stone.
Haggard and Dawkins
04 Nov 2006 01:52 pm
An astonishing YouTube clip. Watch it through to the end, where Haggard loses it. I should add I don't share Dawkins' scientism and I don't share Haggard's fundamentalism. My book is an attempt to explain that there is a third option.
Quote for the Day
04 Nov 2006 01:27 pm
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you," - Nietzsche.
(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP.)
Frum on Haggard
04 Nov 2006 08:22 am
"If a religious leader has a personal inclination toward homosexuality - and nonetheless can look past his own inclination to defend the institution of marriage and to affirm its benefits for the raising of children - why should he likewise not be honored for his intellectual firmness and moral integrity?" - David Frum on National Review.
We're seeing these people reveal themselves very clearly now, aren't we?
Friday, November 3, 2006
Now, the Neocons
03 Nov 2006 09:21 pm
I'm just beginning to absorb the full impact of the fact that Richard Perle and my good friend Ken Adelman have just unleashed a critique of the Bush administration that is as brutal as anything I have been writing for the past three years. Coming from them, it's the equivalent of "no confidence" in the Bush administration. From the neocons. Money quote from Ken:
Fearing that worse is still to come, Adelman believes that neoconservatism itself — what he defines as "the idea of a tough foreign policy on behalf of morality, the idea of using our power for moral good in the world"—is dead, at least for a generation. After Iraq, he says, "it's not going to sell."
And if he, too, had his time over, Adelman says, "I would write an article that would be skeptical over whether there would be a performance that would be good enough to implement our policy. The policy can be absolutely right, and noble, beneficial, but if you can't execute it, it's useless, just useless. I guess that's what I would have said: that Bush's arguments are absolutely right, but you know what, you just have to put them in the drawer marked CAN'T DO. And that's very different from LET'S GO."
Thanks, Ken. You're a patriot. You've told the truth about men whom you know and care about. Because America comes first. And this country and its honor must be rescued from this incompetent cabal.
Public Service Announcement
03 Nov 2006 09:12 pm
If you discover, as Mrs Haggard seems to have, that you have married a gay man or a lesbian woman and don't know where to turn, the Straight Spouse Network does good work, trying to heal the wound of the closet. Until we achieve full gay equality and acceptance, families will continue to suffer terribly from the closet and those who defend and uphold it. But there is help out there. You're not alone.
The Haggard Interview
03 Nov 2006 08:59 pm
There's a video stream here. It's very painful, especially to see his wife exposed in that way. And I guess it may be possible he didn't have a relationship with Jones, just that he saw him regularly for massages, and bought crystal meth from him. What happened between them in hotel rooms may never be knowable for sure. But I don't know many straight guys who routinely get massages from the same man and also buy meth from him. And when Haggard was asked how he found Jones, he seemed very ... well, see for yourself.
An Evangelical on Haggard
03 Nov 2006 08:52 pm
From religious right blogger Ben Witherington:
"The culture of patriarchal Evangelical leadership involves a lot of power and isolation at the top. Too often it involves a cult of personality kind of scenario, with the "pastor-superstar" model, and the pastor put way up on a pedestal-- from which he is almost bound to fall. The isolation from normal accountability structures and peer correction leads to all sorts of abuses of power. It is quite simply too much power in too few hands. The minister begins to feel he is bullet-proof, can do no wrong. And if there is something not right in his personal relationships with his wife or family, then moral slippage tends to happen in various forms."
A patriarchal leader, isolated at the top, with a personality cult, and removed from normal accountability structures. The person "begins to feel he is bullet-proof, can do no wrong." Hmmm.
Here's what you are being asked to believe: Haggard never had sex and never used crystal meth. Bush never ordered torture. The insurgency is in its last throes. Michael Brown did a "heckuva job." And Rummy is doing a "fantastic job."
These people cannot self-correct. They'll lie and lie and lie to protect their psychic order. So they have to be corrected.
The election intervention is next Tuesday. Do them a favor, will you?
Haggard's Family
03 Nov 2006 08:13 pm
Pray for them. A reader writes:
I am appalled by the hypocrisy of Haggard's behavior and his "story." But I am deeply moved by the pain his behavior has caused the innocent people in his life.
His wife and five children must be in excruciating pain as they watch their husband and father publicly disgraced in this manner. I am truly concerned about more collateral damage to his family stemming from his behavior and the media coverage.
Christians often use the phrase, "What would Jesus do?" I know for certain that Jesus would be putting His arms around Haggard's wife and children as He healed their broken hearts.
Yes he would. And we should pray for them. But it is also important to remember that this is what the closet does: it is a dagger aimed at the heart of the family. It has wrecked so many marriages, destroyed so many families, traumatized so many kids. It must end. I should add I feel for Haggard. I'm not excusing him; but he too is in pain right now. He was politically more moderate than Dobson and probably somewhere in his psyche he was trying to do the right thing.
But he was lost. And he needs our prayers.
After compassion, there must be an accounting, and a deep one. In my view, the entire Christianist project that Haggard helped build must also be torn down. Christianity must be taken back from these power-grabbers and fear-mongers. Just as true conservatism must be rescued from this White House and Congress.
Haggard and the Bush-Rove Machine
03 Nov 2006 07:39 pm
The real motivations behind Christianism are finally being revealed: power, money, and political control, abetted by lies:
Another prominent religious conservative leader blasted the media for reporting a "rumour" based on "nothing but one man's accusation."
"Ted Haggard is a friend of mine, and it appears someone is trying to damage his reputation as a way of influencing the outcome of Tuesday's election -- especially the vote on Colorado's marriage-protection amendment, which Ted strongly supports," said James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, also based in Colorado Springs.
Haggard, who is often credited with rallying conservative Christians behind U.S. President George Bush for his 2004 re-election, talks to Bush or his advisers every week, according to Harper's.
Now isn't that interesting? Someone needs to ask Karl Rove when he last spoke or met with Haggard. And the press needs to ask the president what his relationship is with Haggard as well. Like now.
(Photo: Erik Stenbakken/AP.)
The Greatest Story Ever Told
03 Nov 2006 07:30 pm
In case you haven't been keeping up with one of James Dobson's right-hand men, Ted Haggard. He has now admitted that he bought crystal meth from a male massage therapist. He has taped a video about the joys of heterosexual marriage. He denies ever having sex with a man with whom he was naked in a hotel room. He says he threw the meth away. Here's the hustler's side of the story:
Jones claimed that Haggard, 50, paid him to have sex nearly every month over three years. He said he advertised himself as an escort on the Internet and was contacted by a man who called himself Art, who snorted methamphetamine before their sexual encounters to heighten his experience.
Jones said he later saw the man on television identified as Haggard and that the two last had sex in August.
He said he has voice mail messages from Haggard, as well as an envelope he said Haggard used to mail him cash. He declined to make the voice mails available to the AP, but KUSA-TV reported what it said were excerpts late Thursday that referred to methamphetamine.
"Hi Mike, this is Art," one call began, according to the station. "Hey, I was just calling to see if we could get any more. Either $100 or $200 supply."
A second message, left a few hours later, began: "Hi Mike, this is Art, I am here in Denver and sorry that I missed you. But as I said, if you want to go ahead and get the stuff, then that would be great. And I'll get it sometime next week or the week after or whenever."
I have some simple questions: how many people who say they bought crystal meth out of curiosity but threw it away then call and ask a male hustler to get some more? How many legitimate massage therapists also procure crystal meth on the side for their clients? Do you think it's going to help you relax?
Behind Borat
03 Nov 2006 07:17 pm
The genius of Sacha Baron-Cohen - as himself:
Way sexy too. Can't wait for the Bruno movie.
Zakaria and Sullivan on Conservatism
03 Nov 2006 06:35 pm
A video from Fareed Zakaria's interview with me about the future of conservatism in America. It will air in full this weekend on PBS, on the show, "Foreign Exchange." Watch a short clip here.
A Banana Republic
03 Nov 2006 06:24 pm
The best column Tom Friedman has ever written:
Let Karl know that you're not stupid. Let him know that you know that the most patriotic thing to do in this election is to vote against an administration that has — through sheer incompetence — brought us to a point in Iraq that was not inevitable but is now unwinnable.
Let Karl know that you think this is a critical election, because you know as a citizen that if the Bush team can behave with the level of deadly incompetence it has exhibited in Iraq — and then get away with it by holding on to the House and the Senate — it means our country has become a banana republic.
(Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty.)
Unhinged Right Watch
03 Nov 2006 06:16 pm
Read Richard John Neuhaus, theocon-in-chief, foam at the mouth for being finally exposed for what he and his movement are all about.
Haggard's Story
03 Nov 2006 06:07 pm
Ted Haggard is asking us to believe the following:
Haggard told reporters that he bought the methamphetamine for himself. He says, "I was tempted, but I never used it." Haggard told reporters he bought the meth because he was curious - but that he then threw it away.
He also says he never had sex with Jones. He says he received a massage from him after being referred to him by a Denver hotel.
So he bought - bought - crystal meth, and was alone naked in a hotel room with a male massage therapist who says he is a male prostitute. But he never snorted and he never screwed. That's the best interpretation. I guess we'll now see what the alleged voicemails say.
Haggard on Marriage
03 Nov 2006 05:55 pm
Here's the Beliefnet video he taped earlier this year. It is beyond belief.
Quote for the Day
03 Nov 2006 04:37 pm
"I don't see why Haggard is so upset. He didn't marry the guy, he just had some one-night stands," - Beliefnet reader, explaining why Haggard wasn't really a hypocrite. (Please, before the emails, I am being ironic.)
Evangelicals
03 Nov 2006 04:14 pm
Now evenly split between Dems and Republicans. After Haggard, the Dems might even get ahead.
The View From Your Window
03 Nov 2006 03:00 pm
Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania, 2.30 pm.
Best-Worst '80s Video Nominee
03 Nov 2006 02:32 pm
David Bowie and Mick Jagger dance like it's 1985. Ewww.
Click here to see the other entries...
Kuo on Haggard
03 Nov 2006 02:12 pm
Very similar to mine. But this phrase is a little unfortunate:
Jesus' earthly representatives have a long history of blowing it.
Well I know what he means.
Confirmed
03 Nov 2006 01:19 pm
The leader of 30 million evangelicals and vocal opponent of gay equality ... is gay, and the psychosis of the closet appears to have led him into a dangerous and self-destructive pattern of behavior with a male escort. Money quote:
The acting senior pastor at New Life, Ross Parsley, told KKTV-TV of Colorado Springs that Haggard admitted that some of the accusations were true.
"I just know that there has been some admission of indiscretion, not admission to all of the material that has been discussed but there is an admission of some guilt," Parsley told the station.
I'll bet you the denials are about use of crystal meth, because that carries some significant legal repercussions. But the meth part of the story rings true to me (although we have no firm evidence of it yet). It's what extremely conflicted and sometimes desperately lonely gay men resort to in order to facilitate their self-destruction, and leave behind any sexual inhibitions derived from crushing guilt. But the hypocrisy case remains. Again from the male prostitute involved:
"It made me angry that here's someone preaching about gay marriage and going behind the scenes having gay sex," he said.
Jones claimed Haggard paid him to have sex nearly every month over three years. He said he advertised himself as an escort on the Internet and was contacted by a man who called himself Art, who snorted methamphetamine before their sexual encounters to heighten his experience.
This is no minor figure. He leads 30 million evangelicals. Here's what his own website says about him:
Pastor Ted has been interviewed by Barbara Walters, Tom Brokaw, Bill O’Reilly, Chris Matthews, and more. Time included Pastor Ted in their list of the 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America. Harper’s says, 'No pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism than does Pastor Ted.'
I'm afraid I feel for Haggard. This is what happens to a man psychologically and spiritually destroyed by actually advancing a lie he knows to be a lie about homosexuality as a "chosen lifestyle" while being gay himself.
His denial of reality, his inability to cope with the world as it is, is often part of the same fundamentalist psyche we see exhibited at all levels of the Rove machine - and, dangerously, within the president himself. Denial is a very powerful psychic force. When combined with addiction, it can fuel destructive behavior. In a human being, it can destroy a person, a family, a marriage, an entire life.
One more obvious lesson: The religious right's lies about who gay people really are must end. Surely now. The victims are also Christians like Haggard. They are countless kids and teens in places where they are taught to hate themselves, and subsequently act out the psychic damage years later. I am not saying Haggard isn't morally accountable for everything he has done, for the lies he has spread, for the hatred he has enabled. That hatred will now come back to him, like the sorcerer's apprentice whose magic of electoral homophobia soon overwhelms him as well. It's brutal pay-back, as it was for Foley, as it often is for every closeted gay man in the end. In the end, their lives lose integrity; and they know it; and then misery; and they feel it more than anyone.
I'm praying for Haggard, as I hope he is praying for me and every sinner. But the lesson of this to the religious right surely is: go and sin no more. Stop the lies. Stop the bigotry. Deal with the reality of gay people, our souls, our wounded hearts, our humanity, our right to be treated equally by our own government. It's what Jesus did. And it is your true calling now.
P.C. Hell
03 Nov 2006 12:44 pm
An ancient English tradition - and an anti-Catholic one too - submits to multicultural nonsense. Look: I'm Catholic and I loved bonfire night as a kid.
Another One
03 Nov 2006 12:39 pm
A reader writes:
I used to vote a straight Republican ticket. At a recent party, when the subject of politics came up, the best I could do was to describe myself as an embittered ex-Republican. I just can't quite call myself a Democrat, even though I profoundly desire them to win next week.
Why do I feel this way after so many years of considering myself a conservative? There are too many reasons to list. The unencumbered growth of government, impulse toward theocracy, homophobia, meaningless flag-waving and fear mongering all come to mind. The biggest reason, however, is Iraq. I am a cancer surgeon. My practice depends on a few things such as accountability, willingness to admit and learn from errors, and to incorporate new research into practice. I find it stunning that Bush has held no one accountable for the fiasco in Iraq, least of all himself. This adherence to dogma, repudiation of facts, and unwillingness to look at any new evidence all are indicative of an administration completely removed from reality. I'm afraid their brand of "conservatism" is entirely unfamiliar to me.
While I may be conflicted about how to characterize my political allegiances, I have no doubt about how I'm going to vote Tuesday. I don't just want the Republicans to lose, I want them to lose big.
Me too. I want an earthquake, because that's the only thing that will force this White House to face reality. But I will make no predictions.
The Economist
03 Nov 2006 11:25 am
A cover that says it all:
The Mohler Interview
03 Nov 2006 10:21 am
You can listen here to an actual interview about conservatism, Christianity and the future of the right. Maybe Hugh Hewitt could take some pointers from a fundamentalist Christian broadcaster who's actually interested in argument, rather than cross-examination.
McCain and the Religious Right
03 Nov 2006 02:27 am
By The Way
03 Nov 2006 12:31 am
Yes, I confirmed that Jerry Falwell refused to debate me on CNN. They're scared. Hannity especially.
Thursday, November 2, 2006
The Soldier Bush Abandoned
02 Nov 2006 11:47 pm
We now have his name confirmed: Ahmed Qusai al-Taayie. On the orders of Moqtada al-Sadr, U.S. forces withdrew from the neighborhood where al-Taayie was taken. We are now told there is "political activity" on the soldier's behalf. Pray for him.
But know this as well: under this commander-in-chief, the U.S. military has both practised torture and abandoned a missing soldier in action. The commander-in-chief has ultimate responsibility for both decisions. he is directly responsible for betraying the honor of the armed services he is duty-bound to lead. So is Rumsfeld. So is Cheney.
Why is this not the lead item on the news? If this were a Democratic president abandoning a U.S. soldier to a Shiite militia, do you think the Republicans would not be protesting this from the rooftops? Where is McCain? Or is this another example of what has happened to him?
(AP photo: the sister of Israa Abdul-Satar, Asmaa, holds a photograph of her and her husband, a missing US soldier, Ahmed Qusai al-Taei, while her father Abdul-Satar Sultan looks on in Baghdad on Monday.)
Another Liberal ...
02 Nov 2006 11:19 pm
... finds common ground:
I've been reading you long enough to know you are certainly not a liberal and there are many things over which you and I disagree. I look forward to the day when you and "liberals", as you've named them, can argue vigorously over some of the matters you've identified and others that will undoubtedly come to the fore.
Though these differences in opinion are serious, they are minor realtive to the current subjects that separate you, and many of the liberals who have discovered you, from today's Republican party in power (privacy, torture, religion in school/christianism, responsible gov't, fiscal accountability, and last but not least, competency in gov't affairs whether foreign or domestic based upon empirical analysis and accompanying policy adjustments).
But before we return to such disagreements and policy debates we must first save our country from the people who are hell-bent on ruining it.
Until that day ...
Deal.
Another Conservative ...
02 Nov 2006 10:15 pm
... can't vote for this crew any more:
I am an upper middle class, stay at home wife and mother of 2. My husband is self employed and we are very aware of the great tax burden we are to carry. All my life, I have believed in working hard, paying our own way and voting Republican ... but I just don't see how I can at this point in time.
Watching you on CNN was a great relief, because I finally saw someone saying what I have been feeling about President Bush (I voted for him). I get sick every time I hear the President or some other rabid Republican telling me what we must do in the name of security ... why we must win, whatever that means! I feel sick that I have no choice any more...this president and the leaders of the party now are on a track to nowhere and I am not aligned with the Democrats. I feel lost as I listen to leaders hoping to hear someone speaking honestly and not finding it.
And one man who did once speak honestly, John McCain has knuckled under.
Quote for the Day III
02 Nov 2006 09:25 pm
"I felt it was my responsibility to my fellow brothers and sisters, that I had to take a stand, and I cannot sit back anymore and hear (what) to me is an anti-gay message," - Mike Jones, 49, of Denver, alleging that he was a paid sexual escort for the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals. The leader, Ted Haggard, denies the accusation.
Then there's this:
Jones, who told a bankruptcy judge last year that he is a self-employed fitness consultant, told Boyles that he was paid money by Haggard, who he says made frequent trips to Denver for sexual liaisons, that he has recorded voicemails and a letter from Haggard, and that he had also witnessed Haggard use methamphetamine.
Jones offered to take a polygraph examination, and Boyles said that will occur Friday during his morning radio show.
Some community leaders in the Colorado Springs had scheduled a rally this afternoon in support of Haggard but canceled the gathering at the request of the church.
The Facade Cracks
02 Nov 2006 09:05 pm
The leader of the National Association of Evangelicals has stepped down to seek spiritual counseling. Ted Haggard was also founder and leader of the Colorado Springs-based New Life Church. I don't know the facts of the matter - but here is the story in the Denver Post.
Lest We Forget
02 Nov 2006 08:56 pm
Today is the second anniversary of the Islamist murder of Dutch film-maker, Theo van Gogh, in the streets of Amsterdam. In his honor, here is the short film that sealed his fate. It's a meditation on the struggle many women have in Islamist societies where freedom is denied them. It's called "Submission." It's a reminder that we are still at war with a terribly dangerous bunch of religious terrorists - a war this administration has fatally bungled.
Is Coulter A Liberal Now?
02 Nov 2006 08:32 pm
A Godless reader writes:
You don't think that Ms. Coulter will start whining about "due process" and other fancy liberal notions, do you? Is she going to hire a defense lawyer - some goo-goo Democrat liberal, elitist, fancypants who went to Berkeley Law School who's going to argue that she shouldn't go to prison - or, Heaven forbid - that some technicality requires that she not be charged with anything?
No, of course not. Technicalities, defense attorneys: they are what guilty people use with the assistance of liberals to avoid responsibility for their conduct.
To My New Liberal Readers
02 Nov 2006 08:07 pm
Just so you know where I'm coming from. I'm not a liberal. I believe in small government, balanced budgets, welfare reform, and a flat tax. I'm against affirmative action and hate crime laws. 
Personally, I'm pro-life, although I can live in a society in which legal first trimester abortions are safe, legal and rare. I'm pro-marriage - I just want everyone to have access to the family structure. I was for the Iraq war. I published the Danish cartoons. I wore a Reagan '80 button in an English high school. I'm a Catholic. I would never have voted for the Medicare prescription bill because we simply cannot afford it. In other words: don't get your hopes up. I'm not on the left, whatever the religious right is now saying about me.
One the other hand, I have some new liberal readers who say I have only recently seen the light on Bush. Just for the record, I very reluctantly endorsed Kerry in 2004 because of what I believed was Bush's incompetence and recklessness. So this is not a new or sudden epiphany for me. But the way the Republicans have run this campaign has confirmed my worst fears about them.
If you're an old-style Goldwater conservative, I think you'll have little choice but to kick the current GOP in the posterior next Tuesday.
If you want to read a conservative critique of the current shambles in Washington, check out my new book. It says much more than I can say on the blog. So far, many, many liberals who have read the book are emailing me to say they don't agree with all of it, but find it refreshing to read a case for principled old-style conservatism. It helped them figure out why they were liberals. So give it a chance. You can get it online here.
Backfiring in Virginia?
02 Nov 2006 07:30 pm
280 religious leaders speak up against the draconian constitutional amendment to strip gay (and unmarried straight) couples of most of their legal rights.
A Happy Warrior
02 Nov 2006 07:19 pm
At 5.20 pm, I'll be on Albert Mohler's radio talk-show on the Salem Radio Network. Mohler is an intelligent fundamentalist; and I've always enjoyed our conversations in the past. No Hewitt, in other words. Then tonight, I'm debating Jerry Falwell on CNN's Situation Room in the 7 pm block; and on Anderson Cooper 360 at 10 pm. Tomorrow night, I'll be on PBS's Now newsmagazine show; and on Sunday morning, I'll be in my regular chair on the Chris Matthews show.
As marathon runners sometimes say, the race doesn't start until you can't breathe. But the stakes are high.
[Update: I've just been told Falwell will not now be debating me. No idea why. No idea either why Hannity won't debate me on conservatism or have me on his show. He's not chicken, is he?]
Vive La Resistance
02 Nov 2006 06:44 pm
"I supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. I believed that Arabs deserved a chance to build a rule-of-law democracy in the Middle East. Based upon firsthand experience, I was convinced that the Middle East was so politically, socially, morally and intellectually stagnant that we had to risk intervention — or face generations of terrorism and tumult. I still believe that our removal of Hussein was a noble act.
I only wish the administration had done it competently. Iraq is failing. No honest observer can conclude otherwise," - pro-war arch-conservative Ralph Peters.
But remember: according to the president, Rumsfeld is doing a "fantastic job." The only inference one can draw is that conservative Ralph Peters has just written that president Bush is dishonest. And he's right.
Bush is a liar about this war; and he's been lying for a long time. It's way past time to call him on it.
Unhinged Right Watch
02 Nov 2006 06:27 pm
"No one can truly be pro-Casey-for-Senate," - Kathryn-Jean Lopez, NRO.
Coulter Kampf
02 Nov 2006 06:09 pm
Some weird news about a person who believes that anyone who disagrees with her is Godless:
Ann Coulter is being investigated for possibly voting in the wrong precinct during a local election last February in Florida.
That's a felony that carries up to five years behind bars.
The man in charge of elections in Palm Beach County says officials have sent Coulter four letters since March, asking her to clarify her address. But he says the conservative pundit won't answer, so he expects to turn the case over to prosecutors.
Surrender, Viacom!
02 Nov 2006 05:56 pm
And it appears they just did.
YouTube of the Day
02 Nov 2006 05:54 pm
An amateur sings (somewhat prematurely): "Don't It Make My Red State Blue."
God and Caesar
02 Nov 2006 05:20 pm
The latest from Dr Dobson.
The View From Your Window
02 Nov 2006 04:13 pm
Clarkston, Missouri, 4.15 pm.
Quote for the Day II
02 Nov 2006 03:29 pm
"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream - the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order - or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path," - Ronald Reagan, stumping for Barry Goldwater in 1964.
Vive la resistance.
The Sully and Hitch Show
02 Nov 2006 02:29 pm
Together again. Hitchens and I on Rumsfeld on CNN yesterday. I repeat: Iraq is now a foreign policy Katrina. If you liked the way they handled Katrina, you'll like the way they have handled Iraq. I repeat again: This is no longer an election. It's an intervention.
The Kerry Gaffe Backfire?
02 Nov 2006 02:20 pm
Maybe this story isn't over. I've been thoroughly persuaded by John Derbyshire and Christopher Hitchens that John Kerry's words were indeed a botched joke. The clincher for me was the actual prepared text, which I confess I hadn't seen till I watched the Daily Show (where I tend to get the news these days) last night. The actual text was that if you didn't work hard, "you end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."
Now, I may be typical of many people's real-time response to this piece of "news." When I first heard the remarks, I cringed and was appalled. When I saw the context, I could see what Kerry might have meant, but also saw the need for him to apologize for the way his spoken remarks could have plausibly been misinterpreted. I stand by that. But now I also see the prepared remarks in black and white, I have a third wave of sentiment. I agree with Jay Nordlinger here:
When you see Kerry's prepared text — I guess you would have to accept it as authentic — you can see precisely what Kerry meant: Bush is stupid, he has always been a slacker, that left him unprepared to lead in Iraq, blah, blah, blah.
So the debate over what Kerry actually meant is now over.
Now what do I next remember? I remember that the president vehemently went after Kerry, as did McCain. Now, when a president decides to do such a thing, his staff have examined the upsides and downsides every which way. They are paid to know any possible backfire for the remarks. And Rove is very smart. So this much I now know: knowing full well that he was deeply distorting Kerry's meaning, the president used the quote full-bore to impugn Kerry's commitment to the troops - and to help turn the base against the Democrats.
I know it's politics. I'm not naive. But it's also revealing about someone's character that he could authorize and exploit such a thing. Most fair-minded people will have to concede that, in retrospect, this was a very, very, very low blow. It hadn't sunk in for me till last night how low. In retrospect, this incident says much more about Bush than about Kerry. I'll bet I'm not the only one mulling that over this morning.
Marriage in Scandinavia
02 Nov 2006 02:04 pm
Gay couples have helped strengthen the institution. Money quote:
Seventeen years after recognizing same-sex relationships in Scandinavia there are higher marriage rates for heterosexuals, lower divorce rates, lower rates for out-of-wedlock births, lower STD rates, more stable and durable gay relationships, more monogamy among gay couples, and so far no slippery slope to polygamy, incestuous marriages, or "man-on-dog" unions.
Who would have thought that encouraging marriage for everyone would do all that? Ahem.
Quote For the Day
02 Nov 2006 01:41 pm
"I call Donald Rumsfeld the best Defense Secretary the U.S. has ever had," - Michael Novak, NRO.
If you agree with him, vote Republican.
Best-Worst '80s Video Nominee
02 Nov 2006 01:38 pm
A very strong contender, I'd say: Bonnie Tyler's "Total Eclipse of the Heart." Classic cheesy '80s ballad that goes on for ever, completely incomprehensible video featuring Foley-esque English schoolboys pouting in a row with day-glo green eyes. Enjoy.
Click here to see the other entries...
People Who've Read It
02 Nov 2006 01:25 pm
I'm beginning to get the first emails from people who have actually read "The Conservative Soul." Here's one person's response:
"I am a 19 year-old East Mediterranean history student studying at Birmingham University in the UK.
The last book I read before yours was 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. In it, Dawkins lumps all religious people together - fundementalists, conservatives and liberals. This was a view I wholeheartedly shared. As far as I was concerned, religion was all utter nonsense from beginning to end.Your book, whilst not converting me, has opened my eyes. Your reasonable, practical and undogmatic faith seems to me a far more accurate reflection of the faith most people hold. I may not agree with you that God exists, but your nuanced reasoning and humanistic approach to your faith has done much to open my eyes with regards the plurality of opinion within the religious world. And I do agree with you that the fight back against all types of fundementalist religion will come principally
