*If you are reading this as a feed you may have to go to the original posting to see the video
(NECN: Jim Braude) - The website Politico.com gave a major boost to Mitt Romney this week, citing the former Massachusetts Governor as the most likely name to appear on a ticket with John McCain.
In the small circle of Massachusetts Republicans there was cautious agreement. As Jim explains, a McCain-Romney ticket seemed a longshot months ago, but now it seems to be a good fit for the GOP. Romney can help pick up votes in key states, and raise a lot of money while doing so.
Joining Jim to discuss, are journalist Seth Gitell of Gitell.com, and Charlie Chieppo, the principal of Chieppo Strategies a public policy advocacy firm. New England Cable News (NECN)
A good "friend" to have, Mr. President. Somebody tell Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid.
View comments at the original post.
Conversely, Chris Cillizza explains today why Mitt Romney will not be the nominee:
1. McCain can't stand Romney, in spite of the warm fuzzies they've expressed for each other since the primary ended.
2. He's a ... wait for it... you'll never guess this ... a Mormon.
3. He might overshadow McCain on the ticket.
4. Inaccurate and unfair accusations against Bain Capital might arise.
5. He might have an eye to 2012 and might not want to do what needs to be done in 2008 to win.
Well, I think yesterday's article was much more convincing, but there ya have it. The article is found here.
View comments at the original post.
Apologies for the lack of a post yesterday - blame AT&T who, in an effort to “upgrade” my Internet connection, simply took it away. Four hours, some of the very wee small ones, out of 24 without such service were devoted to being on the telephone with “tech support.” The last hour of this marathon of a support call(s), was a conference call with 4 individuals inside different AT&T departments - removing forever the impression that the United States federal government is the most convoluted bureaucracy in existence. But in the end connectivity was restored and here we are.
Obama, McCain and The Faith Vote . . .
OnTuesday Obama gave his own faith-based pitch. Tom Bevan has about the best reaction summary in a general political sense. There are some reactions worthy of special note.
Pat Buchanan, really responding to the Dobson/Obama dust-up of last week, comes dangerously close to saying “Obama is not Christian.” More on Buchanan in a minute. But Cal Thomas does not mince words:
Obama can call himself anything he likes, but there is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn’t meet that requirement.
This is turning into familiar territory, is it not? Clearly Obama’s view of the Christian faith is quite different than mine, or Thomas’, but that is simply something inappropriate to utter about anyone in a presidential campaign - it simply is not material, and it is (Lowell? You’re the lawyer, tell me if I use this word wrong) “prejudicial.” I would not vote for Obama under threat of physical harm, but I am not going to publicly declare the validity of his claimed faith - I think God can figure that out just fine without me.
But one of the more interesting response showed up on Time’s Swampland blog:
At a meeting Tuesday in Denver, about 100 conservative Christian leaders from around the country agreed to unite behind the candidacy of John McCain, a politician they have long distrusted, marking the latest in a string of movement that bodes well for McCain’s general election prospects among the Republican base.
[…]
A second person who attended the event, but asked not to be named, said that the group was motivated principally by a desire to defeat Barack Obama. “None of these people want to meet their maker knowing that they didn’t do everything they could to keep Barack Obama from being president,” the participant said. “You’ve got these two people running for president. One of them is going to become president. That’s the perspective. That that’s the whole discussion.”
That is, in my opinion the right perspective. I am no McCain lover, but he makes a lot of sense compared to the alternative, and I do not even need to comment on the alternative’s salvation status to come to that conclusion. But, the left has no governor when it comes to religion bashing.
Speaking of Buchanan…
He concludes the same piece linked above this way:
The unbridgeable divide between the two portends a troubled future. Can Americans ever come together if we are divided in our deepest beliefs about morality and truth, where one side believes gay marriage is moral progress, the other holds it a moral outrage; where one side views abortion to be a mighty advance for women’s freedom, the other sees it as legalization of mass slaughter of unborn babies?
There can be no peaceful coexistence in a cultural war because it is at root a religious war. Far into the future, Americans seem fated to face each other again and again “at some disputed barricade.” [Emphasis added.]
Fascinating analysis, also a bit nerve-wracking - religious wars tear nations apart. But I think Buchanan is right in this case. When noted and typically wise pundits like Thomas are declaring the validity of a candidate’s faith we have descended into a war of religious rhetoric and those almost always end ugly. Religion, while usually reasonable, is in the end beyond reason, and there is no rhetoric that can resolve a conflict between such things.
Thus, once again, we see there is no place for religious discussion in a presidential race. You can be motivated by your faith, but your rhetoric needs to be based somewhere else.
And Speaking of Left-Wing Religious Bigotry . . .
We have a new one for the pantheon - joining Jacob Weisberg, Ken Woodward, et. al. as purely bigoted hate screed against Mormons. This one by Chris Kelly at HuffPo discussing Romney as a Veep prospect:
Another comforting thing for McCain? There hasn’t been a really serious Mormon assassination plot since Porter Rockwell shot Governor Lilburn Boggs, and that was ages ago.
That is a small example of a piece that is completely, utterly scandalous. This thing is so odious as to be beyond refute. He actually uses the example of a story from the Book of Mormon where a killing was committed and uses it as an argument that Romney would do the same.
So has George W. Bush done something like that? I mean there was that whole King David/Bathsheba’s husband thing.
I should stop, there is an old phrase that applies here, “When arguing with a fool, make sure he is not similarly occupied.”
Quick addition from Lowell: I don’t know who Chris Kelly is, or whether he has ever engaged in responsible journalism, blogging, or thinking; but he did none of those in his malicious little post. He writes like a hack. (At least Jacob Weisberg and Ken Woodward can write bigoted content well.) For example, Orrin Porter Rockwell was arrested, tried, and acquitted of the crime involving the infamous and odious Governor Boggs. Some “assassination plot.”
As for Cal Thomas, his comments remind me of the tendency left-wingers have to call conservatives with whom they disagree “fascists.” When we apply words like that to people who do not deserve them, we gut the word of meaning: When a real fascist comes along, we don’t have credibility in using the word. Thomas is doing something similar here. He claims that Obama - a man whom millions of Americans have no trouble considering a Christian - is not a real Christian. Doesn’t that weaken the meaning of the word? Obama’s version of Christianity is not mine, but I do not want to declare him outside of Christianity — perhaps because so many have tried to do that same thing to my fellow Mormons and me. Besides, as John notes, it’s irrelevant.
View comments at the original post.
There is good news for John McCain on several fronts that could be pivotal for his campaign against Barack Obama going into the fall presidential season.
About 90 leading activist Conservative evangelical leaders met privately this Tuesday night in Denver for a meeting convened by Mathew Staver, who heads the Florida-based legal advocacy group Liberty Counsel, to discuss coalescing around McCain.
”Our shared core values compel us to unite and choose the presidential candidate that best advances those values,” said Staver, a former Huckabee backer. “That obvious choice is Sen. John McCain. I think people left the meeting in unity the likes of which have not been evident through the primaries.”
The group also agreed to sign a letter urging the McCain campaign to consider Huckabee, but Huckabee isn’t a favorite of all evangelical leaders, with some disliking his populist message and emphasis on the environment and economic positions.
The group seems to be more anti-Obama than pro-McCain at this stage of the relationship, but could grow if McCain continues to reach out to this important constituency of the Republican party.
Ohio evangelical leader Phil Burress of Citizens for Community Values- who recently said of McCain, “We don’t like him, and he doesn’t like us” - is one that has come around to supporting McCain so that Obama doesn’t win.
“Personally, I can’t wait any longer and can’t take the chance that [Barack] Obama will be our next president,” Burress wrote, according to the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody.
“John McCain, unlike most politicians, will not be bullied, threatened, paid off or pressured into changing his position. That was refreshing. I was once one of those people who said ‘no way’ to Senator John McCain as President. No longer. The stakes are too high. And if Obama wins I need to able to get up on November 5th, look at myself in the mirror, and when I pray, say, “Lord, I did all that I could.’”
Burress characterized the Huckabee letter in terms of a “suggestion, not a demand.”
“This is a man you don’t threaten,” Burress said of McCain. “His principles are his principles. The last thing you want to do is try to force him to do something he doesn’t want to do because he’d probably do the opposite.”
The leaders meeting in Denver included Phyllis Schlafly, head of the Eagle Forum; “Left Behind” co-author Tim LaHaye and his wife, Beverly, founder of Concerned Women for America; David Barton, founder of WallBuilders; Rick Scarborough of Vision America; and Don Hodel, a former interior secretary and former president of Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, according to Staver.
Staver said the result of the meeting will be that more leaders will be “energizing their base” and targeted efforts in battleground states and states with anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives this fall such as California and Florida.
“Obama is a considerable threat to our values,” Staver said. “At the same time, Sen. McCain recently has been reaching out to evangelicals and conservative voters that we represent.”
Burress expresses the sentiment that this is still the anybody-who-can-beat-Obama phase of the relationship between the group and McCain.
“People are not saying, ‘Let’s all go out and support John McCain,’” Burress said. “It’s more like, ‘We have to do what we have to do for our country.’ Basically, that boiled down to John McCain.”
Burress also put the election is stark terms for evangelicals.
“The only evangelicals that will support Obama are the ones who haven’t read their Bible,” Burress said. “The more and more we learn about Obama, the closer and closer we get to McCain.”
“We have agreed,” he said, “that we’ll be working hard the next few months.”
Also on the McCain campaign trail, Steve Schmidt, who was the strategist behind President Bush’s 2004 re-election “war room,” was added and will assume full operational control of the campaign to replace campaign manager Rick Davis. Davis, who actually made the decision to hire Schmidt and announced the change, now will handle long-range planning. Schmidt’s hard-core approach to high-level politics has won him a reputation as a political “artillery shell.”
McCain’s decision to tap Schmidt, a tough California political operative and former adviser to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, to head his campaign operations is being hailed by Republicans as evidence that McCain’s campaign is on a new track.
Adam Mendelsohn, Schwarzenegger’s former communications director and a partner with Schmidt in the Sacramento-based consulting firm Mercury LLC, said McCain made a good move by choosing Schmidt.
“Steve is a good friend and huge admirer of John McCain,” Mendelsohn, who also does work for the McCain campaign, said Wednesday. “I know it’s tough for him to be away from family, and he never intended to be this significantly involved in the campaign. But he is fiercely loyal to his friends and has a tremendous sense of duty.”
Whalen, a former adviser to Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, said Schmidt will need to address McCain’s absence of a dominant message and “a core rationale” for his run for president.
“McCain needs three or four very specific ideas that connect withthe American people that draw a distinction with Barack Obama,” said Whalen. “John McCain has a wonderful biography - but he is not a movement politician,” he said. “It means people aren’t voting on a political philosophy, they’re voting on the man.”
“Obama is talking about change and working across party lines,” he said, but McCain must go on the attack to raise questions about the Democrat’s positions and his leadership.
“If I’m McCain, I’m tying him to the Democratic leadership in Congress and making him into a rubber stamp,” he said.
Schmidt was a member of the exclusive “breakfast club” of top-level advisers led by Karl Rove.
Schmidt also oversaw the successful nominations of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito and was an adviser to and spokesman for Vice President Dick Cheney.
He helped Schwarzenegger’s 2006 re-election challenge, which came on the heels of a disastrous 2005 special election that saw the GOP governor’s polls take a dive.
Even the other side of the political aisle has respect for Schmitdt.
“Schmidt is a very capable operative, and everyone on the other side of the aisle has respect for his ability,” said Wade Randlett, a Democratic fundraiser and Obama supporter.
In other political news, while McCain was on his way Tuesday night to Colombia to promote free trade, he was briefed about the plan to rescue the Americans, along with 12 other captives.
Read here about the RNC’s first ad of the presidential campaign.
American Values‘ Gary Bauer said that John McCain and Barack Obama “did not seem far apart a few months ago” on gay marriage. “Now they are quite at odds with each other. It is something that voters in other states are looking at. When you have a significant number of other states that have voted to preserve marriage, it is the sort of thing that could hurt Obama.”
Finally, Obama may have a slight lead in opinion polls four months away from the election, but McCain is viewed as more patriotic.
View comments at the original post.
There's been a lot of buzz about Romney as McCain's VP in the last couple days.
Obviously this is all speculation at this point, and "conditions on the ground" could change everything. I don't want to set anyone up for disappointment and I sure don't want to spoil any element of surprise when the VP annoucement is official.
But I will share these two "breadcrumbs" that I've seen buried in the news the past couple days that just might lead to McCain-Romney '08
1) John McCain's vetting operation, the most discrete part of that whole campaign office, is run by a lawyer named Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr.
Culvahouse has been involved in vetting people for positions at all levels of government for three decades, roles he's gotten partly because of his reputation for under-the-radar maneuvering.
McCain has turned to him in recent weeks as he sorts through a list of some 20 or more would-be No. 2s - not that you'd know it. The Arizona senator, like every nominee-in-waiting, is demanding privacy and trying to keep the search under wraps, including the involvement of the man who goes by A.B.
Culvahouse's has had a number of very important, behind the scenes missions, you can read more about those in the article. But here's the Romney tie-in.... he worked with the International Olympic Committee during the Salt Lake City Olympics that Mitt Romney helped rescue. No doubt he holds Governor Romney in the highest regard.
2) The new operation at the Republican National Committee, an "independent expenditure arm" that will help the GOP thru the Fall but by law it will not coordinate with John McCain (who has a say in just about everything else at the RNC as the party's nominee)
Who's going to run that show? A guy named Brad Todd.
Brad Todd was one of Mitt Romney's key ad creators in his primary run.
So that's what I'm seeing. Sometimes you see what you want to see. And sometimes what you want to see, also happens to be the way things really are.
View comments at the original post.
I’ll be on vacation until next weekend (Jul. 12), so there won’t be any new posts until at least then. Have a happy 4th of July!
Matt A.
View comments at the original post.
source: NECN
"I would probably support John McCain if he chooses Mitt Romney as his running mate; other than that, I will not support John McCain," said venture capital fund manager and Staples founder Thomas G. Stemberg, a Bush pioneer who raised large amounts for Romney...
Concessions magnate Joseph J. O'Donnell of the Boston Culinary Group was a Bush Ranger who raised substantial sums in this race for his fellow Belmont resident, Romney... but has not raised funds on McCain's behalf. Like Stemberg, O'Donnell said he hopes McCain "is smart enough to choose Mitt" as his running mate.
>> more: Bush base yet to rush to donate to McCain
View comments at the original post.
Democratic operative Wesley Clark not only refused to apologise for his disgusting remarks concerning John McCain’s military service per qualifications for becoming commander in chief, but had the obstinate audacity to put even more fuel to the fire of his divisive words.
“The experience that he had as a fighter pilot isn’t the same as having been at the highest levels of the military and having to make … life or death decisions about national, strategic issues,” he said in an interview Tuesday morning with ABC.
It all started on Sunday when Obama surrogate Gen. Clark said McCain’s wartime experience as a Navy pilot and his command of an air squadron in peacetime did not provide him with experience needed to become president.
“I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,” concluded after critiquing McCain’s military experience.
Clark told ABC News: “John McCain as a young officer demonstrated courage and character, but the service as president is about judgment…The experience that he had as a fighter pilot isn’t the same as having been at the highest levels of the military and having to work with the president and other heads of state and make those kinds of life or death decisions about national, strategic issues.”
One gets the impression that Clark either thinks Obama surpasses McCain’s military service (Obama didn’t serve), or maybe Clark himself thinks he will be commander in chief as a result of the 2008 elections.
Asked on Tues. by ABC whether he felt he owed McCain an apology, Clark responded, “I’m very sorry that this has distracted from the message of patriotism that Sen. Obama wants to put out.”
Since this is about the seventh time a Democrat has critiqued the former prisoner of war about his military service, Obama felt the need to clarify what his strategy is concerning the attacks against McCain.
“I don’t think that Gen. Clark had the same intent as the Swift Boat ads of four years ago. I reject that analogy,” Obama said.
“The question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we’ve got to work on, that would be a top priority of mine,” Obama said. “The fact that somebody on a cable show or on a news show, like Gen. Clark, said something that was inartful about John McCain, I don’t think is what is keeping Ohioans up at night,” he said.
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said on Monday, “Sen. Obama honors and respects Sen. McCain’s service, and of course he rejects yesterday’s statement by Gen. Clark.”
McCain has not been happy with Clark’s comments and asked Obama to back up his ‘words’ with action.
“I think the time has come for Sen. Obama to not just repudiate Gen. Clark, but to cut him loose,” McCain said while en route to Colombia to rally support for free trade with that country which Obama opposes.
Republicans see this issue as one that they may have some legs. One ally of McCain accused Obama of “winking and nodding” instead of condemning Clark and his comments. “This is now about Obama, not Wesley Clark,” said Orson Swindle on a McCain campaign organized conference call with reporters.
Swindle, a retired colonel and also a prisoner of war in Vietnam like McCain, added that Obama should tell his surrogates to “knock this crap off.”
Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch McCain supporter, described his friend as a “rock star” among US troops verses Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois with no military service whatsoever.
“I do believe that General Clark has made a huge mistake here. No matter how he sugarcoats it… he is trying to question John’s service,” Graham told reporters on a conference call.
“I just don’t think this is going to sit well with the American voter.”
There was no way Clark, who was an Army infantry commander during the Vietnam War while McCain was a Navy aviator (as a rule, the grunts didn’t like the ‘flyboys’), was going to back down.
“He not only supported going into a war we didn’t have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America,” Clark said. “As an American and former military officer, I will not back down if I believe someone doesn’t have sound judgment when it comes to our nation’s most critical issues.”
McCain had some additional advice for Obama. “He’s a protectionist and anti-free trade,” McCain said of Obama. “The overwhelming majority of historians will tell you that protectionism and isolationism were a major factor in one of the greatest depressions in the modern history of this country.”
In other political news, McCain said Tuesday that Obama’s Supreme Court nominees would produce more decisions like the child rapist ruling that both presidential candidates have criticized.
David Kupelian argues that there are 3 big reason why Americans should vote to elect John McCain president in 2008.
Finally, Google has a new toy tool that will let you track both McCain and Obama on the campaign trail.
View comments at the original post.
This week, as we celebrate the fourth of July and the signing of the Declaration of Independence, I took the time to actually read the Declaration itself. The Declaration’s wisdom is self-evident, although its prudence at the time was far from certain. The full scope of the historical context eludes me, but its expression of principles seems as relevant today as it must have then.
Many times we stop at the profound enunciation of equality among men as the singular achievement of the document. After having read the Declaration again, this view seems to be incomplete at best. The statement that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” is but a preface to the larger point of the Declaration: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The Declaration continues on describing how and when the governed have the right and obligation to change the form of government under which they live.
The Declaration of Independence carries no legal force today. Our rights, or more properly the rights of our government, derive from the Constitution. Still, the Declaration is properly held out as one of the bases of our understanding of the purpose and nature of government. Jefferson states that “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish [the government], and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Jefferson adds that prudence and experience should serve as our guides in altering, or abolishing as was their case, the government.
Given these principles, it is right to look at the present government and assess whether it effects our “Safety and Happiness” and whether it secures our natural rights to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Particularly relevant are those measures, provisions, and candidates that are on the upcoming ballot. Experience and prudence should be our guide.
Equally important is our right to rebuke the courts. Several court decisions at both the state and federal level have either rejected the will of the people or created law out of pure whim. However, the final word on any matter rests with the people. We should not passively submit while judges dispense law inconsistent with the will of the people, much in the same way the king did at the time of the Revolutionary War. We can find common ground in the revolutionary mantra of "taxation without representation" with current programs and rights that have come without representation: same-sex marriage, enemy combatant habeus corpus rights, etc. We should likewise reject this kind of judicial despotism like our ancestors did to despotism in their time.
What makes this relevant to this blog is that these are the kinds of principles our man Mitt espoused. Last year at this time he said:
For more than two centuries, the United States has stood for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our freedoms have not been easily won. Today, brave men and women are fighting to preserve those freedoms. As we gather with friends and family, let us resolve to keep America strong. We will always be the hope of the world and a beacon of light to liberty-loving people everywhere.
View comments at the original post.
Don't you think, pertaining to your glass half-empty lament, that this VP pick is one of the most important and influential thing McCain could do to get started at least on the right foot?
I, for one, am not getting on his bandwagon until I know who's number two.
(And please, concerned readers, don't write me e-mails about how awful the alternative is -- I'm still not there... hands over ears... Lalalalalalalala... not listening.... can't hear you.)
CHARLES responds: Yes, Nancy, I certainly think Sen. McCain's choice of a running-mate is terribly important and a good way to win over recalcitrant voters. But I still hope he picks a good person who is not named Mitt Romney.
First, as I mentioned, I have little confidence that whoever is elected in November will be part of a tremendous record of success. I feel much as if we are in 1976 -- our choices being a not-so-hot Republican and an utterly irresponsible Democrat. In either case, I would rather that Gov. Romney stay away from being tarred with the next administration's failures (much as Pres. Reagan stayed away after his primary challenge to Pres. Ford, after which there was similar vice-presidential talk).
Second, quite frankly, I am less than convinced that Sen. McCain's choice of Gov. Romney will in fact reassure the conservative base as is rumored. If the conservative base really loves Gov. Romney so much, how come he isn't the nominee? There's this idea in the media these days that he's the base's guy, and I don't question that that's true with a certain part of the base -- but I don't think he's widely popular or totally trusted. That's why he had the problems he did in the primary. I think they will arise again if he is selected as the vice-presidential nominee -- and it's also not clear to me that serving as Sen. McCain's #2 will ease his troubles with certain elements of the base, either. If anything, being associated with what are sure to be a number of leftist policy proposals of a McCain administration will bog him down further.
How's that glass for ya?
View comments at the original post.
I think so, friends...I think so.
(You'll forgive me -- I am a partisan of Wawa.)
NANCY adds: Charles, Wawa! I love it. I used to walk to the Philly Wawa near our house every night when David was working late at our place on 9th and Chestnut to get ice cream. They sell an ice cream I've not seen anywhere else, at least not in the South. It was chocolate ice cream with chocolate chunks, with a thick layer of Dove dark chocolate on the top of it! So around eleven o'clock, I'd traipse down the hall, get into the elevator, and walk through the large cavernous lobby past Ed -- the doorman at the Benjamin Franklin House. (Seriously, check out that lobby!)
Every night, he'd say, "You taking an ice cream run?"
"Yep."
So he'd take his break, grab his cigarettes, and walk me the two or three blocks to the Wawa so I wouldn't be the next statistic on the news the next day. There were a few pretty high profile murders around our building during the years we were there. One right in front of our entrance.
A few months after we moved, I got word he hadn't come into work for a few successive days. When they finally went to check on him, they discovered he'd passed away in his apartment.
All this to say, every time I hear of a Wawa, I think of chocolate ice cream and cigarettes and the wonderful go-the-extra yard doorman and friend we had in Ed Collins.
UPDATE: Here's a photo of Mr. Ed with Camille. Every day when we walked home from school the kids ran to him and gave him a bear hug, this enormous man with tattooed hands.
View comments at the original post.
Inventory
- Current inventory: Click to open inventory update window
- Highest inventory - On April 2, 2008, the SPR inventory exceeded 700 million barrels, the highest level ever previously held. The former record was reached in late August 2005, just days before Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, causing the SPR to conduct emergency releases. Repayment of the Katrina loans and resumption of the RIK program (in 2007) has restored the inventory to its former level and beyond.
- Current storage capacity - 727 million barrels
- Current days of import protection in SPR - 58 days (Maximum days of import protection in SPR - 118 days in 1985)
- International Energy Agency requirement - 90 days of import protection (both public and private stocks)
- (SPR and private company import protection - approximately 118 days)
- Average price paid for oil in the Reserve - $28.42 per barrel
- Maximum drawdown capability - 4.4 million barrels per day
- Time for oil to enter U.S. market - 13 days from Presidential decision
- 2005 Hurricane Katrina Sale - 11 million barrels
- 1996-97 total non-emergency sales - 28 million barrels
- 1990/91 Desert Shield/Storm Sale - 21 million barrels
- (4 million in August 1990 test sale; 17 million in January 1991 Presidentially-ordered drawdown)
- 1985 - Test Sale - 1.1 million barrels
View comments at the original post.
MANAMA, Bahrain: The commander of U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf says any attempt by Iran to seal off the strategic Strait of Hormuz would be viewed as an act of war.
An Iranian newspaper reported over the weekend that one of the country's generals said Iran would take control of the key oil passageway in the Gulf if it were provoked.
Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, commander of the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, told journalists in Bahrain on Monday that "any attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz is an act of war" and said the U.S. would not allow it. The U.S. 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain. IHT - An Act of War
His [Cosgriff] comments came in response to recent Iranian reports from Gen Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, who said if his country were attacked by Israel it would strike back with missiles and would take control of the Strait of Hormuz.
“The rhetoric coming from Iran is not helpful, and I cannot imagine given the criticality of that body of water that the international community would not be outraged should any entity move to restrict the freedom of navigation,” he said.
View comments at the original post.
From Politico
"...McCain sources tell Politico that they believe Romney could raise $50 million in 60 days. One close Romney adviser said it could even be $60 million.
— He is squeaky-clean and fully vetted by the national media.
— He has presidential looks and bearing and immediately would be a strong campaigner who could be trusted to stay on message.
— His family’s Michigan roots would help in a swing state that went Democratic in 2004..."
"...Politico yesterday had McCain campaign sources naming Romney as the number one choice for the Arizona senator, with Romney’s fund-raising ability as his top trait..." Boston Herald - Romney VP excites Mass. GOP
View comments at the original post.
"...For him (Obama), and many of his supporters, the Bush administration has uniquely and comprehensively degraded the nation's security, especially against the lethal threats emanating from the Middle East. America was much more secure under Hillary Clinton's husband--with the first attack on the World Trade Center, the truck bombing of Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings in Africa, the aborted attempt on the USS Sullivans in Aden, the other attempts at millennial bombings in the Middle East and the United States, and the near sinking of the USS Cole--on the road to 9/11.
Yet when we look at what George W. Bush has actually done, it's pretty hard not to credit him with massively improving America's security, both at home and abroad..."
"...The 9/11 Commission report is a chronicle of growing danger unmatched by bureaucratic seriousness or political will. And Bill Clinton, unlike George W. Bush, had nearly eight years to think about Islamic extremism. To President Clinton's credit and great shame, he intellectually understood the nature and horrific potential of bin Ladenism and al Qaeda--as he understood, and regularly tasked his senior officials to explain nationally, the dangers of an increasingly restless Saddam Hussein. Yet he could not summon the fortitude to strike devastatingly against al Qaeda and its Taliban protector or Iraq..." Are We Safer - The Weekly Standard
View comments at the original post.
In big ways, Romney has strengths where McCain is weak — like economics, a topic McCain has with a decent candor admitted to knowing little about. Romney's addition could cancel that out and create a strong ticket headed for victory.
It's not that McCain is a dullard when it comes to the economy. But with only honorable government service as his experience, his perspective is somewhat narrow. His first impulse on issues tends to lean toward government solutions.
Romney's a good man for this because he's a proven champion of the private sector.
Among politicians, he has credible (and rare) experience running a business. His revamping of consulting giant Bain & Co. in the 1980s shows a global perspective and a can-do attitude, both of which are pivotal in keeping the U.S. competitive.
Romney champions drilling for oil and shows leadership on free trade. He's even succeeded in persuading skeptical voters, as he did in Michigan, to follow him on free trade.
Meanwhile, in politics, Romney also brings needed executive experience, having served as governor of Massachusetts.
...given that he was operating in a historically liberal state, he got a lot done — a useful record if the next White House has only a Democratic Congress to work with.
>> full Editorial here: IBD
View comments at the original post.
Yes, the title is a “rock musical” reference, which should tell you we are getting desperate for titles.
Good News!?
In a surprise to many Republican insiders, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is at the top of the vice presidential prospect list for John McCain.
But why is he there?
One of the chief reasons the Massachusetts governor is looking so attractive is his ability to raise huge amounts of money quickly through his former business partners and from fellow members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Mormons.
Cash is good, but will Mormons pony up down ticket like they did when competing for the top spot? Should they? The question directly - should they contribute simply because Romney is Mormon? Gosh, I hope not.
Lowell chiming in: Oh, please. I cannot imagine that any serious, knowledgeable analyst thinks that access to Mormon money is a reason to add Romney to the ticket. There just are not enough Mormons and of those few people, not enough of them are wealthy. Now, if we are talking about Romney’s economic expertise or his turnaround experience, that makes more sense.
Another “leader” in the Veepstakes, Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty talked to CBN’s David Brody:
“John McCain is a person of faith and he is a committed Christian and he is somebody that I think is probably less comfortable being overt about that than perhaps some others might be but his value system and his belief in Christ I think is something that is part of who he is as a person and I think he is somebody who would be well received by Christian leaders and Evangelical leaders and I just want to encourage the McCain campaign to make that effort and to reach out and they are but I think there are a lot of Christian leaders, evangelical leaders who haven’t yet been contacted or who haven’t been part of meetings who are feeling perhaps, are they going to reach out to me and at a minimum we want to make sure that he is speaking on issues of concern to them and I think you’ll see perhaps more of that in the summer and fall.”
Part of being Evangelical is that you are overt about your faith. I relate to what Pawlenty is saying here. My father was a deeply committed Christian, but he never uttered the Evangelical formulation “Jesus is my Savior” in his entire life. Dad was raised Lutheran - it’s a thing with them. But I am bothered, deeply bothered, by the fact that we were treated to countless calls, Brody being a primary voice among them, for Romney to “explain his faith,” and yet we are willing to let McCain be covert about his?
Lowell: I hate to say it but that is a direct product of religious Mormon-bashing by a minority of Evangelicals who find Mormonism so upsetting that they cannot abide the idea of a Mormon present. To my mind that is the plain, unvarnished truth. I am hoping we we are moving beyond that, or at least listening to those folks less and less.
Obama and Evangelical “Disarray”…
While the Republican brand suffers and independent voters focus on issues that favor Democrats, John McCain should be able to rely on one key voting bloc that overwhelmingly favors his party: evangelicals. But Barack Obama is doing more than any Democrat in recent memory to win over religious voters and, facing an opponent in McCain who has been historically shy about his own faith, Obama could close the “faith gap” better than any Democrat come November.
The leaders of the religious right don’t have great affection for John McCain. They think he’s too moderate on immigration, embryonic-stem-cell research and campaign-finance reform, and they think he doesn’t do enough to promote his pro-life positions.
That’s where they agree. But as the 2008 general election unfolds, it’s clear that their movement is in disarray—in a transitional period that could diminish its influence this cycle. For decades, right-wing kingmakers used their sway with voters to pick candidates and set a national agenda at the polls and in the courts. But McCain’s candidacy has tamped down their enthusiasm, exposing fractures that make a rallying of the troops in the pews unlikely.
OK, lets separate the facts from the wishful thinking here. Energy from the religious right, heck the right in general, is at a low ebb right now, agreed. They did not get who they wanted in the primary, but come on let’s be real - that group of people is going to vote for Obama? I don’t think so. (The staff at RCP’s VP Watch blog, commenting on the Pawlenty interview above, seem to agree.) They might sit it out, but the more Obama stands far enough to the left to make John McCain look like the second coming of Ronald Reagan, the more energized that group is going to become.
What Obama IS doing in energizing the religious left. They were always there, but they have been the ones sitting quietly until recently. Maybe even registering as Republicans because they did not want to stick out too much.There is no “disarray” inside Evangelicalism, there is simply a debate between left and right that has been nascent until this cycle. There is competition for political space inside Evangelicalism, which there has not been for a couple of decades, but that is very different than “disarray.”
Of course, the Old Gray Lady would have us think that Obama is going to shift the entire religio-politcal landscape. What’s really funny about that is that even if the landscape does shift, it will not be Obama’s doing. He might catch the train, but that baby was in motion long before he came along.
One thing I know with certainty. This is not going to play out like any of these pundits expect.
Lowell: What happened in 2008, among other things, was that Evangelicals forgot how to be in a coalition and ended up nominating McCain. Now many of that movement are unhappy. That is not necessarily a permanent situation. The MSM glee over religious conservatives being in disarray really does seem to be wishful thinking, or at best premature.
Dobson and Obama - Who Started It?
Collin Hansen In Chistianity Today regarding last week’s dust-up between Obama and James Dobson:
Politicians understandably fear to tread where theologians rule, the field of hermeneutics. Here theologians debate how to interpret the Bible and apply it across time and culture. In his 2006 speech Obama made a hermeneutical point when he doubted that the U.S. Defense Department could survive application of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. If we knew what was in there, Obama implied, we wouldn’t find it such a simple thing to say our politics were based on Scripture. “So before we get carried away, let’s read our Bibles,” Obama said. “Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles.”
[…]
Usually, politicians want no part in these theological debates. Otherwise, they would provoke Christian leaders such as Dobson to say, “He is deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology.” But Obama is no typical politician. That which makes him interesting makes him controversial.
Look, Obama did cross a hermeneutical line first, but I still don’t think Dobson should have responded as he did. Obama’s statements simply do not pass any sort of serious test, it is blatant, even lousy, proof-texting (a phrase one uses when doing hermeneutics to mean “taking a verse out of context to support a point I want to make,” as opposed to letting the Bible tell me what to think). In my opinion, so much so that res ispa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) should apply.
By picking up the hermeneutics ball, as it were, what Dobson did was invite continued debate along those lines. That is NOT a debate we want to have in the political arena. Unlike Obama, there are any number of left-wing theologians out there whose arguments and not quite so self-negating. All it would do is confuse things.
As we found out last week from the Pew Forum, most people like their faith a mile wide and an inch deep. A theology debate in the public square is just going to drive them away in droves, and they are likely to side with the guy that “feels” right. Right now, Obama has got it all over us on the “feeling” thing. Capice?
View comments at the original post.
...adding Romney ticket would at least allow McCain to engage the Democrats on bread-and-butter issues. When When McCain starts ranting about high taxes and too much regulation, he sounds as if he's just reading tired old GOP talking points--which, I assume, he is. Romney, by contrast, is quite adept at leveraging his experience in the business community into expertise on the economy. He can about how he saved the Salt Lake City Olympics or how he helped build Staples into a retail empire, and suddenly those same old cliches sound like essential insights from a man who actually knows something about business. Having obsevered Romney extensively on the campaign trail, I would say that he was at his very best in his role talking about economics.That brings me to the last, potentially [the] most important political asset Romney brings to the ticket. McCain is lousy on the attack. Quite unlike Barack Obama, who has mastered the art of criticizing an opponent while smiling, McCain seems to have two modes: Either he's being a principled statesman disdainful of attack politics, in which he (again, to me) comes off as genuinely admirable, or he's being an aggressive partisan, in which he comes off as shrill. I've always assumed that McCain's inability here was a combination of discomfort with the role and sheer lack of skill.
Romney has neither problem: He's a superb debater--a quick thinker who's always throughly prepared.
source >> TNR: The Plank
View comments at the original post.
Well, Mitt beat out Tim Pawlenty in the MSNBC Veepstakes -- 70% to 30% to advance to the Final Round against.... Colin Powell who beat out Bobby Jindal.
So -- be sure to vote one last time to make Mitt the Champion!
View comments at the original post.
As the nation became aware and roared with anger at Obama surrogate Wesley Clark’s disgusting comments regarding John McCain’s military service to our country in time of war, a new narrative seems to be emerging in the presidential arena.
Far from being pure, Barack Obama came from the Chicago-style politics of Illinois, where much of America seems to wed the name Chicago and the word corruption together as synonymous with each other. Barack Obama came touting the word “change” where only corruption seems to flourish, so the question becomes; does Obama really mean what he says, or is he just a political fraud?
Obama promised America a new politics with sincerity and respect that could unify us to solve our common problems. Instead, we got a slick political operator who knows much more about the art of mass propaganda through convincing oratory, than how many states we have or what our former presidents did before they set out to meet our adversaries for possible deal-making meetings. Instead of corruption-free politics, we got what many see as illegal politicking coming from his former church through Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger. Instead of “change we can believe in,” we got a look at a record in his political and social life that consists of the opposite of what he insists he can do as president. In short, we were promised something that the boaster of the promise could not possibly deliver. We were fooled by a master charlatan.
Of course, when I say ‘we,’ I am speaking about those who have taken a sip of his kool-aid, but haven’t finished drinking the whole concoction yet.
Claiming that McCain is “untested and untried” in foreign policy, Obama operative Clark said, “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”
We had Democrat and Obama supporter Sen. Tom Harkin last month said that a president with McCain’s military background and worldview “can be pretty dangerous.”
We had former Sen. George McGovern in April saying, “John, you were shot down early in the war and spent most of the time in prison. I flew 35 combat missions with a 10-man crew and brought them home safely every time.”
We had Democrat and Obama supporter Sen. Jay Rockefeller saying, “McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when (the missiles) get to the ground? He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues.”
We had Jeffrey Klein write at the Huffington Post: “From day one in the Navy, McCain screwed up again and again.”
We had Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the liberal activist group Code Pink, say this: “I wouldn’t characterize anybody who fought in Vietnam as a war hero.”
Finally, while Obama was distancing himself verbally from Clark’s comments, We had top Democratic foreign policy voice Rand Beers, Sen. John Kerry’s top national security adviser during his 2004 presidential run, say that McCain was in an unfortunate state of “isolation” during much of the Vietnam war, so his national security experience is “sadly limited.”
We saw how Obama supporters trashed Hillary Clinton supporters around the Internet as these “new” Democrats of Obama’s figured that they didn’t need them any more, since there were so many of them.
We saw how Obama’s association with home-grown terrorists and other anti-American and anti-Semitic characters, by his own admission, tainted his judgements.
We saw that he looks down on blue-collar whites, rural Americans and others who are not elite enough to understand what guns and religion are for.
We saw how he couldn’t possibly disassociate himself from his ex-pastor, since it was akin to getting a divorce from the black community, then throwing Wright under his political bus when Wright told the truth about why Obama was saying what he had to say, concerning the controversy, to get elected.
We saw how Obama has made over 67 false statements in THIS political cycle alone.
We saw how Obama can out-flip-flop the best politicians with his back-flips on public financing, gun control, and free trade - all for the sake of political expediency.
So, we are left with a true American patriot and hero who willingly and voluntarily sacrificed and fought bravely against America’s enemies when his country needed him, verses someone who has no military service and no foreign policy experience worth mentioning, who sends out surrogates to smear his opponents’ patriotic and heroic service to his country. We are left with a man who has a RECORD of reaching across political lines to try and help his country - even over the detriment of his own party - verses a man willing to sacrifice his own grandmother as the first of many to experience the underbelly of the Obama political bus.
What we really have left after all the propaganda and pontificating is over, is a candidate of ‘trust’ verses a candidate of false ‘change.’
In other political news, Wake up America is reporting that “The women working for Barack Obama in his Senate office make, on average, $6,000 less than the men that work for his Senate office.”
Sen. John Warner shoots down Obama’s so-called “experience” in this article.
And, according to Politico, Mitt Romney is topping McCain’s VP list.
View comments at the original post.
Mitt Romney (à droite) et John McCain (à gauche)
L'équipe de John McCain aurait informé politico.com que le candidat Républicain aurait aujourd'hui Mitt Romney comme son favori pour son candidat à la Vice-Présidence.
Affaire à suivre, mais cette nouvelle est d'importance pour plusieurs raisons :
Depuis la Primaire Républicaine, Mitt Romney devient l'homme fort du parti Républicain. Voir même, il en devient le principal leader. Son problème est que John McCain reste le leader naturel du parti en tant que désigné. Etre sur le ticket lui permettra de contrebalancer cela.
Si John McCain l'emporte, Mitt Romney de manière quasiment sûr le candidat en 2012. Si John McCain perd en novembre, cela n'affaiblit pas particulièrement Mitt Romney.
Notre candidat a donc tout à gagner à être sûr le ticket pour la présidentielle. Cette information est donc des plus importantes !
View comments at the original post.
At the exact moment I touched the door knob a large crack split the air and my stomach dropped to the patio. I'd taken the dog out for a before-bed ball throwing until it'd gotten too dark for either of us to find the ball. Just as I was wondering if the kids had, indeed, brushed their teeth, the loud bang stopped me cold.
The dog jumped and I bolted into the door, where no one stood. Austin ran into the room, and asked "What's wrong?"
"Did you hear that?"
"What?"
"Nothing."
"Whaaat?"
"Nothing."
He eyed me suspiciously. We'd been reading books every night before bed, and it left us all a little jittery. Is that really a bird, or part of the raven king's army trying to take over the neighborhood? Does that loud bang have an explanation, or do I need to look for our ammunition?
Of course, late June and early July in Tennessee is a wondrous place, especially on a cool summer night like this one. Large, striped firework tents pop up on every street corner, advertising things like "red neck rockets" and "screaming eagles."
You can't drive down the road at night without the night sky being lit up on both sides of the street, so perhaps I shouldn't have been shocked at tonight's blast for two houses down. Maybe three. The yards are so big that when the kids heard the successive loud noises they ran out of their bedrooms and out the door. Austin forgot his pants.
Yet another good thing about rural Tennessee -- no street lights.
The kids laid on their backs on the warm cement, looking at the stars with intermittent fireworks that would've been the highlight of the county productions when I was a kid. Enormous blasts, echoing through the night air. I could imagine which neighbors were annoyed and which were sitting out in the dark on their porches anxiously awaiting the next one. The kids listened to each others' stomach gurgle between the fireworks. They covered the dog's ears. They found the big dipper.
You couldn't quite see the neighbors, but -- if you listened -- you could hear whoops and hollers of approval wafting down the road.
When I forced them back to bed, Austin said, "If anyone ever comes to stay at our house because they're going somewhere that's too far to get to in a day and they need to spend the night...?"
"Yes?"
"I want to wear pants to bed."
View comments at the original post.
Ugh.
NANCY asks: Charles, could you be more specific? I half-expected to click on that link and see a photo of Huckabee or something. Is that a "frustrated" ugh or a "I can't stand to draw this out anymore" ugh?
CHARLES replies: Frustrated, dear sister. Frankly, I don't want Gov. Romney anywhere near the train wreck that the next four years seems sure to be -- no matter who wins. There's your daily dose of optimism!
View comments at the original post.
I have been one of the most strident proponents of the “Veeps have very little impact” school of thought-and I do believe that this line of thinking is correct for the most part. However, that does not mean that the Veep selection has no impact and that we should refrain from looking back to learn from the choices that worked out for the best. Simply because there are no “gamechangers” in the field does not mean that Sen. McCain cannot gain a great deal if he chooses wisely. For my part, I believe there are two selections that have the potential of helping McCain across the electoral finish line come November: Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.
Selecting Gov. Romney as the Veep would accomplish several important things. First of all, Sen, McCain would gain a multitude of enthusiastic volunteers that would be of great help in closing the enthusiasm gap with the Democrats. Secondly, as Mike Allen’s article mentions, Gov. Romney has the potential to raise the kind of money that can level the playing field with Obama. Mitt has also been vetted, is more than ready for primetime, and has the resume, charisma, and gravitas that will enable voters to imagine him being able to step in as President from the get go. Mitt’s Michigan roots are a benefit as well.
McCain has stated that it is important to him to look back at the Vice Presidential picks that have worked out for the best to guide him in his selection. I would suggest that President Reagan’s selection of George H.W. Bush in 1980 is perhaps the best model in which to base his selection. President Reagan’s selection of Bush served to unify the Republican Party’s Conservative and Moderate Wings and was a signal to Bush’s primary supporters that they would have a place in a Ronald Reagan led Republican Party. It would be quite hypocritical for the Rush Limbaugh’s, Laura Ingraham’s, National Reviews, etc…, of the Conservative punditocracy, who enthusiastically supported Romney during the later stages of the primary fight, to withhold their support from the ticket when McCain has made this concession.
Mike Huckabee brings important benefits to the table as well. Huck’s Army is made up of many of the foot soldiers that brought us victory in 2000 & 2004. Want these folks back in the game, answering phones, knocking on doors, etc…? Then select Mike Huckabee.
Huckabee would also completely defuse Obama’s Evangelical/Religious voter outreach, and as we have have seen from the SurveyUSA polls, Huck appears to appeal to a certain segment of Democrats who are reluctant to pull the lever for Obama.
So the bottom line is this… There are really only two candidates that can bring significant benefits to McCain come November: Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee; and (demogogues aside) there are few voters who would be open to voting for McCain that would be turned off by either of their selections (especially if Obama ends up choosing a conventional liberal such as Joe Biden).
So the tiebreaker for me is this: why go with the candidate who campaigned on blowing up the Reagan Coalition and touted the end of the three-legged stool of Conservatism when you can choose one the most eloquent advocates of the American Conservative Movement and all of its underlying principles?
If it is truly down to Romney, Portman, or Thune, choose Mitt Romney. It’s a smart choice.
View comments at the original post.
Say it ain’t so, Mac, say it ain’t so.
Surprising many Republican insiders, Mitt Romney is at the top of the vice-presidential prospect list for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). But lack of personal chemistry could derail the pick.
“Romney as favorite” is the hot buzz in Republican circles, and top party advisers said the case is compelling.
Campaign insiders say McCain plans to name his running mate very shortly after Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) does, as part of what one campaign planner called a “bounce-mitigation strategy.”
The Democratic convention is in late August, a week ahead of the Republicans convention. That means McCain can size up the opposing ticket before locking in his own.
One of the chief reasons the Massachusetts governor is looking so attractive is his ability to raise huge amounts of money quickly through his former business partners and from fellow members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons.
McCain sources tell Politico that they believe Romney could raise $50 million in 60 days. One close Romney adviser said it could even be $60 million. …
But there’s one big problem: Despite the buddy-picture choreography of a McCain-Romney campaign swing, McCain remains far short of enamored of Romney.
And McCain sources say he’ll pick his vice presidential candidate based more on ability to govern than ability to help in the election.
So two other names are in the top tier:
—Rob Portman, a former congressman from Ohio, member of House leadership, U.S. Trade Ambassador and White House budget director.
—Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who would delight conservatives and is at the top of the list of the party’s prospects for the presidential race in 2012 or 2016. He was described to Politico by a McCain confidant as a possible “compromise” if the senator can’t stomach picking Romney.
View comments at the original post.
by Ron KesslerBarack Obama’s approach to the war on terror shows “frightening naiveté,” Mitt Romney tells Newsmax.
Obama doesn’t get that we are in a new age, where “military might is essential,” Romney says.“What we’re facing right now in al-Qaida and global violent jihadism is an enemy which has relatively crude weapons but highly motivated warriors,” he says. “Over the next decade or two, they will surely obtain highly sophisticated weapons with massive casualty potential. Now is the time to stop this enemy, because the consequences of ignoring them until they have massive casualty capability are almost unthinkable.”
>> read the full article here
View comments at the original post.
The New Nixon Blog is pretty doggone good. Friday David R. Stokes wrote about parallels between Obama and Jimmy Carter when it comes to Evangelicals.
But quoting stuff out of context is commonplace among politicians and spin-doctors.
Why is this kind of thing effective with people who should know better – those who profess to believe the Bible and follow Jesus? Well, the sad fact is that we are dealing with an often underestimated and ignorant illiteracy in many evangelical circles today. As more and more people find theology and doctrine dry and irrelevant, and matters of the soul, eternal life, and moral imperatives not nearly as important as SOCIAL ACTION, the situation is ripe to be exploited by someone with a message that sounds right.
Now, on the one hand, I agree with that analysis, but it really should not be pertinent to a presidential race. See here is the thing - the best response to that would be for the average Evangelical to study theology more. But what we saw in the primary was that more theologically astute Evangelicals drove out the candidate that was most likely to represent their theological views? Or did they? It could also be argued that if they truly understood their theology, as opposed to simply wore a tribal label, they might have understood that it would be fine to vote for someone from another “tribe.” However, to make that case, I would have to get much deeper into the theology than our self-imposed rules allow on this blog.
The problem is really, that we were treated throughout the primary to legitimate theologian after legitimate theologian making sure, in some cases to define the distinctives, before declaring support, we understood, in excruciating, detail the difference between LDS and more orthodox Christianity. We had debates over the word “cult” and the word “Christian.” Yes, with the possible exception of Joel Belz in World Magazine, the real bigotry came from the left, but the in-depth analysis came from the right. Analysis that while generally true, was not useful.
Many will remember the cartoon I have here at the left - It’s an old Far Side. The dog does not hear most of what it is being told. If Stokes is right, and he probably is, then all that came from all that theological hair-splitting, all most people heard, was “Not one of us - Not one of us - Not one of us.”
The great political lesson of the 2000 race was that people do not generally vote the issues, they vote identity. But that game is not good for the nation and it is a game we really, really need to stop playing.
Maybe I will have to post that theology?
Speaking of Theologians . . .
. . . Obama apparently has one to call his very own. As I watch my own church rip itself apart between left and right, to consider putting the force of a presidential race behind such debates is truly terrifying to me when it comes to the future of the church. I could easily see a day where rather than trinitarian questions dividing LDS and creedals, it will be questions about global warming - and somehow in that transition, what has really suffered is the gospel of Jesus. Think about it . . .
Speaking of Religious Divides . . .
Roger Cohen suggests that Barack Obama “should visit a mosque” to “break the monolithic, alienating view of a great world religion that is as multifaceted as Judaism or Christianity.”
How come nobody called for George W. Bush to appear at a Mormon Temple (well, outside one) to break any associated monolithic views there? Hmmmmmm?
And, Does This Help?
Friend of this blog, Peggy Fletcher Stack, had a piece Friday in the SLTrib on former Mormon candidates for the presidency. Interesting bit of history, but it appeared under the sub-head “LDS Quest for the White House.” That sounds a bit ominously conspiratorial to me. If a church, any church, is setting policy to gain legitimacy by having one of its own in the office of POTUS - they have sacrificed some claim to being a religion and become a political party. Given the political neutrality of the CJCLDS, I don’t think that is a problem here, and now.
Lowell: Nope!
And McCain needs this, but:
After the meeting, Franklin Graham issued a statement praising the Arizona senator’s “personal faith and his moral clarity.”
The moral clarity seems like a good thing to say, but what about that other part, especially if say, Romney, had prevailed?
Leavitt, from Pompano Beach, Fla., is asking his siblings and children on the West Coast to choose family over a call from Mormon church leaders to support a November ballot initiative to define traditional marriage California’s constitution.
A letter from Thomas S. Monson, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was to be read from the pulpit in church congregations Sunday.
Since the letter began circulating on the Web last weekend, hundreds of Mormon blog posts have expressed disbelief, disappointment and outrage at the church’s decision to wade into politics.
You know what - throughout history, the church has established marriage, and in this country and some others, the government simply chose to put its imprimatur on it - because it was the very foundation of society. This is really more about politics sticking its nose in religion’s business. Which is why the two are never completely separable - they are both ruling institution competing for ruling space. And given that this past week, my church made all sorts of stupid moves with regards to homosexuality, I am pleased to see the LDS stand up this way.
Lowell: What’s interesting about the Florida story is the “hundreds of Mormon blog posts” expressing “disbelief, disappointment, and outrage.” What? This decision by the First Presidency to support the amendment is one of the least surprising LDS developments in the last 50 years. The Church also endorsed the federal Constitutional amendment
In fact they are on the exact same page as Focus on the Family. So why can Dobson agree with Monson on this and not on a candidate?
This Does Help.
Religion in a more proper political perspective. Yes, the kind of thing discussed in this NYTimes piece can be over extended and become just another leftie-schill, but it worked here and it is worth noting.
The Vatican chimes in with some smart thinking in this realm as well.
And… some reason from WaPo o the Dobson/Obama dust-up. But then, this blog was there first.
View comments at the original post.
Mike Allen, who's got a reputation as being very well sourced reporter, is saying that Mitt Romney is emerging as McCain's top choice for VP this Fall.
Surprising many Republican insiders, Mitt Romney is at the top of the vice-presidential prospect list for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). But lack of personal chemistry could derail the pick.
“Romney as favorite” is the hot buzz in Republican circles, and top party advisers said the case is compelling.
Here's the case ...
One of the chief reasons the Massachusetts governor is looking so attractive is his ability to raise huge amounts of money quickly through his former business partners and from fellow members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons.There are other states he can help swing too, like Nevada and Colorado. He's also a big help in Utah.
McCain sources tell Politico that they believe Romney could raise $50 million in 60 days. One close Romney adviser said it could even be $60 million.
Romney’s other advantages, according to people involved in McCain’s screening process:
—Squeaky clean, and fully vetted by the national media.
—Has presidential looks and bearing, and immediately would be a strong campaign who could be trusted to stay on-message.
—Family’s Michigan roots would help in a swing state that went Democratic in 2004 and is. [sic]
Since it's going to be about 2 months before any of this becomes official, take the news with a grain of salt. But I agree, Mitt's got all those advantages the article listed, and more.
View comments at the original post.
After some digging it became apparent that several Blogspot accounts had been shut down ... nearly all of them had three things in common: Most were pro-Hillary Clinton blogs, all were anti-Barack Obama, and several were listed on justsaynodeal.com, an anti-Obama website.
I saw this on Instapundit this morning and became a little alarmed.
Who's to say the Obamabots won't come after NY for Mitt next?
Silencing the opposition? That's not change you can believe in! It's a bunch of evil tactics Obama's team is recycling out of a Stalinist communist playbook.
View comments at the original post.
Arizona Senator and GOP nominee-to-be John McCain made a stop in North Carolina to the Blue Ridge Mountains to visit the Rev. Billy Graham, and his son, the Rev. Franklin Graham.
McCain, eager to court evangelicals, called for the meeting in which 15 minutes after the event ended Franklin Graham gave a statement.
“Sen. McCain’s office had requested a meeting …and we appreciate the effort he made to travel to my father’s home,” Franklin Graham said. “I was impressed by his personal faith and his moral clarity on important social issues facing America today.”
A half-hour into McCain’s visit, singer Ricky Skaggs made his way to a scheduled lunch with the Grahams. A short time later, Franklin Graham and Skaggs stepped onto a small porch to bid the senator goodbye.
“We had an excellent conversation,” said McCain. “Bill Graham recalled that during the Vietnam War when I was in prison, he visited my parents in Hawaii twice and he and my mother and father prayed together for me, and I expressed my appreciation for that a long time ago.…I am very grateful for the time they spent with me.”
In other political news, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a former presidential candidate and long-time Democratic operative, made a rather insulting and disturbing remark on the CBS show “Face the Nation” concerning Mr. McCain’s experience to be commander in chief vis-a-vis his military experience.
“I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”
The McCain campaign responded quickly:
“If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to question John McCain’s military service, that’s their right. But let’s please drop the pretense that Barack Obama stands for a new type of politics. The reality is he’s proving to be a typical politician who is willing to say anything to get elected, including allowing his campaign surrogates to demean and attack John McCain’s military service record.”
In still other political news, in downtown Orlando, 24 cars were vandalized with messages that supported Hillary Clinton and insulted Barack Obama and John McCain.
Here we have John McCain blasting Barack Obama for flip-flopping.
Here we have senator Lieberman predicting an attack on the United States in 2009.
“Our enemies will test the new president early,” Lieberman, I-Conn., told Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation. “Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration.”
Since Barack and John began their respective campaigns for president, Obama finally plans on taking his first overseas trip, while McCain makes his twelfth trip.
Finally, we have McCain meeting with Ph
View comments at the original post.