Rudy Is Pathetic

Does anyone believe Rudy anymore? Apparently, he had to take that cell phone call from his wife while he was explaining that he believed in gun rights because of 9/11, because of 9/11. He is liar and a panderer, and a megalomaniac. Other than that, he's great. A friend, who is going to vote for Rudy, once told me that he knew Rudy would be tough on terrorists because what other candidate would you want to have next to you if a mugger was approaching. I thought, well I'd rather have Mike Tyson, but he shouldn't be President.

Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan

Update: I forgot to add "shameless."

Michael Medved Said What?

Michael Medved has written one of the more astonishing pieces at Townhall, in which he explains that . . . wait for it . . . slavery wasn't so bad and the United States gets too much blame for having allowed it until the mid-19th Century. I kid you not. There have been good responses to it at Sadly No, and Mahablog (which led me to the column). But to be honest, I think the best reaction is "What the Hell? Are you nuts? What are you smoking? Are you feeling ok? Are you joking? What's gotten into you? Have you lost your mind? When did you last speak to your therapist?"

Conservative SCHIP Response

I sent a link of my earlier SCHIP post to David Freddoso, who contributes to the Corner. I know nothing about him except that he opposes the SCHIP expansion and writes for the National Review. He responded:

I'd say that parents are in charge of their children, and health care is a private choice. If the govt wants to say otherwise, they can start taking children away from bad parents who make the money and won't insure them.

In fact, the parents have to enroll them anyway if they're going to be on SCHIP, it's not like the kids have any say in it anyway.

I was a bit confused by the last sentence, as I thought SCHIP was meant to be an incentive to enroll your children in a health insurance program and I responded:

No matter who is providing the insurance to the children, a private
company or the Government, the parents have to enroll them. But the
question is who pays. Why not make it cheaper for a financially
reluctant parent to get the child (who has does not have what you call
a "private choice") insurance. Obviously, if a parent is going to
take no action to protect his children, the options are limited. I
just wonder what do we say to children who, through no action on
their own part, have no insurance because of financially strapped or
skinflint parents. Sorry? It seems a pretty meager response.

Freddoso had the simplest (and most confusing) response:

I don't want to subsidize bad parenting, that's all.

I think he misuses the term "subsidize" and said:

Actually, subsidizing bad parenting would be paying people not to
insure their children. What SCHIP subsidizes is good parenting; that
is, insuring your children.

His final response was:

Government pays because they won't -- in that sense, you subsidize bad parenting.

What next? Are we going to give parents a food allowance in case they decide not to feed their kids?

Well I think we do the latter in the form of Food Stamps, WIC, and other programs. But anyway, I think Freddoso's final e-mail was a good example of Right Wing thinking about social programs. I am not suggesting the Government should pay because the parents won't; that would be classic Socialist thinking. I am suggesting the Government pay because the children need health care; that is classic social responsibility. No matter what Freddoso thinks, a responsible community ethic encapsulated in a democratically chosen social program is not the first step to the USSR.

And by the way, I looked up "subsidy." The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest." The enterprise the Government is supporting through SCHIP is health care for children - not bad parenting.

Sammon Swimming Upstream II (Part 2)

It was my original intent to write five pieces on the five excerpts from Bill Sammon's new book "The Evangelical President" found in the Washington Examiner - a free, daily, commuter paper in D.C. But after reading all five, I concluded they all share the same inherent quality - no actual journalistic analysis or questioning of anything by Bill Sammon.

The excerpts remind me of a portion of a 1996 speech by Al Franken wherein he discusses Bill Bennett and his "Book of Virtues." In the speech, Franken says:

Would you please, all of you in the press, stop calling him a best-selling author? He is a best-selling compiler. (Scattered laughter.)
Now in fact, I was reading "The Book of Virtues" the other day. It includes George Washington's Rules of Civility, and Rule Number 12 is if someone mistakenly calls you a best-selling author -- (laughter) -- when all you are is a market-savvy compiler of writings that are in the public domain, it is immodest not to immediately correct the person by saying, "I'm sorry, but you mistook me for a writer. I am, in fact, a compiler."

Bill Sammon, at least in the excerpts from his book, is not a journalist - he is a "a compiler" of the Administrations opinions and apologias. For example, in the third excerpt, entitled "White House misjudged how presidential campaign would radicalize Dems against Iraq war," Sammon simply quotes Administration officials who allege that Democrats have opposed the war in Iraq for political reasons. Sammon takes as gospel Chief of Staff Josh Bolten's claim that:

“A lot of us probably underestimated the potency of presidential politics in all of this. The need of every candidate to remain in good stead with the Democratic Party’s left wing has pretty dramatically dragged not just the candidates, but the whole party to the left.”

Similarly, in excerpt four, headlined "Pork projects, scandals doomed GOP’s majority in Congress, say White House officials," Sammon does not challenge the Administration's ignoring of the Iraq war's influence on the 2006 election. The best he can do is point out that some GOP politicians wondered why Rumsfeld wasn't canned prior to the election. But, of course, Sammon responds with an unanalyzed quote from Bolten explaining the wonderousness of our Dear Leader:

“It would have looked like the cheesiest political maneuver on the planet and would have undermined something that the president cherishes, which is the confidence of the military, up and down the line. He cherishes that, and it’s something that I forget about often, but he always reminds us as he’s working on a speech draft. He says, ‘I’m talking to not just the American people here, but I’m talking to Iraqis, I’m talking to our enemies, and most importantly, I’m talking to our troops when I give a speech. If anybody’s listening to what I say about the war in Iraq, it’s got to be them.’ ”

I also encourage you all to read the fifth and final excerpt about the President's faith, how it supports him, and how his opponents (and Muslims) misunderstand it.

So, I now suggest the Washington Examiner change Sammon's title from "Chief White House Correspondent" to "Chief Compiler of White House Talking Points."

Dog Bites Man

Clarence Thomas has gone public. The stunning news? The real issue at his confirmation hearings was . . . abortion! He says:

That was the elephant in the room... That was the issue. That is the issue that people are apparently so upset about . . . [That is the issue] that you determine the composition of your Supreme Court and your entire federal judiciary, it seems now."

What insight after 16 years on the court.

What Don't They Understand?

Currently in the Congress there is a lot of arguing about the SCHIP program. Now, I will be the first to admit that I don't understand everything about the program - other than it grants health care coverage to children. My understanding of the debate is that some on the Right feel that an expansion of SCHIP is unnecessary because the families of some of the new beneficiaries can afford health coverage themselves. But doesn't that miss the point? Children cannot buy their own health insurance. What if the parents in a middle class family, upper or lower (according to Investors Business Daily the expanded SCHIP will cover children in families of four making under $83,000/year) choose not to spend the money on coverage. Maybe they have a small business and do not feel they can afford the insurance? What if they are deeply in debt? Or what if the parents are simply callous and do not care about their children's well-being enough to spend the money?

In short, I wish to remind those who do not want to expand SCHIP because a family might be able to afford health care for its children, that it also might not choose to do so - and there is nothing the children can do about it.

Sammon Swimming Upstream II

How did I miss this? My favorite White House Correspondent has written a book: The Evangelical President. And it is my pleasure to announce to you - the Washington Examiner is posting excerpts. Now, were you to assume that the softball "reporting" Sammon engages in was just a cover for the hard-hitting journalism needed for a good analysis of a Presidency, you would, alas, be wrong.
Let us look at the first (of five) excerpts in the Examiner. It is entitled "President predicts GOP will keep control of White House after 'tough race' in 2008." Shocking, isn't it, that a leader in the Republican Party would predict a Republican victory.

But what does the excerpt actually say? Does it explain why the President believes the Republican strategy and platform will be better? No. It is, for the most part, an opportunity to air the Republican talking points against Senator Obama. My favorite quote is from an anonymous "official" who says Obama has "a laziness, an intellectual laziness." No wonder he wants to remain anonymous. He'd be laughed out of Washington, D.C. In fact, a full 13 of the 26 paragraphs consist of the President and the unnamed official slamming Obama. The next five paragraphs, offer the Republicans a chance to trash Senator Clinton.

Thank you Bill Sammon, for such an insightful look into the Republican opinion of the leading Democratic candidates. I'm just glad we didn't get another Republican take on John Edwards.

Health Care Bleg

Since my sister has so kindly forced many of you to read It's Better Left Said (or at least link to it), I thought someone might be able to help me with a long standing question I have. The argument I see most commonly made against universal health care is that it results in "long lines and waiting lists." Perhaps. But it always seemed to me that the long lines were caused by the addition of millions of potential patients to the system. So what "long lines and waiting lists" really means is that some people who can afford private health insurance who used to get treatment quickly would now be replaced by some people who could not afford private health insurance. Am I wrong? Is there another cause I am missing? I am no expert on health care and insurance, and am curious.

Reasons For My Concern

I just updated my post on the use of the term "dictator" to explain why I think its misuse matters.

Cheney's Mania

I recently saw a t-shirt that reads: "See Dick. Run!" This shirt and Who Are You To Accuse Me accurately express my feeling toward our VP.

Is It A Duck?

It is popular these days to call Ahmadinejad a "dictator." See
here, here, and here. But he is not a dictator. Ahmadinejad has only as much power as the mullahs in Iran give him. He is the President of a theocracy, not a dictator. I am not alone in this analysis. Ezra Klein, MSNBC, and even the CIA agree.

I bring this up only because "dictator" is the misused word of the year. Hugo Chavez, for example, is commonly called a dictator. See this and this. Granted, he has been taking on powers and taken actions that seem to be leading to a dictatorship, but I don't think he's there yet. The CIA labels Venuzuela a "federal republic." I find it odd when people skewer Chavez and Ahmadinejad with the "dictator" label, but let Pervez Musharref off the hook - although the CIA also calls Pakistan a "federal republic." I guess we are back to the Realism of the 70s and 80s - at least he's our dictator.
Why does it matter? As I just wrote to Andrew, who continues to call Ahmadinejad a dictator,

Why do you persist on calling Ahmadinejad a dictator? It gives the American people a faulty conception of the power structure in the Middle East. It gives the impression that if we take out Ahmadinejad that the Iranian government will fall, like in Iraq. But it is fundamentally wrong and dangerous to think so. If Ahmadinejad had a heart attack tomorrow, another nutjob would take his place. I think you are unintentionally aiding the Cheney’s of the world by giving that impression. If Ahmadinejad is a dictator like Saddam, we can invade and just do the post-war planning better. Iraq becomes our lesson. But, in reality, if we oust Ahmadinejad, there is still a very organized (and not completely unopopular) structure that will fight us. Cheney does not need your help.

Authoritarianism From the Right

I have been wondering lately whether the Right Wing is more susceptible to modern Totalitarianism than the Left. Jonah Goldberg would likely disagree, but I wonder. To oversimplify, the Right Wing seems to be more open to Government control of moral values, and less open to Government control of economic systems; whereas the Left has the opposite leanings. In the modern world, dictatorships appear to be more likely to come from a moralist authority, and not an economic one. China is a womderful example of a moral dictatorship, with a lessening of economic control. Robert Reich eloquently points out the Capitalism of China combined with the authoritatianism of its Government. As he puts it, in the war between Communism and Capitalism, "Capitalism won hands down." Is it possible that the US is, through Right Wing control of the Executive - and complacency of the Legislative branch - in danger of reaching a simlar (although distinctly American) situation. The Right Wing is clearly much more concerned with the loss of economic rights than the loss of civil rights. See, for example,the terrified response of some conservatives to the Kelo v. New London decision, as opposed to their equally terrified response to the possibility of civil rights for gays. It seems to me that if the Right Wing had its way, we would have an unfettered market economy combined with what Andrew Sullivan might call a Christianist state.
I am led to this worrisome thought by the Right Wing's unthinking adherence to the "World According to Bush." Apparently, the Right Wing's capacity unquestioningly to accept authority is large. Consider Fred Barnes' hagiographic opinion regarding the President's place in history. The Right Wing is unabashedly fond of executive power in times of war - even an undeclared war against a tactic like "terror." Note Andrew McCarthy's statement:

In wartime, in response to threats against the body politic, all the might of government would be embodied in the president. This alone would ensure that if an adept enemy took unanticipated action, the nation could swiftly respond; or that if the enemy exhibited some sudden vulnerability, the nation could quickly capitalize. It was how wars would be won.

I don't know about you, but that scares the s*** out of me.
So here's what we have. A world-view accepting of Government control of morality but not government control of economics, and blindly accepting the authority of its "Dear Leader." Are we heading towards an autocratic theocracy? No. Are we in danger of giving up many basic human rights so that an economic elite can flourish? You bet.

Rudy and Guns

I know I'm a little late on this one (boy, the blogosphere moves fast), but is anyone taking Giuliani's claim reagrding gun rights seriously? He said:

I also think that there are some major intervening events — September 11, which cast somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment, doesn’t change it fundamentally but perhaps highlights the necessity of it.

That's just ridiculous. Does he think some pistol packing citizen would have shot down the planes on 9/11? Or does he think that we should be permitted to carry heat on airplanes to stop terrorists?

How exactly does 9/11 change one's view of the 2d Amendment? It is scary to think that a potential president thinks there are significant parallels between national defense and self defense. If I believe my neighbor is building up a collection of guns, should I be able to invade his house, occupy it, and instill my personal values on him and his family? Especially if I've asked him to destroy those guns on a number of occasions? In Rudy's world, why not?

Ahmadinejad, Ground Zero, and Iraq

I agree with everything Mahablog says about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's proposed visit to Ground Zero and Columbia. Just one other thing I want to mention. Ahmadinejad's request has allowed the Bush administration to once again link 9/11 and Iraq. See, we can't have Ahmadinejad visit Ground Zero becasue he is fighting us in Iraq. Obviously, if he understood the magnitude of 9/11, he wouldn't be fighting us in Iraq.

You can argue that Ahmadinejad should not be allowed in the US because he is complicit in the killing of Americans in Iraq. But once you let him in, his actions in Iraq have no connection to Ground Zero and 9/11.

Everything Old Is New Again

The 21st Century version of the Pina Colada Song.