Huckabee: smooth. He is clearly the most articulate, clear-headed public speaker of this crew. No one in public life explains the interconnectedness between faith, politics, and culture better than Huck.
Romney: slippery. His refusal to answer the planted "gays in the military" question was tortuous. He has a tough time explaining his Massachusetts past. Anderson Cooper's pointed follow-up was as devastatingly illustrative as Hillary's notorious stumble in Philadelphia.
Rudy: straightforward. The guy has no capacity to tell anything but the truth. He has no filter. He will answer as honestly as possible any question you ask of him. I love Rudy--but can a man with this fatal political flaw ever win the presidency?
Ron Paul: haunting. In your heart you know he is right. If it wasn't for Iraq, we would love him. If it wasn't for Iraq, the media would hammer him, and we would have never heard of him.
Fred: halting. He is a rough speaker. Good on the issues (and tall)--but still not ready for prime time. Is he getting better? Maybe a little? Or do I just want him to be getting better?
McCain: tragic. He is a great American--but if "he keeps on talking to the people who don't listen, who does he think is going to hear?" I like McCain. The great mass of Republicans disagree with me. Next.
Duncan Hunter: unfortunate. He deserves better than this. Too bad.
Romney: slippery. His refusal to answer the planted "gays in the military" question was tortuous. He has a tough time explaining his Massachusetts past. Anderson Cooper's pointed follow-up was as devastatingly illustrative as Hillary's notorious stumble in Philadelphia.
Rudy: straightforward. The guy has no capacity to tell anything but the truth. He has no filter. He will answer as honestly as possible any question you ask of him. I love Rudy--but can a man with this fatal political flaw ever win the presidency?
Ron Paul: haunting. In your heart you know he is right. If it wasn't for Iraq, we would love him. If it wasn't for Iraq, the media would hammer him, and we would have never heard of him.
Fred: halting. He is a rough speaker. Good on the issues (and tall)--but still not ready for prime time. Is he getting better? Maybe a little? Or do I just want him to be getting better?
McCain: tragic. He is a great American--but if "he keeps on talking to the people who don't listen, who does he think is going to hear?" I like McCain. The great mass of Republicans disagree with me. Next.
Duncan Hunter: unfortunate. He deserves better than this. Too bad.
29/11: What the Hell?
Hell is not popular in contemporary American Christianity. In this post Frederica Mathewes-Green explains and tries to revive Christian belief in hell.
Before reading: Mathewes-Green is Eastern Orthodox and so her approach and explanation reflect the Orthodox understanding, not the Western. In the East, sin and salvation are not primarily understood in forensic terms, never have been. Rather than the law court being the dominant conceptual framework (as in the West, at least since Anselm), the dominant concept for understanding sin and salvation is the family. Also, depravity (fallen and sinful human nature) in Orthodoxy is usually more understood as a "tarnishing" of the image of God, rather than the severly distorted almost beyond recognition image of God in fallen humanity as understood in the West at least since Augustine.
btw, I find it interesting that Orthodoxy, which is a patriarchal form of Christianity--males only as priests and bishops, God is Father and Jesus is the incarnate Son, etc--has recognized some strong women as saints. I'm not nominating Mathewes-Green for sainthood, but she is a strong woman whose writing is usually featured on Orthodox websites.
Before reading: Mathewes-Green is Eastern Orthodox and so her approach and explanation reflect the Orthodox understanding, not the Western. In the East, sin and salvation are not primarily understood in forensic terms, never have been. Rather than the law court being the dominant conceptual framework (as in the West, at least since Anselm), the dominant concept for understanding sin and salvation is the family. Also, depravity (fallen and sinful human nature) in Orthodoxy is usually more understood as a "tarnishing" of the image of God, rather than the severly distorted almost beyond recognition image of God in fallen humanity as understood in the West at least since Augustine.
btw, I find it interesting that Orthodoxy, which is a patriarchal form of Christianity--males only as priests and bishops, God is Father and Jesus is the incarnate Son, etc--has recognized some strong women as saints. I'm not nominating Mathewes-Green for sainthood, but she is a strong woman whose writing is usually featured on Orthodox websites.
28/11: Speaking of Literature...
In our recent discussion of Cormac McCarthy, Bosque Boys reader(s) "Bob and Merrill" expressed reservations about calling No Country for Old Men "literature."
I have not read McCarthy--but I can tell you that Shelby Foote was a big fan. Of course, the brilliant Foote was also a huge fan of William Faulkner, which I am not, and a big fan of Marcel Proust, whom McCarthy reportedly detests.
Literature is subjective, to say the least...
One item on which we can hopefully all agree, however, is that Stephen King, while entertaining at times, ranks well short of the greats of American letters.
But you wouldn't know that from listening to him.
From TIME Magazine this week (which Drudge posted yesterday), King explains why he is more valuable and relevant than Britney Spears:
"Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan aren't cultural. They aren't political. They're economic only in the mildest sense of the word."
"Britney Spears is just trailer trash. That's all. I mean, I don't mean to be pejorative. But you observe her behavior for the past five years and you say, here's a lady who can't take care of her kids, she can't take care of herself, she has no retirement fund, everything that she gets runs right through her hands.
"And yet, you know and I know that if you go to those sites that tell you what the most blogged-about things on the Internet are, it's Britney, it's Lindsay."
TIME interjects: "[but] Britney Spears...[is] still fairly young. When you were young, fame sort of screwed you up a bit, didn't it?"
King again: "The difference is that Britney is now famous for being famous. Her sales have gone down with almost every album, bigger and bigger jumps, so that nobody really cares about her music anymore. They care about the tabloid headlines and whether or not she's wearing panties. I mean, is this an issue that the American public needs to turn its brainpower on? Britney Spears' lingerie, or lack thereof?"
Does Stephen King have himself confused with William Shakespeare?
For the entire tragically self-important and self-deluded exchange, view here.
I have not read McCarthy--but I can tell you that Shelby Foote was a big fan. Of course, the brilliant Foote was also a huge fan of William Faulkner, which I am not, and a big fan of Marcel Proust, whom McCarthy reportedly detests.
Literature is subjective, to say the least...
One item on which we can hopefully all agree, however, is that Stephen King, while entertaining at times, ranks well short of the greats of American letters.
But you wouldn't know that from listening to him.
From TIME Magazine this week (which Drudge posted yesterday), King explains why he is more valuable and relevant than Britney Spears:
"Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan aren't cultural. They aren't political. They're economic only in the mildest sense of the word."
"Britney Spears is just trailer trash. That's all. I mean, I don't mean to be pejorative. But you observe her behavior for the past five years and you say, here's a lady who can't take care of her kids, she can't take care of herself, she has no retirement fund, everything that she gets runs right through her hands.
"And yet, you know and I know that if you go to those sites that tell you what the most blogged-about things on the Internet are, it's Britney, it's Lindsay."
TIME interjects: "[but] Britney Spears...[is] still fairly young. When you were young, fame sort of screwed you up a bit, didn't it?"
King again: "The difference is that Britney is now famous for being famous. Her sales have gone down with almost every album, bigger and bigger jumps, so that nobody really cares about her music anymore. They care about the tabloid headlines and whether or not she's wearing panties. I mean, is this an issue that the American public needs to turn its brainpower on? Britney Spears' lingerie, or lack thereof?"
Does Stephen King have himself confused with William Shakespeare?
For the entire tragically self-important and self-deluded exchange, view here.
28/11: Battle Cry "Freedom"
Category: Mainline Christianity
Posted by: an okie gardener
Apologies to James McPherson.
This story illustrates the unresolvable nature of the dispute in Mainline Christianity over same-sex marriage, and the role in the Church of those practicing same-sex sex.
Janie Spahr, a lesbian or perhaps bi-sexual, is a Presbyterian minister who for the last several years has dedicated herself to changing the Presbyterian Church, and others, into an institution that welcomes same-sex practice and same-sex marriage. She has been supported by two Presbyterian congregations. In her mind, she is an advocate for the LGBT community and an advocate for God's truth and love. She has violated Presbyterian rules, openly and repeatedly, in pursuit of her goal.
For Spahr, marrying lesbians and gay men is a matter of conscience. "We don't do marriages to defy the church," she said recently, sipping red wine while entertaining in her living room a couple she married. "We do marriages because it's the right thing to do.
"I feel we have a responsibility in the church to be welcoming because the founder of this church was," Spahr says. The gray-haired minister wears a purple pants suit and dangling abalone earrings and speaks in a hushed voice that invites listeners to feel as though they are her intimate friends. She sits in her modest living room in the Bret Harte neighborhood of San Rafael surrounded by photographs of her sons, her granddaughter and couples she has married. When the conversation ebbs, her blue eyes dart around the room and land on an image that evokes a story. It is the stories of folks in what she calls her LGBT—or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender—community that she wants to tell.
"Come and hear the Annies and Cheryls, the Jeffs and the Davids. Listen to their love. Listen to their dreams and come be transformed. I feel like I'm inviting the church to be the church. Who do we think founded the church? He was blasphemous. So our job is to be blasphemous, to challenge the church to be welcome for all," she says.
"And the church must do this. The church must do this because if they don't, they are betraying the one who founded it. And I must be in that church that says 'yes' to people no matter what their color, no matter what their sexual orientation. Now that's what I know, and that's the God I know. So maybe we're talking about a different God."
Spahr, and others like her, seem to define the word liberty or freedom to mean the uninhibited self-expression of the individual's inner identity. When she was 12 and captain of her softball team, the Rev. Janie Spahr intentionally picked the players usually chosen last. Even as a child, she reached out to the disenfranchised and preached that everyone deserves a chance. "When you're not picked, you know how you feel," the 65-year-old Presbyterian minister says with trademark tenderness. "Everybody has within them greatness. My greatest wish is that people will see their own greatness and believe it." Spahr's belief in the girls on her childhood softball team not only boosted her players' self-esteem. It led them to a surprise victory. Her belief in the rights of all people to be free to be themselves—regardless of their sexual orientation—led the lesbian pastor from San Rafael to become a traveling evangelist relentlessly advocating for the church to open its doors to everyone. Her belief in the rights of homosexuals to marry prompted her to perform wedding ceremonies all over the country. . . . "This really isn't about me," she says. "It's about people being free. It's about these couples, and it's about their story. It's about them, honey. It's about all the couples I've been honored to be asked to be with. And there have been so many. Being in the LGBT community has been such a great honor for me.
Conservatives and Orthodox Christians define "liberty" or "freedom" differently. "Liberty" is ordered Liberty, the freedom found in Christ that only can be experienced in obedience to the commands of God. To disobey God is to participate in the world of sin, which is equated with "slavery," the opposite of freedom. See Romans 6:5-23, for example.
Spahr, et al, and Conservatives also seem to be working with different definitions of "justice." Spahr seems to define justice as allowing individuals to give expression to their inner identities, in other words, to allow people "freedom" in the sense explained above. "I want the church to come along. When you see how oppressive systems work, you're not only challenging the system. This isn't about gay people. This is about how people treat people of less power. It's about justice." She also appears to work with a Liberation Theology definition of justice in which those lower on the power ladder are presumed to have a just cause, and those above them on the power ladder who frustrate those desires are presumed to be acting unjustly.
Conservatives, on the other hand, define "justice" in terms of God's expressed will in Scripture, especially as codified in Law and expressed by prophets. "Justice" means personal and social conformity to God's expressed intent.
Given such fundamental disagreements over basic concepts, I have little hope that the Mainline Denominations will survive the current sexuality controversies.
This story illustrates the unresolvable nature of the dispute in Mainline Christianity over same-sex marriage, and the role in the Church of those practicing same-sex sex.
Janie Spahr, a lesbian or perhaps bi-sexual, is a Presbyterian minister who for the last several years has dedicated herself to changing the Presbyterian Church, and others, into an institution that welcomes same-sex practice and same-sex marriage. She has been supported by two Presbyterian congregations. In her mind, she is an advocate for the LGBT community and an advocate for God's truth and love. She has violated Presbyterian rules, openly and repeatedly, in pursuit of her goal.
For Spahr, marrying lesbians and gay men is a matter of conscience. "We don't do marriages to defy the church," she said recently, sipping red wine while entertaining in her living room a couple she married. "We do marriages because it's the right thing to do.
"I feel we have a responsibility in the church to be welcoming because the founder of this church was," Spahr says. The gray-haired minister wears a purple pants suit and dangling abalone earrings and speaks in a hushed voice that invites listeners to feel as though they are her intimate friends. She sits in her modest living room in the Bret Harte neighborhood of San Rafael surrounded by photographs of her sons, her granddaughter and couples she has married. When the conversation ebbs, her blue eyes dart around the room and land on an image that evokes a story. It is the stories of folks in what she calls her LGBT—or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender—community that she wants to tell.
"Come and hear the Annies and Cheryls, the Jeffs and the Davids. Listen to their love. Listen to their dreams and come be transformed. I feel like I'm inviting the church to be the church. Who do we think founded the church? He was blasphemous. So our job is to be blasphemous, to challenge the church to be welcome for all," she says.
"And the church must do this. The church must do this because if they don't, they are betraying the one who founded it. And I must be in that church that says 'yes' to people no matter what their color, no matter what their sexual orientation. Now that's what I know, and that's the God I know. So maybe we're talking about a different God."
Spahr, and others like her, seem to define the word liberty or freedom to mean the uninhibited self-expression of the individual's inner identity. When she was 12 and captain of her softball team, the Rev. Janie Spahr intentionally picked the players usually chosen last. Even as a child, she reached out to the disenfranchised and preached that everyone deserves a chance. "When you're not picked, you know how you feel," the 65-year-old Presbyterian minister says with trademark tenderness. "Everybody has within them greatness. My greatest wish is that people will see their own greatness and believe it." Spahr's belief in the girls on her childhood softball team not only boosted her players' self-esteem. It led them to a surprise victory. Her belief in the rights of all people to be free to be themselves—regardless of their sexual orientation—led the lesbian pastor from San Rafael to become a traveling evangelist relentlessly advocating for the church to open its doors to everyone. Her belief in the rights of homosexuals to marry prompted her to perform wedding ceremonies all over the country. . . . "This really isn't about me," she says. "It's about people being free. It's about these couples, and it's about their story. It's about them, honey. It's about all the couples I've been honored to be asked to be with. And there have been so many. Being in the LGBT community has been such a great honor for me.
Conservatives and Orthodox Christians define "liberty" or "freedom" differently. "Liberty" is ordered Liberty, the freedom found in Christ that only can be experienced in obedience to the commands of God. To disobey God is to participate in the world of sin, which is equated with "slavery," the opposite of freedom. See Romans 6:5-23, for example.
Spahr, et al, and Conservatives also seem to be working with different definitions of "justice." Spahr seems to define justice as allowing individuals to give expression to their inner identities, in other words, to allow people "freedom" in the sense explained above. "I want the church to come along. When you see how oppressive systems work, you're not only challenging the system. This isn't about gay people. This is about how people treat people of less power. It's about justice." She also appears to work with a Liberation Theology definition of justice in which those lower on the power ladder are presumed to have a just cause, and those above them on the power ladder who frustrate those desires are presumed to be acting unjustly.
Conservatives, on the other hand, define "justice" in terms of God's expressed will in Scripture, especially as codified in Law and expressed by prophets. "Justice" means personal and social conformity to God's expressed intent.
Given such fundamental disagreements over basic concepts, I have little hope that the Mainline Denominations will survive the current sexuality controversies.
28/11: For Fred, It is Now or Never
Category: Campaign 2008.7
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
In my last post forecasting how the Republican nomination race might unfold, I once again articulated my expectation that Fred might break out in time to win the upcoming Southern primaries in South Carolina and Florida. But I also admitted my worry that I might be waiting for a broken-down bus.
The irony has not escaped me that I am predicting Hillary in the Democratic canvass, on the strength of her superior organization, while I look for Fred Thompson to somehow prevail in the GOP race completely lacking that same attribute.
Why? Too long an answer for this brief post, but in a nutshell: the GOP is a heart and soul party (more so than the Dems). And the GOP field in this particular cycle is so flawed (politically) that almost anything is possible.
But tonight is an important night. As we saw in the Democratic debate in Philadelphia almost a month ago, we are definitely at the stage of the campaign in which these events matter--just ask Hillary. Tonight's CNN-YouTube debate may very well set the tone for news coverage during the next month--depending on what transpires.
All that to say, if Fred is for real, he probably needs to show us something on TV this evening. Either he needs to break through a bit, or, barring that, he needs to stand visibly rock steady while one of his important rivals stumbles.
The irony has not escaped me that I am predicting Hillary in the Democratic canvass, on the strength of her superior organization, while I look for Fred Thompson to somehow prevail in the GOP race completely lacking that same attribute.
Why? Too long an answer for this brief post, but in a nutshell: the GOP is a heart and soul party (more so than the Dems). And the GOP field in this particular cycle is so flawed (politically) that almost anything is possible.
But tonight is an important night. As we saw in the Democratic debate in Philadelphia almost a month ago, we are definitely at the stage of the campaign in which these events matter--just ask Hillary. Tonight's CNN-YouTube debate may very well set the tone for news coverage during the next month--depending on what transpires.
All that to say, if Fred is for real, he probably needs to show us something on TV this evening. Either he needs to break through a bit, or, barring that, he needs to stand visibly rock steady while one of his important rivals stumbles.
27/11: Time to Read Cormac McCarthy
The movie, No Country for Old Men is based on the Cormac McCarthy novel of the same title. I confess I have not yet read him, but make a premature New Year's Resolution to do so. He perhaps is the current most important American novelist. (yeah, I know, that title doesn't mean as much as it did) Biography here. Harold Bloom regards him as one of America's most important contemporary writers.
McCarthy's novels look unflinchingly at human evil and violence, but not in ways that glorify these things. So say the critics.
His latest novel is The Road, and I recommend this review, by the consistently good James Vanden Bosch.
Other movies made out of Cormac McCarthy novels-- All the Pretty Horses, as well as Blood Meridian and The Road, both in production.
McCarthy's novels look unflinchingly at human evil and violence, but not in ways that glorify these things. So say the critics.
His latest novel is The Road, and I recommend this review, by the consistently good James Vanden Bosch.
Other movies made out of Cormac McCarthy novels-- All the Pretty Horses, as well as Blood Meridian and The Road, both in production.
27/11: Huckabee! A Bridge Too Far?
Category: Campaign 2008.7
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I'm not saying I invented Mike Huckabee--or even that you heard it here first--but I was impressed with the smooth-talking former Arkansas governor before many in the MSM gave him much of a chance. I like him. I think he is interesting. I don't believe all the ugly things his fellow evangelicals or conservative gatekeepers keep saying about him.
However, we ought to be realistic about what Huckabee is likely to accomplish. Can he win Iowa? Maybe. Although I think he is more likely to score a respectable Pat Robertson-like second place finish. And that would be a major accomplishment for the little campaign that could.
But where does he go from there? He is likely to come in second in Iowa because Romney is going to buy first place. Rudy and McCain just don't play there, and Fred is just too disorganized to make a move for that fairly complicated Midwestern prize. With all the GOP confusion swirling around this contest, Huckabee is a good vehicle for Iowans to register their dissatisfaction and frustration.
However, New Hampshire is something completely different. Huckabee is unlikely to run in the money in NH, which means Florida and South Carolina become all important. Without a win in FL or SC, Huckabee gets swamped on Super Tuesday.
Could Huckabee do well in Florida and/or South Carolina? It is possible--but that depends on Fred. At some point--and I am starting to wonder if I am waiting on a broken-down bus--I expect the Thompson campaign to put things together enough to win the two Southern primaries. In fact, Huckabee taking the bloom off the Romney rose in Iowa helps Fred a lot. If Rudy can mount an effective challenge against Romney in New Hampshire, the Massachusetts governor will not head South with enough momentum to roll through Dixie. However, if Fred is completely dead in the water in FL and SC, and Romney does not have things wrapped up, and Rudy fails to win the hearts of the Palmetto and Sunshine States, and Huckabee is the remaining viable red-state candidate, then Pastor Mike has a shot at making a real run for the nomination.
But that is a lot of ifs.
Nobody Knows Anything--but my guess is that the Huckabee candidacy is nearing its peak. I would be very surprised if Huckabee won more than 25 percent of the vote in Iowa, and I would be even more surprised if any subsequent state total exceeds his tally in the Hawkeye State.
However, we ought to be realistic about what Huckabee is likely to accomplish. Can he win Iowa? Maybe. Although I think he is more likely to score a respectable Pat Robertson-like second place finish. And that would be a major accomplishment for the little campaign that could.
But where does he go from there? He is likely to come in second in Iowa because Romney is going to buy first place. Rudy and McCain just don't play there, and Fred is just too disorganized to make a move for that fairly complicated Midwestern prize. With all the GOP confusion swirling around this contest, Huckabee is a good vehicle for Iowans to register their dissatisfaction and frustration.
However, New Hampshire is something completely different. Huckabee is unlikely to run in the money in NH, which means Florida and South Carolina become all important. Without a win in FL or SC, Huckabee gets swamped on Super Tuesday.
Could Huckabee do well in Florida and/or South Carolina? It is possible--but that depends on Fred. At some point--and I am starting to wonder if I am waiting on a broken-down bus--I expect the Thompson campaign to put things together enough to win the two Southern primaries. In fact, Huckabee taking the bloom off the Romney rose in Iowa helps Fred a lot. If Rudy can mount an effective challenge against Romney in New Hampshire, the Massachusetts governor will not head South with enough momentum to roll through Dixie. However, if Fred is completely dead in the water in FL and SC, and Romney does not have things wrapped up, and Rudy fails to win the hearts of the Palmetto and Sunshine States, and Huckabee is the remaining viable red-state candidate, then Pastor Mike has a shot at making a real run for the nomination.
But that is a lot of ifs.
Nobody Knows Anything--but my guess is that the Huckabee candidacy is nearing its peak. I would be very surprised if Huckabee won more than 25 percent of the vote in Iowa, and I would be even more surprised if any subsequent state total exceeds his tally in the Hawkeye State.
27/11: Bush v. Gore, 2001-2007
Tuesday in the Washington Post :
Bush Meets Al Gore: Effect On Permafrost Unknown
"It must be the season. President Bush tried yesterday to make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And he tried to make peace with Al Gore.
"For the first time since Bush moved into the house Gore coveted, the two adversaries from the tumultuous 2000 presidential election sat down to talk."
"The official purpose of the historic summit was not the Middle East peace conference Bush is also hosting this week but the normally more prosaic photo op the White House typically schedules each year with the latest American winners of the Nobel Prize."
This particular Post story by Peter Baker (in full here) represents a plethora of semi-serious reporting this week noting the Bush-Gore meeting in the Oval Office.
How would the President respond to Al Gore? Would this be an uncomfortable moment? Would the President look nervous? Or make a scene?
No. In fact, the president went the extra mile.
Baker: "[he] decided to go a step beyond duty by meeting with Gore in the Oval Office for 40 minutes before the formal picture-taking. [T]he two reportedly talked about global warming...."
Does this tell us anything about President Bush?
Let Al Gore tell it:
"He was very gracious in setting up the meeting and it was a very good and substantive conversation."
The former-veep is not that spot-on correct very often--but he is exactly right in this particular characterization of events.
Is this a surprise (Bush's behavior, I mean)?
Hardly. We hear constantly that the President is dense, bull-headed, and Manichean in outlook. Gore himself often calls the Bushies "Mayberry Machiavellians," and the list goes on--but there are never any stories about Bush as petulant. No one ever asserts that he is ever anything less than gracious in his personal affairs--even when he has a right to take some revenge.
Peter Baker puts it mildly: "Gore has evolved into one of the [P]resident's toughest critics, condemning the war in Iraq, warrantless surveillance, harsh interrogations and other policies of an administration his team believes was illegitimately installed by the Supreme Court."
Baker should have thrown in a few choice adjectives to better describe the level and volume of Gore's withering criticism--but you get the point.
How has the President responded to the myriad Gore calumnies? He has not. It would be beneath the office. No one can contest his record for executing the duties of his office with great respect and dignity. This meeting is just another example of that pattern of behavior.
Bush Meets Al Gore: Effect On Permafrost Unknown
"It must be the season. President Bush tried yesterday to make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And he tried to make peace with Al Gore.
"For the first time since Bush moved into the house Gore coveted, the two adversaries from the tumultuous 2000 presidential election sat down to talk."
"The official purpose of the historic summit was not the Middle East peace conference Bush is also hosting this week but the normally more prosaic photo op the White House typically schedules each year with the latest American winners of the Nobel Prize."
This particular Post story by Peter Baker (in full here) represents a plethora of semi-serious reporting this week noting the Bush-Gore meeting in the Oval Office.
How would the President respond to Al Gore? Would this be an uncomfortable moment? Would the President look nervous? Or make a scene?
No. In fact, the president went the extra mile.
Baker: "[he] decided to go a step beyond duty by meeting with Gore in the Oval Office for 40 minutes before the formal picture-taking. [T]he two reportedly talked about global warming...."
Does this tell us anything about President Bush?
Let Al Gore tell it:
"He was very gracious in setting up the meeting and it was a very good and substantive conversation."
The former-veep is not that spot-on correct very often--but he is exactly right in this particular characterization of events.
Is this a surprise (Bush's behavior, I mean)?
Hardly. We hear constantly that the President is dense, bull-headed, and Manichean in outlook. Gore himself often calls the Bushies "Mayberry Machiavellians," and the list goes on--but there are never any stories about Bush as petulant. No one ever asserts that he is ever anything less than gracious in his personal affairs--even when he has a right to take some revenge.
Peter Baker puts it mildly: "Gore has evolved into one of the [P]resident's toughest critics, condemning the war in Iraq, warrantless surveillance, harsh interrogations and other policies of an administration his team believes was illegitimately installed by the Supreme Court."
Baker should have thrown in a few choice adjectives to better describe the level and volume of Gore's withering criticism--but you get the point.
How has the President responded to the myriad Gore calumnies? He has not. It would be beneath the office. No one can contest his record for executing the duties of his office with great respect and dignity. This meeting is just another example of that pattern of behavior.
Category: Media and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
On the Wednesday before Thanksgiving my wife and I traveled to northwest Arkansas to the home of one of her sisters and husband. On Thanksgiving Day her siblings and spouses assembled at Branson, Missouri, for fun and fellowship. My wife and I returned to Oklahoma City on Saturday evening so as to be in church with our daughter and her fiancee Sunday morning.
The Interstates were busy: $3.00 gasoline did not seem to deter many people. Branson was crowded with visitors. New construction is under way there. And the Disney corporation has purchased a big chunk of acres near Branson to develop into some sort of tourist attraction.
We seem to be in good economic times, whatever the MSM say.
The Interstates were busy: $3.00 gasoline did not seem to deter many people. Branson was crowded with visitors. New construction is under way there. And the Disney corporation has purchased a big chunk of acres near Branson to develop into some sort of tourist attraction.
We seem to be in good economic times, whatever the MSM say.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
By now you've probably seen the stories concerning a possible lesbian affair between Hillary and her constant companion and aide Huma Abedin. The speculation concerning Hillary Clinton's sexual orientation is old news (as well as a downer for males given to lesbian fantasies). But the questions that focus on the sex, or lack of it, in this relationship miss the important point.
Jihadwatch wants to know how Huma's opinions on jihad and militant Islam affect Hillary's views. Now this is the right question. From the JihadWatch post,
An Indian Muslim scholar [Huma's father] who relocates to Saudi Arabia [where Huma grew up] and founded an institute there is most likely a Wahhabi. The article also says that Huma Abedin herself is "a Muslim” and “very conservative” -- and that she rarely leaves the Senator's side.
How can Huma possibly qualify for the Security Clearance I hope is needed to be a U.S. Senator's aide? And can she qualify for the clearance needed in the White House?
Jihadwatch wants to know how Huma's opinions on jihad and militant Islam affect Hillary's views. Now this is the right question. From the JihadWatch post,
An Indian Muslim scholar [Huma's father] who relocates to Saudi Arabia [where Huma grew up] and founded an institute there is most likely a Wahhabi. The article also says that Huma Abedin herself is "a Muslim” and “very conservative” -- and that she rarely leaves the Senator's side.
How can Huma possibly qualify for the Security Clearance I hope is needed to be a U.S. Senator's aide? And can she qualify for the clearance needed in the White House?
