Duane Shank: Politicizing Ford's Passing?
Judging from your comments, my piece on the passing of former president Gerald Ford seems to have rubbed some people on both sides the wrong way. Some think that by contrasting his decency and honesty to the current administration I don't realize "how rude it is to politicize someone's passing." And, comparing one Republican president to another somehow made me partisan. Then there are some who thought his pardoning of Richard Nixon was wrong and apparently wanted more criticism of Ford.
For the record, I think the news headlines these past few days, referring to his "legacy of honor," "legacy of healing," - and the editorials, "Ford and forgiveness," "reconciler-in-chief," "profile in decency," etc. are symbolic of a real yearning in the country for those qualities. Our current situation is so polarized that the decency, integrity, and honesty of President Ford, for which he is and should be remembered and honored, are seen as unusual. There are not many politicians today, of either party, who can claim those attributes.
In yesterday's Chicago Tribune, a piece by senior correspondent William Neikirk concluded, after talking with friends and associates of President Ford, along with political analysts from both parties, that "a moderate conservative like Ford would have a hard time governing in today's harsh political climate where both parties seem at each other's throats, analysts said.
In the recent midterm elections, voters appeared to send a message that they were fed up with divisiveness in Washington. As a result, politicians with some of Ford's abilities for bridging the partisan divide could find greater support than once believed."
The political world in Washington has become so bitter that simple friendships between Members of Congress of different parties are almost non-existent. President Ford belonged to an earlier era where there could be vigorous disagreements, but still strong friendships across the aisle. A story in today's New York Times told how "As he helped in recent years arrange the details of his own funeral, Gerald R. Ford reached out to an old adversary: Jimmy Carter , who defeated him for the presidency in 1976. Skip to next paragraph Mr. Ford asked whether his successor might consider speaking at his funeral and offered, lightheartedly, to do the same for Mr. Carter, depending on who died first."
And as for politicizing his passing, it's interesting that Ford himself gave two interviews in which he was strongly critical of the current administration, but stipulated that they be embargoed until his death. Seems to me that in doing so he politicized his own passing. In the Washington Post, Bob Woodward recounts: "Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."
As the weekend of his lying in state is about to begin here in Washington, I honor the memory of a good and decent man. His wife, four children, seven grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren are in my prayers.
Duane Shank is senior policy adviser for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I don't think Ford's passing has been overly "politciized", other than perhaps Woodward's piece about the Iraqi that apparently Ford wanted released after his passing.
It certainly hasn't been as played up as Reagan's passing since many on the Right worshipped him as a god.>
Posted by: Kris Weinschenker | December 29, 2006 8:09 PM
Actually the "embargoed interviews" were more likely due to the fact that it has traditionally been considered in bad taste for past presidents to criticize current administrations (Jimmy Carter has been the one exception).
To believe he intended to use his death to take shots at Bush is pretty ridiculous.
I do appreciate the more bi-partisan nature of your comments here, though. I think you at Sojo should realize that a lot of people reading this blog think of you as partisan Democrats (not just the conservatives). I've never heard one word of praise from Wallis or anyone else for Bush or any conservative policy. I've also never heard one word of criticism for the Democrats or any specifically liberal policy.
You guys clearly have a long way to go if you're trying to get to a "moral center.">
Posted by: jesse | December 29, 2006 8:38 PM
I didn't consider the first article all that outrageous, although I did think it would have been better without the final graph. If your point was to eulogize Ford (a fellow alum I might point out) it wasn't necessary to criticize Bush so explicitly. But old habits are tough to shake I guess.
I did think it was indicative of a certain mindset at Sojourners, which is never to pass up an opportunity to take a swipe at Bush. But heck, I'm sure there were conservative commentators who made less than complimentary comparisons between Reagan and Carter or Reagan and Clinton when Ronald Reagan passed away, so there you go.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | December 29, 2006 9:14 PM
Wolverine,
I agree that you'd probably find a conservative commentator or two contrasting Reagan's presidency with those of Carter and Clinton...but you could probably even see then that the main objective of their commentary was to praise Reagan (though I'd probably have preferred they leave jabs at Democrats out of it altogether).
It just seemed that the overriding goal of Shank's last post was to criticize Bush. As you said, criticism of Bush, conservatives, and the religious right has become so routine at this site that it's become easy for one to take a more cynical view of Shank's "eulogy" for a Republican president. In fact, he said nothing positive about Ford at all in that post...he just said "Ford's words" were his best legacy and then used those words to attack Bush.>
Posted by: jesse | December 29, 2006 9:30 PM
Yes - I can agree with most of the comments in the above three postings. I could do without the last paragraph from the origional. Yes - there have been compairsons between the dead president and other presidents that served from either party. The 'pot-shot' at the current president and his adm. is what I have an issue with if in fact Sojo's desire is to atempt to bring us together. If I am wrong about the mission statement of Sojo - then I have no argument.
Happy New Year!
->
Posted by: Robstur | December 29, 2006 9:38 PM
Well, to respond to Jesse - most recently, we supported President Bush s leadership in opposing genocide in Darfur and we ve been critical of Democrats on abortion. The larger reality is that our central issues are peacemaking and economic justice. In the current atmosphere, being anti-war and anti-poverty are seen as liberal and Democratic. For us, they are matters of faith, grounded in following Jesus. For the past 35 years, we have criticized both Democrats and Republicans for their wars and inattention to people in poverty. If you read Sojourners magazine and SojoMail during the Clinton administration, we were critical of many of his policies. We ve supported both Democrats and Republicans when that was warranted. But our political culture somehow needs to simplistically label and polarize everything.>
Posted by: Duane | December 29, 2006 10:11 PM
BTW, I wonder if this blog will post anything about Sadaam's execution which is expected this weekend. It would seem that a site that is so strongly anti-death penalty would have something to say about so high profile an execution. Though Sadaam would probably not be the best individual to use in order to make a case against the death penalty.>
Posted by: jesse | December 29, 2006 10:13 PM
The timbre of this article was far more appropriate.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 29, 2006 10:28 PM
Duane,
Thanks for your response. In the current atmosphere, my political convictions (grounded in faith) are seen as being "conservative and Republican", as well. If only people would come around to my Christ-like way of thinking ;).
Nicholas Kristof said Bush has done more for Africa than any president before him. I must have blinked when you were praising Bush for his efforts there.
According to USA Today, "Spending on social programs, from education to veterans health care, has risen faster [under Bush] than at any time since the 1960s." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-02-federal-spending_x.htm
I would have thought that Sojo would have appreciated these increases...yet not a word.
Mind you, as a Christian, I very much disapprove of these spending increases, as I believe they harm taxpayers, the economy, and the poor over the long-term. I, along with millions of devoted Christians (and Nobel prize winning economists), believe the poor are best served through having a small government and a healthy economy. Many of us also believe that peace is often best achieved through the use of military force.
Let us have the good sense and humility, then, to realize that we, as Christians, can have the same goals rooted in scripture, but our own opinions about how best to achieve them can vary greatly. The wisdom and humility that recognizes this reality will lead to civility, will encourage dialogue, and will increase unity in the body of Christ.
The moment you say "if you are a dedicated Christian, then you must support policies A-Z" you do great damage to the church and harm her witness. I hope you and others at Sojo will resist this temptation.>
Posted by: jesse | December 29, 2006 10:48 PM
One recurring theme in President Ford's obits was his pardon of Richard Nixon. In general the theme is while the pardon was condemned at the time, now we can see it for the healing instrument it was.
As Mr Ford always thought of himself as a Congressman more than a president, and was concerned about the increase of presidential power at the expense of Congress, I wonder if he had regrets about the pardon?
So many of the Watergate conspirators were involved in Iran-Contra, and later in the 2003 Iraq invasion. They seem to feel immune from prosecution, or from any accountability whatsoever. Perhaps seeing Nixon escorted out of Congress and perp-walked into a courthouse would have taken some of the wind out of their sails.
That's all I have to say about that.
Kim M>
Posted by: Kim M | December 29, 2006 11:13 PM
Rumor has it Ford would tell his golfing buddies he didn't think he would be going to heaven because he pardoned Nixon.
Of course he was joking.
Kim's right, this warmongering band of criminals has been caught before.
It's the third time for some of them.
I say three strikes, you're out.
.>
Posted by: justintime | December 30, 2006 12:17 AM
Today the "disagreement" between Democrat and Republican - actually liberal/progressive versus Christian/moralist - is one where the Democrats simply agree to hate Christians.
Hardly a place where a meeting of the minds may ensue.>
Posted by: A non-progressive (political) | December 30, 2006 4:56 AM
I liked Gerry Ford. I think He did what seemed best to bring peace to a riven country. But I think it was a big mistake to pardon the Nixon Whitehouse. You really shoudn't be able to pardon someone before a trial. It invites disrespect for the law. In this case, it has fostered a vision of executive power that is clearly and dangerously inconsistent with the Constitution. The chief executor of the Constitution must be fully accountable to constitutional due process in his or her stewardship. In fact I think the entire idea of executive pardons is an invitation to corruption and has rarely beeen used for the commomn good.
I believe the "national nightmare" of financial corruption, executive privelege and unaccountable power( as much connected to Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin based escalation of the VietNam War as Nixon's power abuses)was not ended by Gerald Ford's pardon. The same rascals came back with more lies and war, more spying and secrets, more CIA killings and torture. The long national nightmare, which I believe is rooted in the corrupting influence of an unholy marriage between Imperial militarism abroad and big money politics at home, has only been delayed. A self governing people cannot make corrections if serious crimes and errors are not brought to light.
I would like to bring a few of Paul Krugman's thoughts to the topic of the conservative promise of "fiscal responsibility" and "family values"
" He(Dick Armey) goes on to assert that there is no reason we cannot, by the time our children come of age, reduce the federal government by half as a percentage of gross domestic product.
Right. Somehow, I think more than a few families would notice the disappearance of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and those three programs alone account for a majority of nondefense, noninterest spending. The truth is that the government delivers services and security that people want. Yes, there s some waste just as there is in any large organization. But there are no big programs that are easy to cut.
As long as people like Mr. Armey, Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay were out of power, they could run on promises to eliminate vast government waste that existed only in the public s imagination all those welfare queens driving Cadillacs. But once in power, they couldn t deliver.
That s why government by the radical right has been an utter failure even on its own terms: the government hasn t shrunk. Federal outlays other than interest payments and defense spending are a higher percentage of G.D.P. today than they were when Mr. Armey wrote his book: 14.8 percent in fiscal 2006, compared with 13.8 percent in fiscal 1995.
Unable to make good on its promises, the G.O.P., like other failed revolutionary movements, tried to maintain its grip by exploiting its position of power. Friends were rewarded with patronage: Jack Abramoff began building his web of corruption almost as soon as Republicans took control. Adversaries were harassed with smear campaigns "
from Paul Krugmans latest article in NYT
For the trolls who seem to have taken over the comments area of this site and who depend on a "liberal" Christian blog to get some attention and who consistently disparage almost every article by every invited guest writer, to complain when a writer uses a Republican President as a good example, because he wasn't according to them non partisan enough..well on on an hypocrisy scale of 1-10 I give it about a 9.5
Yes, I called you trolls, because I think your consistently rude behavior warrants a scolding. It is one thing to disagree with your host, and something else to move into his living room and argue with everyone who comes through the door.
Soon there is no one but trolls in the room. People come in expecting some friendly faces and beat a hasty retreat.
Perhaps all this will help our resident trollsters to stem the tide of Americans who think the Bushters have made a pretty stinky mess of things, but somehow I doubt it.
Perhaps their deftly persuasive, faith based arguments will win the day amongst the followers of God's Politics. Then again...perhaps no amount of sweet talk or sass will persuade them to find someplace more friendly to the gospel of Bush, Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney.>
Posted by: Joseph T | December 30, 2006 7:07 AM
I haven't posted for a bit and I know this isn't the subject here, but I just gotta say how elated I am about Saddam's execution! Praise God!
(I probably won't come back to check this thread, so if you want to respond, go to my blog)
_>
Posted by: HAC | December 30, 2006 7:58 AM
"The moment you say "if you are a dedicated Christian, then you must support policies A-Z" you do great damage to the church and harm her witness. I hope you and others at Sojo will resist this temptation."
It is so funny that you would say this because this is the way I feel about the RR. This is a huge reason that I left the church. I am one of the many thousands of casualties that have left the church. The church today wants to save people, but if you don't agree with them then you haven't really been saved, etc.
Can I ask you a seriuos question? Everyday since I found out about this site this is what I see.
Jesse, Robstur, Kevin s., Wolverine, Pilgrim (& others) - Sojo's bad, Wallis & others (including anyone you don't consider fundamentalists) progressive liberals which in your opinions bad bad bad.
It doesn't even matter what they say in their articles you guys always have the answers and seem to think you are always right. If any other person doesn't share your view then it seems like you are putting us down.
Yes, I know some of you have been called trolls. Maybe you don't see it but you guys act so self-righteous and so black & white on every issue. One of my biggest problems with the Bible is that for every verse you pick out there is another that seems to contradict it. People are complicated - we have problems. People have emotions - we are not all little cardboard cutouts.
I guess what I am asking is why do you come back everyday just to say that Sojo's has it wrong?
As I have stated before, the people who are so out there (Dobson, F. Graham, Robertson, Falwell, etc.) are the people who make Christians look so bad. Why do you not find an avenue to fight them too?
Crunchycon (Rod's blog) seems to be more your style or do you not go there because he was Catholic (now he is Orthodox)?
I too worry about Sojo's getting crazy because I have seen it over & over & over. You start out with good intentions and then you get sucked in (power, money, fame, etc.). That being said, had I known that Sojo's existed I might not have lost my faith.>
Posted by: Deb | December 30, 2006 2:22 PM
"voters appeared to send a message that they were fed up with divisiveness in Washington"
Here is where the voters are mistaken. Divisiveness in Washington is the best thing we could hope for. The less politicians agree about things, the safer we all are. Our checks and balances were set up to work best when politicians disagree with each other.
"The political world in Washington has become so bitter that simple friendships between Members of Congress of different parties are almost non-existent. President Ford belonged to an earlier era where there could be vigorous disagreements, but still strong friendships across the aisle."
If politicians across the aisle from each other are having such a hard time being civil with one another it is because they are arguing about things they shouldn't even be dabbling in. If they were focused on preserving the citizen's rights and enforcing contracts there wouldn't be much to disagree about.
When government is used to redistribute wealth, to play favorites by protecting some industries and not others, to create monoply power for some, to create privileges without merit, then people start to get ugly at one another.
People are always more protective of privileges than they are of rights.
The great assumption that Sojourner's makes, and the same mistake has been made by the Religious Right, is that government can be a vehicle for good, for social justice beyond the protection of rights and enforcement of contracts. This simply can not happen. The incentives facing government decision makers and the feedback mechanisms holding them accountable only work for a limited set of functions. Charity lies wholly outside of this set, it belongs to the Church and the Church alone.>
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | December 30, 2006 2:28 PM
Deb wrote -
Jesse, Robstur, Kevin s., Wolverine, Pilgrim (& others) - Sojo's bad, Wallis & others (including anyone you don't consider fundamentalists) progressive liberals which in your opinions bad bad bad.
- I have never said that. I have never said that Wallis is bad bad bad. I have told him that he is a liberal and to be proud of that fact. Yes I am a conservative - white - male so that is who I am. I see no need to blast the Falwells of the world on things that I am not in agreement with them but to work on the issue as I believe God directs me and to show 'Jerry' where he might consider changing his verbage so to achieve a common objective. My challenge is not with Dobson but with others that are bent on tearing down the family and pushing the Christian church back inside the building and shutting us up. NO - I am not at war with Wallis and Friends, I would hope that were would be common ground for us to focus on an issue to the benefit of all. But as I read the articles on this website - they - if you read between the lines - attack conservative - fundamentalist Christians and consider us to be the bain of their existence. Since when did we become the bad guy and not the groups that are trying to silence the church? I am not the victim nor am I the bad guy. I am one who thought that maybe with discussion we could come to terms and work together but I truly believe that I would have more meaningful discussion and respect posting on the ACLU website than I have been shown here.
Deb - I am sorry for what you believe you have gone through with the churches that you have attended. I have seen discord in congregations that in the past were united and focused. I believe that we do a disservice when we attack other christians or para church organizations - the only one that win is Satan Himself. I believe that there is a way that believe can come together as Schaffer coin the phrase 'co-belligerents' for a common good. Sadly - I do not see that happening with Sojo-C to R.
I believe that the trial balloon with Bright Eyes was just that - to see what they could get away with. Yes it was removed the same day it was posted but no apology was offered or from what I remember reading an admission of a mistake. I can work with the best of Sojo and the best of Dobson. But when Sojo will signal out Dobson as someone that they believe is not worth addressing but the Warrens (and Warren is a great person!) of the world are - now you are loosing me. YES I know that some of the others have attacked brothers and sisters and I have let them know they were wrong. OK - so they sold a few videos about corruption with a certain group or person. But they did not attack other ministries. I am much more moderate than some give me credit for. But just because I prefer to work or agree with some that are more evangelical or fundamental - I get lumped with them and thrown out with the bathwater.
If in fact the issue is let say poverty - then let us work to make the situation better and not politicize the issue as I have seen done so well by many that write articles for this site.
I believe that it is easier to make a conservative compassionate than a liberal moral - just a little robsturism for 2007 (LOL)>
Posted by: robstur | December 30, 2006 3:21 PM
I believe that it is easier to make a conservative compassionate than a liberal moral - just a little robsturism for 2007 (LOL)
--That was robsturific ;). Happy New Years to all of you.>
Posted by: jesse | December 30, 2006 4:19 PM
Rob you're at the top, you've arrived, a republi-nazi cheering section.>
Posted by: Butch | December 30, 2006 5:38 PM
Where are these compassionate conservatives I've heard so much about?
.>
Posted by: justintime | December 30, 2006 5:42 PM
Show us a little conservative compassion, would you please?
.>
Posted by: justintime | December 30, 2006 5:44 PM
I see we've got another "what the hell is wrong with all the trolls?" groundswell going. Have fun with all that, people.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 30, 2006 5:51 PM
[NO - I am not at war with Wallis and Friends, I would hope that were would be common ground for us to focus on an issue to the benefit of all. But as I read the articles on this website - they - if you read between the lines - attack conservative - fundamentalist Christians and consider us to be the bain of their existence.]
Rob
Rightly orwrongly, I read between the lines of your posts as well.
[I believe that it is easier to make a conservative compassionate than a liberal moral - just a little robsturism for 2007 (LOL)]
I fail to see compassion or morality in the actions of DeLay, Rove, Cheney, etc... Yet I have a very good friend who says Rush is way too liberal for him. My friend travels at his own expense to Haiti one or two times a year (for the last 15 or so years) to help at an orphanage. He is to me compassionate and moral. Yes, I read between the lines of your post; but I believe that I and you sin when we use labels and thereby categorize people as good or bad. Is it possible for me to be apalled at the evil which Saddam did, yet also be appalled at HAC's statement?
[I haven't posted for a bit and I know this isn't the subject here, but I just gotta say how elated I am about Saddam's execution! Praise God!]HAC>
Posted by: Deryll | December 30, 2006 5:56 PM
Deb,
I have blogged about my discontent with Robertson and Falwell. I have expressed my disdain for them here. I have expressed my disagreement with Dobson frequently, but I don't agree with the manner in which he is vilified on this blog.
As for Franklin Graham, your disagreement with him stems from a seemingly imagined comment he made stating that Katrina was God's judgment against homosexuals. So I have to weigh your imagination against the very real work Graham has done to raise money to repair that and other regions.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 30, 2006 5:59 PM
"Today the "disagreement" between Democrat and Republican - actually liberal/progressive versus Christian/moralist - is one where the Democrats simply agree to hate Christians."
This is just silliness. Some of us come here because we're genuinely interested in dialogue. This is more along the lines of trolling.>
Posted by: Herbert Huncke | December 30, 2006 6:00 PM
"Is it possible for me to be apalled at the evil which Saddam did, yet also be appalled at HAC's statement?"
I blogged about my conflicted thoughts on Saddam's hanging. You might be interested to read them.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 30, 2006 6:01 PM
Uh, no, thank you.
"I blogged about my conflicted thoughts on Saddam's hanging. You might be interested to read them.
kevin s.">
Posted by: Carl Copas | December 30, 2006 6:04 PM
You;ll just stick to empty personal insults, eh Carl?>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 30, 2006 6:22 PM
kevin s. - "As for Franklin Graham, your disagreement with him stems from a seemingly imagined comment he made stating that Katrina was God's judgment against homosexuals. So I have to weigh your imagination against the very real work Graham has done to raise money to repair that and other regions."
I DID NOT immagine the comment that he made. He did make it - it was broadcasted all over. It was also posted all over the internet. The video showed his absolute disdain and hatred - you can't MAKE that up. I am sorry that apparently you didn't see it.
So I suppose that just because he helped raise money the end again justifies the means.
I have had here. There is no middle ground. It is your way or the highway. I choose the highway.>
Posted by: Deb | December 30, 2006 6:22 PM
Deb,
Do you have a link to this evidence of "disdain" and "hatred"?>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 30, 2006 6:24 PM
On the subject of Saddam's sudden secretive execution:
Saddam's trial was a travesty on International Law.
Saddam should have been tried at the International Tribunal for War Crimes.
And that same venue should be used for the trial of Bush/Cheney.
Saddam's execution is a further stain on America's image.
This was a kangaroo court with puppet prosecutors,
conducted while the American occupation collapsed into civil war.
It would have been better if Saddam had been killed in his spider hole.
Saddam's execution eliminates a valuable witness for the prosecution of high crimes and misdemeanors the Bush Presidency.
I'm opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds.
I think Kevin will agree with me on this.
.>
Posted by: justintime | December 30, 2006 6:32 PM
I have no problem with the Iraqis holding the trial. I have no problem with Saddam dying for what he did. I do have a problem with governments being the arbiters of life and death.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 30, 2006 6:39 PM
I do have a problem with governments being the arbiters of life and death.
On this we agree, Kevin.
.>
Posted by: justintime | December 30, 2006 6:44 PM
Katrina was God's judgment against homosexuals.
I heard this too.
Was it Franklin Graham?
Jerry Falwell?
Pat Robertson?
James Dobson?
I wouldn't be surprised if they all said that.
.>
Posted by: justintime | December 30, 2006 6:49 PM
Interesting what happened exactly at the same time as F Graham's words about gays in N Orleans.
There was a special on tv about 5 boys who joined the N. Guard at the same time from a north eastern town.
1 was a musician guitar lost his hand
1 was a runner lost his leg
1 was a brainy kid blew the side of his head off
I don't remember the other 2 but both had a particular talent or interest and they also lost their ability as a result of the same event.
Was that God's punishment for going to Iraq>
Posted by: Butch | December 30, 2006 7:01 PM
Evangelist hopes for a less-gay New Orleans - Evangelist Franklin Graham, son and designated successor to the Reverend Billy Graham, said Tuesday that Hurricane Katrina could lead to a spiritual rebirth of a sinful New Orleans, adding, however, that he doesn't believe the devastating storm was a punishment from God for what he sees as the city's ties to satanic worship and sexual perversion.
Evangelist Franklin Graham said Tuesday that Hurricane Katrina could lead to a spiritual rebirth of a sinful New Orleans. Graham, the son and designated successor of the Reverend Billy Graham, said he doesn't believe the devastating storm was a punishment from God for what he sees as the city's ties to satanic worship and sexual perversion. "I'm not saying that God used this storm as a judgment," Graham said.>
Posted by: Deb | December 30, 2006 7:09 PM
Oops - Here is the complete article. I cannot find the video clip of him giving the actual speach. But I assure you that when he talked about all the sinners it was with hatred and contemp. It was pretty hard to miss. The video clip was also shown on Larry King Live.
October 06, 2005
Evangelist hopes for a less-gay New Orleans
Evangelist Franklin Graham, son and designated successor to the Reverend Billy Graham, said Tuesday that Hurricane Katrina could lead to a spiritual rebirth of a sinful New Orleans, adding, however, that he doesn't believe the devastating storm was a punishment from God for what he sees as the city's ties to satanic worship and sexual perversion.
Evangelist Franklin Graham said Tuesday that Hurricane Katrina could lead to a spiritual rebirth of a sinful New Orleans. Graham, the son and designated successor of the Reverend Billy Graham, said he doesn't believe the devastating storm was a punishment from God for what he sees as the city's ties to satanic worship and sexual perversion. "I'm not saying that God used this storm as a judgment," Graham said.
But he said the city's Mardi Gras revelry and ties to voodoo are adverse to Christian beliefs. "New Orleans has been known for years as a party town," Graham said in a telephone interview with the Associated Press from his office in Boone, N.C. "It is a city that has strong ties to the gay and lesbian movement and these types of things."
On Monday, Graham delivered a similar message in an appearance in Lynchburg, Va.: "There's been satanic worship. There's been sexual perversion. God is going to use that storm to bring revival. God has a plan. God has a purpose."
Graham's comments, reported by The News & Advance of Lynchburg, were made at Thomas Road Baptist Church's Super Conference 2005 at Liberty University. Both the church and the university were founded by the Reverend Jerry Falwell, who once blamed the 9/11 terrorist attacks on gays and lesbians, among others. "The good news is that God loves sinners," said Graham.
Graham said he has prayed with clergy in New Orleans for deliverance from "this dark spiritual cloud," and he sees signs of promise as churches "black and white work hand in hand" to restore the city. His Samaritan's Purse organization is working in five communities in Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana, including New Orleans. He said volunteers were distributing 200 trailer homes in Louisiana. The organization has been criticized for delivering gift bags to displaced children that include Christian tracts and a stuffed lamb that plays "Jesus Loves You."
On Sunday, New Orleans's historic St. Louis Cathedral held its first Sunday Mass since the hurricane, and Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes suggested the city would rebuild as a community with a stronger moral thread, free of racial tension and rampant self-indulgence. The Roman Catholic leader reassured the congregation that God did not cause the hurricane to punish evildoers. (AP)
Interesting that the speech was made at Liberty University. And I guess you are right it looks like he wants to rid the city of all sinners, not just the gays and lesbians.>
Posted by: Deb | December 30, 2006 7:16 PM
Deb,
If you read what he said (and not the headline that was tacked on by someone else) you will see that he did not see the storm as judgment at all.
He says that, while the storm was tragic, it could lead to a spiritual rebirth. Clearly New Orleans was known for being a party town. Do you think that drunken women taking their clothes off for beads is a positive for anyone involved?
He has also said that this is an opportunity for black and white churches in the city to work together.
This is far from saying that Katrina was God's judgement on homosexuals. If you can't see the difference, then it is you who is thinking in black and white terms.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 30, 2006 7:24 PM
The difference is I watched him and did in fact say that!
Now he wants to back up which he should and apologize.>
Posted by: Butch | December 30, 2006 7:41 PM
kevin s. - If I could find the video you would HEAR how he said it. You don't care. You are not gay and you don't hear it - the RR talking about them as if they are the absolute scum of the earth. I DO - I can't help it. It affects my life. Not yours. You all want life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness only if you fit in your narrow little box. God forbid it should be extended to ALL.
I hope to God that you never have to go what I have been through.
That is all I have to say on the matter I am not coming back here.
Like I said before, had I known about Sojo's (who I can't seem to find any evidence that they think being gay is okay) when I was going through my crisis I might not have lost my faith.
The only problem with this site? It confirmed EXACTLY why I left the church.>
Posted by: Deb | December 30, 2006 7:45 PM
Deb, republi-nazi's think they are in control of everyone's behavior.>
Posted by: Butch | December 30, 2006 7:51 PM
In fact Deb go to church and change it to what you think it should be.
Don't lose your faith! God is talking directly to you and there is no room for anyone else.
My faith says God will say "I" will judge and I didn't need or ask for ur help.>
Posted by: Butch | December 30, 2006 8:04 PM
Deb,
You're more close-minded than you think.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 30, 2006 8:11 PM
And, you are more self-righteous than you think. I'm interested in what you or anyone esle does not what they think someome else should not do.
I leave that to God unless it effects me directly.>
Posted by: Butch | December 30, 2006 8:17 PM
" I'm interested in what you or anyone esle does not what they think someome else should not do. "
I've actually said very little about what I think someone else should do, except for policymakers, of course.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 30, 2006 8:53 PM
I quote
"Clearly New Orleans was known for being a party town. Do you think that drunken women taking their clothes off for beads is a positive for anyone involved?"
Do you would suggest this doesn't say what you think others should do?>
Posted by: Butch | December 30, 2006 9:06 PM
"Clearly New Orleans was known for being a party town. Do you think that drunken women taking their clothes off for beads is a positive for anyone involved?"
Do you would suggest this doesn't say what you think others should do?
Butch | 12.30.06 - 4:11 pm |
Expressing an opinion on the righteousness of particular acts or on what others should do and forcing others to do what you think they should do are two different things.
The fact you don't care to hear their opinions doesn't negate their right to express it.
And you have every right to complain about that, too.
What a quandary.>
Posted by: timks | December 30, 2006 9:45 PM
While rightwing "Christian" tee vee preachers keep Americans distracted with New Orleans corruption and eternal damnation BS,
and rightwing media whores blame the victims,
the Bush Cartel is operating just under the radar,
ripping Americans off with cronyism, no-bid contracts and eminent domain real estate seizures.
The Bush Cartel has stolen billions from us under the "fog of disaster"
while leaving thousands of flood victims homeless with no job and no safety net.
Barbara Bush was at the Astrodome amongst thousands of NOLA flood victims, cooing about how these people were "underprivileged" before and now this is pretty good for them, isn't it?
This is compassionate conservatism folks.
Don't ever forget it.
.>
Posted by: justintime | December 30, 2006 9:45 PM
justintime, "...eminent domain real estate seizures"
Do I take this comment to mean that you were opposed to the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, then?>
Posted by: timks | December 30, 2006 9:49 PM
Tell us about it timks.
.>
Posted by: justintime | December 30, 2006 9:50 PM
justintime, Tell us about it timks.
I opposed it. How about you?>
Posted by: timks | December 30, 2006 9:57 PM
And let's don't ever forget the Grover Norquist (R-Corrupt) quote,
"I want to shrink government down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub"
superimposed over the image of dead Americans floating down the Mississippi.
.>
Posted by: justintime | December 30, 2006 9:58 PM
Tell us about it, timks.
.>
Posted by: justintime | December 30, 2006 9:58 PM
"Do you would suggest this doesn't say what you think others should do?"
I suppose. I also recommend that people don't bathe with toasters. I was trying to find common ground. The act of removing clothing for beads (and/or Snoop Dogg) is degrading, yes? Is it moralizing to say so?
Also, to Deb, I said this...
"You're more close-minded than you think."
Which I apologize for.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 30, 2006 10:04 PM
Tell us about it timks.
Is that an idiom similar to "Word" or does this mean you don't know anything about it? Or that you were in favor of it and aren't willing to reveal that to the progressives here? Or that you opposed it but don't want to appear to actually agree with me on something? Or something else?>
Posted by: timks | December 30, 2006 10:07 PM
Justintime,
In the past, you have actually defended the Kelo decision, which grants local governments the consitutional right to cease property and hand it over to corporations. That is the liberal position on the issue, the rationale being that condos and Target stores are better for cities than Churches and (poor and middle class) housing.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 30, 2006 10:11 PM
tim
It looks to me like a request:
Tell us about "kelo", timks>
Posted by: Deryll | December 30, 2006 10:13 PM
As someone who is from New Orleans, I can say that if you don't think there is lots of "sexual perversion" there, you haven't been to Bourbon street.
Also, if you don't think many of those who left New Orleans are better off for leaving, you didn't see it before Katrina.>
Posted by: jesse | December 30, 2006 11:31 PM
I'be been to NOLA, also. I love the city (particularly the music) but I wouldn't want to live there.
You haven't lived until you've been propositioned by a transvestite prostitute in broad daylight, who blocks your path on the sidewalk while you're watching the police apprehend a mugger.
I'm afraid I may have killed the prostitute's buzz when I said no.
It didn't affect my enjoyment of the city, however.>
Posted by: timks | December 31, 2006 12:14 AM
I remember when New Orleans got flooded on Bush's watch.
The media whores were covering for the Bush administration by blaming the victims.
And so were the tee vee preachers.
"They should have got out of there when they had a chance."
"They were looting anything they could get their hands on."
"They were raping little girls in the Astrodome."
"This is God's retribution for wicked sinners"
"God destroyed New Orleans because of the drug addicts, queers and transvestites."
"Maybe there will be a rebirth after the cleansing flood".
Most of them were "underprivileged" before and now it's pretty good for them, isn't it?
See how easy it is to blame the victims?
Folks, not all of those dead bodies floating down the Mississippi were drug addicts, alcoholics, queers, transvestites, perverts and looters.
Most of them were poor blacks with no choice but to live in the low rent, low elevation districts that got flooded.
They were American citizens.
Thousands of American citizens lost their lives.
The Bush administration treats the homeless NOLA flood survivors like they're refugees.
America lost a precious historical and cultural landmark.
And New Orleans was a major port city critical to our economy.
Tragically, the incompetent Bush administration was out to lunch again.
Bush and McCain were having a birthday party, Cheney didn't want to cut short his hunting trip and Condi was shopping for fashion boots.
Bush/Cheney had their incompetent cronies covering for them.
"Heckuva job, Brownie."
.>
Posted by: justintime | December 31, 2006 1:39 AM
justin and butch need to get more prozac>
Posted by: Anonymous | December 31, 2006 1:50 AM
Is that the drug you're using for suppressing your moral conscience, anonymous?
.>
Posted by: Anonymous | December 31, 2006 2:02 AM
Compassionate conservatives use drugs to stay happy,
while ignoring the consequences of their actions.
.>
Posted by: anonymous | December 31, 2006 2:07 AM
"The media whores were covering for the Bush administration by blaming the victims."
Huh? The media coverage turned to the political fallout almost immediately. Stories of rape (not to mention cannibalism) came from black leaders, and were recycled whole-cloth by an incompetent television media.
The populations most overrepresented among the dead was the elderly, which is understandable given their inability to leave on short notice.
Would you care to comment on the actions of Ray Nagin (to say nothing of William Jefferson) during the crisis? Not exactly a model of competence there.
As for losing a precious cultural landmark, it would have been lost either way. You cannot credibly pin that on the Bush administration. This is the same nonsense over and over.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 31, 2006 2:16 AM
Tmks answer the question directly, quit dancing around with word games. When we know what you know or think you know then we can discuss it.>
Posted by: Butch | December 31, 2006 3:22 AM
The eminent domain thing is a whole separate question. It is a Supreme Court ruling on constitutionality.
I don't like it but we can change that through legislation, which many states are now doing.>
Posted by: Butch | December 31, 2006 3:35 AM
Kevin, you are so adept and clever with your post that some would not observe that you DO want to judge. I believe!>
Posted by: Butch | December 31, 2006 3:39 AM
Butch said, Tmks answer the question directly, quit dancing around with word games. When we know what you know or think you know then we can discuss it.
I did answer the question directly: I said I disagreed with Kelo. Justintime is the one refusing to answer the question. Why don't you chastise him for that?>
Posted by: timks | December 31, 2006 4:00 AM
Bush had 4 years since he took office -
to release funds to complete the repair and raising of the New Orleans levee system.
But the War President was too preoccupied with the Neoconservative Project for a New American Century
and deeply involved in carrying out his master plan to dominate the planet with a Collossal American Empire.
New Orleans just slipped through the cracks.
There was ample warning for the NOLA disaster.
But Bush's crony riddled FEMA wasn't paying attention,
had no coordinated plan and couldn't focus.
All they could do was make excuses.
And they started making excuses before the storm was even over.
Bush's FEMA is a joke.
Bush fired Clinton's FEMA experts and hired his own cronies,
none of whom knew squat about disaster management.
Clinton's FEMA would have been all over this disaster,
saving lives and property.
Bush "took complete responsibility for the lack of preparedness"
while Karl Rove was blaming it all on Mayor Ray Nagin.
Take a look in the mirror 'W'
It was gross criminal negligence.
.>
Posted by: anonymous | December 31, 2006 4:13 AM
tim,
Tell us why you brought up kelo in the first place.
Were you making a point about kelo vis a vis NOLA?
Lay it out for us, please.
.>
Posted by: anonymous | December 31, 2006 4:17 AM
Deb you were told -
republi-nazi's think they are in control of everyone's behavior.
Well - I am not a R-N and know that I personally have no control of anyones behavior.
Yes - there are people on either side of the isle or issue and feel that they can control people. Hillary wants to pick everyone village for them. After reading 70% of her book I believed that she was depriving some village somewhere of their iddot. Falwell and others (Franklin) have stepped over the line too but I believe that I can influence a change with them given time and a chance to assist them in their efforts.
Find a church that you can worship at and make a difference. If you heart is in the right place - most people are willing to listen and talk about your view without labeling them as BS.
Go ahead - find your place and work with all kinds of people.>
Posted by: robstur | December 31, 2006 4:34 AM
My personal theology is; study and try to learn or find God's will in your own life. When you move outside yourself then you think you ARE God.>
Posted by: Butch | December 31, 2006 4:39 AM
anonymous said, Tell us why you brought up kelo in the first place.
I brought it up because justintime seemed to be saying he felt eminent domain seizures in NOLA were bad.
Most progressives felt that Kelo - which further solidified or expanded the ability to conduct eminent domain seizures - was a praiseworthy decision.
I was trying to find out if justintime opposes eminent domain on principle.
His silence on answering the question tells me that he recognizes he may appear hypocritical so he's keeping quiet.>
Posted by: timks | December 31, 2006 5:23 AM
Few in New Orleans believe DC was to blame for the levees breaking. The levee board (packed full of cronies--you'd think an engineer or two would be appropriate) was too busy spending money on casinos...they had how many years (and how many presidents?) to prepare for this? Anyways...that's a whole other story.
If you know anything about Louisiana politics, you know it's the most corrupt of any state. Gov. Edwards is in prison right now.
I'm beginning to detect a theme, here...I suspect justintime believes the Bush administration is responsible for everything bad that ever happens in the world. Though I don't think we're aware yet of his true feelings about them.
What do you think of Bush, justintime?
Brother Butch, I prefer "Black Letter Christian" to Republi-nazi, but you may call me whatever you wish.>
Posted by: jesse | December 31, 2006 5:33 AM
"His silence on answering the question tells me that he recognizes he may appear hypocritical so he's keeping quiet."
Does it matter, say what you want. Do you need to take Just personally?>
Posted by: Butch | December 31, 2006 5:35 AM
oops take on Just personally.
If Just is a hypocrit do you care what he thinks or says?>
Posted by: Butch | December 31, 2006 5:38 AM
Eminent domain and Kelo are a source of contention among liberals. Eminent domain seems wrong, but Republicans are against it. This is causing a brain aneurysm for those who have their politics fed to them by left-wing blog sites, which are too insipid and emotional to dissect such a complicated issue.
I'll make it easy for you. Walmart likes eminent domain, but Bush doesn't. Bush is grand Satan number 1, while Walmart barely cracks the top 5 (behind Cheney, Rove and "the secret cabal of Neocon Jews"). The choice is clear. Now bakc to our regularly scheduled programming.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 31, 2006 8:05 AM
Butch said, Does it matter, say what you want. Do you need to take Just personally?
You tell me, Butch. Do you need to take on Robstur personally?
I think it would be interesting to see if justintime is really serious about eminent domain seizures or if he is just posturing.
I happen to think it's an issue with potentially serious ramifications, particularly for those who are vulnerable, politically or otherwise.
I see a lot of words on this blog by people who claim to be for "the least of these", but the same folks seem perfectly willing to throw them overboard in order to make political points.>
Posted by: timks | December 31, 2006 10:10 AM
I think my new band is going to be called "The Eminent Domain Seizures." ;)>
Posted by: jesse | December 31, 2006 1:25 PM
May I suggest a more appropriate name for your new band, Jesse?
"Blame the Victims"
It's more in tune with the songs you've been singing here.
.>
Posted by: justintime | December 31, 2006 4:37 PM
(1) The blog: The topics addressed in the blog are generally supportive of the values in "God's Politics". The "Comments" portion for each topic on the blog offers an opportunity for supporters and opponents of the values to react to that topic and to react to the "Comments" by others.
I'm not aware of any similar opportunity that is offered by organizations who oppose the values in "God's Politics", but here there is ample opportunity for opponents to criticize the values.
(2) Countering the religious right: It does concern me that there is no opportunity, comparable to the opportunities offered by the religious right, for supporters of the values in "God's Politics" to coordinate our contacts with elected officials in state and national government, at critical times.
If some of the effort by supporters of the values in "God's Politics" that is being invested on this blog to defend the values from attacks which occur here were instead directed at coordinating our contacts with elected officials in state and national government, perhaps we could more effectively "change the wind".>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | December 31, 2006 5:00 PM
Tmk, you don't see that I'm not taking Rob personally but I am asking him to think. My son might say it would be personal and I would counter to my son that he is thinking poorly and I still love him. I m saying don t call Just out to fight, ignore if you like and go on with your point.
I gave you plenty of room to address the eminent domain issue when I described the process, which was a constitutional issue. The law was constitutional that is a fact, because the Supreme Court said so. Now was it proper, right, fair, no. But, we do have a remedy in state houses.>
Posted by: Butch | December 31, 2006 7:00 PM
"Eminent domain and Kelo are a source of contention among liberals. Eminent domain seems wrong, but Republicans are against it. This is causing a brain aneurysm for those who have their politics fed to them by left-wing blog sites, which are too insipid and emotional to dissect such a complicated issue."
This is one the best crafted paragraphs used as over kill to say everything is the fault of the left.
Republi-nazism at its best.
Again well done.>
Posted by: Butch | December 31, 2006 7:16 PM
"The law was constitutional that is a fact, because the Supreme Court said so."
The argument is that the Supreme Court got it dangerously wrong on this. But this is why I voted for presidents who will change the makeup of the supreme court.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 31, 2006 7:34 PM
Butch,
The awkward truth is that if you look at who has done the most to rein in the use of eminent domain, you'll see that a lot of the leadership on this issue has in fact come from conservative and free-market groups, such as the Mackinac Center, the Heritage Foundation, and the Institute for Justice.
The majority opinion was written not by Antonin Scalia but John Paul Stevens. The dissenting opinion, which opposed the use of eminent domain for corporate interests, was written by Sandra Day O'Connor, who was joined by Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and William Rehnquist.
In the words of Casey Stengel, You Can Look It Up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London
Kelo was mainly the fault of the left.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | December 31, 2006 7:58 PM
Wolverine, Doesn't matter it must be changed in state houses.>
Posted by: Butch | December 31, 2006 8:17 PM
Kev, that also doesn't matter on this issue, still must be changed outside the Supreme Court, they are the final word.
I know it is important to sing the same song about the left and "No one does it better".>
Posted by: Butch | December 31, 2006 8:31 PM
"Kev, that also doesn't matter on this issue, still must be changed outside the Supreme Court, they are the final word."
Correct, and Republican leadership is leading the charge here as well, so the principle question of where you stand on eminent domain remains.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 31, 2006 8:37 PM
I just read that Vice President Cheney said, "Gerald Ford was almost alone in understanding that there can be no healing without pardon."
Wow. If Dick Cheney understood this imagine how differently he would have acted over the course of his entire public service and how different things would have turned out....>
Posted by: Daniel | December 31, 2006 8:52 PM
Meh, it's What Ford is most remembered for. He had to say something about it. Daniel, are you saying that Cheney has conducted his career as a manner of seeking revenge? Not clear on your meaning.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 31, 2006 9:05 PM
Kevin,
My understanding of Velo:
The US Supreme Court declined to overturn the Connecticut Supreme Court's prior decision to allow the taking of Ms Velo's house in New London, CN under existing eminent domain precedent.
Eminent domain legislation goes back centuries.
The purpose of the taking was for the urban renewal of New London CN, in danger of extinction due to outsourced manufacturing jobs and resultant extreme blight.
I'm with most libertarians when they say "a man's home is his castle".
But I do think in many circumstances the common good of the society must trump the castle and eminent domain comes into play.
Such circumstances as; the interstate highway system, pipelines, the construction of levees to protect an entire city, and so forth.
Court decisions involving eminent domain always hinge over the interpretation of "what can legitimately be considered the 'common good'.
Since eminent domain has been around for a long time, there's a lot of disputed precedent.
I think the US Supremes deferred to the CN Supremes to interpret what is the 'common good' for New London CN.
What is the 'common good' for New Orleans is a tough call, isn't it?
But whatever the citizens of New Orleans deem to be their 'common good' should not ignore their displaced citizens, including those who were tenants .
That's where I would come down.
Am I hypocritical?
What do you think.?
Tim will wait for days, hoping to catch a liberal hypocrite.
He thinks that when he catches one, he can absolve himself from guilt for his own hypocrisy,
with the reassuring knowledge that "everyone is hypocritical" and I'm no different.
When I saw tim come out of thin air
with his post about Velo, I smelled another trap.
So I asked tim if he would tell us about Velo.
All he would say, was "I'm against it."
So why did you bring up Velo,
how does it apply to the topic at hand, New Orleans
and why are you against it, tim?
Tell us about it.
Tim actually admitted it was another hypocrisy trap in a subsequent post.
Righties have all sorts of tactics for changing the subject to keep their guilt suppressed when they begin to lose an argument.
Since I've been posting on Jim's blog I discovered some of these tactics and would like to share them so when you find yourself in a debate with a rightie you can hold your own.
If you're a rightie and find the discussion closing in on you, you can:
Challenge the data endlessly without conceding anything.(jesse, wolverine)
Baffle them with BS.(kevin)
Blame the victim seems to be the most common. They all use this one.
Be the victim and whine about liberals abusing you. (donny and robster)
Accuse liberals of poor taste when they criticize rightie leaders.
And if everything fails, you can always blame Bill Clinton.
If tim wants to see hypocrisy about eminent domain,
he should look into how W walked away from his Texas Rangers eminent domain seizure deal
with a cool $14 million,
while leaving the City of Arlington, TX holding the bag with $7.5 million in claims from the original owner.
Do you think this was for the "common good"?
After looking into W's sweet Texas Ranger deal,
tim should read some of W's recent comments about property rights.
Did you have any interesting dreams on Christmas eve, tim?
.>
Posted by: justintime | December 31, 2006 9:08 PM
The principle question is how can you frame every issue as a right wing conspiracy.
Remember you must say that often, lie often enough and loud enough and it becomes the reality. The Nazi's are the most famous in times past for making this theory work.
Same old Republi-nazi program, blame the victim. But you slip it in so well that I am impressed.>
Posted by: Butch | December 31, 2006 9:25 PM
Daniel,
No doubt Cheney hopes to be pardoned along with W.
The Bush/Cheney White House is "lawyering up" for the investigations.
.>
Posted by: justintime | December 31, 2006 9:39 PM
I feel like Diogenes searching for an honest man as I scan in vain for posts that remotely have anything to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
There are lots of other sites on the Internet for right-left/con-lib debates of the Mary Matalin vs. James Carville variety. Isn't this one devoted to evangelicals who have an interest in bringing Christ's values to American politics?>
Posted by: Herbert Huncke | December 31, 2006 9:39 PM
Change the subject, Herb.
.>
Posted by: Anonymous | December 31, 2006 9:42 PM
Ford's passing to New Orleans and Eminent domain? Boy talk about getting off task.
Just for the record - how many millions of dollors were sent to LA for improving the leeves and where did the money go?
Historically - DC and the Pres. have stayed out of any 'national disaster' until the Gov. of the state asked for help. I believe I remember that the people in DC told the Gov that the Leeves had been breached. I think that the state of LA is more responsible for the problems they have.
Just my thoughts for all of you with one exception...
Have a great New Year!>
Posted by: robstur | December 31, 2006 9:44 PM
I'd like to say that I remember former President Ford for the man that I met personally. He was a passenger along with 4 secret service agents that I had alone in first class on a flight many years ago. He was kind and warm, yet came across as intelligent and businesslike.
My husband also did a secret service detail for him at the White House. From the hallway he could hear him tell Betty to turn off "I love Lucy" on the tv, then opened the door and asked my husband if he could borrow a dollar. Never did get that back...
Brings home the fact that we're all just human. May he rest in peace.>
Posted by: Lynne | December 31, 2006 9:44 PM
justin,My understanding of Velo
It's Kelo, not Velo.
But whatever the citizens of New Orleans deem to be their 'common good' should not ignore their displaced citizens, including those who were tenants .
That's where I would come down.
Am I hypocritical?
What do you think.?
I agree with that, but you only seem to oppose seizures done during Republican administrations in Democratic districts. So that would make you hypocritical. I opposed Kelo, even though I suspected the case was doomed before the Court announced their decision, because unlike you I don't care about the party affiliation of the entity doing the seizing or the socio-economic status of the one whose property is being seized. As a progressive, I would think you would be opposed to governments seizing the property of a taxpayer/citizen and providing it to large corporations/developers in order to increase their tax revenue.
Tim will wait for days, hoping to catch a liberal hypocrite.
Right, justin. I said on this blog before Christmas I would be gone for a few days for the holidays. Don't flatter yourself.
So why did you bring up Velo,
how does it apply to the topic at hand, New Orleans
and why are you against it, tim?
I thought the topic at hand was President Ford's death and the alleged politicization of same. You're the one posting the long, off topic Democratic talking point posts. You are the one who originally brought up NOLA eminent domain seizures, not I.
Tim actually admitted it was another hypocrisy trap in a subsequent post.
I never admitted it was a trap. I said I wanted to see how you reconciled being opposed to eminent domain seizures with Kelo. I didn't know if you supported Kelo or not, but since you are so reliably, unthinkingly "progressive" I assumed you were for it. I asked because I wanted to know. Your cryptic reply was all I got in response. I couldn't believe you knew nothing about it.
Blame the victim seems to be the most common. They all use this one.
False. You can't relate one single instance where I have done this.
Accuse liberals of poor taste when they criticize rightie leaders.
I haven't objected to a single criticism of any "rightie" leader except when I advised you to stop blaming President Bush for things like the Salem Witch Trials, the Boston Massacre and the fall of the Alamo. I suggested that your case against him would be stronger if you only blamed him for the many things he was actually responsible for.
After looking into W's sweet Texas Ranger deal,
tim should read some of W's recent comments about property rights.
Why? I hold no brief for President Bush. It would not surprise me at all if he displayed the same level of hypocrisy on this issue as you do. I oppose crony capitalism even more than you do because I don't rationalize it away if it conducted by someone with whom I agree politically.
Did you have any interesting dreams on Christmas eve, tim?
I slept the sleep of the righteous with nothing but visions of sugar plums dancing in my head. Did Santa bring you the reading comprehension course I asked him to get you?>
Posted by: timks | December 31, 2006 10:59 PM
Butch, Tmk, you don't see that I'm not taking Rob personally but I am asking him to think. My son might say it would be personal and I would counter to my son that he is thinking poorly and I still love him.
Do you call your son an idiot and accuse him of having ADD? If you do, do you really think that is a good way to show the love?
The law was constitutional that is a fact, because the Supreme Court said so. Now was it proper, right, fair, no. But, we do have a remedy in state houses.
We actually agree on that, Butch. I am deeply concerned that many folks only think of sticking it to rich folks or corporations like Wal-mart, without realizing that the poor are at even more risk if the government's rights in this issue are expanded.>
Posted by: timks | December 31, 2006 11:04 PM
tim, As a progressive, I would think you would be opposed to governments seizing the property of a taxpayer/citizen and providing it to large corporations/developers in order to increase their tax revenue.
Yes, unless the eminent domain seizure can be related to the 'common good' for civilized society.
Eminent domain and the concept of the 'commons' are closely related.
If you didn't have one you wouldn't have the other.
When I bring up the word 'commons' with my redneck friends, they kid me by asking, are you commie?
Most conservatives I know struggle with the concept of the commons.
They see no value in the commons.
Everything is 'free market' ideology to them.
Fair game.
Some of them are so radical as to question the very existence or necessity of a commons.
Watch out for this type of conservative,
they want to privatize everything, deregulate and downsize the commons.
They'll take over your water supply and sell you clean air to breath.
They're selling off America's precious resources to foreign interests.
They even sell American jobs offshore.
These conservatives are not really conservative.
They're just con artists.
People should start waking up to this.
.>
Posted by: justintime | January 1, 2007 12:14 AM
Rob, ADD is a condition which no one can be accused of being?>
Posted by: Butch | January 1, 2007 2:45 AM
I'm ADD.
And proud of it.
.>
Posted by: justintime | January 1, 2007 2:49 AM
Great, leads to getting a lot done and keeping a lot of balls in the air.
My Grandson and my wife are, sometimes it's hard to keep her on task which makes it easy to change the subject without her knowing it.>
Posted by: Butch | January 1, 2007 2:56 AM
I am a Christian. I am a Democrat. Ford was a God fearing man. I hate that Bush ever shook his hand or uttered his name. Exact opposits Bush and Ford. Ford deserves honor. Bush deserves a jail cell.>
Posted by: Darryl Mast | January 1, 2007 6:27 AM
justin, Yes, unless the eminent domain seizure can be related to the 'common good' for civilized society.
The 5th Amendment to the Constitution doesn't say "common good" it says "public use". The Supreme Court has long held that "public use" and "public purpose" are essentially the same thing. If, when you use the term "common good", you mean the same as those two terms, then we agree.
Somehow, I don't believe you do. I hope I'm wrong. And yes, I am familiar with the "Theory of the Commons" although I don't see how it necessarily applies here.>
Posted by: timks | January 1, 2007 7:06 AM
A Litle History Relevant to Kelo. (Or "Velo" if you prefer)
For most of this country's history, "public use" and "public purpose" were understood as meaning a government facility (like a police station) or infrastructure (like a highway). Condemning property via eminent domain then handing it over to a private business was out of the question.
In the fifties and sixties, we began to see the condemnation of "blighted" property as part of "urban renewal". Because "blight" is hard to define, this opened the door to developers arguing that properties should be considered "blighted" because they (the developers) thought they could build something more valuable on the same site. Public officials went along because, if the developer was right (and they frequently were) they came out ahead on property taxes.
The nadir, at least in my home state, was "Poletown" where the city condemned an integrated low-income neighborhood then handed the whole thing over to GM. GM refused to consider alternative locations, or even alternative designs that would have allowed most of Poletown to survive.
This is the abuse that the Supreme Court failed to correct. Fortunately the states, led by conservative groups for the most part (but not exclusively -- Ralph Nader was an early leader in the fight against Poletown) have been active in passing laws to restrict the use of eminent domain.
This isn't about the commons. It's about the ability of persons of modest means to protect themselves and the lives and homes they have built against a combination of powerful corporations and money-hungry "public servants".
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | January 1, 2007 3:47 PM
Wolverine - I agree. Unfortunately, persons of modest means can only expect help from compassionate progressives like justin if it will make the Republicans look bad.
Good for Ralph Nader. For the life of me, I don't understand why more progressives don't see this as an issue that is consistent with their alleged principles.
I haven't heard Jim Wallis address this issue - has any one else? It seems tailor-made for someone advocating "God's Politics".>
Posted by: timks | January 1, 2007 5:53 PM
Deryll wrote -
I fail to see compassion or morality in the actions of DeLay, Rove, Cheney, etc... Yet I have a very good friend who says Rush is way too liberal for him. My friend travels at his own expense to Haiti one or two times a year (for the last 15 or so years) to help at an orphanage. He is to me compassionate and moral. Yes, I read between the lines of your post; but I believe that I and you sin when we use labels and thereby categorize people as good or bad. Is it possible for me to be apalled at the evil which Saddam did, yet also be appalled at HAC's statement?
- Life is perspective and you see it from a different angle than I do. I see the war in Iraq as a necessary evil so that someday these people can hopefully live in peace and determine their own destiny. We tried changing things with the UN and it failed. Like I have posted in the past war is the final act of a rational society to deal with an irrational entity.
- I believe that going somewhere to lend aid to a people or country is neither liberal nor conservative; it is the correct thing to do. There is corruption on both sides of the political isle which is sad. You single out Rove in you posting I counter with Carville. Both sides have their pit-bull guess we live with it. Kennedy blasted and raked Ford in the 70 s for pardoning Nixon now he is coming out and saying it was OK. Interesting how people s points of view can change.
- I know that the majority of us could come to consensus if we working and talked together long enough. We may not agree with the cause of the problem we could come to agreement on what the desired outcome should be. We might approach the solution differently but should be able to work that part out.
- My personality is one of a centrist or need for balance. I have said this before that I came to the conclusion that we lost the war on abortion. Fine, I believe that you make a greater change in people one heart at a time. My liberal friends kept marching on with the abortion cause all the way to 3rd trimester abortions. I had to go the opposite way to maintain the balance .
Saddam s execution I believe that this was the greater good over life in prison. If he we still alive in prison how many planes would be hi-jacked demanding his release? Let them make him a martyr whatever. We dismiss the people that he gassed so easily. Personally I mourn for those that lived and are physically impaired to the point that they are just existing in life.
I am not a victim!
->
Posted by: robstur | January 1, 2007 6:20 PM
Rob
My reference to DeLay, Rove, and Cheney was, of course, a response to your "Robsrerism" (love for conservatives, and disdain for liberals). Pointing out my friend was "my attempt" to show that morality and compassion were not consertive or liberal; A point which, if you truly believed, would, I thought, have prevented you from making the "robsterism". It's difficult to read you as centrist.>
Posted by: Deryll | January 1, 2007 6:58 PM
"We dismiss the people that he gassed so easily. Personally I mourn for those that lived and are physically impaired to the point that they are just existing in life."
Those that he gassed were the Kurds who we abandoned after the 1st Gulf war after asking them to rise up against Saddam.>
Posted by: Butch | January 1, 2007 7:03 PM
Duane,
Thank you for contrasting Ford's contribution to our society to the atrocities our current administration has given our country. I can't help wonder who will heal our country from so many wrongs including this needless war? We need honest leaders and unfortunately that fails to describe our current administration.
My prayers are that we will seek a peaceful resolution to this horrendous war and be a leader of peace in this world.>
Posted by: Diana | January 1, 2007 7:42 PM
I rememmber the pride and euphoria after the "Shock and Awe", "The End of Major Conflict", "Bring it On", pride is not often a good thing. My reading of the Bible speaks more often to humility than pride.>
Posted by: Butch | January 1, 2007 7:47 PM
Diana,
My sentiments, entirely.
Thanks,>
Posted by: justintime | January 1, 2007 7:50 PM
I am not a victim!
Congratulations, Robster.
That's a great New Years resolution.
All my best for 2007.>
Posted by: justintime | January 1, 2007 7:53 PM
Just, have you noticed how the Republi-Nazi's stay out of the way when Rob can draw attention. Their only purpose is to keep the discussion off central issues or make excuses if it gets to close to real issues.>
Posted by: Butch | January 1, 2007 7:57 PM
Butch,
Yeah I've noticed that and I've also noticed they're not responding very well to "republi-nazis", whatever that is.
I've been calling them 'righties' just to keep them in the discussion.
It annoys me too when a righty changes the topic on a dime and leaves me spinning.
Robster is a master at changing the topic.
When Robster is on point,
all the other righties can just sit back and watch the entertainment.
I've learned it's almost impossible to ever get righties to admit any confusion in their paradigms.
It's scary for them to admit they're confused.
It's scary for me too, when I have to admit things.
It can produce mild to severe cognitive dissonance.
Then I have to modify my paradigm.
And that can take serious work.
But in spite of our quirky paradigms, we all have common ground,
if we can just recognize it.
Finding common ground can be a complicated, tedious process.
So I like to stay on a topic until we find some common ground.
But I've learned on some things, you will never get a rightie to agree with you.
In those cases,
I can only present my position,
leave it there,
wait for a response,
run it through the BS detector
and then take appropriate action.
By the way,
How did we get from President Ford to eminent domain?
I'm confused.
Everything seems to be connected to everything else.
Help me out here.
And a Happy New Year to everyone.
.>
Posted by: justintime | January 1, 2007 9:36 PM
"How did we get from President Ford to eminent domain? I'm confused."
you wrote:
"the Bush Cartel is operating just under the radar,
ripping Americans off with cronyism, no-bid contracts and eminent domain real estate seizures."
Which, given the politics behind the issue, didn't make any sense. How did we get from Gerald Ford to one of your cronyism rants? I would love to have a conversation that stays on point, and doesn't turn into a far-reaching discussion of the merits of various elements of conservative policy. I hope you are not pretending that this is what you are attempting to engage in here.
"It can produce mild to severe cognitive dissonance."
You still aren't using this term correctly. Reconsidering your paradigm in light of new or compelling ideas is not an example of resolving cognitive dissonance.>
Posted by: kevin s. | January 1, 2007 11:00 PM
I would love to have a conversation that stays on point, and doesn't turn into a far-reaching discussion of the merits of various elements of conservative policy.
Kevin, why don't you pick a topic and keep us focused on it?
You still aren't using this term correctly. Reconsidering your paradigm in light of new or compelling ideas is not an example of resolving cognitive dissonance.
This is how I've been using these terms:
Cognitive dissonance is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, which can be defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior; in other words, it is the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time.
Cognitions which contradict each other are said to be "dissonant," while cognitions which agree with each other are said to be "consonant." Cognitions which neither agree nor disagree with each other are said to be "irrelevant." (Festinger, 1957).
The introduction of a new cognition that is dissonant with a currently held cognition creates a state of "dissonance," the magnitude of which relates to the relative importance of the involved cognitions. Dissonance can be reduced either by eliminating dissonant cognitions, or by adding new consonant cognitions. The maximum possible dissonance is equal to the resistance to change of the less resistant cognition; therefore, once dissonance reaches a level that overcomes the resistance of one of the cognitions involved, that cognition will be changed or eliminated, and dissonance will be reduced.
This leads some people who feel dissonance to seek information that will reduce dissonance and avoid information that will increase dissonance. People who are involuntarily exposed to information that increases dissonance are likely to discount that information, either by ignoring it, misinterpreting it, or denying it.
Paradigm:
Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn gave this word its contemporary meaning when he adopted it to refer to the set of practices that define a scientific discipline during a particular period of time.Kuhn defines a paradigm as: an entire constellation of beliefs, values and techniques, and so on, shared by the members of a given community
Handa, M.L. (1986) introduced the idea of "social paradigm" in the context of social sciences. He identified the basic components of a social paradigm. Like Kuhn, Handa addressed the issue of changing paradigm; the process popularly known as "paradigm shift". In this respect, he focused on social circumstances that precipitate such a shift and the effects of the shift on the social institutions, including the institution of education. This broad shift in the social arena, in turn, changes the way the individual perceives reality.
How do you use them?
.>
Posted by: justintime | January 2, 2007 12:05 AM
Retracing this thread:
I believe that it is easier to make a conservative compassionate than a liberal moral - just a little robsturism for 2007 (LOL)
robstur | 12.30.06 - 10:26 am
This robsterism prompted me to use New Orleans as an example of "compassionate conservatism".
But the discussion had already drifted away from President Ford before I got here.
Then timks picked the term "eminent domain" out of my New Orleans rant and used it to set his 'hypocritical liberal' trap.
Kevin, why don't you moderate the discussion and keep us on point.
I think we would all appreciate staying on point,
except maybe robster and donny.
.>
Posted by: justintime | January 2, 2007 12:30 AM
Just with the next subject lets agree to stay on point?
If you make a point or take a position then explain it and keep it simple because too much information leads to picking one point out of many and spinning off.>
Posted by: Butch | January 2, 2007 1:30 AM
Republi-Nazi comes from the way republicans have controlled the message. Anyone who disagrees must be demonized, or part of some conspiracy, Hollywood, the right wing press, this list never ends.
All these things and more are all straight out of the Nazi propaganda program. If you like I could go into direct parallels but I don't want to.
If you don't already see and understand all this explaining won't help.>
Posted by: Butch | January 2, 2007 1:46 AM
butch,
I do understand where you're coming from.
It's just that 'republi-nazi' is an inflammatory ad hominem attack which detracts from the point you're trying to make.
When righties see themselves called republi-nazis they will ignore your point entirely.
Does it ever seem to you like you're just talking to yourself?
.>
Posted by: justintime | January 2, 2007 3:14 AM
Sorry I call them like I see them, the Republi-Nazi apoligist are here to interfere with open discussion and understanding. Don't you notice how the subject shifts when it gets close to home.
I can't think of the name but there is a committee that works on sound-bits to send out or feed people like Rob.>
Posted by: Butch | January 2, 2007 4:34 AM
I had hoped to help Rob think about his positions because I think he is sincere.>
Posted by: Butch | January 2, 2007 4:36 AM
justintime
I would hardly say that I was on point and there are many other conservatives that I would consider better writers than I - I would never give me that much credit.
The republi-nazi is just another label like BS and ADD etc. I will not respond to that. Living in MN and experiencing what I have over the years - my assumption of compassionate and moral (with the LOL -Laugh out loud) was more a joke than a denouncement - but there is a bit of a barb in there because of the MN DFL.
As for me not responding to items that 'some' have written or pointed out. There is a lot of what I have asked to commented on that has gone un-answered so there is enough blame or whatever to go around.
Someday maybe we can have some meaningful conversation about issues - but as long as I and others will be dismissed as Republi-nazi's - ADD - BS Meter etc. not sure it will happen.
I am looking forward to seeing what the new congress will do once they are in session. I hope for the best but not really counting on it. I am sure that Nancy P. is a wonderful mother and grandmother - not really sure that she and I can agree on much.
Yes - there is a lot of miss-understanding and dare I say hatred between the parties - when did it start and what will it take to make it go away.
This is off topic but so is most of the last 30% of the postings on this article. I again ask the question?
What are you as blue - red letter people thinking needs to be done in Darfur and what are you willing to commit to get it done? You don't have to respond to this - no one has any other time that I asked the question.
still not a victim - but loosing interest in this site fast.
->
Posted by: robstur | January 2, 2007 4:39 AM
Rob that was one of your best thought out post!>
Posted by: Butch | January 2, 2007 4:44 AM
What is MN DFL?
.>
Posted by: justintime | January 2, 2007 4:57 AM
justintime
MN = Minnesota
DFL = Democratic, Farmer, Labor
We just have to be a little different in MN (tee hee)
Still not the victim
->
Posted by: robstur | January 2, 2007 5:00 AM
Robster,
If you go back a few months in the archives, you will find that Duane Shank posted on Darfur and some of us responded with our thoughts on what should be done.
Check it out.
I've been supporting Doctors Without Borders.
They have people on the ground in Darfur.
The political situation has changed since then.
Maybe Duane will post again on Darfur.
.>
Posted by: justintime | January 2, 2007 7:04 AM
Robster,
So DFL is a Democratic party organization?
And someone from DFL gave you a bad time and shut your faith based program down?
They were against faith-based programs because they believe in separation of Church and State, right?
And now all Democrats are the enemy because of that experience?
Have you been able to find another way to help your former clients?
.>
Posted by: justintime | January 2, 2007 7:13 AM
Butch said, Just with the next subject lets agree to stay on point?
If you make a point or take a position then explain it and keep it simple because too much information leads to picking one point out of many and spinning off.
How about not posting very long, off topic rants?
How about not resorting to name calling as soon as someone makes a point you don't agree with?
How about not assuming those who disagree with you or Jim Wallis are people of ill-will?
Butch, if you are trying to help Robstur be clearer, it would help if you yourself typed in complete, coherent sentences.>
Posted by: timks | January 2, 2007 9:06 AM
justintime wrote -
And now all Democrats are the enemy because of that experience?
- Hardly - I have voted for democrats in the past and hopefully I will be able to in the future. There are several good democrats in MN just none in my district.
Have you been able to find another way to help your former clients?
- We are still working with them but we are limited to working with 5 to 7 and our funds are gone. We were 3 small churches less than 250 members each. We can administrate what needs to be done, just can't put together the finances that we need to get these people transported to where they need to be to get an education - state agencies so that they get the help they needs.
Our meeting this month, I believe we will vote to disband our group. Our funds are gone and the money we might have gotten from the gov't would have gone to the people we were trying to help. We were not asking them to attend our churches in order to get the help. We looked at it as the cup of cold water - no strings attached. Sad
Have a great year
->
Posted by: Robstur | January 2, 2007 1:57 PM
Perhaps people's problem with politicizing Ford's death isn't that you did it, but that you didn't have the common decency to wait until he was in the ground before you did it.
I want so much to buy into the Sojourners mission/vision/whatever you want to call it, but I have such a hard time swallowing all of your insinuation that you somehow rise above the political slime of our country.>
Posted by: Craig | January 2, 2007 3:11 PM
timks
don't worry about his influence on me - not listening anymore. He will have plent of others that he can deal with on this site.
Have a great New Year!
->
Posted by: Robstur | January 2, 2007 3:34 PM
Craig
I understand what you are saying. I find that if I spend a few moments in prayer prior to logging on - things go better and I have an easier time decerning what is worth responding to in the site. There is middle groud somewhere - just keep searching.
Have a great New Year!
->
Posted by: Robstur | January 2, 2007 3:37 PM
I'm weeping.
"I find that if I spend a few moments in prayer prior to logging on - things go better"
Robsturd>
Posted by: Carl Copas | January 2, 2007 4:55 PM
Carl Copas
Why weeping?
->
Posted by: Robstur | January 2, 2007 5:22 PM
Timk, All of my off topic rants have been in response to off topic rants which I'm going to try to stop responding to off topic rants.>
Posted by: Butch | January 2, 2007 6:08 PM
Hmm, Hitch hasn't been very charitable in his piece on Ford:
">http://www.slate.com/id/2156400/fr/flyout>
Posted by: splinterlog | January 2, 2007 9:54 PM
Hitch seems to have the market cornered on such pieces.>
Posted by: timks | January 2, 2007 11:19 PM
splinterlog, tmks, what specificly do you refer to?>
Posted by: Butch | January 2, 2007 11:44 PM
I'm referring to Christopher Hitchens' penchant for writing obituaries that eviscerate the memory of recently departed and widely beloved folks. Check out in particular his obits of Princess Diana and Mother Teresa.
Hitch obviously feels that the old adage "speak no ill of the dead" is obsolete.>
Posted by: timks | January 3, 2007 12:33 AM
tmks, that is how you feel about it, please quote his words that support your feelings?>
Posted by: Butch | January 3, 2007 2:11 AM
Oops, I mean about Ford?>
Posted by: Butch | January 3, 2007 2:14 AM
Butch said, tmks, that is how you feel about it, please quote his words that support your feelings?
Have you read the linked article? If you do you will see what splinterlog was referring to. Hitch as usual doesn't mince words. He discusses 3 or 4 things Ford did which he feels were notorious. Not a mention of any of Ford's good qualities.
Like me, Hitch felt the Nixon pardon was a mistake at the time. Unlike me, he still feels that way.>
Posted by: timks | January 3, 2007 4:18 AM
Sorry I though u were talking about the post here! I couldn't find anything in Shank's post.>
Posted by: Butch | January 3, 2007 4:43 AM
I was very apposed to Nixon's pardon at the time but since I saw what happened to the government while Clinton was being impeached I don't want an impeachment. Would rather see things handled with congress and the Supreme Court.
Of course that is a problem when the problem behavior is by a setting Pres with the same party in Congress, either way.
What I'm looking for is the party cleaning its own house. I'll just give one example, Foley.
Finally I've come to agree with Pres Ford! Unless congress will get after either party's Pres.>
Posted by: Butch | January 3, 2007 4:56 AM
I personally believe that we should remove the impeachment clause. Since the Senate is elected and not appointed - they will never convict a sitting President for fear of loosing votes at the next election.
Just my thought
Have a great one!
->
Posted by: robstur | January 3, 2007 5:08 AM
How would you remove an official for improper behavior or illegal?>
Posted by: Butch | January 3, 2007 5:31 AM
Impeachment has nothing to do with removing an official as defined in the last 50 years. It has everything to do with crippling an administration that you do not agree with. It really has little to do with anything 'legal' in this country. The definition of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' is so politically defined that there is no longer a benchmark to refer to. They are only in there to max 8 years - remove impeachment. If Senators were appointed rather than elected - we might be able to do impeachment correctly...then again maybe not.
->
Posted by: Robstur | January 3, 2007 3:33 PM
There is a process which works, but you are right it is so political that I question the process.
The process is in place and can be used. You're saying that you feel it's pointless.>
Posted by: Butch | January 3, 2007 5:05 PM
pointless - useless.
The only way that you will be able to remove someone from office is to let their term run out. You need a super majority in the Senate to even consider removing someone from office. i.e. you need a super majority of democrats to remove a republican from office - or the other way around. Would rather that they work on something that would be more beneficial to the citizens in the US.
->
Posted by: Robstur | January 3, 2007 7:36 PM
I think the process can work. If the Dems want to impeach Bush, they will have to present compelling evidence (compiled by independent prosecutors) that Bush has committed crimes.
There are two problems with this. First, they will appear to be out of the mainstream, as most people don't actually see Bush as a criminal. Second, the evidence will reveal that Bush did not commit any crimes, which will satisfy the overwhelming majority of Americans that Bush is not a criminal.
Without impeachment, they can have their cake and eat it, too. They can accuse Bush of being incompetent, have DaliyKos types (who are not accountable to reality) call him a criminal, and push for change in 2008.>
Posted by: kevin s. | January 3, 2007 8:12 PM
You can argue this anyway you like - impeachment is pointless as long as Senators have to be concerned about their next election. This is why it was wrong to change them from being appointed by the governor of the state to being elected by popular vote.
We waste our elected officials time and our tax money on something that will not happen so let just cut the 'impeachment' as deal with our officials that are in office.
One thing that concerns me but I in no way loose sleep over it is the underlying premise or attitude of some that the majority of the people that vote and elect a candidate into office are stupid. In all the elections that have happened and my candidate did not make it into office - I have never figured that those that voted different from me were any smarter to dumber than me.
Don't know if it is arrogance or intolerance.
->
Posted by: Robstur | January 3, 2007 8:36 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?