![]() |
The Weblog at The View from the Core - Saturday, January 31, 2004
|
Some Things Never Change Like mainstream media's pro-abortion bias. A Rochester newspaper reports, Jan. 23, that ten yes, ten (10) people held a pro-abortion rally the day before, the thirty-first anniversary of Roe v. Wade. + + + + + Protests and demonstrations here and across the nation Thursday marked the 31st anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. About 10 Rochester-area volunteers lined a block of South Clinton Avenue near Court Street during the morning rush hour, holding white signs with black block letters asking motorists to support abortion rights. Meanwhile, at least three buses of local pro-life supporters were joining an anticipated crowd of thousands at the annual March for Life rally in Washington, D.C. The Rochester demonstration was one of about 50 across the nation. It was designed to be a small reminder of the anniversary and the kick-off of a national effort to publicize the March for Women’s Lives on April 25 in Washington, D.C. Busloads of marchers are expected to make the trip from the Rochester area. “Everyone is screaming so we have to scream louder,” said Petra Page-Mann, one of the volunteers holding a sign on South Clinton Avenue on Thursday. Thursday’s rally in Washington was the 31st for the March for Life. The organization is all about “breaking stereotypes of who pro-life people really are,” said Carol Crossed of Brighton, who is the national chairwoman of Democrats for Life. Grace Carson of Hamlin, the new executive director of the Rochester Area Right to Life Committee, said her group sees the pro-life movement “gaining strength and momentum.” “More Americans are coming to realize what we already know — that ending a life is never a good solution to any problem,” she said. One focus this year of abortion opponents is to convince more state and local governments to cut off public funding that subsidizes some of Planned Parenthood’s services. Pro-choice activists are focusing on overturning the ban on “partial-birth abortions,” fighting President Bush’s re-election effort and expanding access to emergency contraceptives. “We are here to remind people that abortion will not go away, the point is to keep it safe and legal,” said Shelley Page, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Rochester/Syracuse Region. + + + + + The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes. The same newspaper reports, Jan. 29, that pro-lifers complained loud and clear that the newspaper had failed to cover local pro-life vigils. + + + + + About two dozen people representing 10 pro-life groups rallied at the Democrat and Chronicle Wednesday, claiming that the newspaper does not present balanced views about abortion in its articles. The focus of their complaint was an article, “Rally supports Roe v. Wade,” published on Page 4B on Jan. 23. The article mentioned local involvement from those on both sides of the abortion issue. “We want the newspaper’s name changed to ‘Delusion and Confusion’,” said Carol Crossed of Brighton. She said that local prayer vigils held to commemorate the Roe v. Wade anniversary were ignored. “It’s an insult to the people involved,” Crossed said of the lack of coverage. The groups gave six demands to the paper, including wanting a public apology for the recent article’s headline and “imbalanced reporting.” The groups also want an ombudsman to review articles about abortion for fairness and want to meet with editors about coverage of the issue. Jann Armantrout, representing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester, said balanced reporting “is so critical to the political freedom in this country.” Thomas P. Flynn, vice president of communications for the newspaper, said just because the groups disagree with the coverage doesn’t mean it is wrong. “We cover this issue with the same fairness and balance that we write all of our stories,” Flynn said. “We work very hard to make our coverage fair and balanced and we recognize there are differing points of views on many topics.” He said editors have met with the groups in the past to discuss their concerns and “we’re willing to meet again.” + + + + + The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes. See Eureka! "Abortion Bias Seeps Into the News". (Thanks, Jeff.) Lane Core Jr. CIW P Sat. 01/31/04 09:16:21 PM |
The Curt Jester Strikes Again Lane Core Jr. CIW P Sat. 01/31/04 08:59:56 PM |
Heresy vs. Schism? The Washington Times reports, today, on some remarks of Rt. Rev. Peter J. Lee, Episcopal bishop of Virginia: Heresy is better than schism, the Episcopal bishop of Virginia said yesterday in a speech that gently chided church conservatives for imperiling the unity of the country's largest diocese over the consecration of the denomination's first homosexual bishop last November. "If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy," said the Rt. Rev. Peter J. Lee to 500 Episcopalians meeting for the annual diocesan council at the Hyatt Regency in Reston. "For as a heretic, you are only guilty of a wrong opinion," Bishop Lee said, quoting Presbyterian scholar James McCord. "As a schismatic, you have torn and divided the body of Christ. Choose heresy every time." After delegates applauded him, he added, "I hope we will avoid both heresy and schism." .... Am I the only one who actually finds it amusing yes, I am so insensitive that I find it amusing that these remarks come from a man who is bishop of an ecclesiastical communion that exists only because of, first, schism, then heresy? And that his ecclesiastical communion has never "avoided" either? But see Midwest Conservative Journal. Lane Core Jr. CIW P Sat. 01/31/04 08:47:52 PM |
Don't Write Anything Dumb, If Dale Price Might Ever See It But it ain't the "New Apologists" who really get nuked. At Dyspeptic Mutterings, "Weapons of Mass Deconstruction: Nuking the New Apologists": I will add a few remarks that, in the wake of Dale's tour de force, are likely to be superfluous. Frankly, Gaillardetz's essay is one long, large, cheap shot: he names names at the beginning ("figures like Scott Hahn, Gerry Matatics, Karl Keating, Mitch Pacwa, S.J., Peter Kreeft and Patrick Madrid"), but gives nary an example not even one quoted syllable of what he is supposedly criticizing in their apologetics. That ought to be Clue Number One to the attentive reader that he is being set up with straw men. Second, we see what Gaillardetz is really upset about by a list of those to whom he gives his benevolent approbation: .... I think of some accessible books on Catholic theology by Monika Hellwig, Thomas P. Rausch, S.J., and Richard P. McBrien. These are works by capable and respected systematic theologians who are not afraid to engage in what might be disparaged as haute vulgarisation in service of the needs of the church today.... As I hope you know by now, Faithful Reader, around here "Rev." Richard P. McBrien is known as Subversive Traitor In Chief to the Catholic Church in the USA. By this recommendation, we see what's really galling Gaillardetz: some people actually have the freaking nerve to defend the Catholic faith. Not merely explain, but actually defend. How dare they. I am sorry to have to point out, Faithful Reader, if you actually read Fr. McBrien's "Catholicism" / By the National Council of Catholic Bishops's Committee on Doctrine, you realize that to dismiss it with the following wave of the hand is unwittingly or not simply deceptive: .... It may be useful to point out that the NCCB review of McBrien's Catholicism was quite measured, expressing concern only with use of the book by undergraduates or in parish adult education programs.... Useful? Probably. But to what purpose exactly? Now, I myself eschew, as far as possible, anything that approaches to proof-texting. Indeed, I have often derided Protestant fundamentalistic proof-texting as Bible Butchery. Unlike most of the gigantic Protestant theological edifice, the Catholic faith is not, never was, and cannot be, based upon texts. However and this is a very important however proof-texting can be necessary when dealing with proof-texters. A Protestant fundamentalist who hears the word "tradition" and equates it with "Satanic Temptation Away From God's Pure Word" and their number is legion has to be approached with scriptural proof-texting, or not at all. Gaillardetz seems to have a rather romantic notion of "dialogue". I don't suppose the following scenario has occurred to him. Sincere Protestant Fundamentalist: "The Romish Church is the Whore of Babylon! Drunk on the blood of the 50 million Christians it killed during the Dark Ages! And the pope and his evil minions are still dragging millions of dupes into hell with their man-made system!" For every Catholic turned off by the New Apologists, I'll bet there are ten former Protestants who thank God every day for them and ten cradle Catholics equally grateful that somebody finally explained and defended the faith that had been handed on to them so poorly. P.S. Thanks to Dyspspetic Mutterings and Envoy Encore for the notice. Lane Core Jr. CIW P Sat. 01/31/04 01:38:21 PM |
"Why We Can't Talk" The man says a great deal more than he means or realizes. Dale Price refers us to this address (PDF) by Lutheran pastor Jonathan Sorum: Why is the issue of homosexuality so divisive in the Church? We alternate between uneasy silence and strident shouting, with very little dialogue. Why can’t we talk? From a Lutheran perspective, disagreement about moral issues need not be divisive in the Church. The Gospel, not our obedience to the Law, gives us our identity and unity. Sometimes, because of our sin and also because of our human limitations, we disagree with one another about how Christians should behave. The question of Christian participation in war, for example, has led to deep divisions between those who refuse to fight and those who see it as their duty to fight. But if both sides recognize and confess a common identity in Christ, then at least the argument can go on without leading to a complete break. In fact, mutual admonition between brothers and sisters in Christ is an expression of unity, not a violation of it. In any case, our common identity comes as a gift in Christ. Our expression of that identity in our actions is on an entirely different level, where conscientious difference need not threaten unity and sometimes can even strengthen it. The problem with the issue of homosexuality is that the argument for the acceptance of homosexual behavior is carried on at the level of identity, not at the level of behavior. The homosexual rights movement within denominations ostensibly presents the Church with a position on a moral question to be justified on the basis of a shared Christian identity. In reality, however, the homosexual rights movement presents a different gospel, a different identity. This identity is not an identity given to persons from outside themselves in Christ, but one that they find within themselves, or, more precisely, one that they construct on the basis of what they find in themselves. On the basis of this identity homosexual behavior is morally justified. Many people in the Church sense that something fundamental is being lost here and feel deeply uncomfortable with this position. Unfortunately, a few react with shrillness, hostility, and occasional violence. Their response shows that they, too, are reacting on the level of identity. Despite their espousal of traditional Christian doctrine and morality, they also get their identity from within themselves and not from Christ. Forgetting that Christians have their righteousness only in Christ, they believe that they are righteous within themselves and so feel justified in harassing and persecuting those who do not meet their standards. But such persons surely represent a small minority in the Church, even in quite conservative circles. Most people in the Church merely feel a profound discomfort. They do not wish to judge or hurt those who deal with the issue of homosexuality. On the contrary, they would like to be supportive and helpful. But they cannot feel quite comfortable with the agenda of the homosexual rights movement because, while it uses traditional gospel words, such as “grace” and “acceptance,” it seems to mean something quite different by them. Torn between their desire to be compassionate, on the one hand, and their disquiet over the seeming implications of the homosexual rights agenda, on the other, many in the Church are at a loss as to how to respond. For the sake of those who struggle with the issue of homosexuality, we urgently need to move the discussion from the level of identity to the level of behavior. On the basis of a common Christian identity, we need to ask about what courses of action might be right for those who deal with this issue. But first we need to be sure of what that common Christian identity is. And before we can recover that common identity with clarity and hope, we need to probe and uncover the different identity that is being offered to the Church. This last task is the goal of this essay. This essay does not address the moral question of homosexuality. Instead, its task is to show why it is impossible to address the moral question of homosexuality, given the way that the homosexual rights movement has presented the issue.... Sorum's argument fails to convince. Why? Dale quoted another section, which includes the following passage: .... Christian morality appeals, finally, to the Scriptures as the external source of moral norms. This appeal does not mean that the Scriptures must be interpreted as a law code whose every precept is directly applicable to us today. The Lutheran tradition, for example, insists that the Scriptural Law can be discerned only from the perspective of the Gospel, the good news of what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. From that perspective, the tradition insists, the Scriptures provide a coherent view of the basic shape of a human life consistent with God’s redeeming work, which also reflects God’s work as creator and sustainer of the world. For example, the tradition clearly teaches that, according to the Scriptures, marriage is rooted in God’s creative intention (Matt. 19:4–8) and finds its final fulfillment in God’s redemptive work (Eph. 5:32). From such a Christological perspective, it is possible to evaluate all the Biblical texts related to marriage, including some we may find problematic, and construct an authoritative Biblical answer to the question about how we should conduct ourselves with respect to this area of life. Our needs, desires, prejudices and preferences do not have any authority in this process. Of course, we can’t fully escape such things and inevitably they color our interpretation. But the constant work of Biblical interpretation, under the power of the Holy Spirit and aided by the communion of saints in space and time, aims precisely at eliminating such factors from the Church’s teaching so that the Church may discern the will of God. The Church’s moral debate is internal to the tradition. If we are to revise our moral teaching, we must do so on the basis of the Scriptures themselves within the context of our tradition of interpretation.... Coming from a man whose tradition began in the sixteenth century (along with other traditions such as Calvinism and Anglicanism) by jettisoning essential parts of a tradition that had existed in substantially the same form for more than a thousand years, Sorum hasn't any ground to stand on here. A faithful Catholic or Orthodox Christian could, however, employ Sorum's argument with intellectual integrity. Lane Core Jr. CIW P Sat. 01/31/04 01:12:19 PM |
"War Hero and Waffling Windbag" Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CLIII Speaking of John Kerry, Max Boot slams Michael Dukakis's lieutenant governor at of all places the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 29. + + + + + John Kerry has done well so far because he's not Howard Dean: He doesn't have steam coming out of his ears every time he opens his mouth, and he does have national security experience. But now that he's the frontrunner, he will be subjected to the same kind of withering scrutiny that caused Dr. Dean to turn into Mr. Hyde. Kerry's military record is one of his strongest selling points for Democrats hungry for a credible candidate. Kerry, as he himself never tires of pointing out, is a decorated veteran. But so were Bob Dole and John McCain. Heroism in wartime doesn't necessarily earn you the Oval Office. From the standpoint of presidential qualifications, the 18 years that Kerry spent on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is more relevant. He's been a leader in fighting international crime and reestablishing relations with Vietnam. Although he voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1991, he's cultivated a reputation as a moderate on national security — an image buttressed by his selection of Rand Beers as his campaign coordinator for these issues. Beers is a career civil servant who worked on counter-terrorism for presidents of both parties. He resigned from the National Security Council last year because he thought Iraq would take resources away from other parts of the war on terrorism. I disagree, but it's a reasonable critique, and Beers is known as a solid professional. So what kind of foreign policy have Kerry and Beers crafted? Kerry gave his biggest foreign policy address to date at the Council on Foreign Relations on Dec. 3. He made some excellent points about the need to improve homeland security, combat money laundering, do more in Afghanistan and hold the Saudis accountable for their support of terrorism. And he was right on the money in criticizing the current administration for not sending its senior officials overseas to sell Washington's case. But a lot of Kerry's speech was pure partisan windbaggery. "The Bush administration," he claimed, "has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history." Really? More inept than Jimmy Carter's, Lyndon Johnson's or Woodrow Wilson's? Kerry also rapped Bush for failing to achieve peace between Israel and its neighbors. He pledged to appoint as "presidential ambassador to the peace process" someone like Bill Clinton. Why Clinton would have more success brokering a settlement as an ex-president than when he was president remains a mystery. Those minor problems paled, however, next to Kerry's positions on Iraq. To his credit, he was one of the Democrats who voted Oct. 11, 2002, for the resolution giving President Bush the authority "to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in Iraq. This has caused Kerry a lot of grief among Deaniac Democrats, and he's twisted himself into a pretzel to explain away this vote. He claims that "I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period," and that he had no idea that Bush would use the authority granted to him to actually go to war. If you believe this, Kerry is too naive to be president. A likelier explanation is that he's trying to be pro-war and antiwar at the same time. That impression was reinforced in his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. He said that "we had to hold Saddam Hussein accountable," but only if we had united "the international community." He was asked: "Do you think you really could have brought the Germans, the French along in a commitment to use force?" Kerry brazenly answered "yes" but offered no credible explanation of how, beyond saying that he would have shown a lot of "patience and maturity." As if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair hadn't spent six months dickering at the United Nations. Does Kerry also think that he could have gotten U.N. approval for military action in Kosovo — something that Clinton failed to achieve in 1999? Then Kerry had the nerve to criticize the Bush administration for a "cut and run strategy" in Iraq. That's pretty rich coming from someone who voted against the $87-billion aid package that's essential to our nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kerry's inconsistency is stunning: He (like Sen. John Edwards) supported the war — kind of — but then refused to give our troops the resources necessary to finish the job. Kerry's waffling reminds me of someone. Asked about the Gulf War resolution in 1991, this candidate said: "I guess I would have voted with the majority if it was a close vote. But I agree with the arguments the minority made." Taking both sides on Iraq worked for Bill Clinton. Now it seems to be working for Kerry. + + + + + The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes. Here is Kerry's speech. Lane Core Jr. CIW P Sat. 01/31/04 12:29:04 PM |
Thirteen Years Ago Today, Sen. John Kerry Sent a Letter to a Constituent Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CLII As reported in the Boston Globe, June 21, 2003: .... After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Kerry suggested that the United States needed to give Saddam Hussein enough diplomatic "wiggle room" to leave Kuwait without losing face. He then voted against the congressional resolution authorizing military force, but became an enthusiastic supporter of the war as the allied coalition drove to victory in early 1991. His position was so nuanced that his office couldn't keep up with the changes, at one point mistakenly mailing out letters to his constituents that appeared to take both sides in the debate. On Jan. 22, 1991, Kerry's office sent a letter to a constituent, thanking him for expressing opposition to the deployment of additional US troops in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf. "I share your concerns," Kerry wrote, noting that on Jan. 11 he had voted in favor of a resolution opposing giving the president immediate authority to go to war and seeking to give economic sanctions more time to work. On Jan. 31, the same constituent received a letter stating that, "From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf." Kerry blamed the mix-up on a computer error and subsequently wrote in defense of his position on the Gulf war: "The debate in the Senate was not about whether we should or should not have used force, but when force should be used." .... Ramesh Ponnuru wrote about this at NRO, Oct. 25, 2002 (brackets in original): John Kerry, the junior senator from Massachusetts and a candidate for president in 2004, is renowned for his foreign-policy expertise — at least in certain circles. "[N]o Democrat has offered a more coherent criticism of the Bush national security policies," wrote Al Hunt in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. So much the worse for the Democrats, one might conclude. Kerry spent the run-up to the Iraq vote taking shots at President Bush from right and left before finally voting with him. Hunt quotes Kerry remarking of Bush's national-security team: "These guys are fakers." On the subject of fakers, Kerry surely knows whereof he speaks. Consider his record on the first Gulf War, which he voted against. In early January 1991, constituent Walter Carter sent Kerry a letter urging him to back the war. He received two responses. A January 22 letter from the senator, addressed to Carter as though he were an opponent of the war, indicated that Kerry favored sanctions and opposed war. A January 31 letter said, "From the outset of the invasion [of Kuwait by Iraq], I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf." Kerry aides at the time said that a computer error was responsible for the screw-up. The "unequivocal support" letter dated from the previous September, when the Iraqi invasion and American deployment had just happened but senators were not voting on war. Carter should have gotten yet a third letter saying that Kerry had thought war inadvisable but supported the troops. Kerry's press secretary explained that the senator's "position has been 100 percent consistent on this issue." Maybe so, but it sure sounds as though constituents were hearing different tunes from Kerry depending on their own beliefs and the shifting political circumstances of the moment.... Lane Core Jr. CIW P Sat. 01/31/04 12:04:05 PM |
Dead Center? Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CLI Robert Reich advises the Democrats that they're losing because they're not left-wing enough. Enjoy. + + + + + The dismal fifth-place showing by Senator Joseph Lieberman in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday serves as both reminder and motivator to the other Democratic presidential candidates on what it will take to win in November. For so long now, everyone has assumed that recapturing the presidency depends on who triumphs in the battle between liberals and moderates within the party. Such thinking, though, is inherently flawed. The real fight is between those who want only to win back the White House and those who also want to build a new political movement — one that rivals the conservative movement that has given Republicans their dominant position in American politics. Senator Lieberman's defeat on Tuesday could be a good indicator of which side is ahead. To their detriment, Mr. Lieberman and the perennially dour Democratic Leadership Council have been deeply wary of any hint of a progressive movement, preferring instead an uninspired centrist message that echoes Republican themes. On the other extreme is Howard Dean, who could be called the quintessential "movement" Democrat. His campaign is both grass-roots and reformist, and is based on the proposition that ordinary people must be empowered to "take back America." Similar threads can also be seen in the campaigns of Senators John Edwards and John Kerry. (Full disclosure: I've been helping Senator Kerry.) It was no accident after last week's caucuses in Iowa that a beaming Senator Edwards told supporters they had "started a movement to change America." I hope that Mr. Edwards and the others will stay on message — and movement. After all, Democrats have seen what the Republican Party has been able to accomplish over the years. The conservative movement has developed dedicated sources of money and legions of ground troops who not only get out the vote, but also spend the time between elections persuading others to join their ranks. It has devised frames of reference that are used repeatedly in policy debates (among them: it's your money, tax and spend, political correctness, class warfare). It has a system for recruiting and electing officials nationwide who share the same world view and who will vote accordingly. And it has a coherent ideology uniting evangelical Christians, blue-collar whites in the South and West, and big business — an ideology in which foreign enemies, domestic poverty and crime, and homosexuality all must be met with strict punishment and religious orthodoxy. In contrast, the Democratic Party has had no analogous movement to animate it. Instead, every four years party loyalists throw themselves behind a presidential candidate who they believe will deliver them from the rising conservative tide. After the election, they go back to whatever they were doing before. Other Democrats have involved themselves in single-issue politics — the environment, campaign finance, the war in Iraq and so on — but these battles have failed to build a political movement. Issues rise and fall, depending on which interests are threatened and when. They can even divide Democrats, as each advocacy group scrambles after the same set of liberal donors and competes for the limited attention of the news media. As a result, Democrats have been undisciplined, intimidated or just plain silent. They have few dedicated sources of money, and almost no ground troops. The religious left is disconnected from the political struggle. One hears few liberal Democratic phrases that are repeated with any regularity. In addition, there is no consistent Democratic world view or ideology. Most Congressional Democrats raise their own money, do their own polls and vote every which way. Democrats have little or no clear identity except by reference to what conservatives say about them. Self-styled Democratic centrists, like those who inhabit the Democratic Leadership Council, attribute the party's difficulties to a failure to respond to an electorate grown more conservative, upscale and suburban. This is nonsense. The biggest losses for Democrats since 1980 have not been among suburban voters but among America's giant middle and working classes — especially white workers without four-year college degrees, once part of the old Democratic base. Not incidentally, these are the same people who have lost the most economic ground over the last quarter-century. Democrats could have responded with bold plans on jobs, schools, health care and retirement security. They could have delivered a strong message about the responsibility of corporations to help their employees in all these respects, and of wealthy elites not to corrupt politics with money. More recently, the party could have used the threat of terrorism to inspire the same sort of sacrifice and social solidarity as Democrats did in World War II — including higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for what needs doing. In short, they could have turned themselves into a populist movement to take back democracy from increasingly concentrated wealth and power. But Democrats did none of this. So conservatives eagerly stepped into the void, claiming the populist mantle and blaming liberal elites for what's gone wrong with America. The question ahead is whether Democrats can claim it back. The rush by many Democrats in recent years to the so-called center has been a pathetic substitute for candid talk about what the nation needs to do and for fueling a movement based on liberal values. In truth, America has no consistent political center. Polls reflect little more than reflexive responses to what people have most recently heard about an issue. Meanwhile, the so-called center has continued to shift to the right because conservative Republicans stay put while Democrats keep meeting them halfway. Democrats who avoid movement politics point to Bill Clinton's success in repositioning the party in the center during the 1990's. Mr. Clinton was (and is) a remarkably gifted politician who accomplished something no Democrat since Franklin Delano Roosevelt had done — getting re-elected. But his effect on the party was to blur rather than to clarify what Democrats stand for. As a result, Mr. Clinton neither started nor sustained anything that might be called a political movement. This handicapped his administration from the start. In 1994, when battling for his health care proposal, Mr. Clinton had no broad-based political movement behind him. Even though polls showed support among a majority of Americans, it wasn't enough to overcome the conservative effort on the other side. By contrast, George W. Bush got his tax cuts through Congress, even though Americans were ambivalent about them. President Bush had a political movement behind him that supplied the muscle he needed. In the months leading up to the 1996 election, Mr. Clinton famously triangulated — finding positions equidistant between Democrats and Republicans — and ran for re-election on tiny issues like V-chips in television sets and school uniforms. The strategy worked, but it was a Pyrrhic victory. Had Mr. Clinton told Americans the truth — that when the economic boom went bust we'd still have to face the challenges of a country concentrating more wealth and power in fewer hands — he could have built a long-term mandate for change. By the late 90's the nation finally had the wherewithal to expand prosperity by investing in people, especially their education and health. But because Mr. Clinton was re-elected without any mandate, the nation was confused about what needed to be accomplished and easily distracted by conservative fulminations against a president who lied about sex. As we head into the next wave of primaries, the Democratic candidates should pay close attention to what Republicans have learned about winning elections. First, it is crucial to build a political movement that will endure after particular electoral contests. Second, in order for a presidency to be effective, it needs a movement that mobilizes Americans behind it. Finally, any political movement derives its durability from the clarity of its convictions. And there's no better way to clarify convictions than to hone them in political combat. A fierce battle for the White House may be exactly what the Democrats need to mobilize a movement behind them. It may also be what America needs to restore a two-party system of governance and a clear understanding of the choices we face as a nation. Robert B. Reich, former United States secretary of labor, is a professor of social and economic policy at Brandeis University and the author of the forthcoming "Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America." + + + + + The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes. Meanwhile, the so-called center has continued to shift to the right because conservative Republicans stay put while Democrats keep meeting them halfway. Say what? (Thanks, Ryan.) Lane Core Jr. CIW P Sat. 01/31/04 11:34:59 AM |
Why He's Called Terry McAwful Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CL Why we can also call him Terry "von Falkenhayn" McAuliffe. Timothy Carney lays it all out about the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, at NRO, Jan. 29 (emphasis in original). + + + + + Democratic boss Terry McAuliffe apparently thought GOP honcho Ed Gillespie was overreacting to an ad submission that directly and uncreatively compared our President to Adolf Hitler. So, yesterday, in response to my NRO piece regarding the Democratic judicial memos showing that Democrats take their marching orders from radical leftist groups, McAuliffe fired off a press release calling the piece "vile hate speech." My piece, McAuliffe asserts "compar[es] Senate Democrats to Nazis." The article certainly made no mention of Nazis, Hitler, concentration camps or invasions of Poland. It did compare GOP Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch to Neville Chamberlain, which, in McAuliffe's mind means I must have been calling Ted Kennedy a Nazi. Let's extend this line of reasoning. On the day after McAuliffe led his party to the loss of the Senate and losses in the House in 2002, lame-duck Democratic Rep. Ken Bentsen told the Washington Post, "The Democrats tried the Neville Chamberlain approach and it was a disaster." Vile! In May of 2001, National Environmental Trust President Phil Clapp called the left's response to Bush's environmental plan "the political equivalent of D-Day." Calling Bush Hitler! That's, of course, what we call an "analogy." But in case it's not fully clear, I also wasn't asserting that Pat Leahy eats bratwurst or that Hatch had actually signed over Czechoslovakia to Ted Kennedy's control. But I have some questions for Terry McAuliffe. Was Texas state legislator Garnet Coleman (a "Texas Patriot" according to Washington Democrats) comparing Tom DeLay and Texas GOP Chairman Susan Weddington to the KKK when he told a reporter: If anyone believes that Tom DeLay and Susan Weddington are really interested in what's good for black and brown people, then they believe that the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan is interested in what's good for black and brown people. Along those same lines — and returning to those memos (you know, the ones that call Miguel Estrada "especially dangerous, because . . . he is Latino,") — was Dick Durbin's staffer comparing most of Bush's nominees to Nazis when he wrote "most of Bush's nominees are nazis"? Come to think of it, Terry McAuliffe is reminiscent of one powerful German figure from last century: Erich von Falkenhayn, chief of the German general staff during World War I. Von Flakenhayn in 1916 came up with the strategy of attacking the enemy at their strongest point (Verdun, in this case). In a protracted ten-month battle, the Germans whittled away their chances to win the war, making von Falkenhayn perhaps the worst failure in the history of military command. (Dear Ed Gillespie: Please don't attack me for comparing your party to the French.) McAuliffe in 2000 played a role in losing the presidency in a time of peace and prosperity. As DNC chairman in 2002 he defied history, losing the Senate and bleeding seats in the House during a midterm election. He's also handed five southern governorships to the GOP. Now he is trying to beat the Republicans in 2004 running on fiscal discipline and national security. Keep it up, Terry. + + + + + The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes. See The "Democratic Demolition Derby". Lane Core Jr. CIW P Sat. 01/31/04 11:21:18 AM |
John Stossel: Old Hero, New Pariah Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CXLVIX ABC has an excerpt from John Stossel's new book Give Me A Break, which has been his trademark phrase over the years (embedded ellipsis in original): I was once a heroic consumer reporter; now I'm a threat to journalism. As a consumer reporter, I exposed con men and thieves, confronting them with hidden camera footage that unmasked their lies, put some out of business, and helped send the worst of them to jail. The Dallas Morning News called me the "bravest and best of television's consumer reporters." Marvin Kitman of Newsday said I was "the man who makes 'em squirm," whose "investigations of the unjust and wicked … are models." Jonathan Mandell of the New York Daily News quoted a WCBS official who "proudly" said, "No one's offended more people than John Stossel." Ah, "proudly." Those were the days. My colleagues liked it when I offended people. They called my reporting "hard-hitting," "a public service." I won 18 Emmys, and lots of other journalism awards. One year I got so many Emmys, another winner thanked me in his acceptance speech "for not having an entry in this category." Then I did a terrible thing. Instead of just applying my skepticism to business, I applied it to government and "public interest" groups. This apparently violated a religious tenet of journalism. Suddenly I was no longer "objective." Ralph Nader said I "used to be on the cutting edge," but had become "lazy and dishonest." According to Brill's Content, "Nader was a fan during Stossel's consumer advocate days," but "now talks about him as if he'd been afflicted with a mysterious disease." These days, I rarely get awards from my peers. Some of my ABC colleagues look away when they see me in the halls. Web sites call my reporting "hurtful, biased, absurd." "What happened to Stossel?" they ask. CNN invited me to be a guest on a journalism show; when I arrived at the studio, I discovered they'd titled it "Objectivity and Journalism — Does John Stossel Practice Either?" People now e-mail me, calling me "a corporate whore" and a "sellout." How did I get from there to here? This book is the story of my professional and intellectual journey.... See also "ABC's Stossel Rips Network for Hostility to Conservatives". (Thanks, Kathy.) Lane Core Jr. CIW P Sat. 01/31/04 08:41:51 AM |
The Blog from the Core © 2002-2008 E. L. Core. All rights reserved. |
Previous | Week | Next |