Let's start in Denver, where Haggard is in trouble. I'm not following it very closely, but in the transition from living room to bathroom, I took a little break and read this article. We're in the middle of a he-said he-said where even James Dobson seems to be taking the word of a male prostitute over that of the Reverend. Haggard thought that "I bought meth from the prostituted, and I never used it, and I just got a massage and never had sex with him" would be a defense, even after previously denying ever knowing the prostitute? Man-oh-man.
But tucked in the middle of all this lurid stuff is something that scared me even more:
Spokesman Tony Fratto told reporters Friday that it was inaccurate to portray him as being close to the White House, insisting Haggard was only an occasional participant in weekly conference calls between West Wing staff and leading evangelicals.
Hold on.
There's a weekly conference call between the West Wing and evangelical Christians?
I'm totally cool with any religious group--evangelicals included--calling the White House and setting up meetings on issues of importance to them. But every week, rain or shine? Holy crap, that's bad. Worse than I thought. I don't like my church and state that close.
Anyway. The History teacher I work with set up a pool (no money will change hands) where we picked some of the closest US races (Senate, House, and gubernatorial) on Tuesday. Any student who beats one of us gets two extra credit points.
I've got Democrats with a 51-49 edge in the Senate (counting Lieberman and Sanders as Democrats). The momentum has convinced me McCaskill will nose one out in Missouri and Webb in Virginia...but won't be enough for Ford in Tennessee. I don't remember most of my House or gubernatorial picks.
Oh...and I'm a month late on this one...why was everyone focused on Senator Allen calling the young Indian-American kid "macaca" when his later statement of "Welcome him to America!" was far more offensive and directly exposing of his bigoted beliefs that Americans are a certain color?
Anyhoo...I predicted 51-49 the day before yesterday...and since then, electoral-vote.com's polls have shifted to exactly my predictions (in the Senate, anyway). Yay me.
I'm not nearly as nervous as I was two years ago, I think because I'm actually confident this time.
6 comments:
Regarding George "Macaca" Allen: It was his handling of the insult itself that was the big deal around here. He twisted himself into so many bizarre shapes before he actually apologized to the kid. That embarrased many people here, including conservatives. And genteel southerners hate to be embarrased...
Look, those of us who are Commonwealth natives understood that our junior senator is a cracker. Actually, he's worse than a cracker. He's a cracker wanna-be. He's from L.A., never forget. He only moved here when his father became coach of the Redskins. So his whole noose-hangin', CCC-courtin'*, confederate flag wavin' act is very odd.
I do hope you and your fellow political prognosticators are right when you say Webb will emerge victorious. I still have my doubts...
*CCC = Council of Concerned Citizens. Think of it as a white collar version of the KKK. Still a very powerful force in VA politics.
But every week, rain or shine? Holy crap, that's bad.
So freedom of speech and assembly are all well and good, as long as you don't use them too often?
You know that I don't like Bush's oversimplification of Christianity, and I don't particularly like the way he's used the Evangelical bloc to push a distinctly un-Christian agenda.
But I do believe that the President has the right to any advisors he so chooses. Because the alternative, the possibility that there might be some groups without the right of expression in the political process, is thoroughly unacceptable.
How do you handle the separation of church and state, Joe?
Yes, the President can have any advisors he so chooses. But I would request that if he's going to meet with the evangelicals on a weekly basis, then he might want to carve out some time in his schedule for the buddhists on Tuesdays, the catholics on Wednesdays, the methodists on Fridays, and the unitarians on Saturdays.
Wouldn't it be simpler if he keeps he keeps his religious counsel on the private side instead of the public (policy) side?
One religion regularly having a President's ear feels an awful lot like establishment to me. We're not talking about the President seeking spiritual advice from his minister. We're talking about a cabal.
I don't see how this kind of access isn't our executive branch showing preference--in its very policies--for one religion over another.
I gave your comments a lot of thought, and I decided to come down off my high horse on this one. Here's what I believe, without grandstanding.
All presidents run their administrations based on cabals of close advisors.
To tell a group of people that they can't participate in that practice because of their religion is equally bad to me as making religion a prerequisite.
Except it's worse to me, because if you don't like an individual's choices, you can go back to the ballot box, but if you disenfranchise a class of people, you can never have the good ones.
So my feeling isn't highbrow, it's cynical. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
(But vote against the Player and his friends on Tuesday...)
As a followup to my first comment, go read this post from the Daily Kos.
This is why I'm concerned about tomorrow.
Joe, the game these evangelical assholes are playing sucks. Big time. I salute you for defending it in principle, but I'm still gonna gnash my teeth every time I hear the phrase "National Prayer Breakfast".
Post a Comment