::

 
Limbaugh on Keyes

An interesting quote from the 1996 election by Rush Limbaugh regarding Alan Keyes:

"Keyes is absolutely amazing on the stump. It's just flat out -- why this guy does not get more attention from the mainstream, as a black conservative -- there's nobody out there right now who is doing a better job of articulating the moral concerns, the moral positions of the Republican Party, and what they ought to be, then Alan Keyes. But that's the side of things that scare deeply the Patrician mainstream old country club Republican types. They wish that guys like Alan Keyes would drop off the edge of the earth." -- Rush Limbaugh

Like so many of us on this planet, Rush Limbaugh seems to be a man of many contradictions.

Adam Sullivan, 18:09 | 0 comments

::

 
The Misogynist Threshold

A misogynist is, quite simply, one who hates women.

A person known to be a misogynist cannot be elected to high office in California. Women are a powerful political force here.

But at what point does a public figure cross the misogynist threshold?

Hold on to your seats folks - we are about to find out.

Rather that ask "is Arnold a misogynist?" I'd like to ask "has the threshold moved?" I am a man and can't speak for what it is like to be a woman and judge who is and is not a misogynist. I can fathom guesses, but I won't. As a political observer, I can speculate on "has the threshold moved?" The entire context of the Lewinsky scandal, with the Paula Jones and Kathleen Wiley situations applied, seemed to provide a test of that threshold.

Through that lens, one can judge this voting block called "women" (which does not include all women) is very shrewd. Extremely shrewd.

Bill Clinton was judged to not be a misogynist. Women ended up supporting him. Many observers thought that feminists would leave him when his workplace behavior seemed to contradict standards of appropriateness. They were wrong. Why? Because women's groups largely put distaste behind them to make politically pragmatic decisions - support the guy who supports our issues even if he is a creep. "Sex and Lies" was a way to compartmentalize the issue and place pragmatism before passions.

CNN political analyst Bill Schneider sets up what he thinks is a clever juxtaposition in his weekly "play of the week" today. He rightly observes that women switched from Bustamente to Arnold since their debate, and that is a big reason for Schwartzenegger's gains. But he wrongly assumes that they may be inclined to move back.

Has the misogynist threshold moved? I doubt it. To the extent that they move as a group women will do so in their interests. They will back the one who can win who is committed to their issues. Committed. Not tepid. Committed. That was Bustamente. It is now Schwartzenegger.

He staked out the center of the field early. Bustamante went left. McClintock went right. Arianna went in circles. The rest just went away. For being a centrist, Schwartzenegger has taken big flank shots from social conservatives. it would have been easy for him to have a "change of heart" as Gov. Ronald Reagan did after signing California's liberal abortion bill into law.

So what choice does this group have? Right now, the group's leading voices are screaming for a miracle. But with the "yes" on recall numbers still climbing will women risk a loss on stopping that momentum?

For the threshold to move in the form of women leaving Schwartzenneger, it would have to be in the direction of a higher standard - one that Clinton may not have survived. It would entail them going back to Bustamente, who is now viewed (as signaled by the Davis camp's witch to a "Gray vs. Arnold" strategy) as a loser. They would choose to lose their power on the basis of principle.

By past events, an unlikely outcome.


Adam Sullivan, 19:00 | 0 comments

::

 
Hat trick and a Grand Slam

Third in a row for Apostolou. And he hits it out of the park with the bases loaded (not to steal anyone's thunder with the sports analogy):

Kay has actually done more than simply justify the war to oust Saddam by demonstrating a past history of Iraqi violations. Kay has shown that Iraq never had any intention of complying with the demands of the U.N. inspectors.

Instead of seeking to verifiably disarm, Saddam was trying to find a system to beat the system, a technique that would have allowed him to develop WMDs and deceive the world at the same time. As Kay has pointed out, Saddam operated by having "deception and denial built into each program." Sooner or later, Saddam was going to rebuild his WMD capacity, but in a way that would be concealed and covert — allowing for sanctions to be lifted and for his regime to survive.

Adam Sullivan, 15:56 | 0 comments

::

 
Kontradiction Uber Alles

Seems that Germany is improving its capacity to help Europe compete with the US militarily.

They are cutting defense spending another 10%.

No doubt they figure that, when push comes to shove, the Yanks and the Brits will provide international security. Actions speak louder than words.

Update: Frankfurter Allgemeine sees the kontradiction -

Bundeswehr generals can hardly start to think about the fate of army locations when even political leaders shun away from taking a definitive stance. Struck must know that there's no way around increasing the defense budget if Germany really wants to fulfill its international obligations.

Would that be creeping cynicism in the German press?
Adam Sullivan, 02:07 | 0 comments

::

 
So what was in Saddam's pocket?

Kay says he needs more time and money (6 months / $600 million) to get to the bottom of Saddam's WMD programs, citing that Iraqis destroyed a lot of documentation and that scientists are shy to talk for fear of retribution.

From a security and intelligence standpoint, this needs to be done. We need the "after action" details filled in so that we can learn. If the intelligence was outright wrong, we need to know why so we can develop improved methods.

From a political standpoint, where can this go? The WMD question boils down to "was that a gun or a finger in the criminal's pocket?" There was a standoff. Weapons drawn, the cops told the criminal that he'd better pull his hand out slowly and place whatever was in his pocket on the ground, or be shot (the net of UNSCR 1441). The criminal chose to maintain the charade and the cops opened fire.

Turns out the criminal was bluffing for the most part, but had in his pocket components and instructions for building a weapon quickly after the cops went away. Those components and instructions, under the law of 1441, were as illegal as a completed weapon if not disclosed.

Imminent threat? We couldn't be sure at the time. Such is threat assessment. For the conspiracists who assume we did, and that the WMD allegations were trumped up, be aware that conspiracies are hard to pull off, even in the most repressive of regimes. Take Saddam's WMD programs as an example, per today's NYT:

[Kay] said that his group had also found that information about weapons programs was highly compartmentalized within the Hussein government, and that few people knew much about the programs.

For the US to concoct and control such a conspiracy, it would have required such compartmentalization. Across multiple agencies of multiple governments. The level of foresight, international cooperation, coordination and ruthlessness needed to do such can't be found in the Bush administration, frankly, or such would have been applied to the problem of occupying Iraq more effectively. Instead, things are likely as they appear in the broad strokes - a reliance on adaptation, adjustment and learning so as to take action early in the region rather than let enemy set the agenda. There is nothing wrong with that strategy, IMO.

What is wrong is our mass-myopia of focusing on "what was in the pocket?" rather than seeing the context of the situation as the crime itself. UNSCR 1441 laid that out for us. Kay found plenty of undeclared items that Blix didn't and an obfuscation program to boot. Had that come out at the time (translation: Had Blix been competent and done his job), then the UNSC would have had no choice but to take Saddam down.

But today the myopia not only remains but is acute. 1441 is ignored. The context is forgotten. And that the crook was bluffing has become firm basis for questioning the integrity of the police. Astonishing when one thinks about it.

Adam Sullivan, 00:35 | 0 comments

::

 
Stated Reason?

ABC news in the US has posted this:

Following is a statement by CIA adviser David Kay on his initial progress report on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — the stated reason for the United States-led war. [my emphasis]

One then finds a reprint of David Kay's public statement on WMD.

I was unaware that the United States' "stated reason" for going to war in Iraq was WMD.

I had been left with the impression, following GWB's September 11 speech to the UN and the resolution 1441 passed soon after, that the reason was the abundant and repeated violations of UNSC resolutions by Saddam's regime. That Saddam failed to comply with 1441 (as Kays' report does demonstrate) meant that it was time to act.

Do I quibble? Wasn't the whole thrust of the entire UN sanctions regime against Saddam aimed at the WMD programs? Their threat to regional and US security? The potential that they could be used in a terrorist attack against us? All true, but I don't quibble.

So as to illustrate at the risk of being Chompsky-esque, allow me the indulgence of a thought experiment.

Let's say I walk into a bank, place my finger in the pocket of my jacket and hand a teller a note reading "Be calm. This is a holdup. Place all the cash in a bag and make no sudden movements and you will be OK."

Let's ask ourselves a few questions.

Is this a crime? Yes it is. Stealing from banks (with or without a weapon) is a violation of Federal Law.

Is there substantive harm? Yes there is. Not only to the bank, its depositors, its insurers and the community, but more immediately to the unfortunate teller who has no way of determining my intentions or capabilities with certainty. The teller is best served to assume the worst and submit to my extortion.

Let's stop the thought experiment there and hop over to Iraq post 1992. The guy with the gun is Saddam. The gun is his WMD program, concealed in a pocket. The bank is world security. The teller is the Iraqi people. Now alter the prior thought experiment with the following - the teller knows the thief, has been molested by him before, and knows that he has used a gun in the past and is very vague as to whether he still has one.

Now re-run the experiment.

Is this a crime? That is questionable. First, Saddam is not supposed to have the gun. That is illegal and violates the recidivists terms of probation.

We could debate what is in his pocket, but isn't it important to ask why he isn't supposed to have that gun in the first place?

Well the reason for that was to prevent the kind of activity that he is engaged in - repressing his people and intimidating his neighbors. While this holdup is going on, Saddam is violating all sorts of laws that have been laid before him, listed in the arrest warrant that was 1441. So a crime is going on, there is just some doubt as to whether what is in the pocket constitutes the mother-load of crimes - does he have the gun?

Is there substantive harm? On this point there is no doubt and no basis for argument. The teller is harmed as is the Bank as is the community at large. We have a war criminal extorting his way into more palaces while his people are tortured, raped, murdered, and kept hauntingly quiet. Then, of course, is the harm to regional and global security and the integrity of the UN, which I will now turn to.

Absent from all of these scenarios are the police - which would be you, me, and the UN Security Council. To have a parallel, I would have to describe cops who would observe the criminal activity and then would debate among themselves how they might be able to glance into that pocket and whether or not they should. They would be challenged by the pocket's owner, who would claim certain sovereignty privileges relating to his pocket. When asked "what is in his pocket" he would be evasive, offering confusing and conflicting answers while shouting to everyone in the bank that he is being hassled by the cops. All the while the teller is stuck in a state of terrible torment with the object in the pocket pointed directly at her.

I should also add that the cops have worked out a means by which they will allow the criminal to take proceeds of his crime in progress to build palaces (in the name of feeding the patrons held hostage in the bank) so long as the cops get their cut of the action.

So the parallel breaks down. No where on this earth does law enforcement work this way, except at the UN (though the corrosive "cop payoff" portion can be found, sadly, in many places).

That law enforcement cannot be allowed to work this way is the whole damned point.

If we are to have global security via due process (as was the intention of the parties who created the UN) then the cops have to be credible. If the suspect is uncooperative, it is prudent to assume he has a reason for being so. And when a crime is in progress, as it was in Iraq with so many unmarked graves bearing witness, it is incumbent on the cops to stop the crime, and then try to solve it. That the criminal would not give straight answers as to his capacity or intentions became a crime when 1441 made it one.

The cops led by Blix proved incompetent. Another set came in and stopped the crime, which seemed interminably in progress and created a bizarre Stockholm syndrome of global proportion which has yet to fully recede or be morally reconciled.

So the new cops are solving the crime, after having stopped it and ejecting the criminal from the bank. It looks like the criminal had a finger in his pocket. And he still lurks. The teller has to overcome over 10 years of sustained trauma, but is felling a bit better with all the new cops around. But the creep has yet to be caught. Such is the final task so that the teller and the Bank can get back to business.

For those who can't understand this, they can rally behind a man with a genetic predisposition to opportunism - Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, who sits as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee

"Did we misread it, or did they mislead us, or did they simply get it wrong? Whatever the answer is, it's not a good answer."

The good Senator may want to ask the teller what she thinks of the prior efforts of the prior law enforcement scheme. Rockefeller's question implies that such a model was workable (given the proper intelligence as to "what was in the pocket"), when it was an obvious, protracted, and destructive farce focused on regulating the crime rather than ending it.

What it comes down to is that "what was in the pocket" was irrelevant - the truth of the situation was in the eyes of the terrified teller all along.

Adam Sullivan, 19:32 | 0 comments

::

 
And as I predicted ...

Rather than support the party, the christian right is trying to spoil it:

A new poll of conservative Republicans finds that close to two-thirds of McClintock's supporters are leaning towards voting "no" on the recall to prevent Schwarzenegger from being elected governor.

"[W]hy elect a Republican who might raise taxes and declare war on conservatives," argued Mike Spence, who leads the conservative California Republican Assembly that has endorsed McClintock.

Spence said there is a growing notion by conservatives to vote against the recall and keep Davis as governor.

Remember - "Conservative Republican" now means social conservative. Fiscal conservatism means nothing, as Bush's spendathon in DC does not deter support from this crowd. "Will the spending authorization signing be preceded with a prayer breakfast? Good. Then I support it."

The message: It is our guy or no guy (emphasis on guy, as Christine Whitman can attest). Such groups never last in coalitions because they demonstrate an inability to deliver votes and actually deliver votes to the other side. They actually make your job twice as hard, since you have to find two new voters to get the support they were supposed to provide - one voter to cancel their vote and another to deliver the vote they should have provided in the first place.

Secular Republicans have supported their candidates in the past. After this election, never again.
Adam Sullivan, 11:41 | 0 comments

::

 
As Roger Simon predicted

The dirt is flying against Arnold.

Roger Simon predicted it here.

Problem with such allegations in the last days of the campaign is that little can be corroborated.

Watergate broke the summer before the election in '72. Nixon scored one of the biggest wins in the 20th century (and was the only plurality president to be re-elected by a majority). Point is, voters tend to toughen their positions and discredit such reports, especially in the last weeks of an election.
Adam Sullivan, 11:35 | 0 comments

::

 
Cave watch

Seems I was wrong to have assumed that only Taliban theocrats live in caves.

Tom Ambrose shares his perspective ...

Frankly, even if both Republican candidates lose, Republican leaders are long overdue for a big loss to help them figure out where their bread is really buttered. They've become arrogant and non-responsive to the clear majority of conservatives in their party. Propping up Arnold is but the most recent example of their outrageous behavior.

Spoken like a true troglodyte.

UPDATE: Gallup has the numbers - as of last weekend, 60% of Republicans supported Arnold while 30% supported McClintock. That 60% constitutes a majority, and I wager a bag of moss (which can be used to decorate caves) that he will pick off another 10% (a full third of McClintock's support), placing him at 45% statewide.
Adam Sullivan, 01:40 | 0 comments

::

 
Watch the blood spill

The war within the Republican Party is in full swing.

This commentary is a keeper:

Look who is supporting Tom McClintock: Dr. James Dobson, Bruce Herschensohn, Dr. Laura, Gary Bauer, Phyllis Schlafly and Terry Jeffrey – men and women of principle who aren't willing to throw the things they believe in overboard just to win the next election.

It isn't right and it never pays dividends.

Earth to Jane - A party is a coalition. That means compromise. That the recall provided an open field format with no primary for the Christian Right to manipulate has reduced that group (your group) to size. Suck it up.

Politics in a democracy is about winning elections.

Winning elections always pays dividends.

If you want to be part of a party, you have to compromise.

Of course, theocrats don't compromise. So why are you in the Republican Party? Why not form your own?

Adam Sullivan, 01:23 | 0 comments

::

 
The ads are on the way - watch California Republicans make sausage

The SF Chronicle has this:

In what could be a test for control of the party, the Traditional Values Coalition will begin airing a statewide one-minute TV spot Thursday, showing the actor-turned-candidate's well-known face morphing into that of a political enemy -- Democratic Gov. Gray Davis.

"The ultimate message is there's no difference between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis, so what's the purpose of the recall?" said the Rev. Lou Sheldon, head of the TVC's political action committee. "It reminds them to make a better choice."

May I borrow from InstaPundit? Heh.

Update: Here is a link to a fine that Lou Sheldon's Traditional Values Coalition had to pay for making a fraudulent campaign contribution - they used a cashiers check and submitted it as anonymous. What traditional value does cheating and bearing false witness fit under, Lou?

Adam Sullivan, 14:40 | 0 comments

::

 
Unexpected but interesting

I haven't hit Drudge's site in a while, so I was surprised to read this very interesting blog entry at Armed Prophet on Drudge's apparent bias toward McClintock.

Until today, Drudge has devoted links on his site and rants on his radio show solely to revealing embarrassing things about Arnold Schwarzenegger and then complaining about the media's lack of interest in them.

Today we finally see something like a bias toward McClintock, in a link to theCNN/USA Today poll, presented with the following text:

"But... McClintock Would Easily Beat Bustamante If Schwarzenegger Dropped Out Of Race: 56% to 37%... "

Uh, yes, this is true. But if McClintock drops out, Schwarzenegger beats Bustamante by a wider margin -- 58% to 36%. Meanwhile, 56% of likely GOP voters think Tom should drop out compared to 19% of likely GOP voters who think Ahnuld should drop out.

Gee, if Republicans want to be sure of winning this race, just whom should step aside? Tough call...
posted

Like I said, interesting.

Adam Sullivan, 13:20 | 0 comments

::

 
Just picking on a wacko?

A few emails came in last night regarding Stoos/McClintock saying that no one takes such views seriously and that I am overstating things a bit.

I don't think so.

The reason is simple - coalition politics. That is what we have in this country (the US of A) - two stable coalitions, each with enough ideological contradictions to fill the Grand Canyon.

Part of coalition politics is compromise. You join a coalition on the basis of give and take. You support a bill or a candidate who may not align exactly with your views, but can win so as to create the opportunity to gain in the future for your interests.

The Christian Right does not compromise. Not at all. Why? Well, does God compromise? Can you talk your way into heaven? None other than Barry Goldwater warned of this 20 years ago. It is all here. In California, that has created a Republican Party that cannot win statewide office, and a bounty of contributions each election to organizations like NARAL and Emily's list.

Of concern to every Californian is that it has created un-balanced representation in Sacramento - an impotent Republican Party allows for an ambitious Democratic Party that leans more to the left than the electorate. I like divided government. That requires either a multiparty system (more than two) or healthy, competative Democratic and Republican parties.

McClintock is not dropping out because he seeks to spoil. His 18% is solid, and his constituency sees Arnold as morally repugnant. Better he lose, Bustamente win, and the recall button get pressed again and again until a "right minded" candidate wins. That was the danger Dianne Feinstein warned us about, but few realized that a large field election with no primary was exactly what was needed to break the political log jam that has existed in the Californian Republican Party for some time.

That is good news for all Californians of all political stripes, except those wanting a Biblical Law society.
Adam Sullivan, 12:03 | 0 comments

::

 
Questions for Tom McClintock

With McClintock now distancing himself from his strategist John Stoos, he needs to answer some questions. Why? It isn't enough to simply say "I don't hold his views or those of the Calcedon Report." After all, one could quibble over exactly when and where stoning your disobedient children to death is appropriate (as is clarified in this Chalcedon article - print it and post it on the fridge, dads), yet support the practice nonetheless.

So should any reporter be in the vicinity of Tom McClintock today, perhaps these questions might warrant effort:

Do you support the separation of church and state?

Should, now or at any point in the future, any citizen of California be subjected to Biblical Law?

Will you sign laws that contradict US Supreme Court rulings on abortion, privacy, and sodomy in an attempt to get one of those rulings overturned?

If "yes" to the prior, how would you defend expending the legal costs of such efforts with doubtful outcomes in light of the State's current budget crisis? In such a case, can you call yourself a fiscal conservative?

Fair questions, I think. Don't you?

Adam Sullivan, 11:44 | 0 comments

::

 
Now blogging on Stoos and McClintock

Several blogs are picking up on the Stoos/McClintock story:

Classical Values

Michael Totten

Jockularocracy

Roger Simon

I'll add anymore that I run across or are emailed to me.

Update: Sacbee reports on Stoos / McClintock, Los Angeles Times story on Stoos.

Adam Sullivan, 11:35 | 0 comments

::

 
The Chronicle on Stoos

The San Francisco Chronicle just posted this tidbit an hour or so ago:

BIBLE STUMPING ADVISER
A top aide to conservative state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Northridge, yearns for the day when a Christian city council majority outlaws abortions, hires an anti-abortion city attorney to defend their action and an anti-abortion police chief to enforce it. John Stoos, McClintock's deputy campaign manager, said so in the Chalcedon Report, put out by a conservative religious group in rural California. The group dreams of a society governed by Biblical law. McClintock says he's disturbed to hear about his deputy's writings, disagrees with the idea and rejects the Chalcedon philosophy. Stoos said he hadn't discussed his religious views with the senator. "He didn't hire me as his pastor. He hired me as his political adviser," the aide says.

Two things I notice - first, seems Stoos is now deputy campaign manager. Reviewing the other material i have on the guy, he was just "campaign manager" up until now. Second, McClintock is distancing himself, saying he is "disturbed to hear about his deputy's writings." Well I am disturbed that the ultra-experienced politician Tom McClintock seems to not know about Stoos views, nor google.

A goole search of "John Stoos" shows his Chancedon writings as the second item. That's right - hard to miss, even for a State Senator.

Not that Chancedon is Stoos only link to the Christian Right - He lost a law suit in 1995 and was fined (with 4 other defendents) $100,000 for intimidating clients at an abortion clinic in California as part of Operation Rescue.

"...a California medical clinic sued activists Theresa Reali, Murray Lewis, John Stoos, Jay Baggett and Don Blythe, Operation Rescue and others. They had been physically and verbally harassing clinic patients and barring access to its entrance. They were found guilty by default at their initial trial, which they declined to show up for. A state appeals court upheld the conviction, the California Supreme Court refused to hear their appeal, and this week the land's highest court let the verdict stand. The five now owe nearly $100,000 -- the legal costs the clinic incurred...." (link)

There's more. Chalcedon is a Christian Reconstructionist group. Check them out.

They were founded by a guy name Rousas John Rushdoony. His son-in-law is Dr. Gary North, who wrote in his book Victim's Rights that "stoning is a communal activity, something in which all the members of the family can participate. The purpose of this communal activity is to instill fear in the community so that if they deviate from the theocratic rules laid out by the elders, stoning would be their fate." (quote from this source, recapped from the book's text).

There is more. This link gives a solid background on Rushdoony, North, and Reconstructionism. Stoos is in the middle of all this at Chalcedon. And Stoos' prior work with the Christian Coalition, Operation Rescue, Council for National Policy, and other groups should have alerted Tom McClintock as to his background.

No. McClintock isn't stupid. He knew this. And he is expecting a miracle, which is why he won't drop out. That's right. He is expecting a miracle.

Adam Sullivan, 23:47 | 0 comments

::

 
The Plame game

Roger Simon has been all over the Plame affair going on in Washington right now.

A mystery novelist, Simon has the capacity to keep all of the variables of plot, subplot, and sub sub plot straight in his head. Today, he is worried that the affair has the Kremlinesque markings that would tell us that the people are not wholly in control of their government, nor know what forces are at work.

… but I’m worried. The viciousness of the Clinton years, the unremitting scandals of Whitewater, the impeachment, blown out of all proportion to reality by Clinton’s enemies, may have been mere foreplay compared to what we are about to go through in the Plame/Wilson Affair. I hope I’m wrong, but it won’t just be the Republicans versus the Democrats this time. The daggers are out: White House vs. CIA, State Department vs. Pentagon, Arabists vs. neocons and so on with the media egging them on for their own benefit.

And why not? We have to know it all, don’t we? But that is not so easy because this story is wildly interconnected in every way to the fabric of our government and to our political culture. It does not just begin when someone (who?) sent Joseph C. Wilson IV looking for evidence of “yellowcake” knowing that Wilson was one of the five least likely people on the planet to find it. It goes back to whoever drove a stake in the heart of the people who sent Wilson and before that to conflicts that speak to the very nature of our political lives and enmities. And whoever it was who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame, assuming it was leaked and that there was something to leak, wasn’t the first hardball player in this sad story and is unlikely to be the last.

So my point is, obviously, that we are in for Hell and, as Dalton Trumbo said so eloquently about the Hollywood Blacklist, there are “Only Victims.” But in this case the victims are not just restricted to Hollywood, they are all of us.

My own lens on this affair is rather fixed and biased - power corrupts. More pointedly, the "balance in the political eco-system" in Washington is way out of whack. Just as California's was out of whack with an impotent Republican party, Washington's is out of whack with an impotent Democratic party.

And just as Davis saw war within the Democratic ranks (liberals vs. centrists) we may be seeing the same in DC within the Republican ranks - with control of the White House and Congress, the game isn't Democrat vs. Republican, it is within the corridors of a Republican executive. That Bush won't allow and independent investigation of the matter is both troubling and predictable - especially when there are a set of questions regarding our intelligence capabilities that extend well beyond this affair.

Bush's leadership style also contributes to an environment of fratricide - Bush is a hands off guy. He expects to be the high level decision maker, and leaves details to the team. He insists on results, and rarely questions how they came about. That offers his Lieutenants significant latitude and freedom of movement, as well as raw executive power.

Post Clinton, Democrats have come to define themselves by contrasting themselves to the Republicans. If they want to truly exploit this situation (they should, IMO) and become a healthy party they need to lead past it. Stand back and watch the blood letting while communicating a coherent, hopeful and centrist message that is consistent with the values of most Americans - fair play being the central one, leaving the observer to make the comparisons with the Plame scandal (and others to come) for himself.

To pile-on with shrill voices only allows the combatants to re-shape such scandals into polemics - one could assert "vast left wing conspiracy" and get many to take up such a viewpoint. "Vast right wing conspiracy" certainly was as wrong as it was effective - many still see Lewinsky in such a light.

Roger is right - there will be Hell. And victims. I hope that there will be calm leaders too.

Adam Sullivan, 17:00 | 0 comments

::

 
Endorsement

Per Reuters:

California Republican party's executive board said it would make an unprecedented endorsement of a candidate in the governor's race later in the day -- with that person widely expected to be Schwarzenegger.

The executive board has previously avoided endorsing a candidate because two prominent Republicans are vying against each other -- Schwarzenegger and State Sen. Tom McClintock.

Why would the Republican Party make such an unprecedented move? Could it be that McClintock can't be reasoned with? Could that have been the sort of stance that has destroyed the California Republican Party? Could this be what the pro-choice, pro-gay rights Barry Goldwater warned of in the Senate almost 20 years ago? Could it? Ya think?

Something else of interest from the story:

Experts say Bustamante stumbled badly by accepting millions of dollars of contributions from Indian gaming interests into an old campaign fund not subject to present limits. A court last week ruled the move a violation of campaign finance laws.

"It was a big mistake for Bustamante, or more accurately, for Richie Ross, to do that Indian money shift," said Dan Walters, a veteran political columnist and co-author of an upcoming book on money and power in Sacramento.

What happened there? Well think of this as a political eco-system way out of balance. With no viable counter force to get votes, Dems in California have not only drifted left (away from the core of their party - Davis was centrist, thereby despised by many Dem legislators), but have also engaged in aggressive fund raising with little to prevent one from encountering an skeptical electorate. The eco-system has been restored, thanks to the "dangerous" recall process that our betters (are you listening Senator?) warned us against. So much for circuses. Shove it, Dianne (I hope that message makes it to your "home" in Colorado).




Adam Sullivan, 16:39 | 0 comments

::

 
More from the Stealth Mullah John Stoos

The Stealth Mullah calls into KFI's John and Ken show when Congressman David Drier is on stumping for Arnold. Stoos says he wants a debate. The interesting thing to hear in the broadcast is how Drier tries to draw out Stoos on what differentiates McClintock and Schwartzenegger, and how Stoos re-directs it into "McClintock has more experience and know how."

This is a kabuki dance because Arnold and his campaign are living by Reagan's 11th commandment - thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican. McClintock took the same tack in the last debate, which may have cost him according to the Intellectual Conservative who is calling for McClintock to drop out.
Adam Sullivan, 17:59 | 0 comments

::

 
Stoos - Should we call him "Mullah Stoos"

Look at this I just found about McClintock campaign manager John Stoos in 1995:

Speaking at a February forum sponsored by the Center for Ethics and Social Policy of Berkeley's Graduate Theological Union, Stoos revealed that Jews would probably feel out of place in the Christian society he and others are working to implement. Stoos' comments apparently cost him his job with the gun owners group.

"There is no such thing as a pluralistic society," Stoos was quoted as saying in a write-up of the forum published in The Contra Costa Times. "You can't say we are all going to agree to disagree and go on our way because that [leads] to relativism and chaos."

Those quotes are relatively benign. What got Stoos into trouble was his statement that American society should be founded on Christ's kingship and Biblical law. Stoos also said that Jews and other non-Christians would be "tolerated."

The Qu'uran also says that religions of Abraham can be tolerated as long as their members pay a special tax and are deferential to Islamic law. Stoos is offering us christian sharia.

But the article gets better. Much better.

The statements Stoos made at the forum are similar to the ones he made during a conversation with this writer as our plane sat on a Sacramento runway awaiting departure for Los Angeles. Stoos was seated in front of me, and I tapped him on the shoulder to introduce myself.

We made some small talk about our opposing political views and then I said, "You know, I have been reading [R.J.] Rushdoony and I don't see that in Rushdoony's society there is much room for Buddhists, Moslems, Jews, or atheists."

He replied with a chuckle, "Well, Rush would say it is better to obey God's 600 laws than man's 6000 laws." Then, with another chuckle, he continued, "No, there would be room for Buddhists. I just don't
know how much."

...

Stoos' position on religious minorities in the society he envisions are based on the theology of Christian Reconstructionism which would reconstruct society from a democracy, which Rushdoony refers to as a "heresy" into a theocracy. Rushdoony has matter of factly written in The Institutes of Biblical Law, his 1500-page, two-volume treatise on the Ten Commandments:

"Every social order institutes its own program of separation or segregation. A particular faith and morality is given privileged status and all else is separated for progressive elimination [emphasis added]."

And: "Every faith is an exclusive way of life; none is more dangerous than that which maintains the illusion of tolerance."

Adam Sullivan, 17:30 | 0 comments

::

 
Recall update: McClintock is a stealth Pat Robertson

In the last week I have seen no one pick up on the fact that Tom McClintock is firmly working the Christian Right turf. I predict he therefore will not quit the race, and that the RNC under Bush will not squish him as they threaten. McClintock knows this.

For journalists and bloggers who just haven't examined McClintock on his Christian Right orthodoxy (and have failed to watch the surrogates, which tells you what is going on) here are some links:

"The California Abortion Ballot" on the Catholic.net website.

Key parts:

“It seems ironic, but the person [in this race] closest to the teachings of the Catholic faith is Tom McClintock,” said Dan Brennan, who served as Simon’s director of Coalitions and Catholic Outreach during last year’s gubernatorial race.

“Sen. McClintock is the only [high-profile] socially conservative candidate left in the race,” said John Stoos, McClintock’s campaign manager. “He has a 100% pro-life voting record, and he supported [the defense of marriage] Proposition 22.”

Other interesting tidbit from the article:

Davis is a Catholic. And because he’s taken positions diametrically opposed to the moral law as taught by his Church, particularly in regard to the sanctity of human life and marriage, Bishop William Weigand of Sacramento has asked him to refrain from receiving Communion until he has a change of heart.

Worthwhile blog entry on August 8th by a guy who goes to church with McClintock's campaign manager John Stoos, and tells us:

Conservative Christian Tom McClintock is running for governor, and he has a chance. McClintock lost the race for State Controller by a couple tens of thousands of votes in the 2002 General Election, won the GOP Straw Poll by a huge margin, and is considered to be very popular among Republicans, Democrats, and many Independents. What's more, McClintock's Chief Political Consultant is our family friend and fellow church-member, John Stoos.

I can only pray to God that we Californians are not trading Davis for Arnold, and that, in His sovereign will, God hands a gubernatorial victory to Tom McClintock.

That Republican Straw poll result could be predicted - the state party representatives are largely christian right (something that is backed up in one of the articles I link to later in this post).

Stoos is the operative worth understanding - he is McClintock's lead political strategist and a member of the Christian Reconstruction movement. Here is an article he wrote in November 2002 called "Christianity and The Culture of Death"

Regarding terrorism -

Christians, and only Christians, can and must provide a rational answer to this type of madness. More importantly, not only can we rationally explain why these things happen, we can provide the hope that there is a solution.
....

After September 11, many thought that the proverbial demons were being cast out and the house was starting to be swept clean: flags were flying, many public prayers were offered, people were singing "God Bless America" and, boy, was there a national uproar when Dr. Newdow tried to take "under God" out of the Pledge!

Yes, a demon can be sent packing at times and we can even sweep things up and make the house look pretty tidy. But, if it was not Christ who drove away that demon, and if we don't keep Christ at the center of all we do, that same demon can easily return with a whole lot of his fellow demons!

Lightly syndicated christian broadcaster Sharon Hughes on KKMS had John Stoos on her program a few days ago. Here is the winmedia feed. Most notable is that the entire interview is devoid of any discussion of christian and social issues except a brief encounter with Gay marriage.

At 4:10 (4 minutes, 10 seconds) - Stoos starts talking.

At 6:50 - Hughes states that other campaigns we contacted for interviews and only only McClintock's office responded (Hughes is a christian right broadcaster and makes no bones about it).

At 7:50 - Stoos tells of how advertising will start to focus on the Central Valley.

9:05 - Stoos tells us that that, in polling, voter intensity more important than preference early.

9:50 - Stoos explains that passionate voters will take people with them to the polls.

from 10:00 onward they talk issues of tax, illegal immigration, guns and other non-christian issues.

At 21:45 we learn (quelle suprise) that the listener straw poll is 5 to 1 McClintock over Arnold.

At 23:10 Stoos explains why the polls aren't important to him. "No one has ever polled an election like this. You can't measure passion."

Why not speak freely about the christian right issues on a christian right radio program? The next article gives you a clue, and a clue as to why McClintock doesn't advertise that he is christian right.

Mother Jones put up this alarmist article in 1998. I should have paid attention to that alarm (namely because the article is so very well researched).

It places Stoos as a member of the Christian Reconstructionists movement and also tells of the means by which the California Republican Party was taken over by the Christian right via the Party's by-laws.

Regarding the multi-year strategy of taking over the party bit by bit, the article quotes Stoos as saying:

"And who pays attention to this stuff? You literally have to plan months and years ahead to know where the openings are."

Who pays attention indeed.

Wildcards

What we have is a wildcard election with a wildcard entrant (Arnold Schwartzenneger) threatening the Christian Conservative stranglehold on the California Republican party. The Republican Party here (which produced mildly notable politicians like Ronald Regan prior to the christian takeover) no longer holds a single statewide office. They point to the fact that McClintock's run for controller was the best showing statewide in the last election as some sort of endorsement for their agenda. Arnold must be opposed simply because he will destroy their control of the party here.

BTW, for those who emailed me and took me to task for placing the California Central Valley as the heart of the Branson Belt, read this article from the Fresno Bee. Note the statistic - In the four-county region of Fresno, Tulare, Kings and Madera counties, the governor's best performance in the 2002 gubernatorial race was 38% in Fresno County. And the latest poll by the Public Policy Institute of California shows support for the recall remains strong (66%) in the Central Valley.

Bill Simon won his nomination for Governor in the Central Valley, and he got about 60% of the vote there in the general election. Simon dropped out of the recall race not to help Schwartzenegger, but to help McClintock.

In sum, the media in general have been lazy covering the "circus" rather than the back story. A cursory glance at Stoos and McClintock's positions tells us who McClintock is - a stealth Pat Robertson. With Davis' approval rating so low, this race is now about the future of the California Republical Party. Will the Goldwater/Wilson conservatives get it back from the Christian Right? That is the real story, with big implications for the Presidential Election. After all, how do you think Bush beat McCain in South Carolina?

Democrats interested in seeing the christian right lose power in California should vote for Arnold - only a Republican can take the Republican Party back.

My Faith (disclaimer of sorts)

As for me, I have been until recently a practicing Catholic. Right now I am having a struggle of conscience - can I continue to serve a church that now says all of its members who are political leaders must tow the Vatical line? Ultimately, that is a position that abolishes the idea of separation of church and state. That separation has brought abundant good to this world and reduced suffering greatly. Yes, it also allows for a culture that does not subscribe to any faith based morality to flourish, but I find no example society in history where a surplus economy did not do the same regardless of religious law.

Jesus said "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s" which is seen by theologians (including Catholic) as his exhortation to keep politics and religion largely seperate.

Islamo-fascists see no such separation and want worldwide sharia as a result. Is the Pontif asking for anything different? In a historical context I don't think so (except to say that in democracies, people get to choose their leaders - the idea that one has the opportunity to choose between good and evil in this world is a big idea in Catholicism). I doubt his motivations are anything but well intentioned and pure.

Such is the sum total that I will post on this blog regarding my faith. Why? Check out Mathew 6:5 and 6:6.


UPDATE: Stoos is quoted here as placing abortion as a litmus test voting issue for 17% of California's voters. What percentage is McClintock polling again?


Roger Simon comments.

Adam Sullivan, 14:38 | 0 comments

::

 
Busy, Busy, Busy

The work on the house intensifies with the holidays not far off, so blogging will be light the next few weeks. I will work on writing with greater brevity as a result, intending to give you content worthy of your time.

I can tell you this - this last week I feel I have thought through several problems (while swinging a hammer) that have plagued me on the issues of: modernity relating to the war (which I see as a war for modernity and the pluralism it has engendered); trans-rationalism; and on the political quagmire that these United States find themselves in. The catalyst? A simple question regarding what cleaning service my company uses, posed a waiter at a restaurant I frequent - a pro-war French Arab by birth who studied under Jacques Derrida, of all people. That after reading an email from an blog-acquaintance who stated "Politeness is not my strong suit".


Adam Sullivan, 14:28 | 0 comments