Bush commutes Libby sentence - Printable Version +- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums) +-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html) +--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html) +--- Thread: Bush commutes Libby sentence (/thread-2902.html) |
Bush commutes Libby sentence - Jester - 07-05-2007 Quote:No, I'm talking about 25 years of the political infighting using special prosecutors to go on fishing expeditions usually indicting the cronies of the incumbents on narrow interpretations of law. Let's ignore Scooter for a moment, and reflect on the numerous Clinton era psuedo-scandals and indictments. If only *real* crime were pursued with the same zeal and resources. I agree that it is an abuse of justice to simply throw out a special prosecutor like an attack dog, and hope he brings back a corpse. Judicial resources should be directed to where they matter, not to irrelevancies, and certainly not to ridiculous things like people's sex lives. But that can't mean that reasonable investigations into the conduct of the government are just "fishing expeditions." If you don't mean for this to apply to the Scooter Libby case, then fine and good, but why bring it up in a thread about the communation of his sentence? If you do mean for it to apply, then I disagree with you on that point. Quote:Yes, they are. There is a difference between alleged foreign enemies caught on a battlefield, and US citizens imprisoned for disagreeing with powerful politiical parties. You never quite know what they'll drag out of the PATRIOT Act, so maybe there's something to that. Quote:I fear that the political majority passes so many laws infringing on citizens liberties that it becomes impossible *not* to break the law. While this certainly is a fearful scenario, it seems unlikely at this point. The crimes Scooter was charged with were not "bogus" crimes, designed to trap citizens by infringing on their liberties. Nor was the crime that Scooter was busted for covering up, for that matter. Some laws (the ban on marijuana, for instance) do result in ridiculously high imprisonment rates, but those are a rather different matter. I think you have much more to fear at this juncture from administrations claiming that they are above the law than from the government using laws to restrict your liberties. -Jester Bush commutes Libby sentence - Occhidiangela - 07-05-2007 Quote:I think you have much more to fear at this juncture from administrations claiming that they are above the law than from the government using laws to restrict your liberties.Nope. The death of a thousand cuts is how liberty dies. Administrations are a finitie entity, getting stupid laws off of the books is rather a longer prospect. Let's put this commuted sentence into perspective. Bill Clinton pardoned/commuted FALN terrorists. From the apologists at Wikipedia. Quote:On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations.Per my usual remark on the Pope and America's death penalty: those gutless papists need to get back into their lanes. Quote: The commutation was opposed by U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and criticized by many including former victims of FALN terrorist activities, the Fraternal Order of Police,[4] members of Congress, and Hillary Clinton in her campaign for Senator.And people gripe about Bush and "executive privilege.:P So, GW Bush commuted Slimeball's Scooter's jail sentence. I don't see how the outrage compares, but then, I am disgusted with the whole lot of them. So far, no pardon, but I'm pretty sure the Libby pardon will come after the 2008 election.) Bill Clinton, pandering to some Puerto Rican lobbyists, and exhibit A for WJC, Prize Idiot. Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence. Bleeding heart rubbish, or cynical political maneuver? I say it was both. Occhi Bush commutes Libby sentence - kandrathe - 07-05-2007 Quote:I agree that it is an abuse of justice to simply throw out a special prosecutor like an attack dog, and hope he brings back a corpse. Judicial resources should be directed to where they matter, not to irrelevancies, and certainly not to ridiculous things like people's sex lives.We agree then. It was stupid to pursue Mr. Clinton's sex life, and it was stupid to pursue the firing of people in the Clinton Whitehouse travel office. Justice would have been equally served by allowing the investigative reporters free license on those. But of course, without an "independant counsel" left wingers would never believe the muck on Clinton when it was revealed. Still it was a waste of US taxpayer money. Whitewater, while politically motivated was clearly an illegal fraudulent act, but luckily the Clintons convinced their friends and partners to take the fall for them. This current brewhaha about the US attorney firings is another politically motivated hachet job. While, the Clinton firing of ALL 100 of the US Attorneys (including the ones investigating him) were never questioned. Now regarding Mr. Libby, here is another quote which is a summation of what I beleive; Quote:The Fitzgerald indictments are an embarrassing confirmation of the old Washington rule that, when special prosecutors can't prove a crime, they indict the target for obstructing the investigation. Far from being typical behavior, indicting suspects for nothing more than false statements or perjury is a vice largely restricted to special prosecutors and independent counsels. . . He did not prosecute Bush administration officials or journalists under the rarely invoked law he was originally appointed to investigate--the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which forbids the knowing disclosure of the identity of a covert government agent. He did not invoke a broader provision that makes it a crime to disclose classified information--a statute that, if it were regularly enforced, would criminalize what most national security reporters do every day. . . . But the idea that Fitzgerald should be praised for the charges he didn't bring is absurd. "An Indefensible Indictment," The New Republic, 11/4/05)I call shenanigans! Bush commutes Libby sentence - Jester - 07-05-2007 Quote:This current brewhaha about the US attorney firings is another politically motivated hachet job. While, the Clinton firing of ALL 100 of the US Attorneys (including the ones investigating him) were never questioned. As I said earlier, justice should be done *regardless* of whose political ends it serves. Saying that "oh, well, so-and-so did this, and nobody complained" is not justice, it's an excuse. I am uncertain as to the circumstances under which Clinton removed the whole body of attorneys. If it smels bad, it should be investigated. It is the public who deserves justice here, as everywhere. (Edit: As far as I can discern, Clinton's changing of the guard is apparently normal, the kind of thing that happens under every president at the beginning of their administration. Bush's mid-term firing of his own appointees for failing to toe the line is something quite else. The attempt to conflate appears to be the noise machine trying to drown out the scandal with "yes but".) The existence of that case has no bearing whatsoever on the firing of specific attorneys by Gonzales for clearly political motives. Calling it a "politically motivated hatchet job" strikes me as ironic, especially given that these attorneys were fired (hatcheted) for clearly political motives. Should the public stand for administrations stacking public service with cronies, and firing competent people because they are politically opposed to the current president? Absolutely not. What possible argument could there be against that? That it is perfectly okay to turf people out of government jobs for their political beliefs? On the Libby affair, I am entirely unsure why Fitzgerald did not pursue a broader investigation, or lay charges against anyone higher in the administration, notably Armitage and Cheney. Nor am I sure why the administration, and especially Cheney, has decided to take the tack that they are above or immune to such investigations. Smells terrible to me, reminiscent of Watergate, or Iran-Contra. The President is not a monarch, and yet the arguments in favour of executive priveledges seem to creep ever forward. I somehow doubt Jefferson would be impressed. Given the laws in place, Scooter Libby clearly violated them, and was charged appropriately. He was convicted in a fair trial. What is your argument against this? That people should not be tried for their crimes? -Jester Bush commutes Libby sentence - Jester - 07-05-2007 Quote:Nope. The death of a thousand cuts is how liberty dies. Administrations are a finitie entity, getting stupid laws off of the books is rather a longer prospect. I cannot count the number of times, throughout history, that one person, grabbing for power, brought the whole house down, despite the "finity" of their administration. And the powers and priveledges of the executive are growing daily, apparently including the (practical) power to go to war. The number of democracies that have died slow deaths through excessive legislation, on the other hand, are few indeed. (Are there any? I can't think of one.) It seems clear to me which is the greater danger at this point. Obviously, you disagree, but I doubt we will find consensus on that. Quote:Let's put this commuted sentence into perspective[...] Duly noted. The communation of Libby's sentence is hardly the worst outrage even of the year, let alone of the last decade. It is merely one further example of the cronyism and contempt for justice that has come to dominate both parties, although I must argue that this administration is worse than any since Nixon, at least. Quote:And people gripe about Bush and "executive privilege.:P Quote:I don't see how the outrage compares, but then, I am disgusted with the whole lot of them. I despised Clinton's politics then, and if they have come into a better light since, it is only because Bush's administration has been a disaster of epic proportions. You're not going to find much defense of either of them from me. Quote:So far, no pardon, but I'm pretty sure the Libby pardon will come after the 2008 election.) If this does not come to pass, colour me amazed. -Jester Bush commutes Libby sentence - kandrathe - 07-05-2007 Quote:Given the laws in place, Scooter Libby clearly violated them, and was charged appropriately. He was convicted in a fair trial. What is your argument against this? That people should not be tried for their crimes?The jury was forced to decide who was telling the truth, a political crony of Dick Cheney, or two Washington journalists. Given enough time on a witness stand, I'm sure Mr. Fitzgerald would have trapped almost anyone in making false statements, perjury, and therefore obstruction of justice. Like I said before, Scooter's crime was trying to tell his side or the story and getting it wrong, rather than the patented "I do not recall" or "I'm taking the 5th". Is the US better protected from this dastardly criminal named Scooter? I think not. The charges against Libby, and even those being hurled at Gonzales are a matter of the fine splitting of hairs on interpretation. Is it wrong for the Executive to fire US Attorneys for political or any other reason? But, I digress from my point. A better way to frame the question... What if we had devoted the same amount of money and effort into getting Osama Bin Laden? During the Clinton era, what if we had spent the 2nd Clinton administration worrying about Iraq, Iran and North Korea instead of Bill's zipper and stains on a blue dress? How about we get Congress' head out from their nether orifices and focused on something *really* important. Bush commutes Libby sentence - Jester - 07-05-2007 I think you have a great deal to fear from your government. If the executive comes to rise above the congress and the courts, it is no longer responsible to the people, except at election time. Four years is a long time to be above the laws of the land, and people are oh-so-gullible when it comes to charismatic candidates with shadowy advisors. If you think the congress should ignore cronyism and focus on Osama bin Laden, then fine. I think you have as much, if not more, to worry about internally. Zippers, on the other hand, are no threat to anyone, so we are in complete agreement that these are no business of government's. -Jester Bush commutes Libby sentence - kandrathe - 07-05-2007 Quote:Duly noted. The communation of Libby's sentence is hardly the worst outrage even of the year, let alone of the last decade. It is merely one further example of the cronyism and contempt for justice that has come to dominate both parties, although I must argue that this administration is worse than any since Nixon, at least.No. If we are talking about abuse of power. Bill Clinton has been the worst, and worse than Nixon (except that Watergate thing). On the use of Pardons and comutations...Justice Undone: Clemency Decisions in the Clinton White House On the use of US troops in an illegal war... Accuracy In Media -- Bush Critics Ignore Clinton's Illegal Pro-Muslim War in Kosovo Quote:I think you have a great deal to fear from your government. If the executive comes to rise above the congress and the courts, it is no longer responsible to the people, except at election time. Four years is a long time to be above the laws of the land, and people are oh-so-gullible when it comes to charismatic candidates with shadowy advisors.I take it for granted that a person who pursues a degree in law enforcement has a predisposition for thumping skulls as needed. So you need to be vigilant in watching for brutality becoming acceptable. Similiarly I assume that politicians are enamored with power, and having issues with veracity. So, having a vigilent citizenry and media that accurately reports abuses is equally neccesary. Bush commutes Libby sentence - Jester - 07-06-2007 Quote:No. If we are talking about abuse of power. Bill Clinton has been the worst, and worse than Nixon (except that Watergate thing). And I'm sure Reagan as well, except for that whole Iran-Contra thing... and everyone else, except for the very thing that would contradict the statement. Some of Clinton's pardons were inexcusable, and that kind of cronyism cannot be tolerated. I have very little desire to apologize for Bill Clinton. But worse than Bush? Not a chance. Worse than Nixon? No way. A pardon for slimy, well-connected lawbreakers is bad, but a pardon that reinforces the idea that administrations do not really have to cooperate with the courts is worse. Who cares if you lie under oath? Who cares if you withhold information from the very people you are elected to serve? The prez'll just throw a pardon your way, and you're done! Nixon was forgiven for his inexcusable crimes on much the same basis. It undermines the very principles of the rule of law. The war in Kosovo hardly had my support. My rule was clear for the Iraq war, and it applies equally to Kosovo. Get the UN security council, make a real case for self-defense, or you're over the line. Again, not apologizing for Clinton, except insofar as to say he's a fair sight better than what you've got now. However, from a less legal basis, the two wars (Kosovo and Iraq) were hardly similar. For starters, one war already existed, and massacres were a regular feature of the war. It was, in short, a humanitarian crisis. Intervention in that region was intended to stop the violence, not to start it. In Iraq, there was no war, there had been no war for over a decade, and there were obvious routes to preventing war that the US deliberately frustrated. Blowing Kosovo to pieces was inhuman and stupid, and the resulting tragedy forms a large part of my loathing for Clinton. I would not hesitate to recommend he be brought before an international war crimes trbunal for that war, so long as we were being consistent about it, and did the same for the Iraq war. In terms of the damage it did, though, both to the US and to humanity at large, Kosovo was a much lesser thing than Iraq. -Jester Bush commutes Libby sentence - kandrathe - 07-06-2007 Quote:However, from a less legal basis, the two wars (Kosovo and Iraq) were hardly similar. For starters, one war already existed, and massacres were a regular feature of the war. It was, in short, a humanitarian crisis. Intervention in that region was intended to stop the violence, not to start it. In Iraq, there was no war, there had been no war for over a decade, and there were obvious routes to preventing war that the US deliberately frustrated.I guess Iraq was peaceful, unless you were a Kurd, or a Kuwaiti. I kind of look at the 2nd war as a result of Saddam violating the terms of Iraq's probation. Quote:Again, not apologizing for Clinton, except insofar as to say he's a fair sight better than what you've got now.I guess it depends on the type of stink you can tolerate. I never liked Bill Clinton, mostly due to his lack of character as evidenced by what he did to Paula Jones when he was a governor. Bush commutes Libby sentence - --Pete - 07-06-2007 Hi, Quote:So, having a vigilent citizenry and media that accurately reports abuses is equally neccesary.If that's what we need, then I am afraid. I am very afraid. --Pete Bush commutes Libby sentence - kandrathe - 07-06-2007 Quote:Hi,:D Yup. Me too. Bush commutes Libby sentence - kandrathe - 07-07-2007 Quote:Nope. The death of a thousand cuts is how liberty dies. Administrations are a finitie entity, getting stupid laws off of the books is rather a longer prospect.You reminded me of Mr. De Tocqueville in the Chapter "WHAT SORT OF DESPOTISM DEMOCRATIC NATIONS HAVE TO FEAR"... Quote:It would seem that if despotism were to be established among the democratic nations of our days, it might assume a different character; it would be more extensive and more mild; it would degrade men without tormenting them.I'm pretty sure Ted Kennedy wants to be my daddy. Bush commutes Libby sentence - Jester - 07-08-2007 Quote:I'm pretty sure Ted Kennedy wants to be my daddy. Not just Ted Kennedy. Does George Bush any less want this for you? The man of faith, who wants everyone to share his comforting, dogmatic belief in Jesus the savoir? Who wants you to trust him and his, who of course want only to protect the country from the evil, mean, nasty other people, if ony you trust him, do not challenge him, accept what he does as for the best? The eternal carrot-and-stick of "I will protect you from the great Other." Is that not even more comforting, and more dangerous? -Jester Bush commutes Libby sentence - kandrathe - 07-09-2007 Quote:Not just Ted Kennedy. Does George Bush any less want this for you? The man of faith, who wants everyone to share his comforting, dogmatic belief in Jesus the savoir? Who wants you to trust him and his, who of course want only to protect the country from the evil, mean, nasty other people, if ony you trust him, do not challenge him, accept what he does as for the best.I don't see any proposed laws with the government promoting religion. Do you? Actually, it is in fact the opposite with any religious references being increasingly expunged from civic life. In fact, I would guess that what pisses you off about Bush is that he does not refrain from calling on people to pray, or glorify God. As for this man of "faith" with "dogmatic belief in Jesus"... Well, that is part in parcel of his Christian religion. That would describe all past Presidents, with the possible exception of Bill Clinton, and possibly Nixon, who both would go through the dogmata of being a Christian without the adherence. Quote:According to Sahīh Bukhārī, the Prophet said, "Whoever has the following four (characteristics) will be a pure hypocrite and whoever has one of the following four characteristics will have one characteristic of hypocrisy unless and until he gives it up. 1. Whenever he is entrusted, he betrays. 2. Whenever he speaks, he tells a lie. 3. Whenever he makes a covenant, he proves treacherous. 4. Whenever he quarrels, he behaves in a very imprudent, evil and insulting manner."I do see a continual storm of Bills promoting a nanny state to take care of us, along with an ever tightening grip on liberty. I could site a couple hundred examples from that past decade if you'd like, but a perusal of any of the latest news would reveal any number in the works. The biggest thing I fear from the current Bush is him signing an amnesty bill for 12 million more low income, low skilled aliens to burden our social systems. Bush commutes Libby sentence - Alram - 07-09-2007 Quote:if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.In other words, the federal government shall have the power to imprison anyone who publishes material critical of the administration. This law was passed during the administration of John Adams. When I see these sorts of discussions, I am always reminded of the Alien and Sedition laws which were more Draconian than anything we have today. Bush commutes Libby sentence - Vandiablo - 07-09-2007 I've been wanting to post this article. I found it ... interesting. Quote:President Bush's favorite role model is, famously, Jesus, but Winston Churchill is close behind. The president admires the wartime British prime minister so much that he keeps what he calls "a stern-looking bust" of Churchill in the Oval Office. "He watches my every move," Bush jokes. These days, Churchill would probably not care for much of what he sees. Bush commutes Libby sentence - Jester - 07-09-2007 Quote:I don't see any proposed laws with the government promoting religion. Do you? Actually, it is in fact the opposite with any religious references being increasingly expunged from civic life. (Edit: Whoops. This is *not* the president who opined that he didn't think atheists were citizens or patriots. It was his father. Apple clearly doesn't fall that far from the tree, but my mistake.) George W. Bush is the president of the faith-based initiative, brought to the doorstep of the Whitehouse by evangelicals in record numbers. The president opposes (veto pen in hand) stem-cell research, free access to abortions, gay marriage, and *starts wars in the middle east* on the basis that he believes god talks to him. Like, directly. Literally. If this is religion being "increasingly expunged from civic life," I'm really not sure what president you're looking at, but it sure isn't this one. And it's not the personal religion that is worrying. Jimmuh was an odd duck in that regard, and yet he doesn't terribly scare me. It's the public faith, the embracing sense of the faithful "us" versus the infidel "them." The idea that, as David Bowie once sang, God is an American. That faith in God and faith in the God-talking President go hand in hand. That kind of mental lullaby seems far more likely to drug your nation into a stupor than excessive legislation. (Afterthought: Especially since the scenario of Toqueville requires a government of excrutiating competence, which is downright hiliarious in the modern context, only moreso given your own earlier arguments about the competence of government.) Quote:That would describe all past Presidents, with the possible exception of Bill Clinton, and possibly Nixon, who both would go through the dogmata of being a Christian without the adherence. Jefferson? Not much of a Christian, unless you count any follower of any of Jesus' teachings, in which case I myself am a strange, god-denying breed of Christian. -Jester Afterthought: Just because wikipedia is so much fun for this kind of thing... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Day Bush commutes Libby sentence - kandrathe - 07-10-2007 Quote:George W. Bush is the president of the faith-based initiative, brought to the doorstep of the Whitehouse by evangelicals in record numbers. The president opposes (veto pen in hand) stem-cell research, free access to abortions, gay marriage, and *starts wars in the middle east* on the basis that he believes god talks to him. Like, directly. Literally.Republicans seem to be willing to accommodate religion in the public square and speak openly of their faith, while Democrats seem almost reflexively to insist upon separation of church and state. The faith based initiative allows the government to be able to give grants to organizations who are helping people even though they are faith based. You know, like the YMCA and YWCA. Does that violate the establishment clause? I think the government giving to a good cause because they are doing good seem right, while giving to a religious cause because they are religious seems wrong. The President does not oppose stem cell research, and in fact has increased funding for stem cell research. He does not support human embryonic stem cell research(other than the already existing clonal population), and I would guess he doesn't support human organ harvesting and trafficking either. There are ethical issues to consider when you allow the government to sanction pregnancy for pay or human cloning for tissue harvesting. Also, science has made embryo farming irrelevant since discoveries on how adult stem cells can be reverted into pluripotency. And, yes, he is against abortion and sanctioning gay marriage, as well as at least half the nation is as well. The same banal charges were levied against Ronald Reagan, and other religious Republicans. But, I don't see the same vitriol spat at Jesse Jackson, or for example that the last Democratic Party's Radio Address was delivered by Reverend Jim Wallis. There seems to be a double standard for the left in their vehemence against religion in politics, or maybe Democrat politicians tend to stay quiet because the they are on the opposite side of those three hot button issues from the evangelicals and the Catholic church (those being abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research). John Kerry tried to infuse religion into his campaign, but it just reminded the Catholics how un-Catholic he is. Quote:Jefferson? Not much of a Christian, unless you count any follower of any of Jesus' teachings, in which case I myself am a strange, god-denying breed of Christian.Wow, you had to go way back... But, do you mean the same Thomas Jefferson who wrote "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!" or "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Bush commutes Libby sentence - Jester - 07-10-2007 Quote:Republicans seem to be willing to accommodate religion in the public square and speak openly of their faith, while Democrats seem almost reflexively to insist upon separation of church and state. How very unreasonable of them, to insist on this fragile Jeffersonian principle. Quote:The faith based initiative allows the government to be able to give grants to organizations who are helping people even though they are faith based. You know, like the YMCA and YWCA. Does that violate the establishment clause? In a reasonable world? Yes. Money is fungial. Even if every dollar spent by these faith-based religious programs goes to things which are not overtly religious (and they almost invariably are anyway, with crap all for oversight, which would be expensive and impractical anyway), that just frees up more dollars elsewhere to spend on things which are religious. That would be giving government support to a religion, which to me seems like a prima facie violation of the establishment clause. Want to do good works on the American taxpayer's dollar? Check your Bibles, Torahs, Korans and Bagavad Gitas at the door, and do it through secular organizatons. Otherwise, pass the collection plate and do it the old fashioned way. Quote:The President does not oppose stem cell research, and in fact has increased funding for stem cell research. He does not support human embryonic stem cell research(other than the already existing clonal population), and I would guess he doesn't support human organ harvesting and trafficking either. There are ethical issues to consider when you allow the government to sanction pregnancy for pay or human cloning for tissue harvesting. ... on the basis that he believes God told him so. And people vote for him in support of his position on these things because, in the main, they believe God told *them* so. Quote:Also, science has made embryo farming irrelevant since discoveries on how adult stem cells can be reverted into pluripotency. Convenient, if true. But hardly something Bush knew at the time. The decision, and the support for that decision, was made out of faith. The result is, in those terms, an accident of fate. Quote:And, yes, he is against abortion and sanctioning gay marriage, as well as at least half the nation is as well. The same banal charges were levied against Ronald Reagan, and other religious Republicans. (Ah, well, I'm sorry that these charges are so banal. Could I perhaps point out that your stereotype of the left isn't exactly spring fresh either?) This is my whole point. Huge swaths of the population are willing to put aside the practical republicanism of Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and instead vote with their faith. Critical thinking gets checked at the door. Vote for the president because Jesus walks with him! Vote for him because he is a person of high moral character, like it says in the Bible! Ever seen that scene in Jesus Camp with the charismatic-kids-camp praying over the cardboard cutout of Dubya? Not a future the rest of the world is looking forward to. This is the mania that sweeps your nation, and it's come a lot closer to taking over than Ted Kennedy ever will. Most people are trusting of faith. Most people are suspicious of liberals (and, Buddha forbid, Atheists). Which is more likely to lull people into complacency, honestly? Quote:But, I don't see the same vitriol spat at Jesse Jackson, or for example that the last Democratic Party's Radio Address was delivered by Reverend Jim Wallis. I think, on the whole, that Jesse Jackson is well and maxed out on his lifetime quota of vitriol spat at him. If you mean by me, I would be highly uncomfortable with Jesse Jackson as American president on the basis of his religion, but still not anywhere near as uncomfortable as Bush. Jesse Jackson has at least demonstrated some vague understanding that political issues must be justified on political grounds, even if religion underlies them. Not so Mr. God-told-me-to-liberate-Iraq, who apparently feels perfectly comfortable with the idea that divine voices in his head are a sound basis for public policy. I guess that just doesn't scare you, does it? Quote:There seems to be a double standard for the left in their vehemence against religion in politics, or maybe Democrat politicians tend to stay quiet because the they are on the opposite side of those three hot button issues from the evangelicals and the Catholic church (those being abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research). John Kerry tried to infuse religion into his campaign, but it just reminded the Catholics how un-Catholic he is. Me, I'm against religion in politics. And I think the Democrats are weasels. But I'm sure you guessed that by now. The 'left,' that great amorphous coalition that voted against Bush? More complicated. Many are very religious, most are somewhat religious, others are non-religious. What they are almost universally against is religion being a direct driver of public policy. Formulate your beliefs how you like, but for governing, you must be secular. That's the whole spirit of the separation of church and state. Quote:Wow, you had to go way back... But, do you mean the same Thomas Jefferson who wrote [...] Sorry about going way back, but the American public really, really dislikes non-religious types. Yes, that is exactly the Thomas Jefferson I mean. The avowed Deist. The one who believed in an ultimate "creator," but not the divinity of Christ, which, last I checked, was the sine qua non of Christianity. Who didn't mention anything specifically Christian in that passage you just quoted. The one who, like those poor reflexive Democrats of your above quote, insisted fervently on the separation of church and state. And, a quick google of that quote shows that the context is about slavery, that is, the liberty inherent in every person by a benevolent creator, who would be displeased at the violation of those rights. Very deistic. Not Christian in any particular way. -Jester |