Newt "Pinocchio" Gingrich

newt: n., an amphibian of the Salamandridae family. Adult newts are characterized by a frog-like body and the ability to regenerate severed limbs. Most newts can be safely handled, provided that the toxins they produce are not ingested. [Wikipedia]

Pinocchio: a fictional puppet carved from a piece of pine wood (Pinocchio = pine nut) who dreams of becoming a real boy. The woodcarver gave him a long nose that became even longer every time he told a lie. [Wikipedia]

Well . . . there we have our boy Newt: the pine nut who keeps regenerating himself, trying to lie his way back into the limelight and hoping a clamorous crowd will urge him to run for president.

People should heed Wikipedia: be careful not to ingest the toxins in this newt's new book, To Save America: Stopping Obama’s Secular-Socialist Machine, in which he claims that the Obama administration is:

“a corrupt bureaucracy which uses manipulation, bribery, and dishonesty to steamroll the will of the people and destroy America’s core values. . . . The secular socialist machine represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did.”

Oh, Newt, Newt. As my grandmother used to say, "Be ashamed of yourself."

You know full well that this is nothing but utter pandering to the paranoid right wing fringe, hoping the Tea Party crowd will jump on the bandwagon and draft you as their standard bearer. How do you look in the mirror, Newt? You're way too smart to believe this crap, this toxin that you're spewing forth.

But Newt's attention-craving has no limits. He'll take a mandate anywhere he can find it.

As Jim Fitzgerald said in review of the book in Like the Dew: A Journal of Southern Culture and Politics:

Personally, I think his only purpose is to fan flames and keep people “hot” for the November midterm elections. Oh, and to sell his book.

Be ashamed of yourself, Little Newtie.

Ralph

Campaign silliness

Here's a light-hearted note.

In Nevada, the state election officials added chicken costumes to items that are banned from polling sites in the upcoming primary elections in which a gaggle of Republicans are vying for the chance to challenge Harry Reid for the senate.

In disparaging health care reform, one of the 12 Republican candidates commented that people should barter for medical care, "like when our grandparents would bring a chicken to the doctor."

Since then, Democrats have ridiculed her, setting up a web site, "Chickens for Checkups," and showing up at her rallies wearing chicken costumes. Ergo -- wearing a chicken costume has become a political statement and hence is barred from the vicinity of polling stations, just as are campaign literature, buttons, or articles of clothing or insignias that promote a party or a candidate within 100 feet of polling places.

Some have objected to the ruling saying that there is no statute that forbids wearing a chicken suit. If corporations can give millions of dollars to buy a candidate for office and defend it as free speech, why is wearing a chicken suit not also protected free speech?

Sounds like a test case for the Supreme Court. I'll bet Sonia and Elena would love to tackle this one. It could be fun.

Ralph

Tea Party and Christian Values

Jim Wallis is one of the more thoughtful religious leaders of today. He founded the Soujourners -- "Christians for Justice and Peace" -- and he promotes ecumenical efforts to overcome poverty and seek social justice. He also teaches a course at Harvard on "Faith, Politics and Society." So his thoughts on the Tea Party movement are of interest.

In an essay on Huffington Post, he addresses the question: "How Christian is the Tea Party Movement?" In short, his answer is that Libertarian emphasis on individual rights and private property rights, and seeing the government as the problem, is antithetical to Christian teachings.

Here are some ways in which he finds Libertarian values in conflict with Christian values:

1. The Christian answer to the question "Are we our brother's keeper?" is decidedly "Yes." . . . Loving your neighbor is a better Christian response than telling your neighbor to leave you alone. Both compassion and social justice are fundamental Christian commitments.

2. An anti-government ideology just isn't biblical. Romans 13 . . . describes the role and vocation of government [which] also plays a role in God's plan and purposes. Preserving the social order, punishing evil and rewarding good, and protecting the common good are all prescribed; we are even instructed to pay taxes for those purposes.

3. The Libertarians' supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view . . . When government regulation is the enemy, the market is set free to pursue its own self-interest without regard for public safety, the common good, and the protection of the environment -- which Christians regard as God's creation. . . .

4. The Libertarian preference for the strong over the weak is decidedly un-Christian. . . .When the system is designed to protect the privileges of the already strong and make the weak even more defenseless and vulnerable, something is wrong with the system.

Some may object that the Tea Party is not a libertarian organization. The Kentucky Libertarian Party has even said that Rand Paul is not a true libertarian -- because he favors government regulation on things like abortion and gay marriage -- so they may run someone against him in the general election. However, the similarity of Tea Party and Libertarian interests makes Wallis' remarks germane, whatever political philosophy they may espouse.

I suspect that many in the Tea Party crowds would be distressed to be told that what they are demanding is not compatible with Christian values. They need to do some thinking about what is Christian about it.

Needless to say, I find myself in sync with Wallis on this -- and with Jesus' social teachings -- even though I identify myself more as a humanist than a believer in Christian theology.

Ralph

Shame, shame on John McCain

This morning I posted the following comment to my post on DADT:

This is yet another opportunity for John McCain to display his utter lack of integrity and his political cynicism and duplicity.

In October 2006 he said we should listen to our military leaders and take their advice on this matter. Now that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has made a genuine, heartfelt push for repeal and the Chairman of the Department of Defense has supported it -- McCain is pandering to his right-wing constituency and saying not just no, but hell no.

Does anyone still have a shred of respect for this man? He really painted himself into a corner on this one. He probably never imagined that a military leader would ever recommend repeal, so he thought he could have it both ways -- seem to be open to gay issues but never have to cast a vote for repeal.

It's not just changing his mind on an issue, he's reversing who he said we should listen to in deciding such an issue. That's what makes it so utterly lacking in integrity.

I repeat this comment here as a prelude to this further shockingly cynical and outrageous behavior, even for John McCain. "Roll Call, the "Newspaper of Capital Hill," is reporting:

Armed Services ranking member John McCain said Thursday that he would “without a doubt” support a filibuster [of the entire military appropriations bill] if the bill goes to the floor with repeal language.

“I’ll do everything in my power,” the Arizona Republican said, citing letters from the four service chiefs urging Congress not to act before a Pentagon review of the policy is complete. “I’m going to do everything I can to support the men and women of the military and to fight what is clearly a political agenda.”

The New York Times has reported that McCain actually solicited the letters from the service chiefs, which he then paraded to the committee. And, since they wrote their letters, we now have the compromise language that gives the military "as much time as it needs" to implement the policy. So that should take care of their objections. But not McCain's, because he is pandering to his right-wing constituency.

And he has the audacity to say the long-delayed repeal of DADT is "a political agenda."

I cannot say it as strongly as I feel it. John McCain is despicable. He has hit the lowest point in a career that has had some high moments; but he has completely destroyed any respect I ever had for him. It's not just this issue. His campaign for president proved to me that he had already scrapped his integrity and would just say anything to pander to voters.

I wonder what his buddy, Joe Lieberman -- the one who crossed over to support his presidential run -- thinks about this. It is after all Joe Lieberman who is the chief co-sponsor of the repeal legislation in the Senate. I never though I would appreciate Joe Lieberman again, after all the shenanigans he has pulled. But John McCain makes him look like a man with principles.

Ralph

Obama and the oil gusher

Calling the BP drilling disaster "Obama's Katrina" is unfair, although there are similarities and increasing concerns that he has been too uninvolved. But there are major differences. With Katrina, it was the total responsibility of the government to fix the problem and rescue the people. In the oil disaster, BP has the first line of responsibility to fix the problem. And, as devastating as it is proving to be for the coast and wetlands of Louisiana, it was not an immediate matter of rescuing people who would die.

Having said that, time has run out to say it's BP's responsibility. Up until now, there may not have been much the government could do that BP wasn't doing -- or trying to do. Experts have had few suggestions that weren't being tried. But now it's time for Obama to take charge of the operation.

As Dan Froomkin writes on Huffington Post, it's also time for Obama to use this disaster as a teachable moment.

• As environmentalists have been saying for weeks, the spill is a teachable moment that Obama could use to galvanize the nation behind significant energy and climate-change legislation that would aggressively wean the nation off fossil fuels.
• Similarly, Obama missed an opportunity to call attention to the near-complete regulatory failure that led up to the disaster, as a way of reminding the nation of the need for a government that actively protects the interests of its people against those who would otherwise pursue profit without limits. . . .
  
• But little of this is likely to happen. Instead, the Gulf oil spill risks turning into an object lesson in ineffective leadership and the corporate capture of government -- precisely the opposite of the lessons we expected Obama to teach the nation.

Indeed. Obama will have a news conference today. Let's see if he steps up to the plate, as he has so often done on other issues that threatened to swamp his presidency.

Ralph

DADT is dead

Congress has the votes to pass an amendment to the military appropriations bill that will overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Bill Clinton came into office promising to eliminate the ban against gays in the military and ran into a buzzsaw of opposition, both in the military and in Congress. DADT was the 1993 "compromise" that was supposed to allow gays to be soldiers as long as they stayed in the closet.

It was a disaster. Besides forcing people to live a lie, and making them vulnerable to being outed by others, it cost the government millions and millions of dollars to train replacements for the 13,000 who were discharged in these past 16 years -- most notoriously a number of vitally needed translators of Arabic and other crucial languages that we already had too few of.

The House may vote as early as today and apparently has a comfortable majority; it's closer in the Senate, but it also seems assured there since Ben Nelson said he would support it.

But, as significant as this will be, it itself is a compromise with possible sour notes. In order to secure enough votes, the amendment was modified to allow the military to take as much time as it needs to implement the orders. Of course, there are many complicated issues that must be worked out: What about rights of partners in states that do not have civil unions? What about survivors' rights for partner benefits that conflict with other federal statutes? But it also leaves it open for recalcitrant senior officers to drag their feet.

At least one recent poll of those who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan showed that 73% were comfortable with gay people in their ranks. It's the older officers that constitute the main problem.

But, guess what, guys? Your military ranks ALREADY contain gay and lesbian soldiers, sailors, and marines. What do you think is going to be different? Why do you fear that they're suddenly going to assault you in the showers, creep into your beds at night? Don't flatter yourselves, you old jerks and dried up prunes. You'll be disappointed to learn that nothing very different is going to happen. At least that's the experience of all the other nations that allow gays to serve openly in their military.

Ralph

Rand Paul VI

Well . . . now we hear from the leader of the Kentucky Libertarian Party that Rand Paul has betrayed them, and they are thinking of running their own candidate in the November general election. They say Paul is not really a libertarian and has given the party a black eye because of some of the stands he has taken.

Mentioned were Paul's support for any government measure that would ban abortion, plus his opposition to gay marriage. True Libertarians would oppose any kind of governmental control of people's private lives.

Joshua Koch, Vice Chairman of the KY party, says "The reason why we would even consider running somebody in this race is because we're not going to let Rand determine what a Libertarian stands for. I'm here to say Rand does not have the Libertarian ideology."

University of Kentucky political scientist Stephen Voss pointed out that Libertarians typically side with Democrats on social issues and Republicans on fiscal issues, so a third party candidate would likely take votes from both the Democratic candidate (Conway) and the Republican (Paul).

Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell was quoted as saying Paul should spend more time talking to people in Kentucky and less on the national stage.

But -- all of this keeps his name in the news, and in politics that's what counts.

Ralph

NOW he tells us?

As president, George W. Bush was not exactly an eco-friendly steward of the nation's resources and energy needs.

The American Wind Energy Association describes itself this way on its web site:

AWEA is the national trade association of America’s wind industry, with more than 2,500 member companies, including global leaders in wind power and energy development, wind turbine manufacturing, component and service suppliers, and the world’s largest wind power trade show. AWEA is the voice of wind energy in the U.S., promoting renewable energy to power a cleaner, stronger America.

The web site also includes an encouraging note about the Kerry-Lieberman bill on climate change. So it seems a bit odd that they had invited George Bush to address their convention in Dallas this week. But here is what McClatchey news source reports that Bush said to them.

"It's in our economic interests that we diversify away from oil. . . . It's in our environmental interest. . . And, finally, it's in our national security interest."

He did say that oil and natural gas will remain vital sources of energy as we transition to the renewable energy sources. He fully expects that his grandchildren will be driving electric cars and thinks plug-in hybrids are a step towards them.

AWEA Executive Director Denise Bode introduced Bush as “a wonderful, wonderful supporter of wind,” who as Texas’ governor backed a state law passed in 1999 that helped pave the way for establishment of new wind generation. Texas now leads all states in installed wind generation capacity at 9,506 megawatts, more than double the generation capacity in No. 2 Iowa. If Texas were a nation, it would rank sixth in the world in wind capacity, Bush noted.

Where was this man when George W. Bush was president of these United States?

Ralph

Rand Paul: V

The Rand Paul story "has legs," as they say. So now, like the Catholic Church scandals, I've started numbering my blogs on this recurring subject. This is number V.

Ross Douthat, the New York Times' replacement for Bill Krystol as its token conservative columnist, writes today about "The Principles of Rand Paul." He begins:

No ideology survives the collision with real-world politics perfectly intact. General principles have to bend to accommodate the complexities of history, and justice is sometimes better served by compromise than by zealous intellectual consistency.

That was all that Rand Paul needed to admit. . . . "As a principled critic of federal power, I oppose efforts to impose Washington's will on states and private institutions. As a student of the history of segregation and slavery, however, I would have made an exception for the Civil Rights Act."

Had he said that, it would all be over, according to Douthat. But Paul, being the the zealot anti-government libertarian that he is, just couldn't bring himself to say it -- not until the party powerful leaned on him (both Mitch McConnell and Karl Rove reportedly called him).

Douthat goes on further to define Paul, like his father Ron Paul, as a particular kind of libertarian, sometimes called "paleoconservative." He acknowledges that there is a lot of appeal to their sweeping critique of American politics. But . . .

The problem is that paleoconservatives are self-marginalizing and self-destructive. . . . they have trouble distinguishing between ideas that deserve a wider hearing and ideas that are crankish or worse. . . . they're good at applying their principles more consistently than your average partisan, but lousy at knowing when to stop. . . .

[T]hey tend to drift in every-more extreme directions, reveling in political incorrectness even as they leave common sense and common decency behind. . . . And it shouldn't come as a shock that [he] found himself politically undone, in what should have been his moment of triumph, because he was too proud to acknowledge the limits of ideology, and to admit that a principle can be pushed too far.

Well . . . Rand Paul must be in really deep trouble if a conservative columnist pronounces this sort of judgment on his judgment. How do you come back when you've been described as leaving common sense and common decency behind -- by one of your own party?

It's going to take an awful lot of Rovian spin to get this one out of the ditch.

Ralph

Israel I: Young American Jews and Zionism

Peter Beinert teaches journalism and political science at CUNY and is a senior fellow at the New American Foundation. He was formerly editor of The New Republic, and he mentions in the article that his family attends an Orthodox Jewish synagogue.

In an article in The New York Review of Books, June 10, 2010, Beinert examines the changing views toward Israel and Zionism among young American Jews. Frank Luntz studied attitudes of Jewish college students about their Jewishness and about Israel. In groups of students they brought together to discuss those topics, the most characteristic attitude toward Israel was indifference.

“Six times the topic of Israel did not come up until it was prompted. Six times these Jewish youth used the word ‘they‘ rather than ‘us‘ to describe the situation.”

In 2008 at Brandeis, the only non-sectarian, Jewish sponsored university in the U.S., the student senate rejected a resolution commemorating the sixtieth anniversary of the Jewish state.

Because this contrasts so sharply with the vigorous support for Israel among older Jews in the U.S., particularly those affiliated with groups like AIPAC, Luntz attempted to explain the difference. He found that the college students want the right to question Israeli policies and actions, they resist "group think," they desperately want there to be peace, and they have more empathy for the plight of the Palestinians.

In short, concludes Beinert:

Most of the students, in other words, were liberals, broadly defined. They had imbibed some of the defining values of American Jewish political culture: a belief in open debate, a skepticism about military force, a commitment to human rights. And in their innocence, they did not realize that they were supposed to shed those values when it came to Israel. The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was a Zionism that recognized Palestinians as deserving of dignity and capable of peace, and they were quite willing to condemn an Israeli government that did not share those beliefs. Luntz did not grasp the irony. The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was the kind that the American Jewish establishment has been working against for most of their lives. . . .

For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door, and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead. . . .

Saving liberal Zionism in the United States—so that American Jews can help save liberal Zionism in Israel—is the great American Jewish challenge of our age. And it starts where Luntz’s students wanted it to start: by talking frankly about Israel’s current government, by no longer averting our eyes.

The long article goes on, but this is the take home message, in my opinion. It was particularly of interest to me, because years ago I ended my subscription to The New Republic at a time when Beinert was the young editor, in the position that Andrew Sullivan had once occupied and also left.

I didn't end my subscription because of Beinert, however; he was very smart and informed and wrote well. He more or less followed TNR's character: liberal on social issues, hawkish on foreign/military policy. They favored invading Iraq. I could abide that, because it gave me the other side's argument about the war without all the other right-wing crap. What I could not longer abide was the absolute knee-jerk reaction of the owner and publisher Martin Peretz toward any criticism of Israel and his viciousness in denouncing anyone who dared to stand up for the Palestinians. I don't know how long Beinert lasted after I quit them, but I notice that he does not list TNR in his bio with this article.

It seems likely that what he describes from the Luntz study may be similar to what he himself experienced as a young editor working for an unyielding, absolute defender of Israel, right or wrong. I do not pretend to know the answers to the problems in the mideast, but I am convinced that Israel-right-or-wrong is not the answer, just as Palestine-right-or-wrong is not the answer either.

Ralph