Wednesday,
March 2 2005
MORE THOUGHTS ON KERRY, DOWD, AND THAT PESKY 180: Mickey
Kaus has been on the Form 180 story for a while, speculating
that it could be the linchpin of a strategy among anti-Kerry Dems
to keep him out of the 2008 Presidential race. As usual, I think
Mickey is on to something.
Here's
a further thought: Jerome Corsi (co-author of Unfit For Command)
has said he's
thinking about moving to Massachusetts and challenging Kerry in
2008. It's probably safe to say that pigs will take flight
before Corsi wins in Massachusetts, regardless of whether Kerry
signs Form 180 or not.
But
if Kerry continues to stonewall and obfuscate, a primary challenge
by a young, ambitious Massachusetts Democrat in 2008 could be
a slightly different matter...
In
a related post, Tom
Maguire explains
how the Democrats could reap a benefit if Kerry would just take
one for the team and sign the form. Maguire is right when he says
that whatever information is contained in Kerry's military records
(like a dishonorable discharge that was upgraded years later)
is unlikely to be so damaging as to cripple his Senate reelection
bid.
Personally, now that Kerry lost the election I don't really care
what is in his files. That said, I still think it is an absolute
outrage that this man ran for president using his military service
as the cornerstone of his candidacy and the media didn't bother
to require him to provide full and complete access to his records.
That is a courtesy we've not seen the media extend to other presidential
candidates, nor does it comport with their supposed desire to
"inform the public."
And now the issue is about whether John Kerry is going to be held
to his repeated public promises (ones he certainly did not have
to make at this point) to fully release his records by signing
Form 180.
Finally,
a question for Maureen Dowd: IF there is something damaging in
Kerry's military records, and IF Karl Rove is as evil and underhanded
as you say, and IF Bush has been creating a "Potemkin press"
that includes right-wing ringers like Jeff Gannon who are used
to disseminate slime and sludge leaked from the administration,
and IF the Bushies are so desperately craven they will do anything
to retain power, IF all of these things are true then why have
John Kerry's military records remained safely private this entire
time? Just asking.
A
$64 THOUSAND DOLLAR QUESTION: You'll never guess who
said this:
"America
has done more good for the rest of the world than any other
society. The single biggest gift that America has shared with
the impoverished billions on our planet is hope.
At
the end of the Cold War, America made an awesome strategic error:
It decided to behave like an ordinary country. There is nothing
inherently wrong with behaving like an ordinary country, especially
a peaceful ordinary country. The only problem is that, over
the course of 200 years, America had succeeded in convincing
mankind that it was an extraordinary country."
Bill Kristol?
Nope. Charles Krauthammer or Paul Wolfowitz? No and no. Try Kishore
Mahbubani, Singapore’s former Ambassador to the United
Nations. There's more to the interview worth reading.
A
BIAS I'VE NOT SEEN BEFORE: This is remarkable. Today's
Louisville Courier-Journal runs an
op-ed by Harry Binswanger from the Ayn Rand Institute viciously
attacking the Ten Commandments:
The
first commandment is: "I am the Lord thy God."
As
first, it is the fundamental. Its point is the assertion that
the individual is not an independent being with a right to live
his own life but the vassal of an invisible Lord. It says, in
effect, "I own you; you must obey me."
Could
America be based on this? Is such a servile idea even consistent
with what America represents: the land of the free, independent,
sovereign individual who exists for his own sake? The question
is rhetorical.
Binswanger
goes on to conclude, as only a true disciple of Rand's objectivism
could, that the Ten Commandments are "the polar opposite
of the philosophy underlying the American ideal of a free society."
The Courier
Journal has every right to publish this piece, though I think
it's safe to say that most of their readers (if not most Kentuckians)
will find Binswanger's views to be quite distasteful if not outright
offensive. So why did they do it? The answer lies in the final
sentence of the attribution:
The
writer is a member of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand
Institute (www.aynrand.org) and teaches philosophy at ARI's
Objectivist Graduate Center. The Institute promotes the ideas
of Ayn Rand -- best-selling author of "Atlas Shrugged"
and "The Fountainhead" and originator of the philosophy
she called "Objectivism." She is a particular
favorite of Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher.
At this point
do we even need to point out that Governor Fletcher is a Republican?
I didn't think so. - T. Bevan 10:32 am Link
| Email | Send
to a Friend
