Wednesday, March 2 2005
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 ( 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

© 2005   All Rights Reserved