"if she would rule on the right side on the life issue, I might look past this racism.."

That's Rush Limbaugh, talking to Sean Hannity, about his possible newfound support for Sonia Sotomayor. Now it seems that Rush is still convinced that she's a racist. Of course, that is completely ludicrous, as I don't believe at all that Sotomayor is a racist (or a reverse racist). That being said, I'm not sure what's worse--that Rush thinks Sotomayor's a racist, or that he's apparently willing to overlook her supposed racism in the service of another potential pro-life vote on the Supreme Court.

Glad to see your principles are in check. Sigh.

HT: Althouse

About That Saddleback Forum Saturday Night...

OK, I'm pretty sure most watched, or at least heard about the Saddleback Forum at Rick Warren's church Saturday night, and the continuing controversies. I watched it, and just had some quick thoughts:

I thought Rick Warren did a good job. He was trying to create a civil discourse with both candidates, and I thought he did that to the best of his ability. As to the debate itself, I thought both did a good job, although as far as getting done politically what needed to get done, McCain did better than Obama. Despite the growing consensus in many quarters, I don't think Obama did that bad, although he did make some missteps. First off, let me say that McCain had some implicit advantages in some of the questions.

I don't mean that there was cheating or foul play afoot (I'll deal with that in a moment), but I think certain questions intrinsically favored McCain. The "gut wrenching decision" question is an example. I've no doubt that Obama wrestled with the decision to support the Iraq war, but that doesn't really compare with the decision to turn down early release from that Vietnamese prison camp. It just doesn't. There's really nothing Obama could've done to counter that, although I find myself wishing he had a better answer. In fact, Obama had no real legislative authority to effect the decision to go to war (Not that settling the moral question in one's heart and mind isn't a serious one), so the effect is diminished slightly. Some may balk at this, but I think he should've mentioned his decision to break with his former church. Surely it would've opened him up to more scrutiny by his opponents, but I take Obama at his word on his explanation of why he left Trinity.

The gay marriage answer was pretty good, although he did stumble through the last part. McCain does get a benefit on the gay marriage, abortion, and the question of judges, because his views on those issues are more in line with those of the audience. McCain is pro-life, and has a 20-plus year pro-life record. It's easier for him to explain that.

Staying on the abortion question, I think Obama's biggest gaffe was the obvious one, the "above my pay grade" answer, to Rick Warren's question. That was a sloppy mistake. I know what he was trying to say (it's up to God), but it came off as evasive, cold, and stupid. I think Ann Althouse hits the nail with her explanation:

Now, let's also look at Rick Warren's rhetoric. He asked, after a preface about abortion, "when does a baby get human rights in your view?" And, most obviously, his use of "baby" instead of "fetus" or at least "unborn baby" conveys a lot of opinion. But look at what else Warren is doing. He is not asking when does life begin?, a question that is much more susceptible to Obama's answer that only God knows. Warren is asking when do rights begin? That makes it a legal question. And Warren even appends the phrase "in your view."

So Obama's answer — that it's not for him to say — is inapt. Obama answered the question he expected to hear. But Warren had the wit to frame the question in terms of a legal opinion that Obama was fully equipped to give. When does the baby have legal rights?

Exactly. Warren was prepared, and asked a question Obama apparently wasn't ready for. Obama answered the question he either thought was asked, or thought should be asked, and missed it on this one. Warren himself expounds on Obama's answer(link via Althouse):

No. I think he needed to be more specific on that. I happen to disagree with Barack on that. Like I said, he's a friend. But to me, I would not want to die and get before God one day and go, 'Oh, sorry, I didn't take the time to figure out' because if I was wrong then it had severe implications to my leadership if I had the ability to do something about it. He should either say, 'No scientifically, I do not believe it's a human being until X' or whatever it is or to say, 'Yes, I believe it is a human being at X point,' whether it's conception or anything else. But to just say 'I don't know' on the most divisive issue in America is not a clear enough answer for me.

Nope, not clear enough at all.

However, as I saw it, those were his only major gaffes. I do think he had a different attitude about the debate than McCain did, that may count as a mistake. I do think some of his answers, particularly his foreign policy answers, were a but too abstract and philosophic, while McCain went directly to policy and specifics. When asked about evil, McCain went directly to 9/11 and al-qaeda. McCain mentioned Russia and Georgia. McCain sounded forceful on those answers. Obama's answers weren't bad, it's just that McCain seemed to keep the focus on the issues at hand. I still hesitate somewhat to call this a mistake on Obama's part, as both candidates have different approaches, and had different tasks during the debate. McCain saw this as his opportunity to shore up his evangelical base, and the talk from many righties is that they like what they saw. Obama had to make a good impression with evangelical voters, ans he may have hurt himself somewhat with the abortion answer, and the dis to Clarence Thomas.

Not that most conservatives were going to vote for Obama, anyway.


A quick point about the cheating controversy. I don't believe it. While it's apparently true that McCain wasn't in the "cone of silence," Rick Warren says he took real steps to keep McCain from hearing Obama, and I believe him. McCain says he didn't hear the questions, and I believe him as well. Also, I wonder what difference it would have made. I think those amongst the Obama circles who advance this story aren't helping, as it makes Obama look whiny and weak.

All in all, mistakes included, they both did a decent job. Besides, I think Ann is right when she points this out:

There were many other differences on display at the forum. Compare their answers on abortion and their efforts to put a number on "rich." It's this displaying of differences that matters far more than any conclusions about who won.

Yeah.


ADDED: Sully also misses the point, but Ross Douthat gets it right.

AND: This from Glenn Loury and John McWhorter, on why the dis to Clarence Thomas could be a major disaster.

Tell Me She Didn't Just Say That

Consider this, via Althouse, on Amanda Marcotte's extreme views on abortion:

The underpinnings of the moral angst about abortion — the idea that a woman has no right to pry loose a flag a man has planted in her (even if he agrees with her decision, as most men in this case do), or that she should be punished for having sex — offend me to the core, and that many women go through anguish over getting abortions depresses me.

Ok, I'm trying not to vomit as I write this, but let me deal with this piece by piece. First off, did she just compare a human fetus to a flag planted on a field? Has the debate sunk so far now, that the fetus is reduced even further than a lump of cells, to a flag? Secondly, did I miss something, because I thought it takes two to make a baby. Why is it only the man that "plants the flag?"

As for the third and fourth points, I like Ann's responses:

Well, it offends me to the core that you think material like this helps preserve abortion rights (which I support).

I'm pro-life, for all intents and purposes, but my third point was going to be that even most clear-headed pro-choicers would find Marcotte's argument revolting, and Ann's comment here shows that.

The "abortion" shirt[the focus of the underlying post], on the other hand, admits that you've done something for yourself that involved sacrificing what many people believe is another human being. Why do you want to say that by T-shirt? In Marcotte's view, it's to show that you're proud of "taking care" of yourself "despite all the misogynist messages out there." I thought it was more to normalize abortion — to make it seem ordinary, widespread, and something that would be done without shame by nice, upstanding women.

Exactly. In Marcotte's moral sideshow of a universe, abortion is some sort of a moral smackdown to the "entrenched misygonist patriarchy" that supposedly punishes women with babies (fetuses?) they supposedly don't want, and she laments that women have the audacity to find ending the lives in their womb problematic. How dare they act like mothers? Don't they know that sex...oh I'd better stop here, before I say something that gets me in trouble

“Why do you think you didn’t give a speech like this in, say, May or June of 2004?”

Asks E.J Dionne, in response to these recent comments by John Kerry on abortion, and the Democratic Party's position on life issues:


I think we have been guilty in the party and individually at times of being overly pro-choice and this is the way it is and we’re not going to do x, y or z, without honoring the deeply held beliefs that are legitimate that go to the question of the killing of a human being, depending on what you believe. And I understand it depends on what you believe. But if you believe it, I think you do have an obligation to say so in terms of wanting fewer abortions, of trying to say abortion is not good, it’s not a good alternative, and what we need to do is make sure people have other alternatives and other options. That’s where you can find a lot of common ground because there are 1.3 million abortions in this country, and I don’t think anybody would disagree that that is too many.

As Bill Clinton framed it, I thought so effectively, in 1992, it ought to be rare, legal and safe. Rare has been missing from the debate. I think we need to figure out how we’re going to do that, and do it in a more effective way.

I still remember vividly that third debate between Kerry and Bush, when he answered that question on abortion. It was like watching an animal being tortured. I felt literal pain watching that. This is still somewhat nuanced and clunky, but a quantum leap from the fall of 2004. It's much too late at this point (which was Dionne's point), but he does get a lot closer to full coherence this time.

UPDATE: I should mention that for all intents and purposes I am a pro-life Democrat, so I still have some issues with this position, but I still think it is a big step compared to his last statement on the issue.

Imus as Lefty Scalp?

There's an interesting twist to the Imus controversy brewing. Tammy Bruce argues that Imus was merely a target of the far-left, because Imus represents the centrist wing of the Democratic Party, and the hard-left has placed anyone to the right of them (liberal hawks, Lieberman, DLC, et al) on their hit list. Frankly, I find the assertion that Imus was sacked by the anti-war, activist Left kind of dubious. Don't get me wrong, I count myself as a loyal member of the centrist, Lieberman-Harold Ford-DLC wing of the Party, and I am well aware of the machinery of attack dogs on the Left (as well as the Right, BTW) that have committed themselves to marginalizing and destroying anyone who dares hope for victory in Iraq, doesn't think Bush is pure evil, or dissent from the MoveOn-Kos party line. The civil war is indeed on, and I've felt the wrath.

The thing is, I just don't see Don Imus fitting in to this.

First off, we can debate whether his punishment was too harsh, but it's not as if Imus is the victim here. I fail to see how calling the Rutgers team "nappy headed hos," makes him a standardbearer of the sensible wing of the Democratic Party. FRankly, I find that insulting. Truly, Harold Ford and Imus are friends, and Harold Ford certainly represents the center, but Imus? I just don't see it. Besides, Imus wasn't so much a foe of the liberal elite--in many ways he provided them a forum. All the major Democratic candidates have been featured guests. Even John Kerry just said Imus shouldn't have been fired, and would've have gone back on the show if asked. Kerry isn't exactly a member of the Lieberman camp, is he?

Oh, and Tom DeLay and Ann Coulter as victims? No, I'm not buying that either.

The larger Imus controversy is a story for another post (coming soon, I swear), along with a post on the neccessity of Lieberman Dems. This point was interesting, though:

Relevance: Media Matters had a staffer whose job was to record Don Imus and listen for gaffes. He found one, alerted the media, and the rest is history. For icing on the cake, the Soros-funded group tried to convince everyone that Imus is a conservative. Imus is to Media Matters’ political right, but then again so is the entire country.

Yeah, that's true.

P.S.: The SCOTUS just upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion. You wanna see lefty outrage and hysteria? Follow this story.

See? I told you so.

UPDATE: Imus may not be a lefty scalp, but Jason Whitlock makes a serious case why he's just a sacrifical lamb upon the altar of politics, in order for some black leaders to feel good about themselves, while ignoring the real problem. Let me say this: If Imus' firing was a part of a sincere campaign to redeem the culture, than I'm cool with that, but if were going to stop with him, and this was all a stunt, then Imus needs to get his job back, and this really has been one big sham. I sure hope not.