The Toady

Here's why Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech is backfiring: Bullies don't respect their toadies.

The speech includes some decent stretches, but it was not, primarily, a courageous plea for religious tolerance and mutual respect. It was, instead, primarily an obsequious bit of sucking up by an outsider hoping to curry favor with the in crowd by parroting their condemnation of other outsiders.

Romney's appeal was directed at the evangelical Republican voting bloc -- in particular to the "America is a Christian nation" crowd. He set the tone with this David Barton-ish riff:

There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator.

That prefaces the heart of the speech, a somewhat garbled rehash of the religious right's use of "accommodationist" arguments as a Trojan horse:

... In recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain [sic] any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation "Under God" and in God, we do indeed trust.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders -- in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from "the God who gave us liberty."

Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. ...

Romney's use of the dog-whistle term "heritage" is another Barton-ish touch, reinforcing the godandcountry civil religious theme of the preceding paragraphs. That bit about "judges who respect the foundation of faith" seems like a shout-out to the Roy Moore lunatic fringe.

For a religious minority like Romney, this is playing with fire. People like Barton and Moore don't like people like Mitt Romney. They consider Mormons a threat to their imagined "Christian nation" -- just as much of a threat as "secular humanists." For these people -- the target audience of Romney's speech -- Mormons and atheists are not real Americans. Romney lacks the courage or the conviction to challenge their narrow, revisionist, unconstitutional construct of Christian America, so instead he attempts to squirm his way inside their exclusive circle.

Romney's gambit here comes straight from the school yard. As a Mormon, he is an outsider, getting picked on by the bullies of the religious right. Instead of standing up to the bullies, he sucks up to them, trying to prove his loyalty and win their approval by acting like them and picking on the other outcasts and outsiders. "You guys want to pretend that 'secular' and 'profane' are synonyms? I can do that. Look, I'll even beat up this atheist kid for you. See? I'm just like you guys!"

This desperate, canine obsequiousness infuses his sniveling speech with fearfulness and flopsweat. Romney is pleading, begging to be allowed to serve as the bullies' toady. As far as that goes, he has probably succeeded. Eager-to-please toadies can come in handy, so the bullies will probably be willing to accept him in that capacity.

But as useful as they may sometimes be, toadies are never liked, respected or admired by the bullies. Nobody likes or respects or admires an unprincipled coward. And the characteristics of a successful toady don't fit with anybody's notion of the characteristics of a potential president. A toady can't get elected president (the best he can hope for is a Connecticut senate seat).

Hence the speech is backfiring. I don't know enough about the relative importance of the religious right in the Republican Iowa caucuses to speculate on what this speech will mean for Romney there on Jan. 14 Jan. 3, but wherever that voting bloc is strong, he will lose.

Comments

[Jesurgislac]

What makes you say it's backfiring, Fred? Not that I don't believe you: but all of the reactions I've seen so far from the religious right have been very positive.

[Steve]

Fred, why do you not yet have a column in a major newspaper? Your daily insights and perspectives are so refreshing. Oh wait, I think I just answered my question.

[Toby]

He should remain on our currency...

The Pharisees sent their disciples, saying, "Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Washington, or not?" But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, "Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites? Show Me the money used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a dollar bill. And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" They said to Him, "Washington's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Washington the things that are Washington's; and to God the things that are God's."

Then they responded, "Um, but on the other side it says 'In God we trust.'" And He said, "Oh. Right. Who the heck put that there, anyway? But, OK, yeah, that pretty much ruins my whole point. See, I'd wanted to use this as a sort of lesson pointing to how My Kingdom is not of this world, how it transcends worldly politics, and whatnot. But never mind that now."

[Brian J.]

Fred, first off, the Iowa caucus is on January 3rd, not the 14th.

Romney's speech will fail for the obvious reason- who needs potentially contaminated American Christian Hate from a Mormon like Romney when Mike Huckabee offers it in a purer, approved "Baptist" form? Anything Romney can hate, Huckabee can hate more intensely.

Hillary Clinton will be the target of at least one assassination attempt by American Christians in 2008. Probably more. Her moral superiority to American Christians is galling, and they will respond in the time-tested way of the American Christian- with hatred and (they hope) death.

[Blackadder]

Huckabee:

Anything you can hate I can hate better -
I can hate anything better than you!

[Scott]

I hear Southern Baptists are a good source of Mormon converts (if you want conservative patriarchy, and the SBaps don't do it for you, where do you turn?), hence the thin ice Romney is skating on.

[Jesurgislac]

Brian: Hillary Clinton will be the target of at least one assassination attempt by American Christians in 2008.

I can't think of any surer way of making her popular enough to win election in November. (Whether that means she gets to be President is, of course, quite another matter.)

[Ecks]

Yeah, if assassination attempts can make dutch fascists ridiculously popular, it'd probably work for AAmerican liberals too. The cult of the victim is pretty strong in the states methinks.

[A Texan in Bavaria]

Scott: I hear Southern Baptists are a good source of Mormon converts

Funny you should mention that - back in my Southern Baptist childhood, my youth group choir went on a tour/mission trip to sister churches in Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho and Utah. Ostensibly, we were there to sing and run Vacation Bible School for these much smaller churches. We went door-to-door in the surrounding neighborhoods inviting families to VBS and oh, by the way, church on Sunday.

Beforehand, we were thoroughly lectured on Mormonism, particularly focused on its shortcomings (the very patriarchal nature was not mentioned, aside from the more unique elements of Mormon theology concerning eternal marriage). I'm sure a lot of the intention was to inoculate us against the LDS counter-pitch, and not just help us more ably argue our position. Of course we were psyched that we were going to be winning Mormon souls for the "real" Jesus, and didn't consider this other reason for all the info about the LDS church...

I hate door-to-door sales, whether it was candy bars for band or my particular brand of Christianity.

That's possibly how I ended up in IT and the Episcopal Church :) I try to stay as far as possible from sales...

[mcc]

I, too, am curious how one tells whether Romney's speech was a success or is backfiring or what. I know none of the bloggers I follow liked it, but none of them are people whose votes Romney is trying to maintain at this point. (Although it's maybe interesting by itself that Romney is not interested in maintaining the votes of the Andrew Sullivans of the world.)

How was Ronmey's speech received among its target audience-- religious right conservatives? How do we even tell? Personally I haven't really been paying enough attention to the right lately to know what the good bellwether sources are anymore-- and given that the right seems to be increasingly fragmented these days I don't know if any reliable bellwethers of the right even exist anymore. I do know James Dobson and Pat Buchanan liked the speech, but I don't know what that counts for at this point.

Of course, I'm not even sure what the criteria for success on Romney's speech is. I'm not even honestly sure what the goals of the speech were anymore. Unless the point of Romney's speech was just to do something that gets the media to focus on him and not Mike Huckabee for a few days. If that was the point, he succeeded.

[Mark]

"He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places."

Someone should tell him he missed the shout out to minarets and funny underwear (though maybe that's not so welcome in public places); hooray for monoconglomeratiethieism!

(I'm not sure I what I mean by that, I just find it odd he feels the need to reference two religions when talking about America's supposed solely Christian religious history)

[Drak Pope]

The problem with Romney isn't that he can't win the primary based entirely on his toadying -- politicians in general and the religious right in particular like to have toadies, and they might promote him to the Republican nomination if they think that they can keep him dancing like a little dancing dance-monkey for them. The problem is that he has to be in thrall to people who don't like him and "his kind" for a long time in order to do so (something that might offend him and the Mormons). Huckabee doesn't have this problem, and has the additional advantage of being more in-line with traditional Republican values than Romney was until just recently. The right might go for Romney, but they don't have to, and that's always going to make their relationship unequal.

[Ecks]

Looked at the national review website. Two stories on Mitt. one says it was a success. It may have had a minor contradiction or two, and it probably won't get him far with the fundies, but at least it showed that he is not infinitely flexible, that he has a soul and is willing to take a stand. Funny, about the opposite of Fred's take. I guess different criteria for whether the 'stand' he took is inherently the least bit credible.

The other is insider politickery stuff about whether he did a dirty campaign trick push poll, or whether it was someone else trying to axe him... which is interesting only for it's insider detailing of the mechanics of dirty republican campaign tricks, and ts insights into how these guys really actually seem to operate. It's really very sophisticated psychology these guys have worked out. Impressive in a totally depressing way.

[Funkula]

"A toady can't get elected president (the best he can hope for is a Connecticut senate seat)."

Buuuurn.

[Tonio]

I'm truly confused - I thought that Mormons WERE part of "America is a Christian nation" crowd. While I don't know much about the church's doctrines, from my limited reading the Mormons seem to have the same love of theocracy as the fundamentalists. At the least, both groups seem to have the same social agenda - patriarchy, mandatory school prayer, creationism in science classes, Ten Commandments in courtrooms, and so forth. Is this correct?

[Victor]

I agree with you Fred that we are a nation "Under God" and in God, we do indeed trust. All we need now is to find out who the real God is! Could the real God be Three Gods in One like The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit? Wouldn’t it be something if He actually knew our beginning and our end but at the same time gave us all free will! Could it be that He takes our pass and our future and wraps it up into one daily “Present” according to what we do within our reality for eternity? Wouldn’t that be like having a spiritual Christmas every day or possibly something else?

There’s no way that we could even think of being formed in His Image as some have suggested, could it be? If we do get to live forever Fred after our seed dies, what would you like to be doing for your first 2000 years?

I think that we just better stick to believing in me, myself and I cause it would be way too hard on the human brain to think otherwise. The anxiety would be so great that the head would probably explode while waiting for “The Judgement Day”. You know what I mean Bert!? (l0l!)

Forgive me for dreaming out loud again in technicolor folks!

[Spalanzani]

Victor: "Forgive me for dreaming out loud again in technicolor folks!"

Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

[cminus]

I'm truly confused - I thought that Mormons WERE part of "America is a Christian nation" crowd. While I don't know much about the church's doctrines, from my limited reading the Mormons seem to have the same love of theocracy as the fundamentalists. At the least, both groups seem to have the same social agenda - patriarchy, mandatory school prayer, creationism in science classes, Ten Commandments in courtrooms, and so forth. Is this correct?

Yes and no. Mainstream Mormon political thought is certainly theocratic, but it's actually got more in common with Catholic theocracy than fundamentalist Protestant theocracy. Like their Catholic counterparts, Mormon theocrats hew to strongly patriarchal positions when it comes to issues of sexuality and gender, but take the official line that the Bible contains figurative language and that evolutionary theory is not inconsistent with their religion (although they're less committed to this bit of progressivism than the Catholics are). In addition, while the Mormon church has a quasi-official role in Utah and keeps the state ACLU very busy, outside of Utah the Mormons, like the Catholics, have enough experience with being a religious minority in America to be afraid that public displays of religious sentiment will be devised to exclude them. For example, in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, the 2000 case where the Supreme Court ruled that public prayer before a public high school football game violated the Establishment Clause, the plaintiffs were local Catholic and Mormon families who charged that the prayers were explicitly sectarian and part of an established preference for evangelical Protestantism.

Now, that said, there's a growing tendency in America for Mormons and right-wing Catholics to adopt positions from the fundamentalist Protestants who are their allies in the culture wars, even when it's not theologically necessary (or, in some cases, even when it violates their church's teachings), so rank-and-file Mormon conservatives may be more consonant with the rest of the "America is a Christian Nation" crowd than would be true of, say, the faculty at BYU.

[ChristianPinko]

And, speaking of groveling before bullies . . . ladies and gentlemen, YOUR Democratic leadership!!!

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012667.php

[Mabus]

We have, indeed, had, for many centuries past, many nations called Christian nations; but we must fearlessly ask, at what font were they baptized? Who were there godfathers? In what record are their sponsors registered? Aye, these, indeed, are preliminary questions that demand a grave and profound consideration. That there are many nations that have Christian communities in them is a proposition which we most cheerfully and thankfully admit. By a common figure of speech, we also give to that which contains anything the name of the thing contained in it....So we have - if anyone contend for the name - as many Christian nations as we have Christian communities in different nations, and as many Jewish nations as we have nations with Jewish synagogues in them, and as many Mohammedan nations as we have nations containing mosques in them. But, according to this rhetorical figure, we may have a Christian and a Mohammedan nation, in one and the same nation, as we sometimes find both a Jewish and a Christian synagogue in the same nation. But a rhetorical Christian nation and a proper and unfigurative Christian nation are very different entities. A proper literal Christian nation is not found in any country under the whole heavens. There is, indeed, one Christian nation, composed of all the Christian communities and individuals in the whole earth.

--from Campbell's "Address on War"

[Jesurgislac]

Thanks for the heads-up, Mabus - here's a link to the full text.

[Nick]

"flopsweat" is my new favourite word.

[Tonio]

Aggressive boys ... make less use of relevant information - that is, they rely more on what they expect to see than on relevant social cues, such as the boy's facial expression or tone of voice.

Wouldn't that description also apply to children of both genders who have abusive parents?

[Tonio]

Sorry - that post was intended for the Nick Lowe "Cruel to be Kind" thread...

[Geds]

Fred (and Tonio, I think):

You forget one thing: Mormons have spent a good deal of their history trying to toady to Protestant Christianity and getting burned by the same. Mormons have the same Bible as part of their canon, use a lot of the same words and try to keep the fact that they use them in different ways quiet and, in general, try to claim to be a part of the Christian sphere.

For their troubles they were chased out of the east, then Ohio, then fought a war in Illinois and ended up in the middle of a desert. A hundred and a half years later most of the US still doesn't like or trust them much. Either way, it looks kind of like Romney is simply following the blueprint Mormonism has constructed itself with from the very beginning.

[Mark Foxwell]

I'm just bemused at any version of right-wing Christian Dominionism that seriously thinks it can take over and keep control of the USA without including both the (right-wing parts of) Mormonism and Catholicism. With the rightist establishment of both these denominations included, the notion of a Christofascist coalition attempting rule is plausible and frightening; without either, it would be mighty flaky and unstable.

Perhaps I overestimate how numerous and established LDS is because I live on the West coast, in California. But at any rate--just try and dominate the rest of us around here without the Mormons on board! Without the Catholic Church as well, no way could they begin to rule any part of California, and I suspect that's true in many key locations in the East as well.

But the whole mindset of dominionism tends toward sectarian splitting anyway.

I actually don't think that Christian Dominionism is a truly religious phenomenon, however intensely its core devotees see things in a religious-ideological way. It only gets traction and influence in our society because quite irreligious reactionary elements see it as a useful tool for dominating the rest of us; such Phariseeical power brokers might well cement a working deal between the divergent versions of authoritarian Christiandom. But it would always be in danger of taking itself seriously and lashing out both against its secular powers behind the throne and its own diversity.

As I said back at Pandagon some months ago, when Romney came under attack by these fundies for not being "Christian" by their lights, I don't know whether to cheer at the disunity of such potentially threatening forces, cry at the mean-spirited bigotry (I don't have to like or respect LDS theology to respect their claim to be Christian on their own say-so, though I suppose if I were some kind of Real True Christian myself I'd dismiss it--along with every other denomination not my own of course!) or just laugh at the absurdity of the angel-counting hairsplitting and mutual recriminations flung about "proving" who is and isn't "Christian." A less Christian spirit, in the positive sense I was told as a Catholic school kid of course characterized Christians, is hard to imagine--though any glance at history tells us this is damn typical of the whole set of denominations.

Which has a lot to do with why I never claim to be any kind of Christian whatsoever.

They're coming to get me I guess, if only they can stop knifing each other and slipping in the blood before they catch me.

[Tonio]

Thanks, Geds and Cminus. I guess I had been thinking of Mormonism as similar to Catholicism socially - both have experience in America of being persecuted minorities, yet both have hierarchies that seem autocratic. In the case of Mormonism, that would make sense as a defense mechanism. But the experience of Catholics as a minority is fairly unique to England and America.

[Robin Lionheart]

That prefaces the heart of the speech, a somewhat garbled rehash of the religious right’s use of “accommodationist” arguments as a Trojan horse:

... In recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain [sic] any acknowledgment of God.

That’s not a “Trojan horse”, that’s a “straw man”.

Tonio: But the experience of Catholics as a minority is fairly unique to England and America.

They've also had a bit of it in Germany (courtesy Bismarck's "Kulturkampf," the first declared "Culture War"), which encouraged many German Catholics to consider relocation.

[Ecks]

@Mark Foxwell

Interesting insights. I'd never thought to put it all together quite like that. Thanks!

[A Texan in Bavaria]

12:00 PM was me.

[Blackadder]

Apart from the differences Mormons may have with the Religious Right, many members of the Religious Right have long considered the Mormons to be a "cult" (that is, the wrong cult) and not "real Christians." It's hard to see them embracing a Mormon candidate when push comes to shove.

[Vermic]

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation "Under God" and in God, we do indeed trust.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders -- in ceremony and word.

Now imagine, with amusement, the firestorm that would erupt if these same words were to be spoken by a Muslim candidate.

[Lee Ratner]

I really wish that comparrisons between the Christian evangelicals and the Pharisees would stop. The Pharisees were scholars genuinely interested
in understanding God through his law. The debates between the Pharisees and the intricasies of the Torah might seem more than a little arcane and esoteric but following the Torah is important to Jews and by going into all the nuances of the Torah the Pharisees were helping Jews. This includes expansions on the ethical laws in the Torah.

Finally, the Pharisees cared about the poor and the evangelicals do not.

[Mabus]

I'm just bemused at any version of right-wing Christian Dominionism that seriously thinks it can take over and keep control of the USA without including both the (right-wing parts of) Mormonism and Catholicism. With the rightist establishment of both these denominations included, the notion of a Christofascist coalition attempting rule is plausible and frightening; without either, it would be mighty flaky and unstable.

As I've said before in a rather different context, Mark, evangelical churches are simply not structured in a way that allows for the kind of control hard-core Dominionists want. They are heavily-decentralized organizations that actually fear centralized power (at least in the church; some of them favor it in government; this is also at least part of the reason that Mormonism and Catholicism disturb them).

Right-wing theocons can only achieve power in America by working through the grassroots, via the power of persuasion, to convince large numbers of people that they have the same interests. For this very reason they do not see themselves as "theocrats", since they cannot acquire institutional power without violating their own principles. As far as they are concerned, they are perfectly in obedience to separation of church and state--they simply coincide with a powerful voting bloc.

[Mabus]

Jesu: Thanks for the heads-up, Mabus - here's a link to the full text.

You're welcome. I didn't post a link myself because the full text actually leans more in Scott's direction than anything. Campbell states outright that all national governments are doomed to fall in short order, and that the American Revolution was the beginning of that fall. It appears he expected that monarchy would be replaced by republicanism, authoritarian republicanism by libertarianism, and finally libertarianism by theocratic anarchy. How he expected this to happen without war, I can't say....*rolls eyes*

[Ecks]

Through the inevitable synthesis of opposing theses of course! It's science! I believe the early libertarian scholars Hegel and Marx were very clear about all of this.

/snark

[Mabus]

Hehe. Funny, Ecks.

Campbell's not very consistent on war, but he doesn't seem to realize it. He supported the idea of an international court, for instance, but apparently he never stopped to ask how that court would enforce its judgements on a recalcitrant nation.

Pretty much all pacifist sentiment in the Churches of Christ has tended toward libertarian anarchism, which is why there's no point in speaking up for it here even if I believed in it.

[Ecks]

eh... well, not much point if you didn't want people trying to poke holes in it. We're good at poking holes in libertarian anarchism. We've done it lots of times now, and nobody has ever come back with any coherent answer to the criticisms. <shrug> Cain't really blame that on us now can you.

[Mabus]

Ecks> Not blaming you at all... My point is simply that I can't consistently with my other beliefs reject war except on the libertarian-anarchist grounds that use of coercive force is per se immoral even when the government does it. So I end up defending war in a room full of pacifists, or else defending libertarianism in a room full of liberals. Either way, I'm always gonna be the odd man out here.

[Ecks]

What about condemning it as a massive human tragedy that leads to huge suffering and destruction even for those who had no truck with the original dispute?

On any humane or moral level, war is clearly a horrible and wrong thing. The *only* respectable defense of it is that it is sometimes the lesser of two evils, and therefore in that speccific case, a highly unfortunate necessity. Going to war to stop the genocide in Darfur, for example, I would regard as justifiable. Gooing to war because we think that you pinched a bit of land from us 600 years ago, and we want it back.. not so much.

[Ian]

Consistent nonresistance to evil, be it a threat from your own government or from a nasty foreign invader, is defensible and admirable. Notably, people who actually live this out tend not to be libertarian individualists.

Campbell's international court could not impose its judgments by force, but "war is a game that, were their subjects wise, kings would not play at." A genuinely Christian citizenry could impose the just verdict of an international tribunal on its government.

I would say that Campbell's proposal for conflict resolution is absurd, but crazier things have happened.

[Ian]

Consistent nonresistance to evil, be it a threat from your own government or from a nasty foreign invader, is defensible and admirable. Notably, people who actually live this out tend not to be libertarian individualists.

Campbell's international court could not impose its judgments by force, but "war is a game that, were their subjects wise, kings would not play at." A genuinely Christian citizenry could impose the just verdict of an international tribunal on its government.

I would say that Campbell's proposal for conflict resolution is absurd, but crazier things have happened.

[Ian]

Consistent nonresistance to evil, be it a threat from your own government or from a nasty foreign invader, is defensible and admirable. Notably, people who actually live this out tend not to be libertarian individualists.

Campbell's international court could not impose its judgments by force, but "war is a game that, were their subjects wise, kings would not play at." A genuinely Christian citizenry could impose the just verdict of an international tribunal on its government.

I would say that Campbell's proposal for conflict resolution is absurd, but crazier things have happened.

[Ian]

Consistent nonresistance to evil, be it a threat from your own government or from a nasty foreign invader, is defensible and admirable. Notably, people who actually live this out tend not to be libertarian individualists.

Campbell's international court could not impose its judgments by force, but "war is a game that, were their subjects wise, kings would not play at." A genuinely Christian citizenry could impose the just verdict of an international tribunal on its government.

I would say that Campbell's proposal for conflict resolution is absurd, but crazier things have happened.

[Mabus]

Ecks, my first-blush counter-attack to that would be that the most-just response to a murderous dictator (the usual cause of a lesser-of-two-evils situation) is not war, but assassination. Kill the guilty party, not his oppressed people. Yet for some reason people seem to respond to that with greater disgust.

But more simply, I just kinda agree with you and merely have a broader conception of lesser-of-two-evils than I usually see on this blog. I have never, for instance, had any difficulty with the invasion of Iraq in principle, only that it was badly botched, because I expected the alternative was decades of suffering and death under Saddam and his descendants. Obviously it did not go well, and perhaps I was naive for expecting that it would do so under Bush, but I don't see the outcome as some intrinsic consequence of having a war at all, or even of going against the UN--just as an indicator that Bush is a dumbass who didn't plan properly.

[Ian]

Two more non-libertarian arguments against war:

1) mission creep. Once a war gets started, it's very hard to stop. As the bodies pile up, people are less and less inclined to believe it was all for nothing. A new justification for keeping the war going is never too hard to find. Even fighting a war to stop a massive humanitarian crisis (as Ecks suggests) can turn into something more sinister in this way.

2) unintended consequences.

I'm not a pacifist, but I think that war is hardly ever a good idea.

[Ecks]

Well assasination would be a much neater answer if it was possible (how long did America try to kill Castro & Saddam? How many internal organs would Chavez give to have Bush bumped off?), and if it actually worked - but you'd have to expecct in most places that killing Dear Leader just makes Dear Matyr's Colleague the new hero of the people (not to mention, making the people feel they have to pull together against these outsiders who feel they can walk in and kill US at will).

I sorta agre with you about Iraq. My take in the beginning was that it was highly unlikely to work out how they thought - taking over countries almost never goes smoothly, that it was bound to lead to more complications, chaos and violence, and that they almost certainly weren't doing it for the stated humantarian reasons... BUT that if they COULD go in there and pull off the humanitarian coup, well then power to them, I'd like to see it. On balance that meant I thought it was a horrible idea, but hoped it might work out anyway. Sadly they went and confirmed all my fears instead.

[Ecks]

Ian, motion seconded. From all I've heard of those who have been in it, war is just so much more hell when seen up close than we appreciate, even those of us who regularly walk around saying "war is hell," and mean it.

It's not something to walk into lightly. You have to look at all the consequences, intended and unintended, that are likely to come up from being in war and those from non-action (assuming all non-war actions don't work of course), and decide which set of hurrendous results you're the least willing to live with. It can go either way, and I'm SOOO glad I'm not the one making those decisions, because whatever you DO choose, some extremely bad things are going to wind up gooped all over your hands.

[Jeff]

Nobody likes or respects or admires an unprincipled coward. And the characteristics of a successful toady don't fit with anybody's notion of the characteristics of a potential president. A toady can't get elected president (the best he can hope for is a Connecticut senate seat).

Sorry, but Shrub is a coward and a toady, and it was obvious from when he started running in '99. So clearly, a toady and a coward CAN be President.

I have never, for instance, had any difficulty with the invasion of Iraq in principle, only that it was badly botched, because I expected the alternative was decades of suffering and death under Saddam and his descendants.

And the best way to alleviate that was to make war on the people you want to help? Moreover, Hussein wasn't the worst offender -- the atrocities in the Sudan far out-ranked his piddling efforts. And Rumsfeld and Cheney had aided and abetted Hussein.

At NO point was the war REALLY about ending Hussein's abuse. It was largely about oil, about right-wing Christian theology, about any number of things. But BushCo needed a reason to invade so they came up with this line of crap to see who would bite.