From what I’ve seen, Democratic presidential candidates have been pretty slippery on the subject of Iran — all noncommittal. Even for presidential candidates. Sure, they’re happy to denounce President Bush as a warmonger and a failure — but what would they do?
I think they should be asked quite seriously: “President Bush has said that the United States will not permit Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb — period. Do you support this stand? Or do you think it’s wrong?”
If the presidential campaign goes by without all candidates’ being forced to confront that question, the process will have failed (in my book).
Judge Mukasey has been confirmed as attorney general, with 53 votes. Not voting were the four Democratic senators running for president: Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Dodd. I wonder if they missed the vote for reasons of schedule — they had to be in a Davenport diner or something. Or whether they preferred not to vote at all.
If they vote for Mukasey, they get heat from the “netroots” — from the Democratic-primary Left. If they vote against him: Why have they opposed so conscientious, capable, and patriotic a judge — a man who has been confronting hard issues of terrorism for years?
Sure, all the senators made preliminary statements: “I don’t like him. He’s a threat to children, puppies, and the environment,” etc. But they should be asked: “If you had been there, what would you have done? Voted to confirm Mukasey or against?”
Incidentally, John McCain, a Republican senator who’s running for president, also didn’t vote. Despite his qualms — qualms that I believe were silly — he stated that he would support the nomination.
Speaking of McCain, you know that his mom popped off against Mitt Romney and Mormons. (You can read a story
here.) Momma McCain has been out on the campaign trail with the senator, for the purpose of mitigating the age issue. McCain can say, “You don’t have to worry about my age. You can see how long-lived and robust we McCains are!” But when you use your mom as a prop, you run a little risk.
After his mother’s statement, McCain was sure to remind everyone how old she is. The message: “You can’t hold her accountable for what she says, given her years.” I wonder how the mother felt about that defense.
Anyway, maybe it would be better if we didn’t use our moms as props.
In future weeks — especially if Romney remains strong in the polls — we should expect to hear statements from the other candidates, along the lines of, “I don’t think the governor’s Mormonism should be an issue in this race.” I think of what John Edwards did, in the vice-presidential debate of 2004: He talked about the Cheneys’ gay daughter (he used the word “lesbian”). (At least he didn’t say “lezbo.”)
Question: Was Edwards simply and innocently making a point about gay marriage? Or was he reminding Americans that the Cheneys had a gay daughter?
And when Republican candidates say, “I don’t think the governor’s Mormonism should be an issue in this race,” will they be making a genuine statement about religion and politics — or reminding people that Romney is Mormon?
I believe that Romney should confront the issue of religion head-on at some point; that he should do it boldly, unapologetically. Mormons have been part and parcel of this country for generations; they’re as American as anybody. And he ought to be pretty feisty on the subject — I believe that Americans would respond well.
I myself know very little about Mormonism — like nothing. I do know this: Mormons I have known have struck me as unusually good citizens, good neighbors — good folks. Forgive the generalization, but if it’s positive, isn’t that kind of all right? I have long said: If you break down by the side of the road at midnight, you should hope that a Mormon happens along. You’ll probably get helped.
Fred Thompson said something the other day that impressed me. He was asked about Bernard Kerik, and his tangle with the law. The candidate said, “I heard about it a while ago. It’s been in the news, obviously, for a long time. But I don’t know anything about the facts of that case, and I really can’t comment on it.”
Refreshing. You know, ol’ Fred’s all right.
The Democratic Congress passed a spending bill, and the president vetoed it — and the Congress overrode the veto. And I thought of all those idiot Republicans and conservatives last year who said that the Republicans deserved to be thrown out, because of their big spending. The GOP had to be “punished.” Nice going, guys. Now the country as a whole is punished.
A reader writes, “I’m sure you saw this posted by Mark Steyn today” — this being this. It’s a letter from Jimmy Carter to his sister-in-law, Sybil. It’s an extraordinary document in many ways. For one thing, Carter has that interesting, neat, and excellent handwriting.
I remember the signature well. When Carter lost in 1980, I sent a letter to him, thanking him for his presidency and wishing him well. I had done the same thing for Ford, four years earlier. I was just a kid, and very patriotic. (Also, I think I had a soft spot for losers.) In both instances, the White House sent a letter back. I don’t have those, but I have a strong memory of Carter’s signature — and I’ve seen it in various other places as well, of course.
Anyway . . .
Carter’s opening sentence to Sybil is, “Lamentably, I killed your cat while trying just to sting it.” The second and third sentences are, “It was crouched, as usual, under one of our bird feeders. I fired from some distance with bird shot.”
What I liked was “crouched, as usual” — the note of censure. The note of deflection of blame. So very, very very Carter.
Check this out, y’all:
Jay,
It’s very rare to read a critical word about Castro’s Cuba in a magazine like Sports Illustrated (like I need to tell you that!). [True dat.] So I wanted to be sure you saw something in the November 5 issue. When I read this, I wondered how it made it past the editors.
The piece is about Alberto Salazar, the long-distance runner, and here is what the reader had in mind:
[Salazar’s] father, José, had been a schoolmate of Fidel Castro’s, serving first in the rebel forces that overthrew the dictator Fulgencio Batista, then as a civil engineer for the new regime. One day in 1960 Che Guevara ordered José to scrap plans for a chapel in a community-development project, and Castro upheld the decision, declaring that in the new Cuba there would be no place for religion. “That day my father joined the counterrevolution,” Alberto says. “The secret police came for him an hour after he left for Miami.”
Mr. Salazar’s timing was good. So very many others weren’t as lucky. To read the entire article, go
here.
Another reader alerted me to what Adam Ballard said. He’s a senior at the Naval Academy, and a fullback on the football team. Apparently, he has pro-level talent. But he wants to fulfill his commitment to the military. In particular, he’d like to be an officer in the Marine Corps, and lead a combat platoon in Iraq or Afghanistan. The way he puts it is: “When I’m older, I want to be able to look at my kids and tell them why they can go to any church and why your mom doesn’t have to wear a burqa.”
What a glorious young man. To read an article about him, go here.
CONTINUED 1 2 Next >
