Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 14, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

FAMILY VALUES....Why did George Bush's domestic policy czar, Claude Allen, resign last week? Was it really to spend more time with his family?

Allen, a former top aide to Jesse Helms and a darling of the evangelical right, left shortly after the Pentagon announced that it had loosened its policy on religious expression at the service academies. Henceforth superior officers will be allowed to proselytize as long as it's clear that "the discussions are personal, not official" good news! but the new rules also require prayers at official ceremonies to be "nondenominational, inclusive prayer or a moment of silence."

This was good enough for James Dobson, but according to the Washington Times it wasn't good enough for Allen:

In a Jan. 22 conversation with Rep. Walter B. Jones reported in The Washington Times, Mr. Allen promised the North Carolina Republican that President Bush would pressure Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld into allowing military chaplains to be more explicit about their faith.

According to a military source, Mr. Allen resigned to protest the White House's refusal to lean on the Pentagon about the issue.

So the theocon base of the Republican party helps him get reelected, and George Bush repays them by stabbing them in the back yet again? Tsk tsk. When will they learn?

Kevin Drum 12:59 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (72)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

"So the theocon base of the Republican party helps him get reelected, and George Bush repays them by stabbing them in the back yet again? Tsk tsk. When will they learn"

That was the last straw! I am voting for Sheehan/Obama in the next election!

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 14, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

Just what would a "nondenominational" prayer be?

Posted by: Ace Franze on February 14, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Stabbing them in the back seems like an interesting interpretation.

Mine is that Bushfeld allowed the religious wackos to do pretty much whatever they want, within some completely bureaucratic fig leaf - and that wasn't enough. He basically wants to make the US Armed Forces a branch of the evangelical church, and Bushfeld said "um, no, that would be a little obvious."

And so he quit.

Either that, or he quit because his affair with the underage babysitter is about to become news. With these guys, that's always the way...

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom Fighter accidentally makes a good point, though not the one he meant.

Clearly, there is nothing that Bush et al could do that would be considered too much, and would provoke a rethinking of priorities and thus votes. Nothing.

Bush could order the execution of the male first born, and they would be out in the streets singing his praises. We'd all be traitors for trying to protect our children from W.

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

"Either that, or he quit because his affair with the underage babysitter is about to become news."

Maybe he should consider switching parties... then he wouldn't have to resign over such silly little things.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 14, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

I know Kevin is using rather a light touch here, but doesn't this stuff harm the military? Surely there are people who are going to think twice about joining if there are going to be antics like these.

Posted by: Dan on February 14, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

And on a related note the Army revoked the preaching privilages of a chaplain because he wouldn't follow the rules and say a nondemominational prayer at a memorial service, and then he complained about it. it's like he didn't understand that not every guy in the room was also an evangelical Christian.

{via Newzjunky}

Posted by: e1 on February 14, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

We'd all be traitors for trying to protect our children from W.

i'm sure W has some secret evidence, obtained from a secret program, in secret, that he can't share with anyone (unless it serves to discredit his opponents) that proves your children were planning to conspire to develop plans to talk to someone who's second cousin once sat next to a Pakistani guy who knew bin Laden's tailor.

we can't let that smoking gun take the shape of a nuclear bin Laden over Kansas City, freedom, bold and saucy. wave your flag.

Posted by: cleek on February 14, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

How will it be played when someone without a family is forced out/quits in a huff?

"I'm leaving to spend more time with my stamp collection."
"He's leaving to spend more time watching daytime TV."
"She's leaving to spend more time alone, in the dark, drinking heavily and wondering where it all went so terribly wrong."

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, Kevin, what would this post have said if Bush had done what Allen wanted? "Bush knuckles under to Religious Right?" But Bush didn't, so now it's "Bush stabs Religious Right in the back."

Yeah, I know it was kind of a joke, but it might be interesting to know what specific action Bush could have taken in this particular case that would not have gotten a sarcastic remark from you.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 14, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

"Clearly, there is nothing that Bush et al could do that would be considered too much, and would provoke a rethinking of priorities and thus votes. Nothing."

What are you saying? The Religious Right should consider the Dems because they support chaplains to be more explicit about their faith?

Maybe they would if it weren't for nice folks like you on the left to continually portray them as "religious wackos".

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 14, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

"Bush could order the execution of the male first born, and they would be out in the streets singing his praises. We'd all be traitors for trying to protect our children from W."

The left has nothing to worry about here, as you guys would have aborted your unborns long before W can get to them.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 14, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe they would if it weren't for nice folks like you on the left to continually portray them as "religious wackos".

if the shoe fits...

Posted by: cleek on February 14, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

You're right, I shouldn't use a phrase like "religious wacko".

It's redundant.

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

Why should Bush get the kid glove treatment from anybody, tbrosz? In addition to being a politician, he's a liar and a murderer.

Posted by: Ace Franze on February 14, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

"She's leaving to spend more time alone, in the dark, drinking heavily and wondering where it all went so terribly wrong."

Fabulous. I look forward to seeing that one!

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

"if the shoe fits..."

So why whine about not getting their votes?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 14, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Henceforth superior officers will be allowed to proselytize as long as it's clear that "the discussions are personal, not official"

What utter bullshit. There is no discussion between a military superior and subordinate that is strictly personal.

"Believe in my god - or suffer the fires of poor performance evaluations." That's the coded message when a superior officer suggests you should attend an evening bible study class.

I have a great deal of respect for airmen - the base engineers, for example, had much better construction skillsets than my Army engineers. But the USAF officer corps...

Posted by: Wapiti on February 14, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: Yeah, I know it was kind of a joke, but it might be interesting to know what specific action Bush could have taken in this particular case that would not have gotten a sarcastic remark from you.

Well, as you correctly suspect, there isn't one. But have you considered that Bush's unholy alliance with the religious right is what's put him in this damned-if-he-does, damned-if-he-doesn't situation? Lie down with fleas, and all.

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

So why whine about not getting their votes?

who's doing that?

Posted by: cleek on February 14, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

There was a domestic policy czar? There was a domestic policy to be czar of?

Posted by: C.J.Colucci on February 14, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

So, are the Jewish chaplains now free to tell the Christian soldiers their whole religion is a horrible, idolatrous mistake? As long as it's merely a "personal conversation", I mea.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

There was a domestic policy to be czar of?

I am lord of all I survey, from here to the cubicle wall...

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

I don't they let the Jewish chaplains near the good Christian boys and girls, do they? Or perhaps they do, hoping that the Christian soldiers will convert the chaplains. Does this personal expression of faith business cut up-rank as well as down?

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Who's whining FreedomFighter, nobody but republicans want the (Reverend Fred) Phelps vote. That way lies madness.

Just for my own edification though, when you say freedom fighter you do mean in the fighting freedom sense don't you?

Posted by: Eric Paulsen on February 14, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Sen. Sam 'the fruit' Brownback will correct Bush's mistake in 2008! Or so the religious fanatics hope.

Gyaargh!!!

Posted by: Hostile on February 14, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Freedom Fighter sense your the oracle and know all things religous how come some many of your priests molest children?

Posted by: Neo on February 14, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

So let's see, they let military superiors pimp their religion to their inferiors but that's not good enough for the uberwingnuts?

Wait. Of course it's not. They demand nothing less than theocracy. I wonder how the glibertarians are taking it?

Posted by: n.o.l.t.f. on February 14, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

"tbrosz: Yeah, I know it was kind of a joke, but it might be interesting to know what specific action Bush could have taken in this particular case that would not have gotten a sarcastic remark from you."

He could have decided that his campaign wasn't going to pander to the Religious Right, for example, by speaking somewhere other than Bob Jones U for his first speech in the 2000 South Carolina primary.

But yeah, once you orient your entire presidency toward the votes of people who admire Dobson and Robertson, there's not much you can do that won't get a sarcastic remark from me.

Posted by: mmy on February 14, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Lemmings never learn.

That is their nature.

Refer to the tale of the frog and the scorpion for a more vivid description of this principle.

Bush will stab anyone and everyone in the back, if it suits his needs or pleasure.

Most of us have learned that.

Lemmings never will.

===================

BTW, I see that Dickless Cheney has yet again demonstrated the utter lack of personal responsibility so prominent in all right wing fanatics.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 14, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

"So the theocon base of the Republican party helps him get reelected, and George Bush repays them by stabbing them in the back yet again? Tsk tsk. When will they learn?"

Yeah, they really got screwed on those Supreme Court nominations, didn't they? All that sign-carrying, all that gay-baiting, all that false rhetoric about Christians being persecuted, and all they got was Roberts and Alito for the nex 30 years. Good thing the non-lunatics are winning the big battles, like turning out functionaries whose name we didn't know yesterday.

Posted by: KPatrick on February 14, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

My superstition is better than your superstition, so there!

Man, I can't stand religion.

Why don't we just become the United States of Jesus Christ and be done with it already? Why, oh why do people need to "worship" some kind of cosmic Santa Claus figure for their lives to be meaningful? Worse yet, why do they have to proselytize?

Posted by: a fundie's fundamentalist on February 14, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

He could have decided that his campaign wasn't going to pander to the Religious Right, for example, by speaking somewhere other than Bob Jones U for his first speech in the 2000 South Carolina primary.

While we're bringing up appropriate speaking venues and "lying down with fleas," how come I haven't seen anything about Al Gore's great anti-U.S. speech in Saudi Arabia?

Posted by: tbrosz on February 14, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK


gore?


A company based in the United Arab Emirates is part of a corporate sale that will give it control over operations of six American ports. The Bush administration doesn't object to the sale. 2/11/06

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on February 14, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

So, are the Jewish chaplains now free to tell the Christian soldiers their whole religion is a horrible, idolatrous mistake? As long as it's merely a "personal conversation", I mea.

I'm looking forward to the moment when the imam gets up at the Air Force academy to preach that there is no God but God, and that Muhammed is his Prophet.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

A company based in the United Arab Emirates is part of a corporate sale that will give it control over operations of six American ports. The Bush administration doesn't object to the sale.

I'm not too happy about that one myself. What next? Give the Panama Canal to the Chinese? I hope people are poking their representatives about that one.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 14, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK
So the theocon base of the Republican party helps him get reelected, and George Bush repays them by stabbing them in the back yet again? Tsk tsk. When will they learn?

Never. The decision by the Republican Party to cater to handful of self-aggrandizing "evangelists" to secure a fundamentalist base for itself was premised on the fact that that base would be obedient to authority. As long as the Dobsons, et al., are kept mostly in line, most of the theocon base will be stable, no matter how little they get in substantive policy that reflects their concerns.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

None of the people mentioned in the article, including Bush, are really Christians.

Remember, "by their actions, ye shall know them".

It is politically expedient for these pathetic men to feign piety.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on February 14, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum wrote:

Tsk tsk. When will they learn?

Quite. It still strikes me as odd that many Christian fundamentalists in this country don't want to realize that they are being used for their votes, used by the Republican Party as footsoldiers for the Cause, and used by chickenhawks as cannon fodder.

It appears that many have commingled the cult of personality surrounding various Christian ministries with that surrounding Dubya...and Claude Allen got slapped by how the GOP really works...A voting block is only as useful as long as it doesn't become an embarrassment to the Party.

When will they learn, indeed.

Posted by: grape_crush on February 14, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

What are you saying? The Religious Right should consider the Dems because they support chaplains to be more explicit about their faith?

No. We're saying that the Religious Right should read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and decide what "Religious Freedom" means to them, and whether they should move to a country like Saudi Arabia where there's TRUE religious freedom, and the majority religion is allowed to ban other religions, and punish apostasy with stoning and beheading.

Or maybe they should consider that we're better than that, and we're better BECAUSE we have a separation of church and state. And maybe, just maybe, they should consider that Democrats are more prepared to defend that separation than the Republicans are.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

A company based in the United Arab Emirates is part of a corporate sale that will give it control over operations of six American ports. The Bush administration doesn't object to the sale. 2/11/06

That'll sure make it easier to get those shipping containers in. Glad to see they're taking national security so seriously.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

It still strikes me as odd that many Christian fundamentalists in this country don't want to realize that they are being used for their votes, used by the Republican Party as footsoldiers for the Cause, and used by chickenhawks as cannon fodder.

Well, they're kind of gullible by definition, don't you think?

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, I don't care if they blaspheme my prophets. It's better if people don't KNOW they're really worshipping me, when they donate money to political candidates to supposedly promote their religion, and and up giving Exxon a huge Corporate Welfare payment instead. Delicious Irony is my most Holy sacrement.

I just can't wait until they pass a law that demands that people kneel at the ATM machine, you know, to prevent terrorism, or some shit like that.

Posted by: Mammon on February 14, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Off Topic...
The lawyer who was 'peppered' by Cheney over the weekend has suffered a heart attack. The bulletin reported it to be related to the pellets (did not say it what way).

Posted by: Juan on February 14, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

While we're bringing up appropriate speaking venues and "lying down with fleas," how come I haven't seen anything about Al Gore's great anti-U.S. speech in Saudi Arabia?

dunno. why don't you go write a blog entry about it?

Posted by: cleek on February 14, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

"So why whine about not getting their votes?" Freedom Fighter

You know, I agree with you here. We should not be seekeing votes from the fundamentalists by playing to them and their desires to insert religion into the public sphere. They are every bit as crazy and psychotic and unified as the islamic extremists, but the difference is that they've been coopted into the democratic system. Maybe if we can disenfranchise them to the point where they are forced to resort to terrorism (like abortion clinic bombings), our country will see just how crazy they are and reject this kind of religious expression as illegitimate.

Posted by: American In Osaka on February 14, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Mea culpa; that should have been "lie down with dogs." Although I'm not sure I don't like this one better. No more posts while I'm talking on the phone.

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe if we can disenfranchise them to the point where they are forced to resort to terrorism (like abortion clinic bombings), our country will see just how crazy they are and reject this kind of religious expression as illegitimate.

How about revoking tax-exempt status? They're for-profit businesses, selling a service for a fee. They ought to be taxed as such. Render unto Ceasar and all that.

Posted by: Mammon on February 14, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

"I know Kevin is using rather a light touch here, but doesn't this stuff harm the military? Surely there are people who are going to think twice about joining if there are going to be antics like these."

Posted by: Dan

And I'm sure that the whacko's don't mind that. They can drive everybody else out (or so they think; recruiting is already low).

Posted by: Barry on February 14, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

"I'm looking forward to the moment when the imam gets up at the Air Force academy to preach that there is no God but God, and that Muhammed is his Prophet. "

Posted by: Stefan

I'm sure that any imam in the military who even joked about such things would find himself in Gitmo. They've done it already.

Posted by: Barry on February 14, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

"And I'm sure that the whacko's don't mind that. They can drive everybody else out (or so they think; recruiting is already low)."

That's enlisted recruiting. The article is discussing the military acadamies, so they are trying to reshape the entire military command structure as an instrument of Christianity.

That's scary. I can hear it now, "Onward Christian sooooldiers, marching as to war, with the Stars and Stripes of Jesus..."

Posted by: American In Osaka on February 14, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

A company based in the United Arab Emirates is part of a corporate sale that will give it control over operations of six American ports. The Bush administration doesn't object to the sale.

I'm not too happy about that one myself. What next?
tbrosz

Watsamatter tbrosz, you don't like the free-market system?

Posted by: Mooser on February 14, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe he should consider switching parties... then he wouldn't have to resign over such silly little things.

But he's a Republican... and we already know that Republicans can go on "hunting trips" with women not their wives, shoot people in the head, and suffer no consequences whatsoever...

The lawyer who was 'peppered' by Cheney over the weekend has suffered a heart attack. The bulletin reported it to be related to the pellets (did not say it what way).

More than likely one of the pellets lodged in/near his heart.

Posted by: tam1MI on February 14, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

This is stabbing them in the back? Allowing a superior officer and faculty member at the Academy importune you to adopt his religious beliefs as long as he makes it clear this is personal, not business, is like allowing supervisors and teachers to make sexual advances as long as they stipulate that it's personal, not official. It's an invitation to harassment.

Posted by: larry birnbaum on February 14, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

"Was it really to spend more time with his family?"

Noone in their right mind wants to "spend more time with their family." That's why we have jobs!

Posted by: Doofus on February 14, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

When is Kevin going to talk about Kerry's anti-American speech to our coalition parteners in Moldova?

Posted by: tbrosz on February 14, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

fake tbrosz: When is Kevin going to talk about Kerry's anti-American speech to our coalition parteners in Moldova?

fake response . . .

When is tbrosz going to talk about Bush's anti-American actions as president?

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 14, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

When is Kevin going to talk about Kerry's anti-American speech to our coalition parteners in Moldova? - tbroz

anti-American is a constructed, intersubjective term that really doesn't have any meaning except what the agent that expresses it wants it to mean. Please don't wrap yourself in the flag.

Posted by: American In Osaka on February 14, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

How's the wife today, Tbrosz?

Posted by: Judy on February 14, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

Grape crush wrote "...many Christian fundamentalists in this country don't want to realize that they are being used for their votes, used by the Republican Party as footsoldiers for the Cause, and used by chickenhawks as cannon fodder."

I think it's the other way around. Many main stream - reasonable - Republicans are being used by the Christian right to install their radical, narrow minded policies. A conservative of my faith is lauded by the Christian right for his conservative policitcs but despised for his theological beliefs.

Posted by: Lamonte on February 14, 2006 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

"Judy," knock it the hell off. You're not funny, jerk.

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Judy, shut the fuck up. That's harassment.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK


Funny how chaplains can make it clear without having a chaperone present that they don't speak for the government but NASA scientists can't.

Posted by: Ross Best on February 14, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

The new policy gets it exactly 180 degrees wrong.

Chaplains should be allowed to express their faith honestly and truthfully. If Christian chaplains want to pray in public gatherings to Jesus, let them. The Jews and the Moslems and the atheists in the room (although, as they say, there are no atheists in a foxhole) can say, oh well, it's just the chaplain, he's doing his thing, and take it however they want. It's the chaplain's job to express his faith, and everyone understands that different chaplains have different faiths. Jewish chaplains, Moslem chaplains, Hindu chaplains (if there are any), etc. should each be free to preach their faiths as they wish.

But superior officers and enlisted men who are not chaplains should never, ever be allowed to preach to their juniors. There is no way to separate out the "personal" from the "official" in the context of a military hierarchy.

This is one area in which I think the Administration is just wrong.

Posted by: DBL on February 14, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Both tbroszes make the same mistake: Equating criticism of Bush with anti-americanism. The have a fascist mentality and blindly worship Bush because he represents power to them. I'd call them sheep, but that insults a useful and productive animal.

And, real tbrosz, you fool no one with your occasional feints at "libertarian" thinking. You are probably looking forward to one of the most corrupt members of congress in history (one Tom DeLay) having control over the budget of you employer, because it means more wasted taxpayer dollars, a small trickle of which will hopefully end up in your pocket.

What's with all the posting anyway? Aren't you supposed to be designing rockets or some other bullshit? You are just like the construction guy holding the stop sign as the cars whiz by him on the interstate. A waste of my tax dollars. Hell, just a waste, period.

Posted by: brewmn on February 14, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

Frag the chpalains.

Posted by: Hostile on February 14, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Lamonte on February 14, 2006 at 3:27 PM:

I think it's the other way around. Many main stream - reasonable - Republicans are being used by the Christian right to install their radical, narrow minded policies.

Actually, it's more of a GOP-a-trois: Party heads and their corporate backers are used/used by the Christian fundamentalists who are used/used by mainstream Republicans.

But you gotta remember; it's the Party heads and their corporate who are on 'top' in this lovepile. They'll throw the occasional bone in one direction or the other, but they're really only there for their own satisfaction.

Hey! I just scored the 'they're, their, there' hat trick in one sentence! Go me!

Posted by: grape_crush on February 14, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

Amazing how far we've come from James Madison, "Father of the Constitution" and writer of early drafts of the First Amendment, who even objected to paying Congressional chaplains:

"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?"

Posted by: Bill Camarda on February 14, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

If Mr. Dobson is OK with it, there are good odds its a fair compromise.

Posted by: McA on February 14, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps, Rocket Man, you didn't catch the opening of O'Arrogantone last night - he led with the Al Gore speech - even had Lannie Davis on to knock the speech - tonight, he was upset that he was the only one who ran the story and that Howard Kurtz had made fun of him giving it more importance than Dead Eye Dick's escapades.

Judy, we do not discuss anyone's family on this site.

However, if James Carville happens to post, then.............

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 15, 2006 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

I didn't realize you needed a policy czar when your policy is fuck the working man and reward your corporate base and paris hilton.

Posted by: gus on February 15, 2006 at 8:02 AM | PERMALINK

How about revoking tax-exempt status? They're for-profit businesses, selling a service for a fee. They ought to be taxed as such. Render unto Ceasar and all that.
Posted by: Mammon

Oh, please, and how else could the First Baptist Church become the single largest owner of commercial real estate in Dallas if deprived of their tax-exempt status for, you know, seeing to the needs the poor by constructing ever more grandiose churches.

Or subsidise those worthy 'out-reach ministry' efforts, which principally consist of convincing wealthy elderly widows to leave their estates, tax free, to the church.

Posted by: CFShep on February 15, 2006 at 8:50 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly