Political Animal

Blog

April 05, 2012 6:02 PM Day’s End and Night Watch

By Ed Kilgore

What looked to be a slow news days developed some late velocity. Here are a few things that escaped the full blog treatment:

* More Rovian jiu jitsu from Mitt: Romney, who holds two degrees from Harvard, blasts Obama from spending “too much time” in Cambridge.

* Chris Christie going a little crazy with corporate tax subsidies.

* Dave Weigel gets up-close-and-personal with racial tensions in Sanford, Florida.

* American-inspired anti-abortion activism hitting UK hard.

* Paul Waldman argues that Santorum’s attacks on UC could signal broad-based conservative assault on public universities.

And in semi-non-political news:

* Pope Benedict XVI gets in touch with his inner Ratzinger, lashes out at “disobedient” priests who support ordination of women or abolition of clerical celibacy.

Tomorrow is another Jobs Report Day. Plan to get up early for a Venti Cup of Wonkblog.

Selah.

Ed Kilgore is a contributing writer to the Washington Monthly. He is managing editor for The Democratic Strategist and a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. Find him on Twitter: @ed_kilgore.

Comments

  • j on April 05, 2012 6:30 PM:

    As a former British citizen it never ceases to amaze me that now I am living in NC which I think is considered the bible belt, no-one that I know is observing the customs of Maundy Thursday, sometimes called Holy Thursday when Jesus ate the last supper with the disciples and washed their feet. The custom throughout history has been to give food and clothing to the poor. Do Americans ignore this holiday
    they seem very dedicated to buying Easter treats and foods?

  • Danp on April 05, 2012 6:57 PM:

    Never heard of Maundy Thursday. What candy is associated with it?

  • revchicoucc on April 05, 2012 8:15 PM:

    @j. Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, such as Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God, generally do not observe Maundy Thursday. They consider it too "Catholic." Those brands of Christianity dominate in the South. There are churches in NC that do, Episcopalian, some United Methodists, some United Church of Christ (not Church of Christ).

    @Danp. Maundy Thursday, or Holy Thursday, is a Christian day commemorating the last supper Jesus had with his disciples before his death. It has no candy asssociated with it. Bread and wine, but no candy. If you're not Christian, you probably would not have heard of it.

    Maundy is from the latin "mandamus", which means mandate or commandment. At the last supper, Jesus commanded his disciples to love one another. The brands of Christianity who don't observe M. Thursday often don't observe this commandment either.

  • gus on April 05, 2012 8:21 PM:

    This is probably a badly placed message for Keith Olbermann but here goes:

    Give it up, Dude. Move on and find an outlet that works for you and that wants you to work with it.

    If it means going solo, use what you have to build it and donít be all litigious to cushion the possibility you will fail for a third time. You can avoid a third strike but bridge burning and sticking it to a barely there network ainít the way to swing.

    And, please, please, please donít begrudge us with how you are bereaved and blemished. You canít be helping yourself out on that perception with that fact that you just ainít moving on.

    Take your lumps like a strong person.

  • mmm on April 06, 2012 12:34 AM:

    @j ... actually I never heard of what you're describing as a traditional observation of Maundy Thursday, but we in the Methodist church do have a communion service. I see on tonight's news that locally, in Santa Barbara, CA, that they had the washing of feet and gave shoes to the needy , as well as medical and dental care, and food baskets.

    @DanP... that would be the after dinner mint.

  • jhm on April 06, 2012 7:54 AM:

    In re education:
    The Assault on Public Education
    http://inthesetimes.com/article/12985/the_assualt_on_public_education/

  • Neil Bates on April 06, 2012 9:13 AM:

    Note the unfair treatment of Obama, even from "liberal" press and pundits, over his criticism of SCOTUS. They keep evading that he started by referring to what *conservatives* have been complaining about judicial activism for years, noting their reference to "unelected officials", and then saying "well this is Judicial activism." This is disgraceful dishonesty and incompetence from the media and commentariat. (However, it was a misstep for Obama to say "unprecedented.")

    Heh, APOLOGY, in Captcha.

    "Find minds make fine distinctions."

  • The Peanut Butter Bunny (SGB Easter Edition) on April 06, 2012 10:17 AM:

    Maundy Thursday. Yeah, I grew up Free Will Baptist in eastern NC, and I can't say that I've ever heard of it either. Then again, as soon as I was old enough to stay home alone, I definitely exercised that privilege religiously every Sunday morning, so can't say that I know too much of anything about church things. (Honestly, I never know when Easter is. I never really observe it because I seem to always be finding out about it on Good Friday, when people ask why I'm going to work that day.)

    I did google how Baptist typically treat Maundy Thursday, and I was much tickled by an Associated Baptist Press article from April 2009:

    "One of the unfortunate realities about being Baptist is that you seldom understand or observe the Christian festival calendar. In fact, many who are reading this column will not know what a "festival calendar" is.

    (So I'm not alone!!!)

    Sure, we Baptists know of Christmas and Good Friday and Easter... But we know little of Epiphany, Lent, Holy Wednesday or the day on which this is being published, Maundy Thursday. This, of course, is to our detriment."

  • SecularAnimist on April 06, 2012 10:48 AM:

    Ed Kilgore wrote: "More Rovian jiu jitsu from Mitt"

    And in other news, Mitt Romney urged people to vote for him because it's time for America to have an African-American president, instead of a rich white guy like Obama.

  • Neil Bates on April 06, 2012 11:02 AM:

    I wrote the following email to Ruth Marcus of WaPo, getting the vapors over the suspicious-acting President Obama and his scary threats against today's risible SCOTUS (see also GOP Lies and the Media That Repeats Them):

    Ruth Marcus
    The Washington Post

    Dear Ms. Marcus,

    Regarding your column, on President Obama's so-called "warning" to SCOTUS: POTUS wasn't making an isolated critique on his own. Instead, he was getting after conservatives for their hypocrisy of years of complaining about liberals relying on judges to go around what elected officials enact. Here for your convenience is what he actually said, which you quoted by need to study more carefully:

    "Ultimately I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

    And I just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint; that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this Court will recognized that and not take that step."

    Well, he is describing "what we've heard" for years, which is true. In terms of their own complaints, it is judicial activism. Nor is it a liberal contradiction then, to say that striking down ACA *would* be JA, because the liberal critique (for better or worse) is based on selective attention to the individual case. Conservatives say the principle of the thing, the procedural correctness, matters most; so they are liable then to charges of hypocrisy.

    Second, Obama did not threaten the Court in any way (even metaphorical), in those remarks at least. He just said, he was confident they wouldn't - the time-honored, polite way to suggest that doing otherwise would be wrong - that is utterly acceptable commentary from a POTUS.

    I do agree with you that Obama shouldn't have said "unprecedented", but you should clarify or even retract your pretense that he was making a point about "unelected" based on his own views per se. That just isn't true. I've seen this mistake all over, journalists need to tighten up on "context" issues. Thank you!

    Ruth Marcus
    The Washington Post

    Dear Ms. Marcus,

    Regarding your column, on President Obama's so-called "warning" to SCOTUS: POTUS wasn't making an isolated critique on his own. Instead, he was getting after conservatives for their hypocrisy of years of complaining about liberals relying on judges to go around what elected officials enact. Here for your convenience is what he actually said, which you quoted by need to study more carefully:

    "Ultimately I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

    And I just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint; that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this Court will recognized that and not take that step."

    Well, he is describing "what we've heard" for years, which is true. In terms of their own complaints, it is judicial activism. Nor is it a liberal contradiction then, to say that striking down ACA *would* be JA, because the liberal critique (for better or worse) is based on selective attention to the individual case. Conservatives say the principle of the thing, the procedural correctness, matters most; so they ar

  • bobbyd on April 06, 2012 3:59 PM:

    Regarding Santorum on UC course offerings.
    There is a school in the UC system that does not offer a course in American History, University of California at San Francisco. Of course, UCSF is a medical school. (Thx, Colbert Report)

    Which gives rise to a question and follow-up to the candidate:

    "Senator Santorum, your father-in-law was a physician. Did his medical school offer a course in American History?"

    Follow up:

    "Senator Santorum, your wife's former live-in lover was a physician ..."

    Hilarity, or fisticuffs, ensue.