One troubling aspect of Romney's statement, and of all the supposed dialogue about "faith" in political terms in this country, is that "faith" is merely a codeword for anti-abortion, homophobic white men. There are no atheists in Congress, are there? (Name me one, and I might just move to his district and vote for him.) If all Mitt Romney and others speaking of "faith" required was a person with religious beliefs, there would be no discussion at all.

But politicians now feel that they have to prove some sort of come-to-Jesus evangelical bent with a strong grounding in the most conservative social stances. Otherwise, as with John Kerry in 2004, a Catholic can be branded as not Catholic enough, and therefore, not as a real person of faith. And the press will follow along and tra-la the idea that believing in the right to abortion makes you somehow a second-rate Christian.

As an atheist, I have long known that most people believe belief in God is necessary to hold public office. I've been voting for Christians all my adult life, happily. What people personally believe is their own business. I'm more troubled by the ever-growing tide of acceptance of a litmus tested conservative faith that informs public policy. I see Mitt Romney's words as a promise that he will be a person of faith of the George W. Bush stamp.

Posted at February 21, 2007 8:29 AM in response to So What if Mitt Wants A Person of Faith as President?

The hipocracy here is staggering.  Al Gore has incredible nerve lecturing on the issue of the state of television news.  The man was responsible for putting scores of real journalists out of work at NewsWorld International, one of the only channels available to Americans that didn't simply regurgitate White House talking points.  It did everything Gore now says the American news channels aren't doing, and he killed it.

 When I wrote his offices to complain about shutting down a real news channel to start up a boutique channel like Current, the reply I received pointed out that NWI had a very low market share and therefore was of limited value.

 I used to have real news on my television.  Gore, this great proponent of journalistic integrity, could have kept NWI going.  He might even have invested more in it.  But he didn't.  Now in its place I have another station of features, fluff, and Deepak Chopra.  That was all Al Gore's doing--his big contribution to the broadcast media world.  If he does take up the advice of posters here and run in '08, I hope he will remember that he axed the one station where he would have been given a fair shake. 

 When he needed to be brave and talk straight, he was a coward.  Now he is simply hot air.

Posted at October 5, 2005 5:50 PM in response to Gore on the Threat to American Democracy

When a liberal in this country talks about immigration reform, he is lambasted from all sides as being pro-descrimination.  (An extreme example of this was our press's reaction to Pim Fortuyn of the Netherlands, who was progressive in all areas except in his belief in cutting off immigration. Initial accounts of his death labeled him as a Jorg Hader style reactionary.)  The right's view on this issue is cynical: They favor doing nothing, cashing in, as we all do, on the cheap labor iillegal immigration provides, while at the same time using the issue to foment resentment among their constituents (anger surrounding taxpayer dollars funding immigrant education and healthcare).

The left tries to stay "friendly" toward immigrants by remaining silent on the issue.

But all the economic arguments aside, there is a human rights issue that needs to be addressed by someone.  Every year, many Mexicans die attempting to cross into the United States. These people are not hoping for education and health services, but a job.  (The economy of Mexico now depends on their crossing into our country and sending money home, so there is little outcry from Mexican officials about their citizens dying trying to get here.)  If Americans refuse to stop hiring illegals, we have a duty to reform the system so it allows Mexicans to enter the United States by walking through immidgration and not dying in a desert.  A large-scale guest worker program is needed.  The present system is a shame on us all.

And because I am a leftie, I can't help believing that if the immigrants dying were of European extraction, everyone here would be less complacent about reforming the system.  Imagine a hundred Irish people drowning off the New York coast every year, and the uproar that would ensue.

Posted at August 15, 2005 8:07 AM in response to David Brooks Admits that Mass Immigration Lowers Wages

The United States, unprovoked in terms of national security, almost single-handedly  took a secular nation and has turned it into a shaky theocratic-leaning democracy on the brink of civil war.  No one in the administration (or in the media) has so far explained what victory we can expect from this muddle.  They sling around words like "victory" and "winning the war" as if this were World War II, talking to us as if we were children.  But if you listen to the women of Iraq, for example, our actions have resulted in a curbing of their freedoms, which will not be returned to them after Americans finally declare victory and leave. 

Posted at August 10, 2005 9:02 AM in response to Response to Larry Diamond

Thank you!  I myself am a refugee from the south*, and I never found the views there on social issues "moderate."  (For example, months on end, I had people standing on my street picketing because a car dealership on this street dared to employ a gay man, which seemed both extreme and an extreme waste of time.)  Surely belief in equality and civil rights for all is not a radical position anymore.  The trajectory in this country has usually been toward tolerance, and I believe that in time we will look back on not allowing civil unions for gay people the same way we look upon segregated water fountains today.  The left should not cater to the idea that  their views on this and many other positions are immoderate.  Instead, we should be asking the other side, "What is it about equality that you do not like?"

 In the same vein, we should loudly question why Pakaki's use of women's health issues as a political football should appeal to anyone.  Safe, effective medication should not be allowed to be withdrawn from the market just because a governor is worried about his poll numbers.  If a governor were to remove, say, Viagra, from the market, howls would be raised and the politician would be jeered at on late-night television.  But because women's health has been painted as being a fringe issue embraced only by NOW, Pataki can get away with this nonsense.

 *Granted, the south is not the only area of this country where immoderation and bigotry hold sway.

Posted at August 2, 2005 8:50 AM in response to Moderation In Pursuit of What?

He is bad enough, but the question is, are the Democrats strong enough and brave enough to make attempting to block him worthwhile?  I would say the answer to that question is a resounding no.  There is nothing more dispiriting and pathetic  than seeing Biden ask a nominee "tough" questions during hearings but then roll over like an ol' hound dog when it comes to the vote.

 Also, the media coverage of Roberts has been so fawning--he's so good looking, smart, and unstuffy!-- that most people would not be sympathetic to the Dems on this one.  It's a losing battle all around.

Posted at August 1, 2005 10:16 AM in response to Roberts not Bad Enough?