President Bush should thank his lucky stars for the Woodward book! The media love for the author assures its continual coverage, up to and including the refutations to come. Meanwhile, eclipsed by the Woodward work is a book more devastating to the Bush legacy, more complete a brief, more compelling an account. It is Hubris, by Isikoff and Corn, destined for the back shelf by the Woodward mystique.
The Spectacle Blog
The Family Research Council steps out of bounds in its response to the Mark Foley scandal. It blames the homosexuals. Even if there is a link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, as FRC's Tony Perkins writes, save it for another day. To blame an ideology rather than the responsible actors is cheap politics at its worst.
I admire the work of both gentlemen immensely, but I really don't think now's the time for Ben Stein and Mark Levin (on his blog at NRO) to be zeroing in on the hypocrisy and opportunism of Democrats, despite the temptation and as long as the list of examples may be (for both political parties, really).
No, we're not talking about Brooklyn baseball. We're talking Albert Haynesworth of the Tennessee Titans. Yesterday, with malice aforethought, Haynesworth spiked an opposing player in the aftermath of a touchdown. The injured man -- Dallas' offensive center Andre Gurode -- was slashed by Haynesworth's spikes. The wound reportedly required 30 stiches to close.
Set aside the irony that despite the fact Terrell Owens was on the field, the worst offense was committed by someone else. There's no humor in this thuggery. The NFL will decide what punishment to impose on Haynesworth this week. Anything less than permanent expulsion from the game is too little.
This post title comes from a great routine by the late comedian Bill Hicks, whom I wrote about for NRO a couple years back here.
I will be on Hannity and Colmes tonight around 9:30 (eastern) discussing Jack Murtha's willingness to make a deal with undercover FBI agents offering bribes.
I thought I might put you off disputing the religious reason question and I apologize for any offense given. Nevertheless, it is a red herring.
In working toward refutation of my argument, you note that Dobson said God wanted him to intervene on Toomey's behalf. That's not the same thing as supporting a specific policy position by adverting to scripture or personal revelation from the Almighty. It's one thing if Dobson says, God wants me to oppose abortion. It's another if Dobson says, "God doesn't want you to allow legalized abortion" and leaves it at that. The latter instance would be what I think you were talking about earlier when you said he failed to offer public reasons in favor of restricting abortion.