Edwards hires, fires, then re-hires bloggers...

Dean Barnett discusses this. Captain's Quarters has more. There has been justifiable criticism of John Edwards for this hire.

Now, can we please see some fire directed at John McCain's campaign over its Mormon-baiting?

William Arkin Shouldn't be TOO Surprised . . .

. . . but he is.

He is shocked to learn that, when he insults those soldiers who had the temerity to disagree with him, those same soldiers--and those who support them and their mission--take a disliking to him.

Mr. Arkin, I once had to bail one of Marines out of jail in Savannah, GA. At one point, when he was trying to explain how he got put in jail, he said, "Honest, Sarge, I wasn't trying to start a fight when I called that Army Ranger a faggot."

Your latest post reminds me of that incident. The difference between the two of you is that (a) I don't have to bail you out of jail, and (b) you're a lot more long-winded than that Marine was. If brevity be the soul of wit, you're a half-wit at best.

If you're wondering why so many people take an instant dislike to you, it's because it saves time.

Is McCain Mormon-baiting?

John McCain has lined up a lot of support in South Carolina. But has his campaign been Mormon-baiting?

That's what it looks like listening to his supporters. Cyndi Mosteller has done this once before, I might add.

It's time for some Straight Talk from Senator McCain. Is Mormon-baiting acceptable to him? I'd like to know.

Arkin's insult to the troops...

Bill Arkin has managed to royally insult the troops.

Apparently, he took offense to a NBC Nightly News report this past Friday that has disclosed how the troops are not buying the "support the troops, oppose the mission" line taken by so many in the anti-war movement.

In fact, he wanted them taken aside for re-education:

I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.

Never mind that the troops have freedom of speech, too. Or does Arkin only believe in free speech for those who support his agenda?

But then, Arkin gets worse. See below:

These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.

It seems like shades of Seymour Hersh's comments this past November.

Arkin even tries to excuse his present snit over the troops calling out the anti-war movement on its hypocrisy:

Sure it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail, but even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We just don't see very man "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.

Really, Mr. Arkin? I guess he did not bother to ask Joshua Sparling about his experiences with the anti-war movement. Seems some saliva got fired off there, Mr. Arkin.

Then again, Arkin seems to enjoy raising the specter of doom at the notion of the anti-war movement being called out:

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?

I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoover's and Nixon's will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If I weren't the United States, I'd say the story end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, save the nation from the people.

Seems to me that Mr. Arkin's got some paranoia issues. But that is not excuse for what Arkin fires off next:

But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

Mercenaries? Mr. Arkin, this is just too far. The volunteer military we have today is probably the best we have had in the history of this country. In Desert Storm and the war on terror, they have liberated three countries with less than 5,000 dead total. The all-volunteer force has worked. Indeed, they get paid far less than in many civilian jobs and still have to pay federal income taxes, not to mention various state taxes.

Mercenaries? I don't think so, Mr. Arkin. Your mask has slipped, and the truth about your contempt for our defenders is out there for all who wish to see it.

It is sick and disgusting. Before you sanctimoniously lecture our troops about "supporting the people", maybe you need to refresh your memory that American troops have been fighting and dying to make sure you had the right to spew your libelous comments about them.

Nonsense making primetime...

Liz Mair discusses the claims of flip-flopping that have now made Chris Matthews' show.

The short version: They are bogus claims. Romney's position on gay rights has not changed. What did change was the prominence of gay marriage as an issue - and it was something Romney had opposed for a long time.

The only issue on which the charge of "flip-flopping" might have any validity is abortion. Yet two of the past three Republican presidents would also be guilty and judged unworthy of being the Republican nominee by the standard used against Romney by these self-appointed commissars.

Keep that in mind when you see these claims, folks.

Faith and the public commons

Ryan Sager reports that Andrew Sullivan posted a piece about Mormon undergarments, of all things...

First, I do not contest Sullivan's absolute right under the First Amendment to publish that photo.

That said, I have some comments to make on this topic. Sullivan's sole reason for posting that image was to cause embarrassment for Mitt Romney; the reason to cause that embarrassment was Romney's opposition to gay marriage.

Stop. Halt. Whoa. Time Out. Take Five. Cease Buzzer.

As a devout Catholic, I stand in staunch opposition to many elements of LDS theology and liturgical practice. However, that is, ultimately, the business of those of the LDS faith, and not mine. I've had LDS neighbors, co-workers, friends, and brothers and sisters in arms. I have found them to run the same sort of range that everyone runs to; many good-hearted people, a few nasty ones, and each having unique combinations of gifts and weaknesses.

As a Catholic, I have had to endure, with varying degrees of gritted teeth, Protestants mischaracterizing my faith's tenets (from ignorance or malice) and labeling me a "non-Christian" or "pagan" because of my alleged adherence to those freshly-misstated beliefs. This experience has taught me a healthy respect for other people's right to their beliefs, no matter how odd they may seem to me.

In a society such as ours, all of us need to give others enough elbow room--physical and spiritual alike--to live their lives, unless someone is actually harming others. Being opposed to a radical redefinition of marriage doesn't count as harming others, Andy, so put a sock in it. We live, as we are constantly reminded, in a pluralistic society, with a wide range of religious beliefs. The quest--or non-quest, for that matter--for the divine is probably the most intimate part of anyone's life, often inexplicable to those from other religious traditions.

When addressing religious beliefs that aren't yours, it's probably a very good idea to tread very lightly.

I'm not rah-rah for or against Romney at this point. I am always opposed to cheap-shot sensationalist crap.

Rush doesn't get it...

Okay, it's obvious that the New York Times is in the tank for the Democrats. But Rush Limbaugh clearly has not learned anything from his Michael J. Fox escapade as he deliberately mangles Senator Obama's name. The point will get lost at some folks decide to hammer on him over this - just as they did over the Michael J. Fox ads.

Like some members of Congress, Limbaugh may have reached the point where he has been around for too long. There is a sense that he has become arrogant - and it doesn't make him look good. It certainly doesn't make me inclined to reconsider my decision to let my subscription to the Limbaugh Letter and Rush 24/7 lapse.