Oops, Malariotherapy and Vic Wulsin got to
ABC News:
According to Dr. Heimlich, “It gives off substances that strengthen their immune systems.” Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health, however, said there is no evidence that malariotherapy has any effect on AIDS. “It is scientifically unsound, and I think it would be ethically questionable. And it does have the fundamental potential of actually killing you.”
Despite the assertions in Rep. Schmidt’s letter, Dr. Wulsin told ABC News that she never directly participated in malariotherapy experiments and was only hired by Dr. Heimlich to review existing malariotherapy studies. “He commissioned a literature review and I demonstrated through that, that it was nowhere near scientific or ethically relevant or justifiable,” said Wulsin.
Hmmm… I don’t think ABC read the actual paper.
The actual
paper she wrote and from the conclusion no less:
Immunotherapy: Past, Present, Future
Immunotherapy claims a fascinating history of effectiveness for another largely sexually transmitted epidemic.
Its safety was demonstrated over much of the twentieth century, precluding the necessity of Phase I clinical trials for replicating its use for HIV. Phase II clinical trials have resulted in positive, though discrepant, results in 20 Chinese and 8 East African HIV-positive individuals. Currently the Heimlich Institute has no formal association with either of these trials, although the sponsor of the East African work maintains contact with the Heimlich Institute and shares results regularly. No written protocol is available for this innovative work in which patients acquire malaria naturally and are followed thereafter. Further field studies of Immunotherapy, including Phase III and IV clinical trials, require the verification of the encouraging results from East Africa, elaboration on discrepancies between them and the results from the Phase II trial in China, and professional dissemination and transparent discussion with scientists, physicians, and other stakeholders.
Oh yeah, you showed them Dr. Wulsin. Way to speak truth to power!
Ha, it appears I am on exactly the same wavelength as
WMD who has fun with another section of the actual Vic Wulsin paper.
It's not as crazy as it sounds. Clinton is most likely out because A: She doesn't want it, and B: Obama doesn't want to give it to her. Edwards was out because he already tried that last time around. So, somebody else then.
Republican strategists trying to game Sen. Barack Obama's choice for a running mate are focusing more and more on the possibility that he might pick former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, a friend of labor and blue-collar workers. "Gephardt is the one we're most afraid of," said a key GOP strategist and Bush ally.
Gephardt has run for the presidency and scored well among the types of voters Obama is trying to reach out to--lower and middle-class workers, laborers, and minorities. Another strategist said that Gephardt presents a friendly face of liberalism that would be hard to attack. He also has a deep well of support among House Democrats, who they believe would rally around an Obama-Gephardt ticket, especially the allies of Sen. Hillary Clinton.
He could make up for many Obama weaknesses among the blue collared crowd, and could be the bridge between the new and old Democrats. So yes, it could be Gephardt. Also among those running in the Dem primary in 2004, Gephardt was the only one I was afraid of. I was relieved when they chose the grand dufus John Kerry. (Gephardt would never have made a cringeworthy moment like "reporting for duty")
Downsides to Gephardt? He generates little excitement and appears to have no eyebrows. Oh and also, he is apparently being picked by GOP strategists, so it could be a Republican dirty trick. Be careful.
I have a front row seat I tell ya, but I do think by November, we're going to be tired of ads. From the Cleveland Plain Dealer Openers blog:
With Barack Obama poised to raise and spend money unencumbered by federal campaign finance limits, the Republican National Committee says it will help remedy any imbalance suffered by John McCain -- starting with a $3 million ad campaign to run in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to an online news alert from Roll Call.
The independent expenditure ad campaign will highlight differences between the candidates' energy proposals. It will take advantage of the fact that the RNC has vastly more money than the Democratic National Committee: $53.5 million on hand for the RNC, compared with $4 million for the DNC.
"Following Barack Obama's decision to become the only major party presidential candidate in history to not adhere to campaign spending caps, the Republican National Committee has begun an independent expenditure campaign in accordance with FEC regulations," RNC I.E. consultant Brad Todd told Roll Call in a statement. Todd's firm, On Message Inc., produced the ad, which Roll Call says will run from this weekend through July 15.
It's a nice effort, but the problem is that the average age of the TV viewer is 50. And while they may be the most likely to actually vote, it appears that there is a whole new demographic that has quit watching TV. I just hope this isn't a portent that the GOP is fighting the last war with the last war's weapons.
I've been sympathetic to Huckabee during the nomination, but that's over now. All of those who were warning that Huckabee was a flim flam who would lead the GOP in the wrong direction, hear this loudly. You were absolutely right, and while McCain is another wrong direction, Huckabee would have been no better.
This all stems from this blog post at The Next Right detailing Huckabee standing up for Don Young, the pork king of Alaska (and sadly, a Republican). It concludes:
Huckabee's followers understand enough about fiscal / social conservative fusionism that you don't throw your weight behind an unelectable Republican whose "Bridge to Nowhere" branded the Congressional GOP as beyond redemption. And you don't do it by touting his ability to bring home highway funds!
I detected more than a little bit of anti-religious right bias in the opposition to Huckabee, but this goes to show that you don't need to distrust the religious light to conclude that Huckabee's no good. He doesn't understand conservative principles, he doesn't understand that the bridge to nowhere branded the 2004-2006 GOP as a bunch of corrupt pigs, and he is definitely not going to lead an effort to reform the GOP for the future. The faster we are rid of him, the better.
Today, I vetoed the legislature’s bill to increase their pay, S.B. 672.
I have opposed this pay from the very beginning. A doubling of legislative pay that takes effect prior to the next election is clearly excessive and is bad policy. This bill would also have set up a system to give legislators automatic pay raises in the future without additional legislative votes, which provides an unacceptable level of accountability.
I clearly made a mistake by telling the legislature that I would allow them to handle their own affairs, and as with all mistakes, you can either correct them or compound them. I chose to correct my mistake by vetoing this bill.
I had previously stated that I would let this bill become law without my signature because I did not want to give legislators any excuse to slow down the momentum of our reform movement here in Louisiana. It turns out this is an unsustainable position. I have come to realize that the reforms I have been fighting for are simply incompatible with this legislative pay raise. The bottom line is that allowing this excessive legislative pay raise to become law would so significantly undercut our reform agenda, and so significantly diminish the people’s confidence in their own government, that I could not let it become law. So, I have vetoed the bill.
I am looking forward to tackling the many challenges facing our state…there are roads to build, jobs to create, business to open, and kids to educate.
I want to thank you, and all the citizens of Louisiana, who have become so vocal on this issue and so involved in the process, and ask you to stay involved. There is a lot more to do. Don’t tune out or stop paying attention to the political process now. This government belongs to you; it is your business. I’m going to need your help.
Sincerely,
Do you see now why Bobby Jindal has people talking? This is just brilliant. It’s forthright, it’s authentic, it’s clear. I’m cynical enough to think he may have planned this all along so that he could stage this, which again, would be politically brilliant.
Give him eight or ten years in LA, he’ll be ready for Monday Night. unlike the Democrats, let’s not start our franchise players in their rookie year.
I'm struggling to find within myself a gut feeling for how this election is going to shake out. This is odd for me. I usually have a definite opinion and people who know that I am into politics are used to receiving a definite answer. My problem is that I like reading about history, especially political history, and this election is really close to either 1972 or 1976, and it could shakeout either way depending on which context matches best.
In 1972 we had a ton of energy on the Democratic side, rallying around an antiwar candidate and having a lot of fun pointing out the inadequacies and lack of charisma of one Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon may have been unlikeable, but he was very much in tune with the mood of the country. By 1972 he had removed almost all American combat troops from Vietnam, ended the draft. and it wasn't nearly the issue McGovern had hoped it would be.
The silent majority spoke loudly and said they were perfectly fine with Richard Nixon.
But in 1976 there was also a moderate Republican and a lot of energy on the Democratic side, huge economic unrest and it helped push Jimmy Carter into office over Gerald Ford.
My problem in trying to make a prediction, is that I can see either of these scenarios playing out. Is Obama a 2nd Jimmy Carter? Able to tap into a huge mainstream of America that is ready for something new? Or is Obama a George McGovern? Lots of flash and sizzle, but no meat. Many high energy supporters, but many, many more who say, meh, I'll take the old Republican guy, he seems more stable.
If the Republicans had nominated anyone else but McCain, I'd say 1972 in a heartbeat and the Democrats are in for a heartbreak (again), but McCain is uncomfortably close to Gerald Ford, and it might be 1976 again. What's your gut feeling?
I love me a little election strategery, and Patrick Ruffini has a lot of it here. In particular what he finds is a very compelling argument that McCain could push Ohio and Michigan together as one superstate and winning both of them makes it very, very difficult for Obama to make up elsewhere.
This suggests a McCain firewall in Virginia and Colorado, and to a lesser extent Florida, but that won't win it. Rather, the key to victory may lie in targeting Ohio-Michigan as a megastate and trying to shift both states 1-2 points in his direction by brute force. If he does this to tune of just 1%, and nothing else changes, the electoral vote is McCain 291, Obama 247 under a tied popular vote.
The intense targeting behind Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004) shows that it's possible to generate one-state swings that pull "ground zero" states towards the national median. The trick this time will be to spin the Buckeye-Wolverine axis as the new Florida/Ohio, because McCain needs both. This also means we can expect to see lots of Dearborn-to-Toledo bus tours for the Straight Talk Express.
And McCain is already acting like he believes it, visiting the heavily blue and unionized parts of the Buckeye state. Ohio and Michigan together count for 37 electoral votes, or bigger than Texas, Florida, and more than half of California. McCain has always done well in Michigan, in primaries at least, and of all the blue states, Michigan is polling the best for a flip. And of course, I personally like the idea of offense, not defense, Obama really cannot afford to ignore a significant push here.
Both states have battered economies and high unemployment relative to the rest of the nation, and a good campaign plan for economic issues will be crucial. But if gas prices and heating oil continue to rise over the next few months, I'm going to give the edge to John McCain on this front, as he definitely has the more credible policy for reducing energy costs.
Either way, as an Ohio resident, I think I will again have a front row seat this cycle.
Yes, there is a little bit of a thaw, as this article at the Politico points out:
"Conservatives have been comfortable with assurances that I've given them and Sen. Brownback has given them," said Olson. A factor that weighs heavily in McCain's favor is his Senate record. Judicial issues haven't been his trademark, but he has consistently supported conservative Supreme Court nominees. In 1987 he spoke on behalf of embattled Reagan Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, saying he supported him "without any hesitation." In recent years McCain has voted for every one of Bush's judicial nominees. "He voted for Alito and Roberts despite the fact that he had to know they would vote to strike down McCain-Feingold," said Levey. "That addresses the concern that he might not appoint strict constructionist judges who are more likely to oppose McCain-Feingold."
While it's helpful to point that out, it doesn't do that much for me. The fact is, that supporting the president's appointments to the Supreme Court is the very least that should be expected from a Republican senator, it would be unthinkable if he didn't. Roberts was confirmed by 78 senators out of a 100 and all Republicans. Alito drew one Republican defection, Lincoln Chaffee, who later on became officially the Democrat he already was.
So yeah, no points from me for McCain's stock vote on the Supreme Court. Far more important was his service as part of the gang of 14 to derail many of the Bush appointees in trade for Democrats willingness to appoint a few. And it's exactly that crossing the aisle trademark that has conservatives edgy. Oh they'll come around, but warm is a relative term.
Well at least
they’re honest. And the impossibility of such an action even surviving a committee action in either branch of the legislature leads one to realize why the liberals put their hope in judges in the first place. It’s pretty much the only way they get their policies enacted.*
If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn’t, and it isn’t. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias. The inartful wording has left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years. But in its last major decision on gun rights, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that that was the correct interpretation.
In other news, the editorial board fails eighth grade English. Problems to be reworked: The definition of a
nominative absolute.
*It’s actually becoming an endangered policy even in liberal circles, as in the era of the fear of Dick Cheney’s shadow government, many of the lefties realized what it was all about in the first place.
Mr Obama is expected to speak to Mr Clinton for the first time since he won the nomination in the next few days, but campaign insiders say that the former president's future campaign role is a "sticking point" in peace talks with Mrs Clinton's aides.
The Telegraph has learned that the former president's rage is still so great that even loyal allies are shocked by his patronising attitude to Mr Obama, and believe that he risks damaging his own reputation by his intransigence.
A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could "kiss my ass" in return for his support.
You stay classy, Mr. Ex-President. Now what do you think are the chances of Obama doing anything like this. I'm pretty sure his response would be, "You first, Bill."
Once known as the Mother of Presidents, Ohio is now getting poorer, older and dumber - and making all the wrong moves to reverse the situation.
And that may actually be a plus for Barack Obama. His party is finding that lofty, vague promises of change combined with high-spending, high-tax, welfare state-ish policies are a political winner in the state. How else to explain why Gov. Ted Strickland’s approval ratings are in the mid-50s or why Democrats may even win control of the state House for the first time in 14 years?
But as a formula for economic revival, it is madness. Ohio already has the fifth-heaviest state and local tax burden in the country (up from 30th in 1990) and finds itself stagnating. Its unemployment rate, 6.3%, is above the national rate of 5.5%, even as the state’s work force shrinks as people emigrate. Ohio’s median household income is also falling - in 2006 it was $44,500, down 0.5% from the previous year - while the national figure ($48,500) was up 1.6%. During the closing decades of the 20th century, incomes rose twice as fast across the country as in Ohio.
The state has been deindustrializing for ages - the sprawling General Motors and NCR plants of my Dayton childhood are long gone. Every metropolitan area has seen manufacturing employment plunge. The state lost more than 200,000 nonfarm jobs over the past seven years alone. Of Ohio’s 10 largest corporations (including Procter & Gamble and other well known companies), just two have posted positive returns so far this year. A surefire way to have one’s portfolio underperform the market these days is to invest in Ohio.
Ouch. But Strickland’s approval ratings are easy to explain: He’s not Bob Taft, and anybody looks good next to our ex-governor. But the aura of not being Bob Taft is fading as we speak and Strickland will actually have to come up with some ideas or explain why Ohio is getting worse under his leadership.
Fascinating story today about one Obama supporter using all the resources at her disposal (vast, as it turns out) to figure out who's behind the "Obama is a Muslim" chain mails. But the Post probably should have skipped this part.
Allen was ideally suited to embark on such a difficult hunt. She boasts two doctorates, one in classics from Cambridge University and the other in government from Harvard University, and won a $500,000 MacArthur "genius" award at the age of 29. Last year she joined the faculty of the institute, the only African American and one of a handful of women at the elite research center, where she works alongside groundbreaking physicists, mathematicians and social scientists. They don't have to teach, and they face no quotas on what they publish. Their only mandate is to work in the tradition of Einstein, wrestling with the most vexing problems in the universe.
While Allen was already an expert on the mechanics of politics, she fast began to learn the mechanics of the Internet. She discovered, for instance, that the recipe for launching a chain e-mail attack is not as simple as typing it up and hitting the send button to a long list of recipients. It takes effort to seed a chain mail that spreads as widely as the Obama missive, explained Jeff Bedser, president of the Internet Crimes Group, a company that helps corporations battle such broadsides. "Lighting that fire, getting something to have momentum, takes work," he said.
Sheesh, two doctorates, works at Harvard and dumb about the internet. Not exactly a good start there. Or as Rich Lowry put it:
And one of the most vexing problems in the universe, which Allen has decided to pursue in the tradition of Einstein, is the origin of a number of e-mails claiming that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Using the advanced research tools at her disposal, the razor-sharp Allen found...a couple of posters on the Free Republic website, plus a former political rival of Obama's who sends out zillions of e-mails to reporters every day.
Bottom line, it's called Free Speech and the internet is a great enabler of all kinds of speech, especially the free kind. How do you stop smears? By speaking up yourself of course. If the smear is a lie, it will be found out (by the internet, natch), if not, you're in trouble. I really don't see anything that needs fixing here. Your mileage may vary.
Rick Moran is glum about GOP chances to flip the house back.
But then came the scramble for the exits among House Republicans and that vision proved to be nothing but a mirage. Like a bunch of theatergoers leaving at the end of the second act of a really bad show, a parade of GOP Congressmen appeared before the cameras, and one by one over the ensuing months announced their retirement. The list grew to include 22 members - many of them long-serving Congressmen who found themselves facing a well funded, and enthusiastic Democratic challenger for the first time in many years.
...
The math is frightening. With 28 seats up for grabs in 2008 on top of the 18 seat majority currently held by Democrats, there is a very good chance that Democrats, for all practical purposes, could win enough seats this year that the GOP would be a minority party for the next decade - and perhaps beyond. When 98% of incumbents in the House are victorious and redistricting looms in 2012, the chances of Republicans overcoming a 40 or 50-seat Democratic majority in the next couple of election cycles are slim.
This is correct, but it shouldn't have surprised anyway. The only thing that bothers me about this post is the lack of a sense of history even 12 years ago. The same thing happened post 1994 when it was the GOP in the catbird seat. There were many Democrats that retired, and a few that became Republicans (Ben Nighthorse Campbell was one of the higher profile examples). Which of course sank the Democrat chances of retaking the house for what turned out to be 12 years in the wilderness.
Many of the GOP retirees, among them Deb Pryce in Ohio, stuck out longer than they planned to as a favor to the party to keep control. Once control was no longer an issue what was the point. The GOP will not get control back this cycle, but this wave of retirements is overall a good thing for the GOP (and any political party). Fresh blood, new ideas, new faces will ultimately lead to less time in the wilderness.
Unlike Justin, I think the Heller case overturning the DC gun ban has far larger impact than just Washington DC itself. Scalia and the other four conservative justices left that open for question for now, based on my limited understanding of the opinion. We'll know soon enough, when the inevitable lawsuit against the Chicago ban winds its way up.
Of interest to me was the potential political impact. Obama was clearly scared as hell that the liberal wing of the court was about to eviscerate his chances of winning in November. And yes, a decision nullifying the 2nd amendment would have done so. If you don't believe me, ask Bill Clinton and the many, many outgoing members of the 103rd congress why they think they lost big in 1994. So yes, this was a big deal, as illustrated by Obama's lack of straight talk on the matter:
When Obama has been asked on multiple occasions to weigh in on the D.C. gun case he has regularly maintained that the Second Amendment provides an individual right while at the same time saying that right is not absolute and that the Constitution does not prevent local governments from enacting what Obama calls "common sense laws."
Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation's capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.
Asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms at ABC's April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."
I'm very interested in how Obama will play this now that he has dodged this bullet, no thanks to the four liberal justices who dissented. My guess is that he will say as little as possible and again call for common sense gun laws and try to appear as not a threat to the rights of gun owners. Also of interest is that among the grass roots left there is a new appreciation for the 2nd amendment, but worrying about Dick Cheney's shadow government perhaps gave them an appreciation of what it was all about in the first place. John McCain of course, wasted no time.
"Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.
"Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.
"This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms."
If you were wondering, red meat like this is why governor Bobby Jindal is rising to the top of conservatives list as someone to watch. From Red State.
On the heels of today's SCOTUS decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana barring the death penalty for sex offenders, Gov. Bobby Jindal released a statement calling the ruling an "affront to the people of Louisiana" - and what's more, vowing to do whatever possible to amend the state's laws in order to maintain the death penalty for child rape.
But that's not all he did.
Today, Gov. Jindal signed the "Sex Offender Chemical Castration Bill," authorizing the castration of convicted sex offenders. They get a choice: physical or chemical. Oh, and they don't just get castrated and leave - they still have to serve out their sentence.
The Supreme court said that death was out of proportion to the crime. I wonder if this is proportionate enough for them. This issue hasn't been on the radar screen of the public consciousness until this ruling, and I wonder if it won't have the adverse effect of triggering many laws targeting child rapists. This is an election year after all, and it's quite tricky (and suicidal) to oppose politically.
Monday, James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), addressed Congress and brought a new twist to his tired global warming song and dance routine. Hansen now seems to be calling for the chief executives of Big Oil to be tried for high crimes against humanity. Their crime? Spreading doubt about global warming. Actually, it is Hansen who is guilty. Guilty of abusing the public trust. James Hansen is the recognized international arbiter of the global temperature record-past, present and future. Armed with a network of thermometers, state-of-the-art satellites, computers and a huge chunk of NASA’s near $18 billion budget, Hansen is the man who is deemed the final authority on Al Gore’s constant claim that “the earth has a fever.”
All this despite the fact that GISS’ own data clearly illustrates that the Earth’s temperature has been flat since 1998 and recently has been dipping downward. Hansen’s shenanigans on Capital Hill are not about climate-they are about money.
As is the case with all government agencies, maintaining a budget is critical. The bureaucrats at NASA boast of their obvious needs for cash: completion of the International Space Station, furthering the Space Shuttle Program, and, of course, preventing the world from spontaneously combusting in a ball of flames. Hansen is a zealous promoter of the latter, and, since the 1980s, has been able to keep the funds flowing-both into NASA, as well as into his personal pocket-to study the world’s climate. A slick marketer, Hansen possesses an insatiable appetite for media attention — as long as the person asking questions is favorable to his point of view. In 2007, Hansen agreed to an interview conducted on a rooftop in downtown San Francisco with a counterculture, internet-based outfit called TUC Radio (TUC is an acronym for “Time of Useful Consciousness”-the time between the onset of oxygen deficiency and the loss of consciousness”). During the interview Hansen hardly sounded like an honorable director of a U.S. government agency, but rather more like an underground community agitator:
These are the actions of a preacher, or a politician, not definitely not, a scientist.
What do you think the chances are, that faced with a hypothetical set of facts, that Hansen would be willing to throw away his life’s work, bow to the facts, and declare that global warming is overblown?
No chance at all, of course, but that’s what a scientist would do. Hansen has clearly left that realm, and sadly, he’s not the only one.
I’d be worried about the future, but as luck would have it I am a child of the seventies, and not only that, a child who loved science fiction. And what kind of science fiction did seventies-era authors write for me to read?
Millennium, by Ben Bova: Earth is an ecological disaster and cities are teeming hellholes surrounded by rivers of sludge. in the year 1999.
Falkenberg’s Legion series, by Jerry Pournelle: I like Jerry, but he wrote a classic seventies dystopia of a welfare state gone amuck and a tyrannical codominium between the US and the USSR ruling the earth. Before Reagan of course, so I don’t blame him too much.
Soylent Green of course: “Soylent Green is people!”. Google it.
Planet of the Apes, because obviously we don’t deserve our planet.
Escape from New York, because no one could envision Rudy Giuliani.
And that doesn’t even count the nuclear holocaust stories. I could go on and on. The themes were clear as was the consensus. We were polluting our planet, there’s too many people and things are destined to fall apart. Definitely by the millenium if not before.
And yet today, I ate a lovely meal out on our patio and watched the sunset and listened to the cicada’s. This was not exactly what I was led to expect from the year 2008, but I’ll take it. And so I’m really not concerned about 2030 either, I’ve learned that when smart people start screaming about ecological disaster, to take them with a grain of salt (and follow the money!).
The secret is that all of these folks were looking at the trends and where the trends would lead to. eventually. What they all forgot is that trends change, sometimes people happen to the trends, sometimes they change all by themselves. The direction the country was headed in the seventies seemed obvious to everyone, but as it turned out, it was 90% wrong or more.
You’d think that history would lead to a little more humility for those prognosticating on the future, but no.
James Dobson delivers a rant about Barack Obama's version of Christianity.
Evangelical christianity (the religious right, if you will) has no central leadership, but James Dobson is probably the most respected person among those with influence among that group. His purpose here is to point out that, while Obama is nominally a Christian, he is not any kind of Christian that evangelicals are used to voting for. Votes on abortion, gay rights and Obama's position (consistent with liberal Christianity) that the Jesus is only one path among many to get to heaven are highlighted. This of course is diametrically opposed to mainstream evangelical Christianity, so Dobson has his dander up pointing that out.
Impact on the race is likely minimal. No real surprises here.. My guess is that, at best, this will help McCain stem the bleeding of independent evangelical christians, who are concerned about social welfare, the environment, etc. from floating over to the Obama camp.
I've been sympathetic to Huckabee during the nomination, but that's over now. All of those who were warning that Huckabee was a flim flam who would lead the GOP in the wrong direction, hear this loudly. You were absolutely right, and while McCain is another wrong direction, Huckabee would have been no better.
