The Right to Smugness

November 28, 2004

Guests:
Former Gov. Tom Kean (R-NJ), Chairman of the 9/11 Commission
Former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commission

Rev. Jerry Falwell, The Faith and Values Coalition
Rev. Richard Land, President, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention
Rev. Al Sharpton, National Action Network
Rev. Jim Wallis, Convener, Call to Renewal, Editor, Sojourners Magazine

Subjects:
9/11 Commission Overhaul, Two Key Republicans are blocking the bill.
The Role Moral Issues play in American politics


Meet The Press trumped out the Executive Branch of the 9/11 Commission as a bill consisting of the body's recommendations soon goes up for vote. Two Republican representatives, including Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) who serves on the judiciary committee - are trying to block its adoption because of a single provision that involves licensing drivers. Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton appeared on this week's program to basically shame these two representatives for obstructing legislation that everyone and his mother apparently want passed.

I realize that in the last column I said that there is no such thing as non-partisan and here we are the very next week with members of a bi-partisan commission. However, these distinguished men aren't active in gritty day-to-day politics anymore and can now serve on policy commissions that are above the fray, political divinity if you will. This leads me to say that these men both show a confidence about their recommendations that would suggest that they are beyond reproach. So why shouldn't they be smug?

So Mr. Sensenbrenner and the other representative, who incidentally was so important that no one each mention him by name, should give it up and stand down. And driver's licenses? Forget that, I have a few questions about the notion of a top intelligence post. First of all, who is going to occupy that spot? Mr. Porter Goss's name was the only one that practically came out of the Bush Administration's group-speak so now there will be someone thrown between the two? I don't think so. This top post would make certain that information would flow fluidly between the various intelligence agencies, but is this just the information that each agency chooses to give this office? The logical answer of course, is 'no,' but don't be so certain, these types of incidences will occur; it seems so typical. Hence, does this new post simply become an intelligence trafficking center for the President?

So the bill isn't perfect but it should be passed. Are indirect endorsements out of bounds? Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton were given time to say their collective peace, but how about Sensenbrenner and the other guy? Do they get time to explain themselves? Who has the patience for equal time anyway?

Meanwhile in the next segment…

Did you hear the joke about how the journalist kept four reverends from poking each other in the throat? Of course you didn't because it was on Meet the Press. It's a sad state of affairs that Mr. Russert had to repeat the word “peace” over and over again in the presence of four reverends.

I almost don't know where to begin here with this group. Four Christian men could barely contain their contempt for one another. I will hand it to the producers this week, it made for good television, but it was very productive as far as an overall discourse was concerned with regard morals playing a role in American politics.

There were a few aspects of the conversation that did stick out with me. First, I have to say that the middle trust does suck. No one wanted to listen to Rev. Wallis, the only one of the group who showed no signs of smugness and he was a total bore, making way too much sense. “The separation of church and state does not mean the separation of values from our public life,” he says. Please.

Dr. Richard Land said that once there is a fetus in the womb, it is no longer the woman's body. That notion isn't anywhere near American mainstream political thinking, no to mention that it is simply an inaccurate statement. This leads me to trouble in taking seriously anything this man says going forward. I agree with Rev. Sharpton when he says that we shouldn't legislate women's bodies, or anybody's body for that matter.

And Rev. Falwell doesn't stand on a pedestal that God made. When asked why it was a responsibility, a duty of Christians to vote for George Bush, this is what he said. “Because I'm a Democrat. I don't vote Republican. I vote Christian. And I believe that he is pro-life, pro-family, pro-Israel, strong national defense, faith-based initiatives for the poor, et cetera. And George Bush fits the criteria for all of them. John Kerry met little or none of those criteria.”

First of all, that answer doesn't make any sense. Mr. Falwell a Democrat? Like I said: good television. I agree that Kerry met none of those criteria, but he's a Democrat, at least that how the ballot went. Jerry Falwell votes Christian: pro-life, pro-family, pro-Israel, and pro-death penalty. I know, I threw that last one in there, but since the endorsement was ringing so loudly, and Mr. Bush is a fan of that last one, I thought I would throw it in there. Also, not for anything, but he wanted us to know that he prayed in the shower. So now that I have that mental image, where am I left in the aftermath of that?

The United States is all about Liberty, and you can use your set of morals as a guide on how you vote, but this doesn't mean that the rest of us have to fall in line… or be damned for eternity.