Revenge?

When Donald Trump, with characteristic humility appreciated in conservatives by many white evangelicals, declared himself the "chosen one,"

Energy Secretary Rick Perry in an interview with Fox News over the weekend described President Donald Trump as the "the chosen one" who was "sent by God."

"God's used imperfect people all through history. King David wasn't perfect. Saul wasn't perfect. Solomon wasn't perfect," Perry said in the interview, which aired Sunday.

"And I actually gave the president a little one-pager on those Old Testament kings about a month ago, and I shared it with him," he added. "I said, 'Mr. President, I know there are people that say, 'You said you were the chosen one,' and I said, 'You were.'"

Perry, who is expected to leave the Cabinet at the end of the year, said he told Trump: "You didn't get here without God's blessing."

Former South Carolina governor and UN ambassador and media darling Nikki Haley similarly maintained "everything happens for a reason... I think God sometimes places people for lessons and sometimes places people for change."

Maybe (though probably not) they're right. Perhaps God did effect the election of Donald J. Trump, just as he once had 42 young people killed because some among them ridiculed and demeaned a man for his lack of hair.  If so, it likely is because God in various biblical verses has declared his desire to wreck vengeance upon the unworthy, even unto their descendants.

It's in Deuteronomy 32:35: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them;" in Proverbs 20:22, "Do not say, 'I’ll pay you back for this wrong!' Wait for the LORD, and he will avenge you";  and in Psalm 94:1: "The LORD is a God who avenges. O God who avenges, shine forth."

But it's not only in the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth Old Testament, but in the New Testament also: in 2 Thessalonians 1:8: "He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus;" in Romans 12:19, "Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord"; in Romans 12:19 "Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord."

There are three choice: 1) there is no God; 2) there is a God, who wills as he wishes; or 3) God is in control and orders everything as he wishes. The Bible teaches (2) but most white evangelicals appear to believe (3). And if they are right, beware. Beginning with Genesis, there are several examples in Scripture in which God is quite displeased with mankind generally or individuals specifically, is not amused, and exerts His quite unpleasant will.

And so, as many white evangelicals will argue, it is possible that God did ordain the election of both Barack Obama and of Donald Trump, however absurd that thought appears. But if so, there probably is an ulterior motive that only white evangelicals would appreciate. For that, we are obliged to let God himself/herself have the final word, four weeks ago:

I have chosen Donald Trump to be President because I strongly dislike Western civilization and wish it to end.

— God (@TheTweetOfGod) November 26, 2019

Share |

Chosen For What?

In July 2015 Governor Rick Perry

said Trumpism was no more than "a barking carnival act" and "a toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness and nonsense".

"I will not go quiet when this cancer on conservatism threatens to metastasize into a movement of mean-spirited politics that will send the Republican Party to the same place it sent the Whig Party in 1854: the graveyard," said Perry.

My, how times have changed. Now

U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry says President Donald Trump is God’s “chosen one” to lead the nation, comparing the president to several Old Testament kings.

“God used imperfect people all through history,” Perry, a former Texas governor, said in an interview with Fox News over the weekend. “King David wasn’t perfect, Saul wasn’t perfect, Solomon wasn’t perfect.”

Perry told Fox News that he gave the president a one-page memo of “imperfect” Old Testament kings who were sent by God to do great things. He framed his thinking as part of his evangelical beliefs — noting that he also thought former President Barack Obama was chosen by God.

Previously a cancerous, barking carnival act, Trump since has been chosen by God to lead the USA, which is a rather harsh commentary on God and His plans for this nation. It is, though, possible that Perry was right previously (as he obviously was) and is right now.  Theologian John Piper wrote in 2014

.... the Bible portrays God’s relation to nations as tolerating sin up to a point, and then bringing calamity. God said to Abram that his descendants would spend four hundred years in a foreign land as slaves (Genesis 15:13). Then God would “bring judgment on the nation that they serve” (Genesis 15:14).

Therefore, God may in fact have chosen Donald Trump, chosen him to punish the nation for its sin and iniquity, however He might see it. This might even be consistent with Perry's suggestion- which was short of an explicit claim- that Trump was sent to do great things.  The great things might be for Turkey, Syria, or Russia- just not for the USA.

Or perhaps Perry is simply blowing smoke up his boss' posterior because he once argued that the previous President chosen by God 

hasn’t shown any “engagement to stop ISIS,” which he attributed to the president’s “lack of being able to really connect the dots” and “lack of executive experience.” […]

“I think that’s the reason ISIS has gone forward, I think that’s the reason Putin is standing there basically laughing at us as we have one lack of impact after another in the global world that we’re living in,” he said.

Maybe Donald Russia and Barack H. Obama were chosen by God, in which case Rick Perry has no more regard for God's judgement as he has for Barack Obama and Donald Trump.

Share |

Punching Always

There are few media figures more "inside the Beltway" than Chris Cillizza.  But at least in one way, he's out of character in his CNN article "The 48 most revealing lines of Steve Bannon's 60 Minutes interview."

Precious few individuals have questioned Donald Trump's claim of being a "counter puncher," frequently asserted by master strategist Trump to imply that he attacks only in self-defense. However, responding to Bannon's assertion to CBS' Charlie Rose that  "Donald Trump's a fighter. Great counter puncher. Great counter puncher. He's a fighter," Cillizza writes

The "counterpuncher" thing is straight from the mouth of Trump. What's interesting about it is that it's not totally true. Trump does do best when he is in a back and forth with someone -- President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, etc. But, it's not at all clear to me that Trump is always counterpunching. It feels like he is just punching a fair amount of the time.





Amen.  There are innumberable instances to demonstrate that Donald Trump is not a counter puncher but simply a puncher.

Consider the timeline of his feud with Megyn Kelly, then of GOP TV.  In an August 2015 debate, Kelly asked the candidate a question featuring "You’ve called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.” Trump struck back on Twitter and soon thereafter stated "You’ve called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.” (Not all of them had first criticized Trump.)

Choosing to de-escalate, two months later Kelly told Charlie Rose "So we just wanted to forge forward and try to put it behind us, not pour any more fuel on that fire.”

And then the "counter puncher," faced with a good-faith effort to end the civil war between Republican and Republican, tweeted "Isn't it terrible that @megynkelly used a poll not used before (I.B.D.) when I was down, but refuses to use it now when I am up?"  Stirring up a pot which had settled down to cool is not counter-punching.

There was the time in July 2015 at a GOP presidential forum at an evangelical gathering when Trump commented that John McCain is "not a war hero.  He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” Politico captured what happened next, including

.@SenJohnMcCain is an American hero & all POW’s deserve our nation’s highest debt of gratitude. @realDonaldTrump’s comments are disgraceful,” tweeted former Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

“As a fellow veteran I respect @SenJohnMcCain because he volunteered to serve his country. I cannot say the same about Mr. @realDonaldTrump,” Perry added. He then called in a statement for Trump to drop out of the race.

Rick Perry is now Secretary of Energy. Some conter-puncher, that Donald Trump. All he needs is an excuse to go at an opponent, even one who had been a supporter, although Generals seem to  be n exception. That's because there is a difference between being a coward.... and a counter puncher.





Share |

No Johnnie, Or Donald, Come Lately

Perhaps Rick Perry deserves a little grudging respect, given that he is the Repub presidential candidate who has most vehemently attacked Donald Trump. On Wednesday the former Texas governor stated

He offers a barking carnival act that can be best described as Trumpism: a toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition if pursued.  Let no one be mistaken: Donald Trump’s candidacy is a cancer on conservatism, and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised and discarded.

But then on Sunday's Face the Nation, Perry claimed "We’ve had a divider in the White House for the last six and a half years in Barack Obama. We don’t need that out of the Republican nominee.”

Call President Obama what you wish. I often have, and presumably Republicans would if they ever would figure him out. Obama, however, is as much a "divider" as Perry is an expert on the federal bureaucracy (a reminder, below).










In his CBS appearance, Perry remarked also "I want to be very clear that I'm not going to go quietly as any individual, whether it's Donald Trump or anyone else, that lays out concepts that frankly are out of line with the old historical conservatism."  Trump's accurate representation of conservatism, however, was on display when he criticized John McCain as "not a war hero. He is a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured."

Averse to false humility, Trump brags (below) "I'm really rich," as we all were aware; The message, though, is clear: " I'm a winner, unlike the guy who was captured, who is a loser," a succinct expression of the timeless Republican credo.

It's not surprising, then, that noting efforts in the past by such GOP notables as Perry, Lindsay Graham, and Mitt Romney to sidle up to Trump, that E.J. Dionne recognizes

.... the real Donald Trump has been in full view for a long time, and Perry's new glasses can't explain his newfound clarity. I don't credit Trump with much. But he deserves an award for exposing the double-standards of Republican politicians. They put their outrage in a blind trust as long as Trump was, in Perry's words, "throwing invectives in this hyperbolic rhetoric out there" against Obama and the GOP's other enemies.

Almost to a man, the Repub candidates act as if Donald Trump is a newbie, just recently burst onto the scene, or an altruistic guy who suddenly has lost his mind. But Alex Mierjeski of ATTN: explains

Trump brings to his candidacy an extensive backlog of business ventures, some of which are troubling. In August, 2013, New York’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced the he was filing a lawsuit against Trump for the dubious promises of his higher education endeavor, Trump University. Schneiderman’s lawsuit alleged that the school’s real estate program, which was unlicensed as an actual university, was complicit in “persistent fraudulent, illegal and deceptive conduct” towards its students, who were often saddled with debt from expensive seminars in lieu of brimming with the promised insider secrets from “Donald Trump’s handpicked instructor[s],” most of whom turned out to have emerged from real estate-derived bankruptcy, or have little background in real estate at all.

Schneiderman claimed that more than 5,000 people paid around $40 million to Trump U, a quarter of which was funneled directly into Trump’s pockets, going against claims that Trump U was founded “solely for philanthropic purposes“––Trump netted around $5 million in profit, according to the suit. Many of the allegations read like a pyramid scheme pamphlet, such as the multiple claims that Trump himself would make an appearance (“‘he is going to be in town’ or ‘often drops by’ and ‘might show up’ or had just left,” the suit reads), and student evaluations required for getting a certificate that “‘pleaded for a favorable rating so that ‘Mr. Trump would invite [them] back to do other retreats.” On top of Schneiderman’s case, a class-action lawsuit in California was filed against the university, which now lists itself as the Trump Entrepreneur Initiative.

Whatever Donald Trump is- right-wing crank (not likely), huckster, windbag, rapacious capitalist- he is what the Republican Party has wrought.  Enjoy, fellas.





Share |

Or He Could Cut And Run, Like Ronald Reagan

Addressing the issue of the Syrian civil war and ISIS on Thursday, President Obama stated "i don't want to put the cart before the horse. We don't have a strategy yet."

John McCain, sensing a way to prove he was born sometime after 1900, responded by tweeting "#ISIS is largest, richest terrorist group in history & 192,000 dead in #Syria."   Slamming President Obama, Karl Rove contended "He was warned about the role that ISIS was playing inside Syria, and he has had all that time to develop a strategy about what to do about ISIS in Syria and he still doesn't."

Indicted Texas Governor Rick Perry argued "Yesterday, the president admitted he had no strategy to deal with ISIS. The deepening chaos in Iraq, Syria, Gaza, and Ukraine is all the clear and compelling evidence the world needs of a president one step behind, lurching from crisis to crisis, always playing catch up." And House Budget Committee chairperson Paul Ryan recommended the USA implement a strategy "not to contain them... but to fundamentally finish them off. And I don't think the president sees this moment for what it is."

Given the complexity of the Syrian War, it's easy to understand why a thoroughgoing policy has not yet been developed, unless one is as clueless about international affairs as the latter three guys.  It becomes even more understandable (and maybe a little disconcerting) upon remembering that the worst President in modern American history didn't see a moment in the Middle East for what it was.

In February, recalling the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, which left 241 American military personnel dead, Micah Zenko explained

In October 1983, after five Marines were killed in three separate incidents, National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane convinced the president to authorize the USS New Jersey to launch attacks against the Druze militia and Syrian forces on land. According to Powell, once the naval attack commenced, the Shiites "assumed the American 'referee' had taken sides against them. And since they could not reach the battleship, they found a more vulnerable target: the exposed Marines at the airport." Within one week, Hezbollah-linked militants drove two truck bombs containing a half a kiloton of explosives into the Marine barracks at the Beirut International Airport, killing 220 Marines and 21 other U.S. service members.

In the months that followed, the Reagan administration discussed a range of options including striking back and fully withdrawing the Marines.

Reagan never retaliated against Hezbollah or their Iranian and Syrian sponsors responsible for the bombings, a position widely endorsed by senior military officials. As then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. John Vessey declared: "It is beneath our dignity to retaliate against the terrorists who blew up the Marine barracks."

The Reagan administration also considered the pluses and minuses of withdrawing from the MNF. On the day after the barracks bombing, however, the president reaffirmed his commitment: "The reason they must stay there until the situation is under control is quite clear. We have vital interests in Lebanon. And our actions in Lebanon are in the cause of world peace." Over a month later, on Dec. 1, Reagan stated that the Marines were in Beirut to "demonstrate the strength of our commitment to peace in the Middle East.... Their presence is making it possible for reason to triumph over the forces of violence, hatred, and intimidation." Nine days later, he told the nation: "Once internal stability is established and withdrawal of all foreign forces is assured, the Marines will leave." Finally, on Feb. 4, 1984, Reagan stated something frequently heard in debates over Afghanistan and other theaters of conflict today -- if the United States withdraws, "we'll be sending one signal to terrorists everywhere: They can gain by waging war against innocent people.... If we're to be secure in our homes and in the world, we must stand together against those who threaten us."

Yet, just three days later, on Feb. 7, Reagan ordered the Marines to "redeploy" to their ships offshore -- which was actually a full withdrawal achieved in three weeks. Although the Marine's mission in Lebanon was not clearly defined and, subsequently, not achieved, Reagan's tacit admission of failure and withdrawal of the Marines from Lebanon limited America's further involvement in foreign-policy disaster -- saving money, lives, and time. Many pundits later claimed wrongly that Reagan was erroneous, because Osama bin Laden contended that the withdrawal was a sign of U.S. weakness; as if America's strategic choices should be held hostage to how terrorists choose to describe them.

For three-and-a-half months, Saint Ronnie dithered, as Republicans would characterize a Democrat proceeding in such a fashion.  Unsure what to do, he finally took a rhetorically tough stand, the equivalent of declaring "if we hesitate, the terrorists win."  Days later he backed down and began to withdraw U.S. forces.

President Obama probably will act more decisively than did President Reagan, who didn't have to fear that the Republican Party would accuse him of appeasement, nor a Democratic Party which doesn't roll that way.

One of Reagan's most enthusiastic acolytes of recent years has been Sean Hannity, who a few years ago promoted the "What Would Reagan Do?" campaign with other conservatives unable to distinguish between Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6) and Jesus Christ.  Elias Isquith of Salon reports on a recent episode of  "Hannity"

“I’ve always had the greatest respect for people, like yourself, that have served our country,” Hannity began, speaking to guest Ralph Peters, a retired Army Colonel. “And if I’m looking at us giving up all of our gains in Iraq, I don’t know if I can in good conscience recommend that any American sign up for the military under this leadership,” he continued, referring to the success the Islamic extremist group ISIS has had in claiming territory in Iraq since most U.S. troops left the country in 2011.

“If they risk their blood and treasure and give up their lives only to give it back a year later?” Hannity continued, referring to portions of Iraq, a sovereign country that is not and never was annexed to the United States. “I really could not in good conscience recommend people serve under those circumstances.”

Here Sean is pimping the myth of the success of the surge in Iraq as he casually refers to "all of our gains in Iraq."  One of those "gains" was the  election of Nouri-al Maliki, who recently agreed to resign as Prime Minister of Iraq  after several years of encouraging continued bloodshed between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims and helping create the conditions giving rise to ISIL.  Had, however, United States soldiers remained in Iraq (presumably as peacekeepers) as Senator McCain had recommended and Hannity appears to believe would have been wise, they would have been susceptible to the kind of brutality displayed by ISIL- and to a major attack reminiscent of the Marine barracks bombing.

If that had occurred, the United States would be in an even worse situation than it was in October, 1983 and the President would have been urged not to give in to the terrorists.  The caveat always heard today- "but no boots on the ground"- would have been employed far less often. With the surge of testosterone throughout the media and official Washington, the President would not have the luxury to deliberate carefully before setting out a strategy which would have regional, possibly worldwide, implications and whose repercussions could have affected the globe for decades to come.




Share |

Crowley Retreats Into Safety

Perhaps you remember this moment from primary campaign 2012:

King asked Gingrich to respond to allegations by his ex-wife that in 1999, Gingrich asked her to have an open marriage with him.

"Would you like to take some time to respond to that?" asked King.

"No, but I will," responded Gingrich, receiving loud, sustained applause from the audience.

"I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that," he said.

The audience gave Gingrich a standing ovation.

Months earlier, in a debate in Nevada, Mitt Romney tried to goad Rick Perry into a fight by putting his left hand onto the Texan's right shoulder during a heated discussion (at :33 in the video below).If Perry had responded as most of us would have, brushing Romney's hand off his shoulder or taking a swing at him, voters would be casting their ballots in two weeks for Barack Obama or Newt Gingrich.

In the first general election debate, the GOP nominee successfully bullied Jim Lehrer.  Martha Raddatz of ABC was chosen as moderator of the vice presidential debate by the Commission on Debates, which received approval from both presidential campaigns.   Barack Obama had attended Raddatz's wedding to a friend of his whom he later appointed to the FCC.   The wedding took place in 1991, the divorce in 1997, but conservatives charged bias.   Really. 

In the second presidential debate, Romney imperiously told the President by "you'll get your turn" and frequently cut off moderator Candy Crowley.  And then there was the signature exchange of the debate:

CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to...

ROMNEY: Yes, I -- I...

CROWLEY: ... quickly to this please.

ROMNEY: I -- I think interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That's what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror.

It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me call it an act of terror...

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

CROWLEY: He -- he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

Not being stupid or naive Crowley, presumably, imagined the firestorm that would be coming after she pointed out merely that the President had called the Benghazi attack "an act of terror."Following the debate, and anxious to head off inevitable , outrage from Republicans from fact-challenged Republicans, Crowley chatted (video, below) with Anderson Cooper and rationalized "I did turn around and say "But you're totally correct that they did spend two weeks telling us this was about a tape, and that there was this riot outside the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn't."  So he was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word."

Crowley apparently didn't say whom she turned around to talk to, nor why she would turn around in the middle of a debate.  Nor did she say what the 'wrong word' was.   Was it terror, act, spontaneous, or demonstration which a guy reportedly worth a quarter of a billion dollars who wants to be the leader or the Free World doesn't understand?

Words matter.   An attack occurs.  The next day, the President declares "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America."  Later, his opponent claims "it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghzi an actof terror."   Now, Candy Crowley is reading Mitt Romney's mind.  She just knows he must have meant something other than what he said, that he merely "picked the wrong word."   

This mirrors Romney's entire campaign, wherein he routinely denies saying something for which he is on record.  Teachers? I don't want them fired; "I love teachers."  China: we need to keep flooding the market with Chinese tires but "on day one I'll label them a currency manipulator.    Auto industry? "I like American cars. And I would do nothing to hurt the U.S. auto industry."   That wasn't me who wrote "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course..." 

There is a reason Mitt Romney used "the wrong word."  If he had said that after the President had declared it an "act of terror," Obama emphasized the spontaneous nature of the event, voters would have heard Romney acknowledge that Obama  had immediately labeled it as terror.  If he had argued that while Obama recognized it immediately as terrorism but the State Department emphasized an alleged spontaneity, voters might recognize that the President and (U.N. Ambassador) Susan Rice are not identical.  And in neither case would the charge have the emotional, gob-smacking quality of "it took the president 14 days" before he blamed Arab terrorists.   It would have had the advantage of not being a lie but, hey, this is a campaign, and this is the Republican nominee for President.

Share |

Not The Whole Earth, At Least Not By Flood


"I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the food and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth."   (Genesis 9:11, ESV)


Conservative Christians would not deny that this biblical covenant is being kept.   And many insist that climate change (other than what may be routine or cyclical) cannot occur because God would never permit it.  Drought, in fact, is the major climactic story and manifestation of extreme weather in the U.S.A. this year as

The US Drought Monitor reported a nearly threefold increase in areas of extreme drought over the past week in the nine Midwestern states where three quarters of the country's corn and soybean crops are produced. "That expansion of D3 or extreme conditions intensified quite rapidly and we went from 11.9 percent to 28.9 percent in just one week," Brian Fuchs, a climatologist and Drought Monitor author, told AFP. "For myself, studying drought, that's rapid. We've seen a lot of things developing with this drought that were unprecedented, especially the speed." 

Almost two thirds of the continental United States are now suffering drought conditions, the largest area recorded since the Drought Monitor project started in 1999.

Climate change has been a significant factor also in bringing extreme rainfall to some regions.  The Brisbane, Australia Times earlier this year reported 

Abnormally high ocean temperatures off the coast of northern Australia contributed to the extreme rainfall that flooded three-quarters of Queensland over the summer of 2010-11, scientists report.

A Sydney researcher, Jason Evans, ran a series of climate models and found above average sea surface temperatures throughout December 2010 increased the amount of rainfall across the state by 25 per cent on average.

While the study did not look at the cause of ocean warming in the region, a physical oceanographer, Matthew England, said climate change could not be excluded as a possible driver of this extreme rainfall event.

Between December 23 and 28 many places experienced up to 400 millimetres of rain in a few days. "That [means] 100 millimetres of rain was attributable to sea surface temperatures," said Dr Evans, a future fellow at the University of NSW's Climate Change Research Centre....

Warmer sea surface temperatures increase the amount of moisture transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere.

"If you've got the right winds they carry this moisture to land, and [because] land is hotter than the ocean during the day it will cause convection and rain," Dr Evans said.

God did promise, according to the passage in Genesis, that earth would never be destroyed by flood.   However, according to what is arguably the most well-known commentary among laypersons and theologians alike

This promise does not hinder, 1. But that God may bring other wasting judgments upon mankind; for, though he has here bound himself not to use this arrow any more, yet he has other arrows in his quiver. 2. Nor but that he may destroy particular places and countries by the inundations of the sea or rivers. 3. Nor will the destruction of the world at the last day by fire be any breach of his promise. Sin which drowned the old world will burn this.

"Particular places and countries," Matthew Henry wrote in the 18th century may be destroyed "by the inundations of the sea or rivers."    Additionally, "other wasting judgments upon mankind" may be brought, which presumably would not exclude record-breaking heat and drought.   Nor would a dramatic increase in wildfires, probably prompted in part by global warming, spared

Heat records have dropped like flies in the U.S.A. in recent years while few cold records have been set.   Yet, radical climate change has not occurred uniformly.    In July of 2011, Oklahoma set a record for the hottest month ever recorded in the nation, with 88.9 the average daily temperature.    It was the hottest season in state history and the second hottest season ever in the U.S.A. and was, one climatologist remarked, "warmer than all those summers that they experienced during the Dust Bowl."    And it hasn't gotten much better for the state.   Its largest city (its temperature records, here) broke its record for consecutive days with a temperature in the triple digits as it experienced 100 degrees or more from from July 18 through August 1.

Oklahoma is distinguished from everywhere else in the United States of America.   It is the only state in which every county in 2008 was carried by the McCain-Palin ticket.   Further, Wikipedia notes in 2010, "for the first time in Oklahoma history the GOP won every statewide office up for election that year, and as a result currently holds all eleven statewide offices. The GOP increased its majorities in the House by six seats and in the Senate by five seats."     A state once Democratic, then somewhat Republican, suddenly has become solidly Republican, arguably the most so in the nation.

Texas, also, has become a thoroughly Republican state.   It opted overwhelmingly for McCain-Palin in 2008, has a GOP governor, two Repub U.S. Senators (with Republican Ted Cruz a solid favorite to win an open seat in November), two GOP-controlled legislative chambers (one with a supermajority), and all 25 statewide elected positions controlled by the Gas and Oil Party.   (Democrats hope to turn this around because the state has become majority-minority.)

And what was that state, still experiencing severe drought, which at 86.7 degrees in July, 2012 recorded the second hottest month ever in the U.S.A.?   That's right- Texas.   Texas still is experiencing severe drought, which worsened when Governor Rick Perry in 2011 publicly prayed for its end.

Texas and Oklahoma are Republican and getting more and more so, and are suffering more than perhaps any other state.  

Christians may be comforted by the assurance that God will never destroy the earth with flood.  But He never promised not to destroy entire nations with flood, nor the entire world with heat, drought, or any other manifestation of climate change.     It should be comforting to all of us that the extraordinary, accelerating change in climate, predictable from the growth in carbon emissions, probably is not of supernatural origin, a divine warning not to continue our self-destructive ways.   Probably not.



Share |

Irresponsible, Not Insane



You might think they're crazy or at least hopelessly foolish.  But they're not.

Under terms of the Affordable Care Act, the federal government pays  state governments 100% of the cost through 2017 of expanding Medicaid, with the percentage dropping to 90% in 2020.

Chief Justice Roberts deserves much of the blame for the resistance remaining to Medicaid expansion of many of the 26 states which filed suit against the PPACA.     He ruled that Congress could not deny full Medicaid funding to states choosing not to expand coverage, but only funding for the additional individuals added to the program under the Act.

No doubt some Repub legislators and chief executives fear that, with a growing national debt, the federal government would not follow through with its promise of future funding.    But they know that Democrats would continue the funding.   It is only the members of Congress belonging to their own GOP who would plausibly put at risk the nearly 100% subsidy for the needy citizens of their states.    An analogous situation exists with the effort to expand job opportunities for Americans in need of employment is demonstrative.   Think Progress found

This trend of public job depletion puts the Republican jobs agenda in stark contrast with the administration’s approach. President Obama’s American Jobs Act would not only add 1.9 million jobs next year, but makes targeted investments to arrest the trend in layoffs. The plan includes $35 billion in direct state aid infusion that will “prevent up to 280,000 layoffs of teachers, who are — along with cops and firefighters — particularly vulnerable to local government budget shortfalls.”

However, Republicans continue to block Obama’s much-needed plan because, in part, they see public job loss as a positive.

With such a sweet deal being offered the states, it is becoming increasingly clear that a large chunk of the GOP sees health care loss (for poor individuals) as a positive.   A Forbes contributor reasons
  
Are these red state governors really going to sit by and watch the taxes their citizens pay to the federal government flow to the benefit of their neighboring states as the recalcitrant governors allow their own residents to miss the benefit of that money?

I don’t think so. Ideological opposition is one thing—denying access to health care to voters who could certainly use it when, to do so, would cost the state a relatively tiny amount of money, is just dumb politics.

Ron Pollack, director of Families USA, notes "it would be an act of fiscal malpractice for states to turn this down."   And Ezra Klein, acknowledging the resistance of several legislatures and chief executives nonetheless argues

that won't last forever.  and governors also have to answer to non-Republican voters who don't want their state missing out on billions in federal dollars, and to the hospitals in their state who have to treat uninsured patients that end up in their emergency room,s, and the insured voters who end up paying for their uninsured brethren.

Plus,when they want to flip-flop on the issue,they'll have an easy argument with which to do it:  It's a way to stick it to those blue states that put Obama back in Office.

Hospitals generally support the expansion.   The president and chief executive officer of the Texas Hospital Association explains "without the Medicaid expansion, many will remain uninsured, seeking care in emergency rooms, shifting costs to the privately insured, and increasing uncompensated care to health care providers.     With a strained state budget, it's hard to imagine addressing the uninsured problem in Texas without leveraging federal funds, which will now go to other states that choose to expand their Medicaid program."

Still, the Republican governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, now has joined the GOP governors of Louisiana, Florida,, Iowa, Mississippi, and Texas in announcing opposition to acceptance of federal dollars to boost provision of health care services to poor residents.  There will be more.   Digby comments

Here you have the Federal government paying for 100% for the first years and then 90% thereafter and they still won't ake yes for an answer.  So I think we can feel fairly confident at this point that it isn't really about the funding at ll, can't we?  It's about their belief that "those" people who don't "deserve" medical care shouldn't get it.

On the same site, and linking to Digby's commentary, David Atkins adds

It's not just about giving rich people more money.  The modern Republican establishment is most obsessed with enforcing a cosmic law of reward and punishment wherein poor people suffer and die early because they din't pull themselves up by their bootstraps enough to be rich.  It's a matter of principle, and they're more than willing to anger their allies in the hospital, health insurance and pharmaceutical industries to make ti happen.

The Ayn Rand nonsense isn't just rhetorical cover to enrich their already wealthy friends.   These People really believe in it.   They cannot be bargained with and cannot be reasoned with.  Its clear that pity and remorse are off the table, and they don't even fear the retaliation of the electorate.

Republicans (and much of inside Washington) were appalled- appalled!- when California congressman Alan Grayson, during the health care reform debate, had the temerity to declare on the House floor "if you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this:  Die quickly."

Health care reform passed, the prescient Grayson was defeated for re-election, the Supreme Court (somewhat) upheld the legislation, and GOP-dominated states are balking  at implementation.    There are factors at work beyond what Heather Digby Parton, David Atkins, and Alan Grayson point out.   When patients continue to flock to emergency rooms whose hospitals must, under terms of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), continue to treat them without reimbursement, many administrators wil blame "the government."   Many of the patients, lacking Medicaid and receiving inadequate care in emergency rooms, will blame "the government."     And when South Carolina and Texas, among the national leaders in health care, are further stigmatized, residents and voters will blame "the government."

But while GOP politicians are all too pleased to see government continue to be a scapegoat, they are not reluctant to accept credit when they can.     Tuesday, Texas governor Rick Perry sent to HHS Secretary Sebelius a letter in which he declared opposition to both the state health care exchanges and medicaid expansion, arguing "the PPACA would simply enlarge a broken system that is already financially unstable."     The Medicaid provision, he wailed, "would threaten even Texas with financial ruin." Perry concluded  "I look forward to implementation of health care solutions that are right for the people of Texas.  I urge you to support me in that effort."    

That approach is not as cryptic as it appears.   Appearing on Fox News only hours after he sent the letter, the governor stated "If the federal government were serious about working with the states … what they would do is block grant those dollars back to the states."    Rick Perry to American taxpayers:  "Send money.   A lot of it.   I'll decide where it goes and take the credit.   You stink."


Share |

God On Their Side



Perhaps you remember Michelle Bachmann remarking in May, 2011 in Iowa  “Well, every decision that I make, I pray about, as does my husband, and I can tell you, yes, I’ve had that calling and that tugging on my heart that this is the right thing to do.”   Coincidentally, that same month at a fundraiser in Texas, Governor Rick Perry commented "God was dealing with me.  At 27 years old, I knew that I had been called to the ministry. I've just always been really stunned by how big a pulpit I was gonna have. I still am. I truly believe with all my heart that God has put me in this place at this time to do his will."   (Perry prayed to the Almighty also last year to put an end to the drought in Texas.    God listened but apparently didn't give the Governor the answer he was seeking, as the drought grew worse.)


There was Mr. 9-9-9, Herman Cain, who six months later told the Georgia Young Republicans "I prayed and prayed and prayed.  I'm a man of faith, I had to do a lot of praying for this one, more praying than I'd ever done before in my life. And when I finally realized that it was God saying that this is what I needed to do, I was like Moses. 'You've got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?'"

Even spouses of candidates were not precluded from claiming divine sanction.   Karen Santorum, who said it was the passage of "Obamacare" that "put fire in my belly," maintained it was "God's will" that her husband run for the GOP presidential nomination.

Neither Bachmann, Perry, Cain, or Santorum ever had a chance to get the Republican nod.    (Of those in the race, only Newt Gingrich ever had a chance to derail Romney.)     So perhaps God chose not to intervene in the race or instead did so, deciding to hand each of the four an unequivocal defeat.   None of the four, however, was a darling of the mainstream media, perhaps because (the first) three were marginally serious candidates and arguably, simply not serious at all.

But the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Representative Paul Ryan of Ohio, an Ayn Rand acolyte and spokesman for the 1%, has been portrayed by the naive media as a thinking person's politician and breath of fresh air.    Then on Sunday, Ryan on ABC's This Week contended

What Ms. Kennedy and others were saying is that this is a new government-granted right. We disagree with the notion that our rights come from government, that the government can now grant us and define our rights. Those are ours, they come from nature and God, according to the Declaration of Independence — a huge difference in philosophy.

In a thorough take-down of Ryan's remark today, a dailykos blogger points to this portion of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Ryan did not pause to tell us why God decided to punish the citizens of, say, Somalia, Libya, Syria, and mainland China with few rights.     Apparently, neither nature nor God decided to extend generosity, at one time or another, toward billions of people throughout the world.

Fortunately, the Repub heavyweight, thought to be on Mitt Romney's short list of running mates, probably is not so ignorant of the Constitution and devoid of common sense to believe what he said.     Already idealized by the Village as an "economic conservative" (i.e., someone who wants to drop taxes on the wealthy and explode the budget deficit), Ryan likely figures he has to shore up support among cultural conservatives in the party.     Still, his statement is part of a pattern of politicians in the Gas and Oil Party to imply that they, and they alone, know the mind of the Lord and have his cell phone number.



Share |

With God On Their Side



What do Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum (hint: eventually) have in common?

They all were forced to drop out of the Repub presidential nomination, sometime after they suggested that the Almighty inspired them to run.

Asked in early June whether he had "that sort of calling to run for president." Representative Bachmann replied "yes, I've had that calling and tugging on my heart that this is the right thing to do."     Later that month, just before announcing her run, she told Bob Schieffer "I am a Christian, as is my husband. I became a Christian when I was 16 years old. I gave my heart to Jesus Christ.     Since that time, I've been a person of prayer. And so when I pray, I pray believing that God will speak to me and give me an answer to that prayer.  That's what a calling is.    If I pray, a calling means that I feel like I have a sense from God."

In August, Governor Perry gave a 13-minute address infused with Scriptural references at "The Response: A Call to Prayer for a Nation in Crisis" in Houston's Reliant Stadium.      The prayers at the event, according to the New York Times, "were given in Jesus Christ’s name, and the many musical performers sang of Christian themes of repentance and salvation."     The previous month, Perry had told the Des Moines Register “I’m not ready to tell you that I’m ready to announce that I’m in.      But I’m getting more and more comfortable every day that this is what I’ve been called to do. This is what America needs.”

In November,Herman Cain assured the Georgia Young Republicans "I'm a man of faith, I had to do a lot of praying for this one, more praying than I'd ever done before in my life. And when I finally realized that it was God saying that this is what I needed to do, I was like Moses. 'You've got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?'"

As you would expect, Rick Santorum also believes that God brought him in to the race. Early this month, an official with the Romney campaign boasted "As you can tell all we have to do is keep doing what we’re doing and we can get to the nomination.     For those guys it’s going to take some sort of act of God to get to where they need to be on the nomination front.”     Santorum, campaigning in Puerto Rico, demurred, stating "One of my opponents recently said that it would take an act of God for me to win this primary. I agree with him."

To be sure, none of the three candidates who have departed the race claimed that God had designated him/her to be the next President, nor even the next GOP nominee.        Nor did Santorum say that God is running interference for him- only that if he were to win the Puerto Rico primary, it would be the Lord's doing.    

In July, the Daily Beast's Michelle Cottle spoke to longtime cultural conservative and American Values president, onetime presidential contender and current Santorum supporter (phew!) Gary Bauer.    She asked him to explain Perry:

"Sometimes it’s presented in media that the individual believes that God has picked him to be president. That would be very jarring to people, and would not be a wise thing for candidate to say—since the voters would certainly like their chance."  He adds with a laugh, "That would mean God would go before Iowa!"

But Bauer added "Being called is basically about praying and trying to discern God’s will," Bachman, Perry, Cain, and Santorum all have implied strongly that God's will was that they run for the Repub nomination for President.     I have a sense from God that this is the right thing to do, Bachmann said.    Perry suggested that he would be "in" if it's "what I've been called to do."      Cain apparently was told by God "this is what I needed to do."       And now Santorum has announced that he will win Puerto Rico if and only if God wishes.

It's over, for this cycle, for Herman Cain.     But Michele Bachmann is running for re-election to the U.S. House, it's hardly likely that Rick Perry's career in Texas is over, and Rick Santorum has an outside (barely) chance to be the GOP nominee for U.S. President.  And each seems to believe that God is in his/her corner, having selected that individual over all others.

A partisan would argue that the media is giving GOP candidates a pass on their rather interesting take on the role of the Almighty.        Not being partisan (insert chuckle here), I believe instead that the media is awfully uncomfortable about raising the issue.    But it must be probed; religion is very important to these politicians, or at least they claim it to be.    It appears to be an important part of whom they are, let alone the reason they've gotten into, or remain in, the political arena.     Ignoring the elephant in the room won't make the elephant go away, only encourage more politicians in the future to maintain that God is on their side, and uniquely so.


Share |

Gingrich And Clinton


"Existential Willie" is the phrase which popped into the mind of Timothy Noah of Slate in 1998. He correctly prophesied that "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" would become a defining moment in the Clinton presidency and noted that rationalizing

to the grand jury about why he wasn't lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there's nothing going on between us." How can this be? Here's what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr's report):


"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

There is a clear parallel to the GOP presidential race, in which Newt Gingrich pocketed $1.6 million as an influence peddler- uh, er- historian for Freddie Mac which, as every good American knows, was, along with Fannie Mae, the Most Corrupt and Evil Institution In World History.

Gingrich has been put on the defensive for running interference for Freddie Mac and at the Repub presidential debate on Thursday night in Sioux Falls, protested "I never lobbied under any circumstance. I never went in and suggested in any way that we do this." Mitt Romney, perhaps recalling the mutual destruction of Richard Gephardt and Howard Dean in the 2004 Democratic race when they criticized each other, was somewhat muted in his criticism of the former House Speaker, avoiding the confrontation he preferred other candidates have with the Georgian. Michele Bachmann took up the challenge, departed from her normal role in the debates as laugher-in-chief, and charged

Well, after the debates that we had last week, PolitiFact came out and said that everything that I said was true. And the evidence is that Speaker Gingrich took $1.6 million. You don't need to be within the technical definition of being a lobbyist to still be influence-peddling with senior Republicans in Washington, D.C., to get them to do your bidding.
And the bidding was to keep this grandiose scam of Freddie Mac going. That's -- that is something that our nominee can't stand for. We have to shut down these government enterprises. And we've got to end them. And I think that's shocking that he's saying that.

The following day, Rick Perry, forgetting that as Texas governor he has considered lobbyists as merely part of his extended- no, immediate- family characterized "the idea that somehow or another ‘I’m a consultant, I wasn’t a lobbyist.’ For most of us, that is a very weak excuse at best."

Condemnation of Gingrich for his hubris, narcissism, flights of fancy, and ideological inconsistency has echoed throughout the conservative world as his poll numbers have dramatically risen and, now, dropped somewhat. But there is that one potential line of attack which appears to have gone unnoticed (or virtually so) among his (GOP) detractors: "it depends on what the meaning of lobbyist is."

Sure, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama have replaced Bill Clinton as Repub bogeymen. But there remains a well of hatred among Republicans, especially among rank-and-file voters, for the 42nd president. Now a part of standard political discourse, "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" has become emblematic of the parsing periodically engaged in by politicians, and which Americans despise.

It goes to the heart of our impatience with details- Gingrich legally was not actually not a "lobbyist"- and goes to the heart of the disgust people hold toward other people being overly technical and not seeing the big picture. The biggest sin committed by Newton, who recently had called for incarcerating Frank and Dodd over what Republicans perceive as their role in the financial crisis, was hypocrisy. But a snide reference to words of the guy Noah termed "existential Willie" and Republicans have derided as "slick Willy" could only damage Gingrich. And that would be a fine Christmas gift for GOP insiders and other Republicans who would like to win a presidential election.

Share|

A Sure Thing

The NFL is threatening to ruin the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney.

Not the NFL itself, of course, but the promiscuous gambling that has made the league wildly successful.

In one of those awful "buzzwords" (itself a buzzword) in the world of politics, the main "takeaway" from Saturday night's GOP presidential debate in Des Moines was Mitt Romney's retort to Rick Perry, who claimed that the first edition of Romney's book referred to the "mandate in Massachusetts which should be the model for the country."

Romney seemed out of touch, challenging Perry to a $10,000 bet. Monday, the former Massachusetts governor contended "It’s like saying, 'hey, I’ll bet you a million bucks, x, y and z.' "

Oddly, Romney's chief surrogate, Chris Christie, maintained on Monday at a fundraiser for the presidential candidate something subtly different. "The picking of the number $10,000," the N.J. governor contended "I’m sure was Gov. Romney saying ‘That’s how sure I am. I’m willing to bet that much money — that’s how sure I am Rick that you’re lying.’ I think that’s all it was.”

When a guy isn't serious, he suggests an outrageous number (traditionally, often, $1 million) to make a point. Christie, however, implies that Romney was deadly serious because he was "sure" Perry was "lying."

Politifact rated Perry's charge "mostly false," which may be generous to the Texas governor, given Politifact's reasoning. More definitively, as FactCheck.org found

In fact, Perry is wrong and Romney is correct. As we have written a couple of times before, the book was revised and this line was removed: “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country.” But the phrase “the same thing” refers to the goals of the state law: “portable, affordable health insurance,” not the controversial individual mandate or the entire law. Romney saw the Massachusetts plan as a potential model for other states, if they so choose, but not as a federal mandate.

The merit of the accusation, however, seems not to matter. Rick Perry remarked that Romney's offer was "a little out of touch the normal Iowa citizen," a sentiment echoed by The Des Moines Register's Kathie Obradovich, who tweeted "not too many Iowa caucusgoers are the sort to offer a $10,000 bet, even on a sure thing."

If not, we can blame the NFL. You won't be betting $10,000 that the New England Patriots will cover the six points by which they are favored to defeat the Denver Broncos on Sunday- or, for that matter, that the Broncos will cover the spread. The outcome of the game is completely out of your control, and you have very nearly a 50% chance of being wrong. (If that were not the case, the bookies would lose their figurative shirt.)

Romney, however, had no such fear. He wrote the book. He knew what was in the original release and had no reason to fear that his $10,000 was in any jeopardy. But most voters could not imagine betting $10,000 on anything, as accustomed as they are to thinking of gambling in the context of athletic events.

Romney's challenge was politically tone-deaf, given the figure he used was far below the figure ($1 million, or better yet, $10 million) to make it clear that it was speaking figuratively, or a small enough figure (perhaps $50) that a voter could relate to. But if you had the opportunity, with someone willing to take the offer, would you not bet someone $10,000 on what you had for dinner last night?

Sure you would, if you wanted to make a quick buck, or a quick $10,000 of them.

Share|

Learning (!) From Bachmann and Santorum

There isn't much difference among the Repub candidates for President, at least among those who get invited to debate, such as the seven who appeared last night at Wofford College in Spartanburg, South Carolina (transcript here).

Oh, there is Jon Huntsman, the one candidate who believes that science is not a trick of the antichrist, but his dangerous economic views are straight out of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and he nonetheless has no chance of gaining the nomination. And then there is Ron Paul, who is antagonistic toward military adventurism, but otherwise has gotten to the right of the other candidates, an impressive acrobatic feat.

But there is a difference, even among the other five. We now know that Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich should pack up their bags, go back to Texas and Georgia, and never, ever pretend that they even want to be president.

Almost unbelievably, the two candidates who put them to shame last night were Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, when co-moderator Scott Pelley asked

Governor Perry, why is Pakistan playing a double game, saying that it supports the United States one moment and then supporting terrorists who are killing American troops the next? What's going on there?

After a response from the longest-serving governor in the United States, Pelley followed up, and Perry then stated

They've been doing this for years. Their political people are not who are in charge of that country. It's the military. It's the secret service. That's who's running that country. And I don't trust 'em. And we need to send clear messages. We need to do foreign aid completely different. I'm tellin' you, no dollar's goin' into those countries. As a matter of fact, if they want any American aid, any country, unless we say differently, the American manufacturing, big companies, small companies, going in to help create economic--

A minute and a half later, the National Journal's Major Garret asked of Newt Gingrich "....You have seen, at times, the proper role of the United States through foreign aid and other interventions. I want to know if you agree with-- Governor Perry about starting at zero?" The former Speaker of the House and alleged policy wonk replied

I'm absolute-- I mean, what he said made absolutely perfect sense. Why would you start every year-- and consider the alternative. You're giving some country $7 billion a year. So you start off-- or-- or in the case of Egypt, $3 billion a year. So you start off every year and say, "Here's your $3 billion, now I'll start thinking"? You ought to start off at zero and say, "Explain to me why I should give you a penny."And let me tell you, the fact that the Pakistanis-- (APPLAUSE) he didn't think about this. The Pakistanis hid Bin Laden for at least six years in a military city within a mile of their national defense university? And then they got mad at the people who turned him over to us? And we think those are the acts of allies? I think that's a pretty good idea to start at zero and sometimes stay there.

Make no mistake about it: neither Perry nor Gingrich knows much about Pakistan or cares much about Pakistan. Their responses were all about pandering, as audience applause reflected. Recognizing the unpopularity of foreign aid (especially in the abstract), a Washington Post blogger noted in April

In poll after poll, Americans overwhelmingly say they believe that foreign aid makes up a larger portion of the federal budget than defense spending, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, or spending on roads and other infrastructure. In a November World Public Opinion poll, the average American believed that a whopping 25 percent of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. The average respondent also thought that the appropriate level of foreign aid would be about 10 percent of the budget — 10 times the current level.

Compared with our military and entitlement budgets, this is loose change. Since the 1970s, aid spending has hovered around 1 percent of the federal budget. International assistance programs were close to 5 percent of the budget under Lyndon B. Johnson during the war in Vietnam, but have dropped since.

Americans generally believe the U.S.A. is overly generous aiding other nations which, given our GDP, is far off the mark. While Romney, Paul, and Cain were not directly confronted on the issue, Perry and Gingrich played to the crowd. Michele Bachmann, however, sits on the House Intelligence Committee and, commenting between Perry and Gingrich, informed her colleagues

Pakistan is a very difficult area, because they have been housing terrorists and terrorists have been training there. Al Qaeda, as well as Hikani, as well as other militias dealing with terrorist organizations. But I would not agree with that assessment to pull all foreign aid from Pakistan. I would reduce foreign aid to many, many countries. But there's a problem, because Pakistan has a nuclear weapon. We have more-- people affiliated with Al Qaeda closer to that nuclear bomb than in any nation. This is an extremely important issue.

A few moments later, Rick Santorum addressed the same issue and explained (in part)

Well, let me just stop back and-- and-- and say I disagree with a lot of what was said up here. Pakistan must be a friend of the United States for the reason that Michele outlined. Pakistan is a nuclear power. And there are people in this-- in that country that if they gain control of that country will create a situation equal to the situation that is now percolating in Iran.

In her response, Bachmann couldn't resist criticizing President Obama over Israel and Santorum for his part seemed all too comfortable with the regime in Islamabad. But no matter. Given a golden opportunity, they chose not to trivialize the issue of nuclear power but instead to acknowledge the complexities of cutting off a nation at the knees. By contrast, Rick Perry is ignorant and Newt Gingrich irresponsibly opportunistic.

Contemplating the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Islamic terrorists, candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum demonstrated a basic understanding of a volatile region of the Asian continent, and Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich did not. If they had any sense of dignity, they would get out and get out now.

Share|