Will He or Won’t He? The Investigation Question

If it is true that sitting presidents set the political boundaries for future ones, then the recent hand-off of executive power was truly a gift for Barack Obama. When, in modern presidential politics, has a president been provided with so much room to operate? Not only has he enormous public support, his party’s majority in the two houses of Congress, and a huge, urgent financial crisis affording him opportunity for inventive solutions, but most important, he has the George W. Bush administration preceding him. Having Bush brandish executive power over the Constitution like a swinging ax, the boundaries of what is politically acceptable have been pushed so far that, for Obama, it is like playing football on a field the size of Texas.

Within in the context of the last eight years, Obama has been given free reign over an almost full gamut of the political spectrum to execute his ideas. As such, the combination of revulsion toward Bush, and excitement for Obama, causes each conservative move he makes to be acceptable, and any restoration of common sense to be celebrated as progressive.

And this was apparent from the day of the inauguration onward. In his speech, Obama managed set a conservative tone without hardly a whisper of reaction from most progressive commentators. In invoking the Bible to “set aside childish things” (implying collective responsibility for the financial crisis), and adamantly stating that we will not apologize for our way of life, Obama was able to successfully plant conservative memes because they were wrapped in massive progressive celebration. The fact that both The Daily Show and Bill Kristol picked up on this is highly illustrative.

However, the lesson of context is more instructive when considering Obama’s first actions as president. While his executive orders, such as the closure of Guantanamo, the order for the CIA to follow the Army Field Manual for interrogation, and limitations of government secrecy are welcome, are they cause for progressive celebration? A sigh of relief, yes, but the shoots of a progressive agenda? I’m afraid not. After watching Bush spend eight years bending the Constitution to near snapping point, Obama is merely attempting to restore the document to some recognizable form. And more notable, these were the easy moves. In fact, he had to issue these orders. The public outrage over state encroachment of civil liberties had been swelling to bursting point, and was subsequently channeled into the Obama campaign. He had the mandate and the political will to do so, not to mention the founding ideals of the nation on his side. Really, all he has done has been to put back in place what Bush had removed, while at the same time, continuing militarily, very much, in the same vein as his predecessor: bombing Waziristan and killing 14 people. Because the reversals of Bush policy have been rapid, the ones that stayed the same went almost unnoticed.

The great irony of the Bush legacy, though, is that by conducting his office so disastrously, and, by extension, handing Obama so much political breathing space, it is clear that Obama feels he cannot hold Bush accountable, lest that breathing space disappear. The choice between massive political capital and following the Constitution is a very real one, and one with very high stakes. In attempting to bring the former administration to justice, it is very likely, given the tone set by current congressional Republicans, Obama’s agenda would shrink to zero by potentially instigating a political civil war — memories from the nineties, obviously fresh in Obama’s mind. If Obama finds it difficult now, twisting Republican arms in Congress, imagine his options after he attempts to try Bush and Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors. Then there’s also a massive economic crisis to address, not to mention his own party’s complicity in the waterboarding program, making it not merely difficult to start an investigation, but nigh on impossible.

To prosecute members of the previous administration would be like lighting a match to a partisan war, causing the mechanisms of Congress to jam up, just when we need it to function as efficiently as possible.

It is clear that Obama regards his options less as a balancing act and more mutually exclusive; a choice between principle and pragmatism. And as you would expect, the choice is not without precedent. There is the much-cited example of Lincoln’s magnanimity toward the South before and after the Civil War, but there is also the more appropriate parallel of the Jefferson presidency. After winning the presidency in 1800, Jefferson struck a remarkably conciliatory tone, when he said at his inaugural address that “every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.” And this, too, was after an incredibly brutal, partisan election, where it followed an administration that severely curtailed both civil liberties and the freedom of the press. Jefferson prosecuted no one for these infractions of the Constitution, including previous president John Adams. In order for him to keep the union together — a very real concern during the nascent United States — Jefferson had to reach out to northern Federalists. For an avid student of history such as Obama, it would seem he seeks to emulate this pragmatic, albeit contradictory, approach to crisis.

It is easy to imagine the president thinking of how he would best like to be remembered: the man who attempted to bring executive malfeasance to justice, or the man who wrested America from an economic free fall. It is clear which one is most politically viable. And given how difficult it would be to investigate Bush, fixing the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression would be easier.

The problem remains though, what to do to prevent future abuse of the executive office? And this is one area where progressives can press Obama to demonstrate some progressive mettle.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously took impeachment off the table due to her own complicity in the CIA torture program and, unfortunately, impeachment was the only opportunity to hold Bush to account. However, if the Obama administration were to propose a framework where the requirements to hold impeachment hearings would be made easier — specifically, more definitive — it would do much to prevent politicians like Pelosi from fudging the issue, and presidents (and vice presidents) from abusing their office. Though this would probably require a constitutional amendment, it would be the only way of protecting the state from future executive abuse. As it currently stands, the definition of crimes tried by impeachment is woefully ill-defined to be effective and consistent:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

As then-House Minority Leader Gerald Ford said in 1970, “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

By providing clear definitions of the offenses punishable by impeachment, Obama could demonstrate a willingness to address the crimes of the previous administration without having to sacrifice too much goodwill.

For all the celebrations of Obama’s restoring of civil liberties, it is clear that violations of those liberties must not happen again, and this is where the progressive fight to hold those in power accountable should be aimed.

Team of Dysfunctional Rivals

Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, Team of Rivals, has been all the rage lately, as President-elect Obama frequently cites it as a book that he has a learned a lot from. For the sake of our country, I hope he is also consulting other sources on the subject.

There is nothing wrong with Goodwin’s book, in the same sense that there is nothing wrong with most historical fiction. Dr. Goodwin is a wonderful writer and an even better cult of personality. She takes history to the mainstream in a way  that a purer academic historian never could. This is to be highly admired. Her eulogy at Tim Russert’s memorial service was graceful and poignant. However, her work should fact checked with other works.

Historical Fact Check

In an excellent op-ed piece in the November 19 issue of the New York Times, historian and Lincoln expert James Oakes wrote about how dysfunctional Lincoln’s cabinet was. This is an excellent read.

In this light, let’s go through some popular myths about Lincoln’s team of rivals that Oakes dismisses.  Not all these myths are portrayed in Team of Rivals, but each has become part of the conventional wisdom.  As such, many of the quasi-facts in Goodwin’s book have taken on a life of their own in the meme of the talking heads.

Myth 1: Lincoln selected rivals from other political parties.

This is not fact. Lincoln selected other Republican rivals, but not Democratic ones.

Myth 2: This practice was unique and unprecedented.

Far from it, this was common practice in that day. Many horribly unsuccessful Presidents, such as Lincoln’s predecessor James Buchanan also followed this practice. Oakes does a good job of giving us the history here. Does anyone remember stories of the famous duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr? Hate to tell you, but those rivals were both part of Thomas Jefferson’s cabinet.

Myth 3: The cabinet worked well together.

Oakes dismisses this and seems to say that Lincoln succeeded not because of his cabinet, but in spite of it.

You may ask, why all this matters. It matters in the current context because if Obama is going to use Goodwin’s book for historical guidance in selecting his cabinet, it is important to know what really happened back in the 1860s. With this knowledge, perhaps one can better judge whether someone like Hillary Clinton is the best choice.

Is this proposed “team of rivals” model better than classic JFK-LBJ cabinet groupthink that got us into the Bay of Pigs, and arugably led to the disaster in Vietnam? Of course.  Is it better than the one-man fiat of the last eight years (by the way, that one man is not George W. Bush)? Of course. However, we should be careful to draw historical parallels from half-truths and a good story.  Also, we should try to back up a step and determine whether one Republican and one Hillary Clinton truly make a team of rivals.

Finally, even if we 1.) assume that Obama is aiming for a team of rivals,  2.) that he is drawing lessons from Kearns Goodwin, and 3.) that Kearns Goodwin’s outline of this history was completely accurate (huge ifs), we would still need to consider the contextual differences that make extending such broad lessons next to impossible. As divided between red and blue the United States may seem, this not 1860, and we are much more united as a country than many partisans would like to admit.

Cabinet Rundown: AG, DHS, and HHS

With the exception of the Hillary-Clinton-for-Secretary-of-State flirt tease, the rest of President-elect Obama’s cabinet is starting to take shape. Here’s a look at three of those who have been tapped so far (some pending a background check):

Attorney General–Eric Holder, 57, New York

Eric Holder will become the first African American Attorney General in United States history. He was a deputy attorney general and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia during the Clinton administration and teamed with Caroline Kennedy as the lead vetter of Obama’s potential vice presidential selections. Holder seems to be a solid, non-controversial choice. He will certainly have a tough job ahead of him as the various abuses of the past eight years come to light. Hopefully, Mr. Holder can restore some credibility to the job of  top law enforcer. The funny thing about the attorney general position is that this was John Edward’s job for the taking if he would have kept his zipper up. Ah well, he can take solace with Bill I suppose.

Grade: B

Secretary of Homeland Security–Janet Napolitano, 50, Arizona

Governor Napolitano is immensely popular in Arizona and will become only the third secretary in the brief history of the department of Homeland Security. Before serving as governor of Arizona (she is now in her second term), she was a United States District Attorney for Arizona and was Arizona Secretary of State.  Napolitano is Obama’s first high-profile female selection (Hillary is not official yet). It is likely that both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security will be women.  The one downside to this move for Democrats is that Governor Napolitano was polling strongly in a potential Senate matchup with Senator McCain in 2010. McCain has given initial indication that he plans to run for reelection.

Grade: B+

Secretary of Health and Human Services–Tom Daschle, 60, South Dakota

Tom Daschle is a great selection for this post. I wrote a lot about this selection yesterday.

Grade: A

60 Minutes: Obama’s Inner Circle

In case you missed it, CBS’s 60 Minutes did a fascinating interview with Obama’s inner circle of advisers that aired on Sunday night. Included at the table (from left to right) are Communications Director and future White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Chief Strategist and future White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod, Campaign Manager and Email Guy David Plouffe, and Strategic Communications Guru Anita Dunn.

This interview is especially intriguing, since with the exception of Axelrod, Obama’s senior advisers have been especially tight lipped and camera shy. This isn’t by accident. One of the core competencies Obama was looking for in an adviser was the emotional intelligence needed to create a collective culture where drama existed. In contrast to the Clinton and McCain campaigns, Obama’s campaign was remarkably on message and in sync with what the candidate had to say on a daily basis. I believe that this aspect of the campaign often gets overshadowed by the charisma of the candidate and the historical significance of the moment.

Watch CBS Videos Online

Obama Meets the Press

Flanked by a cadre of men (and two women), Senator President-elect Obama held his first press conference since Tuesday’s election. The press conference was held in downtown Chicago, only a few blocks from where I work. However, as expected, I wasn’t allowed in the building. We assume most North American readers were probably at work when this presser occurred, so we’ll share the video for everyone to see:

There is nothing too unexpected here. President-elect Obama was calm and collected as always. He’ll have to be considering the mess he is inheriting. His Treasury Secretary selection remains the topic du jour. Former Secretary and king of controversy Larry Summers and New York Fed President Timothy Geithner are both apparently in the running. Former Fed Chair Paul Volcker’s name has been mentioned as well, but he’s about 95 years old.

An Electoral Reflection

Now that I’ve had a few days to let the reality of the situation sink in, I feel moved to write down a few reactions and observations about the historic election on Tuesday. First, I was struck by the various reactions of people on all sides of the political forum. Some were indifferent, which puzzled me, considering the historical implications for both candidates. However, maybe they had opinions that they’d rather keep private, which is their prerogative. Others were joyful, even to the point of sounding like they were experiencing a religious renewal of sorts. Some people who hadn’t held a public political opinion in years were openly ecstatic.

Of course, there was a candidate who lost Tuesday night, and he had his faithful supporters too. Some seemed very gracious in their collective loss, putting their faith in Obama as the next leader of the country. I found this very refreshing and a far cry from my own reaction to the Republican victory four years ago. Speaking of that bitter reaction, I have come across people who were, like I was in ‘04, downright dejected and cynical about the whole human race. While there’s a part of me that feels the overwhelming temptation to arrogantly laugh off their seemingly hyperbolic behavior, I stop short, again remembering what it felt like to be on the losing end of a very passionate election season. I know what it feels like to wonder how people, many of whom you respect and love, could fail to see the situation the way that it seemed so blatantly obvious to you at that moment. To those people, the following may sound like bitter consolation at a time like this, and they may even feel like I’m mocking them in my victory (which I am most certainly not doing). However, I know what it’s like to invest so heavily in a set of ideals and to have the bottom fall out from under you. You may make your vows to avoid speaking with certain people of the other camp. However, with any luck, those vows won’t hold much water. You may never fully absorb the shock, but the little things in life go on. Trust me, if there’s one thing I’ve had to learn over the past eight years, it’s that we share a greater measure of simple, common humanity than is usually apparent in the midst of our political bickering and posturing.

Second, and this is my own reaction and opinion, I feel incredibly optimistic. Admittedly, even foolishly so. I have become so used to the idea that my government is diametrically opposed to my core values for the past eight years that I forgot what it felt like not to have to fight the country’s leadership every step of the way. Granted, the new administration is not going to fix every thing that I perceive to be a problem immediately after inauguration, but it’s still nice to know that the new president is at least open to suggestions, rather than believing that he has a moral mandate to rule in a way that doesn’t pay any regard to certain segments of the population.

Finally, I will offer a personal conjecture, and you may feel like this is where my childlike optimism might be boiling over a bit too much. I took in the whole cultural situation Tuesday night, including the unpopular wars, the struggling economy, the civil rights and equality issues, the vested interests doing their best to divide the country, and I couldn’t help but feel a connection with my parents’ generation. When they were young, many of them tried to fight against the war in Vietnam and even more tried to fight for equality of the races and genders. They tried to take on the system, the “Man” as it were, and the vested interests of the day. Of course, from their perspective, they failed on many counts, sparking a decade of disillusionment, lack of direction, a swing of the pendulum back to the right.

Did our generation, those under the age of 30, just pull off what our parent’s generation couldn’t pull off? Did we just (finally) finish the 60’s? I can just hear certain conservatives wanting to brand me a hippy-dippy, socialist flower-child who wants to smoke grass and copulate with random women for saying that we just “finished the 60’s.” It was, as I said, just a little flight of cultural and historical fancy on my part, not an actual claim that I think we’re all going to repeat the 60’s and “try to love one another right now.” Maybe it’s saying too much and reaching too far. Maybe I’m just putting more significance into an election already brimful of meaning. But I can’t help but wonder: Did our “apathetic” generation just bring about a national reckoning with the ghosts from our recent past? I’m skeptical myself, but I still feel compelled to make that leap of logic….

The Morning After

National Journal: Barack Obama is the most liberal U.S. senator.

American people: Okay, so what’s the problem?

The mythology that liberals must become more conservative in order to win votes has been successfully body-slammed. This tactic rested on the assumption that America is a right-leaning country, and the only way for a liberal political party to succeed is to cater to those conservative urges. As Daily Kos observes (see link above), however, Americans overwhelmingly voted for a candidate whose message was clearly liberal: yes, let’s give Americans access to government healthcare. Yes, let’s reduces taxes for the middle class while increasing them for the very wealthy. Yes, let’s end preemptive foreign wars. These are all liberal positions, and yet Obama didn’t back down on one of them. (His stance on gay marriage, however, leaves much to be desired.)

It’s time to acknowledge that the United States is becoming more liberal. Everyone agrees that the economic crisis of this fall is what did McCain in. His blustering and sputtering about what to do — combined with revelations of his history as a de-regulator — caused even his supporters to lose confidence in his ability to solve such a problem. You can’t fix the problems caused by capitalism by throwing more capitalism at them. What’s required is a change in ideology: a shift away from the time-honored veneration of The Market and a shift toward more government regulation. The Market can’t solve all our problems, and indeed, it can’t even solve its own.

And what conservatives have failed to realize is that Americans are overwhelmingly against the Iraq War. A CNN poll conducted a week before the election found that 64% of those surveyed opposed the war. In a separate Pew Research poll, 50% thought that it was the “wrong decision” (compared with 39% who thought it was the “right decision”). In a third poll, conducted by CBS News/New York Times, 54% of respondents said they thought we should have stayed out of Iraq. Hindsight is 20/20, but at least there is hindsight. A John McCain administration would have promised only more wars, since war is all McCain knows. With reports coming out for the last two years of veiled threats against Iran, and last week’s incursion into Syria, more war is what McCain would have delivered. A McCain victory would have been interpreted as a mandate for more preemptive war.

Here’s some more news for you: while 22% of the country voted more conservatively than it did in 2004, the rest of the country either stayed the same or voted more liberally. Where has the Republican Party gained power? The South. Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, eastern Texas, Oklahoma. The House and Senate numbers show this, as well. Even Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida were Obama country. Barely Obama country, but his, nonetheless.

As it turns out, Joe the Plumber and Joe Six-Pack may not like the abstract concept of the government taxing people who make more than $250,000, but they don’t make that much money right now, and right now, they could use a tax break. They could also use some health care. Maybe they’ll worry about supply-side economics when they’re making money again.

And that’s the key to this victory: Obama got 65 million voters to believe that the Democrats, not the Republicans, could make their lives better. I recall something he said in his closing argument of the last debate: the question is not “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” The answer to that is a resounding no. The question is, “Which party will make you better off four years from now?”

We have our answer.

Age and The Electoral College

Senator Obama continues to dominate in our latest Electoral College projection. If the election were held today, we would project Senator Obama to defeat Senator McCain by a margin of between 311-227 electoral votes and 378-160 electoral votes.

State	Electoral Votes (EV)	Obama-McCain (%) (538 and Pollster)	Total Obama EV		Percent Seniors (>= 65 Years Old)
PA	21	7.5	264		15.2
CO	9	6.2	273	Likely Obama	10.1
VA	13	6.1	286		11.8
OH	20	4.7	306	Lean Obama	13.5
NV	5	4.6	311		11.1
FL	27	1.8	338		17.0
NC	15	1.3	353		12.2
MO	11	0.6	364	Toss up	13.4
ND	3	0.6	367		14.6
IN	3	-0.9	378		12.5
GA	15	-3.4	393		9.9
MT	3	-4.0	396	Lean McCain	13.9

As you see in the above table, we also looked at the percentage of the population in each battleground state that is over the age of 65. Based upon the data above, we are able to make sense out of what states McCain is currently targeting.

First, let’s look at the Likely Obama states:

Pennsylvania vs. Colorado

Many, including myself, have questioned why McCain has given up on Colorado, but double-downed on Pennsylvania. There are of course several reasons, including Pennsylvania not having early voting and having more than double the electoral votes as Colorado. However, the fact that Pennsylvania is the second oldest state and Colorado is the fourth youngest state undoubtedly played a large role in this decision.

Ohio vs. Nevada

Again, there are many reasons outside of age that led McCain to target Ohio while ignoring Nevada (such as electoral votes). However, demographic trends, including the fact that Ohio is in the upper-quartile of population above 65 years of age and Nevada is in the lower quartile, definitely seems to have played a factor in this decision.

What other states could surprise?

Florida and Georgia

In opposite directions, the states of Florida and Georgia could surprise. Based upon age alone, Florida, which has the oldest population of any state, could swing toward Senator McCain in ways that are not being factored into the weighting of current polls. In addition, Georgia, could end up being a toss-up state if younger voters come to the polls in record numbers. We already know that African Americans are surging in turnout in Georgia. If younger voters join in, Georgia may surpass states like Missouri and Indiana in likelihood to go to Senator Obama.

Race, Ethnicity, and The Electoral College

Senator Obama continues to have a commanding lead in our latest Electoral College projection. If the election were held today, we would project Senator Obama to defeat Senator McCain by a margin of between 306-232 electoral votes and 378-160 electoral votes. In other words, Obama has as good of a chance at a landslide victory (>= 375 electoral votes), as he has of being in an election similar to the last two (winner <300 electoral votes).

State	Electoral Votes (EV)	Obama-McCain (%) (538 and Pollster)	Total Obama EV		Percent Minority (Non-white and Hispanic)
NM	5	7.0	260		30.9
VA	13	7.1	273	Likely Obama	29.6
CO	9	6.5	282		16.5
NH	4	6.2	286		5.2
OH	20	3.9	306	Lean Obama	16.0
NV	5	2.6	311		26.0
FL	20	2.3	338		23.6
NC	15	2.1	353		30.0
MO	11	1.6	364	Toss up	16.1
IN	11	0.2	375		14.3
ND	3	-0.4	378		9.3
MT	3	-3.6	381		10.4
GA	15	-4.2	396	Lean McCain	38.0

As you see in the above table, we also looked at the race and ethic breakdown of all competitive states. Based on the data above, there are six states that have a significant minority population that could affect the results in that particular state. Let’s look at each state:

Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia

Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia all have very large African American populations and a small, but growing, Latino population. If African American turnout surges nationwide because of Obama being at the top of the ticket, these three states are where the effect will be felt the most. While Virginia and Georgia may not be close enough to be swayed by a large African American turnout, North Carolina appears to be close enough where black turnout will be one of the main factors in determining who wins the state. Early voting in North Carolina and Georgia may give us some clues about potential turnout. So far, African Americans are making up 38% of the early vote in Georgia and 28% of the early vote in North Carolina. Most polls are assuming much lower African American turnout in both states. If African Americans make up even 25% of the vote in North Carolina and 35% of the vote in Georgia, North Carolina will likely swing to Obama, and Georgia may be too close to call.

New Mexico and Nevada

New Mexico and Nevada both have very large Latino populations, and New Mexico has a significant Native American population as well. Both of these groups have traditionally not had as high of a turnout as whites or even African Americans. However, there is a belief that turnout may be on the upswing this year as Latinos participated heavily in the Democratic primary process. Overall, these states, particularly New Mexico, do not contain many “Joe Six Pack” voters who may be influenced by last minute race-baiting. If Obama can win the Latino vote by a 2-1 margin, he will win New Mexico comfortably and be the favorite in Nevada.

Florida

Unlike New Mexico and Nevada, Florida has several politically distinct Latino groups. Older Cuban voters in South Florida tend to be Republican, but the younger generation is more divided. Non-Cuban Latinos in Florida, like elsewhere in the country, are more Democratic leaning. In addition, Florida has a sizable African American community that will likely turnout in large numbers for Senator Obama. Because of the divide between younger and older Cubans, the turnout rates of younger Cubans will have a large effect on the proportion of the overall Latino vote that Obama gets in Florida. If Obama wins nearly half of the overall Cuban vote, he’ll have a good shot of winning the state.

Some Terrorists Are More Terrorist Than Others

Brian Williams: Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under this definition? Governor?

Sarah Palin: [Sigh.] There’s no question that Bill Ayers, via his own admittance, was one who sought to destroy our U.S. capitol, and our Pentagon — that is a domestic terrorist. There is no question there. Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that– it would be unacceptable to– I don’t know if you’re going to use the word “terrorist” there, but it’s unacceptable and it would not be condoned, of course, on our watch, but I don’t know if what you’re askin’ is if I regret referring to Bill Ayers as an unrepentant domestic terrorist, I don’t regret characterizing him as that.

It’s clear to me now that Sarah Palin has some sort of listening disorder. She asks if Brian Williams is asking whether or not she regrets referring to Bill Ayers as a terrorist. Is this because she didn’t hear his question, which was quite clear? Or maybe she has some sort of stupid disorder? Because Brian Williams did not ask what she thought about Bill Ayers. Brian Williams asked what she thought about abortion clinic bombers.

Thanks anyway for repeating the talking points.

So here we have two kinds of people bombing things. One kind of people is Bill Ayers, whose group, the Weather Underground, did successfully bomb the Capitol and the Pentagon, causing $300,000 in damage to the former. But no one was killed or even hurt; in fact, the Weather Underground called ahead of time to notify the authorities of the bomb. The only people who ever died as a result of a Weather Underground bomb was some of the members themselves, in an accidental explosion. On the other hand, we have abortion clinic bombers, who did kill people. Six of them in the 1990s. The Weather Underground’s bombing was for a stated political purpose: the U.S. invasion of Laos. The abortion clinic bombers’ political purpose was to protest abortion.

So please explain how Bill Ayers, whose group killed no one, is an “unrepentant terrorist” and how abortion clinic bombings that killed six people are “unacceptable.”

This is a rhetorical question, of course. The real answer is that Sarah Palin is an unrepentant hypocrite who would no doubt be quite happy to see every abortion doctor in the United States killed for the “wrongs” they have done. Of course, she can’t actually say what she really thinks, as that would alienate everyone in the United States who isn’t stark raving crazy.

You’ve got a real culture of life there, champ.

(h/t Daily Kos.)

« Previous Page — Next Page »