The Rutherford Lawson Blog

No long diatribe this evening, just a simple quote that I stumbled upon that succinctly and eloquently expresses the difference between supporting the troops vs supporting the war.

“To delight in war is a merit in the soldier, a dangerous quality in the captain, and a positive crime in the statesman.” — George Santayana, 20th century philosopher.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Wright, Hagee, Parsley, and now Pfleger. How many more examples do we need to conclude that religion has no place in politics? Every few weeks, we get a glimpse of some religious spectacle and like idiots who cannot learn anything from the past, we repeat the same stupid mantras:

“How could [candidate name goes here] believe [bombastic religious leader name goes here]?”

“Oh my, this would NEVER happen in my church!”

First, if one is to subscribe to Christopher Hitchens’ theories, all of these ministers believe in stuff that does not pass any reasonable scientific test. When a man believes, let’s just take a random example, that the Red Sea truly parted, how can anything else that man says hold any credibility? Religion and politics reside in two entirely different spheres and mixing them up results in absurdity. Faith has its place. Belief in miracles, if it gets you through the night, has its place. Deciding on how to provide health care for everyone has an entirely different place. Deciding how to get out of Iraq has an entirely different place. Unfortunately, our candidates are so eager to appear pious that they align themselves, deliberately or not, with bombastic, controversial, and yes sometimes NUTTY personalities.

I have written before that I believe Obama is as religious as the typical person. He takes from his religious life what suits him and he ignores the rest. He has the distinct disadvantage of not being able to say “Oh my, this would NEVER happen in my church!” His church is on display on YouTube and the 24 hour news cycles. But folks, let’s be honest. Most folks have heard some pretty wild stuff from the pulpit. The trick is you get to hear your stuff in relative privacy. No prying cameras. No one looking to discredit you the day before a critical DNC committee meeting. The hypocrisy of the religiously self-righteous is staggering.

Either we agree once and for all to separate church from state or we take a more intellectual road and view some of this religious fire and brimstone as satire. Think about it. I give you an exercise. Listen to Catholic Priest Michael Pfleger with your eyes closed. I defy you to tell me how his characterization of Hillary is any different from the satire you might see on “Saturday Night Live”? In fact, to help you with this exercise, I provide two videos below. First Pfleger and then Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton. If we’re going to really listen to Pfleger then listen to him as satire. Satire is designed to illustrate truths through exaggeration. Both Pfleger and Poehler succeed at this. (Quite frankly, I thought Pfleger was hilarious, probably because as my wife points out, he is an entertainer. MANY pastors are entertainers. They are no different from Amy Poehler. They’re playing to an audience.)

Pfleger:

Poehler:

If we’re going to insist on religion playing a role in our politics then we better get used to the idea of religious leaders saying stuff that might turn a few heads. Accept it, analyze it from an intellectual point of view and get off your religious high horse about how offensive it all is. Otherwise, get the cameras out of the church and let’s just talk about how to bring our boys and girls home from Iraq.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Yesterday, former President William Jefferson Clinton made the following reference to his wife’s recent Bosnia tall tale:

“There was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it - what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995. … And some of [her critics], when they’re 60, they’ll forget something when they’re tired at 11:00 at night, too.”

I won’t go into the many factual errors in Bill’s statement as that’s been covered elsewhere. I won’t even address why in the world Bill would exhume this story when it had all but faded from the spotlight.

I do however find two incredibly ironic aspects to Bill’s statement. If part of Hillary’s problem was that she made these comments at 11pm after a long hard day (which by the way isn’t true), then how can we possibly trust Hillary to take that 3am call at the White House when all global hell is breaking loose? If her brain does not function at 11pm, just think what shape she is in at 3 in the morning.

If Hillary were to win the nomination, her opponent would be John McCain, one of whose potential weaknesses is his advanced age. However, according to Bill, John is not alone on the age issue. Apparently, Hillary’s being 60 years old also leads to her inventing combat situations in which she did not participate.

Looks like Bill’s latest campaign stump speech for Hillary goes like this: “Hillary Clinton is ready to be Commander-in-Chief so long as you don’t expect her 60 year old doddering mind to function properly 11pm or later.”

With poison pills like Bill Clinton and Mark Penn, Hillary hardly needs an opponent in order to lose the nomination. She’s losing it all by herself.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

I do NOT want to be one of those folks who immediately points to racism when Barack Obama loses a contest. There were a number of factors that contributed to Obama’s narrow loss to Hillary, Tuesday night. On the other hand, I never completely trusted all the polling numbers we’ve seen over the past few days.

As recently as 1988, Dartmouth College had to convene a student council on racial tolerance because several Caucasian students harassed an African American professor. This is an Ivy League institution we’re talking about here. It’s the only Ivy League school to my knowledge that has a documented track record for racial problems. So whenever I read the polls, I kept thinking about Dartmouth. 20 years is not so long ago. Clearly, for some reason, New Hampshire voters chose to tell the pollsters one thing and then vote another.

As my wife reminded me, winning a caucus and winning a primary are two different things. Your “vote” in a caucus is public. If you don’t follow through on what you’ve been telling everyone, you look like a hypocrite. Since primary votes are private, you can look politically correct in public and then let your biases take over in the voting booth.

Once again, our country’s long tradition of racism is hurting us. Not because we know Obama’s defeat was due to bigotry; we don’t. It’s the doubt that is so troubling. Our country’s racial history muddies the waters, hence we will never know when Barack is rejected for the issues or when he is rejected for the color of his skin. How sad.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

As we watched the returns come in from the Iowa caucus, my wife said, “Barack Obama owes a debt of gratitude to Dennis Haysbert,” referring to the African American actor who played President of the United States in the TV series “24″. I chuckled at the idea at first but then I gave it more thought.

Just twenty years ago, having a black ongoing character in a TV series as President would have made heads turn and perhaps even have been greeted with disbelief. When the character of David Palmer was introduced on”24″, I don’t recall any major notice of his race.

Could it be that America’s acceptance of David Palmer demonstrated a change in mindset that has been verified by Barack’s Iowa triumph? While it may be too soon to tell, we may very well be viewing a turning point in American society. Perhaps we are finally fulfilling the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by judging people solely by the content of their character.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

As I sat in front of my television last night and rejoiced in the Iowa caucus victory of Barack Obama, I had a sudden nightmare vision. I flashed back to October of 1995 when crowds of African Americans were shown celebrating the acquittal of OJ Simpson on murder charges. I then pictured white Americans watching African Americans rejoice in Obama’s victory and I wondered, will they draw a parallel, however ill conceived it might be?

The black community, at least partially, rejoiced in OJ’s acquittal because it symbolized that a black man could get away with murder if he had enough money, just as so many whites before him had done. Still, the image of cheering crowds of blacks (not to mention the verdict itself) must have created a real credibility problem for white folks. “Could black people really be that crazy to be happy that OJ got off?”

My fear is that these same white folks might see blacks rejoicing Barack’s victory and have their own flashback. On some unconscious level will whites eventually reject Obama because they can’t tell the difference between the positive enthusiasm Obama generates in the black community vs the crazy enthusiasm generated by the OJ debacle?

Perhaps the Iowa win is evidence that Barack truly has transcended race. Perhaps now, when white folks see black folks excited about Barack, they’ll say “yeah, I understand and I like him too.” Maybe Obama’s message of unity will win the day. We can only hope.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

A recent poll revealed that 8% of those polled believed that Barack Obama is a practicing Muslim. Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball suggested that Barack should be concerned about this.

Ehhh, no. Barack should ignore this poll and not even address it. You know why? Because at least 8% of Americans are just plain stupid. I’m often amused by many of the poll results that the media shares with us because no one ever says, “there is a margin of error to this poll because at least x% of those polled don’t have the foggiest idea what they are talking about.” How many times do you think the average American gets polled and says to the inquisitor “sorry, I can’t participate in this poll because I really don’t know the issues.” On the contrary, everyone, no matter how ignorant, loves to have an opinion. I guess that is part of the beauty of the United States of America that everyone gets to speak his mind even when he doesn’t have one.

So I implore you. The next time you hear the results of any poll, please make an arithmetic adjustment in your head for “the stupid factor.” It’ll give you a better idea of what is really going on.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

It’s amazing how the media is focused on the subliminal cross found in the bookcase behind Mike Huckabee in his Christmas greeting commercial.

Folks, getting your undies in a knot over whether the bookcase was filmed with a deliberate attempt to imply a cross is a waste of time when instead you can focus on what the candidate SAID! “What really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ.” Holy cow! With that one statement, he just dissed Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists and a host of other non-Christians.

We need to put the ridiculous conversations aside (is the bookcase photographed to look like a cross?, was Barack ambitious in Kindergarten?) and closely examine what these folks are saying. There was nothing subliminal about Huckabee’s bible thumping rhetoric. Let’s wake up and smell the coffee folks. At the rate things are going, one day we will wake up to find White House press conferences resembling prayer meetings.

I’m not ready to sign up for that. Are you?

Respectfully,
Rutherford