Though maybe this would be more to hobbes' liking...

I think what he's proposing is the same as what Bush's faith-based program was alleged to be from the beginning. The difference here is that in an Obama administration, it's far more likely that the constitution will actually be honored.

What I was objecting to mainly was:-

QUOTE:
in a move sure to cause controversy — support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.

Which seems to directly contradict what was in Ursus' post:-

QUOTE:
you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion.

I don't disagree with you at all on;-

QUOTE:
Yeah, exactly. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with the state supporting faith-based charities as long as it doesn't thereby (a) support faiths or (b) thereby discriminate against secular charities

And neither did I say I did. I'd really rather if you're going to read between my lines, you don't impart your own luunacy on the blank spaces.

The weird way this board works with pages divisible by ten means that I can't find out what this spat is all about...

Really annoying NPR piece from--guess who???--Mara Liasson on McCain and Obama's bipartisan fortitude.

QUOTE:
McCain has made a career of taking heat from his own party for working with liberal Democrats, such as Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform or Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy on immigration. These bipartisan efforts are both the source of his maverick reputation and the cause of his ongoing problems with his own party's conservative base.

One of McCain's closest allies in the Senate, South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, says McCain's willingness to work across the aisle on these hot-button issues is one of his strongest qualifications.

"On all these issues that are tough and controversial, John has been out front when it comes time to ask who will do the hard things as the next president. The best way to answer that question is to ask who has done the hard things before he became president," Graham said.

Whenever there's a bipartisan scrum of moderate Democratic and Republican senators working toward a compromise on judicial filibusters, or with other groups dealing with torture, tobacco regulation or global warming, McCain can usually be found right in the middle. The same is not true for Obama.

What a crock of shit.

Sweet Jesus what a load of crap. NPR is so much more conservative, and often idiotic, then most people seem to think.

Yeah, especially Mara Liasson. She's a regular on Fox (as is Juan Williams, a NPR analyst) where she is presented as a liberal, though her NPR reports are always at pains to flatter Republicans, and she was a registered Republican at one point. She also used to be on the board of Freedom House, a Richard Mellon Scaife funded think tank.

Here's a recent gem from Liasson, on Media Matters:

QUOTE:
Discussing an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center of Sen. Barack Obama's and Sen. John McCain's tax plans on the June 15 edition of Fox News Sunday, National Public Radio national political correspondent Mara Liasson falsely asserted that the "group ... said that Obama might add more to the deficit -- because it's unclear how he's going to pay for these -- than McCain would add to the deficit." In fact, the Tax Policy Center found the opposite of what Liasson claimed. The group -- a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution that describes itself as "made up of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy" -- found that "Senator Obama's proposals would raise $700 billion, an increase of 2 percent, and Senator McCain's proposals lose $600 billion, a decrease of roughly 2 percent" when scored against a " 'current policy' baseline," which "assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended and the AMT [Alternative Minimum Tax] patch made permanent" over the next 10 years.

The Tax Policy Center analysis also found that Obama's tax plan was less expensive than McCain's tax plan when scored against current law. The analysis further stated that "the true cost of McCain's policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs."

Yet more quality journalism. On the one hand, I really can't see how McCain can win given the overall political and economic situation. On the other hand, I really can't see how Obama can win given the media situation.

The whole Wes Clark thing has demonstrated beyond any doubt how completely in the tank the press are (and how unwilling Dems are to challenge their assumptions). How exactly are you supposed to campaign against someone who is using his military service as a central device to burnish his credentials, if you're not even allowed to talk about how that service relates to his credentials? And the complete about-turn with regards to the swift boating of John Kerry, in which his actual military service was questioned, jsut makes the stupidity all the more painful.

To be fair, Wes Clark unfairly denegrated McCain's service, and perhaps the service of all military airplane people (airpeople? airmen/airwomen?) by referring to it as "riding in a plane and getting shot down."

The politically sound and intellectually honest way to make that point would be "John McCain's military service, however honorable, does not necessarily make him more qualified to be commander in chief. After all, since the dawn of time, there are lots of very brave men and women out there who have served in militaries with incredible bravery and integrity, but that doesn't mean they were all qualified to be officers, let alone commander."

He could also point out that the presidents that lead us through the two biggest wars of the last century, Wilson and FDR, never served in the military. Whereas JFK, Johnson and Nixon, the three presidents that guided us through Vietnam, the biggest clusterfuck in U.S. history, all served honorably in the military.

Furthermore, it's a bit rich for the GOP to claim all of a sudden that past military service is important when the current administration is chock full of chickenhawks.

Well, considering that McCain brushes aside any criticism of himself by reminding everyone that he was tortured as a POW, rather than all of his military service, whenever its somewhat relevant, or makes his opponent seem bad, it was fair by Clark, I think.

And similarly, from an ABC blog:

QUOTE:
McCain became visibly angry when I asked him to explain how his Vietnam experience prepared him for the Presidency.

"Please," he said, recoiling back in his seat in distaste at the very question.

McCain allies Sen. Lindsey Graham stepped in to rescue him. Graham expressed admiration for McCain’s stance on the treatment of detainees in US custody.

"That to me is a classic example of how his military experience helped him shape public policy in a way no other senator could have done,’’ Graham said.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, also traveling on the trip, expressed admiration for McCain’s wartime service as well.

McCain then collected himself and apologized for his initial reaction.

"I kind of reacted the way I did because I have a reluctance to talk about my experiences," he said, noting that he has huge admiration for the "heroes" who served with him in the POW camp and said the experience taught him to love the U.S. because he missed it so much.

"I am always reluctant to talk about these things," McCain said.

Riiiiiight...

QUOTE:
In case you missed it, a few days ago, Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock Concert Museum. Now, my friends, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time.

QUOTE:
When Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former Senator John Edwards, rebuked McCain’s medical-care proposal and noted that he’d always enjoyed government health benefits, McCain responded that he knows what it’s like to get inadequate care — “from another government.”

QUOTE:
One night, after being mistreated as a POW, a guard loosened the ropes binding me, easing my pain. On Christmas, that same guard approached me, and without saying a word, he drew a cross in the sand. We stood wordlessly looking at the cross, remembering the true light of Christmas.”

QUOTE:
[an ad from March]it begins with McCain giving a speech, saying, “Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong. Do not yield. Stand up. We’re Americans. And we’ll never surrender.” An announcer voice-over adds, “What must a president believe about us? About America? That she is worth protecting? That liberty is priceless? Our people, honorable? Our future, prosperous, remarkable and free? And, what must we believe about that president? What does he think? Where has he been? Has he walked the walk?”

At that point, the ad cuts to footage taken while McCain was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Asked his rank, a young McCain responds, “Lt. Commander in the Navy.” Asked for his official number, he says, “624787.”

The voice-over then concludes, “John McCain: The American president Americans have been waiting for.”

Regardless of all that, Clake's comments just rise to the bait and play into the GOP's hands by making the discussion about McCain's service.

The point ought to be that what McCain did in Vietnam really doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if he is Captain America and single handedly defeated 30 battalions of Nazis.

What matters is whether his policy ideas about foreign policy in 2008 are any good. Like I said, history is loaded with examples of great military men who were bad policy makers and vice-versa.

To name another, a lot of Americans thought and still think MacArthur should have been president, but a review of the history shows he actually fucked up a good deal and Truman (who had been an Army captain) was right to can him.

hobbes - maybe make the specific bit you're objecting to clearer next time, eh? especially if it's not at all clear he intimated anything of the sort.

QUOTE:
To be fair, Wes Clark unfairly denegrated McCain's service, and perhaps the service of all military airplane people (airpeople? airmen/airwomen?) by referring to it as "riding in a plane and getting shot down."

No, this is bullshit. Sorry.

He was specifically asked about their relative experience in leading the military. He said he thought there was nothing to choose. The interviewer interjected - "but John McCain was shot down and tortured" - Clark correctly (and nobody at all disputes that) said that that wasn't in itself a qualification for the presidency. Dumb and impolitic, maybe. Remotely inaccurate or unfair? Not in a billion years.

Oh, I didn't know that was the way the question was phrased.

Clark is thin-skinned and needs to help the party and not give hate radio more raw meat for the meatheads.

McBush will ratchet up his P.O.W. credentials to the limit by the time November rolls around.

The presidential race is on -- both candidates will suck up and bend over for any shred of a voting bloc

Obama caves on FISA, brings up "faith-based" initiatives -- McBush courts the swiftboaters, decries Obama's free-spending... it all goes on so fast the media can't keep up w/ the latest "outrage"

it all is revolting and wretched - progressives who want a pure, unspoiled campaign full of integrity will not come close. If Obama wins, he will owe many of the democratic establishment, but it will at least be promising and far more optimistic than 4 years of the old guy