The Passenger

Robertson keeps talking, not helping himself.

Pat Robertson sought to clarify his remarks about Hugo Chavez. Robertson clearly called for assassinating Chavez, saying "If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it." But now he's singing a different, perhaps equally embarrassing, tune:

I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time.

Yeah man, blame the media. It's a time-tested, battle-worn strategy, except that this involves a direct quote. Robertson said it on his own television show. Nobody is misinterpreting anything. Even Bob Dole "called the comments 'stupid' and 'ludicrous' and suggested the broadcaster apologize 'very quickly.'"

Pat Robertson calls in a hit.

Yesterday, on his show, The 700 Club, Pat Robertson called for "covert operatives" to kill Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

To wit:

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's The 700 Club.

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

...

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

This is so far out there that it really speaks for itself. Is this what passes for "Christian" broadcasting these days? I especially like that he's costed this out and considered the geopolitical ramifications.

Wallis-Lerner '08

Jim Wallis, a leading voice of the religious left, had an awesome column in today's NYT. He instructs Dems deep in the Lakoff-induced frame-a-mania to not forget that we need actual new ideas to go along with our messaging.

Because the Republicans, with the help of the religious right, have captured the language of values and religion (narrowly conceived as only abortion and gay marriage), the Democrats have also been asking how to "take back the faith." But that means far more than throwing a few Bible verses into policy discussions, offering candidates some good lines from famous hymns, or teaching them how to clap at the right times in black churches. Democrats need to focus on the content of religious convictions and the values that underlie them.

He goes on to remind us that the issues progressives care about-- like poverty, the enviroment, and not killing thousands of innocent people- --have solid grounding the very bible thumped by our evagelical friends to the south and west.

Right on Jim, but this concept is nothing new. And, easy for him to say what the Dems should do when he doesn't have to contend with the paralayzing realities of Republican controlled Washington.

The question remains how we actually make this change happen. How do we get a government whose leaders and policies jive with our spiritual sense of what is good and just? As Jim says, it sure won't happen by pols quoting the Isaiah at a church function here and there.

One group that is on the right path is emerging out of Michael Lerner's Tikkun magazine/community in Berkeley, CA (of course): The Network of Spiritual Progressives. With a variety of tactics- such as convening a  policy think tank, holding conference and working groups, and providing education for policy makers...NSJ  is up to exciting work. They understand that an authentic religious/spiritual, progressive political philosophy goes way deeper seeing how many times the word values can be used in a single stump speech. It invovles changing the bottom line of how we evalute programs, policies and our lives.

NSJ is a group to watch...hopefully more and more of our political leaders will join their ranks, and more new leaders will emerge from this philosophy.

Dems in the Desert

Most people (especially you Leftists-of-faith) know that the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years before they entered the Holy Land. Fewer people know that they had a chance to get there much sooner - shortly after the exodus from Egypt, in fact - but they blew it. The Israelites who left Egypt had too much of a slave mentality to be able to live successfully in the Promised Land, so God cursed them to die in the desert.

I'm beginning to feel like the Democratic Party may have the opposite problem: a master mentality that prevents them from living successfully as a minority party. At both a policy and political level, the Dems' resistance - and sometimes outright refusal - to innovate new ideas and take risks, has condemned the party to wander in the minority until a new generation comes to power.  Thankfully, turnover in politics is high, so the next political generation should be calling the shots well before 2045... I hope.