Commentary Magazine


Topic: CBN

Re: Pat Robertson’s Fairy Tale

According to Christian Broadcasting Network spokesman Chris Roslan,

Dr. Robertson did not call for the decriminalization of marijuana. He was advocating that our government revisit the severity of the existing laws because mandatory drug sentences do harm to many young people who go to prison and come out as hardened criminals. He was also pointing out that these mandatory sentences needlessly cost our government millions of dollars when there are better approaches available. Dr. Robertson’s comments followed a CBN News story about a group of conservatives who have proven that faith-based rehabilitation for criminals has resulted in lower repeat offenders and saved the government millions of dollars. Dr. Robertson unequivocally stated that he is against the use of illegal drugs.

Come again?

As you can see from my earlier link, this is what Robertson said:

[T]here’s something else we’ve got to recognize. We’re locking people up that take a couple of puffs of marijuana and the next thing you know they got 10 years. They’ve got mandatory sentences and these judges – they throw up their hands and say, “There’s nothing we can do. It’s mandatory sentences.” We’ve got to take a look at what we’re considering crimes, and that’s one of them. I’m not exactly for the use of drugs, don’t get me wrong, but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot, that kinda thing it’s just, it’s costing us a fortune and it’s ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That’s not a good thing.

This, boys and girls, is an endorsement of marijuana decriminalization, which is why it was reported this way everywhere.

What appears to be so is that Robertson has concerns about mandatory minimum sentences. There’s certainly a case to be for that position. But in arguing for it, Robertson used an illustration that was unfortunate because it was uninformed. His scenario – a young kid who takes a couple of puffs of marijuana and end us in prison for a decade, coming out as a hardened criminal and a greater threat to society – was detached from the real world.

Robertson should simply say so. He should say something like this: “I made a mistake the other day in calling for the decriminalization of marijuana. The example I issued was ill-advised; it doesn’t really bear on the concern I was trying to express. And while I believe we should carefully examine mandatory drug sentencing laws, I think, on reflection, that decriminalizing marijuana would be a very bad idea.”

Instead, CBN’s spokesman is trying to undo the damage by insisting Robertson was not advocating what he was clearly advocating.

I’ve never understood why public figures choose to employ silly efforts at spin rather than being forthcoming about a mistake – especially when the spin will only succeed in provoking belly laughs. (h/t: hotair.com)

According to Christian Broadcasting Network spokesman Chris Roslan,

Dr. Robertson did not call for the decriminalization of marijuana. He was advocating that our government revisit the severity of the existing laws because mandatory drug sentences do harm to many young people who go to prison and come out as hardened criminals. He was also pointing out that these mandatory sentences needlessly cost our government millions of dollars when there are better approaches available. Dr. Robertson’s comments followed a CBN News story about a group of conservatives who have proven that faith-based rehabilitation for criminals has resulted in lower repeat offenders and saved the government millions of dollars. Dr. Robertson unequivocally stated that he is against the use of illegal drugs.

Come again?

As you can see from my earlier link, this is what Robertson said:

[T]here’s something else we’ve got to recognize. We’re locking people up that take a couple of puffs of marijuana and the next thing you know they got 10 years. They’ve got mandatory sentences and these judges – they throw up their hands and say, “There’s nothing we can do. It’s mandatory sentences.” We’ve got to take a look at what we’re considering crimes, and that’s one of them. I’m not exactly for the use of drugs, don’t get me wrong, but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot, that kinda thing it’s just, it’s costing us a fortune and it’s ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That’s not a good thing.

This, boys and girls, is an endorsement of marijuana decriminalization, which is why it was reported this way everywhere.

What appears to be so is that Robertson has concerns about mandatory minimum sentences. There’s certainly a case to be for that position. But in arguing for it, Robertson used an illustration that was unfortunate because it was uninformed. His scenario – a young kid who takes a couple of puffs of marijuana and end us in prison for a decade, coming out as a hardened criminal and a greater threat to society – was detached from the real world.

Robertson should simply say so. He should say something like this: “I made a mistake the other day in calling for the decriminalization of marijuana. The example I issued was ill-advised; it doesn’t really bear on the concern I was trying to express. And while I believe we should carefully examine mandatory drug sentencing laws, I think, on reflection, that decriminalizing marijuana would be a very bad idea.”

Instead, CBN’s spokesman is trying to undo the damage by insisting Robertson was not advocating what he was clearly advocating.

I’ve never understood why public figures choose to employ silly efforts at spin rather than being forthcoming about a mistake – especially when the spin will only succeed in provoking belly laughs. (h/t: hotair.com)

Read Less

State Sends Ambassador to Terror-Promoting London Mosque

As part of the White House’s public-diplomacy push, we sent Ambassador Louis Susman to an al-Qaeda-supporting mosque a few days ago. CBN’s Erick Stakelbeck has a report on the inspired act of “outreach to the Muslim world,” along with video of East London Mosque and a rundown of some of the radicals it’s hosted. Prominently featured is Anwar al-Awlaki, who couldn’t speak to assembled worshipers last year except by video link, on account of how we’re currently trying to kill him.

This is the same line of reasoning that has State dispatching President Obama to pro-Ahmadinejad mosques, sending pro-Iran apologists to Saudi Arabia, and funding domestic “dialogue” panels run by implacable Israel-haters. Hearts and minds have to be won, after all. And if you can’t do that, then pantomiming “listening” in a particularly obsequious way is apparently the second-best option.

It doesn’t work — in the case of Iran outreach, it’s actually been known to backfire spectacularly — but at least you’re doing something.

On the other hand, you kind of have to sympathize with our public-diplomacy people. They’ve been given the task of boosting our image in the Muslim world by “spreading the truth about American values.” That’s a huge problem if you accept the vaguely neoconservative point that Muslim anti-Western animosity comes not from understanding us too little but from understanding very clearly that we let women vote, Jews worship, gays not be murdered, etc.

And say what you will about that theory, it at least has the benefit of explaining why our public-diplomacy efforts have failed so spectacularly.

On a day-to-day level, there’s also the double bind of having to “speak the language” of audiences soaked in conspiracy theories and anti-Western animus. It’s no wonder that State’s Arab TV outlet, Al Hurra, ended up airing hour-long Nasrallah rants, whitewashing Iran’s Holocaust-denial conference, and accusing Israel of conducting an anti-Palestinian “holocaust.” Or that U.S. director of Near East Public Diplomacy, Alberto Fernandez, went on Al Jazeera and trashed American policy as “arrogant” and “stupid.” Or that Bush public-diplomacy chief Karen Hughes went to Malaysia and denigrated Israel’s efforts to defend itself from jihadists. Persuasion 101, after all, is that you have to connect with your audience.

All of which might be understandable if our outreach efforts weren’t also total failures. But they are.

Getting back to Britain specifically, just think: in a few years time, after Buckingham Palace is transformed into Buckingham Mosque, our diplomats will be able to take care of their ceremonial state duties and their goodwill Muslim outreach in the same place. How convenient will that be? The only catch is that the royal family will probably be disbanded under a Sharia regime, or at the very least evicted from Buckingham, so that might not work.

Although, you never know.

As part of the White House’s public-diplomacy push, we sent Ambassador Louis Susman to an al-Qaeda-supporting mosque a few days ago. CBN’s Erick Stakelbeck has a report on the inspired act of “outreach to the Muslim world,” along with video of East London Mosque and a rundown of some of the radicals it’s hosted. Prominently featured is Anwar al-Awlaki, who couldn’t speak to assembled worshipers last year except by video link, on account of how we’re currently trying to kill him.

This is the same line of reasoning that has State dispatching President Obama to pro-Ahmadinejad mosques, sending pro-Iran apologists to Saudi Arabia, and funding domestic “dialogue” panels run by implacable Israel-haters. Hearts and minds have to be won, after all. And if you can’t do that, then pantomiming “listening” in a particularly obsequious way is apparently the second-best option.

It doesn’t work — in the case of Iran outreach, it’s actually been known to backfire spectacularly — but at least you’re doing something.

On the other hand, you kind of have to sympathize with our public-diplomacy people. They’ve been given the task of boosting our image in the Muslim world by “spreading the truth about American values.” That’s a huge problem if you accept the vaguely neoconservative point that Muslim anti-Western animosity comes not from understanding us too little but from understanding very clearly that we let women vote, Jews worship, gays not be murdered, etc.

And say what you will about that theory, it at least has the benefit of explaining why our public-diplomacy efforts have failed so spectacularly.

On a day-to-day level, there’s also the double bind of having to “speak the language” of audiences soaked in conspiracy theories and anti-Western animus. It’s no wonder that State’s Arab TV outlet, Al Hurra, ended up airing hour-long Nasrallah rants, whitewashing Iran’s Holocaust-denial conference, and accusing Israel of conducting an anti-Palestinian “holocaust.” Or that U.S. director of Near East Public Diplomacy, Alberto Fernandez, went on Al Jazeera and trashed American policy as “arrogant” and “stupid.” Or that Bush public-diplomacy chief Karen Hughes went to Malaysia and denigrated Israel’s efforts to defend itself from jihadists. Persuasion 101, after all, is that you have to connect with your audience.

All of which might be understandable if our outreach efforts weren’t also total failures. But they are.

Getting back to Britain specifically, just think: in a few years time, after Buckingham Palace is transformed into Buckingham Mosque, our diplomats will be able to take care of their ceremonial state duties and their goodwill Muslim outreach in the same place. How convenient will that be? The only catch is that the royal family will probably be disbanded under a Sharia regime, or at the very least evicted from Buckingham, so that might not work.

Although, you never know.

Read Less

Flotsam and Jetsam

Where is the administration when Israel is being savaged? Hiding at the UN: “Where was she this time? The United Nations Security Council held an emergency Security Council meeting Monday on Israel’s raid of a ship headed to Gaza — and the United States was represented by the deputy at the US Mission. Reporters, UN members and activists were mystified as to why Susan Rice, the American Ambassador to the UN, was a no-show to the roughly 12-hour negotiations which left a key ally fending off global criticism without the top American diplomat to help. … Rice’s absence sends a powerful message to the UN members attending the emergency meeting, unfortunately, the message is that she is either unable to lead or afraid of the consequences that come with taking a controversial stand.”

Where is the American media? It seems there is no fuel shortage and plenty of food in the markets of Gaza City.

Where are those moderate Muslims pushing back against jihadism? “Halalco is the largest store of its kind in the Washington, D.C. area. In addition to halal meat, the store carries a large selection of Islamic books, recordings and clothing. In an exclusive investigation, CBN News discovered that Halalco was also selling CDs and DVDs by none other than al-Awlaki [the imam who inspired the Fort Hood and Times Square jihadists]. In the store, was a display devoted entirely to al-Awlaki’s works just one day after he released a video calling for the killing of U.S. civilians.” The next day, after the CBN crew had arrived, the al-Awlaki display was gone.

Where is Steny Hoyer? In a much better position on Israel than the dim Speaker of the House: “While the majority of ships in the flotilla — 5 out of 6 — reacted peacefully when approached by Israeli Defense Forces, activists on board the Mavi Marmara were clearly bent on a violent confrontation.  They further chose this path despite two week’s worth of repeated warnings from Israel that the ship would not be allowed to come ashore, and despite Israel’s offer to instead receive the humanitarian goods at Ashdod, inspect them there for weapons, and ensure their distribution to Palestinians in Gaza. Finally, to the extent that this act was in protest of the Gaza blockade, let’s be clear: Hamas could end the blockade at any time by recognizing Israel’s right to exist, renouncing violence, and releasing Gilad Shalit.”

Where is the groundswell for ObamaCare? Nowhere. Two polls show new lows in public support.

Where is the Obama cover story this time? The White House will need one. “Administration officials dangled the possibility of a job for former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff last year in hopes he would forego a challenge to Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet. Administration officials on Wednesday declined to specify the job that was floated or the name of the administration official who approached Romanoff, and said no formal offer was ever made. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not cleared to discuss private conversations.”

Where is support for Rand Paul heading? He’s gone from 25 points to nine points ahead in the Rasmussen poll. I suspect he’ll be in negative territory soon enough.

Where is the administration when Israel is being savaged? Hiding at the UN: “Where was she this time? The United Nations Security Council held an emergency Security Council meeting Monday on Israel’s raid of a ship headed to Gaza — and the United States was represented by the deputy at the US Mission. Reporters, UN members and activists were mystified as to why Susan Rice, the American Ambassador to the UN, was a no-show to the roughly 12-hour negotiations which left a key ally fending off global criticism without the top American diplomat to help. … Rice’s absence sends a powerful message to the UN members attending the emergency meeting, unfortunately, the message is that she is either unable to lead or afraid of the consequences that come with taking a controversial stand.”

Where is the American media? It seems there is no fuel shortage and plenty of food in the markets of Gaza City.

Where are those moderate Muslims pushing back against jihadism? “Halalco is the largest store of its kind in the Washington, D.C. area. In addition to halal meat, the store carries a large selection of Islamic books, recordings and clothing. In an exclusive investigation, CBN News discovered that Halalco was also selling CDs and DVDs by none other than al-Awlaki [the imam who inspired the Fort Hood and Times Square jihadists]. In the store, was a display devoted entirely to al-Awlaki’s works just one day after he released a video calling for the killing of U.S. civilians.” The next day, after the CBN crew had arrived, the al-Awlaki display was gone.

Where is Steny Hoyer? In a much better position on Israel than the dim Speaker of the House: “While the majority of ships in the flotilla — 5 out of 6 — reacted peacefully when approached by Israeli Defense Forces, activists on board the Mavi Marmara were clearly bent on a violent confrontation.  They further chose this path despite two week’s worth of repeated warnings from Israel that the ship would not be allowed to come ashore, and despite Israel’s offer to instead receive the humanitarian goods at Ashdod, inspect them there for weapons, and ensure their distribution to Palestinians in Gaza. Finally, to the extent that this act was in protest of the Gaza blockade, let’s be clear: Hamas could end the blockade at any time by recognizing Israel’s right to exist, renouncing violence, and releasing Gilad Shalit.”

Where is the groundswell for ObamaCare? Nowhere. Two polls show new lows in public support.

Where is the Obama cover story this time? The White House will need one. “Administration officials dangled the possibility of a job for former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff last year in hopes he would forego a challenge to Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet. Administration officials on Wednesday declined to specify the job that was floated or the name of the administration official who approached Romanoff, and said no formal offer was ever made. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not cleared to discuss private conversations.”

Where is support for Rand Paul heading? He’s gone from 25 points to nine points ahead in the Rasmussen poll. I suspect he’ll be in negative territory soon enough.

Read Less

Is This Post-Traumatic Cooking Syndrome?

Fox News reports:

The U.S. Army is investigating allegations that soldiers were attempting to poison the food supply at Fort Jackson in South Carolina. The ongoing probe began two months ago, Chris Grey, a spokesman for the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division, told Fox News. The Army is taking the allegations “extremely seriously,” Grey said, but so far, “there is no credible information to support the allegations.” The suspects were part of a Arabic translation program called “09 Lima” and use Arabic as their first language, two sources told Fox News. Another military source said they were Muslim.Grey would not confirm or deny the sources’ information.

Erick Stakelbeck of CBN adds this nugget:

A source with intimate knowledge of the investigation, which is ongoing, told CBN News investigators suspect the “Fort Jackson Five” may have been in contact with the group of five Washington, DC area Muslims that traveled to Pakistan to wage jihad against U.S. troops in December. That group was arrested by Pakistani authorities, also just before Christmas.

This incident raises further concern about the Army’s whitewash of the Fort Hood incident. Its review of the murder of 13 innocents seemed to go to great lengths to ignore Major Nadal Hasan’s jihadist motivation and the need to focus, specifically, on potential Islamic fundamentalists in its midst who may seek to kill fellow servicemen. We know that the Army had training on the subject before Fort Hood. And we know not much was done. We now know that the Fort Hood report was issued while the poisoning incident investigation was underway. And still the Army sought to soft-pedal the jihadist element.

There is a price to be paid, you see, when we fail to name, identify, understand, and focus on the nature of our enemy. When we dismiss these incidents as the result of some nebulous psychological illness or lump jihadism in with a grab bag of other threats or concerns bearing little relationship to the actual incidents we have experienced, we diffuse our efforts and distract ourselves from the sole task that should occupy our national security apparatus: identifying and destroying jihadists who want to butcher (or poison or blow up) Americans.  That singular focus can come only from the president. Hence, the problem.

Fox News reports:

The U.S. Army is investigating allegations that soldiers were attempting to poison the food supply at Fort Jackson in South Carolina. The ongoing probe began two months ago, Chris Grey, a spokesman for the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division, told Fox News. The Army is taking the allegations “extremely seriously,” Grey said, but so far, “there is no credible information to support the allegations.” The suspects were part of a Arabic translation program called “09 Lima” and use Arabic as their first language, two sources told Fox News. Another military source said they were Muslim.Grey would not confirm or deny the sources’ information.

Erick Stakelbeck of CBN adds this nugget:

A source with intimate knowledge of the investigation, which is ongoing, told CBN News investigators suspect the “Fort Jackson Five” may have been in contact with the group of five Washington, DC area Muslims that traveled to Pakistan to wage jihad against U.S. troops in December. That group was arrested by Pakistani authorities, also just before Christmas.

This incident raises further concern about the Army’s whitewash of the Fort Hood incident. Its review of the murder of 13 innocents seemed to go to great lengths to ignore Major Nadal Hasan’s jihadist motivation and the need to focus, specifically, on potential Islamic fundamentalists in its midst who may seek to kill fellow servicemen. We know that the Army had training on the subject before Fort Hood. And we know not much was done. We now know that the Fort Hood report was issued while the poisoning incident investigation was underway. And still the Army sought to soft-pedal the jihadist element.

There is a price to be paid, you see, when we fail to name, identify, understand, and focus on the nature of our enemy. When we dismiss these incidents as the result of some nebulous psychological illness or lump jihadism in with a grab bag of other threats or concerns bearing little relationship to the actual incidents we have experienced, we diffuse our efforts and distract ourselves from the sole task that should occupy our national security apparatus: identifying and destroying jihadists who want to butcher (or poison or blow up) Americans.  That singular focus can come only from the president. Hence, the problem.

Read Less

Never Learn, Never Look Back

The Washington Post’s ombudsman Andrew Alexander devotes his weekly column to explaining how the Post‘s food critic is above reproach. Fine. Over the last few weeks we’ve been treated to columns on reporters’ conflicts of interest (no, nothing to see there, move along), another on anonymous sources, and one more on a biased book review. So where’s the heartfelt examination of the Post’s coverage of the Virginia gubernatorial race? Hmmm.

No self-examination was forthcoming, no discussion as to why dozens and dozens of stories were devoted to Bob McDonnell’s twenty-year-old college paper — an “issue” the voters cared not a wit about. Odd, isn’t it, that on the most obvious example of bias and excess the Post wouldn’t want to clear the air and take a look.

Instead, this week the Post doubled down, screaming for the governor-elect to denounce comments made by Pat Robertson about Muslims. No, Robertson isn’t in McDonnell’s transition team and isn’t going to be in his administration. The Post breathlessly observes: “In addition to attending law school in the 1980s at what was then called CBN University, the Virginia Beach school founded by Mr. Robertson and named for his Christian Broadcasting Network, Mr. McDonnell served eight years as a trustee of the same institution after it was renamed Regent University.” The Post editors proceed to holler: “Doesn’t Mr. McDonnell owe them and other Virginians some reassurance that he doesn’t share Pat Robertson’s despicable view?” Actually, no. McDonnell is under no obligation to denounce every comment by a supporter with which he disagrees; no more than Obama is expected to denounce every controversial comment a supporter of his makes.

But what is clear here is that the Post is not chastened, has not given up its habit of fomenting hot-button controversies where none exist, and holding Republicans to a standard that would never be employed against Democratic politicians. The Post hasn’t looked back and isn’t about to change its tune. But one thing we do know: the voters don’t much care what the Post prints. Those darn voters have a mind of their own and seemed to have figured out the Post’s gambit.

The Washington Post’s ombudsman Andrew Alexander devotes his weekly column to explaining how the Post‘s food critic is above reproach. Fine. Over the last few weeks we’ve been treated to columns on reporters’ conflicts of interest (no, nothing to see there, move along), another on anonymous sources, and one more on a biased book review. So where’s the heartfelt examination of the Post’s coverage of the Virginia gubernatorial race? Hmmm.

No self-examination was forthcoming, no discussion as to why dozens and dozens of stories were devoted to Bob McDonnell’s twenty-year-old college paper — an “issue” the voters cared not a wit about. Odd, isn’t it, that on the most obvious example of bias and excess the Post wouldn’t want to clear the air and take a look.

Instead, this week the Post doubled down, screaming for the governor-elect to denounce comments made by Pat Robertson about Muslims. No, Robertson isn’t in McDonnell’s transition team and isn’t going to be in his administration. The Post breathlessly observes: “In addition to attending law school in the 1980s at what was then called CBN University, the Virginia Beach school founded by Mr. Robertson and named for his Christian Broadcasting Network, Mr. McDonnell served eight years as a trustee of the same institution after it was renamed Regent University.” The Post editors proceed to holler: “Doesn’t Mr. McDonnell owe them and other Virginians some reassurance that he doesn’t share Pat Robertson’s despicable view?” Actually, no. McDonnell is under no obligation to denounce every comment by a supporter with which he disagrees; no more than Obama is expected to denounce every controversial comment a supporter of his makes.

But what is clear here is that the Post is not chastened, has not given up its habit of fomenting hot-button controversies where none exist, and holding Republicans to a standard that would never be employed against Democratic politicians. The Post hasn’t looked back and isn’t about to change its tune. But one thing we do know: the voters don’t much care what the Post prints. Those darn voters have a mind of their own and seemed to have figured out the Post’s gambit.

Read Less

Don’t You Believe It

Hillary Clinton is turning up the rhetoric a bit. At a rally on Sunday she had this to say:

“Now, I could stand up here and say let’s just get everybody together, let’s get unified…the sky will open, the light will come down celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know that we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect. Maybe I’ve just lived a little long but I have no illusions about how hard this will be.”

She sounded a similar message in an interview with CBN:

“I think that there is a certain phenomenon associated with this candidacy, and I am really struck by that, because it is very much about him and his personality and his presentation, and that’s perfectly legitimate in politics or any other walk of life, but I think it endangers or oversimplifies the complexity of the problems we face, the challenges of navigating our country through some difficult uncharted waters. We are a nation at war; that seems to be forgotten.”

She is right, but the message is a downer. She is telling audiences that this nice young man is selling you a bill of goods and it is not as easy as he makes it all sound. For a Democratic base that wants to believe it really is that easy (good intentions will melt the heart of dictators and the “special interests”) it is not going to warm their hearts. The reality, of course, is that there are huge philosophical differences separating the parties domestically, as well as dangerous, intractable enemies abroad. There is a good case to be made–one that McCain will surely take up–that an ultra-liberal novice is not the right person to bridge domestic divisions and stare down international foes. However, a liberal Democratic primary electorate that doesn’t believe Barack Obama is too liberal and doesn’t believe the world is all that dangerous is more disposed to favor the “celestial choir” guy than the “you gotta be kidding” gal.

Hillary Clinton is turning up the rhetoric a bit. At a rally on Sunday she had this to say:

“Now, I could stand up here and say let’s just get everybody together, let’s get unified…the sky will open, the light will come down celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know that we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect. Maybe I’ve just lived a little long but I have no illusions about how hard this will be.”

She sounded a similar message in an interview with CBN:

“I think that there is a certain phenomenon associated with this candidacy, and I am really struck by that, because it is very much about him and his personality and his presentation, and that’s perfectly legitimate in politics or any other walk of life, but I think it endangers or oversimplifies the complexity of the problems we face, the challenges of navigating our country through some difficult uncharted waters. We are a nation at war; that seems to be forgotten.”

She is right, but the message is a downer. She is telling audiences that this nice young man is selling you a bill of goods and it is not as easy as he makes it all sound. For a Democratic base that wants to believe it really is that easy (good intentions will melt the heart of dictators and the “special interests”) it is not going to warm their hearts. The reality, of course, is that there are huge philosophical differences separating the parties domestically, as well as dangerous, intractable enemies abroad. There is a good case to be made–one that McCain will surely take up–that an ultra-liberal novice is not the right person to bridge domestic divisions and stare down international foes. However, a liberal Democratic primary electorate that doesn’t believe Barack Obama is too liberal and doesn’t believe the world is all that dangerous is more disposed to favor the “celestial choir” guy than the “you gotta be kidding” gal.

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.