Are We Headed For Romney vs Clinton?

How Sidney Blumenthal and Hugh Hewitt will be pleased. A reader seems to channel my own thoughts on the prospect:

(1)  Romney’s supporters consist overwhelmingly of the Republicans who still like Bush (as, to a lesser extent, do Huckabee’s). McCain and (of course) Paul draw their vote from the Republicans and Independents who don’t like him.

(2)  The exit poll of that weird race on the Democratic side indicates that ultimately Hillary will beat Uncommitted by only about 13 points — her 2 to 1 current lead is simply because the returns from Detroit are always the last to come in, and blacks are overwhelmingly voting Uncommitted because they’re not allowed to vote for Obama.  (The exit poll also indicates that, if Obama had gotten on the ballot, Hillary would have beaten him about 45-37, with Edwards getting 12%.) But poor people in general definitely prefer Hillary, as they did in Iowa and New Hampshire — which means that poor Democratic whites must be going for her overwhelmingly.

So the odds are rapidly growing that the Democrats will end up getting entangled in a really vicious racial fight for the nomination — blacks and well-off reformers overwhelmingly for Obama, poor and lower-middle class whites overwhelmingly for Hillary —  with serious repercussions for November.

(3)  Indeed, the main message of this latest fight is that things may end up changing politically in this country a lot less than commentators have been saying.  We may very well end up seeing a Romney vs. Hillary race, despite the unpopularity of both among the American people as a whole, simply because the majority of Republicans still like Bush and therefore like Romney, while the majority of Democrats still like Bill Clinton and so like Hillary — with the majority of Americans in the middle of the spectrum getting shut out of the process completely, as they usually do.  And we may also end up seeing a revival of the brutal racial split between white and black Democrats that people were beginning to think was finally buried.  Plus ca change…

The Appeal Of Biblical Inerrancy

One fundamentalist makes the case:

If we deny inerrancy, we make God a liar. If there are errors in the original manuscripts, manuscripts that testify they were breathed out by God, one of two things must be true: either God purposely lied or he mistakenly lied. Either way this would indicate that God is capable of making or of producing errors. Needless to say, this would destroy our ability to trust any of God’s revelation and cause us to doubt God Himself.

To my mind, this is Biblical fetishism. And absurd on its face, since there are far too many direct factual internal contradictions in the Bible to uphold this standard. I agree with Michael Spencer:

I do not doubt God or his ability to express revelation exactly as he wants it to be. The thought that God cannot reveal truth unless it is in a book that is supernaturally prevented from having normal, imperfect, human expressions of its time really never occurs to me. I assume that within the expressions, thought world, worldviews and literary genres of the time, God got exactly what he wanted and I can preach it without having to be concerned about "errancy."

MRSA: The Small Print

A reader writes:

Interesting that you mentioned the MRSA article from Annals of Internal Medicine, but I’m surprised that you didn’t note the limitations of this study. The Annals editors wrote in their summary

“The data were passively reported or retrospectively collected and are therefore subject to bias.”

They went on:

"Our study has limitations…

Our incidence estimates for San Francisco come from a passive surveillance system and may underestimate the incidence of true infection. We relied on retrospective chart review for identification of risk factors for multidrug-resistant USA300 infection in the 2 clinic populations; because data were not collected or documented systematically, our estimates of risk may be influenced by selection, referral, documentation, or other biases. Specific sexual behaviors were not assessed or documented in clinic charts; we therefore cannot comment on the association between multidrug-resistant USA300 infection and specific male–male sexual practices."

MRSA has been around a long time, and as a practicing Navy physician I have seen outbreaks in millitary populations for years.  A 2005 study by the Navy Environmental Health Center that did not make any headlines showed that community acquired MRSA was present in 3-5 % of Navy recruits.  There have been significant outbreaks in the SEAL training school in San Diego, as well as the Marine Recruit Training Depot, but this has not made the news.  MRSA has also been a problem for years in hospitals and nursing homes.  Now that someone has found a community outbreak in a gay population, it’s "big" news … bullshit.

“Our Pioneer, Our Man, Our Hero”

At least one voter hasn’t given up on what Ron Paul has achieved:

I would certainly say that Ron Paul is probably the first person outside of my family I truly loved, dating back to freshman year of high school. I first learned of him at a time when I first became truly interested in politics, particularly economics and political philosophy.  This was a time when I didn’t have many friends in life, and probably my only connection to the “in” crowd was the fact that I was an average basketball player at best.  Politics, particularly libertarianism, became my passion, and Ron Paul was, and always will be, my hero.

2004 was probably the roughest year of my life in terms of politics. Even as a partisan Republican, I had come to despise George W. Bush. Everything he campaigned on when he ran for President in 2000- small government, humble foreign policy, restoring honor to the White House, being a “uniter, not a divder”- was a complete lie. He ran the biggest deficits in history. He instituted the biggest expansion of government involvement in education in history. He instituted the largest expansion of the welfare state in history. His administration deliberately lied to the American people about a number of things, chiefly pre-war intelligence on Iraq. They used the pretext of the most horrifying event in this history of our country to create a culture of fear and hatred of people thousands of miles away from here and to launch an illegitimate and undeclared war on a country that had nothing to do with the people who attacked us. This is a time when a genuine and informative debate should have been taking place on the reasons why our enemies attacked us on 9/11, a debate that would no doubt have produced the realization of the irrationality and undesirability of spreading the war into Iraq. I had a sense of this all along, and I sensed the war was wrong and hoped it wouldn’t take place. But it did, and at first I made a horrifying decision that I regret t this day: to be a good Republican instead of a good American, or even a good libertarian.

I defended the Bush position when talking to everyone, even when I sensed it was wrong. I got tired of it briefly, and I considered supporting a couple of Democrats: not because I agreed with their entire agenda, because I most certainly didn’t, but because I was disenchanted with Bush. I liked both Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, but I couldn’t bring myself completely to them until either of them could prove they could get the nomination. Both their campaigns floundered, and the Democrats gave me Kerry, who I saw as no better than Bush. Given that choice, I went back to Bush and became an apologist, even though I knew he was wrong. I interned at the Republican Party headquarters, and I participated in the nationwide 24-hour GOTV effort that basically won re-election for Bush by turning out evangelical voters. For years, I told people that I voted for Badnarik in that election to escape the pain, and I really wish that I had not only done so, but worked for his campaign as well; but the unfortunate truth is that I in fact cast my ballot, with great pain, for President Bush. Immediately after the election, I switched my party registration from Republican to Libertarian, and I disassociated myself with Bush permanently. When the LP was decertified in North Carolina, I pretty much gave up on politics for a while.

When Ron Paul got into the race, I was immediately jovial. I thought that this would be the beginning of a movement to reclaim the intent of our country and to restore liberty to our land. I don’t agree with all of Ron Paul’s positions, as he comes from a different variant of libertarianism than I do, but he is a libertarian nonetheless and has done more for liberty throughout his career than any of his contemporaries. And he is truly the most honest and honorable man in Washington, and his record is 100% in line with his principles. As I said, I knew this would be an incredible uphill battle, and it has been. But I watched the fundraising shoot up. I watched the poll numbers go up. I watched the amount of genuine enthusiasm skyrocket. All of this occurred while the media deliberately blacked us out, whereas they gave Howard Dean much more coverage in 2004. As time went on, and as we continued to dumbfound the pundits, I thought maybe, just maybe, the long-term movement we started might just go all the way now.

At this point, though, there’s no use in denying what is inevitable. Ron Paul will not be the Republican Nominee, and he will not be the 44th President of the United States. The deck was stacked against us from the beginning. What his campaign has done, though, is to launch something much more permanent: a movement for liberty. This is a bipartisan movement: libertarians in both the Democratic and Republican Parties, libertarians of all schools, have now gotten the spark and the platform. Libertarianism has gone from something associated mainly with pot smoking and free love and nerds no one knows about to being a force capable of raising $20 million in a quarter of Presidential election. The progress is undeniable.

What we come to realize through this experience is that Ron Paul is flawed, probably fatally as a Presidential candidate in our current time. The image that many have of him as something of a messiah I think is shattered. But it is when this message is shattered that we can see who he really is by doing research and reading his writing. Upon doing so, you realize that he is a man who is 100% driven by love of his family and the ideal on which this country was founded. When candidates file for the New Hampshire primary, there is a tradition in which the candidates sign a document and write a personal message on them. The other candidates resorted to cheap sloganeering from their campaign. Ron Paul wrote simply: “For Liberty.” This is what is at the heart of it all for him, and you will see that in every speech, online column, and book that you read from him. But as he has said all along, “I have my shortcomings, but the message has no shortcomings.”

Ron Paul knew he would not win the election for a number of reasons, but he threw himself out there to be hammered and ridiculed for us, because he knew the message was the truth and that people would understand it. The base we have now is all because of him. It took him a few months to accomplish what the Libertarian Party has been trying to accomplish for four decades, almost four now. Despite his flaws, which all of us have in some form or another, he is our pioneer, our man, and our hero. But as he would tell us, we need to keep sight of what is at stake and what our motivation is. The Founding Fathers gave us the greatest ideal known to man, and it’s been our responsibility over time to maintain it. We’ve shirked on our responsibility, and we’re teetering on collapse for it. Ron Paul is our new Founding Father: he’s founded a new movement to reclaim the ideal our previous founders gave us, and it’s our responsibility to maintain it and carry it forward. We cannot shirk on this responsibility. We need to keep working, both for Paul’s campaign, for other campaigns, and for the cause of liberty.

Liberals And Romney

Kevin Drum wonders:

So what I’m wondering here is, who’s getting suckered, me or Hugh [Hewitt]? Would Romney really be worse than, say, McCain or Giuliani from a liberal perspective? That’s hard to believe, frankly. But that’s what Hugh Hewitt thinks, and his fealty to the conservative cause isn’t really open to question. So who’s right?

Matt prefers a paint-by-numbers cynic to McCain’s "militarism". So he’d prefer someone who wants to "double Gitmo"?