Countdown

Foot in Mouth Award: Tom Tancredo

Vol. VIII, No. 20
Posted on Wednesday August 8, 2007

Tom Tancredo is at it again, using anti-Arab and anti-Muslim campaigning as a means to improve his feeble campaign prospects.

The Republican presidential hopeful, who has quickly gained a reputation for making comments designed as much to inflame as to elucidate his position, recently said, “If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland…would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina; that is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.”

That Tancredo holds such abhorrent views is not new – he made similar statements in 2005. Fortunately, his comments have and are being repudiated by others who recognize them for what they are. So far, Republican Presidential hopefuls Mike Huckabee and Tommy Thompson have spoken out, along with a State Department spokesman. The question is: When are the other presidential candidates going to speak out against such hate speech?

Dick Cheney Wants a Quran . . .

A new biography of Vice President Dick Cheney is examined in a recent article in the Economist. The book details his propensity for secrecy, even recounting an incident back when Cheney was secretary of defense. Before a meeting with King Hassan II of Morocco in the lead up to the first Gulf War, Cheney observed the king perform a ritual with his Arabic translator by placing a Quran in the translator’s hand and talking to him in hushed tones. Afterward, Cheney asked the king what the ritual was for. The king replied that he was “swearing the translator to secrecy on pain of death,” to which Cheney responded, “I need one of those.”

Wouldn’t it be nice if simply giving Cheney a Quran could prevent him from resorting to some of the more extreme measures he has been known to support?

Pragmatic Prognostication Over Partisanship

Lawyers at Kirkland & Ellis, the national firm which employs Kenneth Starr (the fellow who investigated former President Clinton), have give more money to Hillary Clinton than to all Republican presidential candidates combined. At Jones Day, the law firm that represents the Republican National Committee, attorneys have given more than three times as much to Barack Obama as to the top three GOP candidates. According to a source interviewed by Lindsay Fortado of Bloomberg, “Firms want to be on the good side of who they think is going to be the incumbent. . . . The conventional wisdom is that the Democrats are going to win the White House.”

Ironies can be interesting as well as humorous.

Another Myth Exploded

In civics class we learned that one of the jobs of a lobbyist is to educate lawmakers. In practical politics, we learned that if the facts don’t suit you, teach a myth instead. But a letter to President Bush from 34 Christian evangelical leaders puts the lie to one bit of popular wisdom. After praising the president’s decision to “reinvigorate the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations,” the letter goes on to note, “We also write to correct a serious misperception among some people including some U.S. policymakers that all American evangelicals are opposed to a two-state solution….” Such support for the U.S. efforts toward peace are most welcome, indeed, and not to be trivialized.

In the context of U.S. domestic politics, however, this complicates the work of some lobbyists, even as it improves the education of lawmakers.

No Transatlantic Global Warming?

Despite the trip to Camp David, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown isn’t making things easy for President Bush’s War on Terror. First, Brown declines to use that phrase. Now his government has petitioned the United States for the release of five men, former residents of the U.K., who are now in Guantanamo Bay. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack took a conciliatory tone in addressing the matter, stating, “As you know, our policy has been for quite some time to work with countries who have an interest in either having their nationals return or taking responsibility for third-country nationals.” The matter is under review.

On one side of the balance sheet are U.S.-U.K. relations and the desire to shut down the prison at Guantanamo Bay. On the other side is a concern that the men be prevented from rejoining terrorist movements (the nine Britons released to date to U.K. custody are all free men). This bears watching.