Hubbard picks his man

By Jennifer J. Foster

Alabama Republican Party Chairman Mike Hubbard has chosen his horse in the race for control of the national party.

It’s Katon Dawson, chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party. He’ll be remembered by most casual political watchers as the guy with the heavy accent who welcomed viewers to the Republican presidential debate sponsored by Fox News back in January.

SIDEBAR: If you watch that clip, check out how many times Brit Hume says “Fox News” in the intro. END SIDEBAR

Hubbard noted Dawson’s “successful leadership at the state level, adherence to the Republican Party’s core principals and his accomplished record of outreach to new Republican voters and candidates” in endorsing his fellow state chairman.

Dawson has been picking up some notable endorsements. But if he starts closing in on a winning number, the national press will bear down on at least one thing in Dawson’s history that could be an obstacle to continuing that party outreach at the national level: His 12-year membership in a whites-only country club in Columbia.

The (Columbia) State newspaper reported in September that Dawson resigned “as The State pursued an article on his membership in the club and his role in an internal push to admit African-Americans as members.“

Shortly after learning about the deed restrictions of the club, Dawson had written a letter to club members in August, informing them of his “intent to work to change the club practice that would exclude membership for anyone based on any specific ethnicity.“

It’s unclear how this issue would affect Dawson’s ability to lead the national Republican Party and its outreach efforts. Those who know him say his membership in the club is in no way a reflection of his personal beliefs about race.  The State quoted several people—black people included—who came to Dawson’s defense. And his supporters point out that under his leadership, the South Carolina Republican Party has seen the election of Glenn McCall, the first African-American to serve on the RNC, and Tim Scott, the first African-American Republican to serve in the South Carolina General Assembly since Reconstruction.

Before formally resigning his membership, Dawson said that he was concerned that the club issue could become a distraction to his efforts to lead the state party.

If he’s elected chairman of the Republican National Committee and sent to do political battle against the leadership of the first black president of the United States, it’s likely that the issue will at least come up.

Here’s the news release from the Alabama GOP:

Alabama GOP Chair Endorses South Carolina’s Dawson For RNC Top Post

Auburn, AL – Rep. Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn), Chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, announced today that he is supporting South Carolina Republican Party Chair Katon Dawson to become the next head of the Republican National Committee.

Chairman Hubbard cited Dawson’s successful leadership at the state level, adherence to the Republican Party’s core principals and his accomplished record of outreach to new Republican voters and candidates as reasons for his decision to support Dawson.

“Katon Dawson is an optimistic, outside-the-beltway Republican leader who will bring fresh, innovative ideas to the Party,” Hubbard said. “When you look at the accomplishments the Republican Party has achieved in South Carolina under his leadership, it is truly phenomenal.

“Katon understands what it takes to run a successful state party, which is critical,” Hubbard continued. “He has set records for fundraising, recruited quality candidates and dominated his state by electing Republicans at every level.

“In many ways, we have unfortunately become a ‘top down’ instead of a ‘bottom up’ organization. I believe it is critical for the Republican Party nationally to focus on all 50 state parties by providing support, tools and resources to create a top quality grassroots operation.

“I have no doubt that Katon Dawson has the knowledge, experience and leadership skills necessary to move our Party to new levels.” 

Hubbard, who serves as Minority Leader in the Alabama House of Representatives in addition to his role as Alabama GOP Chairman, will cast his vote for Dawson in late January when all RNC members will convene in Washington for the RNC’s Winter Meeting.

Holy war in the Holy Land

By Jennifer J. Foster

Let’s spend some time daydreaming together for a moment.

Remember back to September 11, 2001. Remember where you were when you heard that something was going on at the World Trade Center. Remember the horror that crept over your entire being as you heard about the second plane hitting the WTC. Maybe, like me, you saw it happen live and in color.

Remember seeing the black smoke rising from the ruins of the Pentagon.

Remember the warnings that spread like a plague—evacuations of the U.S. Capitol, the Sears Tower, the Empire State Building, the closures of Los Angeles International Airport and eventually all the other airports in the United States. Remember that rumor that a plane was headed for Washington.

Remember that field in Pennsylvania.

Remember how you felt as the towers came crashing down—first Tower 2, then Tower 1, after several minutes and a sickening feeling of inevitability.

Remember the triage workers so eager to help the wounded that they spilled out on to the streets of New York, awaiting the wave of WTC patients who would never come.

Remember the days upon days of workers searching through the rubble for any sign of life as television anchors introduced you to the name, “Osama bin Laden.“

Now, remember how you felt in the days following those attacks. Think back to the resolve that permeated your country that we would never, ever let anything like this happen to us again.

Now imagine, if you can, someone coming forth and arguing that the United States was being heavy-handed in its retaliation against the militants and facilities in Afghanistan that had conjured the Sept. 11 attacks in their imaginations and willed them into terrible reality.

Imagine how absolutely absurd it would have been for someone to argue whether the U.S. had any right to retaliate at all.

Imagine the rightful ridicule and scorn that would have befallen anyone who had advanced such a quandary.

Now let’s talk about what’s going on in the Middle East.

Over the past few weeks, Israel has faced regular shelling of its southern border from militants in Gaza.

They knew who was doing it, and they knew where it was coming from.

So, facing continuing harm and a continuing threat and armed with actionable intelligence about the source and nature of that threat, Israel is doing what every other country would do in a similar situation: It’s rooting out the threat.

It’s incomprehensible to me that we are actually hearing people debate whether Israel has a “right” to conduct these operations.

The only thing more incomprehensible is that folks in New Orleans—NEW ORLEANS—held a rally yesterday to protest “Israeli aggression.“ Israeli aggression—you mean, the retaliatory measures meant to safeguard their people from further attacks from Gaza?

What planet are these people living on?

Almost as incomprehensible is the way talking heads are wringing their hands over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Is there a humanitarian crisis? Of course there is.

But guess who’s responsible for it? Here’s a hint: It’s the group that centers its terrorist operations near schools, hospitals and residential areas, using civilians as human shields. It’s the group that exploits relaxations of the border blockades to smuggle in rockets and militants with which to attack Israel. It’s the group that continues to vow Israel’s destruction.

Meanwhile, you have Cynthia McKinney on a boat, headed to Gaza to support the Palestinians. Surprise, surprise.

Maybe we’ll get lucky and she’ll get through and decide to make their cause her full-time, on-scene concern.

Nah ... it’s probably too late for that Christmas miracle.

I heard someone on CNN a little while ago opine about how Israel’s response is “above and beyond” the shelling that the Palestinians had been doing.

Ah, the old lie of “proportional response.“

I suppose that person thought we went over the top with the Taliban in 2001, too.

I have never understood why there is so much difficulty in the Middle East. Sure, I understand that Jerusalem is a holy city for three different religions. And that’s the only reason this is even an issue: No one would even blink an eye at whether any other country that had been established and is recognized by the world community had “the right to defend itself.“ That it’s even an issue with Israel shows the double standard that applies to Israelis and their country.

But I guess, from my perspective, when your choice is either co-existing or spending a lifetime shielding your children from car bombs and suicide bombers and air strikes and gunman, there’s really no choice at all.

If the Palestinians are really ready to stop living with “Israeli aggression,“ there’s one simple, simply executed answer: QUIT ENGAGING ISRAEL IN A HOLY WAR. Stop shelling Israel. Stop voting for Hamas-supported candidates who promise to keep up the fight against Israel. Stop smuggling in weapons from Iran. Stop sending suicide bombers and gunmen into Israeli cafes, buses, clubs, hotels and train stations. Stop trying to provoke Israel into a nuclear response that would trigger a wider conflict and likely cause World War III.

If the Palestinians want a truce, they need only keep their hands to themselves.

Obama and the bubble

By Jennifer J. Foster

Remember the other day when we talked about how President-elect Barack Obama is struggling with the press?

Politico has this look at how he’s struggling with “the bubble,“ a 24-hour, full-court journalism press that covers all—and I do mean ALL—his activities.

It’s part of being, and preparing to be, the most powerful man in the world, but getting used to it may be the toughest thing about transitioning from candidate to president. All the other transition duties—filling a Cabinet, getting up to speed on intelligence matters, lining up and sorting through thousands of West Wing hopefuls and everything else—deal with policy.

“The bubble” is personal. It’s a constant reminder that for the rest of your life, your life is no longer your own.

Say a prayer

By Jennifer J. Foster

Let’s deal quickly with the furor surrounding the Rev. Rick Warren.

In case you missed it, Obama asked Warren to deliver the invocation at the inaugural ceremony. Warren accepted.

What followed was nothing short of an uprising of outrage that would have made the protestors of the 1960s proud.

Left-wing Americans—especially gay, lesbian, bisexual and transexual Americans—reacted to the announcement with unrestrained fury.

Their anger revolves around Warren’s activism and leadership in passing California’s Proposition 8.

Traditional marriage advocates sought Prop 8 to answer the California Supreme Court, which overturned the state’s gay marriage ban back in May. Warren made no secret about his opposition to gay marriage; in fact, he questioned both Obama and GOP presidential candidate John McCain about their positions on the issue when he hosted them at a newsmaking forum in August.

Gay rights advocates consider Warren’s inclusion in the inauguration as a cutting insult (for one example, watch this AC360 clip wherein Hilary Rosen and Robert Zimmerman did battle with Roland Martin), not only to them but to the politics of inclusion for which they believed Obama stood.

Back to that in a minute.

Obama’s camp responded that Warren’s selection in no way diminishes Obama’s commitment to gay rights issues. Instead, they said, Obama was simply practicing that inclusion he talked about on the campaign trail. Repeating a line we heard often from Obama during the race, he said, “We have to disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.“

It’s important to sidebar here and note that Warren and Obama had a history of working together on other issues before the Saddleback forum. Warren invited Obama to participate in an AIDS forum at Saddleback in 2006 and was absolutely pilloried by the religious right for it.

Come to think of it, the right pilloried Warren for working with Obama pretty much exactly the way the left is pillorying Obama for including Warren in the inauguration.

I wrote about this on my blog last year in a post called, “Stoning Obama.“ It’s lengthy, but if you’re interested and you have time, it’s worth a read.

Back to the politics of inclusion.

Does it strike anyone else as ironic that folks who preach inclusion have trouble being inclusive themselves?

Oh, wait; that’s true of both groups.

But there is another irony here.

Religious figures, especially evangelical figures, are roundly criticized when their walk doesn’t match their talk.

And it is right that this is so.

But here we have a case where a religious figure not only stands by his views, but takes action to support them—and he is being criticized anyway.

So, if being a hypocrite about your views is grounds for criticism, but being an honest broker of your views is also grounds for criticism, you have to ask yourself: Is there really a case when those views are tolerated?

Perhaps it’s the Christians who should be undertaking a tolerance campaign.

I respect that Obama is standing by his decision to invite Warren to participate in the inauguration. The left wing of his party may not like it. But no matter how much they hate it, Warren represents part of America—and Obama will be their president, too.

See also:

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod appeared on “Meet the Press” this morning. Read what he had to say about the Warren controversy, among other issues, here.

NY Times gets punked

By Jennifer J. Foster

Remember during the campaign when Sarah Palin spent nearly seven minutes on the phone with someone she THOUGHT was French President Nicolas Sarkozy?

(“HELLLOOO!!!“)

“Sarkozy” was really a Canadian radio personality.

DOH!

Palin was rightly and roundly criticized for her ... shall we say, naïveté.

Well, it seems that Palin is in good company—either that, or it’s just really, REALLY easy to fake being an elected Frenchman.

The New York Times —the Old Grey Lady herself—was punked this week when it was duped into publishing a fake letter it believed was from Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe.

“Delanoe” had some unfriendly things to say about Caroline Kennedy’s interest in succeeding Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate.

The real Delanoe was not amused, either by the letter or the Times’ sloppiness.

Virginie Christnacht, head of Delanoe’s press office in Paris, told the AP the letter was a fake.

“We have asked The New York Times for a denial and an apology,“ she said. “Clearly, this was never sent by Bertrand Delanoe.“

Sacre bleu!

The Times blamed modern technology.

The Times blamed the mistake on a failure to verify the authenticity of a letter that arrived by e-mail.

“In this case, our staff sent an edited version of the letter to the sender of the e-mail and did not hear back,“ the paper said. “At that point, we should have contacted Mr. Delanoe’s office to verify that he had, in fact, written to us. We did not do that. Without that verification, the letter should never have been printed.“

But here’s the best part: The Times says it’s “reviewing its procedures to avoid such an incident in the future.“

Notice in the Times’ statement where it says, “At that point”? The Times admits that, yes, it should have contacted the mayor’s office to verify authorship—but not until AFTER it didn’t hear back from the mayor’s office about the edited version of the letter!!

Hey, guys! Want to avoid such an incident in the future?

How about actually verifying authorship BEFORE considering a piece for publication?!?!

Admittedly, the Times’ incident doesn’t have the star quality of the Palin incident. It also lacks Palin’s hilarious audio, which will live on forever on YouTube.

But in reality, neither one of these incidents is funny—at all. They’re both just downright sad.

And disturbing.