Columnist Cal Thomas thinks that restrictions on political speech in churches likely is unconstitutional. But he thinks that the law has “done churches a favor, however inadvertent, by protecting most of them from the downside of electioneering.” Thomas wrote: “Whether or not the law is repealed, churches and ministers would do better to keep their attention focused on the things above, rather than the things below, because politics can be the ultimate temptation and pollute a far superior and life-changing message.”
With all the focus on the Wall Street credit crisis, don’t overlook the report this week linking the White House to the improper firing of U.S. attorneys in 2006. The Justice Department’s inspector general issued a nearly 400-page report this week that found “significant evidence that political partisan considerations were an important factor in the removal of several of the U.S. attorneys” and that the White House was involved in “at least three of the removals.”
Shouldn’t the administration be able to remove the attorneys, who are political appointees, for whatever reason it wants, and haven’t other administrations done the same thing? No on both counts.
It is standard practice for a new administration to appoint its own U.S. attorneys. But by law, the Justice Department is supposed to be independent and above politics. And as the inspector general noted, removing U.S. attorneys for political reasons “undermines the public’s confidence that Department of Justice prosecutive decisions are based on the facts and the law and not on political considerations.”
Other administrations have understood this. But the Bush administration systematically – and, according to the inspector general, possibly criminally – made hiring and firing decisions at the Justice Department based on political purposes and ideology.
It’s a disgrace.
Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard (in photo), and Rep. Jerry Moran, R-Hays, voted against the Wall Street bailout despite having received $104,000 and $259,000, respectively, in campaign contributions from financial institutions that wanted the legislation. But the nonprofit research and advocacy group MAPLight.org reported that the House members who voted for the bailout had received an average $231,000 in such contributions over the past five years, compared with the average $150,000 that went to House members who voted “no.”
The same day Barack Obama tapped as his running mate Joe Biden, the famously verbose Delaware senator who’s been in the Senate since Obama was 11, the Republican National Committee launched a Web site to monitor Biden’s future gaffes. Biden has blundered badly several times in the last several days, often on issues relating to the economy. He’s been caught contradicting his running mate, which is among every political ticket’s 10 commandments of no-nos. And on one occasion, he got his facts wrong. With voters closely watching and worrying about the financial crisis, these inconsistencies could have real consequences come Nov. 4, now less than five weeks away. — Kate Linthicum, Los Angeles Times blogs
When Joe Biden described an Obama ad attacking John McCain’s inability to use a computer as “terrible,” the world acted as if the Joe-pocalypse had finally arrived. Jonathan Martin of Politico called it “perhaps his most off-message statement yet.” Newsday dubbed him “gaffe-a-minute Joe.” National Review’s Victor Davis Hanson said it raised “serious concern whether Biden is up to the job.” Please. Biden’s blunder couldn’t matter less. Not because gaffes never matter — they can, if they play into public perceptions of the candidate’s character — but because Biden is gaffe-proof. Whatever traps he sets for himself, however many minorities he offends, he always seems to wriggle out. It’s almost as if, by committing so many gaffes, he has become immune to their effects. “Joe Biden Makes Gaffe” is the new “Dog Bites Man.” — Christopher Beam, Slate
The race between longtime Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston and GOP challenger Mark Schoenhofer no longer looks as competitive as it did five weeks ago, judging from a SurveyUSA poll last weekend of 1,000 adults in the county. In August Foulston had 51 percent of the support, to Schoenhofer’s 45 percent. Now Foulston has 54 percent and Schoenhofer 39 percent. In between the two polls, The Eagle published a story about the six times Wichita police have been to Schoenhofer’s home since 2003 responding to reports of domestic violence or arguments (he says the allegations are unfounded) and about his 1995 filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and past delinquent taxes, now resolved.
Columnist Cal Thomas thinks that restrictions on political speech in churches likely is unconstitutional. But he thinks that the law has “done churches a favor, however inadvertent, by protecting most of them from the downside of electioneering.” Thomas wrote: “Whether or not the law is repealed, churches and ministers would do better to keep their attention focused on the things above, rather than the things below, because politics can be the ultimate temptation and pollute a far superior and life-changing message.”
