On Lugar and Amendment 1

I have some links to share, in light of the recent election results.

1.  Republican Senator from Indiana Richard Lugar lost the Republican nomination for Senate to Richard Mourdock, who was backed by a number of Tea-Partiers.

I remember working at a Food Pantry one summer, and I was talking about politics with some of the ladies there, one of whom was the head of a Republican women’s organization.  We were discussing which Republican would be the best one to run against Bill Clinton in 1996, and one of the ladies there said that she never heard anything bad about Lugar.

Years later, I was reading a web site, The Skeleton Closet at realchange.org, which goes into the scandals and alleged improprieties of people running for President, both Republican and Democrat.  But it couldn’t really find anything bad on Lugar (though it named one thing, and then questioned whether it was really a scandal).  The article said:

“Richard Lugar is by almost all accounts, one of the candidates [for President in 1996] with the best character and fewest skeletons of anyone running for President. He’s a former Eagle Scout and Rhodes scholar who is still married to a strong women he met in college, and he even served in the military (Navy).  Politically, he’s more conservative than the moderate image he is projecting, but he is an open minded man of apparent principle, who opposes his party’s positions on banning assault rifles, cutting back school lunches and affirmative action. There are far too few politicians who have the guts to oppose their own party mates on one or two issues just because they feel it’s the right thing to do, and Lugar seems to be one. In fact, we are hard pressed to report anything negative on him. If you have any tips, click here to send us the information or a lead.  Perversely, the press — which gets so incensed at the minor scandals they dig up — seems to be ignoring Lugar in part because he is so squeaky clean.”

As a former Hoosier, I am honored that a decent person like Richard Lugar represented the state of Indiana for so long.  I wish him the best.

2.  In North Carolina, Amendment 1 passed.  Amendment 1 declares marriage to be between one man and one woman, but people have argued that it could impact, not only homosexual couples, but also heterosexual couples and health benefits (see here).

I read some posts this morning: Michael Varrati challenges Billy Graham’s support for Amendment 1 on the basis of the Bible, arguing that the First Amendment is about not legislating religious beliefs; Justin Lee of the Gay Christian Network talked about the importance of not marginalizing people from the other side but rather seeking to correct misconceptions people have about homosexuality (i.e., that it’s a choice); and Rachel Held Evans argues that conservative evangelicalism’s emphasis on the cultural wars may alienate younger evangelicals and the younger generation, period.

I can’t say that I agree entirely with these three pieces, though I agree somewhat.  On Varrati’s piece, I am not convinced that many of America’s founders intended to insulate religion completely from public policy, though I can understand Varrati’s point that “the Bible says” is not a sufficient public policy argument.  Regarding Justin’s post, I think that opposition to the state recognizing gay marriage does not necessarily flow from ignorance about homosexuality, for there are concerns that recognizing gay marriage could lead to a slippery slope, beliefs that a man and a woman each contribute something special and important to the raising of children, etc.  On Rachel’s post, I do not know if “most” younger evangelicals are as alienated from evangelicalism’s preoccupation with the cultural wars as she suggests, for I do know a number of younger evangelicals who are socially, culturally, and politically conservative.  (Rachel does refer to a study, though.)

I do think, however, that Rachel made an important point when she said: “And when it comes to homosexuality, we no longer think in the black-at-white categories of the generations before ours. We know too many wonderful people from the LGBT community to consider homosexuality a mere ‘issue.’ These are people, and they are our friends. When they tell us that something hurts them, we listen. And Amendment One hurts like hell.”

And Alise Wright said under Justin’s post: “I’m incredibly grateful to friends who walked me through understanding, rather than simply writing me off as a bigot.”

In my opinion, what is important is that we learn about people’s stories, so that we remember that there are people involved in these debates, not just issues.

Things I Learned about Bay Buchanan

I just watched Bay Buchanan on ABC This Week.  Bay is a conservative activist and the sister of conservative commentator and former Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan.

I was intrigued to learn two things today, from the show and also from my reading online.  First of all, Bay was a single parent for years, and she recently wrote a book about that experience entitled Bay and Her Boys: Unexpected Lessons I Learned As a (Single) Mom.  I appreciated the description of the book on Amazon, especially as I consider the tendency of some conservatives to badmouth single-parent homes: “Twenty-three years ago, Bay Buchanan was thrown–or as she says, dumped–into the world of single parenting. It wasn’t a popular time to be raising kids solo, especially as a rising star in the conservative movement. But she quickly realized she needed to overcome the hurt and confusion and focus on giving her all to her children…Buchanan also wants to change the national dialogue about single moms with a shot across the bow of both conservatives and liberals. This book is the first step by a prominent conservative to be there for all mothers: standing with them, inspiring them, and arming them with tools that will help their kids succeed in life.”

Second, I was interested to learn that Bay converted to Mormonism years ago, when her family was staunchly Catholic.  Rob Howe’s 1996 article about Bay in People magazine narrates: “Working in Sydney as a bookkeeper, she met an American who introduced her to the Mormon faith before she returned to the U.S. two years later. In a painful break with the family that took years to heal, she converted in 1976. When she married William Jackson, a California attorney, in a Mormon ceremony in 1982, only brother Henry attended. ‘I’d have preferred everyone being there, but they have to make their own choices,’ she says.”  This somewhat shattered my stereotype of the Buchanan family, as people who think alike on politics and religion.  On politics, that may be the case (though I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some difference of opinion).  On religion, not entirely!

I found Bay’s book on Amazon for an inexpensive price, so I ordered it.  Here‘s a good discussion with Bay about her book.

“Ideological Voters Are Easy to Manipulate”

The Atlantic had an interesting article recently entitled Ideological Voters Are Easy to Manipulate.  Its argument is that ideologues can be manipulated to passionately support a candidate—-even one for whom they have misgivings—-through rhetoric or controversies.  For example, many conservatives have been tepid about Mitt Romney, but now there’s a good chance that they will rally behind him due to that lady on CNN saying that Ann Romney has never held a real job, which many have construed as an attack on stay-at-home mothers.

I have to confess that this was true of me back when I was a right-winger.  For example, in 1992, I had misgivings about George H.W. Bush because he raised taxes, talked about a new world order, appointed a pro-choicer to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, and had a head of the National Endowment for the Arts who tolerated funding smut with our tax dollars.

But did it take a great deal of effort to win me over to George H.W. Bush in the 1992 election?  No.  Bush and Quayle tossed out some Republican red meat blasting Bill Clinton as a tax-and-spend liberal.  Pat Buchanan at the 1992 convention gave me some more red meat by blasting Hillary and Al Gore.  Dan Quayle stood up for family values and attacked Hollywood and Murphy Brown.  Was there substance to any of this?  Well, I suppose that it was legitimate for Dan Quayle to raise the issue of single parenting and whether that was best for children (and I will not comment on whether he was right or wrong in his assessment).  But, seriously, was Bush planning to do something about single parenting were he to be re-elected as President?  The Republicans were simply tossing out the usual rhetoric that the right-wing base loves.  And controversies encouraged the right-wing base to increase its opposition to those it considered to be elites (i.e., Hollywood, the media, Democratic politicians, etc.), while standing with someone professing to be its guy, even if he wasn’t fully.

Am I the same way now that I’m more on the Left?  Not as much, I don’t think.  I’m at the point where I’m not overly interested in what a politician says.  I’m interested in what a politician does.  And, in my opinion, Barack Obama has shown his commitment to health care reform and to student loan reform through his deeds.  Is he perfect in the area of taking action rather than just talking?  No.  But politics is a matter of selecting among the choices that are presented to us.

Question About the Talpiot Controversy

I started following the Talpiot tomb(s) controversy a few days ago.  I know, I’m late!  Sometimes, the biblioblogging controversies interest me.  Sometimes, they don’t.  And, sometimes, something is thrown in my face enough times that I just have to see what all the raucous is about.  The last is what happened to me in terms of the Talpiot tomb(s) controversy.

I’ll give you a little summary of the controversy, and then I’ll ask a question.  At Talpiot in Jerusalem, there is what James Tabor and Simcha Jacobivici believe is the family tomb of Jesus, for it contains a tomb of Jesus, the son of Joseph as well as a tomb of Maria.  There is also a son of Jesus among those tombs, and so there is a belief that Jesus had a son.  Detractors argue, however, that these names were so common in those days that we cannot say that this was Jesus of Nazareth’s tomb.

Elsewhere in Talpiot, there is an ossuary.  An ossuary is a chest for human bones.  On the ossuary in question, there is something, but there is debate about what that something is.  (Click here to see some images.)  Tabor says that it’s a fish spitting out a human being, and that we see on this ossuary an allusion to the story of Jonah, which Jesus likened to his own resurrection in Matthew 12:40.  For Tabor, this ossuary is talking about the resurrection of Jesus.  Others contend that it’s an image of something else, however—-a vase with handles, or a nephesh (which means “soul” in Hebrew, but I’m not sure what it means in terms of this ossuary).  Different sides have looked at other ossuaries and the decorations on them (i.e., vases) in making their arguments about this particular ossuary.  Personally, when I look at the ossuary, those “handles” look to me like they could easily be fins, but I’m far from being an expert on this topic, and I have only superficially looked at this debate.

But, if Jesus is in a tomb, does that mean he was not risen from the dead?  How could the early Christians believe in and proclaim Jesus’ resurrection, when their opponents could easily point out where Jesus’ tomb was?  These are not the questions I promised near the beginning of this post, for Tabor already addresses them.  For Tabor, there was an early Christian belief that Jesus’ resurrection was spiritual rather than physical (I Corinthians 15).  Consequently, Jesus’ bones could be in a tomb, and yet early Christians could proclaim that Jesus was risen, for their conception of Jesus’ resurrection was not physical.

Now for my question, which may be elementary, but I have not yet found anything that answers it: Where does Tabor believe that Jesus was buried?  Was it in the family tomb, or in the ossuary?  In news stories that I have read, Tabor says that Jesus was buried in the family tomb, and yet that Jesus’ resurrection was celebrated not far from that.  But an ossuary contains bones, right?

(UPDATE: I think I found my answer on wikipedia.  See here.  It says: “A body is first buried in a temporary grave, then after some years the skeletal remains are removed and placed in an ossuary…During the time of the Second Temple, Jewish burial customs included primary burials in burial caves, followed by secondary burials in ossuaries placed in smaller niches of the burial caves.”)

If you’d like to go deeper and read more about this controversy, James McGrath has some posts with links (see here, here, and here).  At many of these links, you can read Tabor interacting with his detractors.

Ann Coulter on Stand Your Ground Laws and the George Zimmerman Case

I thought that Ann Coulter made a valid point (or at least a point that deserves consideration) about the Stand Your Ground law on ABC This Week (see the transcript here).  (Of course, I’m not a lawyer, but she is.)  Ann was essentially disputing the idea that the shooting of Trayvon Martin had anything to do with the Stand Your Ground law, which states that, when you defend yourself, you don’t have to retreat but can stand your ground and use deadly force against your assailant.

For Ann, the Stand Your Ground law is irrelevant regardless of which narrative you accept.  In the narrative that George Zimmerman was following Trayvon Martin and then shot him, George Zimmerman is doing the stalking, so of course he’s not retreating.  He’s the aggressor.  In the narrative that Travon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman, George Zimmerman cannot retreat because he’s unable to get up.  He can claim self-defense in that case, even apart from the Stand Your Ground law.

This makes a degree of sense, but I wonder if possible complexity within the narratives could make the Stand Your Ground laws relevant.  Regarding the first narrative, suppose that Zimmerman was following Trayvon Martin and Martin responded by fighting with him, placing Zimmerman in a position where he’d have to defend himself.  Could Zimmerman claim self-defense, when he (Zimmerman) started the conflict by following Trayvon Martin?  Regarding the second narrative, was Zimmerman always on the ground?  Was there never an opportunity for him to retreat?

Stand Your Ground Laws

I can see some point to the controversial Stand Your Ground laws, even though I agree with critics that something is seriously wrong when those sorts of laws can be used to excuse George Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin.  I’m saying this, not as a lawyer or an expert, but as someone who has begun learning about what those laws are.

I was thinking about this issue after I watched last night’s episode of Desperate Housewives.  In the story-arc for this season, the ladies have been trying to cover up Carlos’ killing of Gabrielle’s step-father, Alejandro, who raped Gabrielle when she was a teenager and returned into her life years later to threaten her.  Carlos whacked Alejandro on the head (and I think it was the back of the head) when Alejandro was giving the impression to Gabrielle that he had a gun and was implying his intention to rape Gabrielle.  But Alejandro did not actually have a gun, and so Carlos feared going to jail for killing an unarmed man.  That’s why the ladies buried Alejandro’s body and have been trying to cover up what Carlos did throughout this season.

But couldn’t Carlos come forward to the police and claim self-defense?  I don’t know.  A salient feature of Stand Your Ground laws is that they say that a person does not have to retreat before defending oneself from an assailant (see here).  A person can stand his ground, in short.  As I look at wikipedia’s summary of Florida’s law, my impression is that, had Carlos lived in Florida, he would have been able to claim self-defense, even though he did not retreat before he whacked Alejandro from behind.  The reason is that Carlos was protecting his wife from an attacker.  But suppose that Carlos lived in a state that required him to retreat before using deadly force, perhaps to show that he was the one who was defending himself as opposed to being the attacker?  In that case, I doubt that he could claim self-defense.

But should the Stand Your Ground law get George Zimmerman off the hook?  Jeb Bush, who signed the bill into law when he was Governor, says that he did not envision the law being carried out in that manner, for Zimmerman was the one who was following Trayvon Martin.  I think that I can see the purpose behind Stand Your Ground, but I wonder if there’s a way for the law to be written so that it cannot be abused—-so that it cannot allow people to shoot others unnecessarily in cold blood and to claim self-defense.

UPDATE: As often turns out to be the case when I write posts like this, the issue is more nuanced than I thought.  This article says the following:

“Florida’s increasingly controversial ‘stand your ground’ law was passed in 2005, eliminating the requirement that a person seek an alternative — like fleeing — before using force if they felt they were in physical danger. The National Rifle Association and other advocates had argued that citizens were being arrested for merely defending themselves.

“Florida, like many other states, has long held that citizens have the right to defend themselves in their own homes. Court rulings have expanded that right to include employees in workplaces and drivers in their cars. But there was long a reluctance to extend those rights to public places, so judges had ruled that citizens under threat must make some alternative attempt to violence to escape danger.

“In 2005, the Florida House of Representatives voted 94-20 in favor of a new, ‘stand your ground’ bill that eliminated the requirement to flee.”

My understanding is this: Even before the 2005 Stand Your Ground law, Carlos would have been able to claim self-defense, since Alejandro was threatening Gabrielle in Carlos’ own home.  If this occurred in a public place, however, Carlos and Gabrielle would have to seek an alternative—-like fleeing—-before using deadly force.  But the 2005 Stand Your Ground law gets rid of the requirement that people retreat before using deadly force in a public place.

The Shooting of Trayvon Martin

This post is about the tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin.

1.  George Will and Donna Brazile had insightful comments on ABC This Week.  Click here for the transcript.

George Will said: “That the law in question, the so-called Stand Your Ground law, is a bad idea, because it tries to codify a right of self-defense, but it really confers upon citizens the illusion at least that they have something like powers exercised by highly trained police officers. Mr. Zimmerman says he was acting under this self-defense law, but he is said to have been recorded saying that he was in pursuit of the person. You cannot be in pursuit and acting in self-defense…But the problem, of course, is at this point we all ought to remember something. The last time everyone in the media and certain well-known agitators got up on their high horses and galloped off in all directions was the Duke lacrosse case, and everyone was wrong.”

Donna Brazile remarked: “Neighborhood — I’m a Neighborhood — I belong to a Neighborhood Watch. We don’t — we don’t carry pistols. We don’t carry guns. We try to protect the streets. We try to protect the neighborhood. We don’t profile people. We just try to make sure everybody is safe, get in and out.  But this has, of course, awakened some wounds, some wounds that go back generations, where young black boys are taught and told at a very early age — I heard my mom, it’s called the talk, my father, the code. The talk is, of course, watch yourself, be careful of your surroundings. If you’re stopped by the cops, protect your pride, but act with humility, and try not to run, to flee. But in Trayvon’s case, he didn’t know who George Zimmerman was. He didn’t know what this guy was up to.”

I don’t know exactly what the events were that surrounded George Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin.  I read wikipedia’s article on it this morning, and it was well-documented, going so far as to include sound-clips from George Zimmerman’s call to the police and 9-1-1 calls.  The wikipedia article states the following:

“When the police arrived, they reported finding Martin face-down and unresponsive, with a gunshot wound in the chest. The police report states that they attempted CPR, paramedics arrived and continued CPR, finally declaring him dead at 7:30 p.m. Statements by the police say Zimmerman had grass on his back and his back was wet. Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and the back of the head; subsequently his lawyer stated that Zimmerman’s nose was broken.^[48][49] However, the police report does not indicate that Zimmerman required medical attention. Zimmerman claimed self-defense, telling police he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on, when Martin attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck. He said he fired the semiautomatic handgun because he feared for his life.^[50] Martin was unarmed, and was carrying a bag of Skittles candy and a can of Arizona brand iced tea.^[50][51]“

I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some physical altercation between Martin and Zimmerman.  As Donna Brazile said, Martin didn’t know who Zimmerman was, and Martin wondered why this guy was following him.  An altercation may have broken out, and that escalated into Zimmerman shooting Martin.  I don’t think either person was evil.  From what I have read, Zimmerman deeply regrets shooting Martin.  Could that be because Zimmerman looks back and sees that this action was unnecessary, over-reactive, and impulsive?  While he was fighting with Martin, Zimmerman may have felt that his life was in danger, when it really wasn’t, since he’s much bigger than Martin.  But he acted on impulse, with tragic results. 

If that’s what happened, does that mean Zimmerman should be let off?  I can understand why Martin’s family and many others would be outraged at such a possibility, for an innocent person lost his life—-and it all started when Zimmerman thought that Martin looked suspicious for highly nebulous reasons.  I can feel for both sides.  Some have wondered why the American evangelical community has been largely silent about this tragedy.  What could evangelical pastors do?  I think that they should do what Sister Helen Prejean (played by Susan Sarandon) did in the movie, Dead Man Walking: reach out to the victim’s family, and also the perpetrator and his family.  Both are suffering.

UPDATE: Evangelical pastor John Piper has spoken about the tragedy.  See here.

2.  Newt Gingrich is criticizing Barack Obama for highlighting the race of Trayvon Martin.  Obama said that, if he had a son, the son would look like Trayvon Martin.  Newt Gingrich finds Obama’s remarks to be disgraceful because Newt does not think that Trayvon Martin’s race is relevant: that it would have been a tragedy, whatever Trayvon’s race was.

Indeed, it would have been a tragedy, even if Trayvon Martin were white.  But I don’t think that race should be considered irrelevant in a discussion of this issue.  For one, African-American males are often racially profiled and suspected in American society, and that could have been what was going on when Zimmerman called the police about Martin.  Second, I don’t see why it’s wrong for President Obama to speak as an African-American man about a tragedy that befell another African-American man, and that befalls other African-American men as well.  Should we expect people to leave their racial and ethnic backgrounds at the door when commenting on issues, when that is a significant part of who they are?  And should we pretend that racism had absolutely nothing to do with this tragedy, when it very well could have?

“Government to shut down Texas women’s health program”

Reuters recently had a story entitled Government to shut down Texas women’s health program.  The opening paragraph states:

“The Obama Administration on Thursday said it would begin shutting down a program that provides health care for more than 100,000 low-income women in Texas because the state will not allow funding for clinics that provide abortion services.”

Essentially, the Obama Administration will not provide federal funding for this health program that serves low-income women, due to a Texas law prohibiting any of that money from going to clinics that perform abortions, even if the money is not paying for abortion itself (as that is against federal law).  Federal law requires that the women benefiting from the federally-funded program have freedom of choice in what clinics they will visit, and the Obama Administration believes that Texas is undermining that with its new law. Consequently, the Obama Administration is cutting off federal funding for the program, even though the “federal government pays about 90 percent of the [program's] cost”.

Texas Governor Rick Perry has committed himself to finding money so that the program can continue, saying: “It is the height of political posturing for the Obama Administration to put the interests of abortion providers and their affiliates, like Planned Parenthood, over the well-being of more than 100,000 low-income Texas women…I will not stand by and let this administration abandon these Texas women to advance its political agenda…Texas will fund these services with or without the federal government.”

I have problems with the Obama Administration’s decision, for I think that women’s access to health care should be paramount.  But isn’t Texas undermining that by restricting the clinics that women can visit?  Perhaps, but what good does it do for the Obama Administration to cut off funding altogether?  Who’s helped by that sort of policy?  But perhaps the Administration can’t do much else, since it has to follow the law.

Notwithstanding my reservations, I find the reaction of many conservatives to Obama’s policy to be ironic.  Many conservatives believe that the states rather than the federal government should handle health care, and a number of conservatives who are Christians maintain that charity is something that should be handled by the church, not the federal government.  So shouldn’t they be happy about the Obama Administration’s decision?  Instead, they claim that cutting off federal funding will destroy the program.  But, if they believe that federal funding is necessary to support the health of low-income women, doesn’t that undercut their entire argument that the federal government’s involvement in health care is neither necessary nor desirable, and that the state and the private sector are sufficient to handle the issue?   

I think that one thing that has been illustrated by this and other incidents is that government money entails government control.  Conservatives have long claimed this, and we are seeing it before our very eyes.  We see it in this case (in the policies of both President Obama and also the Texas legislature and Rick Perry, who themselves are attaching conditions to government money), and also when the government chooses not to give money to Catholic adoption agencies that discriminate against same-sex couples.  The problem is, can these programs exist without government funding?  I wish they could.  But my impression is that health care is too expensive for the private sector on its own to be able to support health care programs for the low-income.  Plus, many people (in my view) are too selfish to support these programs on a private basis, and I include a lot of churches in this.

How Stimulus Fails

I read a good article this morning called How Stimulus Fails.  It’s by Jim Epstein of Reason Magazine, a libertarian publication.

The idea behind stimulus is that the government will revive a flagging economy by spending more money on such things as infrastructure, green energy, weatherization, and other things.  That way, more people will be put to work while simultaneously making the world a better place, as roads are built or improved and America becomes more energy-independent due to green technology.  And the people employed in these projects will then have money to spend, and that will play a role in rejuvenating the economy.

But, according to Jim Epstein, things have not turned out that way.  He quotes Veronique de Rugy of George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, who states: “Even if you were to believe that government spending can trigger economic growth, the money is never spent in a way that’s consistent with the conditions laid out by the Keynesians for it to be efficient.”

So what’s the problem, according to Epstein?  One problem is that states have cut funding on infrastructure projects in order to balance the budget.  In Maryland, that resulted in a decrease of 8,000 jobs, and the stimulus money was used to pay the salary of 600 workers.

Second, when stimulus money goes to big companies, those companies often do not use that money to employ people who are unemployed.  Rather, they employ people who are already employed, and the stimulus fails to decrease unemployment.  If I’m not mistaken, this was something that my Dad told me about why he didn’t think the stimulus would work.

So what would work?  I doubt that giving millionaires tax cuts in the vain hope that the millionaires’ money will somehow trickle down is the way to go.  I can sympathize with the pro-stimulus argument that, in an economy where people are reluctant to spend, the government may have to increase demand by spending the money itself.  But is there a way to do stimulus in a manner that works?  One left-wing argument that I have heard is that President Obama should have more public works projects, similar to what existed under Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, under which people worked in government programs.  I don’t know to what extent FDR’s New Deal involved the private sector in its projects, but would stimulus work if people worked directly for the government, as opposed to the government funneling the money through big companies?

Schumer Could Have Been a Hero…

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York was on ABC This Week this morning (click here for the transcript).  One of the topics that he addressed was controversial left-wing comedian Bill Maher, who has donated a million dollars to Barack Obama’s super-PAC.  Many Republicans are saying that Obama should give back the money, since Maher has called Sarah Palin derogatory names.  This is currently an issue because right-wing talk radio host Rush Limbaugh has received flack (and even drops in advertisers) for calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute”, and Obama and others on the Left have criticized that as uncivil discourse.  Republicans are responding that Bill Maher is uncivil in his discourse, too, and so the Left should criticize him as well.

When asked if the Democrats should return Bill Maher’s donation, Charles Schumer said the following:

“Well, no. I mean, look, the bottom line is that Rush Limbaugh’s comments were just nasty and directed at a particular young woman who had a particular point of view and was expressing herself. Bill Maher is a comedian. It’s much different. Rush Limbaugh has tremendous weight in the Republican Party. No one will rebut him. Bill Maher’s a comedian who’s on at 11 o’clock at night but has very little influence on what’s happening here.”

Schumer’s response is understandable, but it’s sad.  It’s understandable because Schumer does not want to make headlines by openly demanding that the Democrats return Maher’s money, since that would place the Democrats in an awkward position.  (I’ve watched enough of The West Wing that I can picture Josh Lyman arriving at that conclusion!)  But it’s sad for a variety of reasons:

1.  Contrary to what Schumer says, Bill Maher does have political influence, for Maher is giving a million dollars to the Democrats.

2.  Schumer’s attempt to downplay Bill Maher as a mere comedian while he criticizes Rush Limbaugh is quite a stretch.  Both Rush and Bill Maher are comedians in that they try to be funny, but they also claim to be presenting legitimate points-of-view on politics and policy.  In my opinion, Rush and Bill Maher are in the same boat.

3.  Right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of who is doing it.  Unfortunately, in U.S. politics, people tend to give a free pass to their own side while condemning the other side.  One result of that is Schumer’s poor logic (at least on the issue of Rush and Bill Maher) that he displayed this morning.

4.  Due to pressures on politicians to be team players, it’s rare to find a politician who stands for what’s right, even when it creates an awkward situation.  Chuck Schumer could have been a hero this morning by declaring that Democrats should support civility and thus return Bill Maher’s check.  Instead, he chose to be a team player and to engage in silly partisan games.

This is not to say that Schumer hasn’t done good things in the area of civility.  He has appeared on right-wing shows and has discussed issues in a respectful manner.  After the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, he and Republican Senator Tom Coburn sat next to one another to show their commitment to transcending political polarization.  I just wish Schumer was more of a hero this morning.