Thursday, February 19, 2009

Kmiec antics

~What is the deal with Doug Kmiec? Is the lure of an ambassadorship to the Vatican so enticing that he's willing to totally lose his perspective (whatever shred he had left....the mental gymnastics in support of pro-abort Obama were spectacular)? Here's his latest screed from NewsBusters
Douglas Kmiec used to have a certain reputation as a serious man of the law and a man of religious conviction. Apparently that reputation is no longer important to him if this display of name-calling is any indication.

Kmiec unleashes a false premise in the very first paragraph by taking the Democrat's position that the so-called stimulus bill actually does anything to stimulate the economy. But even Kmiec agrees that the bill is also a massive welfare bill by pointing out the new provisions that are directed at "basic health care, job training, and in the near term, unemployment benefits and food."

Following that admission -- a thing he paints as a positive good -- Kmiec then rips into the motives of Senator Judd Gregg, the man that recently turned down President Obama's offer of a cabinet position. Kmeic decides that the "only reason" that Senator Gregg could possibly have turned down the cabinet position is because Gregg doesn't "want to help" the country.

One wonders how Mr. Kmiec could have gotten into Senator Gregg's head to know this? Apparently how Kmiec infers this disinterest in "helping" the country is via a purposeful misinterpretation of Gregg's stated refusal of the position offered by Obama. What Gregg said was that his governing philosophies clashed with Obama's and because of that he didn't think they would make a good team. Gregg's position is clear. He stands on the opposite side of the issues with Obama and, therefore, could not in good conscience be subservient to Obama, the man that would be running the show.

Gregg's is a principled position to take. After all, when one joins a team run by a strong team captain, one will be required to abide by that captain's directions. But if you know ahead of time that said captain holds ideas you are firmly against, well it's best not to even join the team in the first place.

But this isn't good enough for Kmiec. He thinks Gregg should have thrown away his principles -- like Kmiec himself has done, I guess -- and signed onto the winning team or risk being from the party that is known for "denigrating the values, hopes and planning of others."
Someone on another forum asked, "Are there pictures of him in a house of ill-repute?" What can explain this intellectual whoring?

No comments: