March 1, 2014

Politico Hack Who Ridiculed Palin in ’08 Whines and Moans at Her Ukraine ‘I Told You So’ Moment

During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin made what has turned out to be a prescient remark about the relevance of a U.S. president’s resolve and its potential impact on Russia’s posture with the old Soviet Union’s satellite states. She observed: “After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”

Many in the press ridiculed that notion. Among them was Blake Hounshell, who was then blogging at Foreign Policy magazine. Characterizing Palin’s notion as “strange,” he wrote: “As we’ve said before, this is an extremely far-fetched scenario.” Hounshell, now a deputy editor at Politico Magazine, has handled Palin’s self-effacing Facebook “I told you so” (“I could see this one from Alaska”) and pile-ons by center-right blogs too numerous to mention with tweets demonstrating the class, dignity, and good sportsmanship you would expect from the high-brow commentariat, i.e., none (HT Twitchy).


Krauthammer on Obama’s Weak Response to Russia’s Intervention in Ukraine

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 3:56 pm

President Obama’s reaction to Russia’s belligerence in the Ukraine was so weak that you wonder if he longs for the days when it was a USSR province and not a (for now) independent country.

He says, “Russia has a historic relationship with Ukraine, including cultural and economic ties.” It’s unique, all right. It includes millions of Ukrainians deliberately starved to death. The only question concerns the nature of the deliberateness, i.e., to what degree it was a result of forced collectivization of farms vs. a targeted genocide. I believe the preponderance of the evidence is with the latter.

This is the best Obama could muster in circumstances:

It would represent a profound interference in matters that must be determined by the Ukrainian people. It would be a clear violation of Russia’s commitment to respect the independence and sovereignty and borders of Ukraine, and of international laws. And just days after the world came to Russia for the Olympic Games, it would invite the condemnation of nations around the world. And indeed, the United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine.

… We will continue to coordinate closely with our European allies. We will continue to communicate directly with the Russian government. And we will continue to keep all of you in the press corps and the American people informed as events develop.

Charles Krauthammer commented on this last night:


… the Urkrainians and I think everybody is shocked by the weakness of Obama’s statement. It is – I find it rather staggering. And the fact that we have done nothing of any importance – but let me look at the statement, the one of you just quoted.

Obama says, he didn’t say there would be costs. He said “We will stand with the international community” — meaning we’re going to negotiate with a dozen other countries who will water down the statement, “in affirming that there will be costs,” in making a statement, not even imposing a cost, but in making a statement about imposing a cost for any military intervention.

So he’s like three levels removed. And what he’s saying is we’re not really going to do anything and we’re telling the world.

Obama’s response shouldn’t shock anyone who has studied him.


UPDATE: Patterico — “The only people he will stand up to are those that dare disagree with his domestic political agenda.”

Saturday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (030114)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 6:05 am

This open thread will stay at or near the top today. Rules are here. Possible comment fodder may follow. Other topics are also fair game.

Positivity: Catholic marriage preparation needs to better ‘evangelize’

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 6:00 am

From Denver:

Feb 19, 2014 / 04:01 am

The head of a major U.S. missionary apostolate says that evangelization – not simple catechesis – is needed to prepare Catholics for good marriages by putting Jesus Christ at the center of their lives.

“We have got to recognize the difference between evangelization and catechesis,” Curtis Martin, co-founder of the Fellowship of Catholic University Students, told CNA Feb. 14.

“There is an attempt, by some of the best marriage preparation people in the country, to give all the catechesis about marriage that they possibly can, and they haven’t evangelized on the importance of Christian marriage.”

“You’re actually filling them with information but they don’t know why they need it.”

Catholics preparing for marriage should have “actually encountered Christ and have chosen to make him the center of their lives, so that this is the driving force in their life and the most important relationship.”

“That is fundamental,” he said.

Martin and his wife Michaelann began the Fellowship of Catholic University Students, known as FOCUS, in 1998. The student missionary organization now has more than 350 missionaries on 83 U.S. campuses.

Martin, a father of nine, has served as a consultor to the Pontifical Council on the New Evangelization since 2011. He said that changes are needed for marriage preparation in the Catholic Church.

“Nobody wants to marry badly. But our marriage preparation is not engaging, it is not compelling, it is not effective, despite the fact that we’ve got some of the most sincere, wonderful people trying to do it.”

Marriage preparation is often perceived as “mostly onerous” and something that must be done in order to marry in the church one’s parents want.

Martin suggested that marriage preparation could be a winning moment to introduce people to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and explain “why the Catholic faith can make all the difference in the marriage they’re hoping to enter into, and succeed in.” …

Go here for the rest of the story.