Levellers

Faith & Social Justice: In the spirit of Richard Overton and the 17th C. Levellers

My Personal “Canon Within the Canon”

I think it was the German Lutheran New Testament scholar (Neutestamentler) Ernst Kaesemann who coined the term “canon within the canon.”  For him, it was a normative concept referring to biblical books which not only functioned with more authority in the Church, but SHOULD have more authority than other biblical books.  Being Lutheran, I think Kaesemann’s “canon within the canon” centered around Romans and Galatians, Mark, Luke, and John (Matthew would have been seen as “too Jewish”) and definitely relegated Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation to lower status.  I am not sure what functioned as his canon within the canon in the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament.

Many have objected to Kaesemann’s phrase:  not just those inerrantists for whom every word of scripture is on the same level of authority (“flat Bible” types), but those for whom the early Church’s canonical choices are seen as guided by the Holy Spirit.  But no matter how we view “canon within the canon” as a normative concept, I think it undeniable that it is an apt term for the way different parts of Scripture function for different individuals and groups.  I think it safe to say that NO ONE, not even those who have repeatedly read the Bible from cover to cover (I come from a tradition where it is common to do this annually), are even equally familiar with all parts of Scripture.  If you are from a Christian family, go to your parents’ family Bible and see the places where it falls open naturally.  It doesn’t take long to figure out which parts of  Scripture are a pastor’s favorite. (One advantage of lectionary preaching is that it helps to prevent preachers from falling into the habit of “preaching their hobby horses.”  Lectio continua, the practice of preaching through biblical books from beginning to end, also works against this.  When I still had regular responsibility for preaching the Word, I would use the Common Lectionary–without telling my small Baptist congregation that this is what I was doing!–from Advent through Trinity Sunday, the Sunday after Pentecost, and then preach lectio continua through 2-3 books during “ordinary time,” i.e., Trinity Sunday until Advent again.)

My friend and former teacher, David Kling, has an excellent book, The Bible in History:  How the Texts Have Shaped the Times , which shows how particular texts have shaped different denominations and traditions in the Church through the centuries.  I reviewed that wonderful book here.  One of the many strengths of Richard B. Hays’ excellent work on New Testament ethics, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, is the section where he examines the actual use of Scripture by several theologians and Christian ethicists, including from which texts they actually quote.  A similar section, using different scholars, is found in Jeffrey Siker’s Scripture and Ethics: Twentieth Century Portraits.

So, we see that each of us has a functioning canon that is smaller than the Church’s canon–whether one uses the Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant canons.   It is, no doubt, helpful to try to expand one’s functioning canon. But we should be honest about which books are the “hermeneutical center” for our personal take on faith and discipleship.

Here is mine.  Because of the Anabaptist shape of my faith, I begin with the Synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  I really dislike Billy Graham’s advice to new Christians to start with the Gospel of John.  The Fourth Gospel is very deep and subtle theology cloaked in deceptively simple Greek which translates into deceptively simple English. Although I disagree with those who think that John has a docetic Christology (this is where we get the very word “incarnation!”), or is anti-semitic, I think that Christians who have not first learned to the reading skills and vision of the Synoptics are not ready for John–and can misread it in very dangerous ways.

Then comes the book of James, the Acts of the Apostles, and, from Paul’s letters: Galatians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians.  I confess to not much liking the Pastoral Epistles, even though I believe conservatives interpret them wrong.  I like the journey shape to life and faith encouraged by Hebrews, but I am uncomfortable with the Philo/Hellenistic form of Judaism in its background and imagery.

No one first exposed to the Book of Revelation by horrid dispensationalist TV preachers, as I was, will ever be fully comfortable with it.  I have learned to see Revelation very differently, as a handbook of nonviolence for a persecuted church (see here and here), but it will never be my favorite.  I must confess that I almost entirely neglect 2 Thessalonians, and the “catholic” epistles ( I and II Peter, I, II, and III John, Jude).

From the Hebrew Scriptures or “Old” Testament, I confess to a special lifelong love affair with the prophets.  As best we can tell from the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus himself especially loved the prophets, especially Isaiah, my favorite.  I also deeply love Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, and Joel.  Daniel is listed with the prophetic books in Christian canons, but with the Writings in the Jewish canon which I think is better since it is not prophetic, but apocalyptic literature.  I must confess to largely neglecting Daniel.

From the Torah or Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Bible), I love Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy, although I struggle with the triumphalist war theology that at least one voice in Deuteronomy pushes.  Like most Christians, I neglect Leviticus and Numbers, except for the Jubilee theme of Leviticus 25.

From the “historical books” or “former prophets,” I like 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings., and Nehemiah.  I am learning to see things of value in Joshua and Judges, but they are so very bloody that they are a trial to read.  I have to struggle to keep from being put to sleep by the boring way that 1 & 2 Chronicles are narrated.  From “the Writings,” I love Ruth, Esther, Job, the Psalms, Song of Songs, and Lamentations.  I really dislike the class bias of much of the Proverbs and the depressing tone of Ecclesiastes and hate the purity/taboo rigidity promoted by Ezra (though this is also in Nehemiah).

That’s my rag-tag “canon within the canon.” It is larger than it once was and I am seeking to enlarge it, though I will never lose the Synoptic Gospels and the Prophets as my hermeneutical center. 

What’s yours and why?

Advertisements

June 7, 2009 Posted by | authority, Bible, Biblical exegesis | 10 Comments

New Democrats to Govern Nova Scotia?

Although I cannot follow as closely as in my home country, I do try to follow politics elsewhere, especially in other democracies, and especially in nations where at least part of the culture has British roots–because then I find it easier to grasp the political culture than otherwise.  So, remembering that there will be regional elections to the NORTH in neighboring Canada, I glanced at some Canadian headlines, recently.  Folks, HISTORY is about to be made.

Background:  Although Canada is a parliamentary democracy, rather than a congressional/presidential one, it has been dominated by two parties for literally centuries:  the Conservatives (in some Provinces, known as the Progressive Conservatives) are very similar to the Conservative Party of the U.K. (and, like them, are nicknamed the Tories) and pretty much like the Republican Party of the U.S.A. before its recent breakdown of all sanity–except that Canadian Tories don’t try to fight national health insurance, deny evolution, global warming, etc.  The Liberal Party is, much like UK’s “New” Labour, like the U.S. Democratic Party–some of them stand for something and the others just like getting elected.  Of the other parties, the Bloc Quebecois is a separatist party and so never has much sway except in Quebec.  The Green Party gets no more than 3% of the vote.

But the New Democratic Party (started by liberal Baptist minister, Tommy Douglass, voted the “Greatest Canadian” by a contest sponsored by the CBC–who succeeded in getting universal healthcare in Canada) is kind of the social democratic party of Canada.   Its strength has always been in the Western Provinces (Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Yukon, British Columbia). Leaving out Quebec, none of the original democratic provinces that went to make up Canada in the 1867 Confederation (Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Ontario) have ever had a government formed by a party other than the big 2.  Until Now.  On Tues., Nova Scotia is poised to have a new government formed by a New Democratic majority.

Wow! If they govern well, the NDP could gain in other Provinces and maybe soon form the federal government–either as a majority or in a minority coalition with the Liberals and the Greens.  Canada does NOT like its current Conservative government and its Bush wannabe PM, Stephen Harper, but the Liberals haven’t generated much excitement either. 

I’m excited.  A more progressive Canada could push us here in the States.  From the days of the Underground Railroad through the era of the Vietnam War, we have always needed Canada as our conscience. (This hasn’t always worked. Although Canada abolished slavery without a war by being part of the  British empire in the 19th C., unacknowledged racism continues to plague it–especially regarding First Nations folk and Asians, but also with black Canadians.  Also, Canada, like the U.S., rounded up all its Japanese citizens during WWII.  But, our neighbors to the north have OFTEN been our conscience.) Canada’s full acceptance of same-sex marriage is inspiring the current struggle here, for instance.  And Canada’s refusal to be bullied into aiding and abetting our illegal war in Iraq, kept those of us in the states hopeful we could, eventually change things. (When the UK and Australia went along, thankfully not New Zealand, it gave cover to Bush’s claim to be speaking for a kind of “Western consensus.” since many U.S. Americans could care less about the opinions of France or Germany. It was harder to ignore Canada, thank God.)

So, here’s to the future of Nova Scotia, the New Democratic Party, a progressive Canada–and MUCH influence with the U.S.  Hooray!

P.S.  I don’t expect the NDP to be perfect.  I am also celebrating the breaking of the deadlock between two parties and look forward to the day when that happens here, too.

P.P. S. Meanwhile, the European Parliament is swinging to the Right and Labour seems about to lose power in the UK!  Why is it that when Americans elect Republicans and swing to the Right, Britain and Europe swing to the Left, but vice versa after a Democratic win in the U.S.?  Can’t we ever be in sync? I’m really worried about the Torries and the far-right British National Party on the rise as Labour and the Liberal Democrats self-destruct.  This could be a return to Thatcherism with an ultra-nationalist, anti-Islamic, anti-immigrant, and anti-European twist! That’s scary as hell!

P.P.P.S.:  On the good news front, a pro-Western coalition just defeated Hezbollah and won a clear majority in Lebanon’s elections.  And Ahmadinejad may be in trouble in Iran, if two parties don’t split the moderate-to-liberal opposition.  I think Ahmadinejad will fail to get 50% and force a run-off, which may coalesce the opposition around whichever of the moderates is stronger!  Will this kind of moderation be met with a swing away from the far right in Israel?  Will it be met by moderation and maturity in Hamas (because Mahmoud Abbas has no real power) so that some real progress can be made? I really hope so.

June 7, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Just for Fun: People Who Will Never Be President of the U.S.

Well, me, for one.  But this is a list of people who WANT to be President and think they have a chance of becoming President who will never be President.  (Of course, once upon a time, I would have said that no 2nd rate Hollywood actor and no pretend cowboy from Texas would become POTUS, so my track record might not be too good.)  Let’s make it a sort of game.  You can either add your own list, argue for the viability of one or more people on my list, or both.  I am going to include people from several different political parties.

  • Ralph Nader.  Pack it in, Ralph.  You were an excellent consumer advocate.  You make a decent progressive pundit (with a few reservations), but not even the Green Party will have you now.  You helped Al Gore to lose (if he did) the 2000 election.  That was the last time you were relevant. Give it up.
  • Al Gore.  Fortunately, Gore knows that 2000 was his last hurrah.  Even though he became a far more interesting and progressive person (who could hold young folks attention) AFTER 2000, he wisely refused calls to run in ’04 and ’08–not wanting to make the race(s) about the past.
  • John Kerry (D-MA).  I THINK Kerry is in the same boat as Gore. He knows he’s reached the apex of his career.  Now that Obama passed him over for Sec. of State (to his surprise, I think), Kerry seems to have his sights on Sen. Majority Leader. I think he’d make an EXCELLENT improvement over the boring and weak Harry Reid.  He could possibly run for Gov. of MA after retiring from the Senate—but he’s never going to be president.
  • Newt Gingrich (R-GA).  I DON’T think Newt knows he will never be president.  The former Speaker was disgraced and had to resign in the ’90s for trying to impeach Clinton for adultery while himself having (another) affair. Newt NEVER had more than a 30% national approval rating.  You can’t even win a nomination with that, never mind a general election campaign.  And Newt hasn’t held ANY elected office since 1997.  By 2012, there will be voters who weren’t even BORN the last time Newt was in office.  People under 30 in 2012 will be going, “WHO?” And, IF, by some miracle, the Republicans go crazy and actually nominate Newt, Obama might repeat Reagan in ’04 and win 49 states out of 50! Seriously, Newt, get off my TV and go back to being a poli-sci prof–aren’t your students missing you?
  • Joe Biden.  I heard a rumor that the Vice President wasn’t ruling out running for Pres. in 2016.  Please say it ain’t so, Joe.  You are 66, now.  Ronald Reagan, the oldest person ever elected POTUS, was 68 when elected.  Your campaign got nowhere this time out–although your foreign policy work did attract Obama to you as VP.  But you tend to ramble when you speak, you are a lousy debater, and you make WAY too many unscripted gaffes.  I think you’re a good guy and you added some key ingredients to Obama’s campaign. I think you are proving to be a balance, now.  But, unless, God forbid, something happens to Pres. Obama, you will never be president.  In fact, I hope you consider retiring at the end of 2012 and let the President pick a young and strong, savvy woman as his running mate for 2012.  If not, 2016 will be another wide open Democratic primary.
  • Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Unlike Joe Biden, I think Hillary knew her only shot was in ’08–unless McCain won, in which case, she would have been back in ’12.  She seems to be on her way to becoming a far more effective and wise Secretary of State than I expected–better than she was as a Senator from NY.  I think I LIKE Hillary now better than I have ever done.  She MIGHT be a viable candidate in ’16, but she’ll be 68 then and our society is still sexist enough to prefer younger women, sadly. (I don’t think Margaret Thatcher could have ever become a president.  She became UK’s PM because, in a parliamentary system one votes for the party instead of the person.  The PM leads the ruling party. )  But, I might be underestimating the nation’s views by 2016.  It’s possible that in the next several years, Sec. Clinton does something extraordinary–like negotiate a 2 state peace in Israel-Palestine, or a nuclear free subcontinent for India and Pakistan.  If she gets a major portion of credit from an Obama foreign policy that is viewed as successful, she could, just possibly be a viable 2016 candidate.  But I think the odds are against it.
  • Mitt Romney (R-MI/MA/Wherever). It is possible that Romney is the 2012 Republican nominee.  If so, I expect Obama to wipe the floor with him.  He’d have a better chance in 2016.  But I think ’08 was Romney’s best chance.
  • Tim Pawlenty (R-MN).  Pawlenty is conservative enough for the GOP base, but reasonable enough for national independents and he’s likeable.  He would have made a MUCH better VP choice for McCain than Palin did.  So, why am I saying that he won’t be president?  Frankly, he has Norm Coleman to thank.  Coleman’s refusal to do the honorable thing (like Al Gore did) and give up his attempts to deny that he lost the MN senate race, put Pawlenty in a vise-lock:  He has been seen as encouraging Coleman’s obstructionism.  This plays well with the national GOP base, but not with MN voters.  That’s why he”s not running for a 3rd term.  I think he’ll run for the GOP presidential nomination in ’12, but I think that he will be slammed by the party insiders, the base, and MN voters–and most of this is Coleman’s fault.  It’s also going to hurt him that several of his attempts to balance the MN budget WITHOUT approval of the MN legislature are probably going to be overturned by the courts as unconstitutional–people will see that as a warning that he could be another president with an unhealthy view of executive power.
  • Sarah Palin (R-AK).  IF she was willing to sit out 2012, study up and become a policy wonk, she could have a great chance in 2016.  After all, charisma, charm, and the ability to rally crowds cannot be taught–but actual knowledge of the issues can.  But Sarah is not that patient.  She’s never stopped campaigning–which has caused her once sky-high approval rating in AK to plummet. She might not survive reelection if either she draws a strong primary challenger or the Dems can field a decent opponent.  Why? Because she has neglected GOVERNING Alaska and the populace there knows it and hates it.  And because she has refused to drop off the radar, govern well, and study up, she remains a cartoon figure on the national stage.  If she is the Republican nominee in 2012, Obama will win reelection even if the economy still stinks.
  • Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). I campaigned for him in ’04 because I thought he could push the Democratic platform to the left.  But Dennis should never have tried again in ’08–it almost cost him his seat in Congress.  America may become as progressive as Kucinich (We aren’t there, yet), but he is the wrong messenger for that mesage. 
  • Bill Frist (R-TN), Pat Roberts(R-KS), Rick Santorum(R-PA), and George Allen (R-VA).  These were all very powerful GOP Senators just a few years back.  Now, Roberts is the only one left in the Senate.  All used to be seen as strong possibilities for future Republican presidents–but they missed their opportunities.  The country changed faster than they expected.  Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), a medical doctor, never recovered from the humiliation of misdiagnosing Terri Schiavo on TV–claiming that she wasn’t brain dead and trying to override the courts and her husband’s desire to “pull the plug” and quit dragging out her death.  When the postmortem revealed that Ms. Schiavo’s brain was largely LIQUID, Frist’s claim to see (via TV) evidence of her continued life and consciousness looked silly–and he was revealed as either a complete ideologue or someone who would say anything to score political points.  Sen. George Allen’s racism was revealed late in his senate reelection race on national TV–leading to the narrow victory of Jim Webb (D-VA) and the march to turn VA purple! Sen. Rick Santorum was seen by PA voters as just as much an ideologue as Frist.  Roberts has retained his senate seat, but he will never be president.  The country is nowhere near conservative enough for that, now.  It barely was in ’04–when George W. Bush narrowly won “re”-election.  That was the only year that any of these men could have won–and Bush was their party’s nominee, and they knew better than to run a primary against a sitting president.
  • Michael Steele(R-Republican National Committee). It’s amazing he keeps his job.
  • Howard Dean(D-VT), former Gov. of VT, former presidential hopeful, and former Democratic National Committee chair.  His one chance was ‘o4, but he knows it.  He WILL continue to play important roles in U.S. politics.
  • Liz Cheney, daughter of the Dark Lord of the Sith, Dick Cheney.  She’s been on TV 22 times in the last month, but no one from the Bush admin. (what was her office, again?) and no one from the Cheney family is going to win.  Yes, Jeb Bush, that also rules out you–and it probably rules out Condaleeza Rice, although if she lays low for about 8 years, she has a SLIGHT shot, depending on what else is revealed about her involvement with torture, etc. in the meantime. (I was very worried that McCain would choose her for VP. That ticket would have been much harder to beat. Rice was one of the very few people to come out of the Bush admin. with even PART of her reputation intact.  But McCain would not choose any pro-choice running mate, and the country has moved since last Nov.  But, trust me, international readers, if McCain had chosen Condi, the race would have been MUCH closer even after the economy tanked–especially with Obama choosing Biden. Unlike Palin, Rice would have beaten Biden in televised debate and SNL would have made far more fun of Biden.)
  • Mike Huckabee (R-AR).  Yes, his Fox News gig is keeping in view. Yes, the GOP base love him.  And he’s a good speaker with a great sense of humor (usually–I exempt the stupid joke at the NRA last year).  But ’08 was his real chance and he blew it.  I don’t think he’ll even get nominated in ’12, but if he does, Obama will cream him as bad as Newt or Sarah.
  • Tom Tancredo(R-CO).  He thinks he will.  He still can’t see why his campaign didn’t get off the ground in ’08. But let’s do the math:  The fastest growing ethnic group in the nation is Latino/Hispanic at 15% and growing quickly.  Tancredo thinks ALL of them are “illegal aliens.”  Latinos voted for Obama by 67%.  Had he been running against Tancredo, it they would have voted for him about 90%!  Had Tancredo been on the GOP ticket, even the Cuban-Americans (the most conservative, most Republican section of U.S. Latinos) would have voted for Obama by more than 80%!  Sorry. No “only us Gringos are worthy” strategy is ever going to win the White House again.

 

Now, just for fun, a few people who might be president of the U.S. one day:

Democrats:

Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA).  Like many governors of both parties, Patrick is struggling for reelection because of the economy–and if he fails to get reelected, that may be as high as he goes.  But, if he gets reelected and is successful, he could be a future POTUS.  Of course, Obama may nominate him for the Supreme Court in the future, too.

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.  She was a very popular Gov. of Arizona and if she resigns Homeland Security in ’12 to run for the U.S. Senate against Jon Kyl (R-AZ), she will probably make it.  And she could run for Pres. in ’16 or ’20.

Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, NJ.  I expect this young man to become Gov. of NJ one day and then maybe the second African-American POTUS.

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).  Senators don’t often become presidents, but she might retire from the senate in a few years and run for MN Gov.  She is young and dynamic and progressive and she’s getting huge kudos from folks because she has had to function as MN’s sole senator while Norm Coleman drags out his loss for months.

Christine Gregoire (D-WA).  She will have to improve her state’s economy and she might need to be a vice presidential nominee first for greater exposure, but she has real potential.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ).  He is hugely respected and if he won a senate seat or governor’s race, he would have far more exposure.  With the growing power of the Latino/a vote, Grijalva (whom I wanted Obama to pick over Salazar as Secretary of the Interior) could be a real powerhouse. He gets rave reviews from environmentalists and young people, too, and his base is in the increasingly Democratic Southwest.

Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA).  Same story, but is younger.  Also, she has a great American story as the child of poor immigrants who worked her way through university and law school as an electrician (still pays her dues as a member of the electrician’s union) and became a labor lawyer before running for Congress.  And CA is a BIG state as a starting point if she had a statewide office like governor from which to run.

Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Bill and Hillary.  I don’t think it’s all that likely, but these things sometimes do run in families–and she certainly learned how to campaign.  For the same reason, no one should rule out completely, either Mahlia or Sasha Obama, though children of presidents tend to become private persons more often than not. 

Republicans

Charlie Crist (R-FL).  Now that he is resigning FL’s governorship to run for the U.S. Senate, it won’t happen in ’12, but he could make a credible run in ’16.  Americans almost never let one party keep the White House for more than 8 years, 12 tops.  (The last time it went longer than 12 in one party was the FDR-Truman years!) And I think the Republicans may be ready to nominate a moderate to moderate-conservative in  ’16.

Bobby Jindal (R-LA). His national TV debut as the rebuttal speaker to Obama’s non “State of the Union” speech this January was so bad it has killed any chance he had for ’12.  But  Jindal is much smarter than that dumb speech showed and he is popular–or as much as most governors are in this economy.  If he bides his time until ’16, he could be the conservative favorite for the GOP.

Meghan McCain (R-AZ).  Okay, she was an art history major! She would have to go back to school–maybe not officially, but in terms of learning far more about economics, foreign policy, etc.  But Meghan is a powerful speaker and writer and is brave enough to stand up to the GOP far right.  She knows that Republicans have to shake off the anti-gay fringe, especially, and she knows that they can’t keep pushing “abstinence only” education as an answer to teen pregnancy.  If she started right now and ran for smaller offices, she could be a future governor, senator, or president–with a MUCH better campaign staff than her father had.  I don’t know if she wants that life, and the current base of the GOP hate her.  But if the Republican machine was SMART, they’d be trying to woo her for offices that would give her responsibility and on the job training and keep her in the public eye.  She’s one of the few nationally known Republicans that the public actually LIKES right now.

Gov. Jodi Rell (R-CT).  She is one of the most popular governors in the nation, thrives as a fairly conservative governor in a very liberal state.  She can tout her veto of a recent bill repealing the death penalty (which I think she should have signed) to show conservative bona fides to the base.  She probably isn’t yet well enough known, but if nominated as VP by Charlie Crist or Bobby Jindal, she could one day be president.

Carly Fiorina (R-CA), former CEO of  Hewlett-Packard and wannabe future Governor of CA.  The question is WHEN she would be viable.  She ran H-P into deep problems and then bailed out with a golden parachute. Widely trumpeted as a possible running mate for McCain in ’08, she’d have destroyed any chance he had at CO (which he lost anyway), where Fiorina’s idiocy cost thousands of jobs while she got richer.  If she won Gov. in CA in ’10 (I hope not but the Dems running are pretty lame–even though AHNOLD has made CA remember why it no longer likes Republicans)  and was successful in salvaging the messed up economy–a big if, considering what she did to H-P–she might be a good GOP candidate in ’16 or ’20.  Not beforehand–and not losing in CA and then going to run for Pres.

Gov. Linda Lingle (R-HI).  A popular governor of a normally liberal state, Lingle would be an excellent recruit for the GOP.  She’s a free trader and for low taxes.  She doesn’t like gun control and thinks gambling is a mythical economic cure (and here I agree with her).  She’s the first woman governor of HI, the first Jewish governor of HI, the first to go from a mayor’s office to the governor’s mansion, and the first GOP governor since the year I was born (1962).  She also took a huge state deficit and turned it into a surplus.  Unfortunately, I think Gov. Lingle would have to wait until the GOP stops embracing the far right.  She’s currently too moderate to get the nomination:  pro-choice on abortion; against the death penalty; divorced twice and no children; wants addicts to get drug treatment and reserve jail for dealers.  These views would help her in a general election, but are currently too moderate for the GOP base.  Lingle will need to wait until at least 2016 to set her eyes on the presidency.

Any others? 

 

June 7, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | 6 Comments