Pledge Day
William Safire is a Cato Institute-ish libertarian, I think. I assume so because, every now and again, he writes opinions that I utterly agree with- and I can only see him coming to these conclusions that break from his usual GOP stances because of his deeper commitment to libertarian principles. Here's a piece of his piece today:

So what's the big deal about "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? President Bush has written that the current pledge is a way of "humbly seeking the wisdom and guidance of divine providence."

John Kerry said on Boston television in 2002 that the Ninth Circuit ruling holding "under God" in the pledge unconstitutional was "half-assed justice . . . the most absurd thing. . . . That's not the establishment of religion." Michael Dukakis vetoed a Massachusetts bill requiring teachers to lead classes in the pledge and paid dearly for it in his presidential campaign. That bill is now law, as are similar statutes in 42 other states. These laws do not conflict with the High Court's 1943 decision that no student can be penalized for declining to take the pledge.

Agreeing with both Bush and Kerry in support of "under God" are majorities in both houses of Congress and attorneys general of all 50 states. From the liberal National Education Association and American Jewish Congress to the conservative American Legion and the Knights of Columbus (which sponsored this addition 50 years ago), under-God-ers have weighed in with briefs. Opposing are the Atheist Law Center, the A.C.L.U., A.D.L. and assorted iconoclasts.

The only thing this time-wasting pest Newdow has going for him is that he's right. Those of us who believe in God don't need to inject our faith into a patriotic affirmation and coerce all schoolchildren into going along. The key word in the pledge is the last one.

The insertion was a mistake then; the trouble is that knocking the words out long afterward, offending the religious majority, would be a slippery-slope mistake now.

Well, I don't utterly agree with his ultimate conclusion, in the next paragraph: "The solution is for the court to require teachers to inform students they have the added right to remain silent for a couple of seconds while others choose to say 'under God.'" I'd say a spade's a spade, the insertion was wrong, and it should go.
But there's more to come on all that. Sticking with ole Bill-- one thing I find interesting is that I agree with his libertarian-fed conclusions, but I am no libertarian.
For instance, Safire came out against the gay-marriage amendment, and this past summer, he very much favored Kennedy's Texas sodomy decision; namely because of the to each his own notions. While I also agree with Kennedy's conclusion in Lawrence, and am against gay-marriage bans- it is not because of libertarian interests. 1) in Lawrence, I would have written a concurrance applying strict scrutiny to the sodomy law, because of its patent discrimination against gays- and I would have found no compelling state interest; 2) marriage is a local issue, not federal.
My main point in this post was to quote that great line in Safire..."The only thing going for [him]...is that he's right." But it is interesting how I can agree with the end but not the means.