Ford, Jr. is holier than thou

Till now I haven't had much to say about Ford, Jr.'s church ad (view it here); in fact a friend (after church) recently commented on how offensive he thought it was and I just changed the subject. For the record, I think it is an effective ad (whether or not it is "fair" or "accurate"), and I think that issues of morality and character are certainly relevant in an election. But . . .

The ad (and Ford, Jr.'s standard stump speech) states that Ford, Jr. was forced to go to church as a kid, and I believe the viewer/listener is expected to draw two conclusions from that assertion: first, Ford, Jr. learned good ol' traditional values from his family; and second, Ford, Jr.'s attendance at church made an impact on him.

Well, anyone who knows anything about Ford, Jr.'s family can conclude that the fact that someone goes to church, or even forces their child to go to church, doesn't necessarily mean squat. And that's the irony of Ford, Jr. taking this step. Of course, Ford, Jr. as "church lady" isn't the way this whole story has been covered, but Ford, Jr. is certainly trying to contrast his own piety with Corker's, and I think he has invited attention to his family, his "values," and issues of morality. I believe that his campaign craves the perception that he is someone fully conversant in the language of morality and wholly comfortable in a church; however, I think the literal "holier than thou" posturing of that ad is probably over the line. I also suspect that Ford, Jr. and Democrats generally would cry "foul" if considerations of morality went any further than "misleading" or "lying" in political ads.

Jon Stewart and Question-marked captions ("Cavutos")

Over at TVnewser they've posted about the use of question-marked captions (or as the Jon Stewart show has termed them, "Cavutos") to slant news coverage (see here). They believe that the captions about about Chavez in the past week are proof positive of FoxNews' Conservatively-biased reporting. I expect rabid criticism of FoxNews given the Left's paranoia on the subject (case in point, Clinton from the Chris Matthews interview), but most people who criticize it have never watched it and I think TVnewser is preying on that fact in it's Chavez object lesson.

A couple things are remarkable to me about this line of argument: First, it presumes that criticizing Chavez is a Conservative thing; be it for his possible insanity, his Communist/Socialist views, his imperialistic/tyrannical ambitions or his over-the-top rhetoric about America, I think plain old Patriotism should motivate someone to criticize him (heck, even prominent Dems have bitten their knuckles and uttered tepid disapproval of Chavez' comments before the UN this week).

Secondly, anyone who watches any of the cable news networks will see that the captions/"bottom thirds" are used to encapsulate the assertions of the person speaking or the question posed by the talking heads appearing at that time. So, when Ann Coulter is a guest (as are even the craziest Libs) they might say, "Ted Kennedy belongs in prison?" or "Bill Clinton a serial rapist?"

Lastly, Jon Stewart is certainly "edgy." But I'm not using the term as most people use it today. I've never watched more than a few minutes of Stewart at a time, and I'll admit he (mostly his writers) are clever. But watching the extended clip that was linked from TVnewser reminded me of why I don't like his "stuff." Stewart's schtick is uncomfortable to me--sure, because me and mine are the butt of so much of his humor. But it's also uncomfortable because there's a little too much spite and anger simmering under the surface. Stewart may use unserious humor to attack his ideological foes, but make no mistake about it: he is dead serious about attacking them. But what's humorous about something or someone who breeds such anger in Stewart? I know folks said this (incorrectly) about Rush Limbaugh, but I'm not sure what will happen to Stewart when his bogeyman Bush is off the front pages.

"Please don't endorse me" Part 2

I just read an AP report, here, that the Ford, Jr. campaign helped spread the word of Ford, Jr.'s non-endorsement by the American Atheists (AA) by distributing the AA press release to media in Tennessee.

This might amount to an in-kind donation . . .

The Clinton Rant

I know that everyone is commenting on Chris Wallace's interview with Bill Clinton and someone else may have already said this, but it seemed odd to me that Clinton refers to the military battle in Somalia by the movie term "Blackhawk Down." I think the man is obsessed with "image over substance." He longs to be in Camelot.

And it didn't take much scratching on Clinton's veneer to get him to spout off his "vast, right-wing conspiracy" theory. He knows the REAL reason that they invited him on the program. He knows Wallace's REAL motive for asking the question about getting bin Laden. He calls Wallace out for a "little smirk." He KNOWS that "FoxNews" (whomever and whatever that is supposed to include) has never asked difficult 9/11-related questions of Republicans. What a thin skin.

Rangel, Chavez and Lefty "charity"

Here's an angle on Rangel that's newfangled . . . not really, but I kind of overlooked the fact that Chavez was donating heating fuel to poor American communities. Chavez' offer of charity is rich given the poverty of all but the ruling class in Venezuela. What propaganda. Are they not either fools or America haters for going along with Chavez?

And I just came across this nugget (via The Sixers about Charlie Rangel calling out John Bolton on behalf of Venezuela's Chavez. This emphasizes how disingenuous Rangel is in his purported "blasting" of Chavez' comments about Bush.

Can y'all not endorse Corker?

News today that the American Atheists are refusing to endorse Ford, Jr. to replace Frist. Though this will potentially boost Ford, Jr.'s candidacy, it also has the feel of a man bites dog story because it highlights the fact that the Democrat Party--Ford, Jr.'s party, is the Atheists' party of choice.

Rangel "blasts" Chavez?

It is interesting to see the Democrat media machine in full damage control mode as evidence surfaced of a backlash from Hugo Chavez' outrageous comments on Tuesday--a backlash that reasonably began to reflect poorly on Chavez' peanut gallery among the American Left. In particular, Charlie Rangel was sent out to criticize Chavez and Drudge's headline read "Rangel Blasts Chavez." Yeah, right. He "blasted" Chavez with one of these.

Though some non-Koolaid drinkers are buying Rangel's schtick (see the Appalachian Scribe), I think Rangel's Under Armour Ad mimicry ("You don't come into my country, you don't come into my congressional district and criticize my president . . . blahblahblah") was patently feigned. Rangel couldn't even utter one complete soundbite in his "defense" of "[his] president" without taking a swipe at Bush. Give me a break.

UPDATE: It's hard to say it better than Wintermute commenting over at Volunteer Voters,

What a load of crap, Rangel. If we want to host the United Nations, we give the right to free speech under our First Amendment to ALL. As a matter of fact, the First does apply to all within our borders.

Beware of young Republicans of meager experience quoting posturing Democrats.

Cool site about 9/11 Comm. Report

Here's--over at Slate, a cool "graphic" presentation of the 9/11 Commission report.

Taking politics out of judicial selection . . .

The Nashville City Paper reports here that Governor Phil Bredesen has filed suit against the Judicial Selection Commission's re-submission of Houston Gordon's name for consideration to replace retiring Justice Adolfo Birch. I'll write more about this in a subsequent post, but Tennessee's form of judicial selection ("The Tennessee Plan") pretty clearly is unconstitutional (and I don't say that lightly).

Ironically, advocates of the Tennessee Plan assert that it removes "politics" from the judicial selection process (even though our constitution requires that each judge be "elected by voters," which is pretty "political"). But according to the NCP,

Bredesen said the selection commission nominating Gordon again was “fairly blatant political game playing” and that the panel was trying to “box you in a little bit on who you choose.”

“I think in (the selection panel’s) attempt to be clever and political… they’ve managed to get us both tripped up in the mechanics of this,” Bredesen said. “We need to get it straightened out.”

Commercial Appeal digs up some treasure

The Commercial Appeal digs for data in the most recent FEC filings of Bob Corker and Harold Ford, Jr.--in a Wednesday article, and there were at least three things are apparent from the reports: the Lefty Hollywood/NY axis is really pulling for Ford, Jr.; this ain't your father's Democrat Party; and Ford, Jr. has been blowing through the campaign cash, spending as much as Corker even though he was running unopposed for the Dem nomination.

"The Center also noted that, as of August, Ford had received 63 percent of his contributions from out of state, compared with Corker's 6 percent. Of the top 10 Zip codes contributing to the campaigns, all 10 of Corker's were in Tennessee, while four of Ford's were in New York City."

"Corker also received a contribution from David E. Kefauver, son of the late U.S. Sen. Estes Kefauver, a Democrat who represented Tennessee until he died in office in 1963. The son, a retired veterinarian, said his father would probably be a Republican if he were alive now."

Swift Vets "unsubstantiated" acc. to whom?

Here--from the AP, is an op/ed, er, news article about the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth and their largest benefactor, Bob Perry--who has started another "527." The "reporter" asserts:

The group is a so-called 527 that is not subject to conventional campaign finance restrictions and can spend unlimited amounts on election advocacy, similar to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. In the 2004 presidential race, the group of Vietnam veterans made unsubstantiated allegations challenging Kerry's record of wartime heroism.

I guess eyewitness testimony from numerous sources isn't enough to substantiate the criticism? And how rich is it that Ben Evans refers to Kerry's military record as "wartime heroism"?

But with such compelling defense of his record/heroics, Kerry may not be just talking trash when he says,

“I’m prepared to kick their ass from one end of America to the other,” he declares. “I am so confident of my abilities to address that and to demolish it and to even turn it into a positive.”

Oookay, Senator.

I agree; Clinton not distracted by Lewinsky

One purportedly slanderous theme from The Path to 9/11 (and which was modified at Clinton's demand) is that Clinton was distracted or hindered from waging the war on Islamist terrorists due to his impeachment. I agree with Ann Coulter--in her weekly op/ed, that his political troubles very well may have motivated his only efforts to wage said war:

So don't tell me impeachment "distracted" Clinton from his aggressive pursuit of terrorists. He never would have bombed anyone if it weren't for the Clinton-haters.

Stabbing the President (and the military?) in the back

This website (via RedState.com) provides a treasury of astonishing quotations from famous critics of the President and the war in Iraq. You ought to read them.

It's the disingenuousness of the attacks from the Left regarding the War in Iraq that galls me. In addition, it's aggravating that, as soon as the going gets tough (for them in a political sense and for our military in a strategic sense), Lefties have changed their tune, stabbed the President in the back (which I believe is generous because it assumes they were ever "standing behind him" in the first place) and consistently fomented discouragement about the mission.

And here's a great post on the same subject (the-dividing-not-uniting Dems) from Jason Smith over at GOPbloggers.

"The Path to 9/11" is dead and gone . . .

Democrat Party hacks are sure relieved that the ABC mini-series The Path to 9/11 is in the can. But I think any honest person who's paying attention can fairly wonder what the Lefty fuss was all about.

Victor Davis Hanson--over at RealClearPolitics.com, has a splendid post mortem on The Path to 9/11, and this quote questions the Left's outcry about the movie and makes the uncomfortable (for Liberals) point about the Left's moral relativism:

In this regard, concern could be far better voiced about onslaughts against other traditional and trusted genres--Dan Rather's presentation of the news based on forged documents, or Reuters' publishing photo-shopped pictures. And these are neither isolated lapses, nor in the mainstream media do they cut both ways equally against liberals and conservatives. Rather these distortions are concrete manifestations of a long-standing effort on the part of the more theoretical Left to subordinate the means to the ends, as if progressive spirits are to be granted some exemption from bothersome scrutiny and archaic protocols given their purportedly superior moral mission.

Bredesen's best legal option

Larry Daughtrey quipped in yesterday's Tennessean about Governor Bredesen's decision to select a supreme court justice: "Pick a justice? About as much fun as a tick bite." One thing that stuck out to me as I read about Houston Gordon as his various failed attempts to receive a judicial appointment is the way that even well-intended efforts by gov't to redress past racial discrimination--in particular, non-institutional discrimination, almost inevitably results in institutional (and therefore intolerable) discrimination.

But over at the City Paper John Rodgers reports on what I believe is the perfect way for Bredesen to delay making this politically difficult decision until after November 7th: challenging the actions of the Judicial Selection Commission in court. Consequently, I don't buy Ed Cromer's Bredesen-as-tough-guy assertion that legal action might be the result of a principled decision by Bredesen to either defend "rule of law" or to "save face":

“I think (Bredesen) would risk losing some face and could almost allow himself to be pushed around if he lets the commission get away with this,” . . . “I don’t think he tends to let that happen.”

Cross-posted at the JIMBrysonforgovernor Blog.

Again with the racial stereotyping . . .

The AP, here, summarily states that the GOP doesn't field serious black candidates, thereby perpetuating the myth that Republicans have a race problem.

[Black U.S. Senate candidate Michael Steele]'s become something of a darling of the GOP, which is always short of strong black candidates and hard-pressed to win black support.

No doubt that the second assertion is true, but you don't think it has anything to do with the Liberal meme about Republicans and race, do you?

Which party can you trust in war for our survival?

Some folks think it is partisan to remind voters about the war on Islamofascism, but I disagree. Here's a great article from Andy McCarthy about how the recently foiled airline terrorist plot raises questions about the Democrat Party's ability to keep Americans safe, and here's a great ad from progressforamerica.org on the same subject.

Full-court press by Clinton Legacy-handlers

I am amazed at the effort going into suppressing ANY criticism of the Clinton Administration concerning the tragedy of 9/11. This blog details how and why the Clintonistas' full-court press re. "Path to 9/11" (due to air Sunday and Monday night--9/10 and 9/11) is over the top.

And Glenn Reynolds, at instapundit, reasonably and accurately sums the controversy up well,

Before 9/11 -- and what we learned afterward -- I agreed with the basic strategy of trying to contain Islamist terror until it collapsed under the weight of its own stupidity. That was before I realized how widespread it was, and how thoroughly intertwined with hostile states it was. I don't fault the Clinton people for not catching on before I did.

But I do fault the people who are peddling the absurd story that Clinton had this terror thing under control until Bush screwed it up. That's partisan twaddle, and a real disservice in time of war.

And as Jay Reding points out, it's rich that Sandy "the Burglar" Berger is front and center in trying to suppress this mini-series . . . the guy was willing to commit a federal crime to cover-up the facts about 9/11.

If you only knew how "silly" . . .

David Broder has called--in an op/ed, for an apology (wow, how enormous is that request?) from those who have been accusing Karl Rove in the Joseph Wilson "scandal" over the past couple years.

Ironically, Broder's piece even understates how vacuous the "liar" accusations have been (much less the "vendetta" accusations). In a listing of the elements of the "scandal," Broder refers to,

. . . Wilson's claim in a New York Times op-ed about his memo on the supposed Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger . . .

Bush never claimed that Saddam had purchased yellowcake.

The real scandal is that the Left has been on a 4-year shopping trip for examples of Bush Administration "lies."

Targeting those Dems

The email from so-called "People for the American Way" (pfaw.org ) breathlessly opens this way:

"With so much at stake, and where a few hundred votes can decide even national elections, ensuring strong civic participation in communities that are targeted for disenfranchisement has never been more important."

Yes, I take offense; no, I won't be parting with my hard-earned money; perhaps, I should remove my name from their annoying email list.

I know that my motive in "working" in the area of election law is not to keep anyone from voting. I just respect the rule of law and want to make sure that if/when I lose an election it was done fairly.

There is definitely a fine line between ensuring fair elections and making it too difficult to vote (I included the adverb "too" because some think that actually requiring a vote is overkill when they could just vote for those not smart enough to know what's best for them).

However, some on the Left cannot fathom that there is any tension between fair elections and ease of participation. They won't even allow us to pay for and provide photo identification (and expect a voter to remember to bring it with them to the polls); they balk at minimal "barriers" like residency requirements and voter qualifying deadlines. Why? Beats me . . . but without the bogeyman of Republicans "targeting" folks for disenfranchisement, they would have even more trouble winning elections seeing as voter participation is up, voter registration is up, yet Democrat electoral success is down.

"Evolving" into Democrats?

This article (in Salon) chronicles the sheepstealing of certain Republicans in Kansas by Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius.

It's an interesting read, but by the end of the article you realize that--as with Bill Clinton, the Sebelius story is a type of fascination with the specimen of Democrat who can woo Republican votes, but the reality is that Clinton's strategy resulted in little long-term benefit to the Liberal cause. As the article says:

"Depending on whom you believe, in her cross-the-aisle raids Sebelius has either found an effective strategy for turning Kansas a little less red, or she has used her personal popularity to mask the slow decline of her party.

I think the latter is closer to being accurate, but I also believe that tone of advocacy--and certainly ham-handedness on the part of any faction within a party, will generally cause a backlash among both voters and party colleagues.

In love with life

This Mark Steyn op/ed (here) challenges me to ponder the question of how I would/should respond to a Jihadiot's demand that I "convert" or die.

I have to admit that I would struggle to leave a widow and orphans behind, but I believe it is a slippery slope of conviction when there is next to nothing for which you are willing to die.

Those racist Democratics

This article from the Commercial Appeal demonstrates the dilemma of the modern Democrat Party . . . slashing with the two-edged sword of racial politics. But Steve Cohen wisely observes,

"The congressional seat should not be the same thing in 2006 as it was in 1974 because you have African-Americans as mayors, judges and other elected officials," Cohen said. "If the African-American community can't share with white progressive Democrats, then there won't be any white progressive Democrats."

I like the sound of that, because there are very few "African-American progressive Democrats."

But, I hope that African-American Democratics will keep demanding that the Democrat Party reflect their values on so-called "social issues." It'd be a lot more pleasant if I didn't have to argue with Democratics about whether an unborn human life was "human" or "living."

Ford, Jr.'s financial life is an open book . . . so what?

Jon W. Sparks, in the Commercial Appeal, is claiming that Bob Corker is acting undemocratically by not releasing every detail of his tax returns over the past four years. Well, this standard will certainly be news to Phil Bredesen. But, according to Sparks, Corker should do it because Ford, Jr. has done it . . . Sparks opines:

"but [Corker] must remember that he's being measured against someone who was willing to disclose more than he has so far."

Big honking whup; "the Ford, Jr. Standard" of disclosure . . . what might Ford, Jr.'s returns show us? That he has been a successful businessman, job creator, entrepreneur, etc.?

But the fact that a political opponent demands some type of information from you doesn't mean you're avoiding accountability or not being "open" by refusing to provide it to him. Surely Mr. Sparks and Ford, Jr. can appreciate the democratic principle of privacy. If Ford, Jr. wants to release his returns, good for him, but it is neither dishonest--much less hypocritical (as in desiring the spread of "democracy"), to release the summaries of one's tax returns. If Sparks (or Ford, Jr.) has any suspicions, let's hear 'em; enough insinuating.

Five Minutes to Midnight

I urge you to read this excellent commentary at CoxandForkum.com (here) on the misguided spirit of appeasement--no matter how earnest, and the challenge we face with Iran.

Kudos to NYT re. Joseph Plame Wilson

I have to commend the New York Times for reporting that the (non)scandal of the Plame Affair may have indeed been . . . a non-scandal. According to the NYT:

"An enduring mystery of the C.I.A. leak case has been solved in recent days, but with a new twist: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel’s chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.

"Now, the question of whether Mr. Fitzgerald properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion in continuing to pursue possible wrongdoing in the case has become the subject of rich debate on editorial pages and in legal and political circles."

And, as Bill Hobbs notes, lesser kudos to the Washington Post which has acknowledged that the whole affair was a waste of time.

And the Editors at National Review sum up the situation here.

One good reason I'll say "Islamofascist"

Kathleen Parker has a nice op/ed (at RealClearPolitics.com) about "the religion of peace" and reports a detail concerning the journalists recently kidnapped and forced to "convert" to Islam. According to Parker, the kidnappers had a list of demands including

". . . that President Bush cease referring to Islamic fascists as "Islamic fascists.''

It's not nice, and it makes the kidnappers mad.

"Yeah, they were very angry about that,'' said Wiig in an interview after his release.

That's at least one good reason to use the term.