Media bias by the numbers

Media bias? You judge for yourself, from the FEC records of campaign contributions (here) by media and entertainment celebrities.

Give credit where credit is due

"Hurricane Season Ends Quietly," reads the headline (here).

Don't you think that Dubya deserves some credit for this?

Blogging fun

Sorry if this is old news to you, but I just came across this hilarious blog . . . wuzzadem (the name hints at the POV).

re. senator-elect Jim Webb's "speaking truth to power or whatever" with Dubya (reported here).

re. intra-Christian jockeying a la the Rick Warren dust-up. (prior post on Warren).

"Why Mommy Indoctrinates Her Kids"

If you (a) pay attention to google ads snuggled around almost any and every article on the web, and (b) read a lot of political stuff, you have no doubt seen the ad for "the book George Bush doesn't want your kids to read!!" . . . the book they call, "Why Mommy is a Democrat." (found here). I've noticed it before (and visited the website before) but want to comment on it in light of my recent interest in how parents influence their children.

It is always interesting to see my attitudes or opinions (that you may not have been aware you were expressing) voiced by your children. Partially due to their age and partially due to the vagaries of the race, my kids were understandably challenged to understand what was happening during this most recent U.S. Senate campaign in TN. Their daddy was gungho for Ed Bryant and opposed the ubiquitous (on TV) Bob Corker, and then their daddy supported Bob Corker and opposed the equally-ubiquitous Harold Ford, Jr. (Understandable, some adult Conservatives struggled keeping up, too).

Anyway, this book gets on my nerves because after reading its sample pages, I realized how lazy this "mommy" is. Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed at her initiative and her marketing is surely extensive and she is definitely working diligently to influence the next generation for the Democrat Party. But I think it is lazy because she is indoctrinating her kids rather than equipping them. Note the cute imagery in the pages of the squirrel "mommy" protecting her squirrel "children" from a mean elephant running nearby ("is this a parody?" my wife asks)

I know it is a fine line between the two, but I always try to imagine what it will sound like if my kid essentially parrots "what daddy said" on a given subject/issue in public or in front of the rare Democrat with whom I let her interact (just kidding). So I really endeavor to fairly represent the other side's position as well as my position and persuade them that my way is right. Hey, my kids think I hung the moon, so I don't need to demonize my opponent or my opponent's positions to persuade my kids to side with me.

But perhaps most importantly, such doctrinaire indoctrination certainly influences--rather negatively, how my kids will view others who may be different than we Williamses.

Dems adding insult to injury

This just in, House Democrats appear to have been exaggerating, fudging, lying, over-reaching, demagoguing (whatever) in their campaign promise to "enact all of the 9/11 commission's recommendations," a "failure" about which the Dems have attacked the GOP. Aside from passively breaking their campaign promise (that's the injury), they are actively breaking their promise (that's the insult).

As the a Washington Post article reports:

Pelosi strongly backed Murtha for House majority leader, only to see him soundly defeated by Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.). That chain of events made it difficult for her to ask Murtha, a longtime ally, to relinquish control of the intelligence budget from his consolation prize, the chairmanship of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, according to Democratic sources.

Likewise, a controversy over the choice of a new chairman of the House intelligence committee proved to be a factor in the decision. The Sept. 11 commission urged Congress to do away with traditional term limits on the intelligence committees to preserve continuity and expertise, a recommendation the House implemented in 2003. But in her search for a reason to drop the committee's most senior Democrat, Jane Harman (Calif.), from the panel, Pelosi fell back on the tradition of term limits. She has decided to pass over the intelligence committee's second-ranking Democrat, Alcee L. Hastings (Fla.), as well. (emphasis added)

Frankly, I haven't heard--prior to this article, any reasons the first seemingly-wise reform wasn't enacted under the GOP, but it can't be any less tasteful than that of the Dems, can it?

Says who?

Though I've been thinking (and sharing!!) a lot the past few days about the influence that parents have on their children, I've always enjoyed the potential for influencing the "next generation."

One exercise that has occurred to me lately and one that I intend to drill into my children is to simply ask the question, "Who says?" Requesting the authority for another person's assertion or argument can sure make discussions more efficient.

I was reminded of this great tool for decision-making and reasoning when I read (over at Mark Rose's Right Minded) this exchange between Larry King and James Dobson--bogeyman of the Left:

". . . when the discussion turned to attempts to redefine marriage -- [Larry King] made it an issue of separation of church and state.

KING: Why is [marriage] a state institution rather than a religious institution? Why is the state involved?

DOBSON: Well, it's both. It is both.

KING: But we have a separation of church and state.

DOBSON: Beg your pardon?

KING: We have a separation of church and state.

DOBSON: Who says?

KING: You don't believe in separation of church and state?

DOBSON: Not the way you mean it. The separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. No, it's not. That is not in the Constitution.

KING: It's in the Bill of Rights.

DOBSON: It's not in the Bill of Rights. It's not anywhere in a foundational document. The only place where the so-called "wall of separation" was mentioned was in a letter written by (Thomas) Jefferson to a friend. That's the only place. It has been picked up and made to be something it was never intended to be.

What it has become is that the government is protected from the church, instead of the other way around, which is that church was designed to be protected from the government.

KING: I'm going to check my history.

Knowing King's interviewing style, it's hard to discern whether he meant the actual phrase "separation of church and state" or the mere concept, passed down from the gods of democracy through the pen of our dear judicial activists, but it is interesting to see the power of the simple question, "says who?"

Why do you vote like you do?

Aside from considerations of voting for the "lesser of two evils," and using the broad, modern categories of Democrat/Liberal and Republican/Conservative, why would you say you tend to vote for one party or the other?

Some commenters to yesterday's poll think that a high level of education makes someone a Democrat-leaning voter . . . likewise some of the same commenters believe it is hatred or bigotry that makes someone a Republican-leaning voter. Frankly, such assertions are insultingly simplistic, though I'm open to hearing an argument from anybody who believes that way.

But, as I mentioned in my "update" to the "Poll" post, I think a combination of temperament and worldview determines how we vote; the former you're born with, the latter is either un-formed and marginally influential, or well-formed and nigh unto determinative.

That being said, I'm not sure that partisan or ideological differences have always been as pronounced or obvious as they are now, since the advent of non-stop campaigning made famous by Morris/Begala/Carville and Clinton and the 24/7 media coverage of "politics." Thus, there seems to be a greater ideological divide in our country now than ever before--as far as the center of gravity for each of the two largest political parties.

I have to say that I believe much of the partisanship since the 2000 election--which has been fueled by the media and academic elite going to a whole 'nother level of contentiousness in response to a surge by the GOP toward parity in American party politics over the past two decades. Party folks have concluded it was necessary to go more partisan--demagoguing, demonizing, etc., in attempting to attract the "undecided" voter. And more and more people say they could never vote for X party as a result. I don't think that's healthy and hopefully the principle of "diminishing returns" will temper such partisanship in the near future.

So, what is the basis of your tendency to vote more Democrat/Liberal or more Republican/Conservative?

Poll--Updated

Apparently, research data indicate that 80% of us grow up to vote in line with the way our parents voted. It was in an interesting article (here) about the "fertility gap" between the Right and Left.

But I'm interested to hear how true that is in the blogosphere, and to hear from you if you strayed from the fold. If you did choose a different political identity or ideology than your parent(s), what would you say made you change parties or affiliations?

UPDATE: I guess I ought to answer my own question. Both of my parents voted Republican as far as I can tell (I am certain my mother did, and I'm pretty sure my dad did)--they were both deceased before I started getting interested in politics.

As far as temperament, I have always had a higher "justice quotient" as opposed to a "mercy quotient," it seems. I appreciate that others (my wife, for example) are more inclined to sympathize with or feel mercy towards a person, but I typically will side with "principle" over a person and prefer objectivity to subjectivity.

As far as worldview, I'd say mine is more clear or intentional than that of my parents, so I would venture to say that I would likely be more conservative than my parents assuming their beliefs were relatively unchanged. I don't want to weird anyone out, but my worldview is most influenced by my decision to place my faith in Christ as personal Savior. That decision implies a number of things regarding absolutism vs. relativism and supernaturalism vs. naturalism. (Aside: And based on my understanding of the Bible and our Constitution, it doesn't mean that George W. Bush should turn the other cheek on behalf of all Americans or should coerce certain citizens to be charitable toward other "needy" citizens.)

So, I would fall into the 80% category in one sense but not in the same way that my children are likely to be in that category . . . seeing as I'm much more aware of the concept of a worldview and because I am much more "involved" in the political process. Indeed, that's another motivation for Lefties to seek more control over the educational system and be more concerned about the long-term electoral impact of the "fertility gap." My children won't stumble upon their worldview, much less be ignorant of the concept until they're in their 20s. Even if they settle on a worldview different than mine or don't ever really settle on one, it won't be because they haven't been exposed to the concept. And, I know what many of you are thinking, I won't love or accept them any less if they choose a foolish path, er, a path different than mine.

Merry Fitzmas, indeed!

I remember the jovial greetings from Lefties to one and all of the Conservative or Republican nature: Merry Fitzmas! Visions of White House indictments danced in their heads . . . of course, they were only "visions." But I digress.

It appears that Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is prevailing before the Supreme Court on behalf of "the people" to uncover who in the Federal Government leaked confidential information related to anti-terrorist funding investigations. Unlike the "Plame affair," this is a real leak . . . of truly confidential information . . . motivated by truly political machinations . . . intended to thwart efforts to protect America's interests.

Merry Fitzmas, indeed!

Newsflash: Church failing to keep up with modern mores

I just read an op/ed by Oliver "Buzz" Thomas over at the USAToday blog (here) about the church and homosexuality (hat tip Flanktwoposition, though Roger surely hoped to enlighten rather than annoy me). Essentially, the author--who appears to be an attorney, a Baptist minister, and an author, equates the Church's longstanding position that homosexual acts are sin (and please feel free to comment if you resent my assertion that this is "the Church's" position) with the Church's position--at one time in history, that the Earth was the center of our Universe. Obviously, his point is that we need to acknowledge the evidence/facts and kindly take our welcome into the '90s.

I'm a little surprised that "Buzz" is a lawyer (though maybe he is simply doing what many lawyers do--advocating on behalf of a client, no matter the weaknesses of his position) but I'm really surprised that he is a minister. Here are some of the reasons:

First, I'm not sure upon which authority early church leaders based their conviction that the Earth was the center of the Universe. But beyond that, I haven't heard of too many examples lately in which scientists were dragged before inquisitors and then burned at the stake for not toe-ing the Church's line.

But giving "Buzz" a pass on that grandiose analogy, I'd be interested to hear what "facts" or "growing stream of scientific evidence" "Buzz" is alluding to on this issue. Certainly he is not referring to statements from persons who engage in homosexual behavior who--sincerely or not, assert that they have felt these urgings since as far back as they can remember? What sinful action does not seem "natural" or "innate"? I don't struggle with alcohol or substance abuse, but I can tell you that every person who does would claim that they cannot remember a time--after being exposed to the substance at issue, when they didn't feel compelled to indulge themselves. Thus, the author's faulty premise yields this whopper:

"If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?"

Ditto for this sloppy theological assertion:

The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.

First, God doesn't judge us for being tempted (being "human"); heck, even Jesus was tempted. Second, it's lame to assert that people who engage in homosexual acts have no choice in the matter.

Next, the author repeatedly, flatly asserts that the Church's position on homosexuality constitutes "discrimination." Wrong. It isn't "discrimination against gays" to simply refuse to acknowlege it as normal or to refuse to condone it. Is it "discrimination" against adulterers not to award property rights to them if they are in a sexual relationship with a person who obtains property? No. Is it "discrimination" to not give tax deductions to people for rental properties or multiple properties they own for other purposes? No.

Next, I like how he points out that we have no recorded sermons from Jesus about homosexuality to prove that He was hip on it. There are a host of things left unremarked upon by Jesus, but that doesn't mean much. The context of the Gospels pretty clearly demonstrates that Jesus was intent on challenging the Levitical system and the works-righteousness so associated with the Religious leaders of the day. Jesus never mentioned that sex with children was wrong or that beating your wife was wrong or that slavery was wrong or that sexual harassment was wrong or that . . . you get the point.

And regarding not being judgmental, Jesus didn't say that there was no such thing as sin. Sure, He taught and modeled that we should treat "sinners" in a loving way (indeed, we all sin) and that we should remove the log out of our own eye before removing the thorn from someone else's.

Lastly, I'd be interested to hear about all the homosexuals being discriminated against in jobs, in filing wrongful death claims, etc. Unfortunately, I can match your incidents of discrimination example by example with people being "discriminated" against in America because they are deemed too devout or too Conservative. Sure, homosexuals may be treated differently, but those who choose to live this lifestyle are different, aren't they? Pardon the 95% of us who can hardly comprehend the driving attraction to people of the same sex, but we need a lot of convincing to accept that society has an interest in guarding such sexual relationships or elevating them to the level of traditional marriage.

Maybe "Buzz" Thomas' article will provide hay for homosexuality apologists (after all he's a lawyer and a BAPTIST minister!) and mislead some soft-headed Christians, but I think it is far from a compelling argument for the Church to jump on board the "gay" bandwagon.

Dems find BigOil smoking gun! (or not)

Over at Music Row Democrats (here), they're linking to an AP "report" (here) about how BigOil is purportedly rigging the oil market to increase profits.

I hate to say you need to read the entire article, because it is long (it takes a lot of writing to spin a conspiracy from scarce data), but it is interesting to note how ignorant all parties involved (Dem Senators, "Truthout," Music Row Dems, etc.) are about economic principles.

Among other fallacies in the article . . .

Is it right for someone to beneft at my expense? In fact, I'd like for these companies to freakin' give me gasoline; but it wouldn't be long before I'd have to go out and pump, refine and store my own gas. Hmmm, that won't work.

Holding on to your product with the anticipation of its value increasing over time is not evil, and it's not always smart.

10 companies is not a "handful" of companies (as the Naderite in the article asserts), and is certainly enough to foster free market competition.

The trend of not building new refineries began during the Clinton administration; what does that tell us? THIS CONSPIRACY IS BIGGER THAN I THOUGHT!!

Don't pith on me, Roger--reprinted

I don't want to start a pithing contest, but . . . Roger Abramson has called me disingenuous (here) for my post about Rick Warren (below).

Unlike me, Abramson is unimpressed with Warren's signature work, The Purpose Driven Life, but, as an aside, I would posit that Roger is plenty impressed to see Warren seemingly poking his Evangelical constituency in the eye.

I am not hiding anything by criticizing Warren for his left-of-center, "half-cocked" positions of late. I make no bones about my Conservatism and, ahem, don't specialize in Maher-like "conservatism."

And I alluded to the Dixie Chicks for a reason. It is certainly legitimate to have political views, no matter your station or position in life. But any person ought to carefully weigh the cost of attempting to parlay their non-public-policy-related celebrity into political influence. Dobson and others (but not Haggard, whom I had not heard of prior to his "outing") have not launched into the political sphere after gaining notoriety for a best-selling series of apolitical books.

And unlike me, Abramson seems to think that "people of faith" should stay out of politics. Believe it or not, there's a lot of overlap in the two spheres.

Update: Roger and Katherine Coble have more to say on the subject. Frankly, I don't spend much time on pop-culture stuff (nudge, nudge Katherine) or pop-Christianity stuff, so I think I'm pretty sensitive to junkfood media. I'm most interested in "lifechange," and The Purpose Driven Life has caused some.

Pompous, driven Life?

I am a huge fan of The Purpose Driven Life, authored by Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in California, but I have read several stories recently (here--regarding Syria and Iraq, here--regarding "global warming," and here--regarding the Barack Obama whistle stop tour) that cause me to question whether his success has gone to his head and is causing him to make half-cocked statements/pronouncements about public policy.

This phenomenon seems common among celebrities or leaders in one "field" who give in to the temptation to try and simply make a lateral move from one field to another. Alec Baldwin. Michael Jordan. Ross Perot. Dare I say, "shut up and write"?

Boycott_Citgo

Hugo Chavez is president of Venezuela. Venezuela's gov't owns Citgo. Hugo Chavez is again talking trash. I'm reminded that we should boycott Citgo.

False dichotomies re. Dem congressional majorities

AACK over at Volunteer Voters has posted (here) on a Steve Gill criticism of the GOP-majority Senate's work on appointing judges (among other failures), re-re-reiterating the storyline that the GOP deserved to hear "you're fired" on Nov. 7th.

Though I'm disappointed with the GOP's performance over the past 6 years, and though I am not Sen. Frist's biggest fan, and though I think there was a politically-healthy chastening by voters electing a Dem majority, Kleinheider's post is based on at least 2 false premises.

First, he presumes that the Democrats--who held a near 50% "minority" in both houses of Congress, were not being obstructionist and were willing to work in a bipartisan manner on any reasonable proposals.

Second, he presumes that Democrats will "deliver" more on the issues important to American voters than even the worst group of Republicans.

Well, false premises lead to false conclusions. And though I am not threatening to move to Canada and though I was still able to offer thanksgiving yesterday despite the results of the mid-term elections, I have to disagree with the "conclusions" being drawn by some about the 2006 election results.

Florida the 13th

The Dem--Christine Jennings, who had hoped to replace Katherine Harris won't accept a count, recount and manual recount in her race, all of which show she lost. She's suing (here). Ominously, the article hints that the Congress will ultimately decide whom it seats. Surely, the Dems are more responsible than that . . .

From reading this article, it seems obvious that voters failed to vote in the race because it was, get this, at the very top of a page. Despite the growing collective (Lefty) plaintive wail, it's a good thing that the ballot design was approved by the Dems. It's a good thing the Dems run the county where this is happening (although the commissioner of elections is a Republican). It's a good thing that these weren't Diebold (pronounced DEE-bold, as in "DEEmon") machines.

Partisan Dems seem to think the only way they lose elections is when others (read: Republicans) conspire to steal elections. When all is said and done, Democrat voters are still going to have to follow directions, read ballots and comprehend ballots. These partisan Dems would likely welcome a return to straight-ticket levers, where "Democrats voters" wouldn't need to even know the name of the persons for whom they were voting. Yeah, any reform that will help folks vote the way we know they ought to vote.

Move along, people, there's no conspiracy here . . .

Over at "Tennessee Guerilla Women" they've posted an entire Paul KrUghman op/ed on the matter.

Give thanks! . . . on the other hand

This post from Tony Hendra (whomever he is) from over at the Huffington Post (via The Corner) lays bare the heart of the American Left. (For the sake of Conservatism) thanks for sharing, Tony.

Here's the first sentence of his "prayer":

I give thanks O Lord for Dick Cheney's Heart, that brave organ which has done its darn-tootin' best on four separate occasions to do what we can only dream about.

Incidentally, I'm glad others read this crap and pass along links; I sure don't want to visit these sites.

Lovin' Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving, virtual friends.

Not that you asked, but Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday for a variety of reasons, in no particular order. I like that there are no gifts involved, just spending time with loved ones; I like that there is football involved; I like that it is the beginning of the holiday season; I like that it is devoted to giving Thanks to God; I like that it is uniquely American.

Sure we have and have had problems as a country and as indviduals, but Thanksgiving is a reminder of reason to have hope; it is an opportunity for a psychological and spiritual tune up.

"Cat fight" in House

The "cat fight" between Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman isn't going away and it's interesting to read details (here, here).

Some of the interesting tidbits from these articles: Harman hasn't been strident enough for the Democrat Party base.

Members of the "Congressional Black Caucus" seem prepared to give Pelosi a pass if she gives Hastings a pass.

No publication, save the British Independent, dare call this a "catfight."

And Pelosi's spokesman is spinning out of control:

Spokesman Drew Hammill said Tuesday that the Select Committee on Intelligence, as it is formally called, is different from other panels. "Seniority doesn't carry over from Congress to Congress," he said, adding that the speaker could not only change the membership but pick "virtually any" House member to be chairman.

Well, it's not "seniority" then, is it?

Theocrat Bogeyman

BOO! Didn't mean to scare you, but here are a couple of recent op/eds on the Left's newest bogeyman: "Theocrats" or the Religious Right.

It is fascinating to read about the grand agenda and the fearsome potential and the malevolent motives of the Religious Right, because it's all news to me . . . a card-carrying member. Indeed, opposing homosexual marriage and abortion on demand--positions supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, hardly constitute advocating a "theocracy." So it is not enough for the Left to simply oppose the policy positions of the Religious Right, they have to oppose folks who are Conservative and religious. As a result, it seems that secularism (even if just practical secularism) is one tenet of modern-day Liberalism--"we can't have folks being dogmatic and stuff!"

From Dinesh D'Souza.

From Jonah Goldberg.

O J and W

Roger Abramson, in his locally inimitable way (here), is accusing others of blind fealty to Dubya. Of course, buddies to his left are enjoying the spectacle of Roger's reamings, and that actually illustrates the problem with Roger's exercise.

I hesitate to risk reviving old animosities, but over the weekend I watched a special about the O.J. Simpson Trial ("Unanswered Questions about . . .") and saw the footage of the various audiences' reactions to the announcement of the O.J. verdict. Video of cheering students gathered in the student union of a traditionally-black university student union reminded me of how I felt when all that occurred--that feeling of being kicked in the stomach. I believed that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated O.J. was guilty of a double murder, and though I was disappointed that he was not convicted of these crimes, the real shock was realizing there was such a divide in our country.

I was aware that we had racism and racial animosity in America (the trial happened on the heels of the Rodney King incident); I was aware that "reasonable people can disagree" about such-n-such; but this was a perverted form of jury nullification where one segment of Americans wanted to "even the score" by allowing a murderer to "walk" just because of the color of his skin.

Regarding Dubya, I have often defended him--particularly regarding the GWOT, even though I haven't agreed with many of his policies and even though he has often acted less than conservatively. But I have--over the years, been dumbfounded by words and actions of Democrat leaders in accusing Bush of all manner of fascism, particularly in reference to the war in Iraq.

I believe the concept is called "polarity management" which teaches that many of life's challenges force a business to manage the tension between two worthwhile goals. The LAPD was plainly flawed and the Rodney King phenomenon raised a host of issues, but the answer is/was not to give aid and comfort to OJ--or, in this context, to entertain every cockamamy conspiracy theory that Michael Moore could conceive.

Following their losses in 2000 and coming forward, the Democrats certainly had incentive to win something. Unfortunately, that drive to win overcame reason as they sought ANY means to handicap Dubya and to prepare the electoral soil for future harvests. So, yes, I defended Dubya and certain of his decisions in response to outlandish accusations and vilification from Lefty ideologues. Elections are either/or propositions, which leaves less room for pithiness; and it takes discernment to appreciate the difference between blind fealty or "cheerleading" and reasoned reaction to demagoguery.

I admired Harold Ford, Jr.'s general reasonableness or unwillingness to demagogue. Like when, in a speech to the "Music Row Democrats" (or a Dem Group in Germantown?), he drew hisses when he offered a reasonable response to an audience question about Bush starting illegitimate wars and winning illegitimate elections, or something along those lines.

I regret that Democrats have--until the PurpleState Elections of 2006, been choosing the opposite side than Bush on any and every issue to the great pleasure of those who would love to see our entire country and everyone of our countrymen in a heap like Ground Zero. Sure, there are limits to loyalty, but the fact that I and others may have stood by Dubya under such circumstances is rather honorable, I'd say.

In this most recent election, Democrats have enjoyed success in part because they moderated their opposition concerning the GWOT. That's great, it's certainly smart, and it is welcome (even though it neutralized a Republican strength). But their position and rhetoric has evolved to get to where it is now, and it was a no-brainer as to which party or presidential candidate was more willing to take the fight to our Caliphanatic enemies.

I don't apologize for "cheerleading" in that context.

Just make sure you spell their name D-I-X-I-E C-H-I-C-K-S

Here's (here) an example of preaching to the congregation--when it's the choir that needs a sermon. Peter Cooper of The Tennessean has written an op/ed entitled, "Let's all shut up and listen--Chicks should be judged on music, not their political views." Cooper appears to reach the right conclusion in the article, even though his headline and much of his argument reflects that he absolutely will not go where the logic takes him. For example, compare the title and last line of the story with this excerpt,

It's hard to complain about the media trapping you in an enduring soap opera when you're writing new scripts for it and taping new episodes, but that's exactly what the Chicks have done. "Shut Up & Sing" documents them doing it, and the band members' personalities are engaging enough that it's possible to watch the movie and think, "What poor women," for a while and then later be struck by the inanity of so many of the circumstances depicted.

As Cooper notes, the Dixie Chicks have sold 1.5 million albums this year, so Maines & Co. seem to subscribe to the old PR saw, "I don't care what you say about me, just make sure you spell my name right."

"Compassionate conservatism," redundant

Interesting study (here) about the compassion of Conservatism. I've posted on this phenomenon before, but it bears repeating.

Which reminds me of the clip I you-tubed yesterday (here) of a campaign appearance by Congressman-elect Heath Shuler (D-NC) in which Shuler explains why he is a Democrat (actually, why his grandmaw is a Democrat).

So many people (esp. Dems) gloss over the issue of whether government should be taking money from one citizen to "show compassion" to another citizen. To quote a econ prof friend, "Gov't is intended to be an instrument of justice; when gov't tries to be an instrument of mercy, it becomes an instrument of injustice."

Blame Rumsfeld

Here's (actually, here) a disturbing report (via Drudge) about the soldier (Barker) who has pled guilty to rape and murder in Iraq:

Barker . . .told the judge that Green approached him with the plan to attack the family while they were drinking whiskey purchased from Iraqi Army soldiers.

Barker described changing clothes, then climbing through backyards as the five left the checkpoint. He also described in vivid detail raping Abeer Qasim Al Janabi with Cortez and Green before Green killed the girl, her younger sister and parents. The defendants also are accused of burning the girl's body

Followed by this whopper from the scumbag's civilian defense attorney, David Sheldon:

Sheldon told reporters during a news conference following the hearing that Barker took responsibility for his actions, but he also said the US Army was to blame for the way the war in Iraq was being fought.

If you read the article, I think you'll conclude that, rather than taking responsibility for his actions, he's trying to save his butt from the death penalty.

Mudslinging-n-hand-wringing at the Scene

A Guest Commentary over at the Nashville Scene (here) is criticizing the black-oriented Tennessee Tribune for printing a list of voters who did not vote in the September primaries, ostensibly to motivate them to vote in the general election. Professor Franklin, the author, writes:

Never mind that, decades ago, social scientists debunked the myth that non-voting can be explained solely by political apathy. Although this is an important explanation, non-voting also happens because of low exposure to politics, infirmity and medical hardships, transportation barriers, electoral laws that discourage people from voting, archaic registration requirements, socioeconomic barriers, the alienation of prospective voters from community and civic organizations, disillusionment with the two-party system, fears that the political process is corrupt and will discard votes, the belief that political outcomes are overly determined by wealthy elites and corporations, and the fact that political campaigns are framed to appeal to the middle-class, instead of the poor and working-class who make up a larger share of non-voters.

For the record, I believe that the Tribune's action was coercive and bully-ish, because there are many reasons, all personal, that someone may choose not to vote or choose to vote for a particular candidate. Those reasons are none of the Tribune's or the Tribune's readers' business.

But, I think it is interesting to look at the "causes" of non-voting: most of them are the result of Democrat demagoguery re. elections and politics, in general. I've opined about this before, but this is an example of Democrat practices coming back to bite them.

Pervasive racism behind every tree

I got drawn into this fight by Aunt B's incendiary post in response to an observation by Nathan Moore about the slant of a recent Tennessean article, entitled "Racial Gap is Wider Here than Nationally."

You work the syllogism:

The pertinent data reflects there is a "racial gap" concerning poverty (and home ownership) in TN.

The pertinent data (not to mention common sense) reflects that unwed, single-parent households have inordinately low-incomes.

The pertinent data reflects that non-white races have a higher rate of unwed, single-parent households.

The Tennessean concludes--and asserts with "supporting evidence," that racism is causing blacks to have disproportionately (as far as racial comparisons) low incomes.

Harry Reid's boner

Nevada senator, Harry Reid-D, referring to his fellow Nevada Senator, John Ensign-R: (Here)

"He's a Republican, I'm a Democrat, we work together on issues that are important to the state of Nevada. And I wish other people had the same nonaggression pact we have," Reid told reporters. "It's not a 'Brokeback Mountain' situation."

Har-dee-har-har. Hopefully "Beavis and Butthead" isn't going to be the "new tone" in Washington . . .

All politics is local . . .

I've never quite "bought" the saying (maybe I just haven't understood it), "All politics is local"; however, this story from CQPolitics.com--about another race that has been conceded (believe it or not, it is a Democrat that is conceding defeat), probably best illustrates the old saw.

The victorious (incumbent) Republican was a popular former sheriff so he apparently had a local, political advantage. Even in the "year of the Democrat!!"--the Democrat lost. I think the adage is true because aside from devout partisans on either side, independent or swing voters are not compelled by campaign appeals that say, "elect Candidate X or the other party will control Congress." I'd even argue that "independents" are repelled by this argument because it seems so un-independent. Though I've argued before that "electing X will mean X party has control," I now see how--when pitching to non-partisans, "all politics is local."

Silver-lining snippet

As I read this story (via Volunteer Voters) about a Republican conceding his 96-vote loss in CT, it reminded me of one "silver lining" that I've seen since Nov. 7th: the Republican, Nancy Johnson, had been serving in Congress FOR 24 YEARS. Sorry, but that is too long. I am a frequent supporter of term limits, and turnover of elected officials (not in a partisan or ideological sense, but in an individual sense) is valuable in a democratic republic.

To career politicians: get a job; look out for citizens, not yourself; you're not so special that we can't replace you. I guess that message should be directed to the electorate, too.

Sounds like Tenn . . . sounds bad

I thought this was an interesting (not to mention incredibly candid) comment deep in a story (here) about Pelosi's work on behalf of Jack Murtha to be elected as House Majority Leader:

Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a Murtha supporter, said Monday night that Pelosi is playing for keeps.

“She will ensure that they [the Murtha camp] wins. This is hardball politics … We are entering an era where when the Speaker instructs you what to do, you do it,” he said. “Yes, she’s making calls to people. She is contacting people and letting them know that it’s an unequivocal letter.”

(Emphasis added, obviously)

Mid-term myths

There's a great op/ed (here) by Rich Lowry at NationalReview.com concerning myths (or emerging nuggets of conventional wisdom) from this year's mid-term elections. Read it and see if you agree.

But I have to challenge one point in the article. Lowry asserts that--despite what many Conservatives are saying, the size of Dem gains in 2006 is rather remarkable given decades of sophisticated district-drawing capabilities and the fact that the GOP has been in control of Congress since 1994.

I would submit that re-districting's impact is rather diminished because the legislatures drawing districts with a view toward benefitting one party or the other are state legislatures--and Dems have either controlled an equal number or majority number of state legislatures following the 1990 and 2000 censuses. See here and here. As a result, the Democrats have been enjoying a "procedural" or structural advantage over past decades.

This affirms my view that the GOP--as the Conservative party, is the ascendant majority party on a national level, despite the setbacks of the 2006 election. It also demonstrates the importance of focusing on winning state elections. Wait'll next cycle . . .

Re. Newt's naysayers

Dang. I am a victim of the media, which (who?) are intent--less than a week after the 2006 election, on dropping the gates on the 2008 presidential horse race. Of course, the would-be candidates are partly to blame . . .

But over at evangelicalsformitt.com (here) there is a disparaging post about Newt which warrants a response. Obviously, as the author of a "shill blog" (I'm going to call them "shiblogs" ©--feel free to use it), Nancy French has a "job" to do, and although I'm not yet sure who I'll support for president in 2008, I feel like I have to correct the thesis of her post about Newt and signers of the "Contract with America."

French writes,

"[election night in 1994] was full of hope while the newly elected officials talked about their Contract with America.... a contract that was scarcely signed before it fell apart in shreds. If this last election debacle is anything, it's indicative that this Contract was worth less than the parchment on which it was written."

Based on this post, French misunderstands the nature of "the Contract" not to mention its "success." The Contract with America was a pledge by Republican congressional candidates to bring ten legislative initiatives to a vote in the U.S. House within the first 100 days of the new session. Each of the initiatives enjoyed overwhelming public support and each was brought to a vote and all but one was passed--that was term limits, which received a plurality but needed vote from two-thirds of congress to pass. You ought to read the actual "Contract," because the scope and substance of the reforms is/was impressive.

Ironically, even the WaPo writer (cited in French's post) understands and points out the reality that Republican House members in later years "strayed" from the path laid out by the Contract with America. Whether Newt would be a good president or presidential candidate is another issue, but the Contract with America was not a gimmick or a sham. Newt and Co. delivered on their promise and we (the GOP) would do well to return to the ideological and dispositional roots of 1994.

Rudy's tough row (and maybe mine)

For a couple of reasons I was not thrilled to see this article (here) about Rudy Giuliani's preliminary steps to seek the GOP nomination . . . first, I had hoped (though not nearly as much as my wife) to give politics somewhat of a rest and second, it brings to light a potentially bloody intra-party struggle over who will be the 2008 GOP standard bearer.

As the article states,

The former mayor is a moderate who supports gun control, same-sex civil unions, embryonic stem-cell research and abortion rights - stands that would put him at odds with the majority of the GOP conservative base.

Couple these Liberal stances with Giuliani's Libertine lifestyle (well, in relation to most Republican voters), and I thought up until very recently that Giuliani's candidacy was a non-starter. But considering that Hillary may be the Democrat nominee, Giuliani--as the Republican nominee, would certainly be the more Conservative choice, and some voting blocs (I'm thinking the folks at BCR and silk-stocking Republicans) won't let his "moderateness" on these issues keep them from supporting him.

Giuliani is off-the-charts gifted as a leader, but I'm just not sure that he can ride the tough-on-foreign-and-domestic-enemies horse through a GOP primary. First, he wouldn't stand out enough; second, he would have to overtly argue "electability" as a "part B" response to his answer on almost every issue.

Lastly, if Rudy became the nominee, I think Democrat politics of personal destruction would take the lustre off of his current public image. An uninspired base plus a plurality of hard-core Dems (in today's polarized electorate) is not a winning combination. And I'm hoping I won't be faced with having to support my second choice after another "spirited" GOP primary.

Fear and loathing in Nashvegas

I've read various posts/comments in the blogosphere from homosexual folks concerning their reaction to last Tuesday's overwhelming support for the Tennessee Marriage Protection Amendment, but this video report (here) from WKRN (NewsChannel2) begged for a response--unfortunately, the story only presented one side of the debate, that is, the people-who-voted-for-Amendment-One-are-bigots-or-ignoramuses side of the debate.

The main subject of the story, Rev. Gail Seavey of the Universalist Unitarian Church in Nashville, said that homosexuals were looking around at work on Wednesday thinking, "80% of these people hate me; 80% of these people are afraid of me . . ." Seavey also credited the vote to "ignorance and lack of education."

I'll give Seavey the benefit of the doubt on whether she was intending to insult supporters of the Amendment, but her statements reflect a couple of misconceptions, intentional or not, about opposition to homosexual marriage.

First, just because someone doesn't agree that marriage should be re-defined or un-defined or expanded to include same-sex pairings doesn't mean s/he "hates" or is "afraid of" homosexuals. Heck, just because someone thinks that homosexual sex is sin or immoral doesn't mean that s/he "hates" or is "afraid of" homosexuals. Rather, I'd posit that most supporters of the amendment did so based on an opinion that homosexual acts are unwise, indulgent and unnatural, and that marriage between one man and one woman is uniquely worthy of protection in the law. I don't want to get mushy here, but I can love, respect and enjoy someone even if I think they are confused about their sexuality or making bad choices in their life.

Second, blaming "ignorance and lack of education" for the Amendment's passge is, at best, naive. Sure, not all supporters of the amendment have been indoctrinated to the gay-friendly view at America's institutions of higher learning, but incredulity is different than ignorance. Average folks are bombarded in popular media (TV, film, music) with flattering portrayals of homosexuals. Many supporters of the amendment knowingly socialize and work with homosexuals. Accordingly, I think that support of the amendment is a reflection of the fact that most Tennesseans (and most Americans, frankly) are not persuaded that homosexual attraction is an immutable trait like race or sex ("gender").

I guess there may be some potential political benefit--for the homosexual lobby, in questioning the intelligence or motives of opponents of same-sex marriage. But as long as line items of the gay agenda are being submitted to the electorate, such characterizations probably hurt more than help the gay "cause."

Inspiring profile of first-time voter

Thanks to WKRN's Amy Napier for this profile (here) of a first-time voter--former Sudanese "Lost Boy" Pal Kong. What a great country.

Ford's future?

As many Tennessee pundits have speculated, Harold Ford, Jr.'s star is rising despite his loss to Bob Corker in the race to fill Bill Frist's seat. Roll Call has this report about lobbying opps in D.C.:

While few of the losing Members in Tuesday’s elections have K Street hiring partners drooling, several lobbyists said they’d like to scoop up outgoing Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.), who lost a close race for Senate. “I’d take Harold Ford in a flash,” said one GOP lobbyist

. Not sure if Ford, Jr.--who has unlimited political ambition, would be wise to go into the family's other business.

Dems and that sinking feeling (Part 3)

I opined previously (here) that the Dems understandably had a sinking feeling heading into Tuesday's election. They certainly are feeling groovy right now, but I think they sense that this election was a bit of a perfect (political) storm. As Jonah Goldberg asserts in this op/ed,

. . . corruption and cronyism aren't core planks in the conservative platform either. Rep. Don Sherwood (R., Pa.) lost his seat because of an alleged personal scandal, but I can assure you there's nothing in the works of Edmund Burke that says a good conservative should try to strangle his mistress.

In other words, just as Democrats insisted, the GOP's drubbing had more to do with incompetence and scandal than program and ideology.

Consequently, this chastening by the electorate can only steel the GOP for future campaign battles.

Another great point of the op/ed is that the GOP's "social conservatism" is not what cost the GOP this election:

Philosophically, reasonable people may differ about whether there's been too much social conservatism, but politically, this is idiotic. As Ramesh Ponnuru notes in the National Review, Christian conservatives give the GOP as many votes as labor and blacks combined give to the Democrats. It's to the Republicans' electoral advantage to take positions that shock the conscience of Rosie O'Donnell.

There are several well-crafted post-election assessments over at NationalReview.com.

Krauthammer on the non-tsunami

Charles Krauthammer (here) on the Democrats' non-tsunami. Again, Republican Party-ism, not Conservatism, was chastened on Tuesday.

"The Sobering Truth"

I've recently become a fan of LaShawn Barber's Corner (here), and this evening I read a magnificent essay about her life entitled "The Sobering Truth." She's a cool chick.

Those crazy Dems taking it to the next level

Over at Democrats.org, they're gearing up for their push to impeach the President and Vice President. (details here!) That's taking it to the next level . . . where we try and impeach you for policy differences. Now that's rule of law!

They're also taking their rhetoric to the next level, saying that Americans voted "overwhelmingly" for change. Not quite

You want a piece of this [party]?!

I hate to start a war, especially with someone who purportedly has a blue collar and uses heavy tools in his daily work, but . . . here goes.

Some folks, like the "Republican Main Street Partnership" and here in Tennessee--BCR over at bluecollarrepublican.com, have called out me and mine--Religious Conservatives (actually, BCR calls us "theocratic authoritarians" or "the taliban") for causing the GOP to lose majorities in both houses of Congress and for causing the GOP to hemorrhage "independent" supporters over recent years. I know exactly where the "Mainstreet (sounds like "mainstream," get it?) Republicans" are coming from, so I'm not going to address them. But the "bluecollar Republicans" seem to be a different species altogether. Mind you, they both appear to enjoy using the "religious right" as a punching bag, but they do seem different.

First, I guess I need to spend more time over there at bluecollarrepublicans, because I'm having trouble understanding BCR's beef. (Unfortunately, I am unwilling to scour months of posts to ascertain the meaning of your most recent "calling out" post). Apparently, BCR blames Religious Conservatives (although he claims to be one) for GOP drift because we have stayed loyal to the GOP (for the crazy, social issues, you know) despite its drift. That may be reasonable, but I would ask BCR why he has been loyal to the GOP despite its drift and therefore contributed to its drift.

Second, I don't accept the pejorative label of "theocratic authoritarian." I just flat reject it, because there's no "theocratic" aspect to extending legal protections to human life in the womb, or refusing to re- or un-define society's long-honored institution of marriage. Further, we're voting on these things and/or using Constitutional means to accomplish our objectives . . . that ain't authoritarian. Indeed, I'm curious to know how it is possible to simultaneously be "authoritarian" or "the taliban" and to be so patient with the process of overturning bad law or changing public opinion. We (Religious Conservatives) aren't the ones waving the pitchforks at the GOP and threatening to jump ship if we don't get everything we want.

Third, the GOP's losses on Tuesday were not caused by the Party's indifference to "independent" voters or their purported issues. I would submit that dolling up to capture "independents" can be futile because, in general, such voters are inherently fickle (in the political sense) as they relish their independence above all and are typically motivated by narrow interests. And BCR's threats to bolt the GOP may epitomize the futility of trying to please the fickle.

I believe that Bush's (and the GOP's) efforts to attract "independents" (like BCR) were the main problem with the GOP over the past 6 years. McCain-Feingold; Steel Protectionism; the Medicare Prescription benefit; No Child Left Behind's spendthriftiness; etc. These aren't "Conservative" policies, much less Religious Conservative pet issues.

Fourth, just because I am supportive of the President or his party doesn't mean that I am not holding him or his party accountable. Yes, I supported Dubya over John Kerry and yes I typically defend him against the scurrilous, baseless accusations from the Democrats and the Left. But politics is an exercise in compromise, just like with any collection of people; you gotta give a little to get a little.

Lastly, let's keep this argument in the family. You may disdain "Religious Conservatives" (by the way, get in line: "People for the American Way" is fanning the flames of anti-Family Values voices in the GOP), and you are certainly welcome in the GOP, but you need to first establish that you are more than a "cut and run" Conservative. Sure, at some point any party member is entitled to abandon a political party that ignores or betrays said member's interests. But anyone who repeatedly threatens to leave at the drop of a hat is probably not "with you" as much as you may think.

Sorry if some folks can't appreciate a person holding a good-faith, principled position on public policy, but I think harvesting stem-cells from pre-born humans is wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't most "blue collar Republicans" leave the Democrat Party because of its increasing moral relativism (on "social" issues) and its blame-America-first policies?

BCR, I don't doubt that you and yours relish being the belle of the ball--the Sandra Day O'Connor of partisan politics, but "looking out for number one" isn't real patriotic. The GOP, as I have argued before, is a consensus party whereas the Dems are a coalition party. The GOP is made up of various groups who share a common set of values or ideals--like smaller gov't, individual liberty, free markets, a strong defense--despite their differences on other issues.

Democrats, on the other hand, are a coalition party, made up of disparate groups of people who share the objective of having power and hating Republicans.

BCR, you are welcome in the GOP . . . but your interests aren't the only interests in play, and your threats are not constructive, and your penchant--it appears, for picking fights with fellow Republicans is only constructive if you take pleasure in watching Democrats gloat.

Wrestling not with flesh and blood

The interesting dynamic of Democrats and religion is how blatantly Democrats co-opt spiritual (in particular Biblical) rhetoric for political purposes. Witness Harold Ford, Jr.'s concession speech (here). The beauty of this technique is it resonates with "Christian" people who are inclined to vote Democrat, and it adds a patina of "rootedness" or "spirituality" or "high-mindedness" to a candidate.

For the record, I think one's religion (or more accurately, one's worldview) is incredibly relevant in the public policy realm. And I don't think it is, per se, inappropriate for a candidate to make known where he is coming from in the spiritual sense. I don't know Ford, Jr.'s heart, and I hope that he prays, credits God, reads the Bible, harbors good will, and seeks God's guidance as much as he contends. But even the biggest Ford Fan would have to admit that Ford, Jr.'s displays are a bit ostentatious. And to be frank, I'm a little skeptical of his claims as a result. But more importantly, I believe such rhetoric serves to demonize--literally, your ideological opponents. I kind of disagree that my opposition to bigger government or higher taxes puts me in the "rulers of the darkness of this age" and "spiritual forces of wickedness" category. (ref., per Ford, Jr., Eph. 6:12)

I disagree with Ford, Jr. on the issue of whether we have to accept abortion-on-demand as "the law of the land," and I believe that Biblical teachings on the sanctity of human life support my view. Couple that conviction with the principles of our democratic republic and there is a ideological conflict between me and Ford, Jr. But I am careful not to accuse him of being a tool of demons or the grand demon himself. I wish he'd give me the same courtesy. As Volvo drivers everywhere like to tell me, God isn't a Republican. Or a Democrat.

The tsunami in perspective

An encouraging post (as far as Republicans are concerned) from over at The Corner:

By the Numbers... [Stephen Spruiell]

At a luncheon on the Hill today sponsored by FreedomWorks, Republican pollster Ed Goeas said that the losses we saw last night are average for mid-term elections, particularly mid-term elections in a time of war. He also said, “One of the things that is different from 1994, is that in 1994 when Republicans won 56 House seats, all but a handful were won by a range of 10 or more percent. Last night if you look at the election, of those 28 House seats, 22 were won by 2 percent or less — 22 of the 28. And of those, 18 were won by less than 5,000 votes, and four of those by less than a thousand votes.” Later he went over the numbers again, and concluded, “In other words you can basically go back and say that we lost control of Congress by 11 seats. You’re talking about less than 50,000 votes.”
Posted at 2:39 PM

Diebold vindiecated!

Ann Coulter echoes my sentiment (here) in her column today:

History was made this week! For the first time in four election cycles, Democrats are not attacking the Diebold Corp. the day after the election, accusing it of rigging its voting machines. I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated.

Coburn: "bread and circus" governing philosophy failed

I just read (via B4C via Instapundit) Senator Tom Coburn's statement on yesterday's election results and I think it may well be the last word on the subject, from a Conservative viewpoint.

Excerpt:

“The Republican Party now has an opportunity to rediscover its identity as a party for limited government, free enterprise and individual responsibility. Most Americans still believe in these ideals, which reflect not merely the spirit of 1994 or the Reagan Revolution, but the vision of our founders. If Republicans present real ideas and solutions based on these principles we will do well in the future."

post-election housekeeping

Now that it's the morning after, there are a couple of things I need to put in print.

Pre-gloating is . . . gloating. Congrats to Democrats across the country for pulling off an historic win; though not quite as momentous as 1994, it is impressive. But the bummer about all the crowing by Dems over the Summer till now means gloating now is lame.

On the subject of sore losing, etc. Let's move on and look forward. Aren't today's bumper stickers great? Some of you wouldn't know, because you trade cars rather than remove campaign bumper stickers, so, please, remove those old signs of your undying political allegiances from your car. Yes, the Bush/Cheney ones; yes, the Kerry/Edwards ones, yes, all the clever "I hate Bushitler/Bushatan" variants. Oh, and if you graced our rights-of-way and vacant lots with scores of yardsigns for your chosen candidate, you now need to pick up your litter--that's your job, not one for city employees or landscapers.

Nancy and those drapes

Wouldn't it be rich for the GOP to back a sane, blue dog Democrat to be Speaker? Although it would be fun to deny the nice office to Nancy Pelosi, she and the Dem Left Wing could be a godsend to the GOP looking forward to 2008.

Clear conscience, etc.

The Apostle Paul wrote that he strove always to have a clear conscience. After months of political vying, nicely capped by poll inspecting beginning at 6:30 this morning and concluding at 7:30 this evening, I can only say at this point that I have a clear conscience, civically speaking. My wife is going to be glad that I'll have less to blog about . . . But I have some initial thoughts.

It was an insult to me as a Tennessean that Bob Rochelle had the nerve to run for the senate.

Rick Santorum's loss is heartening to squishy politicians everywhere. On the other hand, good riddance to Dewine and Chafee.

I love the Sonic ads with the two guys eating in their SUV. I also like the ones with the husband and wife.

Harold Ford, Jr. ran a fantastic campaign--he is a gifted young politician, but Bob Corker is a better, more capable leader.

That last Ford, Jr. ad with him saying "tomorrow you won't have to hear me say, 'I'm Harold Ford, Jr. and I approved this message,'" was splendid. I don't buy it, but I think it's a great ad. On the other hand, the "Corker doesn't come close" ad playing on talk radio was a stretch.

It is laughable that Nancy Pelosi contends the Dems will have a "first 100 hours" agenda, and I'm eager to see her attempt to govern rather than issue scurrilous press releases.

I hate to see Jim Bryson lose so overwhelmingly--he's a good man and Bredesen was just too conservative-acting to upset.

In the end, it's gratifying that the people who won in Red States, by and large, only did so by running as "conservatives." As for the GOP's electoral chastening . . . wait'll next year.

"First-monday-in-November surprise"?

Over at WKRN.com (here), there is a buzz about a "quirk" in Tennessee law that requires constitutional amendments to receive 50%+1 of the votes cast in the governor's race to pass. Ironically, I had just responded to a friend's email on the same subject before visiting Volunteer Voters and seeing the news story.

But what irks me about this story is that this is OLD NEWS people . . . and it is certainly news that potentially will (a) confuse people about the amendment and cause some not to vote on it or (that's what the "Vote No" gang is angling for) or (b) motivate some BIG supporters of Amendment One not to cast a vote in the governor's race so as to lower the threshhold for passage of the Amendment (that's what the Bredesen gang wants).

Again, this is not a new "quirk" in our constitution, and it is certainly something that warranted coverage, but on the night before the election where Conservatives will have little to no opportunity to clear up any confusion?

See my previous post on the confusion tactic here: Objective obfuscation.

Voting on Amendment 2

Volunteer Voters has some nice input (here) on the discussion about Amendment 2 to the Tenn. Constitution--to allow counties/municipalities to freeze property taxes for our "seniors."

I am not a diehard on this issue, but I voted "no" on Amendment 2 because I have long been bothered by elected officials' tendency to use the issue of taxes to treat different constituencies favorably and to thereby earn/secure their votes. It's perhaps their biggest source of power--the ability to tax (or not tax). By the way, it's certainly not wrong in my opinion to try and limit your tax liability as much as possible/legal, so I registered more of a protest vote.

Thomas Jefferson referred to the Tennessee Constitution as "the least imperfect of the state constitutions" and one of the limits was on the scope of taxation. I am not eager to amend our constitution for this reason.

Don't get the wrong message about Haggard

A couple of things about Ted Haggard. I am a religious Conservative and a so-called "Evangelical" and I am not sure I had ever heard of Ted Haggard before last week. While disappointed in him and his actions, I am not shaken, and certainly my faith isn't. All that's to say, the overall impact of this politically and culturally is not likely to be as significant as the MSM would contend. I say, keep cleaning house--politically and culturally. The Bible states it as, "let judgment begin with the house of God." 1 Pet. 4:17.

Here's an insightful op/ed from David Klinghoffer, "Saving the Conservative Soul
Don’t take the wrong lesson from Ted Haggard’s fall." I agree with the general thesis of this essay, but must point out that the Christian faith has a different view of "achieving perfection" than does Judaism. The New Testament teaches that followers of Christ are, until death, at war with our flesh to do what we know we ought to do. Anyway, I hope you'll read the full article.

The meaning of evangelical leader Ted Haggard’s downfall needs to be well understood by religious conservatives, lest the tragedy be compounded. The pain that has befallen the man — now resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals — along with his family and church is the consequence of his poor decisions.

What would be worse than his personal destruction, however, is if the side of the culture war that Haggard ably fought against in his public life were allowed to define his sins as a final proof that religious conservatism itself is cruel, stupid, and morally corrupt. On the contrary, the Haggard story confirms some truths of the worldview he defended.

If everyone were in control of his appetites, there would be no need for the government to be involved in endorsing some sexual relationships while withholding endorsement from others. The more society undermines ancient standards of moral conduct, the harder it becomes to withstand temptation. This is why gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage. When the awe in which people once held matrimony is diluted, by treating it as a man-made and thus amendable institution rather than a divinely determined one, heterosexuals find sexual sins of all sorts harder to resist.

. . . .

When we fail, it hardly impugns the Biblical framework. This basic religious view, whether in its Christian or Jewish version, stands at loggerheads with secularism. The latter denies personal moral responsibility, which may in turn be the bottom-line point of disagreement between conservatives and liberals.

. . . .

For surely the greatest intellectual and spiritual corruption is not the failure to fight off your demons, but the decision to urge upon other people a view that tells them they are justified in giving up their own moral fight. In that sense, I hope Ted Haggard does pray for Andrew Sullivan, because it is Sullivan and those on his side of the culture war who do much greater damage to our lives.

(read the whole thing here)

Dems and that sinking feeling (Part 2)

Rahm Emanuel about tightening generic ballots (per the NY Times): “This is making me nervous.”

And he ain't just being paranoid . . .
The collective American mood seems to be changing. WP data here.

Hat tip, The Corner.

"Dems and that sinking feeling . . ." (Part 1)

Flat earth fodder

This is an interesting article (here) from the UK's Telegraph about the politics of "climate change" (the hysteria formerly known as "global warming").

John F. Kerry is no JFK

Insightful excerpt (here) from a Newsweek article on Sen. John Kerry's freudian slip of last week:

In other words, Kerry has some repair work to do. Even before last week, he recognized he needed to get Democrats to trust him, and believe in him, a second time around. On a recent Saturday in Lewiston, Maine, Kerry mused about the problem over lunch at an Italian restaurant. “They’ll just have to make a measurement of whether or not they think any of the other people who think they’re running would have done better against George Bush,” he told NEWSWEEK as he worked his way through a plate of spaghetti. “I mean, that’s an initial threshold question people ought to ask themselves. Would anybody else have beaten a wartime president—this wartime president—under those circumstances?” As he spoke, Kerry absentmindedly jabbed at his meatballs with a fork.

“Is America a country where you can learn from something or isn’t it?” he asked. “Why did Ronald Reagan get to run four times for the nomination? Why is John McCain running for the second time? Didn’t he get his ass kicked around South Carolina by George Bush for not being patriotic enough?

Kerry put down his fork. His meatballs lay in ruins. “I always thought that in America you do get a second chance,” he said. It’s the third chances that are harder to come by.

Can you say, "handwringer"? "Weenie"? And am I misinterpreting what seems to be a left-handed compliment to Bush (and to the legitimacy of the GWOT)? (bolded text)

The electronic voting thingies

I'm hearing (reading, actually) lots of complaints about electronic voting machines during this election cycle. Here's one prime example from "professional software developer" Jackson Miller--an excerpt:

My favorite part of my voting experience today was having a senior citizen explain computer security to me in an attempt to reassure me that my vote would be counted correctly. Of course the funny part about that is that I am a professional software developer and computer security is exactly what I am afraid of. I explained that I am not only concerned about a paper record to prevent tampering, but that I am also concerned about non-malicious errors that are inevitable when you allow humans to write computer software (of course all software is written by humans thus far).

Well, Jackson, as a computer person, surely you realize that the computer can be programmed to show the selection of one candidate on the screen while registering the vote for another candidate, and the same thing can be done with any "paper record." From the thick file of "Liberals and the regrettable, though unintended, consequences" Dept.: The same people complaining about electronic voting now were those clamoring for electronic voting after FL2000 claiming, among other things, that punchcards were too difficult to use, that things like butterfly ballots were confusing, etc.

And you may not realize that every "controversial" county in FL2000 and EVERY county in Tennessee is controlled by Democrat election commissioners. Receipts at McDonalds are record of a transaction--a transaction that be subsequently confirmed by reference to a bank balance or credit card statement. That's not the case with the secret ballot. I have to say, it's ironic that folks from the Party that popularized Machine politics say we should return to a system where shop bosses et al could demand proof that you voted the right way.

I'm going to assume your complaints are in good faith and that you appreciate the value of ballot integrity, but can y'all let us know when you've made up your mind about all this?

Humorous, animated (redundant?) campaign ad

Here's one of the best on-line, (here) animated ads I've ever seen (for some race in Wyoming, I think).

Serious suppression

Here's a report (from NationalReview.com) of some serious voter suppression in Tom DeLay's former district:

Democrats know that, too. So recently, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent $50,000 on a mass-mailing in the race — not to promote Lampson but to promote a minor Republican write-in candidate named Don Richardson. The mailer noted that Richardson supported tough immigration laws, the Patriot Act, and warrantless wiretapping — all positions a Republican might want to vote for. Of course, doing so would take write-in votes away from Sekula-Gibbs, which was the point of the mailing. Republicans call the DCCC move “desperate” and a “dirty trick,” but worry it might succeed in splitting the write-in vote.

Those crafty Dems . . .

Diefending Diebold

I feel a little better about Memphis' missing voting cards after reading this report from the Commercial Appeal--in particular because the cards would have to be re-programmed/over-written with code that is unique to Shelby County's election software.

But it is kind of entertaining to watch Democrats defending Diebold electronic voting machines.

I guess Europeans don't care about black people

It seems that Kanye West was running his mouth after learning that (here) he lost in one category of the MTV Europe awards. What a weenie.

Early, often and for the children

I had mixed feelings at the Drudge Headline (here)--"12 Smartcards go missing in Tennessee; control electronic voting machines," a little bit tickled that our state was in the limelight, but not sure what to expect once I read further.

But this seems to be a good time to opine on how moral relativism, demagoguery and sloppy electoral practices are a bad recipe.

As Hugh Hewitt has said, "If it ain't close, they can't cheat," and in the aftermath of "Florida 2000," the issue of ballot integrity (or election fraud) burst into the national consciousness.

Prior to 1994, the Left (and its representative party) was comfortable with its electoral standing: they won their share of presidential elections, held a majority of governorships and controlled a majority of state legislatures. Many dismissed the Republican Revolution as an electoral anomaly.

By 2000, things were getting serious. And you can imagine how "grave" they are now . . . the Democrats need a win if they are to continue believing that this trend toward being a permanent minority party can change.

Which brings me to my thesis. "Liberalism" (not the classic type--the modern type--the type that is almost an expletive in American politics) has largely embraced moral relativism. Sure, some Democrat constituencies aren't moral relativists, but those subgroups have signed on to a bigger agenda . . . an agenda which embraces moral relativism. I suppose that strong influences of "progressivism" (simplistically stated, "change is good" and "new is improved") and "populism" (simplistically stated, "everybody's doing it") among Democrat-leaning folks also helps them to accept the moral relativism.

Next, demagoguery, that is, "use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power," is a tempting tactic when you have media dominance and "feel-good" stances. Hillary Clinton doesn't (and certainly shouldn't) care more about my children than I do, but an ambiguous sentiment favoring the corpus of "children" propels many of her policy proposals to passage at the expense of individual liberties and the gain to government's reach. To be candid, I don't believe that Ophelia Ford conspired with Memphis poll workers to commit election fraud in Ford's special-13-vote-margin election victory, but I'm not sure such collaboration was necessary given the 6-year, incessant message from the Left: Bush-stole-the-Florida, blacks are routinely and blatantly and callously targeted for disenfranchisement, Bush-stole-Ohio, and DIEBOLD-DIEBOLD-DIEBOLD. The message sinks in, and if everyone is cheating, it's only fair . . .

Lastly, sloppy electoral practices. Bureaucracy is cumbersome and slow to respond, and, like most "government" it is particularly prone to the path of least resistance without major outside influences to direct it. And the task is enormous--very difficult, so most people involved (from the gov't side) are looking for shortcuts to accomplish their work (it ain't easy to manage a largely-volunteer system that gears up for 17 hours of intense work every two years without reliable predictors of "demand" and which is steeped in political/racial/class/economic controversy--and every county in the country is largely autonomous in its operation).

Couple this inertia-away-from-reform with the Left's over-the-top concern for ANY encumbrance upon "the franchise" (POLL TAX!, also see "demagoguery," above) and there is little likelihood for change in the direction of more ballot integrity. I won't be surprised when the Left demands "house calls" from election officials so as not to disenfranchise the poor, the helpless, etc.

All this is to say, this report from Memphis this morning doesn't surprise me . . . though it does trouble me. But how can we correct problems in our election system given the Democrat Party's electoral "family recipe"?

"Securing" votes

A report (here) pooh-poohing Republican complaints of a privately-funded-publicly-administered program giving "free" flu shots at polling places.

[Republican party official] Woodfill said the program violated a provision in state law that prohibits any benefit or consideration in exchange for a vote. He said the local GOP is pledging $1,000 to provide free vaccinations the day after Election Day, and he called on the city and the local Democratic Party to match the pledge.

To his credit, the Democrat Mayor had the wisdom to shut down the program.

I wasn't sure that this was worth a comment until I read the following over at Music Row Democrats:

Quelle horreur! Can't have that, now, can we? The worst they can say is that Democrats want to offer low-income people some free flu shots. Hey, don't the Republicans have all the health care they need, anyway? And if they don't, why aren't they voting for it then?

I guess Southern Beale doesn't care what the law says, much less the intent of the law; or perhaps s/he missed some of the pertinent facts in the article . . . then again, no need for facts to get in the way of a bit of good demagoguery. I would submit that the people most in need of flu shots (particularly free ones) would be conveniently congregated in nursing homes; but that assumes that getting flu shots to needy people (vs. getting voters for seedy politicians) was the objective.

And isn't the French expression rich?

Taking Foley nationwide

Update on my opinion that it might be nice to have Foley on every ballot: it's actually "Punch Foley for Negron" and there's a website.

Ford, Jr. not so "pro-life"

From NationalReview.com a thorough consideration (here) of Ford, Jr.'s claims to be "pro-life."

Uppity "lawyer"

Boy this is good; Mary Parker, the Democrat running to fill the senate seat being vacated by Jim Bryson is "caught on tape!" being really lawyerly. Parker has changed her look, but I'll trust Nathan Moore's reporting on this one.



Wow, I'm sure voters in court that day were impressed by her show of indignation. And, maybe more voters will be impressed after watching this video! "Vote your Values!"--lawyers shouldn't have to pay tickets like the little people!

Hat tip, Moore Thoughts.

Corker and Ford, Jr. on Iraq

ACK (over at Volunteer Voters) states that Bob Corker's policy position on Iraq (as well as other issues) is "all over the map," but I think Corker's stance has been consistent. I think it has always been, "stay the course," inasmuch as the phrase means persevere, don't quit, and finish the task. I think it is inherent in "staying the course" to adapt to new challenges, consider quitting as a last resort and support/encourage those who in good faith are attempting to succeed in the mission. The fact that Corker conceded that replacing leadership on the ground may be appropriate shouldn't shock anyone who fairly considers Corker's position on the war. And I don't think it is a flaw in Corker's candidacy that he is not inclined to second-guess on the difficult task of winning an arguably necessary war.

About Ford. While proposing an X-part plan can certainly be a clever marketing strategy to convince voters that a candidate has ideas and is serious about solving a problem, too often such a plan is a high-falutin' hypothetical that ignores the practical realities of a situation.

Ford, Jr. is vying to become a senator, not the commander-in-chief, and we all know of legislators who play to the crowd and tilt at windmills while benefitting from his audience believing the windmills to be actual evil knights. Voting is less like choosing a project manager on Designer's Challenge and more like hiring someone on retainer who will be best qualified to represent your interests in addressing mostly unexpected and unpredictable problems.

UPDATE: Brittney at Nashville is Talking has referenced this post:
Someone Didn't Get The Memo
"I think that Bob Corker's stance...has consistently been "stay the course" inasmuch as that phrase means to persevere, not quit and finish the job." --Ned Williams, WisdomIsVindicated

Posted by Brittney at November 2, 2006 11:41 AM

To which I say:
Sorry but I won't let them make that phrase something it's not . . .

Let's "talk issues"

ACK (over at Volunteer Voters) is troubled that events like the Kerry comment distract from (or allow candidates to ignore) "issues." It reminded me of a "bit" that Glenn Beck used to feature on his program: Jim Dingle (warning: mute sound if you're at work), a talk radio host who had little patience with other talk radio hosts who were unwilling to "talk issues." Dingle didn't appreciate what the audience wanted.

I, too, am troubled at the attention received by such an event, but I think events like this can be valuable as springboards for discussing policy. Part of the challenge for a candidate is getting the attention of the voter, and an event like this at least draws attention to issues and gives campaigns and media outlets the opportunity to segue to "issues" such as, for example, whether the costs of war rest disproportionately on lower socio-economic classes.

Second, such an event--which usually involves a controversial subject and an unguarded moment, provides a glimpse behind the talking points. For example, I believe that Kerry really does disdain many service people--those who disagree with his view of how and when military action is appropriate. And I think it is almost impossible for Kerry to respect someone who disagrees with him. That being said, I believe that Kerry's gaffe is a glimpse into his mind and is useful for discerning his stance on important issues. There is no other way, absent a misstep, that you would learn that Kerry thinks only an idiot--to include active duty military-types and conservative voters, would support this President's mission in Iraq.

Sure, some will make mountains out of mole hills and demagogue honest mistakes, but on balance, irrelevant gaffes will soon fade away--absent fire-stoking by the media. Indeed, Kerry's difficulty in putting this incident behind him is directly related to the 3-year-long project of assailing the character and competence of Bush without displaying spite for those who happen to agree with the President.

And another thing! I think that Bob Corker's stance (which ACK characterizes as "all over the map") has consistently been "stay the course" inasmuch as that phrase means to persevere, not quit and finish the job. Inherent in that position is to adapt to challenges that arise, not really consider abandoning ship as an option and to, above all, support those who in good faith are trying to bring about success.

Ford, Jr's bull[] pulpit?

I hesitate to say this, but I am very skeptical about Congressman Harold Ford, Jr.'s references to religion in his campaign. It is important for me to say up front, I believe that a playboy lifestyle is plainly inconsistent with being a devout Christian. And while I haven't seen or read much to counter Ford, Jr.'s reputation as a playboy, I long ago stopped expecting public officials or bosses or friends or coworkers or family members to be as "devout" as me before I respected them or liked them or submitted to them or was considerate of them. That's not my beef with Ford.

Though I'm a religious Conservative; though I definitely think religion has a legitimate place in "the public square"; though I take offense at sweeping assertions that Republicans don't "love the Lord"; though I know that no Christian is perfect or above sinning; though I think that judging others is hazardous . . . I do believe that Ford, Jr.'s numerous references to his "faith" are disingenuous. Even if he believes as devoutly as indicated, his near-constant discussion of his Christianity, "his faith," or "his God" are so gratuitous that they just don't seem sincere (for example see this 5-min. MSNBC non-religion-related interview for three such references).

Many of my thoughts, words, motivations, actions, etc. in a given day are rooted in my "faith," but it would be akin to pulling the trump card for me to reference my "faith" with each expression of a thought, word, action, etc. "Well how can you disagree with that?" We get it, Jr. . . . you want us to know that you're comfortable with "faith," and I appreciate the value in politics of crafting a message and staying on "it." But when certain words or phrases become a part of your stump speech . . . well, that's where the "slick" characterizations come from. With excessive repetition, such expressions seem more contrived than authentic.

Is it awkward to bring this up or risk being accused of "attacking [Ford's] faith," but I'd say the record is clear on the matter of who put "faith" front and center in this campaign. I think we are observing in Tennessee the pitfalls of the Democrat Party's dogged effort to reestablish itself as being comfortable with "faith." It feels cheap to me.

BS backlash (or double-edged BS)

The New York Times has reported (read about it here) that voters (particularly those generally loyal to the Democrat Party) may be unmotivated to go to the polls due to a widespread perception that our electoral process is broken/corrupt/rigged.

If this report is true (and not simply the NYT's attempt to pump up the Dem crowd), then Dems have noone to blame but themselves for their OVER THE TOP rhetoric in response to their poor performance at the ballot box over the past decade or so. As far as the Left is concerned, if they're losing elections, the elections can't be fair.

Of late, I'm getting several emails a day from Lefty orgs talking about "stolen elections" and certainly they're not surprised that years of pushing this meme may have taken root? Perhaps going forward the Dems will be more concerned about the consequences of their scorched-earth vote-fraud rhetoric.

I kinda wish Foley were on every ballot . . .

Because disgraced Congressman Mark Foley's name will appear on the Nov. 7th ballot to fill his old seat, voters have to cast a ballot for Foley in order to vote for the Republican candidate(Joe Negron).

Here's a report on Negron's campaign slogan: "Punch Foley for Joe." That's good.

Youtube's impact on politics

The Tennessean is covering the impact of online stuff like youtube.com in the political world. The article is profound--it quotes, a "Brentwood attorney, blogger and political junkie" who's feeling some love from the deadtree-sphere. I thought the military analogy was cool.

The beauty of the internet is that it removes most barriers to disseminating information. Of course, such a tool or medium can be abused, but the "privacy" mentioned by Vandy Prof. Oppenheimer is--at least in the context of public statements and appearances, trivial in the context of voters knowing about candidates for public office.