Unbeatable Dems

As long as Democrats are able (is there any question they're willing?) to raise money like this I fear that it will be difficult to beat them.

Hope, and some change, between those couch potato cushions

Obama's operation was impressive, and I've heard rumblings that the Dems are contemplating a perpetual campaign that will consist of a skeletal organization from now until 2011 to keep the fires burning among those-who-are-less-motivated-to-vote in his daunting database. Personally, I hope at least while a Democrat is in office the Dems will postpone the war room mentality for a couple years.

That being said, it appears that Obama's database might not be as unprecedented as some had thought: REALITY CHECK: Obama Received About the Same Percentage from Small Donors in 2008 as Bush in 2004:

"It turns out that Barack Obama's donors may not have been quite as different as we had thought. Throughout the election season, this organization and others have been reporting that Obama received about half of his discrete contributions in amounts of $200 or less. The Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) noted in past releases that donations are not the same as donors, since many people give more than once. After a more thorough analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), it has become clear that repeaters and large donors were even more important for Obama than we or other analysts had fully appreciated.

'The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances,' said CFI's executive director Michael J. Malbin. 'The reality of Obama's fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth.'"

Hat tip, ACK.

Ain't easy staying green

Apparently the environmentalist full-court press is showing some chinks, according to this article linked at the Drudge Report: "International poll: 'Growing public reluctance' to support global warming efforts..."

Of course, it is logical that there has always been a spectrum of environmentalist consciousness, (here) and now there is a name for it: "light greens" and "dark greens."

But I suspect that the proverbial center of gravity for the spectrum will only lighten as more incovenient truths of this nature are researched (and, hopefully, reported):

A government report that found old-fashioned reusable nappies damage the environment more than disposables has been hushed up because ministers are embarrassed by its findings.

Hat tip World Magazine.

High rent district

Democrats spent $640m on this most recent win (note: McCain spent $84m), and I know they had been craving some relief after eight years in the wilderness, I'm not sure they got such a good deal. As this op/ed describes (Conservative Nation by Michael G. Franc), the Democrats' spending may end up being more of a splurge than an investment. From the article:

One question surfaces repeatedly as the pundits obsess over the exit polls. Have Americans lurched to the Left in any meaningful way? If so, are they likely to sign long-term leases in Hotel Obama, or are they simply on loan until they experience the consequences of modern-day liberalism?

More on blessing gaydom

This article ("The 'Fairness Doctrine' Comes to eHarmony" - HUMAN EVENTS) provides context for my post the other day about the homosexualist agenda. Hopefully this is enough context to tamp down histrionics from Liberal commenters.

My roller coaster love affair w/ Sarah Palin . . .

I just stumbled upon a re-broadcast of Greta Van Susteren's post-election interview with Sarah Palin.

The smearing of Palin by the MSM (and some in the McCain campaign) is/was shameful, and Palin's "performance"--coupled with information disclosed--in this interview accentuates the power of the MSM to shape public opinion. (transcripts and video here)

A blessing for gaydom, by whatever means necessary

It has been somewhat amusing to watch the outrage of the militant homosexual movement after losing on Prop 8. I guess they thought that rejection by California was the final insult, so now they're really going to get serious. Uh oh.

And in a sense, I mean that. The Left will stoop to almost any anti-Democratic level to get what it wants, as this National Review Op/ed discusses. They have the Mormon Church in their sights, and they'll be targeting the rest of us (i.e., 81% of Tennesseans) before long.

Holder nomination is historic in several ways

Well, it certainly would make racial history for Eric Holder to become AG. It would also be historically stupid. Perhaps none of this type of stuff shows up on a Dem vetting report.

Reconsidering class and race grievances

The WaPo has an article about how Obama will handle demands from "the Black community" going forward. I hadn't really focused on this issue prior to now, but it is interesting to consider the implications on America's fundamental governing values presented by blacks demanding something for their community. All of their demands--I perceive, revolve around ensuring equal outcomes from living life in the U.S. Unfortunately, ensuring equal economic outcomes rather than equal equal economic opportunity equals socialism.

Choosing School Unions over children in the area of Education policy. Aiding and abetting The "Community Reinvestment Act" shakedown in the area of Economic policy. Replacing fathers with public assistance in the area of social policy. These have been [arguably] well-intended policies, but we can see their fruit. Indeed, any intellectually honest person can observe the sour fruit of socialist policies.

Obama was heralded by many as a transformational post-racial politician. I hope that he represents the dawn of post-racial policies.

Obama, Obama he's our man . . .

The headline from The Tennessean reads, Like Abe and FDR, Obama faces crises . . . he can do it!!! Yes, he can!!

Vote your values! (and here's what they are)

Listening to Steve Gill in the car this a.m. I was intrigued to hear him assert that Californians didn't vote based on issues because a majority rejected homosexual marriage while a majority also supported Barack Obama. I think Steve is ignoring the reality that opposition to homosexuality can be an important issue to many voters (e.g., Blacks) even if it isn't the most important or decisive issue to said voters. Not to mention we shouldn't forget that both Obama and Biden repeatedly (and incredibly) claimed to be opposed to "gay marriage" during this campaign.

That being said, Jonah Goldberg has a salient op/ed today about the "Achilles heel" of Liberalism--that is non-pocketbook issues.

Behold the cultural contradictions of progressivism.

Barack Obama’s victory was a huge win for self-described progressives. Arguably the most liberal presidential nominee in American history, Obama has given some very old ideas an aura of new coolness. Congrats on all that. Hope it works out for you.
. . . .
But something interesting happened on Election Day that didn’t get much attention. Bans on gay marriage were on ballots in several states, and they all won. In fact, gay marriage bans have ultimately passed in all 30 of the states in which they were on the ballot.
. . . .
In other words, Obama had some major un-progressive coattails. The tidal wave of black and Hispanic voters who came out to support Obama voted in enormous numbers against what most white liberals consider to be the foremost civil rights issue of the day.

Put aside the substance of the gay marriage debate; what’s fascinating is how these returns expose the underlying weakness, or at least vulnerability, of progressivism.

Goldberg goes on to emphasize a point that I often think of as an inherent weakness of the Democratic Party (inherent inasmuch as the Democratic Party is based on Liberalism): that the Dems are a coalition party rather than a consensus party like the GOP.

In all candor, I'd posit that coalition politics--much moreso than consensus politics, contributes to the ugly, focus-groupish, sausage-making reputation and reality of contemporary politics. As Goldberg might say . . . good luck with that.

Christian American's perspective

Losing an election is not fun if you care about public policy, and especially if you've devoted any significant time or effort in the election. My friend, David Hall, was a candidate for state senate in Tennessee's 20th District, and as a volunteer with his campaign, I felt his loss much more than any of the Federal races--I can hardly conceive of how much loos his loving and tireless campaign staff (his wife and kids) are feeling, though.

All that being said, this insightful essay from John Piper provides what I think is the definitive word on how Christians (especially those in America, given our unequaled level of democracy) should view politics. Whether you win or lose and election.

Let Christians Vote As Though They Were Not Voting
October 22, 2008
By John Piper

Voting is like marrying and crying and laughing and buying. We should do it, but only as if we were not doing it. That’s because “the present form of this world is passing away” and, in God’s eyes, “the time has grown very short.” Here’s the way Paul puts it:

The appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. (1 Corinthians 7:29-31)

Let’s take these one at a time and compare them to voting.

1. “Let those who have wives live as though they had none.”
This doesn’t mean move out of the house, don’t have sex, and don’t call Honey. Earlier in this chapter Paul says, “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights” (1 Corinthians 7:3). He also says to love her the way Christ loved the church, leading and providing and protecting (Ephesians 5:25-30). It means this: Marriage is momentary. It’s over at death, and there is no marriage in the resurrection. Wives and husbands are second priorities, not first. Christ is first. Marriage is for making much of him.
It means: If she is exquisitely desirable, beware of desiring her more than Christ. And if she is deeply disappointing, beware of being hurt too much. This is temporary—only a brief lifetime. Then comes the never-disappointing life which is life indeed.
So it is with voting. We should do it. But only as if we were not doing it. Its outcomes do not give us the greatest joy when they go our way, and they do not demoralize us when they don’t. Political life is for making much of Christ whether the world falls apart or holds together.

2. “Let those who mourn [do so] as though they were not mourning.”
Christians mourn with real, deep, painful mourning, especially over losses—loss of those we love, loss of health, loss of a dream. These losses hurt. We cry when we are hurt. But we cry as though not crying. We mourn knowing we have not lost something so valuable we cannot rejoice in our mourning. Our losses do not incapacitate us. They do not blind us to the possibility of a fruitful future serving Christ. The Lord gives and takes away. But he remains blessed. And we remain hopeful in our mourning.
So it is with voting. There are losses. We mourn. But not as those who have no hope. We vote and we lose, or we vote and we win. In either case, we win or lose as if we were not winning or losing. Our expectations and frustrations are modest. The best this world can offer is short and small. The worst it can offer has been predicted in the book of Revelation. And no vote will hold it back. In the short run, Christians lose (Revelation 13:7). In the long run, we win (21:4).

3. “Let those who rejoice [do so] as though they were not rejoicing.”
Christians rejoice in health (James 5:13) and in sickness (James 1:2). There are a thousand good and perfect things that come down from God that call forth the feeling of happiness. Beautiful weather. Good friends who want to spend time with us. Delicious food and someone to share it with. A successful plan. A person helped by our efforts.
But none of these good and beautiful things can satisfy our soul. Even the best cannot replace what we were made for, namely, the full experience of the risen Christ (John 17:24). Even fellowship with him here is not the final and best gift. There is more of him to have after we die (Philippians 1:21-23)—and even more after the resurrection. The best experiences here are foretastes. The best sights of glory are through a mirror dimly. The joy that rises from these previews does not and should not rise to the level of the hope of glory. These pleasures will one day be as though they were not. So we rejoice remembering this joy is a foretaste, and will be replaced by a vastly better joy.
So it is with voting. There are joys. The very act of voting is a joyful statement that we are not under a tyrant. And there may be happy victories. But the best government we get is a foreshadowing. Peace and justice are approximated now. They will be perfect when Christ comes. So our joy is modest. Our triumphs are short-lived—and shot through with imperfection. So we vote as though not voting.

4. “Let those who buy [do so] as though they had no goods.”
Let Christians keep on buying while this age lasts. Christianity is not withdrawal from business. We are involved, but as though not involved. Business simply does not have the weight in our hearts that it has for many. All our getting and all our having in this world is getting and having things that are not ultimately important. Our car, our house, our books, our computers, our heirlooms—we possess them with a loose grip. If they are taken away, we say that in a sense we did not have them. We are not here to possess. We are here to lay up treasures in heaven.
This world matters. But it is not ultimate. It is the stage for living in such a way to show that this world is not our God, but that Christ is our God. It is the stage for using the world to show that Christ is more precious than the world.
So it is with voting. We do not withdraw. We are involved—but as if not involved. Politics does not have ultimate weight for us. It is one more stage for acting out the truth that Christ, and not politics, is supreme.

5. “Let those who deal with the world [do so] as though they had no dealings with it.”
Christians should deal with the world. This world is here to be used. Dealt with. There is no avoiding it. Not to deal with it is to deal with it that way. Not to weed your garden is to cultivate a weedy garden. Not to wear a coat in Minnesota is to freeze—to deal with the cold that way. Not to stop when the light is red is to spend your money on fines or hospital bills and deal with the world that way. We must deal with the world.
But as we deal with it, we don’t give it our fullest attention. We don’t ascribe to the world the greatest status. There are unseen things that are vastly more precious than the world. We use the world without offering it our whole soul. We may work with all our might when dealing with the world, but the full passions of our heart will be attached to something higher—Godward purposes. We use the world, but not as an end in itself. It is a means. We deal with the world in order to make much of Christ.
So it is with voting. We deal with the system. We deal with the news. We deal with the candidates. We deal with the issues. But we deal with it all as if not dealing with it. It does not have our fullest attention. It is not the great thing in our lives. Christ is. And Christ will be ruling over his people with perfect supremacy no matter who is elected and no matter what government stands or falls. So we vote as though not voting.
By all means vote. But remember: “The world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever” (1 John 2:17).
Voting with you, as though not voting,
Pastor John

Go vote, dang it.

I was immersed in the campaign of a friend over the past few days, and my blogging time was limited. As a result, I missed some really good stuff.

Here's a charming GOTV video--maybe I can utilize it in two years.

Bill Ayers; won't you be my neighbor?

Astonishing article about Obama's buddies in Chicago's Hyde Park. Troubling.

Barack Obama is either astonishingly stupid, astonishingly machiavellian, or astonishingly Marxist.

Dude's a socialist.

You may not have heard about then-state senator and Law Lecturer Barack Obama's 2001 NPR interview/forum participation (note: he wasn't 8 years old when expressing this opinion) expressing socialist sympathies. Here it is:


Gee, with a president Obama, maybe we'll have a Supreme Court that can "break free from the essential restraints of the Founding Fathers." Now that's something to look forward to.

Dang; where has this interview been hiding?

Incidentally, here is a link to the full radio interview. I listened to the entire program . . . heard Obama's comments in context. I don't think that the full context affects the conclusion that Obama thinks it is a "traged[y]" and a "failure[]" of the Civil Rights movement not to have accomplished redistributive ends through the courts.

Aside: I like how--at the 49 min mark, the interview raises the issue of Obama's support for tax-payer funding of abortion (here). ;)

Stay strong Obamapologists!!! The clock is winding down . . .

It turns out that Obama's dear "Auntie Zeituni" is not only not having the wealth shared with her (by Obama, at least), but she is also an illegal alien. This stuff is too good . . . it is so voluminous that it doesn't qualify as an "October Surprise." More like the 12 days of Christmas . . . or Hanukkah. But don't lose heart Obamapologists, just keep telling us how far ahead Obama is in polls of Sorta Likely Voters.

That being said, the source of any inappropriate leak should be punished accordingly.

"If Obama loses . . ." -- give me a break

Interesting article about how much we need to fear Obama losing.

Besides, I thought this election was in the bag . . .