Pray. Vote. Pray.

Blogger AC Kleinheider (at Volunteer Voters) has posted some friendly advice for "Evangelicals" and though I agree with various of his assertions, I have to take issue with a couple:

1. "An evangelical is a 'born again' Christian. Many folks who [were] "saved" were not Republicans before their conversion. They are not natural conservatives. They are conservatives because they are evangelical. They are not natural Republicans or conservatives. They are Republicans because their pastor told them to be essentially."

While AC is correct that one's worldview typically affects their policy priorities, it is insulting to assert that folks who became Republican after becoming "Evangelical" do so "because their pastor told them to be essentially."

2. "The Republicans may talk a good game on social issues but what do they ever do really? Nothing. Republicans have had the majority for a quite a few years now and nothing substantial has come from it."

As a commenter, Jay Bush, points out over at Volunteer Voters, originalist judicial appointments are perhaps the most significant return on Religious Conservatives' investment in the GOP. (As an aside, ironically, populists, democrats, etc. should be supportive of separation of powers and leaving legislating to accountable legislators.) But this comment is something I'm hearing more from those who are desperate to suppress interest among Religious Conservatives. Nice try. Most of us realize that Conservatives in our Federal gov't have hardly had a working majority over the past 6 years, and sending Ford, Jr. in Frist's place isn't going to bring us closer to seeing our policy views effectuated.

3. "Evangelicals have received nothing in exchange for their support of Republicans and they likely never will. Christians need to take in to account that politics is not spiritual activity.

"Faith should direct and influence a person[']s politics but it should not control it."

I'm not sure I completely understand AC's point (or that it is even understandable); is he conflating "faith" and "morals"? In any event, this is perhaps the greatest fallacy in the post.

I believe that casting a vote and being involved in the political process is very much a spiritual activity in the sense that God cares what I do and in the sense that I ought to vote and politic in a fashion consistent with my espoused beliefs or convictions. Indeed, I view politics as a broad application of the Golden Rule and believe that as a citizen in a republican political system I have an obligation to "rule" justly, because public policy has an impact on my neighbor.
To sum up, I like the bumper sticker I saw in 2004: "Pray. Vote. Pray." I believe Christians should pray first for wisdom and character to do what's most consistent with God's character (as with many, if not most, decisions in life, I don't think we can expect God to write His will on a wall). Casting a vote is merely the most elementary form of political involvement, and we should do what we can as "rulers" in a republican form of gov't. At the end of the day, Christians should pray for God's will to be done and for us to accept whatever His will is. Above all, I think this process moves Christians toward having a clear conscience that we have done what we can and we are leaving the results to God.

Here's an interesting op/ed on this issue (from a Catholic, not "Evangelical" perspective) that I came across this evening. I like how she urges Christians to "ponder the principles that inspire our activism." Amen, sister.

Re. judicial nominations

The author of this story (first reported in a Pennsylvania paper?) about judicial nominations mistakenly left out the term "Bloody Red Meat" in her title. Oh well, it appears the President is not going to shy away from a Conservative strong suit in the run up to the election.

But Ann Coulter has a great line in this week's column (raking Sen. Lincoln Chafee over the coals) regarding Democrat judicial blockades:

Democrats subscribe to the Brezhnev doctrine: "What we have, we hold." Their interpretation of elections they win by a plurality is that they have a mandate for Ruth Bader Ginsburg; their interpretation of elections they lose is that this means they get to block all Republican nominees.

Breaking news: Ford, Jr. missed a media opp

Reports from Shelbyville indicate that telegenic Congressman Harold Ford, Jr.--who is vying to replace Bill Frist in the U.S. Senate, may have passed up a media appearance. According to witnesses, "[telegenic, tenacious Ford, Jr.] spent so much time with the crowd, in fact, that he had to cancel a planned radio interview."

Weather forecast raining on Dems' political parade

Blogger Mark Rose over at Right-minded has some good stuff about the underwhelming weather news of late. Unfortunately for the Democratics, there's little sign of the perfect (political) storm.

The Plame game

In this Slate articleChristopher Hitchens drives a stake through through the Lefty meme that "thuggish" Bushies outed CIA Employee Valerie Plame.

Maybe "Democratic" Party is appropriate

This is an interesting post/quote over at No Quarters Blog. Maybe it isn't inaccurate to refer to the other political party as "the Democratic Party."

Kerry rewriting history, again

It appears, after all, that Kerry's presidential aspirations did receive more than an abrasion on the forearm in the jungles of Ohio in 2004.

Damned if you do . . .

This law--overturned by a Florida judge on behalf of Left-leaning political types, is the type of law that would deter groups from destroying voter registration forms as is alleged of late. Obviously the law could be abused in its enforcement. But prosecutors always have discretion and I don't suspect they would hammer/bankrupt the League of Women Voters if they failed to timely turn in registrations due to a hurricane.

This law is an example of efforts to strengthen election oversight because you don't readily get "do overs" in elections, so those who are prone to break the rules need to be motivated not to risk getting caught. But it bothers me that every attempt to deter fraud in elections is treated by the Left as an infringement of a Constitutional right or an effort to disenfranchise people.

Free Market v. Statism

Two articles about the Free Market from brandchannel.com that caught my eye this a.m. Gotta love the Free Market.

In France, food marketers have eschewed trying to get certified as "Organic" (actually, they say "agriculture biologique"--as Steve Martin used to say, "Those French have a different word for everything"). Rather, grocers are simply selling stuff that is pretty healthy rather than try to jump through the gov'tal hoops (which are attentively controlled by the environmental Left, no doubt) to have the "Bio" label . . . and consumers are satisfied.

In the U.S., AOL's gig appears to be up as its value has dropped from a high of $200billion to now only $20billion, but here's the best paragraph from the article.

AOL’s original success, by design or providence, was based solidly on the naiveté of web users. If it figures to tie the future on the same assumptions, its obituary can probably be put into the rush-to-publish pile right now. The idea of AOL (or any portal) as a user’s only conduit to experience and find online content is dead. If AOL is to cheat death, it will need to embrace the idea that its users are far past the idea of needing an Internet nanny to help them through this crazy, newfangled computery thingy.

Impressed?! Wait 'til you hear the facts . . .

This article, entitled "Major black candidates at record high" is intriguing because it glosses over the fact that this "record" year is far and away a Republican phenomenon. The article states,

From Maryland to Tennessee to Ohio, the 2006 elections already hold a place in the history books: More black candidates from both major parties are mounting serious campaigns for upper-tier office - senator or governor - than ever before.
Even more noteworthy, three of the six men are Republican, a party that has struggled to boost its black affiliation above 10 percent.

And even MORE NOTEWORTHY is that two of the Democrats included in this story are likely to lose their respective primary . . . the Republicans being counted are all the GOP nominee (notice how the reporter even insinuates that the GOP worked to defeat a black nominee in Michigan by recruiting a white candidate to run against him).

In sum, after the primaries, this story would be much more difficult to write without undermining the "Republicans are racist" myth which must be perpetuated to keep the Democrat Party electorally competitive.

Here's an earlier post to similar articles on this subject.

What we have here is a failure to communicate

E.J. Dionne (okay, I skimmed through his archives in one sitting the other night--catchy titles!!) has written a glowing article about Australian PM John Howard and how he is working a strategery that would benefit the GOP in America. But what I got from the article is that Howard is simply an excellent communicator.

This article from NationalReview.com highlights Bush's challenge (both personally and subject-wise) in communicating a compelling vision for his strategy in the GWOT. Because of the laziness of the audience (the American public), the President has to be a great communicator--to be able to cause the audience to learn. Dubya certainly will not get any assistance in communicating his vision from the so-called MSM.

(Incidentally, as I've observed the candidates vying for Bill Frist's seat, I believe that Harold Ford, Jr.'s potential in this race is owning to his excellent communication skills--vacuous ideas, when communicated or delivered well, will often win a popularity contest over simple truths poorly stated.)

Culpability v. concession

E.J. Dionne made the following comment in a piece about the Ned Lamonting of the Democrat Party and it reminded me of the principle the Left overlooks concerning its opposition to the GWOT (The Iraq Phase):

". . . if being against the Iraq War makes you "extreme left,'' then the administration has succeeded in pushing 60 percent of Americans into that camp. That's the proportion opposed to the war in the new CNN Poll."

Well, the Bush Administration knows there is the "extreme Left" which is intent on undermining Bush and demagoguing the War in Iraq without regard for troop morale or inspiring our Country's enemies, and the Average American who is understandably influenced by the incessant drumbeat of how bad things are in Iraq and how there was no reason (other than Oil, Lies, Vengeance, Neo-Conservatism, Globalism, Imperialism, Zionism, etc. etc.) for addressing the problem of Saddam's Iraq.

The "cut and run" characterization is so fitting, because if people dying warrants "cutting and running," there is no war that the Left will support in our struggle with Islamofascism.

Impressive candidate and campaign

Twice in the last week I've heard interesting and flattering news stories about Michael McGavick's campaign against incumbent U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA).

First was a story about how to handle a campaign "tracker" which came to light following Macaca-gate, and though I don't think that George Allen has anything substantive to apologize for (by substantive, I mean he meant no offense to Sidarth, the tracker), I believe that McGavick provides a great model in that context.

Today it was a story about McGavick going public with admissions of personal and professional mistakes. This seems like an excellent way to pre-empt character assassination--an attack which is inevitable, frankly. Better to present the mistakes in a light most favorable to you and far enough in advance to make them "old news" by election day.

Ahem . . . Bredesen NOT on "Campaign Trail"

The headline on this NewsChannel5.com article reads more like a press release (from Bredesen's campaign) than it does a report: "Bredeson's [sic] Illness Not Slowing Down Campaign Trail," (note: they probably wouldn't have misspelled his name in a press release). Understandably the campaign would want to put the most positive spin on a fact--that Bredesen has an unknown ailment warranting investigation by physicians at the world-renowned Mayo Clinic. But why should NewsChannel5?

This headline is misleading--the story is that Bredesen is NOT on the "campaign trail," a term used to refer to the candidate's travels and not to the delivery of a ton of signs to a candidate's headquarters. And is it news that worker bees at the HQ are keeping busy and that Bredesen said--through a spokesman, that they should keep on keepin' on?

If you think about it, this awkward headline is just about the only one that would diminish the seriousness of this illness and communicate to readers, "Move along. There's nothing to see here."

Cross-posted to JIMbrysonforTNGovernorBlog.

The CRAT's out of the bag . . .

It appears that folks are noticing that some Republicans do not use the adjective "Democratic" to refer to the Democrat Party. (It has gotten some local "Democrat" upset, too--the self-monikered Music Row Democrats, in particular).

To be frank, I hadn't noticed that many others using the word "Democrat" in lieu of "Democratic"--but according to Hendrik Hertzberg (and boy did he ever get to the bottom of this issue) Republicans all the way up to the titular head of our party--Dubya, are beginning to use the term "Democrat" to modify the other party. Indeed, I have over the past year encouraged a couple of nationally-known pundits in email correspondence to use the more accurate term--"Democrat," but I had not observed my movement getting any traction. I had no idea that I was a part of such a well-disciplined conspiracy!

Ironically, Democrats seem to be complaining about the use of "Democrat" even though they want us to accommodate their preference of using "Democrat" in some contexts and "Democratic" in others. My view is that "democratic" is a (positively) loaded term and it is too much trouble to qualify things as "small D democratic," so if Dems want me to call them "Democrats" as opposed to "Democratics," then I will be consistent and call them the "Democrat Party."

It depends on the definition of "politics"

John Rodgers of The Nashville City Paper is reporting that Environmental Activist and local attorney Joe Prochaska asserts his lawsuit against "the Corker Defendants" (Prochaska's words) is not political. OK, I'll take his word on it, but only inasmuch as it relates to this particular senate race at this particular moment.

The fact is that for the Left's "environmentalist" faction, Wal-mart is target A-number-one (pun intended) followed closely behind by the subspecies of "developer." And the clash between two worldviews is perpetual: Preservationists think that development is usually bad, that nothing should change to accommodate man (because man is simply a higher order of "macaca"), and that land development is driven by either greed or speciesism. Non-Preservationists disagree.

You can see why the clash is perpetual.

Pro-immigrant and Anti-illegal immigration?

Here's a great op/ed about the simplistic assertion that one is "pro-immigrant" and "anti-illegal immigration." I try to temper my pronouncements on this subject because I think immigration is fine as long as immigrants buy into what makes America great and otherwise assimilate.

Interdependency and gov't policy

Here's an interesting report from Gail Kerr at The Tennessean about how Kentucky's lax (in relation to Tennessee's) helmet law is affecting Tennesseans.

Actually, when I think of how interdependency breeds (gov't) intervention, the example I've always thought of was motorcycle helmet laws (a close second is seatbelt laws, but that is different because it involves a duty to care for children, in my opinion).

I urge you to read the article, but Kerr's thesis is,

A moronic Kentucky law [allowing people to ride motorcycles without helmets] is costing Vanderbilt University Medical Center — and that means Middle Tennessee taxpayers and the hospital's paying customers — millions of dollars.

This is part of the reason that economics is so valuable for crafting public policy . . . too often politicians ignore potential or actual unintended consequences in the interest of expedience or pleasing a particular constituency. And too often, citizens will demand to have their cake and eat it too. That's why pandering to "voters" is so tempting but so distasteful.

Re. Israel and Lebanon

I had a fascinating discussion with a close friend last evening about the current Israeli/Lebanese conflict and, as a result, I am both less apathetic about the situation and more sympathetic to criticisms of Israel. This friend and I agree on most political issues, but he has deep roots in that region of the world as well as extensive military experience . . . both of which may contribute to his different perspective on these matters.

In particular, I am persuaded (for the time being, at least) that Israel over-reached in the recent conflict. But I have to say that I think Israel is often frivolously criticized for whatever it does because of deep partisan opposition, rather than legitimate, even-handed disagreements. Thus, as with Dubya's plainly-less-than-perfect administration, I am inclined to defend Israel from harsh and disingenuous criticism.

He has directed me to some sites that offer a more balanced view of the flaws of current Israeli policy:
www.nkusa.org
www.jewsnotzionists.org

I've only skimmed these sites, and am not persuaded of their credibility (to me) yet, but we'll see.

Whaddya know? Bigot at Wal-Mart . . .

I hesitantly clicked on the link reading "Wal-Mart envoy quits after racist remarks" because I wasn't eager to read a story legitimately or illegitimately (especially the latter) bashing Wal-Mart. Well lo and behold, it was a racist series of comments from Andrew Young! Is it even possible for a Liberal icon to be a racist?

Of course, this story will taste bittersweet to many on the Left who will say it was more offensive that he worked for Wal-Mart (the company the Left loves to hate) than that he made a bigoted statement.