Ann Coulter on Minnesota's recount

Ann Coulter's op/ed on the latest Democrat election shenanigans is a must read: ("Minnesota Ballots: Land of 10,000 Fakes") From the article:

What is the point of having a hand recount of ballots in the Minnesota Senate race if the Democratic secretary of state is going to use the election night totals in precincts where it will benefit Democrat Al Franken?

Either the hand recount produces a better, more accurate count, or there was no point to the state spending roughly $100,000 to conduct the hand recount in the first place.

But that is exactly what the George Soros-supported secretary of state has agreed to do in the case of a Dinkytown precinct near the University of Minnesota. The hand recount of the liberal precinct produced 133 fewer ballots than the original count on election night and, more important, 46 fewer votes for Franken.

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

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 . . .

Betting on elections . . .

Lately I've heard several Libs wanting to bet on the Presidential election. It is an interesting Liberal tick--very adolescent, as if politics is a big game or as if a Conservative's unwillingness to enter a bet with a blustery bonehead proves something . . . I guess they think they're calling our bluff (after all, EVERYone knows this election is in_the_bag!) or that they can dispirit us.

Well, not that Libs will care, but while looking over Tennessee election law this evening, I came across this statute which prohibits betting on an election.

§ 2-19-129. Betting; on election

A person commits a Class C misdemeanor if such person makes any bet or wager of money or other valuable thing upon any election.

Caught on Tape: ACORN and Democrat GOTV efforts

Here's some disturbing video of GOTV efforts by ACORN and the Obama campaign.

Considering voting for Obama . . .

At least he "sounds" Conservative . . .

This op/ed obliterates the disingenuous assertion by Obama that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. (The American Spectator: "Searching for Obama's 95 Percent"). From the article:

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. -- "We are going to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans," Barack Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, said in the spin room here at Hofstra University following the final debate of the 2008 presidential election.

Plouffe was repeating one of the boldest claims made by the Obama campaign. It's a claim that the Wall Street Journal editorial board dubbed 'Obama's 95% Illusion,' noting that more than a third of Americans don't pay any income taxes, and that what Obama's plan does do is offer a raft of subsidies and government payments to individuals and families that he redefines as "tax cuts." His proposal looks more like a redistribution scheme than an honest effort to reduce taxes -- as he revealed on Monday when he told a now famous Ohio plumber that his plan aimed to "spread the wealth around."

Obama lying about ACORN

Obama Campaign Involved in More Cover-Ups in ACORN Scandal | Cleveland Leader:

On Thursday we revealed the connection between Barack Obama and Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), and uncovered a 2004 article that discussed his involvement with the organization which had recently been removed from the web. Today, the cover-ups continue and language on Obama's fightthesmears.com website has been altered in order to make it look like he has been telling the truth about his ACORN associations all along.

Speaking of hysteria

I just received another email from People for the American Way promoting their "McPalin Haiku Hysteria contest."

"Hysteria" is right? But I prefer "unhinged."

Good thing there are no super delegates

With the news of tightening polls, it's a good thing Dems and the Limousine Left have never instituted a super delegate system in general elections.

Palin's abuse of power, well . . .

Okay, I'm not sure what to think about the legislative report out of Alaska concerning allegations that Sarah Palin abused her power to have an ex-brother-in-law fired from the Alaska State Trooper's force. I've posted a couple times about how most efforts to impugn Palin have actually been flattering to her. (here, here)

But I just was reading through the official post-investigation report, and a couple of things come to mind.

First, to be clear, I have to admit that this report is not good news for Palin. Yet, as I've said elsewhere, "reformers" inherently cross a lot of people in the act of "reforming," so allegations of sharp elbows etc. are likely to abound in the wake of said reformer.

That being said, the next thing I have to note is that Todd and Sarah Palin remind me of A LOT of persons I've encountered in the practice of law (as a prosecutor and in private practice) who are desperate for "justice" (as they perceive it), and I can't help but think how normal/reasonable the Palins' actions/reactions are under these circumstances. Take for instance this odd tidbit from the report (pp. 38-39).

Governor Palin and Todd Palin had repeatedly (over several years) communicated to Walt Monegan (Commissioner of the Dept. of Public Safety) and his predecessor, that they believed their ex-brother-in-law (Michael Wooten) had not only acted illegally, etc. but he was a poor representative of Alaska State Troopers. With that history in mind, nibble on this incident detailed in the report:

Shortly before the annual celebration of Police Memorial Day on May 15, 2008, Commissioner Monegan had dropped off a color photograph at Governor Palin's Anchorage office with a request that she sign and present it at the ceremony. The photograph was of an Alaska State Trooper who was dressed in a formal uniform, saluting. He was standing in front of the police memorial located in front of the crime lab at AST headquarters in Anchorage, partially obscured by a flagpole. The picture to be signed by the Governor was to be used as a poster to be displayed in various Trooper Detachments around the state.

Shortly after he returned to his office from dropping off the photograph, he received a call from Kris Perry, Governor Palin's Director of her Anchorage office who asked [according to Walt Monegan's testimony] "Why did you send a poster over here that has a picture of Mike Wooten on it?"[] Until that moment, Commissioner Monegan never realized it was indeed a photograph of Trooper Wooten. Governor Palin cancelled her appearance and sent Lieutenant Governor Parnell in her place.

I don't care who you are, that's funny.

Oh, and one other thing . . . I trust Libs will remember First Lady Hillary Clinton when tempted to deride the Palins in relation to Todd Palin's level of involvement in the Palin adminstration.

Mrs. Obama, "Elitism" isn't where you shop

Sean Braisted alerts us to a Marie Claire interview in which Michelle Obama demonstrates either some (a) furious spinning or (b) major ignorance on the issue of socio-political "elitism."

MC: Tennessee governor Phil Bredesen has advised Barack to head to Wal-Mart to connect with the “Wal-Mart women” who supported Hillary. What do you say to people who think your husband is too slick or elite for working-class voters?

Obama: I find it funny that people have tried to label Barack as an elitist. This is the man who grew up not knowing his father, with a young, single mother who he watched struggle to make ends meet — even going on food stamps at one point. And despite the economic struggles that his family went through, Barack turned down lucrative careers on Wall Street and went to work in communities to help folks in need on the South Side of Chicago, helping families who’d been devastated when the local steel plants shut down.

Ed Morrissey does a pretty good job of defining "elitism" here:.

Elitism is a sense that the hoi polloi are simply incapable of governing themselves, let alone a nation, and that a small group of “experts” have to take control of everything they do. That goes far beyond mere matters of state. Elitists see people getting more obese and believe that government has to intervene to remove food choices from individuals, as one rather timely example, as in New York City. They believe that removing personal choices will keep people from making bad decisions, because they — in all their wisdom — will make the right choices for them.

This describes perfectly the policy direction of the Democratic Party, and perhaps even a part of the Republican Party as well. That’s why the charge of elitism sticks so well to Democratic candidates in national elections. Their humble origins are immaterial to the concept of elitism. Candidates who want to grow the federal government in order to increase its nanny-state power are by definition elitists, because they believe individuals cannot make choices for themselves.

As relates to Barack Obama in particular, elitism is reflected more in his reference to hayseed voters clinging to "god or guns or antipathy toward people who aren't like them" than it is reflected in his reference to the price of "arugula".
And am I the only one bothered by Bredesen's image-over-substance suggestion?

the Bradley Effect: shame on who?

A post over at Dan Cleary's blog expresses a concern I've heard expressed by some Republicans/Conservatives that a McCain victory might be diminished if there is evidence of the so-called "Bradley Effect."

I'm not sure that it being a factor would necessarily diminish a McCain victory, unless "being truthful to pollsters" is the moral standard. Though racial prejudice MAY be one motivation for being a "Bradley Effect" voter, it is inarguable that concern about appearing racially prejudiced for not voting for Obama is really the motivation . . . and who's (here, here) to blame for that? Indeed, I think trumpeting this issue is simply another way to influence uncommitted voters toward Obama.

Sorry, but it ain't over . . .

Bill Kristol has a great op/ed demonstrating why non-Obama-fans should take heart ("Can They Catch Up?"). He writes about the kind of "offensive" necessary to prevail on November 4th:

The positive component is pretty straightforward: McCain and Palin are common sense conservatives and proven reformers. The record of reform can be emphasized and contrasted with Obama's and Biden's record of conventional, go-along, get-along liberalism. And implicitly: If McCain and Palin are reformers and outsiders, it's not Bush's third term. More important is the negative message. The McCain campaign has to convince 51 percent of the voters they can't trust Barack Obama to be our next president. This has an ideological component and a character component.

I encourage you to read the rest of the article . . .

And Dan Cleary has a thoughtful post up regarding how Conservatives should interpret the current polling data. I liked the comment from an Obama person earnestly arguing, no, he really should accept that Obama has this thing in the bag. Sorry, Libs, if I am going to choose not to ensure--by throwing in the towel, that Obama wins the race.

Can't spell ACORN without "community organizer"

Actually, the "CO" stands for "Community Organizations," but it is intriguing to see the attention now being directed at ACORN (Association Of Community Organizations For Reform Now) and its ties with former-Community-Organizer-extraordinaire Barack Obama.

Folks, ACORN is radical (here, here, here). And you have to give them credit for how effectively they have been able to move beyond militancy (not that they've forsworn it, mind you) and gone mainstream. Here's an incredibly dense-reading report about ACORN's role in the collapse of the credit market.

There's no question that Senator Barack Obama is up to his saggy nipples (sorry, I couldn't resist, and I must admit he looks sharp in a suit) in ACORNish/Jeremiad Wright/America's-the-problem radicalism. The question is whether McCain has the acorns to call him on it.

Unless being black means being Marxist . . .

Some black Democrats are accusing Sarah Palin of racism because she's saying "Obama is different." ("Black Congressmen Declare Racism In Palin’s Rhetoric" | The New York Observer):

“They are trying to throw out these codes,” said Representative Gregory Meeks, a Democrat from New York.

“He’s ‘not one of us?’” Mr. Meeks said, referring to a comment Sarah Palin made at a campaign rally on Oct. 6 in Floridahttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.quote.gif. “That’s racial. That’s fear. They know they can’t win on the issues, so the last resort they have is race and fear.”
. . . .

[State Rep. Yvette] Clarke [(NY)] also found a racial subtext in Ms. Palin’s repeated appeals to “Joe Six-Pack” and “hockey moms.”

“Who exactly is Joe Six-Pack and who are these hockey moms? That’s what I’d like to know,” she said. “Is that supposed to be terminology that is of common ground to all Americans? I don’t find that. It leaves a lot of people out.”

Since when is it "code" to call someone with a high-Marxism tolerance (as manifested in Obama's church and "community organizing" ties) "not one of us"? And since when is it "code" to point out that the core of Obama's ideology--which is socialism, is "different" than the ideology that made America great. Give me a break. Even CNN acknowledges that Obama is disingenuously claiming there was no significant relationship between Obama and unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.