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.

Ford, Jr. can't pick his family, but . . .

Via John Harvey's blog (Voting in Memphis) this update on the escapades of Julia Allison--Harold Ford, Jr.'s ex-girlfriend.

It is almost too good ("good" in the defeat Dems sense) to be true, but Junior's ex has a blog. Here and here are some past and current posts about her and Harold, Jr. Warning, as Julia acknowledges, some of the pix are "a bit much."

Perhaps dating a Sex and the City archetype--Ms. Allison writes a NY-based "relationship column," might not have fit with Junior's redstate run for senate?

Ford, Davis and the faith factor

Lincoln Davis was a guest on Steve Gill's program this a.m. and not only refused to withdraw his previous holier-than-thou comments--comments which were repeated and endorsed by Junior, he reiterated and emphasized his point: the Democrat Party is more consistent with the Bible and "the faith of Abraham" than the GOP. Ford and Davis also declined to back off their comments yesterday.

Tennessee's 2006 U.S. Senate race is unprecedented in various ways, but it is most extraordinary in elevating the issue of "faith" as a campaign issue. This is a national trend as the Democrat Party appeals to Red Staters. For the record, I welcome this development.

It has been disturbing on a number of levels and on a continuing basis to watch as Harold Ford, Jr. has manipulated the issue. Junior's "church lady" ad; his reference to God or "the man upstairs" (wink, wink) in EVERY photo opp and debate answer; and now his Democrats_not_Republicans_love_the_Lord comments. The exposure of it is new, but this has long been a part of Democrat politics--particularly in turning out their base--African Americans.

So the good thing about this nation-wide development is that it demonstrates the hypocrisy over all these years of National Dems accusing Republicans of using religion as a wedge. But it also demonstrates how disingenuous/ignorant Democrats are who chatter on about "separation of Church and State." The reality is that every law reflects someone's values, and those values are very often rooted in religous convictions. Republicans and Democrats (or Conservatives and Liberals) certainly have different views of the interaction between gov't and religion.

In the second U.S. senate debate from Memphis, the faith issue was raised in a question posed to Harold Ford, Jr. and his answer (especially his surrebuttal) exemplifies the fallacious foundation for the so-called Religious Left. Precisely, their objective is to impose their religious views on others through gov't.

Ford, Jr. also said, "The other thing we have to be conscious of when we talk about faith is that some people are dishonest about it. Some people talk about how important their faith is and then vote against packages that would provide relief to people who were affected by Hurricane Katrina. Some people talk about it and then they vote to make drugs more expensive for seniors, and some people talk about how important it is and then vote to cut funding for education for kids."

I'm interested to see which "Katrina package" Ford, Jr. is referring to--and moreso the "people" he's referring to, because I'm not aware of much if any spending resraint related to Katrina. But Ford, Jr.'s statement illustrates the Liberal's view of faith's role in politics: using someone else's money to show compassion (or perhaps more accurately, buy votes). (Aside: Phil Valentine has said, "If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you rarely get any disagreement from Paul.")

What Liberals seem not to comprehend is that government, generally speaking, does not have its own money to spend . . . Harold Ford, Jr. appears to think that it is the ultimate hypocrisy for people to claim to be a Christian while thinking it is appropriate to use judgment before throwing taxpayers' money at any and every request from the Mississippi Delta or at any and every demand for money from a broken, dysfunctional, irresponsible gov't education system.

I won't even concede the point that Democrat-leaning folks are more charitable than Republican-leaning folks. Indeed, data from the Center for Philanthropy plainly refutes that proposition. But this demonstrates that Conservatives principally practice their faith apart from government policy. Al Gore's 1999 tax returns beautifully demonstrated putting your money (not others' money) where your mouth is.

We can debate how and to what degree religious views impact on public policy, but please acknowledge that there is room for disagreement on the matter. As a Religious Conservative, I'm more than willing to have that debate.

I won't expect Democrats to acknowledge that they've been demagoguing the issue over the past 25 years.

FL Voter Fraud Flunkies

A Miami-Herald.com report (here), via the lovely folks over at Music Row Dems.

"Glitches" in voting machines (that are reportedly shut-down and sent out to pasture/sealed upon notice of a problem) have been showing the choice of the Dem as a choice of the Republican.

Well, I won't get in to all the defenses for the lame conspiracy theories of the Music Row Dem-types (maybe later), but I have to say that with all the money we Republicans have surely paid to steal this election you'd think the software programmers could at least make the stolen vote appear to have been cast for the Democrat, don't you?! Dang!

Canada can do it!!--Update

Several folks from the Left (here, here) are claiming that Corker has offended the Canadians in "the Ad," in response to revelations that Ford, Jr. slammed Australia.

First, Corker has personally disclaimed "the Ad." Don't pin this on him.

Second, and more importantly, "the Ad" is actually representative Tennesseans in support of Ford, Jr.--not Corker supporters.

Third, the earnest elderly gentleman (and representative Jr. supporter, mind you) who claimed that Canada could handle North Korea was actually giving props to Canada (and no doubt Jimmy Carter!!!) and its ability to deal with such problems, by, say, giving them nuclear capabilities on the honor system.

Update: This post over at the Tennessean's blog about Canadian outrage, outrage I tell you, concerning "the ad."

Ford, Jr.'s perfect retort!

Over at the FoxNews website this headline, "FOX & Friends' Halloween party rivals annual Playboy blowout"--uh, don't get too excited Fordies. They are obviously being self-deprecating (like Algore!) which becomes clear if you watch the video (Fox Flash). Curse those FoxNews people!

He may "love the Lord" . . .

Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. may "love the Lord" but he probably ain't feeling love for the GOP tracker who captured him on video explaining/sermonizing about the difference between Republicans and Democrats. (Via Volunteer Voters.)


I thought Republicans were supposed to be the moralistic, preachy, holier-than-thou folks . . .

They have to be bongo drums . . .

Just to keep our racial stereotypes straight, the racist drums Democrats are complaining of in Corker's ads have got to be
"bongos" not "tom-toms" (unless, perhaps, they are alleging the GOP is covering all its bases because some of us hicks may be prejudiced against "high yellow" Ford, Jr. for being native american).

But from the "I-wish-I-had-posted-and-not-just-commented-on-that" department": Over at The Media Blog they're talking about MSNBC's racist conspiracy watch. And they're pointing out that the same soundtrack used on the purported "natives are restless" ad are used in an ad that doesn't even mention Harold Ford, Jr. Incidentally, my first comment on the issue was here--look for FordisFreaky.

Voter ID . . . Whoooo are you? who who, who who?

Here's a great overview ("'Poll Tax!' They Cry," from National Review) of why Democrats can't be trusted on the issue of preventing election fraud.

I didn't even realize that 81 percent of Americans support Voter ID requirements; however, demagoguery is unmatched at preventing reasonable legislation. And the Dems are unmatched at demagoguery(from the article, "Who needs John Lewis telling you you're the modern-day Bull Connor?").

Ford, Jr. hating on Alito

Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, opines (here) about what's at stake in each and every U.S. Senate race: Supreme Court appointments.

Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. glibly asserts that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is prejudiced against "the little guy." I believe that Junior, like most D.C. Libs--and unlike moderate Dems (read: Bob Casey, Jr.), had no legitimate basis for opposing Alito and only voted for John Roberts to appear reasonable.

The majority of Tennesseans don't want Ford, Jr. voting on judicial appointees.

Ford's friends in Australia

I attended the Ford, Jr. v. Corker debate this evening and have to acknowledge that Jr. doesn't make many mistakes when speaking. Well, one mistake I think he routinely makes is being too slick.

But this article (from an Australian journal) reports how Jr. can be more flash than gold. One interesting impression from the article is how Ford, Jr.'s views on international policy are very similar to that of folks like Madeline Albright, who naively struggled with discerning between real allies and real threats.

The gaffes were lost on the audience and he was given a rousing standing ovation from Democrats and Republicans alike. Any chance of clarifying Mr Ford's remarks with the man himself was impossible as minders shielded any international media from asking questions, ushering Mr Ford away.

"You don't win us any votes," said his spokeswoman. And she might have added that it also means he is insulated from pesky questions probing his limitations on enunciating a foreign policy involving a trusted ally.

Not that any of that appears to matter much in Tennessee. The polls have Mr Ford in a dead heat with Republican Bob Corker.

That last sentence is poignant, seeing as these type of stories have to travel all the way to Australia to find their way to Tennesseans.

éste es mi país . . . (this is my country)

I caught some flack for being surprised/uncomfortable? earlier this week about the Chevy Silverado ad completely_in_Spanish during the first game of the World Series.

Tonight I noticed that Chevy have brushed off an ad campaign they had used earlier in the MLB playoffs, "This is my country." It was in English, by the way. Although I haven't confirmed this, I'm assuming that the Spanish lyrics in that hispanic ad were not, "This is my country." Si, se puede!!

"All lies," really?

Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. is complaining (here--via Volunteer Voters) that Bob Corker's new ad in Tennessee's U.S. Senate campaign--"Shaky," is "all lies."

How so?

Of course, Junior, is probably saying that the ad is misleading because it doesn't promote Junior's side of the issue--that he is now opposed to any or all of the those things. It reminds me of state senate re-candidate Bob Rochelle who expects to get a pass on whether he will try and impose a state income tax if elected.

But the ad is true.

I'm sure that Junior doesn't want to acknowledge that he has changed his positions on all those issues--that isn't quite as effective with the voters, don't you know.

"Sex and the . . . ", well, er, just "sex"

At the risk of suppressing the vote of my people (disenfranchising them!!) I have to comment on this post(here)--linked over at Volunteer Voters, detailing accusations that the GOP gubernatorial candidate in Florida has engaged in homosexual sex with a rising star in the world of GOP operatives. I had similar impressions while reading Mark Foley reports that disclosed facts beyond those narrowly aimed at harming the GOP--in other words, reports which glossed over the homosexuality and zeroed in on the pederasty. But, to my point . . .

I'm struck by how sexually obsessed the homosexual subculture is. I think this fixation is apparent to any intellectually-honest, reasonably-perceptive observer of popular culture, and it is perhaps the elephant in the room (our cultural family room, if you will) to declare that such a fixation is not a good thing, inasmuch as sex divorced from love and commitment is an empty, unsatisfying and certainly unedifying action.

Which reminds me of something Ann Coulter has written on the subject. While I have only watched "Sex and the City" a couple times (occasionally catching random portions of tasteless programming is a hazard of channel-surfing), it is pretty obvious that the show has earned a spot in our era's time capsule. Coulter has asserted, as best I can remember, that the program--which is written and produced by two homosexual men (?), is a metaphor of the homosexual subculture, and the show was an effort to "mainstream" or normalize the sexually-obsessed "gay" culture.

Whether or not she is correct about "Sex and the City," I can't help but conclude that her observations about homosexuality are on the money. Is it any wonder that Americans have a difficult time believing that "gay marriage" is really about "loving couples" in "committed," "long-term" relationships?

"The Ad" and proving a negative

Man am I tired of the whining about the so-called "Playboy Bunny" ad in the Tennessee Senate Race (here, here, and here -- thanks to Volunteer Voters for tracking this crap).

First, it isn't racist. It's impossible to prove a negative, but I defy the critics to rewrite the ad in such a way that it communicates jetsetting-bachelor-who-shouldn't-be-your-next-senator without being subject to cries of RACISM!!!!! from partisan Dems. It appears the only way not to appeal to racism if you're a Republican is to not run ads. Lefties are now claiming that the soundtrack on this ad uses african drums when Junior's name is mentioned, while using stringed instruments when whitie's name is mentioned. Hmmm, then I wonder why the Corker campaign used the virtually same soundtrack behind this ad with only whitey in it?

Second, it isn't "serious" . . . it's sarcasm . . . it's humor. It is a light-hearted ad (a genre which I will submit is less "negative" and deleterious-to-democracy than "serious" ads) which points out--in a humorous way, the things about Ford that Conservatives don't like--pretty face/empty suit, gun-controller, playboy, taxophile, Media-elite-sweetheart. Though Corker has said he thought it was tacky, I think he was just being PC (boy, he can't even get credit--like most Conservatives, for trying to placate the Left). But regarding that ad, there was nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to apologize for, nothing to "yank" from the air.

I suppose the more that you folks on the Left repeat the mantra (even if it is based in ignorance--such as when Liberal Tennessee politico Larry Woods hadn't even seen the ad but opined ad nauseum on it with Steve Gill this a.m.), it becomes reality. Well, this is my little rebuttal to your media advantage.

Mary Parker corners Bredesen?

This new radio ad (listen here Hat tip Volunteer Voters)for Dem State Senate Candidate Mary Parker sounds to me like Parker cornered Bredesen in the bathroom to get his statement/endorsement. Listen for yourself. They couldn't have dragged Bredesen into a sound studio (or out of a bathroom) to make the ad?

Who you calling extreme?

I read this morning that Mary Parker--the Democrat seeking to represent the heavily-Republican state senate seat being vacated by Jim Bryson, is going for the jugular against her Republican opponent--Jack Johnson, saying he is "extreme" on abortion. (Ironically, Parker consistently labels abortion as a "wedge issue" manipulated by the GOP.)

Now these issues are relevant, and we can sure discuss them (Johnson supports abortion only when the life of the mother is at risk--a rather principled position), but isn't Mary Parker the one parading around avid supporter, and radical abortion-on-demand'er, Ashley Judd?

Bush's heart-to-heart w/ undecideds

Reports (fair reports, that is) of the president's presser today (here) are lifting my spirits and my Party's prospects.

The difference between resolve and stubbornness is in the eyes of the beholder, and Dubya has gone a long way today in realizing that Americans need to be assured that his actions in Iraq are impelled by the former.

But it's interesting to see how such rhetoric--in my view, simply reiterating for the cameras that war is hell and that he is not a warmonger, will bring voters to the GOP. It's politically-dicey defending caricatures of Bush's Iraq policies, and it is perhaps even dicier to make arguments that your party head isn't making (that's the shortest path to being called a "shill"), but Bush removes those difficulties by speaking out.

Most voters don't believe Democrats (the feminized, national party, at least) are going to be more resolute than Republicans against foreign enemies, much less caliphanatics. Dubya has simply assured average, undecided voters that he can be trusted in the GWOT, despite all the nasty things ambitious Democrat candidates are saying.

Blue collar baby steps?

Brittney (at Nashville is Talking) is, well, figuratively calling me a nativist for my feelings (they were authentic!) at the spanish-language ad during game 3 of the championship of "America's favorite pastime."

I guess it doesn't matter that I'm a softy on immigration?

And shouldn't she be encouraging me in trying to walk a mile in the moccasins of NAFTA-despising bluecollars/UAWs?

Call me nativist . . .

I was watching the World Series this evening and was dumbfounded when I saw Chevy's first (as far as I could tell) ad introducing the 2007 Chevy Silverado--it was completely en espanol and featured hispanic heroes dating back to 1923(?). Subsequent re-airing of the ads during the WS broadcast were in English, even though the theme was still historic hispanic heroes and the voiceover is in a latino accent.

Sorry, but I believe such a narrow appeal will offend more Americans than it will attract. It is discomfiting to feel like the odd man out--language-wise, during a World Series commercial.

Conservatives coming home

There is a fine line between confidence and arrogance, and the Democrats' pre-mature victory celebration of their win in November's national popularity contest has, er, hurt their popularity.

Likewise, the gloating has beckoned disenchanted Conservatives to return home. (via DrudgeReport). I largely agree with this analysis.

But how bummed will Democrats be after their foamy expectations go unmet?

Supreme reasoning on election law

Interesting news regarding an Arizona statute requiring identification to vote (here): the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a 9th Circuit decision enjoining implementation of a voter ID law in AZ.

This is a positive step for a) preventing Libs/Dems from pulling 11th hour stunts with sympathetic judges to affect elections; b) acknowleding that failure to take reasonable steps to prevent voter fraud undermines confidence in our electoral system--every fraudulent vote cast disenfranchises a legal voter.

Objective: Obfuscation

Message: Vote "Yes" on Amendment One to protect traditional marriage.

As expected, opponents of the Tennessee Marriage Protection Amendment are attempting to confuse voters about the upcoming ballot measure. The confusion can lead to ambivalence and inaction, so it is a predictable tactic for the Left. They can't win on substance, so deception is the next, best option for a moral relativist. (Incidentally, Bredesen's public position embodies the obfuscation all in a single soundbite.)

Most people--responsible ones, at least--are reticent to vote for something that they don't understand. Further, couple confusion with questions about the "need" for a person to cast a vote, and you have the perfect formula for inaction. In the context of a Tennessee ballot measure, such a strategy is particularly effective. Please read on.

So, how do they confuse the issue? By stating that "Tennessee law already prohibits same-sex marriage . . ." This is true, sort of: we do have a law prohibiting same-sex "marriage" but that mere statute won't protect the institution of marriage from "open-minded" judges in Tennessee or from "open-minded" federal judges who would impose another state's view of what relationships should be treated as "marriages." Defining "marriage" in the text of our state constitution will help ensure that traditional marriage is preserved in our state. I choose to live in a Red State/county/city and not a Blue one for a reason.

This line of argument ("TN law already outlaws same-sex marriage") is particularly deceptive when folks combine it with junk like ". . . and this measure will change the current law [prohibiting same-sex marriage]". This makes unwitting folks think that they are actually voting AGAINST a ban on homosexual marriage if they vote FOR Amendment One.

But this obfuscation also works nicely with the prevailing perception that the measure will certainly pass (after all, it passed in Oregon by a nearly 2:1 margin). For folks who are sensitive to accusations of bigotry for supporting traditional marriage, the assertion that the law already outlaws homosexual marriage can encourage indifference about this "over the top" measure (See Bredesen, above). who manages to lump all these obfuscations into a single soundbite). The latest example I've seen (aside from poll workers in Sumner and Wilson Counties sowing confusion) is this article in a Chattanooga paper.

Lastly, confusion that leads to inaction is particularly valuable in Tennessee because of our unique constitution (which, incidentally, Thomas Jefferson lauded as the "least imperfect" state constitution). In order to pass in Tennessee, a constitutional amendment must pass with a majority of votes as determined by the number of votes cast in the governor's race. (I can appreciate this provision, as it keeps a narrowly supported measure from sneaking its way into our constitution unless a significant number of voters feel compelled to support it). As a result, assuming a close vote, if a person votes in the governor's race but chooses not to cast a vote on the amendment, their non-vote is the same as a "no" vote (or, in other words, it is not a non-vote--it is not neutral, it actually advances the other side one vote closer to defeating the measure).

All this being said, and though I'm a hopeless idealist, it is hard to complain about foolish pulic policy if people are casting votes that they don't understand or trusting untrustworthy advisors on the matter. That's why I'm glad you took the time to read this post . . .

You can call me "mister"

This is one of those posts that builds over time--I'm not particularly bothered by "cheekiness" or "privacy," but I have my limits. And while some of this may be "generational," I'm not one to accept something just because it's "new" or because it's what everyone's doing. (Yes, that is reflected in my politics, too).

I went into the local franchise of a haircuttery the other day and, as is normal these days, an employee stepped away from cutting hair to greet me (actually, all three of the employees--looked over their shoulder when I walked in and hollered, "Welcome to _______!") She said, "What's your phone number?" I told her. She then read off--for all the assembled customers and staff, the names of my children, my spouse and then stopped at the names that sounded "male." She announced my given name and my nickname and asked me which name was me, and I said, "Well, both are mine." And then she asked me which name I wanted to choose, and acted as if it was weird for me to have ever given another name than the one that is listed on my credit card or in the phone book. I told her to use my nick name. Then I sat down to wait (and stew a little).

First, I don't appreciate having to provide a family bio in order to get a haircut.
Second, I don't need to be on a first-name basis with a round-robin barber at one of many franchise barber shops that I may or may not patronize in a month when I need another haircut.

Then my turn came, and another barber drew my name (that first barber probably didn't want anything to do with the problem customer). For some reason, she needed to--again, work through this knotted name issue and read my given name and nickname. She asked, "Which one do you want me to use?" I hesitated ("HEY, I just want a freakin' haircut, and I'm in a big hurry!"), and as she pressed, I started to reply, "you can call me" and we both simultaneously arrived at the right answer: "Mr. Williams." Even then she made a little joke about that conclusion--in her mind she had gone the extra mile to accommodate me.

We're on good terms after talking for several minutes in the barber's chair--sharp objects around tender skin can be very painful, so it is wise not to offend a barber. But with so many barber shops to choose from, it is wise not to offend a customer.

Theocracy or a return to our senses?

It may be just a fundraising ploy, but I believe many on the Left really fear that America is one election away from becoming a theocracy. For example, successful efforts to protect the traditional definition of "marriage," while dawdling to me, are daunting from the Left's perspective. But to all you who aren't sure what to think, I urge you not to worry.

As David Klinghofer writes in this op/ed, the reality is that recent rightward movement in public policy is merely a sensible return to policies from which there was no need to "progress." Please read it yourself and share your thoughts.

Speaking of intra-party conflicts . . .

I can't help but appreciate Harold Ford, Sr.'s pluck as reported in The Hotline Blog quoting comments at a recent campaign appearance with Ford, Sr.'s sons.

But it highlights the disconnect between black evangelicals (most black voters) and the Democrat Party in this country.

[My son Jake's] opposition [in the congressional campaign--Steve Cohen] won’t even come to the community and ask for their votes. He’ll run and put out pictures and put out press releases and try to distort my son. I’m asking all of you: Don’t let this man reject Jake Ford Jr (sic). Now, Jake Ford Jr. is the man that you need. And I promise you that Jake Ford Jr. – he don’t believe in no same-sex marriages! We’re from a Christian city here. He doesn’t believe in legalizing marijuana. This man that’s running against Jake wants some sex shops running in downtown Memphis on a Sunday! That’s our religious holiday. He shouldn’t be doing that and then saying he’s the most liberal Democrat. He is too liberal! I mean, paramutual betting. And this lottery! A lottery ain’t nothing but a tax on poor people. And why would you brag about lottery. And the very people that the lottery’s supposed to help are the very people that can’t go to college and benefit from it. So I say to you: Trust me, you trusted me as your congressman. We don’t know much about the other person. He missed 49 percent of his votes in 18 years in the state Senate.

And I’m asking you: when you go to that poll, don’t vote for no Steve Cohen. You vote for Jake Ford as your next congressman. [crowd noise, applause obscures most of the rest of his close] .. Thank you and God bless you!

This also illustrates how the Democrat Party is a coalition of disparate special interests (while the GOP is a consensus party). The result is a whole lot of nose-holding when voting.

"Stay the course" compared to what?

Maybe Ford, Jr. or some of his supporters have some poll of focus group data that's driving them on the "stay the course" teapot tempest, but I don't think that it will get traction. Advocating to "stay the course" means one thing when considered in the context of the Cut-n-run Party and another thing in the context of setting war strategy.

Sure, mistakes have been made in waging the war in Iraq. Mistakes and setbacks are common to war, as are adaptations to battlefield realities. Bob Corker acknowledges this and so does the Bush administration.

But, let's be clear, MOST Democrat Party leaders (and most Ford, Jr. supporters) think that we should "redeploy" troops and play defense against the Caliphanatics (I made that up). Oh, and they also insist we should really try a whole lot harder, you know, to find Osama Bin Laden.

The reality is that most Americans agree that we should allow generals to fight the war in Iraq--as Dubya has been allowing them to do . . . that's "staying the course"; most Americans think that we need to stay on offense and not allow Caliphanatic threats to fester around the world . . . that's "staying the course"; most Americans think that we need to stay in Iraq until the difficult job is finished . . . that's "staying the course."

I'd say Fightin' Ford, Jr. is sparring with a strawman.

Putting flesh on "family values"

Fascinating report from USA Today (here) about the "fertility gap" between the Democrat and Republican Parties.

This "fertility gap" is crucial to understanding the differences between liberals and conservatives, says Arthur Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University. These childbearing patterns shape divisions over issues such as welfare, education and child tax credits, he says.

"Both sides are very pro-kids. They just express it in different ways," Brooks says. "Republicans are congenial to traditional families, which is clearly the best way for kids to grow up. But there are some kids who don't have that advantage, and Democrats are very concerned with helping those kids."

Children in Democratic districts are far more likely to live in poverty and with single parents than kids in GOP districts.

Rep. José Serrano, D-N.Y., has 227,246 children in his Bronx district, the 10th most in the House. Only 29% of those children live with married parents.

By contrast, 84% of children live with married parents in [Rep. Chris] Cannon's central Utah district.

This data seems ("these data seem"?) to demonstrate that "traditional family values" are probably more than "wedge issues," because there are some constituencies--tending to vote Republican, in which "family" is being tried and where it is likely affirmed, and there are other constituencies--tending to vote Democrat, in which the opposite is happening. And it is not a coincidence that affirmation of "family values" has economic and social impact. Democrats may be, as the professor asserts, "pro-kids" but shouldn't we demand more than good intentions when it comes to public policy?

GOP Civil War?

I've heard a lot lately about a potential "civil war" within the GOP, largely premised upon the assertions that so-called Religious Conservatives are a tool of the GOP.

There was a pre-release buzz article about the book (here) Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction. I am wary of the book's author and the book's thesis for a variety of reasons: one, is its scheduled release in the run-up to the Nov. elections; second, because of the long-flaky history of the President's office of Faith-based Initiatives--where the author had worked; and third, because even as a Religious Conservative I believe that some Religious Conservatives are nigh unto "nuts"--so I don't think them's fightin' words if someone in the administration made a similar assertion.

Ironically, the Left gets to "have its cake and eat it too" when it comes to this subject. Lefties are eager to foment disenchantment (among Religious Conservatives) with "political power," in general, and the GOP, in particular. The Theocons-as-Tool-for-GOP meme is useful for driving a wedge between theocons and the GOP.

On the other hand, the GOP-as-Tool-for-Thecons meme is useful for mobilizing the Democrat Party's base, e.g., "They intend and will succeed at instituting a theocracy if you don't make your secure online contribution today . . ." blah, blah, blah.

I ask you, which side of the aisle is exploiting social issues?

But a couple of truths are overlooked by largely-secularist pundits on this issue. First, Religious Conservatives appreciate the need to win fairly and persuasively--as opposed to ram-rodding an agenda. Contrary to MSM caricatures, Religious Conservatives are motivated--like most voters, to defend cherished values from perceived threats. In sum, they appreciate the need to have more than a mere majority of "Rs" to bring about change, and they are sensitive to accusations of political strong-arming.

Secondly, it's harder to suppress the Social Conservatives' vote than that of other groups . . . social conservatives are--generally speaking, more self-informed, less self-interested, more self-disciplined, more principled than other well-known blocs of voters . . . which is to say, they are easily dissuaded from an action or view about which they are resolute. In fact, they may exemplify "resolute."

AC Kleinheider (at Volunteer Voters) has opined several times in recent weeks that the Foley "affair" could lead to a Civil War within the GOP as the Republican "base"--consisting in part of Social Conservatives, realized that GOP leaders were saying one thing to them but doing (and believing) something else in D.C.

This article from Byron York at NationalReview.com, reflects the reality about this matter: Social Conservatives aren't as "poor, uneducated and easily led" as "Elites" might believe.

All that being said, I believe that there is a need for some maturation within the Religious Conservative movement. Some of the more doomsdayic, throw-down-the-gauntlet Religious Conservatives don't realize that politics is not a zero-sum game, and that you generally have to compromise to make progress.

Even if Bob Corker wasn't my first choice in the GOP Primary, he should be my first choice in the general election. Being part of a team (or political party) implies that--absent extraordinary circumstances, you are more concerned about the team's success than your personal objectives. I would have expected Corker's people to support Bryant if he had won, so I think they can fairly expect the same from me. The bottom line is that I--as a Religious Conservative, would not have a political majority and would have little to no political influence without "moderate" Republicans on my team. And I should expect "moderate" Republicans to seek to advance their interests within the GOP. Can I legitimately hold it against them if they beat me "fair and square" (that is, "fair and square" in the political context)? I don't think so.

Let's grow up and get to work.

Scalia v. Godzilla . . . Just kidding

Here's a salient debate (over at C-Span) on the "state of civil liberties" between Justice Scalia and the ACLU's Nadine Strossen (who, like Scalia, is not quite the monster some would suggest).

Interestingly, Strossen states in the debate (at 37:30) that the ACLU would support a Mormon right to bigamy/polygamy under their view of the free exercise (of religion) clause, a "right to privacy," and the freedom of expression clause. Keep that in mind the next time you hear ACLU-types pooh-pooh the potential for matrimonial anarchy posed by same-sex "marriage."

$43 million down the drain

Reflecting on the news that the Air America Radio Network has filed bankruptcy (Ch. 11) . . .

Despite an unpopular war, a struggling economy (struggling under the weight of Katrina and the global war against Islamofascism), the cultural consequences of the 90s' corporate prodigality, etc. . . . the Left still hasn't been able to unseat the GOP.

Well, it may be about to happen, but it has been pretty gratifying to see the plutocratic Left spending money like water over the past 6 years with little to nothing to show for it.

Clinton's "agreed framework"

Some commentary (here) on the Clinton Administration's "agreed framework" with North Korea:

Current New Mexico governor and former Clinton administration official Bill Richardson has been on tour, bragging about the groundbreaking Clinton administration negotiations with North Korea — keeping his fingers crossed that no one has access to news from 1994.
. . .

Under the terms of the "agreed framework," we gave North Korea all sorts of bribes — more than $5 billion worth of oil, two nuclear reactors and lots of high technology. In return, they took the bribes and kept building nukes. This wasn't difficult, inasmuch as the 1994 deal permitted the North Koreans to evade weapons inspectors for the next five years.

Yes, you read that right: North Korea promised not to develop nukes, and we showed how much we trusted them by agreeing to no weapons inspections for five years.

Thanks again, Ann Coulter, for saying things that the Left would like to shout down.

Campaign ad fun (for Republicans)

Ironically, this has been "flag[ged] as inappropriate" by someone over at YouTube.

Dems and that sinking feeling . . .

I just read this Left-leaning post which was quoted/posted at another Left-leaning blog about the Democrats' feelings at the seeming inevitable prospect of regaining the majority in the Congress.

. . . However, if we do have a huge victory on November 7th, I won't be in the least bit disappointed to bid this "we are going to lose" paranoia good bye. I can't stand always having my gut and the back of my mind telling me that we are going to lose. I also desperately want validation for all of the progress we have made since 2002 as both a movement and as a party. We have to win just so we can all believe again that we can win, and so that we know that all of the work we put into this is worth it. If things don't go well on November 7th, it is hard to imagine just how crippling it will be to our morale as a movement and as a party. We can't let that happen. . . .

As a Tennessee Vol fan over the past 10 years, I can understand this feeling. All those years facing Steve Spurrier we really wanted to beat Florida. We didn't want to win because of a trick play or because the Gators played horribly. Of course, we were willing to accept simply a "W," but even going into the 4th quarter with a lead we often felt like the Football gods would make sure the best man won.

If you can only win because your candidates talk like Republicans, or because of the perception that the Congress is more corrupt than it would be with a Dem majority, or that Democrats would be able to lower the price of gas, or that Dems would be less tolerant of pederasty-or-whatever than Republicans . . . then winning just isn't as gratifying.

There's a lot of time between now and Nov. 7th, and I would submit that even if control of Congress switches to the Democrat Party, the "paranoia" among thinking Dems won't go away.

Rep. Ford, can you elaborate?

In the on-going challenge that is discerning Congressman Ford, Jr.'s position on the issues . . . this comment from after the Memphis debate:

In a later interview, Ford says his biggest challenge is the image of the national Democratic Party.

No kidding. But then there's this whopper:

"There is a national perception of the Democratic Party that they are out of touch on moral and cultural issues," he says. "I think that perception is wrong, and clearly we are making progress in overcoming it."

I disagree that it is merely a perception problem (this statement was given to a Seattle newspaper, though), but perhaps the "a vote for Ford is a vote for Clinton, Kennedy and Schumer" message is getting traction.

Another reason to "Protect Marriage"

USA Today

(from yesterday) reports on the "marriage gap" between the two major political parties. Though "rates of marriage" is the measurement, it's more accurate to say "rates of what marriage represents:" subscription to traditional mores.

This is, shall we say, "rico"

The Left cannot help itself (or perhaps it's the Left's hand-maidens--Trial Lawyers). Just when some candidates hailing from the Liberal party are beginning to see traction on illegal immigration (either "do-nothing GOP" or "GOP-is-nativist" criticism) a group of illegal aliens is suing Wendy's after getting the pink slip.

Uh, whose fault is it that these illegal aliens are here?

I hope that Ford, Jr. and Dems across America will support this business in doing its little part in enforcing our immigration laws. I won't hold my breath.

Ford Jr.'s foxtrot on abortion

Wendi Thomas of the Commercial Appeal writes a withering op/ed about (here) Harold Ford, Jr.'s maneuvering on the subject of abortion, maneuvering which is delicate/painful/disingenuous, depending on your view of the subject. An excerpt:

The Ford camp is more than comfortable with the ambiguity, and in fact, the congressman is trying to capitalize on the confusion. He tells both sides what he thinks they want to hear, hoping the right and the left never get together to compare notes.

In this middle-of-the-road jig, Ford cannot afford to miss a step.

While I disagree with Ms. Thomas' one-sided characterization of the entire issue (e.g., instead of "If you think abortion should be outlawed . . .," she substitutes, "If you think that a woman should not be entrusted to make decisions about her body and her health and her future . . .") and while she relies on a limited record of Ford, Jr.'s varying positions on abortion, her "Pro-choice"/Democrat Party bias certainly lends credibility to her assessment of Ford, Jr.

Here's more on Ford, Jr.'s "pro-life"ness

Over-groping on Foley

I've believed--for a variety of reasons over the past several days, that the Mark Foley "scandal" had more potential to hurt or not help the Democrats than it did to benefit them. It's understandable that they would be tempted to overreach, but I just don't believe that, when push comes to shove, Americans will conclude that Democrats in Congress would be less tolerant of Foley's crap than would Republicans.

Well, here are excerpts from two excellent op/eds on the matter:
Jonah Goldberg at NRO writes,

Meanwhile, the only moral lapse that reliably and consistently offends all liberals collectively is hypocrisy. As Howard Dean declared on Meet the Press last year: “Everybody has ethical shortcomings. We ought not to lecture each other about our ethical shortcomings.” But he continued: “I will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy.” This is a remarkably convenient principle insofar as it can indict only people with actual principles.

Rich Lowry also at NRO writes,

It would be a welcome development indeed if the Foley flap prompted a bipartisan turn toward the values of sexual probity. It is sexual irresponsibility, in the form of out-of-wedlock childbearing, that is at the root of many of the country’s social ills. But it’s not to be. Foley will be wrung for partisan advantage and then forgotten, as the culture war rages on.

We'll see what voters conclude . . .

Protect marriage

Click here to learn more about the Tennessee Marriage Amendment that will be on the November ballot. I hope you'll vote to protect the natural, time-honored definition of marriage . . . hey, everybody's doing it!!!

Free-speech hating Left

Interesting footage and commentary (here) about a protest-in-lecture by Lefties at Columbia U. Grow up, folks.

Here's another example (this one at UTx) of the no-free-speech movement that I just came across.

Corker and Ford, Jr. differ on Stem Cell research

One big difference between candidates Bob Corker and Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. is on the issue of stem cell research. Ford, Jr. thinks it is fine to harvest stem cells from living human embryos . . . Corker thinks it is better to use adult stem cells for research and therapy. Not only is Corker's position more respectful of the sanctity of human life, it is more "respectful" of the scientific evidence.

Here's a great video on the subject entitled, "Stem Cell Research: Beyond Hype, Real Hope."

the Foley "affair"

There's a great post concerning the Mark Foley "affair" from RealClearPolitics. As the author notes,

The Democrats are in a bit of a bind. They want a lot of attention, but they do not want sustained focus. A battle of sound-bites serves their interests, and divides the GOP. Sustained focused attention has the possibility of patching over the wounds of the GOP and dividing the Democrats.

I'd change that phrase to say, "they do not want anything other than superficial attention to the matter" or something along those lines. Nevertheless, the article is rather insightful.

For the record, I do not want to be perceived as condoning ANY thing that Foley did or appears to have done. I know this will really irritate some of you, but I personally believe--to quote Josh McDowell, that the biggest sex organ a person has is his/her brain, so a person's sexual proclivities or interests--aside from the overtly natural or normal ones, are not "hard-wired." That being said, I believe a homosexual attraction is a sexual dysfunction and is problematic all by itself, so the fact that Foley may have been broaching traditional values (and probably the law) concerning sex and minors doesn't surprise me.

Spit_on_your_grave

The story yesterday about the man who purportedly had a grudge to settle, prepared for a seige, targeted girl students and killed at least five before killing himself makes my stomach hurt. I don't care about what happened to him 20 years ago, I don't care what emotional difficulties he might have been having lately, I frankly don't care about his wife's view that he appeared to be good father . . . this is despicable.

I urge you to pray for the children still struggling to live and for the families struggling to deal with loss of their loved ones.

Ford, Jr. is holier than thou

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Please don't endorse me" Part 2

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

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

The Clinton Rant

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

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

Rangel, Chavez and Lefty "charity"

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

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

Can y'all not endorse Corker?

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

Rangel "blasts" Chavez?

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

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

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

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

Beware of young Republicans of meager experience quoting posturing Democrats.

Cool site about 9/11 Comm. Report

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

Taking politics out of judicial selection . . .

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

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

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

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

Commercial Appeal digs up some treasure

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

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

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

Swift Vets "unsubstantiated" acc. to whom?

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

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

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

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

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

Oookay, Senator.

I agree; Clinton not distracted by Lewinsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bredesen's best legal option

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

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

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

Cross-posted at the JIMBrysonforgovernor Blog.

Again with the racial stereotyping . . .

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

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

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

Which party can you trust in war for our survival?

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

Full-court press by Clinton Legacy-handlers

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

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

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

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

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

If you only knew how "silly" . . .

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

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

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

Bush never claimed that Saddam had purchased yellowcake.

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

Targeting those Dems

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Evolving" into Democrats?

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

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

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

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

In love with life

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

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

Those racist Democratics

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

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

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

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