Dems and that sinking feeling (Part 3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Krauthammer on the non-tsunami

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

"The Sobering Truth"

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

Those crazy Dems taking it to the next level

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

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

You want a piece of this [party]?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrestling not with flesh and blood

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

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

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

The tsunami in perspective

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

By the Numbers... [Stephen Spruiell]

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

Diebold vindiecated!

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

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

Coburn: "bread and circus" governing philosophy failed

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

Excerpt:

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

post-election housekeeping

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

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

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

Nancy and those drapes

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

Clear conscience, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"First-monday-in-November surprise"?

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

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

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

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

Voting on Amendment 2

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

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

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

Don't get the wrong message about Haggard

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

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

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

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

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

. . . .

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

. . . .

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

(read the whole thing here)

Dems and that sinking feeling (Part 2)

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

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

Hat tip, The Corner.

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

Flat earth fodder

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

John F. Kerry is no JFK

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

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

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

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

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

The electronic voting thingies

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

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

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

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

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

Humorous, animated (redundant?) campaign ad

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

Serious suppression

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

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

Those crafty Dems . . .

Diefending Diebold

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

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

I guess Europeans don't care about black people

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

Early, often and for the children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Securing" votes

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

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

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

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

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

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

And isn't the French expression rich?

Taking Foley nationwide

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

Ford, Jr. not so "pro-life"

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

Uppity "lawyer"

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



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

Hat tip, Moore Thoughts.

Corker and Ford, Jr. on Iraq

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's "talk issues"

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

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

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

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

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

Ford, Jr's bull[] pulpit?

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

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

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

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

BS backlash (or double-edged BS)

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

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

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

I kinda wish Foley were on every ballot . . .

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

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

Youtube's impact on politics

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

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

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.