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.