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.