TRUSTed??

Senator Ted Cruz in his run to be the Republican presidential candidate has positioned himself as a sincere Washington outsider who wears his Christian faith not only on his sleeve, but across his chest too. He proclaims that he is a dedicated evangelical Christian by deep conviction and lives by its primary principals. His TRUSTed signs help him push his brand that as a practicing evangelical Christian he is trustworthy and upright. His approached served him well in Iowa, and likely play well in South Carolina.
In light of recent actions will his branding and his claims to be a committed evangelical Christian become the ground of his undoing? Evangelical Christians hold that professed faith is evidenced through one’s conduct and actions. While no one is expected to be flawless, Evangelicals hold one’s profession can be questioned if conduct consistently does not match faith statements.   

One of those primary Evangelical values is the that a person of faith must support one’s church financially. That financial support should be more than a token sum. Most Evangelicals expect that support to be a tithe, 10%, of all one’s income. It is commonly held that if one does not tithe then one’s faith is rightly to be questioned by the church’s leadership. A friend of mine says that he is now favoring another candidate because now Cruz's character has come into question in his mind.

The public has been learning that Cruz has not been financially supporting his church. His statement that he had not been financially supporting his church ring hallow amongst those of who have evangelical roots. Saying that he was building his family’s cash reserves and establishing a family trust is problematic for the vast majority of households in the church have income below Cruz’s and if they did the same as Cruz over 95% of churches would be closed for lack of funds.

Will the news that Cruz has not been financially supporting his church create tensions in the eyes of evangelical voters and cause them to question his profession of faith?  Or will Evangelicals rationalize it, giving him a pass on his lack of tithing even though such a pass would not normally be given to others in their church who seek to be viewed as leaders?

Then just as the Iowa caucus were starting the Cruz campaign spread a rumor that Ben Carson was withdrawing. The same messages instructed their caucus precinct chairs to inform caucus attendees, particularly Carson supporters, that if they supported Cruz attendees would be wasting their votes. Anecdotal reports from caucus Evangelical attendees indicates that that numerous people changed their votes on the news and enlarged Cruz’s win.

Carson had no such plans to withdraw. On Tuesday, the day after the Iowa caucus, Cruz stated it was an accidental error and not something intentionally constructed and pushed by his team. We are all aware that rumors on the lips of one or two can take flight, sometimes creating havoc and destroying lives. Cruz offered an apology to Carson, an apology that was accepted.

Unfortunately, subsequent evidence contradicts Cruz’s Tuesday statement. Copies and the breath of the voice mails, text messages and emails indicate that the messages were not only intentional but were spreading downright falsehoods. The inner circle of Cruz’s team was involved. While Carson accepted Cruz’s apology, he is rightly put out if the apology was offered on false ground. Will Evangelicals now see Cruz as a typical obfuscating calculating Washington insider doing whatever he needs to say and do to win, a scheming chameleon changing to fit the terrain?

Will the TRUSTed brand be start some to wonder if it is not a sign that Cruz is the opposite of the sign?

Surveyed About Republican Presidential Candidates

Last week I was surveyed by the National Republican Party. I found the survey interesting for asking for demographic information and party affiliation (independent) I was asked two questions about Hilary Clinton. No question was asked about other Democrat candidates. Both questions on Clinton related to my views as to her trustworthiness which suggests that they expect her to be the nominee and the the current planned primary focus for their attack ads.  

The survey than asked me to rank various current and anticipated Republican candidates on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "most definitely would support" and 10 being "most definitely would not support".

  

The following were all given a 10, most definitely would not support score…Cruz, Christie, Trump, Carson,  Fiorino, Graham, Huckabee, Jindal, Perry, Santorum, Walker. Interestingly I was not asked about Bush, but then again he has not yet to declare.

I also found it interesting that I was then asked why I ranked each of the above so poorly. Below was my response:

Jindal....a ideologue who has governed his own state poorly leaving his state in economic shambles. If he has brought harm to his state how can I trust him with a national office. May well be one of the first out.

Trump....I seem him as a self-promoting egotist who is serving as the comic relief, and who is exposing the depth of the ugly side of the Republican base. Whether he says outlandish things because that is what he believes or it is designed to draw attention to himself by garnering the attention of the press and thereby create public buzz makes little difference. The one is mean ugliness and the other suggests manipulation with little thoughtful policy substance. How much traction he will gain depends upon attention and the depth of the ugly side of the Republican base. He is the wild card who will either be gone quickly after the first primaries or be a long term player if he is willing to commit his own resources and keeps getting media attention.

Walker....his ethics are of the level Tricky Dick. A golden tongued divider who says whatever needs to be said to appeal to the crowd of the moment which has resulted in a plethora of statements on different sides of an issue. He has a history of discrepancies between what he says in campaigns to win votes and how he governs. His state which has often outperformed in the region has underperformed in the region. I do not trust him. Like Trump, he will be out early or be a major player...it all depends upon media buzz and financing.

Cruz....he is an aggressive divisive candidate who reminds me in many ways of Senator Joe McCathy. I don't trust him. He postures himself as the outsider but he is an insider who postures himself as an outsider. He will use dirty tricks much like Nixon. Many of his ideas and statements suggests that he is a Christian equivalent of a Khomeini-like character who with enough like-minded people in Congress would turn a secular religiously neutral nation into a evangelical Christian nation. 

Christie....he comes across as belligerent, demeaning and dismissive...not characteristics needed for a major leader on the national level. He has a history of signing agreements but soon after breaking them while claiming circumstances have now changed. For me he is not trustworthy. I don't think he will last long...possibly gone before or shortly after Iowa.

Carson and Fiorino...neither has experience in governing and working around government. It seems that they are in the race to promote their way into a higher profile position (cabinet or ambassador) or as an entry onto the lucrative conservative speaker circuit.

Huckabee....a talented speaker with well crafted soundbites that lack balanced thoughtful policy content. I disagree with his rewriting/interpretation of history.

Perry....repackaging and years posturing does not cover a deeply flawed and shallow candidate of yesteryear. He is likely to be one of the first to go.  

Santorum....too far out of the mainstream of the nation to have great traction in a national election. He rightly lost to Romney....he is even in a poorer position 4 yrs later. He has been out of the spotlight for years and out of influence. He may be in the race more out of ego and/or to posture himself for a cabinet or ambassador position. I don't think he will go much beyond Iowa if his finances get him that far.  

Graham...too narrow focused with highly hawkish views regarding gunboat diplomacy. He has a good head but narrow appeal.

If I was asked about Bush I would have said, he has to overcome the baggage of family and an exterior that seems to suggest a lack of passion. He has been out of the spotlight too long. Money will carry him deep, but will the country want a Bush III? I don't think it does. Will the party? 

Is the Republican Party About to Shift on Gay Marriage?

Evidently there is a growing pressure from local rank and file Republicans for the party and the leadership to stop opposing gay marriage. They argue that the issue distracts the party from dealing with more fundamental issues related to the economy and health care. They continue on to note that for the party to attract younger voters in larger numbers, they Republican party needs to formally change its position.

 

While nearly all of the nationally elected leaders and a large number of state leaders oppose gay marriage, while a growing majority of the upcoming leaders who are being elected to local offices are in favor of the party changing its position. Though the majority of Republicans over the age of 55 are against gay marriage, a majority of Republicans under the age of 30 are supportive of gay marriages.

 

Is a significant shift in the offing in a year or two?  Though some political observers suggest it is at hand within a year or two, I doubt that it will occur, at least not until at least two more presidential election cycles. I cannot foresee it has happening that quickly because of the evangelical and fundamentalist Christian wing of the party dominates the agenda, and Christians of that persuasion provide a significantly large portion of the party’s income.

 

The shift will occur as the dominance of the religious right declines, but it will not be for some time yet. Data going back into the early 80s signaled that the evangelical and fundamentalist churches were likely headed for decline in the first two decades of this century. Studies in the last decade have not only confirmed this but are indicating that the decline may become more rapid that anticipated two decades ago. There is also growing evidence that the more politically active the religious right has become, the more its sway and profile is before the public, the number of young people leaving evangelical and fundamentalist churches has grown. There seems to a correlation between the activism of the religious right and the lack of attraction for the younger generation.  

 

The power and influence of the religious right will decline over the next decade. Fewer election officials on the national level will feel beholding to the religious right for securing their election. It is then that the shift will occur. There will be much consternation within the religious right when the Republican party changes its position on gay marriage. And when it does, the religious right will face a conundrum, hold their noses while supporting the Republican on the ballet, or run a candidate of their own who is unlikely to win the seat, or not vote. While some will cease voting, running their own candidates in primaries will be first pursued by most. Eventually more and more will become engaged and support a candidate even if the candidate does not align with their views of marriage and the gay lifestyle. It will be a painful process but that is the price of being highly engaged in one party and pushing a narrow agenda.

 

Christians need to be involved in politics, allowing their faith to guide their thinking while speaking respectfully on a breath of issues, just as those of faith different than theirs should do, put forward their arguments in a cogent manner while recognizing that the government and society is not a branch of the church, or expected to do the bidding of the church. Expecting government to do the bidding of the church, or a theological brand of the church, it is unhealthy for the church, government and the nation.

 

When the distinction between faith and governance becomes enmeshed in politics, particularly so when heavily aligned with one party, the distinction between the secular and the sacred worlds are blurred but at risk of being erased, with candidates rejected on a narrow set of standards for not being “Christian” enough. Also, such political endeavors result in the church supporting government actions that are not only highly questionable but may well be contrary to the church’s proclaimed values and faith…which may partly account for far fewer under 30s attending conservative churches than their parents did in the 70s and early 80s.  

An Underlying Difference Between Portman and Salmon on Gay Marriage

While both Senator Rob Portman and Representative Matt Salmon have a gay son, each takes a different posture on the right of gays to marry. Understanding how each man’s view the issue and their sons differently helps one to understand why they differ.

In listening to his son and observing the son's life, Portman has concluded that his son is not emotionally ill and that the son is not socially dysfunctional or rebellious. He recognizes that as with many out of the closet gays, his son has and will endure ridicule and attacks, be shunned, looked down upon and ostracized, not something an emotionally balanced person one would seek to endure. Hence, he has concluded that his son is gay not by choice but by nature. One can well understand that right of gays to marry is a logical extension for Portman once he concluded that his son is gay by nature, that his son cannot help be attracted to and love with a person of the same gender.  

By contrast Salmon's position is simple and shaped by his religious beliefs. Though he loves his son, he cannot accept or approve of his son having sex with a man. For Solomon, being gay is a deliberate choice. Salmon holds that as God is just and that Scripture views gay sex as evil, a person cannot under any condition be viewed as gay by nature, for it would mean that God unjustly created a person with a nature for which he condemns them. While Salmon loves his son, for him the son’s sexual activity is a chosen yet unacceptable behavior, not part of the son’s nature. Tens of thousands of parents each year are faced with an adult child engaged in unacceptable non-criminal activities, such as, habitual lying, habitual and constant laziness, being irreligious, etc., but they like Salmon continue to love the child without accepting the sin. While not explicitly saying so, one can read between the lines, that for Salmon to embrace his son's lifestyle would be an act of denying what he professes as being his Christian faith.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/01/rep-matt-salmon-gay-son-hasnt-changed-my-views-on-gay-marriage/?wprss=rss_homepage

Possible Factors as to Why Romney Lost

On so many levels Mitt Romney should have won the popular vote for the presidency by at least a six point spread. Also, the Republicans should have picked up seats in the Senate and House. As noted in another posting, changes in House districts helped the Republicans retain control of the House. The election results were not encouraging for the Party.

This should have been a poor year for the Democrats. The economy was not strong. Seniors were concerned about the future of Social Security and Medicare. From a multitude of deep pocket donors giving tens of millions of dollars to the GOP PACs, the PACs were flush with cash to be used on television and radio ads, mailings, get out the vote initiatives. Combined, they could outspend the Democrats by at least 2 to 1. Also, on the campaign trail Obama was stiff and disengaged until the last five weeks. Obama’s overwhelmingly poor performance during the first debate should have sealed Obama’s defeat. So, why did not the Republicans gain seats and the presidency? Political pundits are pointing fingers and spinning their rationale, some insider pundits doing so more as a way to deflect blame from them or their allies.

With the cool passage of time with its dispassionate sifting process historians will be able to give a reasoned picture. Until then there will be a mixture of biased and balanced perspectivies. With no axe to grind, and only from my perspective as an independent, below I note factors that impacted me and several other independents I know in their decision making process:

· Voting for the Republican party is increasingly more difficult for independents. The Party's hard dogmatic uncompromising stances on an array of social and financial issues is moving them away from many independent voters. Contrary to the view that independants are right of center on social issues, poll after poll on social issues are more left of center while more right of center on the budget.  

 · The Republican campaigns, presidential and congressional races, were too focused upon the economy claiming Obama's handling of the economy was poor. That rationale lost traction as most voters recognized that Obama inherited an economy from Bush that was crashing. While was not stellar it was much better than the one he inherited. The Republican strategy did not take into account the perspective of the general public. Even more importantly, the economy improved and that unemployment fell in the year prior to the election. As the numbers improved, spinning that “we could have done better” did not gain traction as the Republican Party was saddled with the “obstructionist” baggage of hindering efforts to help improve the economy. 

· Romney has postured himself too far to the right on fiscal and social issues. In order to win the Republican nomination Romney had to posture himself well to the right and away from his earlier positions that were more moderate. Selecting Ryan as his running mate solidified his well right of center posture. Hence, efforts to be more a centrist in the general election was difficult. By pointing to earlier moderate positions made it seem like he was pandering...saying and doing whatever was needed to win the necessary votes. Thereby Romney come across as a man who lacked principals.

· The Democrats defined Romney in May and June as an elitist multimillionaire who is out of touch with the common citizens and lacks understanding of their concerns. The Republicans never adequately countered this definition process. Instead they saved their money for overwhelming the market with media buys in September and October...more is not better for after a certain saturation point people tune-out the ads (I tuned out).

· Along with the economic plank, Romney running a campaign as a referendum on Obama’s leadership did not provide adequate ground for proposing a policy-backed argument for credible change. Let's not unduly fault Romney for other primary candidates were doing the same. Romney and his primary running mates remained vague on too many policies. Policies that they fleshed out came across either as too thin and not well reasoned out or too extreme for the middle of the moderate voter. Romney in his campaign missed the opportunity to break from the past, to emphatically state that a host of Bush and Obama policies were failures, state why they failed and then give well a reasoned alternative.

· Romney’s 47 percent statement reinforced the image that Romney was a wealthy elitist disconnected from the common citizen. His statement reinforced May and June ads defining Romney as an out of touch person of wealth. The candidate’s initial response, that his point was “inelegantly stated” was not only feeble but suggested he believed what he stated to be true. As the campaign progressed voters still wondered if he understood them. In the last month of the campaign Obama played into this perspective by repeatedly stating that he stood squarely and firmly for the middle class. 

· For four years the Republican Party was overly focused upon “defeat” Obama. Blocking and criticizing initiatives as mnay of his efforts dominated the Party. When he pushed forward ideas that originated from Republican sources over the prior two to five years left informed independents with the impression that the Party was more interested in winning power than about improving the lot of the Country. Obstruction for the sake of obstruction came across at times as the “divine right to rule” attitude.

· The Republicans increasingly appear as a party of and for the financial elite. It appears to many Independant and moderate Democrat voters that the Republicans nominated a wealthy guy who looked and talked like a rich white male who was being funded by other rich white males to advance and protect their interests.

· Romney’s initial Benghazi statements were a huge mistake. They lacked the balance expected of a presidential candidate seeking to portray himself as ready for the office. He made judgements while most of the details remained unclear. Over the subsequent days efforts by surrogates to defend and justify his comments came across poorly as they were trying to defend a mistake.

· The Republican polling matrix and number crunching processes were so seriously faulty it left their  strategy flawed and their expectations surprisingly inflated.  

· The Republican ground game was poorly developed and managed. It lacked organization which did not reflect well on a candidate who postured himself as a great business manager who would bring his honed management skills to Washington. His "well experienced and skilled manager" argument sounded shallow as the campaign progressed and people started to sense his campaign was not well managed.

· Romney did not connect well with women. This is more of an issue influenced by the Party than the candidate. His past moderate views were lost in all that he had to say and embrace on the right to win the nomination.

· Lack of appeal to minority voters. He rarely campaigned in ethnic minority territory. His 47 per cent comment played into this issue as well. As noted in an earlier blog, this is not just a candidate issue as it is a wider Party issue.

· Republican efforts in various states to curtail early voting, hamper voter registration processes, ads and robo calls designed to depress minority turn-out as well as the implementation of voter identification laws appeared to be efforts to suppress the minority vote. Such efforts left the impression that the Party was mainly focused upon being a Party of and for whites. Rather than suppress the minority votes all these efforts energized the minority community to turn out at a higher rate than expected. The minority community stood in lines for long hours to speak clearlty that their voice will not be suppressed. The Republicans in heavy minority areas suffered.

· The Party's general stance against the bail-outs of the auto industry. Romney's op ed. arguing for the government to let the big three go into bankruptcy court, made him the face of the Party's common posture. He suffered because of such a stance, particularly when for the last two years GM, Ford and Chrysler were back to financial solvency, and with the federal budgeting gaining profits earned off that support.

Civil Discourse

Regardless of my agreement for or against the opinions Sandra Fluke expressed before Congress, no woman who sits before Congress or any other body of our elected representatives to express her opinions should be demeaned or demonized for doing so. To demonize or demean a private individual for expressing their views in a civil manner devalues the constitutional right for all to express our views in a civil manner. To viciously attack such a person, regardless of their opinion, serves as an effort to silence that person or others for speaking views with which others may disagree strongly.

Let us take stock of our character in our dealing with those who differ from us, who express views that are well removed from our own. If we seek to silence views contrary to ours we are functionally saying two things. First, it says our views are not strong enough to withstand critiquing and the expression of contrary views, a sad commentary on our views. Second, it says that this nation is not strong enough to withstand vigorous debate and the exchanging of viewpoints, a sad commentary on the state of the nation and our support of free speech.

Yesterday and today I have heard statements that the withdrawal of advertisers from buying ads on Rush Limbaugh’s shows is an effort to silence him and is an attack on free speech. To frame the issue in such terms is fallacious. The issue is what is appropriate language and imagery to describe a young woman or any woman on the public airwaves.

If Fluke had used derogatory demeaning statements before Congress, we the public would have the right to criticize her for doing so, for being disrespectful of the institution and its citizens. Limbaugh, like Fluke, has a right to express his opinion. Sticking to the issue, critique the ideas she ventured and her reasoning is most appropriate. It is another thing to belittle her in such a disrespectful demeaning manner, particularly of a non-public figure.

Would I want my wife, mother, sister, daughter (if I had one), or a future grand-daughter, or my colleagues at work, demeaned and demonized for expressing their opinions? Absolutely not! The public is speaking soundly and rightly that calling her what she was called is inappropriate and should not be part of civil discourse. The attacks upon Limbaugh are about his language and civil discourse. It is that simple.

Though he is a significant voice in the party, Limbaugh is not the Republican Party. That said, what is most regrettable is presidential candidates and many other chief party officials muted and watered down comments. Their statements come across as pandering to the public, to say something without offending Limbaugh which only reinforces that impression that he is the high priest of the Republican Party who like a grand shaman must not be offended least he call down upon you ill or even worse, political death…and no person should ever have such power in our political system. That said, the general public is speaking and to its detriment the Republicans have lost the high ground on this issue.

Virginia Primary and Newt Gingrich

For the Republican Virginia primaries there will be only two candidates on the ballet, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Santorum, Bachmann, Perry and Gingrich did not qualify by the mid December deadline. The rules are that each candidate must have 10,000 signatures of registered voters, with a minimum of 400 from each county in the Commonwealth.

Gingrich has called the qualification standards as archaic and inappropriate. Rick Perry and his team have suggested the same. Their key supporters also blame the holiday season that the cause for their failure to garner the necessary support. Yes the deadline was during the holiday season, but that means that there are more people out in the malls in greater mass than during any other time of the year. Further, the candidates do not have a narrow window to gather the signatures, they had nearly 6 months to gather then necessary signatures.

The candidates, who are running to be the chief executive of the US government, fell short because they give attention to organizing a simple team to focus on gathering the necessary number. The failure points to the candidate’s lack of attention to detail, planning and organization. For a person who is claiming to have the skills to be President, how hard is it to have a few people assigned to gather at least 500 signatures from each County?

I suspect that another factor is at play for some of those who fell short. They simply did not believe that they would be in the race that long. If this was part of Santorum’s thinking, he no doubt is regretting that decision.

Gingrich entered the race he knew he would not win the nomination as he has too much baggage. Is it possible that he entered the race as a way to market his books, movies and himself as a “consultant”, commentator and conference speaker? Over the years Gingrich has made millions of dollars from these activities but if his profile in the wider community was starting to wane, which may well have been doing, what better way than to raise your profile than to run a token campaign for ten to twelve months.

Is it also possible that he entered the race to position himself to be the ambassador to the Court of St. James or Rome? There are some who have known him well for years who see his candidacy in this light.

Value Voter Conundrum

The Republican primary race has been most interesting to observe as candidate after candidate postures themselves to court and please evangelical and tea-party voters. Given Mitt Romney is a Mormon and Mormonism is considered a cult and heresy, the evangelical Christians, and many tea-party members are facing a challenge as to which Republican candidate to support. I wish it were otherwise, but a canadate's religion still impacts a canadate's acceptability.

A series of non-Romney candidates have risen and then fallen. No doubt many statements are pandering in nature rather than firmly held core values. While the challenge is to keep from being fooled by shallow emotional appeals or false statements of piety, when “value voters” stress and emphasis religious piety, the typical chameleon politician will put on that mask.

Early flag bearers have been found lacking the necessary skills and balance to be President. Some have uttered views that sound right but lack an ability to argue their way out of a paper bag. Two who have balance and thoughtful positions are not considered as they lack the dynamism of an evangelical preacher that value voters prefer.

The latest non-Romney hope, Newt Gingrich and thrice married serial adulterer, is presenting a conundrum for the value voters who hold the sanctity of marriage so high, and living out those values tend to see it as one of the bedrock elements. Twelve years ago value voters and evangelical Christians lambasted Clinton, then called for his impeachment over the matter of being an adulterer. Clinton the example of what many evangelical preachers encourage from their congregants in such situations, the Clintons worked through matters and remained married, and Bill Clinton changed his life.

Gingrich is not only twice divorced but the manner in which he announced the end of his marriage to his two wives is highly troubling. Further troubling is that Gingrich’s first wife and children had to turn to their church for financial support for a period when he did not provide child support. Value voters are troubled further in that not providing child support goes to essential character and fathers not fulfilling financial obligation to their children is another major issue with value voters.

There is little doubt about Gingrich’s golden tongue. As one of the fathers of the current political climate of winning at all costs he put that tongue and his disarming smile to use in spinning things that sound thoughtful and intellectual. Gingrich is skilled in positioning himself to be highly appealing to Value Voters. But Value Voters are left wondering if what they are hearing is well contrived spin designed to seduce them.

Hence, these same voters find themselves in a box, they want to support Geingrich but doing so goes contrary to what they have argued in the past as being bedrock values.

For a host of reasons Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Adams were wise in noting that we must be take care not to align our faith with our religion.

At the end of the day, I hope that the Republicans will give the nation a viable choice. Unfortunately, I do not see much of the current slate of current or former front runners as a solid candidate worthy of my consideration.

Congress Has Different Rules. A Threat To Federal Funding of Faith-based Organizations

The shutdown of the US federal government is just hours away. Posturing and finger pointing abound. What has come out is that while the government would shut down, and as essential workers and the military remain on duty without being paid, Congress will remain fully staffed and paid. What gives?


Not very congressional aid is an “essential worker” who is necessary to remain on the job. The congressional aids, the researchers, the secretaries and handlers are not essential to the protection of the public safety and national security as are the military, air traffic controllers, customs and border patrol, FBI agents, etc.

Why are congressional aids being furloughed without pay like the rest of the federal workforce? I believe that there is clue to the answer in what is happening with congressional payroll during a shutdown. While soldiers fight in battle without pay, while boarder guards and FBI will continue on duty buy not paid, Congress and their staff will continue to be paid. Congress likes to beat their chests that they are ordinary average Americans but how they rule tells a different story. Congress sees themselves as living by a different set of rules than average Americans. Their offices will remain fully staffed. Members of the Senate, the House and their staff will not have their paychecks interrupted.

I have also followed with interest the fight over the funding of Planned Parenthood. Republicans argue that taxpayers should not be funding abortions and therefore no federal funding of Planned Parenthood should occur. Democrats on the other hand that the Hyde Amendment prohibits taxpayer funding to fund abortions and requires that federal funds must be used for other services such as birth control and cancer screenings. Republicans counter that the funds get comingled, that by allocating funds to be used for those other services frees up general funds from other sources to be allocated abortion and thereby in a sense, regardless of the Hyde Amendment, taxpayers are paying for abortions. A large number of evangelical Christians and conservatives say amen to the Republican reasoning.

My purpose here is not to argue for or against federal funding of Planned Parenthood but rather to deal with the heart of the comingling argument. The old adage, be careful about what you wish for, is applicable here. Many of those who are using the above argument to not fund Planned Parenthood are supporters of taxpayer funds going to faith-based organizations to run feeding programs, shelters, after-school programs, at risk youth recreation programs, daycares, drug treatment programs, etc. Through various programs taxpayer funds flows to such faith-based programs. The organization is not allowed to use the funds to pay for religious activities, for furniture and utilities used in worship space. Accounting processes are well established to establish that taxpayer funds are not used for religious purposes. The Planned Parenthood comingling argument is equally applicable to taxpayer funding going to valued social programs run by faith-based organizations and churches.


Hence, those who are using the current rationale to argue against federal funding of Planned Parenthood by using the comingling and indestinguishing argument are using an argument for government funding in all forms, whether those funds be federal, state or local, going to social programs provided by faith-based organizations. The religious activity, space and salaries of religious officials are in the same budget, thereby comingled with taxpayer funds, and federal funds therefore only result in freeing up funds to be use for religious activities and salaries. The conservatives may win the Planned Parent battle but in the years to come government officials and courts will apply the same rationale to prohibit funding going to faith-based organizations.

A Shortcoming With the American Political Process

With “exploratory committees” being formed by various Republicans, the next presidential political cycle has been underway for at least six months. Today President Obama official announced that he will be running for re-election.


While Obama is governing for the most part from the political center, over the coming year various Republicans will describe him, and thereby the center, as extreme. For the most part Obama is progressive/liberal, but he is not a progressive/liberal wingnut. Unlike he predecessor who was a dogmatic ideologue, Obama is as a pragmatist who is leading from the center to just left of center and is working to coalitions. Unlike his predecessor who was more of an imperialist president than the arrogant power flaunting imperialist Nixon, Obama’s presidency is in keeping with the traditional presidents who hold a traditional view of the Constitution and the Constitution’s definition of congressional powers.


While Obama is governing from the center it will be proclaimed by the Republican presidential candidates and leadership that he is an extremist liberal. Though he is no such thing, he will appear to be that way because the Republican party has moved so far to the right and are arguing against views that were held by Republican presidents Eisenhower and Regan. When there are two parties, and only two parties, one or both can move over time to the extreme. One of the greatest shortcomings of the American political system is that it lacks a good national third party. When there is a viable third party the other two parties have to remain towards the center.

Is A Tipping Point At Hand?

In these past weeks the State of Maryland has been moving closer to passing a bill to permit gay marriage. While some Democrats are opposed, the majority of the opposition is coming from Republicans and the right wing of the Christian church. The Republicans are stanchly set against gay marriage with three out of four Republicans against gay marriage and gay rights in general. This is not surprising given that the heart of their base is made up of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians. Hence, the party has pushed for the establishment of and passed the “Defense of Marriage Act.” Only a token few Republicans on Capitol Hill supported the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Being against gay marriage was also a "winning issue" for Republicans. In 1996 27% of American voters were supportive of same-sex marriage and it seemed that gay marriage would not occur for more than fifty years. But any observer looking at demographics trending could readily foresee that gay marriage would be supported by the majority of Americans sometime around 2019-2023. Back then over 85% of those over 60 years of age opposed gay marriage whereas 75% of those under of 25 years of age were supportive of same-sex marriage. Those who were in their 40s and 50s were against it, but only by about ten points. What was evident was that as the oldest cohort of voters passed way and were replaced by a younger cohort, a rapid shift was only be a matter of time and those who supported it would occur sometime around 2020.
By 2009 support had grown to 37%. This 10% increase was primarily due to passing of older cohorts who are against it and being replaced by a younger generation. The results two years still pointed that the 50-50 point would be reached around the end of this decade.

A week ago the Pew Research Center released survey results that indicate that the opinions are undergoing a more rapid change and that the 50-50 point could happen by 2014. The latest survey indicates that 46% of voters are supportive of gay marriage. Going from 37 to 46% is a dramatic shift over a two year period. It indicates that the debates in the public square are causing those in their mid 40s to early 60s to re-evaluate their opinions. More and more middle aged Americans are coming to the conclusion that they do not agree with the rationale put forth from those who are most vigorous in their opposition to gay marriage. An increasing number of people are concluding that gay marriage will not and does not diminish hetero-sexual marriage any more than interracial marriages (same arguments on interracial marriages were used in the 50s and 60s to defend interracial marriage prohibitions).

With the tipping point rapidly approaching it will be only a matter of four to five years after that that states legislatures will come under growing pressure to change their laws. Once the tipping point is reached it will quickly rise to the 60% marck. No longer will anti-gay marriage support be a "winning issue" for Republicans. The rapid approach of the tipping point also indicates that any other group that relies upon the public’s good will for its strength and who is strongly opposed to gay marriage will find themselves part of diminishing minority and with fewer supporters to their party or cause.

Public Education Is Not A Republican Priority

Falling housing prices, lower tax revenues are forcing state, local governments and school boards to cut expenses. Towns are turning off the neighborhood street lights, closing pools, playgrounds, parks, and libraries, limiting the distance a police car can drive in a day or sit idling. Fire stations are being closed, or rotating fire department station closing from day to day which Philadelphia is doing (three different stations in the day and three in the evening). Roads badly needing repaving are not only not being repaved, but towns and counties are taking the cheaper option of removing the asphalt and turning the road back into a low cost maintenance gravel road.

With schools across the country opening this month, 116,000+ teachers who were in the classroom last year have been told that their positions were eliminated as if there were not funding. Today the Democrats House of Representatives with the support of a handful of Republicans passed a bill which the President signed three hours later to save teachers jobs.

The same bill provides four months of Medicaid expenses for medical expenses of those who are low-income and the unemployed. States would be funding Medicaid without federal funding but in the process states would be laying off tens of thousands of fire fighters and police officers. The funding allows States to provide medical care without laying-off public safety personnel.

It would seem that the bill would have strong Republican support. Instead the Republican leadership said keeping teachers employed was a waste of money. One Republican leader pontificated that schools, local and state governments have been blotted for decades and it is time to downsize them all and thereby once again demonstrating that the Republican championing that they are compassionate conservatives is disingenuous and empty marketing. The Republicans politicians and their dominant deep pocket contributors are more than happy to substantially increase public school class sizes while sending their own children to private schools. For a party that boasts to be the party of Lincoln, this position is a far cry from where Lincoln stood on education...though he was self educated he advocated for a strong public education system for all citizens.

To keep police on the street, the majority of the Republicans in the House would have been happier to remove the expectation that States are required to fund Medicare and care for their poor citizens so are not concerned about healthcare of the common worker.

The costs of the bill are being paid by closing loop-holes that have allowed American based companies not to have to pay taxes on money earned oversees which the average citizen is not allowed to do and which have encouraged them to move jobs to other countries. By calling this bill a wasteful special interest bill the Republicans are indicating that they lack of interest in the needs and priorities of the middle class.

I am one independent voter who is quickly seeing that the Republican Party party is not fit to govern, that regardless of what their slogans and soundbits may claim, they lacks compassion for the blight of the avearage citizen and undermining the value and strength of the middle class.

Co-opting of Language

The primary meaning of a word can evolve over decades so that a primary definition in one age becomes a secondary in another with a new primary understanding. An example of that is “faggot”, a word that transitioned in the 1950s and 60s to have a new primary meaning and then transition out from common communication in the 1990s. The word’s historical meaning referred to small branches and sticks that one gathered to start or keep a fire going. By the mid 60s the word was used as a derogatory term to refer to a person who was gay. Due to its derogatory nature, it moved out of polite conversation and then out of acceptable conversation in the 1990s and today is rarely used.

In the past year I have become increasingly concerned about the co-opting of a word in such a manner that the word itself is in the process of being redefined in the United States. The word is, “patriot,” which is a word that means one who loves, supports and defends one’s country. The word is being co-opted by the right wing of the conservative movement in such a way that it is implied, and sometimes outright stated, that if you do not agree with their view that you are not a patriot. In other words, if you do not agree with their social and political agenda then you may well be a traitor.

One’s passion for one’s country can take various expressions. In the United States democratic processes and freedom of expression are highly valued. People are encouraged to debate, to disagree passionately with each other in a civil manner as it helps strengthen ideas, allow its citizens to arrive at a more informed decision, and in the process build a better society and nation. Accepting and encouraging widely differing perspectives, and all points in between, are not only welcome but are the safeguards against tyranny of a single viewpoint and the expectation that all will adhere to that one viewpoint such as is found in tyrannical monarchies and dictatorships.

A person who is far removed from my social and political viewpoint can be just as patriotic as those who agree with me. Though opinions differ, through the exchange and debating of ideas, each of us is ardently fighting in a civil manner to build a better and stronger nation. Hence, my alarm over the co-opting of “patriot” by a political movement that implies by the use of “patriot” that only they are correct and those who disagree with them do not love, support and defend their country. The co-opting of the term brings subtle and not so subtle pressure to conform to that movement’s point of view. The co-opting of the term and its ongoing association with a narrow set of political ideas means that in the coming years, and for the coming generations patriot will no longer mean being a lover, supporter and defender of one’s country but as one who holds a defined set of political doctrines. If we were all to be patriots in keeping with how the term is being used and its implied meaning, the United States will have moved towards the tyranny of a single mindset which the nation rebelled against in 1776.

He Who Controls the Megaphone

Two weeks ago the US Supreme Court tossed out the limits on what can be contributed by individuals or companies to politicians and political action committees. The court also tossed out what individuals or political action committees are able to spend on political advocacy advertisements in the weeks before an election.

The Court’s 5-4 majority position is that contribution limits hinder free speech, stifle dialogue and hinder the election process. These wise judges on the Court dismiss the idea that money can influence elections. They do agree that a small group who can control the megaphone, outshout their opponents and can pour money into slick messaging will overpower the message and arguments of their opponents and in the process determine who will be in power.

Essentially their position is that minor parties who have tried to get candidates elected have not been successful because the messages of these candidates have not had any traction. Lack of access to the public forum has little to do with their lack of success.

American and world history is replete with examples of the powerful installing elected officials into office and having them function more or less as their puppets. Over the centuries various despots have learned that he who is able to control the mass communication process will control the masses. The Iranian government fully understands this principle as it used the mass communication system over and over again to limit the extent and then to quell the protests over the election process.

Over the last 13 Presidential elections since 1960 the Republicans have won seven times. Over the last 9 Presidential elections the Republicans have won five times. Rarely has 58% or more of the House or Senate been in the hands of one party. If the Court is correct there will not be a significant shift in this pattern over the next ten to fifteen years. On the other hand if critics of the Court's ruling are correct, out ten years there will be fewer Democratic victories in races for the House, Senate and White House with well healed corporations and the wealthy pouring money into candidates of their choice, most likely Republican races. Increasingly Democrats will sound like current Republicans and more Republicans will start to sound like Forbs 500 executives. The end result is that America could move towards having the trapings of a democracy with elected officials functioning as an extension of an oligarchy.

The theory that he who controls the megaphone controls the election results is about to be tested.

Mike Huckabee

Lest anyone think otherwise, Mike Huckabee will be running for President in 2012. He has his own show on Fox News that will expose him to the general population who are open to voting for a Republican candidate. In three years his campaign staff will be using the demographics of the show and its appeal to substantiate their argument that Huckabee will win over the middle undecided voter. Of course once he announces that he is a candidate he will have to give up the show, but it will have served his purpose of keeping him highly visible and broadening his appeal.

On Friday I received a taped telephone call from Huckabee. It was a robo survey on abortion. Each question was carefully crafted to elicit a “yes” response. If you tried to respond with a response other than “yes” or “no” the recording informed you to answer yes or no to the question. The results of the survey will be used to identify four groups of people: a) those who are clearly on their side, b) those that are open to their message that through future surveys could readily become Huckabee supporters, c) those that will need cultivation but still could become Huckabee supporters and d) those that are not worth their marketing efforts.

Though many things bother me about the survey, one of the main things that bothers me is the simplistic thinking that stands behind a yes and no only option. Such thinking is dangerous as it ends up distorting complicated issues, misrepresents issues and vilifies opponents….which is the mindset of George W Bush, Chaney and Rove, and what the Republican party and the nation does not need in a candidate.

Why the Christian Right Detests Barak Obama

An article by J. Matt Barber entitled “The Gods of Liberalism” on a Republican website represents the mindset that is held by a large number of Fundamentalists and Evangelicals and explains why supporting most Democratic officeholders. To do so is an anathema as it would be the equivalent of idolatry.

Following in red are quotes from Barber’s article, followed by an observation:

Modern-day liberals – or "progressives" as they more discreetly prefer – labor under an awkward misconception; namely, that there is anything remotely "progressive" about the fundamental canons of their blind, secular-humanist faith. Holding humanism is a religion is a typical Fundamentalist and Evangelical mindset. Barber’s dismissive stance of humanism is prototypical of the Christian right. It affirms the dignity of each human being and that humanity needs to work together in a cooperative manner to seek truth. Though humanism does not accept the existence of supernatural, it does accept that there are profound truths and inspirational stories in religious literature.

In fact, today's liberalism is largely a sanitized retread of an antiquated mythology – one that significantly predates the only truly progressive movement: biblical Christianity. Barber takes the view that Christianity has a superior point of few not just on issues of faith but at every point. His dismissive position holds that Christians can learn little from other belief systems and philosophies. Some adherents of his position hold that Humanists and other faiths are demonic. Such an argument is undermined by a host of examples where the Christianity over the centuries has held widely divergent views, has been blatantly and egregious wrong while affirming that it was correct in its position, and has been deeply involved in committing atrocities in the name of God, or has looked the other way while atrocity was being committed. Those who hold such views steadfastly hold that the invasion of Iraq and torture of prisoners and life-time detainment of “enemy combatants” are righteous acts.

Baal worship….its present-day progeny: liberalism. Barber clearly holds that liberal thinking is the same as Baal worship. In a sermon comparisons like those that follow sound good and true but a critical thinker realizes the comparisons are superficial.

Baal, the half-bull, half-man god of fertility, was the focal point of pagan idolatry in Semitic Israel until God revealed His monotheistic nature to Judaism's forebears…..The principal pillars of Baalism were child sacrifice, sexual immorality (both heterosexual and homosexual) and pantheism (reverence of creation over the Creator)……congregants – men and women alike – would engage in bisexual orgies. The ritual of convenience was intended to produce economic prosperity by prompting Baal to bring rain for the fertility of "mother earth." Barber overlooks that in the Bible a baby is the womb is not deemed to be a child and as having rights until it is born. The argument of the fetus having legal standing and rights that trump the legal standing and rights of all others is a legal argument that has emerged only in the last century. I have been puzzled why the Christian right has been so resistant to clean water and air, efforts to protect and maintain a healthy animal world, and protecting the environment. Though I think they are grossly wrong, viewing environmentalism as pantheism helps me to end my puzzlement.

The worship of "fertility" has been replaced with worship of "reproductive freedom" or "choice." Child sacrifice via burnt offering has been updated, ever so slightly, to become child sacrifice by way of abortion. The ritualistic promotion, practice and celebration of both heterosexual and homosexual immorality and promiscuity have been carefully whitewashed – yet wholeheartedly embraced – by the cults of radical feminism, militant "gay rights" and "comprehensive sex education." And the pantheistic worship of "mother earth" has been substituted – in name only – for radical environmentalism. Barber has oversimplified Canaanite and other ancient religions and their annual fertility rights. Child sacrifice was not as dominant an element as Barber makes it out to be. What Barber overlooks is that the Israelite sacrificial system was similar, albeit simplified, to the Baal sacrificial system.

In these postmodern times, we've also been graced, regrettably, by the advent of counter-biblical "emergent Christianity" or "quasi-Christianity," as I prefer to call it. The emergent church is much more conservative than the mainstream and Catholic churches. Hence, evangelicals like Barber view the bulk of the Church (those are not Fundamentalists or Evangelical) are false Christians.

Emergent Christianity fails the authenticity test whenever subjected to even the most perfunctory biblical scrutiny…. It's not a matter of right versus left; it's a matter of right versus wrong – of biblical versus non-biblical. Here it is clear that the emergent churches are not authentic Christians. If they are not authentic, then there is little hope for the mainstream churches.

The gods of liberalism have a new high priest in Barack Obama. With such viewpoints we can understand why many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists describe Obama in anti-Christ language.

The post is not from a religious site. Barber's article is found on "Renew America", a Republican political web site that commingles politics with conservative Protestant Christianity. It is articles such a Barber's that provides the basis for secular liberals and liberal Christians to believe that if the evangelical church had its way it would transform the United States into a conservative evangelical state, and have America become the Christian equivalent of Iran or worse, the Christian equivalent of Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Obama Is To Blame

Strong partisanship is dangerous as it creates extremes and limits the possibility of balanced policy for the good of all. On Sept 10 2008 on Hannity and Combs, Sean Hannity a Republican apologist trashed a guest for suggesting the economy was in dire straits. He declared “this is garbage you are spewing.” Hannity went on to say that the economy was not only fine but that very healthy and that the guest is an Obama agent a charge which the man denied. Hannity all but screamed, “You have to convince the economy is in bad shape….it’s all based on a lie.”

In these last weeks Sean Hannity has joined Rush Limbaugh, the self proclaimed guardian of righteous thought, in blaming President-elect Obama for the failing economy. Both are beating their chests calling what we are experiencing the “Obama recession.” Limbaugh on the radio stated, “This is the Obama recession. Might turn into a depression. He hasn’t done anything yet. But his ideas are killing the economy.” Dick Morris has joined them by arguing that as long as the tax increases are on capital gains are on the horizon, people will be pulling their money out of stocks.

Morris is held to be a thoughtful balanced analysis, but he is far from being balanced. One must never forget that Morris is a strong Republican who is making hundreds of thousands a year with his unbalanced commentary. On the surface Morris’ comments sounds plausible until one does the math. What Morris is saying is that people are selling their stocks rather than pay a higher rate of capital gains tax, and are doing so even if they take a lost on those stocks or have less net income.

Morris, Limbaugh and Hannity are arguing that thousands of people who had stocks worth $10,000 in the summer started to quickly sell them in September to present for $7,000 because they did not want to pay more in taxes. Let’s do the math, a person who had a net profit before taxes in the summer of say $3,500 profit in October was willing to sell and take a profit of $500 rather at a higher rate, say of 28% versus 15%. Amazingly this triumphant are actually suggesting people are willing to have less money than to more income. It makes no sense to me, and as they say in court, if it makes no sense it is not true.

Morris, Limbaugh and Hannity are absolving Bush and the Republicans of blame. They are blaming the world’s financial markets melting down not because of bad lending practices, poor retail sales, falling housing prices, declining production and layoffs, but because investors fear Obama’s tax and health care policies. These men represent one of the major problems with the right wing of Republican Party, denying reality when it does not match their ideology.

The genius of great political leaders and thinkers like Washington, Lincoln as well as Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt is rooted in their capacity to grow, a willingness to change their mind in light of new information and their avoidance of becoming slaves to ideologies. They had their partisan views, but they were realists. They were willing to change their thinking and modify their models and ideology in light of new information and what was happening around them. Many Republicans, including this trio, are blaming the lost of the White House, Senate and House upon the Republican party running candidates who were not dogmatic and conservative enough rather than upon a lack of great leaders and thinkers with balanced policies.

Hopefully Republicans will not listen and follow these three men who are far short of the genius of the thinkers the party needs. The nation needs a credible pragmatic Republican party that is not fixated upon holding firmly to failed ideologies. Unfortunately the early signs are that the dogmatic extreme of the party are increasingly guiding the direction of the party.

American Political Right Wing

Over the years I have not voted for a single political party. While in Canada I voted for mainly for the Conservatives and Liberals, twice in provincial elections I voted for the NDP candidate. Since becoming an American citizen I have voted for Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Until recently I have had a hard time understanding the extreme political right’s cries against big government and their labeling Obama as a Marist. One quote by Fred Barnes, one of the key piece to help me understand the right wing of the Republican party.

In the days going into the election Barnes wrote, “Elections are government undertakings, so they are not expected to be well run…” The extreme right holds that anything that government is involved in will run poorly, be ineffective and doomed to failure. Hence, they reflect what Chuck Norris’ view of the Constitution that a President who takes the Constitution seriously will “limit the powers of the federal government, reduce takes (for everyone), encourage the freedom of religion and expression (even in the public square) and stand up for such things as our right to bear arms.”

The other day I listened to Sean Hannity, one of the American right’s talking heads and personalities rail against big government and socialism. He holds that the government should only be involved in running the military, justice system and immigration, and other activities that protect the country and citizenry from foreign influences and invasion, and crimes against individuals and property. The government should not be involved in education, agriculture, health care, transportation, building of infrastructure, regulation of trade or industry. This hands off view is what stands behind Norris’ view.

Joseph Farah, and right wing extremist has recently said in a commentary on education stated, “Government schools cannot be reformed. They must be overthrown. I don't mean burned down. I mean abandoned – left behind, deserted, forsaken. The day conservatives are radicalized is the day the government indoctrination centers, the child-abuse detention camps and this corrupt, immoral system of mind control implode of their own dead weight.”

Barbara Simpson another writer on the far right recently wrote, “It's clear Marxism will permeate Obama's presidency.” Prior to that statement she wrote, “I don't want Marxism in my country….I don't want bigger, more expensive and intrusive government.”

These writers and their followers hold that every person has the opportunity to become wealthy and that they will achieve it if they fight hard enough for it. They are against income tax and would agree with Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Fields that income tax will inevitably lead to Marxism. As an aside, also standing behind their views is the view point that government has no role to play in defining workplace conditions or hours.

The far right Republicans freely cry out against various policies that are not in line with their thinking by liberally using the terms Marxism and Socialism. They use these terms to describe their detractors and Democrats, even though the positions of Obama and the Democrats are far removed from what they are charging (to be examined in an upcoming blog). I regret they have an overwhelming fear created by the prism and paradigm through which they view civil discourse and discussion. That said, in America, civil discourse and the freedom of expression allows for their voices to be expressed in the public square.

Republicans Know What Tuesday Holds

Regardless of the polls Republican talking heads speak of Republicans winning a host of Senate races and the presidential race on Tuesday. This morning Davis, McCain's campaign director affirmed on national television that McCain/Palin would win. They claim that the polls are biased to the Democrats and that their internal data gives a different picture.

Do the behaviors and decisions being made does not match the verbal statements? The evidence indicates that Davis and other Repubican apologists are not sharing true picture. For over a week Republicans have been in-fighting pointing blame for the poor results to various individuals. In the dying days of America's national election where the presidential and vice-presidential candidates travel indicates their own internal reading of the results. What they are saying in these last hours on the trail and the last minute ads speak volumes.

When Obama’s team increases commercial buys in Arizona, McCain’s home state, McCain is in trouble. When Obama spends his last four days focused upon states that voted for Bush in the last elections, that is an indication the Republicans are losing. Obama/Biden are not running around shoring up their base and ground they traditionally win. Besides visiting swing states like Ohio and Florida in the last five days, McCain and Palin are making campaign stops in Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina, three states that have been Republican strong holds. When the Republicans start pouring resources into Virginia with a week to go, a state that has not supported a Democrat presidential candidate since 1964, there is great concern. The same is happening in Indiana and North Carolina.

McCain's message has changed in these last days. He is asking for voters to vote for him by arguing that if he does now win the Democrats will control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. That message is a sign that across the board the Republican party are headed for difficult and disappointing night. McCain’s argument is founded upon strong indications that after this election the Democrats will have a much stronger majority in the House and Senate.

Interestingly, the Republican National Committee is running ads using a similar message in an effort to support their Senate candidates. The RNC ads plead for voters to vote for their Senator since Democrats will be controlling both the White House and the House or Representatives.

In Organ the RNC’s ad says "Sending Jeff Merkley to the U.S. Senate could give one party a blank check … Especially in this economy, Oregon needs an independent voice in the U.S. Senate." Polls are indicating that Democrat challenger Merkley may defeat incumbent Senator Gordon Smith.

In North Carolina, Senator Elizabeth Dole is at such severe risk of losing to Kay Hagan that Dole has run some of the nastiest ads this year. The RNC has jumped in to help support Senator Dole with an ad, "Who's the Senate race really about? Hagan or Dole? Neither one. It's about liberals in Washington. They want complete control of the government … The left wants 60 votes in the Senate." Though the Republicans use the traditional “liberal” attack, the problem for Dole and the RNC is that politically Hagan is very much a middle of the road. Similar ads are being run by the RNC where incombent Senators are at risk.

While McCain is admitting that the Senate and House are lost, the RNC is admitting that the White House and House of Representatives are going to the Democrats. The "vote for me because my party is going down in flames" messages are very telling, particularly in a party that has historically valued party loyalty. When a party that puts a premium on loyalty starts to use these messages and openly finger point, its days of glory are coming to an end.

Far too many Republicans have held that they have the divine right to rule. This view is somewhat grounded in the religious right that assumes it has all the right answers, that one cannot be a Democrat and true Christian, and God’s will is for them to rule America. When Clinton won the White House the religious right was so angry and bitter because his election put into question their viewpoint on ruling.

The nation needs a well balanced Republican party, a party that is not controlled by the right wing. The over dominance of the right wing has not been good for the party or the country. Hopefully they will go through a much needed soul searching in the coming weeks and months that will drive them toward being much more toward the center. Hopefully they repeat what they did following Clinton's victory by moving further toward the extreme right.

Conviction of Senator Stevens

Yesterday a jury in Washington DC found Alaska Senator Ted Stevens guilty on seven counts of felony. A jury of his citizen peers did not accept his explanation that he thought he was paying for all the work on his home. If I had a whole new floor added to my home and all sorts of renovations done to it I am certain I would know whether I had paid for the work or not. He was asking the jury to accept that he was a horrendous manager of his home and personal accounts while be one of the most skilled managers of the Republican agenda in the Senate.

While such a conviction a week prior to an election would end a political career, I would be surprised if he goes down to defeat. For my Canadian family and foreign readers the strong possibility of Stevens of being reelection serves as the prime example of dynamics that are at play in American politics.

Stevens is one of the longest serving Republicans in the Senate. Multiple term Senators, more than any other elected official, become somewhat god-like in their power on the Hill and back home. Many of these Senators are served by a cadre of local staff who are not only at their beckon call but act their messengers. Acting solely upon general verbal directions, some staff do the Senator’s dirty work while keeping the Senator out of harms way by becoming the fall guy/gal when something goes wrong.

Senators do not carry their own luggage. Staff does that for them. Staff pulls their car to the door. Staffers wash their car and take it in for servicing. Often staffers drive them from place to place. For some Senators staff shop for their groceries. Some have staff buy Christmas and birthday gifts for friends and even family. Aircraft are held for them when they run a few minutes late. They have special seats at sports and arts events. They function is a style that can cause them to a divine-like complex and to be out of touch with what the average citizen experiences on Main Street.

McCain has called for Stevens to drop out of the race. McCain has noted that Stevens “has broken his trust with the people.” Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee stated, "Ted Stevens served his constituents for over 40 years, and I am disappointed to see his career end in disgrace….Senator Stevens had his day in court, and the jury found he violated the public's trust _ as a result he is properly being held accountable. This is a reminder that no one is above the law."

Yet Stevens refuses saying that he will fight on and that he is a victim of a witch hunt. He is likely to win because of his power and influence. His immense power has allowed him to amass a huge sum to flood the airwaves and mail boxes with his “I am an innocent victim” message. He may be convicted of seven felonies but he is asking people to believe that they were not real crimes, it was not real corruption. Unfortunately many in Alaska will believe that message and vote for Stevens.

In Alaska, as well as in other states, Stevens’ message will resonate. He is also posturing himself as being the victim of a big governmental bureaucracy. This too will resonate. People will rally behind their local hero and believe he is the victim of a rogue prosecutor from outside the state.

Another factor that must not be dismissed is all the money he has brought to Alaska. In the last five years alone he has brought $3.5 billion in pork barrel money to Alaska. “Spreading the wealth” is another term for earmarks.

Through earmarks Stevens has bought strong loyalties and defeated opponents. If you do not get along with him, he will prevent your town, company or organization from feeding at the government trough. Though most of his constituents, like those in most states, are against government waist and pork barrel spending, they are against it only when it goes to places outside their own state. A good number of people will stick with Stevens because they do not want the gravy train to end.

Others will vote for him only because though he has been convicted of crimes, he is a Republican. They would rather have a Republican crook as their representative than a Democrat regardless how upright he may be. And least we forget, Alaska is a very heavy Republican state.

While those outside Alaska have called for him to end the race, there is no national party mechanism for them to force the issue. The Senator still holds the power in Alaska. No Republican in Alaska will dare to voice McCain’s or Ensign’s statements. Alaskans officials will stand by their man least they loose their own head. As Republican Representative Don Young has said in response to McCain’s statement, Stevens “is the best think for the Senate.”

If Stevens is returned to the Senate the Senate will be required to review his convictions with an eye toward possibly removing him from the Senate. Stevens will likely use very political move and trick possible to prevent any investigation or removal from the Senate. One of his arguments may well be that they people of Alaska returned him to the Senate even though he was convicted and the Senate should accept their choice. And the gravy train will continue.

While Ensign’s and McCain’s calls are signs of hope for the Republican Party Stevens is at the heart of what is currently wrong with the Republican Party and in general, with a system that allows Senators to serve more than three terms.