Count 'Em All - Preferably Once - As Long As They're Qualified

It seems that the idea that great care should be taken to ensure that every vote in an election is counted is one that is shared by both Democrats and Republicans. What is becoming less and less clear, however, is whether the two parties agree that equally great care should be taken to ensure that those who cast the votes actually have the right to cast them, and that these votes are counted only once.

Witness the reaction by Representative John Lewis, Democrat from Georgia, to legislation recently passed in his home state that would require anyone desiring to vote in an election provide proof of who they are in the form of a photo ID. As reported at CNSNews.com, Mr. Lewis, who is best known for his participation in the Civil Rights movement with Martin Luther King, Jr., addressed this issue at a recent news briefing at the Library of Congress, stating that this legislation “is going back almost to the literacy tests; to tell people you must prove who you are” in order to vote.

This volley fired by Mr. Lewis is just the latest example of the one-sided approach to election reform advocated by the most prominent members of the party that – registered and qualified – voters have consistently placed in the minority. That approach calls for virtually unfettered access to polling places by anyone with a notion to cast a ballot, while vigorously opposing any attempt to verify their qualification, under the law, to do so. The idea is that the only valid election is one in which voting is as easy and convenient as, in Mr. Lewis’ words “getting a glass of water.”

The problem with this notion is that anyone, of any nationality or age, can get a glass of water, numerous times actually, while the law makes plain that such is not to be the case where the sacred privilege of casting a vote in an American election is concerned. But the fact of the matter is that Mr. Lewis’ comparison to the literacy tests of old is a flawed comparison anyway, cheapening the sacrifices made by those in the Civil Rights movement, because the intent of that requirement was entirely different than the intent of the new legislation as the two requirements deal with this issue from different directions.

The intent of literacy tests was, by and large, for the purpose of excluding those who would otherwise be eligible to vote. The intent of the recent legislation is to merely ensure who it is that is eligible, with no attempt or intent to exclude any eligible citizen whatsoever, as borne out by the fact that the state of Georgia will be required to provide a photo ID, free of charge, to any eligible voter who cannot otherwise obtain one.

Frankly, it is this writer’s opinion that voting is already too easy to ensure that elections reflect the will of an informed electorate. Agree with the requirements the Founders emplaced for voting or not – and this writer does not agree with all of them – at the very least one can acknowledge that they were trying to ensure that those who would be eligible to vote would be informed on the issues of the day, and would feel a very real stake in the outcome, both for good or ill, of those elections.

Mr. Lewis’ heartburn over this logical and even-handed approach to election reform bears little resemblance to the righteous indignation of earlier generations to legislation that was clearly intended to unjustly exclude some citizens from voting due to their race or background. Rather, it smells more like just another angle from which the Democrats are trying desperately to manipulate the political landscape in such a way as to ensure that they always win, regardless of the will of the people – as expressed by the qualified voters of the nation – may be.

For many Americans, the call to vote “early and often” is merely a good-natured joke to be bandied about at election time. But, more and more, it seems to be the actual intent of the leadership of a minority party that seems to feel it is the only way to return to power. Legislation like that in Georgia is dangerous to them because it makes such practices more difficult.

I'd Like To Think That It's Due To My Influence

But humility, and reality, forbids. Anyway, the Tennesseean is reporting this morning that Tennessee House Speaker Pro Tem Lois DeBerry has resigned as Co-Chair of the General Assembly's Special Committee on Ethics. Good for her. It has been interesting to see how certain individual Democrats have been willing to bow to reality in their handling of the ethics scandal on capitol hill, while the leadership of the party still seems unable to muster the courage to call on all those implicated to do the right thing.

- JLH

A Striking Contrast In Nashville

In recent weeks, the confidence of the people of Tennessee in their legislature has been shaken to its core. The result of a growing scandal that has seen both Republicans and Democrats caught up in both ethical and legal improprieties, the suspicion with which many in the Volunteer State currently look upon their elected leaders is hardly undeserved.

The ethical deficit that has obviously been in the making for years has only further confirmed a truth that this writer has stated often before – including in this space: That scandals in their past, and present, is the one sure thing that both parties have in common. What often sets the parties apart, however, is how they respond to such scandals and the resultant skepticism of the people they aspire to serve. This current set of problems is a good example of that truth.

Following the revelation of the “Tennessee Waltz” operation conducted by the FBI, which saw the arrest of three Democrats and one Republican currently serving in the General Assembly, the State Republican Party called upon that lone Republican Representative to resign his seat – a move he has refused to make. For their part, the Democrats to date have made no similar requests of their members caught up in the sting operation, choosing rather to merely accuse the GOP of playing politics with the scandal.

Different people may have different opinions as to which party’s response to the issue is correct. But one thing is evident. Only one party’s leadership gives any indication that it is particularly concerned about having the confidence of the people it claims to serve. Agree with the call on the part of Tennessee GOP Chairman Bob Davis for Representative Chris Newton to resign before the charges against him are proven or not, one can at least take note of the fact that Mr. Davis recognizes that the people need to be able to feel fairly certain that their elected leaders are free of such suspicion.

By way of contrast, it is interesting to see how the party that has been in power in the House since Reconstruction has no similar concerns. As if this appearance wasn’t maddening enough before, comments made by Tennessee House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh indicate that such concern for the confidence of the people is not coming anytime soon.

Following the recent revelation that Speaker Pro Tem Lois DeBerry took two hundred dollars in cash from an undercover FBI agent posing as a lobbyist while on a gambling trip to Tunica, Mississippi – a trip on which she was accompanied by indicted Senator Kathryn Bowers – Speaker Naifeh expressed his confidence in her, and gave no indication that she would lose her position as his second-in-command.

Of course, in view of the fact that no calls for resignations from the General Assembly have been made by the Democrat leadership upon its members thus far, this particular decision on the part of the Speaker may not be so notable. What does astound, however, is his decision, as noted in this morning’s Tennesseean, to leave her in her post as co-chair of the General Assembly’s Special Committee on Ethics.

In view of the fact that she is certain to be one of the subjects of the committee’s investigations, one would think that a leader concerned about the people’s belief in his good-faith efforts to clean up the current mess in Nashville would see fit to replace Ms. DeBerry for this particular position due to the obvious conflict of interest. But it seems that Mr. Naifeh has confidence either in the hope that the people will continue to vote for his party’s dominance no matter how angry they get, or in the hope that the people’s attention span will expire soon, and he and his colleagues can get back to “business as usual.”

And such hopes may not be totally unfounded. After all, the problems that have resulted in the current debacle have been present for years, as the people continued to give control of the legislative branch, year in and year out, to Mr. Naifeh’s party, it seems, no matter what.

Maybe such unquestioned – on the part of the voters – dominance for so long has dulled their senses to the need to at least give the appearance of caring what those voters think about their character. But the circumstances that have allowed this problem to grow for years before the present distress manifested itself, and the lackadaisical response on the part of the state’s Democrat leaders, do not shed a favorable light on those who will have to convince an angry electorate to return them to power in a little over fifteen months. Maybe the people of Tennessee should see Speaker Naifeh’s refusal to replace Ms. DeBerry on the Ethics Committee as a good indication that he needs to be replaced in the Speaker’s Chair.

Still In Search Of Rational Opposition

As it turns out, Hillary Clinton may be considered a mere human by those on the left after all. As reported by Dan Balz in the Washington Post, Mrs. Clinton has come under serious fire of late by those who have generally been considered to be her base, especially after comments she recently made regarding the relationship between the Democratic Leadership Council and more hard-core liberals.

For years now, many Americans, led by liberals or, as they prefer it, “progressives,” have sung the praises of the woman who now serves as New York’s junior senator, and effectively immunized her from any serious criticism. Many have extolled her as presidential material since long before she held any elective office. And all the while, many others, including this writer have had one simple response to the idea that so many consider her a great leader: Why? It was as though someone was shouting that the emperor had no clothes on, but no one seemed to care.

For some time now, Mrs. Clinton has enjoyed her standing among liberals more for who she is rather than for what she has done. Despite a colossal failure in her only attempt at major policy innovation – the “HillaryCare” debacle of the early nineties – and an unremarkable record of achievement in her five years in the Senate, those in her base have seemed determined to hang on to their belief that she could do no wrong. It seems focusing on personalities, rather than policies and accomplishments, makes it a lot easier for those on the left to support a candidate. But now it seems that at least some of them are waking up and recognizing that maybe they should pay attention to what she is saying and doing after all.

Not that those on the right should gather too much encouragement from this development. While it is refreshing to finally see some of her supporters paying attention to issues at least as much as personalities, and demonstrating a willingness to actually criticize she who was once considered beyond criticism, the fact is that they are criticizing her for all the wrong reasons, politically speaking.

As noted in the Post, “The most pointed critique of Clinton came in one of the most influential blogs on the left, Daily Kos out of Berkely, Calif., which . . . said she should not provide cover for an organization that often has instigated conflict within the party” – a reference to the DLC. Of course, it is interesting to note that this criticism is heaped upon an organization of which Mrs. Clinton’s husband – the only Democrat who has been able to get elected without the help of a Republican scandal in the last forty years – is a former chairman.

Perhaps one of the lessons that the current liberal critics of Mrs. Clinton should learn from the fact that Mr. Clinton was actually able to get elected is that any conflict they feel that the DLC has instigated in the party has arisen out of its willingness to point out facts to the party’s base – facts that have not always been pleasant for them to listen to, but that had to be acknowledged in order to connect with enough voters to win elections.

Instead, it seems that the extreme leftists who are currently making serious inroads to controlling the Democrat party are willing to just run with the good feeling that groupthink brings to their organization, with no use for any alternative viewpoints that might cause them to temper certain positions – or win elections. Rather than admit that they might have to make adjustments to connect with the moderates and undecideds of the country, they believe that these people are just going to have to get on board and learn to join them in their nostalgia for the days of candidates like Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern. In other words, any attempt to moderate the liberal message to attract the nonpartisans without which neither major party can win is unacceptable. They are willing to jettison anyone who doesn’t fall into line – including those who cast the ballots.

To be sure, there are elements within the Republican party that carry much the same attitude, and they do have a recognized voice within the party. They just don’t control the party as does this faction among the Democrats. And the effect of this important difference can be seen in the results of the last three national elections.

Obviously, staking out such a position is the liberals’ call to make when all is said and done. And as the old saying goes, when one’s opponent is self-destructing, the best thing one can do is simply get out of the way and let it happen. With that in mind, no doubt, conservatives and Republicans can look forward to a job made much easier in the coming years if this mindset continues to dominate the minority party’s leadership.

For The Left, It's All About "Diversity"

In separate expressions of dismay, written this past weekend, over President Bush’s selection for the Supreme Court, Anita Hill and Susan Estrich did their best to try to distract public attention away from what should be at issue when considering a nominee for the High Court, or, for that matter, the federal bench at any level.

Writing for Newsday, Ms. Hill bemoaned the fact that while President Bush had the “opportunity” to place another woman, and possibly a minority, on the high court, the person he in fact did nominate was neither. For her part, Ms. Estrich, whose column appeared at Newsmax.com complained that looking at “traditional legal criteria,” as President Bush did, does not necessarily produce a diverse group. The goal of the nomination, where these writers are concerned, should have been to “celebrate diversity.”

To “support” this belief, Ms. Estrich notes that a recent USA Today Poll, taken before the announcement of John Roberts’ nomination found that “65 percent of Americans thought it would be a good idea to name a woman, and 63 percent thought it would be a good idea to name a Hispanic.” Interesting how she fails to mention what the response was to the question of whether it would be a good idea to nominate someone who, regardless of race or gender, would be absolutely faithful to the Constitution – as written – in rendering their decisions. Instead, the chief concern of the left is over the possibility, as stated by Ms. Hill of “a return to an all-white-male Supreme Court.”

Setting aside for now the idea that certain seats on the Court must now be considered “reserved” for certain groups, the notion that merely looking at the legal and judicial qualifications of a candidate will fail to produce a diverse population of judges is one that fails to rise to the level of serious debate for at least a couple of reasons.

First, while such considerations are certainly no guarantee that the courts will be manned by people with a wide range of ethnic backgrounds, it is certainly no guarantee that they won’t either. Unless, of course, one is willing to assert that people with some backgrounds may not be able to meet the same qualifications as people with other backgrounds.

Second, diversity on the bench is a non-issue where the law is concerned anyway. The presumption of the Constitutional process for placing judges on the federal bench is that it will produce those who are dedicated to the concept of equal protection under the law. It shouldn’t matter to the average American if the Supreme Court is made up of nine white males or nine black females. If the law says what it says, and those on the bench are faithful to it, why should such minor differences as color of skin or gender matter to the person who seeks protection from those charged with applying it? Quite frankly, this writer would feel much more comfortable having a case decided by a Janice Rogers Brown than he would having it decided by a Steven Breyer, despite the fact that Mr. Breyer looks a lot more like him than does Ms. Brown.

When it comes to doing their constitutional duty, the courts should represent anything but diversity. There should be unanimity by those in such positions of authority on the supremacy of the written law as intended by those who write, or wrote, it. One would like to think that any person who stands in a courtroom can expect to be treated the same as anyone else, regardless of the race of the person on either side of the bench. Instead, what we hear from the Anita Hills and Susan Estrichs is that justice should be blind, but not colorblind.

For Fear Of Making Them Angry

In yet another example of Democrat insistence on clinging to a set of positions despite facts – or even inherent inconsistencies – that stare them in the face, Senator Edward Kennedy has spoken out on the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Having recently returned from a trip to Camp Gitmo, Mr. Kennedy offered the requisite compliments to those servicemen and women who currently serve there, saying that he is “impressed with the quality and the dedication, the commitment and the training” that American troops are displaying there. Yet in the same breath, he reiterated his position that this camp – that is run by such qualified and dedicated personnel – should be closed, due to the fact that it has “inflamed terrorists all over the world.” Without knowing for sure what the Senator has in mind when he makes this statement, one is presented with two possibilities.

One possibility is that terrorists have been motivated to commit further atrocities against innocent people as a result of the stories of abuse at the base that have made the rounds. The only problem is that none of these stories thus far have proven to be true. In other words, if Camp Gitmo is an incitement to terrorists, it is not the result of what has taken place there. It is the result of what some have – erroneously – said has taken place there.

Not that this would be terribly surprising. The bar is remarkably low that has to be reached to incite Islamist murderers to carry out their acts of terror. Such acts that have inflamed them in the past have included the publishing of a book, or the simple existence of a nation. Untrue reports of abuses would fall right into line with these examples. But all this would mean that a high-ranking Democrat is advocating the changing of U.S. wartime policy based on unfounded rumor – not the best thing for the party’s National Security image.

Not that the other possibility makes them look much better. This would be an acknowledgement that the detention facility incites the terrorists by its simple existence, and its function of keeping their comrades from carrying out their indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people. If this is what is “inflaming” the terrorists, it won’t matter where the prisoners are held, only the fact that they are being held. Thus, the way to stop inciting terrorism is to stop opposing terrorism in this way.

In either case, what Senator Kennedy, and others like him, advocates would be tantamount to acknowledging that terrorism is a legitimate means of influencing policy. How could his reasoning for the base’s closure – that it inflames terrorists – be interpreted any other way?

And this is, after all, one of the principal aims of terrorism. American policy has traditionally been that the United States would not negotiate with terrorists – implying that it would not establish or alter policy at the point of a terrorist gun. To do so would be to invite further acts of terror in the future when they decide there is something else they want out of the west, and thus result in the deaths of more innocents. Yet this is the very thing that leading Democrats like Edward Kennedy would have America do.

It is acknowledged by most that terrorists will never be completely eradicated from the face of the earth. But this does not change the fact that U.S. policy should always be geared toward discouraging the use of such tactics and deterring states from any relationship with those who do use such tactics. If taking actions to oppose further random acts of violence against human beings inflames terrorists, then let them be inflamed.

Keep Checking In

Extremely hectic Monday at work. My posts may be a bit more hit and miss this week. Please bear with me, and keep checking in.

JLH

Anybody's Fault But Their Own

What does pro-life Senator John McCain’s willingness to work with Hillary Clinton on global warming have to do with Mrs. Clinton’s own stance on the abortion issue? It’s a strange sounding question, but one that no doubt many people were asking following recent comments made by former President Bill Clinton to a leftist student Group. This writer certainly is asking it.

Speaking to a gathering of Campus Progress on Wednesday, as noted at Newsmax.com, Mr. Clinton bemoaned the fact that Democrats like his wife are being made to sound inconsistent on the abortion issue by some right-wing manipulation of how the issue is defined and discussed.

His remarks are the result of the incredulous reaction by many across the nation – including many on the left – to Mrs. Clinton’s more moderate-sounding comments on social issues since the beginning of 2005, including her contention in January that abortion is a “sad, even tragic choice,” while continuing to champion the cause of legalized abortion.

Of course, anyone who pays any attention to American politics understands precisely why the junior Senator from New York is making comments that seem in such opposition to her well-known, firmly-held beliefs. She’s got the race for the White House on her mind, and knows that the current trend in public opinion makes sounding too far out to the left on the issue a liability for her. But, of course, to make a statement that clearly contradicts her position in such a public manner carries a good deal of risk of its own.

Enter the husband.

Having seen the danger that being perceived as inconsistent on issues can be to an aspiring president – think “flip-flop” – the man from Harlem is making sure that people understand that she isn’t being inconsistent at all. It’s just that Democrats like his wife have been boxed in by the way that conservatives have defined the issue and debate. In other words, if she does sound like she’s contradicting herself, it’s simply the result of some vast right-wing conspiracy.

His evidence? The fact that his wife’s inconsistent statements on a single issue is greeted with skepticism from all quarters, “But if [Republican] John McCain, who’s pro-life, works with Hillary on global warming, he’s a man of principle moving to the middle.”

It should come as no surprise that the man who remains the most prominent member of the party that made having a persecution complex fashionable at all levels of society would publicly accuse his political opponents for setting a trap that he and his ideological soul-mates have set for themselves. But one would at least expect a man as intelligent as he is to try to back it up with reasoning that at least approaches coherence. How does comparing John McCain’s stances on two separate issues illustrate his defense of Hillary’s inconsistent statements on a single issue?

The fact is that the most popular talking point among leading Democrats regarding the abortion issue – that it should be “safe, legal, and rare” – is fraught with as much contradiction in its own body as Mrs. Clinton’s belief in the tragedy of the choice of abortion when compared with her public record on the issue – without any help from anyone on the right. Is it any wonder that it was Mr. Clinton who gave this phrase prominence in the first place? And does it necessarily suggest a bias on the part of a listener who feels compelled to ask certain questions in response to statements like these?

Why should abortion be rare if it is safe and legal? Why should it be legal if it is a tragic choice? One need not be a right-wing activist to wonder what the answers to these questions are.

The Clintons have long been masters at giving the appearance of sympathy to anyone of any political persuasion when they feel it is necessary to get what they want. They recognize that medical technology is making certain facts about the pre-born harder and harder to deny by many in America, and statements such as these are certainly designed to convince the public that they are not as extreme on the issue as their records demonstrate that they are.

One can expect to hear more such statements as these coming from the Hillary Clintons, John Kerrys, and other Democrat presidential aspirants over the next three years. But, contrary to what they might tell their listeners, one should not feel that they are out of line for wanting a more direct statement from these candidates as to whether they believe abortion is a good thing or a bad thing. The fact is that voters on both sides of the issue have a right to know the answer to that question.

Biden Tries A New Tactic In Judicial Confirmation Battles

In the early nineteen-nineties, Republicans saw themselves in much the same situation the Democrats find themselves in now. A Democrat was in the White House and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. In this situation, the minority Republicans saw what their task was – under the Constitution – if they wanted their agenda and priorities to be pursued by the American government: They had to get out, communicate with people, and win elections. Until that would be accomplished, Republicans recognized that the more liberal Democrat agenda – including the appointment of more liberal federal judges – was a fact of life with which – under the Constitution – they would have to live.

Consequently, when President Bill Clinton nominated two of the most liberal Justices of the Supreme Court – Ruth Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer – the GOP minority, though not completely comfortable with the appointments, did not go to extremist lengths to stop them. This was because the Republicans recognized that under the rules – the Constitution – it was the prerogative of the Democrat President to select the Justices, and of the majority Senate Democrats to confirm their appointments to the nation’s highest bench without extra-constitutional procedural obstacles placed in their way. Republicans are just funny that way when it comes to respecting the Constitution as written.

Of course, recent battles over the federal judiciary have revealed that now that they are in the minority, Democrats feel no similar need to constrain themselves according to the written rules. Rather, the tactic of choice of the current minority party is to ignore the rules as written, and apply rules of their own choosing while trying to convince the American people that the way they say things should be done makes a lot more sense than the way the Founders said things should be done.

It started with the extra-constitutional requirement of sixty votes in order for an appellate court judge to be confirmed, enforced by the filibusters Democrats waged against several nominees that President Bush put forward. And while the recent “agreement” between fourteen senators saw some of those nominees confirmed, several are still awaiting the floor votes that will certainly confirm them, if only the votes can ever be held. Now, with the impending nomination of a new Associate Justice to replace Sandra O’Connor on the Supreme Court, one prominent Democrat with presidential aspirations of his own is seeking to raise the bar even higher.

Joe Biden of Delaware has become the first Democrat to suggest that any nominee President Bush puts forward for the high court be required to receive a unanimous affirmative vote in the Senate. That is not a misprint, nor is it made up. As reported at CNSNews.com this morning, Senator Biden has established a website in which he asks Americans to join him “in encouraging President Bush to select a Supreme Court nominee who, like Justice O’Connor, will receive unanimous support in the Senate.”

Unanimous support would be great, to be sure. But things in Washington have changed a lot in the twenty-four years since Mrs. O’Connor was confirmed 99-0. Given today’s political climate, one could scarcely expect any nominee for any post to receive unanimous support in the Senate. It is doubtful that a nominee with whom Rick Santorum is comfortable will be acceptable to Patrick Leahy. Therefore, under Senator Biden’s proposal, no such nominee should be considered eligible.

As anyone who is moderately familiar with the nation’s Supreme Law knows, the Constitution requires that the President nominate someone for the post, with the Senate, as an institution, confirming or denying that nominee to the post in question. But how do you determine whether or not a one-hundred-member body grants its consent? Under the terms of the Constitution as written at Article 2, Section 2, the answer must necessarily be by a majority vote of the members. There is no more a requirement for unanimity in this process than there is in the process of passing a law, or raising taxes. And Senator Biden knows this.

This attempt on Mr. Biden’s part to initiate a grassroots movement for unanimity smells a lot like yet another attempt on the part of the liberal party to manipulate public opinion against a nominee who might only receive fifty-one votes, or even sixty votes. And it relies heavily on the ignorance of a large portion of the electorate, as so many schemes of the minority party do of late.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, they are not able to filter news and information today to the extent they did just a few years ago. At a time in the nation’s history where there is a greater need for a party that would gain a majority to engage in rational discussion with the people on issues such as this, they are trying everything but rational discussion. The American people deserve better.

Hard To Hide Who She Is

I am not one to continually dwell upon – and fret about – the 2008 candidacy of Senator Hillary Clinton for the presidency, as some are. Frankly, I do my best to ignore her and her husband as much as possible. Considering the massive egos they each possess, that would be, in fact, the worst punishment that the public – or history – could inflict upon them. However, every now and then she manages to show up in the news in a way that is very difficult not to comment on. Case in point is an episode that transpired yesterday on Capitol Hill.

Interestingly enough, the episode to which I refer is not some staged news event or formal debate on the Senate floor. Rather it was a brief, and informal, exchange that took place in a hallway in the Capitol Building between Mrs. Clinton and Republican Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania.

For those that may not be aware, Senator Santorum, a staunch conservative, has recently published a book, It Takes A Family, to counter Senator Clinton’s book from a few years ago, It Takes A Village. Mr. Santorum’s book emphasizes the need for strong families in the raising of children, as opposed to Mrs. Clinton’s emphasis on the community as a partner in this important work.

As reported by the Associated Press, as the two Senators passed each other, going opposite directions in the hallway, Mrs. Clinton called out to Mr. Santorum, “It takes a village, Rick, don’t forget that.” After Mr. Santorum called back that it takes a family, Mrs. Clinton replied, “Of course, a family is part of a village” as the two continued on their respective ways.

It is often the casual remarks and informal exchanges like these that do far more to reveal a person’s beliefs then those made when the cameras are hot and one knows the nation is watching. Try as she might to shed her leftist image and position herself toward the center in anticipation of her presidential run in the hopes of looking more appealing – or at least less repulsive – to many of the “values voters” that are so important to a candidate’s nationwide success, she simply cannot continually hide who she really is, ideologically speaking.

The notion that the autonomous family is insufficient to adequately and properly raise a child, thus requiring help from the “village” – think “state” here – should serve as a reminder that, despite her very public “repositioning” on certain issues, when the veil of her public rhetoric is lifted and we are allowed to see what is underneath, what we find is a socialist-trending Democrat to the core.

And while I would much prefer to not even have to think about her anymore, the fact is that she is the – current – front-runner for the nomination of one of the country’s two major parties. But voters might do well to note that actions speak far louder than any words spoken in a prepared text. And Senator Clinton’s actions, despite her recent rhetoric, continue to reveal her as every bit the socialist as any liberal candidate for the presidency in recent memory – if not more so. Remember that the next time the “mainstream” media try to convince you that she is moderating.

It Must Be True! I Saw It In A Poll!

CNN is reporting on its website this morning that a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows that 54 percent of Americans believe that the war in Iraq has made the United States less safe from terrorism – never mind the fact that no major terrorist attack has been carried out on American soil in nearly four years, despite the desire on the part of many lunatics to do so. Maybe they’re just too busy defending themselves “over there” to go on the offensive “over here.” But I could go on at length about that.

The findings of this poll called to my mind some thoughts that I wrote down about a year ago for some friends on the disturbing tendency on the part of many so-called news organizations to report polling data as news. I had thought about re-working that piece for this space, but finally decided to simply re-produce it here (with apologies to those of you who have already seen it), as the truth that prompted it has not changed.

– JLH

For those who can distinguish between useful and useless information (which is probably more people than are given credit), the excessive reliance of news organizations on polling data has long been a major irritant. Especially when such polling data seems to be for the blatant purpose of influencing, rather than reflecting, public opinion.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have much use for polling data that reflects public opinion either. So what if a CBS News/New York Times poll were to reveal that a clear majority of Americans agree with the University of Colorado president when she says that a certain vulgar term referring to women can be used as a term of endearment? Does that mean husbands across the land would be safe in greeting their wives with that term when they get home tonight?

Of course not. Polls do not establish facts or truth. They merely reflect the respondents’ perception of what is factual or truthful. The fact that sixty-eight percent of Americans might believe that Burt Reynolds’ hair is real would not make it so. But it just might convince some who had believed otherwise to question whether their earlier belief was justified. And one can’t help but wonder if that is the intent anyway.

“Perception is reality” is a phrase often used in political discussions nowadays. And I can’t help but notice that it sounds a lot like, “Repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth” – a sentiment expressed by Hitler’s propaganda expert, Joseph Goebbels. Neither statement is true in the strictest sense. Truth, lies, and reality do not change no matter how much statements to the contrary are repeated.

Rather than revealing any facts about truth, such statements reveal the ability to influence and alter people’s perception of what is the truth. They go a long way in explaining, for example, why, despite the fact that the economy has created nearly 1.5 million jobs over the last nine months, fifty-seven percent of registered voters thought that it had actually lost jobs over the same period.

Of course, ultimately, the fault for misperceptions like this falls at the feet of those whose beliefs such polls reflect. They have allowed themselves to believe what is not true because they heard the right people say it loud and long enough. Yet, at the same time, those people who have said it cannot absolve themselves of their responsibilities so easily. All else being equal, the people should have the right to expect that what they hear out of the media to be factual – and relevant.

But think about it. Do you ever hear anyone who cites such polling data, either in the papers or on the airwaves, make any attempt at explaining what their listeners should do with the information they have just shared? No, they can’t. Because that would either require an admission - “Now, the numbers I’ve just cited to you have absolutely no bearing on what it’s really like out there whatsoever” - or a confession - “We’ve provided you with this data so as to merely make you believe things are like we wish they were” - neither of which would do much for the stature of the “fourth estate” in the public eye.

But in reality, the constant citing of polls itself suggests a cheapening of the value of many of the media outlets. It amounts to the substitution of opinion (remember, they are called public opinion polls) for actual news reporting.

And it’s not hard to see why such would be appealing for a reporter, anchor, or producer with an agenda. The reporting of news is the reporting of facts and events. Facts and events are unalterable, no matter how much one might wish they could be altered in order to convince people that his world view is right.

Opinion, on the other hand, especially the opinion of the masses, is quite malleable. It can be molded in any number of ways – including by simply telling people that most of their fellow citizens believe something to be true, whether it is or not. The nature of humanity is such that, if this is continually reported and repeated – with no acknowledgement that it has little to no basis in any documented factual information – the masses will be drawn to the majority opinion, or candidate.

Ironically enough, if many of the media outlets used the time that they devoted to citing polling data in order to cite actual facts, that alone would almost certainly change the outcome of the polls with which they are so infatuated. The fact that they don’t suggests a change in the mission of the media – either conscious or unconscious –from reporting facts to influencing perceptions. From relaying “the story,” to creating it.

At Least They Mean Well

Kudos are deserved by Representative Roscoe Bartlett (R – MD) if for no other reason than the fact that his heart is in the right place. As one of over one hundred members of the House of Representatives sponsoring a proposed constitutional amendment designed to protect religious expression on public property, Mr. Bartlett has given voice to the frustration that many Americans have felt in recent years as various secular groups have waged a war on religious expression in America – aided and abetted by the federal judiciary.

The amendment, titled the Religious Freedom Amendment, reads, “To secure the people’s right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: The people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage and traditions on public property, including schools. The United States and the States shall not establish any official religion nor require any person to join in prayer or religious activity.”

In a statement released by his office, Representative Bartlett noted that “Intolerant people have been attacking the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, voluntary prayers at school, and other religious expression, but this amendment will halt those attacks.” A noble intent, to be sure. The only problem is that there is no reason to believe that the proposed amendment will actually do what the good congressman says it will do.

As this amendment is designed to shore up the right to religious expression as acknowledged in the First Amendment, a comparison of the two is inevitable. And what such a comparison reveals is that this new amendment is scarcely different than the original one. In it you have reiterations of both the Establishment Clause – regarding the establishment of “any official religion” – and the Free Exercise Clause – acknowledging that the “people retain the right to pray . . .” And, obviously, the presence of such language already in the Constitution for over 200 years hasn’t stopped the assaults on such expression. Why should a new amendment that merely rewords the First one be any different?

As good as the intentions of the amendment’s sponsors and supporters may be, it does not address the bottom line problem in this regard. The problem has never been how the text of the First Amendment was written with regard to religious freedom. The problem has always been that those who have sought to eradicate religious expression from the public square, as well as their enablers on the bench, have no regard for that text – or its original intent as envisioned by those who wrote it – in the first place. In other words, it doesn’t matter how many times you re-write the rulebook if the “referees” see fit to ignore the rules anyway.

To introduce an amendment that tacitly implies that the First Amendment is insufficient to protect the right of religious expression – previous generations certainly didn’t feel the need to – could be construed to be an acknowledgment of the courts’ and the liberals contention that the Constitution says whatever they say it says.

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The proper way to address this “present distress” is not through tampering with the text of the nation’s Supreme Law, there’s nothing wrong with that text. This problem should be addressed through the reigning in of the courts’ perceived power over the will of the people as expressed by the Constitution that was ratified by those people. Somehow, the mindset has taken hold that the Constitution is answerable to the courts, instead of the other way around. When that problem is corrected, it will not only take care of the religious expression issue, but a host of others as well.

Back In The Routine On Monday

Woke up this morning in a tent near the Greenbriar section of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. It's been an unusual week, that has seen me in Tompkinsville, Kentucky on the Fourth, Murfreessboro on the Fifth, briefly in the office on the Sixth and Seventh, and Gatlinburg on Thursday and Friday, including a visit to the Pirates exhibit at the Ripley's Aquarium of the Smokies (life's not all politicis, you know). Anyway, I should be back up with my regular posts on Monday, and it looks like there will be no shortage of things to talk about. Later.

JLH

Our Closest Ally In The War On Terror Has Been Attacked

As our British cousins have stood with us, so we must stand with them. The human costs of this war have already been high, and they will grow higher. But the enemies of free people will never triumph.

No Real Surprise As Dems Seek To Change Rules

For the record, on May 26, this site noted that the abandonment of the “filibuster deal” on the part of the Democrats was a question of if, not when. Over the past weekend, leading lights within the liberal party have made it clear that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement makes that abandonment imminent.

After initial comments made by Edward Kennedy on Friday that the deal may go out the window, depending on what President Bush does with his opportunity, Joseph Biden made it clear that, as usual, the Democrats are getting ready to change the rules of the game now that the rules as written don’t suit them.

Appearing on CBS’s Face The Nation, the Democrat from DC (by way of Delaware), after being asked about the possibility of a filibuster in light of the deal made by the “group of fourteen” in May, said that the question of a Supreme Court nominee “is a totally different ballgame.”

Then, on Wednesday, New York Senator Charles Schumer was overheard to say that “A Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown style appointment may not have been extraordinary to the appellate court but may be extraordinary to the Supreme Court.” Funny how this wasn’t mentioned at the time the deal averting the Republicans’ exercise of the Constitutional Option was drawn up, and agreed to by seven Republicans.

The fact is that anyone outside the Beltway who has been paying attention knows that this was to be expected all along. The Democrats tried to change the rules on the 2000 election after the election was over, they’ve tried to change the rules on confirming appellate judicial nominees ever since a Republican was elected President, and now they are even trying to change rules that they made themselves. More and more, it is becoming apparent that this is part of what Democrats do.

Recent history has repeatedly shown that Democrats are determined to alter the American political framework in such a way that they always win, regardless of what the will of the people, as expressed through the periodic elections, may be. Indeed, their desperate attempts to shape the courts in such a way as to take power from the representative branches of government – the only way, it seems, that they can get their agenda enacted – may be the clearest example of this mindset. Like the little boy who wants to change the rules of the backyard game when he realizes he’s losing, they refuse to engage in a fairly conducted contest of ideas.

Luckily for the republic, the adults are still in charge as of this writing. And as a result, it may yet turn out that Majority Leader Bill Frist ends up being a big winner, even as he scores a more important victory for the President and the nation.

By refusing to endorse the deal in May, Mr. Frist kept himself from being made to look like a patsy when the inevitable abandonment of the deal by the Democrats took place. At the same time, had he insisted on going ahead and holding the vote on the Constitutional Option back then, the vote would have certainly failed, and with it any chance of breaking the judicial filibusters in the near future. Despite the cries of many within the party for such a vote as a “statement,” his cooler head prevailed as he decided to bide his time until the day – that everyone knew was coming – when the leading Democrats would drop the façade and be who they truly are.

Now, Mr. Frist is in the perfect position to step up as the man in the Senate most ready to do battle on behalf of the will of the people at the very time that the stakes in such a battle are the highest. The Ted Kennedys, Charles Schumers, and Joe Bidens have shown the people of America who they are – as everyone knew they would. Now it is time for the Bill Frists, Mitch McConnells, and Rick Santorums to show the nation who they are. Hopefully, it will be a pleasant revelation for the nation and its constitution.

More Than A Dime's Worth

Some time ago, I was sitting on my couch with a friend who is what I call a “Democrat by Inertia.” Commonly found in my neck of the woods, DBIs are those who continue to identify with the Democrat party, although their beliefs and values diverged paths with the party leadership some time ago. They continue to identify with the party just because their family always has identified with it.

This particular friend once told me that “if it was good enough for my granddaddy and daddy, it’s good enough for me.” As I tried to discuss the differences between the twenty-first century incarnations of the major parties, my friend could only grin, point his eyes to the ceiling, and say, “Seems like I remember something about Watergate, Iran-Contra, and things like that.” This little episode was called to my mind as I read a Washington Post story this morning on the plans for the Democrats to nationalize next year’s congressional elections.

The idea of nationalizing congressional elections is certainly not a new one. Led by Newt Gingrich, the Republicans used such tactics with great effect in 1994 when they won control of both houses of Congress. The Democrats’ Congressional Campaign Committee has even noted that a new series of small TV ad buys is but “the beginning of a campaign to fuel an anti-incumbent fever like the one that swept its party out in 1994.”

The problem is that a desire to sweep the party in power out is about all the current campaign, as envisioned by the Democrats, has in common with the 1994 GOP effort. Unlike the campaign that led to the “Gingrich Revolution,” the Democrats are focusing their efforts on attacking Republican House members on questions of ethics – beginning with six members who are targeted for their alleged ties to “special interests.”

But what people like those on the DCCC, as well as my friend, fail to grasp is that various and sundry scandals – ABSCAM, Watergate, House Banking, Pardongate, etc. – are what Democrats and Republicans have in common. Both parties have been caught up in such in their distant, and not so distant, past. And both will continue to have to deal with members caught up in scandals in the future. Indeed, even in the current dust up over congressional travel and relations with lobbyists, prominent members from both sides of the aisle are currently being investigated. This fact of political life may be the one instance where the oft-heard charge that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” between the parties is actually true.

What the parties do not have in common – and therefore what the American people should take note of when deciding which to support, or not to support – is what they stand for and what policies they advocate. This was the fact that the Republicans banked upon in 1994, by making their intentions for what they wanted to do if they were placed in power a matter of public record before the election. And, as it turned out, the American people liked what they heard.

What the people heard that year was what the Republicans stand for. If the early ad buy by the Democrats is an indication of how they intend to “nationalize” the 2006 elections, the American people can look forward only to hearing from them what/who they are against, with their best campaign slogan being, “We’re not the Republicans.” This type of strategy is more closely akin to the 1998 elections, when Republicans made their opposition to Bill Clinton their rallying cry – and lost seats in both houses.

Of course, this may be a purposeful difference from 1994 on the part of the DCCC. Judging by the results of the 1994 elections, when the people were allowed to evaluate both parties on what they stand for, it may be that the Democrats feel that their best chances lie not in informing the people of their positions, but in simply trying to tear down the image of their opponents in the eyes of the people, and hope nobody notices that they are avoiding a rational discussion of the issues. And if this is what they are thinking, I’d be inclined to agree.

Early Thought On The Supreme Court Battle

Not time to write much today. Still off from work, and using the time to get some badly-needed work done around the house in preparation of bringing children home from Russia. Hope to have a normal post back up tomorrow. In the mean time, I wanted to at least make a quick initial comment about the impending battle over the Supreme Court.

JLH

Newsmax is reporting this morning that Senator Charles Schumer of New York has strongly intimated that gay marriage could be a major issue in the upcoming confirmation battle over Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s replacement on the Supreme Court.

Speaking on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday talk show regarding the confirmation process, Mr. Schumer stated, “All questions are legitimate. What is your view on Roe vs. Wade? What is your view on gay marriage?”

This is an interesting thing for the Senator to say, as he has spoken out against gay marriage, and voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, but considering the relative positions of the major parties on this issue, the implication is clear: If anyone is going to make an issue out of a particular nominee’s opposition to gay marriage, it will be the minority Democrats in the Senate.

To this proposition, this conservative can only say one thing to Mr. Schumer and his Democrat colleagues:

Please do.

July 4, 1776

. . . Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof . . .
Leviticus 25:10

Harold Ford On The Steve Gill Show

Congressman Harold Ford – who, by almost all accounts is a nice guy and a relative voice of moderation within the Democrat party – may be a good illustration of the difficulty the minority party has with regard to convincing the American people that they can be trusted with the nation’s safety and security.

Speaking with Nashville talk radio host Steve Gill this morning, Mr. Ford – who is a candidate to replace Majority Leader Bill Frist in the United States Senate next year – appeared unable to decide on how he felt the war on terror, as currently being waged in the Iraqi theater of operations, was going, or should go.

Having recently returned from a trip to Iraq, Mr. Ford initially stated that, while he was there, he did not see the problems that so many in the media and on the left are complaining of with regard to the progress of the fledgling democracy. However, it took less than five minutes for him to go from that place to offering a critique of President Bush’s recent speech, illustrating his concerns with an analogy to the Tennessee Volunteers going into halftime against the Florida Gators down 21-0. In such a situation, the Congressman stated, you wouldn’t expect Coach Fulmer to just keep on doing what he did in the first half.

When pressed by Mr. Gill on this analogy, the would-be Senator tried to cover himself by declaring that he’s not saying that the U.S. is losing the war, just that changes need to be made in how we are moving forward in Iraq. But if the situation isn’t as dire as his analogy illustrates, why the need for the change? Tellingly, this was not the only flaw in Mr. Ford’s reasoning that would be demonstrated in his brief appearance on the show.

While not advocating for the troop-removal timetable that so many on the left want, Mr. Ford did state the need to be moving toward getting the troops out as quickly as possible, noting that nobody wants to be over there for twelve years or more. This prompted a question from Mr. Gill regarding American troop presence in several other places around the world that has been going on for far longer than the activity in Iraq. When asked why the U.S. shouldn’t be getting troops out of Bosnia or even South Korea, Mr. Ford’s response was, “Because we aren’t facing insurgencies there.” So American troops should only be deployed to places where they won’t have to fight?

It is true that no one wants to fight the war on terror, in any nation, for twelve years or more. Not Mr. Ford. Not President Bush. Not the writer nor the readers of this commentary. But then, no one wanted to fight in Europe and the Pacific for four years either.

As time goes by, it seems that one of the chief differences between those on the left and those on the right is how they deal with the world as it is. The left sees the world as they wish it was, and insists on acting as if it really were that way. The right sees the world as they wish it was – and, in many ways, it is not that different than the one envisioned by the left – but still recognize that the world has to be dealt with as it actually is.

Congressman Ford has often given the impression of a Democrat who recognizes that one cannot always ignore reality – allowing him to break ranks with his party leadership from time to time. But as he moves toward the Democrat nomination for the soon-to-be open Senate seat from Tennessee, one can’t help but wonder if the Congressman is executing a gradual shift farther to the left, perhaps in order to ensure that he will have the full support of the party leadership in his campaign.

This interview gave the impression of a man who really wanted to speak the truth with regard to the ongoing war, but was constrained from sounding too positive by virtue of his partisan affiliation. If this difficult situation is the reality for Mr. Ford, it only further illustrates the need for anyone who would be someone in the Democrat party to be willing to set aside reality in order to score politically. And that, in turn, only further demonstrates to the American people why the world is not yet safe enough to put the Democrats back in charge.