More macro photos like these--along with links to their sources--can be found at the Photo Argus. Enjoy.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Adventures in Macro Photography
Macro photography is where the photographer takes close-up pictures of very small things. Often macro photos are fairly banal and boring, but every once in awhile ...
More macro photos like these--along with links to their sources--can be found at the Photo Argus. Enjoy.
More macro photos like these--along with links to their sources--can be found at the Photo Argus. Enjoy.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Christianity, Libertarianism, and a World That Knows No Restraint
Martin Scorsese once explained that when he was young and went to see films, he was often puzzled because the doors would close, the camera would pan away, or there would be a jump cut, and then the characters would reappear as though something had just happened, but no one would say what. His uncle explained to him that even though the films did not show it, everyone knew what had happened--someone had been murdered, the characters had had sex, or something of that nature. Because everyone knew that it was there, the films did not need to show it. Scorsese then made a vow to make films, and show what happened in his films, when in other films the camera would pan away.
Apart from his superb documentary on Bob Dylan, I have found most of Scorsese's films unwatchable. More often than not, when he tries to be realistic and gritty, he makes films that are merely tedious and grim. Yet, others assure me that he is a great film maker.
I wonder what would happen, however, if we took his ethos and applied it to other great films from the golden age of Hollywood, for example, Casablanca. There is a scene in Casablanca with a jump cut involving Rick and Ilsa. Ilsa has secretly come to visit him at night to confront him about the travel documents, at one point even pulling a gun on him. He calls her bluff and kisses her, and then there is the jump cut. The scene picks up after an indeterminate length of time, and they are now both relaxed and talking like old friends. Later, it is implied that something happened that night, but we are not told what. If you think about it, they had to have done something more than merely kiss, or the ending of the film makes no sense. Scorsese would have shown that something more in all its glory.
It is also clear from the film that Captain Renault has his little flings. Surely a Scorsese would have not left us in the dark about them. But then, what of Victor Lazlo? His own sexuality is never explicitly examined in the film. However, we do know that he shows no physical passion for his wife whatsoever, and that he is not bothered by what apparently transpired between her and Rick, even though she is portrayed by one of the most beautiful women ever to appear in film. Lazlo has to have been a man of very particular and unusual tastes. Certainly, Scorsese would not leave us puzzled.
Then we have the unfortunate "suicide" of Ugarte while under close supervision in Nazi custody. This also is never shown. There is one shooting in the film, to be sure. However, in typical Hollywood fashion, when Major Strasser is killed there is no blood: He simply grasps his side and falls over. Scorsese would certainly rectify this problem.
It is remarkable all of the things that Casablanca leaves us in the dark on. Yet, what it lacks in graphic, biological detail, it makes up for in greatness. There is not a single film that Scorsese has ever made which can compare to Casablanca, and if he were to try to remake the film, it would be a travesty, as it is already nearly perfect.
A sex scene involving Jesus Christ is sick and perverted in nearly every way, even if it is in a dream sequence. There are some things that normal people have no desire or need to ever see in film or even know about. I am sure that there have been gay cowboys, for example. However, I cannot imagine wanting to see a film about the subject, or see what the cowboys in question do in private. Yet Scorsese--and most other modern film makers--sees it as his duty to show these things, and our duty to watch.
The problem with making things legal is that people believe if something is legal, it must be right. So what was once in the closet or under the bed gets put on a pedestal in the public square or sold on every corner, and then if that is not enough, rubbed in people's noses. In this regard, the Victorians got it right. While many things were illegal or frowned upon in Victorian society, the restrictions were not an attempt to "legislate morality". If that had been true, they would been more rigorously enforced. Indeed, many social ills were tolerated in Britain during the Victorian Age, so long as they were kept out of sight. There were brothels galore, but these were in certain neighborhoods or were dressed up as something else. Men had to go out of their way to find them. And most men knew where to buy a lascivious French postcard or the most recent edition of Fanny Hill, even if these were not sold in bookstores or on the street. All of the social ills common to the world were found in abundance in Victorian England--in large part because they were tolerated by the establishment so long as they did not cause trouble, despite what the law might have been. Many, many people have therefore decried Victorian morality as hypocritical. Yet, there is another way of looking at it--they knew that they could not keep people's hearts clean through the law, and so they did not try. However, they could keep the public square clean and safe for families and children. This is what can best be described as civic morality.
Personally, I am not in the position to judge anyone by what they do in the bedroom. As pointed out in an earlier post, Christians are commanded to judge and discipline each other, but are then commanded not to judge non-Christians, even on matters of gross sexual morality. By this standard, another person's sexuality is none of my business. However, if I am pushed to agree, for example, that homosexuality is right, I have to say that it is wrong, and simply let the chips fall where they may. Effectively, so much of the homosexual lobby is demanding just that--that everyone must agree that homosexuality is right. This is a bridge I simply cannot pass over. I would be happy to work side-by-side with a homosexual or even hire a homosexual for a position at my company if he/she had the requisite skills and there was an opening, precisely because I feel that their sexuality is none of my business. By that same token, I agree with the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, because the sexuality of soldiers is also none of my business. However, I stand against any efforts to institute gay marriage, because it is an attempt to get legal sanction for something that is morally wrong, and because the sexuality of the people involved is none of my business. Why should I--or anyone else for that matter--be forced to give permission for something that two people will do anyway, whether we give permission or not? Further, why should I--or anyone else for that matter--be forced to hear or know about it when it is none of our business and we do not want to hear or know about it?
This speaks to the very heart of the conflict between Christianity and libertarianism. If it were just a matter of people's homes or bedrooms, and it had little or no effect on society as a whole, then my own proclivity is to let people do what they want. It truly is none of my business. Why should I care what people watch, who they sleep with, or what drugs they take? The problem is that these things do not tend to stay in the home or the bedroom, and that people with no restraint tend to want to force others to give sanction to their activities. One solution is to return to civil morality--that is, to use the law to keep the public square clean, but to turn a blind eye to people's personal activities unless they hurt others or cause a problem. This is not hypocritical. Rather, it deals with a severe shortcoming of libertarianism--the fact that people, when their search for individual freedom is unbridled, tend to trash the public square and create an eyesore that other people should not be responsible for or be forced to see.
It would be a return to Victorianism. Yet, somehow, this is better than the other paths before us. Prohibition was a failure, as have been most laws that have ever been enacted with the goal of improving mankind. I am not in favor of going back to that kind of approach to jurisprudence. However, at the same time, people should be able to watch TV or go to a film, to stroll down a public street--to live a normal life--without being assaulted by filth. People also should not have to be imposed upon by others who seek to live libertine lives and yet have a need for affirmation from society.
Victorian society had no laws against lesbianism, because Queen Victoria was scandalized by the very thought that women could be lesbians, and consequently refused to sign the law forbidding it. She simply did not want to know or think about it. While this seems quaint and silly, maybe she was on to something there. Maybe some things are better off kept in the closet. Maybe we should not have to know about it or think about it. And if some people want to engage in such things, maybe it is none of our business. Maybe.
Apart from his superb documentary on Bob Dylan, I have found most of Scorsese's films unwatchable. More often than not, when he tries to be realistic and gritty, he makes films that are merely tedious and grim. Yet, others assure me that he is a great film maker.
I wonder what would happen, however, if we took his ethos and applied it to other great films from the golden age of Hollywood, for example, Casablanca. There is a scene in Casablanca with a jump cut involving Rick and Ilsa. Ilsa has secretly come to visit him at night to confront him about the travel documents, at one point even pulling a gun on him. He calls her bluff and kisses her, and then there is the jump cut. The scene picks up after an indeterminate length of time, and they are now both relaxed and talking like old friends. Later, it is implied that something happened that night, but we are not told what. If you think about it, they had to have done something more than merely kiss, or the ending of the film makes no sense. Scorsese would have shown that something more in all its glory.
It is also clear from the film that Captain Renault has his little flings. Surely a Scorsese would have not left us in the dark about them. But then, what of Victor Lazlo? His own sexuality is never explicitly examined in the film. However, we do know that he shows no physical passion for his wife whatsoever, and that he is not bothered by what apparently transpired between her and Rick, even though she is portrayed by one of the most beautiful women ever to appear in film. Lazlo has to have been a man of very particular and unusual tastes. Certainly, Scorsese would not leave us puzzled.
Then we have the unfortunate "suicide" of Ugarte while under close supervision in Nazi custody. This also is never shown. There is one shooting in the film, to be sure. However, in typical Hollywood fashion, when Major Strasser is killed there is no blood: He simply grasps his side and falls over. Scorsese would certainly rectify this problem.
It is remarkable all of the things that Casablanca leaves us in the dark on. Yet, what it lacks in graphic, biological detail, it makes up for in greatness. There is not a single film that Scorsese has ever made which can compare to Casablanca, and if he were to try to remake the film, it would be a travesty, as it is already nearly perfect.
A sex scene involving Jesus Christ is sick and perverted in nearly every way, even if it is in a dream sequence. There are some things that normal people have no desire or need to ever see in film or even know about. I am sure that there have been gay cowboys, for example. However, I cannot imagine wanting to see a film about the subject, or see what the cowboys in question do in private. Yet Scorsese--and most other modern film makers--sees it as his duty to show these things, and our duty to watch.
The problem with making things legal is that people believe if something is legal, it must be right. So what was once in the closet or under the bed gets put on a pedestal in the public square or sold on every corner, and then if that is not enough, rubbed in people's noses. In this regard, the Victorians got it right. While many things were illegal or frowned upon in Victorian society, the restrictions were not an attempt to "legislate morality". If that had been true, they would been more rigorously enforced. Indeed, many social ills were tolerated in Britain during the Victorian Age, so long as they were kept out of sight. There were brothels galore, but these were in certain neighborhoods or were dressed up as something else. Men had to go out of their way to find them. And most men knew where to buy a lascivious French postcard or the most recent edition of Fanny Hill, even if these were not sold in bookstores or on the street. All of the social ills common to the world were found in abundance in Victorian England--in large part because they were tolerated by the establishment so long as they did not cause trouble, despite what the law might have been. Many, many people have therefore decried Victorian morality as hypocritical. Yet, there is another way of looking at it--they knew that they could not keep people's hearts clean through the law, and so they did not try. However, they could keep the public square clean and safe for families and children. This is what can best be described as civic morality.
Personally, I am not in the position to judge anyone by what they do in the bedroom. As pointed out in an earlier post, Christians are commanded to judge and discipline each other, but are then commanded not to judge non-Christians, even on matters of gross sexual morality. By this standard, another person's sexuality is none of my business. However, if I am pushed to agree, for example, that homosexuality is right, I have to say that it is wrong, and simply let the chips fall where they may. Effectively, so much of the homosexual lobby is demanding just that--that everyone must agree that homosexuality is right. This is a bridge I simply cannot pass over. I would be happy to work side-by-side with a homosexual or even hire a homosexual for a position at my company if he/she had the requisite skills and there was an opening, precisely because I feel that their sexuality is none of my business. By that same token, I agree with the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, because the sexuality of soldiers is also none of my business. However, I stand against any efforts to institute gay marriage, because it is an attempt to get legal sanction for something that is morally wrong, and because the sexuality of the people involved is none of my business. Why should I--or anyone else for that matter--be forced to give permission for something that two people will do anyway, whether we give permission or not? Further, why should I--or anyone else for that matter--be forced to hear or know about it when it is none of our business and we do not want to hear or know about it?
This speaks to the very heart of the conflict between Christianity and libertarianism. If it were just a matter of people's homes or bedrooms, and it had little or no effect on society as a whole, then my own proclivity is to let people do what they want. It truly is none of my business. Why should I care what people watch, who they sleep with, or what drugs they take? The problem is that these things do not tend to stay in the home or the bedroom, and that people with no restraint tend to want to force others to give sanction to their activities. One solution is to return to civil morality--that is, to use the law to keep the public square clean, but to turn a blind eye to people's personal activities unless they hurt others or cause a problem. This is not hypocritical. Rather, it deals with a severe shortcoming of libertarianism--the fact that people, when their search for individual freedom is unbridled, tend to trash the public square and create an eyesore that other people should not be responsible for or be forced to see.
It would be a return to Victorianism. Yet, somehow, this is better than the other paths before us. Prohibition was a failure, as have been most laws that have ever been enacted with the goal of improving mankind. I am not in favor of going back to that kind of approach to jurisprudence. However, at the same time, people should be able to watch TV or go to a film, to stroll down a public street--to live a normal life--without being assaulted by filth. People also should not have to be imposed upon by others who seek to live libertine lives and yet have a need for affirmation from society.
Victorian society had no laws against lesbianism, because Queen Victoria was scandalized by the very thought that women could be lesbians, and consequently refused to sign the law forbidding it. She simply did not want to know or think about it. While this seems quaint and silly, maybe she was on to something there. Maybe some things are better off kept in the closet. Maybe we should not have to know about it or think about it. And if some people want to engage in such things, maybe it is none of our business. Maybe.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
A Response to Rich Lowry
Rich Lowry thinks that it is unlikely that NY-23 heralds a broader GOP civil war, and that folks like me are just a little bit overexcited. Perhaps. Maybe I am a little overwrought. On the other hand, most people who know me do not think of me as the excitable type. Indeed, my wife used to complain ...
But where were we? Oh, a GOP civil war.
Well, there are two schools of thought about the current state of the GOP.
In the first school, the Iraq War and Bush are the main reasons why the GOP went in the toilet in 2008. To be honest, many people who belong to this school never really liked Bush to begin with. They did not like the fact that he was a social conservative, they despised his accent and rhetorical style, and they thought his brand of compassionate conservatism was a load of bunk. When the Iraq War turned into bad news at the polls, they jumped ship. A few in the GOP became vocal critics of the War. Many, many in the GOP complained about Bush's domestic agenda: We heard--and still hear today, even with Obama's budget disaster--that the reason why the GOP failed in 2008 was because of the budget deficit and Bush's "statism". Then, as soon as the 2008 election was over, there was talk of purging the party of social conservatives on the theory that they too shared part of the blame for GOP defeat. Now with Bush off the ticket and with Obama's failure, this school of thought holds that the GOP needs to make only a few changes in 2010 and 2012 to ride back to victory. With this in mind, they wish to support incumbents and known faces in the GOP, while disciplining those whom they consider to be annoyances--such as social conservatives.
The second school of thought holds that while the Iraq War did not help, the primary reason for the 2008 debacle was a systemic failure of the GOP. It was not Bush's fault, but rather the craven failure of many in the party to rally around Bush and support him when he was under siege, and the failure of the party to uphold any kind of integrity, decency, and conviction. Advocates of this view can point to a number of scandals involving GOP elected officials throughout the Bush years, along with the failure of the GOP to support conservative social policies when they were in power, and a tolerance--and even a support--within the GOP establishment of politicians in their ranks who appeared devoid of any kind of principles whatsoever. To support such a view, proponents of this school can point to the fact that while GOP electoral fortunes declined steadily throughout the Bush years, Bush nevertheless won in 2004; that though Bush was not personally popular, both his domestic and foreign policy planks consistently polled very favorably throughout his administration; and, that he was not on the ticket in 2008, and therefore could not have had that much of a drag on the 2008 candidates. For supporters of the second view, while NY-23 is extreme, it is emblematic of the dry rot at the core of the Republican Party.
I am a firm believer that Buckley's idea of supporting the most electable conservative candidate for each district is correct. However, when was this ever true with the GOP establishment during the Clinton and Bush administrations? The GOP appeared more like a good-ole-boy network that allied itself with the Democrats in order to protect those in the Beltway from their constituents. Perhaps the most egregious example of this trend was the GOP's support of Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Why did the GOP establishment insist on continued support for Specter when there were other conservative candidates who could have run for the seat? The rationale was that the other candidates could not have won because they lacked Specter's prominence and were too conservative. However, Rick Santorum is exceedingly conservative and held the other senate seat in Pennsylvania, until he was defeated by the state's (literal) favorite son. The only valid reason for standing behind Specter was that the other candidates were not well-known enough to win in a state-wide race. However, since these candidates were bereft of GOP support, this was nothing but a self-fulfilling prophesy. How could they become known if the GOP refused to make them known?
The GOP gained absolutely nothing in supporting Specter for all those years. He was never a reliable vote, he did not push GOP or conservative programs when it mattered, and in his position on the Judiciary Panel he did little or nothing to help get conservative judges approved, even though this was one of the conservatives' highest priorities. Now, of course, Specter has switched parties, showing what he was all along.
Yet, even reliable Republican votes in the House and Senate were not without the stench of moral decay. One of the worst politicians in Washington was Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. While he never bucked the establishment on important party-line votes, and while--unlike many other Republicans--there was no hint of sexual scandal, he became a poster child of everything wrong in Washington DC with his support of his beloved Bridge to Nowhere. Despite being killed many times, his Bridge to Nowhere would arise once again like a creature from the muck, to be appended as an earmark to this bill or that. It became a sick joke. Yet, it was neither the GOP establishment nor the Senate that ultimately killed the Bridge to Nowhere--it was a little known state governor. And it was not the GOP establishment or the Senate that disciplined Ted Stevens and put a stop to his madness--it was the opposition of this same governor, along with overzealous prosecutors who apparently had to break every law on the books in order to nail his hide to the wall. While I do not agree with their prosecutorial misconduct, it is indicative of how sick our system has become that the GOP and the Senate would not clean itself of his stench, and then stood in the way when others tried to do so.
I wish I could say that things have changed since the 2008 election. However, NY-23 is not the only race where the GOP establishment has gone out of its way to support the less conservative candidate. Of greater importance than NY-23 is the Florida senate race where the GOP is supporting Crist instead of Rubio. On what basis is Crist the more conservative or the more electable candidate? The governor prior to Crist was Jeb Bush, who is legendary for his unyielding conservatism. One would think that a very conservative candidate could easily win in Florida, but the GOP supports a moderate instead.
Now, one of these two competing world views regarding the GOP must die--they cannot continue to co-exist. Either the GOP is in good shape and excitable people like myself are the problem, or the GOP is sick and must be revitalized. I guess the real test will be who the GOP supports in 2010. However, from my vantage point, it looks like many people in the GOP establishment, along with many conservative pundits, are in denial about the mood of the country and people's impatience with the GOP.
With this in mind, I believe that either the GOP must change or it has no hope of winning in 2010 and 2012. More importantly, I believe that either the GOP must change or it has no business being in power. There is nothing worse than a Sunday Christian who lives like a heathen every other day of the week--even true heathens are more moral and upright than such a person. In the same way, the GOP should stop being a conservative party only on election day, but a good-ole-boy network every other day of the year. At least when you elect someone who calls himself a good-ole-boy, you know where he stands. The GOP needs to either start being a party of conviction again, or drop the pretense so that its supporters can go somewhere else. There is no way the GOP can muddle through--either it must change, or there will be war.
But where were we? Oh, a GOP civil war.
Well, there are two schools of thought about the current state of the GOP.
In the first school, the Iraq War and Bush are the main reasons why the GOP went in the toilet in 2008. To be honest, many people who belong to this school never really liked Bush to begin with. They did not like the fact that he was a social conservative, they despised his accent and rhetorical style, and they thought his brand of compassionate conservatism was a load of bunk. When the Iraq War turned into bad news at the polls, they jumped ship. A few in the GOP became vocal critics of the War. Many, many in the GOP complained about Bush's domestic agenda: We heard--and still hear today, even with Obama's budget disaster--that the reason why the GOP failed in 2008 was because of the budget deficit and Bush's "statism". Then, as soon as the 2008 election was over, there was talk of purging the party of social conservatives on the theory that they too shared part of the blame for GOP defeat. Now with Bush off the ticket and with Obama's failure, this school of thought holds that the GOP needs to make only a few changes in 2010 and 2012 to ride back to victory. With this in mind, they wish to support incumbents and known faces in the GOP, while disciplining those whom they consider to be annoyances--such as social conservatives.
The second school of thought holds that while the Iraq War did not help, the primary reason for the 2008 debacle was a systemic failure of the GOP. It was not Bush's fault, but rather the craven failure of many in the party to rally around Bush and support him when he was under siege, and the failure of the party to uphold any kind of integrity, decency, and conviction. Advocates of this view can point to a number of scandals involving GOP elected officials throughout the Bush years, along with the failure of the GOP to support conservative social policies when they were in power, and a tolerance--and even a support--within the GOP establishment of politicians in their ranks who appeared devoid of any kind of principles whatsoever. To support such a view, proponents of this school can point to the fact that while GOP electoral fortunes declined steadily throughout the Bush years, Bush nevertheless won in 2004; that though Bush was not personally popular, both his domestic and foreign policy planks consistently polled very favorably throughout his administration; and, that he was not on the ticket in 2008, and therefore could not have had that much of a drag on the 2008 candidates. For supporters of the second view, while NY-23 is extreme, it is emblematic of the dry rot at the core of the Republican Party.
I am a firm believer that Buckley's idea of supporting the most electable conservative candidate for each district is correct. However, when was this ever true with the GOP establishment during the Clinton and Bush administrations? The GOP appeared more like a good-ole-boy network that allied itself with the Democrats in order to protect those in the Beltway from their constituents. Perhaps the most egregious example of this trend was the GOP's support of Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Why did the GOP establishment insist on continued support for Specter when there were other conservative candidates who could have run for the seat? The rationale was that the other candidates could not have won because they lacked Specter's prominence and were too conservative. However, Rick Santorum is exceedingly conservative and held the other senate seat in Pennsylvania, until he was defeated by the state's (literal) favorite son. The only valid reason for standing behind Specter was that the other candidates were not well-known enough to win in a state-wide race. However, since these candidates were bereft of GOP support, this was nothing but a self-fulfilling prophesy. How could they become known if the GOP refused to make them known?
The GOP gained absolutely nothing in supporting Specter for all those years. He was never a reliable vote, he did not push GOP or conservative programs when it mattered, and in his position on the Judiciary Panel he did little or nothing to help get conservative judges approved, even though this was one of the conservatives' highest priorities. Now, of course, Specter has switched parties, showing what he was all along.
Yet, even reliable Republican votes in the House and Senate were not without the stench of moral decay. One of the worst politicians in Washington was Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. While he never bucked the establishment on important party-line votes, and while--unlike many other Republicans--there was no hint of sexual scandal, he became a poster child of everything wrong in Washington DC with his support of his beloved Bridge to Nowhere. Despite being killed many times, his Bridge to Nowhere would arise once again like a creature from the muck, to be appended as an earmark to this bill or that. It became a sick joke. Yet, it was neither the GOP establishment nor the Senate that ultimately killed the Bridge to Nowhere--it was a little known state governor. And it was not the GOP establishment or the Senate that disciplined Ted Stevens and put a stop to his madness--it was the opposition of this same governor, along with overzealous prosecutors who apparently had to break every law on the books in order to nail his hide to the wall. While I do not agree with their prosecutorial misconduct, it is indicative of how sick our system has become that the GOP and the Senate would not clean itself of his stench, and then stood in the way when others tried to do so.
I wish I could say that things have changed since the 2008 election. However, NY-23 is not the only race where the GOP establishment has gone out of its way to support the less conservative candidate. Of greater importance than NY-23 is the Florida senate race where the GOP is supporting Crist instead of Rubio. On what basis is Crist the more conservative or the more electable candidate? The governor prior to Crist was Jeb Bush, who is legendary for his unyielding conservatism. One would think that a very conservative candidate could easily win in Florida, but the GOP supports a moderate instead.
Now, one of these two competing world views regarding the GOP must die--they cannot continue to co-exist. Either the GOP is in good shape and excitable people like myself are the problem, or the GOP is sick and must be revitalized. I guess the real test will be who the GOP supports in 2010. However, from my vantage point, it looks like many people in the GOP establishment, along with many conservative pundits, are in denial about the mood of the country and people's impatience with the GOP.
With this in mind, I believe that either the GOP must change or it has no hope of winning in 2010 and 2012. More importantly, I believe that either the GOP must change or it has no business being in power. There is nothing worse than a Sunday Christian who lives like a heathen every other day of the week--even true heathens are more moral and upright than such a person. In the same way, the GOP should stop being a conservative party only on election day, but a good-ole-boy network every other day of the year. At least when you elect someone who calls himself a good-ole-boy, you know where he stands. The GOP needs to either start being a party of conviction again, or drop the pretense so that its supporters can go somewhere else. There is no way the GOP can muddle through--either it must change, or there will be war.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Sarah Palin's Latest "Scandal"
Did you hear?
Sarah Palin is a WOMAN! (gasp!!)
And she's a REPUBLICAN! (the horror!!)
And she's from ALASKA! (what, she's not even American?!)
And she chose to have A BABY! (can you believe it?!)
And she shops for CLOTHES! (where do we get people like this?!)
And she had no knowledge of the "BUSH DOCTRINE"! (she really is stupid!! What's the Bush Doctrine, BTW?--a non-existent doctrine that some dippy reporter pulled out of his butt to prove how unqualified she is--oh, she's not just stupid--she must be retarded!!)
And someone says that someone says that they heard someone else quote her clearly out of context to say that AFRICA IS A COUNTRY! (she must be an imbecile!!)
And Tiny Fey pretended to be Palin and said that she could see RUSSIA FROM HER FRONT PORCH! (a pure retard!!)
And her daughter HAD A BOYFRIEND! (what kind of mother is she?!)
And her daughter had A BABY! (how could this happen?!)
And her daughter's boyfriend left her and SPILLED THE BEANS ABOUT PALIN ON TYRA! (on Tyra, no less!!!!)
He said Palin has a FAMILY LIFE! (a family life?! oh, the humanity!!)
Now the boyfriend's POSING FOR PLAYGIRL! (Palin's such a hypocrite!!)
Meanwhile, she QUIT HER JOB AS GOVERNOR! (a quitter!! at least she could have stayed at her elected post until her term was up, like Hillary, Biden and what's his name! oh ... wait a second ...)
And now she's WRITING A BOOK TO DEFEND HERSELF! (oh, we can't have that! people like her don't deserve to defend themselves!!)
And finally, some political activists say off the record that SHE DEMANDED SPEAKING FEES FOR AN EVENT OR SHE WOULDN'T COME, EXCEPT THAT BOTH HER PEOPLE AND THE ORGANIZERS OF THE EVENT DENY THIS, EXCEPT THAT IT WOULD BE BREAKING NO LAWS AND WOULD NOT AT ALL BE UNUSUAL IF IT WERE TRUE, EXCEPT THAT THE POLITICAL ACTIVISTS WHO WERE THE SOURCE OF THIS REPORT ARE ALL ROMNEYBOTS WHO HATE HER GUTS AND WHO ARE LOOKING TO STIR UP TROUBLE BECAUSE THEY WANT THEIR OTHERWISE UNELECTABLE CANDIDATE TO WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (I can't believe it!! The nerve of that woman!!!! THAT'S IT!!!! I no longer support her for 2012!!!!)
But you never supported her to begin with. (oh ...)
Come on people, isn't it about time for ya'll to grow up?
PALIN FOR 2012
Monday, October 26, 2009
Why I Don't Heart Huckabee
According to the latest Rasmussen poll, if the 2012 Republican presidential primaries were held today, Mike Huckabee would come out ahead with 29% of the vote, followed by Romney at 24%, and Palin at 18%. Up to this point, it has been difficult to take Huckabee seriously. While he showed strength in the Bible Belt during the 2008 primaries, he was not really able to replicate this strength anywhere else. Given his personal background and stance on the issues, it is difficult to conceive of him winning the primaries in 2012 unless he faces Romney in a head-to-head race, and it is even more difficult still to see him winning the general election. Would a former Baptist minister with a record of such strident social views really be able to carry any states outside of the Bible Belt? The United States would have to take a hard right turn indeed for something like this to happen. Huckabee therefore looks at best like a spoiler in any presidential race, rather than a true contender. It is well worth remembering that 29% puts him in the lead in the presidential sweepstakes, but does not make a majority of the vote; 71% of those polled would prefer someone else.
Apart from being skeptical of his chances of actually winning anything, as opposed to splitting the vote and allowing someone like Romney to win the primaries (and thus cause the GOP to lose the 2012 election), a possible Huckabee candidacy is troubling to say the least.
First, there is the problem of resume. During the 2008 primaries, Huckabee let everyone believe that he had a Master of Divinity from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Fort Worth, Texas. This is a sore point for me, as I do in fact have a Master of Divinity from Southwestern (although, unlike Huckabee I have never been an ordained minister, nor have I ever pastored a church). As it turned out, he had only studied there for one year--in what is a three year program--and never graduated. When he was called on this, Huckabee seemed to say that in his mind it was all the same thing because he had also majored in religion as an undergrad and had had a total of three years of Greek. The problem is, having an undergraduate degree in religion, three years of Greek, and one year in grad school is not the same as having an MDiv--not at Southwestern. If it were, then half of the people in the seminary could drop out after a year and simply collect their diplomas, as quite a few of the students at Southwestern had majored as undergrads in religion or theology, and had studied a fair bit of Greek.
This may seem like a small point, but it raises deep questions about Huckabee's character. How long had he been going around pretending that he had an MDiv when he hadn't? Did he get any jobs because of this? My grandfather also spent one year at Southwestern, and then dropped out. Because he did not have an MDiv, and because he was honest about this, despite having a proven track record at church planting and pastoral work, he was effectively blackballed from getting paid posts in the ministry by many state and county conventions of the Southern Baptist Convention. What Huckabee did was equivalent in the business world of pretending that he had an MBA from Harvard, when in fact he had just attended a few seminars. In the secular world, people get fired for this kind of thing. In Christian circles, it is (or at least, should be) considered something quite a bit more serious, as important qualifications for being a minister should be honesty and moral rectitude.
Yet, this all tiptoes around the larger issue--what business does a minister have of going into politics to begin with? One of my grandfather's favorite verses was Luke 9: 62: "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God." By this standard, Huckabee should be thought of, and treated as, one would think of or treat a defrocked priest. Essentially, one cannot enter the ministry, and then leave it later, without becoming morally suspect. Now there are those whom the ministry has left (as opposed to those who left the ministry), and those who tried to enter the ministry, but were never able to create something viable to begin with. One could say that these people were willing and eager to take on the task, but were never really called to it. However, Huckabee does not fit into these categories, as he had ministered successfully for many years. At the same time, Huckabee cannot say that he left the ministry for a higher calling or to do more good with his talents, as he was already walking in a higher calling and already doing the most with his talents. If one takes Christianity seriously at all, a pastor of a church of five people has a much weightier calling and greater responsibility before God than a governor or president of a great nation. Huckabee traded away this precious jewel for a piece of gravel, and no matter how hard he might try to polish that gravel, it will never have the same luster. This alone should tell us much about both his judgment and character.
Huckabee's reply to this is that he sees no difference between religion and politics: "Politics are totally directed by worldview. That's why when people say, 'We ought to separate politics from religion,' I say to separate the two is absolutely impossible". In this, he is very, very wrong. Jesus said, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's" (Matthew 22: 21). Thus, there is a clear distinction between the spiritual world and the political world. While both in the Old Testament and the New Testament (i.e., John the Baptist), the prophets challenged the political leaders of their day, and certainly there is a call for political leaders to be informed by their faith and to walk in honesty and righteousness, nowhere in the Bible were religious leaders ever called to political office.
Starting from the very beginning of Israel, there was a clear delineation between the religious and the political. For example, Moses was the political leader, and Aaron (not Moses) was the priest. While Moses talked face-to-face with God and received directions from him, only Aaron and his sons were allowed to minister before the people. From that time forth, political leaders were never allowed to minister before the people, and ministers were generally not allowed any real political role. The one exception to this rule were times when political leadership was lacking and the only leaders in the country were the religious leaders (such as Samuel). However, this was not the normal situation. Certainly, political leaders who sought to minister before the people, leaders such as Saul, found the kingdom and their rule literally torn from their hands.
Separation of church and state was not something that man came up with--it is from God.
Why would this be true? The separation of church and state serves two purposes. Contrary to what humanists hold, the primary purpose of the separation of church and state is not to protect the state from the church. Rather, it is to protect the church from the state. Ironically, in American politics, it was the Baptists who were the main proponents of the separation of church and state, because they recognized that it was a guarantee to their own freedom to practice religion as they saw fit.
The second purpose of the separation of church and state is to protect the people from both the church and the state. A leader with both absolute moral authority and absolute political authority over his subjects would be too much for the people to bear. Even in Old Testament times, while the state of Israel was a theocracy and morality was indeed legislated, it was still up to the people, as they searched their own hearts, whether or not they would obey God's decrees. The coercive power of the state over the consciences and religious practices of the people was highly limited. For example, if one did not go to the temple to offer sacrifices, one might be ostracized by people who cared about such things, but the state itself had no power over the situation. And, while non-Christians delight in pointing out that in the Old Testament homosexuals could be stoned, there is no equivalence between such moral laws and the many religious laws. In the Old Testament, no one was ever stoned or even imprisoned for eating pork or shellfish, for wearing clothes of mixed fibers, or for failing to clean the house of mold, even though these were all proscribed by religious laws. Thus, the separate spheres of influence between church and state guaranteed a degree of freedom for the people. As the true worship of God is from the heart, such a freedom of thought and practice is absolutely necessary for true worship to occur.
In this vein, Huckabee's possible candidacy is alarming. Not everyone, even within conservative Baptist circles, would agree with all his moral positions. Are these positions to become law if he is elected? Or, more likely, is he going to spiritualize political differences with others, finding a moral and biblical imperative for whatever his pet projects are at the moment? How can one disagree politically with another on non-religious and non-spiritual issues, when the person being disagreed with bases all of his positions on the inerrancy of the Bible? For him, where does being a pastor stop, and being a politician begin? It appears that he sees both as a part of the same continuum--that the ministry was a stepping stone to bigger and better things, and that after being a pastor at progressively larger churches, and then being the head of the Arkansas Baptist Convention, he saw the ministry as being simply too small for his ambitions. If this is the case, then Christians above all should pause before supporting this man.
To be clear, we need moral laws and moral revival in the US, but this can only occur with a change of hearts. All law is ultimately a legislation of morality, so we can and do legislate morality all the time. However, no law can ever change the human heart, and those who try to use laws to change the human heart only drive people away from God, not towards him. True revival must therefore come from the church, and not from the state.
Then again, just as much as we need Godly people in high office, there is an even more critical need for Godly people in the ministry. In this respect, Huckabee left the field where the most important battle was occurring, all for the sake of his own personal ambition.
At this point, I would not have him as a minister, nor would I trust him as commander in chief of a nation. It is not because I despise his moral views that I feel this way--It is because I appear to take these views more seriously than he does.
Apart from being skeptical of his chances of actually winning anything, as opposed to splitting the vote and allowing someone like Romney to win the primaries (and thus cause the GOP to lose the 2012 election), a possible Huckabee candidacy is troubling to say the least.
First, there is the problem of resume. During the 2008 primaries, Huckabee let everyone believe that he had a Master of Divinity from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Fort Worth, Texas. This is a sore point for me, as I do in fact have a Master of Divinity from Southwestern (although, unlike Huckabee I have never been an ordained minister, nor have I ever pastored a church). As it turned out, he had only studied there for one year--in what is a three year program--and never graduated. When he was called on this, Huckabee seemed to say that in his mind it was all the same thing because he had also majored in religion as an undergrad and had had a total of three years of Greek. The problem is, having an undergraduate degree in religion, three years of Greek, and one year in grad school is not the same as having an MDiv--not at Southwestern. If it were, then half of the people in the seminary could drop out after a year and simply collect their diplomas, as quite a few of the students at Southwestern had majored as undergrads in religion or theology, and had studied a fair bit of Greek.
This may seem like a small point, but it raises deep questions about Huckabee's character. How long had he been going around pretending that he had an MDiv when he hadn't? Did he get any jobs because of this? My grandfather also spent one year at Southwestern, and then dropped out. Because he did not have an MDiv, and because he was honest about this, despite having a proven track record at church planting and pastoral work, he was effectively blackballed from getting paid posts in the ministry by many state and county conventions of the Southern Baptist Convention. What Huckabee did was equivalent in the business world of pretending that he had an MBA from Harvard, when in fact he had just attended a few seminars. In the secular world, people get fired for this kind of thing. In Christian circles, it is (or at least, should be) considered something quite a bit more serious, as important qualifications for being a minister should be honesty and moral rectitude.
Yet, this all tiptoes around the larger issue--what business does a minister have of going into politics to begin with? One of my grandfather's favorite verses was Luke 9: 62: "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God." By this standard, Huckabee should be thought of, and treated as, one would think of or treat a defrocked priest. Essentially, one cannot enter the ministry, and then leave it later, without becoming morally suspect. Now there are those whom the ministry has left (as opposed to those who left the ministry), and those who tried to enter the ministry, but were never able to create something viable to begin with. One could say that these people were willing and eager to take on the task, but were never really called to it. However, Huckabee does not fit into these categories, as he had ministered successfully for many years. At the same time, Huckabee cannot say that he left the ministry for a higher calling or to do more good with his talents, as he was already walking in a higher calling and already doing the most with his talents. If one takes Christianity seriously at all, a pastor of a church of five people has a much weightier calling and greater responsibility before God than a governor or president of a great nation. Huckabee traded away this precious jewel for a piece of gravel, and no matter how hard he might try to polish that gravel, it will never have the same luster. This alone should tell us much about both his judgment and character.
Huckabee's reply to this is that he sees no difference between religion and politics: "Politics are totally directed by worldview. That's why when people say, 'We ought to separate politics from religion,' I say to separate the two is absolutely impossible". In this, he is very, very wrong. Jesus said, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's" (Matthew 22: 21). Thus, there is a clear distinction between the spiritual world and the political world. While both in the Old Testament and the New Testament (i.e., John the Baptist), the prophets challenged the political leaders of their day, and certainly there is a call for political leaders to be informed by their faith and to walk in honesty and righteousness, nowhere in the Bible were religious leaders ever called to political office.
Starting from the very beginning of Israel, there was a clear delineation between the religious and the political. For example, Moses was the political leader, and Aaron (not Moses) was the priest. While Moses talked face-to-face with God and received directions from him, only Aaron and his sons were allowed to minister before the people. From that time forth, political leaders were never allowed to minister before the people, and ministers were generally not allowed any real political role. The one exception to this rule were times when political leadership was lacking and the only leaders in the country were the religious leaders (such as Samuel). However, this was not the normal situation. Certainly, political leaders who sought to minister before the people, leaders such as Saul, found the kingdom and their rule literally torn from their hands.
Separation of church and state was not something that man came up with--it is from God.
Why would this be true? The separation of church and state serves two purposes. Contrary to what humanists hold, the primary purpose of the separation of church and state is not to protect the state from the church. Rather, it is to protect the church from the state. Ironically, in American politics, it was the Baptists who were the main proponents of the separation of church and state, because they recognized that it was a guarantee to their own freedom to practice religion as they saw fit.
The second purpose of the separation of church and state is to protect the people from both the church and the state. A leader with both absolute moral authority and absolute political authority over his subjects would be too much for the people to bear. Even in Old Testament times, while the state of Israel was a theocracy and morality was indeed legislated, it was still up to the people, as they searched their own hearts, whether or not they would obey God's decrees. The coercive power of the state over the consciences and religious practices of the people was highly limited. For example, if one did not go to the temple to offer sacrifices, one might be ostracized by people who cared about such things, but the state itself had no power over the situation. And, while non-Christians delight in pointing out that in the Old Testament homosexuals could be stoned, there is no equivalence between such moral laws and the many religious laws. In the Old Testament, no one was ever stoned or even imprisoned for eating pork or shellfish, for wearing clothes of mixed fibers, or for failing to clean the house of mold, even though these were all proscribed by religious laws. Thus, the separate spheres of influence between church and state guaranteed a degree of freedom for the people. As the true worship of God is from the heart, such a freedom of thought and practice is absolutely necessary for true worship to occur.
In this vein, Huckabee's possible candidacy is alarming. Not everyone, even within conservative Baptist circles, would agree with all his moral positions. Are these positions to become law if he is elected? Or, more likely, is he going to spiritualize political differences with others, finding a moral and biblical imperative for whatever his pet projects are at the moment? How can one disagree politically with another on non-religious and non-spiritual issues, when the person being disagreed with bases all of his positions on the inerrancy of the Bible? For him, where does being a pastor stop, and being a politician begin? It appears that he sees both as a part of the same continuum--that the ministry was a stepping stone to bigger and better things, and that after being a pastor at progressively larger churches, and then being the head of the Arkansas Baptist Convention, he saw the ministry as being simply too small for his ambitions. If this is the case, then Christians above all should pause before supporting this man.
To be clear, we need moral laws and moral revival in the US, but this can only occur with a change of hearts. All law is ultimately a legislation of morality, so we can and do legislate morality all the time. However, no law can ever change the human heart, and those who try to use laws to change the human heart only drive people away from God, not towards him. True revival must therefore come from the church, and not from the state.
Then again, just as much as we need Godly people in high office, there is an even more critical need for Godly people in the ministry. In this respect, Huckabee left the field where the most important battle was occurring, all for the sake of his own personal ambition.
At this point, I would not have him as a minister, nor would I trust him as commander in chief of a nation. It is not because I despise his moral views that I feel this way--It is because I appear to take these views more seriously than he does.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
NY 23: The First Salvo of the GOP Civil War
In case anyone has been in political hibernation these past few days, a brouhaha has developed over the GOP's anointed candidate to run in a special by-election for New York's 23rd Congressional District on November 3. For a bit of background, even though this district is in liberal New York and Obama carried it in 2008, the district is (or was) considered a safe Republican seat. The last congressman from the district was John McHugh, who resigned from the US House of Representatives in order to become the Secretary of the Army. Based on McHugh's voting record, he has received a 0% rating from the National Abortion & Reproductive Rights Action League, and a 100% rating from the National Right to Life Committee, putting him solidly in the pro-life camp. On social issues, racial quotas, national defense, and crime, McHugh is fairly conservative. However, on other issues he is a mixed bag, which is why he is considered a moderate Republican. McHugh won more than 65% of the vote in 2008, indicating that his district is fairly conservative on most issues.
The proposed Republican replacement for McHugh is Dede Scozzafava, who was selected as the GOP candidate by the 11 Republican county chairmen from the 23rd District over another, conservative candidate. Scozzafava currently serves in the New York Assembly. Her opponents claim that she is a tax and spend liberal, but this may be overstated. On the other hand, by her own admission she is solidly pro-abortion and pro-gay rights. In past elections, she received support from the Working Families Party, which is closely aligned with ACORN. In her current campaign, she is receiving much of her support from the unions, and has been endorsed by the Daily Kos. Were it not for the (R) after her name, voters would be excused from thinking that she was not the Democrat candidate for office on election day. Yet, if her political views and affiliations were not enough to brand her as a Democrat in Republican's clothing, her personal associations are certainly more what one would expect of a Democrat Congresswoman, rather than a Republican. In the past, she was listed as an officer in a company called Seaway Capitol Partners, which is run by her brother. Though she herself claims to be no longer affiliated with Seaway, her campaign website lists her as the VP of the company. Naturally, Seaway has nearly $200,000 of liens against it for non-payment of federal and state taxes.
What were the Republican county chairmen thinking when they selected her? Indeed, when they made their selection, the GOP assumed that her Democrat opponent would be Darrel Aubertine, a state senator who is a social conservative. So, effectively the local GOP establishment chose to run a social liberal against a social conservative in a socially conservative district. They could have easily selected someone who was more conservative than her, and still kept the seat. Indeed, her Democrat opponent, Bill Owens, had not even bothered registering as a Democrat until he was selected as the Democrat candidate, and he has carefully avoided nearly all hot-button political issues, apart from his support for health-care reform. He may well be more conservative than Scozzafava on most issues, but, given his silence, without a track record it is difficult to tell. There was absolutely no reason for the local GOP to turn left in this by-election, especially when Obama is not on the ticket and is currently in a free-fall at the polls. The only explanation is that they themselves are not that conservative, and saw the by-election as an opportunity to put a more liberal candidate in office without having to go through the mess of holding a primary election.
The situation so incensed conservative Doug Hoffman, an erstwhile Republican, that he jumped into the race as a third party candidate. As current polls stand, Democrat Bill Owens leads with 35% of the vote, Scozzafava has 30%, and Hoffman has 23%. Hoffman appears to be gaining ground, mostly by taking votes away from Scozzafava, but it is unclear if he will be able to win in a three-party race with both the GOP and Democrat establishment against him. However, the situation has put the national and state GOP in crisis mode, and they are now trying to shore up support for Scozzafava rather than lose the seat.
At this moment, when people's hearts and motives are being tested, many Republicans are falling flat. Certainly, GOP functionaries at all levels should be reproved for allowing such a situation to develop to begin with, and for not working to rectify the situation. However, instead of acknowledging that they have made a mistake, they are digging in their heels.
Apart from GOP functionaries, the highest profile Republican to come out in support of Scozzafava is Newt Gingrich, because it is "what Ronald Reagan would do." It is entirely unclear in this context whether or not Gingrich is referring to President Reagan, or to his son, Ron Reagan, Jr., who is a prominent Obama supporter. Gingrich goes on to prophesy that the GOP will become a permanent minority party unless it tracks to the middle of the political spectrum. While it is entirely correct that national elections are won in the center, and not from the margins, it is a risible premise that Scozzafava somehow represents the political center in a country where more than half the population is against abortion and gay marriage. It may be true that the country is not as conservative as conservative activists would wish, but the country is certainly not socially liberal--socially libertine, perhaps, but socially liberal, certainly not. Yet, this is a local election in what appears to be a socially conservative district. Indeed, when the final tally is counted, it may well be that Scozzafava will have lost because she appeared more liberal than either of her opponents. In what sense does this represent tracking to the middle?
The reactions of the potential GOP presidential candidates for 2012 are all too predictable. Huckabee says that he supports all of Hoffman's positions, but refuses to endorse either candidate because somehow it would be "inappropriate". Romney is simply a no-show thus far, as he has been the entire political season. Presumably he is keeping his powder dry for 2012, but based upon 2008 it is entirely unclear that he will use his powder even then--likely, all of his ammunition will remain safely in its warehouse until after the battle is over. Pawlenty, who is apparently recruiting a campaign staff for 2012, had never heard of the race or Scozzafava when the subject was first broached. He is now leaning towards supporting Hoffman, but presumably needs more facts. Meanwhile, Palin has jumped in foursquare in favor of Hoffman on her Facebook page. As befitting her star-power, after her endorsement Hoffman raised $116,000 in campaign contributions in a single day, whereas he had raised only $210,000 in the previous week. Just a week ago, only serious political junkies knew about the race. Now, with Palin's endorsement it is the leading topic in the right blogosphere and news sources.
The battle lines are thus drawn. If Owens wins, then the GOP establish will blame conservatives, in particular Palin. However, the truth of the matter is that the GOP establishment tried to use the lack of a primary in the by-election to foist upon people a candidate who was out of step with her constituents. This is, in the end, a typical example of how the GOP has in the past, and continues in the present, to take its constituents for granted, to say one thing when running for election, and then do something else once elected, and to hold the voters in contempt. Gingrich and the GOP establishment say that the GOP risks becoming a permanent minority party unless it forsakes its principles. The rejoinder to this is that if the GOP forsakes its principles, it ought no longer to exist.
The proposed Republican replacement for McHugh is Dede Scozzafava, who was selected as the GOP candidate by the 11 Republican county chairmen from the 23rd District over another, conservative candidate. Scozzafava currently serves in the New York Assembly. Her opponents claim that she is a tax and spend liberal, but this may be overstated. On the other hand, by her own admission she is solidly pro-abortion and pro-gay rights. In past elections, she received support from the Working Families Party, which is closely aligned with ACORN. In her current campaign, she is receiving much of her support from the unions, and has been endorsed by the Daily Kos. Were it not for the (R) after her name, voters would be excused from thinking that she was not the Democrat candidate for office on election day. Yet, if her political views and affiliations were not enough to brand her as a Democrat in Republican's clothing, her personal associations are certainly more what one would expect of a Democrat Congresswoman, rather than a Republican. In the past, she was listed as an officer in a company called Seaway Capitol Partners, which is run by her brother. Though she herself claims to be no longer affiliated with Seaway, her campaign website lists her as the VP of the company. Naturally, Seaway has nearly $200,000 of liens against it for non-payment of federal and state taxes.
What were the Republican county chairmen thinking when they selected her? Indeed, when they made their selection, the GOP assumed that her Democrat opponent would be Darrel Aubertine, a state senator who is a social conservative. So, effectively the local GOP establishment chose to run a social liberal against a social conservative in a socially conservative district. They could have easily selected someone who was more conservative than her, and still kept the seat. Indeed, her Democrat opponent, Bill Owens, had not even bothered registering as a Democrat until he was selected as the Democrat candidate, and he has carefully avoided nearly all hot-button political issues, apart from his support for health-care reform. He may well be more conservative than Scozzafava on most issues, but, given his silence, without a track record it is difficult to tell. There was absolutely no reason for the local GOP to turn left in this by-election, especially when Obama is not on the ticket and is currently in a free-fall at the polls. The only explanation is that they themselves are not that conservative, and saw the by-election as an opportunity to put a more liberal candidate in office without having to go through the mess of holding a primary election.
The situation so incensed conservative Doug Hoffman, an erstwhile Republican, that he jumped into the race as a third party candidate. As current polls stand, Democrat Bill Owens leads with 35% of the vote, Scozzafava has 30%, and Hoffman has 23%. Hoffman appears to be gaining ground, mostly by taking votes away from Scozzafava, but it is unclear if he will be able to win in a three-party race with both the GOP and Democrat establishment against him. However, the situation has put the national and state GOP in crisis mode, and they are now trying to shore up support for Scozzafava rather than lose the seat.
At this moment, when people's hearts and motives are being tested, many Republicans are falling flat. Certainly, GOP functionaries at all levels should be reproved for allowing such a situation to develop to begin with, and for not working to rectify the situation. However, instead of acknowledging that they have made a mistake, they are digging in their heels.
Apart from GOP functionaries, the highest profile Republican to come out in support of Scozzafava is Newt Gingrich, because it is "what Ronald Reagan would do." It is entirely unclear in this context whether or not Gingrich is referring to President Reagan, or to his son, Ron Reagan, Jr., who is a prominent Obama supporter. Gingrich goes on to prophesy that the GOP will become a permanent minority party unless it tracks to the middle of the political spectrum. While it is entirely correct that national elections are won in the center, and not from the margins, it is a risible premise that Scozzafava somehow represents the political center in a country where more than half the population is against abortion and gay marriage. It may be true that the country is not as conservative as conservative activists would wish, but the country is certainly not socially liberal--socially libertine, perhaps, but socially liberal, certainly not. Yet, this is a local election in what appears to be a socially conservative district. Indeed, when the final tally is counted, it may well be that Scozzafava will have lost because she appeared more liberal than either of her opponents. In what sense does this represent tracking to the middle?
The reactions of the potential GOP presidential candidates for 2012 are all too predictable. Huckabee says that he supports all of Hoffman's positions, but refuses to endorse either candidate because somehow it would be "inappropriate". Romney is simply a no-show thus far, as he has been the entire political season. Presumably he is keeping his powder dry for 2012, but based upon 2008 it is entirely unclear that he will use his powder even then--likely, all of his ammunition will remain safely in its warehouse until after the battle is over. Pawlenty, who is apparently recruiting a campaign staff for 2012, had never heard of the race or Scozzafava when the subject was first broached. He is now leaning towards supporting Hoffman, but presumably needs more facts. Meanwhile, Palin has jumped in foursquare in favor of Hoffman on her Facebook page. As befitting her star-power, after her endorsement Hoffman raised $116,000 in campaign contributions in a single day, whereas he had raised only $210,000 in the previous week. Just a week ago, only serious political junkies knew about the race. Now, with Palin's endorsement it is the leading topic in the right blogosphere and news sources.
The battle lines are thus drawn. If Owens wins, then the GOP establish will blame conservatives, in particular Palin. However, the truth of the matter is that the GOP establishment tried to use the lack of a primary in the by-election to foist upon people a candidate who was out of step with her constituents. This is, in the end, a typical example of how the GOP has in the past, and continues in the present, to take its constituents for granted, to say one thing when running for election, and then do something else once elected, and to hold the voters in contempt. Gingrich and the GOP establishment say that the GOP risks becoming a permanent minority party unless it forsakes its principles. The rejoinder to this is that if the GOP forsakes its principles, it ought no longer to exist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
