jeffreymark

IN THE MAIL

Here's what the publishers have to say:

Horowitz collaborates with his FrontPage Magazine coeditor Johnson in a vitriolic attack on the left's cowardly betrayal of the American cause, singling out the antiwar stances of John Edwards, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi for special reproach. According to the authors, a nation divided during wartime is a nation that invites its own defeat, and they argue that through ignorance and design, Democrats have obstructed presidential policy, undermined American security and continually failed to grasp the nature of the Islamofascist threat. Cataloguing Democratic miscalculations from the Carter administration on, the book asserts that Carter encouraged the Iranian revolution, Clinton fatally ignored bin Laden and Bush's wiretapping program was perniciously leaked to the New York Times. Their earnest moralizing overshadows these compelling fact patterns as Horowitz and Johnson omit intellectual or historical contextualization that might ratchet down the fever pitch of their argument; sadly, this sensationalism comes at the expense of some truly effective excoriations of liberal figures—particularly a brutal and delicious takedown of Frank Rich. (Aug.) "" Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved."

A ONCE PRINCIPLED PARTY GONE SOUTH

It's getting easier these days to make one's antipathy toward Dems public. In fact, I utterly despise the Dem party particularly those members whose own hatred for the president and any kind of power he may inherit, promps them to lie, make false accusations, and flip-flop on the most salient issues. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, refering to a new book by David Horowitz and Ben Johnson, provides this basic characterization of a once principled party:

The descent of a great political party — one whose determined patriotism was critical to the nation’s victory over Nazi Germany and imperial Japan — has been as predictable as it is disheartening. Many of today’s prominent Leftists were, in the sixties and seventies, heavily influenced by Soviet practices. The authors note that Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest Soviet intelligence official to defect to the West, has explained that “[s]owing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks” of his office. A president cannot rally the public to any great national cause if he becomes the object of distrust and ridicule. Propaganda campaigns toward that end were a Soviet priority.

Continue reading McCarthy here.

DEATH OF THE MONOLITHS

The old mainline church denominations that once towered over this nation like a monolith are rapidly declining. Here's a glimpse as to why:

Conservatives from the world’s largest Anglican provinces who are angered by liberal thinking in churches [particularly in relation to the ordination of practicing homosexuals] in North America and elsewhere plan to create a global fellowship that challenges worldwide Anglican unity but stops short of a formal split.

And another example.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), bitterly divided over sexuality and the Bible, set up another confrontation Friday over its ban on ordaining non-celibate gays and lesbians.

The denomination’s General Assembly, meeting in San Jose, Calif., voted 54 percent to 46 percent Friday to drop the requirement that would-be ministers, deacons and elders live in “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between and a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.”

You who seek to usurp tradition and the historical interpretations of the Bible, you can run even if it means running into religion, but you will never eradicate the remanent who oppose your ill chosen path. Their words, true to the Bible, ring forth with the same resounding cry as the prophets of old. And, like the prophets, some may try to destroy the messagenger, but they will never destroy the message because of its eternal nature.

Go here to read more.

DEM'S FEEBLE ATTEMPT TO SWIFTBOAT MCCAIN

Glenn of Instapundit fame offers this provocative post:

DAVID WEIGEL ON Swift Boat Derangement Syndrome: "This is why, when today's Democrats talk about John McCain, they can sound incredulous. After all the crap they took, why is he able to ride his Vietnam record to the GOP nomination? "

Maybe because it wasn't a lie?

THE PRINCE OF DARKNESS

Liberals, eat your heart out. Drudge informs us:

LIMBAUGH SIGNS THROUGH 2016; $400 MILLION DEAL SHATTERS BROADCAST RECORDS

Wed Jul 02 2008 09:02:18 ET
**Exclusive**

The American broadcast industry is rocked, realigned and blasted into a new orbit, yet again, by Rush Limbaugh, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

In what is being described as an unprecedented radio contract, Limbaugh will keep his syndicated show on-the-air and e-v-e-r-y-w-h-e-r-e through 2016 with CLEAR CHANNEL and PREMIERE RADIO.

Already host of the most lucrative hours since radio's inception, Limbaugh's total package is valued north of $400 million, according to media insiders.

The NEW YORK TIMES will claim this weekend that Limbaugh, marking 20 years this summer as a national host, has secured a 9-figure signing bonus for the new deal, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE.

MORE

In its controversial profile, the TIMES reports that Limbaugh is buying a new G550 jet and is making an estimated $38 million a year.

[The cover photo of the TIMES Sunday magazine depicts Limbaugh 'dark and sinister' in a theme of THE GODFATHER.]

While newspapers and traditional broadcast media are experiencing declining revenues, Limbaugh's golden microphone has turned diamond-laced:

Earnings now pace him ahead of the annual salaries for network news anchors: Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer ó combined!

MORE

The deal represents a stunning triumph over the establishment by an outsider who connected with and captured the spirit of the nations heartland.

Rush's success is based on a simple premise that often baffles liberals-"he is equal time."

OBAMA'S THEOCRACY

Obama's bold new faith based initiatives may make George Bush look like a son of the devil in comparison. Steven Waldman of the W&J compares the two and asks, "What will the liberals who criticized President Bush’s “theocracy” make of Sen. Barack Obama’s speech today..." Mr. Waldman then proceeds to compare the initiatives and finally places the onus on Bush for not following through with his bold faith undertaking.
Read about it here.

Who in the hell is Sott McClellan?

The former press secretary says he might just vote for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Speaking after an address at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco last week, McClellan said he hasn't ruled out voting Democratic this year -- or even registering as a member of the anti-GOP. "I haven't made any long- term decisions," McClellan said, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

McClellan said his presidential choice will depend in part on whether Obama or his opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), runs a positive, issues-oriented campaign. One of the themes of McClellan's best-selling book, "What Happened," is that Washington has become paralyzed by negative, winner-take-all politics.

Gee, we're shaking in our boots Mr. McClellan.

HE SOUNDS SO EVANGELICAL

I keep pressing the issue of Obama's apparent evangelical magnetism. He sounds so convincing, so idealistic, so youthful but, when assessing his religion remember these salient points expressed in the Associated Press:

Comments critical of America by Obama's longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, caused a firestorm during the primaries and brought Obama's brand of faith under scrutiny because of Wright's adherence to black liberation theology. Obama also has battled false but persistent rumors that he is a Muslim; they have been kept alive on the Internet despite his repeated talk about his longtime devotion to Christianity. Conservative Christians make up about a quarter of the electorate, and they helped put Bush in office twice. Many still are likely to oppose the Democratic nominee because of his support for abortion rights, gay rights and other issues. An AP-Yahoo News poll in June found that people who attend church at least once a week support Republican McCain over Obama, 49 percent to 37 percent. Those who attend church less often tend to favor Obama. White evangelical Christians who attend church weekly favor McCain by huge margins.

While Obama would expand Bush's efforts to give religious charities more equal footing when getting federal funding, he also would tweak what he would call the President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in ways that divert from Bush's approach.
He would increase spending on social services, starting with a $500 million-a-year program to keep 1 million poor children up to speed on their studies over the summers. He would increase training for charities applying for funding and make it a grass-roots effort. He would elevate the program to be "a critical part of my administration," a reference to criticism that Bush paid barely more than lip service to his effort.

It adds up to, now are you listening my friends? Come a little closer. It adds up to raising taxes. And how does
one such as Obama do that? The same way New Dealers have always done it-by promoting class envy.

MCCAIN FINALLY PICKS THE RIGHT EVANGELICALS

John McCain has wandered in the desert like a prodigal looking for an evangelical voice, while Obama's biblical knowledge and charisma has swayed a few traditionally Republican evangelicals. McCain finally listen to reason picking the tried and true path when he visited with the Graham boys yesterday:

As Sen. John McCain continues to woo religious conservatives, the Republican presidential contender paid a visit today to Rev. Billy Graham and his son Rev. Franklin Graham at their family home in the Blue Ridge Mountains, near Montreat, N.C.

Sen. McCain had requested the meeting with the elder Rev. Graham, who has been a spiritual adviser to presidents of both parties for decades but is in declining health. The meeting lasted for 45 minutes at the Grahams’ shingled, mountaintop cabin, dubbed Little Piney Cove, which, according to a McCain staffer, has a great view from the living room.

“We had an excellent conversation,” Sen. McCain told reporters after the meeting. “I appreciated the opportunity to meet with” Rev. Graham. Sen. McCain said Rev. Graham recalled visiting the senator’s parents in Hawaii and praying with them when he was a P.O.W. during the Vietnam War.

Sen. McCain said he requested the meeting because “they’ve known my family, they’ve known of me for many years, they’re great leaders in this nation and I appreciate the opportunity to visit with them and I am very grateful for the time they spent with me.”

Because of the scope of Franklin Graham's seemingly commonsensical appeal McCain made a wise choice. Graham offers the perception that not all evangelicals are wild-eyed space cadets ready to beam the faithful up. What's rather comical, however, are some of the space cadet-like comments offered in this particular W$J post. It looks as though a few of the commentators received their talking points from Nurse Ratched.

WALL*E CLASSIC STORY WITH SCIFI APPEAL

I took my family to see the new Disney/Pixar production WALL*E last night. The story offers a classic theme packaged in a SciFi medium. Robot WALL*E and his pet cockroach obviously got left behind on a deserted planet earth to compact trash for eternity. Day in and day out WALL*E piles up trash in little blocks, then returns home to play a video scene of Michael Crawford singing It Only Takes A Moment from the classic 1969 production of Hello Dolly. One day sleek, new robot Eve, descends from a mysterious spaceship, scans the earth for its inhabitability and runs into WALL*E. One thing leads to another and they fall in love. The movie meditatively, and subtly steers us toward an old fashioned motif suggesting love pricks our conscience, conquers our lethargy, and inspires us to care about the global community. Pixar, however, does not preach. They simply provide a nuanced look at an age old problem-a world without love destroys the human spirit.

DEM'S JAMES DOBSON MOMENT

James Dobson of late raised ecumenical dander with his more spiritually targeted judgements against Obama. His less than kosher words failed to score in most political camps be they conservative or liberal. Now it looks as though Wesley Clark might learn a valuable lesson from Dobson's faux pas. Yesterday on Face the Nation Clark said:

I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not.

Good point to which I agree. McCain's war experience falls short of executive training ground. Yet, when program host Bob Schieffer pressed the issue Clark returned fire with a blank:

Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

Again a salient point wrongly worded. People tenaciously and emotionally hang on to war vets. Questioning their service, especially one who suffered in the enemy's hands, invites anger. Emotions trump reason, thus, the messianic fever sweeping Obamaites. In addition to Dobson,Clark and his liberal friends need to learn a lesson from George McGovern's failed candidacy against Richard Nixon in 1972. McGovern flew a B-24 Liberator over Germany during WWI. His heroic deeds under enemy fire earned him the Distinguished Flying Cross. Stephen Ambrose's best selling book The Wild Blue touted the work of the Liberators, in particular George McGovern. Politically savvy opponents never attacked his war record. Instead they debated the issues and defeated him primarily because of his populist views, his opposition to the Vietnam war, and the appearance of pandering to the counter culture crowd.

If Wesley Clark, however, chooses inexperience as a battleground he might rethink that strategy as well. Yes, McCain possesses little executive experience. Senators rarely win Presidential elections (JFK was the last one to do so), precisely because of the experience issue. Yet, Obama falls even way shorter than McCain in that department. Age alone substantiates the fact. In fact Obama's age might provide a good target for those who know how to play it just right. He's already demonstrated an archetypal character flaw of youth who get crowned as best and brightest at an early age-arrogance. We witnessed the fruit of the flaw produced in Bill Clinton. The need to micromanage, manipulate, and surround oneself with "yes" men, inhabits the psyche of a prideful individual. But one may find consolation in Billy Graham who once said the Presidency is a very humbling experience. You go in feeling ten feet tall and come out a midget.

Indeed this election year may become the year of retro politics. With Republicans offering up an old 60s blue-blood liberal, Dems delivering a McGovern/Carter style candidate, pain at the pump, Iraq, and Bush's discretionary spending record, perhaps a case study in Nixonianism, Rockefeller Republicanism, or both would be of some benefit to conservatives. But, attacking candidates for their religion and war record may,as we say in Texas, provide the gun to shoot oneself in the foot.

DOBSON VS. OBAMA

James Dobson's recent diatribe launched against Obama drew fire from a host of Christian leaders. Black United Methodist Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell has now joined the band of Dobson critics. He recently launched a website entitled James Dobson Doesn't Speak for Me. Caldwell offers this reason for the site:

We are a coalition of pastors and other Christians, led by Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell who are standing up for our Christian faith and supporting Barack Obama. We are signing in our individual capacities and not on behalf of our churches or denominations.

There was recently a Time Magazine article that implies this website was part of a premeditated plan to attack Dr. James Dobson. Unfortunately, I was never contacted or given an opportunity to comment on the article. Nothing could be further from the truth. This website was created to directly respond to comments made by Dr. Dobson in his June 24 broadcast and to set the record straight about Senator Obama and his deep Christian faith. It was created to respond to Dr. Dobson in a spirit of love and lift up a candidate we think is the best choice for our country. The reason over 10,000 individuals have signed up is because they believe in a positive, affirming vision of the United States, not because they believe in attacking Dr. Dobson.

Sincerely,

- Kirbyjon Caldwell

Of course Caldwell fails to speak for all United Methodists including yours truly. But, he illustrates a salient issue I addressed in a previous article. Obama comprehends evangelical rhetoric and does a yeoman's job at expounding on the bible. His public persona and apparent Christian demeanor appeals to a significant group of Christians, particularly evangelicals. Although I share a theological and social kinship with James Dobson, I believe he and other evangelicals will make a fatal mistake if they attack Obama on religious grounds. Much like then Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter in 1976 Obama seems more at home with Christian leaders than does his opponent. Dobson serves as a striking example of the public predicament awaiting those who attack Obama on religious grounds. It will only serve as fodder for the liberal media who salivates with eager anticipation at the thought of an evangelical demise.

Those opposed to Obama must address his vulnerability on three fronts. First of all, he lacks experience and perhaps wisdom for the massive undertaking of running a country. Victor Davis Hanson recently offered his conservative take on the issue:

Some wrote that I was obsessed with Obama. Curious is a better word. I can’t think (readers help please) of a presidential candidate in the 20th century (not Carter, not Harding) so unprepared to be president.

The comparison with the young Congressman, Senator, student of history, and war veteran JFK proves the opposite.

By the same token, I persist in thinking that the novels, plays, and films comparing Bush to a Nazi or in some way deserving of assassination were both reprehensible and unprecedented, surely more than the hatred expressed for Nixon, Reagan, or Clinton. And I think such genres should and will stop with Obama. Indeed, one of the most startling developments in recent memory will be the utter about-face (compare already the Obama rejection of beloved federal campaign financing, his backtracking on the war timetable, etc.) of the liberal media. It would be incensed if one did to a President OBama what has been done to Bush. Suggesting that the Right in this instance does the same I don’t think is persuasive. Even the mainstream hysterical Clinton haters, here or abroad, did not write columns praying for a John Wilkes Booth to return.

Second Obama speaks like a New Dealer which has now become the old deal, an anachronistic, socialistic political philosophy. Economist and best selling author of The Forgotten Man, Amity Shlaes, had this to say about the matter in a recent interview:

LOPEZ: Does Barack Obama sound like someone who appreciates the New Deal’s shortcomings?

SHLAES: Hardly. The New Deal exists principally on an emotional plane for Obama. To him the New Deal is something you play like a song, to make you or your constituents feel better. Let me be clear: It’s too early to judge Obama on economics. But he does seem unaware of the economic consequences of government expansion that happens under the New Deal name.

Politicians generally act as if there is no cost to reconnecting with voters by building new New Deals. But the whole exercise of writing law out of New Deal nostalgia is a form of national narcissism. Call it New Deal narcissism.

We could afford to burnish our social contracts if there were no competition from abroad. But there is.

LOPEZ: What would The Forgotten Man want us to never forget as we mark this anniversary?

SHLAES: That New Deal nostalgia is expensive. Too expensive for younger Americans to afford.

Finally, we know Obama has a history of surrounding himself with nefarious characters. Critics need to press Obama on these issues and persuade naive evangelicals to see the ominous clouds surrounding New Deal collectivism, immaturity, and wrongheaded mentors. We discovered long ago with Jimmy Carter that born again evangelicals might not always make good presidents.

OBAMA IS JIMMY CARTER

A haunting comparison:

Consider these interesting parallels.

First, Jimmy Carter appeared from nowhere – he was an obscure, though fiercely ambitious, southern governor who, eighteen months before his juggernaut reached full and unstoppable speed, had been hardly noticed and was given little chance of success. But his carefully calculated message wrapped in a resonate promise, “I’ll never lie to you,” had a populist impact that was underestimated by party insiders.

But the most powerful similarity between Jimmy’s run in 1976 and Barack’s today can be seen in what’s happening among Christian evangelicals. Mr. Obama is trying, with some success, to convince these voters that he’s sufficiently one of them, glaring evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Jimmy Carter, complete with born again professions, received 48% of the evangelical vote in November 1976 doing exactly what Barack Obama is doing today – talking the talk. The problem is that he never actually walked the walk. Front-loaded euphoria about having a person of “I’ve met Jesus and He’s met me” faith in the White House, gave way to pervasive frustration as it became glaringly clear that Carter was not only in way over his head, but that head didn’t really think like an evangelical.

Jimmy Carter had mastered the God-speak VOCABULARY, but he was using a very different DICTIONARY. Barack Obama has discovered that dictionary. It’s now digitalized and part of his campaign.

And younger evangelicals are on the verge of making the same mistake in 2008 that many of their parents did back in 1976.

TIM RUSSERT III

I'm a week late on this one, perhaps because of my recent disappointments with Peggy Noonan's Bush bashing. Yet, last week she gave a moving tribute to Tim Russert, connecting us with his eternal soul that encompassed the truth born in all our hearts.

The beautiful thing about the coverage was that it offered extremely important information to those age 15 or 25 or 30 who may not have been told how to operate in the world beyond "Go succeed." I'm not sure we tell the young as much as we ought, as clearly as we ought, what it is the world admires, and what it is they want to emulate.

In a way, the world is a great liar. It shows you it worships and admires money, but at the end of the day it doesn't. It says it adores fame and celebrity, but it doesn't, not really. The world admires, and wants to hold on to, and not lose, goodness. It admires virtue. At the end it gives its greatest tributes to generosity, honesty, courage, mercy, talents well used, talents that, brought into the world, make it better. That's what it really admires. That's what we talk about in eulogies, because that's what's important. We don't say, "The thing about Joe was he was rich." We say, if we can, "The thing about Joe was he took care of people."

The young are told, "Be true to yourself." But so many of them have no idea, really, what that means. If they don't know who they are, what are they being true to? They're told, "The key is to hold firm to your ideals." But what if no one bothered, really, to teach them ideals?

After Tim's death, the entire television media for four days told you the keys to a life well lived, the things you actually need to live life well, and without which it won't be good. Among them: taking care of those you love and letting them know they're loved, which involves self-sacrifice; holding firm to God, to your religious faith, no matter how high you rise or low you fall. This involves guts, and self-discipline, and active attention to developing and refining a conscience to whose promptings you can respond. Honoring your calling or profession by trying to do within it honorable work, which takes hard effort, and a willingness to master the ethics of your field. And enjoying life. This can be hard in America, where sometimes people are rather grim in their determination to get and to have. "Enjoy life, it's ungrateful not to," said Ronald Reagan.

Tim had these virtues. They were great to see. By defining them and celebrating them the past few days, the media encouraged them. This was a public service, and also what you might call Tim's parting gift.

When looking at Russert's life we see the truth Noonan speaks of and we must ask ourselves, "Why can't we, like Russert live this more virtuous, higher kind of life? Why must we call attention to it, crave it, when someone dies only to remain as we were?" Perhaps, as Noonan suggests, Russert's life may serve to remind us that our deepest longings for a joyful life can indeed be realized when we submit to the One who offers us a higher kind of life.
Continue reading Noonan here.

THE AMERICAN WAY

Gary Varvel

CHRISTIAN'S SUBTLE INFLUENCE ON IRAN

More often than not a dichotomy exists between a rogue nation's public bullyism and rising radical grassroots movements. Christianity Today suggests Christians may have a more profound influence on the Iranian character than the public witnesses. Sometimes those movements boil in the underbelly for years before finally surfacing as they did through the Roman Catholic church in Poland during the 80s, eventually leading to the crack-up of the Eastern Communist block. CT explains the current Christian/Iran connection:

But Christians are influencing Iran from the bottom up. We should support diplomatic talks at the appropriate level and back aggressive efforts to keep nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands. Christians have an additional mission of particular concern for the Iranian government's restrictions on freedom (including religious liberty). The Christian influence is not with weapons, but with radio waves, the Internet, and relational outreach. Farsi-language Christian broadcasts and websites are blanketing Iran with the gospel message 24/7. (Secular counterparts are also broadcasting messages about political reform and democracy.) This kind of hearts-and-minds campaign is having significant results, notably among Iran's huge population of young adults unhappy with the current regime. According to Compass Direct News, house churches are growing rapidly. Sadly, one result of this Christian media strategy is a negative one: Iran is considering legalizing the death penalty for anyone who leaves Islam for another religion.

Of course the real cross of Christ is not discovered in the questions of denominational choices, or what kind of car Jesus would drive, but in the death penalty facing those who dare convert to Christ or evangelize. If I read the Gospels right this is the sacrificial life Jesus called all his disciple to undertake.

POLITICAL CRYSTAL BALL?

Could spring's special elections serve as a political crystal ball? The W$J's Rhodes Cook thinks perhaps this particular season may part company with a history that often answered the million $ question with a resounding "no!"

From early March to mid-May, Democrats won three special House elections in formerly Republican districts, the largest net gain by any party between general elections since the 1970s. Yet it was not just the number of seats the GOP lost in such short order, but where they lost them that has left pundits and politicians alike wondering what might come next.

To be sure, special elections are not always a good harbinger of what lies ahead. In early 2004, the Democrats picked up a pair of previously Republican House seats in Kentucky and South Dakota. But that fall, the GOP handily fended off Democratic efforts to capture either house of Congress.

This year’s special elections, however, may be more prescient. Two seats that shifted from the Republicans to the Democrats were in the Deep South (Louisiana and Mississippi), a region the GOP has owned of late. The other, outside Chicago, included the boyhood home of Ronald Reagan (Dixon, Ill.) and the base of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. The three districts were typical pieces of the Republican base and supported the re-election of President George W. Bush in 2004 by margins ranging from 11 to 25 percentage points.

A Spike in Optimism

But the backdrop of this year’s election is quite different from 2004. With their recent special election victories, Democratic optimism for the fall spiked from an already high level. The president’s approval rating, outside the Republican Party, is spectacularly low. The GOP has far more open House seats to defend than the Democrats, as well as far more Senate seats. Democrats, for a change, are flush with cash, which they used to good effect in the special elections. And Republican efforts to link Democratic House candidates in these races to Sen. Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi failed to pull out a victory anywhere.

At first glance, this year bears a resemblance to the Watergate election of 1974, which culminated with a Democratic gain of close to 50 House seats. According to Vital Statistics on Congress, the Democrats had a net gain of four House seats that cycle by special elections. Most of the inroads were in the Republican heartland at the time, the Midwest and the Northeast. John P. Murtha was one of the Democratic victors, winning the western Pennsylvania House seat that he holds to this day. But probably the most significant Democratic triumph occurred in Michigan, where Democrats captured the Grand Rapids-based seat vacated by Gerald Ford, who had left Congress in 1973 to become Richard Nixon’s vice president.

Democrats, by comparison, have won not only Mr. Hastert’s district this time, but also the two Deep South districts where the African-American population (according to the 2000 census) is 25% to 35%. That racial composition used to supply the Democrats with many of their Southern House seats before the Republican wipe-out of 1994 turned this type of district from Democratic to Republican.

JOHN MCCAIN'S PUBLIC PERSONA

Wednesday on the Colbert report, Stephen Colbert lampooned John McCain's public persona. Sadly, Republicans failed to learn their lesson after offering Bob Dole as the sacrificial political lamb.

OBAMA APPEALING TO CLINTON SUPPORTERS

Looks like Obama and Hillary are trying to make nice for support's sake:

Obama gave Clinton a personal check for the legal maximum of 2,300 dollars, aides said, to help towards canceling campaign debts of 22.5 million dollars racked up in her ultimately doomed bid for the White House nomination. Introducing Obama to more than 200 of her leading money people, Clinton lamented that the Democrats had won only three of the past 10 presidential elections. "That is a sobering thought," she said. "For me this is intensely personal, because I want to see our country once again not just solving problems... but lifting up our sights and finding the promise of our country. "We have to make it a priority in our lives to elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States," the New York senator said, to sustained applause.

But did we have any doubts?

MCCAIN'S ENERGY VISION

THE DEATH OF EVANGELICALISM IS GREATLY EXAGGERATED

Lately a wave of prophets enthusiastically predicting the demise of evangelicalism have received ample attention from the media. Most notable of late, emerges from the pen of self acclaimed former Baptist Christine Whicker. Her new book entitled The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church currently ranks 61,000 at Amazon. Publishers Weekly offers this piquant critique of the work:

Religion reporter Wicker (formerly of the Dallas Morning News and author of Lily Dale) proffers a tendentious, confused book about the alleged demise of conservative evangelicalism.She makes a few lucid points, as when she deftly takes apart the many competing statistics about how many Americans are evangelical. But, overall the book has a shrill feel, thanks to the regular use of terms like threat and death knell.Some of the chapters, which seem like filler, are journalistic accounts of aspects of evangelical life—e.g., a portrait of a grieving widow who says she wouldn't give up Jesus to have her husband back—and are not closely related to the overarching argument.Wicker argues that some of the threats to evangelicalism come from evangelical institutions themselves.For example, she asserts that megachurches carry a lot of debt—a fascinating claim that should be bolstered by more rigorous research and source citation. However, merely establishing that megachurches are vulnerable because they cater to the tastes of boomers and depend on the personality of their leaders doesn't tell us that evangelicalism is dying; it just suggests that evangelicalism, ever protean, will once again change.

Since I have not read the book I cannot make an assessment of Ms. Whicker's arguments. I surmise, however, from her recent Dallas Morning News op. ed. piece that her tone renders her reason suspect. Gleefully rubbing hands together she reveals her prejudice with this sardonic epiphany:

Evangelical faith has been dropping since 1900, when 42 percent of the U.S. claimed that distinction. Every year, Religious Right evangelicals, such as those who lead the Southern Baptists, are a smaller proportion of the country. Every year, their core values are violated more flagrantly by the media, scientific discovery and mainstream behavior. Every election, politicians promise to serve them and then don't because evangelicals lack the power to make them.

What all this means is that we were duped. All the hype proclaiming an evangelical resurgence was merely that – hype, a furious shout from a faith losing its grip, manipulation by a relatively small group of dedicated, focused, political power-seekers. [bold mine]

Ms. Whicker parrots an observation New York Times journalist David Kirkpatrick made last year in an article entitled The Evangelical Crackup Today William E. Simon Visiting Fellow in Religion & Public Life at the James Madison Program, Department of Politics, Princeton University, J. Daryl Charles, posted an insightful response to David Kirkpatrick. Pointing to factual errors in Kirkpatrick's assumptions Mr. Charles suggests:

Kirkpatrick’s definitive claim of a leftward drift of many evangelicals is anchored in his mistaken assumption that only very recently have they developed an interest in a wider array of social issues. In addition, Kirkpatrick points to encouraging signs that the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is rethinking its relationship to the Republican party. And, of course, Republicans’ “fury” at the war in Iraq is said to be confirmed by the alleged precipitous decline in the president’s approval rating among white evangelicals.

Charles continues by elaborating on Kirkpatrick's glee in discovering a leftward bent in mega church pastors Bill Hybels and perhaps Rick Warren. Both claim to be a-political, but Hybels courts leftist laughingstocks Clinton and Carter. Warren posts his own plan among many, for political peace appropriately called PEACE. The plan calls for addressing the issue of Giant corrupt leadership through servant leadership. One wonders if he may seek a political solution through the smokescreen of faith. Charles reveals the fatal flaw in Kirkpatrick's reasoning with this assessment and concludes with a lesson for evangelicals:

Conspicuously absent from Kirkpatrick’s reporting, a genre that rests on the perpetuation of false or exaggerated stereotypes, are several inconvenient facts. First, it ignores the remarkable—and seldom reported—diversity among evangelicals on matters social and political. Those of us who teach at the university level cannot help but be impressed by the current generation of young evangelicals, who possess a remarkably sensitized social conscience that is far more diversified and progressive than evangelicals of a previous generation. This development, it needs reiteration, has been measurable since the 1980s and is both heartening and to be encouraged. To describe this as a “recent” phenomenon or a “desertion” of traditional priorities or a major leftward political shift, as Kirkpatrick does, is pure fiction. Kirkpatrick need only consult a recent Pew study that reports “a small increase in the number of Democrats” that is coupled with an increase in the number of “independents and politically unaffiliated Americans.”

Correlatively, Kirkpatrick propounds a view of evangelicals that is patently false when he writes: “The phenomenon of theologically conservative Christians plunging into political activism . . . is, historically speaking, something of an anomaly.” While Times reporters cannot be expected to be experts in American religious history, they cannot be excused for evading—or denying—the rich history of American evangelical Protestants in terms of social reform, health and medical reform, not to mention a fundamental concern for human life, dignity, and welfare. And in this regard, we evangelicals gratefully continue to learn from our Catholic brethren.

But Kirkpatrick’s reporting does do us the service, however inadvertently, of exposing problems that are internal to wider evangelicalism itself and its relationship to the culture. That megachurch leaders are placed on a pedestal, whether by New York Times reporters or evangelicals themselves, is instructive. What needs emphasis is that megachurch entrepreneurs—with their large congregations, their larger constituencies, and their even larger book sales—may not be the best, or even the legitimate, measurements of Protestant evangelicalism’s health and vibrancy. In fact, both the megachurch influence and the “emergent church” phenomenon belong to a peculiarly Protestant genus that is theologically suspect (eschewing the difficult doctrines of divine wrath and repentance), infatuated with postmodern sensibilities, and therefore notoriously hard to define.

In the end, megachurches may well represent the most glaring deficiencies in evangelical thinking—for example, heavy dependence on marketing, large numbers as a measurement of “success,” congregations run as businesses, and a strongly anti-sacramental orientation to church life. Can evangelicals today confess, not merely with Dorothy Sayers but with their own forefathers, that the drama is truly in the dogma? One need only consider the accent that was placed by the magisterial Reformers on Word, sacraments, and discipline as the authenticating “marks” of the church.

And yet, had Kirkpatrick done his homework, his research would have taken him, not to Wichita, Kansas, but to his own backyard and New York City, where evangelical congregations are vibrant and socially engaged. Consider, for example, the very large and increasingly influential Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, which embodies what is salutary, healthy, and encouraging about Protestant evangelicalism. But because Redeemer, given its simultaneous commitments to theological orthodoxy and social responsibility, has been making a difference in the city for almost two decades (and doing so without a so-called leftward political shift), such evidence would undermine Kirkpatrick’s thesis. Similar examples abound in metropolitan areas nationwide.

Like their Catholic counterparts, evangelical Protestants face significant challenges in the present post-consensus cultural climate, partly stemming from their theological orthodoxy (where found) and partly due to a wider cultural backlash. Unlike Catholics, their fragmentation and lack of authoritative voice hinder their ability to marshal a concerted cultural witness.

The rub as they say, does indeed come with Kirkpatrick's historical and social anemia. Politics does not an evangelical make. Both Whicker and Kirkpatrick reveal skewed attitudes toward evangelical faith. An astute student of American Christianity realizes a gulf exists between one's politics and theology. Evangelicals hold in common a set of theological beliefs and a way of looking at life. Life's chess pieces for the evangelical get moved in all directions, contrary to secular perceptions. Bill Hybels and Rick Warren both embrace consciously or unconsciously, evangelical theology to the exclusion of political philosophies. Those who fail to comprehend the difference between temporal playing fields and eternal dispositions possess little understanding of history and the struggle of the saints. Mr. Kirkpatrick and Ms.Whicker might benefit from evangelical academies in order to discover the mystery of evangelicalism.

BLOGGING THE SUPREME COURT

While the Supreme Court is in session two separate blogs keep us lay folks up to par with the most recent decisions and also provide a conservative commentary. First check the Volokh Conspiracy. They provide an in depth analysis of SC decisions. Law students often rely on the VC to enhance their classroom experience. Then go to Scotusblog. Not only do they give commentary they also link students to case indexes and provide the oral arguments presented in each particular case. Lot's of fun if you're an attorney wannabe.

LUBBOCK WOMEN III

I have been all over the US and I'm here to tell you the prettiest women live in Lubbock, Texas.

From the Avalanche Journal

WHAT A CRAPPY DEAL

Salmonella is still alive and kicking in the old Lone Star State.

The Texas Department of State Health Services says that the number of salmonella cases linked to tomatoes in Texas since mid-April has increased to 330.

Health Department spokeswoman Emily Palmer said Wednesday that investigators interview those who have fallen ill and then look for commonalities in an effort to find out who supplied the tomatoes.

The Food and Drug Administration is advising consumers to limit their tomato consumption to those not likely to be part of the outbreak: cherry tomatoes; grape tomatoes; tomatoes with the vine still attached.

Consumers are being told to avoid raw red plum, red Roma or red round tomatoes unless they were grown in specific states or countries that the FDA has cleared of suspicion.

OBAMA'S VULNERABILITY

Gallup places the presidential gallop in a dead heat at this point. Of course things move rapidly during election seasons, and no guarantees exist as of yet.

Seems to this arm chair pundit that if McCain will court Franklin Graham (that is if he wants to be courted), instead of the radical John Hagee, question Obama's nefarious past associates, and focus on his immaturity, he may pull it off.

Speaking of immaturity, our favorite conservative scholar Victor Davis Hanson, compellingly addresses Obama's lack of preparedness suggesting:

Some wrote that I was obsessed with Obama. Curious is a better word. I can’t think (readers help please) of a presidential candidate in the 20th century (not Carter, not Harding) so unprepared to be president.

The comparison with the young Congressman, Senator, student of history, and war veteran JFK proves the opposite.

By the same token, I persist in thinking that the novels, plays, and films comparing Bush to a Nazi or in some way deserving of assassination were both reprehensible and unprecedented, surely more than the hatred expressed for Nixon, Reagan, or Clinton. And I think such genres should and will stop with Obama. Indeed, one of the most startling developments in recent memory will be the utter about-face (compare already the Obama rejection of beloved federal campaign financing, his backtracking on the war timetable, etc.) of the liberal media. It would be incensed if one did to a President OBama what has been done to Bush. Suggesting that the Right in this instance does the same I don’t think is persuasive. Even the mainstream hysterical Clinton haters, here or abroad, did not write columns praying for a John Wilkes Booth to return.

[Hanson's Worries Concerning Obama]
Class Strife.

By exempting millions from any income tax at all, he is going to institutionalize, in the fashion of Rome, two classes: the growing angry number on the receiving end of bread and circuses—and the shrinking few who will pay all the income taxes.

The former will not show gratitude, but always think a greedy class of parasites on top constantly pays them too little and has an endless supply of capital for others’ needs. Gone will be the old American notion that when we see a nice car in the parking lot (I drive an older Honda with 100,000 miles on it), we walk around it in fascination—replaced by a European desire to kick in the fenders in resentment.

Business.

Listen sometime to Obama’s references to business—90% of the time they occur in a pejorative context. And when he is not overtly critical, his curiosity is a sort of naïve, wow admiration of the hip zillionaire like a Buffet or Jobs who has made so many hundreds of millions that in their golden years they suddenly don’t care much about income tax rates, death taxes, etc.—at least not in comparison with the notion that they are seen as magnanimous liberals and proof that a choice few can be both rich and generous.

Never-never land.

Obama is counter-intuitive and seems to come up with exegeses opposite to what facts suggest. The surge is working in remarkable fashion. Nonetheless, as in 2007, he continues to insist that it has failed or is of only marginal significance—even as troops prepare to hand over entire provinces to the Iraqis and more and more are scheduled for withdrawal.

Any fool knows that wind and solar, even on hot, windy days, will not furnish more than 10% of our power needs for the immediate future. Why then would he omit other sources of much needed short-term energy, when we founded the nuclear industry, have the world’s largest supply of coal, have 3-4 million more barrels of oil per day recoverable off our coasts and in Alaska, and vast amounts of tar sands and shale? If electric cars are the answer (one per household?), then nuclear power seems essential so we can plug into the grid as we sleep. All this is simply omitted. What does “millions of new jobs in green industries” mean—especially in the foreseeable future of $5 a gallon gas?

Even Al Gore’s jet burns fossil fuels, as does John Edwards’ playroom, as do John Kerry’s mansions, as does Rev. Wright’s 10,000 sq. ft palace. Why trash the industry that allows us to live in the concrete while praising in the abstract industries that cannot help us much in the present?

One-sided history.

There is a constant refrain in his historical exempla that take a one-sided view of Americana as largely pathological. Obama always seems to reference slavery, the Underground Railroad, the Civil Rights marches, and women’s suffrage. Not a word in balance about the Founding Fathers, Andrew Jackson, Shiloh, the Way West, the Gold Rush, the age of American invention and discovery, World War I, World War II (the victories like the Bulge or Iwo, not just Hiroshima, Rosie the Riveter, and the Japanese Internment). I have no problem with evocation of past reform and needed change, just the notion that there wasn’t much else apparently good.

Less than flip-flopping

Obama seems to assume that his charisma will explain every inconsistency. Trash NAFTA to the yokels—but send backchannel assurances to elites that he is a free-trader. Waffle on Rev. Wright and adjust hourly so that the black base accepts you were “forced” to pay lip service to the “establishment”, while gaining laurels from suburban whites for your racial transcendence. In fact, talk of transcending race in the manner that a Gen. Powell or Sec. Rice had done it, while warning that your enemies will use your race and middle name against you. Praise for months public financing, and then when you don’t need it, trash both the law and your opponent who is using it.

Obamanics

I think few understand the full effect of Obama’s tax hikes—payroll, income, estate, capital gains, etc—on the so-called “rich.” I know plenty of couples who live in Bay Area and for all their income are not entitled. They make together about $200-250,000. That at first glance seems like plentitude.

But not so fast. A tiny 1200 sq. foot home in Palo Alto or Menlo Park can go for a million (a friend just bought a cottage for $800,000 [two bedrooms]). Mostly Hispanic Redwood City rarely sees a modest home for less than $700,000. Gas is right about $4.80 a gallon. State taxes hit hard with nearly a 10% take. If they send a child to a private school like Santa Clara it can cost $50,000 a year in tuition, room, board, books, and expenses. These are not all CEO jetting to Hedge Fund Retreats.

His proposed estate taxes will kill an upper-middle class California coast couple for whom a $1 million-plus house, and 401K nest eggs were a lifetime effort. Depending on the caps Obama chooses, such estates may be taxed at death a second time at 45%.

Remember two facts: the additional revenue (if it is additional, since many will hide their income or rest on their laurels given the tax bite) won’t go for deficit reduction, given whopping new entitlements. Second, those who pay 100K more a year in FICA, income, and capital gains taxes will still be the greedy rich whose income was ill-gotten anyway.

Like I mentioned in a previous post James Dobson could critique Obama on several fronts, the least being religion. Obama displays a televangelist demeanor complete with a more than novice comprehension of biblical exegesis. Evangelicals in general cannot defeat Obama on religious grounds. They must follow Hanson's lead by focusing on his past, his inability to grasp a legion of issues, and his naivete.