The Right State

Do you still wonder why Democrats when campaigning in the South have absolutely no chance of winning in national elections? Zell Miller, a former governor and Senator from Georgia, in his best selling book, “A National Party No More” discussed why the Dems had such problems winning in the South. Miller explained that if any of the liberals from the northeast or west came south, it would doom a candidate.

I found a good example of how far in left field these guys really are in a post by David Horton in today’s Huffington Post. Take look at the first paragraph to see that these people just do not understand what the South is all about.

Why do people still get sucked in by religion at least 150 years after they should know better? Because religious leaders have cleverly learned to exploit a few basic human needs by lying to people. The needs are the wish to believe that there is life after death, the desire that men have to dominate women, and the need to think that there is a meaningful pattern to life that the individual can control.

He has no clue. Life is not about dominating women, but it is about life having meaning. To me, people like Mr. Horton have real faith, because he believe life is one cosmic accident, that everything happens by chance including life. That is truly beyond faith. I chose not to pattern my beliefs after his and I do not need to ridicule him to make my point.

Tags: Culture by Chuck
No Comments »

According to the Daily Kos, Frank Luntz, a former GOP strategist and polling artist, took time to give the Democratic Party some pointers.  Although I doubt they will heed his advice, I am all for advising the Dems if in the end it helps America.  I am not sure why Luntz is advising the party of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid instead of the Republican Party as he has done in the past.  To come up with his figures, the former Republican pollster went to Iowa and New Hampshire asking respondents what they wanted in a candidate.  Here are some of their results along with some commentary.

1. Don’t feel my pain - give me something to alleviate it. Democrats don’t want to be told what’s wrong with America. They want to be told what you plan to do about it. They’re not looking for the diagnosis - they know what ails them. They want the cure. The candidate most focused on “solutions” will have the advantage.  

I can this the anti-Clinton advice.  For the last several years I have not heard any of the Democratic Party leadership offer even one solution to a problem.  It is the same ol’ thing: This is what is wrong with America and President Bush caused it.  The Dems have been following this old tired worn out mantra for so long that they can not follow another.  The only problem is that this strategy does not bring in the voters.  I do not expect the Democrats to follow Lantz advice on this one.

2. Leave Bush out of it. We know why we don’t like him. Tell us why we should like you instead. They hear enough Bush-bashing and engage in it themselves. They assume all the Democratic candidates feel as they do: it’s time for a change.  They’re looking for the candidate that articulates the answer to the specific problem Bush created.  

This bit of advice is easy to say, but so hard to follow.  The Democratic Party has used this strategy in the past to rally their hard left troops.  The left HATES everything about George W. Bush.  They hate that the President is a Christian, a Texan, a cowboy, an oilman, and they especially hate that he is the President of the United States.  Don’t expect the Democratic Party to drop this one since it is what rallies the troops and raises the money.  One problem, it doesn’t win elections.

3. What would Jesus do? Tell me what YOU would do and leave Jesus out of it. The time for a conversation about faith and spirituality is in the general election, not the primaries. Democrats don’t want to hear about your church. If they really cared, they’d be Republicans.  

This is one point where I disagree with Luntz.  If religion is important to a candidate, it should be part of who they are, something to turn on and off.   Just bringing up religion in the general election comes across as fake.  Remember Howard Dean’s spiel about the necessity of the Democratic Party to get religion when down south.  It was phony and everyone knew it was.  To Christians religion is a part of life.  For a candidate to discount religion while up north and profess the importance of their religion in the South would be seen as fake.  I expect the Democrats to follow this advice. 

4. Don’t tell me what’s wrong with America unless you can tell me what you’re going to do to make it right. A litany of all that has gone wrong in the past five years is telling them what they already know. The candidate who tells them what they plan to do about it will win their support.

Replay number one and two.  This is what I expect the Democrats to say: America is going to hell in a hand basket and removing George Bush from office is the solution.  I expect this will be their only solution, besides Christians, Conservatives, and people living in red states.

5. Tell me something new. Tell me something I don’t already know. It may sound like a Gary Hart-esque approach but Democrats are really looking for a nominee with new ideas, someone with an innovative approach. Been there, done that won’t sell in 2008.  

Replay of #1, 2, 4.  Get rid of Bush.  I really don’t expect anything new.

6. Be a Deficit Democrat. Every time a Democratic candidate talked about ending wasteful spending and tackling the deficit, the dials spiked up, as did the approval. In the arena of deficit spending, there really isn’t much difference between Democrats and Republicans.  

For several years, the Dems have had the moniker of tax and spend democrats.  To be sure, the Republicans have not acquitted themselves very well in the area of reducing spending, but the Dems are even worse.  They never found a dollar they did not want to spend on some social program that doesn’t work.  I expect the Democrats to talk about two things: too big a federal deficit and what programs they can start.  Mixed review on this one.

7. The 2008 Agenda:  education, healthcare, prescription drugs, energy independence. The war in Iraq may grab the headlines and the attention, but Democrats are much more focused on concerns right here at home. `Bring the troops home,’ they complained. Tell us what you’re going to do to improve our quality of life right here in America.    

These are all important issues, but candidates need to do more than just mention these problems.  Voters want solutions.  All the above are good solid issues for any candidate in any election, with the exception of bringing the troops home.  Being a cut-and-run Democrat will never win an election.

8. The 2008 Attributes: intelligence, competence, accountability, getting things done, passion, honesty and being ethical. Attributes matter, as does style.  The 2008 contest is not just about the issues. It’s also about who the candidates are and what they are truly about. Smart is in. Accountability and integrity are necessities. And passion - yes passion - is a prerequisite.  

Sometimes I wonder if Lantz was really discussing the Democratic Party.  Do their candidates have intelligence-yes, competence-yes, and passion-yes.  These are good qualifications, but there are others they need work on: honesty-no (Dems KNOW the warrantless wiretapping was legal), ethical-? (if the candidate is Hillary-no).  Expect more passion than anything else.

9. You are the message. Watch the negativity. Democrats want hope.  Beating up on Republicans will generate applause, but it doesn’t generate votes. The candidates focused on the future will have a significant advantage. The candidate that generates the most hope in a better future will win the nomination.

This is the same thing I said in #1,2, and 4.  The problem is that in order for one of the Democratic contenders to win, the candidate will need to move out in front fast and raise lots of money.  The only way to do that is to NOT carry out number 9.

10. Winning is everything. And the only thing. As in 2004, Democrats want to win. Unlike 2004, they REALLY want to win. No candidate will secure the nomination whom they fear will lose to the Republican nominee.  Electability is going to play a major role in 2008.  

This is the one and the only one I expect the Democratic Party to go after with gusto.  The end justifies the ends.  Win at all costs.  The Democratic Party released George Bush’s DUI just days before the 2000 election, they disqualified hundreds of soldier’s ballots in the Florida recount of 2000, they with the help of CBS News released fraudulent Texas National Guard documents about Bush in trying to win the 2004 general election.  WIN AT ALL COSTS!  That’s their motto.

In a nutshell, I do not expect the Democratic Party to follow the advice of Frank Luntz though they would be smart to do so. 

Frank, the GOP needs another Contract With America.  In the meantime, I will be willing to settle for Hugh Hewitt’s Painting the Map Red.

Tags: National Elections by Chuck
No Comments »

Freed hostage Jill Carroll, a war reporter for the Christian Science Monitor, is free and on her way back to the US.  Now that she is out of danger, Ms. Carroll feels free to voice her own views on her hostage situation instead of those of her captors.  Earlier I posted my concerns with the reporter’s comments and how her views did not mesh with one statement she made which was covered by Fox News, found here.

Now that Jill Carroll is free, her comments have been pointed and scathing toward her captors.

During my last night in captivity, my captors forced me to participate in a propaganda video. They told me they would let me go if I cooperated. I was living in a threatening environment, under their control, and wanted to go home alive. I agreed.

Things that I was forced to say while captive are now being taken by some as an accurate reflection of my personal views. They are not. The people who kidnapped me and murdered Alan Enwiya are criminals, at best. They robbed Alan of his life and devastated his family. They put me, my family and my friends–and all those around the world, who have prayed so fervently for my release–through a horrific experience. I was, and remain, deeply angry with the people who did this.

I also gave a TV interview to the Iraqi Islamic Party shortly after my release. The party had promised me the interview would never be aired on television, and broke their word. At any rate, fearing retribution from my captors, I did not speak freely. Out of fear I said I wasn’t threatened. In fact, I was threatened many times.

Jill Carroll also made comments to the effect that she was threatened many times with guns to her head, her stay in Iraq not so rosy after all.  Now I understand why Carroll’s comments did not mesh.  Immediately after being released the Christian Science Monitor reporter praised her captors who were ‘nice to her.’  And then to a question she replied that she did not ‘feel’ like she was free.  A little bit of disparity in those two statements.  Now we hear that she was apparently coerced to espouse views that were not her own and was thrown off by a question that did not fit in with what she had been saying.

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin

There have been some on the right who have gone a little overboard with their criticism of Jill Carroll, accusing her of everything from collaborating with the terrorists to Stockholm Syndrome.  Right Wing Nuthouse provides a wakeup call for all bloggers who take to the blogosphere with news before it is proven in an attempt to be first.  He also calls for those who attacked Carroll to apologize.

The speed and ferocity with which people piled on Miss Carroll for not immediately disavowing her propaganda statement as well as her first statements to the press which seemed to give her brutal captors a pass reminded me of the jaw-dropping way the left pounced on the Administration in the immediate – and by immediate I mean that lefty bloggers were screaming “incompetence” less than 24 hours after hurricane winds had died down in New Orleans – aftermath of Katrina. The point isn’t to bash the left here but to highlight a problem with blogs that seems to be presenting itself with alarming regularity.

In people’s haste to be first, or different, or just plain ornery and contrary (all the better to get links and readers) a culture of “shoot first and ask questions later” has arisen in the blogosphere that quite frankly, is proving every bad thing that the MSM has been saying about blogs from the beginning. Many of us – including myself – have been guilty in the past of hitting that “Publish” button when perhaps it would have been prudent and proper to take a beat or two to think about what we just wrote and the impact it might have beyond the small little world we inhabit in this corner of Blogland.

I for one do not think I crossed the line with my views of Ms. Carroll’s initial comments.  If I am mistaken in my view, I do offer my apology.  I have never been a hostage, nor do I ever want to be a hostage.  What she went through with all the threats, fear of losing her life, concern for her loved ones back home, despondent over the loss of her translator, and fear of the unknown is more than most people will ever have to deal with in their entire lifetime.  Carroll’s initial comments in light of what I know now, can definitely be understood.

I can not know what she suffered through, although I can definitely understand Carroll’s anger at her captors.  Welcome home and God Speed.

Tags: Iraq, War by Chuck
No Comments »