I’ve had a few requests for the links to my appearance on Hardball that took place during my sabbatical from SA (May 30, 2007). There were two segments, and you can watch them here and here.

[Ed. This is a post from my "Alexham" archives over at RedState. I am reposting it here because I believe the overall message of the post needs to be restated before we gather together for the national convention in September.]

I can still remember the day after the 1994 midterm elections. It was an unusually sunny day in the Southland, and all seemed right with the world. After all of those years in the wilderness, the Republicans had finally taken control of the House, and soon thereafter, the Senate. We would do things differently, we promised. We were a different kind of political party. Unlike the Democrats, who only care for power for power’s sake, we sought power to make a profound difference in the lives of every-day Americans.

How different things look thirteen years later. Somewhere along the line, we lost our way. I think most Republicans instinctively know this, but have trouble articulating exactly when things began to unravel for our party. What we do know is that the Republican Party is at crossroads. We are a party in search of an identity, and the path we choose will have long-term ramifications not only for the GOP, but for these United States. (more…)

How many times have you heard some toad-licking agrarian socialist of the modern day refer to FOX News as “propaganda” or “biased” and then pirouette and insist that CNN or CBS News is a bastion of objectivity?

(more…)

They’ve voted out one of the penumbra lovers Governor Doyle appointed to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and elected a judicial conservative.

Congrats, Justice Gableman!

One of the best political ads I’ve seen in a long time.

And yes, as you can tell from the button on SA’s sidebar, I am supporting Senator McCain for president now. I do so even though he and I have serious differences on issues that are extremely important to me (e.g., embryonic stem cell research). I’ll go into greater detail in the near future, but suffice it to say that my differences with Senator McCain are slight in comparison to those I have with Senators Clinton and Obama. 

For those of you still checking SA on occasion, I thought I would let y’all know that I will be supporting Governor Mike Huckabee for president of the United States. Many of you have asked who I planned to back by way of email, so I thought I would post something here as well. My reason for doing so is all but obvious to long-time SA readers: Huckabee is, far and away, the most eloquent spokesperson for a “Culture of Life” in this race.

And for those of you who live in Georgia, please contact me if you’re interested in getting involved in the campaign. I will be serving on the executive committee of Georgians for Huckabee, as his chairman here in the Eighth Congressional District, and as the focus-group coordinator. Bottom line: If you want to be involved here in Georgia, I can get you plugged into the campaign fairly quickly.

I hope all of y’all have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Oh, and don’t vote for Rudy.

Update: I recently appeared on the local CBS affiliate to discuss Governor Huckabee’s candidacy, which you can view here.

Update II: Be sure to check out Governor Huckabee’s excellent issue statement on judges (drafted by yours truly).

That is the new title of my forthcoming book that will be published in 2007 by Cambridge University Press. It just appeared on Amazon.com here. According to the Leiter Law Rankings, Cambridge is one of the six leading academic presses. It is ranked number one by political scientists and is considered one of the top two publishers in philosophy. Because this book overlaps the fields of law, political science, and philosophy, I am deeply gratified with the forthcoming publication of this book.

I’m in Atlanta for Thanksgiving, preparing to eat as though I’ve been deprived of food for some time.  While perusing today’s AJC, I noticed that former Ala. Chief Justice Roy Moore has an op-ed providing the reasons why the GOP lost in the recent elections.  Enjoy.

Perhaps . . . according to this report.

Victor Davis Hanson does a great job describing what I consider the weirdest single aspect of the war on terror:

The truth is that wealthy Western elites in the media have evolved beyond worry over the basics of their civilization. They are so insulated, even after September 11, that they don’t believe there is much connection between liberty, freedom, consensual government, freedom of expression, and the everyday mundane things they depend on — whether excellent medical care, clean water, nice cars, neat electronic gadgets, eating out, or safety in their streets. A nuclear Iran, a missile-laden North Korea, a theocracy in oil-rich Iraq, an unleashed terrorist-sponsoring Syria, and an emboldened Hezbollah — all these still could still never quite take away their good life, so strong is the assurance of their never-ending comfort zone that they could not conceive of ever losing it.  

And thus the most vehement and angry critics find it possible, even desirable, to nibble away at their own civilization’s efforts, on the understanding that a loss in Iraq would be only an apparent loss. That defeat would not entail any material detriment to themselves, but surely would enhance their own sense of contrarian self-righteousness and self-worth, as they boldly caricature the very culture that so empowered them.

Reason’s Jeff Taylor has a great take on this.

Yessiree, Mr. Andrew, we’re just a bunch of racist, freedom-hating rednecks. 

Yep, you’ve got us pegged.

but putting it away proved more burdensome, as the Nazi grandmother checking IDs, said:  “Now, I’m going to watch you put that back into your wallet to make sure it gets put away properly.”  As someone who normally just throws everything back in my purse for later sorting, that was the hardest part of voting. 

If you’re a conservative in Pennsylvania planning to not vote for Santorum because you’re still hacked off that he backed Specter in the 2004 GOP Senate Primary race over Toomey…well, inflicting 6 years of Bob Casey, Jr. on yourselves may not be the best way to express that anger. Just saying…

Harold Ford, Jr. has tried to present himself as a moderate Democrat in the Tennessee U.S. Senate race. Well, I searched the vote ratings of 4 conservative organization to see if his rhetoric matched his record. Here’s the results of my findings from the following 4 groups:

National Taxpayer Union (NTU)
American Conservative Union (ACU)
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR)
National Right to Life (NRTL)

All scores are out of a possible “100″.

His pro-life record improved somewhat, but it looks like a pretty liberal voting history. Maybe it’s not the most liberal record in the House, but it’s hardly a centrist/moderate one.

“the date” is here.

Hat Tip:  The corner

A great video brought to you by Scrappleface.

It’s often difficult to separate one views about a person from the policy positions that person takes (see my earlier post today re: Nancy Pelosi), especially when those positions are intrinsically evil.  That having been said, we are called as Christians to love our enemies, and that is what I plan to do regarding Nancy Pelosi. I am going to pray for her. I am going to pray that she and other leading dems will see the grave error of supporting the slaughter of millions of innocent children. I am going to try, as best I can, to love Nancy Pelosi. I am going to ask God to change my heart concerning Pelosi, because right now I have nothing but contempt for her; and that’s not a good thing.

You might ask what prompted this post, given that I just published the Pelosi post this morning. Well, it was this post over at Get Religion, which includes the following account of a D.C. Bible study group that includes both Hillary Clinton and Sam Brownback:

One spring Wednesday, a few months into the term, Senator Sam Brownback’s turn came to lead the group, and he rose intending to talk about a recent cancer scare. But as he stood before his colleagues Brownback spotted Clinton, and was overcome with the impulse to change the subject of his testimony. “I came here today prepared to share about this experience in my life that has caused great suffering, the result of which has deepened my faith,” Brownback said, according to someone who watched the scene unfold. “But I’m overcome now with only one thought.” He confessed to having hated Clinton and having said derogatory things about her. Through God, he now recognized his sin. Then he turned to her and asked, “Mrs. Clinton, will you forgive me?” Clinton replied that she would, and that she appreciated the apology.

“It was an extraordinary moment,” the member told me.

This repentance fostered an unlikely relationship that has yielded political bounty. Clinton and Brownback went on to cosponsor one measure protecting refugees fleeing sexual abuse, and another to study the effects on children of violent video games and television shows. “That morning helped make our working relationship,” Brownback told me recently. “It brought me close to someone I did not ever imagine I would become close to.” Since then, Clinton has teamed up on legislation with many members of the prayer group.

I think Senator Brownback’s example is a fine one to follow, especially when one considers where his inspiration to ask for Senator Clinton’s forgiveness came from.

As I mentioned at the end of my last post, after I was about to head for home after voting, Harold Ford Jr.’s campaign bus pulled up to meet a gathering of Dems. Curious, I moseyed on over to the crowd to the several dozen people gathered by a couple of tents and a speaking platform and find a Democratic rally. State Senator Rosalind Kurita (who ran against Ford for the Dem. Senate nomination, though she dropped out before really starting a campaign) introduced Ford who the crowd was just estatic to see.

Ford gave a short speech on how there needs to be a new generation of leadership in Washington. He slammed Corker’s criticism of him for not wanting to “stay the course” in Iraq, by stating that he’s against “staying the course” in Iraq, and in education, healthcare, etc. In regards to Iraq, Ford advocated the paritioning of Iraq into 3 regions which he pointed out Sen. Warner, Hagel, Snowe, and Hutchison by name as Republicans supporting “our plan”. Ford criticized the budget deficits and federal debt and appealed to the crowd’s nostagia of Bill Clinton by remarking how the budget deficit shrunk under him (conveniently forgetting that the GOP ran Congress after 1994 which made those budgets possible). He said something along the lines of “you shouldn’t vote for me just because I’m a Democrat” but instead for him on his stances and that “If you just vote for Democrats, I may not be your candidate; if you just vote for Republicans, then I’m definitely not your candidate.” He also spent a good bit of time praising Gov. Bredesen and the 3 Dem. candidates for TN House. He wrapped it up by pumping up the crowd and exhorting to vote and volunteer. I have to say, Ford was very charismatic speaker with the crowd eating out of his hand.

Kim McMillian, the retiring majority leader in the TN House, introduced the 3 Democratic TN House candidates, Bruce Gibbs, Tim Barnes, and Joe Pitts who each gave a few sentences long speeches.

Next up was Phil Bredesen. If Ford has charisma, then Bredesen has whatever the opposite of that is. He did jokingly pick on Ford to not go to far with the “new generation” thing, since there’s plenty of good old people in office (like himself). He gave a nice, if forgettable, speech with the crowd chanting “4 more years” a few times. And I mean forgettable because, well, I can’t remember what he really said. After the speeches the candidates shook some hands and which point I head home.

What I found interesting was that I was seeing in real life people, specifically Ford and Bredesen, who I had only seen on television. It’s a strange sensation since I’m so used to viewing them as just images on a tube. Of course, I still wouldn’t have voted for them…

Quite an cool set of graphics to represent the internal factions of the Republican and Democratic parties.

(h/t Democratic Peace)

How long before the dems start claiming Bush or Rove is responsible for the threat, even though the government is disclaiming it. 

Here’s a very interesting post by Joseph Knippenberg on David Kuo’s controversial book, “Tempting Faith.”

At least that’s Tom Schaefer’s view:

When you start examining the evidence, the assertion begins to look pretty weak. And I say that as one who doesn’t agree with everything conservative Christians assert.

With the exception of a few extremists, the most that can be said about them and their political agenda is that they want to enact, through legal means, policies that were in place 50 years ago, including a ban on abortion, restrictions on pornography, more prayer in schools and an emphasis on abstinence in sex education. And no one claimed America was a theocracy then.

But are these good policies to return to 50 years later? That’s the question to be argued in Congress, in legislatures, in city councils, at school boards and around kitchen tables. It’s the essence of what a democracy should be about: deciding on the best policies and enacting appropriate rules and laws.

What often is overlooked is that religious beliefs have shaped those and other decisions — for good and for ill. They have guided efforts to reform society and to ennoble it, and they have undergirded discriminatory practices.

I was struck by a recent comment by the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, a conservative Catholic scholar and priest, about the actions of a controversial jurist, William Pryor.

When Pryor was grilled by senators during his confirmation hearing for a Circuit Court of Appeals seat last year, liberals opposed him for his conservative views on abortion and gay rights.

Yet, he had issued an opinion earlier as Alabama’s attorney general that the state’s chief justice, Roy Moore, had defied a federal injunction that a 10 Commandments display in his courthouse be removed. Moore was eventually removed from office. For that opinion, Pryor was denounced by conservatives.

Neuhaus said he agreed with Pryor’s decision and added: “Responsible citizens do not, except in cases of extreme necessity, directly pit higher moral law against the rule of law on which the common good depends.”

And there it is — the standard we must follow if we’re to maintain any national unity.

Timothy Carney of the National Catholic Register recently conducted an interview with my fearless federalist leader, Leonard Leo, which you can read here. I especially liked this response by Leo:

Then you’ve got appointments. You’ve got judicial appointments. All these Catholics —faithful, church-going Catholics, conservative Catholics — have become more activated in the political process over the past five or six years than they were for quite a while. If you’ve got a judiciary that is going to engage in this overreaching or activism, then what happens to all of these newfound voters and politically active folks? What happens is they become effectively disenfranchised, because all of the issues on which they are electing representatives or on which they are speaking out in the political process are being decided by the courts. The courts are basically overruling the political process.

Catholics clearly were an important force in electing the president. They have been an important force in electing some governors and in some congressional races. We know that. What good is any of that if you’re going to vote on initiatives that courts then strike down? Or you vote for political leaders whose votes in state legislatures or in Congress don’t matter, because whatever they pass gets second-guessed by the court.

I also found this exchange of interest:

Do you think that President Bush’s two appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, have the same way of approaching the Constitution that the Federalist Society does?

It’s too early to know for sure how they’re going to work through very difficult issues of Constitutional interpretation. What one can say is that, if you look at the volume of work they did before they were on the court, there are a couple of important themes that emerge.

There is, in both of them, this concept of judicial modesty — judicial humility. They both recognize that the judicial branch was supposed to be the least powerful and least dangerous of the three. It’s not the job of a judge to make up the law. It’s the job of a judge to actually engage in an interpretive enterprise.

(LvKayDaly)

channels the fedster (circa his “irresponsible blogging” days ) in responding to criticism from Teddy Kennedy:

“I know the speaker didn’t go over a bridge and leave a young person in the water, and then have a press conference the next day,” said Shays, R-4th District, referring to the 1969 incident in which the Massachusetts Democrat drove a car that plunged into the water and a young campaign worker died.

“Dennis Hastert didn’t kill anybody,” he added.

Ouch!

(Hat tip to Jeff H. and to Sam H. for the suggested edit)

The Corner referenced trading on whether the GOP will control the House in several posts today.  I just looked and the fallout from the Foley debacle has, in fact, affected the price of a contract from 52 (last week) to 48 (currently), for a buy on GOP control.   Granted there are other factors, as pointed out today, but it sure is interesting to watch how people are betting.

well at least in the House.  If the dems win the House, it might just give Republican politicians a wake-up call, and remind them that if they want conservative votes, they better vote and act in a way that supports those values.  But the Senate controls judicial confirmation, and that means not two years of liberal control, but twenty to forty. 

A big study of American religion was released this week by researchers at Baylor U. Mark Tooley wrote about it for the Weekly Standard. Much more, including streaming video, is available through the Baylor website.

Also earlier this week, USA Today ran two stories on the differences between married and unmarried voters as to party affiliation. No real surprises, I guess, but the magnitude of the gap between the parties was larger than I would have guessed.

Another very interesting paper along these lines, “Myths and Realities of American Political Georgraphy,” by Edward Glaeser & Bryce Adam Ward, appeared in the Spring issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives.  You can read it online, here.  Here’s the abstract:

The division of America into red states and blue states misleadingly suggests that states are split into two camps, but along most dimensions, like political orientation, states are on a continuum. By historical standards, the number of swing states is not particularly low, and America’s cultural divisions are not increasing. But despite the flaws of the red state/blue state framework, it does contain two profound truths. First, the heterogeneity of beliefs and attitudes across the United States is enormous and has always been so. Second, political divisions are becoming increasingly religious and cultural. The rise of religious politics is not without precedent, but rather returns us to the pre-New Deal norm. Religious political divisions are so common because religious groups provide politicians the opportunity to send targeted messages that excite their base.

An interesting piece by John T. McGreevy for the liberal Catholic magazine, “Commonweal.” 

Update: For the record, I do not agree with many (if not all) of the conclusions McGreevy draws in his piece. I just found it interesting. I often read those I disagree with. If for no other reason than to see what the other side is thinking.

A pretty good ad from MD Republican Senate candidate Michael Steele