If likability wins elections the Democrats have a powerful asset in Joe Biden. Of the 4 major personalities of the two parties in this years election I see Joe as the most virtuous. Of course I don’t know the Republican vice-president choice, but I think I do. I don’t know, or have ever met Biden personally, but have followed his career since the vast tragedy at his entry into the Senate. Here is a man well regarded by his collegues; philsophy notwithstanding. He was a good friend of Jessie Helms, senator of North Carolina, and spoke at his funeral. Some of Helms collegues would keep their distance, but not Biden. I would say ole Jessie was a pretty good judge of character.
Biden will be called a Liberal of high ranking this fall. And, unfortunately, he has the votes to support that analysis. Biden did vote against partial birth abortions. Obama, in the Illinois legislature, supported partial birth abortions. He has since tried to weasel out of the vote with no success.
You would like to think Biden and others were liberals and not Liberals. That, he didn’t deserve the upper case. That there must be a lapse of thought development or something on some decisions. Still, there is the vote pattern. Both Biden and Obama voted against Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts.
It has been argued that we have a liberal tradition in America, but that is a far stretch from Liberalism. Liberalism is an ideology. An ideology that has had difficulty with the original meaning of the Constitution. If you want a snapshot of the difference between Liberalism and liberalism you can look at the Supreme Court since Earl Warren, former chief justice (Eisenhower’s biggest mistake). His court staged the beginnings of American Liberalism. Addressing exigencies and equipping the country for future threats, by way of the written political process, generally fall under liberalism.
I know about Biden’s plagiarism, but he still measures against the general lot up there. Congress is no convent! There are people up there now trying to stay out of jail, such as Stevens of Alaska. Incidently, Stevens just won his primary with 68% of the vote. Nobody said voters couldn’t be “had”.
Like everybody else I have complained about the quality of the choices for high office. However, this year I have my favorite Democrat in Biden, and with McCain my co-favorite Republican along with Cobun of Oklahama. The more I learn about Obama the more suspicious I become, but i know he too has qualities and apparently outstanding instincts.
The Faith Forum Saturday night with Senator McCain and Senator Obama was notable for the absence of “preacher questions”. The forum was hosted by the Saddleback church in California and conducted by the church pastor Rick Warren. Warren is a novice at this sort of thing and after it was all over is amateurism was firmly intact.
I would think the broad evangelical community would be interested in a few key positions of the candidates and the intensity and clarity they articulate those positions. But Warren fed McCain and Obama some real softballs or even “mush” balls. Questions such as why are you running, and what is your biggest disappointment. He did ask when life begins, but permitted Obama not to answer the question.
In order to get real answers to very important questions Warren should have adopted a more aggressive style.
Senator Obama, when you see a pregnant woman and notice that her abdomen might move or pulsate, does that indicate a real baby resides there and that constitutes two bodies and not just one. And, if it is a real baby, is not it’s right to be born superior to any other right or perceived right? How do you really feel Senator?
Senator McCain you claim a pro-life position on abortion and may have won elections as a result of your stand. Can you tell us briefly what legislation you now author or endorse that will tend to reduce abortion and all the psycholigal guilt that goes with taking an innocent life? Also Senator, how will you use the “bully pulpit” to help stem this holocaust?
Senator Obama, lets talk about prepositions. The Constitution in it’s powerful wisdom grants it’s citizens freedom OF religion. Senator, you are a graduate of Harvard law school and you should be able to answer my question. Is this freedom OF religion a full freedom? If not, how is it limited. For instance, in schools it seems we practice freedom FROM religion. Should religious exposure, be it literature, music, or worship have a venue in the public schools? Go ahead and expound on the “establishment clause” Senator.
Senator McCain, I hear it said that religion is a private matter. In other words it is allright to have religious beliefs, but just don’t say that, etc. As that thinking goes Senator, high profile people such as yourself should withhold their personal religious convictions. Senator, how is this view reconciled with the spirit of Matthew 28:19 in the Bible, which says we are supposed to tell everybody?
Senator Obama, many people say there are multiple routes to God. I think they call this Universalism. Tell me Senator, you being a Christian, how does that position mesh with John 14:6 that records Jesus saying, “no man cometh unto the Father but by me”.
Brother Warren has a way to go before he develops the skills to ferret out meaningful information from seasoned politicans. He needs to brush up on some good “preacher questions”
The statue reads: (1) The voter is a bona fide member of and affiliated with the political p[arty in whose primary the voter seeks to vote; or (2) At the time the voter seeks to vote, the voter declares allegiance to the political party in whose primary the voter seeks to vote and states that the voter intends to affiliate with that party. (T.C.A. 2-7-115)
Davis has the case if he can show that 486 Democrats with known status in the Democratic Party crossed into the Republican Primary. The state of Tennessee does not have a mechanism in place,(states that the voter intends to affiliate) to administer the statue in question. Of course, there is no way to know how the Democrats voted when they raided the Republican Party primary. They could have voted for Davis, thereby sparing him a greater numerical defeat. So, should you dispose of the results and have a new election with this great unknown? The legal challenge is a good one and should have been resolved a long time ago, as crossovers have been going on for a long time. I remember the late Chancellor Dayton Phillips advising me to make a concentrated effort to obtain Democratic crossover votes in a Republican primary I was involved in. You have to feel for the Democrats, as the have been effectively disenfranchised in this House seat over the years. It is just natural to want to be a part of major decisions. A viable Democratic Party would provide a much better east Tennessee. That aside, it looks like Davis has the case and the opportunity to fix the problem.
The 1st district of tennessee House seat was decided on the basis of ethics. It had to be ethics, as little else rose above general conversation amoung the candidates. Not that ethics is unimportant, but politicans believe that misconduct resonates with voters. If character flaws are properly exploited it produces results. This season both candidates took their shots. Following this course Congress could, theoretically, end up with 435 purer, yet philosophically unknown members. Of course, as we know, the theory does not play out.
Candidate Roe repeatly accused incumbent Davis of accepting PAC money. Much of this was, hard to explain PAC money as it had no direct bearing on our district. Roe used the term “pocket” in his television advertisements to define Davis immoral taking of this money. Well, “pocketing” was wrong language, maybe even deceptive language for many people. Under current legislation, FEC rules are in place on how to dispense PAC money and accumulated funds. For instance, Davis could not go out and buy a new Chevorlet with this money. The perception that PAC money was dirty money was well established by the Roe campaign this summer. Usually, perception is all it takes.
Roe’s position on PAC’s puts him in there with the late Millicent Fenwick and just a very few more. Millicent Fenwick was a Republican Congresswomen from New Jersey in the mid-seventies. She said PAC’s were corrupting and refused any of the money. Walter Cronkite used to call her “the conscience of the Congress”. I suppose, by inference, her conscience was all that could be found up there. IF PAC’s are evil, as Roe says, will he prepare legislation to strike PAC’s from the statue books? All of his Tennessee colleagues will be accepting PAC contributions. This fall he will be arm-in-arm on the campaign trail with Sen. Lamar Alexander, who accepts PAC money, same as Davis. I don’t recall Alexander ever saying anything derogatory about PAC’s. If he did it was not very loud or for very long.
Actually, Roe is right about PAC’s. Very right. They are predominantly evil and should be stricken from the face of the earth.
Davis accused Roe of taking money from road contractors, in exchange for a road contract as mayor of Johnson City. In other words, a bribe. Incidentally, Davis received money from contractors as well, including some of the very ones who gave to Roe. Roe responded that bids are sealed bids, therefore, impervious ot manipulation and “politics”. Oh, how naive! Surely, Roe would not want us to believe that all this campaign money, often given to competing candidates, comes from the genuine civic-mindness of these contractors.
Some of the great personal fortunes of our time, are being made by government contractors. To have “sealed bids” is not all there is to handling this lucrative business. Local, State, and Federal bidding on government projects is very complicated and very messy. Just take a look at the problems with the Boeing and Northrop Grumman bid for U.S. Air Force tankers.
Davis challenged Roe’s veracity, by activities related to his role as mayor. Says one thing and does another,etc. Near the end of the campaign it got rediculous, with Davis accusing Roe of contributing, in a circuitous fashion, to Hillary Clinton. Just absurd stuff!
Personalized politics; how vain! People don’t demand more in a campaign and they usually don’t get more. Davis refusal to debate should have been a defacto disqualification. Maybe it was.