Sore Losers

Sore losers are never attractive, never sensible and never properly place the blame. Jennifer Rubin reminds us that this hold true in politics as well. Excerpt:

After the across-the-board defeats in 2008, conservative pundits didn’t rail at the voters. You didn’t see the right blogosphere go after the voters as irrational (How could they elect someone so unqualified? They’ve gone bonkers!) with the venom that the left now displays. Instead, there was a healthy debate — what was wrong with the Republican Party and with the conservative movement more generally? We had a somewhat artificial debate between traditionalists and reformers. If anything, the anger was directly (unfairly, in my mind) against George W. Bush (whose tax cuts even many Democrats now want to extend, and whose strategy in Iraq allowed Obama to withdrawal troops in victory), and to the hapless McCain campaign (which spent the final days of the campaign ragging on its VP nominee).

This is yet another confirmation that the right and left look at America – and Americans – quite differently. The leftists view their countrymen as in dire need of supervision — by elites like them, of course. Americans are not competent to make decisions on their own, and left to their own devices, will run amok. Wall Streeters are greedy, New Yorkers are xenophobes, and the rest of us are Bible- and gun-huggers. And here we go again — acting out and acting up. Obama, the poor dear, just can’t talk sense to us.

This is entirely true in my experience. Post 2008 election discussions and arguments in which I participated were themed around candidates and strategies. Questions posed: Did Sarah Palin hurt the ticket? Would Romney have fared better? Should McCain have gone after the Rev. Wright stuff? My crazier friends suggested that McCain could have won if he'd brought up the birth certificate issue, but even they didn't blame the voters.

It would be wonderful if this were the year we finally buried the "blame the angry voters" meme altogether, however, I'm too realistic to hold my breath until I hear shoveling. But think about this: when liberals blame voter "fear and anger" like President Obama did in his Parma speech ("...the easiest thing for the other side to do is to ride this fear and anger all the way to Election Day....") they are really accusing independent and swing voters of possessing the anger, not right-wingers. We could wake up to find that we inherited a half million dollars, that our son just won a full scholarship to our favorite college and that we landed a long sought after promotion―and we'd still go vote Republican and conservative even if there were not a cloud in the sky and the home team was winning 10-0. We are not swayed one bit by emotion or lack thereof. It's the swing voters to whom these remarks refer; indeed, they are the intended targets of an attempted shaming. The left will chose this tactic over admitting that their policies are unpopular or that they are out-of-touch with the middle or that their message is outmoded, weak and ineffective.

I don't think it's going to work this year. That hope and change doesn't float anymore.

Deal Hudson Proposes a Grass Roots Infusion

It's about a third of the way down the page here. I think he's right. Excerpt:

It was the flawed "Faithful Citizenship" document, coupled with some unwise public remarks by Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, that brought the bishops into play during the 2008 election. These circumstances are very unlikely to be repeated anytime soon. Catholics will be making a mistake if they assume that the 80+ Catholic bishops who spoke out to defend Church teaching this year will continue to do so in future elections.

There are a few good pieces in this series. Bill Donohue's and Frank Keating's for example. We get the usual blah, blah from Amy Welborn and Mark P. Shea, and we are treated to the immense stupidity of Mark Stricherz here. So what can I say? Have at it. It be wha' it be.

Zogby/Ziegler Poll: Funny Yet Sad

Thanks to my friend, Pat, for sending me this.



It's from this site. What the crafters of the video did was to collect anecdotal evidence based on questions from this Zogby Poll conducted on behalf of John Ziegler. Ziegler got attacked for the poll with charges that it's a "push poll". Zogby stepped up to explain why it wasn't:

We stand by the results our survey work on behalf of John Ziegler, as we stand by all of our work. We reject the notion that this was a push poll because it very simply wasn't. It was a legitimate effort to test the knowledge of voters who cast ballots for Barack Obama in the Nov. 4 election. Push polls are a malicious effort to sway public opinion one way or the other, while message and knowledge testing is quite another effort of public opinion research that is legitimate inquiry and has value in the public square. In this case, the respondents were given a full range of responses and were not pressured or influenced to respond in one way or another. This poll was not designed to hurt anyone, which is obvious as it was conducted after the election. The client is free to draw his own conclusions about the research, as are bloggers and other members of society. But Zogby International is a neutral party in this matter. We were hired to test public opinion on a particular subject and with no ax to grind, that's exactly what we did. We don't have to agree or disagree with the questions, we simply ask them and provide the client with a fair and accurate set of data reflecting public opinion.

Of course, Ziegler was also attacked fiercely by people like this left-wing hack. Here's Ziegler's must-read response. Excerpt:

[accusation] "You were just out to make Obama voters look stupid and you are probably a racist"

Nothing could be further from the truth. We went out of our way to find articulate people who thought they were informed about the election. I did not even choose the subjects myself (for whatever it is worth, they were chosen by a black female). The reason there are slightly more blacks than whites in the video is that we went to a "black" area of town in the morning when we had more light and then it got dark faster than I expected in the "white" area.

The point of all this is to direct the finger at the news media, not so much at the voters. There are plenty of idiots on both sides of the political divide, but my concern here is that the news media coverage failed to make the electorate educated enough to produce a legitimately informed vote.

It's funny how the left can be so angry even when their guy wins. After all, when we are told that Bush and McCain voters are a bunch of toothless gun-happy dumb-asses, we laugh. Don't we?

For the record, I think this is a great job at exposing the influence that the media has and misuses. But Ziegler's conclusion at the end that the election was "illegitimate" goes a little far. John McCain's failing to find a coherent focus throughout his campaign can't be counted out. Bush fought against the same media and prevailed.

Mike Huckabee's Thoughts

"We will be back in strength," says the former Arkansas governor. Huck has a way with words, so I'll let his words be mine. Excerpt:

The campaign is over and now is the time for governing and leading. The Republican Party must now reassess where it is and where it is going. Our problem is not that our views aren't acceptable, it is that many in our party have abandoned the very principles that once drew Americans to trust us. Our party will be back with strength, but tonight we should all celebrate the historic nature of this election and put our country ahead of our party.

I must admit I'm not hopeful at all about an Obama presidency. I think could be the beginning of a 4-year "campaign" of sorts to right perceived wrongs Robin Hood-style while ignoring terrorism, property rights and not to mention the rights of the unborn.

That's all I'll say for now–it's probably early to make predictions about threats to the first two amendments, but others have done so. It doesn't bode well when an Obama ad uses an orange-vested hunter as an iconic backdrop for mention of the 2nd amendment in a TV ad. That right is not about going after 4-legged animals and then shooting them, it's about 2-legged animals coming after you and then shooting them. John Lott, Obama's former colleague at the University of Chicago, was on Medved's show last week recalling his first encounter with the President-elect:

Obama: Oh, You're the gun guy.
Lott: Yeah, that's right. We should get together and talk about it sometime.
Obama: (laughing and walking away) I don't think people should be allowed to own guns.

Well, we've survived that mentality in the past, let's hope we do again.

Fox News's Intense Interactive map

Check it out, way cool. Here's North Carolina

Here's Ohio.

Here's Cuyahoga County, blue as ever.

Neat-o.

Kucinich Robo-calls Disguised as Mortgage-Related

Check it out. I've gotten two calls from this number, 702-553-0580, and it's basically Mr. Urban DK himself telling me to vote for him. But here's the trick he pulls; the Caller ID shows up as "Mortgage".

Cute.

This is the first time in my 10-years in Ohio 10th that I've been robocalled by the little green man himself, so I'm hoping he really is worried and stretching a little bit. But this misleading Caller ID stunt could have a backlash and that's what I'm hoping for.

Election 2008: Guide to Watching the Returns

Via St. Louis Catholic, here's a guide to watching the returns tonight. Click picture for the full-size version.

Our Flag Speaks

H/T

Bishop Richard Lennon Clarifies the Faithful Citizenship Document

In his pre-election message, my Bishop is basically saying what needs to be said at this point because people still don't get it, i.e., Catholics are still voting for Obama. Here's the whole thing:

While All Faithful Citizenship Issues Important, Not All Are Equal

by Most Reverend Richard G. Lennon
(Reprinted from the Catholic Universe Bulletin, 31 October 2008)

In the document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship the Catholic Bishops of our country stated that their purpose in presenting this teaching to the faithful was “to help Catholics form their consciences in accordance with God’s truth.” The bishops further taught that in making choices in political life every individual Catholic is called to do so “in light of a properly formed conscience.” I am pleased to have been a member of the Bishops’ Conference that presented this document to our Catholic people, and indeed to all people of good will.

As we fast approach Election Day 2008, I am concerned about many things that are being said about the teaching of the bishops. From listening to many good and sincere people who are preparing to fulfill their duty to vote as Catholics and citizens, I realize they are confused in light of what is being said by certain people. For example, we hear from some that the issues and concerns raised in Faithful Citizenship are all equally important as they all impact human life. This is not at all what Faithful Citizenship taught.

While all the issues presented in the teaching of Faithful Citizenship are significant, they are not all equally significant. To suggest that all of the issues are of equal value is not what the bishops taught, nor what the Catholic Church has taught and continues to teach. The Church teaches that “there are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with the love of God and neighbor.” This is taught because such actions go against the true good of persons; thus, “they must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.” This is why our Catholic teaching has labeled such actions as intrinsically evil. Certainly, abortion and euthanasia, direct attacks on human life, stand out as intrinsically evil actions among other attacks on human life.

This teaching on intrinsically evil actions admits of no exception or compromise for it is rooted in the moral law which is the very heart of our Catholic belief. God has taught through Revelation that human life is to be protected and respected, for it is gift from God.

Faithful Citizenship goes on to speak about other issues that may enhance human life, which are important matters. However, we need to first recognize that these issues only matter if human life itself is a value of fundamental priority and is always protected. If human life is expendable, then these other issues really lose much of their significance. Second, we need to appreciate that Catholic teaching on these life-enhancing issues admits to the legitimacy of different approaches in addressing a particular issue or of realizing a desired outcome. For example, the Church teaches the value of striving for an immigration policy that is responsive to the current situation, acknowledges our history as a country accepting “new people”, and asserts our responsibility to be a welcoming people for those who suffer greatly. Having presented such a teaching on the dignity of life, the Bishops encourage all to add their contribution to the public discourse striving to find a just resolution to this issue that affects so many people.

As you can see, this teaching of the bishops on immigration like the other life-enhancing issues mentioned in Faithful Citizenship fundamentally differs from that on abortion and euthanasia. The teaching on abortion and euthanasia are based on “God’s truth” regarding the dignity and sacredness of all human life, whereas the other issues, relying upon the acceptance “God’s truth” on human life, then strive to build it up, to enhance its quality, and further justice and peace. The first group of issues is essential and foundational and can never be compromised. The second group depends upon that foundation being securely in place, so that all human life which is sacred may be protected.

It is my hope that these few words may help dispel confusion flowing from misrepresentations stating or implying that all issues noted in Faithful Citizenship are of equal value. As we all prepare for Election Day let us be guided by our Catholic faith and teaching which respects the inestimable value and dignity of every human life, for without Respect for Life, what is there left to respect?

What is there left to respect if we don't respect life?

In regards to the Faithful Citizenship document, I feel it definitely needs clarification on how bad abortion is. Of course, the point isn't to merely discuss abortion, but as I've mentioned earlier, it is the defining issue in our time and our country and has been called so by our Bishops. But a line like "....A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position...." is a little unrealistic, in my opinion, in light of the times in which we live. Although racism is surely an abhorrent evil, no modern candidates are blatantly proclaiming a "right to racism". There is no Freedom of Prejudice Act (FOPA) which John McCain has promised to sign if he gets into the White House -- a faux pas, indeed -- but there is a Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which Obama has promised to sign which drops many current restrictions on abortion, restrictions supported by many Democrats including Hillary Clinton. So while I view the USCCB document as extremely useful it doesn't really serve as a particular voting guide for the terribly misinformed and confused, which is how I would describe a Catholic electorate which could contemplate voting for Barack Obama.

Bishops Farrell and Vann Affirm Abortion as "The Defining Moral Issue"

Here's a press release from the Dallas Texas area Catholic Bishops, thanks Diane for sending it to me.

DALLAS, Texas, OCT. 22, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Voting for a pro-abortion candidate when there is an alternative option is to cooperate in evil, and therefore morally impermissible, clarified two Texas bishops.

In a message made available to the faithful during this Respect Life month, bishops Kevin Farrell of Dallas and Kevin Vann of Fort Worth seek to "dispel any confusion or misunderstanding that may be present among you concerning the teaching contained in" the U.S. bishops document on faithful citizenship.

"'Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship' clearly teaches that not all issues have the same moral equivalence," the bishops explained. "Some issues involve 'intrinsic evils'; that is, they can never under any circumstance or condition be morally justified. Preeminent among these intrinsic evils are legalized abortion, the promotion of same-sex unions and 'marriages,' repression of religious liberty, as well as public policies permitting euthanasia, racial discrimination or destructive human embryonic stem cell research."

Thus, bishops Farrell and Vann stated, "we cannot make more clear the seriousness of the overriding issue of abortion -- while not the 'only issue'-- it is the defining moral issue, not only today, but of the last 35 years. […] This electoral cycle affords us an opportunity to promote the culture of life in our nation.

"As Catholics we are morally obligated to pray, to act and to vote to abolish the evil of abortion in America, limiting it as much as we can until it is finally abolished."

Not enough

The prelates acknowledged that there are a number of important issues voters must consider "such as immigration reform, health care, the economy and its solvency, care and concern for the poor, and the war on terror."

"As Catholics we must be concerned about these issues and work to see that just solutions are brought about," they wrote. "There are many possible solutions to these issues and there can be reasonable debate among Catholics on how to best approach and solve them. These are matters of 'prudential judgment.'"

"But," the prelates emphasized, "let us be clear: Issues of prudential judgment are not morally equivalent to issues involving intrinsic evils. No matter how right a given candidate is on any of these issues, it does not outweigh a candidate's unacceptable position in favor of an intrinsic evil such as abortion or the protection of 'abortion rights.'"

Salvation at stake

The Texas bishops, citing the U.S. episcopal conference document, addressed the question of if it is "permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil -- even when the voter does not agree with the candidate's position on that evil."

They said there are only two conditions when voting for a pro-abortion candidate is permissible: "A. If both candidates running for office support abortion or 'abortion rights,' a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or,

"B. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no 'truly grave moral' or 'proportionate' reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.

"To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or 'abortion rights' when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil -- and, therefore, morally impermissible."

The bishops concluded affirming that the decisions made on such political and moral issues "may affect each individual's salvation."

"As Catholics, we must treat our political choices with appropriate moral gravity," they wrote, "and in doing so, realize our continuing and unavoidable obligation to be a voice for the voiceless unborn, whose destruction by legal abortion is the preeminent intrinsic evil of our day."

I'm glad they brought up Eternal Salvation and how cooperating in the abortion industrial complex can threaten it. I know we can't judge the state of someone's soul, but don't you have to wonder about a Catholic like Senator Joe Biden who said "I strongly support Roe v. Wade....That’s why I led the fight to defeat [Robert] Bork. Thank God he is not in the Court or Roe v. Wade would be gone by now." What's the defense for that on judgement day, knowing that we'll be judged for every careless word we speak?

Ironically, Robert Bork was received into the Roman Catholic church in 2003. But he's not Slow-joe's kind of Catholic since he never got smacked by a Sister with a 18-inch ruler and reportedly has never played Bingo either. Those are the types of things which comprise what Biden calls "the culture". Along with the disregarding of any controversial teaching of the church like "don't kill babies."

[BTW, I know that's a crappy pic of Bork, but the page is good....]

Obama on Reverend Wright: The "best the black church has to offer"

Hat tip to Roger H from the comments.



Well, maybe there were some of these nut preachers saying stuff like "f*ck America" so when Wright says "God damn America" it's deemed much better, plus it sounds more religious since it has the word "God" in it. Or maybe this was before he turned into a liberation theologian nut-whack. Fat chance.

Also it's funny that Obama has to make sure he tells the mindless zombie interviewing him that his faith isn't traditional or institutional. That's the way people talk when they feel uncomfortable or embarrassed about something.

Cardinal Rigali Speaks Out for the Unborn

Seeing this kind of bold, sober, clearheaded, moral direction makes me proud to be a Roman Catholic.

Our own common sense tells us that not every issue is of the same importance. At various times in history, a people or nation is confronted with an issue that transcends others in importance and that demands a courageous response.

The transcending issue of our day is the intentional destruction of innocent human life, as in abortion. We wish with all our hearts that no candidate and no party were advocating this heinous act against the human person. However, since it is a transcending issue, and even supported in its most extreme and horrific forms, we must proclaim time and time again that no intrinsic evil can ever be supported in any way, most especially when it concerns the gravest of all intrinsic evils: the taking of an innocent life.

We bishops of Pennsylvania quoted from the late Pope John Paul II’s Post Synodal Exhortation on the Vocation and Mission of the Lay Faithful and I quote him again here: “The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights — for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture — is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination” (Christifideles Laici, 38).

At this moment in our country’s history, defense of innocent human life is a moral responsibility for all of us. The same God who thundered from Mount Sinai: “Thou shalt not kill,” thunders still. When life in the womb is destroyed, God thunders: “This is a child!” When by the most barbaric means, unworthy of any civilized people, the brain of a child is sucked out of his or her head by a vacuum, God thunders: “This is a child!” When a baby is left to die of exposure on a shelf because of a failed abortion, and this is considered a “right” by any leader, God, the Source of all law and authority, thunders: “This is a child!” When we are faced with every modern means of education and communication, in addition to the law placed in our hearts at creation, no one, and most especially, no Catholic, can ever say: “I did not know.”

The human dignity that we proclaim works two ways: it affords us a great privilege but it also demands a responsibility. The feeble defense “I did not know” cannot be used by any responsible person in our time when confronted with the reality of abortion. We do know. We know because we can reason and think and see. Along with this position, which is confirmed by modern science, comes a command: “Thou shalt not kill.” It is not a question of politics but a question of the gravest of intrinsic evils; and just as the reality of what it is cannot be explained away, neither can our responsibility.

Throughout our history, Catholics have earned their right to call themselves patriotic Americans. Faithful citizenship not only includes dying for one’s country or working towards its prosperity, it also includes being faithful to a law which is higher than the expediency of the moment with the same generosity of body and heart, and the same courage that is given on the battlefield and in the workplace. We remind ourselves of this as we continue to be called to faithful citizenship and respect for life in the “earthly city” without forgetting that we are ultimately called to live as citizens of heaven forever.

Yes, we all know it's a child. As Cardinal Arinze recently told an audience, something to the effect of "Why do you need a theologian to tell you abortion is murder? Any second grader in a First Communion class could tell you that." But there are many euphemisms for the claim "I did not know", one being "Answering that question...is above my pay grade."

Barack Obama: Too Radical, Too Risky

This will only be of interest to those "Temporarily Alive"

I meant to post this when it appeared in the Washington Times, but here it is now. It's a debate between Barack Obama and Patrick O'Malley when they were both Illinois State Senators. I'll include it in it's entirety; it's stunning to read.

The most telling debate Barack Obama ever had was not with John McCain but Patrick O'Malley, who served with Mr. Obama in the Illinois Senate and engaged him in a colloquy every American should read.

The Obama-O'Malley debate was a defining moment for Mr. Obama because it dealt with such a fundamental issue: The state's duty to protect the civil rights of the young and disabled.

Some background: Eight years ago, nurse Jill Stanek went public about the "induced-labor abortions" performed at the Illinois hospital where she worked. Often done on Down syndrome babies, the procedure involved medicating the mother to cause premature labor.

Babies who survived this, Nurses Stanek testified in the U.S. Congress, were brought to a soiled linen room and left alone to die without care or comforting.

Then-Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, whom I interviewed this week, contacted the state attorney general's office to see whether existing laws protected a newborn abortion-survivor's rights as a U.S. citizen. He was told they did not. So, Mr. O'Malley - a lawyer, veteran lawmaker and colleague of Mr. Obama on the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee - drafted legislation.

In 2001, he introduced three bills. SB1093 said if a doctor performing an abortion believed there was a likelihood the baby would survive, another physician must be present "to assess the child's viability and provide medical care." SB1094 gave the parents, or a state-appointed guardian, the right to sue to protect the child's rights. SB1095 simply said a baby alive after "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother" would be considered a " 'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.' "

The bills dealt exclusively with born children. "This legislation was about preventing conduct that allowed infanticide to take place in the state of Illinois," Mr. O'Malley told me.

The Judiciary Committee approved the bills with Mr. Obama in opposition. On March 31, 2001, they came up on the Illinois Senate floor. Only one member spoke against them: Barack Obama.

"Nobody else said anything," Mr. O'Malley recalls. The official transcript validates this.

"Sen. O'Malley," Mr. Obama said near the beginning of the discussion, "the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was - is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the - the fetus or child, as - as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb." Mr. Obama made three crucial concessions here: the legislation was about (1) a human being, who was (2) "alive" and (3) "outside the womb."

He also used an odd redundancy: "temporarily alive." Is there another type of human?

"And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living," Mr. Obama continued.

Here he made another crucial concession: The intention of the legislation was to make sure that (1) a human being, (2) alive and (3) outside the womb was (4) "properly cared for."

"Is that correct?" Mr. Obama asked Mr. O'Malley.

Mr. O'Malley tightened the logical knot. "[T]his bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a - a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States," said Mr. O'Malley.

But to these specific temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb-human beings - to these children who had survived a botched abortion, whose hearts were beating, whose muscles were moving, whose lungs were heaving - to these specific children of God, Mr. Obama was not willing to concede any constitutional rights at all.

To explain his position, Mr. Obama came up with yet another term to describe the human being who would be protected by Mr. O'Malley's bills. The abortion survivor became a "pre-viable fetus."

By definition, however, a born baby cannot be a "fetus." Merriam-Webster Online defines "fetus" as an "unborn or unhatched vertebrate" or "a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth." Mr. Obama had already conceded these human beings were "alive outside the womb."

"No. 1," said Mr. Obama, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a 9-month-old - child that was delivered to term."

Yes. In other words, a baby born alive at 37 weeks is just as much a human "person" as a baby born alive at 22 weeks.

Mr. Obama, however, saw a problem with calling abortion survivors "persons." "I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions," said Mr. Obama, "because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

For Mr. Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by whether a doctor has been trying to kill her.

Emphasis mine. Re-read the italicized paragraph carefully, several times if necessary. Cart before horse, anyone? I guess this was before he realized this kind of stuff was above his pay grade.

God help us.

Plain Dealer on Trakas: "No contest: Overwhelmingly superior"

Check out the PD's endorsement of Jim Trakas over Dennis Kucinich.

Kucinich brought a three-inch binder detailing his work in the 110th Congress to our endorsement interview. The first page said it all: Kucinich "won passage of two bills signed into law." One was an innocuous measure to support education related to the Underground Railroad. The second renamed a post office. Bottom line: After a decade in Congress and with his party finally in control of the House, Kucinich remains a sandlot-league legislator, with little ability to make things happen for his struggling district or the myriad causes that consume his time and attention.

Perhaps the story would be different if Kucinich had not spent more than half his term pursuing a second, doomed run for the White House. Or if he had not devoted so much time to an impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney that the House leadership has no interest in pursuing. Of course, Kucinich considers not being a team player a badge of honor. He stood almost alone in opposing the critical Great Lakes Compact on specious grounds. He already is hinting that he will oppose the kind of health care reforms Barack Obama favors - for Kucinich, only single-payer is pure enough.

Independence is an admirable quality in a politician. Being so contrary that you cannot get things done is not. And you can be sure Kucinich's attitude gets noticed: When Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Cleveland this month to learn about alternative energy efforts, her guide was freshman Democrat Betty Sutton of Copley.

Republican Trakas was a middling legislator in Columbus, marginalized by the far-right members of his own party. We're also, quite frankly, disappointed that in addition to running in this race, he is doing campaign work for the pro-casino forces behind State Issue 6.

The people of the 10th District deserve an advocate focused on their needs. This is a tough call, but we think Trakas can be that advocate. He is conscientious, pragmatic and unlikely to be diverted by the bright lights of national politics. His roots on a city council suggest that he'd deliver strong constituent services, as Kucinich has.

Kucinich seems unfazed that his politics have strayed so far from reality that half the Democrats in his district voted against him in the March 4 primary. Perhaps that's because he is virtually certain to win re-election. What Kucinich should understand is that his uncompromising, unrealistic brand of politics is hurting the community he professes to love.

I disagree with Trakas on the casino issue, partly because it's a boondoggle which really won't help the state as advertised, and partly because it's going to increase crime; law enforcement agrees. And I think it's a horrible burden on the poor people who get wiped out by gambling. (Yes, it's their own fault, but I'm a conservative not a libertarian.)

BUT... Kucinich is an absolute disgrace as a congressman. Kudos to Trakas for taking him on. People in both parties have been going up against voter stupidity for years now. I was really hoping Kosar would step up to the plate, but nothing doing.

To help Mr. Trakas kick Dennis out, go here.

So how bad is Barack Obama on Abortion?

Uh..... pretty bad. Prof. George concludes:

What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: "that question is above my pay grade." It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy - and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.

News Release: Buckeye Institute Files State Rico Action Against ACORN

COLUMBUS, OH - The Buckeye Institute, a Columbus-based think tank, today filed a state RICO action against the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) on behalf of two Warren County voters. The action filed in Warren County Court of Common Pleas alleges ACORN has engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity that amounts to organized crime. It seeks ACORN's dissolution as a legal entity, the revocation of any licenses in Ohio, and an injunction against fraudulent voter registration and other illegal activities.

Plaintiffs Jennifer Miller of Mason, Ohio and Kimberly Grant of Loveland, allege that ACORN's actions deprive them of the right to participate in an honest and effective elections process. They allege fraudulent voter registrations submitted by ACORN dilute the votes of legally registered voters.

"The right to cast a vote that is not diluted by fraudulent votes is a fundamental individual right," Buckeye Institute President David Hansen said.

"ACORN appears to be recklessly disregarding Ohio laws and adding thousands of fraudulent voters to the state's roles in the process," Maurice Thompson, Director of the Buckeye Institute's 1851 Center for Constitutional Law said. "Such voter fraud erodes the value of legally cast votes," he added.

In the complaint, Thompson cites an accumulation of evidence showing numerous instances of admitted fraud by ACORN employees, as well as individuals solicited by ACORN.

"In light of its hiring, training and compensation practices, ACORN should have known its conduct would cause fraud," Thompson said. "It also should know that its conduct will cause fraud in the future."

In addition, the complaint cites conduct by ACORN in Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

A full copy of the complaint is available online at http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/acorn.pdf.

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, together with its 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, is a nonpartisan research and educational institute devoted to individual liberty, economic freedom, personal responsibility and limited government in Ohio.

Bishop Martino's Message on Life Issues and Voting

A priest-friend of mine sent me this link, highlighting the following passage. I think it's worth noting. Common sense tells us that abortion, the deliberate killing of an unborn baby by her mother, is a greater evil than collateral damage in wartime; the Bishop confirms it. He also reaffirms that abortion trumps other "social justice" issues, his scare quotes, something the American Bishop's have been trying to communicate for years, but not always effectively.

Another argument goes like this: “As wrong as abortion is, I don't think it is the only relevant ‘life’ issue that should be considered when deciding for whom to vote.” This reasoning is sound only if other issues carry the same moral weight as abortion does, such as in the case of euthanasia and destruction of embryos for research purposes. Health care, education, economic security, immigration, and taxes are very important concerns. Neglect of any one of them has dire consequences as the recent financial crisis demonstrates. However, the solutions to problems in these areas do not usually involve a rejection of the sanctity of human life in the way that abortion does. Being “right” on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life. Consider this: the finest health and education systems, the fairest immigration laws, and the soundest economy do nothing for the child who never sees the light of day. It is a tragic irony that “pro-choice” candidates have come to support homicide – the gravest injustice a society can tolerate – in the name of “social justice.”

Even the Church’s just war theory has moral force because it is grounded in the principle that innocent human life must be protected and defended. Now, a person may, in good faith, misapply just war criteria leading him to mistakenly believe that an unjust war is just, but he or she still knows that innocent human life may not be harmed on purpose. A person who supports permissive abortion laws, however, rejects the truth that innocent human life may never be destroyed. This profound moral failure runs deeper and is more corrupting of the individual, and of the society, than any error in applying just war criteria to particular cases.

So listen up to your hometown Bish', clueless Joe!

Was Bill Ayers Obama's Ghostwriter?

I think this is worhty reading even if it turns out to be a crock. Great detective work. Reminds me of all those crazy Harry Potter theories, some turning out true, most not.

I bought Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days, for reasons unrelated to this project. As I discovered, he writes surprisingly well and very much like "Obama." In fact, my first thought was that the two may have shared the same ghostwriter. Unlike Dreams, however, where the high style is intermittent, Fugitive Days is infused with the authorial voice in every sentence. What is more, when Ayers speaks, even off the cuff, he uses a cadence and vocabulary consistent with his memoir. One does not hear any of Dreams in Obama's casual speech.

Obama's memoir was published in June 1995. Earlier that year, Ayers helped Obama, then a junior lawyer at a minor law firm, get appointed chairman of the multi-million dollar Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant. In the fall of that same year, 1995, Ayers and his wife, Weatherwoman Bernardine Dohrn, helped blaze Obama's path to political power with a fundraiser in their Chicago home.

In short, Ayers had the means, the motive, the time, the place and the literary ability to jumpstart Obama's career. And, as Ayers had to know, a lovely memoir under Obama's belt made for a much better resume than an unfulfilled contract over his head.

Great detective work, IMHO.

Take the PBS Sarah Palin Poll

Right here.