Christian Zionism: Not that Innocent

In a recent post about Evangelicals and Israel, Alan Stewart Carl talked about a number of people in the American Evangelical community who fervetnly support Israel. He views these groups as very helpful in supporting Israel:

Pat Robertson claims the support is born of a shared covenant and a common enemy (radical Islam). Of course, others point out that evangelical support for Israel is also heavily influenced by Biblical interpretation. The prophecy of Armageddon and the second coming of Christ cannot occur unless Israel is whole.

It is this aspect that has led many to view the Evangelical/Israeli alliance with skepticism and derision. But I think such distrust is misplaced. Yes, the Biblical tale of Armageddon isn’t particularly nice to the Jews, but there’s no evidence that any of these Evangelical groups are planning to hurry things along. They are sincere in their support of Israel and should not be condemned simply for believing in the Book of Revelations.

History does not offer many examples of overt let alone fervent Christian/Jewish alliances. Anti-Semitism has been the norm for centuries upon centuries. So I, for one, am glad to see such pro-Jewish voices coming from American Christianity—even if I don’t agree with every policy position they put forth.

Given that the Democratic Party has traditionally been and still very-much is a pro-Jewish, pro-Israel party, it appears as if America can proudly claim to be the most anti anti-Semitic nation on Earth (well, outside of Israel). That’s at least one positive unifying belief in today’s divided culture.

I really fear that Alan is not that aware of what has been called "Christian Zionism" and that it has severe implications for peace in Middle East and the war against Islamic fundmanentalism.


First, one should know what these "Christian Zionists" are all about. This

defintion comes from Donald Wagner:

Christian Zionists insist that all of historic Palestine -- including all the land west of the Jordan which was occupied by Israel after the 1967 war -- must be under the control of the Jewish people, for they see that as one of the necessary stages prior to the second coming of Jesus. Among their other basis tenets:

• God’s covenant with Israel is eternal, exclusive and will not be abrogated, according to Genesis 12:1-7; 15:4-7; 17:1-8; Leviticus 26:44-45; Deuteronomy 7:7-8.

• The Bible speaks of two distinct and parallel covenants, one between God and Israel, one between God and the church. The latter covenant is superseded by the covenant with Israel. The church is a "mere parenthesis" in God’s plan and as such it will be removed from history during an event called the Rapture (1 Thess. 4:13-17; 5:1-11). At that point, Israel, the nation, will be restored as the primary instrument of God on earth.

• Genesis 12:3 ("I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you") should be interpreted literally -- which leads to maximum political, economic, moral and spiritual support for the modern state of Israel and for all the Jewish people.

• Apocalyptic texts like the Book of Daniel, Zechariah 9-12, Ezekiel 37-8, I Thessalonians 4-5 and the Book of Revelation refer to literal and future events.

• The establishment of the state of Israel, the rebuilding of the Third Temple, the rise of the Antichrist and the buildup of armies poised to attack Israel are among the signs leading to the final eschatological battle and Jesus’ return for his thousand-year reign. The movement looks for the escalating power of satanic forces aligned with the antichrist that will do battle with Israel and its allies as the end draws near. Judgment will befall nations and individuals according to how they "bless Israel."

Christian Zionism, which includes the group Alan, refers to, don't believe in any attempts at peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, especially the Palestinians. It also tends to be anti-Arab and anti-Muslim. Here is what Pat Robertson says about a "two-state solution (Israel and a Palestinian state):

If a Palestinian State is created in the heart of Israel with sovereign power to deploy troops, import modern weapons-even weapons of mass destruction-and operate with full secrecy and diplomatic immunity, the ability of the State of Israel to defend itself will be fatally compromised.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake-the entire world is being convulsed by a religious struggle. The fight is not about money or territory; it is not about poverty versus wealth; it is not about ancient customs versus modernity. No-the struggle is whether Hubal, the Moon God of Mecca, known as Allah, is supreme, or whether the Judeo-Christian Jehovah God of the Bible is Supreme.


If God's chosen people turn over to Allah control of their most sacred sites-if they surrender to Muslim vandals the tombs of Rachel, of Joseph, of the Patriarchs, of the ancient prophets-if they believe their claim to the Holy Land comes only from Lord Balfour of England and the ever fickle United Nations rather than the promises of Almighty God-then in that event, Islam will have won the battle. Throughout the Muslim world the message will go forth-"Allah is greater than Jehovah. The promises of Jehovah to the Jews are meaningless.


"We can now, in the name of Allah, move to crush the Jews and drive them out of the land that belongs to Allah."


In short, those political initiatives that some have asserted will guarantee peace, will in truth guarantee unending struggle and ultimate failure. Those political leaders who only understand the secular dimension of Israel's existence and who cavalierly dismiss the spiritual dimension will find that they receive the mess of pottage of Esau rather than the inheritance of Jacob.

Some groups like the

International Christian Embassy promote a view that Israel belongs only to the Jews and that anyone who divides the land (which would include the West Bank and Gaza) would fall prey to God's wrath.

In short, these groups do not want to give the Palestinians one piece of land. They have rejected agreements from Camp David, to Oslo to the current "Roadmap." For them, to divide the land is to commit a grave sin.

What is also interesting as that Christian Zionism tends to ignore the Palestinian and Arab Christians who have resided in the area for nearly two millenia. Corrine Whitlach of the Churches for Peace in the Middle East, notes:

U.S. Christians travel to the Holy Land as pilgrims and are a major segment of the tourism industry. They visit the holy sites but most have virtually no contact with Arab Christians themselves. Arab Christians hold strongly negative views of Christian Zionism, which is considered by some to be an instrument of Western colonialism and American imperialism. The zealous support given Israel’s claim of sovereignty over all of Jerusalem and the building of settlements in “Judea and Samaria” by these Western Christians angers both Christian and Muslim Palestinians. Some evangelical churches have supportive relationships with settlements.

Among Palestinians, there are the traditional churches – Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox and Roman Catholic – and the so-called “reform” churches established in the 19th century – Lutherans and Episcopalians or Anglicans. They work ecumenically through the Middle East Council of Churches. These Christians consider themselves, and are considered by the Muslims, to be an integral part of the Palestinian community, even though they are a minority of less than 2%.

From his Jerusalem office, Bishop Munib Younan, of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, has written that “Christian Zionism is the enemy of peace in the Middle East.” The Rev. Naim Ateek, director of Jerusalem’s Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theological Center, has called pre-millenialism a “heresy” and Christian Zionism a “menace.”

Just because they support Israel, doesn't mean these people are good. In my view, they hold views that are rather bigoted towards Arabs. They also will only make the crisis worse not better. Israelis rightly need security and need to not have to face daily rocket attacks or suicide bombers. However, the Palenstians need a place they can call their own. Both are important and negotiators from around the world have to work to hammer out a lasting peace that will honor both sides. The Christian Zionists are an anathema to any peace process.

The Christian Zionists also threaten our campaign against terror. People like bin Laden have used the Palestinian conflict as a recruitment tool to join his genocidal brand of Isalm. We need to find ways to "drain the swamp" and not give bin Laden and ilk a leg up.


Finally, I want to speak as a Christian pastor. The Jesus I worship is one who brought people together. He met people from all walks of life, Jewish, Samaritan and Roman. I don't see how once can merge an ideology that seems to be very narrow in its viewpoint with a God who loved the whole world and sent his Son to bring us all salvation. As a Christian, I believe God loves both the Jew and the Arab, the rabbi and the iman.

Mainstream Americans should not ally with these people. They are not interested in peace. No matter how you slice it, Christian Zionism is just another form of religious fundamentalism.

Paris (of the Middle East) Is Burning

Beirut's Southern Suburbs, a Hezbollah stronghold, after Israeli airstrikes. Courtesy the Washington Post.

As I see and hear of the devastation going on in Lebabnon these days, I am reminded of the late summer and early fall of 1982 when I was about 12. I was recuperating from a tonsilectomy and basically spent the day watching TV, especially CNN (yes, I was a news junkie way back then). The civil war in Lebanon filled the TV screens, especially the Israeli invasion. I remember seeing damaged buildings everywhere as this once beautiful seaside city was being pummulled from within and without.

Of course, the civil war ended in 1990 and Lebanon slowly tried to rebuild itself. Beirut once again became the "Paris of the Middle East" a cosmopolitian city, trying to put its past behind it.

And now it's all blown to hell. Literally.

As I've listened to the news and read all the blogs, several things have come to mind regarding the situation.


Criticism of Israel doesn't always equate anti-Semitism. Every time a dustup occurs in the Middle East someone somewhere, most likely in Europe, criticizes Israel and predictably, someone somewhere, most likely in the United States, accuses the critics of either aiding and abetting anti-Semitism or calling them bigots outright.

I find such name calling silly to say the least. One can criticize the government of Israel for an action and yet not be bigoted toward Jews. No government, especially a democracy like Israel, is above reproach. In the recent case, I think Israel was right in hitting Hezbollah after the group took two Israeli soliders, but it overstepped its bounds by then attacking civilian centers like Beirut and destroying Lebanon's civic infastructure. That shouldn't make me an appeaser to anti-Semitism. There is a lot I disagree with on the other side as well, that doesn't mean I'm anti-Arab or anti-Islamic.

Yes, there are some people who are downright haters of Jews and Israel and they should be condemned. But those who are cheerleaders for Israel (and to a lesser extent the Palestinians) need to stop painting all who have a contrary view with such a broad brush.

Israel's Unilateral Peace Process didn't work. Very seldom do bloggers say they made a mistake, but this one will. I tended to think that Israel's plan of pulling from Lebanon in 2000 and pulling out of Gaza last year was the best way to ensure peace in the current context. Many supporters who side with Israel are indignant that Hamas and Hezbollah still mess with Israel after they made these moves of peace. But the problem here is that these tactics were made just by one side. The Palenstinians were ignored in the process over Gaza which gave Hamas an opening. One news source I was reading noted that Israel pulled out of the Sinai two decades ago, and the baorder between Egypt and Israel remains secure. The reason? Because the two nations came to the table and hashed things out. In 2000 and 2005, Israel just pulled out expecting the other side to just be quiet. The only way peace can be achieved here is through hard fought diplomacy, not by just going it alone. The past week has taught me that Israel has to get back to the negotiating table with the Palestinians as well as other regional actors to make peace. Taking your marbles and refusing to play doesn't ensure that the rockets hitting Israeli cities like Haifa will stop. Which relates to the next thing I've learned:



The United States needs to go back to being an "honest broker" and acutally use diplomacy. This President seems to think that the way to solve things in the Middle East is through the barrel of a gun. Also, you don't talk to evil actors like Syria or even groups like Hamas. Can the military bring about peaceful solutions? Sometimes. I mean utterly defeating Germany and Japan in World War II did bring about a lasting peace. But the Middle East of 2006 isn't Europe and Aisa circa 1942. Diplomacy means that sometimes you have talk to people that you can't stand. Because the US has this "moralistic" foreign policy where we don't have anything to do with bad people, we have boxed ourselves in a corner and basically have nothing better to do than to watch. In the past, someone like a Herny KIssinger or James Baker would be flying to Damascus or Jerusalem and meet with leaders to get the two warring parties to stop. Now, I don't think James Baker had some kind of lovefest with the late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad, but Baker knew that al-Assad the elder was a power broker and you had to sometimes deal with a devil for the greater good.

We all know that Syria has pull with Hezbollah. So why isn't President Bush sending Condi Rice to Damascus and talking to Bashar al-Assad?

Elections alone don't make a democracy. The Bush Administration has made democracy promotion a main part of his Middle East policy. So, we have seen elections and Iraq and the Palestinian terroritories and to a lesser extent Lebanon. In all cases, the result have been relatively weak governments unable to perform basic services. When governments are weak, the you have terrorists like Hezbollah coming in and filling the void.

Maybe this is further proof that Bush isn't much of a conservative, but shouldn't he be trying to bolster institutions that make a democracy strong? What good does it do to see people vote for governments that can't secure people or get rid of terrorist organizations?

I need to make clear that I don't have a dog in this fight. While I am criticizing Israel, none of the actors have clean hands. The Palestinians and other Arab states also share the blame and that's why the United States need to be a broker and not taking one side.

I hope the warring can stop and I hope peace can surely come to the region. I don't have much hope with the current actors, but I do have a little hope.

Stem Cells

You know, I've never written about this issue before. I guess there's a first for everything.

President Bush finally got out his veto pen today. After five years in office and saying yes to everything Congress sent to his desk, he decided to say "no" to a bill that would have allowed more research on embryonic stem cells.

While the President has made his far right base happy, you have to wonder what the implications will be for congressional Republicans this fall. With a majority of Americans approving stem cell research, and Americans already in a bad mood towards the Republican leadership, methinks the public will want to punish the President for his veto and sacrifice a few GOP legislators.

For me, this cuts both ways....sort of. You see, just this past week, I found out that my 80-something Aunt Nora was diagnosed with Alzhiemer's. So, this research might prove helpful to her and millions of others who are struggling with this disease. I am upset at those who don't say anything about the unused embryos until they might be considered for stem cell research. If they are so important, why don't they protest these embryos being stored and even thrown out after a time?

On the other side, I feel uncomfortable with those who see embryos as just a bunch of cells. Well, yes they are cells, but an embryo is potential life and should at least be treated with respect. Are they the moral equivalent of human being? No. If I have to choose between my Aunt Nora and an embryo, I would have to choose my aunt. This shouldn't mean that we treat the embryo as something of little value. Because of its potential, there has to be a certain amount of respect in how we use it. The long and the short of is, that an embryo is more than a toenail, but it ain't Aunt Nora either. In our rush to pursue this technology, we have to be careful that embryos don't become a commodity. I think the scientific community has done that and I also think that's why we need federal funding and oversight-to make sure that embryos aren't treated as something to be bought and sold.

Time will tell how the President and the Republican party will pay for today's veto. What I do wonder is what the President would say to my Aunt Nora and her children.

Israel vs. Lebanon: A personal view

I haven't said anything yet about the recent conflagration in the Mideast, though I probably will say something soon. In reading all the press acounts, radio reports, TV news, I get the sense that people look at this crisis with a sense of distance. We take sides and forget that in the middle of all this, there are people on both sides that are scared to death. Israelis and Lebonese are hiding in fear of being hit by bombs. Children are frieghtened.

Slate Magazine linked to this Lebonese blogger who shares a letter between an Israeli and his friend in Lebanon.

Read this and remember that while governments and terrorist groups fight amongst themselves. It is the PEOPLE that are being affected.

A Rainbow of Bigotry or Lady Liberty Sings the Blues

Courtesy the New York Times.



Lady Liberty got an
"extreme makeover" by a Memphis megachurch. The attempt is another scary mixing of church and state. I could wax about the rise of the "Christianists" as Andrew Sullivan calls those who use religion for political ends, but I want to talk about the fact that the so-called Christianists are not as some would believe, a bunch of lilly-white nutcases. For example, World Overcomers Outreach Church, the folks behind this defiling of the Statue of Liberty is an African American congregation. The New York Times piece talks about the fact that the pastor, Alton R. Williams has taken out full pages ads condemning gay marriage. Indeed, if you look at their church website, you can sign a petition to support the Federal Marriage Amendment and you can call the church if you desire to "free" from homosexuality.

My observation is that many pro-gay people, especially on the left end of the spectrum, tend to ignore the fact that the anti-gay movement is not simply a bunch a white bigots singing a second verse of bigotry. Sometimes they say that anti-gay African Americans are duped by whites or that they are being used. The long and the short of it is this: 1)Blacks don't know any better; and 2) Because of our experience with racism, we are more sensitive to how gays are treated.

The fact is, blacks do know better. I grew up in the Black Church. I faced a lot of homophobia. I remember being teased in church. I remember hearing a pastor preach against gay marriage during a Christmas Eve Sermon. I also know that at my parent's church, the pastor (who was having an affair)objected to having a lesbian working with the church choir, even though the congregation loved her.

The fact is, African Americans are human beings. We are as capable as anyone else to love and hate people. The fact that we faced three centuries of discrimination doesn't necessarily mean that we are more loving towards others.

Maybe one of the biggest challenges right now is that the Black Church needs to face up to its own homophobia and the larger pro-gay forces need to stop prentending that we African Americans are the "noble savages" and realize that the anti-gay forces doesn't just include the likes of white preachers like James Dobson. Gay groups need to soundly condemn pastors like Apostle Williams as much as they do the Dobsons, Fawells and Robertsons of the world.

Hate can come in many colors.

Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan.

Happy Independence Day

Every Fourth of July, National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" does a dramatic reading of the Declaration of Independence with various reporters and hosts from NPR. It's always a good listen, so sit back and enjoy.

Have a good Fourth.

The Two "Religious Lefts"

Jim Wallis. Photo courtesy Sojourners.


Even though I've been involved in mainline American Protestantism for about 15 years and now, and I'm an ordained pastor of one of those mainline Protestant denominations, my roots are grounded in the traditional Black Church and Evangelicalism. In many ways, I classify myself as a "Liberal Evangelical" a mixture of conservative theology and liberal social action.


Slate has an interesting article on two strains of the so-called "religious left." One is led my Michael Lerner, who leads the Jewish magazine, Tikkun and the other is Jim Wallis who heads Sojourners magazine. The writer talks about how these two social movements could affect the Democrats in 2008. Here's the writers take on Michael Lerner's recent gathering of religious liberals:

There was a strong Christian presence among the 1,200 attendees at the NSP conference, but it leaned heavily toward liberal denominations. Quakers and Unitarians outnumbered Evangelicals and Catholics. They were joined by scores of liberal Jews, fewer Muslims, and a sprinkling of Buddhists, Sufis, Baha'i, Wiccans, Native American shamans, and various metrospiritual seekers. Even secular humanists were welcomed.

Together the attendees all prayed in concentric circles, sang John Lennon's "Imagine" (with the line "and no religion too" tastefully amended), and meditated while eating vegan boxed lunches. At times they seemed like a flock of black sheep. My breakout group of eight—led by a stunning Jewfi woman (Jew + Sufi = Jewfi) in ventilated Crocs sandals—included Unitarian and United Church of Christ pastors, a retired scientist looking to marry faith and reason, and a gay former Christian fundamentalist turned theatrical performance activist. Everyone was highly motivated, but I couldn't help wondering: How big can such a constituency be?

Lerner is undaunted by such concerns. His vision for the NSP is intentionally quixotic, and he doesn't expect to sway elections anytime soon. In fact, he's positively phobic of short-term thinking lest it compromise his vision. That vision, in Lerner's words, is "a new bottom line in American society" whereby policies and institutions are "judged efficient not only to the extent that they maximize money and power but also to the extent that they maximize love and caring." The conference's Spiritual Covenant with America included more concrete proposals on everything from corporate responsibility to foreign policy and the environment. But its scattershot approach puzzled some attendees. I tagged along with one on a Capitol Hill visit at which he handed the list to his Congressman's staffers and urged them to "just pick one thing, I don't care what it is. "

While Lerner is dealing with the more abstract, Wallis is more pragmatic. He wants to affect a change in the heart that will translate to the ballot box:

Wallis, on the other hand, is more focused. He wants to influence two voting blocs that will be critical to the 2008 election, moderate evangelicals and Catholics. His plan is to focus on poverty, an issue he believes all Christians can get behind, rather than ceding the floor to gay marriage and abortion, which the religious right uses to estrange Christians from the Democratic Party.

Wallis may be on to something. A 2004 Pew poll found that most evangelicals support increased spending on anti-poverty programs, rigorous environmental protection, and the fight abroad against HIV and AIDS. Groups like the National Association of Evangelicals (which represents some 45,000 churches and 30 million members nationwide) and the Evangelical Environmental Network have become increasingly vocal in their support of these Democrat-friendly faith issues.

Wallis' conference this week, Pentecost 2006, will bring hundreds of Christian activists to Washington to promote a Covenant for a New America aimed at eradicating poverty at home and abroad. Unlike Lerner's conference, Wallis' isn't going to be dominated by the liberal fringes: Among the speakers are Republican Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Sam Brownback of Kansas, two of the most prominent voices on the religious right.

I think if the Democratic Party is interested in getting back some of these moderate evangelicals, they would be wise to follow Wallis and not Lerner. Lerner's path is one that I'm familiar with. I've been part of and seen religious coalitions of the left and center that tend to be fuzzy minded and in the end, rather in effective to the onslaught of the far right. However, I think Wallis' track is more in line with past movements like the civil rights movement of the last century. Wallis and many like him are more interested in dealing with the issues at hand; combatting poverty, dealing with HIV/AIDS, and tackling global warming. Wallis' movement also could even change the Republican party as well. There are many religious Republicans who care more about the "least of these" than they do about gay marriage. Notice that among the speakers at Wallis' conference is Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, a very fundamentalist Republican who nonetheless is interested in issues like HIV/AIDS and Darfur. Lerner's view is basically a nice gathering of liberals who like listen to each other and sing "kum-ba-yah."

American Evangelicalism has never been monolithic. The problem is that for far too long, the Pat Robertsons of the world have been the loudest voices. There has long been a stream of evangelicals who believed in social change, but they have not attracted the attention of the wider public. I believe that will change.

Hallelujah.

Latin America's Two Left Feet

If you have been paying attention, you might have noticed Latin America's leftward swing. Leaders such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Brazil's Lula are dominating the political scene. While some hard core conservatives think this is all bad news and that all of the political left is the same, there are some interesting things going on in the Southern Hempisphere: some good and some not so good. Former Mexico Foriegn Minister Jorge Casteneda writes in this month's Foriegn Affairs about the fact that there are two lefts are taking root in Latin America: one that is more social democratic in the best sense of both words, and the other more populist and authoritarian. It's a good read and Mr. Casteneda gives the US some advice on how to deal with a left-leaning Latin America.

Compassionate Conservatism's Last True Believer

Former Clinton aide Bruce Reed writes in his regular Has-Been column for Slate about the resignation of Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson and the true end of a strain of conservatism that had higher ends than lower taxes and fretting about Adam and Steve holding hands. Reed notes Gerson was interested in using government and faith to combat national issues like poverty and after a meeting between Clinton and Gerson's then boss, former Senator Dan Coats of Indiana, there was some hope among Dems that there could be a "kindler, gentler conservatism."

It didn't end up that way, and Reed places blame on Karl Rove and the president as well:

I've never looked in Bush's heart, but judging from the way he talks about education or immigration—even without Gerson at the teleprompter—there's enough compassion to have led the country down a different course. The hollowing of compassionate conservatism was a conscious choice—wrong on the merits and even on the politics. Ultimately, Bush decided that the lesson the country tried to teach Republicans in 1995 (do the right thing) paled alongside the lesson he learned from his father's defeat in 1992 (do the right's bidding).

Well, read the whole thing. I'm not one who thinks that conservatives can't be compassionate because I've seen it. There are many good conservatives who spend their time tackling poverty, helping those with HIV/AIDS and protecting the environment. I really believe the president has a compassionate side and if he had listened to that instead of Mr. Rove, we might have a different adminstration and maybe, just maybe the GOP wouldn't be so nervous about losing seats come November.

Reed notes that back in 2000, as Bush and John McCain battled it out for the GOP nod, it was really the Arizona Senator, not the Governor from Texas that was really interested in having the Grand Old Party serve a higher puprose. I wonder if that's still true today. Even moreso than Bush, McCain really believes that conservatism should mean more than being against gay marriage or spending as "drunken sailors." You could see touches of that strain of conservatism in his commenncement address to Liberty University. I want to believe that, to paraphrase a line from a now-canceled TV series, that McCain will be McCain and revive and give real meaning to "compassionate conservatism" after all.

No One is Safe. No One.

I got into a bit of an argument two years ago with a friend who was talking about seminary professor that we both know. The professor in effect agree with the Osama bin Laden's pre-election broadcast that said that Sweden would not get attacked by Islamists because they don't have policies that hurt Muslims. I know this prof wasn't a lover of the terrorist, but he thinks US policies are to blame at least in some part, for things like 9/11. Change policy and they will leave us alone.

Patrick Belton from Oxblog reminds us that this struggle is global and the Islamists don't distinguish between those who supposedly have clean hands and those who don't. We've seen how terrorists have targeted Canada and France, two nations that didn't support the war in Iraq and have been critical with the US on many issues. As Patrick says, someday even Sweden might not be safe.

I'm not saying nations who oppose the war in Iraq have "to get in line" and stop criticizing the US, in fact, I think we need to hear criticism (something this Administration is not good at). What I am saying is that groups like al Queda have a bone to pick with the modern world and they don't really care where you stand on the Israeli-Palestinian issue or the war in Iraq. This threat of terror is something that people from all walks of life must take seriously and work to end because it affects everybody.

On The Republican Party, Part Two

As a moderate Republican (feeling everyday like a "failed Republican") there are days I feel like a spouse who knows their partner is sleeping around with some cheap whore. These days the GOP is sleeping with the far right Christianists and doing all it can to please them with silly things like a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, a flag burning amendment and trying to get rid the estate tax (which I will explain in a later post). This "sleeping around" has caused moderates Republicans and independents like myself from not being so crazy in supporting the GOP this fall.

In a worthwhile op-ed Sarah Chamberlin Resnick, the head of the Republican Mainstreet Partnership talks about how the party needs to reach out to independents if they want to remain in power come fall.

She hits some important notes in the op-ed. If the Dems do gain more seats it will be at the expense of those moderates who have stood against the far right on many issues:

In what may be the cruelest of ironies, if Republicans are punished by independent voters in the midterms, it will be the centrist, independent Republicans from the Northeast who will be the most likely victims. For Democratic strategists and left-wing interest groups hoping for a Speaker Pelosi, a Republican legislative agenda that plays only to the conservative base this year is a dream come true.

Resnick suggests the party focus on the basics and less on the wedge issues.

All of this is very good, but don't hold your breath that it will happen. I think the party as it is has welded itself to the far right base and is not planning to change course anytime soon. What's sad is that we might see good moderates like Chris Shays and Nancy Johnson of Connecticut and Linc Chafee in Rhode Island be defeated and make the party more radical and less open to change. In a way, this happened to the Dems a decade ago, when the crushing defeat of 1994 sent a good number of Southern, moderate Democrats packing and leaving the party more liberal than it used to be.

With that said, I think the GOP's tango with the Christianists will come at a price. Charging RINO shares a piece in the LA Times (see the "failed Republican" link above) about how many frustrated moderates are leaving the Republican party and joining the Democrats. Now, if there is a state that was incredibly Republican, that was Kansas. However the focus on gay marriage, evolution and abortion has sent some moderates packing. What was once the state that had solid Republicans like Bob Dole and Nancy Kassebaum, now has a state attorney general that wants to impose his far right agenda under the guise of protecting children.

Jeremy hope this is the start of a trend. While I don't want to see good moderates leave the party, I share that hope. The GOP needs to realize that parties are won by the center, NOT by clinging to a base of nuts. I'm not crazy about big government liberalism, but big government conservatism (in the form of banning gay marriage and other "values" issues) is even scarier.

On the Republican Party, Part One

Jeremy over at Charging RINO has some stinging parting words for former House Majority Leader Tom Delay who exited the House yesterday (and probably off to a lucrative lobbying and speaking career). Jeremy pins Delay with doing more damage to the Grand Old Party than any other person:

Tom DeLay has done more damage to the House of Representatives, the Republican Party, and the political climate of the United States than any other single person in recent memory. I am not sad to see him go, and I hope that his departure will signal the start of a reversal of the trends he perpetuated and exacerbated in recent years.

Good riddance, Mr. DeLay.

As I opined in an earlier post, Mr. Delay was but a symptom of a wider problem. In my view, he was but one slimy pol who was interested in enriching himself and his patrons. While I'm glad that he's out of the picture, don't think for a moment that Democrats and Republicans are going to start holding hands, singing songs of bipartisanship. As I said, in the April post, it's what Andrew Sullivan calls the "Christianists" that are the problem.

While I'm glad that Delay no longer has Congress to kick around anymore, the only way those of us who are interested in bringing the GOP more to the center is by getting more involved in the party. Delay's departure doesn't necessilrily mean the trends he was involved in will reverese automatically. They will only reverse because rank and file moderates in the GOP have had enoough and will work for change.

I leave you with what I said back in April:

If you are a Republican dissatisfied with the far right, then you need to stand up and say something. Get involved with some of the Republican organizations that are trying to change the party. I have links to them on the right of this page. Give money to those Republicans who are working for change. If you are centrist, find some way to support causes that can push back on the far right agenda.

Cheering Delay's demise might feel good, but it isn't worth a plug nickel in changing the party and the nation as a whole. Put down the party streamers and get to work.

al-Zarqawi: Taken Out

While I don't believe in celebrating the death of anyone, even evil people (my Christian beliefs), I do think the death of al-Zarqawi is a necessary step towards trying to bring some order to Iraq. One wishes the US had done this a few years ago.

Gay Marriage: It IS an Important Issue

With no big surprise, the Senate rejected cloture on a vote for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. During this whole debate, I keep hearing people who are against the ban that this is a distracting issue and that government should focus on more important issues like immigration or health care.

I'd like to set things straight (no pun intended): banning gay marriage can be a distracting issue, but the issue itself is not. This is a REAL issue for those of us who are gay and either have or plan to have significant others. Listen to the story of a same sex couple living in Minneapolis:

In the spring of 2002 we experienced a life changing event that made us realize just how many rights and privileges we were denied as a gay couple unable to marry - the same rights and privileges that some married straight couples take for granted.

I was rushed to the hospital by ambulance and admitted with an extremely high fever and difficulty breathing. While the doctors and nurses were working with me, Jim stayed at my side answering the same question, "And who are you?" Over and over Jim explained that he was my partner and yes, we did have the power of attorney and health care directive that permitted him to be there and to make decisions regarding my health care. If we had not signed those papers just 2 weeks prior to my admission, he might have been prevented from being with me as I fought to live. As it turned out, I was diagnosed with pneumocystis pneumonia and AIDS. This was only the beginning of a long struggle to regain my health.

Since that time, we have done a lot of research into the marriage benefits we don't have and how it affects us now that my health is such a large issue. Things like hospital visitation are covered with the health care directive and power of attorney as long as the health care facility has a copy of the paperwork.

If I need to quit my full-time job at DHS, I would not be able to get health care through my partner's employer, also DHS. Neither of us would receive the retirement or death benefits spouses normally receive. If I needed nursing home care, the house we own together could be taken from Jim to pay for my nursing home care. If I die, Jim would not be able to claim my body from the morgue and my family would have the right to contest my will and try to claim my property because Jim is not "next of kin".

I repeat: for gay people, this isn't a distracting issue. It's about life and death.

So to all my fellow bloggers and others: please stop saying things like, "let's focus on other issues." Because for people like me this is an important issue.

Some Questions about the Left

After reading this post on Oxblog, as well as another one by Reason's Cathy Young, I have to wonder: why is it that some (not all, mind you) on the Left are so anit-American? Why are they so quick to compare America to Nazi Germany and yet give truly racist or authoritarian regimes like Saddam's Iraq or even the Soviet Union get a pass.

The United States is not perfect. I'm not one of those Republicans who sees America as God's chosen instrument that can do now wrong. We've done plenty wrong. But it seems to me we need to put this in perspective and to compare the US to a genocidal regime like the Nazis is just plain wrong.

I opposed the invasion of Iraq. I am not happy with a lot of the Bush Adminsitration's foriegn policy. But I don't think I live in a fascist state with a wimpy media. Even though the Bushies want to curtail our civil liberites, I don't live in places like China where you have to be careful what you say.

I guess I don't get it.

"Rogue Nation"

The United States is a rogue nation that practices torture and detainee abuse and does not follow the most basic principles of the Geneva Conventions. It is inviolation of human rights agreements and the U.N. Convention against torture. It is legitimizing torture by every disgusting regime on the planet. This is a policy mandated by the president and his closest advisers. This is the signal being sent from the commander-in-chief to his troops: your enemy can be treated beyond the boundaries of what the U.S. has always abided by. When you next read of an atrocity of war-crime or victim of torture by the U.S., just keep in mind who made this possible. Keep your eyes not just on the troops but on the people giving them the orders.

This is not from some wild-eyed lefty, but from Andrew Sullivan. The thing is, I have to agree. I'm not some crazy anti-American, but it is sad to see how this Administration is weakening the Constitution in the name of security. This President says that the terrorist hate us because of our values.

I agree with the President, but he is doing a damn good job at destroying those values. All bin Laden has to do is sit back and watch.

Throwing Some Coldwater on "Unity08"

The latest chatter in the Centrist blogosphere is about Unity08, an effort to get a Republican and a Democrat to run as "unity ticket" ala the Union Party ticket if Abe Lincoln and Andrew Johnson in 1864. Jonathan Alter raves about the new effort calling it "open-source politics." He cites the recent success of Howard Dean and John Kerry in using the Internet to rally support:

"Last time, Howard Dean and later John Kerry showed that the whole idea of "early money" is now obsolete in presidential politics. The Internet lets candidates who catch fire raise millions in small donations practically overnight. That's why all the talk of Hillary Clinton's "war chest" making her the front runner for 2008 is the most hackneyed punditry around. Money from wealthy donors remains the essential ingredient in most state and local campaigns, but "free media" shapes the outcome of presidential races, and the Internet is the freest media of all."

In a recent series of article in the The New Yorker Ryan Lizza explains that the Internet is a great tool in getting a third party off the ground. Again, Howard Dean is used as an example:

But then came the Internet—and Howard Dean’s campaign.
The Dean campaign proved many things, but its most enduring legacy may be that it gave us a glimpse of the beginning of the end of the two-party system. First, he showed the next budding Ross Perot how to manage a 50-state ballot-access project easily and cost-efficiently. It is not widely understood, but candidates running in the presidential primaries of the two major parties also must qualify for the ballot of every state they want to contest. Dean was the only insurgent Democratic-primary candidate in history to qualify in all 50 states, a stunning organizational achievement. Using a ballot-access function of the campaign’s Website, Deaniacs in every state had downloadable petitions and details about the rules for their state. Goals were tracked in real time. “Both parties have set up nominating and ballot hurdles, so an insurgency can’t happen,” says Joe Trippi, Dean’s first campaign manager and now an evangelist for a third party. “We blew through that in 2003.”
The second hurdle—fund-raising—also has a technological solution. Dean proved a message candidate could work outside any established infrastructure and raise massive amounts of money. After Perot, the assumption was that only a self-financed candidate could mount a credible third-party challenge. Dean exploded that conventional wisdom.
Dean’s campaign not only suggested that the traditional obstacles to starting a third party are surmountable, but it also raised questions about the purpose of the two parties themselves. What assets, after all, do the Democratic and Republican parties bestow on a nominee? There was once a time when the parties served a policy role for the presidential candidate. The nominating convention was a time when delegates drew up a party platform for the candidate to run on. No more. Candidates routinely ignore the platform—in 1996, Bob Dole famously said he hadn’t read it—and run on their own issues.
What’s left? The other assets parties offer are a fund-raising infrastructure (e-mail lists, donor databases) and an organizational infrastructure (county chairs, precinct captains, local volunteers). But the parties no longer have a monopoly on these two networks. A charismatic candidate can build his own alternative fund-raising base overnight and collect an army of volunteers in a matter of weeks. In fact, with the rise of political groups known as 527s, which raise money (often from billionaires like George Soros), run ads, and turn out voters, the parties have already gone a long way toward outsourcing their core activities. The only assets controlled by the two parties that can’t be reproduced by an entrepreneurial independent are their distinctive brands, the value of which is in steep decline.

The Internet can be a good tool to get ideas out there, but there has to be a whole lot more than this. I have to agree with Weekend Pundit that Unity '08 seems more like a political version of American Idol. There is no platform and no attempt to really build a movement. It seems like it will get a lot of people who are on the computer a lot, but may not do much else.

I know there are a lot of Centrists that are gaga for this and I want to believe that this might have a chance. However, from my background, I'm not so certain. I think the wiser approach is to work and support those centrist candidates that are out there. Give of your money and your time. Volunteer. Write letters to the editor to support your candidate. Volunteer with centrist organizations in both parties. It's not sexy as Unity '08, but I think it will do a lot more than simply putting our efforts in something that at least from my view isn't going to get very far. It's not that I don't think "Open Source Politics" isn't a good idea. It's just that you have to do more than set up a webpage or run a blog. That's the easy part. To create a movement, you need to work at getting your message out to the media, host house parties to get people interested, doing things like door knocking and getting candidates to major events.

In the past few years, I've been involved in supporting moderate Republican candidates. It isn't sexy work and at times is damn frustrating, but in the end, I think this more pragmatic approach will pay off more than some kind of "net convention."

One more note. Some are upset the current moderates or reformers in both parties have to do this balancing act to be presentable to the rabid base. I think some Centrists want this political Jesus that is unsullied by politics. A lot of people loved McCain early on because he seemed to have that Messianic air about him. Of course, he didn't win because of that. People, we have to accept the fact that there is no savior. Political parties are made up of various people and candidates have to try to be all things to all people. All politicians (at least those who want to win) have to bend a little at some point. We might not like it, but that's they way it is in a democratic society.

Centrists have to stop dreaming of the perfect candidate or perfect party and get back to earth and fight for change. It's not going to happen with dream candidates or even a dream third party. I'm not against third parties, but I am saying that if we want something to happen, we need to work for it and know it won't be prefect.

Sorry to be the contrarian.

Another New Blogger

Just wanted to let people know of another sensible Republican blogger out there. Check out The Russell Record.

Arnold Flips the Script

I was out of town the past few days and busy with church and work, but I did find this op-ed in Monday's Los Angeles Times interesting. After not having a good 2005 politically, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has decided to move back towards the winning center and might just win another term as governor in November.

It's nice to know that some Republicans do learn from their mistakes unlike a certain leader in Washington, DC...

Comment on "Who Watches the Watchers"

Paul, a frequent commenter, brought up a great quote by Denzel Washington in a movie called The Siege, a 1998 movie that talks about a wave of terrorism that hits New York by Islamist terrorists. At some point, the government starts locking up many Arabs who had no connection to the terror in the name of security (kinda prophetic, huh?). Here's Denzel's quote (which was given as a General played by Bruce Willis plans on tortuing a suspect) which could easily apply to modern day America:

"Come on General, you've lost men, I've lost men, but you - you, you *can't* do this! What, what if they don't even want the sheik, have you considered that? What if what they really want is for us to herd our children into stadiums like we're doing? And put soldiers on the street and have Americans looking over their shoulders? Bend the law, shred the Constitution just a little bit? Because if we torture him, General, we do that and everything we have fought, and bled, and died for is over. And they've won. They've already won!"

Kinda scary how true that quote has become.

Who Watches the Watchers

I saw something on Balloon Juice yesterday that sums up how I feel about the government tapping phone lines without a warrant and tracking phone domestic phone calls:

The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do something wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.

Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." Watch someone long enough, and you'll find something to arrest -- or just blackmail -- with. Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies -- whoever they happen to be at the time.

Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.

For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable.

This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And it's our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives.

These are exerpts from Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer writing in Wired Magazine.

The problem I have with the Bush Administration and those who see no problems with this is that we are being asked to simply trust that the government is operating in our best interests. "Trust me," the Executive branch says. "We are good and work for your interests." But the thing is, we live in a democratic system where there is checks and balances. That means that each branch is looked on by the other. There is nothing in the constitution that asks the nation to simply trust those in authority. In a democracy, our leaders are not all-knowing gods, but humans that have to govern with the consent of the governed, and no, just because you win re-election doesn't mean you get to do what you damn well please.

The other problem I have is that we are being offered a false choice between liberty and security. If we fret about civil liberties, well we just don't care if the terrorists attack again. Balderdash. I do care about security and that is important. I would like to reduce the chance of another 9/11 as much as possible. But not at the expense of our hard won liberties.

For those who think they have nothing to hide, what happens when a future government starts snooping into other things? Would it be okay for the government to track your book or library purchases? What if they see you reading books that are critical of a certain President? What if they track your bank accounts? What if they question what groups you give money to? As the old saying goes, when you have a hammer, you start to see a lot of nails.

I consider myself of old fashioned Burkean conservative in that I respect the power of government. It's power is coercive; it has to be. I'm not anti-government, but it means that we have to respect its power and use it wisely. That is why we have the system of checks and balances-to keep government from taking on too much power and usurping ours.

I think we need to work hard to get the surviellance genie back in the bottle. We need to find ways to be secure without giving up our liberty, or else people like bin Laden will win, with the result a soceity that is less free.

As I've said before, somewhere in some cave, bin Laden is smiling.

We are All "Values Voters" Now

First off, I want to apologize about the limited posts. There's a lot of stuff I want to talk about, but I'm fighting a nasty spring cold, which kind of makes me not in the mood to pontificate on matters. I'm still trying to get motivated to start planning Sunday's worship service.

My physical health aside, I did run accross a great column by George Will, that bust the myth of the so-called "values voter." Actually, it's not that he busts the myth, it's that he believes we all vote our values. Here are some choice quotes:

An aggressively annoying new phrase in America's political lexicon is "values voters." It is used proudly by social conservatives, and carelessly by the media to denote such conservatives.

This phrase diminishes our understanding of politics. It also is arrogant on the part of social conservatives and insulting to everyone else because it implies that only social conservatives vote to advance their values and everyone else votes to . . . well, it is unclear what they supposedly think they are doing with their ballots.

Agreed. Some of my liberal friends vote because of their beliefs on poverty or budget issues and they will say it's because of moral reasons. Sounds like a values voter to me. Will continues:

Conservatives should be wary of the idea that when they talk about, say, tax cuts and limited government -- about things other than abortion, gay marriage, religion in the public square and similar issues -- they are engaging in values-free discourse. And by ratifying the social conservatives' monopoly of the label "values voters," the media are furthering the fiction that these voters are somehow more morally awake than others.

Today's liberal agenda includes preservation, even expansion, of the welfare state in its current configuration in order to strengthen an egalitarian ethic of common provision. Liberals favor taxes and other measures to produce a more equal distribution of income. They may value equality indiscriminately, but they vote their values.

Among the various flavors of conservatism, there is libertarianism that is wary of government attempts to nurture morality and there is social conservatism that says unless government nurtures morality, liberty will perish. Both kinds of conservatives use their votes to advance what they value.

I think Will is correct in blaming the media for falling into this use of "values voter" to describe only social conservatives, when most of us vote our values. No vote in my view is value-free, so why let one group hog all the "values?"

And now, I will head back to my cave and heal.

From the "Oh No You Didn't!" Dept.

Here's the latest chatter from the so-called "Republican base" regarding how America deals with the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the United States:

Not only will it (massive deportation) work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn't possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don't speak English and are not integrated into American society.

Usually people try to use the Nazis to show how bad the other side is. This is one of those rare occassions when someone raves about the efficiency of Nazis.

What a bunch of loons. And bigots to boot.

Your Calls Might Be Monitored for Your Security...

My take on the latest National Security Agency issue.

And a Maverick Shall Lead

Congrats to Alan Stewart Carl who was tapped last weekend to be the Excutive Director of the Centrist Coalition. Godspeed, Alan.

From a "Cowering" Centrist Republican

Earlier today I was perusing Mat Pruitt's blog. He has an interesting post called "It's Our Party Too" where he talks about the need for moderates in the GOP to come up with a vision. He made some sense until he reached the last paragraph:

I am sick and tired of centrist Republican groups that have been the true heart of the party since Abraham Lincoln, cowering to the self righteous right wing that has led this country in the wrong direction.

As someone who has been part of Log Cabin Republicans and Republicans for Environmental Protection, I was taken aback by Mathew's comments. I know people like Martha Marks, the founder of REP, who are not cowering to the far right, instead they are challenging them and willing to fight back against the right wing. Then there are people like Log Cabin and it's current President, Patrick Guerriero, who took a brave stance in 2004 and chose not to endorse the President for his support for the federal marriage amendment. (Guerriero wrote a great op-ed last year urging closeted gay conservatives to come out.)

And then there is my friend Jim. Jim is a quiet unassuming guy around my age who is gay and a life-long Republican. He is a Republican in the moderate tradition. Now, you need to know that the GOP in Minnesota is controlled by the religious right, with moderates being a dying breed. The GOP has been solidly behind efforts to get a so-called marriage amendment in this state. It was in this context, that Jim went to his district convention and wrote a resolution condeming the marriage amendment. It did surprisingly well. Jim and I know it won't change the party platform or policy, but he had some balls to do what he did.

In all of these examples, I don't see anyone cowering. What I see are people that are trying taking on a herculean task and doing their level best.

Mathew says that it's his part too and he is right. But if it is, then do something to take it back from the far right, don't just sit there and bitch, and please don't castigate the people who are doing a thankless job of working for change in the GOP.

On an aside, withdrawing support from moderate elected officials because they are in the same party as the nutcases it a silly idea. It's not as much that these seats will go to the Dems, but that we will lose those moderate voices in the party. And don't think that "destroying the village in order to save it" is going to work. All it will do make the social conservatives think they weren't conservative enough.

Some of our fellow bloggers on the Left have come up with an agenda of sorts and there is the Euston Manifesto which was written by British lefties who wanted to find a way to respond to our current post-9/11 world instead of using the tired old "America is evil" line. In my own humble opinion, I think it's time for centrist Republicans to come up with something if their own. So, I ask my fellow Centrist Republican bloggers: are you up for the challenge? I dare you. I double-dog dare you.

I'll be interested to see who takes the bait.

Moussaoui's Verdict

Being the cynical person that I am, I really expected the jury in this case to give Moussaoui the death penalty. So, I was surprised that the jury opted for life in prison. Good for them. I oppose the death penalty, although being human, there are times I feel some should get it. This case was a sham from the start. Moussaoui is a bad man with bad thoughts and intents, but that alone doesn't warrant the ulitmate punishment.

I could say more, about how I think the Bush Administration is messing up the War on Terror with symbolic victories and not really bring justice to our enemies, but it's late. Instead, I will leave you with some good links:

Joshua Marshall's take.

An LA Times story about how the government tries smaller fish instead of the bigger sharks in the world of terrorism.

Slate's legal correspondent Dahlia Lithwick praises the jury for making the right decision.

One final note: I'm very thankful we don't have to hear Moussaoui's odious rants ever again.

Update: Here is my previous post on the whole Moussaoui trail.

Yet Another Post on Crunchy Cons

Hank Steuver of the Washington Post has a worthwhile profile of Rod Dreher, the man behind the "Crunchy Conservative" movement. It a good read.

Illegal Immigrants: A Cost-Benefit Analysis

Think that those who come to the US illegally are draining social services and adding nothing to our society? Think again:

...immigrants aren't flocking to the United States to mooch off the government. According to a study by the Urban Institute, the 1996 welfare reform effort dramatically reduced the use of welfare by undocumented immigrant households, exactly as intended. And another vital thing happened in 1996: the Internal Revenue Service began issuing identification numbers to enable illegal immigrants who don't have Social Security numbers to file taxes.

One might have imagined that those fearing deportation or confronting the prospect of paying for their safety net through their own meager wages would take a pass on the IRS' scheme. Not so. Close to 8 million of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in the country today file personal income taxes using these numbers, contributing billions to federal coffers. No doubt they hope that this will one day help them acquire legal status — a plaintive expression of their desire to play by the rules and come out of the shadows.

So these so-called leeches are actually contributing to America in a very American way, filing personal income taxes.

They are also helping us with our Social Security and Medicare programs as well as provide income for states and cities:

What's more, aliens who are not self-employed have Social Security and Medicare taxes automatically withheld from their paychecks. Since undocumented workers have only fake numbers, they'll never be able to collect the benefits these taxes are meant to pay for. Last year, the revenues from these fake numbers — that the Social Security administration stashes in the “earnings suspense file” — added up to 10 percent of the Social Security surplus. The file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year.

Beyond federal taxes, all illegals automatically pay state sales taxes that contribute toward the upkeep of public facilities such as roads that they use, and property taxes through their rent that contribute toward the schooling of their children. The non-partisan National Research Council found that when the taxes paid by the children of low-skilled immigrant families — most of whom are illegal — are factored in, they contribute on average $80,000 more to federal coffers than they consume.

So, who is theleech here? The immigrants or Americans who are taking their income to pay for government services we don't want them to use?

Something to think about.

The Future of the GOP

I was reading a recent book review in Reason Magazine about the 10 year anniversary of the Weekly Standard. The day before, I was reading an article in Slate called "Why Republicans are Screwed." The last paragraphs of that article had an interesting viewpoint that made my ears perk up:

If Republicans manage to hold on to their majorities, it will be because they have perfected the ability to use gerrymandering, pork-barreling, and other toll-keeping powers to maintain themselves in office, much like the Democrats they turned out of office in 1994. Retaining control by a narrow margin will do nothing to solve the struggle at the heart of the party between moderates and social conservatives, neoconservatives, and realists, and between fiscal conservatives and big spenders or fanatical tax cutters. In some sense, if the GOP wins ugly and keeps control, they'll be worse off, retaining undivided responsibility, without much actual ability to do anything, heading into the 2008 election. Even the nomination of Hillary Clinton may not unite the factions. Antipathy toward her husband didn't keep Republicans from a debilitating primary struggle in 1996.

Change may come only if a more bruising internal fight between these factions breaks out into the open. During Ford's presidency, the ideological thicket was cleared by Ronald Reagan, who spoke out against the sitting president of his own party, declaring that the national government had "become more intrusive, more coercive, more meddlesome, and less effective." Perhaps no Republican can make a broad assault on GOP leaders while the country is at war. And it may be harder for, say, John McCain, to moderate a reckless, radical party than it was for Reagan to radicalize Ford's limp, idealess one. But if the GOP doesn't have that fight this year, it's going to have it in 2008.

These two stories have made me think about the intellectual state of moderate Republicanism, if such an animal exists (I tend to think it does). The rise of the conservative movement in the GOP was because of think tanks, radio talk show hosts, and magazines, that spread ideas that helped give rise to the ascendancy of Ronald Reagan. Back in the early 70s, moderate Republicanism was on the wane. In 1976, Reagan gave then President Ford a run for his money during the presidential campaign. By 1980, the conservative movement was unstoppable and Reagan became president.

It seems that for the moderate movement to become strong again, it needs to be producing some ideas. There are many advocacy organizations such as Log Cabin that uphold certain values, but there isn't really a moderate Republican think tank or magazine.

In many cases, the conservative movement in the GOP has run off the rails. It's swung too far to the right and has scared the public. But moderates won't get far if we don't present moderate ideas.

There has to be some rich old Rockefeller Republican who could bankroll a magazine or something.

Tiny Violins Alert

Gas prices are rising again, so of course you start hearing calls for doing something about. Politicians look into price gouging, or windfall profits tax on oil companies. Of course it's those evil oil companies that are to blame for the average joe paying such high prices on gas which should be cheap. I mean, that's a right of every American, isn't it? Don't they see how we are suffering?

My response? Let me get out the world's smallest violin.

Look, if Americans are upset about high oil prices, they might want to look into the rear-view mirror of their SUV. A lot of Americans feel they have to buy these huge behemoths for whatever reason. Top that with the fact that said people like to live in far flung suburbs where they have to drive many miles (alone) to work, eschewing public transportation or rideshare or carpooling or what have you. We bascially got ourselves into this mess because we think that the oil will just keep flowin'.


Bull Moose shares his thoughts on this issue and says about the same:

Is there anything good about high gasoline prices? Needless to say , the Moose has sympathy for the working stiff who must take a second mortgage to pay for a gallon of gas. And no one likes Oil CEO's who get compensation packages bigger than the GDP of some nations.But, contrary to the all of the politicians' demagoguery, we have met the enemy and he is us .

The Moose is no economist, but surely consumers (along with rising demand in China and India) are partly responsible for the soaring cost of gas because of our insatiable appetite for more oil. High demand fetches high prices.That was the Moose's thought as he attempted to negotiate a shopping mall parking lot in his '88 Toyota Corolla this past weekend. The Moose felt lost amidst a sea of SUV's and Maxi-Vans the size of M1 Abrams tanks. To paraphrase Bill Maher, when you drive a vehicle the size of a 18 Wheeler, you drive with Bin Laden.

Everyone talks about energy independence, but who does anything about it? Even those Hollywood lefties who kvetch about oil dependency and global warming will be the last ones to give up their private jets.The Moose is no oil dependance fanatic, but perhaps a gas price attack is not bad for the nation. Just maybe, we'll change our behavior. It is truly outrageous that we are at the mercy of the likes of Sheiks, Mullahs and Hugo Chavez's for our energy.

He also offers that a gas tax joined with a payroll tax cut might do the trick to weaning us off our oil jones.

I'm not anti-car, but we as a nation need to start to change our own practices before we start blaming other people. If we really are upset about high gas prices, then we need to look into more fuel-efficient cars. As the old saying goes, when you point a finger at someone, four fingers are pointing back at you.

Another Green Republican Blogger

In honor of Earth Day that occurred this weekend, check out a blog by a conservation-minded Republican called Green GOP.

A Green Republican Blog

With Earth Day two days behind us, I think this might be a good time to introduce a new blog by an enviromentalist that is a Republican. Please check out Green GOP. You will definitely like it.

A Green Republican Blog

With Earth Day two days behind us, I think this might be a good time to introduce a new blog by an enviromentalist that is a Republican. Please check out Green GOP. You will definitely like it.

All Hail the Purple Party!

The problem with Clinton, pace the right, isn’t that she’s a nuthouse sixties liberal. And, pace the left, it isn’t that she’s willing to betray her principles in order to get elected. The problem is that, even after watching her on the national stage for more than a decade, it’s impossible to ascertain if she has any principles at all that are independent of political calculation. Does she, in her heart of hearts, believe in the bill she co-sponsored to criminalize flag-burning? No one—including, I suspect, her closest confidants—really knows. Thus we have the template for the campaign that she will run: a campaign of perpetual triangulation, a maddening, wearisome game of hide-and-seek, executed with none of her husband’s finesse or his grander vision.



McCain, meanwhile, is playing a different game but one no less confounding. Where Clinton is triangulating to position herself for the general election, McCain is racing to the right to ensure his nomination—cozying up to Jerry Falwell (whom McCain denounced in 2000 as an “agent of intolerance”), cheerleading for Bush, endorsing the teaching of “intelligent design” in the public schools, supporting a constitutional amendment in Arizona to ban same-sex marriage. For the partisan androgynes who have long regarded McCain as a maverick, the genuine article, his maneuvers present a devil’s choice: Believe your eyes and accept that he’s actually a more conventional conservative than you thought—or believe your gut, assume that he doesn’t believe a word he’s saying, and accept that he’s a panderer, a standard-issue hack.



What of Rudy Giuliani? Certainly it’s true that our former mayor is polling as strongly as Clinton or McCain (and, in some surveys, more strongly than either). But Giuliani knows that once his stances on social issues (abortion, gay rights, gun control) are widely apprehended (and once the pictures of him dolled up in drag make their rounds on the Internet), his acclaim among GOP-primary voters may prove evanescent. So he travels the country, raising cash for raving rightists such as Senator Rick Santorum. In a speech to the Global Pastors Network—whose leaders believe that the apocalypse is just around the corner—he declares, “I appreciate what you are doing: saving people, telling them about Jesus Christ, and bringing them to God.”



Depressing? Sure—unless you happen to be fomenting a third party. Taken together, the machinations of Clinton, McCain, and Giuliani provide a vivid illustration of precisely why the Democratic and Republican duopoly has become so intolerable to so many: It has eaten away at the vital center, hindered new thinking, and made ever rarer the manifestation of conviction in politics. And it’s created a yawning vacuum to be filled by the candidate of our dreams.

So says An Article in New York Magazine. It's part of a series of articles on building a Centrist Third Party and it seems to be gathering some interest in the Centrist blogosphere. Check it out.

Maybe there's hope yet for this country.

On Fred Phelps and Protesting at Funerals

I've been thinking about what to say regarding the latest news of uber-homophobe Fred Phelps and his band of nutjobs protesting the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. The I found out that someone said it for me:

I know I am supposed to feel all warm inside, now that it will be illegal for Reverend Fred Phelps to “disrupt funeral services, graveside services, or memorial services” when a new law taking effect in August will stop him and his “church” from disrupting services in Minnesota (other states already have passed similar laws to stop his disrupting soldiers’ funerals).

Don’t get me wrong, I think what his church is doing is sick, but here is where it becomes gray for me: October 16, 1998, Matthew Shepard’s funeral. Phelps and his followers came to scream “God Hates Fags!” and carry antigay signs (as seen in The Laramie Project).

For the next eight years, Phelps was allowed to “disrupt” the funeral services of hundreds of gay men. He even runs a hate Web site at www.godhatesfags.com announcing his next protest. Did anyone make laws then? Didn’t anyone care?

Phelps and his followers decided that attending gay funerals didn’t get enough attention, so he announced that the United States is losing the war because of its tolerance of gays, and started disrupting soldiers’ funerals.

Am I wrong to be a little angry that Minnesota lawmakers didn’t have time to protect gay funerals, but they had time to propose an amendment restricting my right to marry?

What are our lawmakers telling us? That it’s OK to pick on the defenseless gay kid, and disrupt our funerals? It’s OK to hate gays, and to limit our rights with a marriage amendment?

I'm glad that people are outraged at the sickness of Phelps and his ilk. But what bugs me is that he's been showing up at the funerals of gay men for years, most notably, Matthew Shepherd's. There was no goverment action then to stop his protests. In fact, at Shepherd's funeral, it was brave people who took their umbrella's (it was raining that day) and shielded the protests so the family wouldn't see them.

Not that I think these laws are a good idea anyway. As sick as I think Phelps protests are, he does have a right to protest. The right to protest is one of our basic rights, even if I don't like it. And as history, shows, gays have found ways to deal with Phelps without begging the government to do something.

I guess what really bothers me is that this whole situation shows how unimportant gays are to the wider society. Everyone will blog and rightly condemn when Phelps goes after our servicemen and women, but it seems that no one cares when it's the gay man who died from AIDS.

So, I'm glad the wider society now knows about how twisted Fred Phelps is. I just wonder where the hell they've been.

Another Moderate Republican Blogger

It's always nice to know that you aren't alone. There is another moderate Republican blog out there called Weekend Pundit. Check it out.

An Ill Wind?

Around the time of the last presidential election, there was some talk of how some people on the Massachusetts coast being upset because of a planned wind farm. You've probably seen windfarms, with those giant wind turbines twirling in unison. With rising energy prices and environmental concerns over coal, wind energy is being seen as a viable alternative that's produces clean and affordable energy.

As someone who fashions himself as a environmentalist, I think this is a good alternative. You'd think a lot of people would think wind energy is a good idea. This is a no brainer: it produces no waste, it's safe and doesn't pollute.

You'd think wrong.

Anne Applebaum reports that about the rising anti-wind movement. Yes, you heard me: the anti-wind movement. The antis complain that the windmills are ugly, noisy and kill birds and bats. Applebaum also talks about how other eco-friendly energy alternatives are being attacked as well for a host of silly reasons.

I sometimes think that the enviromental movement has gone off the tracks at times. My motto has always been to leave as little of a footprint as possible. My guess is there are a lot of environmentalists who think we should leave no footprints whatsoever. That's impossible unless we decide to go back to the 16th century.

In the scheme of things, we are dealing with things like global warming and oil supplies that controlled by the likes of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. These worries are more important than someone in Massachusetts who is upset that he no longer has a "clear view" of the ocean.

My advice to those who are against these winds farms: get over yourselves. There are bigger things to worry about.

Maunday Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Break

Since I will be busy doing my job as a pastor over the next few days, I will be taking a few days off from blogging. See you on Monday.

Yet More Musings on John McCain

If you've been reading this blog, you know that I've had some concerns about John McCain supposed lovefest with the far right. (You can read my prior posts here andhere.) I've said in the past that McCain may have lost me, but I've given that some more thought and now I'm thinking about how tricky politics can be.

Slate'sJacob Weisberg and engaging article entitled "John McCain's Not Really a Conservative." He tries to explain McCain's manuouvers not as losing his maverick egdge, but about playing the game to get the GOP nomination. He notes:

Most liberal commentators take McCain's love fest with the neo-Calvinists at face value, arguing that he's finally revealing his true colors. A few months ago, The Nation ran a cover story titled "The Real McCain," which contended that the Arizona senator is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. To the American Prospect, McCain is Barry Goldwater's true heir. A couple of weeks ago in the New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote, "The bottom line is that Mr. McCain isn't a moderate; he's a man of the hard right."

But the literal-minded left has McCain all wrong. He's trying to win over enough of his party's conservative base to win, for sure. But this is a stratagem—the only one, in fact, that gives him a shot at surviving a Republican presidential primary. Discount his repositioning a bit, and McCain looks like the same unconventional character who emerged during the Clinton years: a social progressive, a fiscal conservative, and a military hawk. Should he triumph in the primaries, we can expect this more appealing John McCain to come roaring back.

Weisberg then goes into detail explaining some of McCain's moves as more of facing reality than it is about him becoming a true believer. The thing is: Weisberg is right. Let's face it: if McCain wants to win the nomination in 2008, he has to be realistic: he has to pay attention to the social conservatives. McCain ran as an insurgent in 2000 and got burned by the right. I think McCain is still very much a reformer, but he is more of a realist in 2006 than he was in 2000. He wants to win, not simply get his message out.

I think some of the problem with people like myself and others is that we want this perfect Messiah that will stand up to whatever demons we think are out there, even if we lose. Centrists have this problem just like those on the extreme left and right. McCain could make no compromises and end up just like he did in 2000, or he can bend a little and get the nomination and make some changes as President. I may not like it, but you know, it's politics in a democracy. If you want the golden ring, you have to make some compromises and those who follow have to determine how much they can stomach. While I might not like his daliances with Jerry Fawell, McCain is still good on issues like immigration, the enviroment and foreign policy in my eyes. I know that there are many who think McCain would do well as an independent, but let's wake up and smell the coffee: no third party candidate has won the Presidency since 1860. Not Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, not George Wallace in 1968, not John Anderson in 1980, not Ross Perot in 1992, not Ralph Nader in 2000. Again, this would be McCain as the noble crusader, tilting at windmills, but not really doing anything to change things.

I'm still a little worried about McCain's dances, but I will keep my eyes open and hope. McCain is still the candidate I want to see get the GOP nod two years from now. I just pray he plays his cards wisely.

Here are some other worthwhile views on this issue:

McCainiac Marshall Witman aka Bull Moose still has faith in McCain, seeing him in the mold of his hero (and mine) Teddy Roosevelt. He notes:

Both the right and the left often do not understand John McCain. The truth is that he is very much like the Moose's idol - T.R. During his time, both the left and right, at times were dissatisfied with the Colonel. Progressives thought he betrayed their cause. Stand-patters loathed his progressive traits.

The truth is that John McCain has always been a conservative. The Senator's political mentors were Goldwater and Reagan. He is a hawk who advocated rogue state rollback and Clinton's intervention in the Balkans when then Governor Bush was against nation-building. He voted against spending bills and the Medicare drug bill because he supports limited government. McCain is a strong supporter of private accounts in Social Security. He is a pro-lifer who only endorses choice when it is related to private school selection.

And... John McCain believes that we need strong action against global warming. He joined with Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform. He courageously denounced and did something about torture. At the same time that liberals complained about McCain speaking at Falwell's Liberty University (keep in mind that the Senator reconciled with the Vietnamese who imprisoned and tortured him), our modern T.R. was working with Ted Kennedy to make our immigration laws more reasonable taking on the restrictionist right. Although he has supported a state ban, he opposes a federal constitutional amendment barring gay marriage.

Can McCain's critics cite a politician alive or dead who similarly defies the turgid categories of the left and the right? Who are the other brave souls in either party who consistently put country before party? America is looking for leaders who defy the conventional categories.

Also, there is a great piece on National Public Radio about McCain's moves to woo Bush Republicans for 2008.

From the "And the Sun is Big, Red Ball in the Sky" Dept.

Well, well, well. It's looks like all the hopes GOP Congressional leaders had about using immigrant-bashing as a wedge issue in this year's midterms, has backfired. The Washington Post reports:

In the wake of this week's massive demonstrations, many House Republicans are worried that a tough anti-illegal-immigration bill they thought would please their political base has earned them little benefit while becoming a lightning rod for the fast-growing national movement for immigrant rights.

House Republicans rushed through legislation just before Christmas that would build hundreds of miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, require that businesses verify the legality of all employees' status through a national database, fortify border patrols, and declare illegal immigrants and those who help them to be felons. After more lenient legislation failed in the Senate last week, the House-passed version burst into the public consciousness this week, as hundreds of thousands of protesters across the country turned out to denounce the bill.

Duh. Did they Republicans really think that they could get away with such legislation and not rouse the ire of Latinos? What's interesting is that GOP leaders, Denny Hastert in the House and Bill Frist in the Senate are blaming the Dems for the harse House Bill. Sorry, guys. It's the GOP that's in control and that means you bear the responsibility. Why didn't Hastert knock some sense into the sponsor of the draconian House immigration bill, James Sensebrenner of Wisconsin? He didn't, the bill passed and now Latinos are turning their fury on that bill.

I'm all for more enhanced border security (except for that wall). But the House bill was nothing more than red meat to the arch conservative base and in the end, the GOP may have lost the Hispanic vote this fall.

It's high past time for some forward-thinking leadership in the party. We need people who are interested in both secutiry and welcoming immigrants. We need to find ways to help those who are already here become citizens, and find ways to help Mexico boost their economy to stem the tide of immigration. We need to get the guest worker program up and running to give immigrants the option of working here for a time and going back home, or working towards legal citizenship. Playing to the baser instincts of some Americans isn't going to get the GOP anywhere, but maybe in history's dustbin with parties like the Know-Nothing Party.

Blacks vs. Latinos?

On a recent post on immigration, I got a response from Shay over at Booker Rising. She had this response:

Hispanics are only the country's fastest growing group **because about half of them are illegal**. I.e., it has been done through criminal means.

As anyone who has seen 'guest worker' programs operate in other countries, these so-called guests have a very strong habit of staying in the countries for decades.

You fail to consider that the Republican Party may gain a few black votes over this issue (or the Democrats lose black votes, as folks may sit on the fence) which is ticking many black folks off because illegal immigrants undermine black economic opportunity and have led to demographic changes in many black communities. If black folks must follow the law, then there should be no special rights for anyone else.

I find this statement full of bigotry. You can't dress up this pig any other way. For those of you who don't know, I'm part Latin, myself. My Mom was born and raised in Puerto Rico and has been an American citizen since she was born, as have the 3.5 million people on that Carribean island since 1917. I grew up in a home where I heard both English and Spanish and I can speak it myself. So, when Shay says that half of all Hispanics are illegal, I find that rather bigoted and small minded and it attacks part of my heritage.

Second, what Shay is suggesting is that the GOP engage in immigrant-bashing to help blacks. Shay is saying the GOP should pit one group against the other. I find this repulsive. America is a multi-ethnic nation and all parties have to learn to appeal to a diverse America and not engage in ethnic bashing.

Finally, I don't understand the animosity that comes from some African Americans on any other minority that isn't African American. It seems as if some black folk feel they have the right to be bigoted towards other ethinic groups, since we were slaves. Bull. Bigotry is bigotry. Latinos aren't a threat to blacks or to the wider American society. They are our allies, NOT our enemies.

I'm glad for those African Americans who have stood up for their Latino neighbors. I just wish more of them would.

Blogging on Holy Week

Not that, I need to write this, since I don't blog very heavily, but blogging might be lighter than usual this week. As many of you know, I'm an ordained minister that works at a local church in the Twin Cities, and Holy Week is a busy time for church types, meaning, I'm planning worship services and writing sermons galore. I will probably have some time to share a rant or two, but just be warned.

The Folly of the Neo-Southern Strategy

I haven't talked much about the whole immigration who-ha. I'll sum up my views by saying, yes, we need to beef up enforcement to keep tabs on illegal immigration, and yes, we need to find ways to make those 12 million who are here already on the path towards citizenship. I'm against the House proposal, but for the President's proposal of guest workers.

With that said, I think the GOP should tread carefully on this issue because it could cost them votes. I think they are giving some red meat to the conservative base that is very isolationist at the expense of Hispanic votes. I don't think they will listen to me, though.

It's no big surprise that Hispanics are the fastest growing ethnic group. Unlike African Americans, they are not solid voting bloc, but the GOP is doing their best to drive the Latin vote to the open arms of the Democrats.

Joe Gandleman reported a few days ago that the current immigrant-bashing could have some ill effects for the Grand Old Party. He cites a Wall Street Journal op-ed by former GOP chairman Ed Gillespie who warns:

The Republican Party cannot become an anti-immigration party. Our majority already rests too heavily on white voters, given that current demographic voting percentages will not allow us to hold our majority in the future. Between 2000 and 2004, President Bush increased his support in the Hispanic community by nine percentage points. Had he not, John Kerry would be president today.

Hispanic voting percentages are increasingly decisive in swing states like New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, Colorado and Arkansas. Mishandling the immigration debate today could result in the Republican Party struggling in these states and others in the same way it now does in California. People who come legally to this country with nothing and labor in the most menial ways to get a new start should feel at home in our party. As a rule, they are hardworking, law-abiding, freedom-loving and patriotic Americans.

When Gillespie is talking about California, he talks about the former Governor Pete Wilson's anti-immigrant proposals back in 1994. The net result was that a fair number of Latinos became Democrats and it weakened the state GOP.

I don't think that all Republicans are racists or bigots, but there are some and they are in prominent positions in the party. The GOP did a bad job of reaching out to African Americans which used to give the GOP a substantial numbers of votes, and has driven many gays who were strong on issues like national defense out of the GOP as well. There are some deluded into thinking that the GOP can win with only white, fundamentalist Christian voters. You don't have to believe in the whole "Emerging Democratic Majority" rhetoric by some on the Left that amounts to demographics as destiny to see that this is folly. Fundamentalist Christians might think God will choose who will win Congress in December, but it's voters who will decide who will control our national legislature and when you manage to get a major ethnic group mad at you by saying that you aren't welcome, well, I don't think even God can save you.

If Congress fails to come up with an immigrant-friendly bill, you might see a lot of Latinos vote Democratic in November and the Republicans will have no one to blame but themselves.

More on Delay's Decamp

I've been reading the blogosphere this morning on the whole Delay affair and there is a lot of celebrating. The most common theme is that he won't be missed and I agree. What has bothered me though, is that people have the hope that Delay's exit from the scene will change the direction of the GOP.

Don't hold your breath.

It's not that I don't think that the GOP should change; that's the reason behind this blog. But I think too many people see Delay and his ilk has the problem with the party and I think we are only part-right. Delay is a problem, but he is more a symptom of an illness than he is the source of all that is wrong in the GOP today and his departure won't change things.

A few weeks back, the outgoing congresssman gave a speech to a gathering a fundamentalist Christians where the assertion was that Delay was forced out of power because he was a Christian. This is what convener Rick Scarborough said at the "War on Christians" conference about Delay:

"I believe the most damaging thing that Tom DeLay has done in his life is take his faith seriously into public office, which made him a target for all those who despise the cause of Christ," Scarborough said, introducing DeLay yesterday. When DeLay finished, the host reminded the politician: "God always does his best work right after a crucifixion."

Then there were the words from Delay himself, which should scare the whatever out of you:

"Sides are being chosen, and the future of man hangs in the balance!" he warned. "The enemies of virtue may be on the march, but they have not won, and if we put our trust in Christ, they never will. . . . It is for us then to do as our heroes have always done and put our faith in the perfect redeeming love of Jesus Christ."

The problem facing the GOP these days isn't Tom Delay; he is just a symptom. Instead, it's Christian fundamentalism, that is driving policy and tactics in the Republican party. THAT is what has to be faced, not some slimy Texas representative.

The people who attended that conference is the problem. Delay was doing their bidding. With him gone, they still have others to turn to.

We seem to forget that it is these so-called "Christian" soliders that are the ones who control the apparatus of a major political party.

As a friend and former Republican once said, the religious right did things the old fashioned way, they went to meetings and made their voice known. Pretty soon, they were the ones in charge.

Joe Weedon has a noteworthy post on Delay in that he states Delay was a visionary leader. Now, that might set some teeth to grinding, but the thing is, he's right. Delay and his Christian right supporters have a vision and they have worked hard to make it a reality. I can't say the same thing for Republican centrists and Centrists in general. What is our vision? Do we have any interest in doing something to change the tone of politics other than spout stuff on a blog?

If you want to be a force for change you need to get involved. If you are a Republican dissatisfied with the far right, then you need to stand up and say something. Get involved with some of the Republican organizations that are trying to change the party. I have links to them on the right of this page. Give money to those Republicans who are working for change. If you are centrist, find some way to support causes that can push back on the far right agenda.

Cheering Delay's demise might feel good, but it isn't worth a plug nickel in changing the party and the nation as a whole. Put down the party streamers and get to work.

Introducing Another Centrist Blog

Waaaaay back when (2005) there was a certain blog called The Yellow Line run by Alan Stewart Carl and Joe Weedon. These days, Alan has his own blog called Maverick Views. I have always wondered what happened to Joe. Well, now we know that he has his own little blog called The Middle of DC. It's nice to see more Centrist bloggers out there, so please check him out.

BREAKING NEWS: "The Hammer Gets Hammered"

Looks like Congress won't have Tom Delay to kick around anymore. The Washington Post is reporting that former Majority Leader Tom Delay is not only bowing out of his re-election race, but possibly resigning from Congress. As the Post notes, this decision comes only a few days after a former Delay aide plead guilty to corruption and conspiracy charge. The aide told federal prosecutors of "criminal operations" being run out of Delay's leadership office.

It's late here in Minnesota and I do have a day job, but let me say this: it's about time. I will leave up to a judge to determine Delay's guilt in legal matters, but I think the representative was a symbol of all that is wrong with the GOP today. His leaving probably won't change things for the better, but I think it's a good thing for him to not be on the Hill anymore.

As they say, this is developing...