I think one of the most basic things we ought to expect from those who govern us is the ability to think intelligently. I’m not asking for an Einstein, but someone who can read a map would be nice. Behold:

And, I agree with Michael at Innocent Bystanders. This sounds like a very spirited debate, if by “spirited”, you mean “retarded” (with apologies to Sarah Palin).

For Peggy West, a map:

Image courtesy of Merriam-Webster.

See that dark area directly beneath the whitish area? The one that says “Mexico”? Yeah, Peggy, that’s not a state.

Folks, if you’re going to criticize the state of Arizona for its immigration law, at least be able to locate it on a map and understand that it is, in fact, a border state, you know, where the immigration debate is more than an academic discussion. I’d also recommend reading the bill, which, I suspect, Mrs. West hasn’t done either. And no, just because Janet Napolitano hasn’t read it doesn’t give you a pass either. It’s just 17 pages. I read it in about an hour. You can, too.

I divide my time between Georgia’s 13th district and its 12th district, depending on whether I’m at home or in college. Unfortunately, I’m represented by Democrats, David Scott and John Barrow, respectively, in both districts. Since I’m registered to vote in the 12th district, I’ve been doing what I can to help the Republicans oust Barrow.

Courtesy of NationalAtlas.gov.

Barrow’s Progressive Predicament
Search the list of congressmen who voted against the Obamacare bill and you’ll find Barrow’s name. You see, John Barrow likes to play the moderate card. He has to in order to keep getting elected from a district that is, on the whole, fairly conservative, especially outside of Savannah and Augusta. Unfortunately, he also has his Left-wing base to appease, too. However, as of late, he’s been neglecting the latter in favor of the former, and in the process, he’s forgotten that the first thing any politician must do is to secure their base. The independents and moderates can sway and go either way, but you’d hope that someone is a lock to vote for you, especially if they are predisposed to support you anyways.

The fact that Barrow voted against the Obamacare bill doesn’t sit too well with the Liberals in this district. It’s brought some backlash from the Liberals in the district. The black community of Savannah, for one, isn’t too pleased:

Resentment is seething among black political leaders against Democratic U.S. Rep. John Barrow after his vote against a major health care bill.

The measure, the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s agenda, passed the House narrowly Sunday; Obama signed it into law Tuesday.

At least two black state lawmakers who backed the Savannah congressman in 2008 – or were neutral – now favor Regina Thomas, his July 20 primary election foe.

And Savannah Mayor Pro Tem Edna Jackson, long a key Barrow ally, says she won’t be in the primary. She wouldn’t elaborate, but had sought his vote for the health bill.

Other black leaders accused him of abandoning his black constituents.

“He has no respect for the people of color who are the majority of people who voted for him,” said the Rev. Bennie Mitchell Jr., pastor of Connor’s Temple Baptist Church. “There is no way I can support him.”

Chatham County Democratic chairman Tony Center said Barrow is in “a lot of trouble” because of his vote.

“I think it has brought his whole voting record to the forefront,” Center said.

[...]

More than 60 percent of the people who will vote in the Democratic primary in his 12th Congressional District are expected to be black.

State Rep. Bob Bryant, D-Garden City, who backed Barrow two years ago, has endorsed Thomas. So has state Rep. Mickey Stephens, D-Savannah, who didn’t take sides when Thomas, who is black, ran – and lost – against Barrow in 2008.

Meanwhile, state Rep. Craig Gordon, D-Savannah – also neutral in 2008 – said he’s now less likely to support Barrow.

The legislators – who represent parts of the 12th District – and Mitchell were among those who tried during a Saturday conference call persuade Barrow to reconsider his vote.

“His mind was made up and he wasn’t willing to listen,” said Bryant, who said he’ll vote for a Republican – or not at all – if Thomas loses. At least four people are seeking the GOP nomination.

“(Barrow) really ticked me off,” said Stephens. “I have people in my district call me every day. They don’t have health insurance. They’re hurting.”

It’s not just the black leaders in his own district, however, that are mad at him. The Congressional Black Caucus’ feathers have been ruffled by his vote as well. The article makes mention of one member of the caucus in particular:

U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla., told Washington, D.C.-based Roll Call she won’t stump for Barrow in the 12th as she has in the past.

“Members who represent large numbers of African-Americans,” Brown said, “should be sensitive to the people they represent. Health care is the new civil rights.”

Winning the black community’s vote is a huge part of winning any election for house in the district, and it’s particularly important for the Democratic primary. As the article noted, around 60% of those expected to vote in the party’s primary are black. You make them mad, which is what Barrow appears to have done. and you are probably not going to win. The loss of Savannah’s Mayor Pro Tem Edna Jackson is particularly big, as she has been one of Barrow’s biggest allies, particularly in the black community, in the district.

So, what the black community’s “leaders” and other Liberals in this district are now trying to do is support a primary challenger by the name of Regina Thomas. She’s attempted to primary Barrow in the past, but these have been nothing more than quixotic, “I am a Liberal hear me squeak,” campaigns. However, she may be getting some real attention now, and she’s not the only one. The Congressional Quarterly, which has apparently caught on to the trouble brewing down here, has a nice piece up about Barrow’s many possible challengers, saying:

Barrow is already facing former state Sen. Regina Thomas in a rematch of the 2008 primary that Barrow eventually won in a cakewalk after Obama’s endorsement. But in recent days, there has been increased speculation about a possible primary bid by state Sen. Lester Jackson, who replaced Thomas in the state Senate in 2008 after serving a decade in the state House.

Along with his work in the state legislature, Jackson, who is black, is a dentist and a Democratic national committeeman. Jackson was a champion of the health care bill in his home state and worked to rally support for the legislation. On the day before the vote, he helped put together a conference call of elected officials and faith leaders, spending an hour on the phone with Barrow lobbying him to vote for the bill. For his efforts over the course of the debate, Jackson was invited to the White House on Tuesday to witness the president sign the legislation that Barrow voted against.

Under one scenario, Jackson’s entry into the primary would allow Thomas — who was never a strong fundraiser during her 2008 run and had less than $5,000 on hand at the end of 2009 — to drop out of the congressional contest and run for her old state Senate seat. That would allow Jackson to consolidate the support of black voters, who are expected to make up nearly two-thirds of the Democratic primary electorate in the 12th district this summer.

If Jackson doesn’t run, another possible primary challenger being floated by Georgia insiders this week is state Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond. Thurmond, who is black, doesn’t live in the district and is currently running for re-election to his statewide office. But Georgia Democrats say he’s a candidate with the name recognition and statewide connections to step into the race and give Barrow a serious challenge.

Right now, in my humble opinion, the biggest threats to Barrow in the Democratic primary are Thomas and Jackson. I’m aware that nothing may come of these challengers, but we shouldn’t ignore the fact that they are gaining momentum. Whether these challengers succeed or not, it’s certain that the next few months won’t be fun for John Barrow. These challengers will force him to spend money defending himself to his base, which is something a politician, at least a smart one, shouldn’t have to do. If it gets serious enough, he could end up using much of his money in the primary, leaving him less equipped to defend himself from a Republican challenger. And on the off chance one of these more Liberal Democratic challengers should win, it is very likely that they will get beaten handily in the general election. A Democrat has to at least pretend to be moderate to be elected here, and it is doubtful that any one of these challengers will be able to successfully pull this off, especially without angering their own base.

The Republican Challengers
For the record, I am not on any campaign’s payroll nor am I affiliated with any of them.
While schadenfreude at Barrow’s primary predicament with progressives is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, let’s not forget that there are Republican challengers in the district, too. It’s an uphill battle, as district is Democratic leaning. However, it is doable, especially in a year like this and if we can get the word out.

There are somethign like five candidates runnign for the Republican Party’s nomination in the district. Of these cadidates, Jeanne Seaver (Facebook) and Carl Smith (Facebook). I’ve had the pleasure of meeting both several times through both the Georgia Southern College Republicans and the Bulloch County GOP.

Jeanne Seaver is a former businesswoman who has also had some work as a community activist. She is also the mother of three children. As a business woman, she has experience working int he legal and aviation sectors. She also believes that her experience in business managment with developing health insurance benefits will give her great insight on the healthcare debate going on in Washington. Her biggest work as an activist has been in the area of child advocacy. She’s been the Vice-chair of Savannah’s CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) program, which “recruits and trains volunteers from everyday walks of life to provide individual advocacy for innocent children who might otherwise become ‘lost’ in the system,” according to its website. She is also a co-founder of the Youth Yoga Initiative, which, as her website puts it, “teaches at risk youth in the school system to deal with stress and pressures while building a positive self image.” Finally, her website also makes mention of the fact that she is a founder of the National Right of Communities Association (NROCA). This organization “is dedicated to the education of all Americans in regard to our country’s founding documents, our constitutional rights, grassroots involvement as well as promoting honesty in government.”

Truthfully, either of these candiates will make a fine representative of Georgia’s 12th district, and either of these candidates will be a great improvement over John Barrow. However, the candidate that has most impressed me through our meetings is Carl Smith. He’s a 3rd generation firefighter, and he has spent the last 16 years as the fire chief of Thunderbolt, Georgia, a Savannah suburb. In this capacity, he has been called to help out with numerous disasters, both natural and manmade, including Hurricane Hugo, the South Georgia Wildfires, Hurricane Katrina, and the sugar refinery explosion in Port Wentworth. During his service with the firefighters, he was elected President of three different firefighters’ unions, the Savannah Firefighters Association, the Chatham County Fire Chiefs Association, and the Georgia Association of Fire Chiefs. In 2007, he was also selected to be the President of the Southeastern Association of Fire Chiefs, which is an affiliate of the International Association of Fire Chiefs. He has also twice been elected to the Thunderbolt town council, once in 1997 and once in 2005. His website highlights the main achievements of his time as councilman as reducing property taxes, cleaning up the town’s budget practices and audit reports, and enhancing the response capabilities of the police and fire departments.

However, what has impressed me about Carl Smith just as much as his resume is his plan, not just for his possible time in Washington, but also for the Republican party. Whenever I have met with him or seen him speak to any group, he is always quick to refer to what he calls “Carl’s Common Cents,” his pledge for what he will do as a Congressman from the 12th district. According to the cards he gives out, these “Common Cents” consist of the following:

As for his ideas for the Republican party, he believes that we have to continue and extend our outreach efforts to minorities and the rank and file of unions. He frequently attends union and minority events and gatherings where he is normally the only Republican to show up. He does this because, from his own experiences as a firefighter and as the head of a firefighters’ union, he has seen that the rank-and-file union workers are often very conservative, and they are often open to voting for a Republican if they believe he or she understands their situation. The same goes for the black community. Despite what the self-appointed “leaders” of it might say, most blacks are conservative on many issues, particularly social ones. Carl believes that we need to explain just how the Republican party is the political party that is more inline with their ideals. He both cases, he believes that we shouldn’t compromise our points of view to get votes, but instead, he believes we should explain why conservatism can work for them.

I also have word that, should Regina Thomas or any other primary challenger not be successful against John Barrow, many of the black leaders backing these challengers will endorse and perhaps campaign for Carl Smith. They are just that angry with Barrow. WHile this may not cause record balck turnout for the Republican in the district, they can at least persuade the “rank-and-file” blacks not to vote for Barrow, whetehr that means staying home, voting for Smith, or voting third party.

Conclusion

Let’s not deceive ourselves, the battle in GA-12 is going to be an uphill fight. Despite the primary challenger(s),  Barrow still holds the inside track to both the Democratic primary and the general election. He’s beatable, and he was almost beaten for reelection back in 2006, which was a banner year if any for the Democratic party. To beat him, the Republican candidates need our support. After speaking with both of them, I have come to believe that Carl Smith is the candidate with the conservative principles and leadership that this district and the House of Representatives needs at this moment. Drop by and give him some support. He desperately needs it.

Who knows? Perhaps we will be able to win this. It’s possible, if only we are willing to lend our support.

A depressing read? Yeah, it sure is, and the trend towards an autocratic executive is very apparent through this chart. Congress opposes my will? Fine, who needs them?

But I hope this isn’t the only feeling you get from this. If anything, it should only increase the resolve of those of us who oppose Obama’s radical Leftist agenda. Even though I cannot fully understand why, the Democrats are bound and determined to foist this healthcare bill that everyone, including many within their own ranks, seems to oppose. However, I think that, if they want to make this fight about healthcare, it’s a fight we on the Right are willing to have. The more they want to pass it, the more we should fight it.

Furthermore, because of their arrogant desire to ram this Obamacare bill through by any means necessary, including the Unconstitutional “Slaughter Solution,” I hope they realize the damage they are doing to their own cause. Polls have shown the massive opposition to this bill, and the GOP is gaining ground on the issue of healthcare, a typically Democratic stronghold. I hope the Democratic leadership understands that, the more they try to ram the bill through, the more they are destroying their own case for the public option, or any other aspect of socialized medicine, and it very well could remain this way for another 10 or 15 years before it’s even remotely palatable again (remember Hillarycare?). I’m perfectly fine with all of this, but I hope they understand it.

And for the record, I still think the bill is beatable, and I am not convinced it will pass, so long as we are willing to keep up the fight. it’s good to know people like John Boehner are also in a fighting mood:

Rep. John Boehner (R., Ohio), the House minority leader, tells National Review Online that as of late Thursday afternoon, Democratic leadership “still doesn’t have the votes” to pass their health-care bill, and that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) is “prepared to sacrifice her members, and her speakership, so that she can plant the flag of universal health care in the ground.” Boehner says this weekend will be a waiting game — “If the speaker doesn’t have 216 votes locked down, she will not go to the floor. If she’s short, she knows that there is no way she can pick up two or three votes on the floor.” On that same point, he admits that “if this comes to the floor, it’s already over…though I still don’t know how she can get there [to 216].…I’d never put myself in this box.”

“The right is mad, the middle is mad, and the left is mad,” Boehner says. “They’ve made a calculation: They know they won’t get the right or middle, so they saying to their members that they need their left, because if they lose the left, their base will sit home. The president is staying in town because he knows the left will kill him if he’s not here to help.”

Boehner adds that Pelosi has “made a big mistake by talking about this gimmicky way to pass this without having a real vote.” President Obama, he says, “has put all of his marbles, literally all of his marbles, on jamming through something the people don’t want” and has “arrogantly misjudged this entire issue from the start.” Here’s why, Boehner says: “The Left sees this as their best opportunity in 50 years to put their stamp on the direction of this country.”

And, of course, we can’t forget about the prickly issue of abortion, which may very well be the reason the bill fails:

Boehner believes that abortion will be the key complication for on-the-fence Democrats in the final hours. “I’ve always thought that this would be the issue,” he says. “This is public funding for abortion. They know it can’t be fixed. There just aren’t the votes in the Senate.” He says he respects pro-life congressman Bart Stupak (D., Mich.) for holding firm, but cautions that he “never thought that Stupak could hold ten to twelve votes.”

Boehner says there will be major political consequences for pro-life Democrats who break from the Stupak bloc. “Take [Rep.] Steve Driehaus, for example,” he says. “He may be a dead man. He can’t go home to the west side of Cincinnati. The Catholics will run him out of town.”

Incidentally, I also share Smitty’s opinion (from the post I linked to at the beginning) that Mr. Boehner would “up your game considerably if you were using the C-word (Constitution, not an adjective directed at Madame Speaker). Preserving the Constitution is a goal only slightly less noble than preserving human life.” But nevertheless, I am quite pleased to see that Boehner and the House GOP are not planning on giving in anytime soon, as I think the House will be our last chance to stop this horrid bill.

Regardless of whether it does pass, though, let’s make sure this bill hurts Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. It will either be a loss of epic proportions or a Pyrrhic victory whose price shall come at the ballot box this November and, one can hope, November of 2012.

And remember Democrats, you may see this as a kamikaze mission, but one of the reasons Japan lost WWII was because all of their best pilots had killed themselves. There weren’t enough able-bodied or competent enough men to to continue the fight.

Acta est fabula.

A while back I did a post on the “Beer Summit” highlighting Obama’s lack of concern for those around him. The picture from Ben Domenech’s tweet reminded me of that. Take a look at it:

The man comforting the child is Harold Ford, a man who unsuccessfully sought Bill Frist’s old Senate seat in Tennessee back in 2006 (he lost to Bob Corker, for the record), and he’s trying to primary Hillary Clinton’s replacement in New York, Kirsten Gillibrand.

Obama, meanwhile, is minding his own business in the background looking off into the distance somewhere seemingly unaware of what’s happening in front of him.

Looking at that picture, I couldn’t help but think about how President Bush might have reacted in this situation, and how different the two men are.

So, then, how would Bush have reacted? There is ample evidence from which to judge. Perhaps most notable is this one image:

Says the Cincinnati Enquirer:

In a moment largely unnoticed by the throngs of people in Lebanon waiting for autographs from the president of the United States, George W. Bush stopped to hold a teenager’s head close to his heart.

Lynn Faulkner, his daughter, Ashley, and their neighbor, Linda Prince, eagerly waited to shake the president’s hand Tuesday at the Golden Lamb Inn. He worked the line at a steady campaign pace, smiling, nodding and signing autographs until Prince spoke:

“This girl lost her mom in the World Trade Center on 9-11.”

Bush stopped and turned back.

“He changed from being the leader of the free world to being a father, a husband and a man,” Faulkner said. “He looked right at her and said, ‘How are you doing?’ He reached out with his hand and pulled her into his chest.”

Faulkner snapped one frame with his camera.

“I could hear her say, ‘I’m OK,’ ” he said. “That’s more emotion than she has shown in 21/2 years. Then he said, ‘I can see you have a father who loves you very much.’ “

“And I said, ‘I do, Mr. President, but I miss her mother every day.’ It was a special moment.”

Ron Boat has this picture posted on his Facebook and had this to say as the caption:

From Ron Boat: In contrast to our current insensitive, politically opportunistic pres, people i know who know Bushs 41 & 43 say the family is truly caring and concerned. Even the Friday of Ft. Hood, Pres and Mrs Bush secretly went to the hospital to see the wounded and INSISTED that the press not know or tell anyone. Only the week after did the word leak out they went to show their concern. What a difference a year makes. I needed to add this: From Valerie Geibel-Wells “I am from the area (this was at a rally in Lebanon, OH) and know this family. Her mother was lost in 9.11 and was a wonderful humanitarian. They never found her remains and the girl was devastated – this was honest compassion from the leader of the free world who as he walked by her someone yelled to him “she lost her mother in the Trade Centers… See More” and he stopped and turned around and came back and hugged this girl for what seemed an eternity – something we don’t get now. He is true to America and never put us down.” Thanks Valerie. (Thanks for posting this Ron!)

Looking at these pictures, with the one of Sgt. Crowley I discussed earlier, and comparing them, I can only come to the conclusion that he just doesn’t care.

It’s not a conclusion I want to make about the leader of the free world, but it’s what I see when I look at these pictures.

He. Just. Doesn’t. Care.

EDIT: I’d like to point out that even Bill Clinton, Obama’s most recent Democratic predecessor, didn’t have such a tin ear. He wouldn’t have been so uncaring, and he certainly wouldn’t have let such a moment slip past him. After all, remember he feels your pain.

So, let it sink in…

He. Just. Doesn’t. Care.

Good quote:

Moreover, [Dan] Coats’s decision to run this year [for Evan Bayh's seat] is an example of the great vulnerability that Democrats face if 2010 continues to look like a strong Republican year. A few months ago, Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas were both considered pretty safe placeholders for Democrats in the midterm election. The number of possible gains by Republicans was very small. In fact, after November 2008, net gains by Democrats in the Senate in 2010 were considered possible. Today, it is a sure bet that North Dakota Governor John Hoeven will become a conservative Republican senator, replacing the liberal Democrat Dorgan. It is just about as sure that Senator Lincoln in Arkansas, who won reelection easily six years ago, will lose to a conservative Republican.

Republican candidates are running ahead of the Democrats in Colorado, Nevada, Delaware, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. If those poll numbers hold up, a Coats victory over Bayh would give Republicans 49 seats in the Senate. Coats, like Hoeven in North Dakota, represents a very strong candidate against a leftist Democrat in a blue state. Congressman Michael Castle in Delaware is a RINO, but not a leftist. He also represents the best Republican candidate in Delaware, and polls which had shown Castle beating Biden’s son will almost certainly show Castle well ahead in the wake of Biden’s decision not to seek his father’s old Senate seat.

If Republicans can persuade the most electable candidates to run in other states, the problems for Democrats could quickly mushroom into an enormous political headache. Polls show former Governor George Pataki running ahead of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in New York, where the Democratic Party is increasingly dysfunctional. Pundits see former Governor Tommy Thompson as a very strong challenger to Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. Patty Murray in Washington seems safe, according to Rasmussen, but if the former Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi runs against her, he beats Murray by two points. That is a recurring theme in the 2010 Senate election cycle: Republicans are very competitive if the top tier of candidates can be recruited. Those three candidates could give Republicans 52 Senate seats.

Very obviously, this is an optimistic assessment, but it isn’t an unreasonable one. It is very much within the realm of possibility. And, the fact that such an assessment can be made reasonably ought to prove just how bad things have gotten for the Democrats after their banner year in 2008. It hasn’t even taken two years for the Democrats to waste the goodwill and political capital given to them by the American people.

Now, I don’t believe at this moment that we’ll gain 11 seats–Perhaps I’m a little too cautious in my predictions. I believe we could see Republicans pick up 6 maybe 7 seats at this point, but as I’ve already said, it really says something about how fast the public’s opinion has soured on Democrats. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are too busy trying to cater to the far Left while not appearing to be so to do anything effectively centrist like the prefer to advertise themselves as. The public has seen this abandonment of centrism or at least the appearance of such and reacted accordingly. Furthermore, those who favor incremental change are shocked at how fast Obama’s agenda is being pushed through, and those who favor radical change are dissatisfied with how slowly he is trying to change things and how little progress his initiatives have had.

Put it to you this way: it took George W. Bush, “the Chimp”, six years to face losses in either house of Congress. The way things are going it will have taken Barack Obama, “The One”, two. I realize this is common for Presidents in their first midterm, but if we are to believe the hype, Obama is anything but “common”.

As the article also notes, these successes could carry over into the House and into state governments:

What about the House of Representatives? Republicans will gain a lot of seats, very probably enough to gain a majority. Even if Republican gains fall short, though, Nancy Pelosi will be playing with a very weak hand. More importantly, if 2010 is a good year for Republicans generally, then the GOP ought to make major gains in governorships (all polls show that now) and Republicans, who held up very well in 2008 in state legislative elections, will probably come out of the 2010 elections with a majority of state legislative chambers and seats. Special legislative elections are strongly indicating that already, as I noted last October, often by stunning margins of victory.

What would it mean if Republicans have a majority of power in state governments? It would mean that the redistricting process following reapportionment would help elect more Republicans to the House. Reapportionment is already going to move House seats from red states to blue states. Add a redistricting process mainly controlled by Republicans, and an automatic increase of a dozen or so House seats to Republicans is easily conceivable. House Democrats in 2012, faced with new districts and probable minority status for several election cycles, might leave Congress in droves.

I cannot imagine that the Senate would gain seats and the House would not. The Senate, in fact, almost always, if not all the time, follows the direction the House goes, so if we gain seats in the Senate, it should be a foregone conclusion that we gain some in the House as well. And, while I am not sure how this usually translates into state level elections, I should think the successes of McDonnell in Virginia, Christie in New Jersey, and even Brown in Massachusetts would indicate that gains will also be made in these elections as well.

To put it simply, things are looking good for Republicans, and I couldn’t be happier. We may not necessarily be looking at another 1994, but things are certainly setting themselves up that way.

Acta est fabula.

I must admit, as a committed conservative, I have my problems with supporting most New England Republicans (there are some Republicans, mainly in New Hampshire, who are exceptions to this, but not many). Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Maine’s two senators, highlight why I am hesitant to support most New England Republicans. Usually, I end up supporting the Republican in a New England race because a) they less Liberal than their Democratic opponents and b) they are usually the best said state or district can offer.

Scott Brown is another example of my hesitance. I knew before I became a supporter that he was pro-choice and that he had several other conservative heresies. I reconciled myself with these facts because I knew that Massachusetts likely didn’t have anyone better to offer. However, what really made me a fan of his was what he campaigned on. He called for fiscal restraint nda strong stance in the War on Terror (particularly his quote, “In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.“). However, my personal favorite moment was he said that he would be the 41st vote to block and defeat the current healthcare legislation.

And when election day rolled around and the time can for his victory speech, I listened to his victory speech with great interest. I wanted to see what this man who I had come to like increasingly more with each passing day before the special election. Listening to his victory speech, I was very impressed that a man like this could win in Massachusetts. I told my friends on Twitter:

Scott Brown sounds like the kind of moderate I can support. His actions in DC will tell if he IS one I can support.

And in subsequent tweets (for example, this one), I noted that he sounded like Rudy Giuliani, who is one of the few moderates I have little problem supporting, and that this was a good tone for him to take.

Well, I’m sad to say that it’s only been a couple of days since that speech, and I’m already disappointed in him. Observe his remarks here:

Note especially this quote:

I voted for health care here….we’re past campaign mode and it’s important for everyone to get some form of healthcare. So to offer a basic plan for everyone I think is important….there are some very good things in the national health care plan that is being proposed

I know it is nothing new for a politician to go back on his word, but I was surprised that Brown has done so this quickly. To be fair, he has yet to back up these words with actions, but I can’t help but feel a little betrayed already. When we heard him say he would be the “41st vote”, we assumed it would be to kill this horrible Obamacare bill, not to bring it back to the negotiating table to put some lipstick on the pig.

Furthermore, as the Washington Post notes, he has also said:

But in governance mode, behind a lectern labeled “Scott Brown US Senate,” the Republican already was wrestling with the tensions inherent in the issues awaiting him in Washington. Exhibit A was the health-reform bill that Brown said to his mind was not really the central issue in his campaign.

“I’ve obviously tried to do some self-reflection and analyzing this as to why I’m standing before you today,” he said. “And really, the number one thing I’ve heard is that people are tired of the business as usual.

This is both right and wrong. He is right in that, even in Massachusetts, the people are tired of business as usual (in fact, fighting the “business as usual” atmosphere of DC seems to be a great campaign slogan no matter where it’s used). However, where he is very, very, wrong is in his view of the importance the healthcare reform bill played in the campaign. It is symbolic of the “business as usual” atmosphere in Washington, and it is the greatest example of this atmosphere out there today. It was the disgust with this bill that drove his campaign to victory because it is the very symbol for today of that “business as usual” atmosphere. Whether he likes it–or is willing to admit it–or not, the disapproval of the Obamacare bill is what has made him Massachusetts’ Senator-elect for Ted Kennedy’s seat.

Scott Brown, if you are as astute a politician as you appear to be, and you’d have to be one to run a successful statewide campaign in Massachusetts, you should know this by now. If you don’t, then shame on you. Mr. Brown, you should understand it is the fact that politicians so often abandon the promises they made on the campaign trail that is prime factor in the public’s distrust of Washington in particular and politicians at any level in general. You surely must understand this, and if you don’t, I suggest you learn this before 2012 and the regular election for you seat rolls around.

If he is a Lincoln Chafee in a Rudy Giuliani disguise, then I have a sneaking suspicion that he understood that tapping into the public’s hatred of the healthcare bill was the only way to really secure him a victory. To be fair, he has yet to back up his words, any of them, whether campaign ones or the ones heard yesterday, with any actions on the Senate floor, but I hope he understands that this is not exactly the best way to endear yourself to the Republican base or to follow through with what you said in your campaign speeches.

My verdict now is to wait and watch him, but we have all the more reason to beware of him. That bitter taste in our mouths has just appeared. For now, Ted Kennedy’s spinning just got a little slower.

Acta est fabula.

For the first time since 1953, a Kennedy will not be the elected holder of this seat (Benjamin A. Smith II and Paul Kirk have both held this seat during this time, but they were appointed to it). Furthermore, for the first time since 1947, Massachusetts will not have a Kennedy as an elected member of its Congressional delegation (the two gaps where the state was Kennedy-less between 1947 and now, but those instances were those of the aforementioned appointed Senators).

For the first time since 1966, when Edward Brooke (coincidentally the first black senator of the modern era) was elected to what is now John Kerry’s seat, the Republican party has won an open Senate seat in Massachusetts.

For the first time since 1972, when Edward Brooke was reelected, the Republican party has won a Senate election in the state of Massachusetts.

For the first time since 1979, when Brooke lost his reelection bid to Paul Tsongas, Massachusetts will have a Republican Senator.

For the first time since 1997, Massachusetts will have a Republican member of its Congressional Delegation. His election also shatters what was heretofore the largest single-party delegation to the United States Congress.

Scott Brown’s election marks the first time since 2002 that Massachusetts has voted Republican on a statewide level. The last Republican statewide winners? The Romney/Healey ticket.

In a state that Obama won 62% to 36% in 2008, a Republican won a little over a year later 52% to 47%.

I will have another post or two up later with analyses of Brown’s Massachusetts miracle, but for now, just let those facts sink in.

Acta est fabula.

FOX News analyst Father Jonathan Morris stopped by the Redeye set for the “Father Knows Best” segment they run. Here’s what he had to say:

He’s exactly right. I have no doubt that Rev. Robertson is a sincerely devout Christian. However, that should not stop him from knowing when to stay quiet. If anything, his status as a well known Christian ought to make him pause and consider what he says before he says it. After all, some of his remarks have been used by non-Christians, particularly those on the Left, to show how insane the “religious right” supposedly is.

This is why people like Rev. Pat Robertson do us no service when they say things like this:

Nevermind, of course, that the pact he speaks of is an urban legend that is just that, a legend.

Peter Wehner at the National Review gives as good a rebuttal as could be given, speaking for the rest of us Christians on the right:

There is another important issue involved here, which is a warped and confused theology Robertson has employed before. For example, Robertson agreed with Jerry Falwell that on 9/11 God lifted the “curtain” and allowed the enemies of America to give us “probably what we deserve”; and in 1998 he warned after Orlando city officials voted to fly rainbow flags from city lampposts during an annual Gay Day event at Disney World, “I don’t think I’d be waving those flags in God’s face if I were you. . . . [A] condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It’ll bring about terrorist bombs, it’ll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor.”

Pat Robertson’s argument is as neat and clean as a mathematical equation: God grants blessings and curses on nations and people based on their allegiance and obedience to Him. If things are going well, you’re living right; if things are going badly, you’re living wrong. And it is Robertson himself who can divine the hierarchy of sins that most trouble God.

But this view simply does not correspond with any serious understanding of Christianity. After all, the most important symbol in Christianity is the Cross, which represents suffering, agony, and death. When Jesus spoke to Ananias, who was instrumental in the conversion of the Apostle Paul, Ananias was told, “I will show [Paul] how much he must suffer for my name.” Christ Himself warned His disciples that they would suffer for His sake; most of them were martyred for their faith. The Apostle Peter speaks about the suffering that Christians will endure for doing good. And in the book of Romans we read that we are to rejoice in our suffering because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance produces character; and character produces hope. On and on it goes.

[...]

What the Christian faith teaches us is that even in suffering there can be redemption; that this world, for all of its joys and sorrows, is not our home; and that at the end of our pilgrimage, beyond the sufferings of this world, there are streams of mercy, never ceasing. This may not be the gospel according to Robertson; it is, though, the story of faith according to Jesus.

In addition to the lengthy portion I have quoted here, the rest of his work is well worth a read.

As Wehner points out in another part of his post, Robertson has probably lost most of his importance to much of the conservative movement, but his status as a former leader is something that can and has been milked by many Liberals each and every time he opens his trap to make a similar pronouncement. To them, these utterances are but a few examples of how warped the so-called “religious right” really is. After all, there was a time when he was quite important–a presidential candidate, even!–so this is only playing into their hands showing how crazy we supposedly are.

If your purpose is to advance Christendom, or even conservative principles, Rev. Robertson, proclamations like this are not helping you or the rest of us at all.

EDIT: looking over my comments about Robertson, I can’t help but think of what Oliver Cromwell said: “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately … Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!“. For this conservative and Christian, it applies just as much to Pat Robertson.

Some of you may remember I wrote a post a while back thanking Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska for stalling the Obamacare bill for no other reason than I wished to see the bill fail. Evidently Nelson must have seen my post or something, because soon after had I written the post, it seems, he goes and falls into line with the 59 other Senate Democrats with a sweetheart deal that even Nebraska’s governor didn’t want. Now, he’s pulling a John Kerry and flip-flopping on it:

Sen. Ben Nelson said Tuesday it was a mistake for the Obama Administration to take on massive health care reforms in 2009, and suggested efforts would have been better spent addressing the economy.

[...]

“I think it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy,” he said.

[...]

“I would have preferred not to be dealing with health care in the midst of everything else, and I think working on the economy would have been a wiser move,” he said.

He seems to be channelling Joe Lieberman while he’s at it with his claim to be concerned about the economy, but you can’t have it both ways, Ben. You are the reason it passed. You should have thought of this BEFORE you sold your soul to Harry Reid and voted for this atrocity.

And also, I don’t think this does much for your new found fiscally conservative position on the bill:

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) urged colleagues to either expand a deal he struck for Nebraska to all 50 states, or allow states to opt out of increased payments to Medicaid mandated under health reform legislation.

[...]

“I’ve been in serious discussions with Senate leaders and others to secure changes in the bill to treat all states equally,” Nelson said in a statement. “At the end of the day, whatever Nebraska gets will apply to all states.”

“My intent has been and remains absolutely clear,” he added. “Every state should be, and will be, treated the same.”

Now, it is fair that every state should be treated the same, but the sweetheart deal you got would drain the federal government’s money anyways. Why have it in the first place if you are suddenly so concerned with the state of our nations finances?

Senator Nelson, it appears that you are doing nothing but backtracking on an unpopular deal here. Like many politicians, you are trying to have it both ways. I can only hope the people of Nebraska realize just how badly you have sold them out.

Acta est fabula.