Some Further Thoughts on the Democrats' Platform Problems

Over at the Corner, Hadley Arkes has some further analysis of the Democrats' platform fiasco from their just concluded convention and comes up with this nugget:

For it’s not a matter of one word more or less, one or more mentions of God. The real heart of the issue is that most of the people in that hall, in the Democratic convention, really don’t accept the understanding of rights contained in the Declaration of Independence: The Declaration appealed first to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” as the very ground of our natural rights. The drafters declared that “self-evident” truth that “all men are created equal,” and then immediately: that “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” George Bush was not embarrassed to insist that these are “God-given rights,” as opposed to rights that we had merely given to ourselves. For if we had given them to ourselves, we could as readily take them back or remove them. 

This is the real crux of the matter. Denying the existence of God (or at least failing to acknowledge His existence) makes it much easier to also deny that any of our rights are also given by God. The Democrats, at their core, don't' honestly believe what the Declaration of Independence says. Once you've disavowed the Declaration it's not hard to disavow the Constitution as the two documents are closely linked to one another.

Tonight, the President said this:

On every issue, the choice you face won’t just be between two candidates or two parties. When all is said and done, when you pick up that ballot to vote, you will face the clearest choice of any time in a generation.

The President is exactly right. The choice that voters face is clear. Two differing worldviews are on clear display to choose from. One party believes that our rights are God-given and therefore cannot be infringed upon by government. The other believes that government has the power to grant (and to take away) rights as it pleases. Which choice would you make?

Can a Person of Faith Be a Democrat?

Given the events of the past 24 hours at the Democratic National Convention, this suddenly becomes a fair question. Yesterday, delegates went ballistic when party officials tried to reinsert previously omitted language about God and Israel into their platform. Needless to say this created some bad optics for the Democrats as well as creating news at their convention. This was such a grave unforced error it's not clear yet how much damage has been done.

But taking this in conjunction with the party's full fledged endorsement of abortion on demand (“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”) as well as the ongoing controversy over the HHS mandate regarding conception and suddenly you get the feeling that there is outright animus towards people of faith.

This is not necessarily new but never has it been more obvious. As John Hinderaker points outs, "The Democrats, bluntly put, have become the party of those who don't go to church." Although I would disagree with him over whether religious beliefs informs ones view of the issues of the day (it does) he is absolutely correct to suggest that the Democratic platform is in direct opposition to the values that Jews, Christians, and Catholics in particular hold. 

This point is further illustrated in Al Mohler's excellent essay on the stark worldview choices we are facing in this election.

All of this begs the question whether a devout Jew, Christian or Catholic can sincerely also identify themselves as a Democrat. I frankly can't see how anyone can.

Hate Speech From Democrats

The video below contains audio of Democratic Senate candidate (and former Virginia governor) Mark Warner. If you are a Christian, a homeschooler, a Republican, or a gun owner, you've every right to be offended:



It's simply outrageous. If a Republican made statements like this there would be outrage everywhere. But because Mr. Warner is a Democrat, he'll get a pass. Pass this on to everyone you know. This is what is at stake in this election.

The Dynamics of Virginia

During this election cycle, much has been made of the possibility that Virginia could turn blue in November. But Senator Obama's success in the state will likely depend on how well he can do in Southwest Virginia. A fascinating piece in The New Yorker examines the challenges he'll face in this part of the state.

Although the New Yorker piece suggests Obama might have a pretty solid chance at winning here Jim Geraghty's analysis seems to be far more realistic. Senator Obama is farther to the left philisophically than Mark Warner or Jim Webb and is going to have a harder time making significant inroads here.

One other thing to note here: although polls show Obama ahead here (Rassmussen has him up by 3 points today), the state is politically diverse and support for each of the candidates runs stronger in different parts of the state. Most internals to polls will talk about party affiiliation, gender, race, and other demographic factors. But to really determine whether a poll here is accurate you need to know where the respondents live.

When election day rolls around, don't be surprised if Virginia becomes the state that ultimately determines the outcome of the election. It may go either way but it's not as much of a lock for Democrats as they would like to make it out to be.

Feminists and McCain

One of the big questions in this election is what was going to be the combined effect of Senator Barack Obama's snub of Hillary Clinton (18 million plus votes, remember?) and Senator John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin would be on female voters who, incidentally, make up a majority of registered voters. Based on this article by Tammy Bruce, it appears that there may be a huge swing of voters that previously would have voted for the Democratic ticket to the Republican ticket:

In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn't the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term "the enthusiasm gap" for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling - a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don't agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously.

Whether we have a D, R or an "i for independent" after our names, women share a different life experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we come to. Having a woman in the White House, and not as The Spouse, is a change whose time has come, despite the fact that some Democratic Party leaders have decided otherwise. But with the Palin nomination, maybe they'll realize it's not up to them any longer.

So, in other words, gender matters more than party among female voters. By rejecting Hillary Clinton, Democrats were not just rejecting her and her candidacy but women in general.

Ms. Bruce has some more harsh words for Democrats:

Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for. Women can have a family and a career. We can be whatever we choose, on our own terms. For some, that might mean shooting a moose. For others, perhaps it's about shooting a movie or shooting for a career as a teacher. However diverse our passions, we will vote for a system that allows us to make the choices that best suit us. It's that simple.

The rank bullying of the Clinton candidacy during the primary season has the distinction of simply being the first revelation of how misogynistic the party has become. The media led the assault, then the Obama campaign continued it. Trailblazer Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first Democratic vice presidential candidate, was so taken aback by the attacks that she publicly decried nominee Barack Obama as "terribly sexist" and openly criticized party chairman Howard Dean for his remarkable silence on the obvious sexism.

And for all the "appearances" of unity at the Democratic National Convention, Ms. Bruce was not fooled.

The campaign's chauvinistic attitude was reflected in the even more condescending Democratic National Convention. There, the Obama camp made it clear it thought a Super Special Women's Night would be enough to quell the fervent support of the woman who had virtually tied him with votes and was on his heels with pledged delegates.

There was a lot of pandering and lip service to women's rights, and evenings filled with anecdotes of how so many have been kept from achieving their dreams, or failed to be promoted, simply because they were women. Clinton's "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" were mentioned a heck of a lot. More people began to wonder, though, how many cracks does it take to break the thing?

Ironically, all this at an event that was negotiated and twisted at every turn in an astounding effort not to promote a woman. (Emphasis original)

Democrats were saying at the end of their convention how unified they were. Senator Hillary Clinton's voters were going to fall in line and vote for Senator Obama. If Ms. Bruce's article is any indication, Senator Obama has his work cut out for him trying to heal the wounds he has inflicted upon the women of his party.

As William Congreve famously wrote in his play The Mourning Bride, "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."

Appeasers and Activists

Yesterday was a big news day with two unrelated events occurring that will each have an impact on this fall's elections. While on the surface the two may seem unrelated both spell trouble for Democrats.

President Bush, speaking at The Knesset in Israel, used the opportunity to launch an unmerited attack against Senator Barack Obama. At least, that's what Senator Obama, aided and abetted by the left-leaning media, would like voters to believe. Here's the paragraph that got Democrats' collective undies in a bunch from the transcript of the speech:

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals,
as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.
We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in
1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

The truth hurts, doesn't it? The reason there was such wailing and gnashing of teeth among Democrats yesterday is because President Bush made it clear that he thinks they are appeasers of terrorists, which of course, they are. Senator Obama didn't help himself by making such a big stink about it, either. Trying to refute the charge that he's an appeaser merely reinforces the idea in the mind of the voters.

The second event was the decision yesterday by the activist judges of the California Supreme Court to overturn the ban on gay marriage that was enacted by voters back in 2000. A move is already afoot to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot in California in November and supporters shouldn't have any problem getting the required signatures.

While most Democrats no doubt applaud the court's decision they surely must hate the timing. This will put traditional values back in play as an issue in the election and the decision will no doubt motivate Republicans and other values-voters to turn out in huge numbers both in California and elsewhere.

All of this, combined with the continuing bloodbath that is the Democratic nomination process, means that November is looking better for Republicans every day.

Quick Takes 4-25-08

It's Friday and time for another roundup of random links for your consideration:

Some startling statistics that show the consequences of couples living together prior to getting married. It doesn't always work out as well as the couples think that it will. (Hat tip: Jonathan)

Blog tip of the week: How to link to other blogs.

Some sage advice on how to raise chaste teenagers in a sexually immoral society.

Could this year's election mark the end of the two-party system as we know it? Probably not, but both parties could look much different after November.

Nashville highlight #1: Earlier this week I made my semi-annual jaunt to Music City. I stopped off at this used book store which has quickly become a favorite. It's not in the best part of town but definitely worth the trip. The Knoxville store is also pretty good and a little bit easier to get to off the interstate. I've now got about three dozen books sitting on the shelf "to be read". I really should stop picking up books but when they're free or almost free (trade credit is wonderful), how can you resist?

Nashville highlight #2: The other treat in going to Nashville is the abundance of great dining options. Our big trip out was to The Loveless Cafe which is a Nashville institution even though it's outside of the city a little ways. The fried chicken, country ham, and fried catfish were all terrific. The biscuits, however, left a little to be desired. Maybe I'm just biased because I think my wife's biscuits are better.

Some thoughts on a troubling aspect of the Texas polygamist compound case. When the story first broke, I wondered whether the child protective services agency had overreacted. Now I'm sure of it. Though I don't support the FLDS and what they stand for, I agree they are entitled to protection under the Constitution.

Hillary Clinton's win in Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary did nothing to stop the Democratic bleeding. It's looking more and more like John McCain will win in November regardless of who his opponent is.

What it really means when you say you're a Protestant.

This means I might have to start watching CNN more often. (Hat tip: The Corner)

One of the interesting aspects of the Democratic nomination battle between Senators Clinton and Obama is how much better the Republican nominating system looks by comparison. Having winner-take -all apportioning of delegates seems to make more and more sense. Maybe folks will finally realize that we shouldn't tinker with the Electoral College, either.

I'm disturbed, too. I thought Newt was supposed to be a smart guy. Now I'm not so sure. Seeing Pat and Al together in the other spot didn't make me feel any better.

Have a great weekend.

Democrats, Do Overs, and Disenfranchisement

These are tough times to be a Democrat. After months of battling through primaries and caucuses, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are practically deadlocked in the race for their party's presidential nomination. Even though several states are still slated to hold their primaries they aren't going to ultimately decide who the nominee will be. That decision will be made by 796 "superdelegates" who are party officials who will ultimately select the nominee. Never before has the Democratic party had to rely on these unelected delegates to decide a nomination. This was the year the Democrats were supposed to win back the White House. Now, it looks like the party may implode before they can select a nominee.

To make matters worse, Senator John McCain has already wrapped up the Republican nomination which means he can focus on the general election and raise a boatload of campaign cash.

The question now facing Democrats in how to bring their nomination process to a peaceful end. Unfortunately for them, no one has a good solution.

The Democrats didn't arrive in this position overnight. Rather, decisions that were made months ago have had a profound effect on the nomination process.

First, the primary schedule was compressed in the hopes that a nominee could be selected quickly. Instead of allowing the primaries to occur over a period of, say, five or six months, they were bunched up together at the front end of the election schedule. So about 75% of the elected delegates have already been chosen but neither candidate can mathematically obtain the magic number to secure the nomination.

Part of the reason the race is so close is because Barack Obama has turned out to be a much more formidable candidate than anyone had imagined. This was supposed to be the year Hillary Clinton would finally get the opportunity to run for the White House. But all through the campaign she's been struggling to defeat Senator Obama. Her campaign has seemed perpetually off balance as if it was never ready to face such a stiff challenge. It's also interesting to note that Senator Obama had declared her candidacy before Senator Clinton did which in effect pushed her into the campaign before she really seemed ready to jump into the fray.

Then there's the problem of Michigan and Florida. Party rules stated that Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would all vote first (in that order). Both Michigan and Florida wanted to have a bigger role in the nomination process so they moved up their primaries. The Democratic National Committee responded by basically saying they could not seat delegates at the convention since they broke the rules. Now the DNC has a huge problem on its hands. Because the race is so close, they can't afford to not seat delegations from those two states. However, even the states' delegations are not large enough to secure the nomination for Senators Clinton or Obama without the intervention of the superdelegates.

There is also the fact that all of the primaries and caucuses apportion delegates among the candidates proportionally based on the percentage of the votes each candidate receives or by congressional district or some similarly convoluted mathematical formula. As a result, a candidate can score a huge win in a primary or caucus (as Senator Obama did yesterday in Mississippi) and yet it can have a negligible effect on the overall delegate count.

So now Democrats find themselves in a thoroughly uncomfortable position. Their nominee will ultimately be selected by the party's elite, unelected delegates rather than by the millions of voters who turned out in during the primary season. Depending on which way they go, they run the risk of alienating a huge portion of their base. They could potentially disenfranchise millions of voters (particularly if they cannot resolve the Michigan/Florida problem). It's rather ironic that the same party that since 2000 has routine accused Republicans of disenfranchising voters may do the same to their own base. How they solve these issues in selecting their nominee could mean the difference between a huge victory in November and utter self-destruction.

Quick Takes - 2-22-08

A few random thoughts heading into the weekend:

Maybe it's just me, but Barack Obama's rallies seem more like tent revivals than political events.

"We would like to restore William Wilberforce to his rightful place in history."

Diagramming a smear.

An attentive waiter saves a woman from the worst blind date ever. (Hat tip: Megan McArdle)

George Washington was a great hero, but also human (it's also his birthday):

We should give less slack to those who think of George Washington as a monument, perpetually frozen-faced as in Gilbert Stuart paintings. The danger of taking seriously the "I cannot tell a lie" fables about Washington's childhood is that we might deify him as sinless. But the "cannot" is also not fair to Washington, because the most impressive thing about him is that he had strong tendencies to sin, as do we all, but he fought them more successfully than most of us do.

Read the whole thing.

Portrait of a media junkie.

It's a 52-week television season. NBC decides to start debuting new shows all through the year rather than starting them all in the fall. It's just another sign of the eroding influence of network television. (hat tip: In the Agora)

How Democrats can lose the election.

The steroid scandal has given baseball a black eye, especially in Washington.

Have a great weekend.

Stealing the Democratic Nomination?

Could Senator Hillary Clinton try to steal the Democratic Presidential nomination?
Sure, it may seem like a stretch but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a sudden call from the Clinton camp to have delegates from Florida and Michigan seated at the convention particularly if she wins big in today's Sunshine State primary.

But it's not beyond the realm of possibility at all to consider that Senator Clinton could win the nomination without receiving a majority of the delegates selected through the party's primaries and caucuses. That's because of a quirk in the Democratic Party known as the Superdelegate, who is an elected official or party member and is not tied to any particular state primary or caucus.

Though it is not widely reported in the media, Senator Clinton holds the lead for the nomination due to the advantage she has over Senator Barack Obama in the Superdelegate category. As of this writing, Mrs. Clinton leads 201-116 according to the Real Clear Politics delegate scoreboard with 114 left uncommitted. Senator Obama has won more delegates through the primaries and caucuses held to date by a margin of 63-46.

It would be ironic if Senator Clinton managed to secure the nomination without winning a majority of the delegates up for grabs during the primary season. Given how close the race for the Democratic nomination has been so far, it's also not beyond the realm of possibility. But we will hear anything about voter disenfranchisement like we have the last two election cycles from Democrats? Don't bet on it.

Are the Primary Debates Necessary?

In the aftermath of Wednesday night's CNN/You Tube debate debacle, one of the questions that should be asked is whether the primary debates are really necessary?

Yes, CNN bungled the debate. Given how they did during the last Democratic debate, hopes for a dramatic improvement when the Republicans took the stage were grossly misplaced.

Some would argue it was helpful for Republicans to be put on the spot to answer tough questions. While that may be true, Republicans generally face more adversarial questions from the MSM so I don't know that the debate questions necessarily helped. It struck me that the focus of the debate became more about creating "gotcha" moments that the MSM could endlessly club the candidates with in the coming weeks.

The fact is that this year's debates have been more like Presidential beauty contests than honest debates designed to bring out not only differences in policy positions between the candidates but reveal their character as well. Rather than focusing on clear policy differences (if there really are any) success in the debates comes down to who can come up with the best soundbite that can be replayed on talk shows and in news reports.

The debates also force voters to focus on who is most "electable" rather than vetting the candidates (think John Kerry in 2004).

As this year's primary debates come to a close, both parties would be well advised to carefully examine what went wrong during this year's debates and how they can improve them. It is the only time that Americans get to see their candidates without the benefit of media or campaign spin. Voters need to know who the candidates are and what they stand for. Based on this year's debates, that's hard for anyone to figure out.

Hillary Clinton: Not So Inevitable

Critical articles of Senator and Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton are nothing new. On any given day, you can find a number of columns outlining all the reasons she is unfit to be President. I couldn't agree more. But I don't normally pay attention to such articles. I realize that most conservatives like myself have no intention of voting for her. But this article at Blogcritics caught my attention mostly because it came from one of her own supporters. I wonder if there are many of her other supporters who are now rethinking their position especially in light of these new polls?

My question to liberal voters is this: in light of her recent debate performance and the issues raised in this article are you still willing to support her in the upcoming election? I have the feeling that the nomination that was thought to be hers may not be so easy to obtain as the media has made it out to be.

Money Talks

During this presidential election cycle, political reporters everywhere have been devoting a lot of time analyzing the quarterly fundraising figures of each party's presidential candidates. The theory is that the candidate who has the most money is likely to hold an edge in the upcoming elections. While it's been widely reported that Democratic presidential candidates our doing a better job of fundraising than their Republican counterparts, there is another aspect of fundraising that is being overlooked.

If you had to venture a guess, which national party has raised more money: Democrats or Republicans? If you guessed the Republican National Committee, you would be correct. (Hat tip: Rich Galen)

National parties are required to report their fundraising figures on a monthly basis while presidential candidates report quarterly. According to the Federal Election Commission, Republicans raised just about $6.6 million in the month of June while Democrats raised just under $4.2 million in the same period. So Republicans had a good month in June.

But when you look at the total raised so far in this election cycle, the results are even more dramatic: Republicans have raised almost $45 million so far while Democrats have only raised about $28 million. Republicans have more cash on hand: close to $16 million as opposed to just under $5 million for Democrats. So clearly, the RNC has a substantial financial advantage over the DNC.

How do you explain this discrepancy? The Democrats' edge in presidential fundraising seems to be driven by two factors. First, after being out of the White House for almost eight years, Democrats are very motivated to win the Presidential election. Second, the Democratic nominee is likely to be one of three candidates: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. Most of the money seems to be flowing to these three so it's a safe bet one of them will win the nomination.

On the flip side, the Republicans are motivated to recapture the Congress. Democratic inepititude in passing meaningful legislation has helped fueled the Republican cause. The presidential nomination picture is more unsettled that the Democratic picture and that's having a negative effect on fundraising. Rudy Giuliani remains the frontrunner despite plenty of reasons that Republicans have for not supporting him. Mitt Romney has the social conservative credentials but can't seem to make much headway. John McCain's campaign has imploded as he's gone from frontrunner to also-ran. Meanwhile, many Republicans wait for Fred Thompson to officially get in the race.

Democrats have an advantage in presidential fundraising that may or may not last depending on how the nomination process progresses. But they'll have to work overtime to level the playing field at the national party level. If they can't then they may win the White House but lose the Congress.