Blogs For Victory

One does wonder how one becomes this nasty and dishonest – Senator Claire McCaskill on This Week:

MCCASKILL: But women of America are going to kick the tires the next 55 days, George, and they’re going to going to find out that this is a ticket that wants to put women in prison for having an abortion after they have been raped.

Sad to say that this poor woman is a fellow Catholic – and clearly a woman who needs our prayers for wisdom and love of neighbor to become more important in her life. Fortunately, she didn’t have the stage all too herself:

FIORINA: Those are ridiculous charges, point one. But I think the important point here is that this is what the Democratic Party has done for years. It has tried to hold women hostage by frightening them on issues such as reproductive rights, Rove v. Wade.

American women in this country will not be held hostage by the politics of fear on Roe v. Wade anymore.

Ms. Fiorina did miss one very important point in her riposte: its not just fear tactics, its also the lies. Senator McCaskill lies when she claims that Senator McCain, Governor Palin or, indeed, that the GOP advocates jailing women for having an abortion. Allow me to make one thing completely clear – we of the pro-life movement want the killing of unborn children to stop, for the sake of the children, their mothers and the moral health of the United States of America. We seek no vengeance, we want no one – not even the abortionists – to be punished. We just want it to stop. Murdering innocent, unborn children is not the right thing to do and no one who actually applies reason to the issue can come to any other conclusion than that abortion is wrong.

I think that in later years we’ll think back on this time and realize that the vital thing about the McCain/Palin ticket was the way it forced the left and the Democratic party out into the open – they are no longer able to hide behind a friendly media because that media, itself, has been unhinged by the McCain/Palin ticket, and now MSM and Democratic Party/Political Left are driving together off a cliff as the American people finally get an unmistakable example of just how dishonest and nasty the MSM and Democratic party have become.

NewsBusters posts the uneditted transcript of Sarah Palin’s interview with Charlie Gibson, and notes what was cut out, and what those edits mean.

A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context.

Do check it all out. It’s quite revealing. Even a comment made by Gibson where he admitted he agreed with Palin was editted out!

ED Note: This counts as “What Media Bias? Part 126”

Its like clockwork:

Several municipal clerks across the state are reporting fraudulent and duplicate voter registration applications, most of them from a nationwide community activist group working to help low- and moderate-income families.

The majority of the problem applications are coming from the group ACORN, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, which has a large voter registration program among its many social service programs. ACORN’s Michigan branch, based in Detroit, has enrolled 200,000 voters statewide in recent months, mostly with the use of paid, part-time employees.

“There appears to be a sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications,” said Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State’s Office. “And it appears to be widespread.”

Chesney said her office has had discussions with ACORN officials after local clerks reported the questionable applications to the state. Chesney said some of the applications are duplicates and some appear to be names that have been made up. The Secretary of State’s Office has turned over several of the applications to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office on Friday declined to confirm whether an investigation was taking place.

In recent years, ACORN’s voter registration programs have come under investigation in Ohio, Colorado, Missouri and Washington, with some employees convicted of voter fraud.

ACORN officials said they were looking into the problem.

By now I’m afraid that I’ll have to call that last bit a bald faced lie – ACORN has such a long history of submitting fraudulent voter applications that regardless of what ACORN says, the presumption must be that it is deliberate. If it weren’t, then we’d see less and less of it each election cycle but what we see, instead, is the same old/same old from ACORN.

The left side of politics has a long and very dishonorable history of voter fraud – it is not a matter of whether the left will attempt to use fraud but whether it will be enough to tip the election towards the left. And in this endemic voter fraud on the left is the real reason the left is opposed to voter security – anything which tightens up the requirements for voting makes it harder for the left to insert bogus votes into the process.

What we need to do is to start sending the fraudsters to jail – and I mean for long terms in harsh conditions, and not just for the leaders of the groups, but the folks who actually write up and submit the fraudulent voter applications. Its not that I want to see people suffer, but until we make some examples of fraudsters it will continue to happen. Additionally, when, as and if the GOP regains a Congressional majority, the House and Senate will have to grit their teeth and actually examine accusations of voter fraud and start refusing to seat House members and Senators who’s elections were tainted with fraud – this will start to get the Democratic party out of the practice as it will cost them the only penalty they think bad; loss of political power (and why not demand that the Democrat majority do it? Because they won’t – no ifs, ands or butts about it; the Democratic party, as currently constituted, will not in any way, shape or form go after voter fraud…they gain too much from it, and for the Democrats party almost always trumps all other considerations).

UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: Did you know that when Barack Obama says he was a community organizer, he was working for ACORN?

Father Neuhaus explains:

Any time is a good time, but this election is a particularly good time, to review some basics about the free exercise of religion in this American constitutional order

More than he wanted to be remembered for having been president, Mr. Jefferson wanted to be remembered as the author of the Virginia “Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom.” In the text of the bill he underlined this sentence: “The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction.” In a republic of free citizens, every opinion, every prejudice, every aspiration, every moral argument has access to the public square in which we deliberate the ordering of our life together.

“The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction.” And yet civil government is ordered by, and derives its legitimacy from, the opinions of the citizenry. Precisely here do we discover the novelty of the American experiment, the unique contribution of what the Founders called this novus ordo seclorum, a new order for the ages. Never before in human history had any government denied itself jurisdiction, whether limited or total, over that on which it entirely depends, the opinion of its people.

That was the point forcefully made by Lincoln in his dispute with Judge Douglas over slavery. Douglas stubbornly held to the Dred Scott decision as the law of the land. Lincoln had the deeper insight into how this republic was designed to work. “In this age, and this country,” Lincoln said, “public sentiment is every thing. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions. He makes possible the inforcement of these, else impossible.”

The question of religion’s place in the public square is not, first of all, a question of First Amendment law. It is first of all a question of understanding the theory and practice of democratic governance. Citizens are the bearers of opinion, including opinion shaped by or espousing religious belief, and citizens have equal access to the public square. In this representative democracy, the state is forbidden to determine which convictions and moral judgments may be proposed for public deliberation. Through a constitutionally ordered and representative process, the people will deliberate and the people will decide.

In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being religious than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb. There is, or at least there ought to be, no legal or constitutional question about the admission of religion to the public square; there is only a question about the free and equal participation of citizens in our public business. Religion is not a reified thing that threatens to intrude upon our common life. Religion in public is but the public opinion of those citizens who appeal to religion in public.

As with individual citizens, so also with the associations that citizens form to advance their opinions. Religious institutions may understand themselves to be brought into being by God, as the Catholic Church certainly does understand herself, but for the purposes of this democratic polity they are free associations of citizens. As such, they are guaranteed the same access to the public square as are the citizens who comprise them. It matters not at all that their purpose is to advance religion, any more than it matters that other associations would advance the interests of business or labor or radical feminism or animal rights or whatever.

For purposes of democratic theory and practice, it matters not at all whether these religious associations are large or small, whether they reflect the views of a majority or minority, whether we think their opinions bizarre or enlightened. What opinions these associations seek to advance in order to influence our common life is entirely and without remainder the business of citizens who freely adhere to such associations. It is none of the business of the state. Religious associations, like other associations, give corporate expression to the opinions of people and, as Mr. Jefferson said, “the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction.”

Agreed.

The fundamental flaw in liberal thinking on matters of religion in the public square is that they view the First Amendment as protecting government from religion, when it actually protects religion – and, indeed, all opinion within reasonable limits – from government. Liberals quake with fear at the thought of a pastor giving a prayer at a public school graduation ceremony (or, at least, I presume they do, given how hard they fight against such things), thinking that such a thing means that religion is being established and thus compelled upon the citizenry when all it really amount to is, well, a pastor saying a prayer. That is, a pastor offering up his opinion in the public square at the invitation of those who set up the particular event. No harm, no foul; it would only be an imposition by government if the government insisted upon a positive affirmation in favor of the pastor’s opinion by the gathered citizenry.

When you get down to it, a great deal (and, perhaps, most) of our political difficulties stem from similar liberal misunderstandings of how things work – what truth is, what happened in the past, why people believe certain ways, etc, etc, etc. Liberals make absurd arguments about religion in the public square because they really don’t know anything about religion, government or the rights of people in a democratically governed republic. Hopefully at least one or two liberals, upon reading Fr. Neuhaus’ statement, will start to wise up.

Not that I’m holding my breath, or anything…

This is, well, nauseating:

U.S. vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s loving and highly-publicized acceptance of her Down’s syndrome child Trig has some Canadian doctors worried that her example may lead to mothers shunning abortion after diagnosis of Down’s syndrome.

According to the Globe and Mail, Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), is worried that Palin’s decision to give birth to Trig, despite knowing about his condition, could influence other women in similar situations, but who lack the financial and emotional support that Palin had access to.

“The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada,” he said.

Citing his concern for women’s “freedom to choose”, Lalonde said that popular examples about women like Palin, who choose not to kill their unborn children, could have negative effects on women and their families, reported the Globe.

However, Lalonde said that doctors in Canada give balanced information about the consequences of the condition to pregnant women with a Down’s child, and that women are not necessarily encouraged to abort. “We offer the woman the choice. We try to be as unbiased as possible,” Lalonde said. “We’re coming down to a moral decision and we all know moral decisions are personal decisions.”

Krista Flint, executive director of the Canadian Down Syndrome Society, however, disagreed with Lalonde’s claim that pregnant women are given balanced information about the condition: “Many of the country’s medical professionals only give messages of fear to parents who learn their baby will be born with the genetic condition.”

Only in the sick, twisted world of the culture of death could there be a concern that having a Down’s Syndrome baby – as opposed to killing it – might provide a “bad example”.

I really don’t know what to say here – I don’t know, at this moment, how I am to love those in the culture of death who would think such things…it is, some times, very hard to do so, though I must do it. Why on Earth would anyone want to be a person who is worried that a woman might not choose to abort? How do you get like that? On second thought, I don’t even want to know….

…and it’s getting a lot brighter as Obama’s hopes for winning the battleground state are falling fast.

Barack Obama could be on the verge of falling out of contention in Florida.

Despite spending an estimated $8-million on campaign ads in America’s biggest battleground state and putting in place the largest Democratic campaign organization ever in Florida, Obama has lost ground over the summer. Florida has moved from a toss-up state to one that clearly leans toward John McCain, fueling speculation about how much longer the Democratic nominee will continue investing so heavily in the state.

Obama can still win Florida despite the polling gains McCain has made since naming Sarah Palin his running mate, and there is no sign Obama is pulling back in Florida yet. Far from it. Obama allies say he has about 350 paid staffers in the state and about 50 field offices, including in places not known as fertile ground for Democrats, such as Sun City Center, Lake City and Sebring.

But for all the attention to Florida from the Obama campaign, there’s little tangible evidence it’s paying off.

It seems like this is not a unique trend.McCain is increasing his lead or closing the gap in several battleground states. Recent gaffes by Barack Obama and his campaign surely aren’t helping him any either. Things have certainly changed in recent weeks. Earlier this year, Democrats have been confidently predicting significant gains in Congress as well. Polls had been showing easy pickups for the Democrats… until recently.

What does all that mean? It means the Democratic Party will have to put more resources into congressional races that they may not have previously considered necessary. As Obama appears to be on the verge of failing to meet fundraising goals, they may find themselves in a major bind in the final weeks of the campaign.

From Rasmussen:

Dino Rossi has pulled ahead of Governor Christine Gregoire for the first time since February in Washington’s gubernatorial election. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state finds Rossi leading the incumbent 52% to 46%.

The latest numbers represent the first time Rossi has received over 50% from voters in Washington. Last month, Gregoire led the race by four points and she has now lost ground in four straight monthly polls. This year’s election is reminiscent of the exciting match up between the two candidates in 2004 that ended with a controversial win for Gregoire that had to be decided by the state’s courts.

It wasn’t really decided in 2004 by courts – it was decided by Democratic judges allowing Democrats in Democratic strongholds to keep recounting the ballots until they came out with the correct, for Democrats, result. What happened in Washington State in 2004 was precisely what the Democrats wanted to happen in Florida in 2000 – keep counting until the Democrat wins. The difference was that the Florida result was Federal, and thus the US Supreme Court was able to step in and prevent Democrats from stealing Florida. Washington was a purely State affair, and so Democratic judges – who, like almost all senior Democrats, put party before everything – were given free reign.

In what started as an anti-GOP year – but is no longer – I had only small hopes that we would be able to correct the 2004 injustice by defeating the Thief in Chief of Washington; she’s never been a popular governor, but a general anti-GOP feeling in a fairly Democratic State looked to give her the “oomph” needed to seal her larceny. Not any more – still a hard fight, but we now have a chance of really sticking it to Democratic voter fraud in Washington and around the country.

Now, for those of you in Washington – get out there and fight for Dino Rossi.

Just one big mess:

Rescue crews navigated flooded and debris-strewn streets Saturday to search for those who insisted on staying and riding out a fierce Hurricane Ike, which shattered skyscraper windows, cut power to millions and flooded thousands of homes as it sloshed across the Texas coast.

About those who stayed behind – I do wonder if we should cite them? I mean, by staying behind they risk danger to police and fire personnel, as well as increasing the cost of hurricane recovery to States and municipalities. I’m not talking about jail time – but maybe a $1,000 “Idiot Fine”? And we should allow their insurance carriers to cancel their policy…and, of course, deny them any government aid in rebuilding. You have a right, in America, to be an idiot – but you don’t have a right to be rescued from your idiocy.

One other point – there are stories of gas prices in various places being 5, 6 or more dollars per gallon – all States should enact laws, if they already haven’t, against this sort of thing…its un-American, un-Christian and inhuman to jack up prices like that during a crisis.

We were expecting a very rough year for the Congressional GOP, but perhaps we were being too pessimistic:

PRINCETON, NJ — A potential shift in fortunes for the Republicans in Congress is seen in the latest USA Today/Gallup survey, with the Democrats now leading the Republicans by just 3 percentage points, 48% to 45%, in voters’ “generic ballot” preferences for Congress. This is down from consistent double-digit Democratic leads seen on this measure over the past year.

Given that Democrats always poll well in the generic ballot question, this is an exceptionally stunning turn around – and it does explain why some House Democrats are starting to get the jitters and also to distance themselves from Obama and the national party.

There are a lot of things at work here – Obama’s poor performance since about mid-April; McCain’s very effective campaign; the Palin pick; backlash against the MSM/Democratic party for how they are treating Palin; a series of recent stories highlighting Democratic corruption; a sense that the Democratic majority has been entirely ineffective…will it all come together and give the GOP a new majority? Perhaps – I’m not sure; as in all things about election 2008, there are just too many uncertainties out there, and it is notoriously difficult to figure House races via polling. But one thing is certain – GOP efforts and Democratic flubs have turned what was once a near-certain Democratic wave into a down-to-the-wire battle which can go either way. The nation, dear lefties, did not actually turn left in 2006 – the people voted against the GOP, but not in favor of you…you had to close the deal and by nominating an ultra-liberal empty suit, you might just have cut yourselves off at the knees.

Yet another example of Obama talking the talk, but not walking the walk.

“Now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day’s work,” Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Aug. 28 in his convention acceptance speech. He told the crowd in Denver: “I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.”

Obama’s campaign website is even more specific. Under the heading “Fighting for Pay Equity,” the women’s issues page laments that, “Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. A recent study estimates it will take another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with men at Fortune 500 corporate offices. Barack Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act…”

Obama’s commitment to federally mandated pay equity stretches from the Rockies to Wall Street and beyond. And yet it seems to have eluded his Senate office. Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women just 83 cents for every dollar his men make.

A watchdog group called LegiStorm posts online the salaries for Capitol Hill staffers. “We have no political affiliations and no political purpose except to make the workings of Congress as transparent as possible,” its website explains. Parsing LegiStorm’s official data, gleaned from the Secretary of the Senate, offers a fascinating glimpse at pay equity in the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.

The most recent statistics are for the half-year from Oct. 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, excluding interns and focusing on full-time personnel. For someone who worked only until, say, last Feb. 29, extrapolating up to six months’ service simplifies this analysis. Doubling these half-year figures illustrates how a year’s worth of Senate employees’ paychecks should look.

Based on these calculations, Obama’s 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama’s average male employee earned $54,397.

Obama’s 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.

I wonder what Obama’s excuse for this blatent hypocrisy is.

UPDATE: It is worth noting how McCain measures up:

Obama’s criticism notwithstanding, McCain’s payment patterns are the stuff of feminist dreams.

McCain’s 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878.

On average, according to these data, women in John McCain’s office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, all other things being equal, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart — while adding $10,726 to her annual income — by leaving Barack Obama’s office and going to work for John McCain.

Smack.