Monday, June 2, 2008

"Intimidation" of pastors at issue
by Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow
For almost the first 180 years of American history, pastors routinely addressed political issues and candidates from the pulpit. "Until about 1954, churches were free to endorse or oppose particular candidates from the pulpit -- and, in fact, churches did that," says Erik Stanley with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). "Some pastors opposed Thomas Jefferson as being a deist. Other pastors opposed William Howard Taft as a Unitarian. Some pastors opposed Al Smith in the 1928 presidential election -- and the list goes on and on." But that changed in 1954, says Stanley, when Congress passed a law forbidding churches from endorsing or opposing candidates. The so-called "Johnson Amendment" was passed without any debate or analysis. Stanley says that provision has since been used to keep churches from speaking out when politics intrudes into moral issues addressed by scripture.Read the entire article at:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=114442
Steve's comments appear at bottom in red
Cole fires back at ‘hypocritical’ challenge
By Jackie Kucinich
National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole (Okla.) fired back at his Democratic counterpart Monday, calling the challenge for a joint call to end soft-money political ads “nothing short of self-serving, insincere propaganda.”
Cole’s comments come in response to a letter sent Monday by Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) asking the Oklahoma Republican to join him in demanding that soft-money groups stay out of House races during the 2008 cycle.

Van Hollen first issued the challenge to Cole during a Fox News Sunday appearance May 25. The segment ended directly after Van Hollen’s comment without giving Cole a chance to respond.
"I think that my colleague Tom Cole and I should agree to follow the lead of Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama when it comes to these outside shadowy groups, these 527 attack groups, that come to play in these elections," Van Hollen told the show's host, Chris Wallace. "And I hope he will agree with me today that we should call upon those groups not to run ads in these different races and call upon our supporters not to give to those shadowy attack groups. That's reform that the presidential candidates have called for, and I think that we should join in that effort."

In the letter, released by the DCCC under the banner "8 Days & Counting — Chris Van Hollen Renews Challenge to Tom Cole: No Outside Groups in House Races," Van Hollen asked Cole: “[W]ill you join me in publicly calling on soft money outside groups to not run ads in House races this year and also urge our supporters to not contribute to these groups?”
Cole called the request and the sentiment behind it a “political stunt” and pointed to Van Hollen’s failure to denounce ads currently being run by Americans United for Change — a 501(c)4 that released ads attacking Republicans on the war over the Memorial Day recess — as a clear indication that his request was insincere.

“When and if Chairman Van Hollen ever wants to have a serious discussion about legally reforming 527 organizations, I will take his call and meet with him,” Cole said in a statement. “Better yet, when he puts actions to his flimsy words, I’ll pick up the phone and call him.”
He added, “The press release Van Hollen’s office issued today gives hypocrisy a bad name.”
527s are a result of McCain-Feingold- as they say- UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES of legislation. Democrats have benefited from them as much as Republicans. All the restrictions, limitations, rules, and guidelines on how much money a donor can give a candidate are clearly unconstitutional. If Bill Gates wants to give his entire fortune to a candidate, it should be his God-given right to do so, however disclosure is the key. If Gates gives his billions to a Presidential candidate, the voting public has a right to know, so they can ask the simple question- WHY?
Weekly Opinion/Editorial
CANDIDATES ARE COURAGOUS!
By Steve Fair

Today filing begins for elective offices in Oklahoma. There will be a number of races that will be decided by the voters in November. Running for public office is not a picnic. It requires a lot of hard work and dedication by the candidates. It requires time and money. Voters expect a great deal from candidates, but what should political candidates expect from the citizens?

First, candidates should expect citizens to be engaged in their government. Pew Research estimates that only 60% of those registered to vote in the U.S. are registered. According to Pew, “Americans who are not registered to vote also are more socially isolated from other people: They're less likely to know people in their neighborhood. They also are more likely to be relatively recent arrivals in their current neighborhoods ­ more than one-in-five (23%) say they have lived in their neighborhood less than a year. People who are not registered to vote also are generally mistrustful of others; just 27% say that most people can be trusted." In Oklahoma, registering to vote is a simple matter. There is no excuse for not registering to vote and casting your ballot. You can pick up the form at the Post Office, local tag agency or at the county election board, complete it and mail it in. If you are not registered, get it done today. Voting is not just your right- it is a privilege and responsibility.

Second, candidates should expect voters to pay attention to the issues. Money and media have always driven politics but in the past twenty-five years that has escalated to new heights. It’s not uncommon to see Oklahoma state legislative candidates now raise and spend six figures to run for an office that pays $38,500 annually. Some blame the big donors, the Political Action Committees, the lobbyists, and special interest groups for the infusion of money into the process, but are they really to blame? The real culprit is the average citizen and/or voter who for a variety of reasons have stopped taking equity in his government. Indifference or only causal knowledge of what is going on in your government leads to “defining” by candidates- both of themselves and their opponents. Elections are now won on popularity and not on issues.

In a survey conducted by Harvard University, one candidate describes campaigning in the 21st century like this. “I've been actively involved in politics for over 19 years now. I've even run for public office. Getting voters to even pay attention to government for 5 minutes is a struggle. Most citizens get their information from either sound bites from the propaganda machine that some people still naively refer to as the media and others get it twisted from others without checking the facts. Dealing with the average voter is like dealing with a dyslexic hyperactive kid on drugs “ In the same survey, a voter says the greatest cause for voter apathy is people feel politicians promise the world and then forget their promises once elected to office. That’s why it’s important to know the facts and not just base your vote on a clever jingle, logo or commercial.

Third, candidates should be able to expect civility from the general public. No matter your party affiliation or political philosophy, candidates must be able to present their message in an atmosphere of civility. If you disagree with a candidate, then politely state you are supporting someone else. If the candidate persists and doesn’t get your initial message, a more firm approach may be necessary. Harassing or berating a candidate because you are supporting their opponent is inappropriate and childish. Candidates have put themselves in the spotlight by running and deserve our respect and admiration- no matter their party affiliation or stance on the issues.

Fourthly, candidates should expect that petty vandalism, harassment, and dirty tricks will not be a part of the political process. Always the work of cowards, this type of action reveal a total lack of respect for the political process as well as serious character flaws in both those that engage and condone such behavior. Spirited, competitive campaigns are a part of the political process, but at the end of the day, candidates and volunteers alike should be able to agree the race was decided on the issues and not swayed by distractions and dirty tricks.

Running for office requires courage and dedication. During the next four months, many candidates will ask you for your vote from the two major political parties. Weigh your decision on which you will vote for carefully. Make your decision on the issues and which candidate best agrees with you on those issues. If the decision is made based on the issues, Republicans will do well. Let the debate begin!

Thursday, May 29, 2008

POLITICAL VOLUNTEER TRAINING
BOOT CAMP
SATURDAY THE 31ST
Stephens County Fairgrounds
Duncan, Oklahoma 10am-2:30pm
Cost $20- includes t-shirt and box lunch
Congressman Tom Cole speaking at 11:45am
SIX EXCITING BREAKOUT SESSIONS!
EVERY CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE SHOULD
ATTEND WITH THEIR VOLUNTEER TEAM
HIGH ENERGY/INTERACTIVE
OKLAHOMA COUNTIES "ID" GAME
Fellow blogger Michael Bates (Batesline) http://www.batesline.com/ has created a clever on-line game that involves identifying Oklahoma counties. This is tougher than you think even for someone with a fair knowledge of Oklahoma geography. To access it, click on the link below:
http://www.purposegames.com/game/oklahoma-counties-quiz
SENATOR LARRY CRAIG'S
BOBBLE FOOT
Just when you thought you'd heard the end of the bathroom stall jokes, a Larry Craig bobble foot is created. The Idaho Senator was arrested at the Minneapolis Saint Paul airport by an officer who was investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men's public restroom. So, the Saint Paul Saints- a minor league team- decided it would be a great publicity stunt to have bobble foot day.
The team is famous for oddball giveaways. They are being sold on E-bay for as much as $50.


Republicans Are in Denial
By TOM COBURN
May 27, 2008- Wall Street Journal
As congressional Republicans contemplate the prospect of an electoral disaster this November, much is being written about the supposed soul-searching in the Republican Party. A more accurate description of our state is paralysis and denial.

Many Republicans are waiting for a consultant or party elder to come down from the mountain and, in Moses-like fashion, deliver an agenda and talking points on stone tablets. But the burning bush, so to speak, is delivering a blindingly simple message: Behave like Republicans.
Unfortunately, too many in our party are not yet ready to return to the path of limited government. Instead, we are being told our message must be deficient because, after all, we should be winning in certain areas just by being Republicans. Yet being a Republican isn't good enough anymore. Voters are tired of buying a GOP package and finding a big-government liberal agenda inside. What we need is not new advertising, but truth in advertising.

Becoming Republicans again will require us to come to grips with what has ailed our party – namely, the triumph of big-government Republicanism and failed experiments like the K Street Project and "compassionate conservatism." If the goal of the K Street Project was to earmark and fund raise our way to a filibuster-proof "governing" majority, the goal of "compassionate conservatism" was to spend our way to a governing majority.
The fruit of these efforts is not the hoped-for Republican governing majority, but the real prospect of a filibuster-proof Democrat majority in 2009. While the K Street Project decimated our brand as the party of reform and limited government, compassionate conservatism convinced the American people to elect the party that was truly skilled at activist government: the Democrats.

Compassionate conservatism's starting point had merit. The essential argument that Republicans should orient policy around how our ideas will affect the poor, the widow, the orphan, the forgotten and the "other" is indisputable – particularly for those who claim, as I do, to submit to an authority higher than government. Yet conservatives are conservatives because our policies promote deliverance from poverty rather than dependence on government.
Compassionate conservatism's next step – its implicit claim that charity or compassion translates into a particular style of activist government involving massive spending increases and entitlement expansion – was its undoing. Common sense and the Scriptures show that true giving and compassion require sacrifice by the giver. This is why Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell his possessions, not his neighbor's possessions. Spending other people's money is not compassionate.

Regaining our brand as the party of fiscal discipline will require us to rejoin Americans in the real world of budget choices and priorities, and to leave behind the fantasyland of borrowing without limits. Instead of adopting earmarks, each Republican can adopt examples of government waste, largess and fraud, and restart the permanent campaign against big government.
Republicans can tear up the "emergency spending" credit card and refuse to accept any new spending whatsoever, including for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, until Congress does its job of eliminating wasteful spending. The federal budget contains a vast unexplored area of offsets. My office alone has identified $300 billion in annual waste. Borrowing from the next generation when we haven't done our job of oversight is unconscionable.

Regaining our brand is not about "messaging." It's about action. It's about courage. It's about priorities. Most of all, it's about being willing to give up our political careers so our grandkids don't have to grow up in a debtor's prison, or a world in which other nations can tell a weakened and bankrupt America where we can and can't defend liberty, pursue terrorists, or show compassion.

John McCain, for all his faults, is the one Republican candidate who can lead us through our wilderness. Mr. McCain is not running on a messianic platform or as a great healer of dysfunctional Republicans who refuse to help themselves. His humility is one of his great strengths. In his heart, he's a soldier who sees one more hill to charge, one more mission to complete.
I love all the "marketing" terms that political types use now- branding- positioning-messaging. It takes me back to those days of yesteryear when I sold hot cocoa mix and cat litter- not at the same time or in a banded pack.
In this column, Dr. Coburn breaks down the GOP woes in a simple way and he is absolutely right- the reason the Republicans lost in 2006 and will likely lose more seats in 2008 is because they have not behaved like Republicans. They are more concerned about reelection than principle. Elected Republicans run from right wing activists like they were a skunk at a family picnic. They don't want to be identified with the right wing or photographed with them, yet they will take their money and their time. It's really not the activists the political types are fleeing- it's what they stand for- smaller government, principled stands on moral issues- the second amendment. Republicans win when they stand up for what they believe- when they compromise or waffle, they get drilled because the base stays home. Unless the base gets energized, we are looking at a dubbing in November in Congress.
Dr. Coburn is in the cab of the STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS. He introduced McCain at the conservative C-PAC meeting earlier this year. Some have criticized his endorsement of McCain because the two don't seem to fit, but Coburn's explanation is that McCain has the courage to put America on a more fiscally sound foundation. Coburn's endorsement may seem to be a compromise to some, but make no mistake about it- Coburn is not a compromiser or waffler. He has more courage in his little finger politically than all the Democrats and two thirds of the Republicans in the Senate combined.