Right Minded Online

The latest issue of U.S. News & World Report has a feature story on Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, which remains, in my opinion, the most famous speech ever given by an American, containing the immortal quote “It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

I remember having to memorize and recite the Gettysburg Address back in my eighth grade English class. My teacher, Mrs. Cravens (a great teacher), gave us the option of reciting the speech in class, or just to her after school. At that time, I had a crippling fear of speaking in public, so I immediately opted for the latter. Fortunately, I’ve overcome that fear, but that assignment remains stuck in my mind.

The Fellowship of Christian Athletes is sponsoring screenings of The Nativity Story at two public high schools in Fairfax County, Virginia, and civil libertarians have not come unglued.

One of several arguments made by Wal-Mart opponents is that the retail behemoth forces prices down and thereby drives mom-and-pops out of business, thereby giving Wal-Mart an eventual monopoly in the areas in which they exist.

First, Wal-Mart has been in existence for 44 years. The monopoly has yet to develop. When is the Wal-Mart monopoly going to come about?

Second, the Wal-Mart that is closest to where I live, a Supercenter at the corner of Lebanon Road and Andrew Jackson Parkway in Hermitage, Tennessee, came into existence about three years ago. At that time, the real estate on which the Wal-Mart Supercenter was constructed was marred by a shopping center that had gone out of business. Across the street was another shopping center that was headed in the same direction.

Since then, that area has been revitalized. Behind Wal-Mart is a small shopping center that is anchored by Kroger. It is still there. Between the two is a Tires Plus that does the same kind of business as Wal-Mart’s automotive department. Tires Plus is still in business. In that same area are two banks, a Taco Bell, and a Blockbuster that are still in business, and another tire store is operating on the other side of Wal-Mart.

The shopping center across the street now has every store filled. A Bed, Bath, & Beyond just went in a year ago, along with a pet store. There is a Publix grocery store there that is still operating, along with several smaller retail stores and restaurants that are all turning a profit. On the other side of Lebanon Road from Wal-Mart is a strip mall anchored by a large Dollar General, a Hallmark shop, Cici’s Pizza, and a few other businesses, plus a free-standing Starbucks.

Indeed, the semi-depressed area at which Wal-Mart chose to locate a Supercenter some three years ago has not only not been monopolized by Wal-Mart, but other businesses have come into existence and thrive as a result of the revitalization that was brought about by Wal-Mart.

The New York Times and other mainstream media outlets are declaring a state of civil war in Iraq. What do they know that the rest of us don’t?

Meanwhile, World Net Daily has put together a thorough report on the proliferation of terror-threat illegals in the United States, noting that “This news hits following WND’s report yesterday that 12 Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That’s 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.”

That number far exceeds the number of U.S. servicemen who are killed fighting a war on terrorists in Iraq. So if we can declare a state of civil war in Iraq, then what do call the violence that is being perpetrated against American civilians right here in the U.S.?

For a moment, while all is quiet, remember that the politician you fought so hard against enjoys the same citizenship and has just as much at stake as you do. We often struggle to wear the “American” label above that of “Democrat” or “Republican,” but it is a struggle we must overcome.

The realist inside me believes the honeymoon period between President Bush and the new Democrat majority will last maybe ten minutes. After that, the name-calling will resume, the legislative process devolve into gridlock, and investigations into the Bush administration will begin right after lunch on the first day.

But my idealistic self holds out for something better. In politics, you never get everything you want. The political process isn’t designed that way. Even when the GOP had a majority in Congress and the White House, it didn’t get everything it wanted. Now that Democrats have about a 14-seat majority in the new House of Representatives and a razor-thin one-seat majority in the Senate, they aren’t going to get everything they want.

Politics isn’t an all-or-nothing game. It’s like a batting average. Sometimes you get a hit. Sometimes you make an out. Sometimes you trade a hit for an out, and so on.

So this idealist envisions the scenario where Nancy Pelosi hands President Bush a minimum wage bill. President Bush says, “That’s fine. I’ll sign that bill, but you’ve got to give me my tax cuts.” So the President signs both bills, side-by-side.

The new Senate Majority Leader hands the second-term President an amnesty bill. The President says, “That’s fine. I’ll sign your bill, but you’ve got to give me my judges.” And it happens.

The two Democrat leaders come to the Commander-in-Chief and tell him “We want our troops out of Iraq.” The President tells them “I do, too. I worry about and pray for them every day. But we’re not pulling out until Iraq can stand on her own, so let’s have a seat and figure out a way to do this.”

Okay, perhaps those things only happen in romance novels. But still, the Democrats will soon be in charge. If things go awry, they cannot blame the GOP. The legislative ball is theirs to carry, or to fumble. If things go well, they get the credit. If they fail, they must shoulder the blame in both houses of Congress.

The Democrats have their agenda; we conservatives have ours. The new Congress certainly isn’t going to rubber-stamp any conservative legislation carte blanche, but they aren’t going to be able to legislate many of their own ideas without a great deal of compromise. Democrats may discover great success in the House, only to find their bills rot in the Senate’s inbox.

Remember, the Senate is split 49-49-2. Democrats have an effective 51-49 majority, given that the two Independents will side with them. But any tie votes will be broken by the President of the Senate, who happens to be Richard Cheney. And then there’s President Bush’s looming veto after that, and the Democrats don’t have near enough votes in either chamber to combat that.

But the 51% of me that remains an idealist is holding out. And I am not alone. Peggy Noonan, one of the ablest conservative writers of our time, concluded her post-election op/ed piece this way:

“At the end of the day…I look at the new Congress and wish them so well, such luck. Don’t you? I want to say: Go, Nancy Pelosi. Be the speaker of whom historians will write, in 2032, ‘This was her moment, here was the summit, here she found greatness.’ Go, Democrats, be great and serious. Go, minority Republicans, refind yourselves. Go, conservatives.”

“To the freshmen: Walk in as if you’re walking out. Put your heart on your sleeve and go forward. Take responsibility, and love America. No one will think less of you. They will in fact think more, as they do of politicians after the concession speech.”

In a representative democracy the victor gets the spoils. You win some and you lose some. I voted and found myself in the minority, which means the other guy has the upper hand in legislating his ideas. I can choose to be bitter and defiant, or I can choose to give the Democrats a chance. I choose the latter.

There are going to be things the Democrats do that I’m going to criticize, but it will be because of differences in ideology. Likewise, there will be things the Democrats do that deserve merit. My desire for good things to happen to Americans (a strong economy, for example) far outweighs any desire to deprive Democrats of praise when they do things well.

My hope is that the Democrats, realizing the solemn weight and responsibility of a legislative majority, will, when the chips are down, act in the best interest of the American people. If they do, I will congratulate them. After all, I’m here to advance an ideology, and I don’t care who advances it. To quote Ronald Reagan, “There is no limit to what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit.”

I want us to secure Iraq, and only then get out. I don’t want our servicemen’s lives to have been sacrificed in vain. I don’t want our nation and our people to get hit by Islamic militants again. That’s the one priority I expect above all others from this Congress.

So the ball is now yours, Democrats. Show us what you can do.

Dr. James Dobson and Larry King had the following exchange on Dobson’s recent appearance on Larry King Live.

KING: Why is it a state institution rather than a religious institution? Why is the state involved?

DOBSON: Well, it’s both. It is both.

KING: But we have a separation of church and state.

DOBSON: Beg your pardon?

KING: We have a separation of church and state.

DOBSON: Who says?

KING: You don’t believe in separation of church and state?

DOBSON: Not the way you mean it. The separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. No, it’s not. That is not in the Constitution.

KING: It’s in the Bill of Rights.

DOBSON: It’s not in the Bill of Rights. It’s not anywhere in a foundational document. The only place where the so-called “wall of separation” was mentioned was in a letter written by (Thomas) Jefferson to a friend. That’s the only place. It has been picked up and made to be something it was never intended to be.

What it has become is that the government is protected from the church, instead of the other way around, which is that church was designed to be protected from the government.

KING: I’m going to check my history.

By all means, Larry, check your history.

Joe Public over at the Chattanooga-Hamilton Civic Forum has provided some answers on evolution v. intelligent design. Joe actually gives some pretty reasoned answers here if one is willing to overlook the condescension, but I still have that same nagging feeling. Joe concedes that the theory of evolution doesn’t have all the answers, at one point remarking that “The universe is, and we can guess as to what it wasn’t before it was, and we’ll keep working on getting our guesses cleaner.”

So if the study of Darwinism still has a lot of wrinkles to iron out, then why can science not open up to include empirically-based criticisms of Darwinism? Again, this can be done without opening the Bible or “injecting mysticism into a fact-based discovery process.” Why not use science to advance science if some scientific evidence might point somewhere other than evolution? Answer: Evolutionists have done it backward. They have come to a scientific conclusion without the empirical evidence they need — put the cart before the horse, if you will. By brushing off any and all critiques as being “anti-science,” they have, in fact, done more to harm the scientific process than to advance it.

Still, Joe, thank you for your effort.

Opinion Journal has reprinted its annual Thanksgiving editorial describing what Nathaniel Morton and other Pilgrims saw in 1620.

Being now passed the vast ocean, and a sea of troubles before them in expectations, they had now no friends to welcome them, no inns to entertain or refresh them, no houses, or much less towns, to repair unto to seek for succour; and for the season it was winter, and they that know the winters of the country know them to be sharp and violent, subject to cruel and fierce storms, dangerous to travel to known places, much more to search unknown coasts.

Besides, what could they see but a hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wilde beasts and wilde men? and what multitudes of them there were, they then knew not: for which way soever they turned their eyes (save upward to Heaven) they could have but little solace or content in respect of any outward object; for summer being ended, all things stand in appearance with a weatherbeaten face, and the whole country, full of woods and thickets, represented a wild and savage hew.

If they looked behind them, there was a mighty ocean which they had passed, and was now as a main bar or gulph to separate them from all the civil parts of the world.

We Americans, Christian and non-Christian, are forever indebted to them.

Both Bill Hobbs and Michael Silence have posts on an idea being floated by the state comptroller John Morgan that would give the state of Tennessee much greater control of public schools. The state would require an additional $900 million of tax revenue to pull this off. It would raise the money by capturing half the local option sales tax revenue, plus enact a statewide property tax.

What a terrible idea. There is no reason why public schools should not be controlled entirely by local school districts. The federal government should have no role in forming policy and collecting/distributing tax revenue for public education, and states should, at most, have very limited control. That scenario would require higher taxes at the local level, but lower taxes at the federal and state level in order to balance everything out.

Instead, we have a huge federal bureaucracy, the Department of Education, that was created by Jimmah Carter, combined with a sizable Tennessee Department of Education. Of course, as Bill Hobbs notes, Morgan’s idea would translate to a larger share of public school funding being raised at the state level, and with federal and state funding come the strings. This means bureaucrats in Nashville would be given greater authority over public school districts at the expense of your city and county school boards.

My hunch is that this won’t fly. I doubt any enabling legislation would pass the House, where Democrats hold a 53-46 majority, and would have even less of a chance of passing the Senate, where Democrats hold an effective 17-16 majority. Even if Governor Bredesen latches onto the idea, he has already shown that he has no coattails, and I doubt he could sway enough votes to carry this through.

If this does erupt into a legislative battle, wouldn’t it be the height of irony if we spent Governor Bredesen’s second term fighting a state property tax instead of the state income tax we fought during Governor Sundquist’s second term?

Just within the past two weeks (AFTER the election, oddly), we’ve had TDOT whining about a $2 billion shortfall over the next ten years, and now the state comptroller is floating a plan that would increase state revenue by $900 million and necessitate a state property tax. The best way to fight liberalism is with conservatism. So I’m still holding out for eliminating the state’s 6% sales tax on groceries.

Mike Faulk has resigned as First Vice-Chairman of the Republican Party in Hawkins County, Tennessee, noting that:

It was 36 years ago that our friend, Bill Jenkins, as the only Republican since Reconstruction, served as Speaker of the Tennessee House of Representatives. Literally hundreds and thousands of hours and dollars have been spent by Republicans volunteers all across our state to regain control over one or both of the houses of the Tennessee General Assembly. We regained control of the Senate chamber two years ago and held that majority this election.

Regretfully, selfishly, and disrespectfully, one of our own forgot his roots, forgot who sent him to Nashville, and gave the Lt. Governorship to our competitors. While there’s too much partisanship at all levels of government, the one time and place for partisanship is in the selection of the leader of the Senate – the Lt. Governor – the person first in line should something happen to the Governor.

Given these events within our own party in the State Senate since this most recent election day, I can no longer maintain neutrality in a race to come.

The “one of our own” to whom Faulk refers is Senator Mike Williams, who, right after being re-elected to a four-year term, sold out his party last January by voting for John Wilder as Speaker of the Senate, thereby squandering the majority the GOP had finally won. And he is prepared to do it again. This will be the last two years Senator Mike Williams serves in the Tennessee General Assembly as a Republican. Enjoy your final session as Pro Tempore of the Senate. And thank you for selling out the Tennessee Republican Party and for neutralizing the work done by me and many others in getting Republicans elected as the majority party in the Senate.

Additionally, NewsChannel5 is investigating Senator Williams on accusations by his former girlfriend that he misused some of his campaign funds to buy NASCAR tickets.

Ryan Howard, who plays first base for my beloved Philadelphia Phillies, is the National League’s Most Valuable Player for 2006. Howard, just one year removed from his Rookie-of-the-Year season of 2005, is the first Phillie to win the award since the legendary Mike Schmidt back in 1986. That year, the Phillies finished in second place in the N.L. East behind the New York Mets. This year, the Phillies finished in second place in the N.L. East behind the New York Mets.

Well, well, well. Less than two weeks after Phil Bredesen’s re-election, the Tennessee Department of Transportation is crying about a projected $2 billion shortfall over the next ten years. Eight years ago, in December, right after Don Sundquist’s re-election, we began hearing about budget shortfalls that eventually led to a four-year battle over a state income tax. Back then, we kept hearing about how TDOT was the one area of state government that was actually fiscally sound. What a turnabout. I’m not predicting that the governor is going to use the supposed TDOT shortfall as a selling point for an income tax, but I wouldn’t be surprised if plans are in the works for the legislature to attempt to raise the gasoline tax, vehicle registration fees, or implement toll roads in the near future, even as the state continues to run massive revenue surpluses.

Bill Hobbs has more.

If you recall, back before the 2004 election, Democrats lied to the American people about an impending military draft if President Bush won re-election. President Bush won re-election, and, more than two years later, has yet to propose that we re-instate the draft. But there is one member of Congress who is seeking to re-instate the draft. It’s Representative Charlie Rangel…a Democrat!

Sarah Moore points to a study by Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks that shows conservatives are more generous than liberals. Here’s Sarah quoting Professor Brooks:

In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives — from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services — make conservatives more generous than liberals.

…secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone’s tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don’t provide them with enough money.

Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth.

All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

“These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago,” he writes in the introduction. “I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book.”

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

I often wonder why liberals don’t just pool their own money to help the poor — you know, the 40+ million Americans without health care, the senior citizens who are forced to choose between medicine and dog food, the single mothers Republicans cruelly kicked off welfare, the low-wage earners who can’t afford more than $20 a week in lottery tickets. I’m sure that if every liberal willingly sent a portion of his earnings to charities that provide these services (except that part about lottery tickets), we could go a lot farther than the government has in its war on poverty that has siphoned, oh, $8 trillion or so off the economy during the past four decades. Surely there are enough rich liberals in Congress and Hollywood alone to make a sizable downpayment on eradicating poverty.

Actually, it’s not fair to make the wholesale statement that liberals aren’t generous. They are -– only with other people’s money.

Mark,

I enjoyed your article in today’s Tennessean. I have been aggreviated during the last week and a half as I listened to and read about Tennessee being portrayed as prejuidiced and backward because of the outcome of the Corker/Ford race.

In 1996, I voted for Alan Keyes in the GOP presidential primary. It had nothing to do with color. While I was sure he wouldn’t win the nomination, I voted for him because his moral and political views most closely resemble the ones that I hold.

Thanks for a well thought out opinion piece and for pointing out the media bias in ignoring the Pennsylvania and Maryland results while trying to make a case against Tennessee.

T.T.

* * * * *
Mark: EXCELLENT guest column in today’s Tennessean, man! Very well said. Way to go. Yours is about the most sane, logical perspecive I’ve seen in the morning paper re: the election. (I almost can’t believe they printed it, as the paper has been so bent in the other direction lately.)

I wrote Mr. Parham directly after his ridiculous column ran. I haven’t heard back from him (no surprise), but just FYI, here’s what I said.

All best,

P.N.

Mr. Parham:

With all due respect, where’s the proof that “white evangelical/born again” voters preferred Corker over Ford on racial grounds? Was the question of WHY they went more with Corker even asked? If so, I would love to see the results. (You certainly don’t present it in your column.) Ever heard of ideological differences? Differences on the issues? Of a voter choosing a candidate because he helped to revitalize a city, because he’s a huge business success, because he has a wife and children, because he doesn’t go to Playboy parties?

Your column in the Tennessean sounds like you’re making a huge assumption that just because white evangelicals picked Corker, that means they’re racist. Where is your proof, sir? If you can show a clear correlation rather than just asserting the connection without backing it up, I would love to see it.

I, for one “white evangelical,” chose Corker for a number of reasons, mostly because I believe he will be more likely to uphold the values in which I believe.

After your column ran, the paper noted that 40% of Mr. Ford’s voters were “white.” Racism? And in three other high-profile races that involved African Americans vs. white candidates, the black candidates all lost. Where those contests decided by racist voters as well, or was that only the case in Tennessee?

Why must you play the tired old race card with no substance behind your argument?

* * * * *
Mark, thank you so much for your clear and reasoned analysis of the factor of race in recent and not so recent elections. I’ll have to admit that during and after the Tennessee Senate contest I wondered if race was the deciding factor in the outcome. Rather than spout emotional clichés, you made your case in factual and logical reasoning. In the Maryland senate campaign I recall that dems were quick to refer to Michael Steele as an Oreo; why so little charge of racism when it clearly was? I encourage you to continue your clear analysis on other issues, and submit your writing again to The Tennessean.

S.G.

* * * * *
Great column……

T.K.W.

* * * * *
Hi, Mark.

Wonderful opinion piece in this morning’s “rag”!

I have written a couple of times re: Dwight Lewis’ ridiculous blatantly racist columns. However, no one has ever deemed any of my stuff worthy of putting into print. When compared with your very eloquent – totally logical and understandable piece this morning, I can see why my work didn’t measure up. You cut right to the chase and supported all your points with brilliantly illustrated evidence.

Thanks for taking the time to speak up.

C.L.

* * * * *
Dear Mr. Rose,

Just finished reading your piece in Tennessee Voices, in this morning’s Tennessean. Thank you for your elucidating facts and comments regarding issues taken up by Robert Parham in his column (11/11).

I am forwarding, to you, an e-mail I sent to Robert Parham after reading his column. I was riled. I mulled it over a while and had no choice, but to let him know how I felt. I am glad others are on the same page.

S.L.

With all due respect, Mr. Parham, not so fast in pulling out the “race card.” Tuck it away in your wallet as I am certain you will use it again.

Have you considered that there is a large majority of conservatives, living in the South, none of whom are racist, who are not “southerners” in your sense of the word, who actually vote for the person they believe to be the most qualified? What a concept!

The “race card” is an easy way of looking at defeat when the reality is, in this case, Mr. Ford was not well qualified for the job of senator ergo, he lost.

I don’t know which ads you were watching, but the ads I was watching were all terribly “tacky,” on both sides, but even under careful scrutiny, I did not see them as racial, one way or another. In fact I found the whole lot of them terribly boring, amateurish, a waste of money and in very bad taste. I couldn’t wait to turn them off, every one of them – across the board.

Please find a better explanation for Mr. Ford’s defeat. The race card gets an inordinate amount of play, a favorite cliche, among so many. It is a little like someone peppering their speech with four letter words because they lack sufficient vocabulary.

P.S. Mr. Ford is a kind and gentle man, with a good heart, but he is not senatorial material, in the view of the majority.

* * * * *
I appreciate your article. Let me add that if they really want to look at racism, why not count the percentage of the white vote for Ford and then the percentage of the black vote for Corker! It is amazing that the black vote is not mentioned, I guess it is ok to vote your ideals if you are a person of color and if not then you are supposed to vote for a person of color to show you are not prejudiced.

What a ridiculous accusation, just another way to attack the conservatives.

Thanks again for the article.

* * * * *
Excellent. I wish I could ask Dwight which “blood” side of fordjr I was prejudiced against since it is obvious, isn’t it, that fordjr is biracial? I voted for Corker for three reasons, he has more leadership experience, more business experience (he is a “self” made millionaire while fordjr’s wealth is inherited) and he is Republican as am I. Corker’s wealth was an issue while fordjr’s was not. Puzzling, since both have accesses to almost equal amounts of monies. Again, exellent article.

M.M.

* * * * *
Dear Mr. Rose: Thanks for your well written article in this morning’s paper. I had previously responded directly to Mr. Parham and made some of the same points that you had in your article. One point I wish I had made, but didn’t think of at the time, was according to what I heard after the election 40% of white voters went for Mr. Ford Jr., but only 5% of black voters went for Mr. Corker. If that is accurate where is the real racism?

I have given up on both Dwight Lewis and Dewayne Wickham. They are ‘one trick ponies’ and tend to see everything through the prism of racism.

I did communicate to Parham that I struggled to totally separate Ford Jr. from his family due to the fact that when you see through the years that certain people have a level of immunity not available to most people, it surely has an effect on your actions. The recent announcement that the father of Mr. Ford Jr. was hired to lobby a committee on which he served was just another typical example of the family business practice.

Again, thanks for your article, although I must say I’m more than a little surprised that the Tennessean printed it.

B.B.

* * * * *
Dear Mark,

Thank you for a wonderful editorial that accurately states the truth about the election. I kept wondering when someone would comment about the lack of mention of Steele and Swann. You said it eloquently. Dwight Lewis always seen prejudice where none exists. Don’t people like him realize that there are prejudiced people everywhere.

Ford lost because he was too liberal for Tennessee,, not because he was black. Liberal always ignore the fact that white Republicans support candidates based on idealogy and always ignore people like J.C. Watts, Steele, Swann, Condoleesa Rice, etc .

I thank you.

C.D.

* * * * *
Right on! As a new resident of Tennessee, and first time voting here, I was somewhat surprised to see that if I voted for Bob Corker, then I must be a racist. I continue to be amazed that 95% of blacks can vote for Harold Ford and there is no racial motivation there. So if only 5% of blacks vote for Bob Corker, that is not racial. And for the 40% of whites who voted for Ford, there was some mention of that, but no mention of the measly 5% of blacks who voted for Bob Corker.

There was so little talk of issues, just mud slinging in the entire campaign. So very little of anybody’s decision could have been made on issues. What else was left? The Ford family’s shady history had to have been a huge factor.

Enough already! I am REALLY tired of the whole racial thing.

Thanks for the opportunity to vent.

* * * * *
hi mark: the unmentioned issue about race in the ford/corker race is what percentage of black voters voted for ford regardless of his credentials, voting for him ONLY because he was black. i would estimate it was greater than or equal to 90%. now thats racism.

D.G.

* * * * *
From a fellow conservative Mt Juliet(ite?)…

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

* * * * *
Mark

That is a great article in the Tennessean today.

D.H.

* * * * *
Outstanding, very nicely written.

Again, outstanding.

Thanks.

* * * * *
One of the things that Gantt and Ford have in common, though, is that both were doing well in the race until a racial-based negative ad appeared.

I think there are 2 ways to look at the result – Ford got to within 3 points despite his race ( no one cared one way or the other) or he couldn’t get closer than 3 points because of his race. I guess it’s all in how one sees the world.

It is suspect, though, that only one new Rep was elected (I think), and it happened to be in the South against a black opponent. Objectively, that might make one wonder if race played a role, no?

G.B.

* * * * *
Disabled 65 yr old white Vietnam vet here. Read your article. You obviously were not an adult in the 50’s and 60’s or earlier in our history. I refer you to page 6C of the Friday Tennessean in the sports section. Any one that lived in the south during those years remember well the indoctrination regarding race, especially a black man with a white woman. When I was growing up in North Georgia that combination would get the black man killed. Those feelings still exist in our older population today no matter how hard we try to overcome. Unfortunately the commercial with the white woman saying call me was absolutely the difference in the race. I voted for Jr and held my nose while doing so because if you would bother to listen to his positions you would discover that he holds the same positions as YOU. I also bet that you are a chicken hawk. You never wore the uniform but you know what’s best, just like the fools that are running this country. When people think your are a fool its best to just keep quite so that they will never know for sure. Your article exposed you as a fool!

Right Minded response:

Dear Anonymous,

First of all, thank you for your service to our great nation. You are correct about one thing. I was born in 1969, so I did not live before or during the civil rights era. But it’s not the 1950’s or 1960’s anymore. It’s 2006. I realize there are racist attitudes held by a few black and white members of our society. That said, could you explain how it is that 5% of black voters voted for Corker, while 40% of white voters went for Ford, but it’s the white voters who are racist?

Now, you have made two presumptions about me that are absolutely false. First, Harold Ford, Jr. does not hold the same positions as me. He campaigned as a conservative, thereby masking a voting record that proves him to be THE most liberal member of the Tennessee delegate to Congress. The American Conservative Union gives him a lifetime rating of 19 out of 100, meaning that Junior votes liberal 81% of the time. I’m a staunch conservative, so he and I don’t agree very often.

Second, you claim that I never wore the uniform. Perhaps you should have asked me about that first. I did wear the uniform –- a U.S. Navy uniform for three years of active duty, three more years of reserve duty.

So much for having exposed me as a fool.

All the best.

Mark A. Rose

* * * * *
Race was not the issue in Ford’s defeat? I would agree with you except for one little problem. Ford was leading Corker until the sleaze ad insinuating a “Nigger man/White Woman” was run by the Corker Campaign. His lead evaporated the next day.

I am not naive enough to think it was coincidence.

E.H.

* * * * *
Excellent commentary! I think the Tennessean along with Dwight Lewis and Parham have insulted Harold Ford as well as the people of Tennessee.

G.R.

* * * * *
Good column in today’s Tennessean.

If there’s one thing that liberals dislike more than logic, it’s facts. You had both. Hooooo-weeeee!

T.K.

* * * * *
I enjoyed your column greatly. In fact, I was glad to see it, as it saved me the time of writing my own. I have sent no less than 4 letters to Dwight Lewis, pointing out his racist ways. None were ever anwered, until I sent them in batch to the editor, complaining.

He, like Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, only cares about one thing: being black is the only rationale needed to advance an arguement. Never did he say anything, ever, about the horrible ethics of the Ford family, which played a significant factor in his loss, even though a whitee like me voted for him.

Unfortunately, you forgot to leave out one major statistic which Mr. Lewis mentioned in his article during which described white evangelicals (of which I am not) as racist (of which I am not) and close minded–that 95 % percent of black voters voted for Ford.

A statistically astounding number. It either means that blacks are racist, much more so than whites, and voted for Ford for his color, and that this is currently politically acceptable, or that blacks all think alike.

You choose.

Keep up the good work. Maybe we can trade letters to the editor.

M.

* * * * *
Thank you for the excellent article in The Tennessean. You said what many of us were thinking. We take The Tennessean only for the weekly ads. If there were another way to get them we would certainly stop taking that paper. It is sad we cannot get the facts and truth from our local paper and with The Tennessean, we do not get facts or truth.

Isn’t it strange we have no choice but to vote for Mr. Ford, but folks in other states who vote for a white against a black don’t seem to have a similar problem?

Again, THANK YOU!!!

J.S.

* * * * *
Mark, great article. You said what I was thinking. Dwight Lewis shouldn’t even be a writer. I’ve called him on a few things and all I ever received is a snotty remark and he became defensive. He and others like him are the racists. Thanks.

B.W.

* * * * *
Mark, You wrote a perfectly balanced – and accurate piece in the Tennessean. Surprised that they printed such common sense. The Parham clown suffers from a gigantic overdose of liberal white guilt. It is fortunate that most Tennesseans are not equally gullible as him. Thanks for speaking up!

L.S.

* * * * *
Mr. Rose- Thank you for having the courage too respond to the “insensitive” foray spewed by Ethics Expert Parham and the “same ole song and dance” D. Lewis. Issues were never addressed, only their view of the results of the Nov. elections. I am in the business to educate young people and it becomes more difficult to succeed when you have “views” expressed so one-sighted. Again, thank you for making the effort to express the whole picture.

D.D.

* * * * *
Mark,

Right you are. Well thought and well written.

B.C.

Whether you agree or disagree with me, it’s my policy that every single person who sends e-mail regarding something I write gets an individual response.

Robert Parham had a column in the Tennessee Voices section of Saturday’s Tennessean making the accusation that Tennessee voters (white Tennessee voters, that is) are racist for not electing Harold Ford Jr. to the U.S. Senate. Parham cynically asserts that “Republicans did what Republicans always do in the South. They played their Southern strategy of slinging racial mud.”

This is in line with a news story the Tennessean ran the Sunday before the election, which opened with the line: “Come Tuesday, Tennessee voters may learn more than who their next U.S. senator will be: They may find out whether their state is ready to send a black man to the U.S. Senate.” I argued then and I argue now that it’s not about race with us. We conservatives saw the campaign on ideological terms. Liberals saw it on racial terms.

Yet Republicans are the ones who are considered racist.

Likewise, columnist Dwight Lewis concluded a recent op-ed column declaring: “I’ll go to my grave believing that Tuesday’s election between Harold Ford and Bob Corker shows we still have a long way to go to achieve social justice and equality.” Of course, Mr. Lewis gives the appearance of being racially biased himself and can’t see through to the ideological differences between Corker and Ford that actually determined the outcome of this election.

Corker beat Ford 51 percent to 48 percent here in Tennessee.

In the race for governor of Pennsylvania, a blue state, Ed Rendell, a white Democrat, beat Lynn Swann, a black Republican, 60 percent to 40 percent. In the race for U.S. Senate in Maryland, another blue state, Ben Cardin, a white Democrat, beat Michael Steele, a black Republican, 54 percent to 44 percent.

In other words, Harold Ford, Jr. came closer to winning a statewide race here in Tennessee than black Republicans did in two blue states, but we in Tennessee are the racists. Indeed, I have yet to hear one liberal accuse Pennsylvania or Maryland voters of racism (although Howard Dean has chastised the Maryland Democratic Party for being too white — a problem they need to rectify in order to avoid “another Michael Steele problem.”)

Ironically, Lewis flashes back to “the failed attempt of former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young to win Georgia’s gubernatorial race in 1990 and black Charlotte, N.C., architect Harvey Gantt’s bid to win North Carolina’s senate race in 1994.” (Actually, Gantt’s defeats occurred in 1990 and 1996.)

But he doesn’t mention the two aforementioned elections involving black candidates that happened just last week.

Why the discrepancy? Andrew Young and Harvey Gantt, of course, are Democrats, and liberals only see racism if they can portray one of their own as the victim. Pennsylvania and Maryland voters aren’t similarly considered racist because defeated candidates Lynn Swann and Michael Steele aren’t Democrats.

Perhaps Lewis is right. Perhaps we do still have a long way to go to achieve “social justice” and “equality.”

One of the perks of getting published in the Tennessean is all the hate mail that usually comes in. I’ll be sure to post it all here in the next day or two.

Citizen magazine has a cover feature in its November issue on global warming, “Hot Air: Global warming is more about politics than science,” much of which cites Colorado State University Professor William Gray. The article takes on both the science of global warming, and, just as important, the political side of that topic.

Three, as Lindzen expressed it, “Science, first of all, is not conducted by consensus and science is not a matter of authority; it’s a process. And so whenever [people] hear politicians declare ‘the science is settled, the debate is over’ and so on, they should be aware, they’re not hearing about science.”

He said “the debate is over” line may be a good political technique, but it’s dishonest.

“People don’t want to deal with science,” he said, “and as a result, it appeals to their laziness when someone says ‘the debate is over,’ because at that point they don’t have to learn anything. They don’t have to study anything. They can just say, ‘Well, if all scientists agree, who am I to even bother?’”

Gray put it succinctly: “In science, it only takes one person to be right. And of course, in science, the majority is often wrong.”

As he sat back in his chair, he remarked how his father loved political satirist H.L. Mencken. Gray recited a favorite quote:

“The whole aim of popular politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

As I’ve said before, global warming is more of a political issue than a scientific one, and illustrates the fallacy of politicizing science.