Fred! Luring Leaders and Raising Dough

This must be the week for thoughts on Fred Thompson. There are two recent themes being kicked around in media which are perfectly positioned from my earlier post on "Fred! 101":

1. Attracting Leaders:

A candidate can't win a campaign by himself. It takes an incredible team of workaholics, true believers, glory hounds and connected leaders. If I had to take any of the above, give me the connected leaders. There are plenty of the others to be found if the vision is motivating and the message is clear.

Party nominations and Presidential campaigns are won by knitting together a state-by-state strategy - across 50 dynamic, individual states. Only leaders with deep local connections can lead an efficient, effective campaign tailored to the people, the issues, the powerful interests and the funding sources in each state.

This is why I wrote: "Will the Thompson campaign emerge from the Summer with clarity, vision, disciplined execution? One early indicator is to see what seasoned veterans are jumping on board."

In seeming answer to this question, two big fish bounded onto the deck of the USS Thompson:

Spencer Abraham:

After an initial hissy induced by media reports that Spencer Abraham was the new Campaign Manager for Fred!, the campaign was finally able to calm the fomenting waters of reporting from the nation's left-leaning media. Abraham will be the "ambassador" to Washington. Something tells me he's this an more.

Spencer was in Bush's original cabinet, was a member of Congress, runs a successful DC-based consultancy, is an expert on Energy Policy and. . .

He was Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for much of the 1980's. Who's Co-Chairof the party today? Jane Abraham, Spencer's wife.

Do you see what's so important about luring leaders with deep connections in influential states?

Randy Enwright:

Will the real campaign manager please stand up? Come on down, Randy Enwright!!!!

What, no applause? Haven't heard of him? Well, you must not be from Florida or Iowa. Randy Enwright has been the executive director of the Republican Party in both Iowa and Florida - both incredibly important states in the first round of Primary voting (more on that in a future post - soon).

Poke around a few Florida blog sites and it is easy to see that this elevation of Mr. Enwright has been warmly received.

Cudos! to Fred! for landing big fish which may help deliver important states. An encouraging sign for avid Fred-heads.

2. Raising Dough:

The venerable candidate in waiting had to announce the results of the fund raising efforts for his "testing the waters" not-yet-a-campaign "thingie". I had written: "But the Thompson campaign will need to perform well when compared to the numbers of Rudy and Mitt in Q2 and Q3. If not, the smart money won't come his way when it starts entering the race. If he does well here, it is very likely Fred! could exponentially attract more donors come Q4."

So, how does Team Thompson stack up against the 2 leading GOP'ers, Mitt & Rudy?

Mitt:

Q2 Contributions: $13.8M

Spent: $20.7M

Burn Rate: ~150%

(Mitt loaned 6M of his own cash during Q2. With that included, the burn rate is pretty close to a perfect 100%)

Avg Monthly Contributions: $3.45M

Rudy:

Q2 Contributions: $17.2M

Spent: $11.2M

Burn Rate: 65%

Avg Monthly Contributions: $4.3M

Fred:

Q2 Contributions: $3.4M (only for June)

Spent: .6M

Burn Rate:18%

(Sometimes it is nice not to have a hungry campaign to feed!)

Avg Monthly Contributions: $3.4M

Not bad. June is probably the hardest of fund raising months (w/ summer vacations, expendable cash is a bit more scarce and focus on politics is all but gone). Team Fred sill isn’t much of a team. And there is no developed structure to speak of in most states for a true ground-up swell of fund raising.

Oh yeah, and he's not a candidate yet. . .

My guess is still that most GOP donors are still waiting for him to actually declare candidacy before they part with their hard earned lucre (see comments here and here). If so, things may be looking pretty good for Thompson. Time will tell. Q3 donations will be a far better indicator of Mr. Thompson's viability.

Also, this is still just an early glimpse of but 2 indicators which MAY indicate the strength of candidate Fred! None of them will mean much until heading into Oct.

On Principle,

CBass

The Other Front

While the world debates the status of Iraq in the Long War on Terrorism, we shouldn't forget that there is another front in this battle. The original front. The front on which most of the "international community" originally bestowed its stamp of approval - before loosing interest and withholding funds promised for defense and reconstruction.

(Ok, not all nations have fallen short on their promises, but it is easy to say that support has not been as full throated as we may have desired.)

From this original front, now relegated to being the "other" front comes the following news. Looks like this less-looked-over surge is producing promising gains.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Afghan and ISAF forces clearly have good intelligence on the movement and locations of several senior Taliban leaders, including two members of the Taliban's Shura Majlis, or executive council. Mohammad's death follows the death or captured of several senior Taliban leaders since December 2006. Numerous regional and district-level Taliban commanders have been killed or captured during the same time period.

• U.S. forces killed Mullah Akhtar Usmani, a member of the Taliban Shura Majlis, or executive council in December 2006. Mullah Omar's former deputy, a former foreign minister, and the operational commander in Uruzgan, Nimroz, Kandahar, Farah, Herat and Helmand provinces in southern Afghanistan.

• Afghan forces captured Taliban spokesman Dr. Muhammad Hanifon January 16, 2007. Hanif has given numerous interviews with the media, and issued press releases and rebuttals to NATO and Afghan statements. He was said to have been in instant satellite phone and email contact with the press. Hanif claimed that Mullah Omar is operating out of Quetta.

• In late February, Pakistani security forces arrested Mullah Obaidullah, the Taliban Defense Minister during the reign of the Taliban from 1996 until the United States toppled the government in the fall of 2001. Obaidullah “is considered by American intelligence officials to have been one of the Taliban leaders closest to Osama bin Laden, ” as well as part of the "inner core of the Taliban leadership around the Mullah Muhammad Omar who are believed to operate from the relative safety of Quetta." Obaidullah was a member of the Shura Majlis, and was thought to be the Taliban's third in command.

• The Afghan military confirmed Mullah Dadullah Akhund, the brutal, charismatic, and respected Taliban military commander and leader of the forces in southern Afghanistan, was killed during an air strike on May 13. Mullah Dadullah sat on the Taliban Shura Majlis He was the Taliban's most senior military commander and reported to have been one of Mullah Omar's most trusted advisers. Dadullah joined forces with the Taliban at its formation in 1994. After the fall of Afghanistan in 2001, Dadullah fled to South Waziristan in Pakistan, where he reconstituted his forces and continued to fight NATO and Afghan forces. Dadullah orchestrated and promoted the Taliban's suicide campaign in Afghanistan.

• On June 12, ISAF forces killed Mullah Mahmud Baluch, a senior Taliban commander in the Helmand and Nimruz provinces.

Just a reminder that there is another nation in which US troops, together with a coalition of nations, are engaging in working with a brave people to secure liberty of conscience from a deadly international band of thugs, murders and tyrants.

On Principle,
CBass

Fred!, Good Timing

"Federalism is not an 18th century notion. Or a 19th century notion. It retains its force as a basic principle in the 21st century, because when federalism is ignored, accountability, innovation, and public confidence in government at all levels suffer."

Well, I guess timing really is everything.

In a recent post, I sketch a quick summary of thoughts regarding the assumed candidacy of Fred! Thompson.

The first point of this piece was to reflect upon the ways Fred! does and does not reflect the Reagan of history - rather than the Reagan of imagination. Central to my findings is that Fred probably most resembles the Reagan of history in his commitment to a limited role for the Federal government in areas outside of defense, homeland security and interstate trade.

About the next day, the Thompson campaign released this piece from Fred! Outlining his commitment to limited Federal government and the devolution of power back to the various states.

It's nice to sometimes find oneself riding the very pulse wave of punditry! :)

A few key paragraphs from the piece if you don't have time to read it all:

>>>>>>>>>>>>

We developed institutions that allowed these principles to take root and flourish: a government of limited powers derived from, and assigned to, first the people, then the states, and finally the national government. A government strong enough to protect us and do its job competently, but modest and humane enough to let the people govern themselves. Centralized government is not the solution to all of our problems and – with too much power – such centralization has a way of compounding our problems. This was among the great insights of 1787, and it is just as vital in 2007.

<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>

This in no way diminishes the important role played by the national government, including ensuring our national security, and regulating interstate commerce to promote free markets. Indeed, a commitment to federalism would help the federal government do a better job in addressing national emergencies and emerging threats, because it could focus on these issues rather than on everything else it is trying to do. A proper regard for constitutional boundaries would also go a long way in avoiding the arguments that follow when Washington acts by decree, disregarding the elected representatives of the fifty states.

<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>

This in no way diminishes the important role played by the national government, including ensuring our national security, and regulating interstate commerce to promote free markets. Indeed, a commitment to federalism would help the federal government do a better job in addressing national emergencies and emerging threats, because it could focus on these issues rather than on everything else it is trying to do. A proper regard for constitutional boundaries would also go a long way in avoiding the arguments that follow when Washington acts by decree, disregarding the elected representatives of the fifty states.

<<<<<<<<<<<<

On Principle,

CBass

Iraq Wins!!!!

"Once again our national team has shown that there is only one, united Iraq."

Chronicles of Savanna

Hey all,

Here's the latest in the on-going Chronicles of Savanna. Yes, that's right - ongoing.

First, here's a recap to remind you as to where we are in this story:

1. Savanna, while always small for her age (below the charts for weight), her weight gain through her first year was consistently running in parallel with what would be expected.

2. Her Doctor carefully watched this weight progression with the following guidelines:
1. Even if Savanna is under weight, as long as she is progressing in parallel with the charts, all is well - relative to her.
2. If she dips below this parallel progression, due to her already low weight, she would assign Savanna to a pediatric weight specialist.

3. About 6 months ago, Savanna evidenced a significant drop in weight.

4. First visit to the specialist resulted only in a prescription to reduce water intake, replace it with whole milk (higher in calories/fat) and to supplement this milk with 2 packs of "Carnation Instant Breakfast" each day.

5. This regime was followed regularly for 6 weeks. Upon the second visit it was discovered that Savanna had grown in length, but had actually DROPPED in weight - after a higher calorie diet.

6. A few more visits resulted in an x-ray which revealed a stunning degree of constipation. Such constipation in children is not necessarily indicative of any serious issues, but when combined with the on-going weight issues, it seemed clear something must be causing the problems. Fortunately, these Doctors are very concerned not to press for invasive testing until absolutely necessary, so we went for several less invasive tests.

7. We cleared the constipation - confirmed through a Barium test. They took blood and found no issues with human growth hormone, iron levels or other indicators. We tested for cystic fibrosis, and it was returned negative. One test was performed for Hirschbrung's Disease. It wasn't a conclusive test, but is the only non-invasive one - negative as well. Prescription: now that constipation is lessoned, keep up the high calorie diet and see what happens.

That was about 2 months ago. Savanna had another visit this week. The verdict???

1. She has gained growth in length - again. She's low on the charts, but she is on the charts! Yeah!!!
2. After 2 more months, cleared of most constipation, with consistently high-calorie supplementation - Savanna gained. . .

Drum roll . . . .

4 ounces!

Clearly, not an encouraging finding. Yet, Savanna is completely healthy and wins the hearts of all the Doctors and staff with her smiling, playful personality.

At this point, the Doctors - specialists for 25 years in pediatric weight issues - just laughed with us and summarized, "Well, she really does still have us stumped doesn’t she!?!"

At this point, there are 2 directions to head:

1. Focused, invasive testing
2. Continued calorie supplementation

Since she is currently so healthy, the Doctors have opted for Option B. So, armed with a few new ways to stuff extra calories into our little Tinker Bell, we returned home.

We are endlessly thankful for your prayers and support. Savanna continues to warm our home with her personality and impress us with her development in all other areas - Amy's potty training her this week, with incredible success!

On Principle,

CBass

Update:

Amy's Grandfather Petersen handles a skilled pen. Here's a fun poem he dittied this afternoon:

Dear Christian and Amy,

"Tinker Bell" has a problem

Because she's not very big at all,

She's precious, sweet and cute

But, she is still not so very tall!

Of course being tall is OK

To this most folks will agree,

But what on earth is wrong

With being short, cute and wee?

It's personality that counts

That is something she's GOT!

So no one is deeply concerned

If a little, tall girl she is not.

We are so thakful for Savanna

We're discoverd she's very wise!

Being a happy, sweet little girl

Has nothing to do with size.

GIVE GGP PETESEN "5" SAVANNA!!!

-Grandpa P-

PowerPoint Indignity

Warning, this link leads to dark comedy.

Hilarious dark comedy as only, The Onion, can deliver - but dark comedy nonetheless.

Let the Surfer Beware. . .

Fred! 101

Fred! 101

Much of the GOP seems to be astir with excitement over the assumed entry of Fred! Thompson into the Primary Race to be the GOP nominee for president. Since so many of you have asked about my view of Fred!, here's summary of thoughts:

1. Reagan Reincarnated

In most news and analysis pieces, the name "Fred Thompson" is closely associate with some reference to Reagan - either that he is the closest thing to Reagan in the current Primary run or that the conservative base of the GOP thinks that he is. I have to admit, this is a curious development on 2 counts:

1. Reagan wasn't "Reagan": From what I see and read, I think folks don't remember who Reagan was. Reagan was an amazing communicator and extremely strong, principled leader who got most big things right (Tax Cuts, Limited Government, Strong rhetoric to empower Communist dissidents and Military power to pursue and ensure peace). Now notice, John F. Kennedy was most of these things as well. Reagan was not the right-wing, social crusader the base of the GOP seems to want to remember him to be. He popularized the term, 'Born Again Christian" in mainstream culture, but he simply wasn't a leader of religious conservatives.
   

This isn't to say that Reagan wasn't socially and religiously conservative (private accounts of his personal friends and family certainly seem to unanimously hold that he held a very deep and very active personal faith in and relationship with Jesus Christ). It is to say that his primary objective was to reduce the size, impact and overrule of the Federal Government over the States and individuals. Pursuing "evangelical" policy through legislative or judicial fiat would have run counter to everything Reagan stood for. His lack of a stand on "evangelical" issues is most clearly seen in an old "Justice Department" memo from his administration. It calls for judicial nominees who demonstrate a solid record of:

* "disposition towards `less government rather than more"'

* "appreciation for the role of the free market in our society"

* "refusal to create new constitutional rights for the individual" and

* "respect for traditional values"

Notice, there's nothing here about Roe vs. Wade, Faith Based Initiatives or Homosexual Marriage. Reagan simply didn't want to get the government involved in the issues many social conservatives care about today. In this sense, my perception is that Ronald Reagan wasn't the "Reagan" of current nostalgia. Right or wrong. Good or bad.

2. Reagan or "Reagan": I haven't run across any news articles, opinion pieces or blogs highlighting Fred! Thompson's publicly proclaimed statements of faith. I'm sure he has made some in his day, but I'm not convinced he wears this sort of thing "on his sleeve". Similarly, I'm not overwhelmed by stories of his use of considerable stardom to campaign for Marriage Amendments, raise money for anti-abortion causes or build really large churches. Again, time may bring more of these to the fore, but experience says that if this sort of evangelical-political activism is a major vector of energy in his life, someone would have picked up on it by now. Thus, I'm not sure Fred! will measure up to the idyllic "Reagan" so many in the evangelical camp seem to worship (pun intended).

That being said, it does indeed seem Thompson is rather like the historical Reagan. In a Senate vote to establish a "Good Samaritan" law which would reduce Tort lawsuits, Fred! was the lone dissenter in a 99-1 vote. On paper, this vote is VERY non-conservative. But in his defense, why did Thompson do such a "stupid" thing? Federalism. Quoting Thompson:

I thought not, but even some of my conservative colleagues (as well as writers) get caught up in the desire to federalize an issue if they could help a "good guy" or stick it to a "bad guy." This may be a desirable goal in the abstract but I don't think our Founding Fathers had this in mind. Adhering to basic principles that have served our country well is much too important.

When Fred! enters the race, there will be much ballyhooed rhetoric about "The Next Reagan" - after all, he is an actor. What more proof do we need? Once folks get to know him, much of the right will face a cognitive crisis; Fred! isn't the "Reagan" they conjure in imagination. Of course, other than Huckabee and Brownback (both hopelessly out of the real race), who in the GOP field is? But research may show Fred! to be the Reagan seen through the clearer lens of history. Will that be enough?

2. Known Unknowns

Political prognostication is fun - and dangerous. Not dangerous in the way securing a Baghdad neighborhood from state-sponsored terrorists is dangerous. Not dangerous in the way of a pastor confronting adultery in the head of the Deacon Board. But dangerous in the sense that one may leave the house without an umbrella on what turns out to be a rainy day - uncomfortable, but not life threatening.

In this game of political prognostication, we may be well served to curb our risks through some basic analysis of the things we know we don't know enough about yet to truly support Fred! with wholehearted verve - what Sec. Rumsfeld would have called the "Known Unknowns".

1. Skeletons: Fred! has never been before the x-rays of a Presidential campaign. This has been known to fell lesser men in the past.

2. Passion: Running for the Presidency is a grueling marathon run as if it were a sprint. The faint-hearted don't survive. Voters are exhausted from the coverage, but isn't it good we make sure the winner actually wanted, really - really wanted it? I think the position and responsibility at least deserve a bit of passion. I'm not sure candidates know if they burn enough for it until faced with month 6 of the campaign.

3. Leadership: We know Fred can communicate. We know he can legislate. We don't know if he can lead. Rudy, he's America's Mayor. Mitt, he's built HUGE business, turned around the Olympics and restored fiscal sanity to Tax'n'spendville, MA. Fred!? We just don't know. Watching the campaign structure, discipline, clarity and execution will tell us a lot.

3. Unfair Concerns?

There are a few concerns starting to float around the web about early indicators of the Thompson campaign's soft underbelly.

1. Adrift: There was a piece of reporting from "Campaign" Carl Cameron of Fox News about folks leaving the campaign due to disorganization. Fair? The campaign manager is responsible for providing daily discipline, not the candidate. The candidate is responsible to make sure the manager is doing his/her job. Thompson just ousted the informal manager and is bringing in two folks with considerable experience. Time will tell if this is a failure or a pass on the "Leadership" test outlined above.

2. Non-Launch: When the "testing the waters" committee was announce, all news sources reported a July 4th (or close to it) announcement of candidacy. Several folks I know associated with the campaign also acknowledged that this was their expectation. July has now come and mostly gone - with no announcement. Some see this as a another sign of a mismanaged campaign. Fair? I'm not sure we'll really know.

This could be a very troubling sign of mismanagement.

It could be a troubling sign of low cash in-take. Obama and Clinton were all aglow in early July media spotlights for raising record sums of cash. If Thompson announced then, the time clock would have started ticking for his mandated disclosure of donations. Another bad sign?

Of course, the launch delay could also have been a brilliant move to keep Newt out of the race. Rasmussen Reports has uncovered a very serious block of GOP voters who haven't sided with any candidate yet. Similarly, a July announcement would have spiked favorable media coverage heading into the distraction of Summer. Voters won't focus on politics again until late August and September. September is when Newt was considering throwing his hat in the ring. Thus, a delayed Fred! Event, focuses media attention and spotlights on Thompson right when another vote stealer might enter an already crowded and uncertain race.

3. Lazy: A few folks have commented that Fred is lazy. Fair? Frankly, who cares. Do we want someone trying to micromanage the executive (think Carter)? Do we want someone who is completely captivated by their own political brilliance (think Clinton). Or do we want a leader with the passion to whether storms and the leadership to pick good appointees and hold them accountable? Heck, do that and set the right direction - let the appointees work all night (think Reagan).

4. Things to Watch:

I suggest there are some early indicators to watch for in determining the strength of Thompson's candidacy:

1. Voting Record: The easiest buffet of research for and against Thompson will come from his voting record - and rest assured, most of the media will gladly feed on easy, cheap buffets. Will the record reflect Reagan? Will Thompson be able to defend "questionable" votes? There WILL be some. Senate bills are too big. There's always some compromised being reached in nearly every vote. Thompson faces some real challenges here - he did support McCain's Campaign Finance Law (recently found to be at least partially unConstitutional this year by the Supreme Court).

2. Campaign Leadership: Will the Thompson campaign emerge from the Summer with clarity, vision, disciplined execution? One early indicator is to see what seasoned veterans are jumping on board. At present, he only has about 30 staff, so it’s a bit early to find out. Then, watch Thompson the candidate for a month or two. Is the message sharp? Does he stick to it? Does the campaign effectively clarify the "research" which will emerge against the Thompson as Reagan meme?

3. Passion: Does Fred! consistently convey that he wants the job of President MORE as he campaigns longer or does he seem weary, distracted and "carried along" by the momentum of a campaign machine? The early campaign will be a LOT of retail politics and townhall meetings. If meeting with voters and hearing their passions and receiving indication of their faith via donations doesn't stir a candidate's passion, he needs to drop the charade before people get hurt.

4. Donations: Like it or not, politics is a money game. Fred! is the only serious contender in the race who hasn't had to report donations to date. The Dems seem poised for another impressive quarter. Romney and Rudy are impressive in their fund raising by any other standard, but way below the Dems. Conventional wisdom says that much of the GOP's money is being held back to assess the likely winners. This means the big $'s may not pour into the GOP until late Q3 - Q4. But the Thompson campaign will need to perform well when compared to the numbers of Rudy and Mitt in Q2 and Q3. If not, the smart money won't come his way when it starts entering the race. If he does well here, it is very likely Fred! could exponentially attract more donors come Q4.

5. Policy: Mitt and Rudy are both starting to outline policy agendas far earlier than would normally happen. If this continues, Thompson will have to do so in Sept and Oct. Does he? Are they substantive? Are the attractive? Can they withstand the heat of battle with Congress? September is shaping up to be the perfect storm of Iraq debate. All declared candidates for the GOP nomination had better be prepared to speak into this debate with clarity, conviction and beyond platitude.

For those of you who desire to scratch a bit deeper, below are some sites which offer a raw look at his voting record - someone needs to really comb these for what the Bills actually did, not just how their titles read. Otherwise, these raw repositories of data are pretty useless:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/t000457/

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm

http://vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=22003

Here are two articles addressing a few of the known challenges Thompson will face explaining his past positions on a few issues - far fewer than Rudy or Mitt, but some that could be troubling nonetheless:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/5/91957.shtml

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JaniceShawCrouse/2007/06/28/should_conservatives_look_at_thompson%e2%80%99s_record_or_his_rhetoric

On Principle,
CBass

A Response to Gene Brooks

A Response to Gene Brooks

Gene Brooks, a long-time friend, whom some of you know and whom all of you would respect. Gene and I often go "rounds" poking at each other. In his excellence, Gene recently made an "efficient" poke via a comment on one of my Blog entries which managed to be both humorous and challenging.

"Do you think the Republican party duped evangelical conservatives and co-opted them in order to get their own agendas accomplished or do you think the GOP is still the party of the Right?"

What a great question. One which deserves a more serious answer. I'm not a historian of cultural supporting trends among US parties. So, I'm just going to shoot from the hip and heart on this one.

Principle #1: 2-Sided Politics, Multi-Faceted Ethics

America does not run non a multi-party, parliamentary system. By intrinsic requirement (and, perhaps by design) our 2-party system aggregates a meld of many nuisances under a single "big tent". This reality of our dualistic political dual doesn't neatly align with the complexities inherent in navigating the "Twilight Labyrinth" of spiritual ethics. The Scriptures are replete with the tension between :

• Our limited, earth-bound preferences verses the higher ways of God
• Our discomfort at facing our ethical uncertainty in a world we intuitively know to be governed by eternal, unchanging principles
• Our zeal for enlightened "rulers" despite our daily experience with the universally fallen futility of the human heart
• Our time bound assumptions verses the perspectives of Eternity

In America, our role as "citizen" catches us in the web of these competing pulls. We find ourselves needing to cast votes for imperfect people who are part of an ethically mixed platform and that we must do so out of the context of the larger perspective of what governing coalition the aggregate of all votes for all offices will weave.

Principle #2: Evangelicals Aren't Always "Right"

While the GOP, the party of the "Right", is also currently associated with the majority of evangelicals, this is more a symptom of the aforementioned forcing of complex views into limited options than one party claiming to be the natural heir of faith voters.

• If most evangelicals tend to vote Republican, does that mean the GOP has always promised or must always govern in a manner favorable to those GOP-voting evangelicals (of whom most would consider me one)?
• If most evangelicals desire a certain governing focus, does that make the focus correct? While most evangelicals may be worried about a minutia of social policy, some are concerned about the wider arcs of social justice, adoption verse abortion, individual morality, bridging international, intercultural relationships, etc?

In light of Principle #1, Evangelicals must accept that they aren't always right (meaning, correct) as they, being of earth-bound and time-bound perspective, don't always see what is being orchestrated through the higher ways of God. Similarly, in our 2-party system, it must be accepted that some issues important to evangelicals are championed by members of the Democratic (non-right, left leaning) party.

Principle #3: Parting Party Ways

We tend to worry, fret, fight and focus on issue of importance to us in the context of the immediate voting cycle. But culture shifts, often imperceptibly, over the period of many such cycles. During the long course of these cyclical shifts, voting groups often come to sudden group consensus that they have parted ways with their past party to such an extent as to embrace much of the platform of the formerly opposing party. This is simply part of the self-correction cycle which our faith community and parties have danced numerous times in the past.

On Principle,

CBass

Happy Birthday, Uncle Sam

Happy Birthday, Uncle Sam

There are many reasons I'm thankful for living in America. Among these are certainly the obvious:

• Freedom of opportunity for everyone. (Did you know that George Taylor, a Signer of the Declaration of Independence came to the Colonies as an Indentured Servant.)

• Freedom of personal expression through the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights. (When the opportunity for self-expression is unrestrained through governmental oppression, those souls redeemed by hope can shine light in the darkness of despair. This is opportune spark for cultural revival.)

• Freedom of political participation. (Even during our most contentious elections, the public is unrestrained in advocating, neighbor to neighbor, for issues and candidates of conviction.)

On this last point, compare the following 3 examples:

1. In the Presidential Election of 2000, an incredibly hard fought, closely contentious contest resulted in a court escalation, exactly as prescribed in our system, and a smooth, non-violent ascendancy to power.

2. Also in the year 2000 election cycle, John Ashcroft, running for Senate against the sentimental memories of a beloved Governor and facing widely accepted allegations of fraud, opted to concede defeat rather than pursue likely successful litigious grasp at power for power's sake - an example stemming from George Washington's voluntary acquiescence of power at a time when peers were making arguments for the stability of his presence in power.

3. Now compare these examples, on the week of our National Birthday, to this example from Nigeria: "The price of machetes has halved in parts of Nigeria since the end of general elections in April because demand from thugs sponsored by politicians has subsided, the state-owned News Agency of Nigeria reported."

Those who know me well, know that there are myriad, discrete aspects of our country that I find sadly disappointing. But my travels have also taught me that I'm thankful for a system of government and culture that are built upon some sort of foundation of traditional Judeo-Christian ethics. A journey into much of the world quickly illustrates the blessings of citizenship in this nation, as enumerated above. These are the blessings which tell each individual,

"Here's the open door of oportunity. If you have the gumption, walk through it. If someone tries to slam it, we have processes to deal with that. If you are facing obstacles which block your way, reach out to others in your community, history shows conclusively that enough will reach back to assist. But the choice is yours. Check your conscience, come to understand the purposes of your Creator, take your chances and pursue your hope."

On Principle,

Cbass