Saturday, October 27, 2007

Tucson Speech

Many thanks to Stephanie (Taffy) Johnson and the Pima County Republican Women's Club for hosting me as the main speaker at their meeting on 11/18. This is an excited, motivated, positive and effective club of activists.

I spoke on the reasons I am optimistic over the GOP's chances in 2008. What follows is a short handout I left with the club which somewhat covers many of the topics we discussed.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Factors For:

  1. The Democratic Line-up: The GOP's greatest strength in the general election will be the Democratic opposition. No matter whom the Dem's select, they will be no match in terms of experience for the Republican selection.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the GOP MUST clearly and consistently ask for and demand the qualifications of the Dem nominee.


  1. The Republican Line-up: By any standard, the Republican field is impressive. Especially when compared to the utter lack of experience of the Democratic field. The Republicans all have high Executive or Legislative experience and none of them carry any baggage from the current Administration.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the GOP MUST clearly and consistently contrast themselves with both the Dem nominee and the current administration.


  1. Mobilizing a Wider Base: In a tight election cycle, there are two keys to winning: 1) Draw in moderate centrist voters and 2) mobilize the base. Two of the GOP front runners (Mitt Romney and Giuliani) are very well positioned to draw in moderates. Fred Thompson is riding a wave of Base excitement and has high name recognition among moderates. When compared to the likely Dem nominee (Hillary), all 3 should be able to excite the base and capitalize on the displeasure of moderates with the Dem congress.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the nominee must remind the base of the critical issues at stake this year and must positively motivate moderates – especially past Republicans.


  1. It's the Economy: By all measures, this economy is fantastic. It is hitting some hiccups now, but some action from the current Administration and the Fed will likely keep it on the growth track. Even moderate growth over the next 12 months will result in a reduced deficit, high wages, an enlarged GDP, record highs in stocks, historic lows in unemployment and interest rates and a stabilized housing sector. Additionally, tax cuts are set to expire in 2010 – making for an easy and precise measure of EXACLY how much a Dem President and Congress will cost voters.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the facts must be told in terms of timeless conservative principles, not a continuation of Bush policies.


  1. The War on Terrorism: It's hard to say which direction this war will go, but Iraq is clearly on the right military track and we know the Surge will be drawing down next Spring. Thus, the GOP candidate can probably point to some positive signs in Iraq, praise the draw down in troops and constantly focus on the real threats of China, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Pakistan, etc. If the electorate sees some success in Iraq and understands the threat from other quarters, the GOP should do well.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the GOP must call Americans to set priorities without playing the “fear” card.



Factors Against:


1. Immigration Reform: Security mustbe first, but terms must be tight. If the GOP uses blanket terms (Immigrant, Hispanics, Illegals, etc), they will be quickly painted as racist. A party can’t win elections without votes from voters. Hispanics are a growing voting bloc. To electability influence the GOP must get wise in terms, policies and coalition building with Hispanics.

2. Ethic Scandals: Real and perceived moral fecklessness shipwrecked the GOP in 2006. Value votes won’t stand for it in 2008 either. Real failings must be disciplined. Perceived ethical lapses must be challenged.

3. Housing, Stock and Oil Turmoil: The economy is a great campaign platform for the GOP, but a still stagnant housing market, stock slumps and increasingly high oil prices, could rot this support. There is no magical inoculation against market volatility. The GOP must figure out how to trumpet financial conservatism without hanging its hat on every micro-indicator.

4. Health Care: The Dems will march with full force to the tune of Universal Healthcare. While the left-leaning media trumpets along with the handpicked results of selective polling. The facts and history are on the side of conservative principles, but this will be an uphill fight the entire way.

5. GOP Civil War: A debate between wings of the GOP is healthy and appropriate for the Primary process. But the wings must decide to unite behind the eventual nominee if the candidate has any chance at success.

On Principle Blog:

“On Principle Blog” is a website dedicated to analyzing the important topics of the day in the light of enduring principles. The site presents a definitively faith-filtered, yet untraditional viewpoint while unapologetically offering creative approaches, explanations and solutions to topics of interest.




Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Irresponsible Editorials

Irresponsible Editorials


From Fox News. I leave this to stand on its own merits. . .

Good News Is No news

When the government announced last week that the federal budget deficit had fallen to its lowest level in five years — it was big news. But apparently not big enough to make a big splash in The New York Times or Washington Post. The New York Times ran a wire story in the back of the "A" section Friday. The Post put a wire story on its Web site Thursday afternoon and nothing in the paper.

But in an editorial Friday — The New York Times wrote the concept that lower tax rates generate more tax revenues is "nonsense." "That theory has been tested and failed, leading to enormous deficits during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush."


But in both those administrations, tax revenues grew after tax rates were cut. Indeed, in fiscal year 2007 tax revenues grew 6.7 percent — to a record of more than $2.5 trillion — and the deficit has declined each of the past three years.



Emphasis mine



On Principle,

CBass




Saturday, October 13, 2007

Principle #1: People - Personalities, Pasts and Perspectives

In the coming weeks, I will be laying out some of the foundational principles by which I analyze news, politics and current events. The first of these principles is stunningly obvious, yet amazingly elusive in identification:


All politics, current events, scientific discovery, religious expression, foreign relations and news coverage is determined by the decisions and actions of people. These people make decisions and take actions based upon their perspectives which are shaped by their past experience and personalities.


In short: World events are driven my people who are guided by perspective shaped from past experience and personality.


A recent article in the Washington Post perfectly illustrates this principle in action - - When many American's think of the "Iraq War" or the "Global War on Terrorism" they instinctively think in terms persistently presented to them by influential people who interpret the world according to their own perspectives informed by a mixture of their own past experiences and personalities.


A few fascinating excerpts follow. Note the subtle manner by which most American's are lead to think of the defining struggle of modern civilization - through the combined perspectives of a few people which have been shaped by their own prejudices of personality and past experience:

Charlie Gibson is a product of the Vietnam War era. When he was a television reporter in Lynchburg, Va., he had driven to Washington on weekends to march in antiwar demonstrations. And he had lost friends in that jungle war. . . Through the routine decisions of daily journalism -- how prominently to play a story, what pictures to use, what voices to include -- the newscasts were sending an unmistakable message. And the message was that George W. Bush's war was a debacle. Administration officials regularly complained about the coverage as unduly negative, but to little avail. Other news organizations chronicled the deteriorating situation as well, but with a combined 25 million viewers, the evening newscasts had the biggest megaphone.

Katie Couric had always felt uncomfortable with the war, and that sometimes showed in the way she framed the story. When Bush had been marshaling support for the invasion, she felt, the country seemed to be swept up in a patriotic furor and a palpable sense of fear. There was a rush to war, no question about it. The CBS anchor could never quite figure out how Iraq had become Public Enemy No. 1, how the United States had wound up making many of the same mistakes as in Vietnam. . . Couric believed that many viewers were now suffering from Iraq fatigue. She tried not to lead with the conflict every night, unless there were significant developments. And when the day's Iraq events were too big to ignore, Couric made clear -- in starker terms than the other anchors -- her disgust with the whole enterprise. One night she led her CBS newscast, "With each death, with every passing day, so many of us ask, 'Is there any way out of this nightmare?' "


I encourage a read of the entire article for a stark, startling and educational exploration the first principle.


On Principle,

CBass




Friday, October 12, 2007

Surprised by CNN on Gore

Unless you travel via Horse and Carriage like our Amish friends or have been floating down the Amazon for the last week, you've heard the news that former Vice-President Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.


Pundits and Analysts across all media forms are dissecting this award along predictable lines:

  1. So what, look at past NPP winners
  2. What does Global Warming have to do with World Peace?
  3. What about nominee, seriously, Rush Limbaugh?
  4. What about Al's above average energy consumption?
  5. Despite his foibles, isn't this a worthy recognition of his exhaustive efforts?
  6. Is Al Gore's science even accurate?




I must confess that while expecting this sort of talk from "insiders", I was just bracing for yet another mass acceptance of propagandist intentions from liberal leaning, academic elites. Until I saw this headline:


"CNN.com readers sound off on Gore, Nobel Peace Prize".


Curious, yet instinctively dubious, I clicked through. Note a few key entries - from CNN, not FoxNews:


Roy Woodcock of Rochester, Washington

What a disgraceful choice. Al Gore has promoted bad science and dishonesty, but done nothing to promote peace. I must conclude that his selection is based on pure politics.


(Cbass Comment: Well, in fact, the Peace Prize is selected by Politicians. Unlike the Prizes for many other disciplines, such as Science and Medicine, it tends to be awarded to current leaders based on global perceptions of their current efforts. Other Nobel committees feature discipline specific academics and practitioners who review the PROVEN contribution OVER TIME of a particular idea, discovery or research finding. This Prize, while sometimes given to positive reformers, is intrinsically designed to be a political prize.)


Chris Smith of Bexley, Ohio

Al Gore? Nobel Peace Prize? Wow, that really degrades my image of that prize. Why not give it to Michael Moore while we're at it? How sad.


(Cbass Comment: Great and original comment! I think the burden falls to the Nobel Committee to show how Al Gore's work is much more than that of spokesman and polemicist. Perhaps Michael Moore could get the prize for Medicine. Oh wait, that's right, the prize for medicine goes to someone how has made a lasting impact upon the field.)


Phillip Bernard of La Grange, Illinois

The peace prize should be reserved for furthering peace in our world. The work Mr. Gore has done is conjectured quasi-science. His research does not employ a scientific method, otherwise it would have been considered for the prize for science.


(Cbass Commnet: Another good observation. Why isn't this the Prize for Science? Probably because it would never pass the first test outlined above. One really does need to show how this is related to Peace, however - and I mean something beyond the cliché, "In 100 years, the world will be so hot and so disrupted in weather that nations will battle for water and the few remaining stable environs". This sort of predictive award is a bit of reverse of the "wait and see" attitude of the other Prize Committees.)


Matthew Whitley of Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Over the last decades, the Nobel Peace Prize has increasingly become a laughingstock. That Al Gore of all people should be honored this year is another nail in the Nobel Peace Prize's coffin of legitimacy and relevance. Much like the prize for literature, the peace prize is becoming nothing more than a political bauble awarded to some political insider advocating the cause of the week.


Al Gore has been "working" for climate change for an enormous period of four whole years, coincidentally discovering this new passion right when his political career was slouching to its end. The Nobel Committee actually expects us to believe that, out of all human organizations working for peace and the improvement of the human condition, Al Gore's paltry four-year media circus of climate change advocacy is the most significant achievement we have to show for ourselves?


How ridiculous. I'm embarrassed for the legacy of the Nobel Prizes, I'm embarrassed for my country, and, if I were Al Gore, I'd be embarrassed to stand in front of the world claiming to be a worthy, legitimate recipient of the peace prize.


(Cbass Comment: Pretty much stands on it's own.)


Michael Chiu of ??

The Nobel Peace Prize should have gone to the Monks in Myanmar. I guess leading peaceful demonstrations for freedom and democracy and consequently suffering arrests, torture, and death is not enough though.


(Cbass Comment: But they have personal motivations. . .)

Just when I think we've all gone crazy - I see some glimmerings of hope in sanity.

On Principle,

CBass



Sunday, October 7, 2007

Costa Rica Gets It

It's beautiful to see democratic voices in action.

There are many reasons for Central American countries, modern 2nd world players in the World economy, to resent the USA as a superpower. Yet, there are also at least as many reasons to for them to thank God for the generosity and stability of the the USA.

Weighing the Pro's and Con's of this relationship are on the ballot in Costa Rica today. No matter the result, the healthy outpouring of democratic participation should be an encouraging sign for us in the US.

Through our left-leaning media, we see repeated glorification of Hugo Chavez and his Communist, militarized, fascist government blitzkrieg over the welcoming political terrain of South and Central America. But as we see in Costa Rica today, this just isn't a holistic view of the current state of affairs and opinions of our southern friends.

An interesting summary of opinion from the Pew Global Attitudes Survey appeared in a recent Weekly Standard:
Of the seven Latin American nations polled, large majorities of Chileans (75 percent), Brazilians (74 percent), Peruvians (70 percent), Mexicans (66 percent), and Bolivians (59 percent) express little or no confidence in Chávez "to do the right thing regarding world affairs." As Pew puts it, "He is widely recognized--and widely mistrusted--throughout Latin America." Even in Argentina, perhaps the most anti-American country in the region, a full 43 percent of respondents have little or no confidence in Chávez.

That's not all. Majorities in Brazil (65 percent), Chile (60 percent), Mexico (55 percent), and Bolivia (53 percent), along with a plurality in Peru (47 percent), agree that "most people are better off in a free market economy, even though some people are rich and some are poor." Indeed, a whopping 72 percent of Venezuelans agree with that statement. "There is broad support for free-market economic policies across Latin America," Pew reports, "despite the election in the past decade of leftist leaders."


Just when the US seems to have discounted our President, our economy and our standing in foreign affairs - citizens in nations like Costa Rica stand in line for hours to express their voices in the the great decision of aligning with us in the march toward a collaborative future.

It seems the truths of our Declaration truly are universal and self-evident. . .

On Principle,
CBass


Thursday, October 4, 2007

Evolving Evolutionary Debate

Interesting post on some new fossil findings which is casting new light on outdated Evolutionary theories.


The post is relatively short and written for novices as myself. Some key excerpts:


The recent analysis of H. habilis and H. erectus fossils recovered near Lake Turkana, Kenya, in 2000 muddies the place of H. habilis in human evolutionary scenarios and widens the gap between H. erectus and modern humans.

This conclusion spawned headlines in a number of popular media outlets that challenged the validity of human evolution. (For example see here and here.) As is often the case, the headlines exaggerated and sensationalized the implications of these fossil finds.

For human evolution to be declared a fact, anthropologists must define the evolutionary route that transformed an ape-like creature into modern humans—replete with a progression of intermediate forms. The insight gained from this recent work highlights how far evolutionary biologists are from establishing this requisite understanding.

Just goes to show, scientific advance is a much more complicated, step-wise route of progress and what high school text books, the media and popular culture would simplistically assume.




This post if from Reasons to Believe. A ministry, headed by Astrophysicist Hugh Ross , dedicated to exploring and "providing powerful new reasons from science to believe in Jesus Christ". I've found the majority of their research to be well founded, clearly presented and consistently faithful to the Bible.


In a nutshell, this ministry adheres to all basic tenets of the Christian faith - including the inerrancy of Scripture. Stemming from the words of the Bible, they also believe that creation depicts the nature and character of the Creator. Thus, they purport that a truthful study of nature should align with a faithful exegesis of Scripture.


Specifically, RTB promulgates, among other findings:

  1. A testable, Scientific model for Creationism - one which support an old Universe/old Earth view. (I may write more on this later.)


  1. That the Earth was populated with advanced (multi-cellular) life forms through carefully controlled miraculous intervention by the creator.


  1. That fossils of early hominids are real, but that these creatures were animals similar to modern apes, lacking the unique capacities of human spirituality and sophisticated intellectual, physical, artistic and social capacity.


I highly and heartily recommend subscribing to the "Today's New Reason to Believe" email.


On Principle,

Christian