GO VOTE NOVEMBER 3rd!!!

You know me, and throughout my career, I have been always been an independent voice for the people I represent. I have stood for our honest principles, and a truthful discussion of the issues, even when it cost me personally and politically. Since beginning my campaign, I have told you that this election is not about me; it’s about the people of this District.

It is in this spirit that I am writing to let you know I am supporting Bill Owens for Congress and urge you to do the same.

It’s not in the cards for me to be your representative, but I strongly believe Bill is the only candidate who can build upon John McHugh’s lasting legacy in the U.S. Congress. John and I worked together on the expansion of Fort Drum and I know how important that base is to the economy of this region. I am confident that Bill will be able to provide the leadership and continuity of support to Drum Country just as John did during his tenure in Congress.

Surprisingly, this will more than likely help Hoffman than hurt.  Once again though, this demonstrates the disconnect between the GOP hierarchy and the grassroots, at least in New York’s 23rd District.

It was Cuccinelli– introduced to the crowd as Ken “Don’t Tread on Me” Cuccinelli — who held up the broom, which he had been handed as he made his way to the load dock that served as a stage.

He urged the crowd of more than 200 to work hard in the next three days to deliver victory in Fairfax County and beyond.

“If we do it right here in Fairfax, guess what we’re going to be saying on election night?” he said, brushing the broom over the floor, as the crowd shouted out “sweep!!”

The credibility of the Washington Post is shot right through at this point, so the bit of schadenfreude watching the defeatism on the Virginia Politics blog is just too good to miss out on.

Without question, I am watching this movie. A lot.

It is also a right you may decline to exercise.  Plenty of people don’t own firearms.  Plenty of people don’t own their own newspaper.  People choose not to exercise certain rights every day.

Bob Holsworth over at Virginia Tomorrow dredges this tidbit up from the pages of the Virginia Pilot:

Bill Sizemore in The Virginian Pilot has a remakable story this morning about the “Know Campaign” that will be sending mailers to 350,000 Virginian households that will include your voting history and

That of your neigbors as well.

Debra Girvin, executive director of the Know Campaign, observed that “research shows that this tactic can drive people to the polls…we figured ‘let’s give it a try.’”

If you assume that the story isn’t an elaborate hoax (though in politics truth continually outpaces our fictional imagination), it’s pretty frightening.

Girvin won’t tell the reporter who the “we” that “figured ‘let’s give it a try’” are.

Nor will she reveal who’s in the organization or the foundation that’s purportedly paying $150,000 to fund the activity.

So much for transparency.

Now I ask you this:  Does voter intimidation work both ways?  Sure we’re familiar with the sort that drives folks away from the polls… but when that same coercion is used to put people beyond a comfort level in exercising a right (whichever one that may be), isn’t that problematic?  Illegal, I dare say?

I’d be very interested in find out who the presupposed “donors” really are.

This is tremendous news.  The Anglican Bishop of Chichester John Hind is openly considering a conversion to Catholicism:

In a further blow to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s hopes of preventing the Anglican Communion from disintegrating, other bishops have cast doubt over its survival.

The Rt Rev John Broadhurst, the Bishop of Fulham, even claimed that “the Anglican experiment is over”. He said it has been shown to be powerless to cope with the crises over gays and women bishops.

In one of the most significant developments since the Reformation, the Pope last week announced that a new structure would be set up to allow disaffected Anglicans to enter full communion with Rome, while maintaining parts of their Protestant heritage.

The move comes after secret talks between the Vatican and a group of senior Anglican bishops. Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was not informed of the meetings and his advisers even denied that they had taken place when the Sunday Telegraph broke the story last year.

Now Bishop Hind, the most senior traditionalist in the Church of England, has confirmed that he is willing to sacrifice his salary and palace residence to defect to the Catholic Church.

Obviously the UK Telegraph is extremely non-plussed about the recent moves to unite the Anglican and Catholic traditions.  This comes on the heels of announcements from quarters of the Orthodox faith that the end of the near 1000-year schism could be seen within months. More locally to the United States, the long term project of the late Richard John Neuhaus with his “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” project hasn’t seen much progress in recent years, but the movement does continue to press forward:

I’ve written to the Catholic participants and told them on behalf of all of the evangelicals that we would like to continue the dialogue, but it was kind of up to them to decide who would lead their side of the effort.

There are some very able people around. Neuhaus was unusual because of his evangelical background; he really understood both sides of the Reformation divide. [He had] a terrific mind. That won’t be replaced. But there are others who can step up to the responsibilities, and I believe the dialogue will continue.

The divisions within Christianity have come a long way towards healing, especially given the current climate of secularism battering down the doors of virtually every institution held by religious over the last 50 years.  Still, with a lessening of fanaticism comes the freedom to pursue faith, and I hope this is what we are seeing here.

Mr. McDonnell is articulate, certainly a virtue in leadership (recall George W. Bush’s chronic incoherence and its incurred cost in popular support). Mr. Deeds is not a confident speaker, giving the impression that he is confused by complexity or fears candor.

Also, Mr. McDonnell is more positive. He has run his share of absurd attack ads, but, unlike his rival, hasn’t made vilification a campaign theme.

Executive capacity? Mr. McDonnell not only proficiently ran the A.G.’s office, but also, after serving four years on active duty, retired as a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve. Mr. Deeds lacks this command pedigree.

And consider how the candidates have changed. A socially moderate lawmaker, Mr. Deeds, perhaps to better contrast himself with the scholar of Regent University, has adopted the fringe-feminist view of abortion–it is all about the woman, buster!–and pandered to the gender-obsessed by pledging a Cabinet half-female. Mr. McDonnell recently flipped a position, too–but for the better. He now favors (like Mr. Deeds) a “scientific” redistricting plan to end the gerrymandering that protects the majority party and incumbents from the horrors of democracy.

Ouch.

It would seem as if the early strategy — to go for suburban women voters — was a bit too heavy-handed internally on the Deeds campaign for the tastes of suburban Fredericksburg.  McDonnell’s planning trumped Deeds’ screeds.

Goes to show that it’s not all about what the polls are telling you either.  Of course, I’m not entirely sold that Virginia will be a referendum on Obama’s presidency, either.  Deeds has run a horrible campaign — perhaps the worst seen in modern Virginia political history.

Quite a feat, and I’m not so certain it’s Creigh Deeds’ or his campaign manager Joe Abbey’s fault.  We’ll wait for that story to come out after the election.

Don’t worry — no one else knows what his position is either.  And way to go to AP reporter Bob Lewis for pressing the question.

Case in point, his last-ditch attack ad against Ken Cuccinelli:

See that line: “Against Requiring Clergy to Report Child Molestation”? The bill? SB 314 on third reading, 01/29/2004.  Go ahead, check it out yourself.

That bill passed 22-17 in the Senate and was killed in House Committee by a vote of 10-12. The problem with the bill isn’t just the fact that federal courts have upheld the “seal of confession” for Catholic priests, the problem is that the attack on Cuccinelli just ain’t true.

Don’t believe me? Read the amendment Cuccinelli offered in the Senate:

D. Any regular minister, priest, rabbi or duly accredited practitioner over the age of 18 years of any religious organization or denomination usually referred to as a church who has reason to suspect that a child has been abused or neglected by another regular minister, priest, rabbi or duly accredited practitioner shall report the matter immediately to the local department or to the Department’s toll-free child abuse and neglect hotline in accordance with the provisions of subsection A. This subsection shall not apply to (i) information required by the doctrine of the religious organization or denomination to be kept in a confidential manner or (ii) information that would be subject to § 8.01-400 or § 19.2-271.3 if offered as evidence in court.

What this amendment allowed was a process that would permit the suspicion of child abuse to be reported by clergy that would not break the seal of confession in the instance of Catholic priests.  Not only did Cuccinelli remain sensitive to the “seal of confession” — he refused to let it end there and moved legislatively to correct any sort of loophole, thus requiring clergy to report instances of child abuse and neglect.  Did these facts sway Shannon?  Not a bit… but they sure do make for great political cannon fodder for those who refuse to read the bill or the debate that ensued.

Here’s the kicker:  This anti-Catholic attack ad comes just days after Steve Shannon refused to fill out the Virginia Catholic Conference survey — joining the Deeds, Wagner, and 40 other state Democrats who tossed aside the questionnaire.

Anti-Catholic hate?  I see it, and 642,000 other Catholic Virginians tired of being kicked are seeing it too.

The question comes from the pages of The New Republic no less, and from writer Marty Peretz after President Obama refused to meet with the Dalai Lama.  This op-ed targets Obama for his failure to address Afghanistan, even as he was travelling to Copenhagen to lobby for Chicago’s bid for the Olympic Games:

So, while the president did make time for a rather brief conversation with McChrystal in Copenhagen, the real purpose of his rushed trans-Atlantic flight was to grease the International Olympic Committee into naming Chicago as epicenter of the 2016 games. If you read closely in the newspapers, it wasn’t as if Chicagoans were so ecstatic for the prize. Having the Olympics in town often turns out to be a big bust, burdening its residents, businesses and taxes for years thereafter. And, since the president is so much against national chauvinism, he might have contemplated that the games turn out to be among the most ritualized examples of hate on the planet, with the added cost of moving the poor around to make way for the rich visitors. When I was in Capetown, South Africa this summer, I saw from afar the still-being-built stadium for the 2010 World Cup soccer games. Now, South Africans are mad for soccer. But the talk in the street was against the expenditure, which comes to billions of rand and hundreds of millions of dollars even before anybody faces up to the inevitable cost over-runs. How many shanty-towns could have been replaced with this money? Or how about putting a water supply into these jungles of human refuse?

Peretz asks the inevitable questions:  If Obama can’t influence the IOC, how can we possibly negotiate with the Islamic Republic of Iran over nuclear weapons?

Lastly, Peretz closes with this line:

I know that the president believes himself a good man. My nervy query to him is: “Does he believe America to be a good country?”

Is the question fair?  I think so… because the calling in Afghanistan and other places in the world is ultimately a test of American ideals.  Whether it is the Monroe Doctrine to the Bush Doctrine, at heart Americans are revolutionaries, or as Jefferson might have stressed our moral position in the world, ones who should lead other nations to liberty by our example of liberty.

At some point, the basic goodness of America comes into question.  Are we a force for good in the world, or are we simply another major world power?  Should we end genocide as we did during the Second World War, or in the Balkans, or as we lamented and failed to do in Rwanda in 1993 under then-President Clinton?  Or should we merely step aside and allow the Afghanistans and post-1991 Iraq’s to fester until American lives are once again placed at risk by terrorists with the ability to reach our shores?

The answer to this question really does set the stage for a host of American foreign policy questions.  Obama has already broken with one of America’s longest standing traditions in foreign policy — namely that our policies remain resolute even with internal transitions of power.  America has broken faith with Honduras, abandoned the Green Revolution in Iran, coddled Venezuela and Cuba, retracted our missile shield from Poland and the Czech Republic, started a trade war with China, refused to meet with the Dalai Lama, negotiated directly with North Korea, saber rattled against Pakistan, soured the special relationship with Great Britain, and even turned the Mexican government against us with regards to border protections.

Is this the change in foreign policy Obama was supposed to bring?

Has it restored faith in America, or simply encouraged envy and disdain for American power, much as the British, Hapsburgs, Byzantine and Roman Empires before us were hated by their contemporaries?

President Obama is surely getting a clinic on foreign relations.  Whether a stint in the Oval Office was the time to get this education — and not through prior service — is debatable.  Perhaps SecState Clinton was right… though her performance is sorely lacking to date.

Whatever the solution, I certainly hope that this administration comes back to its senses quickly.  I am a firm believer that partisan politics ends where our borders begin, but one can’t help but wince as Obama finds his sea legs abroad.