The Nigh Seen Creeder

I witnessed an impromptu economics lesson by a liberal talking head, whose name escapes me, on C-Span early this afternoon. The talking head in question (LTH) said three things that really crawled all over me: He stated rather equivocally that Henry Ford just decided one day, by dismissing the market's "invisible hand," that he would raise the hourly wage paid to Ford Motor Co. employees; he said that "America's economy is bleeding out important jobs"; and he said that no harm can come from arbitrarily mandating a higher minimum wage.

Henry Ford's decision to raise the wages paid to his employees was not an arbitrary act. As we all know, the assembly line method revolutionized the automobile industry. Ford Motor Company was in a position, financially, to raise wages above the prevailing market rate and still remain profitable. Henry Ford was in no way dismissing the "invisible hand" of the free market.

The LTH's assertion that "America's economy is bleeding out" is a tad hyperbolic. Manufacturing employment in America has indeed decreased during the past decade, but productivity has steadily increased - to record levels in some sectors. Producing more while using fewer resources is precisely how our free-market system should operate.

LTH also fails to correctly identify the reason why American jobs are being lost to foreign workers. Unrealistic union bosses, overzealous regulators, and the taxman have all played a part in ensuring that manufacturing wages in America are no longer competitive in the global marketplace. This explains why certain products can now be produced cheaper elsewhere.

Finally, arbitrarily mandating higher wages will not build a strong economy. European workers enjoy high wages, a 35-hour workweek, and generous health benefits. However, the unemployment rate in most European nations is firmly stuck in double-digits, and worker productivity has been plummeting for years. Is this what we want in America?

The Nashville Scene's post-election "Corker Crashes Ford" cover created much gnashing of teeth amongst the "progressive," i.e., statist, sorts who read Music City's premier weekly tabloid. Sue Dippold's letter to the Scene's editor was a typical response:

"I voted for Ford because ... his net worth is $150,000 and Corker lives in a 30-room mansion. Class warfare? You bet, it's middle-class warfare."

No, Ms. Dippold, it's actually class envy, and your reason for voting against Bob Corker is quite spurious, indeed.

Bob Corker may have a lot of money, but he earned it by risking his own capital to create a successful construction company. He didn't inherit his wealth like liberal icons Ted Kennedy and Jay Rockefeller; and he's not living off his wife's checkbook like, say, John Kerry, for whom I'm sure Ms. Dippold had no problem voting despite his being able to bed down in a townhouse, mansion, and vacation ski chalet. (Nor did she refrain, I'm guessing, from voting for Phil Bredesen despite his splitting his time between the Executive Residence and his swanky Belle Meade digs.)

Furthermore, Bob Corker's father didn't bestow upon him a safe congressional seat at the age of twenty-six. No, Senator-elect Corker knows what it's like to actually work for a living. He has experience meeting a payroll and complying with state and federal regulations, unlike a certain soon-to-be former U.S. Representative who has no idea what it's like to have to live under the rules and regulations for which he's voted 'cause, well, he's never had a real job.

Branding Bob Corker as an out-of-touch millionaire was perhaps the Junior camp's most ridiculous bit of electioneering. If Junior and his minions were so put off by mansion-dwelling sorts, why didn't they tell Harold Ford the First, who's earned many a penny working as a lobbyist, to stay out of the Junior for Senate campaign?

This Web site quite cogently explained why Junior was unqualified to be U.S. Senator, before and after the campaign. Hopefully, I won't have to explain such again.

If you'd like to be tickled beyond repair, check out the self-righteous musings of the poets who've published verse in Political Affairs, a Marxist journal of opinion.

Commie poets: I'll bet these folks are livin' the high life, and then some.

A couple of weeks ago, I received an e-mail from one Michael August, who lamented the fact that the Nigh Seen Creeder is yet another "rah-rah" Web site for the "right-wing." I immediately sent a rather terse reply explaining who I am and what I think. Mr. August just today replied with an e-mail (he must have had a busy holiday) in which he laments the fact that "people in America go hungry while nearly 55% of the federal budget each year is spent for military purposes." I responded thusly:

Sir: If your figures were correct, all discretionary outlays would be devoted to military spending. This simply is not true. According to the Office of Management and Budget's Web site, 16.3% of the nation's budget was allocated to national defense in fiscal year 2006.

I am finding it increasingly difficult to take seriously liberals such as yourself. One of the main reasons for this is because the pronouncements issued by liberals and statists are usually chock-full of hyperbole and misinformation. Your latest e-mail is no exception. In the future, you should do a little honest research before you climb into the arena of ideas and issues.

I recently received several theological which I purchased from an eBay book dealer. One of the books I purchased is The Great Heresies, by Hilaire Belloc, which was published in 1938. I was struck by a passage at the end of Belloc's chapter on Islam; and I think the passage in question shows that Mr. Belloc was a prophet if ever there was one. To wit:

"[The West] take[s] for granted that [Islam] is decaying, and that, anyway, it is just a foreign religion which will not concern them. It is, as a fact, the most formidable and persistent enemy which our civilization has had, and may at any moment become as large a menace in the future as it has been in the past."

The Rev. Jerry Falwell has been on the receiving end of Bishop John Shelby Spong's I'm-smarter-than-everyone barbs for many years. In one of his latest smarmy "Q & A e-mails," Spong disses Falwell once again. You see, Falwell is deserving of scorn because he "once called Nelson Mandela a communist." I don't know how much time Spong has spent examining Nelson Mandela's political career, especially before he became a walking saint; but to deny Nelson Mandela's communist sympathies is the worst kind of historical revisionism.

Spong's refusal to tackle Mandela's past with a grain of truth is par for the course: Information Spong can use to bolster his arguments is eagerly bandied about; information that counters his ridiculous claims is attacked or dismissed outright. The ties between the African National Congress and the South African Communist Party are well known and irrefutable. It's high time that Spong and other leftists accept this fact:



I'm of the opinion that Spong should check out Mandela's How to Be a Good Communist and apologize to Jerry Falwell. That'd be the first of many apologies he needs to dole out to individuals who've found themselves in his half-witted crosshairs over the years.

Right-wingers have been called a lot of things over the years (I'll spare you the list). Being derisively tagged as "anti-pedophile" is indeed a new one. To wit:

"A Dutch political party that failed to qualify to participate in the country's general election [last week] has blamed harassment from 'far right' elements that took issue with its pro-pedophilia platform."

The Nigh Seen Creeder will be back on Monday, November 27.

The Wall Street Journal has published this editorial annually since 1961:

Anyone whose labors take him into the far reaches of the country, as ours lately have done, is bound to mark how the years have made the land grow fruitful.
This is indeed a big country, a rich country, in a way no array of figures can measure and so in a way past belief of those who have not seen it. Even those who journey through its Northeastern complex, into the Southern lands, across the central plains and to its Western slopes can only glimpse a measure of the bounty of America.

And a traveler cannot but be struck on his journey by the thought that this country, one day, can be even greater. America, though many know it not, is one of the great underdeveloped countries of the world; what it reaches for exceeds by far what it has grasped.

So the visitor returns thankful for much of what he has seen, and, in spite of everything, an optimist about what his country might be. Yet the visitor, if he is to make an honest report, must also note the air of unease that hangs everywhere.

For the traveler, as travelers have been always, is as much questioned as questioning. And for all the abundance he sees, he finds the questions put to him ask where men may repair for succor from the troubles that beset them.

His countrymen cannot forget the savage face of war. Too often they have been asked to fight in strange and distant places, for no clear purpose they could see and for no accomplishment they can measure. Their spirits are not quieted by the thought that the good and pleasant bounty that surrounds them can be destroyed in an instant by a single bomb. Yet they find no escape, for their survival and comfort now depend on unpredictable strangers in far-off corners of the globe.

How can they turn from melancholy when at home they see young arrayed against old, black against white, neighbor against neighbor, so that they stand in peril of social discord. Or not despair when they see that the cities and countryside are in need of repair, yet find themselves threatened by scarcities of the resources that sustain their way of life. Or when, in the face of these challenges, they turn for leadership to men in high places--only to find those men as frail as any others.

So sometimes the traveler is asked whence will come their succor. What is to preserve their abundance, or even their civility? How can they pass on to their children a nation as strong and free as the one they inherited from their forefathers? How is their country to endure these cruel storms that beset it from without and from within?

Of course the stranger cannot quiet their spirits. For it is true that everywhere men turn their eyes today much of the world has a truly wild and savage hue. No man, if he be truthful, can say that the specter of war is banished. Nor can he say that when men or communities are put upon their own resources they are sure of solace; nor be sure that men of diverse kinds and diverse views can live peaceably together in a time of troubles.

But we can all remind ourselves that the richness of this country was not born in the resources of the earth, though they be plentiful, but in the men that took its measure. For that reminder is everywhere--in the cities, towns, farms, roads, factories, homes, hospitals, schools that spread everywhere over that wilderness.

We can remind ourselves that for all our social discord we yet remain the longest enduring society of free men governing themselves without benefit of kings or dictators. Being so, we are the marvel and the mystery of the world, for that enduring liberty is no less a blessing than the abundance of the earth.

And we might remind ourselves also, that if those men setting out from Delftshaven had been daunted by the troubles they saw around them, then we could not this autumn be thankful for a fair land.

Journalist Bill Moyers recently threatened to sue a blogger, claiming defamation because the blogger republished an item in which Moyers allegedly admits to being a liberal hack. In an interview with the Washington Post, during which he was questioned about the sue-the-blogger matter, Moyers said if anyone can prove that he's a left-winger, he'll be the first "to break the story."

Yesterday, I began reading David Horowitz's Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party. This book features a direct quote from Bill Moyers himself which proves that he is indeed a left-wing hack.

On November 2, 2004, election day, Moyers appered on the Charlie Rose Show on PBS. Whilst discussing the Bush-Kerry presidential contest, Moyers had this to say:

"I think if Kerry were to win this in a tight race, I think there'd be an effort to mount a coup, quite frankly. I mean that the right is not going to accept it."

Looks like Bill Moyers has some news to break. I'll not hold my breath, however, waiting for it to happen.

Tyson Foods, the world's largest meat processor, is warning investors and consumers that rising corn prices are leading to increased retail prices for chicken, beef and pork. Now, the whole meat product-increase situation has got me to thinkin'; and I have a few questions for anyone who cares to answer 'em for me. To wit:

How come I can't find a poll in which 20 percent of Americans blame the Bush Administration for the rising cost of meat? (A Gallup poll conducted over the summer indicated that 20 percent of the voting public blamed President Bush for high gas prices.)

When should we expect congressional hearings seeking to expose nefarious price-gouging schemes initiated by the meat industry's corporate honchos?

When will Senator Harry "Sleepin' at the Ritz" Reid and Representative Nancy "Madame Moonbat" Pelosi flout common sense and suggest that America should dip into its "Strategic Meat Reserve" ... ?

All kidding aside, the spike in prices for meat products, due to increased grain prices, is no different from this past summer's spike in gasoline prices, which was caused by a worldwide increase in the price of oil. Americans may not (don't) know it, but they are receiving a valuable tutorial in basic economics: growing demand, coupled with supply pressure, will increase the cost of goods and services.

The liberal Carpet Bagger blog points out how meaningless the polls for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination are at this stage. To prove its case, the Carpet Bagger has posted a January 2003 Fox News poll:

Joe Lieberman -- 29 percent
Dick Gephardt -- 15
John Kerry -- 13
John Edwards -- 8
Al Sharpton -- 5
Howard Dean -- 2

Lieberman? Gephardt? Kerry in the middle of the pack? And that was further along than we are in the race to 2008. I happen to agree with John Hawkins:

"Don't get too worked up about McCain and Giuliani slugging it out at the top of the polls while everyone else drags behind. They're getting by on name recognition at this point and as people take a harder look at the positions and other candidates get more press, it'll start to turn into a real horse race."

I hate to keep beating a dead political horse, but I simply must respond to a letter to the editor that appears in the current Nashville Scene. According to one Keri Cannon, Harold Ford, Jr., aka Junior, should be "congratulated for all he accomplished and recognized for the qualities that almost took him to the U.S. Senate." I'll congratulate Junior for almost making it to the U.S. Senate, but that's the only congratulatory gesture I'll offer him.

If I'd been afforded the opportunity to speak face-to-face with Junior during his campaign for U.S. Senate, I would have asked him this question:

You've served almost ten complete years in the U.S. House of Representatives, and you've failed to distinguish yourself as a legislator in any way. Even the Tennessean, which is firmly pro-Junior in its reporting and editorializing, felt compelled to note that your record as a member of Congress is quite thin. Indeed, no major pieces of legislation have originated in your office; you routinely miss committee meetings and ask very few questions during the committee meetings you do attend; and you missed the fourth most number of roll-call votes during the 109th Congress. You have a terrible ten-year record as a lawmaker. What makes you think that you deserve another two years in the U.S. House, let alone six years in the U.S. Senate?

Truth be told, I did pose a similar question to several Junior for Senate supporters during the 2006 campaign. More often than not, I was forced to endure a lecture on a "new generation of leadership" and other such claptrap. Never once did I hear a person convincingly argue the case as to why a mediocre member of the U.S. House should be rewarded with a seat in the U.S. Senate. And now, even with the benefit of hindsight, Junior's supporters still want us to think about what Junior might've conceivably done if elected to the United States Senate ... instead of what he has - and, more importantly, has not - done in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Kathleen Parker has an excellent take on the Borat phenomenon:

This faux documentary that exploits every stereotype and turns every phobia inside out has exposed not just the obvious -- that some people are racist, sexist, anti-Semitic and homophobic -- but also has cast a light on a cultural pathology unique to our times.

Show a mouse a camera, and he'll want to be a star.

That is, people apparently will allow anyone into their lives as long as there's a shot at fame or celebrity. The photo-snapping, video-camming, MySpace, in-your-face narcissism of our media age became a perfect storm with ``Borat."

The New York Sun has packaged a set of articles which detail Milton Friedman's influence on economic and political thought. Seth Lipsky's article is particularly good.

Remember Scott Ritter? He was the chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq in the late 1990s. At one time, Ritter was a hard-line critic of Saddam Hussein's regime. Indeed, he published an essay in the New Republic in 1998 alleging that Hussein had produced a rather large stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.

For reasons unexplained, Ritter transformed into a rather forceful apologist for Hussein's regime. In July 2000, he traveled to Baghdad to appear in a documentary film financed by the Iraqi government. According to Ritter, the documentary's purpose was to "de-demonize" Saddam Hussein. It was no surprise, then, that prior to the U.S./British invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Iraq Ba'ath Party's Web site featured a tribute to Scott Ritter.

So, what's Ritter been up to lately? Apparently, he's on a crusade to de-demonize the theocrats who're currently running things in the Iranian Islamic republic. In the November 20 Nation magazine, Ritter says Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, "has been navigating a path of moderation." How moderate is Khamenei? Let's examine his recent behavior: He toted an assault rifle to a prayer service; he called for the destruction of "satanic and cancerous Israel"; he stated that the fatwa (death sentence) against Salman Rushdie is "irreversible"; and by most accounts, he is the primary architect of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. So much for "moderation."

That being said, Ritter takes great exception to the Bush Administration's lumping Iran in with al-Qaida as threats to America's interests around the globe. In the Nation article, Ritter approvingly quotes a former Iranian Revolutionary Guard member thusly: "Doesn't America understand that we oppose Al Quaeda [sic] and all it stands for?" Oh, really?

This past week brought disturbing news about Iran and al-Qaida. According to the London Telegraph, Western intelligence agencies have uncovered evidence that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants a pro-Iranian militant in Tehran to take over leadership of al-Qaida. So, Ritter's protestations notwithstanding, it looks like Iran and al-Qaida are soon to be - if they're not already - joined at the hip. What's even more disturbing is the fact that al-Qaida is actively seeking a nuclear weapon. Think about what a nuclear-armed Iran, aligned with and leading the most active al-Qaida cells, will mean for the Middle East, not to mention world peace.

For years the Nation magazine has been the journal of record for people who think Alger Hiss was innocent, who think communism works, and who think that the United States and Israel are responsible for 100 percent of the suffering in the world. Now, thanks to Scott Ritter, the Nation is officially the journal of record for people who've deluded themselves into thinking that Iran is an island of moderation in the Middle East.

I can't say that I'm very happy that Trent Lott was chosen as Senate Minority Whip yesterday. Bob Dole, Trent Lott, and Bill Frist, as post-1994 Senate Majority Leaders, often ran things as if they were in the minority. Indeed, time and again all three - but especially Lott because he served longer than Dole or Frist - allowed Democrats to determine the direction of the U.S. Senate with endless talk of filibusters and the use of parliamentary stunts. Lott did his hitch in the Republican leadership, and more often than not he failed miserably. Let's hope he learned something during his time in the political wilderness.

That said, I guess we should have expected every news story about Trent Lott's victory to include details of his infamous comments at Senator Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday bash. I thought Lott was done wrong when he was forced from his leadership post in 2002. Every time you turned around Lott was behind a microphone apologizing, but the media seemed determined - no matter how many times he apologized - to run him out on a rail. To say that the vultures in the media succeeded is an understatement.

My biggest beef during the whole Lott imbroglio was the selective outrage displayed by the mainstream media. I said as much at the time (my comments are just as relevant today as they were when I penned them four years ago):

Personal and political opportunism often underlies cries of racism. This has certainly been the case during the fallout following Senator Lott's comments at Strom Thurmond's birthday celebration. Indeed, the most disgusting aspect of the Lott imbroglio has been the selective indignation displayed by liberals and members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Consider:

In October [2001], Bill Clinton journeyed to Fayetteville, Arkansas, to attend the dedication of a statue of Senator William Fulbright. Not only did Fulbright vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, he affixed his signature to the racist Southern Manifesto in the 1950s. When will liberals take Bill Clinton to task for claiming as his "mentor" a man who was a segregationist?

Last year, Senator Robert Byrd used the N-word on a broadcast of Fox News Sunday. Far from being a slip of the tongue, the word tripped rather easily from his lips. It was readily apparent to all who witnessed Byrd's interview that he was "speaking from his heart." I don't recall any efforts to censure Senator Byrd or any calls for him to relinquish his seat.

In August 2000, U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters refused to condemn an anti-Semitic attack by the Amsterdam News, a leading black newspaper in New York City, on Jewish vice presidential nominee Joseph Lieberman. In November of this year, recently-ousted U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney blamed her defeat on "Jews" who had supported her opponent. Her father, a Georgia state representative, joined in, saying: "Jews have bought everybody." The Congressional Black Caucus has been quick to condemn what it perceives to be verbal attacks against blacks; however, the Caucus has said nothing about well-documented anti-Semitism within its own ranks.

I'll make no excuses for Trent Lott. He should have apologized for his insensitive comments, and he did. I will say, however, that there is no excuse for the selective moral outrage displayed by leftists and their fellow travelers. Hypocrisy has a peculiar stench; and right now, left-wingers stink to high heaven.

This is priceless:

"U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer appeared to kick Sen. John [Droopy] Kerry out of a Democratic leadership walk in Washington, a reporter who witnessed the event said. An ABC News reporter said the incident occurred Tuesday outside of the Old Senate Chamber as members of the new Democratic leadership, of which Kerry is not a part, left the chamber en route to the Ohio Clock Corridor to discuss leadership elections, the incoming majority's agenda and Iraq.

"The ABC reporter said Kerry left the room behind Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Caucus Secretary Patty Murray, D-Wash.; and Caucus Vice-Chair Schumer, D-N.Y. However, when Schumer noticed Kerry, D-N.Y., walking behind him, he turned and said something to the Massachusetts senator that caused him to stop.

"Kerry waited for the Democratic leaders to walk ahead and then ducked between two statues. The ABC reporter speculated that Schumer may have told Kerry to stay clear of the leadership shot."

"In a letter dated October 20, 2006 and signed by virtually all prominent members of the new majority, the party stated its belief that “that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006.” That’s right, 2006 - the year we’re currently in, the one that expires in a mere six weeks. In other words, the cutting and running should begin some time in the next month and a half," Hugh Hewitt reports.

According to Rich Galen, wannabe President Al Gore is too big for his britches, literally:

"Al Gore will go to his grave believing he was cheated out of the Presidency in 2000. A lot of Democrats agree with him. He has been through three national campaigns and knows the mistakes which he made, and which others have made on his behalf.

"His signature issue is Global Warming which will get him a great deal of positive press. No one has better bona fides on the issue, but it is hard to see how being a one-trick pony will be enough.

"Biggest plus? It may be eight-years-old, but he still has the fundraising list. Biggest minus? He is BIG. Al Gore is now so heavy you could hang ropes off him and use him as a float in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade."

Tee hee!

"A mere two days after Democrats capture Congress claiming they wouldn't raise taxes, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin tells them they should do so anyway," the Wall Street Journal reports.

"'You cannot solve the nation's fiscal problems without increased revenues,' declared Mr. Rubin, the Democratic Party's leading economic spokesman, in a speech last Thursday. He also took a crack at economic forecasting by noting that 'I think if you were to increase taxes right now, you would have probably about zero negative effect on the economy.'"

Zero negative effect on the economy?! It's going to be a long two years ...

During the 2006 congressional elections, Democrats took great exception to being called Cut 'N' Run Dems. "When it comes to Iraq, we're NOT for cutting and running," they said. Now:

Sen. Carl Levin: U.S. troops should leave Iraq in "4 to 6 months"

DNC Chief Howard Dean: "We need to get out of Iraq"

During the 2006 congressional elections, Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi said House Democrats would not embark on a crusade of investigations regarding warrantless wiretaps, secret CIA detention centers, pre-Iraq War intelligence, etc. Now:

Democrats may use probes to force policy shifts

Congress to probe Iraq, wiretapping

Democrats are set to subpoena

During the 2006 congressional elections, House Democrats said that they would be a "united" caucus if they were chosen to serve as the majority party. Now:

Pelosi OKs Murtha for post, stirs furor

In backing Murtha, Pelosi draws fire

Rangel and Pelosi slug it out

Larry Daughtrey's column-writing formula, after however many umpteen years he's been working at the Tennessean, remains the same: He analyzes a Tennessee political issue currently in the news, and he (a) shows himself to be a partisan jackass; (b) comes to the absolute wrong conclusion about the topic he's discussing; or (c) both (a) and (b). His latest column is in the (b) catagory.

Because Harold Ford, Jr., aka Junior, did so well in this year's U.S. Senate contest, Daughtrey predicts that Tennessee is "in play" for the 2008 presidential election. Daughtrey tries to buttress his claim by pointing out that Knoxville and Chattanooga were "less Republican" during the election, and Nashville and Memphis were "more Democrat."

Turnout was quite heavy in urban minority districts during this election because, well, there was quite a lot of excitement in the black community for the Junior for Senate campaign. This excitement generated a lot of Democrat votes as 95 percent of black voters in Tennessee cast their ballot for Junior. Also, one cannot overlook the fact that a fair number of voters who normally lean Republican voted for Junior based on his remarkable metamorphosis from a left-leaning Democrat U.S. Representative to a quasi-Republican U.S. Senate candidate.

Whoever emerges as the Democrats' nominee in 2008 will do so after months of placating the left-wing voters who turn out in Democrat primary elections. Indeed, the 2008 Democrat ticket will have an incredibly difficult before them as they try to convince Tennessee voters that they are not beholden to the trial lawyers, unions, and peaceniks who fund the Democrat Party (and expect something in return). Native son Al Gore couldn't get Tennessee voters to embrace his candidacy, so, realistically, what chance does Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Edwards, John Kerry, Tom Vilsack, et al., have of turning Tennessee "blue" in 2008?

Voters nationwide were in an anti-incumbent mood this year, especially when the incumbent was a Republican. What did Tennessee voters do? They re-elected every incumbent GOP member of the State House, re-elected every GOP member of the State Senate (save one), re-elected every GOP member of the U.S. House, chose a Republican replacement for GOP Senator Bill Frist, and re-elected Governor Phil Bredesen, who's routinely campaigned as a right-of-center candidate.

Larry Daughtrey predicts, based on the outcome of the 2006 election, that "[Tennessee] voters will ... do something different in 2008." I predict, with fact and history on my side, that voters will do much the same as they did this year. That is, they'll express satisfaction with Republican candidates, and they'll vote for the Republican presidential nominee. You read it here first.

This morning's Wall Street Journal has an excellent article on what will be the Democrats' first legislative shell game:

"A hike in the national minimum wage seems all but certain to become one of the first fruits of the Democrats' victories this week. Nancy Pelosi, the presumptive Speaker of the House, has pledged to raise the minimum by over $2, to $7.25 from $5.15. And President Bush has already signaled he'd go along. At the state level, six states not only approved minimum wage hikes in referendums this week but indexed the minimum to inflation going forward. We hope Mr. Bush fights off any attempt at federal indexation and insists on a provision to protect small business."

I've been saying for a long time that it is impossible for a Democrat in a contested statewide election to win unless he or she can make inroads into East Tennessee. Ned McWherter famously did well in upper East Tennessee in 1986; Sara Kyle did very well in East Tennessee in 1994 when she ran successfully for the now-defunct Public Service Commission; and Phil Bredesen campaigned hard in the counties in an around Knox County in 2002 and was elected governor as a result.

If we look at the county-by-county map from this year's U.S. Senate race, we see that Harold Ford, Jr., aka Junior, did well in the state's Yellow Dog areas, i.e., urban Davidson and Shelby Counties, the counties near the Plateau, and the "My great-great-great-great grandpa was a Democrat and I am, too" counties near the Tennessee River in West Tennessee. But it was in East Tennessee that this - and every - statewide race was decided. Indeed, East Tennessee was a sea of Corker red. Junior made a fine showing in Hamilton County, but he was dusted in the counties in upper East Tennessee ... and that was his undoing. To wit:

The current (print) National Review has an excellent take on the infamous RNC-produced "Playboy" ad:

"The Tennessee Senate race, between former Chattanooga mayor Bob Corker (R) and Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D), was enlivened, beyond the excitement of its closeness, by an anti-Ford spot from the Republican National Committee. In a montage of 'ordinary' folk, a sweet young thing says, 'I met Harold at the Playboy party!' then returns at the end to purr, 'Harold, call me.' The lady refers to the fact that Ford attended a party thrown by the venerable skin mag at the 2005 Super Bowl. The ad sought to puncture Ford’s image as a pious conservative Democrat; the angle of attack was petty, real petty. But since Ford is black and the actress is white, Ford supporters accused the RNC of race-baiting. The ad 'makes the Willie Horton ad look like child’s play,' said a Vanderbilt professor. This is crazy, and (sadly) customary. Black public figures across the spectrum, from Justice Clarence Thomas to Sen. Barack Obama, have white wives or mothers. America shrugs its collective shoulders. If, to avoid the accusation, the RNC had paired Ford with a black cutie, they would have been accused of aping blaxploitation flicks. The rule is: Republicans may not accuse black Democrats of anything. Ever."

Random ruminations the "day after":

Bob Corker's besting Harold Ford, Jr., aka Junior, in the U.S. Senate race shows that Tennessee is not only a conservative state, it is a thoroughly Republican state as well. Yes, but, doesn't Phil Bredesen's big victory dispute this notion? Not at all. In 2002, Phil Bredesen was elected on a platform of low taxes and promises to use the power of the market to deal with issues like TennCare. That is, he more or less ran as a Republican. In fact, if an individual knew absolutely nothing about Phil Bredesen except what he or she had seen in the governor-to-be's 2002 television ads, the individual in question would have to conclude that Bredesen is a Republican.

Bredesen's re-election campaign was chock full of sloganeering on behalf of conservative causes (see illegal immigration), and he easily defeated an opponent will little money and no name recognition. Bredesen, however, had no coattails. Junior lost; and Bredesen buds like Bob Rochelle, Mary Parker, and Vince Springer came up well short in their respective bids to defeat GOP members of the State Senate.

The big question on everyone's mind today is ... what's next for Junior? It's no secret that Papa Ford is not happy with the fact that Steve Cohen is replacing Junior in the U.S. House (I'll leave the obvious racial aspect of Papa's "unhappiness" for others to discuss). It would not surprise me at all if at this moment Junior is plotting to re-take the 9th District seat. Look for him to take a job where he can make a lot of money while not having to do very much. This will allow him ample opportunity discuss Tennessee politics whenever a television program agrees to show his purty face. Steve Cohen will face a Ford-backed consensus black candidate in the August 2008 primary, and odds are that consensus black candidate will be Junior.

As far as the national elections are concerned, I just do not agree with something Hugh Hewitt posted on his blog this morning:

"It is a distinctly liberal trait to blame 'the people' when they don’t vote as one would dictate. I’ll brook none of that from our side. The fact is, we thought our country would be better off with a Republican congress. We made a case to the American people. They didn't buy it because they thought it was a weak case."

Republicans, overall, may have offered a "weak case" for why they should be elected or re-elected, but Democrats offered an even weaker case. It was almost impossible to find a Democrat who was willing to take a firm stand on any issue of substance. Their whole campaign theme seemed to be, "Vote for us because we're not Republicans." Republicans should force issues like tax cuts into the public debate and make Democrats declare where they stand. Democrats may have won this year's elections, but Republicans can drive the debate for the next two years. Indeed, the GOP could make the next two years a very long two years for Democrats who wish to govern as they campaigned -- that is, trying to have it, well, every way on every issue.

I also take issue with Hewitt's assertion that it's wrong for conservatives to take the voting public to task following an election. A simple, sad fact the day after the 2006 election is this: A great many capable legislators were dispatched in favor of candidates who, to be blunt, just aren't very bright. This may say more about the weakness of the Republican re-election effort; but no voter who was truly informed and well-versed on the issues would've cast a ballot in favor of Bob Casey, Jr., Jon Tester, Jim Webb, or Claire McCaskill. It's hard to imagine any scenario whatsoever in which these four distinguish themselves as legislators or statesmen.

Finally, the two biggest losers in GOP politics this morning have to be John McCain and Bill Frist. Indeed, Hugh Hewitt said it best:

"The long and short of this bad but not horrific night was that majorities must act like majorities.  The public cares little for the 'traditions' of the Senate or the way the appropriations process used to work.  It demands results.  Handed a large majority, the GOP frittered it away.  The chief fritterer was Senator McCain and his Gang of 14 and Kennedy-McCain immigration bill, supplemented by a last minute throw down that prevented the NSA bill from progressing or the key judicial nominations from receiving a vote.  His accomplice in that master stroke was Senator Graham.  Together they cost their friend Mike DeWine his seat in the Senate, and all their Republican colleagues their chairmanships.  Senator McCain should rethink his presidential run.  Amid the ruins of the GOP's majority there is a clear culprit.

"A second loser was Bill Frist.  To be the Majority Leader of a majority that did not lead is lethal to his presidential ambitions.  Like Senator McCain, it would be easier on everyone if he just exited the stage."

This from RedState.com:

"In the middle of a tightly contested Senate race, a United States Senate candidate and a sitting United States Senator went to mega-church yesterday and campaigned to the churchgoers there. During the course of this campaigning, these ... theocrats suggested that God wanted them to win their campaign:

"The fact that they are still in the race despite the odds, [Harold Ford, Jr., aka Junior] told a crowd at Mount Zion Baptist Church here, was evidence that 'we got something else at work.'

"'I think [Junior} said something wise -- we got another manager in this race,' [Sen. Barack Obama] told the group."

So, God's for Junior?! I have news for Junior: God - as near as I can tell - ain't registered to vote in the state of Tennessee.

Bill Hobbs takes the Sunday Tennessean to task, and THEN some ...

"The Tennessean says if you don't vote for Harold Ford Jr. on Tuesday, you're a racist. At least that's the unspoken implication of this article, which says that if Harold Ford Jr. doesn't win on Tuesday, it means a black man can't win a statewide race in Tennessee, because he's black.

"Hogwash."

Hogwash ... indeed.

This picture was taken at the Army-Air Force football game (picture courtesy of Power Line):

"On the eve of one of the nation's most contentious and intensely watched elections, investigators have opened a criminal probe into suspected early voting fraud in Shelby County. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is reviewing reports by the Shelby County Election Commission that two people voted twice during early voting in Memphis," the Commercial Appeal reports.

Meanwhile, the Drudge Report has posted this disturbing story:

"Political insiders have expressed alarm after 12 voter smartcards have gone missing from one Shelby County ... early vote location. The cards are used to activate electronic voting machines."

Harold Ford, Jr., aka Junior, appeared on MSNBC and Fox News this week claiming to be pro-life. National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez has written an excellent piece in which she deftly shows that Junior's claim to be pro-life is perhaps the biggest whopper he's told during his whopper-filled campaign. A sample:

"Among his most notable votes cast on this front, Ford voted against 'Laci and Conner’s Law,' which recognizes an unborn child who is injured or killed in the commission of a federal crime as a child and crime victim. Even though the bill was not explicitly about abortion, abortion groups considered its implications and thought long term — if we give in here, will it hurt us later? They knew it could very well, and so they opposed the bill, despite Conner Peterson. And so did Harold Ford, even though all but one member of the Tennessee congressional delegation voted for it."

Without a shred of evidence to back up her claim, Melba Isom says big oil and big insurance are funding Bob Corker's campaign for U.S. Senate ("An effort to admire," City Paper, October 30).  She goes on to say that if a person wishes for government by the people for the people, that person will vote for Harold Ford, Jr., aka Junior.  Let's take a look at some of the people who are "for" Junior, shall we?
 
A couple of weeks ago, AFL-CIO chief John Sweeney came to Tennessee to campaign with Junior.  Not only is Sweeney a card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America, he lifted the ban on Communists serving as union officers and has allowed the Communist Party USA to distribute literature at union events.  In addition, Sweeney has convinced a great many members of congress - including Junior - to sign onto the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow big labor to strong-arm its way into workplaces without an election or secret ballot.
 
Junior has taken money from East Coast liberals like Hillary Clinton, and from Hollywood liberals like Larry David, David Geffen, and Barbra Streisand.  I'm sure there are a lot of Tennesseans who enjoy listening to Ms. Streisand's CDs, and who laugh at Mr. David's antics, but I'd dare say that most people in this state reject the Left Coast crowd's radical left-wing politics. 
 
And while I'm on the subject of Junior's political donations, I think it's important to point out that only 32 percent of Junior's campaign receipts have come from the state of Tennessee. Junior's raised more money from New York City than from his hometown of Memphis, and more money from Washington, DC, and Los Angeles than from Nashville. Broken down by zip code, Junior's raised more money from Manhattan's liberal-filled Upper East Side than from any zip code in the state of Tennessee, save one in Memphis. (Bob Corker, on the other hand, has received 92 percent of his contributions from Tennessee.)

Junior has traveled the length and breadth of this state trying to present himself as a decidedly right-of-center Democrat.  Indeed, he's done everything short of joining the Sons of Confederate Veterans to prove his conservative bone fides. My question is this: If Junior's so conservative, why's he rubbing elbows with socialists, and why are so many out-of-state liberal activists donating money to his campaign? When one takes the time to examine the facts, one sees that the people who are "for" Junior are people who in no way share the values of the citizens of Tennessee.