The Mosque at Ground Zero and The War with Islam

There is a difference between believing the New York City mosque and Muslim community center should not be build at the location it is proposed and in advocating the government should prohibit it from being built at that location. I don't fault anyone who expresses an opinion that they find a Mosque build at that location to be offensive. I don't fault anyone from trying to persuade those who are building the Mosque to move it elsewhere. One has a right to be offended.

There are a lot of things that offend me. Thankfully our freedoms are not dependent on not offending people. Thankfully our liberties are not subject to an opinion poll. Hopefully, the Constitutional right to freedom of religion and property rights will trump the desire of others not to be offended.

Fortunately, most responsible conservative are not advocating banning the construction of the Mosque even if they do find it offensive. In an August 16 editorial, National Review Online stated that "no reasonable opponent of the project contests the right of Muslims to worship as they please in this country -- the First Amendment religious rights of Muslims never have been in question, at all." They go on to say , it "is unseemly and ill-considered." And, "That position in no way implies a disregard for the First Amendment."

Pamela Geller writing at Atlas Shrugs says, "The very idea of a 15-story mega-mosque on hallowed ground is indecent, offensive and outrageous." She goes on to say however, "No one has suggested abridging the first amendment to stop the mosque."

The Wall Street Journal writes, "The government has no right to stop imam Feisal Abdul Rauf from developing the abandoned Burlington Coat Factory at 51 Park Place into a 13-story complex of classrooms, auditoriums and a mosque under the name of Cordoba House. Even opponents of the mosque concede this point."

I wish National Review, Pamela Geller and the WSJ were right, but unfortunately, there are other leading conservative who argue that because the area around "ground zero" is so scared that the construction of the Mosque should be prohibited.

"When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there -- and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated," writes Charles Krauthammer.

Pat Buchanan, while not as explicit as Krauthammer, likewise makes an argument that banning the construction of the Mosque is appropriate and says, "When developers tried to build a mall next to the Manassas battlefield, many who had kinfolk who fought and died in that war blocked it, including Jody Powell, Jimmy Carter's press secretary. They did not fight development because they opposed private enterprise, any more than those who blocked the licensing of a casino beside Gettysburg battlefield did so because they dislike gambling."

I am not buying the argument of Krauthammer and Buchanan. If a church or temple could not be prohibited from being build on that site, neither should a Mosque. I agree with Mayor Bloomberg who said, "The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right (to build the mosque)– and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another. "

While Krauthammer and Buchanan can make a semi-plausible argument for banning the Mosque without coming off as bigoted leaders of a mob willing to abandon the constitution, ordinary people are not as nuanced in their pronouncements or as smooth in hiding their real feelings. I talk to people all the time who view the Muslim faith as the enemy and every Muslim as a potential terrorist. Every Mosque is seen as a planting of the flag of conquest.

Here are some excerpts from chat group postings I just read today:

It's about flaunting their conquering of The Trade Center. Why do you think they chose this location? Why do you think they chose the name "Cordoba"? It's obvious that they want to rub our noses in their victory. If they build at that location it will be seen by tens of millions of Muslims as a validation of the 9/11 attack done in the name of Islam. I believe it is clearly intended as a provocation.

Another post:

The fact that we as a group are having to prove all of this is frightening. There should be no gray area. Muslims are honor bound to kill anyone who refuses to convert to Islam. Period! Islam is not a religion. It is a political group with punishments for failing to obey. Like stoning, raping, murdering, sawing off children's arms, throwing acid on the faces of women, chopping off hands. There can be no gray area on this. A devout, sincere, friendly, charming, upstanding Muslim will have to kill you, whether they want to or not. If they don't....they will be killed. So beware of those around you. Remember that they are honor bound.

Another comment:

OMG! I can't believe that the President of the United States would back the building of a "conquest" mosque at Ground Zero. I am stunned!…and next week Obama is honoring three Muslims soldiers at the Pentagon…What about all the other men and women who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan? Obama has made it perfectly clear where is loyalties lie, and it's not with the American people. I am still in shock…this is unbelievable!

The above comments are not isolated. I am with people every day who think just like that. Even if one accepted the argument that due to the special significance of "ground zero" that government would be justified in stopping construction of a Mosque at that particular site, what is the argument for stopping the construction of a Mosque in Brentwood, Murfreesboro or Antioch Tennessee?

When hundreds march in Murfressboro demanding that the construction of a Mosque be stopped simply because it is a Mosque and when a leading candidate in a U. S. Congressional race supports them and when a leading candidate for Governors expresses doubt that Islam is really a religion entitled to First Amendment protection, I fear that our constitutional protections are very fragile.

There are those who view every one of the 1.8 billion Muslim in the world as an enemy dedicated to our destruction. They think it is impossible for a Muslim to assimilate and be good Americans. They think followers of the Muslim faith are immune to the forces of modernism and moderation.

I am not at war with Islam. I agree with President George W. Bush when in the wake of 9-11 said:

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.

In 1942, 110,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans were rounded up and placed in concentration camps. Since then, our government has apologized and most Americans have been embarrassed by this injustice. I am not so sure we have any greater respect for our liberties and the Constitution now an we did then.

Top Stories

Audit finds uncounted voting machne! Herny's lead reduced.

Senator Doug Henry's lead over challenger Jeff Yarbro just shrank from 13 votes to 11 votes after an Election Commission audit turned up a previously uncounted voting machine. What? How do you miss counting the votes off of an election machine?

This should be totally unacceptable. This does not inspire confidence in the electoral process. The Election Commission, and maybe the Metro Council, should have formal hearing and devise systems of checking and double checking to ensure that this cannot happen. How many total votes were cast on this machine? How did this happen? This only came to light because of the closeness of this particular race. How many other voting machines did the election commission fail to count? Maybe it is time for new leadership at the election commission. Every vote should be counted!

Top Stories

Omaba on the Ground zero Mosque

President Obama recently created controversy by his comments about the proposed mosque at "ground zero", in New York City. The mosque is actually a mosque and a Muslim community center and the proposed site is two blocks away from the foot print of the twin towers. Nevertheless, many feel that it inappropriate and should not be permitted to be constructed at that location. Below is the full text of the President's remarks.

Remarks by the President at Iftar Dinner

For Immediate Release August 13, 2010
State Dining Room

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening, everybody. Welcome. Please, have a seat. Well, welcome to the White House. To you, to Muslim Americans across our country, and to more than one billion Muslims around the world, I extend my best wishes on this holy month. Ramadan Kareem.

I want to welcome members of the diplomatic corps; members of my administration; and members of Congress, including Rush Holt, John Conyers, and Andre Carson, who is one of two Muslim American members of Congress, along with Keith Ellison. So welcome, all of you.

Here at the White House, we have a tradition of hosting iftars that goes back several years, just as we host Christmas parties and seders and Diwali celebrations. And these events celebrate the role of faith in the lives of the American people. They remind us of the basic truth that we are all children of God, and we all draw strength and a sense of purpose from our beliefs.

These events are also an affirmation of who we are as Americans. Our Founders understood that the best way to honor the place of faith in the lives of our people was to protect their freedom to practice religion. In the Virginia Act of Establishing Religion Freedom, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.” The First Amendment of our Constitution established the freedom of religion as the law of the land. And that right has been upheld ever since.

Indeed, over the course of our history, religion has flourished within our borders precisely because Americans have had the right to worship as they choose -– including the right to believe in no religion at all. And it is a testament to the wisdom of our Founders that America remains deeply religious -– a nation where the ability of peoples of different faiths to coexist peacefully and with mutual respect for one another stands in stark contrast to the religious conflict that persists elsewhere around the globe.

Now, that's not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -– particularly New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. (Applause.) And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.

We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who led the response to that attack -– from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us also remember who we’re fighting against, and what we’re fighting for. Our enemies respect no religious freedom. Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam -– it’s a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders -– they’re terrorists who murder innocent men and women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion -– and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.

So that's who we’re fighting against. And the reason that we will win this fight is not simply the strength of our arms -– it is the strength of our values. The democracy that we uphold. The freedoms that we cherish. The laws that we apply without regard to race, or religion, or wealth, or status. Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect towards those who are different from us –- and that way of life, that quintessentially American creed, stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today.

In my inaugural address I said that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus —- and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and every culture, drawn from every end of this Earth. And that diversity can bring difficult debates. This is not unique to our time. Past eras have seen controversies about the construction of synagogues or Catholic churches. But time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues, and stay true to our core values, and emerge stronger for it. So it must be -– and will be -– today.

And tonight, we are reminded that Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity. And Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been a part of America. The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan —- making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago. (Applause.)

Like so many other immigrants, generations of Muslims came to forge their future here. They became farmers and merchants, worked in mills and factories. They helped lay the railroads. They helped to build America. They founded the first Islamic center in New York City in the 1890s. They built America’s first mosque on the prairie of North Dakota. And perhaps the oldest surviving mosque in America —- still in use today —- is in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Today, our nation is strengthened by millions of Muslim Americans. They excel in every walk of life. Muslim American communities —- including mosques in all 50 states —- also serve their neighbors. Muslim Americans protect our communities as police officers and firefighters and first responders. Muslim American clerics have spoken out against terror and extremism, reaffirming that Islam teaches that one must save human life, not take it. And Muslim Americans serve with honor in our military. At next week’s iftar at the Pentagon, tribute will be paid to three soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq and now rest among the heroes of Arlington National Cemetery.

These Muslim Americans died for the security that we depend on, and the freedoms that we cherish. They are part of an unbroken line of Americans that stretches back to our founding; Americans of all faiths who have served and sacrificed to extend the promise of America to new generations, and to ensure that what is exceptional about America is protected -– our commitment to stay true to our core values, and our ability slowly but surely to perfect our union.

For in the end, we remain “one nation, under God, indivisible.” And we can only achieve “liberty and justice for all” if we live by that one rule at the heart of every great religion, including Islam —- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

So thank you all for being here. I wish you a blessed Ramadan. And with that, let us eat. (Applause.

END

Comment: I know it is a heresy for a Republican to say you agree with the President and I know I risk getting kicked out of the vast right-wing conspiracy but there is absolutely nothing in this speech that I think is incorrect or inappropriate. I also believe in the First Amendment to the Constitution. I also think that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, or Murfressboro Tennessee or Antioch, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.

Top Stories

David Hall at the Madison Breakfast Club

David Hall (center) Republican nominee for the 5th Congressional District, is flanked by his former Republican primary opponents (from left to right), Tracy Tarum, Bob Schwartz, Lonnie Spivak and Bob Ries.


This morning David Hall was the special guest of the Madison Breakfast Club, where he was joined by five of his former primary opponents, Tracy Tarum, Bob Schwartz, Lonnie Spivak, Bob Ries and V.J. Kumar.

Bob Schwartz said he was more enthusiastic and optimistic now than when he started his campaign. "We have selected a rock solid conservative in David Hall," said Swartz, " a man of the people, a smart business man, and David Hall is going to be a proud standard-bearer for us."

"My goal (in my campaign) was to make sure that we had the strongest conservative come out of this race to take on Jim Cooper and I believe that candidate today is David Hall," said Lonnie Spivak.

Each former candidate reflected on his own campaign and congratulated David and pledged to do all he could to help elect David Hall and defeat Jim Cooper. When Hall spoke he praised all of his former opponents and thanked them for their support.

Hall was warmly received by the approximately thirty-five people attending the breakfast. Hall spoke for about twenty minutes and took questions for another fifteen minutes.

During the primary campaign, Hall had been criticized by me and others for his failure to engage in debates and for his absence from Republican functions. Many Republican activist were surprised by his victory. Hall acknowledged that many people did not know who he was and he explained his campaign strategy and how he won the primary. He said he spent six weeks studying the district before he began campaigning. He said he did in-depth voter analysis and identified 15,000 likely voters and targeting those 15,000 and concentrated on getting their support.

"We wore them out. That is all we focused on, those 15,000 people," said Hall. "If you didn't fit that criteria you probably didn't hear a lot form us but we knew election day that if we had between 11,000 and 15,000 we would win. And, come election day we had right at 12,000.”

Hall said he knows that this strategy left a lot of people out but he said in the general election he was leaving no one out.

David stressed the importance of this election and said it is time to get our country back on a sound financial footing. He also said our culture is under attack and we must return our nation to the principles upon which it was founded. Hall said defunding the Health care bill would be his first priority so it can be stopped until it can be permanently overturned. He said we must stop spending more than we bring in and he said he would support a defense of marriage constitutional amendment and a balanced budget amendment. In response to a question, he said he did not advocate abolishing Medicare and he thinks Nashville receiving federal disaster assistance during the recent flood was appropriate. He was critical of foreign aid. In response to another question, he said he supported the Fair Tax.

This was a good meeting this morning. We have a good candidate in David Hall. He worked hard to get the nomination and ran a brilliant campaign. He is a likable and personable guy. He is a solid conservative and he is electable. I think we have a real chance of beating Jim Cooper. All Republicans and independent conservatives need to get behind this campaign and help elect David Hall.

Top Stories

David Hall for Congress - David Responds to Push Poll

August 12th, 2010, David Hall for Congress, Nashville, TN

David Hall, Republican Nominee for Tennessee’s 5th Congressional District, released a statement today on an apparent push poll conducted by Cooper’s administration.

“Cooper’s disturbed more than we first thought, evident by his push-poll yesterday”

The poll consisted of approximately 60 questions, asking voters a series of political questions, ending with a series of push-questions. Stating David was unwilling and incapable of engaging in a political debate with his opponents.

David’s response - “For the record, I challenge Jim Cooper to a debate, anywhere, anytime within the next 30 days, and let’s see who’s afraid of who”

The political questions included, questions on the public’s view of his response to the flood, his vote in favor of obamacare and his response to the economic crisis.

“It’s obvious, he’s nervous about his votes and his public perception, he’s trying to find a safe crack to hide in but I don’t believe it’s there.” David said.

The poll also accused David’s campaign of being in the middle of an FEC lawsuit, an accusation with little foundation. David Hall addressed the issue by saying,

“There isn’t an FEC lawsuit, I did receive a letter questioning a certain contribution, we’ve been on constant contact with the FEC and they’re now satisfied with our answer…Case Closed.”

If you would like more information about David Hall’s campaign, visit www.DavidHallforCongress.com. Or feel free to contact the campaign at:

David Hall for Congress
615-730-8695

Top Stories

Is Frank Sutherland wrong? What is a "low-alcohol wine?"

This morning following my usual routine, I picked up my newspaper and read the news of the day. Despite at times being disgusted with The Tennessean, I cannot break the newspaper habit. I love my newspaper first thing in the morning.

After scanning the news of day and the editorial page, I turned to the other sections and was greeted by Frank Sutherland's Wine in Nashville column. The headline read, "Lower-alcohol wines still quite lovely."

I always enjoy Frank's column. However, the time he described a white wine as having the aroma of "dusty tomato stems" it made me wonder if he was just waxing poetic or if he really knew his wine. Also, when he described a wine palate as "Texas Grapefruit", I thought that was pretty amazing the he could specify "Texas" grapefruit as opposed to Florida or California grapefruit.

I am not a wine expert, but I like wine. I like drinking it mostly, but I like wine tastings, Wine on the River, reading wine reviews and wine labels. I enjoy shopping for wine. I normally hate to shop. I only shop when I have to. I never understood how people could just shop for pleasure, but I love a trip to the liquor store. Anyway, as I turned to Frank's column on lower-alcohol wines, I expected to read about wines in the 9% to 11% range. That is what I think of when I think about lower-alcohol wines. I was surprised. Frank reviewed five wines and one of them had a 12.5% alcohol rating, one a 12.85% and three had 13% alcohol content.

I don't really think a 13% alcohol wine is low-alcohol. I thought I would see what is on my wine shelf. My wife has developed a taste for sweeter wines and I know that sweeter wines have less alcohol and more residual sugar than drier wines, so I knew a random sampling of my wine cabinet would reveal some sweeter wines; still, I thought that 13% alcohol is not a low-alcohol wine. Here is what I found by just randomly pulling out a few wine bottles:

• Gissen East Coast Riesling, 9.5%. Now that is low-alcohol.
• Mathew Fox Merlot, 12%
• Vino de laTierra de Casltilla, 14%. This is a red Spanish wine made from about seven different varietals.
• Walnut Crest Melot, 13%
• Barton & Guestier Cabernet Sauvignon, a French vin de pays d'oc, 13%
• Wilhelm Bergman, Mosel-Saar-Ruwar. Riesling Qualitatswein. 8.5%. Now that is really lower-alcohol wine, however it is quite sweet.
• Sea Ridge Cabernet Sauvignon, 12.5%
• La Rustia, Erbaluce Di Caluso, 12.5% . This is a white Italian V.Q.P.R.D. wine and I love this wine. It is a rare find at the price I am willing to pay. I wish I would have bought all they had when I found it.

So, maybe my wine cabinet is not typical but I have cruised the wine shelves for years and I am not convinced that 13% alcohol content classifies a wine as "low-alcohol." I think that to get much above 14% you are into fortified wines.

Does Frank Sutherland know what he is talking about? Do I need a new wine guru? How do you apply to be on Frank's wine review panel.

Top Stories

A unity breakfast: with David Hall, Republican nominee, 5th Congressional District

MEET FELLOW GOP CONSERVATIVES
FROM THE Madison & Goodlettsville AREAS
“Eggs & Bacon Summit ”

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Dutch treat breakfast 8:30 am, meeting 9 am.

Piccadilly

Madison Square Shopping Center

Gallatin Road, Madison

A unity breakfast:

David Hall, Republican nominee, 5^th Congressional District

and

Bob Schwartz, Tracy Tarum an Bob Ries

Former candidates, 5^th Congressional District

Come to this important event and learn what you can do to Elect David Hall and defeat Jim Cooper!

Top Stories

Zach Hall’s Response To A Nameless Campaign ‘Pro’

It appears that the top two of the top three campaigns in the 5th Congressional district have recently explained/complained about their loss. It would seem only fair that a member of the winning side should have a chance to chime in as well. Now, I don’t speak as an official representative of the David Hall for Congress campaign, just as a bystander that has seen the inner workings of multiple 5th District campaigns. I guess you can call this: Zach Hall’s Response To A Nameless Campaign ‘Pro.’

The Media's Failure:

We got some play online, but in retrospect it was futile to think the news media had the slightest interest in covering the race, much less making the coverage about issues.

I respect everyone that has ever worked for the Republican Party, trying to get conservative candidates elected, but I am surprised it has taken so long for them to figure out the media’s disinterest in conservative candidates, I assumed it was a given from the get-go. However, for certain individuals it took some months to find out.

The Tennessee Republican Party's Failure:

The Tennessee GOP tried early on to recruit a wealthy candidate to run against Cooper. When that failed, the party took a hands-off stance, doing nothing to try to narrow the field from 11 down to four or five candidates who both had a realistic chance to win and fit the electorate's mood on the issues.

Once again, I’m not exactly sure what makes me disagree with the supposed political ‘elites’, but my feeling on the matter is as follows: The fact is David Hall isn’t a wealthy man but it appears he was well off enough to fund his campaign with more money than any candidate could raise, and secondly the Republican Party would be in error to scourge the list down to 4 or 5. Personally, I would prefer 113 candidates over the initial 13. Why? Simple, once the primary is complete you would have a 113, or 13 unit army of support, if only the once foes would come together to support the clear victor.

Random Comical Rebuttals:

And so the GOP nominee is a guy who can't raise money, is in trouble with the FEC, and who avoids events and forums that candidates typically do.

IF:

Hartline: Lawsuit = L, Judgment = J, FEC Trouble = F, Salary = S,

Hall: FEC Trouble = F

Heil: Yard Sign Trouble = Y

:D, Let’s do some math, shall we? Back to school we go hahaha!

Hartline = L+J+F+S

Hall = F

Heil = Y

Now, for the sake of argument let’s say Heil’s Y = Jeff’s J+S.

Here is where it gets fun!

Hartline: = L+J+F+S - F - Y = L

What do ya know, Hartline beats em’ all with room to spare.

Now, for the record I have personally talked with the Hartline campaign and I believe all of his mishaps are explainable and have been blown out of proportion, but still were talking about public perception.

...and a story about David Hall, whom they covered as a novelty act because several Hall family members were running for every elected office in town.

Surely you jest Sir…..Every office, Really? How flattering!

Hall's low-information strategy - hide from voters and hope to win based on name repetition - worked because there were no candidates in the race who had high name recognition. Hall's strategy would have failed utterly if there had been a candidate with name recognition based on actual accomplishment in the public eye rather than mere repetition of a common, memorable last name - or if media had not abdicated its duty to properly cover the race and inform the electorate.

Ok, here’s my favorite part, “worked because there were no candidates in the race who had high name recognition.” What was your job again? OH, that’s right!! Generating name recognition via news media, which we’ve already decided was a bust to begin with.

If you had any problems with my math analysis you may want to sleep for a few hours and come back to his one J.

Let’s compare two quotes stated within the same article.

Hall's low-information strategy - hide from voters and hope to win based on name repetition - worked because there were no candidates in the race who had high name recognition.

Now, on the next line.

It was a cynical, hollow strategy based on name recognition while avoiding media or voter scrutiny.

Ummmmmmm……..EXACTLY!!!

Finally, my personal favorite, totally hypocritical yet oh so funny!

....avoiding any event where voters would have a chance to compare him to the other candidates.

Most of the previous quoted lines were comical stretches filled with laughable logical fallacies but this one is an even funnier untruth.

David Hall was at a total of 12 DCRP events, granted he missed 3 of the larger speaking events due to more valuable engagements that offered larger benefits to the campaign. At least, that’s what he thought at the time, turns out he was right…..Come to think of it, I’ve never seen you at ANY of the events….An epic, pot calling the kettle black moment!

Democrats Elected David Hall?!?!:

Some have speculated that David Hall received a large portion of the ‘swing-voters’, and I would have to agree….I’ll get to that later.

A standing argument is that the Davidson County Democrats picked the easiest candidate for Jim Cooper to beat and voted for him. One doesn’t even have to come at this argument with a fully functional thought process to laugh at this one. David Hall has more cash on hand than any other candidate, and reported more money than any other candidate. If the Democrats wanted to elect someone incapable of beating Cooper they would have voted for the Strauss character that has never been heard of by anyone. Secondly, they would have chosen CeCe Heil, as a local Democrat endorsed her before the primary.

Now, I would agree that David Hall received more Democratic votes than the average candidate. Why? Because our campaign knew they were coming out. Part of the ‘mysterious’ 200k went towards voter ID. Our campaign realized early on that the Republican vote was going to be made up of approximately 18% crossovers. Going after those votes JUST MAKES SENSE!! We were the only campaign actively campaigning to ALL voters and it showed in the polls.

What boggles my mind is that a respectable Republican activist and a respected campaign manager and strategist would A: Not know and plan for this, B: Would lower himself to attacking candidates within his own party.

Closing:

Personally, I am tired of the fighting between campaigns. I would like for all of us to rally behind a candidate we can believe in. If not David Hall fine, but be dignified enough to hold your tongue and not lash out against your victorious opponent, because from on onlookers perspective it just looks like a bad loser….AND WE’RE BETTER THAN THAT!

Top Stories

Bill Hobbs: Hall Pass

by Bill Hobbs, reposted with permission from Bill Hobbs Facebook page

The nomination of David Hall as the Republican candidate in Tennessee's 5th congressional district is the result of multiple failures - on the part of the news media, which utterly failed to do its job, and by the Tennessee Republican Party, which appears to have already conceded the November election to incumbent Democrat Jim Cooper.

With Hall - a nominee unable to raise money and already mired in an FEC probe into a $200,000 campaign transaction with a corporation of murky identity and ties to another company alleged to have scammed people online for millions of dollars - the state GOP has a ready-made excuse to do what you know the current party leadership wants to do: concede the 5th district and direct all of its congressional efforts and re$ources to holding the 3rd district seat and winning the 6th and 8th district seats.

In a year when Democrats are being defeated even in very-blue places like Hawaii and Massachusetts and independent polling shows that only 23% of likely voters want Jim Cooper re-elected, Jim Cooper is vulnerable. And if the GOP is to win 40 seats nationally and take control of Congress, it is going to have to defeat a few incumbents like Cooper whose district leans Democrat but only slightly.

But you can't win if you don't play and the Tennessee GOP just got a Hall pass to skip out on the 5th district race.

The Media's Failure:
The Tennessean wrote only three stories about candidates in the 5th District Race - a profile of Jeff Hartline, the only candidate who showed the ability to raise large amounts of money from donors; CeCe Heil, an attorney and the only female in the race, upon her endorsement by Sarah Palin; and a story about David Hall, whom they covered as a novelty act because several Hall family members were running for every elected office in town.

Newspaper folks often talk importantly about their duty to inform the public, and their important role in our democracy because of the need to have an informed electorate. Yet they virtually ignored the 5th district race, ignored 7 of the 11 candidates entirely, and did not cover any of the many multiple-candidate forums.

They failed to adequately inform the electorate. Readers got plenty of coverage of Paul McCartney's Nashville concert, on which the future direction of American government policy and the economy does not rest.

The Hall, Heil and Hartline campaign had very different media strategies.

The media strategy of the Hartline campaign, with which I worked*, was issues-focused. We released numerous news releases, statements and blog posts focused on current news and issues like the economy, jobs, the spiraling national debt and more. The blog posts, written by Jeff Hartline, were issues-focused. Jeff believed in talking to voters about serious issues.

We got some play online, but in retrospect it was futile to think the news media had the slightest interest in covering the race, much less making the coverage about issues.

The Heil campaign media strategy revolved around touting Heil's endorsement by various national political figures and social-conservative groups. To some degree it worked, though her focus was misdirected with most voters focused on jobs, the economy and federal spending this election.

The Hall strategy involved avoiding any event where voters would have a chance to compare him to the other candidates, while blanketing the district with signs for four different Hall family members all named Hall running for four different offices, hoping to brand "Hall" into voters' subconscious. It was a cynical strategy based on creating name recognition while avoiding media or voter scrutiny.

Hall's campaign slogan belied the hollowness of his campaign: "Just vote Hall."

Heil and Hartline believed voters were smart and wanted to talk about issues. They went to the forums. Hall bet that in a crowded field, needing only a plurality, he could win by finding enough low-information voters who vote based on whose yard signs they see the most. With four Halls running for office, voters saw lots of Hall yard signs.

The Hartline and Heil strategies were undermined by the media deciding to virtually ignore the race.

Hall's low-information strategy - hide from voters and hope to win based on name repetition - worked because there were no candidates in the race who had high name recognition. Hall's strategy would have failed utterly if there had been a candidate with name recognition based on actual accomplishment in the public eye rather than mere repetition of a common, memorable last name - or if media had not abdicated its duty to properly cover the race and inform the electorate.

The Tennessee Republican Party's Failure:
The Tennessee GOP tried early on to recruit a wealthy candidate to run against Cooper. When that failed, the party took a hands-off stance, doing nothing to try to narrow the field from 11 down to four or five candidates who both had a realistic chance to win and fit the electorate's mood on the issues.

With 11 candidates in the race, the TV news decided it easier to just not cover the race. Too many candidates, can't cover 'em all - so they covered none of them.

Just one example: WKRN taped a long interview on healthcare reform with Hartline in the spring, to air on their Sunday morning politics show, then canceled the segment rather than have to cover the rest of the candidates.

Had the Tennessee GOP worked early to shrink the field, perhaps by encouraging some of the obvious 2nd-tier candidates to run for local office instead, the media would have found it easy enough to cover the race.

But, no.

And so the GOP nominee is a guy who can't raise money, is in trouble with the FEC, and who avoids events and forums that candidates typically do.

Democrats could not have picked a better candidate to face Jim Cooper.

Bill Hobbs was the Communication Director for the Jeff Hartline campaign.

Top Stories

Tracy Tarum: Not ALL of Us Were Surprised By David Hall’s Finish

by Tracy Tarum

I would like to first start by saying congratulations to David Hall. Not only for winning the Republican primary, but also for being the spirit-filled kind of man I can and will gladly support in the replacement of the “honorable” Jim Cooper. I am pleased to say that after many months hearing David speak and getting to know his true intentions and convictions, I believe he amply qualified to fight the fight needed to get our Republic back on track by replacing the incompetent Mr. Cooper.

I pledged early on that I would not only work for the winner, but do what I could to promote them. Not only will I help where David wants me to, but I have already redirected “dumpjimcooper.com” to David’s website, and I will leave that on my Ford Expedition as advertising. I will encourage ALL of my competitors to come together and support our friend in the effort to remove Cooper. We all had our own ideas as to why we were the best candidates. We all have our regrets and wonderings. None of them, mind you, matter at this point. Our Father and the voters of the 5th District have decided that David Hall is the right man at this time, and it is our duty to support him.

NOW – I will blow my own horn a little. Not everyone is surprised by David Hall’s finish. I wrote my predictions Thursday afternoon, and posted them on my blog site and on facebook just minutes after the polls closed. I had Hall and Hartline fighting for 1 & 2, Heil 3rd, Spivak 4th and Schwartz 5th. I’d say 4 out of 5 isn’t too bad! (link http://tracytarum.com/blog/?p=579) Never underestimate the effects of hard work! David Hall was and is the hardest working campaigner in this race. He knocked on thousands of doors, and his hard work paid off. There is something to be said for “pressing the flesh.”

All that having been said, I also want to thank all of you who have assisted me, from Karen Boswell at the first “Eggs & Bacon Summit” in Donelson (where I was so nervous I could have sweated a bucket full) to Rod Williams, who secured for me many of the speaking engagements that got me known. Betty, Peter, and Kathleen, thank you as well! There are so many others to thank that I don’t have time or space, but you know who you are, and thank you! I assure you, you have not heard the last from me. Far too many people have asked me to run again, I cannot let them down.

If David does not beat Jim Cooper, I will be running again in 2012. I promise you this, I will start early, I will raise a ton of money, and I will win the Republican primary. I spent $540 and netted 1128 votes, less than 48 cents per vote. I know that my message resonates, and in 2012 I will have the finances to get my message out. I know my Republic is in danger. When I enlisted in the U.S. Air Force, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution, my nation, and her people against all enemies; foreign and domestic. That oath did not end when I left military service. My oath and my passion for America are alive and well. I will continue to fight the fight until our Republic is reclaimed! God bless America, God bless our troops, and God bless us all. Thank you!

Top Stories

Update: Henry Appears to win over Yarbro

This just in from The Tennessean: Link

I’m conflicted over this. I can’t help but be glad that Senator’s Henry’s supporters stuck with him and nominated him one more time. I am glad to see Yarbro, the “progressive” candidate, be defeated.

I like Senator Henry. He is a pragmatic moderate, if not a conservative legislator. He stays in touch with his constituents. He is approachable and he is an honorable man. He has a wealth of knowledge and there is no doubt he loves his community and this State. He is likable. Everyone likes Senator Henry.

So, while on the one hand, I wanted Senator Henry to prevail over Yarbro, another part of me wanted Yarbro to win because, I want a Republican victory in November and I think if Senator Henry would have lost, Republicans would have had a better chance at taking the 21st Senate seat against Yarbro than against Henry. I know I could generate a lot more passion for defeating Yarbro than I will be able to generate for defeating Henry. If Yarbro would have won, there would have been a much greater ideological contrast between the Republican and the Democratic candidate than there will be between Henry and our Republican candidate.

I have voted for Senator Henry often in the past. Despite have a fondness for Senator Henry, I will be voting for our Republican candidate. Even a good Democrat is part of the machinery that supports the national party and the Democrat agenda. Also, we have an excellent Republican candidate in Steve Dickerson. Dr. Dickerson is smart, articulate, has strong core conservative values and is a pragmatic problem-solving kind of guy. Being a Doctor, he will bring knowledge to the Senate that is lacking as the state must deal with changes in health care delivery and possibly the implementation of Obamacare.

Senator Henry has been in the State Legislature since 1954. That is a long time. He is 84 years old. His time is past. I wish Senator Henry would have retired with dignity and not ran this year. I hate to see him be defeated but he should have known when it was time to leave the stage.

I missed his appearance on Channel 5, but several people told me about it and said he looked pitiful. I understand that he had various notes spread before him and when asked a question he fumbled for the right note. Also his cell phone went off twice during the interview. He did not perform well. Many people, even those who like Senator Henry may conclude that it is time for a change. Still, I wish we were running against Yarbro instead of Henry.

Top Stories

An evening with J. C. Watts

Last night I had the privilege to hear J. C. Watts speak. The event was a fund raiser for the Republican National Hispanic Assembly of Tennessee and it was at the home of Dr. and Mrs. Mark Houston.

J.C Watts served in Congress from Oklahoma from 1995 to 2003 and was the first Black Republican elected from the south since Reconstruction. He became a star in the Republican Party. While in Congress Watts argued for using tax reductions to improve education, job training and housing in poor urban and rural settings, and was an advocate for faith-based non-profits to deliver such services. Watts worked to make the Party more inclusive, promoted African trade, and supported historically black colleges and universities.

Prior to his service in the Congress he was a college football quarterback with the Oklahoma Sooners and played professionally for the Canadian Football League. Since leaving Congress is has engaged multiple interest including ownership of a John Deere Tractor franchise, cattle ranching, lobbying and consulting. He is also a minister and public speaker.

Last night J. C. Watts spoke of the importance of the Party reaching out to minority communities. He said it is not necessary that we change our message but it is necessary to build relationships. He urged the Party to seek diversity. "We have got the message" he said. "We have the facts on our side. They can lie louder, we can tell the truth longer. We need to keep telling the truth with a smile on our face."

I had a chance to chat with him in addition to hearing him speak. It was an inspirational and motivational event. Below are some excerpts from his speech:

On The Cheer of the Crowd and grading your own exam:

The cheer of the crowd can be so seductive. It can be intoxicating. If you are running for public office I want to warn you about the cheer of the crowd.

When we start listening to the cheer of the crowd, the next thing we do is you start to grade our own test. And, do you know what happens when you grade your own test? You always make a good grade.

Public service in not about me. I recognize that having heard the cheer of the crowd, there were times I said, '"Man, I 'd must be pretty good, I am all of the that."

And as my grandmother would remind me, "Boy your might me some of that but you ain't ever all of that ."

And remember that. If you are fortunate enough, blessed enough to be elected, remember you might be some of that but you ain't ever all of that, I don't care what the cheer of the crowd is telling you.

Taking our republican caps off long enough to be critical of Republicans: This consternation we are experiencing in the nation did not start with this president. the consternation started about the last two to three years of the Bush Administration, when was as republicans were spending like (I used to say, Like drunken sailors but that is offensive to drunken sailors), we were spending live there was no tomorrow. We got arrogant because we were grading our own exam and we were giving ourselves good grades.

On his political conversion and reserving the right to be an individual:

In 1980 as a journalism student I covered a political debate between a Republican and Democrat candidate for U. S. Senate. I went to that debate to cover it to get a grade. It turned out to be a life changing experience.

I left this debate and I was totally confused. I thought it was my birthright to be a Democrat. My uncle was President of the local NAACP for 17 years, my father ran for Chief of Police and County Sheriff has a Democrat in my small town of New Fall Oklahoma. I left this debate and I am thinking, how do I tell my uncle and my dad that I agree with about ninety percent of everything this Republican said? How do I tell them that?

Eight years later I switched my registration from Democrat to Republican. As a youth pastor, I said I will never again vote against my values. I will never again vote a certain way because the group things I should vote certain way. I have always had enough rebellion in me and enough individual spirit in me, that I don't think I have to agree with the Watts's just because I am a Watts. I reserve the right to disagree with my siblings. I don't have to agree with you just because I am a Republican. I reserve the right to be an individual.

Rod Williams, Louella Williams, J. C. Watts
In addition to the pleasure of meeting and hearing J. C. Watts, the evening was a great social event. I enjoying good food and wine and conversation with other Republican leaders and office holders. It was a pleasure to meet our gracious host, Dr. and Mrs. Houston, and see their beautiful home.

The homes is a large Italian-style villa filled with beautiful furnishings and art. The home has been featured in various publications.

Top Stories