We're going to be sorry

On Tuesday, as expected, Republicans made historic gains in midterm elections nationwide. It's not really a surprise that Republicans would gain seats in midterm elections, or even that they would regain control of the House. It is traditional that the party that controls the White House loses seats in the following midterms. What is surprising is the number of seats that they gained. At last count, they stood to gain at least 60 seats in the House of Representatives, the most one party has gained in at least 60 years. While it fell short of the "Republican Revolution" of 1994, it was a significant shift in power engineered by voters who are scared and worried about the nation's economy, which continues to stumble along with an unemployment rate of 9.6 percent. As giddy as Republicans are at regaining the House, though, they shouldn't make the same mistake that Democrats made in 2008, when they solidified their majorities in both houses. Tuesday's gains don't represent a mandate from voters for Republicans' conservative policies. They represent a rejection of Democrats, who failed to fix the economy. despite four years of controlling both houses.
So what can we expect now that Republicans have taken over the House and tightened Democrats' majority in the Senate? In a word, gridlock. Republicans, with rare exception (think John McCain or Lindsey Graham), are not known for their willingness to work with the opposing party once they gain control. With Republicans in control of the House, we can expect them to push their agenda of smaller government and reduced spending and extending Bush-era tax cuts for the rich. We can expect them to do everything in their power to stymie Democrats' efforts to advance their own agenda as both parties begin jockeying for position for the 2012 presidential election. And we can expect Republicans to maintain their majority for the forseeable future, since they will be in charge of redistricting this time, and are sure to redraw congressional districts to their advantage.
It was only four years ago that Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Is our collective memory so short that we don't remember the power grabs, the corruption, the looking out for the rich at the expense of the middle class and the poor and the Republicans creating much of the mess that we currently find ourselves in? We can expect more of the same now that Republicans are back in control of the House. We're going to be sorry.

The Ghost Candidate

I'm beginning to wonder about 8th District Republican congressional candidate Stephen Fincher. First, he announces that he won't debate his opponent, state Sen. Roy Herron, D-Dresden. Now, he announces that he won't release his income tax records. My question is, what is Fincher hiding?
I can understand why Fincher doesn't want to debate Herron. After all, Fincher is little more than an unpolished farmer and gospel singer from Frog Jump. He's a political neophyte. Herron, on the other hand is a polished, Vanderbilt-educated lawyer and a 20-year political veteran. Live debates can be tricky. Without his handlers telling him what to say and feeding him sound bites, he's in real danger of saying the wrong thing. And once something is out there in the public domain, it can't be taken back. A live debate can make or break a candidate, and Fincher knows that. Still, he owes it to his his potential future constituents to face them and answer their questions. A debate is one way for voters to educate themselves about candidates so they can make an informed choice. That's why Fincher owes it to the public to face Herron.
Even more troubling is Fincher's refusal to release his income tax records. His defense that "I haven't done anything illegal, so there's no reason to release my records" just doesn't fly. Releasing income tax records is standard procedure for political candidates. Even the president releases his records every year. Fincher's refusal to release his records only raises the question of what he has to hide.
Fincher seems to be trying to have it both ways. He wants to represent the people of the 8th District, but he wants to maintain his status as a private citizen. He can't have it both ways. Fincher was the first to throw his hat in the ring to replace retiring Rep. John Tanner. He should have known that he was giving up his status as a private citizen. It's time he came to terms with it and faced the public. They deserve nothing less.

Give Obama a break

With midterm elections coming up in a couple of months, it's no surprise that Republicans across the nation have amped up their attacks on President Barack Obama. According to their latest attacks, the president has spent too much and done to little to help the economy and those who continue to be out of work. Any efforts he makes to revive the moribund economy are looked at as a "deathbed conversion," according to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and "too little too late" by others. Give me a break.
In the first place, it's not entirely Obama's fault that we're in the mess we're in economically. Remember that we had entered this recession toward the end of former President George W. Bush's term in 2008. It is fair to say that Obama is responsible for the success or failure of his economic recovery efforts. But it's not fair to blame him completely for the current situation. While not everyone may agree with his economic recovery efforts -- not everyone likes his stimulus recovery package, for instance -- or his proposal to improve the nation's transportation infrastructure, at least he's trying something new. Still, with the economy still in the doldrums and unemployment hovering around 10 percent nationally, it looks like the Republicans are set to make major gains in November's elections. Can the Republicans fix the economy, assuming they take over Congress? Well, they failed miserably the last time they had control. It will be interesting to see if they have learned anything new in the past couple of years.

A Muslim much ado about nothing

It seems amazing to me that almost two years after his inauguration, there are still questions about President Barack Obama's faith, and even his citizenship. It's even more amazing to me that in 2010, almost 10 years after the attacks, there are still people who object to a Muslim mosque being built just a couple blocks from the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
To be clear, Barack Obama is not Muslim. He has never been a Muslim. He was born to a Kenyan Muslim father and an American mother. Yes, he spent some time as a child in Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim country. But that doesn't make he is a Muslim, any more than enjoyment of good food makes one a good cook. Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ, a Christian denomination. Yes, during a visit to Kenya a few years ago, he did don traditional Muslim garb. But that was simply a show of respect to his hosts, not a declaration of his faith.
As far the mosque issue goes, it's much ado about nothing. If Muslims in New York City want to build a community center or even a mosque within a couple blocks of Ground Zero, let them. It's not a matter of being a "monument to terrorism" as some have contended. This is a matter of simple religious freedom, as guaranteed under the First Amendment to our Constitution.
Let's be clear. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of, and even from religion, if one so chooses. It doesn't apply only to Christians, as some would like to believe. It applies to everyone, be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or whatever. Gasp. It even applies to atheists and agnostics. Under the First Amendment, Muslims in New York City and across the country are free to worship however and wherever they choose, even next to Ground Zero. Ground Zero doesn't belong just to victims of the attack or to Americans. It belongs to everyone.
A lot of people, especially in the Bible Belt, mistakenly believe that all Muslims are terrorists. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people. There are, of course, Muslim extremists. who engage in violence. But heck, there are extremists in every religion, even Christianity. Remember the string of abortion clinic shootings in the 1990s, where Christian terrorists gunned down abortion doctors? If we were to judge all Christianity only by those acts, we might conclude that all Christians are violent extremists. And we wouldn't want to be judged like that, would we? So why is it OK to paint all Muslims with such a broad brush? It's hypocritical and doesn't make sense.

Pork: Good for constituents or bad for the country?

The shocking death of longtime Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska in a plane crash on Monday raised an interesting question for me. Stevens was often derided as the "king of pork." He was the architect of the infamous "Bridge to Nowehere." But is pork -- extra money funneled to states to help create jobs and build infrastructure -- really as bad as it's cracked up to be?
Opponents of pork point to Stevens' "Bridge to Nowhere" as an example of government waste and a misuse of taxpayer funds. They point out correctly that the projects completed today will be paid for by future generations.
But is pork really all that bad? So-called pork helps pay for building roads and bridges and other infrastructure. In a sparsely populated state like Alaska, it may be the only way that such improvements get made. "Pork" has also been used to pay for new scientific research programs and technology advances. Does anyone really have a problem with that?And what about the fact that "pork" funds help create new jobs? Isn't it true that voters, at least in part, elect representatives to "bring home the bacon" for their states?
Stevens has been described as an "unapologetic advocate for his state" during his more than 40 years in the Senate. If he, in fact, represented his state well and helped create new jobs and build new infrastructure, is it really fair to deride him as "the king of pork?" And even if the title is appropriate, is it really such a bad thing? Something to make you think.

A banner year for Republicans

As much as I hate to admit it, it is shaping up to be a good year for Republicans on the national scene. After suffering staggering defeats in 2008, when they lost both the White House and saw Democrats solidify their hold on Congress, they appear to be poised to shrink the Democrats' majority, or at the very least, cost them their filibuster-proof majority.
Of all the races being contested across the nation this year, one of the more hotly contested and closely watched is the race between newly crowned Republican candidate Stephen Fincher and longtime Democratic state legislator Roy Herron. Fincher is a charismatic, gospel-singing farmer from Frog Jump near Maury City, and the "chosen one" for the national Republicans. He is the prototype candidate for the GOP in 2010, the type of candidate Republicans think they can make real gains with. Herron is a veteran state legislator who has spent 22 years in Nashville. He is an accomplished, erudite man who graduated from Vanderbilt. So who has the advantage in the all-important 8th District?
That's a tough call. Republicans are in the best position in years to take that seat, which has been held by Democrats for literally generations. John Tanner, the incumbent, is retiring after 22 years in Washington. Tanner's predecessor, Ed Jones (for whom the federal building in downtown Jackson is named, coincidentally), held that seat for 22 years as well. All that to say that this a traditionally Democratic seat in a district that is trending increasingly Republican.
Fincher is a political newcomer, no match for Herron's years of political experience. But don't underestimate Fincher. Newcomer or not, he has energized the Republican base like few candidates have in recent years, or ever. He has proven to be a quick study. He has raised a ton of money and has the backing of the national GOP establishment. If he has one weakness going into the general election in November, it's that he just emerged from a bruising primary campaign that saw him have to spend a good portion of his resources just to become "the man." His party has spent months ripping itself apart from the inside as candidates jockeyed to be perceived as the most conservative. Can they now unite behind Fincher and beat Herron, who has had months to raise money and hone his message to voters?
Herron's experience edge is perhaps his greatest asset. He not only knows how government works, but he is a veteran campaigner. He has managed to be elected consistently as a Democrat in a very conservative district.
That being said, his record in Nashville could be his Achille's heel. He was one of those Democrats who survived the purge after supporting a state income tax in a virulently anti-tax state. While he hardly is a "Barney Frank" style liberal, he is a thoughtful man and a tad more liberal than many of his constitutents. Can he keep his winning streak going and become our next Congressman for the 8th District? I hope so.
For my money, Herron is the best man for this position, and not because he's a Democrat. He's the best man for the job because of his experience edge. He could hit the ground running from day one with little or no learning curve. He's the best man for the job because he's educated and he's thoughtful. He's not likely to be swayed by strictly emotional arguments or partisan reasons. He'll look at all sides of an issue and make the best decision possible based on the evidence. And he's the best man for the job because he has shown a great ability to reach across the aisle and work with the other party, something Fincher isn't as likely to do. Roy Herron for Congress in 2010? I certainly hope so.