Romans 4: Paul's Favorite Scripture

After a long hiatus, I'm resuming the blogging of Romans.

If ever Paul had a stump speech, Romans 4 was a big part of it. Paul's argument from Genesis 15:6 was evidently a favorite of his: it's used also in Galatians, and James reacts against it in his letter to the church.

This is prooftexting at its finest. Because the Hebrew Scriptures say that Abraham believed God's promise, and that that belief was accredited to him as righteousness, Paul argues that it is this faith that we must have in order to please God. How does that happen? Jesus was faithful and provided the place of safety - we believe God's promise that he will save us through Jesus and so enter the place of safety. Just like our father in faith, Abraham.

James and company react to this because Paul is easily misunderstood here. Faith without works is a dead faith. Abraham's faith led him into many obedient acts - leaving Mesopotamia, circumcision, sacrificing Isaac. So too will a follower of Christ do many things because of his faith, showing his faith to be a living one.

But Paul gets adamant with us. This may well be, but many times men get their own requirements for righteousness mixed up with God's commandments. Any way that they can legislate their own morality on others - whether commanding circumcision of Christians, or commanding new converts to divorce if one or the other has a marriage in the past, or even taking over school boards and getting creationism on the curriculum - they will do so in the name of Christ. Paul wants no part of this.

To reach forward, Paul is aiming for a particular statement: Welcome one another, as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. That is what basing salvation on belief in God's ability to save (within Jesus) is all about for him. Christians are redeemed from the punishment for their sins because of what God is going to do - not what they have done or are doing or will do. No one can boast before God.

So if you didn't save anybody from their sins, who in Hades are you to boss other people around? Let's leave God up on the judgment throne: God doesn't need our help sorting people out.

This is where I think Paul's gotten hold of something - something real. People who want to judge and condemn and legislate have something fundamentally wrong at heart. It's fear that drives you to do things like that, and fear is not part of what Paul is preaching. Fear isn't something to nurture - it's something to heal. Jesus feared the cross, but he mastered that fear and took it up. Paul feared the early church and persecuted it, but broke through that fear and took up the cause he'd persecuted.

Fear, then, is the enemy - fear of God for punishment. Fear of our cravings, fear that our cravings will never be satisfied, fear that others will get away with what we dare not attempt. Fear that it's all for nothing.

There is no fear in love, for perfect love casts out fear. Paul is not after a power base, he's after love. That's where I can respect his efforts.

Is There A Better Word Than Schadenfruede?

Guardian

I'm laughing, but I'm not really amused and taking no real pleasure in this story. Perhaps this is the Daily Howler's "low, mordant chuckle".

If you don't want to click over, it's Guiliani apologizing to Bush about Kerkik, Cricket, whatever the thug's name is. It's becoming clear that Bush approved the meathead because Bush liked his image. Why are our leaders even hanging out with these characters?

Hannity's Rethinking the Jihad Thing

Sean Hannity - Hannitization of America Tour

Go on, click on over, and watch the second video clip. Sean cracks a joke about being willing to fly planes into buildings if he knew God had 72 virgins waiting for him.

I mean, that's what it sounded like to me.

Bucky Rea, the Brown Bag Blogger, has started a new blog article at the Democratic Underground, the Blog Box. He was kind enough to mention this blogger in his opening article. Many thanks, Bucky, and when this Christmas rush is over, I'll get back into blogging more regularly. (And I was a Merry Chimpster long before I found DU, but I'm proud to be a member of both communities.)

And it's about time to get back to the blogging of Romans too, isn't it? I had some research and thinking to do about the next chapter, and well, I've made up my mind about what I want to say, finally. So I might as well say it. No earthshaking revelation is in store, mind you - I had a yen for a particular theory of how the letter of James was written and I've decided against it. What does James have to do with Romans? Well, you'll just have to wait until Tuesday...

To all that come here from DU, welcome, look around. The Old Winyards is long gone, but if you're lucky, I'll uncork a bottle of Aberlour a'bunadh.

Rumsfeld: Let Them Have Body Armor

I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

After Wednesday's rough-and-tumble press conference, which was not the first time soldiers have had tough questions on the subject of armor, Rumsfeld complained to the White House that they should have sent him into that conference with body armor.

Well, not really. YubaNet.com made that up, but it's appropriate. The best headline I've seen so far is from France: "Please, sir, can I have better armor?"

The right wing bloviators are making sure we all know that some reporter helped the soldier frame his question. Limbaugh's making it sound like the Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter's some kind of Mangiafuoco, pulling strings all over the place to embarass Rumsfeld. But you won't hear any of them quoting this part of Lee Pitt's email:

When he asked Rumsfeld why after two years here soldiers are still having to dig through trash bins to find rusted scrap metal and cracked ballistic windows for their Humvees, the place erupted in cheers so loud that Rumsfeld had to ask the guy to repeat his question.

This is what made the story - not the question, not the response from Rumsfeld, but the reaction from everyone there. It was a question everyone wanted answered, including me.

Of course, people like Rush have to find a way to deflect it, and all they have is Pitts behind the scenes. Anything to deflect attention from the real question: When are the troops going to get the protection they need? If such questions are politically embarassing to this administration, perhaps they should do something about it.

Frist Loses Political Funds in Stock Market

Washington Post

Heads up, Tennessee Republicans. Bill Frist took the money you sent him for reelection, put it into the stock market, and lost a bundle - to the point that the campaign now can't pay back a bank loan.

And now Bill Frist wants to do the same thing to your Social Security money.

Here's an idea: why not pass a law that requires all campaign money leftover after an election to be placed in a government escrow account? The thought of fellow politicians slobbering over a large pile of cash might be enough motivation for the average elected official to make sure things like this don't happen.

Then again - Washington might finally figure out the meaning of the term "lockbox."

UPDATE: Well, I toodled over to OpenSecrets.org and found out some interesting information. Frist raised $9.6 million in the 2000 election cycle. He's now lost $460,000 of that in the stock market. That's just under 5% of everything he raised in the year he was actually running for re-election.

But wait - this gets better. 60% of his total was given by large donors ($200 or more) and 20% was from PACs. Small donors of less than $200 gave just 11.2% of that full amount: $1,079,547.

In other words: Bill Frist lost over 40% of the campaign money given to him by small Tennessee donors in the stock market. People sent him small sums of cash because they think he's going to be fiscally wise and protect the government from the wastrel liberals, but he takes their money and throws it away in a bad stock deal!

But wait - this gets better. OpenSecrets.org says that at the end of the 2000 campaign, Bill Frist's money looked like this:

Cash on Hand: $2,147,016
Debts: $1,440,000

Yet here's what the Washington Post articles says those numbers look like now:

As of the end of September, Frist 2000 reported cash on hand of $312,807 and "debts and obligations owed" of $349,107. Castignani said, however, that this did not include the stock market gains of more than $11,000 in September.

Okay, let's add in the $11,000, Mr. Castignani. That makes the "cash on hand" $324,000 or so.

Let's have fun with math. At the end of December 2000, Bill had $2.1 million in the bank and $1.4 in debts. He's paid down the debt to $349,107, so that's $1,090,893 he's paid off.

Now Frist 2000's cash in hand is $1,056,123. He's lost about $460,000 of that in the stock market. That's 44% of his remaining cash in hand going to light cigars on Wall Street.

But $460,000 (what he lost) and $324,000 (what he still has) doesn't add up to what he had at the end of 2000 in his 2000 election campaign fund. Where's the other $272,000, Senator Frist? What were you buying when you should have been paying your bills?

Meanwhile, records show, Frist has continued to use money from the 2000 campaign account to cover various expenses.

Recent spending, for example, included $689.50 for flowers for a holding room for visiting dignitaries attending the funeral of former president Ronald Reagan, and $9,457 for "Senate gifts" from the Senate Gift Shop. Castignani said he did not know about the nature of the gifts, but he added that FEC rules allow federal officeholders to spend campaign money in support of official activities.

Senator Frist, might consider $272,000 petty cash, but I'm sure that many of those who gave it to him don't.

And imagine going to a funeral and seeing a reelection campaign ad among the flowers. That's just tacky.

Quote of the Day

Sorry for the delay in blogging - my new job has picked up for the holidays, and I don't have much time...

...but I thought I'd share a really great quote I just found from Ian Shaw's The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt:

The analysis of the scenes and texts of these objects [early Egyptian artifacts] is complicated by our modern need to be able to distinguish between event and ritual. But the ancient Egyptians show little inclination to distinuish between the two, and indeed it might be argued that Egyptian ideology during the pharaonic period - particularly in so far as it related to the kingship - was reliant on the maintainance of some degree of confusion between real happenings and purely ritual or magical acts.

No, that's not American ideology during the Bush administration, but it might as well be. Humans have always had to read between the lines of the king's propaganda, and I'm surprised that Mr. Shaw didn't recognize that.

Whether you find this kinship with ancient Egyptians refreshing, amusing, or depressing is all in your attitude, I expect. Enjoy your holidays, and I hope to see you safe and well. And I'll keep trying to check in...

I saw The Incredibles today. Wow, what a great movie. I want to live in their house. Edna Mole is fabu. And it had a great message about family values and pulling together to defeat a common enemy.

But right before the show, we were treated to an new Pixar short - Bounding is what I believe it was called. It was unlike any other Pixar short I've ever seen.

The main character was a sheep. It had a beautiful coat of wool, and love to dance around, showing it off. All the other animals were caught up in the sheep's rapture and would dance along with it.

But then some people came along and harvested the wool. The sheep was left all naked and bare, and didn't want to dance anymore. But along came a jackalope. It helped the sheep realize it could still dance. From then on, the sheep would dance before and after any harvesting. And all the animals danced along with it.

So evidently the moral of the story was: If you're going to be exploited, you might as well lay back, let it happen, and find a way to let it not bother you too much. Weren't you dancing?

Maybe if I had made it to the theater in time to see the new Star Wars trailer, I wouldn't have been so keen to knock the Pixar short. Oh, well. Teaching people to internalize any reaction to blatent exploitation is a recipe for disaster. It may have been a cute little story, but that struck a real sour note for me right before the credits for The Incredibles rolled. And computer animation isn't something that happens overnight - this was a carefully concocted story in every frame. This effect was intended.

What were they thinking?

Calhoun Chronicles: Who’s Minding the Store?

Calhoun Chronicles

For thousands of years, farmers have saved seed from each crop to be plant the next spring. They have also sold seed to their neighbors.
This is now illegal.
Farmers are now jailed and or sued for doing this!

Farmers no longer have any real choices as to what they plant. The banks tell them what they want the farmer to do, and he does it, if he wants to stay in business.

The giant seed companies are being bought up by the mega chemical companies. These companies are genetically modifying the seeds and putting a patent on these modifications. If a farmer uses or sells seed, he is infringing on a patent. Also, some seeds are genetically modified to be sterile and would not produce a crop even if planted.

The altered seeds require chemical products from the parent company to thrive, and the parent company is involved with some of the processing of the crops.
Thus, the company owns the seed, owns the chemicals that the seed is modified to require, and has interest in the processing.
There are only a handful of companies that will control every aspect.
All of the old school varieties of plants are becoming extinct. Farmers have no choice as to who to buy from and at what price, or what chemicals to use. The consumer will have no choice as to what variety is put on their table and no choice as to where the product originates, or if it is modified.

Found this over at Dean's World. File this under "Think On These Things".

GOP lawmakers block intelligence overhaul

CNN.com

This must be the bill that I brought up below - why CNN doesn't feel the necessity of naming the bill or at least providing the bill's identifying number is beyond me.

So now I'm wondering what's going on, and in Washington, how can you be sure? First, the news breaks that a clause was slipped in to ease financial disclosure laws on every executive branch official. Now the Republicans are divided over immigration policies and are holding up the bill, while Bush is grandstanding them to pass it.

What it appears to be now: the bill isn't going to pass this year, and people are casting around trying to pin the political fallout on somebody else. The financial disclosure measure could have been bait for the Democrats (not many bit, and those that did made the reason for their opposition clear). Now Sensenbrenner's severe restrictions on legal and illegal immigrants getting driver's licenses are making him the whipping boy.

The real issue in this debate is the power of the new director of national intelligence, particularly budgetary power. The less budgetary power, the more the new post will be a figurehead. Three guesses as to what Bush's first position on this bill was.

The bill would have forced the Pentagon, which controls an estimated 80 percent of the government's $40 billion annual intelligence budget, to cede much of its authority on intelligence issues to the new national intelligence director.

"What you are seeing is the forces in favor of the status quo protecting their turf, whether it is Congress or in the bureaucracy," said Senator Susan Collins, the Maine Republican who was the chief Senate author of the failed compromise bill, in what amounted to a slap at her Republican counterparts in the House.

New York Times (link later)

By hook or by crook, this bill died. Without somebody knuckling under, the issue will be passed to the next Congress, who must begin the whole process over. Meanwhile, the Pentagon still has its money, Bush is pinning it on Sensenbrenner, and the problems identified by the 9/11 Committee still hobble our intelligence community.

This is what you elected, America.

Slip-Happy Republicans: Abortion in Spending Bill

NYTimes.com

Republicans have slipped an anti-abortion clause into an omnibus spending bill that would bar federal, state, and local governments from blocking funding to health care providers who refuse to accomodate or support women who seek out a legal procedure. Women all over this country will be denied their right to a safe and legal abortion because of this measure. The smart investor will grab all the stock in wire hanger factories he can find - that is, if millionaire televangelists haven't snatched it up already.

This is a common tactic of politicians, by the way: attaching a controversial measure to a bill that has little or no connection to its import. It's shameful when Democrats do it, and it's shameful when Republicans do it (unless they can meet in secret and get those rules changed, too). So Slip-Happy Republicans will become a running feature around here. Somebody else can document the Democratic abuses.

Senator Boxer will be doing what she can to stop this part of the bill from becoming law. Go tell her thanks.

GOP Uses 9/11 Bill To Neuter Financial Disclosure Laws

LATimes.com

Welcome to Bush 2.0, where a bill named for the 9/11 attacks and intended to improve the intelligence processes in this country is being used to gut financial disclosure laws, not just for top level intelligence officials, but for all executive branch officials.

Tucked within the House's 497-page version of the "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act" is a provision to repeal the requirement that senior-level officials report their personal financial assets valued at more than $2.5 million. It also would end the practice of disclosing the dates of stock transactions.

The mask has truly slipped. What can I say, my fellow Americans?

You asked for it.

Enjoy your picture show.

Mother Upset Over Cross-Dressing Day

campusreportonline.net

I remember back in Demopolis, AL, we had a yearly event where the girls would play football and the football players dressed as cheerleaders. It was just goofy and fun.

It didn't last the whole day, though. And apparently the school principal had promised last year that it wouldn't happen again.

But the kids weren't being required to dress as the opposite sex. And they could bring a canned good for charity if they weren't going to cross dress. So the point is: there seems to be some cause for disappointment with the school, but some other people need to get a grip. Didn't any of these people see Tootsie?

Tutankhamum's Mummy To Be CAT Scanned

Reuters

They hope to discover cause of death. More later...

Peterson v. Fallujah

The American Street

When it comes to money, there's no such thing as a free press. News networks charge ad revenues based on viewership, and the event that people will watch is what is on the air. When the Peterson trial is on the air, people watch that instead of Fallujah. So that's where the networks will go.

They'll cover the Fallujah of the moment for a while, but dart back to the latest trial of the century. That's the way a capitalistic press works. The only way you'll get good coverage of Fallujah is if some reporter finds a way to get a career-making Watergate-style story out of it. Otherwise, it's on the back burner.

That's what Dan Rather thought he had with the Killian memos, by the by. Bush's Guard record was always on that back burner, but it needed that extra kick to get onto the front page. The story's subsequent flameout ensured that no reporter will ever make waves unless the proof is 100% solid.

Until then, enjoy your bread and circuses. Without the curiousity of the viewing public, no art or media ever thrives.

Hmmm...I May Have To Rethink That Youth Vote Thing

MichaelMoore.com

A majority of all young adults (51.6%) voted in this election - the first time that's ever happened. And they voted for Kerry over Bush by a ten point margin.

No other age group (reckoned by decades) voted for Kerry over Bush. If the 18-29 vote went to the 2006 election, it could overturn Congress.

My sincerest apologies to the majority of the largest youth vote ever. You guys rock.

And They're Doing It Without Invading

Gulf Daily News

France, Germany, and Britain are close to a deal with Iran, ending Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. Bush appears to have no choice but to support the process. Yay for the Europeans.

UPDATE: This story is a couple of days old. Today the deal is endangered. Bush swears that he's being reminded of someone when he looks at Iran, somebody real close to Iran as a matter of fact, and is looking around wondering where he put his big stick. Hold on to your butts...

American Progress: Some General Questions For Alberto Gonzales

American Progress Action Fund

Just got my APAF email today. If you aren't signed up for this powerful resource daily, you need to go over and do so. Take a look at this consise summation of the problems with Bush's nominee to replace Goody Ashcroft.

On Wednesday, President Bush nominated his long-time friend and current White House counsel Alberto Gonzales to be attorney general. Gonzales "has been a Bush confidant for nearly a decade." But it's not enough for President Bush to have confidence in Gonzales. As Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) said during Ashcroft's nomination hearings, "not only must the president trust his attorney general, the nation must also trust him, for, after all, the attorney general is America's lawyer." The nation can't trust Gonzales if they don't know where he stands on important issues. To find out his positions, the Senate Judiciary Committee must ask him some tough questions. Here are our suggestions:

DO YOU THINK THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH TORTURE IS LEGAL?: Gonzales was involved in drafting and approved an August 2002 memo to the president which included the opinion that laws prohibiting torture do "not apply to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants." The memo also said that an interrogation tactic only constituted torture if it resulted in "death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions." In light of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, it would be irresponsible to have an attorney general who believes torture is legal.

WOULD YOU INSIST ON STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS?: In a 1/25/02 memo to the president, Gonzales wrote, "the war against terrorism is a new kind of war" and "this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." The Constitution says that when the United States signs an international treaty it is "the supreme law of the land." The attorney general, our nation's chief law enforcement officer, should understand that.

WOULD YOU RECUSE YOURSELF FROM THE VALERIE PLAME INVESTIGATION?: The Justice Department is currently investigating which senior administration official – in violation of federal law – told columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative. Gonzales has appeared before the federal grand jury investigating the case. As White House counsel, Gonzales also advised White House staffers and the president about how to handle the inquiry. As someone who advised potential defendants (and someone who could potentially be called as a witness at trial) it would be highly inappropriate for Gonzales to oversee the investigation.  

WOULD YOU RECUSE YOURSELF FROM ALL ENRON-RELATED MATTERS?: For more than a decade, Alberto Gonzales was an attorney for Vinson & Elkins, the firm that represented Enron. When Gonzales ran for reelection to the Texas Supreme Court, he "received $6,500 in campaign contributions from the company." The Justice Department is currently prosecuting top Enron executives – including former CEO Ken Lay. John Ashcroft recused himself from the Enron investigation "because of contributions he received from the company's executives during his campaign for the Senate." Nevertheless, Gonzales – who had a far more extensive relationship with Enron than Ashcroft – continued to be involved in Enron-related investigations as White House counsel.

WOULD YOU RECUSE YOURSELF FROM ALL HALLIBURTON-RELATED MATTERS?: The Justice Department has launched three investigations of Halliburton: for allegedly overcharging the military $61 million for fuel, for allegedly bribing Nigerian officials to win a contract, and for allegedly doing business with Iran through an off-shore subsidiary. Halliburton was a major client of Vinson & Elkins while Gonzales was a partner at the firm. In 1999, as a member of the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales accepted a $3,000 contribution from Halliburton just before the court was to hear an appeal of a case where "a Halliburton employee had won a $2.6 million trial verdict" against the company. Gonzales did not recuse himself.

WHY DIDN'T YOU GIVE GOV. BUSH ALL THE FACTS ABOUT DEATH PENALTY CASES?: As chief legal counsel for then Gov. Bush in Texas, Gonzales was responsible for writing a memo on the facts of each death penalty case – Bush decided whether a defendant should live or die based on the memos. An analysis of these memos by the Atlantic Monthly concluded that "Gonzales repeatedly failed to apprise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence." In the case of Terry Washington, a mentally retarded 33-year-old, Gonzales's memo "failed to mention that Washington's mental limitations, and the fact that he and his ten siblings were regularly beaten with whips, water hoses, extension cords, wire hangers, and fan belts, were never made known to the jury."

See what I mean about the APAF memos? Consise, extensive, and powerful. You might want to drop them a nickel while you're there.

It's incredible, isn't it, that Bush nominates someone who will have to recuse himself from so many pressing cases in the Justice Department today...unless the Bush administration plans on easing the urgency of these cases in the first place. Then the nomination of Gonzales makes perfect sense.

However, it seems that the best course for Senate Democrats is to raise these questions, make his answer a matter of public record, and then allow his nomination to proceed. They should vote against this heinous nomination as one, absolutely. But they should save the filibuster for the Supreme Court nominees that matter. Filibuster may be the only tool that Democrats have since Orrin Hatch destroyed decades of senatorial tradition in his naked desire to obstruct Clinton's judicial nominees and grease the path of Bush's. But it's still a weapon that should be used strategically.

As we've learned this election season, a consistent (or consistently explainable) voting pattern against these bullies and tyrants will be the best defense come 2006 and 2008. Air the Bushian dirty laundry, vote against it, and in 2006 we can run against the greater mess that Bush will leave.

The Purple State President

Mookie: 51% Bush, 48% Kerry

Just plain weird.

Just did a Technorati search and discovered some new links to the site...

...so say hello to nv1962, Efficacy, Blogs on Bush (that's not the Republican site), Cheese Monkey, and Steve's No Direction Home Page. They've all taken their place over in the roll.

Hunter Thompson: "Voted The Same Way They Prayed"

5280 Magazine

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

The famous journalist also pointed this out:

Their army is how much bigger than mine? Three percent? Well shucks, Bubba.

Bush is claiming a mandate, but he'll only have one if Democrats roll over. We need to fight.

I hope this doesn't sound like I don't think Kerry fought well, but I did wish I could have seen him do one thing: defend Massachusetts. The people of Massachusetts were fighting and dying for this country's liberty before Sam Houston was a twinkle in his father's eye.

Every time Bush belittled Massachusetts (and that's exactly what he was doing), Kerry should have slammed him for it. But Bush was able to play one part of this country against another over and over again, in the debates, in his stump speechs, and in press conferences. These were not the actions of a uniter.

If 9/11 taught us anything, it's that we are all in this together. So, President Bush?

Back off of Massachusetts.

I'm just sayin'.

Ummmm...A Most Unusual Fact

And it is exceedingly odd.

A chart comparing 2004 exit polls to actual results.

The next place you should go.

Garry Wills: The Day the Enlightenment Went Out

The New York Times

Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?

America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more, when a poll taken just before the elections showed that 75 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters believe Iraq either worked closely with Al Qaeda or was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11.

The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble those nations less than we do our putative enemies.

We can strike that decent respect for the opinions of mankind part too. Bush promised to reach out to those that share his goals. It really is his way or the highway - with him or against him.

Sorry, Mr. Franklin. It was nice while it lasted...

Bill Frist, 2008 Republican Candidate for President

wate.com

Frist is running, no doubt about it. The Bush machine knifed Trent Lott so Frist could become Majority Leader and get some national publicity. Now Frist isn't running for a third term as Tennessee Senator.

That's because Tennessee's Governor is a Democrat. If Frist runs again, then Phil Bredesen will nominate a Democrat for his seat should Frist win the Presidency. So another Republican must keep that seat.

Job one for Tennessee Democrats - find a candidate who can win that Senate seat.

Aftermath

This election's in the history books. John Kerry concedes.

Three main thoughts are surfacing in my profound disappointment.

(Cue jeramiad music...and lights)

1. Howard Dean, please report to Lost and Found - your party was discovered wandering around dazed and confused.

The oldtimers in the party ankled him for Kerry, and they were almost right...but they weren't. Things aren't as bad as they could be (the country is half full), but they are bad. One quick step down the right path - I don't know if there's any precedent of making a freshman Senator minority whip, but that sounds like a job for Obama to me.

And Howard? If you'd do me a favor and put Wesley Clark on speed dial, I'd be forever grateful.

Something, btw, must be done for the young campaign workers who toiled endlessly this election season, because of a second lesson: we must NEVER, EVER trust the youth vote EVER AGAIN. EVER. If they don't show up at campaign headquarters, we're just going to have to write them off until they wake up from the barrage of advertising and hormones that's throttling their maturity and sense of civil duty.

Those who did work their hearts out only to have those hearts stomped into the dust by a cruel election must understand – they will never be an inspiration to their peers, but they will always be an inspiration to us.

2. Hillary Clinton must never run for President.

Look what these people did to John Kerry, a war hero. Who in the South or West knows John Kerry? Nobody - he's a "liberal from Taxachussetts". But Hilary is a known factor - she's the Ice Queen, the She-Demon herself.

It doesn't matter that this reputation is wholly undeserved. It doesn't matter that this reputation was crafted because Hillary could be one of the greatest POTUS's ever - EVER - as in knock Teddy Roosevelt off Mount Rushmore and put her up there. It doesn't matter that this would be a terrible waste of one of the finest hearts and minds of our generation - Senator from New York must be our consolation prize...

...because how could we ask her to do it?

How could we ask her to step into that arena? It's too much to ask. We know what these people are capable of. That's why we must bear our burden and let Hillary know that she should never run for President.

And why, should she choose to run, we must fight for her with the last drop of blood in our bodies.

3. Bush is now legitimate.

The last four years were an aberation in American politics. We all know, it’s beyond rational dispute, that more people in Florida went to the polls to vote for Gore. He should have been President. But that changed last night. Last night the American people spoke clearly. Plenty of the electorate wasn’t there, but they never would have been. Those who cared, voted, more than ever. And they said: Bush.

So for good or for ill, George Bush is the 43rd President of the United States.

What have we done? This will be seen as one of the most spectacular mistakes of a people in history. It’s as if...

(God, I hate extended metaphors – for example, the fundamentalist Christian doctrine of the endtimes pegs the rule of the Antichrist at seven years. He’s given a mortal head wound, but the false prophet heals him, to the amazement of the world. The biblical description of the false prophet is uncannily Rovian. And most theologians think that the second three-and-a-half years are worst, so hey! only three more years to go!

I hate extended metaphors. But I digress.)

...as if the American people sat at a table with Bush. All the world suffered because of this boor at dinner, who antagonized all with his table manners and rude jokes and constant degradations of fellow diners. But they remained silent, because everyone looked in pity at the American people, married to this incredible jerk.

But then the Muslim world brought the tab to the table, itemized with names like Abu Ghraib and Fallujah. Bush belched, wiped his mouth with his napkin and glanced idly at the American people. And in horror, the world watched as the American people picked up the tab and wrote: WE WILL PAY.

Why should the Muslim world view yesterday in any other way?

Bush is legitimate, and his mistakes are now America’s. It’s really going to get worse before it gets better.