Is The Dictionary The Final Authority?

It appears that VJP has dredged up an old post, Democrat v. Democratic redux. Supposedly, some folks need reminding that posting on VJP’s blog is a privilege, not a right. Coming from a Democrat, I suppose that is progress.

Democrat v. Democratic redux repeats some definitions from the dictionary and explains our obligation to rigorously adhere to proper noun and adjective use.  The advice is appropriate for children. The dictionary merely represents the opinion of a lexicologist, albeit an “expert.” Because we cannot stop them anyway, we must allow exceptions. That is how we got the word “television,” and “television” became TV. Without such exceptions, “gay” would still refer to just being happy. Granted, that might not be a bad thing.

Anyway, after trying to read Canterbury Tales, any high school student knows language is not static.

Feeling Sorry For Those With Groupthink

How did VJP get started down this tangent? Well, VJP’s own words provide a clue.  She was at least partly right when she said:

I feel sorry for both you and Warren, who both seem to think that you have a lock on what “truth” is. (from here)

Anyone who writes or speaks their opinion risks of thinking too highly of themselves. However, there is more to it.  We react to positive criticism. When we hear others mirror our own opinions, we can become involved in a phenomenon called “groupthink.” What is groupthink? William H. Whyte Jr. coined (It was not then in the dictionary.) the term in a 1952 article in Fortune magazine.  Here is the definition.

Groupthink is becoming a national philosophy,” he wrote. ”Groupthink being a coinage — and, admittedly, a loaded one — a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity — it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity — an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well. (from here)

Here is an example. Look at the reaction when VJP decided to ban me from her blog (See here for the story.). One person defended VJP with rationalized ferocity. Silence Dogood said:

I don’t understand what the rest of us are supposed to learn just because someone passionately refuses to acknowledge a simple fact of grammar. Likewise, I’m not sure what we’re all supposed to learn from someone who says it would be justifiable and understandable if Americans started trying to kill other Americans on account of who received more votes in 2008. Other than learning that Citizen Tom isn’t qualified to hold a security clearance, I mean.

Personally, I support Vivian’s right to enforce a certain level of civility on her blog by refusing to publish the comments of those who would suggest that it’s appropriate to use violence against other Americans. Indeed, that still seems to be setting the bar awfully low. (from here)

Silence Dogood would silence me because he thinks I do bad?

What was Dogood talking about?  He had to explain. Here is what he quoted from one of my comments.

However, politics being what it is, we debate our disagreements, not our agreements. In fact, given the people running the country right now, it is a wonder we have not started shooting each other.

If you want peace, don’t vote for people who insist on running absolutely everything and spending most of our paychecks. (from here)

What is the alternative to voting for people who insist on running absolutely everything and spending most of our paychecks? What is wrong with limited government? Is it too much trouble for people just to mind their own business?

The Civil War

Apparently, minding one’s own business is a lot of trouble. That is one reason why Americans fought the Civil War. The North and the South had each developed its own distinct world view or groupthink. Each region carefully protected its own rationalizations. Each region tried to force its groupthink upon the other.

Most think of slavery as the root issue of the Civil War.  Perhaps. What is relevant to this discussion is that Southerners believed in slavery. Using the courts and Federal laws (the Dred Scott decision in particular), the South tried to force slavery on the North.  The North reacted by forming the Republican Party and electing Abraham Lincoln.

Others blame northern manufacturers.  To force the South to buy its manufactured goods, the North imposed tariffs. The North believed these tariffs would be good for the whole country.  Nevertheless, the tariffs made the price of European manufactured goods higher than those from the North. Thus, the South felt bullied by the North – a North that was obviously trying to force Southerners to buy products made in the North. 

So the North and South fought, and the South did not surrender until threatened with starvation.

The Solution To Groupthink

A Funny Diversion

What is the solution to groupthink? Consider this comical example. Some psychologists have discovered “groupthink.” Here is their definition.

Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9).  Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups.  A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making. (from here)

Some psychologists apparently think groupthink is a mental disease. They have defined symptoms, and they propose remedies. It seems these clever fellows even think can even fix our political system. Groupthink?

So What Is The Remedy?

There is no easy solution. Consider again what VJP proposed. In her op-ed, Beyond partisan rhetoric, VJP used the bell curve to illustrate the importance of the middle (i.e., independent voters). However, a bell-shaped curve does not describe political reality. When the Civil War began, geography more closely described the distribution of political opinion. That is why the North fought the South.

That war began because the avenues to compromise, not the middle, had crumbled. Because people honestly believed they should not, they would not compromise. Nevertheless, had compromise continued, we might still have slavery in the South.

So what is the solution to groupthink? I suppose it is prayer. I suppose it is the humble acceptance of the fact we are each individually accountable to our Maker. At least, I have no better solution.

On Friday evening I found myself no longer welcome at Vivian J. Paige (see here). Why did this happen? Well, I pushed the issue we were “debating” a little harder than the lady could stand. What were we debating? VJP had written an editorial (Beyond partisan rhetoric) that I believe misused statistics to “prove” that some people are extremists. When another commenter, Warren (here), and myself (here) pointed out she did not know what she was talking about, VJP tried to deflect our comments with a gratuitously flippant remark.

Both of you simply prove my point. Seriously. (from here)

What does that mean?  Well, here was my guess.

Warren –From vjp’s point-of-view, it seems that we are extremists. (from here)

VJP objected when I said that. Nonetheless, even though Warren had asked for an explanation earlier (here), and she had had plenty of time to explain, she never bothered. No, she just felt sorry for us (see here).       Both Warren and I clearly and calmly explained why we disagreed with VJP’s editorial. If VJP had any reason to feel sorry for us, she could have demonstrated her concern by clearing up our “misunderstanding.” 

So what is the point of this post?  Well, I could adopt the Liberal Democrat position, claim victimhood, and complain that VJP had violated my right to free speech.  That would be stupid, but a Liberal Democrat might do it. However, it is VJP’s blog, and she gets to set the rules (see here). The same is true of this blog (see here). 

Instead of complaining, what I want others to understand is the threat posed by ordinary people like VJP.  Consider how VJP ended her editorial.

Do I pine for the days when we didn’t have hundreds of channels on TV or thousands of blogs and magazines online? Absolutely not. Variety is the spice of life. Besides, there are some really good things that, were it not for activists, our country may have never embraced.

What I do want is more people who are willing to look at all the options available and not just those put forth by one side or the other. Starting from a point of agreement would go a long way to achieving that. (from here)

Ironic, is it not? Like most of us, VJP finds it easy to pay lip service to looking at all the options. Actually looking at all the options, however, requires more humility than most of us have. 

Being kicked off a blog by a nice Democrat is a trivial thing, but it demonstrates the futility of depending upon other human beings for wisdom. Generally, VJP runs a good blog, but like the rest of us, she is imperfect. Her rules for commenters seem fair enough. The problem is that VJP is still human enough to apply them arbitrarily — assuming she bothers to consider them. Unless someone holds us accountable, we cannot easily obey rules, not even the ones we make for ourselves.

VJP’s blog exists because she is a political activist. VJP and lots like her support candidates for political with grand ideas. VJP and other bloggers promote candidates who seek to empower our government to fix all kind of problems. Because they relentlessly seek more power, the candidates that many Democrat bloggers promote are clearly dangerous.  

It is all too apparent that too many of our Federal officials no longer consider our Constitution anything but an obstacle. Over the years the courts have interpreted the interstate commerce clause so expansively it has become a joke. The Feds can now exercise eminent domain just because they want to give our property to someone they think will pay more in taxes. Our officials just ignore the tenth amendment. In fact, our president has taken Arizona to court for actually trying to enforce Federal law.

Time works against the creations of men. Thus, it is with our republic. Instead of doing their jobs, Federal officials fight against the People.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. — Thomas Jefferson (from here)

Government exists to make us do things we do not want do to, and Democrats (and some Republicans) see that as a wonderful opportunity. They see government as a way to make us all do the right thing the right way — their way. Their way begins by making us pay lots and lots of taxes. You may think paying taxes is a good thing. You may say you don’t have to be forced to pay, but how would you feel about paying if there were no punishment for not paying. When 40-60 percent of our income goes into taxes, you can bet a lot of people would refuse to pay if they did not have to pay.  Lots of people have this funny idea; they think they can find a better use for the money they earned.  And they are right. With every passing year what our government does with our money — and to our rights — becomes more and more arbitrary.

In our own defense, we must hold our elected officials accountable. 

One last remark.  I thank J. Tyler Ballance (here) and Britt Howard (here and here) for their defense. Hopefully, VJP will appreciate their kind effort to hold her accountable to her own comment policy.

The title this post comes from a comment at Vivian J. Paige (See here.).

There’s no such thing as a “Democrat” blog.

I suppose if one takes the dictionary too seriously, then it is true that there are no “Democrat” blogs. Nonetheless, this rule is oddly inconsistent. We can have Republicans, and we can have Democrats.  We can use “Republican” as an adjective, but we cannot use “Democrat” as an adjective?  Are we suppose to call blogs that promote the Democratic Party “Democratic Blogs”?  To be disabused of the silliness of that idea, consider vjp’s next comment.

And goodbye Tom. I will not tolerate people being disrespectful on this blog. (from here)

So why are Democrats so sensitive to being called “Democrat”?  When they are perfectly willing to twist the words of the Constitution, why do they insist we religiously adhere to dictionary? Since the dictionary actually does seem to be a living document, how does that make any sense?

The term “democrat” has deservedly unfavorable connotations.  Thus, many Democrats consider it highly insulting to be called a Democrat. 

The argument against Democrats goes back to ancient times.  Aristotle, because he saw that it led to tyranny, spoke against democracy (see Aristotle’s Political Theory). Aristotle worried about the abusive use of power.  He realized that majoritarian rule, pure democracy, led to tyranny by the majority.

Here is an excellent video that explains there are really only two stable forms of government. Our choice is between an oligarchy or a republic.

Since the video above mentions it, here is a link to THE ADVANTAGE OF A REPUBLIC OVER A DEMOCRACY. Here I excerpt James Madison from The Federalist, Paper # 10. 

It has been about a month since most Virginia blogs have had much to say about this subject.  However, the subject has become a hot topic in the New York gubernatorial race.  Nonetheless, let’s go back.  

Below The Beltway

In Another New York Mosque Protest Reveals Anti-Muslim Bias, Doug Mataconis has a knee-jerk reaction. He regrets the anti-Muslim bias.

VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local ·

In DeSteph doesn’t speak for me, Vivian Paige says:

Virginia Beach Councilman Bill DeSteph sent a letter to the mayor and council members of New York, protesting the location of a proposed community center. The letter was wrong on so many levels, including the fact that he used official city letterhead and failed to discuss it with fellow council members.

But that wasn’t the part that got me. After all, I don’t live in Virginia Beach. No, what got me was that he made it sound as if he were not only representing Virginia Beach but all of Virginia:

We, the citizens of the City of Virginia Beach and the Commonwealth of Virginia – birthplace of our great nation – are strongly opposed to the plan to build a mosque at the very site where Islamist jihadists destroyed the World Trade Center and took the lives of nearly 3,000 people on September 11th, 2001.

The article that Paige links to in the PilotOnline.com is a curiosity. I suppose the councilman was out-of-line using the city letterhead. Perhaps DeSteph spoke presumptuously for people he does not represent. Nonetheless, making a big deal out that smacks of legalism; a foolish distraction. So DeSteph complained imperfectly.  If the councilman is wrong to oppose the mosque, that should be our concern. Then DeSteph is guilty of religious bigotry, and he has no business representing any American. Otherwise, we have a far more serious problem.

SWAC Girl 

On the other hand, some Virginia blogs have rallied against a mosque at ground zero. In a Rally protested mosque near Ground Zero, SWAC reports on a demonstration against the mosque. She links to lots of good pictures and video.

YankeePhil

Phil, in How many Churches and synagogues are there in Mecca? Medina? points out the basic problem.  Christianity is tolerant. Some Islamic fanatics are violently intolerant. Have we already forgotten?

The Winner in the Conservative Blog Category

Deo Vindice wins in the Conservative Blog Category. This post, I AM A WINNER? — PART 2, describes the criteria. 

Why Deo Vindice?

James Atticus Bowden writes a blog that is both socially and fiscally Conservative.  His posts are calm, thoughtful, and informed — even scholarly. Unlike many Conservatives, Bowden speaks to the religious foundations of our nation. He makes an effective case, showing that if we abandon our Christian heritage our republic is in jeopardy.

A Review of Deo Vindice Post

In The Mosque at Ground Zero, Bowden provides a straightforward condemnation of the Mosque at Ground Zero. He uses the following video as a springboard.

Then Bowden adds his own words. Here is how he ends.

This mosque at Ground Zero is an oozing sore upon an open wound.  If New Yorkers can’t or won’t stop its building, then the measure of the health of our civilization will be the day it is bought and demolished or occupied by civilized occupants who use for any purpose other than a mosque.

A Personal Observation

IS GROUND ZERO the right place for a major new mosque and Islamic cultural center? Cordoba House is a 15-story, $100 million development to be built just 600 feet from where the World Trade Center stood; the plans include the mosque, a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, restaurant, and bookstore. (continued here)

Such is the beginning of an editorial in the Boston Globe. The writer interviews Muslims, Muslims who are at least willing to point out the gross insensitivity of building a mosque at Ground Zero.

Why the mosque? Is it not obvious why anyone would even consider such a thing at ground zero?  How could anyone ignore its purpose? Some regard certain words with disdain.  They believe evil does not exist. There are no enemies, just misguided people. Everyone is good and rational.  At worse, there are sick people, not evil people.

How does anyone get themselves into such a state of denial? Perhaps they fear the truth. Perhaps they look at the world through rose-colored glasses. Perhaps they believe the Multi-culturalists. Perhaps they don’t believe in anything themselves. Perhaps to some this world is just about whatever it takes to fulfill their immediate desires. So they do not grasp the significance when someone else does believe. I don’t know. I just do not trust such a person either to defend themselves or anyone else.

The wise strive to see the world as it is.  What does a careful study of religion and history teach? What do we learn with a little life experience?  There are only two extremes that matter: evil and good.

When someone sincerely believes in evil teachings, they can and will do evil things. When someone believes in good teachings, they will ask God to help them conquer the evil within their own flesh. Unfortunately, most of us do not choose to be good. We may not choose to be evil, but we also do not choose to be good. We dither. We set aside that choice for another day.

Not all dither; some of these choose evil. Not so many years ago, followers of evil ”martyred” themselves to destroy two buildings in New York City. We call these men “radical” Muslims. These “radical” Muslims killed many innocents that day. Now other Muslims want to build a mosque near the spot where these ”radical” Muslims ”martyrs” murdered and died. 

New York City is quintessential American soil. That is why “radical” Muslims chose it as a their target. If we allow it to be built, that mosque will become a monument. That mosque will become a monument to an atrocity committed against the American people, not a peace symbol. That mosque will be held up as an example for other would be martyrs. Only a gutless people bent on suicide would step aside and allow murderers to build a monument to an atrocity committed against them on their own soil. 

As Christians, God expects us each to forgive the trespasses committed us, but He does not expect us use our obligation to forgive as an excuse to ignore evil. God expects us to defend our families, our friends, and our neighbors. When Islam is intolerant, we cannot ignore that fact just because we wish it were otherwise. Religious tolerance, of necessity, must be reciprocal.

Fortunately, the matter is an issue in the New York gubernatorial race, Lazio Opposes Mosque Near Ground Zero.  

“We’re not saying the mosque in itself is a bad thing. There are troubling issues. Where is the money coming from to build this mosque? The imam (behind this) has said some inflammatory things: Osama Bin Laden is made in the USA; he says Hammas is not a terrorist organization,” Lazio told co-host Rosanna Scotto.

“My gut tells me they’re hiding something (about the funding.) We need to get transparency. The imam refuses to come forward and say where the money is coming from. Let’s protect the people of New York first.”

Is there an easy answer? No.  Unfortunately, our laws are awkward, and we our own impure motives. Nonetheless, we can ask a simple question, and we know the answer.

Why would a peace-loving Muslim build a giant mosque right next to ground zero?

Such a Muslim would not. THAT MOSQUE IS MEANT TO BE AN AFFRONT. In our gut, we know it.

Oppose a Liberal Democrat, and you will often get called names.

A couple of days ago I commented on “WaPo Editorial Examines Corey Stewart’s Latest Bid for Attention” with predictable results (see here).  Instead of a debate, I received insults.  

The poster, Moon-howler, approvingly cited an editorial in the Washington Post, In Prince William County, a call for a tough immigration law.  Here is how that editorial begins.

ARIZONA’S SPASM of xenophobia….

What is xenophobia?

xenophobia –noun

an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.

The Post‘s editorial accuses the state of Arizona and Prince William County of xenophobia, and it specifically accuses Corey Stewart of promoting xenophobia (Spraying RID-MEX?). Since Moon-howler approved of this editorial, I said that “Being opposed to illegal immigration does not make one either anti-immigrant or racist” (from here).  Moonhowler responded with this statement.

Tom, I have not said Corey is a racist. I have not said he was opposed to immigration.

Quit making stuff up. (from here)

Did I accuse Moon-howler of saying things she did not say? What do you think? Should I apologize?

If you don’t think I should apologize, then you may wish to check out The Virginia Rule of Law Petition.

Spin is a word we hear frequently, but what is it? In a A Sack of Spin,  Robin Dembroff at The Evangelical Outpost illustrates how writers use word choices to sway our understanding. The topic is as controversial as it gets, abortion.

This morning I left several comments at The Richmonder, but I finally got tired of the disingenuous replies. See for yourself. Here is the post, Bachmann called out for supporting BP over Americans.

By playing a lying attack ad, the poster, J.C. Wilmore, is trying to have his fun at Michele Bachmann‘s expense. According to an attack ad named “Tender Mercies,” Bachmann wants to coddle that oil company, BP, that spilled so much crude into the Gulf of Mexico. But that is not Bachmann’s position. Here is what Bachmann told CNS News.

Private companies need to be held accountable but not necessarily to the executive branch,” said Bachmann. “It seems to me there’s a misreading of the Constitution and a misunderstanding of jurisdictional limits from this White House on what the extent of executive power is. They don’t seem to understand that and it—now it seems that it’s all about extortion–and that what they want to do is create a pot of money for themselves that they can control and that’s not what the Executive is supposed to do. There is a real misreading of jurisdictional limits, and they continue to stretch those limits beyond all bounds. (from here, audio available too)

On her website (see here), Bachmann responded to her opponent’s ad.

The claims made about my statements are false. In each of the interviews I have given, I have stated that BP is liable to fully compensate victims for the damage they have inflicted on the Gulf Coast with this tragic accident. It’s important to make the victims whole, and the American taxpayer should not pay one dime for the mess created by this spill. My opponents are demonstrating with this first ad they are scraping the bottom of the barrel with distorting my views on this tragedy that’s been foisted upon so many innocent Americans, marine life and wildlife in the Gulf Coast region. Making false claims and distortions about my statements is indicative of a negative campaign style, and Minnesotans deserve better. –Congresswoman Michele Bachmann

Since BP “voluntarily” agreed to the escrow fund, Bachmann’s concern has changed.

It’s a good thing that BP agreed to put $20 billion into an independently-run escrow fund to pay for economic damages from the Gulf oil spill, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said in an interview with CBS Minneapolis station WCCO Wednesday. She added, however, that the next step is to make sure the money is distributed appropriately and not misused for political purposes.

“We want to make sure people are fully compensated,” Bachmann said. At the same time, she said, it’s important to understand the fund is not necessarily “an unending pot of money.”

“This can’t be, in other words, a political distribution of money,” Bachmann said. (continued here)

After BP finally agreed to the deal with the White House, elected Republicans–even fairly reliable Conservatives such as Bachmann–accepted the matter as a fait accompli. I think that is a shame. For one thing, it confuses the public. Before Obama succeeded in pressuring BP to agreeing to the escrow fund, Bachmann rightly called the political pressure on BP extortion. Afterwards, it is a good thing.  That is stupid!  The president clearly exceeded his authority.  He decided to become judge, jury, and executioner. When he succeeded, he set an undesirable precedent. Now, when Obama starts looking for his next victim, what will we say?

Note that there is a second issue related to this matter that is just as important. How should we regard the risks involved with such oil spills?  In TED NUGENT: Oil spill is our fault, I believe Nugent provides a reasonably good perspective.

The Next Battle

There are at least three kinds of political actors. 

• There are self-appointed masters, those who would oppress their neighbors.
• There are slaves, passive, fearful souls waiting for anyone else to take responsibility.
• And there are free men and women, people who love and care for each other enough to accept responsibility.

Which are you?

On June 8th we will have a Republican Primary election here in the 11th Congressional District. Here are the candidates.

• Keith S. Fimian
• Patrick S. Herrity

Will you be there?  Will you vote? Do you participate in a political party?

On the first Tuesday in November we will have a general election.  Then we will only be able to choose from the candidates on the ballot.  We will not be able to nominate anyone else. If we are unsatisfied with our choices, and we chose not to participate earlier, then we will have no one to blame except that slave who chose to do nothing.

Virginia Virtucon (Republican Blog)

In the Latest Bomb Drops In The 11th GOP Primary, Riley advises the Fimian campaign. He notes a:

Now a 35-year old assault conviction against Keith Fimian has surfaced following accusations peddled earlier this week by NLS that Fimian has greatly embellished his business credentials.

Riley partly praises the Fimian campaign’s response to the assault conviction; he likes Fimian’s honest admission of guilt in the assault conviction, but he suggests Fimian should not have gone negative on Herrity, blaming Herrity for surfacing the conviction.

Whoever is advising him to go negative on Herrity at every chance possible is not serving Fimian well.  If Fimian prevails in the primary on Tuesday, he will need not only the votes of Herrity supporters in November, but their volunteer time and financial contributions as well.

That advice definitely has merit. What is the point of making an accusation you cannot prove?

In addition, Riley observes in Will Fimian Respond To The NLS Accusations? that the Fimian campaign cannot simply ignore the accusation from Ben Tribbett and Not Larry Sabato.  Perhaps, but how would one prove this sort of accusation is not true? Don’t we usually leave proof to the accuser.  Where is Tribbett’s proof?

Hirons expresses anxiety in Glad I Live in the VA 1st.  Hirons is worried about the Fimian campaign’s attacks on Herrity.

I hope the Fimian camp does have their eye on the right ball and they cool it on the slinging of the mud.  If they do too much damage and still end up losing the primary and the nomination where does that leave the Republican opportunity to win back the 11th District?

Riley and Hirons live in the 1st Congressional District and regard themselves as neutrals. They presume Herrity will win, and they worry about the damage Fimian is inflicting during the primary.  Their latest post is the list of the big wigs who have endorsed one of the candidates, Who Has Endorsed Which Candidate In The 11th?.

Too Conservative (Republican Blog)

Because the fellows there are not unified, it is not easy to determine Too Conservative‘s political leanings. Thus, the latest post, About the banner and tomorrow’s primary. It begins:

For the record, neither myself or Loudoun Insider have anything to do with the banners on the site.  They reflect Vincent’s (Too Conservative) stance on the race, as he is working for Keith Fimian.  I have personally endorsed Pat Herrity and am serving as a precinct captain for him.  However, I have not advocated here, or elsewhere, on his behalf after I accepted the FCRC Communications Director position.  The banners at the top with Fimian’s picture do not reflect my personal stance, which is in favor of Herrity, or my professional stance, which is neutral.

Given all the banners and the fact Vincent is working on behalf of Fimian, there are not many that many posts about the race.  However, there are some good ones.

• A link to http://www.herrityhikedtaxes.com/.
• A post, In defense of earmarks, which reviews the candidates differing stances. 

To Be Right! (Conservative Blog)

In its latest post, Centreville, VA Day Laborer Center – Keith Fimian Opposition, To Be Right! voices support for Fimian, and posts an news article where Fimian states his opposition to the proposed day-laborer site in Centreville.

Red NoVA (Republican Blog)

In Don’t you just love the end of a primary?, Red NoVA offers an interesting observation about when over zealous campaign staffers show their true colors.  The post ends with this observation.

Wow. I must say this next week will be rather interesting. I do agree with the following statement, “We need someone whose ready to take the fight to Gerry not just other Republicans.” I hope that whoever looses the primary will get 110% behind our nominee. We need to keep our eyes on the prize: defeating Gerry Connolly, not holding grudges.

Red NoVA interviewed both candidates.

• A conversation with Pat Herrity!
• A Conversation with Keith Fimian

Prince William-Manassas Family Alliance (PWMFA) (Conservative Website)

The PWMFA website provides vote guides based upon a 25-question survey.  Both Fimian and Herrity responded. See Candidate Responses for the 2010 Voter Guide – Republican Primary, 11th Congressional District.

On June 8th we will have a Republican Primary election here in the 11th Congressional District. Here are the candidates.

• Keith S. Fimian
• Patrick S. Herrity

Who should you and I vote for? That requires some research. Unfortunately, when it comes to giving us the information we need, newspaper, radio, and television too often do not do the job they should. Surprisingly, bloggers (particularly Conservative and/or Republican bloggers   ) often do a better job. So what do the bloggers have to say about these two candidates? That is the subject of this post. However, before I proceed, I should note that I support Keith S. Fimian. Nonetheless, I will attempt to fairly survey the blogs.

The Mason Conservative (Republican Blog)

Chris Beer, the blogger at The Mason Conservative supports Keith S. Fimian, and he has numerous posts on the race. That includes playing Fimian videos such as the one featured by this post, Fimian: Connolly and Herrity Tell The Same Lies. Here is a Google link that lists Beers posts over the past month (also includes some comments, but I could not fine any other way to search the blog). Beers points out where he believes race has descended into mudslinging in MASON CONSERVATIVE: Herrity Dives Head First Into The Gutter. In More On The Fimian Poll, Beers compares the strategies the two compaigns.

I think Fimian’s attacks on Herrity’s tax increasing record has worked, and more importantly Herrity hasn’t really defended himself well.  This is a good indication of how the campaigns have been running.  After some time, Fimian found an issue to create a narrative on and just zeroed in on it.  Herrity’s campaign hasn’t had a proper come back yet, all they have done is complain about lies and distortions.  But every Fimian press release has county board minutes and voting records to back up their claims.  Herrity has not articulated a good defense, just complained.  And his online presence has done the same thing, just complained about lies and distortions as if that is all they have to do.  Herrity’s response to Keith’s poll was telling.  He attacked Fimian as a liar, and then sighted his own poll having him up within the margin of error.  The problem is that Pat’s poll was from March, and in the date on Fimian’s website they compare their new poll with a poll of their own from 3/10 that had Fimian down as well.  The point of the new poll is that Keith is surging . . . and point Herrity’s inept campaign has helped made by citing on old poll!  Herrity’s strength is suppose to be his competence and readiness, but it doesn’t seem to be the case here.

Beers announced his support for Fimian back in December in Keith Fimian For Congress.

Blue Virginia (Democrat Blog)

Except to help elect what they think is the least electable candidate, it is not likely that the bloggers at Blue Virginia will be voting in the Republican Primary. Nevertheless, the Democrats are interested. The post Herrity and Fimian Debate on WTOP summarizes the June 4th debate between Fimian and Herrity. The audio is available here. Wheels Coming Off the Fimian Campaign slams Fimian by taking issue (Bad manners?) with one of his videos.  Fimian calls Herrity a liar. In addition, Wheels Coming Off the Fimian Campaign raises the specter of Not Larry Sabato‘s last minute slash piece, The Real Keith Fimian Story. Supposedly, “Fimian got to where he is by screwing someone else out of their business.” In Washington Post Not “Amused” By Keith Fimian, we find out the context Congressman Gerry Connolly‘s famous words, “‘I want to be there with all four paws and snout in the trough.”

In general, it seems that Blue Virginia expects Herrity to win and most enjoys slamming Fimian.

Moonhowlings (Democrat Blog)

In Moonhowlings latest post, GOP Dust up in the 11th, we get the recitation of a 35 year old assault charge and another link to Not Larry Sabato‘s last minute slash piece, The Real Keith Fimian Story. What is most funny about the post is this comment.

Someone should have warned Fimian that is just what Republicans in this area do to get each other.

If that is true, then I wonder why we first found The Real Keith Fimian Story in a Liberal blog.  If it is true, why are Not Larry Sabato and Democrat Blogs happily repeating what amounts to unverified gossip.  Just how true is this story? So far, we just have an email originating on a Liberal blog, published with very little time for investigation.

Bearing Drift (Conservative)

At the core of its endorsement post, Bearing Drift Endorsement: Keith Fimian in Virginia’s 11th Congressional District, Bearing Drift says this about Keith S. Fimian.

Fimian is not a typical politician. He is a self-made business owner who scrapped and saved for years before becoming the successful entrepreneur that he is today. As a young man he had a short stint playing for the Cleveland Browns and Fimian had the fiscal discipline to invest his professional football earnings in what is now an incredibly successful national home inspection business.

Fimian’s personal embodiment of the American dream gives him a certain experience that is rare in a public servant these days – he is truly someone who has walked the walk while talking the talk. He is someone who can help the people of this country realize their own dreams through advocating for conservative principles at the federal level.

Bearing Drift has been covering the race between Fimian and Herrity with considerable intensity. In their latest post, Fimian puts Herrity on the defensive. Will it work?, it notes that Fimian’s charges that Herrity has voted to raise taxes and that he fails to attend important meeting and vote; the charges appear to be sticking. Did Pat Herrity vote to raise taxes? considers whether Herrity voted to raise taxes. The answer?

You bet your a** he has.

To be continued.

Here is Lloyd’s picture.

Lloyd the Idiot

Lloyd has asked me a terribly frightful question.

Tom, have you ever had a friend who was a Democrat? If so, then I’ve proved my point. (from here)

Then, apparently to underscore his point, Lloyd added.

And, if not, then you really have a small mind. (from here)

Lloyd is upset with the fact that I referred to Democrats as “our political enemy” in A PRIMER FOR CONSERVATIVES. Apparently, the fact I would do such a thing indicates to Lloyd that there is something wrong with me.  Therefore, instead of contending with my reasoning, Lloyd contended against my character.

How should I respond to Lloyd’s charge?  Well, this blog is not about me.  So I will not try to refute Lloyd’s charge.  Besides, I do have a small mind, but so does Lloyd. However, I suspect Lloyd’s object is to contend that his mind is larger than my mind. That issue I do not know how to decide. Who besides God can judge whether my worldview is any smaller or any larger than Lloyd’s? Since I cannot prove the matter one way or the other, I will stick to the subject and try to avoid personally attacking Lloyd.

It seems that Lloyd thinks our enemies are foreign threats, not Democrats.

I do have a problem with the use of the term “enemies.” As I wrote on my own blog at http://lloydtheidiot.blogspot.com/2010/04/true-enemies.html, our enemies are Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jung Il and the like – not every living Democrat. 

When Lloyd adopts such a narrow view of our enemies, I fear he misreads history.  He forgets that ferociously awful phenomenon we call civil war. Perhaps it will help to cite a few examples.

• The Chinese Civil War
• Russian Revolution (1917)
• The American Civil War
• The French Reign of Terror
• The American Revolution
•  The English Civil War
• The War of the Roses

The above listing does not, of course, endorse the Wikipedia version of history. Wikipedia simply provides a convenient way to underscore the observation that our worse enemies are too often close at hand. Consider the logistics. When neighbors are near at hand, why would anyone want to conquer and enslave people hundreds or thousands of miles away?

So we can have enemies next-door. If we call Democrats our political enemy, is that the same thing as saying we should hate them? No. 

Matthew 5:43-48 (Today’s New International Version)

Love for Enemies
You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Unfortunately, most of us fail to practice Jesus’ teachings. We can hate, and, because they are nearby, we most easily hate our closest enemies. Perhaps that is why the greatest misery so often follows in the aftermath of civil war. The death and the misery that war brings too often amplifies the hatred we have between us.

So we come again to the question. Should we call the Democratic Party our political enemy?  I explained my belief in this comment, but I can summarize this way. The Democratic Party would subvert the purpose of our government. Our government exists to protect our rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but Democrats would use government to pit us against each other.  The Democratic Party asks us to vote for what we can get out of government (for example, a wealth transfer from the “rich”). 

In our greed, we seek mastery over each other.  James put it this way.

James 4:1-3 (Today’s New International Version)

What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.

We are born slaves to sin.  To be free, we must be freed of sin, but only God can free us of sin. That is why only faith in Jesus Christ can set us free.