Stoning Obama

I've been wanting to write the column that appears in today's paper for about a month now. Most of the ideas bouncing around in my head have come from news made over the past couple of months. But one incident in particular has stuck with me since it happened nearly a year ago: the way the evangelical establishment reacted when the Rev. Rick Warren invited U.S. Sen. Barack Obama to Saddleback Church for a forum on how faith-based organizations can play a role in responding to the AIDS crisis. I didn't have space to cover it in today's column, so I thought I would lay it out for you here.

The e-mail below (in green) orginated with the Christian Coalition of Alabama and eventually made its way to me via a family member. I have redacted some portions of it in the interest of space, but I have included all relevant portions. The portion in red is the actual open letter to the Rev. Warren regarding his invitation of Obama to the forum.

My response to all this, in its substantive entirety, follows the e-mail and is in blue.

Jennifer

*********************************

Begin forwarded message:

From: chairman@ccofal.org

Date: December 3, 2006 10:40:04 PM EST

Subject: Purpose Driven Life, - Rick Warren - Liberal Deceit?

A message from Christian Evangelicals to Rick Warren

Rick Warren popular author of Purpose Driven Life, Purpose Driven Church has made recent headlines again. This time for inviting liberal heathen U.S. Senator Obama from Illinois to speak at his church. Christians across the nation are outraged that Rick Warren would invite a liberal anti-conservative to speak at his church. See the list of conservative Christians organizations at the bottom of this email who are protesting Rick Warren's action.

Rick Warren is best known for changing the basic philosophy of how churches operate in America. Many churches have adopted his methods and increased church attendance. Bring in the Christian Rock Music and church attendance may increase. Be very positive, do not preach
anything negative and do not preach against sin. If any Christian or any philosophy claims to be Christian, that is okay, anything goes.

The below is complied information on Rick Warren. Scan the below and decide for yourself. The teachings of Rick Warren are probably influencing the operation of your church. Is that good or
bad?

Rick Warren's methods have been even noted by the Wall Street Journal in a negative sense.

http://www.cephas-library.com/social_gospel_rock_salt_commentary_on_wall_street_journal.html

***************************************************

Christian leaders to Warren: Keep Obama from pulpit

Argue Democrat senator's support for abortion incompatible with Bible
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53134

Rick Warren called 'enabler and defender' of evil
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53121

***********************************************

A message from Christian Evangelicals to Rick Warren

In the strongest possible terms, we oppose Rick Warren's decision to ignore Senator Obama's clear pro-death stance and invite him to Saddleback Church anyway. If Senator Obama cannot defend the most helpless citizens in our country, he has nothing to say to the AIDS crisis. You cannot fight one evil while justifying another. The evangelical church can provide no genuine help for those who suffer from AIDS if those involved do not first have their ethic of life firmly rooted in the Word of God.

Accordingly, we call on Pastor Rick Warren to rescind his invitation to Senator Obama immediately. The millions of silent victims who have died because of the policies of leaders like Senator Obama demand a response from those who believe that life is a gift from God. The name of the seminar at which Senator Obama will be appearing is entitled, “We Must Work Together.” No, Mr. Warren, Mr. Obama, we will never work with those who can support the murder of babies in the womb.

Phyllis Schlafly, President and Founder, Eagle Forum
Judie Brown, President, American Life League
Tim Wildmon, President American Family Association and American Family Radio
Joe Scheidler, President, Pro-Life Action League
Cheryl Sullenger, Operation Rescue
Matt Trewhella, Missionaries to the Preborn
Brannon Howse, President, Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network
Janet Folger, President, Faith2Action
Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans for Truth
Greg Cunningham, President,
Center for Bioethical Reform, Lake Forest, California
Peggy Hamill, Director, Pro-Life Wisconsin
Cal Zastrow, Christian Action for the Preborn
Dr. Vic Eliason, President, VCY America Radio Network
Ingrid Schlueter, Host, Crosstalk Radio Talk Show
Kevin McCullough, Host, Musclehead Revolution, WMCA Radio
Chris Rosebrough, Capo Valley Church, San Juan Capistrano, California
Rev. Ken Silva, Apprising Ministries
Linda Harvey, President, Mission America
http://www.f2a.org/

**********************************************

Rick Warren's philosophy is influencing churches across America. The culture of our churches is making major changes to the thinking of Rick Warren and away from the Bible.

Please forward.

If you received this update notice in error or want to discontinue receiving these updates, please use the link below:

http://www.ccofal.org/alabama/mail/signup.php?ID=50656

Or if you do not trust remove links, just put REMOVE in the Subject and forward this entire message to the list moderator at:

moderator@ccofal.org

God
Bless,
Chairman
www.ccofal.org

**************************

12/6/06

I heard about this on the news the other day. As I understand it, Rick Warren had Sen. Obama out to talk about how to tackle the AIDS epidemic. It’s important to remember that there are two separate issues here, and I want to address specifically the reaction from Christian conservatives to the meeting that involved Sen. Obama. Let us lay aside for now the issues raised about the validity of the Purpose-Driven Life paradigm; I am not qualified to talk about Rick Warren’s credentials, motives, etc. It seems to me that many of the groups opposing Rick’s invitation to Sen. Obama are couching their objections in terms of their divergence with him on issues surrounding his church philosophy.

First of all, why is the idea that Rick Warren would invite Sen. Obama to a conference (Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a staunch Christian conservative, was among those in attendance) in itself offensive to Christian conservatives? If Republicans had the corner on the answers to stopping AIDS, we wouldn’t be talking about it right now, and a lot of people would still be alive tonight – including moms and dads whose babies are now orphaned in every corner of the African continent.

With that said, I reject out of hand the notion that Rick Warren should be (has there ever been a more appropriate use for the next word?) demonized for having a dialogue with Sen. Obama about AIDS. I understand that the senator is pro-choice. I understand that he is not on the biblical side of the marriage question. And I understand that his position on stem-cell research is unacceptable to those who cherish and seek to protect the sanctity of life. I will also say from the outset that I don’t agree with most of Sen. Obama’s positions on social issues, and I suspect most Christian conservatives share my views.

But this reaction of repulsion from our camp is out of line. Refusing to talk with someone about what is arguably the developing world’s number one problem simply because you disagree with him on other issues is worse than narrow-minded; it’s childish. How can we as Christian conservatives expect for those on the other side of our issues to be open to our arguments if we are unable – or, in this case, simply unwilling – to have meaningful dialogue with them? Consider especially, for the purposes of this discussion, those who consider themselves “personally pro-life” but support choice as a government policy. Why should they listen to us and be open to our ideas about why government policies should come down on the side of life and why it’s important to create a society that cherishes and protects life if we can’t hear out their concerns on these and other issues?

Worse than being out of line, the reaction of repulsion from our camp is unbiblical. The web site headed by leading evangelical Phyllis Schlafly heads articles about Sen. Obama’s appearance at Saddleback, “There are times when you just can't work together!” and the snidely clever, “Such a partnership is an ‘Obama-nation.’” Was this the attitude Jesus had when He encountered those who believed differently than He did? What about Him meeting the woman at the well (John 4:1-42)? He was a Jew; she was a Samaritan. He was the Messiah; she was an adulteress. Morally speaking, she couldn’t have been more His opposite. But did He turn His back to her or refuse to speak to her? Quite the contrary: Beyond the polite and superficial, Jesus conversed with her in such an intimate way that “many of the Samaritans from that town believed in Him because of the woman's testimony” (v. 39). Contrast His approach with the stubborn and hard-hearted ultimatum flung at Rick Warren’s feet by the group of evangelicals (below, in red). Which approach do you think is more likely to turn hearts to Christ -– Jesus’, or Phyllis Schlafly’s?

When it comes down to it, it has been my experience that most of the time, the people who most stridently avoid debate are those with the weakest arguments. We live in a society that is supposed to be a “marketplace of ideas” – the system means to have the best ideas rise to the top by virtue of being haggled over, tested, tried and tweaked. This attitude that Christian conservatives should do the equivalent of put our hands over our ears, squeeze our eyes shut and yell, “LALALALALALALALALA” while our ideological opposites are talking does not reflect the confidence that Christians should have in their arguments – maybe that’s because so many of today’s Christians are just too lazy to understand why they believe what they say they believe, or maybe it’s because they would just as soon let Pat Robertson speak for them.

That reminds me of the Gospel stories where the Pharisees were always trying to trap Jesus in religious conundrums. They thought they had the market on all the right answers. And after a while, when they couldn’t best Jesus in their arguments, they decided to kill Him. Don’t get me wrong; I’m certainly not comparing Sen. Obama to Jesus. But the behavior of some in our camp in this episode certainly reminds me a lot of the behavior of those religious “leaders.”

Finally, what disappoints and saddens me about this whole episode is this paragraph, the final graf in liberal stalwart E.J. Dionne’s latest column:

“One more thing: If you read Obama’s speech, you'll realize he demonstrates a
much truer Christian spirit than the GOP masterminds who have recently tried to push people away from Obama by pointing out that his middle name is Hussein.”

These Christian leaders basically gave Mr. Dionne that free shot on us.

In addition, I think that for as well as President Bush and the Republican Congress have done on life issues since 2000, they have not done nearly enough in the areas of sheltering the poor, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick or shepherding single-mother families through their unique struggles. I know; I sound like a liberal. “PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!” yells someone from the GOP rafters. “TEACH A MAN TO FISH!!” from someone else on the floor. “A HAND UP, NOT A HAND OUT!!” thunders a voice from behind. And I believe in all these things. But why does modern Republicanism have to choose aspects of Christianity – the sanctity of life and marriage, for example – and ignore others, such as caring for the less fortunate?

I know another story about pious people who were too busy with their “religious” work to stop and help the needy. It’s the story of the Good Samaritan. The hero, in Jesus’ eyes, was the one who stopped to care for the beaten man. And as I recall, in telling the story, Jesus didn’t mention anything about the Good Samaritan lecturing the poor victim about how dangerous it was to be traveling that road alone, how he had it coming, how he needed to be more “personally responsible,” etc. The Samaritan just addressed the wounds of the body – and of the soul.

The bottom line is that if we as Christians believe that we are the salt of the earth, we should look for opportunities like these to have an audience with the decision makers of our country, not run from them simply because we disagree. If the philosophy of the now-repulsed Christian conservatives was applied to our overall interactions with everyone else in the world, Christians would never interact with the lost, and the word of salvation could never be spread.

I just think that as Christians, we have bigger and more important things with which to concern ourselves than with whom Rick Warren wants to discuss AIDS.

P.S. Here’s a good background piece on the conference, including several good quotes from Warren:

http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=24509

Evangelical leaders + politics = Bad religion

(Originally published 11/10/07)

“???????”

That was my reaction to the news that Christian televangelist Pat Robertson was endorsing Rudy Giuliani in the Republican race for president.

What’s a pro-life, Christian conservative leader doing endorsing a pro-choice candidate who has contributed to Planned Parenthood, arguably the largest abortion provider in the world?

Excuse the double entendre, but politics really does make for strange bedfellows.

“I just believe that I needed to make a statement … that Rudy Giuliani is without question an acceptable candidate,” the New York Times quoted Robertson as saying.

Why settle for an “acceptable” candidate? Social conservatives would seem to have a sure thing in former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who is also a Baptist minister. If it was about the issues, why wouldn’t their leaders get behind him instead of threatening to run a third-party candidate?

The answer: For evangelical leaders, the presidential contest has become more about winning than advancing their values, and they don’t think Huckabee can win. Robertson as much as said so.

“I know how the game is played. I think we do want a front-runner from the Republican Party who can win the general election,” Robertson said.

In other words: Sell. Out. Forget values; beat Hillary.

But what’s the point of victory if there’s no difference between the winner and the loser?

For years, Democrats have complained that evangelicals’ near-exclusive support of Republicans was more about power than principle. It seems they may be right, at least when it comes to evangelical leaders.

So GOP presidential candidates are falling all over each other to curry favor with the Pat Robertsons of America. Remember that Saturday Night Live skit, “Who’s More Grizzled?” The Republican presidential primary is starting to look like “Who’s More Religious:”

• Giuliani told Robertson’s audiences in September that he believes in God and prays to Jesus for “guidance and help.” He wanted to be a priest when he was younger, he added.
• Mitt Romney has courted evangelicals for months, working to convince them that his Mormonism is essentially the mirror of Christianity, at least when it comes to social policy.
• John McCain is trying to rebuild bridges with Christian conservatives after dubbing Robertson and Jerry Falwell “agents of intolerance” during his 2000 campaign.

Evangelical leaders aren’t backing away from their self-appointed position in quality control. From their figurative thrones, they are like Roman emperors in the Colosseum, passing judgment on candidates’ religious fitness and giving congregants the thumbs up or down. Robertson is the just the latest to do so. Earlier this year, Focus on the Family guru James Dobson told US News & World Report that he didn’t think Fred Thompson was a Christian at all; he also told a Dallas radio audience, “I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances … I pray that we won’t get stuck with him.”

Don’t get me wrong. Understanding a candidate’s personal values, on religion among others, is crucial to voters’ ability to know what is at that person’s core.

But Jesus taught his followers not to grandstand in the sight and for the praise of man. Christianity isn’t meant to be a public display of religion. Instead, it is a private, personal relationship between Heavenly Father and child, publicly displayed by the fruits of the Spirit.

Social conservatives can diffuse the religious competition the GOP primary has become by consciously committing themselves to considering who best reflects their own personal convictions – religious and otherwise – and taking that knowledge, in faith, to the voting booth.

And the proof of the health and strength of America’s Christian conservative constituency will be when the political endorsements of their leaders don’t matter after all.

Deep South water wars: share and share alike

(Originally published 10/27/07)

In our house, the crescendo of little-girl voices is a sure sign of trouble:

"That’s mine!"
"No!"
"THAT’S MINE!!!"
"Mom says you have to share!!!"

And then, invariably:

"MOMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!"

You know the drill. One has something; the other wants it. They don’t share. They fight. You can almost hear the bell sounding.

The bell sounded last week when Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue asked President Bush to intervene in the latest round of his state’s Water Wars with neighboring Alabama and Florida. Pained by an historic drought, Perdue wants to restrict the flow of water from Lake Lanier and Georgia’s federal reservoirs, thus cutting the amount of water flowing down the Chattahoochee River – by as much as 60 percent, if the drought conditions persist.

Perdue’s proposition raised hackles all around.

Can’t you just hear them?

"It’s our water."
"No!"
"But it’s OUR WATER!!"
"You have to share! The Army Corps of Engineers says so!"
"President BUUUUUUSH!!!!!!"

I have to admit that on Thursday, when I saw Alabama Gov. Bob Riley’s remarks on the subject and realized that Florida Gov. Charlie Crist was taking Riley’s side by asking the president not to grant Perdue’s request, I had a momentary instinct to dispense maternal justice and sit the two apparent bullies in the corner.

But the Water Wars are no laughing matter. The flow of the Chattahoochee River is the life of many communities downstream. Its importance is measured not in cubic feet per second, but in the preservation of entire industries and, indeed, livelihoods, along the river’s winding path to the Gulf.

And while lower flow impacts everyone downstream, perhaps no area is more vulnerable than the commercial fishing communities of Florida’s Panhandle. According to the Tallahassee Democrat, Crist told Bush in a letter Thursday that low flows are already creating "economic peril" and threatening the $205 million commercial fishing industry that has been passed from generation to generation in Apalachicola Bay.

Perdue had a point this week when he said that "Congress did not pass the Endangered Species Act with the intention of providing protection for species of mussel and sturgeon at the expense of critical human needs." Continuing under the current arrangement "will also mean less water for the endangered species in the future," he said.

But CNN quoted an Army Corps official in Mobile who said that even if there were nine months without rain, water supplies would still be adequate.

The agreements governing water flow weren’t reached in a vacuum. Abandoning them to ease drought effects in the Atlanta area in the short term would wreak certain, irreversible havoc downstream in the long run.

Crist agreed.

"Reacting to the concerns of an upstream state to suspend environmental laws unilaterally at the expense of a downstream state’s ecology and economy cannot be justified in any circumstance," he wrote to Bush.

In other words, can’t we all just get along?

The reality is that this region’s water woes won’t be solved through any of the six separate lawsuits pending on this issue. The answer will have to involve cooperation, coordination, and, most of all, conservation. We’re all going to have to learn to share.

• • •

Everyone’s adjusting to strict new watering guidelines in many North Georgia cities. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported this week that the City of Alpharetta was issued two citations for illegally watering some flower beds in front of City Hall - on the same day that city officials passed "uber-tough" watering restrictions.

The citations include fines totaling $750. But, "We’re not in the business of paying ourselves," Assistant City Administrator Robert Rokovitz said.

Shield laws are whistleblower laws for investigative journalists

(Originally published 10/20/07)

After more than 100 attempts over 30-plus years, the U.S. House passed the first federal shield law Tuesday.

As discussed here last week, a free press is integral to any free society, and the ability of independent journalists to question and hold to account ruling governments is a powerful check on tyranny. Along with the unique protections of the First Amendment, shield laws help journalists fulfill their function as your watchdog.

Shield laws are simple: they protect journalists from being compelled to testify or reveal their sources in court. Think of it this way: substitute the government for any employer being investigated; instead of a pink slip for the employee who turned the bosses in, think of a subpoena delivered to the reporter asking questions. In effect, shield laws are whistleblower laws for journalists.

Shield laws are crucial to journalists who are investigating wrongdoing, especially where government officials or agencies are the subject of that investigation. Confidential sources have been the genesis of countless investigations uncovering all kinds of misdeeds, and they may provide leads and background information or help fill in the blanks for a reporter.

The importance of shield laws hasn’t been lost on the states. Although the Supreme Court in 1972 ruled that the Constitution does not protect journalist-source relationships, 33 states have shield laws for the press, while another 16 have judicial precedents that protect reporters, according to the Associated Press.

It is unclear whether the Senate will take up the bill before the end of the year, but even if it passes, President Bush has signaled that he will veto it:

• In a memo released after the House passed the bill, the president’s advisers in the Office of Management and Budget said the Administration "strongly opposes" the bill because of its "unreasonable burdens and standards."
• White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told reporters Tuesday that Bush Administration officials believe "that the protections that are in place currently for journalists were sufficient."

(Incidentally, could it be that they think the "protections (against appearing and testifying in federal legal proceedings) that are in place currently for journalists" are sufficient because, well, there are no federal protections "in place currently for journalists?" Just a thought.)

Congress was unable to override Bush’s veto of the S-CHIP expansion, falling 14 votes shy of the 287, or two-thirds, needed. But if Bush vetoes the shield law, an override is a certainty; the bill passed Tuesday with 398 votes.

Can you say bipartisan?

In his floor speech urging colleagues to vote for the bill, Indiana Rep. Mike Pence (R-Columbus) referred the federal shield as "truly … a stitch in what I believe is a tear in the fabric of the Bill of Rights." The bill’s passage on Tuesday should be considered a late gift to Americans in honor of National Newspaper Week.

* * *

Also last week, I pointed out the 1955 Pulitzer Prize won by the Columbus (Ga.) Ledger and the Sunday Ledger-Enquirer for their work on exposing corruption in Phenix City, Ala.

Two keen-eyed readers pointed out that the 1955 Pulitzer was, in fact, the Columbus papers’ second; the 1926 Pulitzer, also in public service, was awarded to the Enquirer-Sun, as it was called then, for " the service which it rendered in its brave and energetic fight against the Ku Klux Klan; against the enactment of a law barring the teaching of evolution; against dishonest and incompetent public officials and for justice to the Negro and against lynching."

What do you think the reporters at the Columbus papers in the 1920s and 1950s would say to President Bush about the importance of a federal shield?

Internet will not make newspapers obsolete any time soon

Today marks the end of National Newspaper Week, a celebration of the impact newspapers have on the daily lives of their readers.

No one knows when the idea of the newspaper originated, but historians believe the first newspapers – quite literally, papers with news printed on them – were produced in Caesar’s Rome. As the centuries rolled on, the idea of information circulated on a printed page gained popularity, and the first newspaper, as we would recognize it, was published in the early 1600s.

Through the years, it became apparent that a free press is the linchpin of any free society. The ability of independent journalists to question and hold to account the ruling government is a powerful check on tyranny. Recognizing this, the Founding Fathers gave Americans an enduring protection in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …"

Those are lofty words for lofty ideas. But the reality is that journalists do their most important work away from the spotlight. Using open meetings, open records and public notices, they pore through government legalese, sit through tedious meetings week after week, make phone call after phone call to sources who may not respond and research, write and edit their work, all in the name of getting the story for you - and being your watchdog.

Because of their constitutional guarantee, newspapers are uniquely positioned to expose even the most heinous corruption and graft, wherever it may exist.

East Alabamians know something about this.

The 1955 Pulitzer Prize in Public Service was awarded to the Columbus (Ga.) Ledger and Sunday Ledger-Enquirer, "for its complete news coverage and fearless editorial attack on widespread corruption in neighboring Phenix City, which were effective in destroying a corrupt and racket-ridden city government." According to the Pulitzer Web site, "the newspaper exhibited an early awareness of the evils of lax law enforcement before the situation in Phenix City erupted into murder. It covered the whole unfolding story of the final prosecution of the wrong-doers with skill, perception, force and courage."

Readers should expect nothing less from the only constitutionally protected profession in America.

Such history notwithstanding, newspapers have suffered a crisis of identity with the advent of the Internet. Maybe it’s because I am the fifth generation of my family to work in newspapers, or maybe it’s because I’m a traditionalist, but I’m not one who believes that the Internet will render newspapers obsolete. I can’t believe that the Internet, "information superhighway" that it is, can better meet the daily needs and answer the broad challenges of your community than your local newspaper. But it’s up to the newspaper to focus on its strengths and do them well.

The Web is about speed; newspapers are about accuracy. The Web offers unlimited opinion; newspapers are about objectivity. The Web is global; your newspaper is local. Done right, newspapers should tell the otherwise unknown stories of your town, your state, your country, your world. They should tell your stories.

Newspapers aren’t perfect. Any product that is researched, written, designed, edited, marketed and sold by human beings is bound to have flaws. But those lofty ideas undergirding newspapers’ existence call their creators to the highest of standards, and more often than not, newspapermen and women meet that mark - not for a paycheck, mind you, for journalism is among this country’s poorest-paying professional pursuits - but because they are driven by public interest, their own dreams for a better world and their intense personal desire to tell you about it.

Happy National Newspaper Week!

S-CHIP showdown: Policy clash or political pawn?

President Bush engaged Congress this week in a D.C. showdown over S-CHIP, the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan.

According to the White House Press Office, Bush warned months ago that he would veto an expansion of S-CHIP much beyond the $5 billion, or 20 percent, he had proposed. But given that Bush has spent heavy political capital defending the Iraq war and that health care reform is a big issue ahead of next year’s elections, Democrats seized the opportunity to go to the mattresses with the president on it.

On Wednesday, Bush made good on his threat to veto the program’s reauthorization legislation, which featured a five-year, $35 billion expansion that would have made the government’s health insurance program available to 10 million more children per year.

Following the veto Wednesday, Bush said that the expansion went against the original purpose of S-CHIP, which was to help make health insurance available to poor children; the expansion, he said, would make government coverage available to children whose families earn up to $83,000, or four times the federal poverty rate. As such, it is believed that one in three new S-CHIP enrollees would leave the private insurance market for the government plan, creating a staggering weight under which the program would eventually collapse, the administration said.

Democratic congressional leaders have set Oct. 18 as the date they will try to override the veto. They have enough votes in the Senate, they say, but need between 15 and 20 in the House.

Readers of this space may remember that three weeks ago, I questioned whether Bush would have needed Gen. David Petraeus’ full-court public relations press on Iraq if the administration would have consistently communicated its policies to Americans over the last five years, instead of here and there when funding bills were under consideration. It seems that the administration’s lack of communication is again an issue with S-CHIP.

S-CHIP isn’t perfect, even before expansion. It’s estimated that a half-million children are eligible, but unenrolled, under existing guidelines. But what about those kids whose families clear the current ceiling for S-CHIP eligibility of $41,300, or 200 percent of the federal poverty rate, but earn less than the amount needed to make private insurance truly accessible?

There’s merit in guarding against such a major expansion to a government program, especially one that involves a shell game that would leave the program 80 percent unfunded in year six, as the administration said the bill did. Bush said Wednesday that he is “more than willing to work with members of both parties from both Houses, and if they need a little more money in the bill to help us meet the objective of getting help for poor children.”

And what is that amount? Isn’t that where the debate should have been? The New York Times noted in an editorial last week that a recent analysis of census data found that the number of uninsured children jumped by 710,000 last year; in addition, almost half of the increase was in families with incomes between 200 percent and 399 percent of poverty — “the very group the administration seems to believe is adequately insured and has no need of S-CHIP,” the editorial said.

Regardless of what happens on Oct. 18, this issue isn’t going away: the Times reported Wednesday that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has already begun radio ads and automated phone calls against eight Republicans in swing districts.

It makes you wonder, doesn’t it, whether the S-CHIP reauthorization is really about children’s health insurance at all.

Turnham: Annual home appraisals to have ripple effects

(Originally published 9/29/07)

Alabama Democratic Party Chairman Joe Turnham returned Wednesday from Washington, where he huddled with party leaders about, among other things, Alabama’s Second Congressional District. U.S. Rep. Terry Everett (R-Rehobeth) touched off a political feeding frenzy when he announced this week that he will not seek re-election in 2008.

Turnham said that although political observers regard Alabama as a red state, Democrats ran well in 2006, demonstrating that "underneath, it’s still a blue state." Also:

• Turnham said he doesn’t expect Gov. Bob Riley to call a special session on ethics reform, but if he does, "Democrats are going to come with a full package of ethics bills," including a bill Riley vetoed earlier this year that would expand registration requirements for anyone lobbying the governor. Some consensus is building around a PAC-to-PAC transfer ban and other issues, Turnham said, but Senate Republicans will have to work with Democrats for anything to pass.

• The annual property reappraisal system Riley initiated with an executive order is having ripple effects, Turnham said. For example, he said, the recent defeats of millage rate increases for education in Auburn, Opelika and Lee County were a "pushback" against property taxes, which are already climbing because of increasing real estate values. "The governor does not need a special session to deal with annual reappraisals of property taxes," Turnham said. "In the view of this party chair, he could do it with a stroke of the pen." But, he said, reappraisal and insurance availability issues are so critical that they may trump ethics reform if Riley does call a special session.

• Democratic infighting in the Alabama Senate "really wasn’t as much philosophical as there were some deep-seated personal issues, some things that were done and said that perhaps shouldn’t have been done and said," Turnham said. "But I do think there’s been some hat-in-hand humility and some outreach to each other on a personal level." As a result, he estimates that Democrats are now within one vote of having the 21 they need for cloture. Turnham blames Riley for the feud: "A lot of the ill will and the bad feeling results from the way the governor got heavily involved, more than any governor in Alabama history, in trying to organize the Senate away from a duly elected majority of Democrats," Turnham said. "In doing that, he inflamed some personal feelings on the Democratic side." Now a lame duck, Riley should engage his own caucus and encourage them to work with Democrats, Turnham said.

• Moving Alabama’s presidential primary to Feb. 5 "has meant a great deal," Turnham said, considering Alabama has had dozens of visits from presidential candidates. "I’m real confident that it’s been a good debate and people have been energized by it," he said. If the election were held today, Turnham said he would expect Hillary Clinton to win the primary and Barack Obama and John Edwards to earn delegates.

• As a longtime political activist and two-time congressional candidate, Turnham said he’s "made enough political sausage to fill up about 10 Zeigler trucks … Not all of it’s been fun and pleasant, but I hope it leaves Alabama and the world better," he said. People encourage him to consider various races, he said, but he wants to build a career outside of politics. "I feel like I have a great impact behind the scenes," he said. For now, Turnham said, he is content with managing his party’s "pretty good bullpen of people" and fulfilling his state, regional and national political commitments. But, he added, "You never say never."