Tuesday, March 22, 2005
The Incredible Mr. Schiavo
One thing, it strikes me, that's being lost in the Terri Schiavo matter is the fact that Michael Schiavo's adulterous relationship is being entirely glossed over. Put it in these terms: transpose the case to the year, say, 1920. A husband so anxious to see his legal wife die while he carries on a long-term dalliance would be widely regarded as not credible. No matter what he says Terri may or may not have said would have been given no credance whatsoever because of his unwillingness to honor "in sickness and in health, till death do us part." He is indeed the incredible Mr. Schiavo.
Friday, March 11, 2005
EVALUATING PUBLIC ISSUES BY MEANS OF THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW
This is my church newsletter column for April, 2005. Our church newsletter is available online via our Yahoo Group. To subscribe, email: beacononbaldwin-sunscribe@yahoogroups.com.
WORLDVIEWS MATTER IN REAL-LIFE ISSUES
by Glenn Layne
Part of Christian maturity in thinking is understanding what the Christian worldview is, and applying that worldview consistently when it comes to the issues that we are called upon to make judgments on daily—in our personal lives, as well as in the public arena.
Currently, Terry Sciavo lays in a Florida skilled nursing facility. Due to an injury sustained a number of years ago; she is in a state of extreme mental and physical incapacity. Her husband says he recalls her stating that she would not want to live in this state, although there is no other witness to such statements. Mr. Sciavo has gone to court to have her feeding tube removed. In essence, he is seeking that she be starved to death, with the sanction of the state of Florida.
On the other hand, Terry’s parents say that want her to live and to have a shot, no matter how long a shot, at recovery.
The courts have bounced around on the Sciavo case, but seem (at the time of this writing) to be inclined to allow the feeding tube to be removed. This is despite repeated attempts to intervene from the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, and the state legislature. (This is an example of the Judicial Aristocracy problem we face as a nation, but that one will wait to another time.)
What we need to do as Christians is grapple with cases like that of Terry Sciavo in a “worldview-ish” way. Rather than react emotionally to either the plight of Terry, or her husband, or her parents, let’s apply the grid of the Christian worldview to the case.
A few of the key elements of the Christian are especially relevant. First, the nature of human beings in the Christian worldview is that we are not animals (even though we have bodies, are born, die, and engage in sexual activities, as animals do). We may be physical beings, but we are firstly spiritual beings.
But more than that: we bear God’s image. Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” The Bible makes repeated reference to the fact that human beings are more than animals. Murder is specifically banned on that ground (Genesis 9:6).
This affirmation is rejected by most other worldviews, especially naturalism (the worldview behind the mood we call “secular humanism”). That worldview views human beings as simply the cleverest animal that has evolved on planet earth. Extra-ordinary efforts to maintain the life of woman like Terry Sciavo make no sense to the naturalist.
Another element of worldview to check with is the nature of morality. Part of the Christian worldview is that God has chosen to make Himself known, and that His character is the foundation of morals and ethics. Further, the Christian worldview says that human existence is not ended by death; eternity may be with God or eternally separated from Him, based on our response to the work of Christ.
So what can we conclude about the Sciavo case based on this quick look at the Christian worldview, in our attempt to “think Christianly”?
1. Whoever has the legal right to act as Terry’s advocate has the moral duty to stand for her right not to be killed by starvation, based on her human dignity as more than an animal—as a human being created in the image of God.
2. A separate but related issue is the matter of public advocacy. Facing the reality that at least certain elements of public policy favors the state-sanctioned killing of chronically ill and mentally incapacitated patients (especial via judicial activism), what is the proper stance of God’s people? Do we demand that the greater society conform to Christian values, or do we surrender to the “lowest common denominator” of the society, and simply teach our own the way we should go?
That second item is the one that has divided believing Christians over the generations. Essentially, we have taken two different paths: one might be described as the Redeem and Reform path; the other the Retreat and Reform path.
The Redeem approach takes on the society and engages it with a view toward changing it in a God-honoring way. Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Abraham Kuyper in the past and James Dobson or Jerry Falwell would fit the mold in the present.
The Retreat approach says that society at large is beyond redemption. Authentic Christian community standing apart from the greater society is the best we can hope for. The Monastics, Anabaptists, Menno Simmons (founder of the Mennonites) represent this view in the past. To a certain extent, Ron Sider (author of the classic Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger), Richard Mouw and John Howard Yoder (author of The Politics of Jesus) would represent this view today.
Anyone who knows me would probably say that I am more in the Redeem and Reform Camp, and they’d be right. At the same time, I have great respect for people like Sider (who’ve I’ve met and had a great conversation with) and John Yoder.
What I think Sider and Yoder underestimate is the power of democratic institutions. We are blessed to live in a democracy, where we all are supposed to have a say. While we live in a fallen world (another element of the Christian worldview), there is enough in society that’s redeemable to see a “substantial recovery” (as Francis Schaeffer said) of righteousness in society. It was this truth that impelled the abolitionists a hundred years ago.
WORLDVIEWS MATTER IN REAL-LIFE ISSUES
by Glenn Layne
Part of Christian maturity in thinking is understanding what the Christian worldview is, and applying that worldview consistently when it comes to the issues that we are called upon to make judgments on daily—in our personal lives, as well as in the public arena.
Currently, Terry Sciavo lays in a Florida skilled nursing facility. Due to an injury sustained a number of years ago; she is in a state of extreme mental and physical incapacity. Her husband says he recalls her stating that she would not want to live in this state, although there is no other witness to such statements. Mr. Sciavo has gone to court to have her feeding tube removed. In essence, he is seeking that she be starved to death, with the sanction of the state of Florida.
On the other hand, Terry’s parents say that want her to live and to have a shot, no matter how long a shot, at recovery.
The courts have bounced around on the Sciavo case, but seem (at the time of this writing) to be inclined to allow the feeding tube to be removed. This is despite repeated attempts to intervene from the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, and the state legislature. (This is an example of the Judicial Aristocracy problem we face as a nation, but that one will wait to another time.)
What we need to do as Christians is grapple with cases like that of Terry Sciavo in a “worldview-ish” way. Rather than react emotionally to either the plight of Terry, or her husband, or her parents, let’s apply the grid of the Christian worldview to the case.
A few of the key elements of the Christian are especially relevant. First, the nature of human beings in the Christian worldview is that we are not animals (even though we have bodies, are born, die, and engage in sexual activities, as animals do). We may be physical beings, but we are firstly spiritual beings.
But more than that: we bear God’s image. Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” The Bible makes repeated reference to the fact that human beings are more than animals. Murder is specifically banned on that ground (Genesis 9:6).
This affirmation is rejected by most other worldviews, especially naturalism (the worldview behind the mood we call “secular humanism”). That worldview views human beings as simply the cleverest animal that has evolved on planet earth. Extra-ordinary efforts to maintain the life of woman like Terry Sciavo make no sense to the naturalist.
Another element of worldview to check with is the nature of morality. Part of the Christian worldview is that God has chosen to make Himself known, and that His character is the foundation of morals and ethics. Further, the Christian worldview says that human existence is not ended by death; eternity may be with God or eternally separated from Him, based on our response to the work of Christ.
So what can we conclude about the Sciavo case based on this quick look at the Christian worldview, in our attempt to “think Christianly”?
1. Whoever has the legal right to act as Terry’s advocate has the moral duty to stand for her right not to be killed by starvation, based on her human dignity as more than an animal—as a human being created in the image of God.
2. A separate but related issue is the matter of public advocacy. Facing the reality that at least certain elements of public policy favors the state-sanctioned killing of chronically ill and mentally incapacitated patients (especial via judicial activism), what is the proper stance of God’s people? Do we demand that the greater society conform to Christian values, or do we surrender to the “lowest common denominator” of the society, and simply teach our own the way we should go?
That second item is the one that has divided believing Christians over the generations. Essentially, we have taken two different paths: one might be described as the Redeem and Reform path; the other the Retreat and Reform path.
The Redeem approach takes on the society and engages it with a view toward changing it in a God-honoring way. Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Abraham Kuyper in the past and James Dobson or Jerry Falwell would fit the mold in the present.
The Retreat approach says that society at large is beyond redemption. Authentic Christian community standing apart from the greater society is the best we can hope for. The Monastics, Anabaptists, Menno Simmons (founder of the Mennonites) represent this view in the past. To a certain extent, Ron Sider (author of the classic Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger), Richard Mouw and John Howard Yoder (author of The Politics of Jesus) would represent this view today.
Anyone who knows me would probably say that I am more in the Redeem and Reform Camp, and they’d be right. At the same time, I have great respect for people like Sider (who’ve I’ve met and had a great conversation with) and John Yoder.
What I think Sider and Yoder underestimate is the power of democratic institutions. We are blessed to live in a democracy, where we all are supposed to have a say. While we live in a fallen world (another element of the Christian worldview), there is enough in society that’s redeemable to see a “substantial recovery” (as Francis Schaeffer said) of righteousness in society. It was this truth that impelled the abolitionists a hundred years ago.
This excellant article appeared on www.pastors.com.
Do we trust the Bible to tell us the truth about homosexuality?by R. Albert Mohler
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)--With the movement toward same-sex “marriage” and the normalization of homosexuality gaining momentum, some churches are running for cover. Yet, our Christian responsibility is clear -- we are to tell the truth about what God has revealed concerning human sexuality, gender and marriage. No one said it was going to be easy.
The confessing and believing church, at every point, runs counter to the cultural tidal wave. Even to raise the issue of gender is to offend those who wish to eradicate any gender distinctions, arguing that these are merely "socially constructed realities" and vestiges of an ancient past.
Scripture will not allow this attempt to deny the structures of creation. Romans 1 must be read in light of Genesis 1 and 2. As Genesis 1:27 makes apparent, God intended from the beginning to create human beings in two genders or sexes -- "male and female He created them." Both man and woman were created in the image of God. They were and are distinct and, yet, inseparably linked by God's design. The genders really are different, and the distinction goes far beyond mere physical differences, but the man recognized the woman as "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh."
The bond between man and woman is marriage, which is not an historical accident or the result of socialization and cultural evolution. To the contrary, marriage and the establishment of the heterosexual covenant union is central to God's intention -- before and after the fall in the Garden of Eden. Immediately following the creation of man and woman come the instructive words: "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed."
Evangelical Christians have often failed to present this biblical truth straightforwardly, and thus many of our churches and members are unarmed for the ideological, political and cultural conflicts which mark the modern landscape. The fundamental axiom upon which evangelical Christians must base any response to homosexuality is this: God alone is sovereign, and He has created the universe and all within by His own design and to His own good pleasure.
Furthermore, He has revealed to us His creative intention through Holy Scripture -- and that intention was clearly to create and establish two distinct but complementary genders or sexes. The Genesis narratives demonstrate that this distinction of genders is neither accidental nor inconsequential to the divine design. "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make for him a helper suitable for him," determined God. And God created woman.
God's creative intention is further revealed in the cleaving of man to the woman ["his wife"] and their new identity as "one flesh." This biblical assertion -- which no contorted interpretation can escape -- clearly places marriage and sexual relations within God's creative act and design.
The sexual union of a man and a woman united in covenant marriage is thus not only allowed but is commanded as God's intention and decree. Sexual expression is limited to this heterosexual covenant, which in its clearest biblical expression is one man and one woman united for as long as they both shall live.
Therefore, any sexual expression outside of that heterosexual marriage relationship is contrary to God's explicit command and the nature of his creation. That fundamental truth runs counter not only to the homosexual agenda but to the rampant sexual immorality of the age. Indeed, the Bible has much more to say about illicit heterosexual activity than about homosexual acts. Adultery, rape, bestiality, pornography and fornication, for example, are expressly forbidden.
As E. Michael Jones argues, most modern ideologies are, at base, efforts to rationalize sexual behavior. In fact, he identifies modernity itself as "rationalized lust." We should expect the secular world, which is at war with God's truth, to be eager in its efforts to rationalize lust and to seek legitimacy and social sanction for its sexual sins. We should be shocked, however, that many within the church now seek to accomplish the same purpose and to join in common cause with those openly at war with God's truth.
The Apostle Paul's classic statement in Romans 1 sets the issues squarely before us. Homosexuality is linked directly to idolatry, for it is on the basis of their idolatry that God gave them up to their own lusts. Their hearts were committed to impurity and they were degrading their own bodies by their illicit lusts.
Their idolatry -- exchanging the truth of God for a lie and worshiping the creature rather than the Creator -- led God to give them over to their degrading passions. From here, those given over to their degraded passions exchanged the natural use of sexual intercourse for that which God declared to be unnatural (literally, against nature). At this point Paul explicitly deals with female homosexuality or lesbianism as well as male homosexuality. This is one of the very few references in all ancient literature to female homosexuality, and Paul's message is clear: All forms of homosexual eroticism and sexual behavior fall short of God's glory, violate God's revealed law and are inherently unnatural.
But the women involved in lesbianism were not and are not alone. Men, too, have given up natural intercourse with women and have been consumed with passion for other men. The acts they commit, they commit without shame. As a result, they have received within their own bodies the penalty of their error.
Beyond this, God has given them up to their own depraved minds, and they do those things which are not proper. The message could not be more candid and clear, but there are those who seek to deny the obvious. Some have claimed that Paul is here dealing only with those heterosexual persons who commit homosexual acts. The imaginative folly of this approach is undone by Scripture, which allows no understanding that any human beings are born anything other than heterosexual. The modern -- and highly political -- notion of homosexual "orientation" as a natural human condition cannot be squared with the Bible. The only orientation indicated by Scripture is the universal human orientation to sin.
In other letters, Paul indicates that homosexuals -- along with those who persist in other sins -- will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is “arsenokoites,” a word with a graphic etymology. Some modern revisionists have attempted to suggest that this refers only to homosexual rapists or child abusers. This argument will not stand even the slightest scholarly consideration. The word does not appear in any Greek literature of the period. As New Testament scholar David Wright has demonstrated, the word was taken by Paul directly from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and its meaning is homosexuality itself.
The biblical witness is clear: Homosexuality is a grievous sin against God and is a direct rejection of God's intention and command in creation. All sin is a matter of eternal consequence, and the only hope for any sinner is the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ, who on the cross paid the price for our sin, serving as the substitute for the redeemed.
Our response to persons involved in homosexuality must be marked by genuine compassion. But a central task of genuine compassion is telling the truth, and the Bible reveals a true message we must convey. Those seeking to contort and subvert the Bible's message are not responding to homosexuals with compassion. To lie is never compassionate -- and their lie leads unto death.
In the end, the church will either declare the truth of God's Word or find a way to run away from it. It really comes down to trust. Do we trust the Bible to tell us truthfully what God desires and commands about our sexuality? If so, we really do know where we stand and we really do know what to say. If not, let's just admit to the world that we really haven't a clue.
-Pastors.com®-
Do we trust the Bible to tell us the truth about homosexuality?by R. Albert Mohler
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)--With the movement toward same-sex “marriage” and the normalization of homosexuality gaining momentum, some churches are running for cover. Yet, our Christian responsibility is clear -- we are to tell the truth about what God has revealed concerning human sexuality, gender and marriage. No one said it was going to be easy.
The confessing and believing church, at every point, runs counter to the cultural tidal wave. Even to raise the issue of gender is to offend those who wish to eradicate any gender distinctions, arguing that these are merely "socially constructed realities" and vestiges of an ancient past.
Scripture will not allow this attempt to deny the structures of creation. Romans 1 must be read in light of Genesis 1 and 2. As Genesis 1:27 makes apparent, God intended from the beginning to create human beings in two genders or sexes -- "male and female He created them." Both man and woman were created in the image of God. They were and are distinct and, yet, inseparably linked by God's design. The genders really are different, and the distinction goes far beyond mere physical differences, but the man recognized the woman as "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh."
The bond between man and woman is marriage, which is not an historical accident or the result of socialization and cultural evolution. To the contrary, marriage and the establishment of the heterosexual covenant union is central to God's intention -- before and after the fall in the Garden of Eden. Immediately following the creation of man and woman come the instructive words: "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed."
Evangelical Christians have often failed to present this biblical truth straightforwardly, and thus many of our churches and members are unarmed for the ideological, political and cultural conflicts which mark the modern landscape. The fundamental axiom upon which evangelical Christians must base any response to homosexuality is this: God alone is sovereign, and He has created the universe and all within by His own design and to His own good pleasure.
Furthermore, He has revealed to us His creative intention through Holy Scripture -- and that intention was clearly to create and establish two distinct but complementary genders or sexes. The Genesis narratives demonstrate that this distinction of genders is neither accidental nor inconsequential to the divine design. "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make for him a helper suitable for him," determined God. And God created woman.
God's creative intention is further revealed in the cleaving of man to the woman ["his wife"] and their new identity as "one flesh." This biblical assertion -- which no contorted interpretation can escape -- clearly places marriage and sexual relations within God's creative act and design.
The sexual union of a man and a woman united in covenant marriage is thus not only allowed but is commanded as God's intention and decree. Sexual expression is limited to this heterosexual covenant, which in its clearest biblical expression is one man and one woman united for as long as they both shall live.
Therefore, any sexual expression outside of that heterosexual marriage relationship is contrary to God's explicit command and the nature of his creation. That fundamental truth runs counter not only to the homosexual agenda but to the rampant sexual immorality of the age. Indeed, the Bible has much more to say about illicit heterosexual activity than about homosexual acts. Adultery, rape, bestiality, pornography and fornication, for example, are expressly forbidden.
As E. Michael Jones argues, most modern ideologies are, at base, efforts to rationalize sexual behavior. In fact, he identifies modernity itself as "rationalized lust." We should expect the secular world, which is at war with God's truth, to be eager in its efforts to rationalize lust and to seek legitimacy and social sanction for its sexual sins. We should be shocked, however, that many within the church now seek to accomplish the same purpose and to join in common cause with those openly at war with God's truth.
The Apostle Paul's classic statement in Romans 1 sets the issues squarely before us. Homosexuality is linked directly to idolatry, for it is on the basis of their idolatry that God gave them up to their own lusts. Their hearts were committed to impurity and they were degrading their own bodies by their illicit lusts.
Their idolatry -- exchanging the truth of God for a lie and worshiping the creature rather than the Creator -- led God to give them over to their degrading passions. From here, those given over to their degraded passions exchanged the natural use of sexual intercourse for that which God declared to be unnatural (literally, against nature). At this point Paul explicitly deals with female homosexuality or lesbianism as well as male homosexuality. This is one of the very few references in all ancient literature to female homosexuality, and Paul's message is clear: All forms of homosexual eroticism and sexual behavior fall short of God's glory, violate God's revealed law and are inherently unnatural.
But the women involved in lesbianism were not and are not alone. Men, too, have given up natural intercourse with women and have been consumed with passion for other men. The acts they commit, they commit without shame. As a result, they have received within their own bodies the penalty of their error.
Beyond this, God has given them up to their own depraved minds, and they do those things which are not proper. The message could not be more candid and clear, but there are those who seek to deny the obvious. Some have claimed that Paul is here dealing only with those heterosexual persons who commit homosexual acts. The imaginative folly of this approach is undone by Scripture, which allows no understanding that any human beings are born anything other than heterosexual. The modern -- and highly political -- notion of homosexual "orientation" as a natural human condition cannot be squared with the Bible. The only orientation indicated by Scripture is the universal human orientation to sin.
In other letters, Paul indicates that homosexuals -- along with those who persist in other sins -- will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is “arsenokoites,” a word with a graphic etymology. Some modern revisionists have attempted to suggest that this refers only to homosexual rapists or child abusers. This argument will not stand even the slightest scholarly consideration. The word does not appear in any Greek literature of the period. As New Testament scholar David Wright has demonstrated, the word was taken by Paul directly from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and its meaning is homosexuality itself.
The biblical witness is clear: Homosexuality is a grievous sin against God and is a direct rejection of God's intention and command in creation. All sin is a matter of eternal consequence, and the only hope for any sinner is the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ, who on the cross paid the price for our sin, serving as the substitute for the redeemed.
Our response to persons involved in homosexuality must be marked by genuine compassion. But a central task of genuine compassion is telling the truth, and the Bible reveals a true message we must convey. Those seeking to contort and subvert the Bible's message are not responding to homosexuals with compassion. To lie is never compassionate -- and their lie leads unto death.
In the end, the church will either declare the truth of God's Word or find a way to run away from it. It really comes down to trust. Do we trust the Bible to tell us truthfully what God desires and commands about our sexuality? If so, we really do know where we stand and we really do know what to say. If not, let's just admit to the world that we really haven't a clue.
-Pastors.com®-
Monday, March 07, 2005
Senate Races in 2006
Here are the Senate Races for 2006 and my preliminary projections:
Senate Races (33)
State
Republicans (15)
State
Democrats (17)
AZ
Kyl REELECTED
CA
Feinstein REELECTED
IN
Lugar REELECTED
CT
Lieberman REELECTED
ME
Snow REELECTED
DE
Carper REELECTED
MO
Talent REELECTED
FL
Nelson DEFEATED AND REPLACED BY A REPBLICAN
MS
Lott REELECTED
HI
Akaka REELECTED
MT
Burns DEFEATED AND REPLACED BY A REPUBLICAN
MD
Sarbanes REELECTED
NV
Ensign REELECTED
MA
Kennedy REELECTED (SADLY)
OH
DeWine REELECTED
MI
Stabenow RELECTED in a tough fight
PA
Santorum REELECTED in a tough fight
MN
Dayton Dayton, a complete embarassment to the state, has announced he will not seek re-election. I predict that this seat will go to the GOP.
RI
Chafee REELECTED
NE
Nelson RELECTED
TN
Frist He has announced he will not seek re-election; he wants the White House. The seat will remain GOP.
NJ
Corzine He will move over to the Governor's office in NJ, and the seat will go to the GOP.
TX
Hutchinson REELECTED
NM
Bingaman REELECTED
UT
Hatch REELECTED
NY
Clinton REELECTED unless Rudy G. takes her on; he could defeat her, and end her presidential aspirations. If Rudy gets in, Hilary could get out--just to avoid such a defeat.
VA
Allen REELECTED
ND
Conrad RELECTED
WY
Thomas REELECTED
WA
Cantwell REELECTED sadly
WV
Byrd He will be 89 in 2006. He is an embarassment, and ought to quit. If he does, the seat could go GOP.
WI
Kohl REELECTED
VT
Jeffords RELECTED because Green Mountain voters have developed a taste for moronic quislings (see also DEAN, Howard; SAUNDERS, Bernie and LEAHY, Patrick).
BOTTOM LINE: another good election cycle for the GOP; I see a pick up of 3-5 Senate seats.
Senate Races (33)
State
Republicans (15)
State
Democrats (17)
AZ
Kyl REELECTED
CA
Feinstein REELECTED
IN
Lugar REELECTED
CT
Lieberman REELECTED
ME
Snow REELECTED
DE
Carper REELECTED
MO
Talent REELECTED
FL
Nelson DEFEATED AND REPLACED BY A REPBLICAN
MS
Lott REELECTED
HI
Akaka REELECTED
MT
Burns DEFEATED AND REPLACED BY A REPUBLICAN
MD
Sarbanes REELECTED
NV
Ensign REELECTED
MA
Kennedy REELECTED (SADLY)
OH
DeWine REELECTED
MI
Stabenow RELECTED in a tough fight
PA
Santorum REELECTED in a tough fight
MN
Dayton Dayton, a complete embarassment to the state, has announced he will not seek re-election. I predict that this seat will go to the GOP.
RI
Chafee REELECTED
NE
Nelson RELECTED
TN
Frist He has announced he will not seek re-election; he wants the White House. The seat will remain GOP.
NJ
Corzine He will move over to the Governor's office in NJ, and the seat will go to the GOP.
TX
Hutchinson REELECTED
NM
Bingaman REELECTED
UT
Hatch REELECTED
NY
Clinton REELECTED unless Rudy G. takes her on; he could defeat her, and end her presidential aspirations. If Rudy gets in, Hilary could get out--just to avoid such a defeat.
VA
Allen REELECTED
ND
Conrad RELECTED
WY
Thomas REELECTED
WA
Cantwell REELECTED sadly
WV
Byrd He will be 89 in 2006. He is an embarassment, and ought to quit. If he does, the seat could go GOP.
WI
Kohl REELECTED
VT
Jeffords RELECTED because Green Mountain voters have developed a taste for moronic quislings (see also DEAN, Howard; SAUNDERS, Bernie and LEAHY, Patrick).
BOTTOM LINE: another good election cycle for the GOP; I see a pick up of 3-5 Senate seats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)