Many of you have read about my consideration to run against Cynthia McKinney for Congress. As I investigated this idea, I came across one specific obstacle to making this a reality. And that is the issue of ballot access, particularly here in Georgia.

In considering whether or not to run against McKinney, I realized that the best opportunity to beat her would be for a strong Independent candidate to run against, without the baggage that running as a Republican would entail. (On top of the fact that I have plenty of problems with the Republican party and don't see that they are much different from Democrats).

So I started investigating how one gets on the ballot here in Georgia. I found plenty of information on how to run as a Republican or Democrat. In order to get on the primary ballot for either party, one simply has to pay a filing fee of about $4,800 for a Congressional seat race. Nothing else is required. Not a single signature.

However, the situation is quite different for an Independent to get on the ballot. Not only does one have to pay the same filing fee but one has to gather signatures. And lots of them. read more »

I am somewhat reluctant to write about Ann Coulter this week. The last thing I want to do is help her sell more copies of her book. But I am willing to take that chance in order to denounce her, to show that she is one of the greatest danger that exists to the conservative movement.

Ann is in the news of course because of the release of her new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism. As part of the book release, Ann is of course making the rounds at various media outlets to plug her book. Early this week she went on the Today Show to talk to Matt Lauer about her new book.

In particular, Matt Lauer questioned Ann about this excerpt from her book talking about some of the 9/11 widows.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much."

Captain Ed says it best about this:

...impugning the grief felt by 9/11 widows regardless of their politics is nothing short of despicable. It denies them their humanity and disregards the very public and horrific nature of their spouses' deaths. The attacks motivated a lot of us to become more active in politics in order to make sure our voices contribute to the debate, and it is impossible to argue that the 9/11 widows (and widowers, and children, and parents) have less standing to opine on foreign policy than Ann Coulter...

Of course Ed isn't the only conservative denoucing Coulter on this.
Hugh Hewitt:

Ann Coulter owes an apology to the widows of 9/11, and she should issue it immediately. This is beyond callous, beyond any notion of decency. It is disgusting.

RedState:

this sort of savage attack on people who have suffered a horrible tragedy is beyond any excusing and, really, beyond any apology.  Coulter, who was a friend of Barbara Olson (killed on the plane that hit the Pentagon), should know better; heck, any first-grader would know better.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The Anchoress:

...she is embodying everything I currently cannot abide in the "conservative movement", the arrogant presumption of absolute moral certitude (which is ugly, ugly, ugly coming from the left, so honey, it's not pretty when it's from the right, either), combined with the sense of over-confidence which is sending so many on the right into a self-destructive Roy Moore/Tom Tancredo plunge off a cliff.

Ace of Spades:

this nastiness is uncalled for. Even if something is actually felt deep inside -- even if you're filled with toxic hatred for very annoying, very presumptuous, very left-leaning women with an overweening sense of entitlement -- most people would find less abrasive ways to express such an emotion.  

Does that mean that Ann is just more honest than us "nancy boys"?   read more »

I had a tremendous response to yesterday's post about opting out of the political "base wars". In addition to the post here, I also cross-posted the piece at RedState, DailyKos, Peach Pundit, and MyDD. I received a ton of comments and emails on this piece, but one comment at Red State really stood out.

I've got one foot on and one foot off of your wagon. Although it would be swell if the discourse could shift and yes, perhaps the idealistic goal seems achievable, if only we could lead by example. But then, I look back over these past five or so years and I see a problem.

The Bush Administration was forever turning the other cheek, not answering the wild charges and misrepresentations, flying from the floor of the Senate to the Stage of Dixie Chick concerts. The silence from the President's people was deafening, and I recall joining with so many others, crying for the President to just defend himself. read more »

I'm not sure that I am all that good but I am all about good will. And that is what we are aiming for at Good Will Hinton.

I am a former Culture Warrior for the Religious Right who has become a conscientious objector in the Culture War. I believe that it is time to move the national dialogue away from demagoguery and strident political rhetoric and towards charitable and reasoned discourse.

And so I am inviting all those who believe in a vision for a more civil public square to join me in this endeavor.

Are you a conservative who believes that we as a society have failed the weakest and most vulnerable? Are you a liberal who believes that the public sector often needs private enterprise to function best? Do you feel that neither major political party is working towards creating a better America? Are you willing to buck the party line to make a stand for what you know is right?

There are plenty of large multi-user blogs devoted to politics/news/culture discussions. These would include Redstate, DailyKos, and MyDD. However, each of these sites tend to focus on "preaching to the choir". They can often be filled with strong rhetoric and vitriol towards those they disagree with or perceive as not "toeing the party line".

We believe that there is a great opportunity for a blog to fill the large gap in between these blogs on the Right and the Left. We seek to be a site for intelligent, reasonable, and charitable discussion and debate between those who disagree politically, philosophically, and culturally. We aim to have an equal balance between those on the Right and the Left and between those of faith and agnostics/atheists. We aim to debunk common conceptions of what it means to be conservative or liberal.

Even if you don't wish to contribute as a writer, please feel free to join our conversation here with comments.

Will Hinton
will@goodwillhinton.com
404-435-0853

I am drinking my new favorite beer tonight so I thought that I should update my list...

10. Duvel

This is a classic Belgian strong ale and particularly great in the summer. I used to not drink this much as it seemed too much of a cliche. But it is such a great beer that I keep coming back to it. It has a wonderfully crisp taste with a hint of apple. But don't be fooled by the lightness; it packs a punch at 9% alcohol.

read more »

I am among the most unlikely people anywhere to have become a beer afficianado, what with growing up in a Southern Baptist home that viewed alcohol as being "of the devil". Maybe the old adage of learning to appreciate certain things as one ages is especially true for me.

Whatever the reason, I have become a big fan of good beer. I should clarify that my love of beer does not involve massive quantities of mediocre beer but moderate quantities of world class beer.

I am also fortunate to live in perhaps the most underrated beers towns in America, Atlanta, GA. Two years ago, the selection was pathetic here. My, how far we have come. read more »

Some jokes are too close to home.

For many years now, Rep. Cynthia McKinney has been viewed as a political joke, not just by Republicans but I believe by the average person in America. Michael Moore probably comes closest to Cynthia in sheer outlandish demogoguery. And he isn't an elected official.

Well, I'm not laughing. Cynthia is my representative.

Imagine having a representative in Congress who cares nothing about their constituents. Imagine your representative constantly being a target of mockery because of lunatic statements that would make great headlines at The Onion. Imagine having a virulent racist as your representative. Imagine having a representative who cared only about themselves.

I don't have to imagine these things. I have to live with this every day. read more »

I have hesitated to comment on the Lt. Governor's race since so few people seem to be able to discuss it without having a conniption fit. But I'd like to add a different perspective to some of the questions and concerns that many people have about Ralph Reed.

For obvious reasons, Ralph has been vilified by many in the mainstream media and by most on the left as a budding theocrat. (Of course any Christian who doesn't vote Democrat is labeled a theocrat these days.) Even quite a few on the right have become quite critical of Ralph in recent years. Ralph has also found himself embroiled in the Jack Abramoff scandal, particularly as it relates to his lobbying on behalf of gambling interests. Unfortunately, Ralph has not learned the great lesson that my friend, former Congressman Pat Swindall, learned. read more »

I have been very interested in following the aftermath of the New York Times story that broke the news about anti-terrorists efforts to track financial transactions. It would have been very easy to jump on the conservative bandwagon and proclaim the New York Times and Bill Keller as treasonous. But I have decided to spend a little more time thinking about and researching this topic. Not really the blog way of doing things.

I think the most disturbing thing about this episode is the implication by Bill Keller and others in the press that "we the people" just need to trust them. I'm a little reluctant to trust my elected officials much less a private citizen who has done much less to get into such a position of power and influence.

Jeff Jarvis makes a great point about the lack of journalistic standards and transparency in the media:

"I want to see the editor of a major U.S. newspaper who is covering and uncovering classified government antiterrorism programs write a piece under the headline: “When and why I will reveal secrets.” For I have not yet seen a satisfactory answer to that obvious and essential question in any of the many letters and editorials those editors have been writing lately. If journalism is about upholding standards, then let’s know what those standards are."

It is rather ironic that the media usually shouts from the mountaintops about the need for more transparency in business or government but is loathe to allow such a thing in their own house.

Of course the bigger concern is whether or not the media is serving the public interest by publishing classified information, especially during a war. During this week's Journal Editorial Report, Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal asks Marvin Kalb of the Jones Shorenstein Center on the Press and Politics and Public Policy whether stories like this latest one from the New York Times will put people in danger. Kalb responds:

"But I can tell you, flat out, that most journalists are very respectful of the rights, of the needs, of the soldiers. They are not going to run anything that they think is going to harm the American people or the American troops. I think we all know that."

I'd like to believe that, but I'm not sure that I would agree with Kalb that "we all know that". I am reminded of an old article in The Atlantic Monthly that James Fallows wrote entitled "Why Americans Hate the Media". Fallows begins his article with a description of a public television series in the late '80s called "Ethics in America".

The episode was taped in the fall of 1987. Its title was "Under Orders, Under Fire," and most of the panelists were former soldiers talking about the ethical dilemmas of their work. The moderator was Charles Ogletree, a professor at Harvard Law School, who moved from panelist to panelist asking increasingly difficult questions in the law school's famous Socratic style. read more »