By Artur Davis, on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 2:30 PM ET  Artur Davis‘ Second Response
[The RP’s Provocation; Artur Davis’ Rebuttal #1; Rod Jetton’s Rebuttal #2; John Y. Brown, III’s Rebuttal #3; Ron Granieri’s Rebuttal #4; Robert Kahne’s Rebuttal #5; Artur Davis’ First Response; Michael Steele’s Rebuttal #6; The RP’s First Defense; David Host’s Rebuttal #7; Zack Adams’ Rebuttal #8]
He underscores why Tebow’s brand of religiosity has lasting political relevance. The Focus on the Family ad is so effective because it attacks the pro-choice movement in one of its strongest places–abortions related to medical risks for the mother or fetus. Typically, the pro-life cause has dodged this line of attack in favor of a focus on abortions as a fallback when birth control fails, or abortions deep in the third trimester.
That the ad works so well, that it did not even strike many of its viewers as intensely political or even anti-choice, is an adman’s dream. And that’s no slight to Tebow or his mother; its actually a nod to the power of their testimony. But as Zack Adams appreciates, the ad is an argument for restricting or even criminalizing a different choice than Mrs. Tebow made. It’s not a plea for compromise; its a plea for codifying the value of unborn life even in the most morally complex, scientifically ambiguous context. With r espect to Jonathan, calling it something less than that probably understates what the Tebows and Focus on the Family meant to say.
Read the rest of…
The RPs Debate Tim Tebow: Artur Davis Responds
By Artur Davis, on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 11:30 AM ET Artur Davis: Response #1
[The RP’s Provocation; Artur Davis’ Rebuttal #1; Rod Jetton’s Rebuttal #2; John Y. Brown, III’s Rebuttal #3; Ron Granieri’s Rebuttal #4; Robert Kahne’s Rebuttal #5]
A couple of observations based on what others have said:
Rod Jetton and Ron Granieri ask the plausible question why Tim Tebow has engendered so much buzz when religiosity and good works in the sportsworld are pretty common; Dirk Meneffee at CBS’ NFL Today asked a similar question on air, in response to Terry Bradshaw’s rave about how Tebow is providing inspiration to a hero starved culture. It’s a sore subject, by the way, in some sectors of the African American community, who recall Reggie White and a host of other black athletes who aided young people and celebrated their faith every bit as enthusiastically as Tebow without the fame or the credit.
We’ll save for another day a foray into the differences in how black and white athletes are covered by the media ( Robert Kahne sort of goes there in his observations about the lack of acclaim for Cam Newton, whose rookie season only produced more passing yards than any rookie QB in NFL history, and who is a superior quarterback and athlete to Tebow, but has received a fraction of the attention that Tebow has garnered–then again, Tebow wins games, and in improbable, breathtaking ways, a characteristic that has eluded Newton at the professional level). I do think, however, that Tebow’s faith has garnered more interest than his predecessors because it seems to have a larger worldview around it than just sports. As Rod Jetton recalls, Reggie White was unabashed about his faith, even practiced as an associate minister, but if memory serves, Reggie White never ventured into the secular realm of public policy. Similarly, when Kevin Durant, the single best player in the NBA today, opens his post game interviews by thanking God for giving him the opportunity, it seems heart-felt, and often touching, but it is as apolitical as it could be. Tebow follows a bolder path–he made an ad promoting the pro-life cause; he endorses abstinence; and he comfortably appears in conservative forums like Mike Huckabee’s and Sean Hannity’s programs on Fox News.
Read the rest of…
The RPs Debate Tim Tebow: Artur Davis Responds
By Artur Davis, on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 9:00 AM ET Artur Davis: Rebuttal #1
[The RP’s Provocation]
I’m a Tim Tebow fan–I like his tenacity, and his ability to consistently turn ridicule and derision into motivational points, and I think its good for football that he shows a path to win without the conventional quarterback’s skill set. He’s an underdog who makes good–that itself makes him a legitimate role model.
I’m untroubled by the intensity of his faith; actually, as a Deep South native, I don’t even find it terribly eventful. I come from a culture where the kids in the high school football game pray not just to avoid injury, but to win, and to let their individual talent shine, and see nothing sacrilegous about asking God to be a football fan for an evening.
But I recognize that there is a major segment of the national community that hasn’t seen Tebow style faith in action, certainly not by a pro athlete, certainly not by a 24 year old who is about to become fabulously rich and famous. If you are a conservative, its all good. The fact is that evangelical Christianity can use a voice that is conservative and relentlessly congenial and optimistic at the same time; its a helpful thing, that his faith seems as engaged with compassion for disabled children as it is with the pro-life life movement that he has embraced.
Read the rest of…
The RPs Debate Tim Tebow: Artur Davis Rebuts
By Artur Davis, on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 1:30 PM ET Artur Davis‘ Second Response
[The RP’s Provocation; Jason Atkinson’s Rebuttal #1; The RP’s First Defense: Jason Atkinson’s First Response; Artur Davis’ Rebuttal #2; The RP’s Second Defense; Artur Davis’ First Response; Ron Granieri’s Rebuttal #3; Jeff Smith’s Rebuttal #4; The RP’s Third Defense]
Two thoughts regarding Jeff’s position on wholesale legalization of narcotics, which as my earlier comments suggest, I fundamentally reject. First, it illustrates very conveniently a common flaw in libertarian arguments, the notion that unrestrained liberty is a social good in its own right. Without lapsing too much into philosophical mumbo-jumbo, any social good actually ought to convey a value we all might enjoy, one that might somehow lift the condition of the community. The libertarian goal that we are all free to take on more risk not only fails that standard, it essentially kicks it aside.
Read the rest of…
The RPs Debate Legalizing Marijuana: Artur Davis Responds
By Artur Davis, on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:30 AM ET Artur Davis‘ First Response
[The RP’s Provocation; Jason Atkinson’s Rebuttal #1; The RP’s First Defense: Jason Atkinson’s First Response; Artur Davis’ Rebuttal #2; The RP’s Second Defense]
I think that Jonathan’s argument regarding medical marijuana–versus social use of marijuana– is a tougher one to resolve, but I’m still inclined toward the view that legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes is easy to do in theory, hard to do in fact. Jason Atkinson is dead-on, in my view, about the abuses and subterfuges that will spring up if the door to legalization is opened at all. As for Jonathan’s observations regarding the resources spent on minor drug prosecutions, it’s a quite serious point. I would repeat my earlier sentiments that marijuana prosecutions remain an area of disparity and uneven unforcement. I would even go so far as to endorse the experiment in some jurisdictions of considering drug possession cases in special drug courts, where the focus is treatment and avoiding recidivism rather than incarceration.
By Artur Davis, on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:30 AM ET Artur Davis: Rebuttal #2
[The RP’s Provocation; Jason Atkinson’s Rebuttal #1; The RP’s First Defense: Jason Atkinson’s First Response]
The arguments for legalizing marijuana turn on the idea that the risks are limited, or on a libertarian notion that individuals should have the license to weigh the risk for themselves.
I’ve yet to hear a case that an explosion of social marijuana use will improve public health, strengthen families or communities, or add to the public good in any measurable way. I’m dubious about ending a whole class of criminal laws with nothing positive to show for it.
There is certainly room to evaluate the defects in how marijuana laws are enforced; many judges and state level defense lawyers are convinced that minorities are more likely to face felony charges for marijuana related crimes, and that the system is replete with inconsistencies in how marijuana offenders are treated, for reasons rooted in class, race, geography, etc. That conversation ought to happen, but there is ample room to reform the disparities without throwing up our hands altogether.
Read the rest of…
The RPs Debate Legalizing Marijuana: Artur Davis Rebuts
By Artur Davis, on Mon Jan 9, 2012 at 2:00 PM ET  Rebuttal #6: Artur Davis
[John Y.’s Provocation; The RP’s Rebuttal #1; Ron Granieri’s Rebuttal #2; Rod Jetton’s Rebuttal #3; Krystal Ball’s Rebuttal #4; John Y.’s First Defense; Rod Jetton’s Response #1; Jeff Smith’s Rebuttal #5; John Y.’s Second Defense; Ron Granieri’s Response #1; John Y.’s Third Defense]
I’m a Johnny-come-lately to what sounds like an incredible conversation, so I will wade in very selectively, with these random observations:
- I like Jeff’s observations if only because they are the best explanation for why a decidedly average looking guy like me didn’t go further! More seriously, I think we will forever remain on the lookout for an explanation of what makes winners in politics. If it were all looks and charm, Kennedy crushes Nixon, instead of beating him by a vote per precinct; I’ve seen the charming losers–I vividly recall from my candidate recruitment days at the DCCC, a Nebraska guy whose looks had female staffers rearranging their schedules to meet him; the voters were less enraptured than the staffers and the online world; he lost by about 20 points — and I’ve seen the winners whose charisma would’t carry them past the corner next to the punch bowl in most other settings.
- My best guess is that for all our jaded reasons not to believe it, issues do matter, but sometimes only in the most reductionist sense–“does the guy or lady believe in people like me?”;”is this person going to deliver on the one or two things I really value?” I deliberately don’t use the word trust, by the way, because I think the trust quotient is so low in politics today that relying on it proves too little. I also don’t mean to endorse the very test I describe — part of leadership is sometimes deciding to deliver not on the one thing you care about, but the one thing that really will work better. Sometimes, “believing in people like me” means leading too narrowly, and shortchanging the broader good for one faction.
Read the rest of…
The RPs Debate Presidential Leadership: Artur Davis Rebuts
By Artur Davis, on Thu Jan 5, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
There is a perception that OJ Simpson in his vintage years, the mid seventies, was the last cultural icon who wore a football jersey. In contrast, it is said that the modern football era has yielded an array of physically gifted, prodigiously skilled athletes who have shattered records and redefined the limits of the game, but have made no deep imprint on the society that reveres their talent.
The last part is a true enough description of the largely impact free zone of the contemporary football star. The first observation, however, is flawed memory. It was not Simpson, for all his California glitter and celebrity, who was the last of a kind—it was a Mississippian who migrated north named Walter Payton. Jeff Pearlman, in his 2011 biography of the Chicago Bears Hall of Famer, “Sweetness”, reminds us that for about a decade, well beyond the normal career span of an NFL back, Walter Payton was the exemplary star who resonated well beyond his sport–especially if you were a Chicagoan eager for a hero in the aftermath of that city’s dismal decade of the seventies; an African American who relished the style of a charismatic HBCU grad effortlessly crossing racial barriers; or a lover of an underdog story who understood the depths in the South from which Payton ascended.
 Click on image to purchase book Even for Americans who only dimly knew the fine print of Payton’s athletic feats, he was the 80s sports celebrity who died too early and through no fault of his own, and his demise in 1999 from a rare liver cancer at 46 provoked tributes fit for the civic legend he had become.
“Sweetness” is a minutely researched, powerfully written narrative that gives the iconic side of Payton its due, but may be the most controversial sports biography of the past year. The football side of the account is not in dispute; to a degree not well remembered today, Payton was uncommonly good for an astonishingly long time. From 1976 to 1986, Payton amassed over 1200 yards each full season, topped the NFL record books for career rushing yards (and still ranks second, behind only Emmitt Smith), and at one point held the record for single game yards and consecutive 100 yard games. In a sport where the brutality of contact erodes skills quickly, Payton’s prolonged brilliance still arguably makes him the finest running back the NFL has produced.
Read the rest of…
Artur Davis: “Sweetness”
By RP Staff, on Wed Jan 4, 2012 at 9:15 AM ET
As the pundits and Wednesday morning quarterbacks assess the winners and losers of last night’s Iowa caucuses, one verdict is clear: Our savvy gang of RPs couldn’t shoot straight.
Reviewing their predictions from yesterday, click here for the infamous post, only RP staffer Zack Adams predicted the correct finish of the top 6 candidates, and former Alabama Congressman Artur Davis was the only recovering politician to predict the correct order of the top 3.
Most humiliated was The RP himself. Not only did he forecast a last-minute Ron Paul surge (30 points — come on?!?), but then, after the entrance polls “confirmed” his predictions, he bragged on Twitter and Facebook about how he was whipping fellow RPs Jeff Smith and John Y. Brown, III. We imagine that the RP has crawled back into his spider hole awaiting redemption in New Hampshire.
At least recovering politicians can laugh at themselves. Here’s John Y.’s thoughts from last night when it looked like the RP and Jeff Smith had bested him:
 Post Iowa Primary Prediction: Although it’s still too early to know how things will shake out tonight….it appears Jonathan Miller and Jeff Smith and a passel of others from the RP blog, will do a better job predicting tonight’s outcome than I did.
So, I need to come back in a big way tomorrow—and I will!!
My big prediction? Newt Gingrich will go long and score big –again—with the one Secret… Weapon he has mastered so well—the florid and grandiose press release.
I predict Newt will provide a “shock and awe” release tomorrow morning that taps into something in millions of American voters who know deep down that any candidate who can use words like “literati” and “minions” in a campaign press release is a man who can and probably should be president.
And maybe, just maybe, history and Providence will ensure that “Out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich.”
By RP Staff, on Tue Jan 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM ET After two years of campaign, hundreds of pundit prognostications, and thousands of cable news sound bites, at long last, what you’ve been waiting for…
Our fearless contributors — Contributing RPs, Friends of RP and RP Staff — offer their predictions for tonight’s Iowa caucuses.
And you can too — please give us your predictions in the Comments section below.
Without further ado…(Click on their name to find out their background)…
The RP: Paul 30%; Romney 25%; Santorum 21%; Gingrich 7%; Perry 6%; Bachmann 4%, Huntsman 1%. I don’t think Rick “Man On Dog” Santorum’s organization is strong enough to take advantage of his surge. I also think Paul’s support is underestimated in the polls because his grassroots support is so fervant, and the tin foil hat crowd among his followers are fearful of pollsters. Remember Pat Robertson?
Michael Steele: Click here for his exclusive-to-The-RP report from Iowa.
Jeff Smith: Santorum 27; Romney 23; Paul 23; Perry 11; Gingrich 9; Bachmann 6. I think some Bachmann/Gingrich/Perry folks walk in to their caucus, see how outnumbered they are by Sant-mentum, and get on the bandwagon.
Jason Grill: Romney, Paul, and Santorum will finish first, second, and third. The order though is more “up in the air” than George Clooney was in his recent Oscar nominated movie. Organization and friends twisting other friends arms at the caucuses will decide the order of the top three. If Romney finishes third that WILL be news and change the race somewhat moving forward. He will be seen as an even weaker front runner if this happens. Also, it will be interesting to see where Perry and Gingrich finish tonight. Keep a lookout for their percentages at the end of the night. A fourth place finish for Perry over Gingrich will signal a potential showdown with Romney in South Carolina. Lastly, I am anxious to see how Huntsman finishes in next week’s New Hampshire primary after skipping Iowa.
Mark Nickolas: Paul (25%); Romney (23%); Santorum (22%); Gingrich (11%); Perry (10%); Bachmann (6%). Iowa requires a level of commitment from supporters unlike anywhere else. Those with the best state organization and strongest levels of commitment do especially well (Paul and Paul). Also, since Independents and Dems can participate if they want to cross over — as Indies did for Obama in ’08 — that’s likely to help Paul the most. Nefarious (aka loyal) Dems are going to support anyone but Romney to ensure a protracted GOP race, with Paul and Santorum benefitting most.
Rod Jetton: I think Ron Paul will just nip Romney and Rick Santorum will get third. Newt probably finishes in 4th. The Ron Paul forces are dedicated and with his numbers going up they and their friends have started believing he can win. They will turn out and surprise all the experts.
Greg Harris: Santorum – 26%; Romney – 25%; Paul – 21%; Gingrich – 12%; Bachman – 8%; Perry – 7%; Huntsman – 1%. Santorum’s diligent grassroots work throughout the State this past year will pay off, resulting in more ardent caucus warriors advocating his case, and moving some on-the-fence Bachman and Perry supporters. Ron Paul’s fanatical base will still assure him over an over 20% showing. The minority moderate voters will hold their noses and back Romney.
Read the rest of…
Our Contributors Predict the Iowa Caucuses…
|
|
Follow Artur: