"An intelligent approach to intelligent design"

Here's a great article from an Intelligent Design skeptic.
(here) A juicy excerpt:

"The polls show that scientists and science teachers have little to lose and everything to gain by bringing creationism into the classroom, where it can be critically debated and its merits compared to those of evolutionary theory."

While I disagree with a couple of the conclusions (e.g., he asserts "that directly and respectfully engaging with students' beliefs, rather than ignoring them as most science teachers are forced to do, could be a more effective way to teach evolution," but the presumption is each theory was given equal treatment in the presentation), I think he correctly observes how unscientific it is to ignore sincere and credible challenges to one's theory.

Rep. Cooper says "global warming" on YouTube!

Ostensibly Blue Dog Democrat Jim Cooper (D-TN) has made it to youtube with his endorsement of a book accusing "Republicans" of "war[ring]" with science. Yay, Jim!
YouTube - Cooper on Global Warming, Negroponte and the Dinner Party

This raises a couple of questions for me: First, I thought circumstances (read: data disproving doomsday predictions) had resulted in modifying the term from "global warming" to "global climate change," no?

Second, why is it so important to Liberals/Lefties/Democrats that a politician say the phrase "global warming"? Perhaps they're obsessed with it for the same reason Conservatives aren't eager to use the term: it connotes an entire religion of doomsdayism sacred to--as Phil Valentine calls them, the dirt people. "Global warming" also denotes--as mentioned above, a previous dire, big-gov't-inspiring and incorrect theory peddled from the Left side of the political spectrum.

Quote of the (other) day

Here's my quote of the (other) day for today:here
WH spokesman, Tony Snow, when asked if The president also had given his time to studying the anti-war protest:

"I don't think he really thought a lot about it," Snow said. "It's nice to see Jane Fonda in front of the camera again. There were a number of people who were here making statements, and that's perfectly appropriate."

"Political" Science on the Hill

I'm hearing a lot of late about how Religious Conservatives elevate a creed over reason or science or basic human goodness. The subject of human harvesting (aka embryonic stem cell research) is a splendid example of Left-wing hypocrisy.

Here's a great article on the subject Political Science on the Hill, and one more reason to question the "scientific" pronouncements of the Left.

Hillary on tape

Hillary2008! is going to be working overtime to dispel the truth that she knowingly supported the war in Iraq (indeed, she did so in Ioway over the weekend--here).

Unfortunately (for Hillary2008!) she is on tape saying otherwise in 2003. She makes a great case for acting on the Iraq problem, by the way.

Hat tip, Mark Rose.

Homosexual movement remix

Interesting report about new tack in the homosexual marriage movement: Media training for homosexual couples with children. Training helps gay families win hearts. From the article:

"'Family is something most people in the country can connect to,' [Program Trainer Jennifer] Chrisler said. 'We're at the point in the battle where we have to pull people emotionally into what our struggles are.'

That may require changing the way gay and lesbian people talk about the issue.

Instead of appealing for 'marriage equality,' parents should talk about what it means to be barred from marriage. The term 'discrimination' should be shelved and replaced with the more concrete idea of 'hurting,' Olson told the parents in San Francisco. And while there are more than 1,000 rights and legal benefits conferred with marriage, conversations about the emotional and social benefits are more persuasive, she said."

No question the whole, "marriage equality" line of argument hasn't worked out so well.

Litigate--rhymes with "intimidate"

Sen. Sam Brownback carrying the standard for ACLU-weary Americans--and certainly those tired of cowering to the Left-wing interpretation of the establishment clause. Senator Brownback Reintroduces Public Expressions of Religion Act.

Knee-jerk bushating

Memphis' Mick Wright disembowels a NYTimes "story" about recent troubling moves by the President to . . . er, be President. The funniest part is the roundup of knee-jerk Lefty blog posts on the matter.

Read the entire post here.

Slim Libby pickings

This Roger Aronoff & Cliff Kincaid report (here) accurately describes the Libby trial for what it is: Chapter Umpteen in the Media's persistent campaign to discredit the Bush Administration.

Here's a sample quote from the article:

All of this ["sensational developments" like talk of "sacrificial lambs"] is interesting but largely beside the point. What Libby and Rove and others were doing was rebutting Wilson's false charges, while passing along information about his wife working at the CIA and being behind his trip to Africa on behalf of the Agency. Numerous conversations were held with various journalists, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with any of this. It happens all the time. The difference was that this was a conservative administration dealing with a hostile liberal press. Cheney and Libby knew full well that Wilson's accusations, published in the New York Times, could affect public opinion. They had to fight back.

I encourage you to read the whole thing for an overview of the case.

Nagin: the buck doesn't stop here!

In the continuing saga that is post-Katrina New Orleans, Mayor Ray Nagin is complaining (here) that not enough money has been flowing to aid the recovery of his city. Fair enough, but

He sorta kinda blames spending on Iraq . . . he sorta kinda blames racism . . . he sorta kind blames class prejudice . . . he sorta kinda blames the fact that noone knew about how poor N.O. was prior to the storm (surely HE was aware of it?) and he definitely questions if America has the will to "fix" the "ugly underbelly" of poverty among the area's black population. Rather, the question is whether Ray Nagin or Kathleen Blanco has the will to solve problems that pirogue-loads of money won't "fix."

Sorry, but stories like this (about likely bushating-inspired misreporting) and this (about the massive challenge of getting money flowing more quickly to the demonstrably corrupt, dysfunctional and incompetent NO and LA gov'ts) trump finger-pointing from people like Nagin and Blanco.

Hillary knows evil and bad men

The story about Sen. Hillary Clinton's attempt at humor (here) is interesting to me because I think it reflects her dearth of self-awareness . . . probably the result of living one's life in the company of sycophants and I propensity to dismiss criticism as the product of a vast partisan conspiracy.

The one-liner came in response to a question shouted at the former first lady from the audience asking whether she had the mettle and experience to deal with evil and rotten men - like terrorist Osama bin Laden and the tyrants of North Korea and Iran.

Clinton grabbed the mike and told the audience that the questioner wanted to know "what in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men." She then smiled, raised her eyebrows and nodded knowingly at the questioner.

I think she was thinking about Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rove, men whom any intellectually honest American knows are the real threat to our national interest.

Updates: After watching video footage of the event and of the press conference following the event, I'm of the opinion that Sen. Clinton was not telling a joke, was not trying to be funny and merely paused too long after repeating the audience-member's question . . .

Also, it is ironic that the day of the above event was the 15th anniversary of her infamous "not-some-Tammy-Wynette" comment on 60 Minutes (Hat tip: Caucus Cooler Blog)

NY Times rally bias

While skimming some headlines today I noticed some bias in the NY Times, that is worth noting (surely FoxNews invented slanted news coverage!).

The underwhelming phrase "thousands . . . rally" caught my attention (here) in the NY Times article about the 34th annual March for Life in D.C. I hate to say it, but I've come to expect downplaying coverage of political events by Liberal journals, but "thousands" was too biased to be believed. As I dug a little, even the Washington Post reported that "tens of thousands" attended. (here)

Next was the phrase "marched . . . to show disapproval," and I like how the writer polished off her intro with a direct (but unnecessary) quote of Bush's comments that included a malapropism. Nice job, Sarah.

Curious, I looked at the Times' treatment of the Anti-Iraq War rally this past Saturday, "tens of thousands" gathered there, we're told. And they weren't "disapprov[ing]"--like the judgmental pro-lifers, they were "opposi[ng]."

A little digging turned up this survey (here) of most of the reporting on the 2007 March for Life--newsflash: there were 20,000 abortion opponents at the spin-off rally in San Francisco.

Here's a shot of the mere "thousands" at the DC rally.

Huckabee's strengths and weaknesses

This Weekly Standard article (here) about the Sunday shows reveals some of Mike Huckabee's political skills, and it has this tongue-in-cheek observation

Two things might hurt the governor with Republicans: He's the second man from Hope to hold serious aspirations for the presidency (the first was, of course, Bill Clinton). The other? He's the official Republican pick of the Daily Kos.

And don't forget that Sharon Cobb has said some kind things about him.

Also, Bill Hobbs (over at elephantbiz.com) has a great commentary on criticisms (from some Conservative quarters) of Mike Huckabee's decision to raise a gas tax to pay for road improvements in Arkansas. Obviously, some taxes are necessary; providing roads and defense are the two most legitimate governmental services; and it is very desirable and Conservative--in my estimation, to designate tax revenues for a specific purpose. Characterizing Huckabee as a taxandspendthrift on this basis? That dog won't hunt.

Well said, Will

George Will gave an intriguing illustration (here) on ABC's This Week about the difference between Conservatism and Liberalism in the context of the President's healthcare proposals:

"The conservative view is that the way you reduce the supply of government is to reduce the demand for it. The way you reduce the demand for government is to empower people to make them feel socially competent," said Will. "This would be a step in that direction. Look at the two reasons, aside from the fact that Bush favors it, that Democrats oppose it. . . . By empowering people through the tax code, to buy their own health insurance, you are reducing the number of people dependent on government, and modern liberalism exists to promote equality understood as the equal dependence on government for more things."

I don't agree with the last sentence (about why Liberalism exists) . . . rather, I think Liberals just don't concern themselves with Economic principles.

Huckabee is exploring

It appears that former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) is forming an exploratory committee (here) to consider a run for president.

Frankly, I think that conventional wisdom is often wrong, and that a fresh/unknown face with substance can rise to the top tier in such a large field whose "front-runners" have mainly "soft support" (read: support based on name ID) in general, and only tepid support from the GOP base.

Immoderate rhetoric

This picture is likely to inspire some virtual vitriol . . . I had the pleasure of attending a reception with former Federal Judge and Special Prosecutor (and current Pepperdine Law school Dean) Ken Starr last evening. From all that I hear (excluding attacks from Democrat Hit men) and all I have observed, Starr is exceedingly talented, conscientious and gracious.

The Starr event, coupled with my recent post about Justice Clarence Thomas and stuff that commenters have been posting about impeaching Bush, gittin' Libby, etc., I've been mulling over the utter immoderation of accusations in America and the ramifications of political "war rooms" or political prosecutions.

I heard this a.m. that some thirty-odd percent of Americans believe(d) that 9/11 was an "inside job." (report here) How is that possible?

But as I contemplated all the wild-eyed references in the context of the Libby trial and the Iraq war and the Plame affair and "the 16 words!" and impeachment rallies, I realized how effectively Bush's opponents have spun their tales. And the impact on our "body politic" is rather predictable.

In my opinion, if it takes a 122-minute movie of flawed syllogisms to make your case that "Bush lied," you're having to try too hard. When I hear them (Bush accusers) out and consider their proof, I repeatedly find there's no "there" there. But I guess there is some truth to the old saw, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. And it is probably inevitable that lazy readers or disengaged people or Liberal conspiracy types (even some Conservative conspiracy types have joined in) will begin to think that a given group of accused persons is capable of anything.

I think Bill Clinton was a lecherous, unprincipled charmer, but I don't think he killed Vince Foster. And I think Judge Starr was just doing his job. But I guess I wish we had never found out that Clinton lied under oath. The impeachment only endeared him to Dem faithful and proved little more than any honest observer had already concluded.

How un-GQ of Sen. Coburn

Jay Bush links to a great article (here) from GQ about Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). After reading that excerpt, can someone please give me a counter-argument to Term Limits?

Kudos to Corker

I haven't looked around much to see if anyone else has said this, but Sen. Bob Corker deserves a lot of credit for his committee vote (here) on the Democrats' Non-surge Resolution.

First, it is a non-binding resolution, and will have very little impact on the President's execution of the war. Liberals and Democrats' have already tried a 24/7 roast over the past six years so trying to vilify him toward doing what you want him to do isn't likely to work, right? Republican Senators Lugar and Coleman offer examples of "loyal opposition" during time of war, I'd say.

On the other hand, passage of this resolution will certainly embolden our enemies, particularly in Iraq. It is certainly arguable that there are better ways to wage the GWOT, and debate is certainly a touchstone of democratic republics, but hopefully you can forgive Bush for perhaps missing those earnest suggestions over the "War Criminal" chorus. And if you know ANYthing about history, you'll appreciate that a loss of 3,000+ soldiers in pursuit of a worthy objective is far from extraordinary. Losing a thousand soldiers per year would probably not be acceptable if one couldn't foresee a breaking point in this global struggle, but I'm not sure that is the perspective held by most critics of the war.

Straight A's and a clean bill of health in every pot!

While cruising Volunteer Voters at the end of the day yesterday, I saw ACK's post (here) concerning Sen. Jim Webb's SOTU response. According to ACK, Webb asserted that though economic indicators are good, people are still struggling and Republicans/Bush--the obvious implication, don't care. Then ACK, who is a self-identified paleo-conservative writes:

It is important for those struggling in the working and middle class to know that someone in a position of power is aware of their plight. It is comforting to at least receive an acknowledgment that a diagnosis has been accurately made.

Now, whether the Democratic party has the prescription that is an open question. Personally, I have my doubts but we shall see.

I perceive that ACK is commenting on the political/Communications value of making these points, but the post also begs the question of how does the gov't solve this problem?

Sure, I would like for all children to get straight A's and for us to not have disease in America, but that's not possible and it's not responsible, in my opinion, for an intelligent adult to promise such things or pretend that s/he can deliver on such things.

Katherine surely would like to weigh in on this, given her recent post at "Just Another Pretty Farce"(here) about government and freedom, and government's (read: politicians') desire to help us or protect us from ourselves. Why are higher ed costs sky-rocketing? Why do most Americans have no control whatsoever over their healthcare costs? How long does it take--absent efforts toward economic redistribution, for unprecedented prosperity at the top of organizational structures to work its way down?

I have my opinion about the answer to these questions, but I think it's more important that those who raise the questions in the first place (in SOTU responses or in press conferences) or those who promulgate the notion that there is a problem that gov't can actively fix tell us what they think are the solutions.

Hatin' on Justice Thomas

Since it has been conceded by the Left that even proven sexual harasser tendencies do not disqualify someone from public service, I came across this insightful article here dispelling the criticisms of Justice Clarence Thomas' haters.

What irks me about Iraq

I just read Kleinheider's take on the SOTU and the "wrongheaded" Iraq War, which reminded me of a Rush Limbaugh flourish yesterday on Iraq. It was in an exchange with a pseudo-intellectual caller who turned out to be a perfect foil (though Rush often bends over backwards to hear out annoying Liberal callers). Aside: though I disagree with ACK, I'm not saying he is a pseudo-intellectual or a Liberal or even annoying.

Anyhow, the whole transcript is here (warning, faint of heart: the motives of some war opponents are called into question at points in the transcript), but here was the section that jumped out at me:

">Now, I'm going to explain to you the relevance of 9/11 to Iraq. You're president of the United States, we've just been hit on 9/11, and it's worse than Pearl Harbor, and there are threats of more such acts. We've got 14 failed resolutions of the UN Security Council for Saddam Hussein to let weapons inspectors in there to make sure that he's not building chemical, biological, and other weapons of mass destruction. He's flaunting his nose.

We know that bin Laden and other Al-Qaedas had been given safe haven in Iraq in the nineties. It's called preemption. It would have been irresponsible to not take action based on what every intelligence service in the world said and what we knew of Saddam's previous use of chemical weapons on his own people. It's a different day after 9/11, sad to say some people can't come to grips with this. You just can't put your head in the sand and say, you know, this 9/11 is just an episode, and we're going to have to learn to live with these things because there's nothing we can do to stop it. If that's the attitude, then we're going to have more and more and more of them. Now the downfall of all this is we face the same situation in Iran. And, by the way, this scenario is starting to get awfully familiar. Iran's refusing to let UN inspectors in. Why, where have I heard this before? Iran won't let 30 US nuclear inspectors in to see what's going on.

This little Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you must think he's kidding when he threatens to end Israel's existence and then come after us. You must think he's kidding, he's being a blowhard. But people in positions of responsibility who have a constitutional duty to protect the country can't pretend he's joking. They can't pretend that Saddam Hussein was a blowhard. It's their job. So that's why we went to Iraq while we were in Afghanistan. We didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Oops. Big problem. But we knew they were there. Still don't know what happened to them, but they were there. The sad thing about talking to you, Gentry, is you sound like a smart guy it, a little smug, but you sound like a smart guy, and you know everything that I just told you. Well, maybe you don't, depends on what news you listen to.

There's no hope that we're going to achieve victory over this enemy when half the country is being led by a party which is trying to secure our defeat, for the sole purpose of winning their own power back and defeating and humiliating George W. Bush. Where's the resolution for victory? Where's the resolution to defeat these guys? You going to dump on Liz Cheney because she writes something critical of Hillary Rodham? What, is Hillary untouchable now?

And, no, I haven't watched the SOTU--it's too easy to catch it on-line at a less inconvenient time.

Railing for life?

Apparently I struck a hornet's nest by daring to express a different opinion about abortion than other bloggers over the past couple days. Here, here, here, here, etc. I don't say that so as to discourage disagreement, though I would very much like to discourage flaming.

But here are a couple of thoughts I have in attempting to wrap up this discussion for now.

First, I posted "Why rally for life?" not as my magnum opus (thanks slarti) on abortion or the "Pro-life" cause, but as my reflections on seemingly-ubiquitous assertions from some that pro-lifers are being duped by the GOP (tussles with Sean Braisted and John Farmer come to mind). Likewise, the post was not part of a "blogging for life" campaign or anything like that and I figured that I might be the only blogger in attendance at that rally (as opposed to the "counter" rally). The post was based on one thought during the rally (and yes, during the rally, I had thoughts other than how I would respond to a Sean Braisted comment from over the summer).

Next, there is no nefarious reason that I am "Pro-life." I arrived at that position not because of how it benefits me directly or indirectly or because of how it may benefit the GOP or Focus on the Family. My view isn't an attempt to impose my religion on others, unless the same is true of anti-death penalty types and anti-war types.

Next, my opinion that protecting innocent human life is a compelling state interest is no less Libertarian than laws prohibiting a parent from killing his/her infant. I don't think it is absurd to conclude that an obviously human, obviously living being is worthy of protection, nor is it outrageous to attempt to persuade others in a democratic republic of this principle.

A human in the womb is certainly dependent on his/her "mother" to an unparalleled degree, but that dependence does not mean the fetus is the property of the woman. The "Pro-choice" position is not a no-brainer, though the Roe v. Wade decision treated it as such. Sorry if I feel compelled to oppose the wanton destruction of innocent human life where the alternative rarely involves life and death. It is a false dichotomy to assert that one cannot care about women or girls without approving of/condoning abortion, much less abortion on demand. In sum, there is certainly room for debate on the issue and it is saddening (though not disheartening--don't get your hopes up "Aunt B") that some cannot credit me or others with holding sincere, conscientious, though contrary views on public policy.

Lastly, "Ned Williams" is my name. Betsy is not my "Aunt B," but noone knows "Aunt B" as Betsy; thus, the quotation marks, which I would expect around my name if I chose to post/comment under the name "Daddy." No offense intended.

UnMittigated gall . . . not really, but I needed a catchy title

I couldn't help but chuckle when I got my first direct mail piece from Gov. Mitt Romney. Despite his past, documented efforts to distance himself from Ronald Reagan, the first three sentences/paragraphs talk about Reagan. The first sentence is, "One of the things I admired most about Ronald Reagan was his unfailing optimism . . ." I couldn't help it when my mind wandered to the "what-he-was-really-thinking" letter, "but one of the things that really annoyed me about that amiable dunce was . . ."

I know, I know, it's politics; but the prominence given to Reagan by Romney is ironic. Perhaps Romney's admiration of Reagan is akin to the stereotype of "ex"-smokers?

For the record, I don't heed Hillary's talking points

There is talk in the political world (here) about a purported closet-Islamism for Sen. Barack Obama--who, the "Clinton source" informs us, doesn't highlight his middle name very much.

For the record, I don't heed talking points that come from Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Ironically, like with "Willie Horton," some will eagerly pin this example of Democrat skulduggery on Republicans. Well, count me out of the useful idiocy.

Certainly the worldview one learns in one's formative years is not unimportant, but ages 6-10 are only a portion of the period of one's "upbringing." And, unless he is some sort of Mideast Manchurian candidate, there is no reason to believe that he is not a red-blooded American.

And it is a stretch to say that Obama is "less than forthcoming" about the Muslim aspects of his youth when he plainly stated as much--albeit briefly, in his campaign tome, The Audacity of Hope.

Please Conservative colleagues: drop the "Hillary2008!" memo and step away from the fax machine.

Inhuman nobodies

Just browsing around on "Blogging for Choice Day" (gee, I didn't get that memo) and I came across a randy-as-ever blog on the subject at Tiny Cat Pants (here). In the comments, my friend Kat Coble complains of "dry, inhuman disinterest in their fellow man," and someone (ironically) commenting under the moniker "get in mah belly" says, "let us do what we want with our own bodies as long as we are not hurting anyone."


How's this for an inhuman nobody?



(Fetus 16 weeks after conception).

Emoting and posting about the Rally for Life?

My virtual friend Kat Coble has called me out (here) on my Rally for Life '07 post here, and I figured I should give her a response.

"Knowing" Kat (I only know her from her blog and comments on other blogs), I appreciate her comment, and I can understand her point. But I think she has misunderstood my purpose in writing the post.

First of all, I don't use a blog as a personal journal or a venue to share my thoughts about every subject. I use it primarily as a way to engage others on issues of public policy and sometimes issues of faith, and though I try hard to treat people online as if I might find myself sitting next to them on a playground bench tomorrow, and though I think personal feelings or qualities MAY be relevant to public policy, I do kind of think that too often public policy is discussed in the context of intentions and feelings and emotions rather than the context of logic and evidence.

I don't emote or share/communicate everything that I feel during a day or that I felt during that rally, but I did think of statements (Sean B's posts came to mind) as I decided to go to the rally, which I've heard about the pro-life movement and our relationship to the political parties.

That being said, I won't pretend that I have a lot of emotion for--as some characterize it, "a blastocyst," or even an unknown young person faced with a crisis pregnancy who thinks they need an abortion. But the law is often most useful in protecting us from others (and yes, occasionally ourselves in this interdependent society) who would be tempted or inclined to make a decision based on what felt right to them at the time.

Why rally for Life?

I attended the Tennessee Right to Life "Rally for Life" today at the Capitol; despite the drive and the cold temperature and the drizzle and the playoffs and the fact that no other Williams could accompany me. But why did I do it? In a political sense, is it a waste of time for Religious Conservatives to rally in support of the sanctity of life?

A theme I have heard advanced by Liberals since last summer is that Social Conservatives are too naive or stupid or obdurate to realize that the GOP simply strings us along without any intention of delivering on our policy priorities. Not only that, Libs tell us, the GOP actually avoids any progress on such issues so as to keep the issue alive and keep us in their back pocket.

I have to be careful on this issue, because I know how offensive it is to be called a dupe. But I think it's ironic that Democrats and Liberals accuse Republicans of pandering on abortion, in light of how Democrats are so indifferent to the interests of their base, African-Americans. On issues supported by African-Americans that are remotely "conservative" or which enjoy any Republican support, Democrats have no interest in acting--regarding school choice, illegal immigration, homosexual marriage Democrats are largely AWOL. But racial quotas . . . that's some agenda, and Blacks aren't nearly as supportive of so-called Affirmative Action as they are persuaded that Republicans will re-institute Jim Crow laws unless the Democrat is elected.

Now I'll admit I have previously argued that Democrat Party leaders do not serve the interest of their African-American base, and my intent was plainly to attract them to the GOP--the party that will act on such issues. Contrast that with the Democrat/Liberal tactic: to foment discontent without any desire that the values of Social Conservatives be advanced and to suppress Social Conservative votes.

For at least two reasons, this Liberal meme about the GOP and Social Conservatives is a bunch of hooey.

The Judiciary. The Left's central front on traditional values has been in the judiciary, as Liberal policies were back-doored into law by judges who legislated from the bench. Bush, in particular, has reliably put Originalists on the Supreme Court and has sought to increase the number of Originalists within the Federal Judiciary.

Incrementalism. Passage of legislation like Connor's Law and a ban on Partial-Birth Abortion is effectively moving public opinion in the "pro-life" direction. Consistent with Conservative character, George W. Bush, in particular, has never demonstrated (nor harbored, in my opinion) a desire to impose his Pro-Life views on America (contra, the Left). Indeed, when you consider Republican proposals on abortion with Democrat positions on abortion, it is clear that Democrats hold the "extreme" positions in relation to what the American public believes about the issue.

Additionally, it is foolish to assert that Bush's majority margins in the House and Senate since 2000 have been anywhere near a practical governing majority, especially on issues dear to Social Conservatives. As a result, there is no way--even if Bush & Co. were so inclined, to brazenly force through policy that was particularly Conservative. Senators like Snowe and Chafee and Specter, et al were not reliable votes on Conservative issues, to include even things like lowering taxes.

While Religious Conservatives aka Social Conservatives should never assume that the GOP is as committed to our policy priorities as we are, we need to be discerning enough to realize when Democrats are simply trying to suppress our vote by sowing discontentment.

AfterDowningStreet, after the bats took residence in the belfry

Just got another email urging the impeachment of . . . Alberto Gonzales. The email references afterdowningstreet.com, so I went there and watched their amateurish, self-aggrandizing and annoying video.

It features the usual elements: crass humor, sound bites from Cindy Shriehan, Rep. Maxine Waters, and Rep. John Conyers; naive assertions and general America-blaming. One example, Shriehan is shown saying--in reference to a "Model UN" type of spectacle (sans nerdy high school underclassmen) in which, I believe, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) conducted a faux impeachment trial in his home district, "I thought the tipping point [for the movement to impeach the President--to motivate Americans to "rise up in peaceful arms"] would be my testimony in the basement at the hearings held by Congressman Conyers." But, Shriehan goes on to say, "The tipping point was actually, in Crawford, TX, several months later. I said that day that this was the beginning of the end of our occupation of Iraq, and I believe I was right, because look at what has happened since then." Certainly she doesn't mean the success of "the insurgents" in fighting back America's efforts to establish a democracy in Iraq? I dunno, but the video (and the "movement" frankly is more anti-war than anything. Bushatred just expands their net.

Their effort to impeach Bush and Cheney started in May of 2005, now they're lowering their sights to the AG, and they've scheduled a big rally event for March of 2007. Which begs the question, it's about time this "movement" started showing some momentum, no? We'll see.

Public Education and "The Blob"

Kay Brooks posts (here) about a great story brewing in Nashville--a teacher is suing the MNEA, the Nashville Teacher's "Labor" organization, for refusing to allow her to quit the group.

Now I don't know the legal merits of the case (it appears that the MNEA's by-laws support its position in the case), but this reminds me of a recent National Review article I read recently (here) upon John Bolton's resigning as U.N. Ambassador. Former Education Secretary Bill Bennett was referenced in the article as follows:

As education secretary in the second Reagan term, William Bennett fought what he liked to call “the education blob,” or simply “the blob”: the teachers’ unions, the ed schools, the entire entrenched establishment. As U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Bolton fought the U.N. blob: the permanent bureaucracy at Turtle Bay, the permanent bureaucracy at the U.S. State Department, all of the U.N.’s many apologists and anti-reformers.

If nothing else, the plaintiff, Kristy Carr, is challenging "the blob" of apologists and anti-reformers for sub-standard public education. And by that I don't mean most public school teachers--whom society expects to do more than simply educate children. To Kristi I say, you go girl.

Brownback announces presidential bid

I just viewed an interesting video (here) from Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) announcing his bid for the GOP nomination in 2008.

It's not flashy, but he clearly articulates a Conservative message. One proposal he mentions that I had not heard associated with him before was that of term limits for judges and Congressmen. That is definitely a "populist"--as opposed to a partisan, issue. I would like to hear more details about his plan, but I think it's healthy to have citizen legislators and--knowing human nature, federal judges who serve with the knowledge that they are not in their job for life.

Here's his website www.brownback.com.

Squishyness doesn't attract

This article, from Congressional Quarterly (here) is interesting in its presumption that voters prefer squishy candidates. Rather, I'd say voters are attracted to candidates who are principled, consist, authentic, candid and magnanimous, among other things.

Of course, casting someone as an "ideologue" undercuts the magnanimity aspect, so look for more such profiles on any non-moderate GOP candidate.

TN's Hapless Scholarships

I thought this article from the WSJ (here) was interesting in light of reports (here--curse that right-wing City Paper!!) that 50% of Tennessee students who were given a Hope Scholarship FAILED OUT after two years of school. What?!

Conclusion? Maybe too many people are going to college. Sadly and ironically, former state Senator Steve Cohen--the lottery's pappa, thinks (here) that eligibility requirements ought to be lowered.

And on a related point, a majority of the "cost"--not just tuition, of attending a Tennessee state school is borne by Tennessee's taxpayers, so it is inaccurate to conclude that Hope Scholars failing after two years is only a potential waste of "lottery money" or an individual's money.

Exploit the ignorant; raise the price of higher ed; pander to middle class voters . . . this is an Econ 101 case study.

Mehlman's admonition

On the subject of civility in politics I liked this quote from a farewell speech by outgoing RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman at the annual GOP winter meeting: Here:

And while saying the Republicans needed to be friendlier to Democrats, as well as to constituencies like African-Americans whom Mr. Mehlman courted throughout his tenure as chairman, he did take one swipe at his own counterpart these last two years:

It’s also important to remember that America is less divided than Washington. When Howard Dean said he hated Republicans and all we stood for, a lot of Americans scratched their heads. Outside of this town, a Republican isn’t an enemy to a Democrat. She’s his sister-in-law.
Or another parent they see at the soccer field on Saturday mornings…

We are all Americans, and though I have dedicated my career to fighting for this party – and I will continue to do so after I am no longer your chairman – I will always remember, and we must all remember, that Democrats are our political rivals, not our enemies, and they deserve our respect.

Huckabee and having a Washington address

Interesting NYTimes blog post, 2008: Huckabee's Hopes, about former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR); one paragraph that resonates is,

He said he had a great deal of respect for conservative candidates like Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who is expected to announce on Jan. 20 that he’ll attempt a 2008 bid. While the two share similar concerns, Mr. Huckabee described himself as an outsider, adding, “I don’t think having a Washington address and being in Congress will be an asset.’’

Global chilling

Interesting to hear that the "global warming" faithful are eager to chill speech of those who aren't as faithful.

One irritating aspect of the debate about "global warming" is the constant "appeal to authority" (a logical fallacy). I know that most laypersons cannot become experts on climate or earth sciences or whatever; therefore, it's logical that some level of deference to experts is wise in the discussion of this subject. But the fact that someone is an "expert" or "scientist" doesn't mean that s/he doesn't have a bias or an "interest" in espousing one view or another.

I heard today that Heidi Cullen, a Weather Channel blogger and celebrity (not to me, but I'm sure somebody thinks she's the bomb) has called for (here) weather forecasters who demonstrate a skepticism to Algorism should have their AMS (American Meteorological Society) certification pulled.

How central to his/her job is it for a forecaster to agree with Cullen on this issue? How credible is the "science" of "global warming" if scientists aren't allowed to reach a different conclusion than Cullen and others on the issue of "global warming"?

Politicizing weather forecasts? I say, "shut up and forecast the weather."

Dialoguing or demagoguing?

Great comments (here) from Michael Novak about the hubbub over a Conservative journalist's admissions/accusations concerning atheism, Conservatism and religion (here).

The story/controversy is an interesting one--given the complaints of some that the GOP is controlled by religious types, but it was a particular paragraph--on the subject of frank dialogue, that resonated with me. After graciously asserting that MacDonald's inquiries seemed more rhetorical than earnest, Novak writes,

I do wish our atheist brothers and sisters would learn a little more than they now know about the profound and thoughtful sorts of believers that surround them, by the millions. Otherwise, they cut themselves off from many vital sources of human sympathy, and fail to be sufficiently skeptical about their own unexamined ideas — about religion, for starters.

Although Novak is addressing "atheists" in this post, I think the admonition applies to anyone involved in public discourse.

Though I hated to do it, yesterday I began moderating my comments, because too many visitors were wanting to demagogue rather than dialogue. That change is grating on some commenters, but it was beginning to grate on me that too many commenters assume the worst motives, the least intelligence, the poorest character, etc. when "discussing" issues with the ideological counterparts.

Thanks for stopping by, but you can take your bomb-throwing somewhere else.

"Unelectable" Democrats?

This interesting Boston Globe article about Barack Obama (here) states that he has gotten such a positive response because "others in the party [] worry that none of the better-known Democrats seeking the presidency is electable." Ironically, support for the war is only remotely a disqualifier because hardcore Libs have deemed it so--it sure didn't deep six Lieberman in BlueBlueBlue Connecticut.

I also like this quote:

The initial magic of his candidacy has gotten a very unusual and strong response," said Lee Miringoff , director of the nonpartisan Marist Institute for Public Opinion in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. But "it still remains to be seen" whether Obama can weather the examination and pressure of a presidential campaign.

"He's had a very good opening act, but now he will have to generate an equally strong act two," Miringoff said.

I know it was a throwaway line from a political consultant, but this reflects the image-over-substance phenomenon that I believe Obama represents. The metaphor that should reflect how we select a president is a job interview or a dog show--where the candidates pass increasingly demanding standards of qualification, not an "act."

Who says he's the divider?

One thing that caused me concern (here's a little peeky behind the Religious Conservative curtain for you on the Left) when Dubya was running in 1999-2000 was his pitch that he was a "uniter not a divider." Not because I don't in fact want a president who unites Americans, but because such a claim (along with "Compassionate Conservatism") seemed to concede to the Left's caricature of Conservatism, and I want a president who does what's best as a first priority. "Uniting" people is not a good first priority . . . heck, even Jesus came to "divide." (Luke 12:51)

But one thing that you can say for GWB is that he has brought disparate parties together under the banner of immigration-restrictionists. In my daily email from NumbersUSA today, for example, is this headline for action--pitched to bleeding hearts everywhere: "Send faxes on best way to honor MLK Day & help America's poor --- REDUCE OVERALL IMMIGRATION." Bush has united elements of BigLabor, the Greenies, PaleoCons, Buchanan Brigades against lax immigration laws.

Now, I favor most of what NumbersUSA et al are advocating, but I am often put off by the appeal--as they have consistently, since 2001, used Bush and the GOP as a foil for their movement. Bush and the GOP aren't single-handedly blocking immigration reform, though the Left is happy to foment discontent with him and the GOP about anything. But if you think about it, is it possible for the Left and Democrats to demonize or demagogue Bush any more than they already have?

"Mitt, be nimble"

I just read a well-written op/ed (here) about Mitt Romney from Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby.

While asserting that Romney's campaign is setting new marks at innovation and "agility," Jacoby points to Romney's on-line, rapid response to the recent, unflattering you-tube posting about his 1994 run for senate as a Liberal (my post on it). While I'm impressed with the speed and sophistication with which Romney's campaign responded, I think it is silly to assert that the 1994 footage was neutralized or even "rebutted." As a result, I'd say that to any given observer, the "impressiveness" of the response video is inversely related to the "impressiveness" of the original unflattering video.

Betsy hearts Al Sharpton

Aunt B over at Tiny Cat Pants (here), who I have learned is "Betsy" in real life, has responded to my post (here) about her post (here) about MLK (here).

She spends a lot of time heralding Al Sharpton, which was really just a small part of my post (hyperbole, in fact); however, her reverance for the reverend betrays a lot about her view on race relations.

Even though I find Sharpton always candid, sometimes funny, always humorous, sometimes sincere, I view him less as a "reverend" or "minister" and more as a "demagogue" or "charlatan." And, frankly, I think Black "civil rights leaders" who came from the ranks of clergy too often forget to drop their title when they move on to non-spiritual vocations. In sum, I think folks like him make it hard to move on from the racial divide that is in our country's (and world's) history. Every disparity between a person who happens to be black and a person who happens to be white (or even group of persons belonging to either group) does not constitute a moral failure or a tragedy and certainly not a need for government's intervention.

Betsy is unimpressed with my reference to Bears Head Coach Lovie Smith and sees no irony in her claims that we haven't made any progress on the things that mattered to MLK. Whatever. But playing a sport and coaching a sport are two different skills; therefore Lovie Smith and other African-Americans who know football are competing with 85% of the population who also know football for those few positions.
MLK certainly believed that changing laws and gov't was key to ending segregation, but that has been achieved and she is insinuating that MLK would be marching in favor of DA Nifong and raising minimum wage laws and re-defining marriage. I don't buy it.

Betsy says she never said that things were worse for blacks today than in MLK's day, but she did say that beatings, disenfranchisement, overt prejudice are all "serious problems for black people" today and we haven't made much progess on such problems.

Does "marriage" matter?

In an on-line exchange with my friend to the Left, Sharon Cobb, we bandied about the question of whether it should concern me or anyone that people of the same sex want the ability to be "married." I say yes; Sharon thinks not.

Today--while cleaning out a burgeoning "favorites" drop-down list, I read this article (here) titled, "Defining Families Down." Teaser quote:

The effort to restore the privileged status of marriage, [Santa Clara U. Law Prof. June Carbone] implied, is not only futile but foolish.

Yet something has to give. In the 15 years Leah Sears has served on Georgia's high court, she has watched with alarm as its domestic-relations caseload has risen from 20 percent of all criminal and civil cases to 65 percent. And that doesn't include the fallout from family breakdown in juvenile court. Georgia's underfunded courts are swamped, she says--and, worse, they "are not the proper venue to solve our family problems."

Read it for yourself and feel free to weigh in.

Beauty Pageant, we hardly knew ye'

"Beauty pageants" have long been knocked from certain quarters for fostering an emphasis on looks and appearance, and I've always been a little ambivalent about the issue. I don't follow the subject (that of Beauty Pageants) but if you start looking into it, beauty pageants seem to be surrounded in controversy of late.

Recent events (this, this, this and the report that one state's queen is pregnant and unmarried--sorry, couldn't find a story about it) are demonstrating that we may have not given past contestants the credit they deserved for substance and "beneath-the-surface" beauty. Pretty is as pretty does, and all that.

I know, I know; some of you will scream that there have never been virtuous beauty queens, only secretive or hypocritical ones, but I don't buy that categorical assertion. Maybe it really is time to retire the concept of beauty pageants.

Sectarian semantics

If you spend any time around here, you'll know that I am bothered by the impact that the so-called MSM and Democrat leaders have on the public's perception about our efforts in Iraq. Whether it is willful or not, they advance stories that fit with their view of the situation--in my humble opinion.

This morning I saw an example of this in a report about bombings Tuesday that killed Iraqi civilians at a Baghdad University. The Reuters report via the Washington Post states,

The latest attacks followed the hangings on Monday of two aides to Saddam Hussein, which angered minority Sunni Arabs and fueled sectarian tension.

The Shi'ite-led government plans a security crackdown backed by U.S. reinforcements and billed as a "last chance" for Iraq to pull back from a sectarian civil war between Sunni rebels and Shi'ite militias that would drag in millions of armed civilians.

(emphasis mine).

I know it has become common practice to make everything in the U.S. a partisan affair (except, perhaps, when commenting on popular legislation enacted when Clinton was in office) but isn't it sufficient to simply say "the Iraqi government." The government in Iraq was elected by majority vote in the last election, wasn't it? This Reuters statement may be accurate, but its relevance is rather subjective. I can pretty objectively state that its impact on the story fits the quagmire/civil war/insurgents/intractable/blahblahblah storyline.

Aunt B's rainy (MLK) day blues

I just came across a post over at Tiny Cat Pants (here) and, though I was tracking more or less with her trouncing of anti-MLKers, I was disappointed when the post turned into a trouncing of strawmen. "Aunt B" asserts

Black men are still regularly victims of unspeakable horrors of police brutality. There are still plenty of places where black folks know they aren't welcome. There are still disenfranchised voters in Mississippi (and the rest of the country) and there are still plenty of folks who believe they have nothing to vote for. And, while these things remain serious problems for black people, they've become systemic for all of us (because, to reiterate, our destinies are tied together).

To assert that ANY of these realities are unique to African-Americans is demagoguery. To assert (or imply that King believed) that government could eradicate brutality or prejudice is foolishness. (By the way, it is ludicrous to assert that "disenfranchisement" belongs in this "common to man" list of societal problems). Ironically, as I'm typing this, ESPN is showing footage of Bears Coach Lovie Smith--one of two African-American head coaches appearing in the NFL conference championships this weekend, is graciously addressing a question about his race in a press conference.

Things are not worse today--as far as government treatment of racial minorities is concerned, than they were in 1963. "Ballot integrity" is not code for "I'm down with Jim Crow." We won't have to put Al Sharpton out of a job before we can claim that "real change" has happened in our country.

Update: I neglected to link to "Aunt B"'s post originally.

Co-opting MLK Day?

I had contemplated leading the family to an MLK event today--I can hardly imagine a braver figure in American history than Martin Luther King, Jr. as he took on apartheid in the South.

Accordingly, I was happy to see that Sharon Cobb had posted a list of MLK Day events on her blog (here), but when I took a look and read the bios and "details" on the schedule, the rain outside and a creeping feeling started to change my attitude.

Coupled with Sharon's snarky comment on an admittedly-snarky post about homosexual "rights" etc. earlier today, the MLK day schedule sure makes it appear that some attempting to leverage MLK for other, less-worthy purposes.

Please read Sharon's post before commienting (sic) on this post, but I'm just not convinced--for example, that gov't expenditures are racially unfair; or that "sex discrimination"--at least as is purportedly "practiced" today, is on the level of segregated water fountains and riding in the back of the bus.

Maybe we'll make the Jubilee Singers' performance, but sorry if I'm not eager to take time off work to hear Constance Rice--a card-carrying Liberal class-action attorney (here), opine about what she perceives are today's civil rights struggles.

Dems' 100-hours agenda #1

As part of their 100-hour agenda, (report here) the House Democrats proposed and passed HR-1, the "Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007" (wow, can we expect more dumbed down titles like that?) As I read over at the Heritage Foundation (here), there is one major provision of the bill that seems particularly "Liberal"; seeking UN approval and coordination of a strategy called the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) which has worked just fine up to now:

PSI is a voluntary, multi-national, bilateral program established by the Administration to combat the smuggling of dangerous and banned weapons, technologies, and materials. Incredibly, the bill proposes that PSI be approved by the United Nations. While the 9/11 Commission did propose that the U.S. seek greater international cooperation in the war on terrorism, it did not recommend that the U.S. and other free nations outsource their responsibilities to the U.N. or other international bodies. PSI is perfectly legitimate under existing U.S. laws and treaties and does not require U.N. sanction.

I wonder how fully the scope and likely consequences of this feel good piece of legislation was understood by the folks who had a little over six hours to consider and then vote on it.

Hey, if it feels good (and if it makes swing voters think that we're being more diplomatic) do it.

Video guy, "You're Fired"

There is talk around about a guy who got fired for a run in with a Conservative pundit. (See Nashville is Talking, and Knox Views, and of course Tennessee Guerilla Women are outraged about this fascist injustice).

I'm a little on a privacy kick when it comes to businesses, so I don't have much sympathy for the guy. But the funniest thing is the comments on the pinkslipper's blog; here are the last two:

At 4:45 PM, January 14, 2007, Fatmouse said...
Wow, you're a 28-year-old video store clerk.

At 4:49 PM, January 14, 2007, Arachnae said...
Hmmm. Seems like people's opinions of this fracas are heavily influenced by their politics. Well, I'm a dirt-loving, tree-hugging old hippy but I still think you deserved firing, Chuckles. Because people will stop shopping at a place where the staff mocks them online, and the store will go out of business.

The politics of embryonic stem-cell research

Since it's in the news of late (isn't the Dems First 100 Hours exciting!?), here's a great article (from Slate Magazine) about the issue of embryonic stem-cell research and how the issue excites Democrats in ways other than you would expect.

Same-sex semantics

I came across this article (here--hat tip Tenn. Eagle Forum) that seemed a bit out of touch to me. In light of reports that former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. is likely to be the next chairman of the "moderate" Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a group called the National Stonewall Democrats (NSD) is expressing concern. The NSD believes Ford, Jr. is not Liberal enough on homosexuality issues.

First, while this group (NSD) is certainly free to try and influence the DLC in choosing a new chairman, I'm a little surprised that the NSD presumes their position on the issues--particularly homosexual "marriage," qualifies as "moderate."

Then again, reading further in their press release you can see a bit of their angle . . . they say, "Ford has demonstrated a lack of leadership and judgment on family issues that causes our members great concern . . ." (emphasis added) I guess that's part of the problem; the presumption that very many Americans consider homosexual "marriage" a "family issue."

What is being "Pro-life"?

I guess it's worth it to articulate the "pro-life" position (again) in a post, partly because the "comment" feature is malfunctioning at present and partly because it's a big subject.

I know that Sharon Cobb is not a novice at public policy, so it surprises me that she cannot conceive (here) of any other feasible way (and moreso that she perceives "pro-lifers" have not grappled with the issue before reaching their policy position) to address welfare of children. Who knows what to make of "anonymous'" statement.

As an attorney who focuses on adoptions, I know that there is a great demand for children to adopt in America, and that large numbers of families who want to adopt look internationally to provide a needy child with a home. Gee, they perform abortions like ear-piercings in China and they still have to adopt them out, so I don't think that abortion serves the every-child-a-wanted-child (intone with a Dr. Joycelyn Elders accent if you will) proposition. Likewise, as an adoption attorney, I also know that government agencies devoted to protecting child welfare are incapable of doing so.

I also know, more from my involvement in policy, that we spend boat loads of money to pay for children that mothers and fathers "can't" or won't care for, and I am interested to see more than a vague accusation that any pro-life politician has voted against providing money for children in need. We've been fighting the War on Poverty for some time, and I'm curious as to whether you'd say it is winnable, is a quagmire, is time to redeploy, etc.

But, candidly, I'm not sure what you're speaking of when you talk about insufficient efforts or a lack of willingness by pro-lifers to care about children. We (American taxpayers) spend tons of money to promote the welfare of children; we make it possible to abandon infants on a fire station doorstep without prosecution; on the other hand we prosecute people who neglect their children; so why do we still have these problems? I'd say we have to acknowledge that there are limits to how effectively and to what extent "society" should take responsibility for non-orphans. I'd say we need to intercede in the extreme cases, provide a helping hand in many cases, try and promote healthy and responsible behaviors in all cases, and acknowledge that there are limits to how effectively and to what extent "society" should take responsibility for non-orphans.

On a personal level and more specifically related to abortion, I volunteer at a local ministry which supports, encourages and counsels women in making wise choices about sexuality--generally, and in a crisis pregnancy--in particular.

Regarding the challenge of "pro-life" hypocrisy from Anonymous, I have a couple of preliminary thoughts: first, "hypocrisy" is the perfect cardinal sin for a Liberal, because moral relativism and multi-culturalism and secularism set values and standards so low or so vaguely that it is difficult to ever be guilty of hypocrisy. Gotta admire that maneuver.

Second, it is astonishing--since we're taking off the gloves, "Anonymous," that people who apparently spend so much time e-sounding off about public policy make such ignorant or oversimplified or strawman or disingenuous arguments.

But surely you perceive an arguable difference between a capital murderer and an innocent human; between an inadvertent victim of war and an innocent human targeted for elimination; between funding/condoning/allowing partial-birth abortion and not being able to do the job of state and local officials in taking care of their citizens? The GWOT is not per se a war about religion, but as long as nation or movement is credibly threatening Americans with death unless we adopt their religion, then it is the President's obligation to neutralize that threat Ironically, you throw Darfur/Sudan in with your barbs about the GWOT, do you know much about the causes and interests involveind Darfur? I doubt it, as long as you purport it to be a Republican/Christian/Conservative/Rovian/blahblahblah problem.

Mike Huckabee and Jon Stewart

Frankly, I don't care if Jon Stewart likes the Republican candidate for President, and I'm not sure that anyone who drinks Daily kool-aid can imagine voting for a Republican.

That being said, these two Daily Show clips (here) (and here) --that Sharon Cobb alluded to recently) reflect well on former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who is contemplating a run for president in 2008. Huckabee seems to have the charm of Bill Clinton without the greasy feel (that's my opinion, not Sharon's).

But Sharon writes:

Saying he is 100 percent pro life, Huckabee is the first pro life politician I've heard talk about the need to take care of that life once it is out of the womb. I've been saying that for years to people who consider themselves pro life. Huckabee seems to get that every child deserves to have food, shelter, education and health care.

I think Sharon commits a false dichotomy, that, or she only reads the hit-quotes from "Pro-life" pols which can be found on "Pro-choice" websites, or she really believes that I--as a staunch "Pro-lifer," really don't care about children after they're born.

There are a variety of ways to provide for a child's welfare, and it is only arguable that bigger government is the way to do it. I bristle when a talk-radio host ascribes an evil motive to a Liberal politician when said Liberal politician simply has a different view on a particular policy. Let's judge policy by its fruit . . . wisdom is vindicated by her children. And I think too often Liberals think it is enough that they have a virtuous motive for advancing a certain policy.

Brownback's challenge

This is a great overview (here, also here) from USAToday of the challenges faced by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) in seeking the GOP nomination in 2008. I think his chances are enhanced by the seemingly wide-open, large, moderate field of candidates. And as the article notes:

It's a mistake to underestimate him," former Republican national chairman Ed Gillespie says. "There's no substitute for sincerity in politics, and he comes from a neighboring state, and he is strong on a lot of issues that Iowa voters care about."

In Iowa and beyond, Christian conservative leaders say they can't determine who gets the Republican presidential nomination, but they probably can block a candidate who is unacceptable to them.

And I agree with this statement from Brownback:

"There are two windows you've got to get through" to win the Republican presidential nomination, [Brownback] says the next morning over pancakes and coffee at Des Moines' Drake Diner. "One is: Are you ideologically acceptable? Secondly: Are you electable?"

While Brownback doesn't say it here, I think these two questions need to be answered in order. And as I perceive many Dems are doing with Obama, I think many Conservatives are putting the cart before the horse.

Damittscus road experience? Do tell.

Jay Bush has a nice post (here) about the "rapid response" to "The Real Romney" debate video montage mentioned below. Romney argues that people should look at his record to know what his positions are on the issues, but isn't it fair to ask what has prompted his near-180 degree turn on EVERY issue dear to Social Conservatives?

Likewise, Bill Hobbs (here) has an interesting post about this episode and notes a recent Romney speech:

Romney's recent statement to conservatives gathered at Sea Island, Ga., sums up things rather nicely regarding his changed views on such issues:

"Now, I wasn't always a Ronald Reagan conservative. Neither was Ronald Reagan, by the way. And perhaps some in this room have had the opportunity to listen, learn, and benefit from life's experience - and to grow in wisdom, as I have. My life experience convinced me that Ronald Reagan was right."

Sorry, but that seems like spin to me.

Mitt Romney's Liberal stances and view of Reagan didn't exist or even get formed in a political or ideological vacuum--they certainly weren't uttered in a vacuum. It was 1994. Clinton was President. Romney had observed Reagan, considered Reagan and then chose to pooh-pooh Reagan.

As Kleinheider says over at Volunteer Voters: "[Romney] was campaigning, in the bluest of blue states, as a Northeastern Liberal Republican" when he espoused Liberal positions.

Of course, now Romney is campaigning to be the GOP's nominee for president . . . you do the math.

UPDATE: I just read another article (here) quoting Romney as saying that he, like Reagan and Henry Hyde, changed his mind on abortion. When you're on the cutting edge of an issue, a change of heart is a little bit more believable than if you're late to the party (and it is because you were busy preparing to seek the GOP nomination).

Dems lack credibility on Iraq

For the record, I DO believe it is possible for the American military to be defeated on the battle field, even if the cause is just. An informed friend (Afghanistan vet, retired special forces soldier with Middle Eastern heritage) tells me that our enemies in this guerilla war are battle-hardened, but perhaps more importantly, they're life-hardened--hardened by their life circumstances such that they can endure worse circumstances, and also hardened such that they place a different value on "life"--their own lives and the lives of others.

So, even assuming the cultural pre-eminence which is fostered by American exceptionalism, I disagree with Sean Hannity, for example, when he asserts that we cannot be defeated on the battle field. Accordingly, I don't think that someone is dissing our troops just because s/he says that we can't win in Iraq.

That being said, I don't believe most critics of Dubya's strategery in the GWOT are concerned about "winning" in Iraq. The reality is that a disproportionately powerful minority of Democrats are opposed to use of force under any circumstance, so, they really are fine with warmongers losing wars . . . you know, it "serves 'em right."

I think the balance of the critics consider the likelihood of prevailing in Iraq to be a toss up; thus, it is worth it for the long-term interests of the Democrat Party (and, likewise, America's interests!) to oppose Bush at every turn. Public sentiment has shifted on the war (certainly due to persistent, partisan, poisonous, peevish criticism from the Left), now there is little to no incentive to stay on board with "Bush's war."

Bush's recent changes in our Iraq strategery may not work, but absent any alternative proposals from Democrats, and based on their record of bad-faith dealings since the Iraq invasion, I'd have to say they lack credibility.

Mittamorphosis, the prequel

I happened upon this interesting youtube footage (here) from the Romney/Kennedy senate debate in 1994. (Hat tip VolunteerDispatch (here).

I can't see that the video contains any new info on Romney's mittamorphosis from social Liberalism to his current stances; however, it is a higher level of unsettling to see actual footage of his Liberalness . . . kind of like just hearing you're being cheated on versus actually seeing video tape of the act.

I'm not saying that I can't or won't vote for Mitt Romney, but how credible is it that a person--one who has been working in public policy for more than a decade, credibly do a 180 on such fundamental issues?

Abramson and ACK know a Social Conservative when they see one

What is a Social Conservative and who's to say? These questions are being raised in light of the unexceptional (except to Adam Kleinheider--at VolunteerVoters.com) and Roger Abramson--at flanktwoposition.com)) assertion that the "Pro-life with exceptions" position on abortion (or the Pro-Life with Asterisk position) is not the "social Conservative" position on abortion.

I'm still kind of astounded at the reaction (and it is clearly no rebuttal) to my point, though. Are Roger and ACK insulted that someone has the nerve to make "bold" pronouncements? Not likely, if you read their stuff on any regular basis.

Is it that--for the sake of "the cause," they are concerned about stigmatizing the "Social Conservative" position? Not likely, as Abramson and ACK seem careful not to become to ideologically-paired with a party.

Is it because they personally hold an asterisked position on abortion and would like to consider themselves "socially Conservative"? I doubt it, but who knows.

I might be wrong about their answer to the above questions about motives, but I guess I'll have to go with the paranoid Social Conservative conclusion . . . they don't want to expand (though I think acknowledge would be more accurate) the influence of Religious Conservatives or the Religious Right within the GOP.

But, again, what does the term mean and who defines the term?

ACK wrote, "The Religious Right does not determine what social conservatism is, neither does Ned Williams," but I--and most pols, would view the terms as synonymous. "Social Conservatives" is a term that has always been used to distinguish between the more Libertarian, "Economic or Fiscal Conservatives" within the GOP and Religious Conservatives.

Well, I think it is clear that organizations like Family Research Council, Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, American Family Association, Eagle Forum, etc. have classically been the "Social Conservative" organizations.

As far as the meaning of the term, there is not necessarily unanimity on every policy issue. But regarding abortion, these organizations are not--in principle, "Pro-life with exceptions." And I think it is fair to say that the above "socially Conservative" organizations--not Adam Kleinheider or Roger Abramson, are the ones who best define their positions.

Certainly, terms--and movements, can "soften" or (d)evolve over time. But until these organizations are lacking in number, or influence, or significance--until they are a mere "fringe" element of the "non-Libertarian Conservative" faction in the GOP, it seems that they would be the authority on what is a "Social Conservative" position.

**Roger is asserting that an exception for "life of the mother" is an exception like rape or incest; in that case, as long as one doesn't define "life" as "quality of life," there are two competing lives to consider. Imminent danger of death for a mother, for example where a fertilized egg hasn't implanted in a mother's womb, is one example where efforts to ensure survival of at least one of the lives isn't contrary to the sanctity of life.

***Also, Bush's murky position on exceptions can be interpreted as an effort at magnanimity toward those Americans who disagree with the non-asterisked Pro-life position, and the fact that he--in competition with John McCain, was supported by Social Conservatives doesn't mean that his position on an issue defines the Social Conservative position, right?

PFAW=People For . . . what?

I just received my 8th email of the day from one of my favorite org's . . . ok, not really, it just seemed like the 8th email and it really isn't one of my favorite organizations. The organization? PFAW (which stands for "People For The American Way") or, as they're wont to call it now, simply "People For."

I'm curious as to why they changed their handle. I've never like the name, thinking that it was verbose and ambiguous (which is ironic, given that it is wordy). But I suspect there's a reason other than the wordiness that prompted the change.

It dawned on me this evening that it is probably because--since the period following 9/11, Lefties have been a little sensitive to accusations of being "un-American" or claims that any war is worth fighting to preserve the so-called "American way."

As with the film producers who jettisoned "the American way" phrase from the most recent Superman movie, what's worth defending about the American way? And we don't have any business being all exclusive or arrogant . . . you know?

I guess it's "Great. To be. A Florida Gator"

Well, for an evening, I was a Florida Gator. And it was great. Congratulations to the University of Florida and their convincing thumping of THE Ohio State University. Any questions about who's number 1 in the country?

Though, as a UT alumnus, it was difficult to pull for the Gators, I felt like I had to stick with the SEC team in this one (it helped me along that we invited a family of Gators over to watch the game). I briefly had second thoughts about my support when it dawned on me during the game that UF would be (for a couple more months) the reigning champs in the two premier college sports, but that concern didn't last for long.

So, we can conclude that UF has a great Athletic Department (even Zook's hire wasn't a complete bust). And I will concede, especially in light of Bruce Pearl's hire, that the University of Tennessee has a good Athletic Program. But I have some complaints. Since I don't give loads of money to the Athletic Dept. (I don't even give a little money to it), my only potential means of influencing them is by this little ol' blog. So here goes.

Re. our football program, I know that Phillip Fulmer has one of the best winning percentages of any active coach in the NCAA, but that's not all I'm concerned about as a fan. Fulmer has an excellent winning percentage and I think that is VERY closely related to his excellence as a recruiter, but I want excellence in fulfilling potential, in graduation rates and in sportsmanship. I do not accept that Fulmer's "boys will be boys" attitude (which is a big part of his recruiting success, I think) precludes discipline and high expectations/standards for conduct on and off the field. That discipline is what leads to better execution on the field and averts the problems of playing down to your opponent's level and acting like T.O. when you make a play.

It still irritates me that the above problems (lack of discipline and failure to execute) have cost us big Ws over the years (especially after layoffs like Bowl season) and even cost us any level of respect for winning the national championship in 1998--which it is hard to argue was not a plain old ugly win.

So that's my complaint. I've been told that Cutcliffe is particularly strong in this area, and Fulmer needs to realize that his personal weakness in this area costs the program.

House Dems call TV timeout

Just read that House Democrats are backing off their press release about 5-day work weeks, industrious Congresses, urgent people's business, etc. (here) No biggie; but you'd probably be wise not to talk so much trash.

Waiting until after the Fiesta Bowl is more of a PR issue than anything else--the House Democrats don't dare take their "100 Hour" media splash event head-to-head with a college football game.

It reminds that last week I read some blogger's razzing of Senator Corker's purported comment to Rep. Steve Cohen, "y'all are taking this stuff seriously" or something to that effect.

Nahhh, not that seriously . . . only when the cameras are rolling.

UPDATE: Sean Braisted has an interesting post on this subject.

Childbearing and selfishness

I was channel surfing this evening and came across a salient C-Span program in light of a TinyCatPants I read (here) yesterday. "Aunt B" riposted (sic) a Terry Frank post and an Adam Kleinheider post, on the implications, if any, of birth-rate disparities between the East and the West.

The program in question was on BookTV and featured Arthur Brooks, who has published a book/study on patterns of charitable giving in the U.S., Who Really Cares.

"Aunt B" takes offense at the insinuation that people who choose not to have children--or multiple children, are selfish. I didn't know what to think about the selfish angle, but one thing that Brooks asserts (or has found) is that--all things being equal, people who have more children are more charitable, or vice versa.

"Number of children" is one of a handful of predictive factors for charitableness identified by Brooks (e.g., religious practice, view of government), and they are all clearly interrelated. "Aunt B" and some commenters assert that selflessness is the very reason they're not having bunches of children. That may be true for them; however, inasmuch as giving to non-family reflects selflessness (and it's difficult to think of a better measure), it appears the data on charitable giving reflects that a desire to have children goes together with selflessness.

Libs and Rule of Law

I channel-surfed upon two excellent programs on C-span and C-span2 this evening--kind of sounds like a conspiracy that C-span would be showing programs Ned would consider "excellent" during the infomercials time slot, doesn't it? Oh well.

One program was a panel with Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia. Very instructive about the contrasting perceptions of the proper role of the judiciary in our constitutional republic.

You ought to watch it and I'd be eager to hear some of you try and explain why Breyer's position is more "democratic" or more consistent with rule of law. (watch).

Surprisingly super ad pitches

I have to admit that I pay attention to commercials. Now, that's not the reason I tune in to the Super Bowl, but I am fascinated with advertising. But I wasn't expecting much when I visited NFL.com's Super Ad contest site (here) (hat tip worldviews blog). Seriously, it is hard to pick a single favorite, but I like 5, 11 and 12--a mix of humorous and dramatic.

One thing that is interesting to me is how the best ads (in my humble opinion) are well-pitched--the person has "passion" as they make their pitch.

Is Iraq a distraction from GWOT?

In various sparring sessions over the war in Iraq, I notice that many Liberals flatly assert that Iraq is a distraction from the GWOT (that is, if they're generously acknowledging that the war against Islamists requires more than strict airport screening.) I've asserted that Iraq was simply the next stage in the GWOT, so the various arguments marshalled for taking this step are more persuasive collectively than they are individually.

But this article (here) by Stephen F. Hayes of The Weekly Standard is instructive on the issue of whether Iraq is a distraction from the purported common objective of effectively waging the GWOT. In fact, the connections between Saddam's Iraq and Jihadists (even Al Qaeda) is pretty clear.

Oh, and remember, disagreeing with a Liberal doesn't constitute a war crime.

You can't say we're not bi-partisan . . .

Kudos to The City Paper for its editorial about the recent nomination by Democrats' recent nomination of John Wilder to another term as Lt. Governor (Wilder's Leadership Non-existent in Senate). Here's the last sentence:

So, to date, Tennesseans for the last three decades have deserved John Wilder as their Lt. Governor. They may earn the right to call him speaker again very soon.

My first impression was, no, that isn't true--if Wilder is elected Lt. Governor, Democrats are getting what they deserve. But, in reality, that can only be said of his election following the 2004 election.

The fact that "Republican" Senators Tim Burchett and Mike Williams--who provided Democrats the votes needed to elect Wilder to the position in 2005, are still around to cast ballots on this issue makes Republicans just as culpable. Don't ever say we're not bi-partisan.

Roger and Me (and abortion)

I've been called out by Roger Abramson, again, but this time it's about my post regarding Mitt Romney's current position on abortion. You can read my post (here) and Roger's reaction (here).

Abramson makes much of a Pew Poll showing that only 11% of the population agree with my position on abortion, but even if a mere 11% of the population are "socially Conservative," that fact is only marginally relevant in electoral politics, and even less so in GOP primary politics. This confusion on Abramson's part could explain why he challenges my assertion that Romney's pro-life-with-various-exceptions position isn't "socially Conservative." The category "socially Conservative" (I should probably capitalize the "s" in social) isn't a relative or even subjective term. It has a generally accepted meaning, and the point of my post was that Romney's abortion stance doesn't qualify.

On a similar point, I think it is wholly legitimate for Social Conservatives (or as I like to say, Conservatives)--as opposed to moderates, or squishes or Libertarians or Abramsons to define what Social Conservatives believe. Roger may agree with this, assuming that he was hung up on my imprecise "-ly" after "social."

Lastly, I'll address what Abramson refers to as his "Law of Presidential Abortion Politics":

The more logically consistent a presidential candidate's position on abortion is, the less viable that candidate will be.

Well, I disagree, and my position on abortion is logically consistent, as was that of Ronald Reagan, for example.

A candidate's position on abortion is only one of many factors that contribute to his/her likelihood of success; so Roger's "Law" isn't necessarily validated by a perception that there are no "Pro-life" (as I define it) candidates in contention at present. But that being said, it isn't difficult--if someone is so inclined, to state a logically consistent pro-life position while acknowledging there is not consensus on prohibiting abortion and noting that a president doesn't govern by edict.

UPDATE: Adam Kleinheider over at VolunteerVoters.com thinks that Roger's right. Of course, I think that Adam is wrong, so there you go . . .

Watada '36!

Newscoma (here) alerted me to a fascinating story about the war in Iraq. I was kidding when I suggested that the defense lawyer for Ehren Watada might expect the courtroom to sit through a showing of PBS's "The Darkside" (here) . . . but from reading the interview (here) with Watada, that's not a stretch. It's an interesting--and well-done, interview, and it demonstrates the clash of post-modernism and the military. Poor guy enlisted as we were planning to invade Iraq, and his father was a conscientious objector (sort of) in 'Nam . . . I'm sure his dad is pleased now, though.

Oh well, perhaps Watada is laying the groundwork for a lackluster run for President in a couple of decades?

Folks, it's not a crime to disagree with a Liberal.

Chilling, chilling I say, Cheney chart

After graciously enduring 90 minutes of Liberal propaganda (The Darkside), I can't believe the ingratitude of some Liberal readers. But one element of the "documentary" merits additional comment, I think.

The Charts.

You're familiar with the technique . . . slowly spinning camera as it zooms or pans out from a chart illustrating the point being made. Oooo, powerful. Nice visual aid. Here is the one on "Vice President Cheney's Network."

This chart highlights how Cheney aggregated power at key national security centers -- the Pentagon, State and White House -- and lists the positions his friends and allies have held during the time period leading up to the 2003 war in Iraq.

This chart is only impressive if you assume that political lightweights (read: Dan Quayle, John Edwards) are the only people qualified--it's ironic I know, to be Vice President. Of course he has "connections" and an incredible network . . . he was the Gravitas to this ticket, remember? Of course the majority of those in his vast right-wing, er, network are from the right wing.

This reminds me of the Nightline episode during my first year in law school that showed this sinister organizational chart/network that circuitously connected Judge Ken Starr with some lawyer that worked for Clinton-accuser Paula Jones because . . . they both had been members of (cue sinister music) . . . The Federalist Society. Imagine my dismay when I realized there was no chapter at my law school (a deficiency soon corrected). But back to the subject . . .

I can just hear the questioning now at the upcoming Electoral Mandate Impeachment (EMI): "Are you, or have you ever been, an acquaintance or co-worker of Dick Cheney?"

Mitt on abortion

Various local blogs (VolunteerVoters and Bill Hobbs) are reporting about the e-launch of the Mitt Romney for President Exploratory Committee. So I dropped in for a little browsing, and I'm kind of surprised that this is the best they can do regarding the sanctity of life over at mittromney.com. Under "America's Culture and Values," we read:

Governor Romney: "I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."
(Boston Globe, Mitt Romney Editorial, July 26, 2005)

Romney seems to think that he will emerge as the candidate for social conservatives, but this is not a "socially Conservative" position on abortion. Heck, it's not even logically consistent.

If you're "pro-life," what difference does it make how the "life" was conceived? This position--with a list of exceptions, is more accurately anti-abortion-on-demand. Some will say, "fine" but those aren't Religious Conservatives.

And if it's a human "life" we're talking about, how is a human life on American soil not worthy of Constitutional protection from deprivation of life? While it is certainly reasonable for a "pro-life" official to compromise and arrive at a "state's rights" (or "exceptions") position on abortion, it is hardly a principled "pro-lifer" that starts at that position.

Fox's short bench

Is it just me, or is it not working for FoxSports to use pro announcers for its BCS coverage? I haven't been able to put my finger on it yet, but I think it seems like they are are NFL-centric? They're definitely competent to commentate on football (even though some of those in the coverage are rookies--like Wannstedt and Brown), but their references to NFL coaches and the NFL prospects of the players and differences between the NFL and the NCAA give the impression that they are looking past the college game.

I guess FoxSports has a short bench when it comes to college sports, but this may be an example of how the highest bidder may not be the best equipped to deliver the goods (that's a screwed up metaphor, isn't it?).

Political play of the year?

Adam Kleinheider (over at Volunteer Voters) reports that

Keith Ellison, the much chastised first in history Muslim congressman, took some heat when he announced that he would use the Koran as his photo-op faith book of choice at his swearing-in. Represenative Virgil Goode has been most vociferous in his opposition saying:

"When I raise my hand to take the oath on swearing-in day, I will have the Bible in my other hand," Goode wrote. "I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way….

"If American citizens don't take up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran."

Ellison has stuck to his guns and will use the Koran in his swearing in - a Koran owned by Thomas Jefferson. Goode had no comment on the choice of this very sopecific Koran.

Nicely played, Congressman, nicely played.

I'm not sure how much I want to take Goode's side in this whole "debate," but one way Goode could counter this play by Ellison is to see if he can be sworn-in holding Thomas Jefferson's copy of "Canterbury Tales."

Looks like Mr. Ellison will inspire and perform some interesting theater over the next couple years.

UPDATE: Jay Bush posts about the reason that Thomas Jefferson even had a Koran that Ellison could borrow. Apparently Jefferson wanted to understand his enemies.

Since when do losers get to write history?

At the suggestion of a commienter (sic), I took the time to watch "The Darkside"--a Frontline special aired this past summer. When will I learn that if I keep up with Lefty media I can better understand and anticipate their hysterical (and unoriginal) accusations in the blogosphere? Libs, don't be ashamed to bring this stuff forward more readily--that way we can deal with it way before it festers into a full-blown conspiracy theory.

Some quasi-"live blogging" as I watched the entire episode online at this late hour (much to my dear wife's chagrin).

Frontline programs crack me up . . . that narrator's voice--the sinister "music," the slowly panned B&W photos . . . it can make ANYthing look criminal/evil/Republican. I have to admit that I admire the Left's abilities to propagandize.

The premise is that Cheney manipulated the intelligence agencies with a handful of nefarious motives. First piece of evidence is that he and Rumsfeld couldn't abide the CIA running things in the GWOT.

The CIA has no business waging a war (hey Libs, wasn't this the guiding principle of your foreign policy in the 70s and 80s?) , so it made perfect sense for it to defer to the Pentagon after the initial, rapid operations it conducted in Afghanistan after 9/11. The fact that the Pentagon took over the GWOT after a month or so doesn't prove that Rumsfeld was Hitlerian or Machiavellian or (even worse) Rovian to seek and obtain that transition. The same goes for Cheney.

The CIA has not had the best track record over the decades and given the expanding capabilities of the military in collecting intelligence and using intelligence, it makes sense that there would be a change in the whole process of intelligence gathering and dissemination--especially in response to the grave threat to America on 9/11 and thereafter. You Libs do acknowledge that 9/11 was bad and that future 9/11s aren't desirable, don't you?

The fact that the CIA didn't think that Mohammed Atta had met with Iraqi officials in Prague is somehow gospel now? Is this the CIA that the Left has reviled and underminded and underfunded for decades? That one? Hindsight is 20/20. They should rename Frontline to Hindline or something like that.

I like how one talking head/book author flatly states that the military could have just blocked the eastern border of Afghanistan . . . when several others (military types) express the difficulty of blocking off a long mountainous border, replete with systems of tunnels. Of course the Liberal writer is right. And I thought we Conservatives were the dogmatic, Black&White ones. Oh, I guess that we wanted Bin Laden to escape, right? I tell you, this conspiracy stuff is too easy.

It's not a crime to have misjudged the status of the mission in Afghanistan and determined that we could move ahead to Iraq and keep our enemies on the run. It just isn't. Now; it may have been an inaccurate judgment, but see above about hindsight.

And surely you Libs realize that you are mischaracterizing the whole basis for invading Iraq--but maybe I shouldn't assume that you are interested in any constructive debate on the war (oh, and demolishing the President's approval ratings doesn't qualify as "constructive"). And though Iraq was not "connected" to Afghanistan or Al Qaeda in one sense, it was a bit of unfinished business with WMD dreams and capabilities.

Author Suskind: "9/11 was a coming together of opportunity and intent." (paraphrase) "They're [Cheney and other "Darksiders"] looking to expand executive authority and then 9/11 comes along . . . " Mr. Suskind, What is proof of their intentions to illicitly "expand exec. auth."? (and, remember, disagreeing with a Democrat doesn't count as "unconstitutional" or "criminal").

I like all the "smoking gun" comments they've got on Cheney . . . on Meet the Press! What a conspiracy dunce. Even the "darkside" comment was said on national TV. Surely the CBS folks could have found a way to obscure that Cheney was making the "darkside" admission on national TV?!

Crockumentaries 101: Presume sinister motives to everything done by "bad guys" and noble motives (or duping of said "good guy") to the "good guys." Former senior level CIA operative Paul Pillar who basically wrote Tenet's NIE that was presented to Congress, is supposedly a moral paragon and yet he cannot state any concrete means by which he was pressured to fabricate evidence supporting the threat of Iraq--a former CIA agent states, "I have such respect for Pillar that if he participated in this, the force exerted upon him by the VP must have been overwhelming[!!!]" That, my friends, is begging the question.

Likewise, Colin Powell is a moral paragon yet he chose to be a "team player" and "not abandon his Commander in Chief and the troops." Doesn't sound like he's got much character to me, or maybe he isn't as "with" you Libs as you'd like to think.

And it sounds like Tenet was the criminal if he knew that the intelligence didn't support the decision and called it a "slam dunk" when the President expressed doubt. And likewise if Tenet "assur[ed]" Powell that the info being presented to the UN was "ironclad." Oh, I forgot, Tenet was duped by Darth Cheney.

It took a lot of chutzpah to use campaign-aide-de-Kerry Joseph Wilson in this thing, but it is entirely predictable: Wilson: "I knew a lot about uranium production. I knew a lot about Niger." Frontline narrator dude: "The CIA sent Wilson to Niger--he found no evidence of a yellow-cake sale." That's all that is said about this "assertion" until 30 minutes later when they roll out the Scooter Libby non-conspiracy and the Plame Affair.

But THAT WASN'T WHAT THE ASSERTION WAS, FOLKS, in the famous "16 words" of Dubya's SOTU address. The "16 words" were accurate.

But even if all this is true, even if the entire thesis of this "documentary" is true, so what? Why were all these people so eager to go to war in Iraq? Halliburton? Military Industrial Complex? Oil? Warmonger marrow in their bones? Unadulterated evil?

Lastly, I don't think the evidence supports the accusation that evidence was "manipulated" (sorry, it's not enough to prove someone is Eeevul by establishing that they have voted for a Republican) but the focus on "evidence" or lack thereof in support of the invasion of Iraq is Liberal sleight of hand. To most Americans, the link between Hussein's Iraq and the GWOT was clear . . . he was willing and eager to work with Islamists; he had demonstrated that willingness and capability; the GWOT is a worldwide battle and it won't be solved by kicking all the Islamists out of the gov't in Afghanistan; we had--as a country, denied the global nature of the war with Islamists in the past; thus, toppling Hussein in Iraq was merely "Chapter 3" in the GWOT ("Chapter 4" if you include the Clinton years when the Islamists were beginning to nip at our heels).

It is not a war crime to agree with the preceding paragraph; it is not a war crime to suspect/conclude that leading Democrats/Liberals are afraid to fight a war and will stop at nothing to subvert use of force by a Republican; it is not a war crime (or even unwise) to question the capabilities of the CIA; it was not a war crime to challenge the veracity and competence of Joe Wilson.

Why not "First 100 Minutes"?

This WaPo article (here, via Drudge) demonstrates the problems the "New Democrat Majority Party!" faces . . . there is no way that Pelosi & Co. can scrupulously pass their--ahem, "well publicized [legislative] plan" in 100 hours. It is impossible to allow debate on (much less full review of) their (as yet un-released) proposals in that amount of time. But that is plenty of time for the MSM to cram down our throats, "these are some sure-as-syrup ethical, industrious and populist folks!"

On the other hand, it appears that Pelosi's foolish, pre-election-press-conference 100 hours gauntlet-throwing will result in Dems shooting their wad of "popular" proposals in only four days of session.

And for the record, contrary to how it was portrayed in the WaPo article, the House Republicans FULLY DELIVERED ON THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA: they promised an up or down vote on a list of policy proposals which were both legitimately "well publicized" and not rammed through without debate.

Edwards "Hearts" Wal-Mart

I love the story about John Edwards trying to pull strings at Wal-Mart to get an X-box for his 6-year-old. I like it because it tells how Edwards unwittingly demonstrates (aside from incredible hypocrisy and elitism) his belief in the Wal-Mart ethic . . .

Which is what I thought of when reading this Thomas Sowell op/ed about free markets and Wal-Mart and ignorance.

And speaking of John Edwards and economic ignorance, here's another op/ed on the subject.

Outback blowback

There is a ruckus being raised (or referenced) over at NashvilleisTalking.com (here) concerning perceived bias in the coverage of the UTvPSU game yesterday.

I did think it was pretty stupid to have a former PSU nat'l champ winning QB announce the game--you'd have to be almost superhuman to be unbiased in that position, but the images of JoPa were fascinating . . . isn't it about time to hang it up when from all appearances your presence is unnecessary during a bowl game? The guy seemed to be talking to himself throughout the game.

And one shot of UT Coach Phillip Fulmer that I would rather not have seen was when he was blowing his top (which I welcome, frankly) over Jonathan Hefney's (SP) faircatch of a punt on the five yard line (read: STUPID play) and Hefney strolled right past Fulmer, apparently ignoring him as Fulmer bumped into another Vol player and Hefney kept strolling.

THAT attitude by Hefney (which was condoned by Fulmer, it appears) is why Fulmer has a 7-7 record in bowl games and why his teams always play down to their opposition. They rely on emotion--not discipline and in winning, they often squeek by on superior talent (ref. the graphic I saw recently that showed UT as third (?) on the list of former players in the NFL). Fulmer's boys will be boys attitude may help him recruit, but it hamstrings the team on the field.

There; that's about all I need to say about our humiliating loss in the Outback Bowl.

Socialist romanticism

Last night I noticed that I was linked to a peculiar (to me) post about expansion of the EU. When I visited the post, I realized it was from Tennessee Ticket in which he writes:

Back then, all sorts of places I had a hankering to go were behind the so-called Iron Curtain: Poland, Lithuania, Yugoslavia, Hungary, and, according to some, Massachusetts. Wait -- I was in Massachusetts. Three years there, and I could probably count the number of communists I met on one hand. (I did meet fascists in New Hampshire, but that's another story.)

and gives me an elbow poke about my characterizations of Massachusetts as socialist.

Well, snarky comments about Massachusetts aside, I have no romantic notions about Poland or the USSR (prior to the fall of "the so-called iron curtain") or Lithuania (after the iron curtain's fall). And TT's story about the expanding EU demonstrates the good fortune of these countries that Ronald Reagan didn't have a romantic view of Marxism.

Obama is still no Powell

I wrote previously that Barack Obama is no Colin Powell, and I still think that's true in regard to stature, credentials or even popularity, but John Fund writes (here) that Obama is like Powell in another way: he could very well opt out of a future presidential run. I, for one, think Obama's pure ambition far outstrips Powell's, and Obama is less likely to make the same choice as Powell.

Like me, Fund thinks that much of Obama's appeal stems from Dem concerns about Hillary's electoral shortcomings.

Prospects for rule of law in Iraq

Seeing as anti-capital punishment activists in America succeed--through frivolous appeals and demagoguery, in rendering our death penalty ineffective, I'm hoping the speedy review of Hussein's conviction and sentence bodes well for the future of Iraq and is not an indication that civil rights will get only lip-service in this new democracy. That being said, I was impressed that the execution was going to happen within 30 days, but I thought 4 days appeared hasty. (One Lib blogger commented recently that this was all a plan by Bush to "silence" Hussein before he started to "talk").

But I've been reading reports that Saddam Hussein's executioners (dressed in ski masks and stylish street clothes!) began chanting slogans which were pro-Moqtada al-Sadr (the Shiite cleric and militia leader) and pro-Shiite just before the floor dropped on Hussein. Judging from pirated footage of the incident, it was pretty raucous in there. I really worry that Iraqis have little appreciation for "rule of law" and I'm not convinced that Islam is a sufficient basis for such a value.

Incidentally, after starting this post, I came across this report that Iraqi officials have launched "an inquiry" into the whole situation.