Braisted shooting for the electoral college

Sean Braisted has a post (Nashville for the 21st Century: The Fowl Senator Speaks) about a David Fowler (E.D. of Family Action Council of Tennessee) email today opposing state legislation that would change our current way of choosing "electors" to the Electoral College. Fowler explains,

Instead of the electors representing and voting the will of the majority of Tennesseans, they would vote for that Presidential candidate who got the most votes on a national basis. The presidential preference votes of Tennesseans would become subservient to those of the rest of the nation.

Sean asserts that Gore in 2000 actually won the popular AND the Electoral College (because Bush "stole" Florida). But then he offers general arguments that the Electoral College is antiquated (like, for example, slavery and landowners-only enfranchisement).

I was going to deposit a comment on Sean's blog, but there's something wrong with his "visual verification" feature, so I will have to post my comment here.

First of all, the Democrat who designed the butterfly ballot and the Democrats at the County party that approved the butterfly ballot screwed up; sorry. Just as someone screwed up by allowing thousands of imprisoned felons to vote absentee. Noone "stole" the election in Florida2000, but the Democrats sure came close to snatching it after the fact.

But to the real meat (the soft center of of Sean's post: if you don't like the Electoral College, it seems proper to change the Constitutional requirement for it, not try to do it on the sly.

And I vividly remember watching a CNN program on Halloween 2000 in a Baptist Hospital MRI waiting room (they feared I had appendicitis) as Democrat pundits--fearing that Gore might lose the popular vote while winning the electoral college, argued vociferously for the Electoral College. Likewise, I think Dems want to change it now because they perceive that it would benefit them to be able to crank up the political machines in Blue counties and states on behalf of the Dem candidate.

There is a value to Federalist principles . . . even if its sophistication is ripe for demagoguery and even if a change could have short-term benefit for one of the political parties. Don't you think?

Dubya likes Mike

To be candid, I've never gotten comfortable with the sports betting or prognosticating phrase, "who do you like in (blank)?" It's a phrase too ripe for confusion, but it appears that President Bush "likes" former Governor Mike Huckabee in that sense. (Plus, I thought it'd be really clever to allude to the "Be like Mike" ads and the "I like Ike" ads . . . get it?)

Here's the meat from the Chicago Tribune: (He wants to be seen as a heavyweight)

"George W. Bush doesn't have to be concerned with any more elections that carry his name on the ballot. But that doesn't mean he isn't intensely interested in the 2008 presidential race, a contest that is almost certain to be seen as a final referendum on his two terms in the White House.

So Bush, we are told, has taken to assessing the field of Republican candidates. He has been known to tell contemporaries that Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the leading GOP candidate of the moment, might not make it. But instead of going down the list of others, such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani or former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the president reportedly says it might pay to watch a candidate who is receiving essentially zero attention: Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas."

I hate to potentially sour people like Sharon Cobb with this tidbit, but for those of us who don't think Dubya is the Fount of Evil in the modern world, his view of the 2008 GOP field is intriguing.


Aside, I REALLY enjoy those "Be like Mike" ads. Go watch 'em. Here and Here

Creating a (greenish) buzz

The folks at Liberadio are going for Drew Johnson's jugular, pointing to Environmentalist momentum in the private sphere as vindication of Gore's crusade. (Always On: The Gore Power Switch).

"One can safely assume that the Milton Freidman-loving Johnson is against any government action to combat global warming should it interfere with free market economic principles. But perhaps he should have read the news yesterday because it appears as if the market is catching up to Al Gore, science, and public opinion."

What's ironic to me, is that these and other Liberals either don't realize or won't acknowledge the inevitability of winning a Grammy or a Nobel or corporate obeisance as a byproduct of 24/7 MSM Environmentalist onslaughts.

And today I came across this post (at Ecotality--one of Bill Hobbs' blogs) about the financial angle for Gore in all this.

Gore travels the nation and the world blaming man’s use of carbon-based energy for global warming - burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel as he goes. His efforts are being rewarded. Politically, he’s helped put climate change at the top of the national and even global agenda. And that has driven up the perceived prospects and in many cases the stock value of companies viewed as “green” or environmentally friendly.

Glen's Blog: We Don't Have a Problem With Wealth, Just Hypocrites

First snicker of the day, from over at Glen Dean's place. Glen's Blog: We Don't Have a Problem With Wealth, Just Hypocrites.

Glen and D.Daddio Al-Ozarka have coined a new title for Al Gore:

"D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

'He is the High Priest of the Church of Climate Change.'

And the Commander in Chief in the War on Weather!"

Gore: member of the off-set jet set

Bill Hobbs has a piece about the crucial-to-Gore's-credibility defense of "carbon offsets." The Profit of Doom.

Please do read it.

That Al Gore blind spot again

The headline from Nashville's The City Paper reads, "Gore in ’08: State Democrats say they’d support him if he decided to run for the presidency."

This report has a couple of problems. First, when Al Gore said he needed to "mend some fences" in Tennessee after being beaten in the 2000 race, he wasn't talking about Democrat Party County Executive Committee Members or Democrat activists he had know since the 70's. I think it's more significant that Gore has a 43 percent disapproval rating compared to a 42 percent approval.

Second, I couldn't help but pickup on a thread running through the article . . . Gore as victim in 2000. According to both Democrats interviewed, the election was "stolen."

"“When you look at how he has made this kind of return to public life, I think this is what makes him a great American,” Bone said. “That he would come back from the lowest point of just having the presidency stole [sic] from him and do something with his life that’s just really amazing.”"

(Aside: isn't Bone an attorney?)
Even John Rodgers misstates what happened by writing,

"He ultimately lost the race when the courts awarded Florida’s contested electoral votes to President George W. Bush."

Actually, that's not what happened. The U.S. Supreme Court simply held that the FL Supreme Court couldn't make-up election law to achieve the political outcome it wanted. As a result, the FL supremes weren't allowed to reverse Bush's victory.

Apparenty Clinton lied and people died

Here's a bit of context on wartime deaths in Iraq: (Heroes And Cowards - The New York Sun):

"The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?"

Hat tip: Mark Rose

Shrill drill

In today's Democrats.com email pushing the Dems' latest "wedge-islation"©--a pro-Union bill, I saw this impressive bit of ear-splitting exaggeration:

Right-wing anti-union forces are busy mobilizing against this legislation - The New York Times reported last Friday that the "United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Retail Federation and more than a dozen other business groups are mounting a fierce campaign to stop the bill, inundating Congress with more than 10,000 e-mail messages and letters."

Since when are these organizations "right-wing"? Thanks for the cue Democrats.com!

"Abortion Contortions" of GOP frontrunners

This (Abortion Contortions) is a valuable op/ed from the American Spectator on the issue of current GOP front-runners' positions on abortion. James Antle attempts to explain Giuliani's popularity despite his unabashed "pro-choice" views on abortion.

Here's the money quote:

"Meanwhile, Giuliani soars despite offering social conservatives few concessions. Perhaps the moral of the story is this: If you can't respect life, at least try to respect pro-lifers' intelligence."

I couldn't agree more.

Pelosi's documentary on Evangelicals

This (here) is an insightful article, penned by Middle Tennessee's own Michael Linton for First Things Magazine, about Alexandra Pelosi's HBO documentary about Evangelicals.

Regardless of how flattering or not a documentary turns out to be, it is tempting to resent merely being put under a cinematic microscope, to bristle in the crosshairs of the documentarian's camera. But Linton accurately (I believe) reviews and draws the proper Evangelical conclusions from the movie: we should be thankful for this frank look at our culture.

Aside from potential disagreement with Linton about how "obedience and sacrifice" factors into a person's "friendship" with God, I heartily echo his thesis.

I know some of y'all hate Cheney, but . . .

In the Reuters report ()Cheney takes refuge in bomb shelter after Afghan blast) about the suicide bombing supposedly targeting VP Dick Cheney in Afghanistan, I liked this dismissive quote from Cheney in responding to a question about the impact of this attack by Talibanites:

"'They [the Taliban] clearly try to find ways to question the authority of the central government,' Cheney told reporters traveling with him out of Afghanistan on a military plane to Oman.

'Striking at Bagram with a suicide bomber I suppose is one way to do that.'"

Like with his straight-talking comment about Dem retreat plans validating the Islamists' strategeries, I really enjoy his matter-of-fact manner

Could Jeb get the GOP nod?

Here's an intriguing article (Jeb in 2008?) about the feasibility of a Jeb Bush candidacy in 2008. Here's an excerpt, explaining how changes to the primary schedule could provide an opening for a Knight in Shining Armour Candidate:

"RATHER THAN PROVIDING UNSTOPPABLE momentum to any one candidate, in other words, the widespread voting on Feb. 5 could serve to keep all three 'major' candidates and even a couple of minor ones alive. Nobody could claim a mandate, the vitriol would continue to grow, and the dissatisfaction already being voiced by conservatives might take on pandemic proportions.

Meanwhile, a number of states may have qualifying dates for candidates or delegates that post-date Feb. 5. Nine states still won't vote until May. A white night with a big enough name could conceivably jump in the race, sweep all the later contests, and lay claim to be the candidate of consensus and unity. Think of another president's brother, Bobby Kennedy in 1968, and you get the idea."

One thing not mentioned in the article and that I haven't heard anyone else mention is the fact that any "Bush fatigue" would be much less of a factor in a primary than it would purportedly be in a general election.

The Gore blind spot

Sorry, but I think the Left has a massive blind spot when it comes to Al Gore.

While perusing an Oscars! post over at Nashville is Talking (Hollyweird’s Biggest Night: A Round-Up) this evening I came across a great GOP bumper sticker in the run-up to 2008, though I don't think "Freedonian" intended it as such:

"Now let’s draft Gore and keep this one out of stealing distance."

Diplomacy's the answer . . .

Disturbing, yet humorous. James Taranto of the WSJ: Obviously they're just unhappy with American foreign policy in the Middle East.

Hat tip: The Corner

Do as I say, dang it . . . Gore's energy binges

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research has researched how consistent Al Gore's lifestyle is with his lecture Al Gore's Personal Energy Use is His Own "Inconvenient Truth."

Now, I personally use as much energy as I want (and can afford), but I'm not preaching otherwise. Any doubt that Gore is a Limousine Liberal?

Saturday With Mike Huckabee

Jay Bush has a great report of a Mike Huckabee meet 'n greet he attended on Saturday in Nashville (Saturday With Mike Huckabee), as do Adam Groves , and Bill Hobbs . Each of these reports reflects that Huckabee is a political talent who can connect with Conservatives, but more importantly, who can connect with "Independents." And he's not much of a bogeyman.

Indeed, the worst thing (to Conservatives and most Americans) you can say about Huckabee--his poor rating with Cato and Club for Growth, may endear him with "moderate" Republicans and shouldn't be too big of a stumbling block for Religious Conservatives, with whom a commitment to both supply-side economics and balanced budgets resonates.

But Huckabee's positive impression on these Tennesseans is interesting in light of the hubbub among Lefty bloggers about this weekend's NYTimes article poking at Religious Conservatives and their effort to find a candidate. The cabal-ish caricature of Religious Conservatives is an important ingredient in "fringing" The Religious Right.

Jay relays this story from the Huckabee event:

Huckabee recalled a meeting he had with former Surgeon General and then Arkansas Director of Health, Jocelyn (sic) Elders at the request of [then-President] Bill Clinton. Elders had called on pastors to "end their love affair with the fetus" and to "stop moralizing" from the pulpit. At the time, Huckabee, a former pastor himself, was president of the Arkansas Baptist Association. Clinton had sought Huckabee's counsel about the political impact Elder's comments would have among evangelicals and asked that he meet with her. After spending an afternoon with Elders, Huckabee, apparently so shocked by the experience, said he went home and told his wife it was time to "get in the game and get our uniforms dirty."

Yes, the Left's often-successful creation of a bogeymovement (Religious Conservatives) effectively diverts attention from people like Joycelyn Elders, M.D.

Lowering taxes . . . baaad

Bill Hobbs has a great post (Rhetoric vs. Reality) about the knee-jerk Liberal reaction to talk of lowering a tax . . . in this case Tenn. Republicans' proposal to phase out the sales tax on food.

The Hunter-Gatherer, Parking Division - New York Times

This is a humorous NY Times piece (The Hunter-Gatherer, Parking Division) about finding a parking spot in NYC; however, the same principles apply to not wanting to ask for directions or a host of other male propensities.

Tip o' the hat to "The Corner."

Chicks or the egg?

Amid reports (Dixie Chicks Album Sales Go Through Roof) that the Dixie Chicks' album sales jumped 714% in the week following the Grammy Awards, I'm wondering which came first: the note or the worthy? the Grammys or the success?

Well, Sister Toldjah provides the likely answer:

"The theme of the day in the MSM is “vindication for the Chicks”, as though the Grammy awards they won make up for the fact that their record sales have dropped considerably, as have their ticket sales, and radio stations don’t want to play their music because their listeners don’t want to hear it."

How Dems will end the war

Charles Krauthammer reports on the Democrat efforts to end the war in Iraq the wrong way. (No Way To End A War - washingtonpost.com). After voting to authorize "use of force" at the beginning of this war, Krauthammer writes . . .

"Now, more than four years later, the Democrats want out of the resulting war. Most, such as Rep. John Murtha, want to do so for a simple reason: They think the war is lost. If you believe that, then getting out is the most reasonable and honorable and patriotic policy.

Congress has the power to do that by cutting off the funds. But Democrats will not, because it is politically dangerous. Instead, they are seeking other ways, clever ways. The House is pursuing a method, developed by Murtha and deemed 'ingenious' by antiwar activist Tom Andrews of Win Without War, to impose a conditional cutoff of funds, ostensibly in the name of protecting the troops. Unless the troops are given the precise equipment, training and amount of rest Murtha stipulates -- no funds."

What seems missed by Krauthammer is the fact that this goes beyond "micromanaging" the war . . . it is "managing" the war . . . indeed, such an action is "pretending to be Commander-in-Chief of" the war. That's not acceptable in my book, and I don't think that is the way the system is designed to operate. Either allow the Executive to fight the war or declare "peace."

While I concede that Congress (the House, particularly) can refuse to supply funds needed to pay for this war (it "controls the purse strings"), I don't agree that such a power/authority can cut off an Executive's ability to wage a war.

It seems to me, kind of like if a physician's homemaker wife "controlled the purse strings" in the family and the physician wanted to buy a car without her authority, said physician could find a car dealer willing to enter into a agreement that would have him "riding off the lot today" in a new car. Of course, buying things on credit or "agreements" would eventually require actual transfer of funds, but depending on the situation, that time period could be pretty generous.

Health insurance reform

This is a no-brainer to me. Public policy needs to interfere as little as possible with economic principles, so either everyone or noonee should be able to deduct health insurance costs or noone should be able to. Read the Alexander press release here (Alexander urges legislative action to make health coverage more affordable). Here's an excerpt:

"U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander joined President Bush today in support of allowing individuals to deduct the cost of their health insurance premiums, as employers are allowed to do.

“This inequity is among the most brazen in the entire U.S. tax code,” Alexander said. “The president has put forward a big idea that could save 80 percent of working Tennesseans an average of more than $3,000 in federal income and payroll taxes, which they then could use to buy health insurance. I hope the Senate will give this proposal the serious consideration it deserves.”"

Noonan--A Surmountable Hill

Peggy Noonan writes about how the 2008 campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton is seeming much less inevitable, in the wake of the dust up with David Geffen, than it was a week ago. "A Surmountable Hill."

If you haven't been paying attention to such things, Hollywood mogul and big-time Democrat fundraiser (and now-Obamaniac) Geffen said in an interview with the New York Times' Maureen Dowd: "Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it's troubling."

Back to the story; I think this is an interesting issue because, until now, the Clintons have only had to campaign against Republicans. In that context, there were no holds barred. Noonan writes:

Mr. Geffen should be braced for a lot of bad personal box office--negative press, searching profiles, strained relations. We're probably about to see if the Clinton Machine can flatten him. Little doubt it will try. John Dickerson wrote in Slate this week of Bill Clinton's generously sharing his campaign wisdom: "Your opponent can't talk when he has your fist in his mouth." Among some Democratic political professionals this kind of talk is considered tough and knowing, as opposed to, say, startlingly belligerent and crude.

I'm interested to see if such tactics will go over as well in the family.

Choosing judges in Tennessee

Jay Bush is posting about a bill to require popular election of Supreme Court justices in Tennessee (The Volunteer Dispatch: Restoring Original Intent). Bush writes:

"Perhaps not coincidently, State Rep. Brian Kelsey filed a bill to require State Supreme Court judges be elected directly by the people on the same day the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gov. Phil Bredesen's race-based rejection of the Judicial Selection Commission's slate of high court nominees. Bredesen's rejection of the commission's nominees after the only minority candidate withdrew for family reasons was a fiasco that's left an empty seat on the court for almost a year.

During his gubernatorial campaign, Republican Jim Bryson proposed the popular election of State Supreme Court judges too, citing Article VI, Section 3 of the Tennessee Constitution, which states, “The Judges of the Supreme Court shall be elected by the qualified voters of the state.” It's good to see this issue didn't die with Bryson's campaign."

Jay's right, but the most significant thing about Kelsey's bill is that our current system (a modified version of the so-called Missouri Plan) is inconsistent with the Tenn. Constitution. Whether or not we like the popular election of judges, that's what our state constitution prescribes.

Wallis: The Religious Right's Era Is Over

Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners, is declaring the end of Religious Conservatism The Religious Right's Era Is Over -- Friday, Feb. 16, 2007 -- Page 1 -- TIME:

"We have now entered the post-Religious Right era. Though religion has had a negative image in the last few decades, the years ahead may be shaped by a dynamic and more progressive faith that will make needed social change more possible."

Gee, Wallis better hope he's wrong . . . what will he do without the foil/bogeyman of the Religious Right to motivate Liberal people of faith to acknowledge God in public or concede that you can indeed "legislate morality."

McCain's neo-conservatism

I criticized John McCain a couple of days ago for his disparaging comments about Donald Rumsfeld . . . but here's another angle of attack on McCain's statements. Townhall.com::McCain v. Rumsfeld::By Terence Jeffrey

Here's a key excerpt:

"So back to the question: Should the failure thus far to establish a stable democracy in Iraq be blamed on the management of U.S. troops, or was the concept of using U.S. troops to create an Iraqi democracy flawed?

The fact that not even John McCain is now calling for sending U.S. forces into Pakistan -- a nuclear-armed Islamic country run by a pro-American general who originally took power in a coup -- to shutdown a sanctuary for the leaders of al-Qaida points to an answer.

Sometimes the pursuit of a just cause, no matter how well managed, can cause more problems than it solves."

Franken saying he'll run for Senate

I heard over the weekend that Al Franken was planning to run for U.S. Senate. Franken saying he'll run for Senate. For the record, I think that Al Franken is funny when he's not being partisan (and sometimes he's funny even when he is being partisan), but it's hard for me to imagine him translating to a "grown-up" setting. I don't mean that Franken isn't an adult or that entertainment is only for the immature, but I do think that Franken will miss the carefree, comedian's life and I think he'll have a hard time living out the parody.

I started this post on Saturday, and was probably not going to revisit it, then I came across this interesting NYT article about books written by candidates or "candidate lit." (Presidential Candidates as Authors). It's a good read, and this at the end reminded me of Franken's decision to run for office:

"Most of these books are going to be wastes of trees.” (They are also open to mockery. Recall Al Franken’s candidate-book spoof, “Why Not Me?,” written long before he became a real Senate candidate and adorned with a picture of Mr. Franken posing in a plaid shirt next to a golden retriever, and chapters with titles like “The Courage to Dare” and “Daring to Dream.”)

See what I mean?

Asides: those chapter titles from Franken's fauxbook shouted "Audacity of Hope" to me . . . and the article reports that Al Gore is planning a book called "The Assault on Reason." Gee, I wonder who Gore will be savaging in that book?

Oh, the irony . . .

Kay Brooks has a post (Kay Brooks: Not legit my eye) about the sheer irony of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) bringing Trent Seibert on board right on the heels of being categorized as "not legitimate" by Tenn.'s Executive Branch.

The deep, dark secret of politics: They’re all just people

Interesting op/ed from South Carolina's, The State (The deep, dark secret of politics: They’re all just people ) about Alexandra Pelosi's documentary, Journeys with George.

I can't quibble with the article's thesis . . . I think we all would benefit from remembering that politicians or elected officials aren't always as they seem in the Media.

But I do believe that most of the supporting arguments for arthen's thesis are media-centric, in the sense that everyone but them (the Media) "have an agenda." Bush--"the candidate," is simply trying to "charm the press" (disingenuously acting with kindness toward reporters, we are to conclude); Rove--"the creep," is nefariously distrusting of reporters; all the candidates are "postur[ing] for the extremists" (of course, in spite of the reasonable, even-handed coverage afforded them by the MSM). The reality is that all humans have the temptation to misuse power (however manifested); it's not a flaw unique to politicians.

Do or die in Iraq: where we've been; where we should go

This is a great overview of the war in Iraq from Bing West of National Review: Do or die in Iraq: where we've been; where we should go National Review - Find Articles. (I know, I know . . . but read the article before you dismiss it as biased).

Obama: A simple yes or no would suffice

Wes Comer has an insightful post about Sen. Barack Obama and whether he's an evangelical or not. As the site is titled, truth is stranger than fiction.

See it here: wescomer.com » Archive » A Simple Yes or No Would Suffice

Hewitt on Romney: too much info

I just read a post over at Hugh Hewitt's shop (here) about Mitt Romney's TV ad campaigning starting today (?) in "key" primary states. Sorry but I think this is too soon. Name ID is not Romney's problem among people who aren't going to be royally annoyed by 2008 presidential ads being aired in early 2007, at least that's the way I see it.

In that context, I clicked on Hewitt's link to his book about Romney, A Mormon in the White House: 10 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney, which, ironically, at the time I saw it, was being mistakenly listed as, A Mormon in the White House?: 110 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney (here).

"110" points about Romney would be--like this ad campaign, too much, too soon.

Emboldening our (political) enemies . . . McCain Slams Rumsfeld

Word is that Sen. John McCain is working over Donald Rumsfeld on the campaign trail, implementing various superlatives. All Headline News - McCain Talking Tough On Campaign Trail Slams Rumsfeld - February 20, 2007:

"'I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history,' said the Arizona senator, drawing applause during a stop near Hilton Head Island.

AP reports that McCain, speaking to a crowd of over 800 people at a retirement community on Monday, expressed support for President Bush's call for 21,500 additional troops, but lambasted Rumsfeld for failing to send enough in the first place.

'We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement -- that's the kindest word I can give you -- of Donald Rumsfeld, of this war,' said McCain, a Vietnam veteran and the ranking GOP member on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

McCain's two-day tour of South Carolina is an apparent attempt to shore up support among social conservatives in the early primary state."

If McCain is trying to provide the positive vision (thing) and "appeal to social conservatives," I don't think this is the way to do it. While Rumsfeld (and Bush, certainly) have not perfectly executed this war, (by the way, don't bother to pith on the comment section stuff like "'not perfectly executed' is an understatement of the day"), it is very monday morning quarterback-ish to do this type of thing . . . with this type of rhetoric. Social conservatives don't think it is rank incompetence or rank malevolence or rank evilness that has caused the Iraq War to flounder. At least that's the way I sees it.

Hobbs: Romney Answers the Mormon Question

Bill Hobbs has a helpful post about Mitt Romney and his "handling" of "the Mormon question" on ABC News' "This Week" (sorry, got carried away with the qualifying quotes thingy).
Romney Answers the Mormon Question:

"Mitt Romney does rather well, I think, in his encounter with ABC News' George Stephanopolous, especially in the way he (and his wife Ann Romney, who also sat for the interview) handled 'the Mormon question.' ABC provides the complete transcript of the interview.

Stephanopolous hammers away, trying to drive wedges between Romney and Catholics, first, then between Romney and evangelical Christians, and then between Romney and Muslims. The latter is the most absurd as Stephanopolous zeroes in on the Mormon faith's belief that Jesus Christ will reign on earth for 1,000 years after His return.

Stephanopoulos: I wonder how that would be viewed in the Muslim world. Have you thought about how the Muslim world will react to that and whether it would make it more difficult, if you were president, to build alliances with the Muslim world?

Romney: Well, I'm not a spokesman for my church. I'm not running for pastor in chief. I'm running for commander in chief. So the best place to go for my church's doctrines would be my church.

Stephanopoulos: But I'm talking about how they will take it, how they will perceive it.

Romney says its true that Mormons believe that Jesus will return and reign in Jerusalem for a thousand years, but Our belief is just as it says in the Bible, that the messiah will come to Jerusalem, stand on the Mount of Olives and that the Mount of Olives will be the place for the great gathering and so forth. "That that being said," Romney says, "How do Muslims feel about Christian doctrines? They don't agree with them.""

Aside from the particular issues of Romney or his religious beliefs, I hope that he and other candidates will have more opportunities during the course of the campaign to demonstrate that while a candidate's religion should certainly influence his/her worldview, and while his/her worldview should certainly influence his/her policy positions, the fact that someone is more than a closet "person of faith" or "devout person" doesn't mean that they are going to create a state religion and force everyone to join up. Frankly, I believe orthodox Islam is an exception to my point, but last time I looked, there aren't any Muslims running for President.

FL GOP straw poll scrapped for prime-time debate

On the subject of states moving primary dates and otherwise attempting to enhance their influence on choosing presidential nominees . . . this is an interesting story from Florida. MiamiHerald.com | 02/20/2007 | GOP straw poll scrapped for prime-time debate.

All the way back to 1992 (I think), the Florida GOP has held a straw-poll-on-steroids that looks a lot like a party convention but is used as a fundraiser (people/ballot-casters buy tix) and momentum-builder. I was involved (on behalf of Phil Gramm) in 1995.

But now the state GOP has decided to cancel the straw poll in favor of a "prime time!" televised debate on national cable (FoxNews--what'd you expect). They say they plan to charge each candidate $100k to participate and still have the convention-type thing sans the "straw poll."

I find it hard to believe that this is a wise move. Only a handful of candidates will be able/willing to pony up that much money; thus, the exhibition will be less comprehensive. I perceive fewer people will be engaged as a result of a debate (over a year prior to the election) than would be engaged by a convention/straw poll event that is more than simply a convention that is a sidenote to a debate. And I wonder if the dollars/numbers will work out the same. We'll see.

All politics is local . . . the Life of Briley

I enjoyed a blogopp today with Nashville Mayoral Candidate David Briley (David Briley for Mayor of Nashville) which was graciously coordinated by Sean Braisted (http://www.Nashville21.com).

I have a couple of initial impressions: Brittney's kind of "petite," ACK's kind of tall, John Hutcheson's kind of nice, Sarah Moore's kid is definitely cute . . . and, oh yes, . . . . Briley is definitely talented. Now to some substance.

I couldn't help but think during the time that there is a real beauty to non-partisan elections. Because the candidates aren't all wearing party "brand labels," the races tend toward more substantive "debate" on issues/policy. The same phenomenon occurs in counties like Williamson County, which essentially (though that may be changing) do not have a general election, so the real campaign is in the primary.

Second, I like the dynamic of local elections (such as a mayor's race) because there is less of a market for "hot button" issues. A mayor's job is consumed by fundamentals--sanitation services, educational performance (esp. in a "metro" setting like Nashville), law enforcement; thus, there is more accountability and less distraction with the "sexy" or flashy issues.

In a city like Nashville--which has not yet accepted the dysfunctional-by-default categorization as "urban" there is still the opportunity for the gov't (and mayor) to deliver for its citizens.

Romney: pro-life before he was pro-choice before he was pro-life?

Over at NationalReview.com's "The Corner" Blog(here) there's this interesting post about a Mitt Romney profile in the Washington Post:

"It’s hard to know quite what to do with this suggestion that Romney was pro-life before he was pro-choice before he was pro-life. You have to wonder, though, if the Romney campaign got Dushku in touch with the Post (as they presumably did with the others who wrote) in the hope of planting the notion that Romney has actually always been pro-life."

Trumanesque Hillary

This NYT article Clinton Gives War Critics New Answer on ’02 Vote discusses the reason I believe Clinton is the most formidable candidate on the Democrat side at this juncture . . . she is standing up to the shrill wing of her party and acting like an executive.

"Indeed, Mrs. Clinton believes that reversing course on her vote would invite the charge of flip-flopping that damaged Mr. Kerry or provoke the kind of accusations of political expediency that hung over Al Gore in 2000 and her and her husband, President Bill Clinton, in the 1990s, several advisers said. She has argued to associates in private discussions that Mr. Gore and Mr. Kerry lost, in part, because they could not convince enough Americans that they were resolute on national security, the associates said.

Mrs. Clinton’s image as a strong leader, in turn, is critical to her hopes of becoming the nation’s first female president. According to one adviser, her internal polling indicates that a high proportion of Democrats see her as strong and tough, both assets particularly valuable to a female candidate who is seeking to become commander in chief. Apologizing might hurt that image, this adviser said.

Mrs. Clinton’s belief in executive power and authority is another factor weighing against an apology, advisers said. As a candidate, Mrs. Clinton likes to think and formulate ideas as if she were president — her “responsibility gene,” she has called it. In that vein, she believes that a president usually deserves the benefit of the doubt from Congress on matters of executive authority."

Further down in the article, Bob Shrum (long-time losing consultant and senior adviser to John Kerry's '04 campaign) weighs in on what he thinks she needs to do to win . . . boy, that's rich.

Back at Home, McCain Annoys the G.O.P. Right

I think this endorsement has nationwide implications even though I don't think McCain could lose the primary in his own state. Back at Home, McCain Annoys the G.O.P. Right:

"Among some Republicans here, Mr. Romney, a Mormon who may benefit from his faith’s strongholds around the state, is also mentioned as a viable alternative to Mr. McCain. Mr. Romney is supported by Joe Arpaio, the Maricopa County sheriff, among others."

Edwards bloggers show the Curse of the Christian-Bashers

I've posted on this previously (here), but the Edwards bloggers episode portends a singular challenge of the contemporary Democrat Party. Here's a key excerpt from a WSJ op/ed (Curse of the Christian-Bashers) on the subject:

"For what the blogger tempest really illuminates is a fact that could come to haunt the Democrats as they vie for national office: namely, that their past few wilderness years have also been boom years for the church-loathing liberal/left punditry. As a result, anti-Christian invective now graces (or disgraces) many of the books, magazines, Web sites and blogs to which liberals, including the Democratic elite, habitually look for ideas. One motto of this cottage industry is that the most serious threat to the American republic can be found in, no, not those religious fundamentalists, the ones that first leap to mind after 9/11; but, incredibly, certain other believers--our nation's Christians."

"Construction English" and other signs of the times

This article (Bassackwards: Construction Spanish and other signs of the times)is poignant in light of Nashville's recent English-first measure controversy (Purcell vetoes English First Legislation); money quote:

"The Post's reporter found one person, a middle-aged 'supervisor on building projects in downtown Washington,' who was not too happy about the new order. He acknowledged to the reporter that he wished his workers would simply learn English. But they were not--so he enrolled in Construction Spanish. 'I'm not saying I like what's happening,' he said. 'But I figure I can't fight it.'

Which is a near-perfect expression of cultural defeatism."

Bredesen Administration's "enemy list"

It appears that the Bredesen Administration and his Department of Revenue have an "enemy list" which includes the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. Here's the story: ("Dept. of Revenue says conservative think tank ‘not a legitimate group’").

What's laughable is that Emily Richard and Reagan Farr--the Department's PR person and Dept. head, respectively, accuse Drew Johnson and the Tennessee Center for Policy Research of being "unprofessional." Stay on 'em Drew and Co.

Bush + election = opportunity to demagogue

While visiting the Orlando Sentinel online, I noticed this story about a woman--Miriam Oliphant, whom you may not have heard of, despite the fact that she is somewhat of a Lefty cause celebre (see here, here, etc. etc.). Charges dropped against Oliphant by Mark Skoneki.

"Oliphant lost her job because of problems with the 2002 primary, when 23 polls failed to open by 7 a.m. and 32 polls failed to heed an executive order from the governor's office to stay open past 7 p.m. so voters could cast a ballot in the problem-plagued election.

She was removed from her post by then-Gov. Jeb Bush in November 2003 and failed to re-win her job during a 2004 primary against Brenda Snipes, whom Bush named to replace her."

Democrats' unyielding defense of Oliphant is ironic . . . until you realize that a Republican, not to mention a Republican named "Bush," was the one who had acted to replace her.

If you don't feel close to Religious Conservatives . . .

This Orlando Sentinel report about the National Religious Broadcasters' (NRB) annual convention highlights the importance of reaching out to this audience if one is a Republican presidential candidate.

The interesting thing about the article is the turn at the end of article, emphasizing that no Democrats will be dropping by the event. GOP candidates turn up volume for broadcasters:

"Some attending the NRB convention said they wished Democratic candidates also would come to Orlando.

'In my view, there's often way too much Republican flavor at NRB,' said Rusty Wright, a California author, lecturer and radio host. 'I'd like to see more bi-partisanship.'

For Democrats, to write off potential evangelical supporters because of the historic support for the GOP is like Republicans writing off black voters for the same reason, said Erwin McManus, pastor of the Mosaic Community in Los Angeles and a convention speaker.

'I think the Democrats should have showed up,' said McManus, noting that he estimates that 80 percent of his 3,500-member congregation opposes the war in Iraq. 'I feel frustrated. I'm open to candidates in both parties. I would be far more excited and open about going to the Republican receptions if there were Democratic events as well.'"

Good point Mr. McManus, but--as the saying goes, if you don't feel close to Evangelical Christians--the largest consumers of religious-themed broadcasting, then guess who moved? No doubt, there is an emerging bloc of government-is-the-answer voters who are increasingly asserting that they are also religious. However, that phenomenon merely demonstrates that a person's worldview--more than a person's religion, is the best predictor of how that person votes.

On another note, I see that my favorite band--Little Big Town is performing today at Sea World . . . I hope that all of these candidates adopt some boondocks philosophy.

Democrat victory in 2008 not so bsd?

Jonah Goldberg (sort of) argues the merits of a Dem winning in 2008. Key excerpt:Jonah Goldberg on 2008 on National Review Online:

". . . Only a handful of people on the Left — and far too few liberals — see radical Islamists as a bigger threat than George W. Bush. Which is why if you really think that we are in an existential conflict with a deadly enemy, there’s a good case for the Democrats to take the reins. Not because Democrats are better, wiser or more responsible about foreign policy. That’s a case for Democrats to make about themselves and certainly not one many on the right believe. No, the argument, felt in places we don’t talk about at cocktail parties (vide A Few Good Men), is that the Democrats have been such irresponsible backseat drivers that they have to be forced to take the wheel to grasp how treacherous the road ahead is."

Ronald Reagan: A Rendezvous With Destiny

Wow, this is a timeless message, also known as "A Time for Choosing." rightlinx.com » Blog Archive » Ronald Reagan: A Rendezvous With Destiny

I like the phrase, "there is a simple answer, though not an easy one" (or something along those lines). This is a principle, regarding public policy, that I believe distinguishes Conservatives from Liberals.

Time for Choosing indeed

Great video providing context on today's faux-"No Confidence" vote in Pelosi's House. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) :: Chief Deputy Whip. Just click on "Historic Debate" under "Latest Videos" in the middle of the page. I especially like the footage of Reagan (I think from his "Time for Choosing" speech).

Hat tip, Kathryn Lopez at National Review's The Corner

Gore rules out 2008 White House bid

This article BREITBART.COM - Gore rules out bid for US White House in 2008--assuring us that we won't have to listen to Al Gore running for president again, goes out of its way to characterize George W. Bush as the lone impediment to implementation of "Kyoto" which means he is preventing Al Gore & Co. from solving Global Warming.

"Gore was the US negotiator for the international Kyoto Protocol that set global goals on emission of so-called greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, produced by the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal.

The protocol was agreed in 1997 and took effect in February 2005, but Bush refused to ratify it, citing its high economic cost and the fact that China and India, the world's largest producers of greenhouse gases after the United States were, as developing nations, not bound by it."

Uh, the Clinton Administration and overwhelming, bi-partisan majorities have refused to ratify this treaty. Not that doing so would have any substantive impact on "climate change" while handicapping the U.S. economy.

Michael W. Smith endorses Brownback for President--well, it's news to me

I learned today that Contemporary Christian Artist and Tennessean Michael W. Smith has endorsed Sen. Sam Brownback for President in '08. Students for Brownback » Blog Archive » Michael W. Smith endorses Brownback for President.

To many Evangelicals, Smith is the patriarch (I know that word'll rankle some of you--heehee) of Christian artists. And he can attract a crowd of just the people that Brownback needs to have on board.

Obama's personal and literary reviews

Interesting Rolling Stone story about Sen. Barack Obama. Rolling Stone : THE LOW POST: Between Barack and a Hard Place.

Incidentally, the article--which relies on excerpts from Obama's book, did not convince me to support Obama and fully convinced me not to read Obama's book.

Evangelical leader sizes up GOP field . . .

This article from The Hill gives Richard Land 's assessment of the likely crop of GOP candidates. Evangelical leader sizes up GOP field, says Giuliani’s campaign is doomed

I agree with much of what Land says, but I disagree with his assessment of John McCain

"As for oft-perceived Republican frontrunner Sen. John McCain, Land paused, then said the Arizona senator’s strengths with independent voters are what is hurting him with socially conservative voters.

McCain’s “maverick” streak may be a winning personality trait for reporters and independents, but social conservatives consider it to be a sign of unpredictability.

“They don’t like being surprised,” Land said."

That's not it at all for me. "Mavericks" don't bother me, unless they're mavericks from principle, like McCain, or seem to reserve their mavericking for Republican ideals. For example, I don't think you can find any other purported Conservative who is popular with "reporters"--it isn't "unpredictability" that makes him predictably popular with the media and unpopular with the Conservative base.

Fineman: GOP Hopefuls Court Evangelical Leaders

This MSNBC article is insightful (though rather dismissive) concerning Religious Conservative "kingmakers." Fineman: GOP Hopefuls Court Evangelical Leaders

Frankly, I am a supporter of James Dobson and his present stance--as outlined in the article, on endorsing candidates at this point in the process.

The problem of "push polling"

I just stumbled upon this article (here--Tales of a Push Pollster)linked from a "gay" website, about ccAdvertising and was intrigued by the accusations about "push polling."

I've often heard about "push polling" but can't say that I've--especially recently, taken the time to listen to purported examples of it. But this assertion:

"one of the dirtier, yet mostly legal, tricks in a political operative's bag of last-minute campaign tools."

got me interested and one example was for the Ford/Corker race in Tennessee, so I checked it out.

Sorry, but what's "dirt[y]" about this and why shouldn't it be "legal"?

Poll reports: Brownback and Huckabee leading Romney but still way behind

Here's an interesting report of an as yet unpublished poll showing Mitt Romney trailing Brownback and Huckabee in Iowa. Of course, Brownback and Huckabee still trail McCain and Giuliani by wide margins, and the large number of "undecideds" is significant (28%), but such numbers--if true, would undermine the "top tier" classification of Romney's candidacy. Students for Brownback » Blog Archive » BREAKING: Brownback places third in Iowa Poll to 50,000 homes — Beats Romney

Mountain making at Media Matters

Here's an interesting article about an allusion to Sam Brownback in a report about the GOP field. I say "interesting" because these so-called "media watch" organizations often have to look pretty hard for even a mole hill to make mountainous. Read the article here. Media Matters - In report on Brownback, CNN did not mention reported shift in abortion rights position

I think the fact that this is a "molehill" is reflected in the article's title, "reported shift." The post at Media Matters is seriously researched and documented, but when you consider that these are only reports of flip-flopping and aren't supported by any voting or platform record, it hardly seems like CNN is now a member of the VRWC. I'm glad for the info that Media Matters provides, but one element of bona fide "flip-flopping," I would posit, is that your adopted positions contradict more than private conversations.

Leading, kerning and leading

Apparently there's much handwringing on the Left axis of blogdom about reports (here) of an ad for a candidate running for chair of the Shelby County Democrat Party . . . the ad uses the terms "Democrat" and "Democratic" except not the way that some Libs prefer it (one being a noun and one being an adjective--Republicans don't get that luxury).

But, you guys really shouldn't crucify the candidate--Jay Bailey, for not obsessing about this non-issue--it actually might help the party to have someone who is less of a spinmeister running things.

Holy Cow, blame his graphic designer . . . "Democratic Party" wouldn't fit all on one line.

Why wait? Endorsement abstinence . . .

I haven't taken the time to put these ideas into a post, but this article about efforts by McCain and Romney to sign up supporters among Religious Conservatives provides a perfect jumping off point.

The article references a Religious Conservative leader in Iowa--Marlys Popma, who has joined with John McCain's campaign, because, according to the article's author Popma couldn't "sit out" this election.

My message to Religious Conservatives: you aren't "sitting out" an election by choosing--21 months before the election, not to pick a candidate. It's an interesting article (here):

"Amid the near-constant pitches for support by the aspiring presidential candidates, some social conservatives are urging peers to refrain from any choice.

Steve Scheffler, president of the Iowa Christian Alliance, said he has been approached by several campaigns but has chosen to stay out of the endorsement game for now.

'Anytime you side with a candidate and work for them, you alienate people and you are not able to talk about the issues as much as you would like,' Scheffler said."

Yes, it kind of reminds me of a "run" on a bank. And that scene from It's a Wonderful Life comes to mind. I hate to say it, but I perceive that too many people joining the MSM-coronated "top tier" campaigns may sacrifice what's best for everybody (especially the grassroots constituents they purport to represent) by trying to make sure they get their plum spot in a campaign.

Huckabee foes take fundraising head start

Despite the headline for this article, it appears Huckabee is not doing badly for a "second-tier" candidate in regard to fundraising. It kind of depends on whom you consider Huckabee's "foe" at this stage of the game.Arkansas News Bureau - Huckabee foes take fundraising head start

And another thing that jumps out from this article is how money "fuels" a campaign as opposed to merely supporting it; it isn't just useful for hiring employees or media buys . . . it actually wins you favor with others in the business of politics who need their own money to "play."

How 'bout we lay some progressive taxation on this guy . . .

Multi-millionaire software mogul Tim Gill (founder of Quark) has devoted his seemingly limitless resources to promote homosexual mainstreaming. Here's a fascinating article on Gill's strategy to nip Conservatism in the bud--(even as Barney would say) "nip it, nip it, nip it."

This is the core of Tim Gill's strategy:

Together, Gill and [former BigTobacco operative Ted] Trimpa decided to eschew national races in favor of state and local ones, which could be influenced in large batches and for much less money. Most antigay measures, they discovered, originate in state legislatures. Operating at that level gave them a chance to “punish the wicked,” as Gill puts it—to snuff out rising politicians who were building their careers on antigay policies, before they could achieve national influence. Their chief cautionary example of such a villain is Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who once compared homosexuality to “man on dog” sex (and was finally defeated last year, at a cost of more than $20 million). Santorum got his start working in the state legislature. As Gill and Trimpa looked at their evolving plan, it seemed realistic. “The strategic piece of the puzzle we’d been missing—consistent across almost every legislature we examined—is that it’s often just a handful of people, two or three, who introduce the most outrageous legislation and force the rest of their colleagues to vote on it,” Gill explained. “If you could reach these few people or neutralize them by flipping the chamber to leaders who would block bad legislation, you’d have a dramatic effect.”

Aside from the brilliantly conceived electoral plan (by the way, I know it's a stereotype, but noone has ever accused homosexual men of lacking brilliance or creativity), this story is interesting because it shows how important money is in winning campaigns and belies the Liberal meme that Democrats don't have fat cats or Rovian schemes. It also demonstrates why squishy elected officials get no respect . . . as Gill has discerned, legislators are much more likely to legislate the way Gill wants (i.e., apparently counter to the interests of their constituents) if their feet aren't held to the fire by extreme legislators. Brilliant.

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

Here's another example of the unscientific "science" surrounding "global warming" from the UK's Times Online (here):

"Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported."

Read about those particular discoveries by following the above link. (Tip o' the hat to Mark Rose)

Views of Giuliani put GOP to the test

Great read (here) on Giuliani which demonstrates the allure of someone like Reagan, who was less of a list of policy positions and more of a "positive," charismatic, confidence-inspiring leader. Reagan's success was rooted in his ability to assure a middling voter (all but the 25-30% of voters in each party) that he would keep the "main thing" the "main thing." And focus on this "main thing"--which is different for different voters and often cuts across party, class, race and religion, enables a candidate to assemble plurality support among different groups of people.

In one sense, this supports the "empty vessel" school of thought, which asserts that people are more comfortable with a candidate that they "perceive" is with them on all the issues that matter. Where I think Rudy is different than, say, Obama, is that Rudy is proven in the executive realm/role.

I think a near majority of voters (certainly more than most political junkies realize) fall into this "middling voter" category. And Conservative voters cannot effectively veto a less-Conservative candidate if their votes are spread among several candidates (see: TN senate race '06). You Libs better hope that the Conservative vote is split.

Spare me the "Christianist" diatribes

Thanks to commenter William, I have read one of the most paranoid, demagogic, conspiratorial, disingenuous and/or naive essays I've seen in a while. Truthdig - Reports - Christianists on the March

It is so far from reality, from accuracy, from reasonableness, that the fisking of it would triple its length.

But here's just the intro:

"After two years reporting on the movement for his new book “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America”, [Chris Hedges] writes that its engine is profound personal and economic despair caused by mounting social and economic inequities that fuel the creation of an American oligarchy. This despair, he said, has led tens of millions of Americans into the arms of demogogues (sic) who offer a world of miracles and magic, who sanctify and fuel the rage of America’s dispossessed and who plot the destruction the democratic state."

What "personal despair"? What "economic despair"? What economic inequities (beyond the covetousness-mongering of the Left)?

What "world of miracles and magic"?

What "dispossessed" (among the Religious Right, at least)?

Sounds like a combination of "projection" and, ahem, demagoguery, if you ask me.

A fascist behind every tree

Faithful commenter, William, in response to a post about fascism (I'm not sure he actually read the post before commenting) has--shockingly, linked to a book-tour link for
American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America For some reason, the image of a couple of elementary kids arguing about which WWF star is the greatest comes to mind.

But here's a great quote from the Amazon description of the forementioned book:

The Christian Right, like these early fascist movements, does not openly call for dictatorship, nor does it use physical violence to suppress opposition. In short, the movement is not yet revolutionary. But the ideological architecture of a Christian fascism is being cemented in place. . . . The movement awaits a crisis. At that moment they will reveal themselves for what they truly are — the American heirs to fascism. Hedges issues a potent, impassioned warning. We face an imminent threat. His book reminds us of the dangers liberal, democratic societies face when they tolerate the intolerant.

I love the irony of that last sentence.

Talk about seeing a fascist behind every tree . . .

Bloggers: Sorry IF we offended anyone . . .

The hullabaloo over the fired/rehired Edwards! bloggers is intriguing to me for a couple reasons. Edwards Keeps Bloggers on Staff Amid Controversy - washingtonpost.com

First, I perceive that a lot of "bloggers" are misinformed or ignorant about the peculiarity of the blogging audience. It is a narrow slice of the narrow slice of people who get their news online. Given the narrow demographic of bloggers, it is easy to lose a sense of context for your views and the way you express them. That lost sense cuts against being "mainstream."

Along the same lines, I think that "bloggers" cannot expect to be treated with respect or uber-credulity as long as profane, "snarky," and other intentionally offensive rhetoric is their common currency. Indeed, I liked how the in-your-face bloggers at issue said they were sorry if they offended anyone . . . yeah, right.

The two women put out statements in which they offered apologies if they had offended anyone but defended their right to speak their minds."

Did anyone say they didn't have a right to speak their mind? (insert cricket chirping) I didn't think so.

Lastly, I think it is important to note that Edwards wants to at least appear as if he gave these employees a second chance rather than a pass. I don't think it is wise to write off the Catholic group in question as "conservative whackos" or whatever. As Democrats like to say about Dubya creating more Jihadists with his actions, I don't think Edwards wants his staff creating more Reagan Democrats. But, though I think bashing/dismissing Catholics is unwise, I say knock yourself out, Liberals.

Russert's rebellion

Dang, didn't right-wing Russert get the memo about what the Bush Administration expected him to tell investigators?!? (here)

Marriage Protection Amendment national scorecard

FYI: The 2006 national scorecard on homosexual marriage by the numbers: (here).

Sacrosanct environmentalism

I just read this great essay on how Evangelicals should approach the so-called "environmentalist" issue (as well as other political issues). (here)

Here's an excerpt:

"Global warming is a matter of science, not theology. How to address the issue involves prudence rather than faith. Responsible political engagement requires understanding the issue’s complexity, man’s inadequacy, and government’s incapacity. Evangelicals are right to worry about environmental issues, but not to make government action on global warming a new tenet of their faith."

UPDATE: Kat Coble has an interesting post on the subject of Environmentalism here. Incidentally, I don't agree that dissenters on the GWOT are the same as global warming dissenters (there is no objective truth involved with the GWOT in my opinion; thus, dissenting turns into demoralizing grumbling at some point.

Money quote:

So, like crazy Berkley love-in folk, we on the right are feeling the burden of dissent. We feel your mockery and your patronisation. We fully expect it, too. But we also see the power of dissent and the necessity of speaking truth to power. Although in this case "power" is not the Federal Government, but the claque of go-along-to-get-along climatologists who abjure the scientific method in favour of being well-liked by their peers.

What is fascism?

Here's a great post from the bloggerblaster on "fascism." (read it here).

Huckabee's reasonable-sounding-ness

A meaty post arguing that Mike Huckabee should not be running for president. (here).

Though the post is persuasive, I couldn't help but think that Huckabee's "moderate" rhetoric--if it isn't so substantively squishy/"blasphemous" that it forecloses support from Conservatives, is well-suited for attracting non-partisan voters. The first comment (from Jim) expresses a sentiment I've heard from local bloggers--that is, Huckabee is "reasonable"-sounding; ergo, he doesn't sound like a "Conservative." It may be the sister souljah distancing required in our never-ending, toxic, full-court partisan press.

Taxing for income redistribution

Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee have both launched (sort of--"exploratory committees") campaigns for President and announced support for an overhaul of our Federal Income Tax system, namely the "Flat Tax."

This article is interesting because it reflects a Liberal's view of the "flat tax." (here) Here's an excerpt from the article, but suffice to say, the (Liberal) author is most concerned about giving gov't the power to redistribute income.

"Whatever the actual advantages of a flat income tax might be, the conservatives surely must appreciate the fact that flat taxes make government redistribution of income much, much harder. This could well be the real reason why this misguided proposal has cropped up again."

To which I'd reply, where do I sign up?

BigPharma and the Left, sittin' in a tree . . .

At last, BigPharma is in the Left's good graces . . . of course, coercive BigGov't is already in the Left's good graces, so this story is only half "newsworthy."

Merck, which is the manufacturer of the new HPV vaccine, is lobbying state gov'ts to mandate universal use of their vaccine. (here)

As an abstinence advocate and Evangelical, I will admit I had mixed emotions regarding initial reports about the vaccine. For one, I believe that this vaccine undermines (further) God's design for sexual activity--an activity with physical but also moral and emotional implications. And pardon me for not trusting scientists (not to mention agenda-driven scientists who often push the proverbial envelope) with the moral questions about forcing people to take this vaccine.

On the positive side, I'm glad that one of the most life-threatening risks from sex (outside of marriage) has been largely neutralized. I say "largely" because 30% of HPVs will not be prevented. And that 30% of cases, along with the aforementioned moral and emotional implications of sex outside of marriage, represent my hesitation about this news . . . the vaccine doesn't remove all dangers of sex, though it will probably be greeted by teens (and parents alike) as somewhat of a silver bullet. Kind of like setting your teen (who for the purposes of this illustration loves lettuce) loose on a salad bar even though 30% of the lettuce is infected with E. Coli.

We'll see.

Disciplining dilemma

This is another opportunity for some of you to add to your knowledge base about we "authoritarian cultists." (see here) I was thinking all day about spanking and how controversial it has become.

Our youngest has acquired a disgusting habit of spitting/wiping spit on the couch while watching TV and sucking her thumb. Maybe her lack of expertise can be explained by the fact that she hasn't always sucked her thumb . . . but I don't care about the cause, I want it to stop. The couple of other times I've busted her in the act, I've scolded her and tried to reason with her about how unacceptable this spitting habit is.

Well, this a.m., before heading out to work I looked in on the kids watching a kids show. As I glanced at them, I spotted her wiping her mouth on the couch and--upon inspection, I saw that there was a little puddle next to her. Frustrated, I announced (mid Arthur!) that I was turning the TV off and I chided the little rascal for her conduct (her older sibling was thrilled with these consequences). That pronouncement notwithstanding, I had threatened before that a spanking was going to be the consequence if I caught her spitting on the couch again.

As I went back to preparing to leave for work, I started having second thoughts.

Fast forward to later today. I was leaving the mall and spotted a young couple standing beside a car in the parking lot watching 1 to 2 year old baby going ballistic inside a car. The woman was dangling a pair of pink sneakers in the window and saying "Are you going to put on your shoes?" in a real understanding voice.

The couple was obviously uncomfortable, toggling between grimacing and faux-grinning at each other. I wasn't within earshot long enough (I was POWER shopping) to hear what happened, but I could only think how silly the whole exercise was. It reminded me of something my father-in-law says, but only half believes, in reference to parenting: that you've got to be "smarter" than something to train it. I disagree as it relates to parenting.

Though I think parenting (like leading or influencing) is certainly a "life skill," I bristle at the notion that successfully raising a child requires brilliance or superior intellect or extraordinary creativity. Indeed, I believe that, like most things in life, there is no "trick" involved. Rather, I'm of the belief that the consistent, disciplined application of proven strategies/principles will bear fruit in the life and heart of a child. I do not that it is a sound and wise parenting strategy to focus on a parent's ability to "distract" a child or persistently hunt for creative ways to avoid the inevitable confrontation with a child's innate desire not to conform his/her behavior to a norm or not to be responsible for how s/he treats others or not to obey his/her parents (yes, "submit to authority").

Well, back to the dilemma at hand. Depriving of a privilege or chastening/spanking for a 3 year old. We rarely use force with our children and I've observed that a little force goes a long way. I perceive that our children are well behaved; I also perceive that they are pretty capable of rolling with the punches (unfortunate metaphor, but . . .) so they rebound very quickly after being corrected and/or reminded of a particular standard they are ignoring or forgetting. Likewise, the more resilient and enterprising and self-motivated and confident a child is, the harder it can be to get his/her attention by depriving him/her of privileges.

For willful, blatant, persistent disobedience, spanking is awfully efficient. It is typically a relatively brief interruption to the parent's relationship with the child and it only briefly takes a child out of his/her routine. It is unsurpassed in getting a child's attention and it doesn't require tons of "administering"--like an until-further-notice ban on TV watching imposed on one of several children in a family. Moreover, given that a child doesn't have much long-term decision-making capacity at age three, I'm not sure that an open-ended statement that she is not able to watch TV makes quite the impression as a little whack on the fanny.

Along the same lines, "no TV" isn't the end of the world when she can go play with Barbies or do puzzles or play Leapster or color or shadow her mother asking odd questions; as a result, the "no TV" consequence has less "sting."

In the end, I've concluded (again) that the challenges in parenting are to be patient, discern between foolish acts and childish acts, be consistent, and fight being too lazy to parent in a given situation.

UPDATE: I just became aware of this story with Nashville connections (posted about by Truman Bean here) about the trial of two parents who killed their son ostensibly in the act of disciplining him. My post was not in response or in defense or in light of that case.

"Broader" or repackaged agenda?

There's an interesting op/ed over at The American Spectator entitled "Tithe and Spend" Republicans. (Here) One excerpt from the article shows the purportedly broader agenda of Religious Conservatives Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback.

The longtime Southern Baptist preacher [Huckabee] sounds the usual conservative themes on abortion and marriage, but like a growing number of high-profile evangelicals, Huckabee tries to tie his socially conservative values to a broader agenda. "I earn the right to push for a strong pro-life agenda only by making sure I'm concerned about poverty, hunger and homelessness," he told a columnist for the Des Moines Register. "If I don't care about those issues, then my faith is incomplete."

So while Huckabee favors President Bush's capital gains tax cuts, he also wonders if his faith "confuses Republicans who are only concerned about how we preserve wealth." He is for a flat tax while also advocating increased funding for arts education, No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and an enlarged government role in preventive health care.

While I agree that "my faith" (as applied to gov't policy) is broader than opposing abortion or homosexual "marriage," I hesitate to agree that it is little more than increased spending on existing, fundamentally flawed gov't programs. I personally believe that gov't intervention (you might want to take a seat, Liberal readers) often exacerbates problems or certainly masks the real problem and ultimately ends up costing more (or causing more/greater problems) in the long run than the original problem did.

So, yes, I'm very concerned about children and education and the environment; I'm just less convinced than Statists that a new agency or more gov't spending is the way to accomplish good for said subjects. In sum, I hardly share Statists' faith in government.

As was not done (or not the case) with "Compassionate Conservatism," Huckabee and Brownback must tread lightly to establish that such rhetoric is actually just a different way of presenting the Religious Conservative agenda, as opposed to a "broader" agenda.

Critical Senate resolution: symbolic but significant - Los Angeles Times

Noam N. Levey of the LA Times has an op/ed about the pending non-binding Senate Resolution criticizing the President's new direction in Iraq. Levey's first sentence is,

WASHINGTON -- Not a single American soldier will do anything differently this week if the Senate approves a resolution criticizing President Bush's plans to increase troop levels in Iraq."

Wrong.

Resolve, determination, focus, will, etc. are subjective states of mind. It is foolish to assert that servicemen and women won't be affected by what one of the two major political parties is saying about the worthiness of their mission . . . it is foolish to assert that their will or morale won't be affected by one of our two parties saying that they have given up on victory on the mission.

Great ad campaign

Seeing as it is the biggest day of the year for commercial lovers, I thought it seemed fitting to post on one of the best ad campaigns in a while (in my humble opinion): the "Hi, I'm a Mac" ads. Here's a link to the site where you can watch the entire series. If you close your eyes, you can picture Sean Braisted saying, "Hi, I'm a Democrat" and me saying, ". . . and I'm a Republican."

Likewise, I think the ads are great, but I still haven't bought a Mac.

Breaking: Dems oppose blocking judicial nominations

Apparently Liberals/Democrats have decided that every judicial nominee IS entitled to an up or down vote in the Senate. I just saw a post (here) bashing Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) for holding up a vote on the judicial nomination of Janet Neff to become a federal trial judge in the Western District of Michigan. I've surmised that Brownback's main concern is that Neff will have a difficult time acting like a judge (and not like a legislator) if/when the homosexual "marriage" issue comes before her in light of reports that she traveled to Massachusetts to participate (she gave a homily, though that's rarely reported) in a same-sex "wedding" being conducted for a neighbor.

Given Liberal jurists' philosophy that judges need to interpret the Constitution in a way that reflects contemporary values, what would keep her from flat out asserting that our Constitution entitles people to have "marriage" mean whatever they want it to mean.

The problem of Conservatism

I've commented on this before . . . the Liberal tendency to view any disagreement with them as a character flaw or a moral deficiency or a criminal propensity or a psychological disorder (poor lil' Conservatives, they can't help themselves).

As best as I can recollect, I've only heard of Glenn Greenwald within the last week, but William, a faithful reader/commenter/combatant linked to a review at Greenwald's blog (here)
of a current book by John Dean, so I got me an earful. NOW, Liberal Democrats have a book to cite (based on sociological studies and Dean's personal experience from the inside!!!) that explains exactly why Conservatives are not just wrong, we're psychotic and MUST be stopped.

According to Greenwald, Dean posits that modern-day Conservatism amounts to either a character flaw/weakness or a psychological disorder. Greenwald writes,

And there is seemingly no limit -- literally -- on the willingness, even eagerness, of Bush supporters to defend and justify even the most morally repugnant abuses -- from constantly expanding spying on American citizens, to a President who claims and aggressively exercises the "right" to break the law, to torturing suspects, imprisoning journalists, and turning the United States into the most feared and hated country on the planet.

As I told William in a discussion yesterday regarding the purportedly near-cult status of GWB,

I am definitely a critic of him, but I also am inclined to defend him against--among other things, outrageous, illegitimate accusations such as he is "a divider not a uniter," or he is obscenely incompetent, or corrupt, or malevolent, etc.

You guys (sorry, I'm definitely lumping here) are so busy raising outrageous crap that there is little opportunity to agree on anything. Bush is much more Liberal than I am on NCLB, gov't spending, the role of gov't, compromising principle, pragmatism over principle, the First Amendment, immigration policy, etc., etc., etc. But, regrettably, I don't believe y'all want progress as much as you want power (back), so working together with Bush isn't an option.

Frankly, I do occasionally get the feeling that I'm like an exhibit at a zoo.

The last sentence was a perception I had from reading William's comments on this blog, but I can appreciate what William was thinking even more after reading more about John Dean's book. Dean and William and many other thinking folks have figured out the troubling phenomenon of . . . Conservatism.

But Dean's broad brush smear job of Conservatives is so off the mark, it is laughable. What Dean & Co. need to be worrying about (and appear to have devised a gimmick to address--e.g., Webb, Ford, Jr. and Shuler) is that the Republicans have successfully forged a consensus majority--most of whom do not fit into the pigeon-hole carved out by Dean. Ironically, as a member of the Democrat Party--a true coalition party with no other binding principles than (a) a strong dislike/fear/envy of Republicans and (b) a desire to obtain power as a bloc that they could not achieve alone.

We "authoritarian cultists" (as amateur psychiatrist John Dean has diagnosed us) sure don't have any trouble advocating for smaller government, less Federal control, local control of schools, a minimal welfare state, broader civil liberties, autonomy from international bodies like the UN, not being told for whom we should vote, separation of powers, owning small businesses, having our own guns, and on and on and on and on.

Yes, Dean says that this suspect group called "Conservatives" has only been held together, "through the power of negative thinking, and specifically, the ability to find common enemies. . . ."

As I told William, I have long acknowledged that Bush is flawed, but can people like William bring themselves to acknowledge that Bush is not the fount of evil/ignorance/greed/incompetence/malevolence in the world? That is negative thinking. That is the requisite "common enemy" to hold a "movement" together when there is little else to rally 'round.

Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy unplugged

You may have heard that an Indianapolis church was smacked down by the NFL's legal beagles about plans to broadcast the Super Bowl on a large screen at their church (here). In addition,

The league even took exception to the church's plan to influence nonmembers with a video highlighting the Christian testimonies of Colts coach Tony Dungy and Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith.

Well, here's a site where you can see the same material at your leisure. These men are performing at the highest level without compromising--from all appearances, their commitment to things that transcend worldly success. See www.beyondtheultimate.org.

Not so "fair," not so "open"

Interesting write-up about Nancy Pelosi's House and her campaign promises that she (and Dems) would run a more open and fair House of Representatives. Here's a free sample:

As with the initial "100 hours" legislative agenda, the Democratic leadership again did not give Republicans -- nor even their own Democratic members -- a chance to debate or offer amendments to the omnibus spending bill. Democrats say that's because they had to pass all the remaining spending bills left over from the Republican Congress as quickly as possible. Fine, but we're talking about one of the House's primary responsibilities essentially being driven through without any participation from the members. This bill was written by a small band made up of the House and Senate Democratic leadership team and appropriators -- not exactly what we envisioned when the speaker talked about a more "open and accountable" Congress.

Gore's excess baggage

Adam Kleinheider (here) has posted about Al Gore's good publicity over the years (and any publicity is good publicity, ACK asserts.

ACK, (here) along with Bob Mueller (here) are asserting that Al Gore is on a roll and may not stop until he's the Dem nominee in 2008; I tend to agree with Sean Braisted (here) who says that a Gore nomination is not likely.

My reasoning is slightly different than Sean's, though. Because, in my estimation, Gore's "prestigious awards" (actually just nominations) are rooted in his political notoriety, they are thereby tainted. He's not some disinterested, talented success story who is only now turning his attention to public service (aka the down and dirty world of politics). And I think it matters (as Sean observes) that Americans aren't multi-cultural, post-Christian, socialist-leaning folks, so Gore's political reputation (starting with the Clinton administration and continuing through his sore loss in 2000) and crusading positions on various issues--including the GWOT and "the Environment," don't endear him to a majority of voters.

The Libby circus

Yikes, the Libby case is a circus, (here) and sadly, it was hardly Nuremberg once Fitzgerald knew that Richard Armitage had told reporters (aka, "leaked") the fact that Mr. Valerie Plame's wife--a CIA employee, had gotten him the Nihjair gig. (Read the article, and be sure not to miss the smoking gun!/"cryptic message" Libby sent to reporter Judith Miller.)

Accordingly, there was no intent to "out" anyone and after all this time/expense all Fitzgerald has to show for it is someone who misremembered or even "lied" about an immaterial issue (note before flaming: "immaterial" has a legal meaning).

Who's in charge of "tiers"?

This write up about the 2008 GOP field is getting some broad circulation--in part because it refers to the GOP pack as Lemons (as far as the GOP "right" is concerned). But it is an interesting piece because it is so "media-" and "registered voter-" centric. And I wonder why Rush Limbaugh (quoted at the beginning of the article) is so readily following suit. (here) Here's an excerpt:

"'Where do social conservatives go?' asked Dan Schnur, a California-based Republican consultant who worked for McCain in 2000 but is staying out of the 2008 contest. 'They've been the determining force in the nomination process for a generation and they've got no candidate in the top tier.'

Plenty of people are trying to prove Schnur wrong. McCain's advisers are betting that the disdain toward the Arizonan among many of the most vocal activists will not prove representative of primary voters. Running in a party that counts many Baptists, Romney may find a sympathetic audience for his story of conversion on social issues -- if he can convince people that he saw the light on the road to Damascus, not the White House."

My question is where's the home office or star chamber determining which "tier" a candidate belongs in? Uh, when did so-called Mainstream Media folks become reliable guides about who is or is not "credible," "electable" or even "likeable"? And since when is a poll of "registered voters" a reliable indicator for what primary voters are thinking?

"Pro-family" does not equal "anti-gay"

A San Francisco area journal reports about the righteous (uh, in the untraditional sense) candidacy of Rudy Giuliani and makes this reference to Sam Brownback and Mitt Romney(here):

"Interestingly, the two Republican candidates who are most notoriously anti-gay – Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts – are not polling well at all. Romney has done no better than 9 percent and Brownback also is polling in single digits.

Brownback, apparently sensing that hostility toward gays might position him too far to the right to be considered electable, moderated his position last month, telling a group of Republicans in Iowa that he thinks there is room in the party for people with other views about equal rights for gays."

We can expect more of this type of mischaracterization as 2008 approaches. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) is "anti-gay" because he doesn't think that marriage should be re-defined or un-defined to include same-sex couples, and anything less than proverbially trampling on a rainbow-colored windsock is an attempt at "moderat[ing]" one's "anti-gay" positions.

Ahem, well before the DNC found Jesus in the last election, the GOP practiced Big Tent Party politics.