Huckabee says he will not challenge Pryor

Arkansas News Bureau - Huckabee says he will not challenge Pryor: "WASHINGTON - Despite modest fundraising that continues to trail well behind Republican frontrunners, Mike Huckabee said Friday he remains focused on his 2008 presidential bid and will not challenge Sen. Mark Pryor next year.

'The rumors have been out there and I need to put them to bed. I don't see it happening,' Huckabee said of the possibility he would drop out of his run for president to take on Pryor, a first-term Democrat.

'There are no ifs on this one. I have a race I'm in, and I'm committed to it.'"

Whaddya mean, "Hollywood Values"?!

There are some interesting points in this LATimes article (Clooney steps cautiously into Obama's camp)--and a reference to the Ford/Corker Race!!, but I'm amused at the reporter's premise: the phrase "Hollywood Values" is ludicrous, mean-spirited, just-plain-false

"George Clooney can't decide what role he'd like to play.

This has nothing to do with his flourishing movie career and everything to do with the 2008 presidential campaign, where the involvement of even a widely admired star can be the subject of a serious dilemma.

On the one hand, the actor said in an interview, he would love to throw himself into campaigning for his friend, Sen. Barack Obama, a politician he compares to President Kennedy.

But Clooney is too shrewd a political observer to discount the negative effect celebrity can have on a campaign, especially in a red state. (Look what happened last year when industry favorite Rep. Harold Ford Jr. ran for the Senate in 2006. The Tennessee Democrat's foes called him 'Fancy Ford' and portrayed him as a habitué of Hollywood's decadent soirees. It might have been what cost him the election in a close race.)

At the moment Clooney is playing it close to the vest, waiting to see if he can play a part without become a distracting sideshow. His quandary is a measure of Hollywood's growing political sophistication; celebs are beginning to understand that their support can be a double-edged sword."

Brownback's pork-busting bona fides

While this isn't quite "pork," (though some third party supporters might disagree) Sam Brownback attempted to bust some pork in the recent vote on the Dems' Pork and Pacifist Act: (article here)

The majority of the Senate's presidential candidates voted yesterday to keep $100 million in an "emergency" funding bill to provide security at the 2008 Democratic and Republican national conventions.

Two declared candidates -- Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois Democrat, and Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican -- voted to strip the funding because they thought it did not belong in an emergency spending measure to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Because I know some of you will insist that Obama's vote be acknowledged . . . I acknowledge that he appears to have supported the GOP measure.

Children taken hostage in Tennessee Budget

Although this is a common Liberal tactic, it is always news when Democrats hold children (or spending on "children") hostage and demand some manner of tax increase. Drew Johnson and the folks at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research make the argument here. Here's a teaser from the op/ed:

"When it comes to education, it sure seems that Governor Phil Bredesen has his priorities in order. In January, he kicked off the legislative session with a State of the State Address featuring only one topic: education. He followed that up by recommending an “education first” budget stuffed with $407 million in new state education spending, including $120 million for at-risk students.

Despite all the education-first grandstanding, a closer look at the budget and Bredesen’s solution for funding his education policy goals reveals there is nothing less important to the Governor than educating children."

Thompson and Religious Conservatives

Here's an interesting NY Sun article about a possible Fred Thompson candidacy. Key quote:

But there's one candidate whose campaign he could end almost instantaneously, should he choose to run: that of Mr. Romney. Mr. Thompson is pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay marriage, and anti-tax — like Mr. Romney. But he has one advantage over the former governor: He didn't just come to these positions over the last year or so, in a "Road to Des Moines" conversion.

That quote not only points to one Romney weakness, it also references Des Moines, where I sit typing this post. this sitting in a Des Moines.

But note a reference to Gary Bauer, who famously (at least to me) endorsed John McCain after dropping his longshot bid at the 2000 GOP nomination . . . Bauer seems to ignore Brownback and Huckabee in commenting on how Religious Conservatives are viewing the 2008 race.

Hat tip, GetReligion

UPDATE: For the record, I was out of the loop for the Dobson/Thompson controversy and still haven't had a chance to read about it. I agree with Kleinheider's assertion that Evangelicals need to be shrewd in picking candidates . . . that being said, every perceived political interest group is prone to fawn over a candidate willing to identify with said group.

Reagan ankle-biter in hot water

Well, I never liked this loser anyway . . .

David Stockman in trouble. (here)

Life is too short

Cathy Seipp passed away from lung cancer this week. Here's a touching tribute from National Review contributor Rob Long. It's powerful writing, and the last three lines will stick with me for a while; I hope.

Justice Breyer goes 0-3 on NPR news quiz

This story's headline Justice Breyer goes 0-3 on NPR news quiz didn't bother me, because it actually cut against my view of Breyer and other "Liberal"* Justices who I perceive are reading op/eds and Michael Lerner books to keep up with how they should be "interpreting" the Constitution on a week-to-week basis.

As an aside, I stumbled across this show last week while on a business roadtrip and it is very enjoyable.

But the most interesting quotation was from Paula Poundstone, who--I'll concede, is not a legal scholar, even though she certainly represents a Center-Left view of the Courts:

"But Breyer struck out when it came to the 'Not My Job' questions, failing to answer any correctly about strange moments in the lives of rock stars David Bowie, Ozzy Osbourne and Iggy Pop.

In the end, the NPR regulars confessed they were relieved that Breyer didn't know Bowie once tried to exorcise Satan from his swimming pool, Iggy Pop spent a year eating nothing but German sausages or Osbourne once asked for directions to the bar immediately after checking in to rehab.

'I feel more and more confident about your ability to protect our Constitution knowing that you didn't know the answers to any of those three questions,' Poundstone said."

(emphasis added). Poundstone apparently doesn't realize that, while Breyer's jurisprudence arguably "protect[s]" Civil Liberties, it has only theoretical interest in protecting the actual Constitution. Of course, she could have just been making a joke and referring to the general role of a Supreme Court justice . . . hey, maybe she's a Conservative?!



*This refers to judicial as opposed to political "Liberalism," though the two often overlap.

German Judge Tells Battered Muslim Wife: Koran Says 'Men Are in Charge of Women'

My lovely wife (maybe she's trying to tell me something?) alerted me to this AP article (here) about a German judge's rejection of a Muslim woman's request for an expedited divorce is raising interesting questions about multiculturalism and Muslim fundamentalism. Some interesting snippets from the article:

While the Koranic verse cited does say that husbands are allowed to beat their wives if they are disobedient, Germany's Institute for Islamic Questions noted that such an interpretation was no longer standard.

"Of course not all Muslims use violence against their wives," the group said in a statement.

. . . .

The latest uproar comes amid an ongoing debate in Germany about integrating its more than 3 million Muslims, most of them from Turkey.

. . . .

Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries condemned the judge's decision. . . .

Lawmakers from Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats said traditional Islamic law, or Sharia, had no place in Germany.

"The legal and moral concepts of Sharia have nothing to do with German jurisprudence," Wolfgang Bosbach, a lawmaker with the Christian Democrats, told N24 television.

"One thing must be clear: In Germany, only German law applies. Period."

Ronald Pofalla, the party's general secretary, told Bild: "When the Koran is put above the German constitution, I can only say: Good night, Germany."

Indeed.

California Flexes Its Muscle

This article (RealClearPolitics - California Flexes Its Muscle) about Cahleeforneeya's decision to move it's primary to February makes the important point that the traditional deference paid to NH and IA (particularly by aspiring presidential candidates who needed to have favor with voters and power brokers in those respective states) is probably a thing of the past, now that the issue is literally open to debate and they (the candidates) didn't raise the issue:

"Of course, notwithstanding the threats of the party national committees prohibiting them from doing so, this will no doubt provoke Iowa and New Hampshire to reschedule their caucus and primary to an even earlier date, possibly even to December, 2007. They understandably want to preserve their distinction of being 'first in the nation,' and remaining as kingmakers in the presidential nominating process.

But the cat is now out of the political bag. While some momentum can still be gained from wins in these traditional early states, every major campaign for president will have to revise drastically, if they have not already, their strategy to win their party's nomination."

Miss Tennessee Crowned Miss USA 2007

A military brat makes good. Miss Tennessee Crowned Miss USA 2007 Congrats to Belmont grad Rachel Smith.

**Check out Donald Trump's cheesy smile (and why exactly is he pictured?)

the Thinking (vs. Money) Primary

Here's an insightful op/ed from former OH Secretary of State (and GOP gubernatorial candidate) Ken Blackwell Winning the Thinking Primary:

"One hundred days ago there was widespread talk about who would win the 'money primary' as candidates made their entry into the fray and began the process of raising millions for their campaigns.

. . . .

Now, as the first quarter of 2007 ends, the truth has begun to settle in that there will be no early winner of the GOP nomination (the Democrats have fewer likely candidates but are no closer to a clear victor themselves). The money and consultants' resume primaries have not resolved, and will not resolve, whom the Republican Party will select as its standard-bearer for at least the next four years.

There appears to be every possibility that ideas will ultimately decide the nomination, perhaps for both parties. The thinking primary has begun. That's a welcome sign, because this is the primary that matters, and if there is any advantage to having our presidential competitions start almost two years away from Election Day it's the opportunity to examine and think about our options."

Another "Evangelical" perspective on Climate Change

Just learned about a group named The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, (here) offering a rational Evangelical perspective on the Anthropogenic Climate Change debate.

The simple fact, as ISA notes in its statement, "Dominion, Stewardship, Conservation," is that among the scientific community, the opinion is varied as to how much the global climate is changing and what effect mankind has had on that change. As ISA points out, the jury is out as to how much is truly understood about global climate change.

. . . .

[The scholars at ISA] say, "Let's assume that the climate is changing and that we might be a cause of it. What does a changing climate mean?"

. . . .

While global climate change might be real, its consequences are, with the help of the scientific community, manageable. We should respond to any challenges global warming presents by promoting economic development based on market principles. It's not just good business, it's good science.

Free markets give us the resources to provide real solutions to problems that arise. Knee-jerk regulation forces a non-solution to a possible problem and makes the world poorer in the process. And if the true goal here is to help the poor, we should be sure that the policy attacks real problems without hurting the people it's supposed to help.

The "Gay Gene" and tolerance

Albert Mohler has an interesting article (Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?) about the implications of finding a biological basis for homosexual attraction: if this trait is proven to be a genetic orientation and is found to be correctable, how will it affect social perceptions about "homosexuals"? It's an interesting question of the tension between tolerance and approbation, and the fact that tolerance is rarely sufficient for the multiculturalist or moral relativist.

This reminded me of a similar discussion with a friend today in relation to people in the deaf community who refuse to provide their deaf children the benefits (in my estimation) of things like cochlear implants. I can only conclude that this attitude of deaf adults is related to concerns about the possible diminution of deaf persons. Can we not all agree that a deaf person--even though handicapped or physically deficient (in regard to the five senses), is worthy of respect and can have dignity?

Blanco going down swinging . . . sort of

Gov. Blanco of Louisiana is showing herself to be a sore loser (quitter?). (Blanco says she wishes she had switched to GOP):

"Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco, who dropped out of the governor's race Tuesday amid widespread dissatisfaction with her job performance, told a group of Louisiana newspapers today her biggest failure was not switching to the Republican Party after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the state.

'When I look back at the storms, if I had had the knowledge that I would be treated as a pariah by the national Republicans in office, I would have joined the Republican Party to save my state,' Blanco said in an interview with a reporter for Gannett newspapers around the state, including The Times in Shreveport.

'Then I would have been hugged and kissed and lifted, and I would have been declared the best governor in this whole country,' Blanco said. 'I wish I had realized that earlier. I think that was the fatal error.'"

"Pay no attention to the incompetent, pompous woman behind the curtain!!!"

Actually, resigning probably would have been the best thing for her state. But Blanco demonstrated before, during and after the Hurricanes in the Gulf that she was either too arrogant to admit javascript:void(0)
Publishshe needed help or too petty and partisan to accept help from a Republican. There is NO substance to this complaint.

Gingrich's legacy

For whatever reason, there exists a great deal of mis-information (online) about Newt Gingrich, the Republican Revolution and the Contract with America. Freddie (at Liberadio) posted a not-unflattering report of the Gingrich appearance at Vanderbilt on Monday night (here), and, as I commented over there, Newt is many things--some good and some bad, but he has always been an "idea man" and "visionary."

Though I'm speaking up for Newt in this post and came to the defense of him (his legacy, actually) in an earlier post, I think his past crises in character do undermine his authority/credibility with me and many others. Ironically, though, Newt's personal failings may have helped him from 1994 to now, to be more focused on issues and ideas.

CPAC '07 speeches

From Ann Coulter's comment to John McCain's snubbing to Reagan References ad infinitum, the 2007 CPAC conference was certainly in the news.

Here (cpac 2007 speeches)is a link to transcripts for all the conferences Presidential candidates who spoke.

Here are videos at C-Span.org, too.

Blanco Will Not Seek Re-Election

Blanco Will Not Seek Re-Election.

Dang; this woman deserved a serious electoral whupping.

UPDATE: Interesting analysis (here) of the LA gubernatorial landscape in light of Blanco's decision.

So, War Supporter, weren't you wrong about Iraq? - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

Christopher Hitchens has a great piece (So, Mr. Hitchens, weren't you wrong about Iraq?) addressing difficult--and legitimate, questions for supporters of the Bush strategy in Iraq:

"Four years after the first coalition soldiers crossed the Iraqi border, one can attract pitying looks (at best) if one does not take the view that the whole engagement could have been and should have been avoided. Those who were opposed to the operation from the beginning now claim vindication, and many of those who supported it say that if they had known then what they know now, they would have spoken or voted differently.

What exactly does it mean to take the latter position? At what point, in other words, ought the putative supporter to have stepped off the train?"

I encourage you to read his answers.

Apolitical nature of U.S. Attorneys' offices

18-year Federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy sheds some light about the apolitical nature of Federal prosecutions. (here)

At the pleasure of the President

This WaPo story Fitzgerald Ranked During Leak Case - washingtonpost.com is noteworthy in that it reveals Bush's Administration was OVERly considerate of current officeholders in determining how/when/whether to fill all the US Atty political appointee positions.

"On Dec. 5, two days before seven U.S. attorneys were fired, McNulty admitted in an e-mail to Sampson that he was having second thoughts about firing Bogden, the U.S. attorney for Nevada, whose record provided no obvious performance issues or policy differences. McNulty also said he had not reviewed Bogden's performance before including him in the dismissal group.

'I'm a little skittish about Bogden,' McNulty wrote. 'He has been with DOJ since 1990 and, at age 50, has never had a job outside of government. My guess is he was hoping to ride this out well into '09 or beyond. I'll admit [I] have not looked at his district's performance.'

The e-mails detail some of the personal and financial hardships the fired prosecutors have been going through -- particularly Margaret Chiara of Grand Rapids, Mich., who begged for help finding another job."

You're not entitled to a job in the DOJ; a prosecutor's legal philosophy and prosecutorial discretion is not unrelated to his/her political views; where's the beef, Dems?

Update: Senate Dems are going to great lengths to ding Dubya; and I just heard Sen. Patrick Leahy refer to this as "the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys . . ."--how can he say that with a straight face?

Regressive'll do until we get redistributive

This story from the Nashville City Paper(Nashville Dems don’t back bill to roll back sales tax on food) reflects that too many Democrats (at least Senators Haynes and Henry) are fine with "regressive taxes," despite the fact that Tennessee is routinely running surpluses from tax revenues.

Lib bumper sticker hegemony

I was reminded today of how Liberals really dominate in the bumper sticker-sphere. I was in a downtown (Nashville) parking garage today and saw these choice stickers, (on the bumper of a Nissan Armada "Gravediggers for Bush" (w/ matching and obligatory x-ed out "W" sticker)

Though not quite as histrionic, another car in there had a big blue "Wal-Mart sucks" sticker (next to a "Harold Ford, Jr. for Senate" sticker).

Thereafter, on the interstate I spotted a late-model Subaru with these stickers:

White on black "If you can read this, you're not the President"

on the other side, a campaign-like sticker reading "Someone smart in 2008"

This reminded me of several things. First, histrionics breed clever bumper stickers; second, histrionics have become mainstream in the modern Democrat Party. I recall all the brickbats during the Clinton years, and I somewhat condoned it, even if I didn't participate. For example, I remember in 1993 seeing one bumper sticker that said "Repent ye 21%" or something like that (it was addressed to the people who voted for Perot, I think) and I'll admit that when Clinton lied to the Grand Jury (obstructed justice?) I wanted to produce a bumper sticker that said "Gore97." All that being said, I think it's not a positive thing to demean or deride as a first impulse in political dialogue.

Lastly, disagreeing with a Democrat doesn't make you an idiot; disagreeing with a Democrat doesn't constitute insanity; and disagreeing with a Democrat doesn't constitute a federal crime.

Kat Coble considers the issue here (Can You Disagree With A Liberal Without Being An Idiot Or A Bigot? « Just Another Pretty Farce). Kat notoriously is fair-minded in debate and I agree with much of her post, but she seems to miss that my question was rhetorical.

Chin up Environmentalists!

I almost, ALMOST, feel sorry for these folks . . . Group braves snow to raise awareness for environment

I know, I know; this story is not an argument against the Anthropogenic Climate Change movement, but it is funny.

Fred Thompson's record acc. to ontheissues.org

Here is some detail on Fred Thompson's record from ontheissues.org (here).

Check it out . . .

When And Why Joseph C Wilson IV Outed Valerie Plame | Sweetness & Light

This (When And Why Joseph C Wilson IV Outed Valerie Plame | Sweetness & Light) is a painstaking report about Joe Wilson and this whole sorry affair. Pardon Lewis Libby.

Joe victimizes Valerie

It appears (here) that Joe Wilson's attempted political smear blew up in his face.

Thompson and "Campaign Finance Reform"

Bill Hobbs links to a John Fund interview with Fred Thompson (ask me sometime about the time I met John Fund in Milwaukee . . .) (here) in which Thompson addresses one of his most offensive (to a Conservative) votes ever cast . . . in favor of "McCain/Feingold."

I like Thompson's apparent conclusions on the matter, but believe that a more Conservative ideology (on his part) would have saved Americans a lot of counter-Constitutional hassle.

Lefties and "Election Law"

Via realclearpolitics.com blog, this Liberal pearl of an op/ed from the NYTimes (Phony Fraud Charges - New York Times). The NYTimes looks at the Bush pink-slipping of a handful of U.S. Attorneys and tells us, NOTHING--and I mean nothing, is as it seems. This is the LAMEst argument yet that I've heard about this non-scandal.

"In partisan Republican circles, the pursuit of voter fraud is code for suppressing the votes of minorities and poor people."

To the Left, "Election Law" means constraining Republican campaign giving or "enforcing Civil Rights." Thus, "fraud"--in the context of elections, needs to be put in quotation marks and is dismissed as a Ku Klux Klan-ish fiction. Accordingly, the Times' editors posit:

"By resisting pressure to crack down on “fraud,” the fired United States attorneys actually appear to have been standing up for the integrity of the election system."

What_a_load_of_crock.

No person who honestly looks at the 2004 Washington gubernatorial election can say that there was no fraud in that election. Was there a Federal investigation? One result of winning elections is that you are able to implement your policy priorities and your values. Did the US Atty in Seattle serve the interests of the citizens whose votes were trampled or essentially discarded when fraud denied their candidate a victory? I guess Libs don't view that as a problem with "integrity of the election system." Then again, if people really knew what was good for them, they'd vote for Democrats and Liberals, right? No harm, no foul. The end justifies the means and all that relativistic junk. The eight-person purge meme is LAUGHable.

Valerie the Victim, Part II

The title of this AP article (here) perhaps says it best: "Plame Sheds Little Light in Leak Case"; but that's not the reason the Dems are having the hearing, don't you see?

There are several interesting points in the article. First sentence,

Valerie Plame put a glamorous face and a personal story to Democrats' criticism of the Bush administration Friday, telling a House committee that White House and State Department officials "carelessly and recklessly" blew her CIA cover in a politically motivated smear of her husband.

Yes, the wife of Joe Wilson should know a "politically motivated smear" when she sees one.

Next,

"Plame, the operative at the center of the leak scandal that resulted in last week's criminal conviction of a former top White House official, created more of a stir by her presence on Capitol Hill than by her testimony.

She revealed little new information about the case, which sparked a federal investigation and brought perjury and obstruction of justice convictions of Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. No one has been charged with leaking her identity.

BOOM. That last sentence is a bomb.

Next,

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the panel's chairman, called Plame a victim in a White House drive to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for publicly disputing President Bush's assertion that Saddam Hussein was on the brink of acquiring a nuclear bomb.

I don't recall that being the Administration's position.

Next,

Plame repeatedly described herself as a covert operative, a term that has multiple meanings. Plame said she worked undercover and traveled abroad on secret missions for the CIA.

But the word "covert" also has a legal definition requiring recent foreign service by the person and active efforts to keep his or her identity secret. Critics of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation said Plame did not meet that definition for several reasons and that was why nobody was charged with the leak.
. . . .

Plame said she wasn't a lawyer and didn't know her legal status, but said it shouldn't have mattered to the officials who learned her identity.

Yeah, right. Plame testified elsewhere, "I could no longer perform the work for which I had been highly trained."

Next,

"Plame said she did not select her husband for a CIA fact-finding trip to Niger.

. . . .

'I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority,' she said.

That conflicts with senior officials at the CIA and State Department, who testified during Libby's trial and told Congress that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip."

Well, somebody--either multiple non-Bush-hacks at the State Dept. and CIA testifying at trial under oath or the wife of partisan Joe Wilson, is not telling the truth.

New phrase for Waxman & Co.: principals in Scandalgate.

I regret that someone finds "tar baby" offensive

I'm certainly no McCain shill, but this story gives me pause. The AP
(McCain Regrets Use of Term 'Tar Baby') is reporting as follows:

"Republican presidential contender John McCain on Friday used the term 'tar baby,' considered by some a racial epithet, and later said he regretted it."

I'm bothered by the term "considered by some a racial epithet."

The other day my children were trying to decide between three things, and they were using the "Eeny Meeny Miny Mo" method. I was thinking how cute they are and then remembered that a couple years ago two black ladies filed a federal complaint against Southwest Airlines because a flight attendant had used a variation of the rhyme ending in "find a seat we gotta go." Until that newstory, I didn't know that the rhyme hadn't always included "grab a tiger by the toe." I had gone my entire life without a single racist intention, but someone, somewhere might take offense . . .

Couple questions: Does anyone believe that McCain is a racist? (I know, he's a Republican, but beyond that . . .)

Does anyone view "Songs of the South" as a racist work? (as opposed to simply reflecting social norms of the ante-bellum South?) Should my daughter not be reading the American Girl book "Addy" (about a slave girl) because it reflects the social norms (good and bad) of the ante-bellum South?

How many people use the term "tar baby" (actually, I'm not sure I've ever used it to mean "an inextricable problem") as an epithet? Sure, any word describing something that is dark or black could be used in a derogatory manner, assuming that being dark or black is a negative thing. To me it isn't.

It's interesting how this article about the term states,

The expression . . . is also used occasionally as a derogatory term for black people (in the U.S. it refers to African-Americans; in New Zealand it refers to Maoris), or among blacks as a term for a particularly dark-skinned person.

I'm wondering how vigilant "offended people" are when the person using the term "tar baby" is from the ostensibly aggrieved group?

Update: Based on a Sean Braisted comment, I found a story about Tony Snow's use of the term in a press conference (his first!!). Then I found this post on the matter complete with a voluminous comment section. I do not recall EVER hearing the term used in a racial/racist manner, but again, I don't think Uncle Remus should be banned. That comment section makes me wonder how "racist" the social environments were of people who have never heard the non-epithetish use of the term. Accordingly, am I going to let behind-closed-doors, bigoted whites willy nilly co-opt the language?

Valerie the Victim

I thought this (VOA News) was a telling headline for the "Valerie Plame testifies" story:

"Victim of CIA Leak Scandal Says White House 'Recklessly' Exposed Her Identity"

I think "subject" would be more appropriate than "victim" . . . "celebrity" or "beneficiary" would be good, but people might have wondered if Mr. Valerie Plame (aka Joseph Wilson) was the one testifying.

An Inconvenient Pravda

One thing that I was glad to see fleshed out in the The Great Global Warming Swindle is the connection between the modern Environmentalist movement and the worldwide socialist/communist movement.

This became clear to me last year (I think) when some fruitcake challenged me to read "the Communist Manifesto." When I compared it to the language of Environmentalists it was startling to see the overlap of the rhetoric and even the verbiage. Perhaps the radical Left is co-opting the Enviro movement, but even if there's nothing nefarious about it, the connections between the two movements are hard to deny.

What's ironic to me about the issue is the foolishness of Environmentalists who think they're somehow defeating Corporatism and Capitalist pigs by imposing a Green regime on Corporations. Here's one article about it that I found in a quick search.

Like with every other grande implementation of socialism, the result is that non-elites get the shaft. In reality, going green is simply a marketing scheme these days, and the increased costs of such programs are just passed along to the little guy. Hey thanks, Al Gore!

Kleinheider has been reading his own posts

Adam Kleinheider at Volunteer Voters Volunteer Voters: Wailing On Gandhi is exasperated either that Fred Thompson isn't cutting and running from critics of the Iraq phase of the GWOT, or that people aren't outraged that Thompson is cutting and running.

ACK is certainly conservative, but I think he inflates in his mind the number of Conservatives who share his view on whether this war violates "almost any American or Western [foreign policy or war] doctrine you can think of." ACK writes in reference to Fred Thompson:

"With dissatisfaction with our foreign policy growing, is this the man we wish to send to the White House? I don't understand. How is this exaggerated bellicose swagger any different than the administration that got us into this war."

ACK may not be a pacifist or oppose the Iraq policy based on pacifism, but ACK isn't typical of critics of the war.

And sure, the decision to attack Iraq was strongly influenced by neo-Con ideology, but failing to vilify Bush doesn't make one a neo-Con, and the decision to attack Iraq was not a cut and dried assault on Western or American values. Kleinheider has legitimate criticisms of Bush's strategy and he is a strong Conservative voice, but he plainly misreads the GOP electorate . . . certainly the GOP base.

A Thompson dry run as GOP standard bearer

Bill Hobbs has a post about Fred Thompson's commentary on the Gonzales non-scandal (Fred Fires Volley At "Washington Scandal Machine"). I think this commentary demonstrates how Thompson would perform as a GOP standard bearer--he's not running from the Dems on this issue. I would have preferred the term "Democrat scandal machine," but . . .

An Inconvenient Youtube

I wonder if this British documentary has a chance at an Oscar? The Great Global Warming Swindle

More on Gonzales . . .

This story (and headline) (here) remind me of the smoking gun found in Condi Rice's hand about "mistakes [being] made" in Iraq.

"Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said this afternoon that “ I accept that mistakes were made” in the decision to replace some United States attorneys, but he vowed to stay on the job and fix the system."

I hope you'll take the time to read more than the headline, though. These people are appointed and serve at_the_pleasure_of_the_Executive. Bush, if memory serves me, is the Executive. Rove works, I think, for Bush. If Bush wants his USAs to prosecute vote fraud aggressively (or even share Republican priorities in prosecution), that's his prerogative.

At least he didn't use the term "faggots"

I'm surprised at the firestorm over comments from a Marine General that he thought that homosexuality was immoral . . . a LOT of people agree with him. General Stands by Stance Against Gay Troops - New York Times:

"Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declined today to apologize for saying that he believes homosexuality is “immoral” and that he therefore supports the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military.

But he said he should have given greater focus to his support for the standing policy “and less on my personal moral views."

The military--unlike a 9-5 job or a job where you entrust your life to your coworkers, raises issues of "competence" that go beyond simple observations like, "he performs his duties according to policy." Believe it or not, I don't have to be hunky-dory with everything a person does to be able to work or socialize with him/her. I do, however, have concerns about integrity or judgment of people who ignore standard mores. That's legitimate, isn't it?

And that's why some are so determined to redefine standard mores.

What's the hurry?

Ironically, Congressman Jimmy Duncan would have second thoughts about his current '08 endorsement if Fred Thompson joined the race. KnoxNews | No Silence Here:

"U.S. Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., R-Knoxville, endorsed Mitt Romney for president less than two weeks ago, but he says he instead will back Tennessee's Fred Thompson if he joins the fray.

'If (former Sen.) Fred Thompson gets in there, then I definitely would support him,' Duncan, a Republican, said in an interview. 'He's been a long-time friend. I know him a whole lot better than I know (former Massachusetts) Gov. Romney.'"

Come on, folks; this seems to demonstrate the foolishness--absent being related by blood to a candidate, of "endorsing" a 2008 GOP nominee at this stage.

hat tip, Volunteervoters.com

Why do Conservatives hate the McCalomaniac?

ACK has an insightful post (Volunteer Voters: Can't Do It, Johnny: Why Thompson Won't Consult McCain)) about why Sen. John McCain is "hated" by Conservatives and how is relationship with Fred Thompson is tainted by the same factors:

"Because of crap like this. McCain has a rep as a megalomaniac and a backstabber. It hasn't seemed to hurt him before, but the chickens are coming home to roost."

I do disagree, however, with whether Thompson's decision to run will involve any concern for McCain or what McCain wants, though.

Impeach all Republicans!!

In today's People for the American Way (PFAW) missive (and oh how appropriate-sounding that term is in relation to PFAW), they're calling for the impeachment of AG Alberto Gonzales (you know, the Hispanic Republican attorney general, who is likely an enigma to folks like Rep. Ben West), they're saying the time is NOW!! to impeach Gonzales . . .

I know the Elitist Democrat impulse to eschew democracy (and elections) is real, but the fact that someone is revealed to be a Republican or a Conservative doesn't warrant impeachment.

Rothenberg -- GOP Presidential Race Looks Unpredictably Unpredictable

Political analyst Stuart Rothenberg is officially "flummoxed" by the current state of the race for the GOP nomination in 2008. RealClearPolitics - Articles - GOP Presidential Race Looks Unpredictably Unpredictable I think he's right in observing that this is an extraordinary campaign to date, and that qualifier ("to date") is probably the reason why it is extraordinary.

In every presidential nominating process prior to this one, nothing of substance had happened up to this point in the calendar. It's really too early and so comparing it to previous campaigns may be like comparing apples and oranges.

In any event, I thought this quote was kind of quaint:

"A Giuliani nomination would undermine all of those news stories that have portrayed the GOP as an intolerant party that is prisoner to its most conservative and most religious elements."

Indeed. Perhaps actions by the GOP base (in particular the "religious elements") in the past have been less about knee-jerk or emotional "intoleran[ce]" than about principle.

Thompson on the issues

Following statements that he is contemplating a run for President, Fred Thompson is creating quite a buzz. But here's an interesting post (from "born again Redneck" posted several days ago about Thompson's stances on a HOST of issues.

Give it a look.

Big problem in Big Easy

I spent much of the weekend in New Orleans attending a southern meeting of the Federalist Society. I was eager to visit this city as I had never done so before but also because of its additional notoriety since Katrina.

The youngish gregarious bellman at my hotel told me he had been rescued (he and his dog) from the roof of his house--he had never evacuated for a storm and seemed sort of proud that he didn't for Katrina.

It seemed every story on the evening news on Friday was related to bumbling efforts at recovery: five double-wide trailers designed for use as satellite hospital facilities had been sitting on a vacant lot for nine months because of ostensibly prohibitive zoning laws. The re-zoning happened on Friday night . . . the mayor would have to wait seven days to approve the change . . . and the zoning commissioner (?) said the trailers would be in place in 90-100 days. Is there no way to expedite such procedures?

In another report, something like 20 police officers were operating out of temporary precincts--20 persons sharing one computer and (not) using port-o-lets that hadn't been emptied in three months. The only thing keeping the precincts from being refurbished was New Orleans' inability to provide the 10% matching funds to access federal monies available for this purpose . . . Sen. Mary Landrieu is complaining that Republicans were unwilling to waive the 10% requirement. Why can't New Orleans be expected to pick up the cost of 10% of money spent on its recovery?

In addressing our group on Saturday, Sen. David Vitter explained that the "Road Home" program in Louisiana--which Bush said from the beginning would be implemented by the respective Katrina-affected states, had managed to distribute only 2% of Federal monies allotted. Gov. Blanco was somehow been hamstrung by circumstances and unable to effectively administer the program.

In light of the endemic (and inherently Liberal) characteristics that hindered an appropriate preparation and response to Katrina, and as a Republican and Conservative, I was bothered by anti-Bush, anti-Bush's-FEMA and pro-Nagin bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc. (even a clever cell-phone-looking gadget that plays memorable quotes from da mayor) I know that there is some element of playing to the crowd with all this stuff, but . . . It appears that the problematic entitlement ethic of this dysfunctional city has only been exacerbated by Katrina.

That being said, I felt compassion toward the city and sympathy for its plight. I feel drawn to the region as I do/did to fledgling 2nd-World countries after the fall of the Iron Curtain. But it seems that Democrats (who control the state and city) are expecting someone else to solve a problem only they (Dems) can solve.

Whew; I'm glad the fox is here to help us hens . . .

In my latest email from People for the American Way (PFAW) we're assured that Democrats (particularly Sen. Hillary Clinton) are on the job in the area of election reform. PFAW writes:

If we act now, this legislation could help prevent many of the problems that have marred our recent elections.

American citizens should not be hampered by unfair barriers to the ballot box or worried about vanishing votes. This legislation requires paper trails, inaugurates same-day registration, restores the right to vote to former felons, banishes impossibly long lines and unfair allotments of voting machines, and more. It’s time for all of us who care about democracy to act. (emphasis added)

Lumped in with two patently popular initiatives (e.g., lack of worry about "vanishing" votes, and "banishing(!)" long lines) are such non-starters as felons being able to vote, and register-as-many-times-as-you-want same-day registration. Not to mention, inclusion of examples of Democrat Party staples like ballot manipulation (See Washington State Governor's Race, 2004; Florida 2000) and unfair allotments of voting machines (in Tennessee, for example, EVERY county's election commission is controlled by a Democrat majority).

Oh, and the problems which have "marred" recent elections have only come to light as Republicans have begun to challenge Democrats in once-solid Democrat districts. Election shenanigans are now coming out of the shadows.

Berger him!!!

I've been (and still largely am) out of pocket since Monday, but I need to weigh in on the Libby conviction.

It was about misleading investigators, not about "leaking" anything.

It was an investigation, the length of which was bound to catch someone in at least a misstatement to investigators.

I hope he gets the Berger treatment (you know how ruthless those Bushies DOJ people can be).

Edwards can dish it out, too

He's been in the news of late as the victim of some mean comments, but here's a more substantive story about what he has been up to:Edwards: Jesus would be 'appalled' by country's selfishness. That sounds good, but it doesn't exactly square with the data, as the Family Research Council points out:

An examination of conscience is always a good idea, but Edward's broad assertion about American "selfishness" deserves scrutiny. In fact, as Arthur Brooks notes in his book Who Really Cares, one of the best things that could happen in the fight to reduce poverty would be for Americans to become more religiously conservative.

The reality is that of religious conservatives, secular conservatives, religious liberals, and secular liberals, "religious conservatives are the most likely to give away money each year (91%)." Brooks goes on to write, "Religious people are, inarguably, more charitable in every measurable way. Meanwhile people deeply embedded on the political left are usually not part of a 'culture' of giving."

Edwards' claim that the U.S. has turned its back on the poor and destitute is deeply misleading. "Approximately three out of four families make charitable donations each year... [or] up to about a quarter trillion dollars per year," Brooks says. Simply being more vocal about the poor doesn't mean one is more likely to donate his own money to do something about it.

Hillary's advantage

This report demonstrates Hillary's secret weapon in the contest to represent the Democrats in 2008 . . . Bill Clinton. A nation's eyes turn to civil rights cradle:

"SELMA -The site of one of the most violent confrontations of the civil right's movement is the scene of a political showdown today.

Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., will speak at predominantly black churches on a day commemorating the bloody attack on those taking part in the 1965 attempted march from Selma to Montgomery.

The senator from New York will be accompanied by her husband, former President Clinton, who came to Selma in 2000 for the 35th commemoration and will be inducted today into the hall of fame of Selma's National Voting Rights Museum." (emphasis added)

Regardless of what Bill Clinton did to deserve this honor, it reflects his allure to the Democrats' most reliable voting bloc.

Legislator's system job questioned

I'm at the Alabama Capitol for the week helping coordinate a youth civics/leadership class. In researching current goings on in Alabama gov't, I came across this amazing story about a legislator whom, it appears, believes that it is appropriate for an elected official to get paid to work as a lobbyist before her legislative body. Legislator's system job questioned:

"A north Alabama lawmaker who received nearly $50,000 in salary last year from the state's two-year college system claimed pay for days she was in legislative session and reported meetings with other legislators as her system work."

The cherry on top of this sundae is that this legislator has had the nerve to appeal the State contractor's decision not to renew her contract.

Proof! of the Gore blind spot or of something

According to Gallup, those riding Gore's wagon at the moment would appear to have a blind spot. GALLUP: Is Al Gore Boom for President Just Hype? According to this report:

"Former Vice President Al Gore is enjoying a boom in the wake of his Oscar win earlier this week for 'An Inconvenient Truth.' You'd think that the 'Draft Al for President' movement was pretty strong or wide. But is it?

A new Gallup poll released today finds that, actually, relatively few Democrats think he could win the White House next year.

The survey found that 74% thought Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a good or excellent chance to win, with 71% feeling the same way about Sen. Barack Obama. A still healthy 52% gave former Sen. John Edwards this kind of chance. But only 31% gave good or excellent odds on Gore.

Sixty-eight percent give Gore a 'slim' or 'no' chance to beat a Republican next year."

I guess you could argue that all of these people love Al and only begrudgingly believe that he can't be elected.

Ding-dong . . . it's a magazine salesman

As warmer weather approaches, you can bet you'll be seeing more door-to-door salesmen in your 'hood. This is an interesting NYT video report (here's the article) about the abuses of that business. Caution: watching the video will only make you feel MORE conflicted about such solicitations. Hopefully, the examples in this report are truly exceptional, but most of the stuff--the long hours, the low pay (relative to the expenses deducted), the feeling of having few options, seem as if they're true of all such businesses.

I'll just say this (as I have to almost every young solicitor I've ever talked with at length): if these kids have the ability and spine to do this type of sales, they can do very well at any of a number of other, BETTER types of sales jobs. It saddens me that most of these young people believe/perceive that they have no other options.

***One reference in the piece is to an organization for parents whose children get stuck in the business--parentwatch.org. (aside: it is ludicrous that calling these young people "independent contractors" helps protect exploitative managers and owners.)

This is "reporting"? Sounds like op/edding to me

This article (2008 Hopefuls Court Conservative Base) about CPAC is annoying because the writer casts the GOP's Conservative base as emotional on issues--e.g., who "hates" legislation?:

"McCain's absence was sure to further irritate conservatives who already are skeptical that they can trust him because of his reputation of bucking the party. Even though he has a conservative social and fiscal voting record, McCain has angered conservatives with his work on campaign finance reform, immigration and other legislation they hate.

Aside from McCain, conservatives also question Romney's sincerity in opposing abortion and gay marriage. He has a record of equivocation on some major issues and outright switching on others. And, Giuliani is on the wrong side of many of the same social issues that conservatives hold dear, including abortion, gun control and gay rights."

Lunch w/ Karl Dean

Nashville Mayoral candidate Karl Dean treated me to lunch today. I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet him seeing as his campaign has not been as high-profile as David Briley's. Blog friends John Hutcheson, Rob Robinson and Nathan Moore sat at my end of the table; Bruce Barry, Tom Lee and Freddie O'Connell and Rick (I think?) sat at the other end.

I will give more impressions later, but I will say that I am impressed with Dean's "temperament." He seems exceptionally-qualified (among the announced candidates) as an executive--having run the Public Defender's office and the Metro Legal Department, and I perceive that he approaches problems from that "big picture," delegate-the-details perspective. Indeed, his response to several questions was "I'm not sure" or "that is an issue outside the authority of the mayor"; and I think it's clear that he is running his campaign on broad themes coupled with his resume of competence.

What is pure religion?

I want to give a shout out to my friends Don and Mary Meyer who are expanding their family with the addition of four orphaned Moldovan children--Gheorghe, Mariana, Max, and Trofim. Don and the kids just returned to Nashville yesterday afternoon.

Their story was featured in a Tennessean article last weekend. (Plan to adopt one child adding four kids to family - Nashville, Tennessee - Saturday, 02/24/07 - Tennessean.com) and they are having a creative fundraiser to cover the $68,000.00 expense for the adoptions.

Their example is an inspiration and a challenge. I hope you'll check out the news story.

An Inconvenient Queue . . .

NewsChannel 5.com – Nashville, Tennessee - Al Gore Inadvertently Breaches Airport Security.

I guess I need to wait to hear the complete story . . . can you purchase security offsets?

Anyone but McCain, Santorum Says

Ouch. McCain's obviously not the only person giving rides on the straight-talk express. Anyone but McCain, Santorum Says - Politico.com: "Former Sen. Rick Santorum has drawn at least one conclusion about the Republican presidential primary field: Anybody but John McCain.

. . . .

“The only one I wouldn’t support is McCain,” Santorum said during an interview in his office at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, where he is a senior fellow.

“I don’t agree with him on hardly any issues,’’ Santorum said. “I don’t think he has the temperament and leadership ability to move the country in the right direction.”"

Hat tip: Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner.

Straight-talking tiger's stripes unchanged

For the record, I'm not a McCain fan. I wasn't impressed with his "Straight-talk Express," I resent his MSM eyelash-batting, I am offended by his Statist Campaign Finance "reform," and I don't believe that he has authentically "repented" from his Religious Right-bashing campaign of 2000. That being said, I do believe I would vote for him over any Democrat currently in the field.

But this ABCNews report (Political Radar) demonstrates McCain's knack for either intentionally or unintentionally marginalizing the GOP:

"''It makes no sense,' Mr. Lauderback said. 'McCain alienates the left by calling for the repeal of the Roe v. Wade decision ... but he then alienates the right by dissing their organizations -- refusing to speak at the recent National Review conference, the House Republican Study Committee retreat and now CPAC.''

Craig Shirley, a longtime Republican activist and Reagan historian, said 'skipping CPAC is a mistake for any Republican candidate.'

''Any GOP politician who doesn't understand this and the importance of this conference doesn't understand conservatism,' he said.'"

Indeed, these are "mainstream" Conservative organizations . . . certainly Reaganistic (?) organizations. I don't believe that his schedule could not accommodate addressing any of these events/audiences, and it is insulting that he is worried about being associated with such groups.

Rudy's (plausible) plan

Jon Lerner lays out the Giuliani game plan at National Review Online; and I believe it is very plausible. (More than Moderate Chances).

Here's the meat of his argument:

"Giuliani’s task in the first-stage primaries is one of niche marketing, and his background makes him unusually well suited to this assignment. He is unlike previous pro-choice Republican presidential candidates Pete Wilson and Arlen Specter, who made their “moderation” an essential rationale for their candidacies and were rejected by conservative primary voters because they did so. Giuliani, by contrast, is a celebrity, much better known for his 9/11 security credentials and his record of taming the beast of New York City than for his “moderation.” He actively downplays the role of social issues in his message. While the media and his GOP rivals will undoubtedly make early primary voters acutely aware of Giuliani’s liberal social positions, Rudy will presumably stress his conservative credentials in other areas. In a field of eight other candidates, all of whom are stressing their social conservatism to varying degrees, Giuliani’s social positions give him the largest uncontested block of voters in the electorate. If he’s able to capture the bulk of the socially liberal voters (35 percent in South Carolina), and combine that with a portion of conservatives who are drawn to his security, fiscal, and management records, Giuliani could very plausibly win the 30-40 percent of votes he needs in the three early states to make him one of the two finalists." (emphasis added)

Impeach Gore

I am of a mixed opinion on the TCPR press release concerning Al Gore's own inconvenient truths. The gang at TCPR have certainly made a name for themselves in the past week, but I wonder if they have handed Tennessee Lefties a weapon to use against them in future contests . . . something to point to and say, "see, they're not non-partisan!!" Al Gore is their Commander in Chief in the War on the Weather and the High Priest of the Church of Climate Change; Al Gore "won" an Oscar; Al Gore should have been president; Al Gore is out front on this signature Democrat issue . . . so anything that reflects poorly on him is going to seem "partisan."

But, on the substance of the TCPR report, various outlets are asking what difference Al Gore's energy usage makes and how it is relevant. In a courtroom this [the TCPR report and subsequent disclosures about Gore] is called "impeachment." Despite various and sundry appeals to authority by the Left on Environmental issues, it is largely a "who you gonna trust" affair. Al Gore is the biggest fish this movement has ever landed; therefore, his credibility as a witness for the movement is relevant.

Which reminds me of an argument advanced by Adam Kleinheider at volunteervoters.com in recent days (In defense of hypocrisy):

"Al Gore lives a life different from most folks. I'm not one to defend elitism, not as a matter of practice, but some elitism is inevitable. There must be a leadership class. There always has been and there always will be. Even societies organized around the principle of the equality and preeminence of the proletariat have had an elite class. It is the natural order of things"

Yes, Communist systems had an elite class, and this truth eviscerates the validity of the system Communist elites sought to impose on everyone else.

Some of us view the Gore story in a similar light.