Roving for scandal

Okay, I'm starting to pay attention to the details of what the Dems are screaming about regarding Karl Rove . . . and despite what they say (laughably whining about purported media indifference to their claims), there's typically nothing there when the details of the claims are considered.

For example, here's a "report" posing as a smoking gun. (Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall April 24, 2007) Karl Rove makes comments ON NATIONAL TV listing areas of the U.S. which are notorious for suspect voting results. In New Mexico, the likely fraud almost turned the 2000 presidential election. In Washington State, the likely fraud did turn a gubernatorial contest. On and on.

Anyone that pays attention to elections knows of these problems. Sorry if Republicans are concerned about these problems and expect Federal prosecutors to prosecute. I guess too many Liberals are so busy trying to outlaw Republicanism that they have no time to worry about real crimes like election fraud.

This man could have been VP

Joe Lieberman's principled stance (expressed in his statement on the floor of the Senate yesterday) on Iraq demonstrates the root of Democrat opposition to winning in Iraq. And to think--if the Dems had been allowed to steal FL in 2000, he'd likely be the sitting VP. Do you think it's his Zionism that blinds him to the corruption and deceit in the Bush Administration?

Here (also here) is his superb op/ed in the Washington Post on the Dems' Porky Pig Goes to War Bill.

Offset this

Mark Rose posts about the carbon offset scam: Right Minded: Just like global warming itself, the carbon offset industry is a sham

"2004 Election Fraud" Fraud

This evening I stumbled upon an article (here) alleging that the missing Rove emails probably contain(ed) the smoking gun that prove Dubya stole the 2004 election. The authors of the article are apparently famed Democrat voting vigilantes, Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman. And the stuff they write is like the Nth level of some video game where you perish from a barrage you never saw coming.

Typical of this genre are dark insinuations from facts like Bush and Rove (Bush's chief political advisor) traveling to Ohio (an electorally significant swing state) on election day and meeting with Ohio's head election official (the Secretary of State who happened to be the highest-ranking statewide GOP officeholder and who naturally was the co-chair of Bush-Cheney in the state). Something smells fishy, doesn't it?!?!?

Anyway, you ought to read the whole thing, but here's the core of what they're asserting:

There were four key phases to the GOP's election theft strategy:

1. Prior to the election, the GOP focused on massive voter disenfranchisement, with a selective reduction of voter turnout in urban Democratic strongholds.
. . . .
2. On election day, the GOP focussed on voter intimidation, denial of voting rights to legally eligible ex-felons, denial of voting machines to inner city precincts, malfunctioning of those machines, destruction of provisional ballots and more.
. . . .
3. After the final tabulation of the votes, and the announcement that Bush had won, the GOP strategy focused on subverting a statewide recount.
. . . .
4. Ultimately, however, it is the GOP's computerized control of the vote count that may have been decisive.

I'll say up front that I generally overlook these types of charges because I think they're so outrageous. I've worked as a Head Poll Official (in Davidson County, where we each time we had to "designate" Democrats to act as Republicans to arrive at the prescribed party balance at our polls), and I've worked as a poll watcher, and I have seen how easy it is to demagogue a system that is used only once every couple years, under great pressure and with such high stakes. But I thought I'd look into some of their claims, and after sifting through the hundreds of vague, lightly-sourced, and recycled material, I was able to find some facts. Here is what I found.

Discriminatory Distribution of Election Machines:
Distribution of voting machines was fair. Verified Voting Foundation : Justice Finds No Discrimination in Voting Machines Distribution

Voter Suppression/Systematic Disenfranchisement:Here's more about the ludicrous claims of Wasserman and Fitrakis . . . the article includes facts conveniently lacking in articles written by this pair of demagogues.

Over-voting for Bush:Here's an article about the inflated (and corrected-before-certification) vote count in Gahanna, OH. Gee, do you think that W and F missed this report?

Regarding Exit polling: Exit polls say Bush won fair and square - Politics - MSNBC.com. D'ya think NBC is covering up for Dubya and Rove?

Ken Blackwell's Republican Cabal: Here's a great op/ed from Ken Blackwell ("Bipartisan System Protects Integrity of the Vote"); he highlights the bipartisan makeup of local election boards in Ohio.

And lastly, here's ("ABC News: Conspiracy Theories Abound After Bush Victory") a great overview of the issue from ABC News (aka "known" flak for the GOP and Dubya).

Foreign policy for grownups

Paul and I have been mixing it up a bit (here) about foreign policy, and I was reminded of this op/ed I read the other day "Nuclear Iran?" -- Victor Davis Hanson--it provides a sober (and sobering) assessment of the challenges we face in the Middle East.

But the purpose of my "Wesley Clark" post was narrower than Paul appreciates (or lets on, at least). Foreign Policy--particularly as relates to fighting a war, needs to be bigger than partisanship. Yes, it is possible to embolden one's enemy. Yes, unrelenting disunity manifests weakness. Yes, it is the Commander-in-Chief's Constitutional role to dictate foreign policy. Yes, Congress may have to sometimes settle for, "We told you so."

Democrats think they won in 2006 because Americans prefer their Foreign Policy over Bush's . . . they're wrong, but even if they were right, they won control of Congress, not the White House.

This just in: McCain running for president

This report ("McCain joins Republican race for White House") from Canada reflects the challenges of reporting on foreign politics (though from Canada? come on), but I thought these quotes at the end of the article were intriguing:

"McCain also offered some scathing criticisms that seemed aimed at Giuliani and Bush, although he named no names.

McCain said the nation 'won't accept that firemen and policemen are unable to communicate with each other in an emergency because they don't have the same radio frequency' — a problem that existed during the al-Qaeda attack in New York on Sept. 11, 2001.

He also made an allusion to the federal government's disorganized response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

'They won't accept government's failure to deliver bottled water to dehydrated babies or rescue the infirm from a hospital with no electricity,' he said."

Yikes, was he on the famed Straight Talk Express when he uttered these lines? 9/11 was a pretty much unparalleled catastrophe (in America) and good luck (not to mention good riddance to the Constitution) if he intends--as President, to effectively manage the response in every state and city to future disasters.

From JB's "The Dispatch": The Problem With Ron Paul

Jay Bush has an insightful post ("The Dispatch: The Problem With Ron Paul") about Conservative rumblings (here, here) that Ron Paul deserves a look for the 08 GOP nomination.

But these types of criticisms of Ron Paul demonstrate the challenges of building party consensus around a particular nominee. In a way, the GOP's status as a consensus party (vs. a coalition party, like the Dems--more on that issue here) helps to keep gov't--and "big gov't" in particular, in its place; that is, subject to and service of "the people." As with a Conservative, Originalist jurist, it is practically inevitable that a candidate of consensus will have a less ambitious agenda. And that is consistent with Conservatism.

Huckabee discusses Rudy (sort of)

On the heels of Mike Huckabee's successful SC strawpolling last weekend, here's ("Didn't Play in Spartanburg"--Townhall.com) an interview by Terence Jeffrey with Huckabee about Rudy Giuliani's prospects as GOP nominee in 2008.

Here's part of the set-up for the article--you need to go read Huckabee's answers yourself:

"These straw polls not only exposed Giuliani's relative weakness in one of the nation's most Republican states, they also demonstrated the potential appeal of Huckabee, a Baptist minister and unapologetic pro-life and pro-marriage conservative, who in two gubernatorial victories proved he could win crossover voters in a key swing state.

The Arkansas state legislature and congressional delegation are dominated by Democrats, but the state has picked the presidential winner nine times in row."

Cross-posted at Huck2008.

Gee, they left out Wesley Clark . . .

WiV regular William is commenting (here) on our Commander-in-Chief's rebuffing (here) of Liberal attempts to surrender in Iraq. William has pulled quotes from a handful of retired generals supporting the Democrats' foreign policy proposal.

In our system, the Congress doesn't dictate foreign policy. I guess these retired generals should run for President or perhaps angling--like Joseph Wilson, for a spot in a future Democrat State department is appropriate.

Point blank: Dem demonstrations of dwindling (non-existent?) resolve PLUS Dem demands for a withdrawal date EQUALS victory by Islamists. They will wait us out. They can keep up the "civil war" indefinitely as long as they're not on the defensive. They desperately need Iraq and Afghanistan to be unstable and Anti-American. They will not go away if we just pull out of Iraq.

At the risk of being scolded like Ann Coulter, let me say to the generals: I appreciate your service to our country, but your foreign policy advice needs to get in the back of the line just like everyone else's.

Update: Adam Kleinheider on a related theme . . .

Bush remarks on war vote

Well, I guess this is when all the talking stops, and here are salient points from the President:("Bush Won't Accept Iraq War Timetable"):

"WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush, standing firmly against a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, said Tuesday that he will veto the latest war spending bill taking shape in Congress.

'I'm disappointed that the Democratic leadership has chosen this course,' Bush said.

'They chose to make a political statement,' he said. 'That's their right but it is wrong for our troops and it's wrong for our country. To accept the bill proposed by the Democratic leadership would be to accept a policy that directly contradicts the judgment of our military commanders.'

. . . .

Bush said U.S. troops should not be caught in the middle of a showdown between the White House and Congress.

"Yesterday, Democratic leaders announced that they planned to send me a bill that will fund our troops only if we agree to handcuff our generals, add billions of dollars of unrelated spending and begin to pull out of Iraq by an arbitrary date," Bush said on the South Lawn."

Moveon.org's puppet network!!!!

For the love of Pete, don't the GOP candidates know that Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann aren't Republicans?!?!? Variety.com - Candidates commit to MSNBC

But I like how the reporter, Michael Learmonth, refers to MSNBC's commissioning for the debate a "coup"--yes, it is, and the Left wing of the Democrat Party backed said coup.

"They said it would be the first debate of the 2008 campaign. Now the candidates have made it so by committing to MSNBC's Democratic debate in South Carolina this week and Republican debate in California next week.

It's a major coup for the third-ranked cable news net, which appears to have won the sweepstakes for the first made-for-TV events of the 2008 election cycle."

Serious traction in SC for Huckabee

This report from on the ground in South Carolina is good news for Mike Huckabee and anyone who are interested in more than political equivalents of beauty pageants. And it'll be good news (for me) when a report about Huckabee doesn't include an allusion to Bill Clinton.("Huckabee: Former Arkansas governor earns highest rating") Here's the beginning of the article:

"Spartanburg County conservatives, it seems, finally have taken a liking to the man from Hope, Ark.

Not Bill Clinton - the other guy.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who grew up in Hope, left Spartanburg on Saturday with the highest score given by several hundred Republican county convention delegates to six GOP presidential contenders (and a surrogate speaker for a seventh).

Although many of the candidates also hit conventions in Greenville, Laurens and Richland counties Saturday, only in Spartanburg were they asked to tailor their speeches to specific issues: the war in Iraq, border control, 'fair trade,' the Bush tax cuts and social issues - particularly abortion rights and the definition of marriage."

Oh, and the report provides some background on how/why Duncan Hunter fared so well in this particular straw poll: support from the owner and employees of local textile company Milliken & Co.

Step away from the railing, Kleinheider

Amazingly, Adam Kleinheider of Volunteer Voters (Volunteer Voters: Think About The Future} states that he thinks the President and Vice President committed impeachable offenses, even though impeachment isn't pragmatic at this stage in their final term:

"Listen, I believe that the activities of the Bush Administration took in getting us into this war were likely impeachable offenses for Bush or Cheney or both, but let's look at our watches, friends."

Come on ACK; disagreeing with you on policy--or even making a stupid policy decision, doesn't constitute an impeachable offense.

Can we do better than a Culture of Passivity?

Reflecting on the Virginia Tech murders, Mark Steyn raises serious questions (Mark Steyn "A Culture of Passivity" -- National Review Online) about what is increasingly an American "culture of passivity."

As I contemplate this and other assaults against humanity, I've concluded that we (as individuals and a society) must nurture the willingness, the conviction and the courage to act sacrificially when facing threats.

If you are a poli-holic, feast on this

The Concord (NH) Monitor ("Rooms, salaries - and Pez?" - A Concord Monitor Article) has a dense article about the fundraising and spending for 2008.

Huckabee: GOP must remember its roots to win in 2008

From a SC paper, glimpses of Huckabee's stump speech.Huckabee: GOP must remember its roots to win in 2008 | GoUpstate.com | Spartanburg, S.C. Here are some barbs aimed at the "top tier" candidates:

"'I didn't just recently come around to the idea that life begins at conception. I didn't just get converted to the notion that the Second Amendment is there so you can protect your family and your property, and so we can protect our nation. I'm not a recent convert to the idea that the Bush tax cuts are right, because frankly it's unfair to tax a person for having died after you've already taxed him for having lived.'"

I wish he had alluded to "McCain-Feingold."

Huckabee Running Strong in SC

The MikeHuckabeePresident2008 blog is reporting (here) that Mike Huckabee finished second (5% behind Mitt Romney) in a Greenville County, South Carolina straw poll. Unfortunately, this poll reflects that Huckabee is the second choice among a seemingly Socially Conservative demographic.

That being said, it is significant that Huckabee didn't have to expend millions of dollars to virtually tie Mitt Romney.

UPDATE: CNN is also reporting about Huckabee's strong showing in SC:McCain fairs poorly, Huckabee well in S.C. straw poll - CNN.com:

"In Spartanburg, each of the candidates gave a 10-minute speech and was evaluated on how he handled five different issues. The issues discussed were the war on terror and war in Iraq, border security and illegal immigration, fair trade, making President Bush's tax cuts permanent and social issues like abortion and gay marriage.

About 700 people participated and awarded the candidates one, three or five points. Huckabee finished first with 3,522 points, Giuliani came in second with 3,161, followed by Hunter with 3,090 and Romney with 2,972. Brownback earned 2,931 points, Cox had 2,456 and McCain got 2,027."

It's interesting how well Duncan Hunter did in both of these straw polls, even though he wasn't in attendance. (UPDATE: It appears that Hunter was in attendance at both of the events in which he fared relatively well).

Note to Jon Stewart: get out more

Jon Stewart, if nothing else, is often candid (though not often candid about his political agenda). As reported by the Boston Globe (here):

WASHINGTON -- When former White House chief of staff Andrew Card appeared on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" last Monday, host Jon Stewart was so taken with Card's dry humor that he marveled, "You are the nicest man I ever didn't want to like I've ever met."

Of course, Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) is threatening to subpoena Card to find out the real scoop of the Valerie Plame Wilson non-scandal. Truth being subjective and all, I suppose Waxman and Stewart will find what they're looking for . . . Waxman will keep digging, and Stewart won't.

Parenting ought to require a license . . .

This story (here) from Britain (complete w/ quirky British terms) is a good argument for requiring a license to be a parent. After a British mum left her 17-year-old daughter--Rachael, home alone with express directions not to have any friends over,

"An open invitation was placed on Rachael's MySpace page for revellers to attend a 'Skins Party' (based on a riotous episode of the controversial C4 teen drama). The invitation was headed: "Let's all trash the average, family-sized house disco party."

And they did. More than 200 young people from as far afield as London and Liverpool, converged on the £230,000 detached house in a respectable culdesac in Houghton-le-Spring and destroyed it after seven hours of drink and drug-fuelled mayhem."

Mum, who is staying in a hotel with Rachael's three younger siblings at Mum's insurer's expense, believes Rachael's account that the incident wasn't her fault. This mum may genuinely feel victimized, but . . . this story (read the details) disturbing on a number of counts . . .

Bad news for Kerry . . . just news for Romney

Two interesting results of a poll of likely voters in Massachusetts (Suffolk U. Poll) --former Gov. Mitt Romney is trailing former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Vietnam Veteran and former Democrat Party presidential Nominee, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) is trailing any fresh face.

Q19. John Kerry's Senate 6 year term will expire at the end of next year. Do you think John Kerry should run for another term or is it time to give someone else a chance?
N= 400 100%
Run again ...................................... 149 37%
Someone else ................................... 223 56%
Undecided (DO NOT READ) ........................ 28 7%

Given the political leanings of the Massachusetts electorate and Mitt Romney's efforts to put his most Conservative foot forward to GOP primary voters, this poll isn't necessarily bad news for Romney. But for Kerry . . . ?

Again: Get a freaking c-section

The Gals at TGW (Tennessee Guerilla Women: "Alito's Supreme Court Upholds Abortion Ban")are miffed about today's Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion . . . a ban that had an exception for the life of the mother, but not for her "health." TGW cites the opinion of Justice Ginsberg (the only woman on the court!!):

"The decision departed from decades of precedent holding that 'abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health.'"

All I can say is that if a woman/mother's health is at risk, even moreso her life, and the baby's head is too large to remove (after cutting the body into pieces inside the woman's womb), why wouldn't you just get a c-section? Is killing the post-viable baby the objective?

UPDATE: I'm seeing references across the Tennessee Blog scene to eclampsia and preeclampsia and how the PBA ban represents a death sentence to pregnant women with these conditions. Not that I think that such an exception is necessary (like I've said, get a c-section for heaven's sake if you're that far along in a pregnancy and your life is threatened), but the PBA ban contains a "life of the mother exception." Read it for yourself.

Yikes, religious element to VaTech murders?

I started this post on Tuesday, but shelved it. Now, with reports of the multi-media manifesto compiled by Cho and sent to NBC, he appears to have had a beef with Christianity (and with wealthy who had more wealth than him).

Troubling developments that VaTech Murderer may have at least wanted to appear to have been motivated by religious grievances. ("Va. Tech shooter left note"). He had the words "Ismail Ax" in red ink on the inside of one of his arms and, "A note believed to have been written by Cho was found in his dorm room that railed against "rich kids," "debauchery" and "deceitful charlatans" on campus."

It seems that persons who commit this type of act are often motivated by a craving for significance . . . to matter . . . to not be ignored or "dissed." I think this guy was more inspired by self-pity and perceived grievances with dominant American culture than he was by religion.

Tonight I came across an encouraging article written by Evangelical author and teacher, John Piper, "21 Ways to Minister to Those Who Are Suffering." The whole article is good, but there are two in particular that resonated with me:

11. Since rebellion against God was at the root of this act of murder, let us all fear such rebellion in our own hearts, and turn from it, and embrace the grace of God in Christ, and renounce the very impulses that caused this tragedy.
. . . .
19. Remind everyone that to live is Christ and to die is gain. Philippians 1:21-23; 2 Corinthians 5:7-9.

To a non-Evangelical, this might seem like a glib reaction, but it sure is comforting to me in light of the pain we can be subjected to on earth. Thankfully, I haven't experienced anything like the loved ones of the VaTech victims are experiencing. I'm going to re-read the Piper article and look for ways to apply it in my life.

Brownback and Huckabee (and McCain) back ultrasound availability

This article highlights the annoying practice of spokespersons running interference for candidates. I especially like the spokes-tactic of repeating a non-responsive statement like "the (governor/senator/candidate) is FILL-IN-THE-BLANK," when asked for an off-talking-points question. I like it when statements come directly from a candidate's mouth.

Mitt Romney isn't commenting on this particular pro-life legislation, but other candidates are. ("Mitt Romney Won't Comment on South Carolina Abortion-Ultrasound Bill")

"Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who has signed pro-life bills into law as governor in his state, says he backs the idea.

'I'm pro-life and my attitude has always been if we're going to take a position, take it on the side of preserving life,' he said. 'Anytime we can help to highlight what an abortion is, that would be a good thing.'
. . . .
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback said he supported the bill as well.

'I applaud the South Carolina legislature for considering this strong pro-life legislation,' said Brownback. 'An unborn child deserves as much protection as we can offer, and I believe this legislation moves us toward that goal.'

Brownback continued, 'Throughout my career in the United States Senate, I have been committed to upholding and fighting for pro-life policy. I believe, and always have, that we must defend life at every stage.'
"

Note: McCain said he supported the bill as well.

Fred Thompson re. Social Security

In this news article from South Carolina ("The State | 04/15/2007 | Few candidates offer specific Social Security plan"), the author writes:

"But few of those running for president have offered anything more than platitudes when asked what they would do to protect the future solvency of a program millions of Americans depend on."

That's probably true, and one thing I have always respected about Dubya was his willingness to "touch" Social Security.

But yesterday I came across this ("From the Courthouseto the White House") interesting article about Fred Thompson from the Weekly Standard. The entire article is a good read, but it has this information about Thompson's views on fixing Social Security.

* Thompson says he came to respect George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign because of his plan to reform Social Security. Congressional Republicans considered the plan a political liability, and it went nowhere. Thompson says that although it was only tinkering on the margins of real reform, it was a good start. He won't share his own plan--"I'll roll that out at the appropriate time"--but the general principle he articulates sounds like a political risk.

"It's based upon the proposition that granddad and grandmom will be willing to sacrifice a little bit if they feel like it helps their grandkids avoid financial disaster, and that their sacrifice is not going to be wasted down some government rathole," he explains. "Under most plans, most good plans, you know current retirees probably would not be affected that much at all. . . . We've been operating under the assumption in this country that it's the third rail and that if you talk about it, those people who are most concerned about retirement programs will kill you. I don't think that's true."

New (or nuanced) info on Fred Thompson and abortion

Also from Fred Thompson's profile in the Weekly Standard ("From the Courthouse to the White House") there was a mention of Thompson's views on abortion. It seemed to add some new information to the dialogue, in particular that Thompson claims he wasn't "pro-choice" in '94 and had to think hard about what may have led others to that conclusion:

In the days since Thompson allowed that he was thinking about running for president, his views on abortion have come under scrutiny. Thompson finds the news reports from his first run for Senate perplexing.

"I have read these accounts and tried to think back 13 years ago as to what may have given rise to them. Although I don't remember it, I must have said something to someone as I was getting my campaign started that led to a story. Apparently, another story was based upon that story, and then another was based upon that, concluding I was pro-choice."

But, he adds: "I was interviewed and rated pro-life by the National Right to Life folks in 1994, and I had a 100 percent voting record on abortion issues while in the Senate."

Darla St. Martin, associate executive director of National Right to Life, supports Thompson on those claims. She traveled to Tennessee in 1994 to meet with him. "I interviewed him and on all of the questions I asked him, he opposed abortion," she told the American Spectator's Philip Klein.

Thompson says he thinks Roe v. Wade is bad law and should be overturned, but he says he does not support a Human Life Amendment.

The abortion issue has, shall we say, evolved over the decades. Today there is a middle ground on the issue which allows candidates to claim to be "pro-life" while still believing that abortion is okay under a variety of circumstances. As a pro-lifer, I'm heartened that people want to be perceived as pro-life, but this nuanced stance on the issue is a challenge. Indeed, Thompson's statements in the above interview are not inconsistent with a "straddling" position on abortion in 1994 . . . a position which is now accepted as "pro-life."

UPDATE: Maybe this will refresh Thompson's recollection about his views on abortion in '94. Tip o' the hat to Volunteer Voters (via Braisted).

Does disagreement=bigotry?

Mary and Freddie at Nashville's Liberadio ("Raising the Bar Shouldn’t be Too Hard When It’s Dragging on the Ground") have linked to a virtual press release from David Brock's MediaMatters. Predictably, folks from the Left will seize on this opportunity to characterize disagreement as bigotry:

“I applaud CBS for listening to reason and canceling Imus in the Morning. Viewers and listeners sent the clear message that they would no longer tolerate bigotry on America’s airwaves. It is our hope that this incident will begin a broader conversation about the responsibility that news corporations, journalists, and media figures have to the American public. This is an opportunity for the media to truly raise the bar to a higher standard and return to the fundamentals of journalism.”

Let’s talk. You want examples of the “bigoted commentary rife on the cable networks and talk radio?” They’ve got examples - Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Savage, Boortz, Beck, Coulter, and Carlson."

Do Brock, Mary and Freddie think that everything broadcast in the Media is "journalism"? And though Mary and Freddie refer to the catalog of controversial statements from some non-Liberal media personalities, I suspect those are the worst/best examples they can assemble about these figures (with the exception of Michael Savage for whom they list a single statement).

But it's selective "rage," in my estimation. Even Al Gore has made a statement more "insensitive" than the Tucker Carlson comment highlighted by MediaMatters. And I don't see how any of the examples listed on the MediaMatters site amount to "journalism." Each example is, at most, from the op/ed genre.

Most importantly, it sounds like David Brock, et al would love to force every "controversial" (the boundaries for which are drawn/approved by America's Liberal Elite) Conservative public figure underground. I disagree that guess we should all be ashamed for criticizing Cindy Shriehan or daring to push back on the agenda of "the Jersey Girls."

Why weren't these people fired?

Wow, I can think of some rationales but no good reasons that these two Chicago-area public school employees were not FIRED. Read about the principal and teacher ("Illinois Principal, Teacher Quit Amid Videotaped Sex Tryst") who were allowed to simply resign (for health and personal reasons!) after they were discovered to have been using the principal's office for sexual activity.

Science and "sociopolitical victories"

I came across Stephen Jay Gould's site--about a week ago, after googling allusions from a comment about how various American founders weren't Christians (not that I had ever made that assertion, but . . .). I only knew Gould from his writings about Evolution, so it was intriguing that he--as a scientist, included a reference to "the Treaty of Tripoli" which seems like "insider baseball" for naysayers about America's spiritual foundations.

But when I read one of Gould's Evolution articles ("Hooking Leviathan by Its Past") I was intrigued by his reference to a purported discovery of a link between land mammals and whales as a "sociopolitical victory." Hmmm, I thought that Religious Conservatives were the ones with a "sociopolitical" agenda.

Well, when you read some of the criticism of this purported land mammal/whale link, it's easier to believe that Gould's pronouncements on science are driven by a "sociopolitical" agenda.

Imus isn’t the real bad guy

I'm kind of glad that Don Imus' crassness and idiocy is getting some exposure, because it has opened up painful but valuable discussions about issues of race--issues that typically, regrettably hide in the shadows of the culture and out of view of critical inspection.

This article ("Imus isn’t the real bad guy")from (black) writer Jason Whitlock is superb. Here's the last paragraph.:

"No. We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There’s no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out."

Hat tip: Jay Bush

Subpoena Rove? Why go to the trouble?

The firebrands at Democrats.org are demanding that Karl Rove be subpoenaed concerning the disappearance ("Subpoenas vowed over 'lost' e-mails") of potentially millions of WH/RNC emails . . . I say, why go to that trouble, when they already KNOW he's guilty. From today's email:

On Thursday, the White House said it simply "lost" 5 million emails from 2003 to 2005, plus "thousands" more from RNC accounts.

You don't believe it? Neither does Senator Pat Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Watch his astonished and angry reaction:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041207A.shtml

Let's hope Leahy is right - that the "deleted" emails can be retrieved.

But in the meantime, it's time to demand full accountability from the person who is clearly responsible both for the illegal use of RNC email accounts and for the illegal deletion of emails: Karl Rove.

Karl Rove has been in charge of everything political in the Bush White House since he stole the 2000 election in Florida.

So when the White House asked the RNC to create email accounts for key White House political operatives, who approved that decision? Karl Rove.

And when the White House deleted 5 million emails, who approved that decision? Karl Rove.

And when all of Karl Rove's emails before 2005 disappeared, who hit the delete key? Karl Rove.

It's time for Congress to subpoena Karl Rove - along with every email he ever wrote or received, either using his White House account or RNC accounts or personal accounts. (emphasis added)

It'll surely help the Dems come 2008 to have been re-litigating the 2000 election, don't you think?

Imus can't help himself

I read over at Jay Bush's digs (The Dispatch: Ford On Imus: "I'm A Big Believer In Redemption") that Harold Ford, Jr. has issued a statement about his pal Don Imus. I sympathize with Ford, frankly, because stepping into Imus' self-immolation (by that I mean Imus' actions after the rude comments) wouldn't have prevented the immolating and would have just covered Ford in human body fluids.

But Imus continues to show his backside in this comment, according to reports, about Ford:

"'Harold Ford, Jr. has been disgraceful in his lack of support. I endured death threats to endorse him...It's unfortunate that he has no courage.'"

Wanted: A Conservative-Enough Candidate Who Can Win In November

Bill Hobbs (at elephantbiz.com) posts about Richard Viguerie's opinion that the GOP race is still prime for a darkhorse's emergence. ("Wanted: A Conservative-Enough Candidate Who Can Win In November"). Hobbs writes:

"Each of the 'big three' have enough conservative 'stuff' in their record to win over some [Conservatives looking for the most conservative candidate who can win the general election] - Giuliani cut taxes in New York, was tough on crime and is seen as a leader who won't shrink from the war on terror; McCain's also right on the war and solidly pro-life; and Romney stood against gay marriage and for cutting taxes in the liberal bastion of Massachusetts. But none is a complete conservative, hence the reluctance of [Conservatives looking for the most authentically Conservative] to gravitate toward any of them.

Yet the dismal poll numbers for the more conservative candidates . . . tells you that the group of conservatives seeking a conservative who can win in November is actually quite large, while the group of conservatives just looking for the most authentically conservative candidate is smaller.

And yet the fact that none of the Big Three is running away with the race also tells you that the group of conservatives seeking a conservative who can win in November is not yet convinced that any of the three can win the general election."

I agree that Conservative Republicans can be split into those categories, but I disagree with Bill inasmuch as his post assumes that (a) people are paying attention to the race and (b) name ID has a HUGEly disproportionate impact on who people "support" in a poll at this stage.

I believe that it is early enough that noone needs to be biting a knuckle and jumping on any perceived bandwagon. In my opinion, the GOP race is still in the "getting the parade permit stage."

Budget bunk

A comment over at Braisted's blog reminded me of the need for perspective when discussing the Federal budget. An OpinionJournal article (here) nicely lays out the facts for considering the current budget.

Politicians are typically late in picking up trends, so it will be interesting to see how long it takes Washington to acknowledge the big story in the Fiscal 2008 budget that President Bush unveiled yesterday: To wit, with a little spending restraint, Congress could balance the budget in no time.

. . . .

The Congressional Budget Office--not the White House--is estimating that the current year's deficit (for fiscal 2007) will fall to $172 billion. That's not bad given continuing Katrina relief spending, $30 billion for homeland security, and a couple hundred billion or so to fight the war on terror.

The White House is projecting that its new budget will eliminate the deficit by 2012 assuming Mr. Bush's tax cuts are extended after 2010. We don't put much stock in future budget forecasts because they depend on so many variables. But even CBO predicts the deficit should remain near or below 1% of GDP for the rest of the Bush Presidency. That's well below the 40-year average of 2.4% of GDP.

Bull's Imus

I think Sarcastro (here) gives a perfect assessment of what happened with Don Imus.

Although Imus may make racially charged comments on the air, his personal and philanthropic life is a testament to Imus has fallen into the Tarantino/Wigger trap. He is pals with Harold Ford, Jr. Bishop G.E. Patterson and Suge Knight. His affinity for blacks and black culture led him to believe he could say the same things a black man could say. Dave Chapelle can get away with it. Don Imus can't. Hell, Imus should have called someone a "faggot". He could have picked up a NAACP Image Award.

I think Imus is a self-important blowhard, and what he said was rude, but the reaction to his "nappy-headed ho's" comment reflects the double-standard applied in issues of race.

D'Oh: Harkin and stem-cell research

From an FRC Action newsletter today:

Dear Senator Harkin,
We tuned in to the Senate debate over the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, in which you attempted to argue the futility of adult stem cell research. Using the story of a 12 year-old diabetic girl as an example, you talked passionately about the injustice of children who are forced to "inject [themselves] with insulin 120 times a month." You were quick to say, "Scientists have known about adult stem cells for 40 years and they still haven't brought about a cure for juvenile diabetes." Referring to your young friend, you said, "If adult stem cells could provide a cure for juvenile diabetes, she'd gladly take it."

Well, Senator Harkin, it just so happens that scientists have treated Type 1 diabetes with adult stem cells. While you and your colleagues were busy arguing that embryonic stem cell research is the only avenue for success, scientists were announcing another revolutionary victory using pro-life alternatives. In a breakthrough trial, 93% of young patients using adult stem cell therapy were able to stop taking insulin because their bodies began to produce the hormone naturally again. As the co-author, Dr. Richard Burt, said, "It's the first time in the history of Type 1 diabetes where people have gone with no treatment whatsoever... no medications at all, with normal blood sugars." In 13 cases, the patients didn't need insulin injections up to three years after their treatment ended.

But don't take our word for it. Details of this progress, which you hinted was impossible under President Bush's current policies, are published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Although Dr. Burt is American, he was forced to move the trials to Brazil because doctors and leaders like you weren't interested in his approach.

Plausible deniability (or outright ideological ignorance) is par for the course in the Stem-cell research debate . . . but this is a particularly poignant example. Unfortunately, such blind faith by those who support embryonic harvesting is noteworthy, but they're ignoring obvious potential of uncontroversial stem-cell research and selling a bill of goods to desperate and sick Americans. Not cool.

Senator, is it concern about the slippery slope of acknowledging that these embryos are human and living?

Can't "wind down" until the work is done

I thought this was an interesting quote at the end of this article ("Bush, Democrats at Odds on Iraq Meeting") about the loggerhead between the WH and Congress over funding the troops in Iraq.

"'We owe the American people more,' [Speaker of the House and Sec. of State-at-Large Nancy] Pelosi told reporters in San Francisco. 'We owe them a discussion of how we wind down this war and that's a discussion we would like to have with the president."

You can call it "wind[ing] down this war" all you want, but what you are doing is quitting the effort; accepting defeat to Jihadists; handing Iraq over to Iran; cutting and running. It seems self-evident that giving Jihadists advance notice of when we'll be calling it quits is unwise.

You can't "wind down" a war until you win it.

Reject Human Embryo Bill

Kudos for Sen. Bob Corker for his principled stand against taxpayer-funding of experiments on human embryos.

And here's an op/ed on the subject from Sen. Sam Brownback ("Reject Embryo Bill").

Huckabee: Character issues apply to GOP, too

Here's another report (on MSNBC.com) re. the Huckabee conference call. ("Huckabee: Character issues apply to GOP, too" - MSNBC.com) Perhaps the writer needed to add some sizzle to the report or was trying too hard to be succinct, but having heard the exchange live, I can say this characterization of the question and answer about his book is off base.

"Huckabee denied that the book showed he was not taking his presidential campaign seriously, and said there was little work he did in updating the book."

There wasn't a contentious question or statement in the entire call (take that as you wish), and gee, when's the last time that a candidate wrote a book (much less re-released one) a year out from the first primary?

(NOTE: There are some excellent resources on this page for researching the 2008 field)

Kleinheider: Democracy Is Not For The Lazy

ACK over at Volunteer Voters has a nice post about Dumbing down "democracy" (Volunteer Voters: Democracy Is Not For The Lazy).

Some (my friend Sean Braisted, for example) raise the seemingly reasonable misgiving about the difficulty over-worked people have in getting to the polls. That reminds me of an op/ed by Jonah Goldberg on or about that subject. Enjoy!

Most law is of the weed-ish variety . . .

I'm glad the City Paper is "covering" the issue of family members' lobbying influence on family members in the Exec. and Leg. branches. ("Same family lobbyists, lawmakers try to avoid conflicts"). Here's the opening line of the piece:

"Family roots often run deep, but on Capitol Hill, lobbyists and lawmakers who are related say those roots are pretty shallow when the two roles intermix."

The problem with coverage of this issue is that most laws seed, mature and reseed in that "shallow" ground. Of course legislators (typically speaking) wouldn't be stupid enough to cast votes on high-profile issues for which their relative lobbied them. And the fact that someone is sitting in the room during a vote or that a legislator casts a recorded, public move (e.g., a vote) on an issue isn't the point either. Lobbying is generally about access and influence . . . family members in the profession have too much of either to avoid appearances of impropriety, it seems.

David Broder taking jabs at GOP

This far-from-profound op/ed David S. Broder - New Scorecard for A Republican Scramble - washingtonpost.com is ironic in that looks at the current open-ended GOP 2008 race and concludes that the GOP and the American political system are dysfunctional or scorn-worthy.

"The weakness at the top creates an opening for Fred Thompson -- a man who made little impact on the Senate and left it voluntarily when he could easily have been reelected. He is an odd choice for conservatives, since he was one of the few senators who supported McCain over Bush in 2000 and one of the few Republicans who voted enthusiastically for the McCain-Feingold bill limiting campaign contributions. His celebrity as a TV prosecutor outweighs all of that, at least in some eyes.

As for Tommy Thompson, his credentials include pioneering work as a governor on welfare reform, health care, school choice and other domestic issues. But none of that counts as much for him as turning out bodies for the Ames straw vote.

What a system! What a party!"

Though much of what Broder observes is accurate, it's ironic that a member of the so-called MSM would criticize our system of selecting candidates and particularly the GOP's particular style of selecting.

Welcome Home--serviceman surprises son

This is a touching news report (from my friends at NBC Nightly News) of a serviceman returning from Iraq and surprising his son at school.

(Hat tip nwrepublican.blogspot.com.)

Nor is it easy being homosexual and black ...

Memphian Rev. William Owens (founder and president of the Coalition of African-American Pastors--CAAP) is quoted in an article ("At Conservative Black Colleges, Gays Struggle To Find Their Voice") about difficulties faced in organizing folks-who-like-same-sex-sex on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). I think it's interesting to note, as Owens implies, that Political Correctness is less restrictive of Black Americans' speaking their mind and living their convictions.

"But just as gay students can rightfully request campus inclusion, so too can Black college administrators deny it, argues the Rev. William Owens, an HBCU graduate and head of the Coalition of African-American Pastors in Memphis, Tenn.

Those administrators may cite the Bible, or simply personal beliefs — and they don’t have to be politically correct, he says.

"They can say ‘no’ and I don’t think they have to give a lot of reasons,” says Owens, who joined other Black pastors worried that, along with dismal marriage rates, socially accepted homosexuality “is a threat to the Black family.”"

Keep on keepin' on Rev. Owens.

It's not easy be(com)ing green

According to the Iranian envoy to Britain, Movahedian (Envoy Says Iran Showed ‘Goodwill’ by Releasing Captives - New York Times), releasing British troops (whom they nabbed from neighboring Iraqi waters) should buy 'em some love . . . after all, they're simply trying to wean themselves off carbon-based energy.

"Movahedian called on Britain to use the resolution of the crisis as a chance to ''establish sensible lines of communication with Iran.''

He said ''the prime issue for Iran'' was recognition from the West of its right to a nuclear power program.

The United States and allies, including Britain, fear Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program under cover of its civilian nuclear program. Iran denies this, insisting it seeks to use the program only for nuclear energy."

What Happened to British Pride?

Apparently (Jonah Goldberg--
"What Happened to British Pride?" on National Review Online), blaming [one's anglo homeland] isn't exclusively an American phenomenon, though I'd put our Liberals up against Britain's any day.

(Note: this op/ed isn't about any purported cowardice on the part of the Brit servicemen).

Giuliani digging deeper w/ GOP base

This editorial at National Review (Rudy Giuliani & Abortion on National Review Online) considers how Rudy is doing in selling himself to Conservatives. I agree with them that Giuliani seems to be feeling his electoral oats. Key quote:

"
Mayor Giuliani has tied himself in knots. His position makes neither logical, moral, nor political sense. Many conservatives are disappointed, and hope that their disappointment is not going to grow as the campaign wears on."

Gingrich did it, too!!!! Not quite.

The Left is so excited that they have some type of defense for the usurping tourist, Nancy Pelosi. FLASHBACK: Gingrich Thrust Himself Into Mideast Questions As Speaker, Bashed White House Policy | TPMCafe (via Liberadio's blog--here) The thing they're excited about is evidence! that Newt Gingrich traveled to Israel at one point during his time as Speaker of the House during the Clinton Administration.

Couple questions: Were we at war with Israel when Gingrich led this delegation on this trip? Were we at war with anyone (I'm not counting Haiti) when Newt made this trip or these comments?

Though I haven't made much of Pelosi's antics, this Superduper War-rooming by the Left merited comment.

Refining Cruelty

Civil War Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman reportedly said, "War is cruelty. You cannot refine it," and an article I just read from World Magazine (Refining Cruelty) reports that the Bush Administration (and America's military forces) may be experiencing the negative consequences of prior attempts to "refine war" in Iraq.

In the early stages of the war, Bush appeared to be succeeding with heavy use of "smart" weapons and massive humanitarian use of our military. Marvin Olasky writes:

"The Bush administration decreed rules of engagement to minimize civilian discomfort." and "Reducing civilian casualties was important for both humanitarian and political reasons, but we were dealing with a culture that interpreted compassion as a lack of seriousness. Islam is a works-based religion that emphasizes winning: Muhammad and his successors spread the faith by wielding the sword. Following the smashing American victory in 2003, we had the opportunity to impress upon Iraqis who wanted to be winners the idea that they had to cooperate with the winning power, like it or not.

Losing in a Christian culture is not fatal, because many of us grow up believing that seemingly lost causes are the ones worth fighting for. Jesus and the apostles, and their disciples, spread Christianity by losing in worldly terms, even to the point of crucifixion. But Islam does not have a theology of losing. If we had made it clear to our Iraqi opponents that they had no hope of success, Iraq could have settled down.

Just as 19th-century poverty-fighters thought they had to be tough to produce results, so Sherman believed his cause was right and his harshness in war was compassionate over the long term: Opponents would see that guerrilla warfare was useless. Our recent rules of engagement, which reflect our domestic liberal coddling tendencies, have produced a parallel prolongation of trouble.

By not being tough during the first year after taking Baghdad we gave the terrorists new opportunities, and now General David Petraeus is trying to play catch-up. Will he and our forces succeed? Let's hope and pray so, because an American defeat will lead to wider war. "War is hell," Sherman said, and if we don't make it hellish for 10,000 to 15,000 terrorists, they will make it hellish for more of their countrymen and for us."

Atheism, America's newest religion

Interesting article about the phenomenon termed "new atheism." Opinion | Prophets of the new atheism | Seattle Times Newspaper

Here's a particularly pointed paragraph touching on recent bloguments about American Exceptionalism:

"Certainly, you can have an ethical individual atheist, an instinctively caring, generous person who happens to disbelieve in God. But an atheist society could not survive. It would first live on the fumes of ancient moral traditions. In the end, racked by despair at life's apparent meaninglessness, its members would return to more nourishing faiths."

De-magnetizing Tennessee, somewhat . . .

Sen. Jack Johnson (R-Brentwood) is sponsoring legislation--SB 1870, (see here) that will make Tennessee less attractive to illegal immigrants. The bill cleared the Senate Commerce, Labor and Agriculture Committee on 4/3/07. The bill would require employers to use the Federal Employment Eligibility Verification Basic Pilot Program to ensure that new hires are eligible to legally work in the United States. The program is a web-based system that is operated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

According to Sen. Johnson, we would be the first state in the nation to require employers to utilize (wink, wink, Sarah) the service. We'll see if the full Senate and the Democrat-controlled House will be interested in this common-sense legislation.

I say, lead the way, Tennessee.

TheHill.com - Kerry, Gingrich announce climate showdown

This could be an interesting Environmentalism debate--Kerry v. Gingrich, TheHill.com - Kerry, Gingrich announce climate showdown, but I thought this quote from Kerry was oddly flippant:

"“As a father, when someone tells me that within the next decade, if we don't deal with global warming, our children and grandchildren may deal with global catastrophe, that tells me I damn well better do whatever I can to help make Washington deal with this responsibly,”"

Ah yes, the refreshingly glib, Senator Kerry.

Senator, does it matter whether the "someone" is credible? Does it matter whether data supports the purported crisis to be fixed by the wonderful folks in Washington?

Bob Krumm » evil emails

Bob Krumm has a great post/link (evil emails) to a Scripps Howard op/ed detailing the plain ol' spite generated by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research's expose of Al Gore's environmental hypocrisy.

Here's the link to the Scripps Howard article.

Amateur lawyer alert . . .

Someone at LeanLeft--I'm not sure if s/he is a lawyer, but if s/he is, s/he is a bad ones--is railing against a phantom S.Ct. Justice (The Incoherence of Justice Scalia on Global warming and the EPA). Regrettably, the Lovely and Liberal Brittney at NashvilleisTalking posted a link to the article. I guess it was the scathing comment about Scalia that sizzled. That being said, I know it is hard for some Liberals to imagine that Scalia--being a spawn of Satan and all, could ever be right in a judicial sense, but imagining such a thing might be more feasible if amateur lawyers would read actual opinions from the man as opposed to two sentences quoted in a news article.

But it kind of goes with the territory for an Executive Branch agency to use its priorities and interpret terms consistent with said administration's priorities. And the Supreme Court was ruling on whether a lower court's ruling was correct, not necessarily whether the original finding or holding was correct. And it is indeed a legitimate question as to whether something (CO2) which is naturally and inevitably churned out by oceans (DWARFING similar human-caused emissions--although exhalations from Liberal pols are substantial) must be viewed as a "pollutant." And whether trial lawyers should be able to sue the gov't to act!!act!! is a legitimate question.

They're legitimate legal issues . . . unless you just really think Scalia is a meanie.

Huckabee re. character and cash-on-hand

I just got off a media conference call with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (I slipped in as a blogger . . .) Here are highlights from the call, and Huckabee's responses, as best as I was able to capture them (sorry, no recording capability today).

The call was hosted by Gov. Mike Rounds (SD) who is the chair of Huckabee's national steering committee. Rounds heartily endorsed Huckabee as a proven leader who can bring people together for positive results, citing his experience with Huckabee who previously served as head of the National Governor's Association.

Huckabee had a lot of good things to say--he said his campaign for the GOP nomination was going to be about Consistency, Authenticity and Proven Results (sounding similar to Bob Corker's campaign theme(s)--perhaps excepting the "consistency" angle).

In answering a question about his nat'l organization, he referenced Tennessee's own Chip Saltsman and noted that his first quarter fundraising numbers were more accurately termed "first 6 weeks'" numbers for him, as opposed to other candidates who have been running for President for awhile. Very true.

In answer to a question about Iraq ("Um, the American people want us out of Iraq, what is your position on Iraq?") Huckabee said,

"the fastest way to get out of Iraq is to win in Iraq; . . . we definitely will lose if we indicate to our opposition that we'll be leaving at a certain point and all they have to do is wait for the clock to run out. I think we should have a goal of conclusion but not a time-frame of conclusion."

During the call Huckabee mentioned (in answer to a question about future books) a scheduled re-release of one of his previous books in the coming months, Character is the Issue. Which provided an excellent segue into the question I intended to ask him anyway, "How important/relevant is personal character, past and present, in choosing a candidate?"

Huckabee responded, more or less,

"I'm one of those people who believe it (personal character) is important. If we aren't able to keep promises made to people who are closest to us, it's relevant to ask how they would keep promises made to voters. . . .

"And if it's true what I'm hearing from some in the Christian or Evangelical wing of the Republican Party that candidates aren't going to be held responsible for issues of character, then I would say a lot of Republicans will owe Bill Clinton a great big public apology. . . . We can't have a set of rules that we apply to Democrats and can't apply to ourselves," he said, adding that otherwise, "that shows it [criticism of Clinton] really wasn't about principle. It was about personality, character assassination and politics."

Though I don't agree that Clinton's lying (which led to his impeachment) was a purely personal matter (Clinton's survival instincts turned arguably personal "sins" into undeniably public matters--don't lie under oath, Bubba), I do agree that personal character is relevant in assessing a person's qualifications to hold the most powerful office on the planet. Indeed, even Liberals have discovered personal morality as they try to tear down Republican candidates . . .

More reports on the conf. call.

Sen. McCain, may I introduce you to Justice Scalia?

I got a McCain support letter from Minn. Gov. Tim Pawlenty today and, though impressively written in general, I thought this mistake toward the end of the letter was rather unfortunate, and I hope it was merely a typo:

I have spoken to him about the kind of judges he would appoint should he serve as our nation's 44th Chief Executive, and I know that he would appoint strict constructionalists

That's a category of judges I haven't ever heard of, and it kind of reminds me (in a disturbing way) of Dubya's use of the term, "Conservativism" in the early days on the stump.

Bredesen, the fiscal Conservative. Not.

Though Gov. Bredesen is heralded as being fiscally conservative, it's obvious that is a perception, not a reality. Alas, in politics, perception is reality, and it doesn't hurt to have everyone in the mainstream media helping a candidate with the public's perception--just ask former State Senator Jim Bryson.

But in an e-letter I received today from Rep. Beth Harwell, she wrote about the imminent conflict between Republicans and Democrats on the Hill over increasing or decreasing taxes; she offers this advice:

As legislators continue to examine these issues, please keep in mind the following factors:

1) Over the past five years, State revenues have increased by 39%, while expenditures increased 57%. . . .

2) There is an anticipated natural revenue growth of nearly half a billion dollars; and

3) If there were a rollback of food tax by half a cent each year, the State would recognize a revenue reduction of $38 million per year, which is less than 10 percent of anticipated revenue.

Obviously, there must be a focus on two budgets - the budget for the State and the individual budgets of Tennessee families. The question becomes whether Tennessee is confronting a revenue problem or a spending problem. The answer--we have a spending problem that must be brought under control.

That last sentence hearkens back to the halcyon days of circling Legislative Plaza with, "It's the spending, stupid" painted on my rear window.

American Exceptionalism (read: betterness)

Bob Krumm has a great post ("this is the post where you get to call me . . .")

"America and its allies are superior. (Don’t think too hard on it; it’s simple math after all. There are only three options in any comparison equation: greater than, less than, or equal to–and argument in favor of the latter two is specious at best and treasonous at worst.)

Now that doesn’t necessarily make us right. That’s a fair (I would say wrong, but still fair) argument to make. But to say that we are wrong does not negate the fact that we are better. While I don’t denigrate those fifteen British sailors for their lack of a “stiff upper lip” under unimaginable duress, I do denigrate any of their countrymen–and ours too–who from safe perches, espouse that they had it coming to them because they were British.

For there is nothing, nothing at all about Iran, that should ever make us want to prostrate ourselves before them."

America is exceptional. Multiculturalism is asinine. And the reason America is exceptional is because it is a country established upon Judeo-Christian ideas/philosophy/principles. And that is the rub for Liberals.

While this isn't exactly applicable, it occurred to me that Jesus spoke about the "overflow of the heart" (Mt. 12:33-35) and other places in the Bible reference the heart as the "wellspring of life" (Prov. 4:23). I would posit that America's exceptionalism is the "fruit" of America's founding principles. If one acknowledges that America's founding principles are Judeo-Christian, it's hard to concede that America's record is commendable. That, in my estimation, is why an assertion of American Exceptionalism pains the Left.

Update: At the risk of stepping on some more toes (but hey, Bob started it!) I was corresponding with a fellow Conservative who questions my assertion that America's greatness is related to Judeo-Christian principles (he thinks the roots of our greatness are principles of common law).

I kind of think the real roots are in the Protestant Reformation, frankly. The Protestant Reformation was a positive step in a cultural evolution and America was the end product. Especially way back when, the Catholic Church was as close to a state religion as you could get. And while I would say that common law is certainly a characteristic of english-speaking countries, it is more of a by-product than a cause.

In my estimation, Judeo-Christian thought is the fertile ground for a system of self-gov't and liberty (and, yes, tolerance).

Elected=Corrupt? Well, this elected official should know . . .

I thought this comment from Sen. Doug Jackson was rich--classic demagoguery, in this report ("Resolution to elect constitutional officers clears judiciary panel") about a Senate bill which would allow voters to decide whether to amend the Constitution to require election of a number of state officials:

"Sen. Doug Jackson (D-Dickson) said he thought Kurita’s bill would bring more politics into the constitutional officer positions and cause more “millionaires” to be elected.

“We’re opening the opportunity for corruption further in state government,” Jackson said. "

We probably would be wise to take his word on the matter . . . of course, he apparently believes the current system is ideal.

Faith-based gov't spending in Tennessee

David Fowler of Family Action Council of Tennessee raises a salient question in his newsletter re. the impending collision between Gov. Phil Bredesen's proposed tax increase and TN Republicans' proposed tax reduction. This is a question you should keep in mind when Tennessee elected officials argue (publicly) about state spending.

What is bad for the Senatorial goose is bad for the Gubernatorial gander

The Governor has conceded that the tobacco tax increase he has proposed to cover his new educational initiatives is a declining source of revenue (or most folks hope it is as fewer people smoke). But, it is also apparent that the educational programs he has proposed will only increase in cost over time. The Administration has said that it intends to cover this divergence between income stream and program costs with the increases in revenue in future years.

Gambling on the future discipline of elected officials - a not so sure bet

The amount of revenue that will have to be covered in the future by revenue growth may be larger or smaller with the Republican proposal or the Governor's proposal, but the "solution" is the same in principle. And the issues created by the solution are the same. In other words, the "solution" does work, but only if the future legislators and Governor's are disciplined enough to allocate enough revenue growth in future years to cover the growing discrepancy between "cost" and "revenue stream." When there is not enough income in those future years to cover the "lost grocery revenue" or the "added educational program costs" and the new, other "good" stuff that folks say they really need to have that have been "put off," that is when a tax increase comes.

Further down in the newsletter, Fowler writes:

. . . it was only during the McWherter administration that the state went from a cash basis for spending to an accrual basis. We now spend "projected revenue" growth on recurring expenditures. It is my understanding that the switch was made in order to have more revenue to spend.

Using the accrual method is, perhaps, not so unusual for businesses, but businesses can adjust to shortfalls in projected income without the same bureaucratic hassles and political tensions as government. And, of course, the problem with this funding method in government comes when projections fall short, as they did in the Sundquist years. Then, the irresistible force (a tax increase), meets the immovable object, (spending levels in government program expenditures). People don't want a tax increase, especially in hard times, but they also don't want to give up their services. In fact, arguably, the demand for government services goes up at the very time the "government" loses some of its ability to pay for them.

Here's an idea

If we really want to protect the taxpayer, then what about using the surplus to begin to transition back to a cash basis system where we spend only the revenue we have and not "bet" on our revenue projections?

This manner of operating sounds like faith-based government spending; the reality is that some TN political players aren't operating in good-faith in making such proposals.

Interpreting Q1 fundraising numbers

Interesting assessment eyeon08.com » (What does all this money stuff mean?) over at eyeon08.com about interpreting the 1st quarter numbers of the GOP candidates:

"Fourth, Sam Brownback substantially differentiated himself from the rest of the second tier candidates, essentially putting him in a second tier alone, and moving the rest to the third tier."

And, as eye on 08 notes, the "upper tier" isn't set in stone as the numbers reflect some vulnerability for the front-runners.

That vishus, vishus cycle of "electability"

CBSNews' blog asks the question, "Why Aren't We Hearing More About Brownback and Huckabee?"(here), and the conclusion is that vicious cycle of credibility-as-a-Pres-candidate>media-attention>fundraising-capability>media-attention, etc. Here's the key quote of journalist Ververs:

"'Up until now, they haven't gotten the attention because they haven't demonstrated that they have much support,' said Ververs. 'In order for that to be demonstrated, they need to have some tangible evidence – which would be polls, fundraising, things we can measure support by. And if you look at those measurements, they are far behind people that supposedly aren't that conservative.'
. . . .

That won't be easy, however, unless they can get the press corps to pay a little more attention to them and a little less to the candidates with better fundraising and poll numbers. "

At this stage in the game, voters--especially my peoples, should pay less attention to "conventional wisdom" and eagerly back the candidate that resonates with them on policy. I won't deny that a candidate like Fred Thompson has appeal for his potential to appeal to voters in a general election, but there's no need to dumb down the debate on what really matters--the policy, more than a year out from actual votes being cast.

About Congress' Pork and Pacifism bill . . .

As you know, Congress has passed the Pork and Pacifism Act, but the interesting thing is that Pork is often used as a way of purchasing support.("Who Got Bought")). Amanda Carpenter of Human Events writes:

"Last week, when the House passed their pork-stuffed Iraq spending bill that establishes a date certain for withdrawal of American troops, only seven of the 43-member Blue Dog Democrats -- a group that purports to fight for fiscal responsibility and strong national security -- voted against the bill."

Gee, I'm not sure of an issue meriting non-partisan consideration more than the GWOT, can you?



(hat tip: Bobbie Patray)

The Moralist meme

This LATimes article (GOP presidential hopefuls fight for attention) about efforts by Social Conservative candidates to break through in Iowa includes this interesting tidbit about Sam Brownback's personal views (as opposed to his policy views). Of course, the difference--intentionally or not, plainly "marginalizes" Brownback by implying that he would directly translate his personal view on homosexual conduct (one, incidentally, that most Americans share) into public policy. (Feel free to raise your opinion that Brownback is implementing his personal views--I disagree).

"He grew up on a farm near Parker, Kan., where his parents still live. Raised a Methodist, he converted to Catholicism. He opposes stem cell research and considers homosexual conduct immoral. He favors banning all abortions except when the woman's life is endangered."

Incidentally, frequent commenter William (of tnparadise.blogspot.com demonstrates Democrat moralism in this post. What business is it of William what Newt Gingrich does (actually, did) in his personal life? More on that in a future post . . .

On frivolously amending the Constitution

This article (from The City Paper) reveals something about how not to amend a Constitution.

"The delay on imposing the amendment has been beneficial, Mahery said, because of the attorney general’s opinion that clarified differences of opinion on seniors maximum amount of income.

“It was very wise to wait and to make sure that they were methodically and thoughtfully thinking out the plan because once you put this plan into motion, it would be awfully, awfully hard to rescind it,” Mahery said."

Uh, yep. It is hard to rescind (not for the reasons Mahery is thinking), but it ought to be even harder to change the overarching statute for our state.

The most recent Constitutional amendment treating some citizens differently than others (but leaving the definition open for the legislature to fill in the blanks) is, according to the article, "causing far more controversy than the ban on gay marriage . . ." Newsflash: the legislature is disagreeing over how "generous" to be with the category of "senior citizens." How wise is it to amend the State Constitution so that it is little more than Chapter 67 of the Tennessee Code?

Religious Conservatives hold veto over GOP process

This article (Religious conservatives hold on in Iowa - Boston.com) describes (accurately, I'd say) the influence that Religious Conservatives have over the GOP nomination process--particularly in Iowa.

"Drake University political science professor Dennis Goldford said religious conservatives may serve more to block candidates who rile the base than elevate candidates they like.

'I don't think they are kingmakers,' said Goldford. But, he said, 'Any nominee is going to have to satisfy a majority of them that he is right on their issues.'

At this point, all three of the top-tier candidates are making overtures to religious conservatives, and there is no sign of such rejection, he said.

'Religious conservatives and social conservatives in the Republican Party are like the driver's education instructor,' said Goldford. 'He has a brake, but he doesn't have a steering wheel or an accelerator. They can pretty well say who is not going to be the nominee.'"

Former Gov. Tommy Thompson on Abortion

Former Wisconsin Governor (and former Bush Cabinet mbr.) Tommy Thompson is planning (here) to officially join the race to be the GOP nominee in 2008.

Here (from ontheissues.org) are some of his public positions on abortion:

--Both pro-life and pro-stem cell research. (Jul 2001)
--Legal abortion only for rape, incest, or mother's health. (Jan 2001)
--Ban partial birth abortions. (Dec 2000)"