GOPres candidates and the Immigration bill

I think that the failed Immigration bill has real potential to provide real separation in the race for the '08 GOP nomination. Here's what the individual candidates are saying about the bill's demise. Article - News - Immigration in the campaign.

In particular, a recorded vote on an actual piece of legislation takes the issue to the next level of campaign significance, because candidates can no longer dodge and duck and spin their theoretical views on the issue--especially those who had to cast a vote on the bill.

I believe that in consequences to date for supporting this legislation will pale in comparison to the injury going forward. I believe the GOP base will seriously hold to account the campaigns of McCain and Brownback.

Not quite "I've got a crush on Obama" . . .

If you can see past Huckabee's wedding tux . . . this is an inspiring music video about the other man from Hope.

Coulter responds, yes she does

Ann Coulter has responded That Was No Lady -- That Was My Husband - HUMAN EVENTS to what appears to have been a staged confrontation with John Edwards' wife (if you're a Liberal, think HW Bush and Dan Rather). I have to admit, I have only watched the reporting on the incident, so I basically had no first-hand knowledge of what happened. Accordingly, as I've learned more facts about what happened the (potential) "outrage!" has diminished significantly.

In any event, Coulter's op/ed--as is typical and typically ignored by the Left, is fairly thick on facts.

Hey parent, please look into this

I just noticed an ad (Super Nanny Casting Call | WKRN.COM) at Nashville Is Talking and thought it warranted a post. "Super Nanny" is good reality TV (it's from the self-help genre, I'd say) and whenever I've happened to catch an episode, I'm reminded of the things that I need to be doing to raise my children.

Parenting, like religion and politics, is a touchy subject. I was reminded of this some weeks (months?) ago when I was doing e-battle with "Mack" about how we choose to raise our children (here). Almost any discussion about parenting involves stepping on toes, but my view is that the proof is in the pudding, and the more we make the subject off-limits the farther in a parenting pit we go. Sure, some children are exceptional challenges, but most aren't, in my experience.

But back to "Super Nanny." I firmly believe that ones ability to parent "effectively" is closely tied to one's character. Good parenting isn't a matter of being clever or intelligent. Though I think most parents have a good idea about how we should raise our kids, we don't want to be held accountable for how we're doing it. This type of show (and any example of good "counseling," in my opinion) is just someone helping us to identify or remember what we already know or can readily know but are failing to implement or don't want to hear.

Huckabee unscripted

I don't know if any other campaigns are doing this, but Mike Huckabee has been holding fairly regular conference calls for bloggers. Here's a link to audio of his latest such call. ("Huckabee Blogger Conference Call 6/26") It is noteworthy that Huckabee will submit to unscreened questioning by for all purposes "unknown" bloggers.

This particular call may not appeal to some--both of the guests on the call are Social Conservative figures, but here's another example.

The "F" word and the "N" word

I just read an interesting report (here) about the firing of Isaiah Washington--an actor on Grey's Anatomy which I've never seen (sorry). The reason it's interesting is because it appears we have a new word that can't be spoken . . . the "F" word . . . "Faggot." Reading this report I discovered that it is now simply the "F" word (apparently we're going to have to find another term for the original "F" word) based on the fact that Washington is being accused of "using" it twice because, when he denied using the word in an interview, he now stands accused of using the word TWICE. At least that's how it appears from the reports I'm reading. This leads me to another post that I started some time back. I'm not going to edit it to make it more current because (a) it will take too much time and (b) the delay in posting it is pertinent . . . this is a touchy subject and I really hesitate to potentially offend my friends of the African-American race.

I really hesitated to blog on this issue, but I had to comment on the subject after hearing a news report today (6/5/07) that said someone had been suspended from their job as a teacher for "using the 'n' word as part of a lesson plan" dealing with racism.

For the record, I committed about eight years ago to a black friend that I would not allow to go unchallenged any person's use of the "the n-word" in my presence. That "promise" came about in a discussion about racism and my coming to the realization that--even if I'm not racist, I need to be assertive in beating back racial prejudice. In sum, it will be difficult to diminish racism and the racial divide in our country (and respective communities) if we don't influence those around us away from racism.

Along those lines, I am glad to say that I rarely hear or observe racist attitudes or expressions. Some of that, I hope, is based on whom I associate with by choice. But I won't deny that any perception on my part that racism isn't rampant in our culture is potentially skewed based on the message/values I exhibit--basically, I hope and perceive that people are not comfortable being bigoted in front of me. Hopefully, they at least worry that I will not agree and "fear" that I might confront them about it. I don't look for ways to bring up religion or politics in any given interaction with others, but I generally am not afraid to share an opinion which often betrays my beliefs/values. As far as I can remember, I've only heard the "n-word" a handful of times over these eight years, and each time the person who used it appropriately back-pedaled when I pointed out my disagreement.

So, with all the preliminary qualifications out of the way, I need to say that I think we need to drop the code word for "nigger." Wow, that is uncomfortable to write, and since I don't ever use the word, it would be even more uncomfortable to say.

To be clear, I don't think that the word should ever be used, except in a clinical sense (such as when discussing Linguistics or something along those lines), in the same way that I think profanity should not be used. But I've always thought that using code for "nigger" actually enhances the word's destructive power. If we're eager to run a hurtful or negative word out of our language, isn't it better to both discourage its use and take the sting out of it? Isn't this the Left's argument about purported Puritanical views on sex (or about ANY subject, frankly)? That making something taboo is counter-productive?

Though I don't want to hear the word and don't want my children to hear it, in a radio news report (or in a classroom discussion intended to discourage bigotry) it seems kind of silly (not to mention counter-productive) to tip toe around the word. This silliness is amplified further when you consider the word's frequent use in the hip-hop or urban segment of African-American culture.

I guess the same can all be said about the "F" word, though I'm not as concerned about that, because I don't view behavior-based identities like homosexuality as off-limits as race. While I don't use the term and think it is needlessly hurtful, I'm inclined to say it may go with the territory.

Embarrassing family members and "rising up"

BadBadIvy poses an interesting question while hosting over at NashvilleIsTalking. ("Can’t we all just get along? No? Okay, then.")

Also, just wondering: left or right, who is the person on your side that you find to be embarrassing?

I wouldn’t say that Coulter “embarrasses” me . . . sometimes I regret–for PR’s sake, the things she says, but most often she makes sound arguments and makes them in a way that is clever, though acerbic. Frankly, she dares to say in public the kinds of things that Hillary would say privately to Sidney Blumenthal and the kinds of things that Liberal talk-radio hosts would say . . . if anyone was listening.

To an extent, Coulter’s popularity is due to the perception (on the part of Conservatives) that Conservative views and voices are consistently derided suppressed by the so-called MSM. It should surprise noone that Liberal dominance in the media/cultural/academic elite would inspire rude expressions of dissent . . . just like in past eras when the shoe was on the other foot. Someone like Blumenthal has less reason to push the envelope–he (and the Left) have more to lose by being rude than by showcasing someone like Coulter and her abrasive commentary.

I think that it is important to remember that many Americans--folks from each end of the political spectrum I guess, enjoy politics . . . for lack of a better word, they're (we're) entertained by politics. Accordingly, the media free market has expanded to the point where, for example, people who don't want to watch soap operas from 1-4pm everyday don't have to. So the market has been able to respond, for a host of technological reasons and I guess some policy reasons, to the demands of listeners and viewers.

Along those lines, Rush and Jon Stewart and Hannity and Maher and O'Reilly and Colbert and Olbermann now have audiences for the entertainment they provide. They're all "thought leaders" for their audiences and often they "give voice" to feelings their audience have about an issue or a person. Coulter dares to say things which many people think and which, though "uncivil" or "rude" are probably true. For example, Ted Kennedy--based on his unrepented-of past, should be ashamed to show his face in public rather than be a respected Democrat Senator. I know this is polite company and I know that Ted Kennedy is venerated by many Democrats, but can you disagree with that statement?

"Mean" is in the eye of the beholder

A Slate Magazine writer named Dahlia Lithwick comments today ("Getting Past Mean" - By Walter Dellinger and Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine) on changes in the U.S. Supreme Court and can only muster the adjective mean to sum up why she doesn't like the current majority. As a lawyer, Lithwick should be able to come up with better synonyms; however, as a lawyer, she is plain out of legal arguments.

Lithwick has trouble grasping judicial restraint and is too comfortable with trusting judges to decide cases based on their subjective view of what is "mean" or "right" to do in a case between two parties.

Here's a profound excerpt from the piece--predictably misfocused on the politics of the judiciary:

"My view is that focusing on a judge's personal 'niceness' or 'compassion' or affection for 'the little guy' is a mistake. That's not a legal theory so much as what I look for in a babysitter. I think that the meanness we're seeing, to the extent you can call it that, has to do with the Roberts Court's very cramped and unforgiving view of the role of courts. I once wrote that Roberts seems to believe that there was 'no problem too big for the courts to ignore.' I wonder if that is part of the sea change we are witnessing."

On Cheney . . . I'd say this is about right

Based on recent comments at ye olde blog (here), William and Pam (and Sean Braisted, sort of) appear to be passionately consuming the Washington Post's series on Dick Cheney; to be candid, I haven't read it, but I think Jonah Goldberg has it (my sentiments on the issue, that is) about right in this op/ed:Confessions of a Cheney Fan.

Pick a different pocket

This is a great story about a criminal's comeuppance:(FOXNews.com - "Ex-Marine, 72, Teaches Pickpocket a Lesson"). I LOVE stories like this--they're akin to "a thousand points of light" or "taking back the night." Kudos Mr. Barnes.

Robertson disappoints . . . Liberals

Evangelical leader Pat Robertson offered praise of GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani surrounding a Giuliani appearance at Robertson's Regent University Televangelist praises 'outstanding' Giuliani at lecture. Regrettably (for the Left), Robertson seemed difficult to demonize given his charitable and complimentary statements about Rudy.

Of course, they can always accuse Robertson of being politically craven and unprincipled. They gotta have some bogeyman . . . stay tuned.

Hat tip: The Corner

Huckabee's example

Here's an interesting article about former Governor Mike Huckabee's discipline in staying fit. Huckabee's run hinges on his running - Politico.com.

Such a trait is perhaps the single best indicator of success. I suppose most people would be glad to know this about him.

hat tip, the Corner: NationalReview.com

Thompson touches down in Nashville

I just watched this youtube of Fred Thompson's arrival in Nashville for some exploratory type things, and I can't help but think how difficult it is to volley inane questions or comments from odd campaign groupies without looking silly or condescending. Some of the awkward stuff can be restrained by good advance work. Thompson does a pretty good job of not looking silly, and I know he doesn't technically have a campaign yet, but it's hard to conceive how a string of un-advanced (or poorly advanced--IMHO) events like this would stoke the proverbial fire in Thompson's belly . . .


Hat tip: VolunteerVoters.org

Ballot integrity v. "disenfranchisement"

Sorry, but this isn't "disenfranchisement."

I just read (via a link at VolunteerVoters) a post by Enclave Mike alleging that a Thompson campaign hire (Tim Griffin) was the subject of "allegations that he was connected with attempts in Florida during the 2004 election to target and to challenge African Americans in mostly white Duval County." This isn't an attempt to shill for Thompson (not that there's anything wrong with that . . .)--I was more interested in the "voter suppression" angle than the Thompson angle.

I encourage you to read the "report" Mike links to (here), and I don't know much about Griffin, but it is not "voter suppression" to target potential voters for challenge if they are having mail forwarded from the purported residential address. You find these names by a direct mail technique termed "caging," and--despite the predatory-sounding name for the technique, it is wholly legitimate to demand proof of a person's right to vote if they are not living at the address indicated on the voter registration.

For some reason, folks on the Left don't view it as "disenfranchisement" for a fraudulent vote to cancel out a legitimate, legal vote.

Giuliani and Romney on "Wisconsin Rt. to Life v. FEC"

Here's a good round up of GOP presidential hopefuls Giuliani and Romney (here) and their past and present positions on Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC. Unfortunately, it appears both of these candidates have "evolving" positions on the issue.

Hat tip: NationalReview.com

Dems eye [lowering their dismal polling numbers]

In an article entitled "Dems eye defunding Cheney's office" (here -- Rutland Herald Online) we read the following exchange from the parties:

"'The vice president has a choice to make,' [former Clinton flak and current Congressman Rahm] Emanuel said in a statement released over the weekend. 'If he believes his legal case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive branch.'

Lea Anne McBride, the vice president's spokeswoman, fired back: 'I'd say that congressman Emanuel has a choice to make: he can either deal with the serious issues facing our country or create more partisan politics.'"

Actually, Cheney's argument--at least one floated, as I understand it, is that his office is a bit of a hybrid. Whatever. Maybe Bush should issue another Executive Order to more precisely reflect what he says he intended.

And the Dismal Dems continue to play their gotcha game.

Huckabee on McCain-Feingold

In light of the Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC decision announced today, I was curious to see what Mike Huckabee's position has been on McCain-Feingold to date. The well-funded Romney campaign (which has consistently emphasized the "McCain" aspect of "McCain-Feingold," for obvious reasons) had a press release about it, but I found this information about Huckabee's view (from The Club for Growth's profile of Huckabee): (here):

Political Free Speech

Maximizing prosperity requires sound government policies. When the government strays from these policies, citizens must be free to exercise their constitutional rights to petition and criticize those policies and the politicians responsible for them.

Governor Huckabee is on record criticizing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, though the majority of his criticism has focused on discriminatory measures that allows senators to transfer money from Senate committees to presidential runs, but deny governors the same freedom to move state funds into federal accounts. While he called for less restrictions and more disclosure regarding campaign contributions (The Hill 11/29/06) and okayed unlimited soft money provided full disclosure (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 03/10/00), Governor Huckabee is also on record favoring limiting individual, PAC, corporate, and political party contributions to state candidates (votesmart.org 2002).

The last section refers to this report which is essentially the law as it stood (in relation to Federal Elections) prior to McCain-Feingold.

According to this Club for Growth press release from March, Huckabee and other potential GOP nominees have expressed "strong opposition" to McCain-Feingold.

About Tenn's newest S.Ct. Justice

I just came across this interesting letter from Tennessee's newest Supreme Court Justice--Bill Koch. (Koch - Letter to FACTN"). It is Koch's response--as a judge on the Court of Appeals, to the judicial questionnaire disseminated last year by Family Action Council of Tennessee (FACTN).

The letter provides a pretty good idea of the kind of justice Koch will be.

McCain's fall in polls isn't 'regrettable'

There's news that John McCain has termed the Supreme Court's decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC "regrettable," (TheHill.com - "McCain: 'Regrettable' decision"), but I think the his fall in the polls is neither "regrettable" or "unpredictable." John McCain is not popular with Republicans. He is (was, more accurately) popular with non-Republicans be they f the Democrat or "Independent" variety.

And I enjoyed Mitt Romney's reaction to these events:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, one of McCain’s main rivals for the GOP nomination, was quick to seize on the decision and made sure that voters knew it was a provision in the Arizona senator’s law that was struck down.

“Score one for free speech,” Romney said. “Today the Supreme Court reaffirmed the First Amendment by rejecting a key feature of McCain-Feingold. The law trampled the basic right of the American people to participate in their democracy. It also purported to reduce the influence of money in politics, but we now know that influence is greater than ever.

“McCain-Feingold was a poorly crafted bill,” Romney added. “Today’s decision restores, in part, to the American people a right critical to their freedom of political participation and expression.”

You KNOW that Romney relished using the name "McCain" in slamming this legislation. As I mentioned below, I spent part of my weekend at an Election Law training in New Orleans, and one of the comments that drew the most laughter during the event was when deputy legal counsel for Romney's campaign (participating in a panel of attorneys working for several of the campaigns) off-handedly referred to "McCain-Feingold" as "McCain-Feingold-Thompson."

Reining in McCain-Feingold

Good news from the U.S. Supreme Court--a majority has decided to rein in McCain-Feingold's limits on the First Amendment. ("Court allows issue ads near elections"). What's interesting in the article is all the references to political labels--i.e., "Conservative" and Liberal" (asdie: what do you think about using "Conservative" with the term "allies" but "Liberal" with the term "colleagues"?) This is a problem on this issue (and many, frankly) as the so-called "Conservatives" in this case ruled on the side of the ACLU and a host of other "Liberal" organizations.

On a related note, I attended an election law seminar over the weekend for Republican lawyers, and one of the panelists was James Bopp, the lead attorney in the Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC case above. Despite how this ruling is being and will be portrayed in the so-called mainstream media, it represents a chipping away at Constitutionally offensive legislation to suppress free political speech--the precise speech intended for protection by the 1st Amendment (though Lefty legal types would have us think it is virtual porn and smutty rap lyrics the Framers had in mind).

Speaking of "Authoritarian Cultism" . . .

On contemporary contrasts between Liberals and Conservatives. "Fights on the Right" -- The Corner on National Review Online.

More on Dems war with science

In light of the President's veto of the Left's fetal farming legislation, here's a great post about Dems' "surge" in their war with science.

Brittney on the brain . . .

The fallout from the Duke (non)Rape Case has been in the news lately, and as I read this op/ed (Townhall.com::Now what about those Duke professors::By Dinesh D'Souza) discussing the culpability of Duke professors who grabbed the pitchforks early on in the case, I couldn't help but think of the recent tarring and feathering of Brittney Gilbert, formerly of Nashville is Talking. Here's an excerpt:

From the time the first reports of sexual assault at Duke University surfaced, these intellectual vigilantes went to work. Houston Baker, a professor of English and Afro-American Studies, issued a public letter condemning the "abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence and drunken white male privilege loosed among us." He seems to have simply presumed the students guilty.

Shortly after that, 88 members of the Duke arts and science faculty--the so-called Gang of 88--signed a public statement praising campus demonstrators who had distributed a 'WANTED' poster that branded the lacrosse players as 'rapists.' The Gang of 88 didn't use that term, but its statement referred to 'what happened to this young woman.' Ignoring calls to wait for the evidence, the gang instead went into full social-justice gear.

"What is apparent every day now is the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism, who see illuminated in this moment's extraordinary spotlight what they live with every day...We're turning up the volume in a moment when some of the most vulnerable among us are being asked to quiet down while we wait. To the students speaking individually and to the protesters making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard."

D'Souza continues,

"In other words, Go vigilantes go!"

Romneys at (vacation) home

Interesting video on Prez Vid. Decisions, decisions at PrezVid: "The Romney campaign shares a 13-minute video of the family deciding whether Mitt should run from their vacation home in December 2006."



It is a long video, but if you watch up to the point where Mitt prays for dinner, is it a gaffe when Romney prays, "thank you for our son, Jesus Christ . . ." or do Mormons believe Jesus is "our" son?

hat tip: Volunteer Voters

Early endorsement of Huckabee by HSLDA

“We believe that Mike Huckabee , (former) Governor of Arkansas, should be elected the next President of the United States ,” [Home School Legal Defense Association] President J. Michael Smith said in a call-to-action letter to members. Smith said [the 80,000 member] HSLDA is taking this “historic step of an early endorsement” because [] the process of electing the president is based on a radically different timetable in this election.

Smith touted Huckabee’s record as governor of Arkansas, pro-life, pro-family conservative values and presidential campaign platform, which includes a pro-defense plank and support for the FairTax, as reasons his organization stands behind Huckabee. There are a few other candidates in the race who are properly described as principled conservatives, but none of the media’s “frontrunners” would qualify for this designation, he stated.

“We believe that Mike Huckabee is by far the best communicator in the race – he is able to articulate his conservative principles in an incredibly winsome and articulate manner,” said Smith.

Noting that Americans have not elected a member of the House or Senate to the office of President in nearly half a century, Smith said: “Moreover, among the principled conservatives, Huckabee is the only one who has been a governor.”

Huckabee passes McCain in Iowa poll

I'm pleasantly surprised to see that Mike Huckabee has passed John McCain in a recent Mason-Dixon poll of "likely caucus-goers" in Iowa. (here) In a way, this doesn't surprise me, given McCain's past disdain for the GOP base and his current disdain for sane Immigration policy. Add to this his disdain for the Ames Straw Poll, and I think it shouldn't be that big of a surprise. Of course, this is probably more a story about McCain's descent than anything else, but it is nice to see what appears to be an ascent for Huckabee.

I read one Lefty blog that mistakenly claimed McCain's declining poll numbers have something to do with his support of Bush's Iraq strategies . . . uh, I don't think so. I plan to post more about this later, but this reflects the Left's incomprehension of the GOP voter's unwillingness to leave the President out on a limb in the face of outrageous attacks from the Left. Bush may be a failed military strategist, but he's not evil or a criminal, and he's our failed military strategist.

Loose TN Canon on Thompson and pre-war intelligence

Loose TN Canon (loose screw is more like it) is quoting (Fred Thompson: "Dumb as a stump")
a past girlfriend of Fred Thompson as saying Thompson is "dumb as a stump"; I guess folks can judge for themselves, but what comes to mind is "hell hath no wrath . . ."

But William flatly states there are 237 documented!, proven!, certified! "lies" by the Bush administration in the run up to Iraq. I wonder, does every single word of the famous "SIXTEEN WORDS!!!" count as a different "lie"?

William breathlessly quotes a thinkprogress site thusly:

The Pentagon’s inspector general found that former Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith developed, produced, and disseminated “alternative intelligence assessments” to falsely claim that a relationship existed between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Well, I followed the links and I am wholly unimpressed (though the Think Progress bloggers' mountain-making is fairly impressive).

The "alternative intelligence assessments" are being characterized as sham reports--actually, they were just, er, "alternative" reports of intelligence in the middle east. It wasn't uncommon at that time for the Pentagon to do its own intelligence (see below regarding the "Intelligence Communities" acknowledged problems), and this was simply an example of that. William's buddies pull the quote "[Feith] did not provide the most accurate analysis of intelligence to senior decision makers” as some sort of proof of nefariousness, but the original "inspector general's report" ("inspector" and "general" give the accusation extra gravitas, don't you know) is merely stating that the "alternative" (see above) report was not consistent with all the other reports coming from the intelligence community. So Feith provided his analysis, though in hindsight (and in the opinion of the sadly discredited Intelligence Community "consensus") the report was not "the most accurate analysis." Okay. Is that the best you guys on the Left have got? Wow.

Which reminds me of an excellent article I read this weekend (sorry, it's subscriber only at NRO digital) that eviscerates the Left's potemkin "Bush lied" scandal; ironically, it was a review of George Tenet's new book, At the Center of the Storm--a book which has been characterized as another nail in the coffin, brick in the wall, etc. in the case against the lying liars who lied lyingly in the Bush Administration. Rich Lowry describes how George Tenet weighs in on the "most notorious flubs" of pre-Iraq War intelligence; they were hardly "lies." Here are some excerpts:

Prior to the war, the administration argued that Saddam attempted to acquire 60,000 high-strength aluminum tubes for the enrichment of uranium. That turned out not to be the purpose of the tubes — but this wasn’t deception on the administration’s part. Tenet explains that the CIA believed the aluminum tubes were indeed for enriching uranium. And it had brought in a team of experts from Oak Ridge National Laboratory who reached the same conclusion.

The Department of Energy disagreed and thought the tubes were for rockets. But its representative at a meeting to consider the import of the tubes, according to Tenet, “was unable to explain the basis of his department’s view in anything approaching a convincing manner.” He adds, “Whatever their intended use, under UN sanctions, Saddam was prohibited from acquiring the tubes for any purpose. All agencies agreed that these tubes could be modified to make centrifuge rotors used in a nuclear program.”

Then there was the brouhaha over Saddam’s supposed attempt to acquire yellowcake from Niger. The case that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons didn’t rest on this claim. “The Estimate noted that Saddam already had access to large amounts of yellowcake in Iraq — 550 tons of it, enough to produce as many as 100 nuclear weapons,” Tenet writes.

But yellowcake took on an outsized significance in the post-war debate. The CIA had told the White House to take the Niger claim out of the speech the president delivered in Cincinnati in October 2002. British intelligence had reported that Saddam tried to make the purchase, but the CIA was dubious. As Tenet puts it, “The allegation was worthy of investigation. Based on what we found, however, it was not worthy of inclusion in a presidential speech.”

The claim made it into the 2003 State of the Union address anyway when the CIA reviewed the speech but didn’t wave the White House off, and White House officials forgot that they had been warned about the information previously. This erupted into the scandal over the “16 words” that gave Joe Wilson his 15 well-coiffed minutes.

Wilson, of course, argued that he had made a trip to Niger that had definitively discredited the yellowcake claim. But his report had been so “inconclusive” that when the press began inquiring about it, the CIA “press office had trouble finding people who remembered the details.” Wilson hadn’t filed a written report, instead briefing two CIA analysts at his home over Chinese food. The report was such a non-event that it wasn’t briefed to Cheney, and Tenet doesn’t remember hearing about it at the time.

And, as mentioned above, there was controversy over Iraq's relationship w/ al Qaeda

Critics argue the administration tried to imply Iraqi culpability for 9/11 by talking about Iraq and al-Qaeda in the same breath. The opposite seems closer to the truth: The critics dishonestly imply that because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it also had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. Tenet stipulates that Iraq had “no authority, direction, or control” over al-Qaeda, but he counters the conventional wisdom that cooperation between the two was a fantasy.

According to Tenet, “There were, over a decade, a number of possible high-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, through high-level and third-party intermediaries. Our data told us that at various points there were discussions of cooperation, safe haven, training, and reciprocal nonaggression.” In the post-9/11 world, this was alarming, and it wasn’t the worst of it: “There were solid reports from senior al Qaeda members that raised concerns about al Qaeda’s enduring interest in acquiring chemical and biological expertise from Iraq.”

Gee, aside from the opinions of electoral firebrands and social also rans, Thompson looks pretty smart.

On the other hand . . . the Paul House case

I ventured over to Sharon Cobb's blog this weekend and noticed that she was appealing to folks, "Whether you're for or against the death penalty, please consider writing your legislator and the Governor about releasing an innocent man on death row named Paul House" (here).

Well, I thought I would look into the facts of the case (TCASK et al can play a little fast and loose with the facts when there's the potential of averting an execution), and here's what I found. First, I read TCASK's account. Go ahead and read it; it's not too long.

Then I dug up one "statement of the facts" (from an appellate court opinion) in House's long line of attempts to avoid being executed, State v. House, 743 S.W.2d 141, Tenn., 1987.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death by electrocution. After review of the entire record and after considering all of the issues raised by counsel for appellant, we affirm the conviction and the sentence.

The victim of the homicide was Mrs. Carolyn Muncey, who lived with her husband and two young children on Ridgecrest Road in rural Union County, Tennessee. Mrs. Muncey was in her late twenties, and her children were about eight and ten years old at the time of her death on July 13, 1985.

In March 1985 appellant Paul Gregory House was released from prison in Utah and moved to the rural community in which the Muncey family lived. There he resided with his mother and step-father for several weeks, but in June he moved into a trailer occupied by his girl friend, Donna Turner, which was located about two miles from the Muncey home. Appellant did not own an automobile; but he was permitted to drive his mother's car from time to time, and he also drove Ms. Turner's car on some occasions.

Other than doing occasional farm work for his stepfather, appellant does not appear to have been regularly employed. He did not testify at trial at either the guilt phase or the sentencing hearing. He was shown to have had one prior conviction for aggravated sexual assault, a charge to which he pled guilty on March 16, 1981 in Salt Lake County, Utah. Apparently he was placed on parole in that state, and supervision of his parole was transferred to Tennessee when he returned to this state. He was approximately twenty-three years old at the time of the homicide in this case.

Mrs. Muncey disappeared from her home in the late evening of Saturday, July 13, 1985. Her badly beaten body was found on the following afternoon at about 3 p.m., lying partially concealed in a brush pile about 100 yards from her home.

Apparently the husband of the victim was not at home during the early part of the evening of July 13. Mrs. Muncey and her children visited a neighbor and left at about 9:30 p.m. to return to their home. Later the older child, Laura, awoke. She testified that she heard a voice which sounded like her grandfather making inquiry about her father. She also heard someone tell her mother that her father had been in a wreck near the creek. She heard her mother sobbing or crying as she left the house. When her mother did not return, the two children went to look for her at neighboring homes. Not finding her, they returned home and waited until their father arrived. Discovering that his wife was missing, he took the children back to the home of the neighbor where they had visited earlier in the evening and then called for members of his family to look for his wife.

When the body of Mrs. Muncey was discovered the next afternoon, she was dressed in her nightgown, housecoat and underclothing. Her body was badly bruised, and there were abrasions and blood giving every evidence that she had been in a fierce struggle. Apparently a severe blow to her left forehead had caused her death. It appeared, however, that she had also been partially strangled. A pathologist testified that the blow to her left forehead caused a concussion and hemorrhage to the right side of the brain from which she died, probably one to two hours after being struck. He testified that she probably would have been unconscious after having been struck. He estimated the time of her death at between 9 p.m. to 11 *143 p.m. on Saturday, July 13, but emphasized that this was at best a rough estimate.

Appellant never confessed to any part in the homicide, and the testimony linking him to it was circumstantial. There was evidence showing that he knew Mr. and Mrs. Muncey and had been with them socially on a few occasions. Through defense proof there was testimony that Mrs. Muncey and her husband had been having marital difficulties and that she had been contemplating leaving him. There was no evidence to indicate that the appellant was aware of that situation, however, or that there had been any previous romantic or sexual relationship between him and the victim.

On the afternoon of Sunday, July 14, 1985, two witnesses saw the appellant emerge from a creek bank at the side of Ridgecrest Road at the site where Mrs. Muncey's body was later found concealed in the underbrush. He was wiping his hands with a dark cloth and was walking toward a white Plymouth automobile, parked on the opposite side of the road, belonging to his girl friend Donna Turner. The two witnesses spoke briefly to appellant, all of them discussing the fact that Mrs. Muncey had disappeared. Later the two witnesses became suspicious of what they had observed and returned to the point where they had seen appellant emerge from the embankment. Looking down the bank, they found the partially concealed body of Mrs. Muncey. They promptly notified the sheriff.

Appellant later admitted that he had been in the area but denied that he had seen the body of Mrs. Muncey or had any knowledge of its presence. The dark rag which he had been using when first seen was never produced. It was the theory of the State, however, that this was a dark “tank top” or jersey which appellant was shown to have been wearing on the previous evening, July 13.

Appellant gave two statements to investigating officers in which he denied being involved in the homicide. In both of these statements he stated that he had been at Ms. Turner's trailer the entire evening of July 13 and that he had not left until the next afternoon when he went to look for Hubert Muncey after learning of the disappearance of the latter's wife.

On Sunday afternoon various witness observed that appellant had numerous scratches and bruises on his arms, hands and body, there being an especially significant bruise on the knuckle of his right ring finger. Appellant explained that these injuries had been sustained innocently earlier during the week, but when Ms. Turner was called as a witness, she said that she had not observed them prior to the evening of July 13. Appellant also told investigators that he was wearing the same clothes on Sunday, July 14 as he had been wearing the previous evening. It was later discovered, however, that a pair of blue jeans which he had been wearing on the night of the murder was concealed in the bottom of the clothes hamper at Ms. Turner's trailer. These trousers were bloodstained, and scientific evidence revealed that the stains were human blood having characteristics consistent with the blood of Mrs. Muncey and inconsistent with appellant's own blood. Scientific tests also showed that fibers from these trousers were consistent with fibers found on the clothing of the victim. There were also found on her nightgown and underclothing some spots of semen stain from a male secretor of the same general type as appellant.

Some of the most damaging evidence against appellant was given by his girl friend, Ms. Turner. She at first told investigators that he had not left the trailer during the course of the evening of July 13. Later, however, she modified this testimony to state that he had been in the trailer until about 10:45 p.m. at which time he left to take a walk. She stated that he did not take her automobile. When he returned an hour or so later, he was panting, hot and exhausted. He was no longer wearing either his blue jersey or his tennis shoes. The shoes were later found in an area different from the place where appellant told her he had lost them.

Appellant told Ms. Turner that he had thrown away the navy blue tank top because it had been torn when he was assaulted*144 by some persons who tried to kill him. It was after the appellant's return to the trailer that Ms. Turner first noticed the bruises and abrasions on his hands referred to previously.

Appellant's mother testified that he had not used her automobile on Saturday evening. She testified that during Saturday and Sunday she had been planning to separate from appellant's stepfather and that appellant had been assisting her in her preparations for moving.

At the sentencing hearing the State proved appellant's prior conviction for aggravated sexual assault. Appellant's parents testified that he came from a broken home and had been subjected to stress as a result of that experience. Appellant's mother also testified that in the interval between the guilt trial and the sentencing hearing appellant had attempted suicide. She read into evidence a letter which he had written to her denying his involvement in the homicide. Apparently he had cut his wrists while in the jail awaiting the sentencing hearing, but the degree and extent of the injuries were not detailed in evidence. They do not appear to have been serious and did not prevent his attending the sentencing hearing.

Although the evidence against appellant was circumstantial, it was quite strong. Particularly incriminating was the testimony that he had emerged from an embankment where the body was found, wiping his hands on a dark cloth, without disclosing to anyone the presence of the body. Damaging also were the discovery of his bloodstained trousers and the testimony of Ms. Turner, which a trier of fact could have found sufficient to demolish his alibi and to demonstrate that he had been in a heavy struggle near the time when the homicide must have occurred. A classic case for determination by a jury was presented, and the evidence clearly is sufficient to support the conviction.

Lastly, I think it is important to read exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court said about the likelihood of House's guilt . . . it's a little different than what TCASK is asserting. The U.S. Supreme Court held:

While this is not a case of conclusive exoneration, and the issue is close, this is the rare case where-had the jury heard all the conflicting testimony-it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror viewing the record as a whole would lack reasonable doubt. P. 2086."

"House has not shown freestanding innocence that would render his imprisonment and planned execution unconstitutional under Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 113 S.Ct. 853, 122 L.Ed.2d 203, in which the Court assumed without deciding that “in a capital case a truly persuasive demonstration of ‘actual innocence’ made after trial would render the execution of a defendant unconstitutional, and warrant federal habeas relief if there were no state avenue open to process such a claim,” id., at 417, 113 S.Ct. 853. The threshold showing for such a right would be extraordinarily high, and House has not satisfied *2068 whatever burden a hypothetical freestanding innocence claim would require. He has cast doubt on his guilt sufficient to satisfy Schlup's gateway standard for obtaining federal review, but given the closeness of the Schlup question here, his showing falls short of the threshold implied in Herrera. Pp. 2086 - 2087. House v. Bell, 126 S.Ct. 2064, U.S.,2006. June 12, 2006

In sum, the Supreme Court has merely said this is an instance where the defendant should be allowed to have some of his claims to be heard.

I don't want to pooh-pooh Sharon's sentiments, and she is certainly free to voice her opinion on this, but I think she's wrong. And it was interesting that my wife coincidentally came across this verse today,

"It is not good to punish an innocent man, or to flog officials for their integrity."

--Prov. 17:26. Yep.

Dreher likes Mike

Rod Dreher (whom I know primarily from National Review Online) is feeling it for Mike Huckabee (Beliefnet: Crunchy Con - "Huckabee Love") Linking to Huckabee's comments at a recent Forum, Dreher writes:

"I'm really starting to dig this guy. "

Romney's troubling campaign narrative

This is an interesting article about Mitt Romney's appearance before the Annual National Right to Life Convention in KC. ("Romney Woos Anti-Abortion Activists") There are a number of quotes from Romney that reflect his deft handling of his late-in-life conversion to the pro-life cause:

"I know that it is not time but conviction that unites us," Romney said in remarks on the second day of the National Right to Life's annual convention. "I proudly follow a long line of converts — George Herbert Walker Bush, Henry Hyde, and Ronald Reagan to name a few."

. . . .

Referring to his conversion, Romney told the convention of the largest grass-roots, anti-abortion group: "I am evidence that your work, that your relentless campaign to promote the sanctity of human life, bears fruit."

. . . .

"'I am humbled to be standing among the many who have toiled for the pro-life movement for so long, when I arrived at this place of principle only a few years ago,' Romney said."

Very eloquent appeals to an understandably skeptical audience. But, eloquent defenses aside, it's troubling when a theme of "seeing the light" could be Romney's campaign narrative arc on a host of issues, and that the above speech could serve as the template for his stump speech in front of the NRA, the Club for Growth, etc. While Romney purports to be an intelligent, serious, earnest politician, he ran on a variety of non-Conservative policy positions in several state-wide, federal issue-focused campaigns. As a result, it's hard not to wonder if Romney's positions either are or were based on political expedience.

Emanuel's harebrained debate idea

I'm not sure what motivated me to follow this link (The Daily Star - "Introduce a new formula for US campaign debates"), but I was surprised to see such an off-base suggestion for Presidential Primary debates from Congressman Rahm Emanuel whom--the author advises us, "was a leading strategist of the Democrats' victory in the 2006 congressional elections" (really? wasn't it folks like Trent Lott that put Dems over the top?). I just came across the same article (here), so perhaps I misunderstimated :) how much attention (undeserved) this idea would get.

The author complains about the current debate structure thusly,

What we have are not so much debates as the kind of inane interviews given by contestants in Miss America pageants. Republicans and Democrats speak to their respective bases, rather than to the nation; most candidates stay within the boundaries of what's deemed to be safe. All Democrats support more rights for gays in the military; all Republicans are opposed. How could we change this, so we have real debates that tell us more about the candidates? What format would encourage sharp discussion about the problems facing the country rather than this empty process of rounding up the usual suspects?

So, Emanuel and the writer propose to have primary debates consist of,

a series of one-on-one face-offs in which leading Democratic candidates debated, not each other, but leading Republicans. That would push the campaign toward the center, where it ought to be. And it might produce a mandate for actually solving problems as opposed to bickering about them.

I'm not sure exactly how such a format would affect the primary process, but I think it would encourage the debates to be less substantive. Certainly the Democrat Party would benefit from a debate which didn't highlight how out of touch their base is, and which allowed Dem candidates to pitch the nice-sounding platform in generalities. Do Hillary and Rudy have different views of the Healthcare issue? Of course they do, and a partisan primary debate format would allow two candidates to talk past each other (and past the issue). We need more particulars to discern between candidates and discern between governing philosophies. Does anyone really think we need more platitudinous, us/them framing of the issues as found in campaign ads?

One effect of having single-party dominance in a county/district (or of non-partisan elections) is that voters have to pay attention to the primary . . . a one-partyish scenario mitigates the effect of lazy, straight-party-line voting because all the available candidates have the same letter after their name.

I think Emanuel's idea is stupid. Not even a spendthrift, unprincipled GOP congress could make him look smart in proposing it. I think I've wasted too much time on this post.

D'oh: Lott is in McCain's "Supporter Spotlight"

While visiting the McCain website, I noticed that Trent Lott is regrettably featured on the front page in the "John McCain Supporter Spotlight." John McCain 2008 - John McCain for President It includes a flattering quote from Lott about McCain's debate performance last week.

Why Trent Lott deserved to be thrown under the bus

Wes Comer (in a post about shrill attacks by "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" supporters against Conservatives) links to a quote from Trent Lott that disturbs me. wescomer.com » Blog Archive » Just Shut Up and Fall in Line:

The Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supports the bill, said: “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”

At some point, Mr. Lott said, Senate Republican leaders may try to rein in “younger guys who are huffing and puffing against the bill.”

Maybe he means that they need to do a better job of PR to combat opponents of this legislation on talk radio or something, but I doubt it.

Lottery Bait and Switch?

For the record, I am (and was) a strong supporter of separation of state and gambling. Accordingly, this headline caught my eye, "Harper asks forgiveness for voting for lottery." After reading the article, it's not clear to me exactly what she's asking forgiveness about. (The City Paper). She labels refusal by some (Republicans, as made clear by the reporter) to significantly lower the criteria a "lie":

“We did not finish the peoples’ business and we failed young people because we lied to them,” Harper said. “We have said that the lottery was to help get them through school, and we have not done that."

Well, speak for yourself, Senator. But sincerely failing to accomplish something you've promised isn't a lie, and most legislators never intended to reduce the scholarship to a veritable handout for students merely managing to survive at a state university. I don't think that people who voted for the lottery had that in mind either.

Harper doesn't stop there, insinuating (if not outright charging) that legislators are trying to keep kids from getting scholarship money by raising the standards.

“And we have tried to raise the standards so very high, standards that we probably could not meet. We are trying to raise those standards so high, and it’s just to keep the kids from getting scholarship money,” she added.

I know that several bloggers (notably from the Righter side of the ideological spectrum) (here and here) have sympathized with scholarship students having to maintain a 3.0 grade point average. And it is uncomfortable to note that students from higher-income families are faring better at maintaining the scholarships. But what is the objective for the scholarship program?

While Harper claims that legislators have misled students about the lottery, I'd say that she and any who share her view on this issue may have misled the voters of Tennessee.

Reports: Romney was acting less than "pro-life"

ABC has a pretty comprehensive look at new challenges from Romney's GOP rivals concerning his claims that he changed his mind on abortion during a famed 11/04 meeting with a Harvard stem cell researcher. Is Romney's Pro-Life Conversion a Myth?. The challenges are based on two "revelations" about un-"pro-life" actions by Romney after his supposed epiphany. Read it for yourself.

I've not hidden my questions about Romney's sincerity on this issue, and that was without even knowing about some of the things reported in this article. For example, one bit of "old news"--it appears, was that McCain's campaign was already chewing on Romney on a different, but related point:

This week, the campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., blasted Romney for saying in May 2005 that he was "absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regard to laws relating to abortion and choice" -- six months after his position changed on abortion.

Libertinism: don't try this at home

This article (here) about a local "A" student and pot smoker made me think of Paris Hilton and Dan Quayle and "Murphy Brown" and the perils of adopting Libertine values: the gifted or talented or "advantaged" folks aren't the ones that are truly bear the brunt of foolish choices.

hat tip: Volunteer Voters

Reconsidering Richardson

I've heard a handful of Conservatives who seemed most comfortable with NW Governor Bill Richardson--assuming we had to live under a Democrat President for four years. While Richardson's record is a little less discomfiting than that of Hillary or Obama or Edwards, this withering profile (here) of Richardson from the New Republic plainly casts him as unprincipled, shallow and dull-witted. Here's a taste:

Are you ready for some hot dogs?" says the ballpark announcer. "Let em know!"

Bill Richardson is ready. It's been a grueling day on the campaign trail--five events spread across some 350 miles of Iowa interstate--and, as we find our seats behind home plate for a minor league game in Des Moines, Richardson looks beat. A New Mexico wag once compared the governor's appearance to an unmade bed, and, right now, he looks the part. His black hair is tousled and his tie is gone. His collar is smeared with pancake makeup and his lapel is dusted with white specks of unknown origin.

But Richardson still has plenty of energy left--not only for a hot dog, a bag of popcorn, and a Diet Coke, which he asks his state trooper to fetch--but also to discuss his recent trip to North Korea to retrieve the remains of six American soldiers killed in the Korean war. "Maybe about two months ago," he casually explains, as if describing some political horse-trading with his legislature, "the North Koreans said to me, 'We want to do a gesture to you because we like you. You've been interested in remains. We're ready to give you from five to ten--unconditional. But you have to come and get them.'" The call, Richardson clarifies, came through the United Nations. "Their U.N. guy calls. His name is Ambassador Kim. K-I-M. They're all named Kim."

Richardson then contacted Bush's national security advisor, Steven Hadley, and told him he wanted to make the mission a bipartisan affair. Truth is, he just needed a ride. "What I was mainly interested in was an airplane," Richardson says as his food arrives and he maneuvers the overstuffed hot dog into his mouth. "So Hadley said--" Richardson pauses and turns to his trooper. "Jakey, you got a napkin?" The trooper passes Richardson a napkin, and he dabs his chin. "So Hadley said 'OK.'"

Gotta love Richardson quoting a North Korean official telling the candidate, "we like you."

Kudos to this TNR reporter for offering a realistic portrait of this candidate . . . I think we'd all benefit from knowing more about a candidate than what you can find one of the candidate's press releases.

Tennessee's own Dr. Will(iam)

I know of William because he is a frequent commenter on this blog, but I've always wondered about his frequency. It hasn't made sense because I have only visited his blog a couple of times and--while I try to be civil when he visits/comments, we don't see eye to eye on much, and his comments are rarely good-natured.

But I think I've figured out his interest in my blog/me--he's studying me as part of an effort to suppress (or whatever) the influence we Religious Rightists/Religious Conservativists/Christianists have on the culture.

For example, I belatedly came across this post yesterday (somehow technorati linked me to it via this post at ACK's blog--William would think it not a coincidence).

I've long been bothered by most of the work of Michael Savage, and his book Liberalism is a Mental Disorder--though I haven't read it, even on its face demonstrates my problem with him. In the same way, I am unimpressed with William's amateur psychology and hyper-partisan rants about so-called "Authoritarianism."

I would probably file this under being a slavemaster to science, but William seems hell-bent on finding some scientific-sounding way to dismiss those with whom he disagrees (after all, the guy who wrote the definitive work on this subject published his book through HARVARD! press). It amazes me that (and you need to read William's entire post to appreciate this) William (et al) categorize as neurosis a belief that society should attempt to protect innocent human life at every stage. As ACK observes, people with Dr. Will(iam)'s identified disorder are present all over the political spectrum, and if I may say so William, equating being pro-life with being "neurotic" sounds pretty, well, neurotic to me.

Brittney on my mind . . .

Sorry, but Brittney Gilbert came to mind when I read an email I received from Dan Miller at 48 Days to the Work You Love today (caution: the preceding link will take you to material that is sort of religion-based).

Here's the pertinent paragraph:

"Here’s another eagle example that relates to a real life situation many of you have experienced. As I wrote to a client recently, uncertainty, frustration in or even losing a job or business can often be simply a prod to a higher level of success.

The eagles build a nest using thorn bush strands to lock it together. Then they cover them with leaves and feathers to make it soft and comfortable. However, when the eaglets are about twelve weeks old, mom and dad eagles begin to remove the protection from the thorns. Pretty soon the little eaglets are up on the edge of the nest to avoid the pain and discomfort. Then mom and dad eagle fly by with tasty morsels of food just out of reach. Soon the little eaglet makes a big leap to get away from the pain and the hunger, and you know what happens – rather than the anticipated crashing on the rocks below, he learns he can fly."

On a side note, I was encouraged to read the other day that the Bald Eagle is primed for removal from the Endangered Species List.

Brittney emerges

I just checked in on Brittney Gilbert, and she seems refreshed and refocused after a weekend in 'nooga, hopefully that'll lead to her be reemployed soon (by that I mean as soon as she wants). Here's her most recent postSparkwood & 21. Here's the important paragraph (as far as my post is concerned):

"I hold no grudges nor harbor any hard feelings. I don't have it in me to even address what just happened in my life as a 'Left Eats Its Own,' as it has been framed over and over again. I got caught up in the petty rat and tat of online political discussion, complete with barbs and low blows, but I am no longer able to do that. I just don't care anymore. It was never healthy. And it certainly doesn't matter." (emphasis added)

I'm not trying to drag Brittney into a discussion (much less an argument), and I never expected her to agree (certainly not in a public way) with my previous assertion (here also, sort of) that this was an example of a nutroots feeding frenzy. But I am confident in saying: the events that led to her leaving NiT were an over-the-top reaction, that this is a Leftwing phenomenon, that Brittney is certainly Left of center in the views she espouses or espoused. Thus, this was an example of the Left "eating its own."

There could be any number of reasons it is characteristic of the Left, the innocuous ones being the on-the-lower-end-of-the-maturity-scale nature of the internet coupled with the Leftwing dominance of the internet, but I think it is hard to deny that this was not out of character. Again, I don't expect to see Brittney fall victim to this sort of thing again, but I don't expect the street-fighting tactics of the Left to change.

A fair question for a candidate

The scheduling demands for a candidate (seriously) seeking the presidency are daunting, and it was interesting to see Sam Brownback--a U.S. Senator from Kansas, respond to questions about missing a large percentage of senate floor votes in 2007. "Tough to do both"--The Hutchinson News (KS):

"Trying to balance work as a senator and campaigning for president, U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, said Wednesday during a teleconference that he did have concerns about missing one-third of his Senate floor votes so far this year.

The first week of voting, he said, he'd been traveling in the Middle East and North Africa. He missed more while in Greensburg after the deadly tornado hit and then there were the campaign events he just couldn't miss.

'I missed votes yesterday afternoon getting ready for the presidential debate,' Brownback said.

'I'll continue trying to do the best I can ... representing the people of Kansas as I campaign for president. It's tough to do both.'"

I like Brownback, and I appreciate his candor on this question (and I even sympathize with the fact that natural disasters and what appear to be routine legislative "fact-finding" missions are a big part of his truancy), but I think this is a legitimate question for any person running for office while purporting to work as a legislator.

Thompson "pro-life"? Yeah, but . . .

Here's an interesting post from Mark Rose (Right Minded: Fred Thompson's pro-life record, and why it doesn't matter as much as we think it does"), and I think that he is right in saying that Conservatives need to "start looking for a candidate in the present who can lead a conservative movement on the national level."

That being said, I do think it is fair for Social Conservatives to want details about Thompson's stance on abortion. And a candidate's candor/forthrightness about past and current policy positions is very telling. In fact, it goes to a candidate's credibility on whether s/he will (or is able to) follow through on promises.

Slavemasters to science

Lefties are quick to hurl accusations that others are "at war with science" . . . it is an ironic charge given the Left's hostility to advances like those discussed in this report--I'd say many American Liberals are only "pro-science" inasmuch as it can help advance their agenda. ("Patients, Not Politics"--National Review Online).

House Sub-committee votes in favor of abstinence ed

This is encouraging news; a house sub-committee has decided not to cut federal grants for abstinence education--indeed, the sub-committee voted to increase funding. ("Poll finds majority back birth control" - The Washington Times).

Read the article, those on the other side of the culture war are decrying the vote. I think that it is wise to promote an ideal for behavior, even if--for a time, the ideal isn't met by young people. But the Left's singling out of abstinence education for elimination is rather disingenuous. Why waste money on tobacco-bashing or marketing aimed at curbing any "bad" behaviors?

What does the Left have against abstinence education?

2008 Candidates: End The War or Win The War?

Here's an interesting post about most of the declared candidates for 2008 and their view of Iraq. Right in a Left World: End The War or Win The War?

Kitty Catty Corner

It's interesting to learn the roots of "kitty-catty-caddy-whatever-cornered" (Mother Tongue Annoyances » "Kitty Catty Corner"). Here's the low down:

"Interestingly, both catty corner and kitty corner are regional dialectical variations of a word that has nothing whatsoever to do with cats: cater-cornered. The Oxford English Dictionary defines this adverb and adjective as 'Also catacornered, catercorner, catty-cornered, etc. Diagonally; diagonal. So cater-cornering, catty-cornering.

The Maven's Word of the Day provides a nice etymology:

The 'cater' element in this term is from the English dialect word cater, meaning 'diagonally', which is from an obsolete word meaning 'four', which eventually goes back to quattuor, the Latin word for 'four'.. . .

The Phrase Finder explains how cater became kitty and catty:

But by a process known to language students as 'folk etymology,' the ordinary users of the term thought they detected an analogy to the ordinary domestic feline. Hence 'cater' soon became 'catty' and eventually 'kitty.'"

Well, I couldN’T care less. (sorry, that’s a pet peeve of mine).

But I’m glad to hear that there is a proper term to use in this context. Most such linguistic “conflicts” seem to have a “right” answer. Though some may pooh-pooh the concept, there is a value in having norms or standards of language. For example, it is stupid in my opinion that some people now use the word “bad” to mean some variation of “good.”

As noted in MTA, many regional dialectical differences are actually only differences between lazy linguists from the respective regions–between the people who don’t care about what is a proper term or word.

However, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with using slang or regionalisms, as long as everyone acknowledges that such terms are slang and not “proper,” right?

Hat-tip, NashvilleisTalking

Denial ain't just a river . . .

I had been interested in what the gals at TGW--whom I perceive to be some of the most Left-leaning bloggers in Tennessee, were thinking about Brittney's stoning and the title of this post jumped out at me: (Tennessee Guerilla Women: "Liberal Blogger Attacks Liberal Blogger – Racist Rightwing Blogger Wins"). I don't visit Six Meat Buffet often; from the times I've visited, I can see that they are often clever but too often provocative--inclined to appeal to the worst in me and others. And I thought some of this particular post--dis-eulogizing a guy named Steve Gilliard whom I knew of but had heard little about, was offensive. For example, I rarely see how someone's physical appearance is relevant to a discussion.

But that's not what "egalia" (of TGW) brought out in her post--she accused "smantix" of being "racist." Actually, that was part of the irony of "smantix's" post and Steven Gilliard's "work." I think it might be a little too reflexive or easy for TGW, et al to accuse "smantix" of being a racist--even the term "right wing" had overly-diminished returns if you frequent the TGW website. This entire incident reminds me of a killer bee attack or a pitbull attack. It may make some people feel better to name some type of "provocation" for what happened, but I think the impetus for the tragedy is the character of the attackers.

Trustin' they don't use Google in the heartland

In one of my various Google Alerts (the one for Brownback and Huckabee) I am daily deluged with hits including "Brownback" and "Huckabee" and "evolution" and "dismissively-telling-presidential-candidates-to-raise-their-hands-to-simplistic-questions." I've always contended that the "blogosphere" represents a left-of-center, narrow slice, of a small segment of the population, but this Google Alert stampede has reminded me of how unrepresentative of the population online media truly are.

Don't get me wrong . . . people are free to write and say whatever they want about public policy (unless it relates to a guy who happened to be African-American and popular with Liberals), but the hard secular Left appears oblivious to how offensive its message is to the average voter (not to mention its mean-ness). I'm not cowed by the many unscientific, illiberal pronouncements from "scientists" on the Left about things like Evolution and Global Warming, and I don't suspect I'll be following their political lead anytime soon. But many in the Heartland who sometimes vote with America's Left-of-Center Party would be surprised to know what leaders of said party "believe" about a lot of things. I'd like to hear some good "hardball," follow-up questions on the subject at a future Democrat debate . . . average voters probably aren't getting daily reminders of this truth via email.

Speaking of warring with science . . .

This occurred to me the other day, in an unfortunately sardonic response to news that scientists may have found a way to harvest stem cells without destroying humans: (Investor's Business Daily: "Stemming Politics")

"With the president sure to veto a bill expanding embryonic stem cell research, a new breakthrough should make the whole issue moot. But it won't stop Congress and presidential candidates from playing politics."

Brittney Gilbert scalped by Lefty netroots

I was stunned to learn a few minutes ago that Brittney Gilbert--author of WKRN's Nashville is Talking, has resigned her position. (Nashville is Talking » "I Guess This Is Goodbye").

I only caught the end of the furor that apparently brought her to this decision. But I skimmed the associated comment threads with incredulity. I couldn't believe how off-base these Olbermann pinschers were. Though Brittney and I agreed on little (in matters of public policy), I hate to see her go, and I hope that this incident merely helped her to make a difficult decision that she had not been able to make.

But I can't help but observe the irony of a bunch of Left-wingers claiming Brittney's scalp. Brittney was clearly a Liberal, but she was not intolerable and she was not intolerant. The same cannot be said of these Lefty netroot storm troopers. But these folks play for keeps, and unfortunately for the rest of us, they believe the end justifies the means.

We'll look forward to seeing what's next for you, Brittney.

Huckabee's performance drawing raves

Frank Luntz was just on the Sean Hannity radio program and commented on the GOP debater who most resonated with his debate focus group last evening: Mike Huckabee.

Luntz commented on how Huckabee answered the most difficult questions with aplomb--highlighting this response to the obtuse question, "What is the most pressing moral question of the day?":

"Why do I get all the "moral" questions? I guess that's better than all the "immoral" questions."

Blue Light Special: DEMagoguery on voting

I just got one of the recent emails from my pals at People for ("the American Way"); it's particularly offensive, so I thought I'd share it with you, my friends (that means you, too, William--though you're probably on their premier list and surely have already been moved to action by this e-missive). From the email's first paragraph:

It's been some time since wealthy, white, male landowners were the only ones permitted to vote in America. Based on what we've been seeing at the Justice Department and in legislatures around the country, it seems that many on the Right look back on those times as "the good old days."

Well, not exactly; we just don't think that people should get to cast more than one vote in an election.

Update: Who's wearing religion on sleeve?

This article ("Religion and politics go hand-in-hand in 2008 US presidential campaign" - International Herald Tribune) has an interesting (perhaps a post-Christian European) perspective on religion in American politics. An excerpt:

"Lately it seems all the leading presidential candidates are discussing their religious and moral beliefs — even when they would rather not.

Indeed, seven years after George W. Bush won the presidency in part with a direct appeal to conservative religious voters — even saying during a debate that Jesus Christ was his favorite philosopher — the personal faith of candidates for the 2008 election has become a very public part of the presidential campaign."

You ought to read the whole thing, but I think it is incorrect to insinuate that George W. Bush's religiosity is an "appeal" in the same way as that of people like Hillary, Obama and Edwards. Edwards' spokespeople can't even say where Edwards attends church. I'm just sayin' . . .

Update: By the way, I had a total of 30 minutes internet connection over the weekend (and a very busy schedule) so I was surprised to hear Rush talking about this subject today and to learn (here) that CNN had provided a DNC campaign ad candidate forum on the issue of religion this weekend. I even picked Obama, Edwards and Hillary out of a proverbial hat when referencing them above.

Ironically, Hillary predictably made the following statements during the "forum":

"I come from a tradition that is perhaps a little too suspicious of people who wear their faith on their sleeves." She went on: "A lot of the talk about and advertising about faith doesn't come naturally to me."

Huckabee: here I stand

In tonight's GOP NH debate, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee nicely addressed (and defused, I think) the Evolution question. Watch it here.

LeBron takes charge . . . or not

I regret hearing that basketball stud LeBron James is less than a "stand up" guy in his personal life. (SportingNews.com - NBA - "Oh, baby! LeBron ready for finals, son's arrival") Speaking about his soon-to-be-born second child with girlfriend Savannah Brinson, James says:

"It's great," James said Tuesday shortly before the Cavaliers left for San Antonio. "Any time you are able to have another child and something to live for and have responsibility for, it's always a big step in any man's life. And that I'm a part of the finals, something I've always watched growing up, it's something special."

The children are not likely to ever be destitute, and he surely could have pushed his "fiancee" to abort both of them, but he ought to go ahead and marry her if he plans to keep making babies with her.

Dems' damage control on Jefferson

This was a masterful handling (by the Dems) of William Jefferson's indictment on Monday. ("Indicted congressman steps down from House panel" - CNN.com). I would bet this resignation letter was written by Prime Minister Pelosi's staff and then sent over for Jefferson's signature. And I liked this tidbit from the article, Democrats who control the House nominated Jefferson for a seat on the Homeland Security Committee but never got around to voting on it.

"It is Jefferson's only committee assignment. His Democratic colleagues had appointed him to the Homeland Security Committee earlier in the year -- a move that outraged some GOP members -- but the nomination was never voted on by the full House of Representatives."

And, of course, Jefferson is steadfastly claiming his innocence; his lawyer told reporters:

". . .the indictment fails to show that Jefferson 'promised anyone any legislation' in exchange for bribes.

"There is no suggestion that he promised anyone any appropriations. There were no earmarks. There were no government contracts," Trout said.

Uh, okay.

Ingraham, Chavez and now the Blonde Bomber

I just came across this interesting audio from the Laura Ingraham show of an interview she did with Linda Chavez. chavez.mp3 (audio/mpeg Object). Based upon a stat that illegal immigration estimates appear to have decreased in the U.S. since 2001, Linda Chavez claims that "this [illegal immigration] is a manufactured crisis." I agree that some people demagogue this issue, and I am not as in knots about it as some, but this is a serious problem and it has come to a boil, regardless of the purported recent decline in illegal immigration. But there is no justification for the kind of rhetoric being used by some supporters of this most recent Immigration Reform proposal. As an aside, Chavez was almost Dubya's Labor Secretary, but she had an illegal immigration crisis of her own). Another aside, I wish Ingraham's show could be picked up in Middle Tennessee.

This story reminded me of Peggy Noonan's most recent op/ed taking Dubya to task for tearing the GOP asunder.

UPDATE: Ann Coulter's op/ed on this subject is splendid.

Religious Conservatives ready for prime time?

I heard about this article ("Fired McCain Campaign Aides Sound Off")--regarding former McCain staffers lambasting McCain's campaign and its attitude toward Religious Conservatives, over at Evangelicals for Mitt, and all I can say is this is bad form (on the part of the former staffers). They'll get all the affirming and nodding coverage they could ever want from the MSM and from rival campaigns, but that is telling.

I am not a McCain supporter (from way back), but these folks signed on to the campaign and should have been either more discerning then or more discrete now in choosing their candidate. Playing the poor, duped Religious Conservative--even in response to persistent questioning and even to guard your political operative reputation, doesn't wear well. Better to just keep quiet and learn your lesson.

Polls: Mirror, Mirror on the wall

Bill Hobbs has an insightful post about the latest Bloomberg Poll. ("McCain Slips to Third in Latest Bloomberg Poll as Fred Rises; Huckabee Happy Too") It's interesting to see how--based on a campaign's expectations, the same poll can be read so many different ways. For example:

"Most interesting data above other than Fred Thompson in second in a race he hasn't even entered and winning among Christian Conservatives: Romney's 6 percent among Christian Conservatives. That's dismal for Romney, though Huckabee's 6 percent among the same group has got to have the Huckabee camp jazzed up today. They're running their campaign for the equivalent of the Romney campaign's pocket change, and have pulled even with Romney among the single most important group of voters in the Republican primaries. "