Romney's Federalism

Alex Harris has an enlightening post about recent statements by Mitt Romney concerning ENDA--the so-called "Employment Non-Discrimination Act," which generally refers to a Federal effort to include "actual or perceived" sexual "orientation" as a protected characteristic in employment law. Here's the article at race42008.com

Russert asked Romney if he still supported ENDA. Romney replied that he did support them at the state level. He said that implementing such laws “makes sense.”

Mitt, how could you? You’ve shown that you understand the problem conservatives have with these laws. You said that your own experience in Massachusetts showed you that those laws at the state level are bad news. Two days later you express your support.

I’m sorry, but if that is what Romney said – and the transcript and the video (see 2:34) show that it is – I cannot see how conservatives can trust him to be strong in standing against the homosexual agenda, I just can’t. I’ve been part of this battle in my own state, and this is serious.

If you are a Romney supporter, I ask you to not simply brush this off or just attack me for supporting Huckabee. I know our guys are in a fierce fight in Iowa, but like so many of us have said, this race is about the issues. Coming from a guy who wants to support the Republican nominee and who wants to like Romney, I’m asking you to take an honest look at what I’ve shared. This is something voters have to consider.

For the record, Romney would be a fine nominee, but this information makes me wonder about his change in position on a variety of "social" issues, i.e., abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. I am alert to the kind of Federalism espoused by people like George Wallace; that is, Federalism that some use as a shield/distraction from suspect or squishy positions on controversial positions . . . like whether American apartheid was something within the purview of the Federal Constitution.

I fully appreciate the Federalist position, and I can appreciate the arguments from supporters of some GOP candidates--Thompson and McCain come to mind, that their respective candidate is more Conservative because said candidate acknowledges that there are limits on the power of the Federal government. But my conclusion that sexual proclivities or attractions are not immutable characteristics is rooted in my worldview, and Romney (in this particular context) seems to want Religious Conservatives to perceive that he shares (or has adopted) their worldview on a host of issues. I'm not sure that is an accurate perception.

Getting the full fiscal picture

It is not easy to sift through the information and insinuations and invective of a campaign. But it is necessary if you want to make an informed decision.

Mitt Romney has been airing an ad about Huckabee's spending (with a clarification here). My conclusion? When fiscal apples are compared to fiscal apples, Huckabee looks pretty much like his opponents in the GOP primary.

Not that this Romney ad is exceptionally unfair or inaccurate or that I don't think Mitt Romney would be a fine president, but I think that accusations that Huckabee is a spendthrift and an economic "Liberal" are hyperbolic.

Post-partisan? Try Neo-Partisan

All the discussion about third parties is amusing to me, and I'm a big-time idealist.

I just read a NYT article about Michael Bloomberg, "Unity08" and spoilers of old. ("Bloomberg Moves Closer to Running for President").

What got my attention (aside from a preoccupation with purported spoiler Ralph Nader to the exclusion of obvious spoiler Ross Perot) was a statement from Sam Waterson--who founded "Unity08," about their desire for a "bipartisan, nonpartisan, postpartisan ticket." Yeah, right. The reality is that Bloomberg knows he can decide an election, whether or not he wins it.

From the article:

"Meanwhile, he thoroughly enjoys the attention, and despite the public denials, suggests that he is poised to run if the political stars align themselves for a long-shot, but credible, independent campaign. During a private reception this month, Mr. Bloomberg playfully presided over a personal variation of bingo, in which guests could win by correctly guessing the significance of the numbers on a printed card.

“Two hundred seventy-one?” Mr. Bloomberg asked.

One guest guessed correctly: It was George W. Bush’s bare electoral-vote majority in 2000.
"

A matter of perspective

An op/ed in The American Spectator discusses the assertion by some that Religious Leftwinger Jim Wallis is like a modern-day prophet. From the article's conclusion:

"THE LAST 40 YEARS that Wallis recalls only as 'wilderness' are remembered by most Americans as a recovery time from the chaos of the 1960s. Beyond the civil rights movement and the space program, it's hard for non-activists to recall most of that decade as historically anything more than a disturbing era of social disintegration.

Hardly wandering in the wilderness since then, America over the last 40 years has increased in population by 50 percent, become wealthier, healthier, cleaner, safer, less racist, and even more of a cultural and racial melting pot. After the ignominies of the Vietnam era, America went on to win the Cold War, largely end the impending threat of superpower nuclear conflict.

Now America presides fairly benevolently over a world that, with major exceptions, is far friendlier to American principles than 40 years ago. Good riddance to Leonid Brezhnev, Mao Tse-tung, Ho Chi Minh, Joseph Tito, Gamal Nasser, and the countless radical activists in the 1960s who romanticized those tyrants.

Sadly, the legacies of the 1960s that still survive today are unrestricted abortion, widespread illegitimacy, broken families, pervasive divorce and absent fathers, all of which originated in the collapse of sexual mores and in the expansion of the federal welfare state that the 1960s unabashedly celebrated. Wallis rarely addresses these issues,, except to recommend an even greater welfare dosage of the Great Society.

Still, even these pathologies show some small signs of receding. And today's world, and today's America is far better than in 1968, thanks to the continued vitality of American democracy and of America's religious life.

A true prophet would recognize that."

Part II: public service announcement for my friends in blogdom

Update below . . .

Glen Dean has stirred somethin' up in a post about THE MOVIE "The Pursuit of Happyness" at MusicCityBloggers.

Sounding like Hollywood abstainers they surely criticize on the Right, folks from the Left are lambasting THE MOVIE (and the movie's inspiration) for not being documentaryish or for daring to present an inspiring story that doesn't jibe with their world view. Welcome to the anti Oscar party.

It shouldn't be a surprise that I disagree with various of their (Liberals') presuppositions about the causes of, or remedies for, poverty . . . so no big news there. But it is interesting to see the dustup related to my response to SouthernBeale's gauntlet-throwing assertion (here) that anyone who has spent even an hour tutoring kids who live in the project would agree with her ideas on the subject.

I said in response:

SB, I have spent one hour tutoring kids in the project . . . what’s your answer for the problems they face? The “War on Poverty”? How’s that working out for ya?

Perhaps I should have used italics around the word "have" or provided a link to my good deed doing certificate in my response, but neither was necessary to demonstrate that SB's argument was fallacious. "Sarcastro" and "dolphin" pounced on their perception that Ned has only spent one hour tutoring inner city kids and has some nerve bragging about it. Well, they were wrong on both counts, but it reminded me of something that bothers me whenever I see it.

Such a "debate" is a head-shakingly petty and immature type of johnson-comparing contest about charity or compassion. Too many outspoken Libs seem to think that they've got the market cornered on charity or compassion, and they point to vicarious, often NIMBYish (gov't) policy positions (or to online, unverifiable, anonymous, self-aggrandizing declarations) as evidence of moral superiority or authority. I'm sure there are examples of the same done by Conservatives (go dig 'em up and feel free to post/comment about 'em). It's annoying regardless.

That's all . . . back to your regularly scheduled programming.


Update: It's unrelenting over at MCB.

"Ned seems like he has something to prove."

Actually, that is exactly opposite of what is happening.

"Ned is a hypocrite because he is always talking about religion."

Actually, no. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise, but I don't feel defensive about how "faithful" I am, and I don't use my perspective on my personal faithfulness as an attempted checkmate in discussions on issues of faith. "Back off; I'm very religious" (kind of like "Shut up; I have tutored inner city kids") is rarely a valid argument.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

Reading this account ("Carnation suspects tell officers of victims' frantic, final moments") of the Christmas Eve murders in Washington state is sobering. The male perpetrator was a clerk at Target; folks who knew him can hardly believe he's capable of this--according to reports; regrettably he was capable of shooting his girlfriend's 3-year-old nephew and 6-year-old niece at point-blank range after having murdered their parents as the children watched . . the entire time, Aunt Michele stood by, weapon in hand.

It reminded me of a murder prosecution in Knoxville when I was clerking there. A couple kidnapped a neighbor at gunpoint as he returned from work and left him bound and gagged in the bathtub while they went out to eat at a Red Lobster. From time to time it occurs to me that someone around me--in a check out line or at the next table in a restaurant, could be planning a murder.

Read the article above to see how petty the purported "dispute" was. As best I can remember, the Knoxville kidnappers got a couple hundred dollars (and a dinner at Red Lobster) in their grand scheme. Given the 24/7 media cycle and "smallness" of our world, it's easy to conclude that life is cheaper today than in past eras . . . I suppose there's wisdom in the saying, "ignorance is bliss."

Circumstantial case for Fred

This is a nice ad for Thompson--given the need for a candidate to accumulate support in this fractured primary. By referencing the varied, positive aspects of him as a candidate, the ad touches on what is probably Thompson's best "aspect": that he is the "best hope" for a win in November . . . a candidate who can unify the GOP and attract Independents.



Too bad they can't throw in Rush's comments about Thompson following the last debate.

Huckering down

Here's an interesting article from The Weekly Standard about Mike Huckabee's (seemingly) increasing populist rhetoric on the stump.

Some of the rhetoric rubs me the wrong way, but I think it matters that he is making the comments in response to an onslaught of recent "vetting" from Romney and others. Getting called "Huckster" or a "Pro-Life Liberal" starts to get on your nerves after a while I'd guess.

But it reminded me of a recent article in National Review about the GOP's apparent challenge in 2008. Lowry and Ponnuru assert that the GOP seems to be answering questions noone is asking and needs to apply Conservative principles to existing problems and existing "realities." I use the quotation marks because political "realities" (despite the meaning of the word) are rather subjective and often used to rationalize departing from orthodoxies.

The Lowry/Ponnuru article didn't resonate at first, but I can see how--and perhaps why, Huckabee's campaign is striking a chord with voters . . . even though it isn't striking a chord with me in those particular aspects.

For three decades, the Republican party has absorbed increasing numbers of socially conservative working-class and middle-class voters while losing affluent social liberals — until the 2006 elections, in which Republican totals fell among every category of voter except for full-spectrum conservatives. The most plausible path toward a renewed center-right majority involves consolidating and deepening the trend of the decades before 2006: holding on to as much of the existing conservative coalition as possible while adding more downscale voters who lean right on social issues.

That task will force conservatives to explain how free-market policies can address the economic anxieties of this group of voters. We don’t have to support “universal coverage” on health care. But we ought to talk more about health care than about the budget; and when we talk about health care, we should explain how Republican policies will help people keep and control their own health care. We don’t have to abandon attempts to reform the tax code and to drop the top tax rate. But we should put much more effort into providing tax relief for middle-class parents. We don’t have to open the borders. But we should make it clear that our immigration policy isn’t based on anger. We don’t have to give up on the idea that sometimes the U.S. must fight wars, even going it alone; but we need to persuade people that we see unilateral military action as a last resort — that we’re not spoiling for a fight.

Paul needs him some wiggle room

It didn't surprise me to see that Ron Paul refused to rule out a third party run ("Ron Paul won't rule out third-party run"), after all he has previously run for president as a Libertarian. But the salient fact from this exchange on Meet the Press is that Paul indeed needs some wiggle on this issue:

"Republican presidential hopeful Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) refused to rule out the possibility he may run as a third-party candidate during an appearance Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Paul, however, downplayed expectations that he will run on a potential third-party libertarian ticket, saying “I have no intention of doing that.”

When asked by host Tim Russert if he would promise not to run, Paul demurred, saying, “I deserve one wiggle now and then” and that he was “99.9 percent” sure he would not run."

Yes he does, because I believe the largest energizing aspect of Paul's campaign is with what I would term the "Spoiler" faction of American politics (here and here). They don't care who or what upsets the (current) two-party apple cart, as long as it gets upset. I seriously doubt that Ron Paul is raising the money he's raising from 2-4% of "likely Republican voters."

To be clear, I don't think there's anything "wrong" with supporting a third party candidate or a third party, but it is important that we understand the third party movement to understand the Ron Paul phenomenon.

. . . and mean what you say

Perhaps the most offensive (to me as a Conservative) act of Dubya's presidency was his (a) signing BCFRA (b) while asserting that he thought the act was unConstitutional. His decision was disingenuous at worst, spineless at best.

And I thought of Dubya and BCFRA when I read this article about Ron Paul ("Paul Defends Asking for Special Projects") tonight. The article read:

"Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul on Sunday defended his efforts in Congress to bring home money to his Texas district, despite his long-held aversion to big government and congressional votes to reign in federal spending.

'I've never voted for an earmark in my life,' the Texas congressman said under questioning on NBC's 'Meet the Press' about reports that he has requested hundreds of millions of dollars for special projects in his home district.

'I put them in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back,' said Paul, who likened it to taking a tax credit. 'I'm against the tax system, but I take all my tax credits. I want to get their money back for the people.'

The 10-term congressman and longshot candidate for the Republican presidential nomination added that although he has requested special projects known as earmarks, he ultimately ends up voting against them in the House."

(emphasis added) Paul's example is a little different (though I bet if you got Paul on a roll he would flat-out claim that earmarks are unConstitutional some way or another), but it still concerns me that he (Paul) would attempt to rationalize these actions.

Speaking of context

As the post below notes, context is crucial in weighing the merits of an accusation or claim in political campaign. I had read this info about Romney's "tough on crime" ad running against Huckabee in Iowa, and had dismissed it as typical campaign rhetoric; however, in light of my post about Huckabee's fiscal record, I thought it was significant to point out the pitfalls of comparing the "apples" of one candidate's record with "oranges" of another candidate's record.

From the Newsweek article: "Romney launched another negative ad in Iowa this week, where the Republican presidential candidate has been battling the new front-runner, Huckabee. This time, Romney attacks Huckabee’s record on methamphetamine laws and the clemencies he granted as governor of Arkansas. We found that:

The ad says Romney “got tough on drugs like meth” while governor of Massachusetts, but the legislation he supported never passed, and his state’s laws are much weaker than Arkansas’. Convicted meth dealers face both minimum and maximum prison terms in Arkansas that are four times longer than those in Massachusetts.

The ad misrepresents news articles, implying that they supported Romney’s actions as governor when that’s not what the news organizations said. One article, in fact, gave critical views of Romney’s refusal to issue a pardon."

Hat tip, SaveTalkRadio.

Perspective on Huckabee's fiscal record

I'm not sure how I missed this op/ed, but I was surprised to learn more about Mike Huckabee's fiscal proclivities from Dick Morris ("Huckabee is a Fiscal Conservative"). Here's the opening paragraph:

As Mike Huckabee rises in the polls, an inevitable process of vetting him for conservative credentials is under way in which people who know nothing of Arkansas or of the circumstances of his governorship weigh in knowingly about his record. As his political consultant in the early '90s and one who has been following Arkansas politics for 30 years, let me clue you in: Mike Huckabee is a fiscal conservative.

Context or perspective is the antidote to lying with statistics, and it is the challenge of any voter to get proper context/perspective when considering the claims and accusations of a primary campaign. And the accusations will only multiply and intensify as a candidate is perceived as a threat.

Tip o' the hat to SaveTalkRadio.com

Roger Simon: biased as charged

It's interesting to get a couple of different angles on a news story, because it provides all-important context for interpreting "facts."

Over at Volunteer Voters I found a link to a Fred Thompson interview (transcript) published in a small bi-weekly paper in Waverly Iowa. I'll concede that Thompson seems somewhat flippant in the interview, and perhaps that is what motivated the interviewer (according to another report--below) to flatly say, "I don't know why he's running and neither does he." I'm not sure what qualifies as a "rationale" for a candidacy, but Thompson seems to supply one to the interviewer . . . read for yourself. Which leads to my charge of bias . . .

Yesterday I read a report of Fred Thompson's retail campaigning in Iowa on the politico blog. ("Fred Thompson: Lazy as charged" - Roger Simon - Politico.com). From reading the story, it could be argued that Thompson doesn't have "energy," but "argu[ing]" isn't what journalists do in news reports, right? In any event, an aversion to gladhanding or schmoozing is not the same thing as being "lazy," and Simon tips his hand (I believe) in this attempted dig on Thompson, who jokingly said, "I'm about the violate my 'silly hat rule,'" when handed a fire helmet while visiting a fire station. Thompson ultimately opted out of trying on the thing, and this is what Roger Simon had to say about the incident:

"In point of fact, the “silly” hat was the one Chief McKenzie wore to fires and I am guessing none of the firefighters in attendance considered it particularly silly, but Thompson was not going to put it on. He just stood there holding it and staring at it."

Actually, Thompson's wife took the hat from him in short order and put it on, but, yes, a fire helmet is a "silly hat" if donned by a grown man, who happens not to be a fire fighter, who is wearing a dress suit, who is running for President.


Tip o' the hat to Political Animals

What about the supraliminal message?

It's hilarious that some people are complaining about the "subliminal" message in Mike Huckabee's latest TV ad--the "floating cross" Huckabee Stands by Christmas Ad:

"Catholic League president Bill Donahue said Huckabee went beyond wishing people a joyous holiday. Donahue said he was especially disturbed by the cross-like image created by a white bookcase in the background of the ad, saying he believed it was a subliminal message."

Well, here's the copy from the ad:

"Are you about worn out by all the television commercials you've been seeing, mostly about politics? Well, I don't blame you. At this time of year sometimes it's nice to pull aside from all of that and just remember that what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ and being with our family and friends."

Yikes. I can only imagine how worried these critics are about the supra-liminal message of the ad.

On the other hand, maybe the "floating cross" is a "coded" threat to America's atheists.

Yeah. right.

State Rep. Rob Briley (D-Nashville) has asserted in court documents that we was on his way to rehab when all H-E-double hockey sticks broke loose. You can read details from the court filings of fate's victim in the The City Paper's report here. Briley (or his attorney) wrote:

"“In the days prior to my arrest, I had been in contact with Cumberland Heights in Nashville, Tenn., in an effort to voluntarily enter rehabilitation. I phoned several days and each day was advised no bed was available.

“On Sept. 8, I was advised a bed was available and I could enter rehabilitation on that day. I remember getting in my vehicle and beginning to drive west in the direction of Cumberland Heights.

“I have no further memory of Sept. 8.”

After he was arrested, Briley did enter rehab at Cumberland Heights, but left abruptly after it was alleged in published reports he had an extramarital affair with a Capitol Hill lobbyist, Mary Littleton."

Hmmm. Having been so desirous of getting into Cumberland Heights, I wonder where he was going when he fled rehab? Now maybe Briley can lead the charge for taxpayers to provide more rehab space so fate doesn't strike (like this) again. Sorry, but this man should not be in public office.

Myths about McCain's comeback

Sorry, but this is a foolish statement ("Stealth fighter McCain plots 2008 comeback" - Yahoo! News):

"Once the Republican heir apparent, McCain's campaign plunged close to extinction this year, as a cash crunch and his unpopular support for the Iraq war and moderate line on illegal immigration took a toll."

(emphasis mine) McCain's support for the Iraq War only hurt him among Ron Paul supporters . . . no other Republican primary voters.

The writer later makes this statement, indicating that McCain's "comeback" is somehow related . . . maybe among his one-time supporters among the media elite, but--again, not among GOP primary voters:

Recently, he staked out fierce opposition to the use of torture on terror suspects, and unusually for a Republican candidate, called for a serious effort to tackle global warming.

Mitt the Press

Mitt wept when church ended discrimination - Mike Allen - Politico.com: "Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” today that he wept with relief when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Mormon church, announced a 1978 revelation that the priesthood would no longer be denied to persons of African descent."

I have some dear friends who are Mormon, so I hesitate to say anything that can seem demeaning about Mormons or the Mormon religion (even though I think it is wrong on a variety of theological issues). But what stood out to me from the interview was this exchange: (Here's a video of the exchange).

"Moderator Tim Russert asked if “it was wrong for your faith to exclude them for as long as it did.”

“I told you exactly where I stand,” Romney said. “My view is that there’s no discrimination in the eyes of God. And I could not have been more pleased than to see the change that occurred.”

I perceive that he is reticent to say, "my faith (and the faith of my fathers!) was wrong." And I can see the challenge of "answering for" your religion when seemingly no-brainer changes in doctrine are the result of "new revelation[s]."

Dems oughta be ashamed; should Hobbs?

This report (at BillHobbs.com) of a report ;) about a recent TN Democratic Party attack on State Senator (and Republican) Diane Black is disconcerting.

The Dems ought to be ashamed. The Bredesen wing of that party ought to knock some heads together.

As an aside, I was surprised to learn that Bill Hobbs was also taken to task by Phil Williams in that report. Not that Hobbs needs me to defend him, but I'm not sure the criticism was legitimate. Williams accuses Hobbs of misleading readers in a press release singling out two Democratic appointees casting votes in a Jerry Cooper-friendly vote by the Registry of Election Finance.

But a City Paper report bolsters Hobbs' assertion:("Panel turns to AG on authority for $120K Cooper fine" on Nashville City Paper):

"This morning, however, a pair of Registry members, appointees of the House and Senate Democratic Caucuses, led an effort to ask for a state attorney general’s opinion on whether it could fine Cooper $120,000 or a maximum of $14,152.50.

After some persuasion, the Registry voted unanimously by a voice vote to seek the attorney general’s guidance to clarify ambiguities in the law regarding how much Cooper could be legally fined.

“Sorry I’m the only one who cares about the legality of the thing,” said George Harding, a Registry member appointed by the House Democratic Caucus, who stringently pushed to consult the attorney general."

An ex-president needn't be unpresidential

I've opined before (here) that former President Bill Clinton's campaigning for Hillary was unseemly and this interview, (with Charlie Rose, highlights that fact, in my humble opinion. Here's the report:

"In a surprisingly frank interview with Charlie Rose on his PBS show late Friday night, former President Bill Clinton declared that his wife was not only far better prepared to be president than her chief rival Sen. Barack Obama -- 'it's not close' -- but that voters who disagreed would be taking a 'risk' if they picked the latter."

There's no doubt that Bill Clinton owes Hillary BIGTIME . . . it is unpleasant to be an audience to the payback.

Thompson stands tall

Update: Here's a nice video montage of debate highlights (from the perspective of Thompson supporters)



I am watching C-Span's replay of the GOP debate from today and just heard a Tom Beaumont (political reporter of the Des Moines Register) pooh-poohing reactions from Frank Luntz's focus group about Fred Thompson's refusal to "raise his hand" in answer to a question about global warming. In sum, it appears that almost every focus group member was impressed with Thompson's "stand."

And the MSM just doesn't get it.

I opined previously that this "raise your hand" shtick is offensive. It was probably the most significant "event" of this event. Thompson appeared like a giant in the half a minute it took for him to say "no" as almost every other person on the stage raised their hand or attempted to squeeze in an answer or entreated the moderator for 30 seconds or anything_other_than_say_refuse_to_play.

Ignorance is bliss (for abortion supporters)

I know some of you luv Roe v. Wade, but I'm curious to see how well you know this landmark Supreme Court decision.

Well, here's here's a website that tests one's knowledge about the decision. The abortion debate is hampered by confusion and ignorance about Roe v. Wade. I would submit that Pro-choice folks are content with the general public's confusion.

Huckabee's "straight" talk

UPDATE: Huckabee is standing by his statements. Good for him. This is something that endears Huckabee to voters.

That being said, note Giuliani's statement at the end of the article. Though he is generous in not demagoguing Huck's statement, he tap dances around the issue:

Giuliani, who appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press," said in response to a question that he did not believe homosexuality was aberrant.

"The way somebody leads their life isn't sinful. It's the acts," said Giuliani, who supports gay rights and lived with an openly gay couple after separating from his second wife while mayor. "It's the various acts that people perform that are sinful, not the orientation that they have."

This AP report is going to cause a buzz Huckabee wanted to isolate AIDS patients - Yahoo! News. From the AP article (hat tip, TennViews):

"Mike Huckabee once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure and said homosexuality could 'pose a dangerous public health risk.'

As a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in 1992, Huckabee answered 229 questions submitted to him by The Associated Press. Besides a quarantine, Huckabee suggested that Hollywood celebrities fund AIDS research from their own pockets, rather than federal health agencies."

Newscoma posting at TennViews headlines it "New Revelations of the Real Mike Huckabee." I was kind of surprised at the candor reflected in the answers reported in the article, but I agree that the quarantine suggestion and the "put your money where your mouth is" reference to Hollywooders are lacking in propriety (for a candidate). Other than that, however, I don't think this is going to scare off anyone seriously open to voting for Huckabee. And his views have changed or moderated in some senses since making those comments. And some of the views expressed didn't need changing, frankly.

But as far as the "real (cue sinister instrumental) Mike Huckabee" reference: 15 years is a long time in a political life, and surely elitists can find it in their heart to let Huck evolve :) on how public policy interacts with personal views?

Huckabee's newfound accusers

Great reporting about Huckabee and the infamous Dumond parole case in the New York Times:

"As new polls highlight Mike Huckabee’s ascent in the Republican presidential field, he is drawing new scrutiny of his record in Arkansas, particularly his actions in the release of a convicted rapist who went on to murder a woman . . .
Two former parole board members in Arkansas said yesterday that as governor, Mr. Huckabee met with the board in 1996 to lobby them to release the convicted rapist, Wayne DuMond, whose case was championed by evangelical Christians. “He expressed his concerns about DuMond’s guilt,” said Deborah Suttlar, a former parole board member. “He felt he deserved to be released.” Mr. DuMond later went on to murder a Missouri woman after his parole. He died in prison of natural causes in 2005. Mr. Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist pastor, has denied that he had any involvement in Mr. DuMond’s release, pointing out that he had refused to commute the sentence and that the parole board freed him. But The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that three of the seven members of the parole board said Mr. Huckabee had pressured them, echoing earlier reporting by The Arkansas Times and other local news media."

The credibility of the folks on the parole board, however, is questionable, based on this report.

Mr. DuMond was convicted in the 1984 rape of a teenager who was a distant cousin of Bill Clinton, then the governor of Arkansas. While he was out on bail awaiting trial, Mr. DuMond said men forced his way into his home and castrated him, but the authorities said they thought he might have castrated himself in a play for sympathy. He was sentenced to life in prison.

Mr. Clinton’s successor, Jim Guy Tucker, found the sentence excessive and cut it to 39 ½ years, making Mr. DuMond eligible for parole.

While Mr. DuMond was in prison, the Rev. Jay D. Cole, a Baptist pastor and friend of Mr. Huckabee’s, ministered to him, and the inmate later said he had found God.

Mr. Cole said yesterday that he asked Mr. Huckabee to look into the case. “I think Mike was very torn about the whole thing,” Mr. Cole said. “I feel he felt an innocent man was in prison, or if not, he had been in prison too long. But he didn’t come out and say that.”

Nevertheless, soon after taking office, Mr. Huckabee met in October 1996 with members of the parole board, all of whom had been appointed by his Democratic predecessors. Mr. DuMond’s case, with its twists and turns — including a $110,000 judgment against a sheriff who kept Mr. DuMond’s testicles in a jar on his desk — had become something of a celebrated cause among conservative activists, who charged that Mr. Clinton’s relation to the victim had led to Mr. DuMond’s being railroaded.

The parole board meetings are public, but after Mr. Huckabee arrived, the board chairman closed the meeting to everyone except board members. What happened next is in dispute.

A request for a pardon was being considered at that point by Mr. Huckabee, who came out in favor of it. That caused an outcry among some, including the rape victim, who went to his office to ask him to change his mind.

Mr. Huckabee later denied Mr. DuMond clemency, but wrote a letter to him. “Dear Wayne,” he wrote. “My desire is that you be released from prison. I feel that parole is the best way for your reintroduction to society to take place.”

When Mr. Huckabee met with the parole board, according to Ms. Suttlar and Charles Chastain, another board member, he said he wanted to talk to them about a specific case and raised the issue of Mr. DuMond unprompted.

“I’ve looked into this a good bit,” Mr. Chastain recalled Mr. Huckabee saying to them. “I feel he may just be a fellow from the wrong side of the tracks and gotten a raw deal.”

Ms. Suttlar yesterday accused Mr. Huckabee of compromising “the integrity of the parole board.” She was somewhat more lenient in an interview with The Associated Press in 2001, when she said the pressure from Mr. Huckabee “was not coercion, it was an implied thing.”

Olan W. Reeves, who served as Mr. Huckabee’s chief counsel and attended the meeting, said that it was meant only to introduce the new governor to the board and that Mr. DuMond’s case came up when a board member challenged him on his support for clemency.

“He didn’t go over there to talk to them about that,” Mr. Reeves said yesterday. “The governor in Arkansas has nothing to do with parole.”

The board voted 4 to 1 several months later to parole Mr. DuMond, with Mr. Chastain casting the lone dissenting vote, after having denied his freedom repeatedly in previous years. Two board members, including Ms. Suttlar, abstained. She said yesterday she chose not to vote because she was disgusted by what she described as behind-the-scenes lobbying by Mr. Huckabee to have Mr. DuMond released.

But she previously told The Associated Press that she did not vote because Mr. DuMond had accused her of racial bias. She is black, and Mr. DuMond is white.

Mr. Huckabee said at a news conference in Iowa last week that he regretted the entire incident, reiterating that he did not pressure the board to “do anything.”

“I can’t fix it,” he said of the episode. “I can only tell the truth and let the truth be my judge.”

(emphasis added)

Mealy-mouthed Huckabee

One of the things I've been hearing--in light of Romney's "Faith in America" speech, is criticism of Mike Huckabee's answers of late to the question, "Do you think that Mormons are Christians?"

Here's a typical example, from a Time Mag. blog, Huckabee Stirs the Mormon Issue. For the record, I like Huckabee, probably more than any of the other candidates. And one reason I like him is plain ol' affinity--I perceive that more than any other candidate, he shares my worldview. And while I'd say that he more "mature" in the faith than me in a variety of ways, I don't think he is "right" on every issue of public policy. A single interpretation of the Christian Scriptures (or even "spiritual truth," generally) can have many different applications.

All that being said, I want to defend Huckabee on accusations that he is being mealy-mouthed or "stirring it up" in his answers about Christianity and Mormonism. Take this quote for example:

CBSNews.com: ‘Do you believe that Mormonism is a legitimate form of Christianity?’

Gov. Huckabee: ‘You know, Mormonism is a faith that people adhere
to. And I think people ought to respect anybody’s faith. I am not all
that familiar with the intricate details. I have enough trouble keeping
up with my own faith. So, I do not spend lots of time trying to
evaluate somebody else’s.’

CBSNews.com: ‘But do you think they’re real Christians?’

Gov. Huckabee: ‘Once again, I am not going to try to judge. That is
for them to determine whether they accept Jesus Christ as the only
revelation of God on Earth. And, if they do, then that is how a person
is a Christian, not by the label they wear, but by the position they
take on the role and the personhood of Christ.’

This might be difficult for non-Christians to understand, which is understandable :), but Evangelicals don't use the term "Christian"--especially in the context of the above Huckabee quote, to mean "moral" or "not Jewish" or "not Muslim" or "American" or "like me." Huckabee gives the Biblical definition of "being a Christian." Given the difficult-to-discern-about-others nature of "belief" and given the imprecision with which many people use religious terms, it is difficult to know where someone stands in relation to the Biblical definition of "being a Christian," but if the shoe fits, where it.

"Stirring it up" would have been giving a categorical statement that "no Mormons" or "all Mormons" believe such and such. But providing one's understanding of the Biblical definition of "being a Christian"--coupled with declining to judge an entire group of people, is what I call "tact." Anyone with half a brain can appreciate how valuable that is in a religiously diverse, tolerant society. Gee, sorry if Huckabee's answers don't provide the saucy soundbite you folks in the MSM (and some folks supporting other candidates) are looking for.

The Romney Speech

I just viewed Romney's "Faith in America" speech, (can be viewed here) and my first response is that the decision to give this speech was brilliant. It speaks volumes about Romney's ability to lead for him to ignore (assuming the reports are accurate) those in his campaign who advised him not to give this speech and draw attention to the issue. And it was brilliant because the glut of earned media attention is priceless. Of course, there was a risk that he might lay an egg, but I think it was a risk worth taking.

Though I thought his delivery was off pitch (too sharp; not a natural/comfortable cadence or intonation), the substance of the speech was very presidential . . . not addressing any narrow constituency and not ignoring any constituency (okay, atheists weren't feeling the love, but . . .). This speech had the tone and substance of one delivered by a person who is already President and who addresses all Americans and no opponents.

For folks who believe that what you believe is more important than simply believing, Romney's effort, in sections of his speech, to minimize religious distinctions and commend belief for belief's sake is not impressive. However, I think those same people will appreciate Romney's courageous defense of "Faith's" role in America. I guess time will tell.

Chavez not chagrined

I have been a bit out of pocket since last Friday, so I hadn't heard until this evening that Chavez' ballot-box revolution had failed. That's encouraging, but Chavez--a masterful politician, is keeping his chin up ("Venezuela's Chávez defiant, despite defeat" | csmonitor.com):

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez says the time has come for "profound reflection" following his first electoral defeat in nine years at the helm Sunday night.
. . . .
But Chávez's acceptance of the results has strengthened his democratic credentials, and analysts say he'll use that to push his socialist "revolution" just as fervently as he has been.

Well, it depends on how you define "democratic." The article continues:

"Speculation has begun to mount about how and when Chávez will attempt to push some of the reforms into law, whether unilaterally by decree or through the National Assembly, which he dominates. He also controls the country's courts, most of its media, and almost all local and state governments.
. . . .
But Chávez has the power to pass any law unilaterally, until August 2008, that does not explicitly contradict the current Constitution. During that time, analysts expect him to pass such reforms as a 36-hour workweek, universal social security, and a fund for independent workers."

Hillary's probably behind this

This is an interesting primary maneuver--some Leftwing group is going negative on Hillary. ("First Negative Ad Against Clinton". I have to say, criticism from such quarters probably increases Hillary's electability, so maybe she's behind it. From the article:

"The group, Democratic Courage, has accused Clinton of making policy decisions on the basis of polls, not convictions."

Uh, who among the Democrats running for president isn't guilty of this? Maybe Kuchy (if he can seriously be said to be a candidate)? I've heard that Obama opposed the Iraqi War, but I'd say he was armchair quarterbacking in "taking that stance" as a state senator (and is now Monday-morning quarterbacking).