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

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

This is the core of Tim Gill's strategy:

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

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

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

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

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

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

Views of Giuliani put GOP to the test

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

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

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

Spare me the "Christianist" diatribes

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

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

But here's just the intro:

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

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

What "world of miracles and magic"?

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

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

A fascist behind every tree

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

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

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

I love the irony of that last sentence.

Talk about seeing a fascist behind every tree . . .

Bloggers: Sorry IF we offended anyone . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russert's rebellion

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

Marriage Protection Amendment national scorecard

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

Sacrosanct environmentalism

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

Here's an excerpt:

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

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

Money quote:

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

What is fascism?

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

Huckabee's reasonable-sounding-ness

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

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

Taxing for income redistribution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We'll see.

Disciplining dilemma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Broader" or repackaged agenda?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critical Senate resolution: symbolic but significant - Los Angeles Times

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

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

Wrong.

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

Great ad campaign

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

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

Breaking: Dems oppose blocking judicial nominations

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

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

The problem of Conservatism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy unplugged

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

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

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

Not so "fair," not so "open"

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

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

Gore's excess baggage

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

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

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

The Libby circus

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

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

Who's in charge of "tiers"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"An intelligent approach to intelligent design"

Here's a great article from an Intelligent Design skeptic.
(here) A juicy excerpt:

"The polls show that scientists and science teachers have little to lose and everything to gain by bringing creationism into the classroom, where it can be critically debated and its merits compared to those of evolutionary theory."

While I disagree with a couple of the conclusions (e.g., he asserts "that directly and respectfully engaging with students' beliefs, rather than ignoring them as most science teachers are forced to do, could be a more effective way to teach evolution," but the presumption is each theory was given equal treatment in the presentation), I think he correctly observes how unscientific it is to ignore sincere and credible challenges to one's theory.

Rep. Cooper says "global warming" on YouTube!

Ostensibly Blue Dog Democrat Jim Cooper (D-TN) has made it to youtube with his endorsement of a book accusing "Republicans" of "war[ring]" with science. Yay, Jim!
YouTube - Cooper on Global Warming, Negroponte and the Dinner Party

This raises a couple of questions for me: First, I thought circumstances (read: data disproving doomsday predictions) had resulted in modifying the term from "global warming" to "global climate change," no?

Second, why is it so important to Liberals/Lefties/Democrats that a politician say the phrase "global warming"? Perhaps they're obsessed with it for the same reason Conservatives aren't eager to use the term: it connotes an entire religion of doomsdayism sacred to--as Phil Valentine calls them, the dirt people. "Global warming" also denotes--as mentioned above, a previous dire, big-gov't-inspiring and incorrect theory peddled from the Left side of the political spectrum.

Quote of the (other) day

Here's my quote of the (other) day for today:here
WH spokesman, Tony Snow, when asked if The president also had given his time to studying the anti-war protest:

"I don't think he really thought a lot about it," Snow said. "It's nice to see Jane Fonda in front of the camera again. There were a number of people who were here making statements, and that's perfectly appropriate."

"Political" Science on the Hill

I'm hearing a lot of late about how Religious Conservatives elevate a creed over reason or science or basic human goodness. The subject of human harvesting (aka embryonic stem cell research) is a splendid example of Left-wing hypocrisy.

Here's a great article on the subject Political Science on the Hill, and one more reason to question the "scientific" pronouncements of the Left.

Hillary on tape

Hillary2008! is going to be working overtime to dispel the truth that she knowingly supported the war in Iraq (indeed, she did so in Ioway over the weekend--here).

Unfortunately (for Hillary2008!) she is on tape saying otherwise in 2003. She makes a great case for acting on the Iraq problem, by the way.

Hat tip, Mark Rose.

Homosexual movement remix

Interesting report about new tack in the homosexual marriage movement: Media training for homosexual couples with children. Training helps gay families win hearts. From the article:

"'Family is something most people in the country can connect to,' [Program Trainer Jennifer] Chrisler said. 'We're at the point in the battle where we have to pull people emotionally into what our struggles are.'

That may require changing the way gay and lesbian people talk about the issue.

Instead of appealing for 'marriage equality,' parents should talk about what it means to be barred from marriage. The term 'discrimination' should be shelved and replaced with the more concrete idea of 'hurting,' Olson told the parents in San Francisco. And while there are more than 1,000 rights and legal benefits conferred with marriage, conversations about the emotional and social benefits are more persuasive, she said."

No question the whole, "marriage equality" line of argument hasn't worked out so well.

Litigate--rhymes with "intimidate"

Sen. Sam Brownback carrying the standard for ACLU-weary Americans--and certainly those tired of cowering to the Left-wing interpretation of the establishment clause. Senator Brownback Reintroduces Public Expressions of Religion Act.

Knee-jerk bushating

Memphis' Mick Wright disembowels a NYTimes "story" about recent troubling moves by the President to . . . er, be President. The funniest part is the roundup of knee-jerk Lefty blog posts on the matter.

Read the entire post here.

Slim Libby pickings

This Roger Aronoff & Cliff Kincaid report (here) accurately describes the Libby trial for what it is: Chapter Umpteen in the Media's persistent campaign to discredit the Bush Administration.

Here's a sample quote from the article:

All of this ["sensational developments" like talk of "sacrificial lambs"] is interesting but largely beside the point. What Libby and Rove and others were doing was rebutting Wilson's false charges, while passing along information about his wife working at the CIA and being behind his trip to Africa on behalf of the Agency. Numerous conversations were held with various journalists, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with any of this. It happens all the time. The difference was that this was a conservative administration dealing with a hostile liberal press. Cheney and Libby knew full well that Wilson's accusations, published in the New York Times, could affect public opinion. They had to fight back.

I encourage you to read the whole thing for an overview of the case.

Nagin: the buck doesn't stop here!

In the continuing saga that is post-Katrina New Orleans, Mayor Ray Nagin is complaining (here) that not enough money has been flowing to aid the recovery of his city. Fair enough, but

He sorta kinda blames spending on Iraq . . . he sorta kinda blames racism . . . he sorta kind blames class prejudice . . . he sorta kinda blames the fact that noone knew about how poor N.O. was prior to the storm (surely HE was aware of it?) and he definitely questions if America has the will to "fix" the "ugly underbelly" of poverty among the area's black population. Rather, the question is whether Ray Nagin or Kathleen Blanco has the will to solve problems that pirogue-loads of money won't "fix."

Sorry, but stories like this (about likely bushating-inspired misreporting) and this (about the massive challenge of getting money flowing more quickly to the demonstrably corrupt, dysfunctional and incompetent NO and LA gov'ts) trump finger-pointing from people like Nagin and Blanco.

Hillary knows evil and bad men

The story about Sen. Hillary Clinton's attempt at humor (here) is interesting to me because I think it reflects her dearth of self-awareness . . . probably the result of living one's life in the company of sycophants and I propensity to dismiss criticism as the product of a vast partisan conspiracy.

The one-liner came in response to a question shouted at the former first lady from the audience asking whether she had the mettle and experience to deal with evil and rotten men - like terrorist Osama bin Laden and the tyrants of North Korea and Iran.

Clinton grabbed the mike and told the audience that the questioner wanted to know "what in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men." She then smiled, raised her eyebrows and nodded knowingly at the questioner.

I think she was thinking about Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rove, men whom any intellectually honest American knows are the real threat to our national interest.

Updates: After watching video footage of the event and of the press conference following the event, I'm of the opinion that Sen. Clinton was not telling a joke, was not trying to be funny and merely paused too long after repeating the audience-member's question . . .

Also, it is ironic that the day of the above event was the 15th anniversary of her infamous "not-some-Tammy-Wynette" comment on 60 Minutes (Hat tip: Caucus Cooler Blog)

NY Times rally bias

While skimming some headlines today I noticed some bias in the NY Times, that is worth noting (surely FoxNews invented slanted news coverage!).

The underwhelming phrase "thousands . . . rally" caught my attention (here) in the NY Times article about the 34th annual March for Life in D.C. I hate to say it, but I've come to expect downplaying coverage of political events by Liberal journals, but "thousands" was too biased to be believed. As I dug a little, even the Washington Post reported that "tens of thousands" attended. (here)

Next was the phrase "marched . . . to show disapproval," and I like how the writer polished off her intro with a direct (but unnecessary) quote of Bush's comments that included a malapropism. Nice job, Sarah.

Curious, I looked at the Times' treatment of the Anti-Iraq War rally this past Saturday, "tens of thousands" gathered there, we're told. And they weren't "disapprov[ing]"--like the judgmental pro-lifers, they were "opposi[ng]."

A little digging turned up this survey (here) of most of the reporting on the 2007 March for Life--newsflash: there were 20,000 abortion opponents at the spin-off rally in San Francisco.

Here's a shot of the mere "thousands" at the DC rally.

Huckabee's strengths and weaknesses

This Weekly Standard article (here) about the Sunday shows reveals some of Mike Huckabee's political skills, and it has this tongue-in-cheek observation

Two things might hurt the governor with Republicans: He's the second man from Hope to hold serious aspirations for the presidency (the first was, of course, Bill Clinton). The other? He's the official Republican pick of the Daily Kos.

And don't forget that Sharon Cobb has said some kind things about him.

Also, Bill Hobbs (over at elephantbiz.com) has a great commentary on criticisms (from some Conservative quarters) of Mike Huckabee's decision to raise a gas tax to pay for road improvements in Arkansas. Obviously, some taxes are necessary; providing roads and defense are the two most legitimate governmental services; and it is very desirable and Conservative--in my estimation, to designate tax revenues for a specific purpose. Characterizing Huckabee as a taxandspendthrift on this basis? That dog won't hunt.

Well said, Will

George Will gave an intriguing illustration (here) on ABC's This Week about the difference between Conservatism and Liberalism in the context of the President's healthcare proposals:

"The conservative view is that the way you reduce the supply of government is to reduce the demand for it. The way you reduce the demand for government is to empower people to make them feel socially competent," said Will. "This would be a step in that direction. Look at the two reasons, aside from the fact that Bush favors it, that Democrats oppose it. . . . By empowering people through the tax code, to buy their own health insurance, you are reducing the number of people dependent on government, and modern liberalism exists to promote equality understood as the equal dependence on government for more things."

I don't agree with the last sentence (about why Liberalism exists) . . . rather, I think Liberals just don't concern themselves with Economic principles.

Huckabee is exploring

It appears that former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) is forming an exploratory committee (here) to consider a run for president.

Frankly, I think that conventional wisdom is often wrong, and that a fresh/unknown face with substance can rise to the top tier in such a large field whose "front-runners" have mainly "soft support" (read: support based on name ID) in general, and only tepid support from the GOP base.

Immoderate rhetoric

This picture is likely to inspire some virtual vitriol . . . I had the pleasure of attending a reception with former Federal Judge and Special Prosecutor (and current Pepperdine Law school Dean) Ken Starr last evening. From all that I hear (excluding attacks from Democrat Hit men) and all I have observed, Starr is exceedingly talented, conscientious and gracious.

The Starr event, coupled with my recent post about Justice Clarence Thomas and stuff that commenters have been posting about impeaching Bush, gittin' Libby, etc., I've been mulling over the utter immoderation of accusations in America and the ramifications of political "war rooms" or political prosecutions.

I heard this a.m. that some thirty-odd percent of Americans believe(d) that 9/11 was an "inside job." (report here) How is that possible?

But as I contemplated all the wild-eyed references in the context of the Libby trial and the Iraq war and the Plame affair and "the 16 words!" and impeachment rallies, I realized how effectively Bush's opponents have spun their tales. And the impact on our "body politic" is rather predictable.

In my opinion, if it takes a 122-minute movie of flawed syllogisms to make your case that "Bush lied," you're having to try too hard. When I hear them (Bush accusers) out and consider their proof, I repeatedly find there's no "there" there. But I guess there is some truth to the old saw, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. And it is probably inevitable that lazy readers or disengaged people or Liberal conspiracy types (even some Conservative conspiracy types have joined in) will begin to think that a given group of accused persons is capable of anything.

I think Bill Clinton was a lecherous, unprincipled charmer, but I don't think he killed Vince Foster. And I think Judge Starr was just doing his job. But I guess I wish we had never found out that Clinton lied under oath. The impeachment only endeared him to Dem faithful and proved little more than any honest observer had already concluded.

How un-GQ of Sen. Coburn

Jay Bush links to a great article (here) from GQ about Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). After reading that excerpt, can someone please give me a counter-argument to Term Limits?

Kudos to Corker

I haven't looked around much to see if anyone else has said this, but Sen. Bob Corker deserves a lot of credit for his committee vote (here) on the Democrats' Non-surge Resolution.

First, it is a non-binding resolution, and will have very little impact on the President's execution of the war. Liberals and Democrats' have already tried a 24/7 roast over the past six years so trying to vilify him toward doing what you want him to do isn't likely to work, right? Republican Senators Lugar and Coleman offer examples of "loyal opposition" during time of war, I'd say.

On the other hand, passage of this resolution will certainly embolden our enemies, particularly in Iraq. It is certainly arguable that there are better ways to wage the GWOT, and debate is certainly a touchstone of democratic republics, but hopefully you can forgive Bush for perhaps missing those earnest suggestions over the "War Criminal" chorus. And if you know ANYthing about history, you'll appreciate that a loss of 3,000+ soldiers in pursuit of a worthy objective is far from extraordinary. Losing a thousand soldiers per year would probably not be acceptable if one couldn't foresee a breaking point in this global struggle, but I'm not sure that is the perspective held by most critics of the war.

Straight A's and a clean bill of health in every pot!

While cruising Volunteer Voters at the end of the day yesterday, I saw ACK's post (here) concerning Sen. Jim Webb's SOTU response. According to ACK, Webb asserted that though economic indicators are good, people are still struggling and Republicans/Bush--the obvious implication, don't care. Then ACK, who is a self-identified paleo-conservative writes:

It is important for those struggling in the working and middle class to know that someone in a position of power is aware of their plight. It is comforting to at least receive an acknowledgment that a diagnosis has been accurately made.

Now, whether the Democratic party has the prescription that is an open question. Personally, I have my doubts but we shall see.

I perceive that ACK is commenting on the political/Communications value of making these points, but the post also begs the question of how does the gov't solve this problem?

Sure, I would like for all children to get straight A's and for us to not have disease in America, but that's not possible and it's not responsible, in my opinion, for an intelligent adult to promise such things or pretend that s/he can deliver on such things.

Katherine surely would like to weigh in on this, given her recent post at "Just Another Pretty Farce"(here) about government and freedom, and government's (read: politicians') desire to help us or protect us from ourselves. Why are higher ed costs sky-rocketing? Why do most Americans have no control whatsoever over their healthcare costs? How long does it take--absent efforts toward economic redistribution, for unprecedented prosperity at the top of organizational structures to work its way down?

I have my opinion about the answer to these questions, but I think it's more important that those who raise the questions in the first place (in SOTU responses or in press conferences) or those who promulgate the notion that there is a problem that gov't can actively fix tell us what they think are the solutions.

Hatin' on Justice Thomas

Since it has been conceded by the Left that even proven sexual harasser tendencies do not disqualify someone from public service, I came across this insightful article here dispelling the criticisms of Justice Clarence Thomas' haters.

What irks me about Iraq

I just read Kleinheider's take on the SOTU and the "wrongheaded" Iraq War, which reminded me of a Rush Limbaugh flourish yesterday on Iraq. It was in an exchange with a pseudo-intellectual caller who turned out to be a perfect foil (though Rush often bends over backwards to hear out annoying Liberal callers). Aside: though I disagree with ACK, I'm not saying he is a pseudo-intellectual or a Liberal or even annoying.

Anyhow, the whole transcript is here (warning, faint of heart: the motives of some war opponents are called into question at points in the transcript), but here was the section that jumped out at me:

">Now, I'm going to explain to you the relevance of 9/11 to Iraq. You're president of the United States, we've just been hit on 9/11, and it's worse than Pearl Harbor, and there are threats of more such acts. We've got 14 failed resolutions of the UN Security Council for Saddam Hussein to let weapons inspectors in there to make sure that he's not building chemical, biological, and other weapons of mass destruction. He's flaunting his nose.

We know that bin Laden and other Al-Qaedas had been given safe haven in Iraq in the nineties. It's called preemption. It would have been irresponsible to not take action based on what every intelligence service in the world said and what we knew of Saddam's previous use of chemical weapons on his own people. It's a different day after 9/11, sad to say some people can't come to grips with this. You just can't put your head in the sand and say, you know, this 9/11 is just an episode, and we're going to have to learn to live with these things because there's nothing we can do to stop it. If that's the attitude, then we're going to have more and more and more of them. Now the downfall of all this is we face the same situation in Iran. And, by the way, this scenario is starting to get awfully familiar. Iran's refusing to let UN inspectors in. Why, where have I heard this before? Iran won't let 30 US nuclear inspectors in to see what's going on.

This little Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you must think he's kidding when he threatens to end Israel's existence and then come after us. You must think he's kidding, he's being a blowhard. But people in positions of responsibility who have a constitutional duty to protect the country can't pretend he's joking. They can't pretend that Saddam Hussein was a blowhard. It's their job. So that's why we went to Iraq while we were in Afghanistan. We didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Oops. Big problem. But we knew they were there. Still don't know what happened to them, but they were there. The sad thing about talking to you, Gentry, is you sound like a smart guy it, a little smug, but you sound like a smart guy, and you know everything that I just told you. Well, maybe you don't, depends on what news you listen to.

There's no hope that we're going to achieve victory over this enemy when half the country is being led by a party which is trying to secure our defeat, for the sole purpose of winning their own power back and defeating and humiliating George W. Bush. Where's the resolution for victory? Where's the resolution to defeat these guys? You going to dump on Liz Cheney because she writes something critical of Hillary Rodham? What, is Hillary untouchable now?

And, no, I haven't watched the SOTU--it's too easy to catch it on-line at a less inconvenient time.

Railing for life?

Apparently I struck a hornet's nest by daring to express a different opinion about abortion than other bloggers over the past couple days. Here, here, here, here, etc. I don't say that so as to discourage disagreement, though I would very much like to discourage flaming.

But here are a couple of thoughts I have in attempting to wrap up this discussion for now.

First, I posted "Why rally for life?" not as my magnum opus (thanks slarti) on abortion or the "Pro-life" cause, but as my reflections on seemingly-ubiquitous assertions from some that pro-lifers are being duped by the GOP (tussles with Sean Braisted and John Farmer come to mind). Likewise, the post was not part of a "blogging for life" campaign or anything like that and I figured that I might be the only blogger in attendance at that rally (as opposed to the "counter" rally). The post was based on one thought during the rally (and yes, during the rally, I had thoughts other than how I would respond to a Sean Braisted comment from over the summer).

Next, there is no nefarious reason that I am "Pro-life." I arrived at that position not because of how it benefits me directly or indirectly or because of how it may benefit the GOP or Focus on the Family. My view isn't an attempt to impose my religion on others, unless the same is true of anti-death penalty types and anti-war types.

Next, my opinion that protecting innocent human life is a compelling state interest is no less Libertarian than laws prohibiting a parent from killing his/her infant. I don't think it is absurd to conclude that an obviously human, obviously living being is worthy of protection, nor is it outrageous to attempt to persuade others in a democratic republic of this principle.

A human in the womb is certainly dependent on his/her "mother" to an unparalleled degree, but that dependence does not mean the fetus is the property of the woman. The "Pro-choice" position is not a no-brainer, though the Roe v. Wade decision treated it as such. Sorry if I feel compelled to oppose the wanton destruction of innocent human life where the alternative rarely involves life and death. It is a false dichotomy to assert that one cannot care about women or girls without approving of/condoning abortion, much less abortion on demand. In sum, there is certainly room for debate on the issue and it is saddening (though not disheartening--don't get your hopes up "Aunt B") that some cannot credit me or others with holding sincere, conscientious, though contrary views on public policy.

Lastly, "Ned Williams" is my name. Betsy is not my "Aunt B," but noone knows "Aunt B" as Betsy; thus, the quotation marks, which I would expect around my name if I chose to post/comment under the name "Daddy." No offense intended.

UnMittigated gall . . . not really, but I needed a catchy title

I couldn't help but chuckle when I got my first direct mail piece from Gov. Mitt Romney. Despite his past, documented efforts to distance himself from Ronald Reagan, the first three sentences/paragraphs talk about Reagan. The first sentence is, "One of the things I admired most about Ronald Reagan was his unfailing optimism . . ." I couldn't help it when my mind wandered to the "what-he-was-really-thinking" letter, "but one of the things that really annoyed me about that amiable dunce was . . ."

I know, I know, it's politics; but the prominence given to Reagan by Romney is ironic. Perhaps Romney's admiration of Reagan is akin to the stereotype of "ex"-smokers?

For the record, I don't heed Hillary's talking points

There is talk in the political world (here) about a purported closet-Islamism for Sen. Barack Obama--who, the "Clinton source" informs us, doesn't highlight his middle name very much.

For the record, I don't heed talking points that come from Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Ironically, like with "Willie Horton," some will eagerly pin this example of Democrat skulduggery on Republicans. Well, count me out of the useful idiocy.

Certainly the worldview one learns in one's formative years is not unimportant, but ages 6-10 are only a portion of the period of one's "upbringing." And, unless he is some sort of Mideast Manchurian candidate, there is no reason to believe that he is not a red-blooded American.

And it is a stretch to say that Obama is "less than forthcoming" about the Muslim aspects of his youth when he plainly stated as much--albeit briefly, in his campaign tome, The Audacity of Hope.

Please Conservative colleagues: drop the "Hillary2008!" memo and step away from the fax machine.

Inhuman nobodies

Just browsing around on "Blogging for Choice Day" (gee, I didn't get that memo) and I came across a randy-as-ever blog on the subject at Tiny Cat Pants (here). In the comments, my friend Kat Coble complains of "dry, inhuman disinterest in their fellow man," and someone (ironically) commenting under the moniker "get in mah belly" says, "let us do what we want with our own bodies as long as we are not hurting anyone."


How's this for an inhuman nobody?



(Fetus 16 weeks after conception).

Emoting and posting about the Rally for Life?

My virtual friend Kat Coble has called me out (here) on my Rally for Life '07 post here, and I figured I should give her a response.

"Knowing" Kat (I only know her from her blog and comments on other blogs), I appreciate her comment, and I can understand her point. But I think she has misunderstood my purpose in writing the post.

First of all, I don't use a blog as a personal journal or a venue to share my thoughts about every subject. I use it primarily as a way to engage others on issues of public policy and sometimes issues of faith, and though I try hard to treat people online as if I might find myself sitting next to them on a playground bench tomorrow, and though I think personal feelings or qualities MAY be relevant to public policy, I do kind of think that too often public policy is discussed in the context of intentions and feelings and emotions rather than the context of logic and evidence.

I don't emote or share/communicate everything that I feel during a day or that I felt during that rally, but I did think of statements (Sean B's posts came to mind) as I decided to go to the rally, which I've heard about the pro-life movement and our relationship to the political parties.

That being said, I won't pretend that I have a lot of emotion for--as some characterize it, "a blastocyst," or even an unknown young person faced with a crisis pregnancy who thinks they need an abortion. But the law is often most useful in protecting us from others (and yes, occasionally ourselves in this interdependent society) who would be tempted or inclined to make a decision based on what felt right to them at the time.

Why rally for Life?

I attended the Tennessee Right to Life "Rally for Life" today at the Capitol; despite the drive and the cold temperature and the drizzle and the playoffs and the fact that no other Williams could accompany me. But why did I do it? In a political sense, is it a waste of time for Religious Conservatives to rally in support of the sanctity of life?

A theme I have heard advanced by Liberals since last summer is that Social Conservatives are too naive or stupid or obdurate to realize that the GOP simply strings us along without any intention of delivering on our policy priorities. Not only that, Libs tell us, the GOP actually avoids any progress on such issues so as to keep the issue alive and keep us in their back pocket.

I have to be careful on this issue, because I know how offensive it is to be called a dupe. But I think it's ironic that Democrats and Liberals accuse Republicans of pandering on abortion, in light of how Democrats are so indifferent to the interests of their base, African-Americans. On issues supported by African-Americans that are remotely "conservative" or which enjoy any Republican support, Democrats have no interest in acting--regarding school choice, illegal immigration, homosexual marriage Democrats are largely AWOL. But racial quotas . . . that's some agenda, and Blacks aren't nearly as supportive of so-called Affirmative Action as they are persuaded that Republicans will re-institute Jim Crow laws unless the Democrat is elected.

Now I'll admit I have previously argued that Democrat Party leaders do not serve the interest of their African-American base, and my intent was plainly to attract them to the GOP--the party that will act on such issues. Contrast that with the Democrat/Liberal tactic: to foment discontent without any desire that the values of Social Conservatives be advanced and to suppress Social Conservative votes.

For at least two reasons, this Liberal meme about the GOP and Social Conservatives is a bunch of hooey.

The Judiciary. The Left's central front on traditional values has been in the judiciary, as Liberal policies were back-doored into law by judges who legislated from the bench. Bush, in particular, has reliably put Originalists on the Supreme Court and has sought to increase the number of Originalists within the Federal Judiciary.

Incrementalism. Passage of legislation like Connor's Law and a ban on Partial-Birth Abortion is effectively moving public opinion in the "pro-life" direction. Consistent with Conservative character, George W. Bush, in particular, has never demonstrated (nor harbored, in my opinion) a desire to impose his Pro-Life views on America (contra, the Left). Indeed, when you consider Republican proposals on abortion with Democrat positions on abortion, it is clear that Democrats hold the "extreme" positions in relation to what the American public believes about the issue.

Additionally, it is foolish to assert that Bush's majority margins in the House and Senate since 2000 have been anywhere near a practical governing majority, especially on issues dear to Social Conservatives. As a result, there is no way--even if Bush & Co. were so inclined, to brazenly force through policy that was particularly Conservative. Senators like Snowe and Chafee and Specter, et al were not reliable votes on Conservative issues, to include even things like lowering taxes.

While Religious Conservatives aka Social Conservatives should never assume that the GOP is as committed to our policy priorities as we are, we need to be discerning enough to realize when Democrats are simply trying to suppress our vote by sowing discontentment.

AfterDowningStreet, after the bats took residence in the belfry

Just got another email urging the impeachment of . . . Alberto Gonzales. The email references afterdowningstreet.com, so I went there and watched their amateurish, self-aggrandizing and annoying video.

It features the usual elements: crass humor, sound bites from Cindy Shriehan, Rep. Maxine Waters, and Rep. John Conyers; naive assertions and general America-blaming. One example, Shriehan is shown saying--in reference to a "Model UN" type of spectacle (sans nerdy high school underclassmen) in which, I believe, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) conducted a faux impeachment trial in his home district, "I thought the tipping point [for the movement to impeach the President--to motivate Americans to "rise up in peaceful arms"] would be my testimony in the basement at the hearings held by Congressman Conyers." But, Shriehan goes on to say, "The tipping point was actually, in Crawford, TX, several months later. I said that day that this was the beginning of the end of our occupation of Iraq, and I believe I was right, because look at what has happened since then." Certainly she doesn't mean the success of "the insurgents" in fighting back America's efforts to establish a democracy in Iraq? I dunno, but the video (and the "movement" frankly is more anti-war than anything. Bushatred just expands their net.

Their effort to impeach Bush and Cheney started in May of 2005, now they're lowering their sights to the AG, and they've scheduled a big rally event for March of 2007. Which begs the question, it's about time this "movement" started showing some momentum, no? We'll see.

Public Education and "The Blob"

Kay Brooks posts (here) about a great story brewing in Nashville--a teacher is suing the MNEA, the Nashville Teacher's "Labor" organization, for refusing to allow her to quit the group.

Now I don't know the legal merits of the case (it appears that the MNEA's by-laws support its position in the case), but this reminds me of a recent National Review article I read recently (here) upon John Bolton's resigning as U.N. Ambassador. Former Education Secretary Bill Bennett was referenced in the article as follows:

As education secretary in the second Reagan term, William Bennett fought what he liked to call “the education blob,” or simply “the blob”: the teachers’ unions, the ed schools, the entire entrenched establishment. As U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Bolton fought the U.N. blob: the permanent bureaucracy at Turtle Bay, the permanent bureaucracy at the U.S. State Department, all of the U.N.’s many apologists and anti-reformers.

If nothing else, the plaintiff, Kristy Carr, is challenging "the blob" of apologists and anti-reformers for sub-standard public education. And by that I don't mean most public school teachers--whom society expects to do more than simply educate children. To Kristi I say, you go girl.

Brownback announces presidential bid

I just viewed an interesting video (here) from Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) announcing his bid for the GOP nomination in 2008.

It's not flashy, but he clearly articulates a Conservative message. One proposal he mentions that I had not heard associated with him before was that of term limits for judges and Congressmen. That is definitely a "populist"--as opposed to a partisan, issue. I would like to hear more details about his plan, but I think it's healthy to have citizen legislators and--knowing human nature, federal judges who serve with the knowledge that they are not in their job for life.

Here's his website www.brownback.com.

Squishyness doesn't attract

This article, from Congressional Quarterly (here) is interesting in its presumption that voters prefer squishy candidates. Rather, I'd say voters are attracted to candidates who are principled, consistent, authentic, candid and magnanimous, among other things.

Of course, casting someone as an "ideologue" undercuts the magnanimity aspect, so look for more such profiles on any non-moderate GOP candidate.

TN's Hapless Scholarships

I thought this article from the WSJ (here) was interesting in light of reports (here--curse that right-wing City Paper!!) that 50% of Tennessee students who were given a Hope Scholarship FAILED OUT after two years of school. What?!

Conclusion? Maybe too many people are going to college. Sadly and ironically, former state Senator Steve Cohen--the lottery's pappa, thinks (here) that eligibility requirements ought to be lowered.

And on a related point, a majority of the "cost"--not just tuition, of attending a Tennessee state school is borne by Tennessee's taxpayers, so it is inaccurate to conclude that Hope Scholars failing after two years is only a potential waste of "lottery money" or an individual's money.

Exploit the ignorant; raise the price of higher ed; pander to middle class voters . . . this is an Econ 101 case study.

Mehlman's admonition

On the subject of civility in politics I liked this quote from a farewell speech by outgoing RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman at the annual GOP winter meeting: Here:

And while saying the Republicans needed to be friendlier to Democrats, as well as to constituencies like African-Americans whom Mr. Mehlman courted throughout his tenure as chairman, he did take one swipe at his own counterpart these last two years:

It’s also important to remember that America is less divided than Washington. When Howard Dean said he hated Republicans and all we stood for, a lot of Americans scratched their heads. Outside of this town, a Republican isn’t an enemy to a Democrat. She’s his sister-in-law.
Or another parent they see at the soccer field on Saturday mornings…

We are all Americans, and though I have dedicated my career to fighting for this party – and I will continue to do so after I am no longer your chairman – I will always remember, and we must all remember, that Democrats are our political rivals, not our enemies, and they deserve our respect.

Huckabee and having a Washington address

Interesting NYTimes blog post, 2008: Huckabee's Hopes, about former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR); one paragraph that resonates is,

He said he had a great deal of respect for conservative candidates like Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who is expected to announce on Jan. 20 that he’ll attempt a 2008 bid. While the two share similar concerns, Mr. Huckabee described himself as an outsider, adding, “I don’t think having a Washington address and being in Congress will be an asset.’’

Global chilling

Interesting to hear that the "global warming" faithful are eager to chill speech of those who aren't as faithful.

One irritating aspect of the debate about "global warming" is the constant "appeal to authority" (a logical fallacy). I know that most laypersons cannot become experts on climate or earth sciences or whatever; therefore, it's logical that some level of deference to experts is wise in the discussion of this subject. But the fact that someone is an "expert" or "scientist" doesn't mean that s/he doesn't have a bias or an "interest" in espousing one view or another.

I heard today that Heidi Cullen, a Weather Channel blogger and celebrity (not to me, but I'm sure somebody thinks she's the bomb) has called for (here) weather forecasters who demonstrate a skepticism to Algorism should have their AMS (American Meteorological Society) certification pulled.

How central to his/her job is it for a forecaster to agree with Cullen on this issue? How credible is the "science" of "global warming" if scientists aren't allowed to reach a different conclusion than Cullen and others on the issue of "global warming"?

Politicizing weather forecasts? I say, "shut up and forecast the weather."

Dialoguing or demagoguing?

Great comments (here) from Michael Novak about the hubbub over a Conservative journalist's admissions/accusations concerning atheism, Conservatism and religion (here).

The story/controversy is an interesting one--given the complaints of some that the GOP is controlled by religious types, but it was a particular paragraph--on the subject of frank dialogue, that resonated with me. After graciously asserting that MacDonald's inquiries seemed more rhetorical than earnest, Novak writes,

I do wish our atheist brothers and sisters would learn a little more than they now know about the profound and thoughtful sorts of believers that surround them, by the millions. Otherwise, they cut themselves off from many vital sources of human sympathy, and fail to be sufficiently skeptical about their own unexamined ideas — about religion, for starters.

Although Novak is addressing "atheists" in this post, I think the admonition applies to anyone involved in public discourse.

Though I hated to do it, yesterday I began moderating my comments, because too many visitors were wanting to demagogue rather than dialogue. That change is grating on some commenters, but it was beginning to grate on me that too many commenters assume the worst motives, the least intelligence, the poorest character, etc. when "discussing" issues with the ideological counterparts.

Thanks for stopping by, but you can take your bomb-throwing somewhere else.

"Unelectable" Democrats?

This interesting Boston Globe article about Barack Obama (here) states that he has gotten such a positive response because "others in the party [] worry that none of the better-known Democrats seeking the presidency is electable." Ironically, support for the war is only remotely a disqualifier because hardcore Libs have deemed it so--it sure didn't deep six Lieberman in BlueBlueBlue Connecticut.

I also like this quote:

The initial magic of his candidacy has gotten a very unusual and strong response," said Lee Miringoff , director of the nonpartisan Marist Institute for Public Opinion in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. But "it still remains to be seen" whether Obama can weather the examination and pressure of a presidential campaign.

"He's had a very good opening act, but now he will have to generate an equally strong act two," Miringoff said.

I know it was a throwaway line from a political consultant, but this reflects the image-over-substance phenomenon that I believe Obama represents. The metaphor that should reflect how we select a president is a job interview or a dog show--where the candidates pass increasingly demanding standards of qualification, not an "act."

Who says he's the divider?

One thing that caused me concern (here's a little peeky behind the Religious Conservative curtain for you on the Left) when Dubya was running in 1999-2000 was his pitch that he was a "uniter not a divider." Not because I don't in fact want a president who unites Americans, but because such a claim (along with "Compassionate Conservatism") seemed to concede to the Left's caricature of Conservatism, and I want a president who does what's best as a first priority. "Uniting" people is not a good first priority . . . heck, even Jesus came to "divide." (Luke 12:51)

But one thing that you can say for GWB is that he has brought disparate parties together under the banner of immigration-restrictionists. In my daily email from NumbersUSA today, for example, is this headline for action--pitched to bleeding hearts everywhere: "Send faxes on best way to honor MLK Day & help America's poor --- REDUCE OVERALL IMMIGRATION." Bush has united elements of BigLabor, the Greenies, PaleoCons, Buchanan Brigades against lax immigration laws.

Now, I favor most of what NumbersUSA et al are advocating, but I am often put off by the appeal--as they have consistently, since 2001, used Bush and the GOP as a foil for their movement. Bush and the GOP aren't single-handedly blocking immigration reform, though the Left is happy to foment discontent with him and the GOP about anything. But if you think about it, is it possible for the Left and Democrats to demonize or demagogue Bush any more than they already have?

"Mitt, be nimble"

I just read a well-written op/ed (here) about Mitt Romney from Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby.

While asserting that Romney's campaign is setting new marks at innovation and "agility," Jacoby points to Romney's on-line, rapid response to the recent, unflattering you-tube posting about his 1994 run for senate as a Liberal (my post on it). While I'm impressed with the speed and sophistication with which Romney's campaign responded, I think it is silly to assert that the 1994 footage was neutralized or even "rebutted." As a result, I'd say that to any given observer, the "impressiveness" of the response video is inversely related to the "impressiveness" of the original unflattering video.

Betsy hearts Al Sharpton

Aunt B over at Tiny Cat Pants (here), who I have learned is "Betsy" in real life, has responded to my post (here) about her post (here) about MLK (here).

She spends a lot of time heralding Al Sharpton, which was really just a small part of my post (hyperbole, in fact); however, her reverance for the reverend betrays a lot about her view on race relations.

Even though I find Sharpton always candid, sometimes funny, always humorous, sometimes sincere, I view him less as a "reverend" or "minister" and more as a "demagogue" or "charlatan." And, frankly, I think Black "civil rights leaders" who came from the ranks of clergy too often forget to drop their title when they move on to non-spiritual vocations. In sum, I think folks like him make it hard to move on from the racial divide that is in our country's (and world's) history. Every disparity between a person who happens to be black and a person who happens to be white (or even group of persons belonging to either group) does not constitute a moral failure or a tragedy and certainly not a need for government's intervention.

Betsy is unimpressed with my reference to Bears Head Coach Lovie Smith and sees no irony in her claims that we haven't made any progress on the things that mattered to MLK. Whatever. But playing a sport and coaching a sport are two different skills; therefore Lovie Smith and other African-Americans who know football are competing with 85% of the population who also know football for those few positions.
MLK certainly believed that changing laws and gov't was key to ending segregation, but that has been achieved and she is insinuating that MLK would be marching in favor of DA Nifong and raising minimum wage laws and re-defining marriage. I don't buy it.

Betsy says she never said that things were worse for blacks today than in MLK's day, but she did say that beatings, disenfranchisement, overt prejudice are all "serious problems for black people" today and we haven't made much progess on such problems.

Does "marriage" matter?

In an on-line exchange with my friend to the Left, Sharon Cobb, we bandied about the question of whether it should concern me or anyone that people of the same sex want the ability to be "married." I say yes; Sharon thinks not.

Today--while cleaning out a burgeoning "favorites" drop-down list, I read this article (here) titled, "Defining Families Down." Teaser quote:

The effort to restore the privileged status of marriage, [Santa Clara U. Law Prof. June Carbone] implied, is not only futile but foolish.

Yet something has to give. In the 15 years Leah Sears has served on Georgia's high court, she has watched with alarm as its domestic-relations caseload has risen from 20 percent of all criminal and civil cases to 65 percent. And that doesn't include the fallout from family breakdown in juvenile court. Georgia's underfunded courts are swamped, she says--and, worse, they "are not the proper venue to solve our family problems."

Read it for yourself and feel free to weigh in.

Beauty Pageant, we hardly knew ye'

"Beauty pageants" have long been knocked from certain quarters for fostering an emphasis on looks and appearance, and I've always been a little ambivalent about the issue. I don't follow the subject (that of Beauty Pageants) but if you start looking into it, beauty pageants seem to be surrounded in controversy of late.

Recent events (this, this, this and the report that one state's queen is pregnant and unmarried--sorry, couldn't find a story about it) are demonstrating that we may have not given past contestants the credit they deserved for substance and "beneath-the-surface" beauty. Pretty is as pretty does, and all that.

I know, I know; some of you will scream that there have never been virtuous beauty queens, only secretive or hypocritical ones, but I don't buy that categorical assertion. Maybe it really is time to retire the concept of beauty pageants.

Sectarian semantics

If you spend any time around here, you'll know that I am bothered by the impact that the so-called MSM and Democrat leaders have on the public's perception about our efforts in Iraq. Whether it is willful or not, they advance stories that fit with their view of the situation--in my humble opinion.

This morning I saw an example of this in a report about bombings Tuesday that killed Iraqi civilians at a Baghdad University. The Reuters report via the Washington Post states,

The latest attacks followed the hangings on Monday of two aides to Saddam Hussein, which angered minority Sunni Arabs and fueled sectarian tension.

The Shi'ite-led government plans a security crackdown backed by U.S. reinforcements and billed as a "last chance" for Iraq to pull back from a sectarian civil war between Sunni rebels and Shi'ite militias that would drag in millions of armed civilians.

(emphasis mine).

I know it has become common practice to make everything in the U.S. a partisan affair (except, perhaps, when commenting on popular legislation enacted when Clinton was in office) but isn't it sufficient to simply say "the Iraqi government." The government in Iraq was elected by majority vote in the last election, wasn't it? This Reuters statement may be accurate, but its relevance is rather subjective. I can pretty objectively state that its impact on the story fits the quagmire/civil war/insurgents/intractable/blahblahblah storyline.

Aunt B's rainy (MLK) day blues

I just came across a post over at Tiny Cat Pants (here) and, though I was tracking more or less with her trouncing of anti-MLKers, I was disappointed when the post turned into a trouncing of strawmen. "Aunt B" asserts

Black men are still regularly victims of unspeakable horrors of police brutality. There are still plenty of places where black folks know they aren't welcome. There are still disenfranchised voters in Mississippi (and the rest of the country) and there are still plenty of folks who believe they have nothing to vote for. And, while these things remain serious problems for black people, they've become systemic for all of us (because, to reiterate, our destinies are tied together).

To assert that ANY of these realities are unique to African-Americans is demagoguery. To assert (or imply that King believed) that government could eradicate brutality or prejudice is foolishness. (By the way, it is ludicrous to assert that "disenfranchisement" belongs in this "common to man" list of societal problems). Ironically, as I'm typing this, ESPN is showing footage of Bears Coach Lovie Smith--one of two African-American head coaches appearing in the NFL conference championships this weekend, is graciously addressing a question about his race in a press conference.

Things are not worse today--as far as government treatment of racial minorities is concerned, than they were in 1963. "Ballot integrity" is not code for "I'm down with Jim Crow." We won't have to put Al Sharpton out of a job before we can claim that "real change" has happened in our country.

Update: I neglected to link to "Aunt B"'s post originally.

Co-opting MLK Day?

I had contemplated leading the family to an MLK event today--I can hardly imagine a braver figure in American history than Martin Luther King, Jr. as he took on apartheid in the South.

Accordingly, I was happy to see that Sharon Cobb had posted a list of MLK Day events on her blog (here), but when I took a look and read the bios and "details" on the schedule, the rain outside and a creeping feeling started to change my attitude.

Coupled with Sharon's snarky comment on an admittedly-snarky post about homosexual "rights" etc. earlier today, the MLK day schedule sure makes it appear that some attempting to leverage MLK for other, less-worthy purposes.

Please read Sharon's post before commienting (sic) on this post, but I'm just not convinced--for example, that gov't expenditures are racially unfair; or that "sex discrimination"--at least as is purportedly "practiced" today, is on the level of segregated water fountains and riding in the back of the bus.

Maybe we'll make the Jubilee Singers' performance, but sorry if I'm not eager to take time off work to hear Constance Rice--a card-carrying Liberal class-action attorney (here), opine about what she perceives are today's civil rights struggles.

Dems' 100-hours agenda #1

As part of their 100-hour agenda, (report here) the House Democrats proposed and passed HR-1, the "Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007" (wow, can we expect more dumbed down titles like that?) As I read over at the Heritage Foundation (here), there is one major provision of the bill that seems particularly "Liberal"; seeking UN approval and coordination of a strategy called the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) which has worked just fine up to now:

PSI is a voluntary, multi-national, bilateral program established by the Administration to combat the smuggling of dangerous and banned weapons, technologies, and materials. Incredibly, the bill proposes that PSI be approved by the United Nations. While the 9/11 Commission did propose that the U.S. seek greater international cooperation in the war on terrorism, it did not recommend that the U.S. and other free nations outsource their responsibilities to the U.N. or other international bodies. PSI is perfectly legitimate under existing U.S. laws and treaties and does not require U.N. sanction.

I wonder how fully the scope and likely consequences of this feel good piece of legislation was understood by the folks who had a little over six hours to consider and then vote on it.

Hey, if it feels good (and if it makes swing voters think that we're being more diplomatic) do it.

Video guy, "You're Fired"

There is talk around about a guy who got fired for a run in with a Conservative pundit. (See Nashville is Talking, and Knox Views, and of course Tennessee Guerilla Women are outraged about this fascist injustice).

I'm a little on a privacy kick when it comes to businesses, so I don't have much sympathy for the guy. But the funniest thing is the comments on the pinkslipper's blog; here are the last two:

At 4:45 PM, January 14, 2007, Fatmouse said...
Wow, you're a 28-year-old video store clerk.

At 4:49 PM, January 14, 2007, Arachnae said...
Hmmm. Seems like people's opinions of this fracas are heavily influenced by their politics. Well, I'm a dirt-loving, tree-hugging old hippy but I still think you deserved firing, Chuckles. Because people will stop shopping at a place where the staff mocks them online, and the store will go out of business.

The politics of embryonic stem-cell research

Since it's in the news of late (isn't the Dems First 100 Hours exciting!?), here's a great article (from Slate Magazine) about the issue of embryonic stem-cell research and how the issue excites Democrats in ways other than you would expect.

Same-sex semantics

I came across this article (here--hat tip Tenn. Eagle Forum) that seemed a bit out of touch to me. In light of reports that former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. is likely to be the next chairman of the "moderate" Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a group called the National Stonewall Democrats (NSD) is expressing concern. The NSD believes Ford, Jr. is not Liberal enough on homosexuality issues.

First, while this group (NSD) is certainly free to try and influence the DLC in choosing a new chairman, I'm a little surprised that the NSD presumes their position on the issues--particularly homosexual "marriage," qualifies as "moderate."

Then again, reading further in their press release you can see a bit of their angle . . . they say, "Ford has demonstrated a lack of leadership and judgment on family issues that causes our members great concern . . ." (emphasis added) I guess that's part of the problem; the presumption that very many Americans consider homosexual "marriage" a "family issue."