Thanks for asking, William

William at Nashville is Talking is astounded (astounded I say!) by a recent Nightline story about families who believe in the "full quiver" which is to "family planning" what the so-called "see food diet" is to weight management.

In any event, William (along with some commenters) proceeds to belittle large families, belittle women who aspire to motherhood (and husbands who concur!?!) and--predictably, belittles Christian faith and the conviction that Jihadists won't go away if we pull out of Iraq.

I only have three kids, William, though I know many Christian, politically conservative couples who have more than three. But a large family is rather consistent with a worldview that values child-rearing, acknowledges that sex is more than a recreational activity and consciously places family roles and responsibilities over professional or other responsibilities. I just don't hear them vocalizing or demonstrating worry about how children might interfere with their career or their standard of living or their free time. That could amount to a lack of ambition or patriarchal oppression, but I doubt it.

Lastly, it is interesting that William and "jtg" raised the issue of sexual satisfaction among Christian wives . . . it seems to be a common preoccupation of Liberal guys, frankly (see MCB of late). Not that it is any of Willam's business, but I and some Christian friends were out at Opryland on Friday morning for a meeting with Clifford Penner--author of The Married Guy's Guide to Great Sex. The meeting wasn't remedial and the info wasn't particularly novel, but I'm very concerned about my wife and what my wife wants in life and otherwise. In fact, by God's grace and through His power I strive to "love her as I love my own body" and to "love her as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her." (Ephesians 5)

In all candor, I'm astounded that these Liberals are so presumptuous about--and intolerant toward others. Some women are content--even pleased, to be not-chief-among-equals. Some women are content--even pleased, to "waste" a college degree or sacrifice a career (or anything) to be a homemaker for a bunch of children. From what William and Rick Maynard have said in the past, they're both shacking up and they both pooh-pooh those who don't subscribe to sexual libertinism. That may be fine for you and yours, William, but my wife assures me she's very happy with her situation.

Nonetheless, I sure appreciate your concern . . . really.

Apologize Sen. Fill in the blank!

Here's a great ad against Hillary from the Giuliani campaign (via The Corner). Maybe the other Democrats may not have made such bold statements about their votes on Iraq, but I think the same ad could be run against every Democrat running for President except for Obama and (maybe) Kucinich.

Who's the authority?

Recently a number of us have been discussing homosexuality and what constitutes "flaunting" it and what is legitimate "pride" and other things over at Music City Bloggers. Okay, it is more of a debate than a discussion. But--as with any debate (any legitimate debate), much of the discussion is focusing on "authority": basically "who says"? Authority can be rooted in, for example, personal experience, authorship, expertise (a form of experience, I guess) or reason. The more authority you can marshal for your argument, the more weight your argument deserves.

In the discussion mentioned above, one commenter made the familiar argument that homosexual acts are forbidden by Judeo-Christian law. Well, "nm," whom I only know from comments I've read here and there appears to be an observant Jew or at least a student of Judaism. S/he asserted that s/he wished that Christians wouldn't misstate or mischaracterize Jewish law (and especially in support of Religious Right positions, I'd suspect). S/he then offered examples of alternative (s/he would assert, the correct) interpretations of the homosexuality-forbidding references in Hebrew law. S/he also adamantly asserted that Hebrew law, like any other law, is an accumulation of interpretations. In sum, s/he asserted that--as the U.S. Supreme Court held in Marbury v. Madison the law is what the Court says it is. S/he also asserted that Jesus implicitly adopted Jewish oral and written tradition during His ministry.

nm asserted that God's revealed law (meaning that it was given--in actual words, to man and recorded directly from God) is somehow expounded upon or further developed or further revealed by interpretations or applications of His (God's/Yahweh's) followers. nm even said (more or less, as I understand it) that the meaning of law is only discerned by interpretation. We can all debate what the actual meaning/application of "the Law" (Hebrew Law) is, but--unlike with human-sourced law, "God's law" isn't based on or bound by the religious versions of precedent or common law decision. I don't have to be a Jewish law scholar to know that is true. So, no person is the authority on what Hebrew law means or meant, even a Jewish person or a Hebrew law scholar. While an understanding of the Jewish context and, of course, the Hebrew language is valuable for discerning what the actual words meant, "interpreting" these actual revealed words is not the same as interpreting a human-produced organic or "living" Constitution.

Now, regarding Jesus. Jesus referred to contemporary understanding/interpretation of the Jewish law, which, as I understand it, was the same thing as the Jewish religion. That doesn't mean that He endorsed the contemporary understanding or interpretation, and I think any objective person considering what we know about Jesus (whether or not you believe His deity claims) must agree that Jesus had a different interpretation than the prevailing view among Jewish religious leaders at the time . . . and that was my point about "interpreting the Law differently" and "challenging the old construct."

nm eventually summarized my statement about Jesus' mission on earth thusly:

So if I understand you correctly, with respect to this thread, Jesus died to release humanity from the burden of not hating homosexuality enough?

S/he also stated:

I also know what you personally, in the course of this argument, claimed was the reason for Jesus’s mission: there’s a reason that Christ came and challenged the old construct of the Hebrew faith . . . He obviously would and did interpret much of Hebrew law differently than rabbis then and now and differently than nm’s then and now. That is a statement that his mission was to give a proper interpretation of the Law, which you had spent a couple of earlier comments mischaracterizing.

Well, not exactly. I never said and didn't mean to imply that Jesus' "mission" was to increase the number of permissible executions under Mosaic law or expand the category of prohibited sex beyond temple sex to include homosexual sex. But the obvious import of His ministry and message was to challenge what the prevailing religious views were.

Sure, he said "I came to fulfill the law," but I'd assert that His view--not the view of a human, frail, sinful religious leaders was "the law" that He was speaking of.

Now, does that mean that we should now stone people for eating shellfish or, on the other extreme, that everything forbidden in the Mosaic Law is now "okay"? I'd say not. And I doubt even nm would say that Jesus' message was that there was no longer any "sin."

One significant impediment to the forward advance of the moral avant garde is the general deference by many (I'd say the majority of) Americans to Judeo-Christian moral traditions. I don't believe that most of these same Americans really know or understand what Judeo-Christian tradition (much less "law") is, nor do I believe that they are inclined to pursue a fuller knowledge or understanding of it. Accordingly, one means of removing this hindrance (of deference to Judeo-Christian moral tradition) is to at least call into question customary understandings of this tradition.

This tactic has great potential because it challenges people to make the effort to understand the subject, but it is also shrewd because it implies a respect for "tradition," and a respect for the religious forebears of Christianity, and a respect for "religion" in the abstract. I definitely think that this is a tactic, reflecting a commitment to the secular political agenda more than scrupulous exegesis, whether or not that was/is nm's intent in raising it in this particular thread.

Are you disagreeing with Jesus, whom you claim to revere?

Are you an expert in Jewish law or tradition?

In any event, who are you--as a "Christian," to question what Jewish religious leaders said Jewish law meant?

No, not really.

No.

I don't need to be.

God, not religious leaders, is the authority on what God's revealed law "means." And I can assure you the law is not as nuanced or complicated as some would have us believe. How religious tradition or "law" bears on public policy is a whole different discussion, but very often I have to admit that understanding God's law is less difficult than just obeying it.

So, let the debate continue . . .

That settles it!

According to, Arianna Huffington, (here--I wanted to link to Nashville City Paper but it's too cumbersome) if Democrats running for President believe it and 40% of Americans believe it, "it" must be true.

In an op/ed I first saw published after the president's address, Huffington writes:

The stated purpose of the surge was to provide the stability and security necessary for political progress to be made by the Iraqi government — progress that, as the GAO report made clear, is unequivocally not happening. The problem for the White House, and Gen. Petraeus, and the go-along members of the press, is that the public isn’t buying it anymore. According to a recent poll, only 40 percent of Americans expected Gen. Petraeus to give an accurate picture of Iraq. The time has come for the media to stop acting as if there are two sides to the story of what’s happening in Iraq when there is only one.

The reality is that this question (or these questions) aren't black or white. How much progress is acceptable? How much risk or loss is acceptable?

It is nice to see a Liberal coming out of the closet on behalf of absolute truth, though. Maybe I need to read a book by her or something, but Arianna Huffington has zero . . . zilch . . . credibility to me when I hear her espouse a political view. Like Ann Coulter taking the helm at an unrepentant DailyKos; sorry, authenticity-meter is flat.

But can I say that it always cracks me up to hear nutrooters complaining about the bias in media? Whatever Arianna.

We can REALLY use your organs down here

This WaPo article ("New Zeal in Organ Procurement Raises Fears") reports on an emerging dynamic in the field of organ donation, as we become more efficient, more business-like (and less interested in non-economic "soft" values):

"'It's like they're vultures flying around the hospitals hovering over beds waiting for them to die so they can grab the organs,' said Michael Grodin, a Boston University bioethicist. 'That's the impression you get sometimes.'"

It's an intriguing article.

Thompson on education

Via The Corner I read that Fred Thompson has recently criticized "No Child Left Behind" (he voted for its passage). Thompson Criticizes No Child Left Behind - washingtonpost.com. From the article:

"We've been spending increasing amounts of federal money for decades, with increasing rules, increasing mandates, increasing regulations," Thompson said. "It's not working."

He added that there are problems with Bush's No Child Left Behind program, which requires annual testing and punishes schools that don't make progress.

"No Child Left Behind _ good concept, I'm all for testing _ but it seems like now some of these states are teaching to the test and kind of making it so that everybody does well on the test _ you can't really tell that everybody's doing that well. And it's not objective," Thompson said.

Instead, he said the federal government should be providing block grants as long as states set up objective testing programs.

He said his message to states would be, "We expect you to get objective testing done and publicize those tests for the local parents and for the local citizens and suffer the political ramifications locally if things don't work out right."

I agree with most of Thompson's observations/criticisms on the matter, but it seems to me that the OBVIOUS answer is to not have education dollars routed through a Federal Educational bureaucracy, right?

I'm wondering if Thompson's middle-of-the-road tendencies will be the biggest drag on his primary campaign.

Considering today's Tennessee execution

This is a great report ("Daryl Holton's final words before facing the electric chair: 'I do.'") on Nashville City Paper regarding Tennessee's most recent execution.

Daryl Holton surely isn't a poster boy for the anti-DP folks--he murdered four children (three of them his; one of them a step-daughter) in cold blood; and I do mean "cold-blood" . . . imagine the fear of children as their "father" pointed a high-powered rifle at each of them and their siblings then shot them.

But the details of this story are intriguing: the Alfred-Nobel-like opposition from the guy who made the electric chair from a prior Tennessee chair and wood previously used in Tennessee's gallows; Holton's hyper-ventilating; Holton's cryptic "I do" (I would posit he was making some form of faith profession); Defense Atty. Raybin's lame excuse-making and his helplessness with a client who didn't want to "play ball"; the physical impact of the electric charge on Holton.

It is a sobering act for the state to put someone to death. This report--without the distraction of oft-disingenuous opposition to the Death Penalty, was consistent with the serious subject matter.

Be a man, Briley--Updated

Drunk people acting stupid is nothing new, and neither are theatrics by drunk driving idiots, but this story about Rob Briley is intriguing on a couple of counts("Police video shows Briley cursing cops, asking to be shot") on Nashville City Paper.

First, it is seriously reprehensible for a person who is driving under the influence to further endanger innocent people by evading police at speeds over 100 mph. That is and should be a felony, and is perhaps the worst offense Briley committed.

Next, it is seriously laughable how readily Briley resorts to Fascist!! and even nativist slurs against the officers . . . I guess we can see what is really going on in a person's head when alcohol lowers inhibitions, huh?

Lastly, I love how the officers told Briley to "be a man." He plainly needed that encouragement--even though it appears to have fallen on deaf ears. It is hard to know whether Briley was just trying to manipulate the officers when requesting to be shot for a mere DUI arrest, but based on his very selfish, very reckless conduct in evading arrest, it is clear that Rob Briley was very committed to not getting arrested for DUI. Yeah, there can be serious consequences for a drunk driving-related conviction (especially if you're a professional politician) but for heaven's sake, Briley, be a man. It will be interesting to see how responsible and courageous Briley will be going forward in the case.

Update: Thanks to Christian of NashvilleisTalking for providing a link to the actual police video of Briley's arrest.

Update II: The Nashville City Paper opines on the issue today:

There are plenty of good, quality people and public officials in this state who are Democrats and do not participate in the kind of professed and alleged acts enumerated here. Certainly, the allegations against Cooper and Briley are not as serious the Tennessee Waltz charges. It is not a direct comparison.
Yet, after a certain point, the question must be asked as to whether the behavior of these public officials has been damaging to our state and its communities. The Democratic Party should take some measure of accountability for its members, as should the state GOP. They are certainly there for them when they try to win office. They should also know when enough is enough.

I think that's about right (though vigorously disagree with the "e-paper" format NCP is now using for much of their articles).

Thompson's alternative view on homosexual marriage

This is actually the first time that I'd heard this proposal, and I'll hand it to Thompson--it won't please any of the activists on the issue. That might be the secret to Thompson's appeal: blunting controversial issues with unorthodox proposals and a trustworthy demeanor. Thompson: Let states decide on gay marriages - USATODAY.com:

Thompson was asked during a campaign stop in Sioux City if he supported a federal ban on gay marriage, which most but not all of the candidates seeking the 2008 GOP nomination support.

He responded by suggesting the U.S. Constitution be amended to bar court decisions in one state on gay marriage from being recognized in another. The provision is part of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which Thompson voted for in the Senate.

. . .

"In the Register's May poll, 73% of likely GOP caucus-goers said it was 'extremely important' that, when choosing a candidate, that their preferred candidate feel the same way they do about gay marriage. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain oppose a federal gay marriage ban. Most of the other candidates, including those campaigning aggressively in Iowa such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, favor the amendment."

As I mull over the proposal, I am definitely open to a states' rights argument, but the reality is that a law on marriage has ramifications far beyond something like the speed limit or right-to-carry laws. I'll have to disagree with him on this.

Look to post-Christian Europe?

Boy, these two stories will surely irritate the secular Left. ("On religion, Europe out of step with rest of world"). The article first caught my attention for the Lefties-in-a-bubble angle, but it does raise at least one interesting question:

- Why are fertility rates linked to the fervency of religious beliefs? "The most secular parts of the world have the lowest fertility rates," he noted, "and the most religious have the highest fertility rates."

And then there's this news from Murfreesboro . . .

Get Soros' think tanks working on ways to "regulate" fertility and religiosity!

Globally, gaily pushing the agenda

Sorry, but this "reporting" in Newsweek is biased, not to mention stupid. ("Gay Rights Gain Ground Around Globe"). Fine, Newsweek is eager to report that the moral avant garde is all the rage around the globe, but several comments early in the piece are laughable. Joseph Contreras writes:

"The growing maturity of the gay-rights movement in the West is having a marked effect on the developing world. In the United States, the Republican Party is in trouble in part because it has made a fetish of its opposition to gay marriage. . . . And now, the major developing powers of Asia, Latin America and Africa are following the liberal road—sometimes imitating Western models, sometimes not—but in all cases setting precedents that could spread to the remaining outposts of official homophobia."

I don't know the basis of the GOP reference--it isn't reflected in any electoral result (save the Arizona anomaly), besides, I'd assert that GOP hardballers like Karl Rove are much more interested in results than gay-baiting. And you have to appreciate use of the term "fetish" . . . you know, the GOP's opposition is sexual . . . get it? And of course, Contreras makes liberal use of the term "homophobia" to predictably argue the criticism-or-opposition-to-the-homosexual-agenda-is-a-psychological-disorder line.

"Too cute by half" = unconstitutional (frequently)

I appreciate that the Tennessee Center for Policy Research often takes principled stands that it could easily (or pragmatically) shirk. For example, TCPR has been a critic of Tennessee's so-called "crack-tax" that statutorily provided a means for the state to levy a tax on people engaged in illegal activity.

Well, a division of the Tennessee Court of Appeals has concluded that the law violates Tennessee's constitution, and that sounds right. ("Court finds state drug tax unconstitutional" on Nashville City Paper). It seems that many clever--even overwhelmingly popular, legislative ideas don't square with constitutional principles. And courts are tasked with fairly discerning if a law fits in this category . . . regardless of how popular or "necessary" a law may be.

And this reminds me of a phenomenon that often happens in the bidding contest also known as a Presidential campaign. It is a serious temptation to "unveil" some novel pandering strategy for fixing everything, and it only enhances a candidate's credibility with me if s/he resists that urge.

Out.Of.The.Park

I just saw Fred Thompson's appearance on The Tonight Show and he knocked it out of the proverbial park . . . articulating the Conservative message in a "hostile" environment . . . showing he's comfortable in his skin . . . cracking a joke or two.

My wife was really impressed (though she thought he didn't look "well"--I told her it was his new exercise regimen and a "before"/baggy suit).

Investigate AG firing!

Shouldn't we demand an investigation into the most recent firing at DoJ? Reno 911 - HUMAN EVENTS:

"This week, congressional Democrats vowed to investigate Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of himself. Gonzales has said he was not involved in the discussions about his firing and that it was 'performance-based,' but he couldn't recall the specifics."

Thompson doesn't make news

I was reminded of John Edwards' latest news-making comments when I read this somewhat dated report about the Thompson campaign ("Thompson effort loses another top aide") published on the heels of Gonzales' resignation:

"Questioned at the Minnesota state fair Monday about the resignation of Alberto Gonzales, Thompson said the attorney general's enemies were piling on and he didn't think Gonzales did anything wrong. But he said Gonzales didn't handle the situation very well."

Big contrast in style and one reason for Thompson's appeal.

I think that is a key characteristic for a successful politician--magnanimity coupled with principled resolve . . . so you can get elected but still govern effectively.

The DLC/DailyKos rivalry

I didn't realize until this summer that the Liberal netroots were so bitter about the DLC. But it has been interesting to watch the soap opera as the Democrats ramp up for a run at the White House--an office not held by a DLC-hating Dem in almost 30 years.

This article ("The Lopsided Netroots")--about the reasons for a Liberal netroots advantage, provides some interesting perspective on the DLC v. DailyKos rivalry:

"Contrary to popular belief, the Netroots aren't particularly liberal. Opposition to the Iraq war aside, they're nonideological. They will happily support centrists like Virginia's Jim Webb or Montana's Jon Tester so long as those centrists are 'proud' Democrats. One of the things that most animates the Netroots is the belief that the kind of politics practiced by centrist organizations like the DLC is best described as 'loserism.' If you're getting the sense that the main difference between groups like the DLC and the Netroots is one of style, you're warming to the scent. The Netroots are passionate and in your face. They may not know what they like, but they know what they don't like. Their turn-offs include Republicans, conservatives, and George W. Bush. Their turn-ons are politicians and pundits who don't shy away from exposing and excoriating these turn-offs."

Brace self for Hollywood surge

From The Weekly Standard comes this Left-wing debunking--stay tuned, Hollywood is surging this Fall:Hollywood Hates the Troops:

"'We've killed over 400,000 of their citizens.' That's what actor Tim Robbins thinks U.S. troops have been doing in Iraq. He made the claim last week in an appearance on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher. He's wrong, of course. American soldiers have not been slaughtering 300 Iraqis a day for the last four years. Even for one of Hollywood's most feculent personalities, this is an appalling slander of U.S. troops. The Iraq Body Count is an antiwar website that tallies all civilian deaths in Iraq as reported in the news media. Theirs is a comprehensive count that seeks to hold the United States and Britain accountable for a wide range of civilian deaths. As explained at iraqbodycount.org: 'The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks). It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion.' The antiwar group's 'maximum count'? At the moment, 77,555. That's one-fifth the number concocted by Robbins's overactive imagination."

Couldn't have said it better myself . ..

Last week there was a battle royale over at MusicCityBloggers about the Craig story (and a post by Sharon Cobb). Well, here's a great summation of my argument from Jonah Goldberg writing about "hypocrisy" in this op/ed over at National Review Online ("Craig's List of lessons"):

"The point is simply this: Hypocrisy is bad, sure. But it’s a human failing that should fall upon the individual in question. What the left wants to do is use hypocrisy as a cudgel to declare that conservative ideals are categorically illegitimate because some conservatives fail to live up to them. But we all fail to live up to our ideals sometimes (just ask John Edwards, who wants get rid of everyone’s SUV, save the one in his driveway). That’s sort of why we call them “ideals.” Most of us don’t fall as far as Larry Craig seems to have fallen, but that’s not necessarily an indictment of his arguments, it’s an indictment of the man."

The nature (or nurture) of marketing

When I saw this advertisement/newsletter from Disney ("The Eternal Allure of the Disney Princess"), it reminded me of a surprising conversation I had some years ago. After sharing with a new co-worker that my daughters loved some Disney story or another (one of those polite water-cooler kinds of conversations) she got a dour look on her face and then told me she had issues with the portrayal of the heroines in Disney films. In particular, she thought they taught girls to think that somehow women always needed to be rescued or that it was normal for a woman to pine for a knight in shining armor. I was surprised that someone would be so troubled about that issue that they would be so forthright with that view in perhaps a maiden conversation.

The subject is interesting because it deals with the issue of nature vs. nurture and why little girls are attracted to princesses. Disney has sure capitalized on the attraction, even though (I would bet) many of the upper-level muckety mucks at Disney share my co-worker's sentiment. Which leads us to the article; here's the first paragraph:

"Ever since 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs' first graced the screen in 1937, little girls everywhere have been enchanted by Disney Princesses. But don't be fooled into thinking that these ladies, with their sparkly dresses and long cascading hair, are just another bunch of pretty faces. They make strong choices, help those less fortunate, and ultimately champion the underdog."

It is amusing to read the article because, try as they might, the authors could get little more than the "traditional" answer from the girls they interviewed. As demonstrated by the interviews in the article--not to mention my personal experience, the "allure" of princesses isn't their decisiveness, charity or "champion[ing] the underdog." Frankly, the Disney folks (driven by the forces of Capitalism) probably strike a proper balance between acknowledging nature but seeing the potential of nurture.

Get Ronnie Earle on the phone . . .

Bill Hobbs posts (here) about the illegal campaign contributions that helped fuel the 2004 Democrat election apparatus. The FEC has levied an historically large (though small, relative to his wealth) fine on the Left-wing's sugar daddy, George Soros.

I wonder if we should expect District Attorney Ronnie Earle to hand down an indictment in the matter?

Nashville Scene puts Clement on the couch and on the mat

Via Braisted's blog, I came across this bruising, psycho-analytical profile of Nashville Mayoral candidate Bob Clement ("See Bob Run"). Here's the last paragraph:

"Then again, it’s debatable whether Clement has accomplished very much. In Congress, he was known for a high level of constituent service—helping old ladies get their Social Security checks and providing other assistance dealing with federal agencies—but not much else. According to Lamar Alexander during their 2002 Senate campaign, Clement was the primary sponsor of only 64 bills in his 15 years in The House. Of those, only five became law, and four of those were to name October “Country Music Month.”"

Ouch.

I laughed. I cried. I sang along.

I'm sure many of you have already seen this youtube video--"Battle at Kruger," but I just heard about it today over lunch. Even though the clip is over 8 minutes long, it is like a hyper-drama with all the elements of plot--exposition, crisis, climax, and denouement--in one little package. You NEED to watch this video, even if you aren't the Animal Planet type.
.

Smearing Craig--not that there's anything wrong with that

This journo-centric report about the circumstances surrounding U.S. Senator Larry Craig's alleged sexual life is interesting.

First, the subject of the article "How Did News Outlets Miss Senator's Arrest for Nearly Three Months?," seems rather obvious to me. Absent the assistance of an arguably unprofessional police officer, there is little likelihood that this would come to light. And in all candor, I'm not inclined to hold it against a law enforcement type for tipping off journalists; then again, I'm a moralistic, fundamentalist, intrusive, mean guy. What's their excuse?

Next, the article considers at length what investigations or research had been done on this subject (Craig's sex life) over the years. I'm impressed with their zeal, but I'm wondering what exactly they were investigating. Well, obviously it's the crime of hypocrisy! The problem is that the "Hypocrisy Cops" only have eyes for so-called "social issues" (maybe we can call it "BHWR"--Being Hypocritical While Republican). But the beauty of all this--for Liberals, is that if you don't have standards at all (in the "social issues" area) then you don't get investigated. Sweet.

Beyond that, these investigative journalists get a pass for investigating this kind of conduct because, well, the majority of Americans think such conduct is disgusting (certainly Idahoans do--more about that below) . . . too bad said journalists cherry pick the disgusting activities they investigate.

Lastly, the details of the hunt for a reportable story on this subject bother me because they reflect the journalistic equivalent of "tattling." My wife and I believe that as parents we should provide to our children (as much as possible) the moral basis behind standards or rules we impose on them. As our family grew beyond one child, we began having to deal with the "Whining" subset of "tattling." But I couldn't readily put my finger on why it was unacceptable conduct . . . until I realized that "tattling" was reporting something about another person with the objective of gaining some advantage (an advantage over that other person, generally speaking). And that's what annoys me about this story (or, more precisely, the "back story" on this story); it has the smell of partisan/ideological witch-hunting. It will certainly hurt Larry Craig's reputation with Idaho voters, and therefore Republicans' efforts to gain a majority in the U.S. Senate, for this type of story to "come out."

As with "tattling" in the Williams home, though I'm often concerned about the offenses of "the other person," and though I typically must explore the motives of the tattler, at the end of the day I hate to encourage such behavior.

One man's "gimmick" . . .

Let me just say up front how nice it feels to be on the outside looking in on a political campaign--I feel completely liberated from the shillies seeing as I will not be casting a vote in the Nashville Mayor's race. So I am able to "enjoy" watching the debate about tax pledges and campaign gimmickry, et al in this campaign. here at "Political Animals" and here at "Volunteer Voters."

For the record, I think that Bob Clement taking a pledge not to raise taxes (most likely by spear-heading or supporting a measure to raise taxes and then taking it to the voters for approval) is significant, given his political affiliations (and, thus, his presumed ideology) and his record in government. In addition, I think that Karl Dean, if elected and absent a similar "pledge," is more likely to push for "increased revenue" for "greater investment" in "essential" functions of Nashville government blahblahblah (no offense to Dean intended; more an insult to politicians generally). So, under the circumstances, I think this "pledge" is significant. And "the pledge" is significant given Dean's urbane, Liberal-er persona (contra Bob Clement) and the fact that many will presume he is for higher gov't overhead (Dean's famed legal opinion--on voter approval of property tax increases, doesn't help either). I don't know whether I believe Clement will be true to his pledge, but that's a different subject.

Dean is right that it is a gimmick, but most of campaigning is, right? How about hauling himself down to the Dept. of Elections to fire his salvo about Clement's record on taxes? Gimmick right?

Campaigns are all about getting voters' attention, connecting with them on an issue (or finding an issue that resonates with them), and then convincing them that your candidate is the one they can trust on that issue. I think most voters are aware that gimmicks are a political fixture, so the challenge is to dispense with issue raised by a gimmick without soiling your suit in the process. That is no small task in Dean's situation.

Dang, we're winning in Iraq

Great post ("Shhhh, U.S. winning in Iraq") about success in Iraq; but I really liked the first paragraph (sorry, you'll have to visit the site for the links):

"In only 4 years the US has ousted one of the world's most brutal dictators ever and helped replace his regime with a democratically elected government- Doing this without the backing of one political party, without liberal Hollywood, with numerous security leaks, with interfering politicians, and with a hostile antiwar press that continually misfires with bogus news stories. Not bad!"

HT: Bill Hobbs

Huckabee video bio

Here's one of those great candidate bio videos about Mike Huckabee. Pop some popcorn and take a peek . . .



HT: IHeartHuckabee and Mike Huckabee08 blogs.

Huckabee rebuts Club for Growth

Huckabee is gracing the cover of the current edition of National Review "Another Man from Hope" by Byron York), and the article provides Huckabee's rebuttal to the Club for Growth's charges (here, here)that he is weak on economic issues:

"The area where Huckabee has encountered the most flak from conservatives is taxes. In the week before the straw poll, the Club for Growth spent nearly $100,000 to run ads portraying him as a profligate taxer and spender. “There once was a governor from Hope, Arkansas, who raised taxes like there was no tomorrow,” the ad began. “Who is that liberal tax-and-spend Arkansas governor? Bill Clinton? No. It’s Mike Huckabee.” Specifically, the Club for Growth hit Huckabee for, among other things: supporting taxes on Internet sales and access; signing sales-tax increases on gas, cigarettes, and nursing homes; opposing repeal of the sales tax on food and medicine; and allowing a 17 percent sales-tax increase to become law. “All of those allegations have pretty much been debunked, repeatedly,” Huckabee tells me. For example, “I have always staunchly opposed any tax on Internet access. I am adamantly opposed, always have been. For them to say anything otherwise is an outright lie.” As for the Internet sales tax, Huckabee argues that he supported proposals — also supported by other Republican governors — to let states collect sales taxes on goods sold on the Net by out-of-state vendors. “It’s simply a way to create a level playing field for taxes for Internet merchants as well as Main Street merchants,” Huckabee says. “It wasn’t a new tax at all.”

On the gas tax, Huckabee points out that Arkansas’ interstate highways were in terrible shape — among the worst in the nation. In 1999, the legislature approved an increase in the gas and diesel taxes, and Huckabee, who believed the increase was a good idea, signed the measure. Along with the gas tax, there was a $575 million bond issue for further improvements, which was put to a statewide vote in June 1999 and passed by a landslide, 80 percent to 20 percent. “I would argue that we did rather well on that.”

On the grocery tax, Huckabee stresses that he “philosophically” supported its repeal, but he felt that in the money squeeze that beset Arkansas in 2001–02 the state couldn’t afford it. “It was not that I philosophically opposed [repeal], because I have always philosophically supported it,” Huckabee tells me. “The only thing they’re going to hit me for is that I opposed it in the 2002 election, because I knew that we had already made deep [budget] cuts, and if you cut the grocery tax, there was no way to make it up.”

The biggest tax increase during Huckabee’s tenure was the sales-tax increase, which went to education, and it began not with Huckabee but with the Arkansas supreme court. In 2002, the court ruled that the state’s system of funding its schools was unconstitutional and ordered the state government to come up with ways to spend more money on education and distribute it more equitably among the state’s school districts.

Huckabee had to do something. And with a heavily Democratic legislature, it was a sure bet that more money was going to be raised and spent on schools. So along with a tax increase, Huckabee attempted to fix Arkansas’ amazingly chaotic school-district system. The state has 75 counties, and at the time it had 310 school districts, each a separate fiefdom with its own budget and bosses. Some school districts had as few as 100 students in K–12. Huckabee wanted to consolidate districts so that each would have a minimum of 1,500 students. He lost that fight, with the legislature choosing to make the minimum size 350 students. Still, that meant the consolidation of the smallest districts, with significant savings for the state. Even so, when the bill got to Huckabee’s desk, he declined to sign it, knowing that it would become law anyway. “I thought that we were not pushing for the level of efficiency that we should have,” he says.

So what does his record add up to? Well, the charges have not, as Huckabee claims, been pretty much debunked. Some of them are true. But Huckabee also cut taxes on several occasions, and he argues that, in contrast to the senators who want to be president, he was the man in charge who had to make hard decisions. “Unlike the federal government, governors don’t get to print money,” Huckabee tells me. Besides that, a number of his actions were undeniably popular with most Arkansans, with Huckabee working to meet the state’s needs while hewing to conservative principles."

York goes on to describe Huckabee's seal of approval from Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, and from FAIR tax supporters. Read it for yourself . . .

Incidentally, the Club for Growth's original "white paper" on Huckabee is here.

I'm feel ic(k)y

I feel kind of bad about a post over at Music City Bloggers; maybe it's because of the swipe at Democrats (particularly Obama supporters) and maybe it's because I left the "-ic" off a reference to "the Democrat Party."

Either way, I need to clarify. I'd say I've already crossed the bridge of consistently using Democrat to modify references to the Democrat Party. But the insinuation that Democrat Party politics often amount to image over substance and that many in the Democrat Party base have a propensity for liking "rock star" candidates is less of a settled issue for me. For instance, I think that Fred Thompson's appeal "among likely GOP primary voters" is related to the celebrity factor.

People who aren't paying attention to policy or issues (or principles) are prone to support someone they've heard of or that has some level of celebrity. Frankly, I think that there are more of those types of voters in the Democrat Party than there are in the GOP. I think I feel icky because I just threw out a theory that I can't really back up with data (I haven't looked) and that I'm pretty sure would offend many Democrats I know and appreciate. Some offense is unavoidable, and there's a good chance (I trust my instincts/perceptions) this assertion is valid, but maybe I should have held off before making it.

In any event, do you think that there is a difference between the two parties on this point?

Crisp-y treats for Dean campaign

Here's an interesting post/report from Political Animals about the Nashville mayoral race. The story is interesting because it highlights the danger of over-reaching in the press . . . it is simply too easy in this day and age (of communications) to rebut a sloppy assertion.

But I have to comment on the comment from "Jon Crisp" (presumably this one) accompanying the post. Crisp writes of Dean:

Dean is truly a rich, Vanderbilt imported, chablis sipping, Country Clubbing, Private Schooling, Volvo driving, Massachusetts liberal and the African American’s in Nashville know that he is hard pressed to relate to their plight in life.

I'm a Republican, but I can only hope that I'm never on the other/wrong side of a campaign than Crisp.

Nutroots attack . . . FoxNews . . . again

Yesterday I received another email from democrats.com beating the wardrums against FoxNews FOX Attacks Iran. This is a activist website designed to perpetuate the drumbeat . . . it contains a slick (thank you George $oros!) youtube video with side-by-side comparisons of statements made on FoxNews prior to the war in Iraq and now being made in reference to Iran. Watch for yourself.

Of course, their first task is to divert attention for any war-in-Iraq-is-reasonable language, but I think it is funny to hear journalists from other news organizations pulling the John Kerry (or insert any Democrat leader but "Obama") by blaming others for their vote on Iraq:

"'My station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at FOX News.' That is CNN's Christiane Amanpour explaining why the major television networks failed to accurately inform the public in the lead-up to the Iraq war, choosing instead to follow FOX's lead."

The next tactic is to use clips of statements from guests on FoxNews as evidence that FoxNews has an agenda. One of the most obvious differences between FoxNews and other TV news outlets (at least prior to FoxNews becoming the dominant Cable News outlet) is that they almost always present both sides of the debate. As a result, you will hear all kinds of things on FoxNews that don't necessarily represent the editorial opinion of FoxNews.

Lastly, they ignore that other stations (not to mention guests on other stations) are saying the same things about Iran. And I guess it doesn't matter if something is true about Iran (or if it was/is true about Iraq); if an assertion doesn't undermine the credibility/integrity of the Bush administration then it isn't worth saying and it certainly isn't news, right MSM/Democrats.com? What is your clever line? "You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts"?

Even Obama likes Mike

It appears that even Sen. Barack Obama likes Mike Huckabee. (ABC News: "Obama: GOP Field 'Outbidding Each Other'"): In an appearance on "The Daily Show," Obama acknowledged that governors have an advantage in running for President:

Obama suggested that presidential candidates who have been governors have an advantage over those who have been in the Senate, which he described as "paralyzed" and "designed for you to take bad votes."

"A governor is more likely to set the terms of the debate," he said. "They can give a speech, they can say, 'This is my initiative, this is my proposal. I won't sign it unless I agree with it.' Dealing with senators, you end up, you know, having to actually vote on stuff that has no relevance whatsoever but can be used later on to attack you."

And he also singled out Mike Huckabee for "faint praise":

"Asked if he admired any of the Republican candidates, Obama offered faint praise: 'Yeah, I think some of these folks are decent people.' Obama cited only former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee by name. Then he criticized the GOP field for 'outbidding each other' while arguing that the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be expanded rather than closed."

In an awkward (IMHO) exchange (at least it ought to be awkward for peacenik Democrats):

Noting that Obama has been criticized for lacking experience, Stewart asked, "Have you thought about running a smaller country first?"

Obama smiled and said, "You know, what I did think about though was invading a smaller country ..." He suggested the island nation of Grenada.

CIA's Tenet Missed Chances to Thwart al-Qaida

Who knows whether this report would have helped or hurt George Tenet's book sales, CIA Missed Chances to Thwart al-Qaida, but this is what I thought was interesting from the article, "CIA Director Michael Hayden said the decision to release the report was not his choice or preference . . ." and was quoted as saying:

"I thought the release of this report would distract officers serving their country on the front lines of a global conflict," Hayden said. "It will, at a minimum, consume time and attention revisiting ground that is already well plowed."

It is laughable to assert that this information (assigning any blame to Tenet--it doesn't fit the Bushitler template) is "well plowed" ground to anyone other than talk radio listeners. But Hayden would be right vis a vis "distractions" if Bush had decided to fire Tenet, a Clinton administration holdover . . . we almost definitely would have needed "congressional oversight" into his decision to replace him.

Rove v. David Gregory

I had heard some buzz (not much, frankly--it has been a busy week) about Karl Rove's appearance on "Meet the Press" (w/ David Gregory guest-hosting). So tonight I watched the youtube broadcasts of Rove's appearance, and I have to say he_ate_Gregory's_lunch.

Now, his appearance didn't have to be a debate or a showdown, and I really don't think it is appropriate for journalists to set up such a thing (tough questions don't have to be contentious), but that is definitely the stance that Gregory took in the appearance. So, that's how I judged it. Judge for yourself . . .

Here's part 1, part 2, part 3 and part 4 for your viewing pleasure.

Watching the interview, I think that Rove is remarkably plain-spoken and remarkably effective at crafting a message; and ironically he was much less of a spin-meister than the panel of journalists who followed him.

MRS degree is big shocker. Not.

Gavin at "Hit the Back Button to Move Fwd" has posted ("now your daughter can get her mrs. degree for real") about a report from Texas that Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is offering a true MRS degree--it's only for women and is more or less a Home Ec degree on steroids.

Though the reaction from those coming from the Left side of things is a little predictable (even the article predicts it) I would encourage you not to be quick to take offense, folks.

First, this is a BA being offered at a seminary, and this seminary is Southern Baptist. It is pretty hard to argue from the Bible (though some will certainly try) that there aren't distinct roles for man and woman in a family. And Southern Baptists (particularly those preparing for the ministry) accept this general principle. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that this BA isn't for Gavin . . . or for anyone who wouldn't willingly register at Southwestern Baptist Seminary.

Some in Gavin's comments guffaw at the reference to divorce by the Southwester spokesman, but divorce happens most often (I think we can agree) because two persons are going different directions in their marriage. Accordingly, given the presuppositions of the faculty, students and spouses of students at this graduate school, divorce is not irrelevant to a discussion about providing this course of study to spouses of students at this seminary.

Likewise, the purported cold-hard-economic-facts references by some commenters presumes that both parents "have to" work in a family. But, as Mary Beth and even Gavin articulate, that isn't really all that factual. In any event, that kind of leads to the question of whether it is challenging or a high calling to simply "be[] a housewife."

For me, it is sad that many in our culture seem to have moved beyond seeing the value of "the home." It makes sense that these same people would underappreciate the challenge of managing a home, I guess. But in my/our case, this role includes homeschooling, living within a tight budget, creating a "launching pad" for impact, providing an hospitable oasis and a greenhouse of development and acceptance. In our home we're hoping to prepare/equip our family (especially our children) to make an impact and effectively serve others. That's no small task. And it kind of makes some yearn for a 9-5 job with adults and a paycheck and finite expectations.

Giuliani may have used command center for adulterous relationship--not that there's anything wrong with that

Yes, this report that Rudy Giuliani may have chosen the location of the NYC Emergency Command Center for less than appropriate reasons bothers me, but I'm also bothered that an act has to be associated with a Republican actor to bring indignant Democrats out of the woodwork. The Reality-Based Community: Was 7 WTC Rudy's Love Shack?

It depends on how you define "good families" . . .

Liberals everywhere are sure to take offense as Mrs. Obama (is there a reason everyone else is referring to her as "Obama's wife"?) appears to be calling out candidates who haven't modeled what "good families should look like." Breitbart.tv » Obama’s Wife: ‘If you can’t run your own house…’

Blogger files complaint against Thompson’s status on Nashville City Paper

This is rich, Blogger files complaint against Thompson’s status on Nashville City Paper:

"A well-known national blogger filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission Monday against Fred Thompson, alleging the former Tennessee Senator has violated the “letter and spirit” of election law “for his own political benefit.”"

I guess we can assume earnest Lane Hudson (who filed the complaint) missed the news last year about Hillary:

Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is raising money like a presidential candidate even though she's only running against poorly funded Senate opponents.

The New York lawmaker, a potential 2008 presidential candidate, raised more than $6 million in the first three months of the year, according to papers filed Thursday with the Federal Election Commission.

The $2 million-a-month fundraising pace gave her $19.7 million cash on hand at the end of March for her Senate re-election.

"It's mind-blowing. She is raising money at a presidential level," said Doug Muzzio, a professor at Baruch College in New York.

The two main challengers to Clinton's bid for a second term each reported less than $500,000 as they vie for the Republican nomination.

Tell me about "the spirit of the law."

Bully Pulpiteer v. Bully

Here's an interesting article from Politico Huckabee: 'I'm a Main Street Republican' - W. James Antle III - Politico.com. James Antle argues that Mike Huckabee, like a number of pseudo-successful Republican candidates before, is attempting to combine economic populism and cultural conservatism:

"But only Buchanan enjoyed significant electoral success combining economic populism with cultural conservatism. The problem for Huckabee is that a conservative alternative to the GOP front-runners will need support from both the economic and social right. And fiscal conservatives aren't fond of men from Hope who accuse tax-cutters of greed."

While I think Antle correctly characterizes Huckabee's message, I think he overstates the significance--in practical terms, of Huckabee's rhetoric.

I think there is a difference between (a) using the bully pulpit of elected office to influence the culture and (b) using one's office to impose your values through laws and regulations. I think Huckabee fully appreciates the difference. And while I don't think Huckabee is disingenuous in speaking up for values like "greed is immoral," I don't think he has any plans to outlaw greed.

A candidate's values and character--even if not directly translated into policy, can bolster his credibility and assuage or blunt the edge of policy proposals. For those candidates of the Libertarian or Conservative persuasion, it can be especially important to give the voter confidence that your rationale for not wanting to, for example, open up the public coffers for any and every supplicant is not rooted in enmity or hard-heartedness. And if a voter is convinced--by looking at Huckabee's life and record and rhetoric, that he is sympathetic to "middle class" or "blue collar" concerns then that voter will be more inclined to accept Huckabee's Conservative solutions, solutions which rarely are as "generous" as their Liberal counterpart.

I think people like Nashville blogger Sarah Moore appreciate this quality about Mike Huckabee, and I it is perhaps his greatest strength as a candidate.

NHites have surprised many a "front-runner"

David Broder ("the Dean of the Washington Press Corps"!!!) opines that New Hampshirites might hand a surprise to the current GOP frontrunners--as they have before David S. Broder - The Next Huckabee Surprise? - washingtonpost.com:

"Buoyed by his surprise second-place finish in the Iowa Republican straw poll, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is plotting an even bigger coup against Mitt Romney in the first presidential primary, in New Hampshire. His inspiration for the audacious plot comes from two unlikely people: Pat Buchanan and Bill Clinton."

You should read the article, but I personally don't think that Rudy/Mitt/Fred are comparable to Paul Tsongas (Clinton's major opponent in 1992), or that Huckabee inspires rebellion like a Pat Buchanan (HW's opponent in the same year), or that Huckabee has the same squishy appeal that John McCain has (W's opponent in 2000). I guess time will tell . . . meanwhile, Charles at Evangelicals for Mitt concludes that such speculation reflects Huckabee's new status as the media's favorite candidate.

A blind leap onto band wagon

One of the most interesting dynamics of primary campaigns is lining up endorsements or "steering committees." I kind of enjoy seeing the (generally) non-professional pols trying to explain their reasons for choosing to back a certain candidate. Like in the Tennessee GOP primary last year where a "Pro-life Council" member for one of the candidates didn't know the candidate's abortion position.

I thought of this phenomenon when I read this article Romney focuses on economic proposals during stops in Greer | GoUpstate.com | Spartanburg, S.C. about a Mitt Romney supporter in SC. Here's a snippet:

"But some of the more subtle efforts of Romney's long-running campaign in the Palmetto State are paying dividends. [Mark White, senior pastor at Christian Assembly of God church in Greenville] first met with Romney and his wife, Ann, in December with about 10 other Upstate pastors - an event orchestrated by evangelical activist Dee Benedict of Greenville, who has since been added to Romney's payroll. White is now a member of Romney's National Faith and Values Steering Committee. 'It was very personal. They were very real,' White said of that first meeting. 'Dee did the same with some of the other guys, like John McCain, but we struggled with his convenient approach to things.'"

(emphasis added). To be clear, I will have little trouble backing Mitt Romney if he wins the GOP nomination, but this Romney supporter's observation about John McCain was kind of ironic given Romney's recent, Conservative (arguably "convenient") evolutions on a variety of issues.

"Mercy" killings after Katrina

The other night I watched Of Mice and Men--the version with Sinise and Malkovich. For those of you unfamiliar with the story (I was), it ends as "George" (played by Sinise) kills his mentally-challenged friend, "Lennie" (played by Malkovich) as a vigilante posse closes in on Lennie with the intent of avenging his accidental murder of a local woman. As a cinemaven friend of ours told us recently, she likes movies that raise questions . . . that aren't neat and tidy or black and white. She probably would love Of Mice and Men.

Ironically, the same night I came across a story that I had missed over the past couple years. It involves the suspicious death of elderly patients stranded in the New Orleans Memorial Medical Center following Katrina. NPR : New Orleans Hospital Staff Discussed Mercy Killings. As I read the NPR report (and not so much the fluff piece at ABC), it appears to me that the deaths were murders, but the grand jury simply chose not to indict the accused doctor, Anna Pou.

This is an intriguing story because the AMA has circled the wagons around Pou. Aside from The Thin Teal Line, many non-medical people think that almost any action taken by anyone (other than officials in the Bush Administration) in relation to Katrina is understandable given the Bush Administration's racist, mean-spirited incompetent response to the tragedy. We'll probably never know whether the patients were killed or not, but it is surely tragic in my opinion to see knee-jerk apologists/defenders for Dr. Pou coming out of the woodwork.

Bummer of a job

Recently I read this U.S. News article (here) about over-rated jobs (note: attorney is high on the list), but this job ranks right up there with jobs I wouldn't want . . . administrator for victims' funds. The man in charge of the fund for victims of the VaTech murders also administered the 9/11 Victims' fund: Virginia Tech Families to Be Offered Up to $180,000 - washingtonpost.com.

"RICHMOND, Aug. 15 -- Virginia Tech will offer the families of the 32 students and faculty members slain by Seung Hui Cho a one-time payment of $180,000 from a fund created to receive private donations in the weeks after the April 16 massacre, the administrator of the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund said Wednesday. The administrator, Kenneth R. Feinberg of Bethesda, said the university plans to distribute the entire $7.1 million fund to the families of those killed and to the 27 people wounded in Norris Hall."

Bashing (certain) corporations in Belmont area

I kind of knew what to respect just from the title at The City Paper (BTW, hooray that they've changed their on-line layout) . . . ("Belmont group wants to keep Subway from tunneling into area" on Nashville City Paper), a report on knee-jerk corporation-bashing from folks tolerantly ensconced in an "eclectic" neighborhood.

Sure, there are Subway restaurants all over the country and every store is almost an exact duplicate of every other and you always know what to expect when you go in there and almost always have the same experience regardless of which Subway you visit. And that last phrase is what makes a franchise, a corporate brand name, of value. I don't always want a predictable, arguably no-frills dining experience, but often I do.

But it is the reflexive (for some folks) head-shaking references to "corporations" ("dang, small-business-owner vs. giant Corporation won't work if they're franchisees!") that caught my eye. After a quick search over at the Sec. of State's site, I was unable to find if "PM Restaurant" is registered in Tennessee as a Corporation or Limited Liability Company, but I was able to see that Robert Bernstein's company, Bongo Java, is registered as an LLC. LLCs and Corporations are "entities" that protect their owners from liability.

I can certainly understand why Myint would want to keep out a competitor, but consumers/customers will be the ultimate deciders ;) about whether a Subway (or any particular restaurant) is "wanted" in that area of town. And you should ask the franchisee of this Subway which party, in this context, has the most "power" and is likely abusing it.

How would you define "experience"?

I was a little surprised to read the headline "Brownback says governors not equipped to become president," but, in fairness to Brownback, maybe it was a response to a loaded question on the matter.
Here's the first 'graph:

"MERRIMACK, N.H. - Republican presidential candidate Sam Brownback on Tuesday criticized President Bush and two GOP rivals, saying the presidency isn’t a foreign policy classroom.

Brownback’s criticism that governors often do not have the foreign policy experience necessary to be president was aimed primarily at rivals Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, both former governors. But in the process, he also took a jab at the man they all seek to replace, former Texas Gov. George W. Bush."

I'm not sure I've ever heard someone (a U.S. Senator running for president) come right out and say that, but surely they're always thinking it. The problem is how categorical it is, which may point to Brownback's ability or inability to be statesmanlike.

But I have to wonder what Brownback means by "experience." I would submit that there is more aptitude than "experience" involved in effective foreign policy and effective executive leadership. That being said, the value of "experience" is generally that it would reveal a person's aptitude more than somehow "equip" him or her to be the leader of the free world (read: "world"). I don't think it would be wise for Brownback to make this proposition--that former Governors are not equipped to become president, a major theme of his campaign.

Six degrees of Rovination

Just skimming this report about the exit of Bush Advisor Karl Rove--and his lamentable influence on politics, it was funny to see a reference to the Corker/Ford contest in 2006.

Rove has served as a mentor to several Republican strategists whose careers have a long way to go. Some have already made a name for themselves. Scott Howell, who once worked for Rove's direct-marketing firm in Texas, achieved a certain measure of infamy late in the 2006 campaign with an ad targeting Democrat Harold Ford Jr., who was running for a Senate seat in Tennessee. Critics said it played on racial fears about white women and black men, but it may have played a role in tipping that race toward Republican Bob Corker.

Apparently, the Ford/playboy/swinger ad will replace the "infamous" Willie Horton Ad as "Exhibit One" of cover (shoot, Overt!) Republican Racism.

It depends on how you define "won the Ames straw poll."

Noam Scheib offers some excellent on-the-ground reporting (and with an extra measure of objectivity given his overt "outsider's" perspective) from Ames ("Romney's Hollow Victory"--CBS News Opinion):

"Whatever the case, it's hard to overstate the significance of Huckabee's performance here."

I encourage you to read it for some details (and Liberal's perspective) that I haven't seen reported anywhere else.

Throwing stones at The Daily Dish

Andrew Sullivan, in deriding the fact that evolution skeptics may have constituted a majority of voters (and I guess organizers?) at the Ames Straw poll, impugns either the intelligence or the character of those who haven't adopted an Evolutionary theory of Origins. The Daily Dish:

"And we trust these same Republican activists to run the Iowa caucus, where they'll pick the man who could be the next president?"

Hat tip: The American Spectator.

What's a Religious Conservative to do?

This is a great article about the battle for the Realigious (sic) Conservative vote in the GOP Primary. (The American Spectator--"Split Decision"). James Antle questions whether events (esp. post-Ames) might be helping to ensure that Rudy comes out of the process as the nominee--despite the fact that Religious Conservatives make up a plurality of the GOP base. Aside from his generally accurate (in my opinion) insights, I had two observations.

First, I think that Antle has a too-limited view of the process; he writes, ". . . the social conservatives in the race have been ignoring the pro-choice, pro-civil unions frontrunner and instead cannibalizing each other." But I think Antle fails to see that some acrimony is inevitable in winnowing out the field or settling on a Religious Conservative candidate. This amounts to "public" vetting of the candidates, as Antle references in the article's first paragraph: "Whenever a top-tier candidate presents himself as a more conservative alternative to Rudy Giuliani or John McCain, disturbing news soon emerges about his past record." There is a similar--more nit-picky process among the second-tier folks, but it is something that has to play out. People are loathe to pick a candidate and then have to admit they settled on him/her in haste.

Second, I think that it will be important for Huckabee to jettison the "Baptist Preacher" label asap. Though I am Southern Baptist in my roots, and though I realize that Evangelical voters will have an inherent ideological comfort level with Huckabee based on this aspect of his resume, I believe that his greatest strength is that he has both real-world executive experience and a fully-formed, seasoned and well-worn worldview. I think too much of the coverage of him to date has focused on the more-marginalizing aspect of his resume (as far as average voters are concerned) than the bandwagon-enhancing aspect of his resume.

Gosh, I hate to bring this up

Last week I and some dear commenters at Music City Bloggers went round and round about FISA and domestic terrorism. Read about the whole sorry affair here. TO BE CLEAR, I don't think that domestic terrorism is relevant to a discussion about FISA (though that was the perceived chink in my argument pursued by several folks over there). Nevertheless, in the context of discussing whether harmless ol' Quaker-types who are protesting, for example, military recruiters in a systematic fashion and really, really resent the implications of DoD being on DoD's "radar screen," this story is pretty interesting.

Hat tip, The Corner and Jackalope.

Huckabee wins the Iowa Straw Poll! (more or less)

I was happy to hear that Mike Huckabee finished in second place at today's Iowa Straw Poll. (from the DesMoinesRegister.com), and based on the circumstances, Huckabee more or less "won" today.

"Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee had said his campaign’s future depended on a strong showing in Ames. He finished in second place, with 2,587 votes or 18.1 percent. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas placed third with 2,192 votes, 15.3 percent after campaigning aggressively to be the choice of the Iowa GOP’s influential social conservatives. “Obviously this was an incredible day and victory for us,” Huckabee said. “What happened for us today was stunning.” Huckabee said he and his campaign staff had been saying they had momentum and it proved true. “We overperformed,” he said. “The bigger story is we did it with not a dime of paid advertising.” He said he hopes all the people who promised they’d get behind him “if he got traction” will now step forward."

Huckabee's comment about spending for the event is interesting, because if you look at the vote totals, campaigns who don't spend money on the event and don't show up at the event don't get any votes (to speak of) at the event.

Fred, Rudy and McCain--who didn't attend or spend in Ames, finished a DISTANT 7th, 8th and 10th, respectively. Which makes it even more impressive that Huck didn't spend a lot of money and got a lot of votes.

Alas, the Iowa Straw Poll . . .

Today's a BIG day in GOP politics, in a couple of different ways, as this Iowa blogger (w/ links) demonstrates The Swamp: Come out and join us at the Iowa Straw Poll today.

Here's an excerpt from an Iowa report:"While the results have no direct effect on the selection of delegates to the Republicans' national nominating convention next year in Minneapolis, a poor showing can spell the end of the campaign trail for lesser-known, lower-tier contenders while a decent showing can help a candidate remain viable for another day. In 1999, when the last straw poll was held, 235 chartered buses traveled to Ames, more than 23,000 Republicans voted and nine members of the 10-candidate field showed up. The presidential campaigns of former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander, former Vice President Dan Quayle and future North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole ended shortly afterward as George W. Bush, then the governor of Texas, easily won the contest with 31 percent of the vote to billionaire Steve Forbes' nearly 21 percent. But the dynamics of this year's straw poll have created questions about the real political value of a top finish and what it means in the larger sphere of an unsettled Republican field."

Fortunately for the second (or third) tier candidates, some of the "front-runners" have chosen not to participate, thus providing an opportunity for some to emerge as viable top-tier candidates.

On the other hand, unfortunately for the second-tier candidates (and GOP voters in general?) . . . some of the "front-runners" have chosen not to participate; thus, the straw poll is likely to only have the impact of giving viability to all of the lower-tier campaigns. In sum, none of them are going to lose so badly (how can some of the candidates do any worse than they are already doing in scientific polls?) that they will fold up their tent. I take that back, Tommy Thompson appears to have flatly declared that he is dropping out of the race if he doesn't come in second place at the straw poll. Kudos, Mr Thompson.

I was glad to hear Huckabee say recently that he, like Thompson, does not consider himself an "issue" candidate--that is, a candidate who is running to push an idea and not to actually get the nomination.

Bama's new coach is already whining

On the subject of lowering expectations (as is popular in Ames, Iowa this week), I just read (here) that newly-hired Alabama Football Coach Nick Saban is claiming that Alabama's college athletics programs are disadvantaged because students cannot get lottery scholarships.

Here's a fine denuding of Saban's pronouncements from a policy perspective Alabama Policy Institute :: Lottery Scholarships Will Not Make the Tide Roll or the Tigers Roar, but it appears to me that Saban is already fashioning an excuse for any sub-par performance by the Tide. Yikes, all Alabama needs is another sham "rationale" for instituting an ignorance tax.

How much time should she do? . . . not on my frontal lobe

I have heard some buzz lately about the "Pro-choice" NIRH's new pro-abortion PR campaign, "How time should she do?" It seems to some like this is some secret weapon type of question as it purports to reveal the rank hypocrisy of Pro-lifers who can't answer the question. I think they're misoverestimating the punch of the campaign, frankly. But my basis for thinking that wasn't obvious until I mulled over this op/ed on the subject.If Abortion Were Illegal - HUMAN EVENTS. It's kind of a long piece, but this was the particular sentence that stood out to me:

"The pro-life purpose is not to judge or punish women in crisis situations -- but to preserve life, extend compassion, and provide emotional, spiritual, and physical support."

Of course, this statement seems incredible to someone who favors abortion on demand, but that blind spot is what is giving NIRH so much confidence.

I don't volunteer in a crisis pregnancy center because I think women should be barefoot and pregnant or need to learn their place or don't often face difficult choices--choices with which I can only partially sympathize. So, yes, I would have likely stammered if pinned down for an answer to the question, "How much time should she do?" I and most Americans think that abortion, like suicide, is something we ought to try to deter. I think that reality is lost on the folks at NIRH.

Romney's political heatwave

Here's an interesting article about the increasing heat Mitt Romney is taking for his fairly recent conversion on the abortion issue. Romney Pushed on Conservative Credentials - New York Times I thought this comment, from Steve Deace, a Des Moines talk show host is the root of my discomfort with Romney:

Mr. Deace now devotes almost daily parts of his show to attacking Mr. Romney’s shifts on abortion and other issues, including gay rights. “If he has had a sincere conversion on life, no one would be happier than me,” Mr. Deace told listeners Wednesday as he urged them to be wary. “But what is the source of his conviction?”"

All that being said, I have to admit that Romney showed his political mettle during last week's debate when he announced, ""I get tired of people that are holier-than-thou because they've been prolife longer than I have."

Weather alarmism's collapse--Part II

Mark Rose comments on another example of how weather alarmist's are being crushed under the weight of their own arguments. Right Minded: Those darned natural forces:

"I've often wondered what tactic(s) global warming alarmists would resort to when the data showed that perhaps the earth isn't warming as much as they'd like. Today, I got my answer.

Natural weather variations have offset the effects of global warming for the past couple of years and will continue to keep temperatures flat through 2008, a study released Thursday said."

Read the rest at his site.

Weather alarmism will collapse under its own weight

I just read about an astonishing story from the UK over at Mark Rose's place Right Minded: A crackpot global warming theory that refutes itself. Here's the opening 'graph:

"I am convinced that the great global warming hoax will sooner or later implode under the weight of its own idiocy, as a recent story in the UK Times attests. It's titled 'Walking to the shops 'damages planet more than going by car.'' That by itself flies in the face of everything we've been told by global warming alarmists."

You need to go over there and read the whole post.

Huckabee, speaking "truth" to primary power

One thing I appreciate about Huckabee is his candor (or what appears to be candor). In this WaPo article Huckabee: Dems Would Label Romney a Flip-Flopper - washingtonpost.com Huckabee (aside from stating the obvious: that changing your opinion 180 degrees on an issue is not a political positive on balance) distances himself from Dubya's foreign policy and Dubya's "enhanced interrogation" policy. I'd say these two positions are--perhaps reflexively (in reaction to DEMagoguery on the issues over the past 6 years), not shared by a majority of GOP primary voters. But they are very reasonable positions and these statements/positions will probably enhance Huckabee's credibility.

Re. the changes to FISA--globalizing American privacy rights

I've been arguing with some folks over at Music City Bloggers about recent changes to the FISA law. Here's the link to the argument--warning, it's a hector fest. But tonight I came across this excellent op/ed on the subject. Nicely stated. Rich Lowry on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on National Review Online

Democrats have criticized President Bush’s call to spread liberty abroad as naive overreach, but it is positively hardheaded compared with the Democrats’ campaign to spread U.S. constitutional rights to foreigners suspected of terrorist ties. Those rights are meant for people living under and accepting our government, and bestowing them on foreign enemies of the United States only hampers our ability to fight the war they have forced on us.

Those terrorist suspects in Pakistan have no privacy rights we are bound to respect.

Update: I had forgotten about this legal analysis of the FISA debate (pre-bi-partisan changes). Note: the ACLU has a different view of the issue.

Beauchamp and paper dovedom

From the looks of things, the Scarlet Pimpernel of anti-war Bush Derangement Syndrome is taking back almost all of what he wrote. Beauchamp recants.

Here's a previous post on Beauchamp's follies, motivations and evolving truths.

There may be a new sheriff in town: accountability

I don't want to be flippant about this (or too snarky), but it is interesting to read more about the impact of No Child Left Behind. (Article - "Early NCLB data show no improvement for schools"). Now it seems that the Conservative aspects of one of Bush's early "achievements" (depending on your perspective) are starting to kick in.

The uncertainty of the policy's enactment is interesting . . . the impact of the potential "market" reforms is interesting. But I need to be plain in stating that I don't really see how you can blame Pedro Garcia (from the relatively little I know about him and the specifics of Nashville's system) for the problems with public schools in Nashville. He can't be parent to every child coming through the system. We're spending plenty of money. It is the ideological bases for decision-making in the system, and there is a large contingent of folks in "the system" who won't allow things to change.

They like Mike -- Politico. com

Mike Allen of Politico.com reports on an intriguing focus group of today's GOP debate:

"DES MOINES -- Going into Sunday's Republican presidential debate, most of the Iowans noshing on English muffins in the sun room of the neon-bedecked Drake Diner had never heard of Mike Huckabee, or knew very little about the ex-preacher and former governor of Arkansas.

But by the debate’s end, they knew a lot more — and liked what they saw."

Read the rest of the article here ("They like Mike" - Mike Allen - Politico.com)

Mitt on message; host on Mitt

Over at Jonathan Martin's blog Jonathan Martin's Blog - Politico.com I read about this contentious exchange between Mitt Romney and a local talk radio host in Iowa (when you watch the video you'll see why he is likely to remain "local").

I think that Romney needs to be asked tough questions--regarding his evolution on various issues dear to the GOP base, but there's a difference between asking a candidate questions and acting as know-it-all, wannabe campaign consultant.

Also, Jonathan Martin has some interesting comments about Romney's challenge as a devout Mormon--or devout member of any religion, running for President. Running as a Mormon is unique in that most Americans are not Mormons, but I agree with Romney's position (as stated in the video) that it is important for Religious Conservatives to demonstrate how they will scrupulously not impose their religious beliefs on others.

If you watch the full video you'll see that Romney is very disciplined about staying on message. And I agree with his message.

Arkansas Blog: Huckabee gets clubbed

Via Jeremy at Huckabee.wordpress.com I learned of this likely explanation for Mike Huckabee's recent bushwhacking at the hands of Club for Growth. Arkansas Blog: Huckabee gets clubbed.

Huckabee had recruited Madison Murphy, Jackson T. Stephens Jr. and Jim Walton a number of years ago to bankroll his Next Step foundation to work for education reform. Over time, it became clear that Huckabee's aim was more about the governor's political advancement than the sweeping reform the barons had envisioned.

Anyway, along the way, another important issue came up. At a Mansion meeting brokered by Jay Dickey, Huckabee met with Stephens, heir to part of the Stephens Inc. fortune. Stephens, who had toyed with the idea of running for governor, was backing an initiative to remove all the sales tax on groceries. Huckabee promised him he would not be actively involved in the issue. Then he reneged. He came out -- commendably -- against the ruinous proposal. If we had to guess, we'd put DFA boss Richard Weiss at the top of the list of suspects who helped convince Huckabee that his weight was needed in opposition to a government-crippling idea. The initiative failed by a huge margin. Stephens never forgave Huckabee for breaking his word. Stephens is a major supporter of the Club for Growth. Follow the dots.

Follow the dots, indeed . . . and connect the money.

Club for Growth's inexplicable attack on Huckabee

I have to say that the Club for Growth's $85k attack ad buy this week (ironically, masked as "call Mike Huckabee and tell him . . ." ads) seems a bit out of whack. Real Clear Politics - News - Mid Term Elections - Elections 2008 - Opinion - Commentary - TIME. I am familiar with Club for Growth's work--heck, I'm a "member," and I generally support the values of the Club for Growth and I certainly support the idea of working to help a good candidate emerge from a primary.

Likewise, I won't deny that a couple of Huckabee's decisions to condone or advance tax increases while governor of Arkansas aren't easy to defend. By saying that, I'm not conceding that any defense amounts to shilling; I'm just saying that a Conservative voter has a right to ask why Huckabee failed to categorically oppose tax increases. I think he has a legitimate explanation.

But I'm more interested in Club for Growth's explanation for going jugular via a massive media buy against an admittedly second-tier candidate more than six months prior to the election (and one week prior to the Ames Straw Poll). If Huckabee is so bad on taxes and spending (economic issues) then surely the other front runners are as suspect . . . Rudy? Romney? McCain? These guys don't have comparable economic blemishes? Then--as top-tier-types, wouldn't they be more suitable for attack? If the answer is that they're not competing in the Ames Straw Poll, then it appears that Huckabee is being targeted in favor of some other second-tier candidate, no?

Fight the urge, LeftWingCracker . . .

I followed a link to LeftWing Cracker's blog (not a common event, mind you) thinking he might have something constructive to say about Memphis' situation in light of the MN bridge collapse.

Amazingly, America's infrastructure starting crumbling around Dubya's inauguration in 2001. LeftWingCracker: It COULD happen here.:

"With the rape of the treasury via the unneeded Iraq war, plus the unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%, our treasury is depleted, while our infrastructure crumbles. When we DO replace W, if he hasn't declared a dictatorship by then, we will have to overhaul our tax structure in order to rebuild the infrastructure that has been crumbling since 2001."

I would have encouraged you to fight the urge to capitalize on this event, LWC . . . it's a skill (resisting) that'll come in handy after Hillary's in office.

Pic of soon-to-be-executed Iranian

Via National Review's "The Corner" I came across these pictures of some recent public hangings in Iran. Click here. While the picture I've linked to is merely poignant, some of them are graphic; e.g., closeups of guys who've just been hung.

From looking at the series of pictures, the "modern" trappings of the executions stood out to me: using cranes to suspend the men; using blue ski-rope-looking nooses.

There's no denying the sobering aspect of such a spectacle.

Will converting to Catholicism suffice?

I was trying to be sympathetic to Brownback in regard to anti-Catholic comments by a Huckabee supporter, but I'm starting to get annoyed. Brownback Campaign Again Calls Huckabee to Denounce 'Anti-Catholic' Slur | Christianpost.com It really is hard not to conclude that Brownback et al are trying to make hay of this incident.

If being an adult is wrong, I don't want to be right

It actually feels good to disagree with Dick Morris--the guy is brilliant, but he has always, and probably always will, seem untrustworthy. Townhall.com::Hillary Goofed in Dem Debate::By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann. Morris has declared that Hillary "goofed up" in the Phootube debate by not saying--like Obama, that she as president would sit down in face-to-face meetings with the heads of Iran, Syria, North Korea, et al to see if we can work out our differences.

Ahmadinejad & Co. are fomenting either Islamofascism or instability in countries around the world . . . Ahmadinejad has explicitly threatened America and the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel . . . Iran has an economy comparable to that of the city of Detroit . . . tinpot despots the world over would surely interpret such a gesture differently ("hah, idiot!!") than Obama or 55% of Democrats intend. I can understand if Obama actually thinks that is a good course of action; I would have spite for him if he's saying it because of a Democrat focus group. If this is what a majority of Democrats think, then they need to be led on the issue and not followed. (as the ol' bumper sticker says, "If the people lead . . . blah, blah, blah").

Gosh, maybe this is Hillary's chance to do a Sister Souljah . . . or "show some leadership" might be a more accurate phrase.

is "more democracy" the answer?

Jonah Goldberg has an intriguing op/ed on the question of whether "more democracy" (read: a higher percentage of citizens voting) is always preferable, regardless of a voter's motivation, level of awareness, comprehension of the issues, etc.). "Youboob" on National Review Online). One key paragraph from the piece:

"So, maybe, just maybe, we have our priorities wrong. Perhaps cheapening the vote by requiring little more than an active pulse (Chicago famously waives this rule) has turned it into something many people don’t value. Maybe the emphasis on getting more people to vote has dumbed down our democracy by pushing participation onto people uninterested in such things. Maybe our society would be healthier if politicians aimed higher than the lowest common denominator. Maybe the people who don’t know the first thing about how our system works aren’t the folks who should be driving our politics, just as people who don’t know how to drive shouldn’t have a driver’s license."

While I disagree with the suggestion that a voters' test would be a good idea, I certainly question whether we are a better democracy simply for proverbially dragging a voter--no matter how ignorant or disinterested s/he is, to the polls.

3 senators call for regional primaries for 2012 election - The Boston Globe

This sounds like a good idea coming from our very own Senator, Lamar Alexander: presidential primaries held by region. 3 senators call for regional primaries for 2012 election - The Boston Globe:

"The proposed legislation would break the country into four areas, which would take turns having the first set of primaries. Iowa and New Hampshire would remain as the nation's first caucus and first primary."

An omnibus bill (?) or wholesale way of addressing the "creeping primary schedule" issue might motivate all states to come on board with the plan.

Brownback should check his inbox before calling his Press Secretary

I just saw this AP report . . . Senator Sam Brownback says Mike Huckabee should apologize for anti-Catholic comments made by a supporter of Huckabee in an email. 3 senators call for regional primaries for 2012 election - The Boston Globe:

"Brownback wants apology
WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential hopeful Sam Brownback said rival Mike Huckabee should apologize for a supporter's 'prejudiced whisper campaign' against Brownback for being Catholic."

I certainly understand Brownback taking offense, but anyone who is paying attention (vs. someone who is trying to make political hay of the situation?) would know that Huckabee has already attempted to make amends.

UPDATE: No Brownbacking off . . . The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reports.