WFB, RIP

I just heard some bad news--William F. Buckley, Jr. has passed away. He was an impressive man with an impressive legacy. I hope you'll take some time today to read some of the kind words being said about him.

Vaughn-ted Pro-lifeyness

Wow, this is heating up--after multiple examples of Tennessee's Democrats allowing the slightest of pro-life legislation to die in the Tennessee House, here's an unforeseen wrinkle in the debate. ("House panel kills anti-abortion amendment" on Nashville City Paper). Rep. Nathan Vaughn (D-Kingsport) is claiming that he was not allowed to co-sponsor SJR127 because he was a Democrat.

I, for one, am encouraged to see a Democrat legislator who is willing to be seen in public with pro-lifers. And he seems very sincere in the footage of his statement on the house floor. But I'm wondering what is really at work here. Sure, TN Democratic Party hacks blithely paint it as more evidence of Republican evilness, but I am less inclined to accept that.

My question is--if Vaughn's bid to co-sponsor was sincere, what did he bring to the sausage-making table? Was he going to work hard for the bill? That's an open question, given his choice--prior to the vote, to publicly call out a phantom Republican or Republicans . . . and given that he didn't appear to take any other efforts to swing two little ol' votes in the Democrat-controlled House Public Health and Family Assistance Subcommittee.

Okay, maybe excluding Democrats from co-sponsorship (assuming that's true) was wrong, but what of the legislation? It is rich for Democrats top to bottom to be deflecting another failure of this common-sense legislation by crying "partisanship." I'd say it is not unreasonable to conclude from this series of events that some Tennessee legislators are, in TNGOP Chair Robin Smith's words, "Faux life" rather than Pro-life. It troubles me that Vaughn (and the Democrats) seem more concerned about the politics of this issue than the policy of this issue.

Not to nitpick ACK, but . . .

ACK at Volunteer Voters has a tongue-in-cheek post up about legislative hope of curing the epidemic of on- and off-ramp parking ("Finally, An End To The Highway Off-Ramp Parking Epidemic").

I get ACK's point, and I'm kind of a fan of Sen. Henry, and I'm a fan of part-time legislatures. But I'm not sure this is a good example of legislative busy-bodyness.

In looking at the bill in question, I think it is significant that it is an amendment to existing law (TCA 55-1-158) about safely parking a car on a highway. In addition, I'd say Henry's age is not irrelevant to his view on the issue. Though some drivers (incompetent ones) may not personally get in any accidents, they often cause unsafe conditions by their incompetence. Elderly/tentative drivers come to mind. When you're merging onto an interstate, having to look for a clueless driver on the right shoulder as well as accelerating to merge is rather unsafe.

Note, this is not a statement on Senator Henry's driving ability,* but I think that there are legitimate reasons for this amendment.




*As an aside, I remember one day 5 or so years ago on my morning commute that I was whizzing along I-40 when I saw a large, 4-door, older model, car up ahead in the middle lane. The car was driving a little bit slower than most of the cars passing it on both sides. As I got closer, I noticed a single blue bumper sticker on the car that read, "HENRY, State Senate" (or something along those lines). As I passed the car, I was charmed to observe Senator Henry--all four windows down, wind tousling his hair--chewing on big, unlit stogie as he tooled down the interstate. Henry's good people. I'll never forget the image.

What a game! What a commercial (series)!

Wasn't that Super Bowl great?!
But seriously . . . I failed to post on this immediately after the Super Bowl, but I was reminded today (over at Instapundit) of which commercial was the best in my eyes actually two commercials: the e-trade ads (candidly, "wheel suck!" was a nice one, too, but I have a bias against the "predictable/stupid beer ad" genre).

Some people are like, "Aren't you a little late to the party on "best SB commercials"? And I'm like, (a) don't worry about it, I just look like I'm late and (b) it's a free country . So, here for your viewing pleasure my favorite Super Bowl Ads:

Huckabee 2008, indeed

Here's a compelling op/ed about a viable campaign for Mike Huckabee in this two thousand and eighth year of our Lord (Libs, don't freak out, that's just an expression, not code for "theocracy") . . . challenging incumbent Mark Pryor for the U.S. Senate Seat.(Phil Kerpen on "Mike Huckabee for Senate"). From the article:

"In contrast to the drama unfolding in the Democratic presidential race, the Republican contest has been reduced to one mild amusement: What is Mike Huckabee doing? He has already established himself as a brilliant natural campaigner with a strong base of support within the party. He will be a GOP force in years to come, and just may make another run for the White House. But for 2008 he has been mathematically eliminated, his quip about miracles notwithstanding. So why continue? If he really wants to serve his country and his party, while consolidating support for the long-term and advancing his policy ideas, Mike Huckabee should step out of the presidential contest immediately and put his energy into a run for the United States Senate."

This recommendation resonates with me because, even assuming the GOP failed to pick a nominee in the first round of voting at the Convention, I'm not convinced that Huckabee would be "the Conservative choice" (as Huckabee is asserting) of the GOP's delegates.

Why? I think much of the resistance to Huckabee--from day one, was his Evangelicalness. Simply put, I believe a majority of GOP stalwarts are plenty happy to have Religious Conservatives in the fold, they (the stalwarts) just aren't interested in a Religious Conservative playing Alpha. That's fine, but it really bothers me when the contempt for Huckabee (or similar Religious Conservatives) is cloaked in "fiscal conservative" or "corruption watchdog" smears. Huckabee was no worse on either of these counts than any of the other GOP candidates this cycle . . . he just wasn't. Now whether he would have been the best GOP nominee or not is another question, but his record did not warrant the special targeting of Club for Growth, unless you factor in his so-called "social conservatism."

All that being said, Huckabee isn't likely to be the candidate of choice of a majority of GOP establishment types, so I don't think that he would emerge from a brokered convention as the nominee. There's just too much "history" (from this particular primary) and too much resistance to his Social Conservatism (in general) for Romney delegates or McCain delegates to jump to Huckabee's ship. So, I say why not force the Democrats to at least defend Pryor's seat and at best start down the path to someday becoming the third sitting U.S. Senator to successfully run for the White House?

(Mistakenly) seeing red at CBS

Updated:
I'm not sure what to think of this story--("GOP Operative: Rove Sought To Smear Dem, 60 Minutes: Woman Says Top Bush Adviser Asked Her To Take Compromising Pictures Of Alabama Gov. Siegelman" - CBS News), I'm wondering how a photo could have been compromising without Siegelman's complicity. In any event, I guess I'm most bothered by what seems to be a lie by Rove that he never attempted to "discredit" Siegelman. Rove hardly has a corner on brass knuckled opposition research of this sort. But that's not what I noticed from the article.

In what seems like a spit shine for Siegelman, the reporter writes:

"(former Governor, now convicted felon Don) Siegelman was the only politician in Alabama history to be elected to all four of the state’s highest offices of secretary of state, attorney general, lieutenant governor and governor, and he did it as a Democrat in the heavily Republican state."

Yes, Alabama votes for Republican presidents (you know, because they're racist), but this "observation" is patently foolish to anyone who knows anything about Alabama politics. Obviously Siegelman painted a big bullseye on his back by daring to hold office in such a Red State . . . not exactly.

I'm feeling light-headed about Obama . . .

. . . Michelle Obama, that is.

By now you've probably heard something about her recent statement while stumping for her husband Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.

“Hope is making a comeback and, let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change,” she said during a rally in downtown Milwaukee.

I will concede that this is probably more of a misstatement than a misanthropic (?) statement by Mrs. Obama, but I'd say most Americans are not shocked at such a sentiment given the frequent, over-the-top statements about America from interest groups drunk on the wine of Dubya's misfortunes.

Charles Barkley judging judgmental people

This is rich. Though I'm not sure it matters what Charles Barkley thinks (about anything, even basketball), Wolf Blitzer interviewed him recently about a variety of political issues: (Breitbart.tv » "NBA Great Charles Barkley Calls Conservatives ‘Fake Christians’").

fake christians
by luvnews

Defending Senator Henry

AuntB has a post chiding non-Tennessee Feminists ("Way to Miss the Point" « Tiny Cat Pants) about some misogynistic-sounding comments made a couple weeks ago by State Senator Doug Henry (D-Nashville). In sum, AuntB is defending Henry by asserting that he is playing hardball politics to rebuff the GOP's crass politics on abortion. Unfortunately for AuntB, this is a bi-partisan effort to overturn the Planned Parenthood v. Sundquist court's

Though it's fun to watch women e-mud wrestle (just kidding), I think AuntB's giving Henry too much (or too little?) credit . . . Henry is Pro-life . . . Henry thinks that SJR127 is a good idea, and he was attempting to strengthen the proposed amendment not call a GOP bluff. And for that matter, I challenge the assertion that this is merely a GOP campaign ploy. In light of Tennessee's current abortion precedent and in light of Herron's and Haynes' records on the issue of abortion, it doesn't pass the straight-face test to assert that Herron and Haynes--as opposed to Henry and Republicans, want to curtail abortion on demand in Tennessee.

It is somewhat endearing to see AuntB attempting to provide political cover for her fellow Democrats, but I think it is clear who is "playing politics" in this context, no?

There's a reason for that . . .

I am glad to hear that Sen. John Wilder is recovering from his bout with pneumonia, and I hope he is well soon. ("Wilder leaves hospital after pneumonia bout"), but I couldn't help but laugh when I heard the radio report about this story yesterday. They said something to the effect of, "Wilder, who served 36 years as the Senate Speaker and Lt. Governor of Tennessee is the longest serving head of a legislative body in the entire Western world." I really hate to hear our state left-handedly mentioned in the same breath as countries long ruled by oligarchy or autocracy.

Keeping politics out of politics . . .

Tennessee's current judicial selection process (for intermediate appellate courts and the supreme court) was inspired by the so-called Missouri Plan (too bad our system wasn't inspired by the Tennessee Constitution which states "judges shall be elected by the qualified voters of the state"). In any event, there's trouble brewing in Missouri surrounding their trend-setting system, and as the Wall Street Journal points out, the Missouri Plan (and its progeny) are built on a fantastic premise:

"Trying to get politics out of politics is a fantasy exercise. The success of the American system is rooted in checks and balances and the accountability that comes from public scrutiny. Keeping judicial selection democratically accountable is the best insurance for choosing the best judges, and ensuring that they are serving the interests of all citizens."

Tennessee's statute creating our Judicial Selection Commission was scheduled to expire last summer (2007) but the sunset provision was kicked down the lane until this summer. The legislature should comply with the letter and spirit of our Constitution and not extend the current system. Thereafter, if they prefer a process other than popular elections, they should play by the rules and change the Constitution.

A couple things . . .

. . . about my "huge" post on Dobson's endorsement of Huckabee.

Some are asserting (okay, everyone who's commenting on the matter is asserting) that my post about James Dobson's endorsement of Mike Huckabee is over-stated or I-don't-know-what-all. It's rather unremarkable to say that it is "huge," for a couple of reasons.

1. James Dobson is an important leader among Evangelical Christians. "William" may not care what he thinks, "Southern Beale" may not care what he thinks, Adam Kleinheider may not care what he thinks, but none of them are Evangelical Christians from what I've ever seen them write. That being said, Dobson's clout is only significant (for the purposes of my "huge" assertion) in the context of thing two, below.

2. This endorsement is a demonstration that at least one bloc of voters--Religious Conservatives, may be planning to "not go gentle into that good night." There is loads of speculation that Huckabee is angling for a VP slot. Maybe; only a handful of people know.

But part of the dynamic here is that while Romney, Dubya et al are urging that Republicans get behind the presumptive GOP nominee, some Conservatives have concluded that a McCain-led GOP (and presidency) may not exactly be a "good night" at all. Ann Coulter is a prominent example. And while Coulter doesn't speak for the Religious Right, neither does Rush or Hannity. Dobson is another story, and what Dobson is saying is "let's keep on fighting." That's huge, and more of a story than the pre-Super Dooper Tuesday Campaign-for-Hillary threat by mistress of hyperbole Ann Coulter.

Dobson endorsement of Huckabee is huge

Although people like Mitt Romney are now arguing that it is time to unite behind John McCain for the GOP nomination, news today (here) that James Dobson has given his personal endorsement to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee demonstrates that at least some Religious Conservatives plan to contend for the steering wheel of the GOP. This is interesting because it throws down the gauntlet for the many Evangelical Republicans who have yet to cast a ballot. This is huge.

Though Dobson stated earlier in the week that he did not intend to support a McCain candidacy,* endorsing Huckabee is a whole 'nother level of fuel for the "Not McCain" movement. I don't think that people like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham are likely to rally around Huckabee, but I don't think that matters many people who fit into the "Religious Conservative" category. If nothing else, this can perhaps motivate McCain to pay attention to the largest single voting bloc in the GOP. This is huge.










*In a letter released on the Laura Ingraham show, Dobson wrote:

"I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem-cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.

"I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP caucus in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.

"But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should Sen. McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I am affiliated. They do reflect my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country." (emphasis added)

This is huge.

What is "Fiscal Conservatism"?

I went to the Mike Huckabee campaign blog Mike Huckabee for President - Blogs - Romney is leaving race... to see what they were saying about Romney's departure, and for some reason, this comment jumped off the page (By the way, the campaign has officially said next to nothing about Romney's decision, but there are tons of comments.):

"Mike Huckabee is a true fiscal conservative."

It occurs to me that "fiscal conservative" means different things to different people.

In our family's finances, being "fiscally responsible" means spending less (or certainly not more than) what is coming in, right? But what about taking on the debt of a car loan or mortgage? Our family's income/revenue is the proper context for knowing how much debt is "safe," right?

I caught some of Dave Ramsey yesterday, and heard him counsel a caller that she and her husband needed to focus on increasing the income side of their ledger instead of just sitting tight and slowly paying off a debt . . . is that "Conservative"?

I perceive that--among the general population, the understanding of "fiscal Conservatism" is rather cloudy. When I use the term I have in mind small government (hence a small-er gov't budget) and low taxes, in sum supply-side economics, but I think others focus more on the balanced aspect of it and don't give much thought to where the money is coming from--as long as they perceive that it comes from someone else. Democrats have capitalized on this confusion in recent decades, seizing on the appearance that Reaganomics--in and of itself, is somehow fiscally irresponsible.

Another element of this issue that bears on the current campaign is that increasing spending on government programs--if existing spending is perceived to be too low, is not anathema to the average voter.

I suspect that Mike Huckabee's fiscal record in Arkansas (and McCain's reputation as attacking pork but not so much buying the supply-side argument) are having a significant impact on how the GOP race has played out. It will be interesting to see how the issue of "fiscal Conservatism" will play out in November.

And then there were two . . . Romney out

Mitt Romney announced in a speak before CPAC2008 that he is dropping out of the race for the GOP nomination. ("The Page "- by Mark Halperin - TIME). He didn't endorse McCain, though he conceded the race to him.

Here is the key passage from his CPAC speech this a.m.:

"Even though we face an uphill fight, I know that many in this room are fully behind my campaign.” You are with me all the way to the convention. Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976. But there is an important difference from 1976: today… we are a nation at war.

And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child’s play. About this, I have no doubt.

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters… many of you right here in this room… have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country."

The speech is a fine exposition of Conservatism, by the way.

A couple things . . .

. . . about McCain.

1. Rush Limbaugh is saying that it is John McCain's job to win over party members if he is the leader of the Party. Further, he is asserting that rebuilding the GOP coalition is the responsibility of those who broke up the coalition--"moderates" or Establishment Republicans. I kind of agree, but being a part of a team means at least doing my share to maintain the unity. I would say that McCain would be wise to demonstrate magnanimity--the single most important character quality for a leader, in my opinion.

2. McCain needs to realize that he must demonstrate some of his aisle-crossing skills by reaching out anew to Religious Conservatives. Why? Because Religious Conservatives--as a voting bloc, are content to sit out an election, as I already commented at Volunteer Voters.

This doesn't appear to be racism

It appears that one of the "Jena 6" is in trouble again. ("Jena 6 Teen Faces Texas Assault Charge" msnbc.com) Maybe it's institutional racism.

Having recently taken in the monument to the "Little Rock 9," I hate to diminish the heroism of true victims of racial prejudice/injustice by referring to these fools as the "Jena 6."
In all candor, I feel some sympathy (though not enough not to point out this race-baiting idiocy; sorry) for these young men because they are being used. That being said, Mr. Purvis obviously has some difficulty with not being violent.

A couple things . . .

. . . about Super Tuesday.

--I think Republican voters demonstrated their independence from "BigTalkRadio" --Rush, Hannity, Ingraham and locally Steve Gill (re. McCain and Huckabee), and even their independence from the GOP Establishment (re. Huckabee). All the forces arrayed against Mike Huckabee and John McCain fell way short of their objective. And this is coming from someone who pulled the lever for Romney.

--I am amazed that Democrats aren't flocking to Barack Obama. Maybe it is because I--as a Republican doing battle with Bill Clinton over the past what-seems-like-an-eternity, have difficulty even imagining what it feels like to want to vote for someone surnamed Clinton. Maybe it's because I am legitimately (in my opinion) optimistic that bigotry in the American does NOT makes Obama unelectable. Maybe it is because I can't ever remember "lack of qualification" for office being a deal-breaker for Democratic voters. Anyway, I'm amazed.

--I kind of like that the closeness and general state of flux of the primaries this go 'round are forcing Americans to bone up on civics and pay attention to the process. It was cool yesterday that several friends called me with questions about deciphering the Tennessee ballot (information which I had to dig up).

Takes one to know one . . . or maybe not

Jon Wright at mushin no shin is peeved at the GOP's primary rhetoric. He posits ("On The Subject of the Day…") that there is no consensus among members of the GOP (or among members in the more Conservative party). Wright writes:

"I keep hearing this dialog about who is the “real conservative” along with various attempts to explain the dynamics of that race. Listen folks, it’s so painfully simple that you should all be ashamed of yourselves. There is no “real conservative” because there’s no such thing as a “real conservative”. Conservatism is a coalition of war mongers, mercantilists, and theocrats. These factions don’t give a rats ass about the other factions, and to each of those factions, you’re a “liberal” if you don’t support *their* faction, even if you’re 100% on both of the other two, and it is impossible to support all three without contradiction. In this race, McCain has the warmongers, Romney has the mercantilists, and Huckabee has the theocrats. That’s all there is to it. There is no “real conservative” because “conservative” has no precise definition, despite every single conservative’s attempt to proscribe their own viewpoint as “the” viewpoint."

Not exactly. I think there are many differences between America's two major political parties, but the most fundamental distinction is that the Democratic Party is a coalition party and the GOP is a consensus party. From the WiV archives:

The GOP is a consensus party, not a coalition party.

I have often argued this point (here, here), but Republicans agree on a set of core policy views, while Democrats' various sub-groups agree on one thing--being in power. Union workers and open-borders-types and "gays" and Black Evangelicals and feminists and Union workers and Environmentalists make an odd assortment, and the only thing they have in common is that they want a seat at the table and must subvert their own interests to get there.

Jon often says some profound stuff . . . this simplistic pap is not typical.

McCain's critics

Noted Liberal William has a post (at tennesseefree.com) that may be a couple of months premature, seeing as I believe McCain is a Republican that most of the Liberal elite are comfortable with.

Follow the link for quotes (with links) chronicling the mean side of John McCain.

Disappearing Don

Reading this post (Volunteer Voters » "Don Sundquist Couldn’t Navigate From Scooter’s House To MBA?") at Volunteer Voters reminded me of a funny comment by Steve Gill this a.m., commenting on the folks at the Romney fundraiser in Nashville (Blackburn, Beavers among others). Gill said (not verbatim, I was driving):

"McCain has Don Sundquist's endorsement--what more do you need to know?"

Indeed.

Did Romney choose homosexual marriage in Massachusetts?

I have heard arguments recently that Mitt Romney chose same-sex or homosexual marriage while serving as Governor of Massachusetts. Reading a court opinion--much less interpreting one, is not as easy as mischaracterizing one.

Here is a sound legal analysis of what happened in the aftermath of the Massachusetts' Supreme Court's opinion that their state constitution protected "marriage" for homosexual couples.

As others have said, Romney's decision arguably averted a Roy Moore-like confrontation over rule of law.

The Early bird gets . . .

. . . to meet Mitt Romney in Nashville.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney will be dining at the famed Pancake Pantry tomorrow morning (Mon., 2/4) at 6:45 a.m. Y'all come.

Fascinating look at McCain's campaign

Over at Evangelicals for Mitt, I came across this fascinating look at John McCain's conflicted campaign to become the Republican nominee for president. You need to watch the entire clip . . .



The "John Weaver" referenced by the Vanity Fair journalist was at the time the head political guy for John McCain. I knew him when he was former the political guy for former presidential candidate and former U.S. Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX).

More evidence that McCain ("the straight talker") requires extensive coaching on how to sound Conservative.

Romney wins Maine caucuses

From Townhall.com:

"Mitt Romney coasted to a win in presidential preference voting by Maine Republicans on Saturday, claiming his third victory in a caucus state and fourth overall.

The former Massachusetts governor had 52 percent of the vote with 68 percent of the towns holding caucuses reporting. John McCain trailed with 21 percent, Ron Paul was third with 19 percent, and Mike Huckabee had 6 percent. Undecided votes accounted for 2 percent."

Mitt Romney's FL debate performance

I missed the Florida debate, but I enjoyed watching this video-rich recap of it from Michelle Malkin's site, Hot Air.

From the clips I watched, Mitt Romney appears to have done very well (especially the "Bill Clinton Home Alone" allusion and (follow the link to) the "General Hillary" line).

Why Romney?

Just came across this today (hat tip commenter teej macarthur) ("Hot Air » Blog Archive » Audio: Rick Santorum and Laura Ingraham endorse Mitt Romney"):

"This is one of the meatiest segments on the McCain-conservative divide I’ve ever heard. Former Senator Rick Santorum makes point after point after point against the candidacy of John McCain, but also makes several solid points in favor of the Mitt Romney candidacy. Be sure to at least stick around for the middle, when Santorum talks about an encounter with a McCain staffer after losing his Senate seat."

Because McCain would be the worst choice for the GOP in November, it is important to cast a vote for the candidate who is competing with McCain for the nomination . . . that's not Huckabee, that's not Ron Paul, that's Mitt Romney.