Lottery Bait and Switch?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Libertinism: don't try this at home

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

hat tip: Volunteer Voters

Reconsidering Richardson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tennessee's own Dr. Will(iam)

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

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

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

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

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

Brittney on my mind . . .

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

Here's the pertinent paragraph:

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

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

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

Brittney emerges

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

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

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

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

A fair question for a candidate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slavemasters to science

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

House Sub-committee votes in favor of abstinence ed

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

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

What does the Left have against abstinence education?

2008 Candidates: End The War or Win The War?

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

Kitty Catty Corner

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

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

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

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

The Phrase Finder explains how cater became kitty and catty:

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

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

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

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

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

Hat-tip, NashvilleisTalking

Denial ain't just a river . . .

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

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

Trustin' they don't use Google in the heartland

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

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

Speaking of warring with science . . .

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

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

Brittney Gilbert scalped by Lefty netroots

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

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

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

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

Huckabee's performance drawing raves

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

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

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

Blue Light Special: DEMagoguery on voting

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

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

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

Update: Who's wearing religion on sleeve?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huckabee: here I stand

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

LeBron takes charge . . . or not

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

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

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

Dems' damage control on Jefferson

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

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

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

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

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

Uh, okay.

Ingraham, Chavez and now the Blonde Bomber

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

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

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

Religious Conservatives ready for prime time?

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

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

Polls: Mirror, Mirror on the wall

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

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

Ouch--Shrum on John Edwards

Bob Shrum (the famed political Midas) writes about John Kerry's decision to pick John Edwards as his running mate in his new book (excerpted in Time) ("Kerry's Regrets About John Edwards" | TIME) It's intriguing material, unless you're an Edwards fan:

"Kerry talked with several potential picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable after his conversations with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again. When they did, Kerry tried to get a better personal feel for his potential number two; as rivals for national office since 2000, shortly after Edwards had entered the Senate, the two men hadn't spent a lot of time together. Kerry also wanted a specific reassurance. He asked Edwards for a commitment that if he was chosen and the ticket lost, Edwards wouldn't run against him in 2008. Edwards agreed 'absolutely,' as Kerry recalled him saying."

More on eCampaigning

Time Magazine's Joel Stein is sounding out the eCampaigns of the 08 Pres. Candidates ("Friends in High Places" | TIME). It's an enteresting (entertaining + interesting) read, but it demonstrates (by design I perceive) the potentially irrelevance/insignificance of eCampaigns. From the article:

"I'm sure picking a presidential candidate on the basis of what he's done or what he says is a great method--if you're 70 and have nothing but free time. I'm making my choice the more efficient way: MySpace. Whichever candidate is best at being my friend gets my vote. It worked for high school elections, and now it will work for the Leader of the Free world."

Regarding Hillary's negatives . . .

"Clinton Holds (only) single-digit leads over (virtual unknown candidates) Huckabee, Brownback"; (here's the Rasmussen poll.

Harwell: The pork stops here

While I disagree with A.C. Kleinheider's particularly caustic criticism of Rep. Brian Kelsey of late (The Stunt Baby of Germantown) I assume that this move by my old state representative, Beth Harwell, will be better received.

Dear Friends,

I have decided not to send a portion of the budget surplus back to my district in the form of "community enhancement grants," and I wanted to keep you informed as to why I made this very important decision.

This year Tennessee is blessed to have yet another large budget surplus; somewhere in the range of $1.3 billion to be exact. I believe it to be fiscally irresponsible to raise taxes, spend every penny, and not give Tennesseans some kind of tax relief.

This surplus points to something that most Tennesseans already know: Tennessee's citizens are overtaxed.

In the seventies, the legislature adopted the Copeland Constitutional Amendment Cap as policy. It restricts the rate of the state budget to the estimated growth rate of the economy. The theory is that this will ensure that state government lives within its means. But because of the large surplus, a tax increase, and the plans to spend every penny of it, the budget is expected to bust the cap by two fold.

I feel very strongly about finding a way to return some of the money to the hardworking people in this state by cutting the sales tax on food. We also need to save money for the future, just as any family would, so that we never have to face an income tax battle again.

The economy in this state is in great shape right now, but as we know, it is cyclical. All the economic indicators are pointing to slower growth soon, and we in the legislature should be mindful of this fact. The taxpayers have entrusted us to budget wisely; raising taxes and blowing through surplus funds is not wise.

Some of these districts may see some benefit from these "community enhancement grants." However, I have a sneaking suspicion that most will not, and I cannot use this as an excuse to justify giving away your tax dollars to another one of my colleagues.

I will continue to fight for a reduction in the sales tax on food. I believe it to be much better policy to do this than anything else-because economic freedom is at the very core of freedom itself.

Representative Beth Harwell

Well said. The behavior of the Democrat-controlled House and Governor Bredesen is contemptible.

How the e-Horse Race is shaping up

This internet consultant is tracking data about the e-Campaigns of Republican and Democrat presidential candidates. ("MediaPost Publications - The Political Horse Race Is On - 05/30/2007"). I think it is hard to draw many conclusions from the data, but it is interesting to consider the implications of the campaign tactics of respective campaigns. For example, how much does Hillary's extraordinary e-Campaign activity demonstrate that she is popular vs. unpopular? How significant is it that Rudy Giuliani isn't resorting to an e-Campaign in a GOP primary? How relevant is it that Ron Paul is incredibly, though passively, popular in the on-line world?

The author doesn't consider Fred Thompson's on-line (non)campaign, but I perceive he is exceptionally active in this arena.

How important do you think it is for a Republican candidate to capitalize on an internet campaign's potential?

Update: Bill Hobbs has a nice post (here) about politics and the "New Media."

Thompson's record in the Senate (as viewed by the MSM)

This is an interesting article about the relative Conservative-ness of Fred Thompson's record while serving in the U.S. Senate. (CQPolitics.com - "How Fred Thompson’s Senate Record Stacks Up"). While, as a Conservative, I am generally impressed with his stances while a Senator, I have to admit that I like it that he was sometimes willing to buck the GOP party leaders.

That being said, Thompson's position in support of the Anti-1st Amendment Act (popularly referred to simply as McCain-Feingold) was either naive or plan old offensive. And it's interesting to see in this quote from the article how Greg Giroux simplistically states that the act merely "banned 'soft money' donations to the national parties:

"Thompson did occasionally depart from the majority GOP position. In March 2002, Thompson was one of 11 Republicans who voted for an overhaul of campaign finance laws — promoted by McCain and Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold — that banned “soft money” donations to the national political parties.

Brownback and Hagel voted against the campaign finance overhaul, which the ACU opposed on the grounds that it would unconstitutionally limit free-speech rights.

Thompson said at the time that the measure, while far from perfect, had “much more good in this than ill, and I think it will help this institution and ultimately this country.”"

That particular provision of McCain-Feingold was hardly the controversial aspect of the Act.

Appeasement/AntiBush lobby losing its punching bag, its leader, its steam

Apparently it's dawning on some from the Left that Bushatred is an insufficient raison d'etre. 'It's Up to You Now': Sheehan Quits:

"Last year, with $52,500 in insurance money she received after her son's death, Sheehan bought 5 acres near downtown Crawford as a permanent site for protests.

'Camp Casey has served its purpose,' she wrote in the diary. 'It's for sale. Anyone want to buy five beautiful acres in Crawford, Texas?'"

Thompson and the vision thing

Thompson's fill-in Commentating hearkens back to Reagan's radio spots between serving as governor and running for president. I don't know if Thompson writes his own stuff (like Reagan), but he clearly seems to have "the vision thing." Here's his commentary on Memorial Day: Fred Thompson on Memorial Day.

Candidates back abstinence (and majority)

At least two presidential candidates are speaking up for the 83% of Americans who back abstinence education in schools . . . Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback.

(details here)

Sex ed and who's outside the mainstream

The Democrat-controlled Congress has set its sights on terminating abstinence-education grants originally funded as part of welfare-reform. They've targeted a modest program of $50 million (for all fifty states) in light of a budget that spends $60.4 million for salmon fisheries in the Klamath River Region of California and Oregon. When you consider that 83% of Americans say that abstinence education is a priority, it's fair to say that the American Left is out of step on this issue.

So, I ask, which of these objectives are disagreeable to Dems?

The type of curriculum being targeted by Dems (as defined by Federal Statute--Title V) is

"an educational or motivational program that: A. Has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;

B. Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children;

C. Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;

D. Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;

E. Teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;

F. Teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society;

G. Teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and

H. Teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.'
"

Source:Abstinence Clearinghouse

Spendthrift Liberals and sex ed

This just in: Liberals in Congress are concerned about squandering public funds. ("Democrats say they will end abstinence-only funding" - USATODAY.com)

"'With all we know about how to prevent teen pregnancy and reduce sexually transmitted diseases, it is high time to redirect the millions of federal dollars that we squander every year on abstinence-only education to programs that actually work,' said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., according to the AP.

Spare us . . . this is rich coming from the legislator fighting tooth and nail to have taxpayers pay the bill for security at the 2008 party conventions . . . an expenditure with a pricetag of $100 million, compared to the mere $50 million to help fund a modest message (in all 50 states) to counter MTV-type gospel on sexual activity.

Indeed, as noted by Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association:

'It's a public health message that offers risk elimination for youth,' she told the AP. 'It's also consistent with what parents across America want for their youth.'

A recent Zogby International Poll of 1,002 parents with children ages 10 to 16 found that 83% of them want their children to wait to have sex until they are married."

Simply corroboration on Clinton

It's interesting to see the way Hillary Clinton's people are responding to the soon-to-be-released Her Way--"this is old news."

This article ("Clinton 'planned to divorce Hillary to be with one of his many lovers'" | the Daily Mail), asserts that there are no "new" disclosures in the book, and that the book won't change anyone's mind about Hillary, but that's not good news for someone with higher negatives than positives among the electorate. According to sources in the book, Hillary is "self-righteous":

"In the 640-page book, Bob Boorstin, who worked for Mrs Clinton when she was trying to restructure the nation's healthcare system, blamed her for the collapse of her own plans.

'I find her to be among the most self-righteous people I've ever known,' he told Mr Bernstein. 'It's her great flaw.'

Mark Fabiani, who defended the Clintons as White House counsel, said Hillary was 'so tortured by the way she's been treated that she would do anything to get out of the situation.

'If that involved not being fully forthcoming, Mr Fabiani said she would say: 'I have a reason for not being forthcoming.''

Hillary is also cool and calculating in pursuing her objectives:

The second book, Her Way by New York Times reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr, claims that Mrs Clinton hired a private detective to investigate one of her husband's mistresses.

According to the book, she ordered the detective to undermine Gennifer Flowers 'until she is destroyed'.
. . . .

Her Way looks in detail at Mrs Clinton's Senate vote in support of the Iraq war, suggesting she may have been motivated by a desire not to abandon her husband's toughon-Iraq policy and a need 'to prove that she was tough'.
. . . .
The Post said Mrs Clinton emerges as a "complicated, sometimes compromised figure who tolerated Bill Clinton's brazen infidelity, pursued her policy and political goals with methodical drive".

The New York Senator, it said, had "occasionally skirted along the edge of the truth along the way" to power.

Last night political analysts said the books would damage Mrs Clinton in the eyes of some voters. They added, however, that most would find little to surprise them in the allegations."

And this statement--talking about yawning, from one of her spokespersons makes me grin:

Mrs Clinton's Senate office dismissed the books as offering no new material.

Her spokesman Philippe Reines told the Washington Post: "Is it possible to be quoted yawning? If past books on Mrs Clinton were cash for trash, these books are nothing more than cash for rehash."

Her campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told the paper: "The news here is that it took three reporters nearly a decade to find no news.

"Two overwhelming Senate victories in the toughest media market in the country demonstrated that voters have put these issues behind them."

Uh, I don't think so. Hillary's not running for President of the MSM or of New York City. And the details brought out in Her Way will only solidify Hillary's "negatives."

E(lection) Harmony dot com

Here's a cool site that matches you with a 2008 presidential candidate based on your responses to a questionnaire. SelectSmart.com 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SELECTOR

It tells me that Duncan Hunter and I are most "compatible." I hear that's the problem with on-line dating services--they overlook the intangibles.

For abortion, the end justifies the means, I guess

Mark Rose has a link to a report that Planned Parenthood in LA is threatening to sue a journalism student who recorded a Planned Parenthood staffer urging deception in obtaining an abortion. (Right Minded: "Threatening to sue")

I heard something similar in a report last week. This website/organization that appears to have busted various Planned Parenthood clinic staffers who are more than willing to protect statutory rapists. ("Planned Parenthood abortion clinics provide protection for child molesters, sexual predators")

One of the most aggravating criticisms (from the Left) is the assertion that Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) are unethical or manipulative in how they counsel pregnant women. Doesn't it seem fair to conclude that most "pro-choicers" are pro-abortion?

Coulter's eulogy for Falwell

Ann Coulter has boldly eulogized Rev. Jerry Falwell,("JERRY FALWELL — SAY HELLO TO RONALD REAGAN!") and she provides some context (via Lexis-Nexis, as she typically does) about Falwell and the notorious Teletubbies hullabaloo.

From "Time Mag" . . . insight into how Republicans handle DOJ

Over at Time's political blog, there's an interesting post about Giuliani and his tenure in the Dept. of Justice: The Daily 2008. But I think it is most interesting to see how Rudy--and I would submit Republican Administrations in general, handle the DOJ:

"Meanwhile, new papers from the Reagan Justice Department have been released, offering some insight to Rudy Giuliani's time there. Though hiring was often political and Giuliani 'routinely considered requests to advance the favored candidates' of Republican partisans, he did consider the 'legal qualifications of the candidates and their FBI background checks, essentially screening some out and passing others on to the White House.' Giuliani was given 'direct authority to remove assistant U.S. attorneys who did not measure up,' but said the department wouldn't change them as a result of the 'change in administrations,' writing that the department's work was 'too important and complex to follow a policy that could lead to an abnormal turnover.'"

Contra, the Clinton Administration.

From the "Who determines the tiers?" Dept.

David Brody poses the question "Should Mike Huckabee be in the Top Tier?", a question that appears many journalists are answering in the affirmative:
USA Today:'Coming on Strong'
CNBC Chief Correspondent:Huckabee 'Best Communicator On Stage'
Right Wing News: 'Again, Huckabee Best Overall'
Political Derby: Huckabee 'Capable of Cracking Big Three'
. . .

NRO's Byron York: Huckabee Performance Top Tier

. . . .

MSNBC: 'Huckabee Moves Into First Tier'
Human Events: 'Huckabee Graduates'
New Republic:Huckabee 'Best Performer'
Powerline: 'Huckabee Distinguished Himself'

Michael Steele, GOPAC Chairman: 'Huckabee Moved to Top Tier Tonight'"

Most links via Mike Huckabee President 2008.

A fine-tooth comb over the Immigration Bill

Hugh Hewitt has reviewed the currently proposed Immigration Bill at his site . . . this represents an in-depth analysis that I doubt even those voting on the bill will take the time to consider. Hugh Hewitt

McCain's testy amnestyness

Powerline is reporting about the altercation between Sen. John McCain and Sen. John Cornyn in negotiations for the "Immigration Reform" Bill -- it's a fascinating read:(Power Line: "F*** you": The inside story)

The sympathetic side of illegal immigration

The City Paper has an interesting report about the Latin American sources of people used in the underground or black market for labor--particularly the sex trade, in America. ("City sex slavery investigation no surprise to experts"). This is the kind of story which lends weight to the sympathetic view of illegal immigrants in America--people we don't want to feel hindered from coming forward.

Alas, as the article asserts the numbers are small relative to the estimates of aliens currently in America.

"When Mendez’s minor victim from Oaxaca was snuck into the United States, she became one of between 14,500 to 17,500 persons who are trafficked into the U.S. every year for the purposes of forced labor or slavery, according to the State Department.

The results of human trafficking take many forms — from agricultural labor to prostitution to restaurant work to house cleaning — Jordan and others said, but sex slavery is the most scrutinized.

“A lot of attention is paid to trafficking into the sex sector, because in a way it’s easier to see,” she said. “You can go to particular areas, such as brothels or massage parlors, and try and find out how many of the women are there voluntarily and how many are not.”

“We don’t know how many men are being trafficked into forced agricultural labor, but we do know it’s a serious problem,” she said.

Additionally, when the victims are from countries — such as Mexico and El Salvador — from which large numbers of people are emigrating, sorting out who is an immigrant and who has been trafficked is particularly difficult, Jordan said.

“We don’t have a good handle on trafficking from Latin America,” she said. “But because we already have such an influx from those countries of people coming for work, we have a lot of questions about how much of it is trafficking and how much of it isn’t.” "

Ultimately, this demonstrates that the various problems posed by illegal immigration won't be solved without America controlling her borders.

What's your point, Frum?

I think David Frum makes some good points in this attempt at covering the lower-tier GOP08 candidates; ("The Second (and Third) Tiers") however, I don't quite understand his criticism of Brownback's response on abortion in the last debate:

"Sam Brownback. If Duncan Hunter is the second tier candidate whose stock has risen highest in this campaign, Sen. Brownback has definitely fallen lowest. His thrashing around on the Iraq issue (against the surge, against the timetable) gives opportunism a bad name. And surely even pro-lifers must have been revolted by his answer to Wendell Goler's abortion question? (emphasis added)

MR. GOLER: Senator Brownback, no one thinks abortion should be available casually, but there are often very, very difficult decisions to be made in this case. Tell me, since you've opposed abortion in every instance except to save the life of the mother, how you would explain to a rape victim, who does not believe that life begins at conception, why her trauma should be compounded by carrying the child to term.

SEN. BROWNBACK: That would be a very difficult situation, and it is a very difficult situation. But the basic question remains. Is the child in the womb a person? Is it a viable life? And if it is a person, it's entitled to respect. And is it an innocent person?

And I think that's the thing we've got to really look at here, is, what are we doing? We talk about abortion, but abortion is a procedure. This is a life that we're talking about. And it's a terrible situation where there's a rape that's involved or incest.

But it nonetheless remains that this is a child that we're talking about doing this to, of ending the life of this child. Will that make the woman in a better situation if that's what takes place? And I don't think so, and I think we can explain it when we look at it for what it is: a beautiful child of a loving God, that we ought to protect in all circumstances in all places, here in the womb, somebody that's struggling in poverty, a family that's struggling. We should work and look at all life, be pro-life and whole-life for everybody."

Maybe I'm missing Frum's point, but even though Brownback sort of meandered through the (very difficult) question posed to him about abortion (aside: I think Goler's abortion questions definitely were framed from a "Pro-choice" perspective), I think that the answer was consistent with a belief in the sanctity of innocent human life. Am I incorrect?

Klein: Huckabee clearing the second tier . . .

I generally concur with Joe Klein's close-in assessment of the first two GOP debates. ("How Rudy Won the Second Debate" | TIME). I say "close-in assessment" because I think he is wrong in asserting, for example, that referencing Reagan makes a candidate (particularly a GOP candidate) seem "old." I also think in a primary debate "winning" is relative.

Here is the money paragraph from the article:

"As for the others, let's clear the stage. There are three pairs of also-rans. Tommy Thompson and Jim Gilmore were fine Governors, but they have nothing to add here. Both of the right-wing populists, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, seem obscure and insubstantial, a classic problem for House members running for President; neither is as compelling as Pat Buchanan, who has played this role in the past. I've been surprised by how ineffective Tancredo has been in making his anti-immigrant pitch, which should have some resonance in the Republican Party. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee seems to be winning the battle of the religious conservatives against Kansas Senator Sam Brownback. Huckabee is colorful and funny. In the second debate, he drew whoops from the audience when he said the (Republican) Congress has 'spent money like John Edwards in a beauty shop.' Brownback appears bland, by comparison, young and not very authoritative, a Senator who seems like a member of the House. Of these six, Huckabee seems most likely to survive."

(emphasis mine)

What debate?

Adam Kleinheider, over at Volunteer Voters is writing again about the neocon menace (my term, not his) in this post regarding the Paul/Giuliani collision during Tuesday night's GOP'08 debate ("Find The Evil").

ACK asserts:

Ironically, while trying to paint Paul a kook, Giuliani has done more for anti-interventionism on the Right than almost anything else could have in this race. There is now a debate going on and it is the very debate Ron Paul joined this race to start.

Is there a debate going on? Is anyone--other than the usual suspects, debating the issue? People may be talking about the incident, but I don't think Paul has advanced the anti-neocon ball toward the goal.

People who are Republican but not neocon at least appreciate that Giuliani didn't abide insinuations that America civilians deserved to be attacked by Jihadists on 9/11.

Thanks, but no thanks

I am encouraged to see that some TN legislators are resisting the statist/big-gov't inertia.

Adam Kleinheider at Volunteer Voters is posting (here) about Rep. Brian Kelsey and his response to the directive of house leaders for a list of recipient organizations in their home districts to benefit from a collective $20 million in pork, er, "investment."

Politicians blatantly patronizing voters--even voters affiliated with not-for-profits or charitable organizations, with tax revenues is outrageous. Thanks, but no thanks . . . you don't need to be "charitable" on my behalf.

The humorless Brit at NRO

I've always read the writings of John Derbyshire at arm's length . . . for different reasons his opinions don't quite resonate with me. Maybe because his views are coming from a different culture (he is a naturalized American from Britain, as best I recall); maybe because he is curmudgeonly (not that I don't like other curmudgeons' work, but he seems to say more than most that I have to just grin and bear--or ignore).

Anyway, I like much of what JD says in this bulleted stream-of-conscious column about last night's debate, ("Governor Huckabee, You're No Ann Coulter" -- National Review Online), but I have to disagree that Mike Huckabee's quip about a spendthrift John Edwards at a beauty shop is mean-spirited or anything approaching it . . . it was a joke for heaven's sake, and a $400 hair cut is certainly deserving of scoffery. Lighten up, Francis.

Shared sacrifice in time of war

Mike Huckabee's comments in response to an annoying line of hypothetical questions about actions the candidates would take as President in the wake of a terrorist attack. Huckabee said that during time of war Americans should be urged to sacrifice. His comments are early in this segment.

I am sympathetic to arguments for all-volunteer armed services, but I believe mandatory public service would be splendid. I also think it is a President's challenge to make sure that the cost of war is felt/shared as broadly as possible by the country's voters.

Huckabee's self-deprecating humor

One other great line from the debate (from Mike Huckabee) was his response to Jim Gilmore's dig on taxes. ("GOP Candidates Go for the Jugular in Feisty Primary Debate") Gilmore (apparently) coined the term Rudy McRomney as a way of dismissing the top-tier of candidates, and when asked by Chris Wallace to make his case that Rudy, Mitt and John aren't sufficiently Conservative, Gilmore said Huckabee had raised taxes. Huckabee responded (aside from a substantive defense of his support of a tax increase devoted to "infrastructure"):

"'It's a form of flattery to be attacked but I wish my name would get in the moniker. ... I could use the bump,' Huckabee said, adding that he doesn't apologize for getting 94 tax decreases while being a Republican governor in a Democratic state, even though he raised gasoline taxes in his state."

I don't think you can learn "timing," and Huckabee seems to have it.

McCain's successes

One thing that jumped out at me from the debate is the damning nature (in a GOP primary) of mere references to McCain's various "bi-partisan" legislative trophies . . . McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy. It is certainly commendable for a politician to work with those of the other party on non-controversial issues, but McCain has too often been a Republican hood ornament on a Liberal lemon.

Kudos to Wallace, Goler and Hume

You have to hand it to Chris Wallace, Wendell Goler and Brit Hume for not busting a gut on Mike Huckabee's line about John Edwards during the debate this evening (i.e., "the current Congress is spending money like John Edwards at a beauty shop").

"Prime Minister" Nancy Pelosi--America's First!

Dang, I wish I'd thought of this one. Mark Rose has taken to calling Nancy Pelosi, "prime minister." Right Minded: Hush Rush. The rest of the post is interesting, too.

Thompson war-room preview

I hadn't heard that Michael Moore had challenged Fred Thompson to a "debate" on the issue of "healthcare" (healthcare plus a host of Mooronic allegations--e.g., "are you or have you ever been a friend of Bill Frist who made a lot of money in BigHealth!!!!").

Of course, Moore is just interested in promoting his latest crockumentary, but I enjoyed Thompson's pointed response to Moore's "challenge." Watch it here: Breitbart.tv » Exclusive: Thompson Responds to Michael Moore Challenge.

Liberals kind of sort of like Huckabee

From the left-handed-compliment department, there's an op/ed in today's Des Moines Register (here) about the '08 race with this reference to Mike Huckabee:

"Which is why this column's vote for the most intriguing Republican candidate nobody's heard of goes to ... Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas."

I disagree with a number of the author's conclusions (e.g., he says Al Gore is the most qualified potential Dem candidate), but his perspective seems to demonstrate Huckabee's appeal with so-called "moderates" and some Liberals.

Hobbs on Thompson and Social Conservatives

Bill Hobbs has posted (here) about an Washington Times article ("Christian conservatives pledge support for '08 Thompson bid") and--based on the anonymous assurances of several "Christian Conservatives," he concludes:

"This is bad news for a number of social-conservative Republicans in the GOP field, especially Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee."

I'm curious as to why they're being secretive, and I think that this story doesn't warrant Bill's conclusion. I noted as I read the article that it inaccurately stated, "Mr. Thompson, whose celebrity is based on his television and movie acting roles as well as his tenure as a senator from Tennessee, has consistently opposed abortion rights, but until recently had backed campaign-finance laws unpopular with advocacy groups on both the right and left." I know that Bill harbors no doubt that Thompson's pro-choice statements/stances from way back in the 90s are insignificant, but not all of us are as convinced (e.g., here and here).

Of pro-life epiphanies

This NH article, focusing on neighboring-ex-governor Romney raises a good point about a given candidate's ability to woo voters. Changing one's mind on an issue is certainly understandable, but I think it's fair (not to mention wise) to look beyond a candidate's rhetoric.

Pro-life leaders divided on Romney: "Five New Hampshire pro-life leaders split in their opinion on the sincerity of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's abortion epiphany.

. . . .

Karen Testerman, president of the pro-life Cornerstone Policy Research group, said of Romney, "Everybody has an ability to change their opinions because they get more information. But there is some flawed logic when he says he is against embryonic stem cell research but yet is willing to support abortions for cases of rape and incest. Why is a life at seven days more precious than a life at 14 or 20 weeks?"

Testerman said that McCain "has a good voting record," but she said he does not excite pro-life activists, and overall, "He doesn't seem to be getting the spark, based on the event attendance I've seen."

She named Brownback and Huckabee as "100 percent" pro-life."

Fred Thompson is likely to face these same questions. Intellectual integrity or consistency bolsters a person's credibility in my opinion. Too many candidates try to finesse a controversial issue--too often it works when they're merely hoping to appear resolute and principled and serious.

Elitism, Europhilia and the American Left

Terry Frank (here) linked to this great commentary from Fred Thompson about the implications of the recent presidential election in dear ol' France. I like the line, "A French president who openly admires America is an embarrassment to those who view us as the bumpkin cousins of the sophisticated Europeans."

It reminded me of this post from Mark Rose about the irony of Dems' stance on supply-side economics. Lefties are likely ashamed of Americans with the exception of their colleagues living in NYC/Chi/LA or working on academic outposts in Red States.

And all that reminded me of my prescient--if I may say, post about Reagan's economic genius (or at least heroic execution of genius).

Lombardi: Gentlemen, this is a Constitution

Drew Johnson of the non-partisan (sorry, I can't resist) Tennessee Center for Policy Research has an op/ed ("State Constitution Should Reign Supreme When Seating Justices") about a recent suit he has filed challenging Tennessee's scheme (cleverly but not wholly accurately called the "Tennessee Plan") for selecting appellate judges and Supreme Court justices, in particular. As Johnson writes:

"Most importantly, even if the Tennessee Plan were a better method of choosing justices than direct election, it is still unconstitutional. "

Read the whole thing here . . . it's not too long.

Kathleen Parker agrees with me (on the Evolution question)

Columnist Kathleen Parker shares ("God, Darwin a setup for top-job hopefuls") my opinion (here) about the notorious "Evolution" question during the GOP debate last week.:

"The debate question was fundamentally a setup for ridicule. No one was served, and no one, alas, is the wiser.
My opinion.
Kathleen Parker"

So now do we get to ignore Congress?--update

ABC is reporting ("ABC News: Poll: Congress, Bush Share Low Approval") on polling that shows the Democrat Congress has as low an approval rating with the American public as the President; does this mean I get to assert that everything the Democrats want to do is "unpopular" or "anti-democratic" or "out of touch"? I'm guessing not. Here's a quote from the article:

"Democrats agree that the problem is largely Iraq, which has dominated this year's session of Congress while producing little more than this month's Bush veto of a bill requiring the withdrawal of U.S. troops. It has also overshadowed House-passed bills on stem cell research, student loans and other subjects that the White House opposes, they say.

'People are unhappy, there hasn't been a lot of change in direction, for example in Iraq,' said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of House Democrats' campaign effort.

Rising gasoline prices could also be a factor, lawmakers said."

All that is probably true, after all we know the Democrats focus-grouped those designer issues before pushing them through in the first "100 (mega)hours" of the Democrat congress. However, I think part of it is that Democrats are out of touch with the average American. I saw a clever political cartoon recently (here) that showed about a hundred donkeys crammed onto a deep-sea fishing boat (bearing the name "Congress Investigative Committees") each with a fishing line in the water. George W. Bush beat the Democrats in 3 out of 4 elections, but he's not going to be on the ballot the next go-round and voters hardly trust Democrats (inherently) more than Republicans.

Update: Glen Dean has a salient post on this subject here.

Tennessee Shuerilla Women on Giuliani

I've enjoyed two audio or video clips of Rudy Giuliani over the past two days and all I can say is, "Man this guy's charming." Here's one youtube clip from Rudy's time as mayor where Rudy squared off with Union thugs. And here's a link (via BobKrumm.com) to an entertaining radio exchange between Rudy and a "ferret rights activist" (no kidding).

It's ironic that TGW (given the "G" in their name) are calling Rudy out for being "unpresidential," Tennessee Guerilla Women: Rudy Giuliani - Statesman Or Thug? I would surmise that a politician (particularly a Republican one) with a spine is anathema to the TGW-types--they aren't so much inclined to go into a political fetal position.

McNair's trouble

It is ironic that Steve McNair is in the news today for a DUI by consent arrest . . . ("Ravens' McNair arrested on DUI charge" - baltimoresun.com). I happened to spot him driving his silver large cab truck with someone whom I assumed was his son leaving a community park yesterday in the early evening. I have to admit that I am fascinated with spotting a celebrity out and about--I think I was surprised to learn that he still lives here or hangs out here, and it is always intriguing to see larger-than-life people engaging in mundane activities. That's why I kind of enjoy playing where's-the-celebrity in large airports (I'm still trying to figure out the identity of a guy I saw in LaGuardia last week whom I'm sure I know from TV).

Anyway, I feel sorry for McNair today. I think he's probably guilty of this offense (based on experience in the system) though I think it'll be settled largely in his favor. In a sense, his celebrity is a big reason he has attracted this attention (from police and the media) and his celebrity will grease the skids to some degree as he tries to resolve the situation.

Here's an interesting op/ed from a Baltimore Sun writer: McNair's arrest veers into gray area - baltimoresun.com

Does this disaster response make me look pat?

To be candid, it's not flattering to female Democrat governors when the first thing they do in a tragedy is try to find someone to blame. On the other hand, I appreciate Sam Brownback's course of action following the deadly tornadoes in Kansas last weekend.("Brownback disputes claim that tornado exposed Guard shortages" - U.S. Politics - BostonHerald.com):

"Brownback said Tuesday that local officials and the Kansas National Guard commander all told him they have the resources needed to respond.
'That’s what really got me, is [KS Governor Sebelius] saying that,' Brownback said in an interview.
'So I asked, privately and publicly, the adjutant general, do you have the equipment you need?' he said. 'Because if you don’t, we’re going to hit Fort Riley and McConnell (Air Force Base) and other places to make sure we have all the equipment we need to respond to disasters. Everybody there said no, we have the equipment we needed.'
He added: 'I think what we need to do is to focus on what we need here now, and not draw a broader political question in. We’ve got a disaster, and we need to all pull together to get everything we need from the state and the federal for the local need.'
After visiting the town Monday, the Kansas senator said he asked about resources because, 'I think FEMA has a lot of proving to do after Katrina.' "

Huckabee and Brownback re. "Evolution"

This N.Y.Times ("At G.O.P. Debate, Candidates Played to Conservatives") article provides more context than the hand-raising schtick for Mike Huckabee's and Sam Brownback's views on "Evolution." I especially like the last Brownback quote:

"In a new twist on the debate among Republicans over how to balance their religious and secular values, three of the Republican candidates raised their hands at the debate when asked if any of them did not believe in evolution. They were Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas; Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas; and Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

Mr. Huckabee told reporters yesterday that if he had been given time to explain his view, he would have said, “If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I’ll accept that,” adding, “I believe there was a creative process.” He said that he did not object to the teaching of evolution as a theory in public schools and that he did not expect public schools to teach creationism.

“We shouldn’t indoctrinate kids in school,” he said. “I wouldn’t want them teaching creationism as if it’s the only thing that they should teach.”

Mr. Brownback said in an interview that he presumed the question meant that there was no God involved. “I find there are too many complexities in the cell and wonders in the mind” to believe in evolution, he said. He also said that the controversy over evolution should be taught in schools, “particularly the question of how did we get the first life here on earth.”

Asked if his view was out of the mainstream, he said, “Not in America."

But this passage is off-base:

Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, which advocates the teaching of evolution in schools, said the candidates, given their positions on other issues, were undoubtedly sincere but were nevertheless appealing to a fundamentalist wing of their party.

“Nine Republican state parties have taken anti-evolutionist positions,” Ms. Scott said. “They want to throw the far right a little red meat, and creationism serves nicely.” (emphasis added)

Sorry, Eugenie, but that was a question posed to them, and I would expect them to answer candidly, wouldn't you? If so, they were hardly "throw[ing] the far right a little red meat." That being said, Tom Tancredo seemed to hesitate a bit . . .

The Congress-in-Chief!!

Congressional Democrats are forging ahead with their "slow bleed" strategy in Iraq. (US House pushes new war funds bill Bush would veto | Bonds News | Reuters.com), which reminds me . . .

I just read today's email from democrats.com to all us "aggressive progressives" urging us to sign John Edwards' petition in favor of the the Democrats' strategy in Iraq.

Cutting off funding for the troops in Iraq (and even talking about it) is irresponsible. Putting conditions on the way money is spent there is irresponsible. The Congress doesn't dictate foreign policy, and it doesn't act as Commander-in-chief in wartime.

Wolves in sheeps' clothing

As reported by this article, all the smart Democrats are staffing up to appeal to (white) Evangelicals for the 2008 elections. This bothers me--not only because this disingenuous (IMHO) tactic is bearing electoral fruit, but also because it is so hypocritical . . . it's image over substance . . . it represents politicians feigning spiritual motivation for their policies.

Speaking of boxcutters on airplanes

This is a troubling story--it appears that someone other than a passenger snuck boxcutters onto a plane ("9NEWS - Article - Passenger finds box cutters on plane at DIA").

As the article states, airport security is a complicated subject. My wife and I were traveling out of Portland, Maine over the weekend, and we struggled with being annoyed about the level of security. This was the most rigorous screening I've ever experienced in an airport.

I'd say the TSA employees were courteous (generally) and professional (aside, I thought the Muslim-garbed woman checking IDs was a nice PC touch), but the design/setup of this airport's screening area was seriously inadequate. Unlike Nashville, there was very little space to take off your watch, shoes, belt and place them and a laptop computer in bins. Likewise, there was only a small table and no room/space on the other side of the x-ray conveyor belt to re-gather your belongings. Pack that area with a host of frustrated travelers and officious TSA employees and you have an unpleasant situation. I have to believe that the people at Portland Jetport are particularly conscientious because Mohammed Atta and Abdul Aziz al Omari began their murderous journey by passing through that very security area. It's an eery realization.

In any event, I agree with a point made by one of the sources for the article:

"Things like this do occasionally happen. That's why we have armed pilots and Federal Air Marshals so that if prohibited items do get on board, there are other layers of security," said [TSA spokesman Darin] Kayser.

Cherry-picking utilities

Today's Nashville City Paper contains an op/ed Cable argument doesn't make business sense about a current legislative proposal regarding TV services:

The latest argument against granting telephone giant AT&T a statewide franchise to provide video services is another brick in the wall, so to speak, from the pro-government regulation crowd.

Tennessee Municipal League lobbyists argued in our Monday edition AT&T should have to disclose a list of cities where they plan to provide these services as proof the company will not cherry pick affluent areas for service.

I think the op/ed is incorrectly titled; of course cable's (BigCable?) argument makes business sense . . . to BigCable. And sense this economic battle will be decided in halls of state politics, BigCable (hey, lumping groups of businesses together with the prefix "Big" for argumentative effect is kind of fun) is reasonably expected to argue whatever works, right?

That being said, there may be a business argument that does make sense for consumers. We protect certain industries ("utilities") from competition for a couple of reasons, it seems. One is that the commodity provided by the industry is simply too important to leave to the whims of the free market. Frankly, that doesn't seem to apply to television/video services.

Another reason for Utilities is that it is unlikely that companies will expend the capital to enter the business of providing said commodity unless they know that they have some protection from the whims of the free market. That doesn't seem to apply here either, as AT&T will be using existing "networks" to provide the television/video services. In this sense, it doesn't seem that television services are a "natural monopoly" or that consumers still benefit from treating TV/video services as a Public Utility.

I'm interested to hear what others think, so comment on . . .

Reasoning with Jihadists

The arrest and indictment of six Jihadists in NJ (see here) is welcome news, except for the troubling implications of the case--these men were scheming to kill American servicemen and women despite having lived and worked among Americans and despite American sacrifices to protect ethnic Muslims in their former country of Yugoslavia.

The following CNN article has lots of interesting details, ("Official: Radicals wanted to create carnage at Fort Dix"), but the last line is the most ironic . . . the military base targeted by these Jihadist wannabees was used to house ethnic Albanian refugees--who are predominantly Muslim, during and after the war in Kosovo.

Thompson's consistency--on all but abortion

This report (Thompson's 1994 Issue Positions - New York Sun Politics Blog) via the Drudgester demonstrates that Fred Thompson has been fairly consistent on issues since his run for Senate in 1994, that is, except for his views on abortion. Referencing Thompson's Project Vote Smart questionnaire from his 1994 run, Ryan Sager at the NY Sun reports:

"* Under abortion: He checked the box for: 'Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.' He did, however, support a number of restrictions on abortion: requiring parental notification, allowing states to impose waiting periods, and eliminating all federal funding of abortion. Lastly, he said Congress should leave legislation on abortion to the states."

For the record, I know that this issue is much more nuanced today than it was in 1994. However, I think that is true because political professionals have learned to navigate the issue on behalf of less-than-ideologically-solidified candidates. I also believe that it does not help a candidate to pretend to have always been unwavering on an issue unless it's true.

Workman's execution apparently going forward

The Nashville City Paper has a good report about the current state of things in the Philip Workman case. (here). A couple things I want to point out to those of you who are only slightly paying attention to all of this.

First, a jury concluded (and most unbiased observers conclude) that a bullet from Philip Workman's gun killed a Memphis police officer.

Second, for those of you less interested in the law but interested in the morality of executing Workman, even if Workman's gun didn't kill the officer, he is guilty of a capital offense by virtue of committing a felony during the course of which someone's life was lost.

Third, the folks in the Tennessee AG's office aren't bloodthirsty ideologues; however, they are shrewd attorneys and won't knuckle under to "dilatory challenges" and legal shenanigans scatter shot at our legal system by people who believe ANY means is legitimate in opposing the end of state use of force.

UPDATE: I stumbled across (via NiT) the TCASK website and wanted to point out that TCASK spokespeople (most notably on a radio interview this afternoon) are misrepresenting the facts. The witness who testified at trial that Workman fired his gun and who has purportedly "recanted" his testimony "time and again" was a drifter whom Workman apologists at one point cornered in a motel (out west, I believe) and videotaped "recanting" his prior testimony. Workman's attorneys had their opportunity to cross-examine the witness at trial. This case has been considered and re-considered and given every measure of due process. Workman has not been rail-roaded. He needs to face his punishment for willfully precipitating the death of a law enforcement officer in Memphis in 1981.

In sum, it's no surprise that the zeal and emotionalism of death penalty opponents increases over the years (as the date for carrying out the punishment approaches) and that facts and assertions become more malleable when a "trial" moves from the court room to the internet or the press conference.

And it should not be a surprise that as decades pass memory blurs, resolve weakens and those committed foremost to the rule of law lose interest in a case like Workman's. Sure, the governor could choose to grant clemency. The Tennessee legislature could repeal the death penalty. But none of that has happened, and I think it is time for this saga to end.

CNN Poll measures celebrity, methinks

Interesting post from Bill Hobbs at ElephantBiz ("CNN Poll a Disaster for Giuliani").

I would say that the poll in question--of mere registered voters (not even likely voters, or likely primary voters) almost a year out from the primaries, simply reflects the fact that many non-political types are attracted to the two candidates--Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani, who have a significant celebrity apart from politics. Thompson's celebrity is obviously rooted in his acting career, and Rudy's celebrity--though related to his political service, is rooted in his publicity as 9/11 hero, in my opinion. I think it is risky to read too much into such polls.

al Qaeda video: who's been reading Dem press releases?

This is an interesting story, not receiving much play for some reason, but it appears to demonstrate how the "cut-n-run" or "slow-bleed" strategy is being interpreted by our enemies in the GWOT. ("Al Qaeda video taunts Bush, Iran, Shiites"). From the online article:

"In one section of the video, an interviewer asks al-Zawahiri to comment on legislation that ties the funding of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

'This bill reflects American failure and frustration,' says al-Zawahiri, second-in-command to Osama bin Laden. 'However, this bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap."

At first it made no sense that al Qaeda would cut off its nose to spite its face with a statement like this, but another quote from the video reflects that--not unlike cut-n-run advocates in the U.S., al Qaeda is grossly misperceiving their exploits in the GWOT.

'We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200 to 300 hundred thousand killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson, which will motivate them to review their entire doctrinal and moral system which produced their historic criminal Crusader-Zionist entity,' al-Zawahiri says."

I don't doubt this last bit of bluster strikes fear in the heart of many an American hand-wringer; never mind that at the current casualty rate it would take 395 more years of this war to lose 300,000 American soldiers.

Hat tip: Glen's Blog.

Creationists not alone -- Concord (NH) Monitor

This is an interesting article on the whole Darwinism debate from the debate last week. I was somewhat out of pocket all week, so I wasn't able to post, but I did notice a lot of buzz about the Evolution question in the GOP '08 debate.

First, I have to say that I resent that this question may have been handled differently than the others. From what I've heard, it was presented like a question at a defensive driving course or a museum tour--since when do you have candidates for the most powerful job in the World (I acknowledge this rhetorical question loses some of its punch when Dennis Kucinich is factored in) respond to a question by raising their hand?

Second, while I think it was intended (based on the context and the format) to be a "gotcha" question, it merely helped all the secularist, hardcore Democrats to discern which candidate they really, really would never vote for.

I've been amused to observe the condescension and arrogance (and out-of-touch-ness) of those who've attempted to vilify and/or ridicule the three candidates who dared to answer differently than Dem leadership or the MSM faithful. As this story from the Washington Post shows, these candidates are not alone, and certainly not in the minority. "Eager to Be Reagan's Heir, but Not Bonzo's Cousin." The writers certainly understated the facts when they said, " . . . a look at public polling on the issue reveals that the three men aren't far from the mainstream in that belief." I wonder how they would define "mainstream" when--as they reported in the article, a 2004 ABC poll found that 61% of respondents viewed the Genesis account of creation as "literally true."

The Concord Monitor reprinted an excerpt of the article under the fitting title "Creationists are not alone"--indeed.

Secular? If the shoe fits . . .

Charles Colson has (by the way, don't bother to comment about him being a convicted felon of three decades ago) written a piece about Left-wing reactions to the Supreme Court's recent PBA decision; the op/ed is entitled Abortion and the Supreme Court: The New Anti-Catholic Bigotry, and here is a key quote:

"If you uphold a law approved by both parties in Congress and supported by most Americans, you are imposing your morality. But if you vote against the ban, you have nobly kept your religious views from interfering with your job. The ugly implication here is obvious: that it is not possible for faithful Catholic judges to carry out their responsibility to interpret and uphold the law."

Colson references a political comic from Tony Auth (of the Philadelphia Inquirer) as an example of anti-religious bigotry on the subject. While I don't think this is particularly "offensive" (Colson references the Don Imus scandal in urging demands for accountability for the cartoon's author, but I think Catholics can be proud to be associated--like a majority of Americans, with opposition to legalized partial-birth abortion), and I don't think it is necessary to boycott or demand consequences for this cartoon.

But I digress . . . I think it is interesting to consider the characterization of this decision as an example of restraint by the "Protestant and Jewish justices" (who purportedly haven't allowed their personal views of morality or religion to dictate their position on this issue), and borderline-theocracy by the five justices who upheld the law. The reality is that the non-Catholic justices in this instance were very much relying on their worldview in reaching their decision on this issue.

Which brings us to the notion of a "sacred/secular split"--and it's corollary notion, the "fact/value split." This concept holds that religious matters or "sacred" matters have no intersection with "secular" matters. Similarly, the fact/value split is,

the idea that certain things that were traditionally thought to be a matter of truth — like religion and morality and ethics — are actually only personal "values," and that real truth comes only from scientific and empirical investigation."

You may not agree with the positions taken by a Scalia or an Alito, but it is a lie (or at least a foolish statement) to assert that a Schumer or a Souter does not base his/her policy decisions on a worldview or set of beliefs or values system. Grow up, folks.

Reagan's economic genius

Having found the Imprimis archive, I was glad to be able to dig up an article I read some time ago abut the genius of supply-side tax policy. “Ronald Reagan and the Spirit of Free Enterprise”.

Though I don't personally think that increased gov't spending is (a) needed or (b) efficacious, I do acknowledge the data (presented in the article) that demonstrates how supply-side tax policy facilitates prodigious spending by gov't. In sum, if Liberals weren't so committed to redistribution of wealth and addicted to class politics, they'd have to have some love for supply-side theory . . . it generates more revenue than any other economic policy for gov't to spend.

The Second-tier Dream Job

Jay Bush is posting about the '08 Candidates Dream Job story being circulated. The Dispatch: Johnny "Lunchpail" Edwards?

What's funny to me is the pretense by ALL these candidates (excluding Tom Tancredo) that their ultimate job is not to be president. But I do think a candid answer to this question (in reality, their 2nd-tier dream jog) is revealing about the values and "passions" of these people.