Sen. Reid eats crow and Border Fence-sitters . . .

Here's an interesting post Michelle Malkin » ("Harry Reid eats crow on border security funding: 'I was wrong and Senator Cornyn was right'”) about the recent border security amendment vote in the U.S. Senate.

Harry Reid offers a half-hearted admission that he was wrong and a number of Presidential hopefuls failed to vote on this important legislation. I'm wondering if they were available to vote. In light of recent stories about NY State Senator Bruno using state vehicles for political purposes (and Democrats trying to framing him for it), I'm wondering how legit it is for elected officials to run for President while ostensibly serving (full-time) in the U.S. Senate.

Real "tough guys" like Scott Thomas Beauchamp

This morning I came across some interesting Liberal second-hand comments from Glenn Greenwald (via Political Animals blog's link to a Politico story sorry, I know that's a long linktrail) mocking the "tough guy" credentials of Fred Thompson (not to mention most Republican supporters of use of force in Iraq who aren't veterans). Point taken.

But I was reminded of Greenwald's not-so-veiled criticism (e.g., Al Gore and John Kerry both fought in 'Nam therefore they're tougher guys than all those chicken hawk Republicans!!!) when I read more about Scott Thomas Beauchamp story today. As reported here, Michelle Malkin » “Scott Thomas” steps out of the shadows Update: The blog of “Sir Real Scott Thomas” Update: His MySpace page, Beauchamp admits being in the service to "add a legitimacy to EVERYTHING i do afterwards, and totally bolster my opinions on defense . . . ." Sounds like someone with an agenda to me . . . and like someone whose military service is far from demonstrating his "tough guy" credentials.

Playing to the Dem base

The inimitable Ann Coulter humiliates (well, she would if her subjects were paying attention) Democrat Presidential candidates Obama and Clinton for debate red meat to the Democrat Party base. Here's the op/ed . . . pick it apart if you can (BTW: I'll concede that referring to Barack Obama as "B. Hussein Obama" is uncalled for). Here's a peek:

Fox News ought to buy a copy of Monday's Democrat debate on CNN to play over and over during the general election campaign. For now, the Democratic candidates need to appeal only to their nut-base. So on Monday night, the candidates casually spouted liberal conspiracy theories that would frighten normal Americans, but are guaranteed to warm the hearts of losers blogging from their mother's basements.

Exhibit 72 of Liberal disingenuousness re. Iraq

Jonah Goldberg poses a great question to the Left regarding their emerging consensus that genocide in Iraq (upon an U.S. withdrawal) would be no biggie.

300 show up to DEMAND impeachment

This just in from "Impeachment 2007" . . .

They're ticked off over at Democrats.com (which ironically has the tag "Unity" in its logo):

Conyers Wimps Out
On Monday, Rep. John Conyers brushed off the heroic impeachment efforts of Cindy Sheehan, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Ray McGovern, Medea Benjamin, David Swanson, 300 dedicated impeachment marchers, 1 million petition signers, resolutions from dozens of cities and towns, and activists who called his office every 30 seconds.

300 people in Washington sure sounds like a groundswell to me! The report of "dedicated . . . marchers" reminds me of the couple of young demonstrators I talked with at an anti-Bush "demonstration" a couple years ago when Dubya visited Nashville--no jobs, no clue and one of them even gave me a flyer for my wife about the dangers of tampons.

As I recall the Left used to urge . . . these folks need to moveon.org.

Dems better get on with it

While we toured D.C. last week, I saw vandalism signs on every stationary object promoting the Liberal cause du jour (du jour while a Republican is President at least).

Well, one big event which was set for yesterday was the Impeach Cheney Rally. The Dems better get on with this one . . . it won't be long before these Bush and Cheney are out of office and these groups won't have anything to do.

What's wrong with namecalling, if it's the way I feel?

I often wonder how Sen. Harry Reid rose to the level of Senate Majority Leader, given his penchant for namecalling. Well, on one of the Sunday shows (report here), Reid explained his "thinking":

"'I call them the way I see them,' Reid made clear Sunday. 'Alan Greenspan, when they asked me about him, I said I thought he was the biggest political hack in Washington. That's how I felt. Why shouldn't I say that?'"

Later in the article, Reid calls Dubya "the worst president we've ever had" . . . does that mean that Reid is Senate Majority Leader in one of the worst Congresses we've ever had?

Can't a guy get any respect?

Many Democrats (begrudgingly) praise Mike Huckabee (for his temperament and winsomeness), but calling him a Democrat is a bit much, I'd say. I just came across this article ("Plight of the poor emerges as an issue / Candidates Edwards and Brownback offer heartfelt proposals") from the San Francisco Chronicle that puts Huckabee in the "D" column:

"By early summer, the Pew Forum had posted anti-poverty profiles for 10 candidates: Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney on the Republican side, and Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson among the Democrats."

Anyway, let me say that I always bristled at Dubya's use of the qualifier "Compassionate" with the word "Conservative," and I reject the notion that a candidate only cares about "the plight of the poor" if s/he proposes some gov't scheme to seem to be doing something about it.

On the subject of poverty, "John Edwards Vows To End All Bad Things By 2011," | The Onion - America's Finest News Source.

Huckabee and others viable despite numbers

This report Arkansas News Bureau - Huckabee touts momentum, not money explains how candidates like Huckabee cannot be counted out--so many Republican voters are still "in play"

: "Despite the widening money gap, Goldford and others said the former Arkansas governor still has a chance to emerge as the Republican choice since many party voters remain undecided six months ahead of the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses.
"

. I sure hope so.

That being said, Fred Thompson's "official" entry into the race will help many voters make a decision . . .

It's not about loyalty . . .

More about Alexander's rush to surrender . . . it appears that Zach Wamp is on board. Tennessee Republicans show differences on Iraq strategy on Nashville City Paper:

"Alexander’s amendment does have support from one prominent Tennessee Republican, U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Chattanooga). Wamp is a co-sponsor of similar legislation in the House that would make the Baker-Hamilton Commission recommendations law.

Wamp said the Iraq Study Group provides a “bipartisan road map” that could bring the country together to try and find a successful solution in Iraq that has soft deadlines on troop withdrawals.

“The Iraq Study Group is the only thing that really has that kind of bipartisan credibility that we can start to follow,” Wamp said. “So I think it’s a very reasonable approach. And I don’t think in anyway it undermines the president or Gen. Petraeus.”

Alexander’s call for a new Iraq strategy has brought the senator national media attention as he’s joined a growing list of Republican senators defecting from Bush and calling for a new course in Iraq.(emphasis added)"

"Distancing one-Republican-self from Dubya is a surefire media bump, but it isn't "undermining" the president or "disloyalty" or not being a "team player" that bothers me . . . it is the fact that such claptrap undermines the chance for success.

The Crazy Muslim in the basement speaks up . . .

Barreling headlong into their continuing efforts of impeachment-by-media, it appears the only Muslim in Congress is speaking his mind. Bush like Hitler, says first Muslim in Congress | International News | News | Telegraph:

"'It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that,' Mr Ellison said. 'After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted.'

To applause from his audience of 300 members of Atheists for Human Rights, Mr Ellison said he would not accuse the Bush administration of planning 9/11 because 'you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box - dismiss you'."

Oh, when contacted after the speech became public, "Mr Ellison said he accepted that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11." That was wise; now it'll be harder for those mean-spirited Republicans to put him in the nut-ball box.

Alexander's military miscue

Kate O'Beirne is on a tear of late (with me at least . . . you could probably says she's always on a tear). Today I read this dissembling of Senator Alexander's overtly squishy proposal regarding Iraq. Frankly, I'm not surprised by this, as I think that Sen. Alexander often struggles with what his heart tells him and what his (electoral) head tells him. He should have listened more to his head on this one.

Moore is "more French than the French . . ."

Rich Lowry has a splendid op/ed about Michael Moore and his latest crockumentary (is there a "k" in that?). Here's the opening paragraph:

Michael Moore set out to make a movie attacking the American insurance industry and ended up attacking the American character. By the end of his movie SiCKO, his plaint is less about American resistance to government-run health care than its overarching rejection of collectivism. As Moore puts it, everywhere else it’s “a world of we,” but here a “world of me.”

The crazy birdwatcher in the basement speaks

I've been on the road for a couple days, so I haven't had much spare time to post, but aside from that isn't technology amazing? To be able to post to my blog from almost anywhere in the world . . .

Anyhow, I thought this story was kind of funny, in light of some posts and comments that frequent WiV commenter (or commienter, as I sometimes affectionately say) from William about a "concern" for securing our nation's borders. Of course, William was mainly using that issue as a device to somehow undercut Dubya's credibility in waging the war in Iraq for America's safety.

The AP story concerning a border fence is funny to me because fun/fruity/wacky/Lefty elements of the Democrat Party coalition have been largely silent or kept under wraps in the debate about immigration reform these many months (more than a year, since this battle began last Summer, before the election . . .)

Impeach Cheney!!! or not.

Kate O'Beirne has an excellent and extensive op/ed (here) over at NationalReview.com completely denuding the Left's "Impeach Cheney!!!!!" hooey. Here's a snippet:

The unremarkable interpretation that the vice president is to be treated like the president himself, when it comes to an executive order on classification practices that the president is free to repeal or modify at will, is not the stuff of a constitutional crisis.

O'Beirne addresses a string of purported offenses by Cheney . . . destroying Secret Service records! . . . claiming the VP has a hybrid role in the federal gov't! . . . that a former aide to Cheney was convicted of giving passing secrets to the Philippine gov't! . . . refusing to disclose members of the energy task force! . . .

Don't read it if your mind is already made up on the issue.

It's not an impeachable offense to beat a Democrat

I just read that U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer says she thinks impeachment of Bush should be "on the table."

Uh, Senator Boxer, it is not an impeachable offense to get elected while Republican. It surely is offensive (to a Liberal) to have people expressing Conservative viewpoints and it may be offensive (to a Liberal) for people not to let you impose statism on the citizenry, but it's not an offense. Heck, it's beautiful. Too bad we can't impose "benchmarks" on Liberal Congresses.

Irony of the Day: Michael Moore, Inc. accuses someone of media stunting

I just read (via sloanereality.blogspot.com) that Michael Moore Inc. and Mike Huckabee are mixing it up a little. ("Huckabee : Filmmaker Moore an example of health care problems").

It appears that Huckabee was asked during a 7/11 conference call with journalists to comment on Michael Moore's crocumentary "Sicko." As Huckabee often does, he turned the discussion about healthcare toward preventable maladies like obesity and heart disease.

But both the AP writer and the spokeswoman for Moore imply that Moore is the target of mean ol' Republicans or just greedy/contribution-hungry ol' GOP Presidential candidates.

"Looks like Mike Huckabee is auditioning for some insurance company dough, since he's raised just about no money and sparked zero interest since jumping into the race," O'Hara said in a response provided by Moore's production office. "I wonder what the good governor would say to the French, who drink more, smoke more, eat more cheese and still live longer than us despite paying less for health care?"

. At the end of the article, they reference Fred Thompson's youtube RESPONSE to a verbal assault from Michael Moore earlier in the Summer. In that instance, Moore threw some elbows at Thompson in an apparent effort to generate attention just prior to the release of "Sicko," but now it is handy for characterizing Moore as a Republican punching bag.

Further irony is that Huckabee is probably most sympathetic to Moore's premise that something has to be done to reform the American healthcare system. But I guess a knee jerk reaction by Moore is predictable given that Moore can only conceive of one prescription for everyone else's problems: socialism.

Huckabee Blogcall -- 7/11/07

I participated in a blogger conference call for Huckabee today, and have a couple of observations. I asked two questions on the call, both related to Sen. Sam Brownback--Huckabee's main competition for Conservative Republicans.

First I asked Huckabee to comment on Brownback's votes last week in favor of and then in opposition to cloture on the "Immigration Reform" bill. Huckabee's response was very gracious, but substantive. He said (and I'm paraphrasing),

"It demonstrates the difficulty of running for president after having served in the senate–you are vulnerable to challenges for having taken both sides of issues."

Later I asked his Iowa Campaign Chair, Bob Vander Plaats, what his reaction was to the Brownback campaign's announcement of his "Faith and Family Leadership Committee"--a group of 50 Iowan Religious Conservatives backing him for president.

I have to admit I was surprised by the news report ("Religious conservatives get behind Brownback in Iowa")--though I wouldn't be able to judge--from looking at the names, how "impressed" I should be by the announcement.
But I was more surprised to hear Vander Plaats say that he wasn't aware of the announcement, an announcement that I heard about on July 7th. Like me, Vander Plaats said that he would have to see the list of names to be able to comment on the import of the announcement. (Here's the list.) But he also said (and I'm paraphrasing) “Iowans aren’t as impressed with who endorses a candidate as they are with the candidate.” I suppose that's true in most campaigns aside from certain EXCEPTIONAL endorsers.

All in all, another great opportunity to witness Huckabee's noteworthy ability and willingness to answer any and every question posed to him.

Newsflash: Surgeon General's post influenced by politics

Dang it, right as I was heading to bed, frequent commenter (and Authoritarian Cultist Watcher) William flung rumors (here) of the smoking gun of !!The Republican War On Science!! Dubya's former Surgeon General has "denounced" political interference while he--Richard Carmona, served in the Bush administration.

Well, I googled the story and loved this nonsensical quote from Carmona (here) :

"“Anything that doesn’t fit into the political appointees’ ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried,” Richard Carmona, surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, told a congressional committee. (emphasis added) “The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation, not the doctor of a political party.”

But later . . . deeper . . . way towards the end . . . in the article is this paragraph:

Also testifying were former surgeons general C. Everett Koop and David Satcher, who served in the Reagan and Clinton administrations respectively. Carmona said their testimony showed that political interference was “a systemic problem,” but that several former surgeons general told him they had never seen it rise to the levels he encountered."

Hmmm, on first blush, it appears William is right; this incident indeed proves what "we all know is true" . . . politics influence the job of the Surgeon General.

"Blue Collar Muse" v. "Aunt B"

Via Music City Bloggers (here) I see that "Blue Collar Muse" is fisking an "Aunt B" post about Liberal opposition to the Iraq War. Blue Collar Muse » Terrorists With Proper Breeding … Here's a great paragraph, (but you ought to read the whole thing):

"We do know Islamic fundamentalist terrorists don’t like the West’s influence and believe all infidels need killing. A group of them with connections managed to cross the Atlantic to deliver that message in person, leaving behind a much larger group of people with identical beliefs who couldn’t make the trip. After they attacked us, America went to war against the extremists in their backyard. Is it not reasonable to believe that increases in the number of terrorists seen ‘over there’ stems, not from disgruntled moderates, but rather from extremists left behind by the original attackers and who now have easier access to killing Americans?"

What this made me think of, however, was a Liberal penchant for straw men. Effective control of the MSM, coupled with the "softer"/appealing position on most issues, enables Liberals to argue on their terms.

Romney and his stem cells device

I inadvertently came across an op/ed from the Mitt Romney campaign today and it struck a bad note with me. Mitt Romney on Stem Cells on National Review Online. Romney's piece is intended--I would surmise, as a means for Romney to demonstrate his ability to see beyond politics (and the subset of that, "be above the DC/Federal/Partisan game"). It also can serve to signal to the casual reader/voter/thinker--who also happens to be "socially Conservative," that Romney has this issue on his mind. This last use is valuable because Romney asserts that his "conversion" on the abortion issue (a couple years ago) happened in the context of this debate while he was Governor of Massachusetts.

But I have some problems with what Romney writes. First, Romney implies that people on both sides of the stem cell debate are extreme:

Opposing advocates (ed.: that's an interesting phrase--"opposing advocates"; in any event that's folks like me) told me that the pluripotency of stem cells — their ability to become a very wide variety of different cell types — would not be of great therapeutic value, and that other sources of tissues and cells could serve the same purpose. But they ignored the unique role pluripotent cells could play in basic science.

Uh, not exactly; no one on my side of the debate was ignoring anything, it's just that someone whose position on this is based on the principle that innocent human life--regardless of the stage, is sacred does not feel compelled to accept embryonic harvesting (and certainly not taxpayer funding of such) just because there is some advantage to humans at other stages of development; and the argument is even less compelling when such advantage is merely potentially advantageous.

Next, Romney seems to say that it's about time that everyone began to adopt his prescient position on the issue. Writing in light of (and in reference to) medical discoveries only coming to light in the last few months, Romney implies that his position has always been based on an understanding that adult stem cells contained the same pluripotency (so to speak) as embryonic stem cells:

Couldn’t the strongest part of each side’s argument — the utility of pluripotent cells on the one hand and the importance of protecting human life on the other — be brought together? I studied the issue for many months, and entered into conversation with experts from across the nation who were looking for consensus solutions, like Stanford’s Dr. William Hurlbut. In the end, I became persuaded that the stem-cell debate was grounded in a false premise, and that the way through it was around it: by the use of scientific techniques that could produce the equivalent of embryonic stem cells but without cloning, creating, harming, or destroying developing human lives.

A number of such techniques have begun to emerge in recent years, and as last week’s exciting scientific publications showed, some of the world’s best stem-cell scientists are hard at work bringing them to fruition.(emphasis added)

Frankly, the difference between now and then is that some people were willing to destroy human embryos for research and others said, we have to find another way. These new developments merely make the principled position easier to swallow.

Romney correctly points out that these developments change the dynamic of the debate and that Democrats--for apparently political and certainly intolerant reasons, aren't interested in fighting the stem cell battle on these new terms. After all, it is easier to demagogue the issue and characterize Conservatives as anti-science, fanatically-pro-life, and compassionless on the old terrain. But Romney's corollary theses are insulting to me.

I doubt Romney contemplated that this latest communications tactic on the stem cell issue could be a slight to "social Conservatives"; however, Romney's op/ed is only slightly more generous (toward Religious Conservatives) than the Democrats' treatment of the issue. That's unfortunate.

Keeping abreast of the stem cell debate . . .

Bridgett over at My Beautiful Wickedness (via the new Music City Bloggers) links to an interesting report from Britain about using adult stem cells to grow breast tissue. ("The breast industry"). I probably wouldn't have posted about Bridgett's post if she hadn't taken an illegitimate swipe at Religious Conservatives:

"Ok. So. Whee. Big boobs for everyone. Could the same time and money maybe have gone into researching how to prevent those incidences of breast cancer and reducing the need for mastectomies? How much you want to bet that there will be a stem cell waiver from the folks who have utterly opposed it on religious grounds — a sort of “compassionate use” (or as I’ll be referring to it, the Dolly Exemption)."

Bridgett, like many casual observers (or culture war bombthrowers) apparently misunderstands the difference between adult stem cells and those stem cells belonging to embryonic humans.

By the way, (and not that anyone on the other side of the debate cares about this fact) the competition between medical breakthroughs from embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells is embarrassingly lopsided.

Rhymes with 'shmashmortion' - Politico.com

I'd say we're winning the debate on abortion. Here's an interesting movie review about the movie Knocked Up asserting that it has a pro-life slant . . . whatever. {"Rhymes with 'shmashmortion'" - Politico.com). For the record, it does seem to be poignant and it is somewhat refreshing to see (from the review and the trailer) that this movie might be somewhat accurate in its treatment of abortion. But the ironic thing about the review is how irritated the author seems to be that others aren't as comfortable with the tragic act of abortion as she is. And she seems to imply that all these uncomfortable people are somehow hypocritical.

Frankly, a majority of Americans are anti-abortion. But the tough thing about this reality is that candidates know this as well, and it is difficult for voters who are more than simply uncomfortable with the "procedure" to discern a candidate's views when most of said candidates claim to be "pro-life." I suppose many politicians of past generations were "uncomfortable" with racial apartheid in America. So what? We needed someone that would lead Americans to do what was right, not someone who wanted to tickle the ears of voters.

Dem opp research in full swing v. non-candidate

The L.A.Times ("Thompson star dims on abortion issue") is getting up to speed on its opposition research, especially in light of the fact that Fred Thompson is technically still only considering a run for president. Either they're doing some extraordinary digging, or they're lapdogging the abortion-is-AOK lobby. Witnesses and corroborating witnesses et al are being sourced for the story that Fred Thompson lobbied on behalf of the chipper-sounding "National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn."

But I like this choice paragraph from the article: "In 1991, according to several people then affiliated with the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn., [Thompson] accepted an assignment from the association to lobby the White House to withdraw or relax a 'gag rule' that barred abortion counseling at clinics that received federal money."I like the convoluted way they describe the legislation; I guess it was a little difficult to craft a sentence that used the term "gag rule."

Of course, this news (even with the denials) will serve to unsettle Conservatives, but many are opting for ultra-pragmatism going into '08 . . . emphasis on "ultra" and "going into" . . . there's plenty of time between now and the primaries. Even John Kerry had to mortgage his wife's house to stay afloat after losing in Iowa. But too many Republicans are obsessing on guessing what voters think (or will think) come some future date against an unknown candidate that they're choosing the the "lesser of" before a choice is necessary. Come on folks.

In the dictionary next to "Chutzpah"

Linda Perry has a lot of nerve running for public office with this type of record. ("DUI questions surround vice mayoral candidate" -- Nashville City Paper).

Three DUI arrests in four years? And how in the world can the school system justify employing a person that FIVE different schools have seen fit to BAR from teaching their students?

Dems and Anger Mismanagement

Awhile back (here) I posted on the Democrat Congress' inadvertent work to lower its public approval ratings. Here's (OpinionJournal - Potomac Watch) more on that subject:

The big question when Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the House was whether her party was up to the task of governing. Democrats wisely turned last year's election into a referendum on Republican competence. It was a shrewd strategy, though left unanswered was how they would use their new power. Could Ms. Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid keep the party's angry liberal wing in check? Did Democrats have a big agenda around which they could rally?

Six months on, the country isn't much impressed. Congress's approval rating is drifting into the netherworld, having sunk to an average of 25%. One recent Gallup poll reported only 14% of Americans profess confidence in that institution, now run by Democrats. The numbers make even President Bush look good, an extraordinary achievement.

A Koch and a smile . . . and an insightful interview

If you're interested to know more about Tennessee's new S.Ct. justice--Bill Koch, he provided an insightful interview last year to the Nashville Post. NashvillePost.com exclusive: SC nominee Koch speaks on the record | The Law | NashvillePost.com - Nashville Business News.

Why Libby's commutation was appropriate

Former Asst. US Atty. Andy McCarthy explains why the Bush commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence was appropriate. The Corner on National Review Online

McCain housecleaning continues (is completed?)

Here's an interesting post Jonathan Martin's Blog - Politico.com about McCain sacking his SC state director. It's interesting that he is firing people but keeping them on as unpaid advisors. Several things crossed my mind as I think about John McCain's continued (perhaps completed?) campaign housecleaning. First, I can only wonder how long someone would be willing to hang around a campaign--especially this far out from the primaries, after being fired. Further, how effective/motivated would they be on behalf of the campaign?

Second, does McCain really think the problem with his product is his sales and marketing people?

Quote of the Day: from an Iowa voter

"It's pretty cool they're all coming through so early. . . . But you get tired after awhile. It's like you have to pick them up and move them out of the way every once in awhile so you can mow your lawn."

--Ames, Iowa metal fabricator and independent voter, Larry Reinsch, on all the attention paid to Iowa by presidential hopefuls. Iowa: Where candidates appear early and often.

Giuliani's appeal

I wanted to post on this after the second (?) GOP debate, but never got a round to it. Rudy Giuliani did a bang up job in this particular debate by tackling signature GOP base issues with confidence--the two issues were the Scooter Libby question and the GWOT question, if my memory serves me correctly. I don't remember his answer (if any) to the abortion question, but I think Rudy's inexplicable frontrunner status (though somewhat explicable by virtue of voter ignorance and Rudy's high name ID) is due to his realness (or perhaps merely perceived "realness").

I thought of that when I read this Red Pepper marketing newsletter today about giving customers a reason to choose you over a competitor. Here's a key quote:

"Like an expert in any field, to be revered as 'the one,' a brand must actually be what it promises to be. That doesn't mean it has to be 'the best,' it just has to be real.

By being that one thing always, and making sure that your messaging says it every time, soon people will play back the things you tell them about your brand. Even those who have heard your message but haven't tried you yet will know what you stand for.

And when it comes time to choose between you and someone else, most people choose the one with meaning. The one that has equipped them with a valid and repeatable reason why they should choose you."

Even though Rudy was (and still kind of is) wrong on a number of issues dear to Conservatives (e.g., Second Amendment; Sanctity of Life; normative human sexuality, etc.) he seems to be effectively (at least for some voters) neutralizing his negatives (e.g., credibly saying he'll appoint Originalists to the S.Ct. v. claiming to now be "Pro-life") and highlighting the things he is known for. A surprising number of GOP primary voters are supporting him because he's "equipp[ing] them with a valid and repeatable reason why they should choose [him]."

Vigilance, yes but . . .

If you can see past the anti-Bush paranoia, this is an interesting FRONTLINE documentary (free to view online) about how we need to be vigilant about "information gathering" by the government. ("FRONTLINE: spying on the home front" -- PBS). Too many Democrats and Libs--prone to demagoguing an issue when anyone other than a Democrat is at the helm, are using dated definitions and interpretations to smear Bush for arguably-defensible wartime surveillance programs. We need to be vigilant, for sure, but too much of this criticism stinks of opportunism and/or September 10th naivete.

Scooter Liberated

The President's decision to commute Scooter Libby's prison sentence seems about right, I think. First, I believe that the executive pardon power should only be used in extraordinary circumstances.

Second, along the same lines, I think that a President should be very careful in overturning a jury's verdict. Unless Bush sat through the entire trial and heard all the evidence, I think a decision to overturn the conclusion reached by a jury of 12 citizens probably undermines rule of law.

Lastly, and more specifically, I think--based on what I know about the case, this prosecution was inappropriate and unnecessary. I think it is difficult--under these circumstances, to expect a person in Libby's position to remember every thing they said, every person to whom they said it and when they said it. Not to mention, there was no crime being investigated--in my humble opinion (unless embarrassing a Democrat political operative is now a crime).

In sum, I think that this decision by Bush strikes the proper balance, even though some Conservatives may think it is unfair to Scooter Libby. I for one am not eager for lameduck acts of overturning jury verdicts to become routine.

Huckabee Blogger Conference Call and Home Ec hardballs

I commend candidates like Mike Huckabee and Nashville Mayoral candidates who are reaching out to bloggers, but--especially on the Presidential level, it is a serious risk for the campaign . . . a risk that your candidate will react the way a normal non-candidate would to some of the stupid questions they are asked. This reminded me of Fred's touch-down in Nashville last week.

I guess there is the same danger with a professional journalist audience; but it's kind of a different type of "danger." I was eager to get Huckabee's reaction to what has all the appearances of a hit piece in Newsmax.com today--I say "hit piece" because it is recycling a lot of old data, is categorized under "Top News!" and it has a thesis akin to an op/ed and unlike a news report.

I was also interested to get his reaction to disappointing fundraising numbers for this quarter, but, alas, some blogger used precious con call to follow up their question (from the last conference call) about teaching home economics in schools.

The savvy and kindness with which Huckabee handled the Home Ec hardball is a credit to him and his strengths as a candidate . . . but the buzz in the blogosphere on the subject of Huckabee today is not likely to focus on the value of teaching teenagers how to make french toast.

Moore money to defend indigents, Nathan says

Nathan Moore has linked approvingly (here) to an editorial from the Tennessean ("State must meet obligation to ensure counsel for accused"), and as noted by George Rand in the comments, the report/study being cited appears to be comparing apples and oranges when it comes to funds expended in investigating a crime.

The funds expended in investigating crime–-as opposed to funds used to pay prosecutor’s salaries or expert witnesses, don’t all contribute to “winning” . . . a lot of the evidence is neutral or can cut against the prosecution. The fact that O.J. Simpson was able to buy a successful though immoral defense doesn't mean that the State owes the same to every indigent defendant.

Campaign Finance Reform’s War on Political Freedom by Bradley A. Smith

A great op/ed about Campaign Finance being "reformed" toward the least democratic model . . .("Campaign Finance Reform’s War on Political Freedom" by Bradley A. Smith):

"Campaign finance reform is creating an intrusive regulatory regime that’s steadily eroding Americans’ political freedoms. Making matters worse, it does little or nothing to combat corruption. Its proponents, mostly on the left, have chiefly used it to bolster their own political fortunes and to undermine limited, constitutional government."

I wish he'd stop being so divisive . . .

In a campaign appearance last week--ostensibly to burnish his "spirituality" credentials, Senator Barack Obama took the opportunity to deride Religious Conservatives. ("Obama slams 'Christian Right,' voices faith in testimony"). From Obama's remarks:

"'Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and faith started being used to drive us apart,' Obama said. 'Faith got hijacked, partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, all too eager to exploit what divides us.

'At every opportunity, they've told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design.'"

Of course, Jesus Himself said that He came to divide (Luke 12:51-53)--maybe Sen. Obama missed that part of his Bible.

But it's nice how he characterizes "evangelical Christians" as dupes who don't know the Democrat Party's stances on issues and citizens of "the rest of the country" as folks unable to figure out what "religious Americans" care about.

Another convert to the GWOT!

I predict, as the 2008 campaign barrels on, many Democrat candidates for President will attempt to tie America's GWOT around the neck of outgoing President Bush, implying that this whole war thingy is a result of Republican/neocon/Bushistic foreign policy foolishness. Indeed, John Edwards already has denied that we're in a GWOT.

Here's a great op/ed about a seeming recent convert to the war against radical Islam.("Jihad in Britain" -- OpinionJournal):

"Most Britons understand that terrorists wage war on them and their freedoms--and are not, per the fashionable left, voicing opposition to British policy in their own way.

. . . .

On Thursday, his first full day in office, the Prime Minister sought to distance himself from just-retired Tony Blair's unpopular commitment to the 'global war on terror' by unveiling a cabinet with prominent Blair critics. But Mr. Brown appears to be a quick study. Yesterday, in an interview with the BBC, he was nothing if not resolute: 'We will not yield, we will not be intimidated, and we will not allow anyone to undermine our British way of life.' Welcome to the fight."

(GOP) Lobbying . . . baaaddd; Dem Lobbying . . . (insert crickets chirping)

Captain's Quarters has a splendid post demonstrating how The NYTimes, "in ignoring the real [Harry] Reid scandal for threadbare innuendo on Fred Thompson, demonstrates its status as a shill for the Democrats rather than an honest journalistic enterprise." Captain's Quarters

HT: The Corner at NationalReview.com

There She Stands

I and my family spent most of the weekend at the funeral of my wife's paternal grandfather--it was a rich time of remembering his life and legacy. I read through a scrapbook containing almost a century of family photos, and there was one pic of him and his family posing with an American flag. Patriotism seemed more common back then; it was certainly nothing to be embarrassed of.

Well, today I came across this music video inspired by the 9/11 attacks. This song, "There She Stands" by Michael W. Smith, is similar to The Star-Spangled Banner in that it reminds us to look to our flag for courage and resolve when we face trying times . . .

GOPres candidates and the Immigration bill

I think that the failed Immigration bill has real potential to provide real separation in the race for the '08 GOP nomination. Here's what the individual candidates are saying about the bill's demise. Article - News - Immigration in the campaign.

In particular, a recorded vote on an actual piece of legislation takes the issue to the next level of campaign significance, because candidates can no longer dodge and duck and spin their theoretical views on the issue--especially those who had to cast a vote on the bill.

I believe that in consequences to date for supporting this legislation will pale in comparison to the injury going forward. I believe the GOP base will seriously hold to account the campaigns of McCain and Brownback.

Not quite "I've got a crush on Obama" . . .

If you can see past Huckabee's wedding tux . . . this is an inspiring music video about the other man from Hope.

Coulter responds, yes she does

Ann Coulter has responded That Was No Lady -- That Was My Husband - HUMAN EVENTS to what appears to have been a staged confrontation with John Edwards' wife (if you're a Liberal, think HW Bush and Dan Rather). I have to admit, I have only watched the reporting on the incident, so I basically had no first-hand knowledge of what happened. Accordingly, as I've learned more facts about what happened the (potential) "outrage!" has diminished significantly.

In any event, Coulter's op/ed--as is typical and typically ignored by the Left, is fairly thick on facts.

Hey parent, please look into this

I just noticed an ad (Super Nanny Casting Call | WKRN.COM) at Nashville Is Talking and thought it warranted a post on parenting. "Super Nanny" is good reality TV (it's from the self-help genre, I'd say) and whenever I've happened to catch an episode, I'm reminded of the things that I need to be doing to raise my children.

Parenting, like religion and politics, is a touchy subject. I was reminded of this some weeks (months?) ago when I was doing e-battle with "Mack" about how we choose to raise our children (here). Almost any discussion about parenting involves stepping on toes, but my view is that the proof is in the pudding, and the more we make the subject off-limits the farther in a parenting pit we go. Sure, some children are exceptional challenges, but most aren't, in my experience.

But back to "Super Nanny." I firmly believe that ones ability to parent "effectively" is closely tied to one's character. Good parenting isn't a matter of being clever or intelligent. Though I think most parents have a good idea about how we should raise our kids, we don't want to be held accountable for how we're doing it. This type of show (and any example of good "counseling," in my opinion) is just someone helping us to identify or remember what we already know or can readily know but are failing to implement or don't want to hear.

Huckabee unscripted

I don't know if any other campaigns are doing this, but Mike Huckabee has been holding fairly regular conference calls for bloggers. Here's a link to audio of his latest such call. ("Huckabee Blogger Conference Call 6/26") It is noteworthy that Huckabee will submit to unscreened questioning by for all purposes "unknown" bloggers.

This particular call may not appeal to some--both of the guests on the call are Social Conservative figures, but here's another example.

The "F" word and the "N" word

I just read an interesting report (here) about the firing of Isaiah Washington--an actor on Grey's Anatomy which I've never seen (sorry). The reason it's interesting is because it appears we have a new word that can't be spoken . . . the "F" word . . . "Faggot." Reading this report I discovered that it is now simply the "F" word (apparently we're going to have to find another term for the original "F" word) based on the fact that Washington is being accused of "using" it twice because, when he denied using the word in an interview, he now stands accused of using the word TWICE. At least that's how it appears from the reports I'm reading. This leads me to another post that I started some time back. I'm not going to edit it to make it more current because (a) it will take too much time and (b) the delay in posting it is pertinent . . . this is a touchy subject and I really hesitate to potentially offend my friends of the African-American race.

I really hesitated to blog on this issue, but I had to comment on the subject after hearing a news report today (6/5/07) that said someone had been suspended from their job as a teacher for "using the 'n' word as part of a lesson plan" dealing with racism.

For the record, I committed about eight years ago to a black friend that I would not allow to go unchallenged any person's use of the "the n-word" in my presence. That "promise" came about in a discussion about racism and my coming to the realization that--even if I'm not racist, I need to be assertive in beating back racial prejudice. In sum, it will be difficult to diminish racism and the racial divide in our country (and respective communities) if we don't influence those around us away from racism.

Along those lines, I am glad to say that I rarely hear or observe racist attitudes or expressions. Some of that, I hope, is based on whom I associate with by choice. But I won't deny that any perception on my part that racism isn't rampant in our culture is potentially skewed based on the message/values I exhibit--basically, I hope and perceive that people are not comfortable being bigoted in front of me. Hopefully, they at least worry that I will not agree and "fear" that I might confront them about it. I don't look for ways to bring up religion or politics in any given interaction with others, but I generally am not afraid to share an opinion which often betrays my beliefs/values. As far as I can remember, I've only heard the "n-word" a handful of times over these eight years, and each time the person who used it appropriately back-pedaled when I pointed out my disagreement.

So, with all the preliminary qualifications out of the way, I need to say that I think we need to drop the code word for "nigger." Wow, that is uncomfortable to write, and since I don't ever use the word, it would be even more uncomfortable to say.

To be clear, I don't think that the word should ever be used, except in a clinical sense (such as when discussing Linguistics or something along those lines), in the same way that I think profanity should not be used. But I've always thought that using code for "nigger" actually enhances the word's destructive power. If we're eager to run a hurtful or negative word out of our language, isn't it better to both discourage its use and take the sting out of it? Isn't this the Left's argument about purported Puritanical views on sex (or about ANY subject, frankly)? That making something taboo is counter-productive?

Though I don't want to hear the word and don't want my children to hear it, in a radio news report (or in a classroom discussion intended to discourage bigotry) it seems kind of silly (not to mention counter-productive) to tip toe around the word. This silliness is amplified further when you consider the word's frequent use in the hip-hop or urban segment of African-American culture.

I guess the same can all be said about the "F" word, though I'm not as concerned about that, because I don't view behavior-based identities like homosexuality as off-limits as race. While I don't use the term and think it is needlessly hurtful, I'm inclined to say it may go with the territory.

Embarrassing family members and "rising up"

BadBadIvy poses an interesting question while hosting over at NashvilleIsTalking. ("Can’t we all just get along? No? Okay, then.")

Also, just wondering: left or right, who is the person on your side that you find to be embarrassing?

I wouldn’t say that Coulter “embarrasses” me . . . sometimes I regret–for PR’s sake, the things she says, but most often she makes sound arguments and makes them in a way that is clever, though acerbic. Frankly, she dares to say in public the kinds of things that Hillary would say privately to Sidney Blumenthal and the kinds of things that Liberal talk-radio hosts would say . . . if anyone was listening.

To an extent, Coulter’s popularity is due to the perception (on the part of Conservatives) that Conservative views and voices are consistently derided and/or suppressed by the so-called MSM. It should surprise noone that Liberal dominance in the media/cultural/academic elite would inspire rude expressions of dissent . . . just like in past eras when the shoe was on the other foot. Someone like Blumenthal has less reason to push the envelope–he (and the Left) have more to lose by being rude than by showcasing someone like Coulter and her abrasive commentary.

I think that it is important to remember that many Americans--folks from each end of the political spectrum I guess, enjoy politics . . . for lack of a better word, they're (we're) entertained by politics. Accordingly, the media free market has expanded to the point where, for example, people who don't want to watch soap operas from 1-4pm everyday don't have to. So the market has been able to respond, for a host of technological reasons and I guess some policy reasons, to the demands of listeners and viewers.

Along those lines, Rush and Jon Stewart and Hannity and Maher and O'Reilly and Colbert and Olbermann now have audiences for the entertainment they provide. They're all "thought leaders" for their audiences and often they "give voice" to feelings their audience have about an issue or a person. Coulter dares to say things which many people think and which, though "uncivil" or "rude," are probably true. For example, Ted Kennedy--based on his unrepented-of past, should be ashamed to show his face in public rather than be a respected Democrat Senator. I know this is polite company and I know that Ted Kennedy is venerated by many Democrats, but can you disagree with that statement?

"Mean" is in the eye of the beholder

A Slate Magazine writer named Dahlia Lithwick comments today ("Getting Past Mean" - By Walter Dellinger and Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine) on changes in the U.S. Supreme Court and can only muster the adjective mean to sum up why she doesn't like the current majority. As a lawyer, Lithwick should be able to come up with better synonyms; however, as a lawyer, she is plain out of legal arguments.

Lithwick has trouble grasping judicial restraint and is too comfortable with trusting judges to decide cases based on their subjective view of what is "mean" or "right" to do in a case between two parties.

Here's a profound excerpt from the piece--predictably misfocused on the politics of the judiciary:

"My view is that focusing on a judge's personal 'niceness' or 'compassion' or affection for 'the little guy' is a mistake. That's not a legal theory so much as what I look for in a babysitter. I think that the meanness we're seeing, to the extent you can call it that, has to do with the Roberts Court's very cramped and unforgiving view of the role of courts. I once wrote that Roberts seems to believe that there was 'no problem too big for the courts to ignore.' I wonder if that is part of the sea change we are witnessing."

On Cheney . . . I'd say this is about right

Based on recent comments at ye olde blog (here), William and Pam (and Sean Braisted, sort of) appear to be passionately consuming the Washington Post's series on Dick Cheney; to be candid, I haven't read it, but I think Jonah Goldberg has it (my sentiments on the issue, that is) about right in this op/ed:Confessions of a Cheney Fan.

Pick a different pocket

This is a great story about a criminal's comeuppance:(FOXNews.com - "Ex-Marine, 72, Teaches Pickpocket a Lesson"). I LOVE stories like this--they're akin to "a thousand points of light" or "taking back the night." Kudos Mr. Barnes.

Robertson disappoints . . . Liberals

Evangelical leader Pat Robertson offered praise of GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani surrounding a Giuliani appearance at Robertson's Regent University Televangelist praises 'outstanding' Giuliani at lecture. Regrettably (for the Left), Robertson seemed difficult to demonize given his charitable and complimentary statements about Rudy.

Of course, they can always accuse Robertson of being politically craven and unprincipled. They gotta have some bogeyman . . . stay tuned.

Hat tip: The Corner

Huckabee's example

Here's an interesting article about former Governor Mike Huckabee's discipline in staying fit. Huckabee's run hinges on his running - Politico.com.

Such a trait is perhaps the single best indicator of success. I suppose most people would be glad to know this about him.

hat tip, the Corner: NationalReview.com

Thompson touches down in Nashville

I just watched this youtube of Fred Thompson's arrival in Nashville for some exploratory type things, and I can't help but think how difficult it is to volley inane questions or comments from odd campaign groupies without looking silly or condescending. Some of the awkward stuff can be restrained by good advance work. Thompson does a pretty good job of not looking silly, and I know he doesn't technically have a campaign yet, but it's hard to conceive how a string of un-advanced (or poorly advanced--IMHO) events like this would stoke the proverbial fire in Thompson's belly . . .


Hat tip: VolunteerVoters.org

Ballot integrity v. "disenfranchisement"

Sorry, but this isn't "disenfranchisement."

I just read (via a link at VolunteerVoters) a post by Enclave Mike alleging that a Thompson campaign hire (Tim Griffin) was the subject of "allegations that he was connected with attempts in Florida during the 2004 election to target and to challenge African Americans in mostly white Duval County." This isn't an attempt to shill for Thompson (not that there's anything wrong with that . . .)--I was more interested in the "voter suppression" angle than the Thompson angle.

I encourage you to read the "report" Mike links to (here), and I don't know much about Griffin, but it is not "voter suppression" to target potential voters for challenge if they are having mail forwarded from the purported residential address. You find these names by a direct mail technique termed "caging," and--despite the predatory-sounding name for the technique, it is wholly legitimate to demand proof of a person's right to vote if they are not living at the address indicated on the voter registration.

For some reason, folks on the Left don't view it as "disenfranchisement" for a fraudulent vote to cancel out a legitimate, legal vote.

Giuliani and Romney on "Wisconsin Rt. to Life v. FEC"

Here's a good round up of GOP presidential hopefuls Giuliani and Romney (here) and their past and present positions on Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC. Unfortunately, it appears both of these candidates have "evolving" positions on the issue.

Hat tip: NationalReview.com

Dems eye [lowering their dismal polling numbers]

In an article entitled "Dems eye defunding Cheney's office" (here -- Rutland Herald Online) we read the following exchange from the parties:

"'The vice president has a choice to make,' [former Clinton flak and current Congressman Rahm] Emanuel said in a statement released over the weekend. 'If he believes his legal case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive branch.'

Lea Anne McBride, the vice president's spokeswoman, fired back: 'I'd say that congressman Emanuel has a choice to make: he can either deal with the serious issues facing our country or create more partisan politics.'"

Actually, Cheney's argument--at least one floated, as I understand it, is that his office is a bit of a hybrid. Whatever. Maybe Bush should issue another Executive Order to more precisely reflect what he says he intended.

And the Dismal Dems continue to play their gotcha game.

Huckabee on McCain-Feingold

In light of the Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC decision announced today, I was curious to see what Mike Huckabee's position has been on McCain-Feingold to date. The well-funded Romney campaign (which has consistently emphasized the "McCain" aspect of "McCain-Feingold," for obvious reasons) had a press release about it, but I found this information about Huckabee's view (from The Club for Growth's profile of Huckabee): (here):

Political Free Speech

Maximizing prosperity requires sound government policies. When the government strays from these policies, citizens must be free to exercise their constitutional rights to petition and criticize those policies and the politicians responsible for them.

Governor Huckabee is on record criticizing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, though the majority of his criticism has focused on discriminatory measures that allows senators to transfer money from Senate committees to presidential runs, but deny governors the same freedom to move state funds into federal accounts. While he called for less restrictions and more disclosure regarding campaign contributions (The Hill 11/29/06) and okayed unlimited soft money provided full disclosure (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 03/10/00), Governor Huckabee is also on record favoring limiting individual, PAC, corporate, and political party contributions to state candidates (votesmart.org 2002).

The last section refers to this report which is essentially the law as it stood (in relation to Federal Elections) prior to McCain-Feingold.

According to this Club for Growth press release from March, Huckabee and other potential GOP nominees have expressed "strong opposition" to McCain-Feingold.

About Tenn's newest S.Ct. Justice

I just came across this interesting letter from Tennessee's newest Supreme Court Justice--Bill Koch. (Koch - Letter to FACTN"). It is Koch's response--as a judge on the Court of Appeals, to the judicial questionnaire disseminated last year by Family Action Council of Tennessee (FACTN).

The letter provides a pretty good idea of the kind of justice Koch will be.

McCain's fall in polls isn't 'regrettable'

There's news that John McCain has termed the Supreme Court's decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC "regrettable," (TheHill.com - "McCain: 'Regrettable' decision"), but I think the his fall in the polls is neither "regrettable" or "unpredictable." John McCain is not popular with Republicans. He is (was, more accurately) popular with non-Republicans be they f the Democrat or "Independent" variety.

And I enjoyed Mitt Romney's reaction to these events:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, one of McCain’s main rivals for the GOP nomination, was quick to seize on the decision and made sure that voters knew it was a provision in the Arizona senator’s law that was struck down.

“Score one for free speech,” Romney said. “Today the Supreme Court reaffirmed the First Amendment by rejecting a key feature of McCain-Feingold. The law trampled the basic right of the American people to participate in their democracy. It also purported to reduce the influence of money in politics, but we now know that influence is greater than ever.

“McCain-Feingold was a poorly crafted bill,” Romney added. “Today’s decision restores, in part, to the American people a right critical to their freedom of political participation and expression.”

You KNOW that Romney relished using the name "McCain" in slamming this legislation. As I mentioned below, I spent part of my weekend at an Election Law training in New Orleans, and one of the comments that drew the most laughter during the event was when deputy legal counsel for Romney's campaign (participating in a panel of attorneys working for several of the campaigns) off-handedly referred to "McCain-Feingold" as "McCain-Feingold-Thompson."

Reining in McCain-Feingold

Good news from the U.S. Supreme Court--a majority has decided to rein in McCain-Feingold's limits on the First Amendment. ("Court allows issue ads near elections"). What's interesting in the article is all the references to political labels--i.e., "Conservative" and Liberal" (asdie: what do you think about using "Conservative" with the term "allies" but "Liberal" with the term "colleagues"?) This is a problem on this issue (and many, frankly) as the so-called "Conservatives" in this case ruled on the side of the ACLU and a host of other "Liberal" organizations.

On a related note, I attended an election law seminar over the weekend for Republican lawyers, and one of the panelists was James Bopp, the lead attorney in the Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC case above. Despite how this ruling is being and will be portrayed in the so-called mainstream media, it represents a chipping away at Constitutionally offensive legislation to suppress free political speech--the precise speech intended for protection by the 1st Amendment (though Lefty legal types would have us think it is virtual porn and smutty rap lyrics the Framers had in mind).

Speaking of "Authoritarian Cultism" . . .

On contemporary contrasts between Liberals and Conservatives. "Fights on the Right" -- The Corner on National Review Online.

More on Dems war with science

In light of the President's veto of the Left's fetal farming legislation, here's a great post about Dems' "surge" in their war with science.

Brittney on the brain . . .

The fallout from the Duke (non)Rape Case has been in the news lately, and as I read this op/ed (Townhall.com::Now what about those Duke professors::By Dinesh D'Souza) discussing the culpability of Duke professors who grabbed the pitchforks early on in the case, I couldn't help but think of the recent tarring and feathering of Brittney Gilbert, formerly of Nashville is Talking. Here's an excerpt:

From the time the first reports of sexual assault at Duke University surfaced, these intellectual vigilantes went to work. Houston Baker, a professor of English and Afro-American Studies, issued a public letter condemning the "abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence and drunken white male privilege loosed among us." He seems to have simply presumed the students guilty.

Shortly after that, 88 members of the Duke arts and science faculty--the so-called Gang of 88--signed a public statement praising campus demonstrators who had distributed a 'WANTED' poster that branded the lacrosse players as 'rapists.' The Gang of 88 didn't use that term, but its statement referred to 'what happened to this young woman.' Ignoring calls to wait for the evidence, the gang instead went into full social-justice gear.

"What is apparent every day now is the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism, who see illuminated in this moment's extraordinary spotlight what they live with every day...We're turning up the volume in a moment when some of the most vulnerable among us are being asked to quiet down while we wait. To the students speaking individually and to the protesters making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard."

D'Souza continues,

"In other words, Go vigilantes go!"

Romneys at (vacation) home

Interesting video on Prez Vid. Decisions, decisions at PrezVid: "The Romney campaign shares a 13-minute video of the family deciding whether Mitt should run from their vacation home in December 2006."



It is a long video, but if you watch up to the point where Mitt prays for dinner, is it a gaffe when Romney prays, "thank you for our son, Jesus Christ . . ." or do Mormons believe Jesus is "our" son?

hat tip: Volunteer Voters

Early endorsement of Huckabee by HSLDA

“We believe that Mike Huckabee , (former) Governor of Arkansas, should be elected the next President of the United States ,” [Home School Legal Defense Association] President J. Michael Smith said in a call-to-action letter to members. Smith said [the 80,000 member] HSLDA is taking this “historic step of an early endorsement” because [] the process of electing the president is based on a radically different timetable in this election.

Smith touted Huckabee’s record as governor of Arkansas, pro-life, pro-family conservative values and presidential campaign platform, which includes a pro-defense plank and support for the FairTax, as reasons his organization stands behind Huckabee. There are a few other candidates in the race who are properly described as principled conservatives, but none of the media’s “frontrunners” would qualify for this designation, he stated.

“We believe that Mike Huckabee is by far the best communicator in the race – he is able to articulate his conservative principles in an incredibly winsome and articulate manner,” said Smith.

Noting that Americans have not elected a member of the House or Senate to the office of President in nearly half a century, Smith said: “Moreover, among the principled conservatives, Huckabee is the only one who has been a governor.”

Huckabee passes McCain in Iowa poll

I'm pleasantly surprised to see that Mike Huckabee has passed John McCain in a recent Mason-Dixon poll of "likely caucus-goers" in Iowa. (here) In a way, this doesn't surprise me, given McCain's past disdain for the GOP base and his current disdain for sane Immigration policy. Add to this his disdain for the Ames Straw Poll, and I think it shouldn't be that big of a surprise. Of course, this is probably more a story about McCain's descent than anything else, but it is nice to see what appears to be an ascent for Huckabee.

I read one Lefty blog that mistakenly claimed McCain's declining poll numbers have something to do with his support of Bush's Iraq strategies . . . uh, I don't think so. I plan to post more about this later, but this reflects the Left's incomprehension of the GOP voter's unwillingness to leave the President out on a limb in the face of outrageous attacks from the Left. Bush may be a failed military strategist, but he's not evil or a criminal, and he's our failed military strategist.

Loose TN Canon on Thompson and pre-war intelligence

Loose TN Canon (loose screw is more like it) is quoting (Fred Thompson: "Dumb as a stump")
a past girlfriend of Fred Thompson as saying Thompson is "dumb as a stump"; I guess folks can judge for themselves, but what comes to mind is "hell hath no wrath . . ."

But William flatly states there are 237 documented!, proven!, certified! "lies" by the Bush administration in the run up to Iraq. I wonder, does every single word of the famous "SIXTEEN WORDS!!!" count as a different "lie"?

William breathlessly quotes a thinkprogress site thusly:

The Pentagon’s inspector general found that former Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith developed, produced, and disseminated “alternative intelligence assessments” to falsely claim that a relationship existed between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Well, I followed the links and I am wholly unimpressed (though the Think Progress bloggers' mountain-making is fairly impressive).

The "alternative intelligence assessments" are being characterized as sham reports--actually, they were just, er, "alternative" reports of intelligence in the middle east. It wasn't uncommon at that time for the Pentagon to do its own intelligence (see below regarding the "Intelligence Communities" acknowledged problems), and this was simply an example of that. William's buddies pull the quote "[Feith] did not provide the most accurate analysis of intelligence to senior decision makers” as some sort of proof of nefariousness, but the original "inspector general's report" ("inspector" and "general" give the accusation extra gravitas, don't you know) is merely stating that the "alternative" (see above) report was not consistent with all the other reports coming from the intelligence community. So Feith provided his analysis, though in hindsight (and in the opinion of the sadly discredited Intelligence Community "consensus") the report was not "the most accurate analysis." Okay. Is that the best you guys on the Left have got? Wow.

Which reminds me of an excellent article I read this weekend (sorry, it's subscriber only at NRO digital) that eviscerates the Left's potemkin "Bush lied" scandal; ironically, it was a review of George Tenet's new book, At the Center of the Storm--a book which has been characterized as another nail in the coffin, brick in the wall, etc. in the case against the lying liars who lied lyingly in the Bush Administration. Rich Lowry describes how George Tenet weighs in on the "most notorious flubs" of pre-Iraq War intelligence; they were hardly "lies." Here are some excerpts:

Prior to the war, the administration argued that Saddam attempted to acquire 60,000 high-strength aluminum tubes for the enrichment of uranium. That turned out not to be the purpose of the tubes — but this wasn’t deception on the administration’s part. Tenet explains that the CIA believed the aluminum tubes were indeed for enriching uranium. And it had brought in a team of experts from Oak Ridge National Laboratory who reached the same conclusion.

The Department of Energy disagreed and thought the tubes were for rockets. But its representative at a meeting to consider the import of the tubes, according to Tenet, “was unable to explain the basis of his department’s view in anything approaching a convincing manner.” He adds, “Whatever their intended use, under UN sanctions, Saddam was prohibited from acquiring the tubes for any purpose. All agencies agreed that these tubes could be modified to make centrifuge rotors used in a nuclear program.”

Then there was the brouhaha over Saddam’s supposed attempt to acquire yellowcake from Niger. The case that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons didn’t rest on this claim. “The Estimate noted that Saddam already had access to large amounts of yellowcake in Iraq — 550 tons of it, enough to produce as many as 100 nuclear weapons,” Tenet writes.

But yellowcake took on an outsized significance in the post-war debate. The CIA had told the White House to take the Niger claim out of the speech the president delivered in Cincinnati in October 2002. British intelligence had reported that Saddam tried to make the purchase, but the CIA was dubious. As Tenet puts it, “The allegation was worthy of investigation. Based on what we found, however, it was not worthy of inclusion in a presidential speech.”

The claim made it into the 2003 State of the Union address anyway when the CIA reviewed the speech but didn’t wave the White House off, and White House officials forgot that they had been warned about the information previously. This erupted into the scandal over the “16 words” that gave Joe Wilson his 15 well-coiffed minutes.

Wilson, of course, argued that he had made a trip to Niger that had definitively discredited the yellowcake claim. But his report had been so “inconclusive” that when the press began inquiring about it, the CIA “press office had trouble finding people who remembered the details.” Wilson hadn’t filed a written report, instead briefing two CIA analysts at his home over Chinese food. The report was such a non-event that it wasn’t briefed to Cheney, and Tenet doesn’t remember hearing about it at the time.

And, as mentioned above, there was controversy over Iraq's relationship w/ al Qaeda

Critics argue the administration tried to imply Iraqi culpability for 9/11 by talking about Iraq and al-Qaeda in the same breath. The opposite seems closer to the truth: The critics dishonestly imply that because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it also had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. Tenet stipulates that Iraq had “no authority, direction, or control” over al-Qaeda, but he counters the conventional wisdom that cooperation between the two was a fantasy.

According to Tenet, “There were, over a decade, a number of possible high-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, through high-level and third-party intermediaries. Our data told us that at various points there were discussions of cooperation, safe haven, training, and reciprocal nonaggression.” In the post-9/11 world, this was alarming, and it wasn’t the worst of it: “There were solid reports from senior al Qaeda members that raised concerns about al Qaeda’s enduring interest in acquiring chemical and biological expertise from Iraq.”

Gee, aside from the opinions of electoral firebrands and social also rans, Thompson looks pretty smart.

On the other hand . . . the Paul House case

I ventured over to Sharon Cobb's blog this weekend and noticed that she was appealing to folks, "Whether you're for or against the death penalty, please consider writing your legislator and the Governor about releasing an innocent man on death row named Paul House" (here).

Well, I thought I would look into the facts of the case (TCASK et al can play a little fast and loose with the facts when there's the potential of averting an execution), and here's what I found. First, I read TCASK's account. Go ahead and read it; it's not too long.

Then I dug up one "statement of the facts" (from an appellate court opinion) in House's long line of attempts to avoid being executed, State v. House, 743 S.W.2d 141, Tenn., 1987.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death by electrocution. After review of the entire record and after considering all of the issues raised by counsel for appellant, we affirm the conviction and the sentence.

The victim of the homicide was Mrs. Carolyn Muncey, who lived with her husband and two young children on Ridgecrest Road in rural Union County, Tennessee. Mrs. Muncey was in her late twenties, and her children were about eight and ten years old at the time of her death on July 13, 1985.

In March 1985 appellant Paul Gregory House was released from prison in Utah and moved to the rural community in which the Muncey family lived. There he resided with his mother and step-father for several weeks, but in June he moved into a trailer occupied by his girl friend, Donna Turner, which was located about two miles from the Muncey home. Appellant did not own an automobile; but he was permitted to drive his mother's car from time to time, and he also drove Ms. Turner's car on some occasions.

Other than doing occasional farm work for his stepfather, appellant does not appear to have been regularly employed. He did not testify at trial at either the guilt phase or the sentencing hearing. He was shown to have had one prior conviction for aggravated sexual assault, a charge to which he pled guilty on March 16, 1981 in Salt Lake County, Utah. Apparently he was placed on parole in that state, and supervision of his parole was transferred to Tennessee when he returned to this state. He was approximately twenty-three years old at the time of the homicide in this case.

Mrs. Muncey disappeared from her home in the late evening of Saturday, July 13, 1985. Her badly beaten body was found on the following afternoon at about 3 p.m., lying partially concealed in a brush pile about 100 yards from her home.

Apparently the husband of the victim was not at home during the early part of the evening of July 13. Mrs. Muncey and her children visited a neighbor and left at about 9:30 p.m. to return to their home. Later the older child, Laura, awoke. She testified that she heard a voice which sounded like her grandfather making inquiry about her father. She also heard someone tell her mother that her father had been in a wreck near the creek. She heard her mother sobbing or crying as she left the house. When her mother did not return, the two children went to look for her at neighboring homes. Not finding her, they returned home and waited until their father arrived. Discovering that his wife was missing, he took the children back to the home of the neighbor where they had visited earlier in the evening and then called for members of his family to look for his wife.

When the body of Mrs. Muncey was discovered the next afternoon, she was dressed in her nightgown, housecoat and underclothing. Her body was badly bruised, and there were abrasions and blood giving every evidence that she had been in a fierce struggle. Apparently a severe blow to her left forehead had caused her death. It appeared, however, that she had also been partially strangled. A pathologist testified that the blow to her left forehead caused a concussion and hemorrhage to the right side of the brain from which she died, probably one to two hours after being struck. He testified that she probably would have been unconscious after having been struck. He estimated the time of her death at between 9 p.m. to 11 *143 p.m. on Saturday, July 13, but emphasized that this was at best a rough estimate.

Appellant never confessed to any part in the homicide, and the testimony linking him to it was circumstantial. There was evidence showing that he knew Mr. and Mrs. Muncey and had been with them socially on a few occasions. Through defense proof there was testimony that Mrs. Muncey and her husband had been having marital difficulties and that she had been contemplating leaving him. There was no evidence to indicate that the appellant was aware of that situation, however, or that there had been any previous romantic or sexual relationship between him and the victim.

On the afternoon of Sunday, July 14, 1985, two witnesses saw the appellant emerge from a creek bank at the side of Ridgecrest Road at the site where Mrs. Muncey's body was later found concealed in the underbrush. He was wiping his hands with a dark cloth and was walking toward a white Plymouth automobile, parked on the opposite side of the road, belonging to his girl friend Donna Turner. The two witnesses spoke briefly to appellant, all of them discussing the fact that Mrs. Muncey had disappeared. Later the two witnesses became suspicious of what they had observed and returned to the point where they had seen appellant emerge from the embankment. Looking down the bank, they found the partially concealed body of Mrs. Muncey. They promptly notified the sheriff.

Appellant later admitted that he had been in the area but denied that he had seen the body of Mrs. Muncey or had any knowledge of its presence. The dark rag which he had been using when first seen was never produced. It was the theory of the State, however, that this was a dark “tank top” or jersey which appellant was shown to have been wearing on the previous evening, July 13.

Appellant gave two statements to investigating officers in which he denied being involved in the homicide. In both of these statements he stated that he had been at Ms. Turner's trailer the entire evening of July 13 and that he had not left until the next afternoon when he went to look for Hubert Muncey after learning of the disappearance of the latter's wife.

On Sunday afternoon various witness observed that appellant had numerous scratches and bruises on his arms, hands and body, there being an especially significant bruise on the knuckle of his right ring finger. Appellant explained that these injuries had been sustained innocently earlier during the week, but when Ms. Turner was called as a witness, she said that she had not observed them prior to the evening of July 13. Appellant also told investigators that he was wearing the same clothes on Sunday, July 14 as he had been wearing the previous evening. It was later discovered, however, that a pair of blue jeans which he had been wearing on the night of the murder was concealed in the bottom of the clothes hamper at Ms. Turner's trailer. These trousers were bloodstained, and scientific evidence revealed that the stains were human blood having characteristics consistent with the blood of Mrs. Muncey and inconsistent with appellant's own blood. Scientific tests also showed that fibers from these trousers were consistent with fibers found on the clothing of the victim. There were also found on her nightgown and underclothing some spots of semen stain from a male secretor of the same general type as appellant.

Some of the most damaging evidence against appellant was given by his girl friend, Ms. Turner. She at first told investigators that he had not left the trailer during the course of the evening of July 13. Later, however, she modified this testimony to state that he had been in the trailer until about 10:45 p.m. at which time he left to take a walk. She stated that he did not take her automobile. When he returned an hour or so later, he was panting, hot and exhausted. He was no longer wearing either his blue jersey or his tennis shoes. The shoes were later found in an area different from the place where appellant told her he had lost them.

Appellant told Ms. Turner that he had thrown away the navy blue tank top because it had been torn when he was assaulted*144 by some persons who tried to kill him. It was after the appellant's return to the trailer that Ms. Turner first noticed the bruises and abrasions on his hands referred to previously.

Appellant's mother testified that he had not used her automobile on Saturday evening. She testified that during Saturday and Sunday she had been planning to separate from appellant's stepfather and that appellant had been assisting her in her preparations for moving.

At the sentencing hearing the State proved appellant's prior conviction for aggravated sexual assault. Appellant's parents testified that he came from a broken home and had been subjected to stress as a result of that experience. Appellant's mother also testified that in the interval between the guilt trial and the sentencing hearing appellant had attempted suicide. She read into evidence a letter which he had written to her denying his involvement in the homicide. Apparently he had cut his wrists while in the jail awaiting the sentencing hearing, but the degree and extent of the injuries were not detailed in evidence. They do not appear to have been serious and did not prevent his attending the sentencing hearing.

Although the evidence against appellant was circumstantial, it was quite strong. Particularly incriminating was the testimony that he had emerged from an embankment where the body was found, wiping his hands on a dark cloth, without disclosing to anyone the presence of the body. Damaging also were the discovery of his bloodstained trousers and the testimony of Ms. Turner, which a trier of fact could have found sufficient to demolish his alibi and to demonstrate that he had been in a heavy struggle near the time when the homicide must have occurred. A classic case for determination by a jury was presented, and the evidence clearly is sufficient to support the conviction.

Lastly, I think it is important to read exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court said about the likelihood of House's guilt . . . it's a little different than what TCASK is asserting. The U.S. Supreme Court held:

While this is not a case of conclusive exoneration, and the issue is close, this is the rare case where-had the jury heard all the conflicting testimony-it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror viewing the record as a whole would lack reasonable doubt. P. 2086."

"House has not shown freestanding innocence that would render his imprisonment and planned execution unconstitutional under Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 113 S.Ct. 853, 122 L.Ed.2d 203, in which the Court assumed without deciding that “in a capital case a truly persuasive demonstration of ‘actual innocence’ made after trial would render the execution of a defendant unconstitutional, and warrant federal habeas relief if there were no state avenue open to process such a claim,” id., at 417, 113 S.Ct. 853. The threshold showing for such a right would be extraordinarily high, and House has not satisfied *2068 whatever burden a hypothetical freestanding innocence claim would require. He has cast doubt on his guilt sufficient to satisfy Schlup's gateway standard for obtaining federal review, but given the closeness of the Schlup question here, his showing falls short of the threshold implied in Herrera. Pp. 2086 - 2087. House v. Bell, 126 S.Ct. 2064, U.S.,2006. June 12, 2006

In sum, the Supreme Court has merely said this is an instance where the defendant should be allowed to have some of his claims to be heard.

I don't want to pooh-pooh Sharon's sentiments, and she is certainly free to voice her opinion on this, but I think she's wrong. And it was interesting that my wife coincidentally came across this verse today,

"It is not good to punish an innocent man, or to flog officials for their integrity."

--Prov. 17:26. Yep.

Dreher likes Mike

Rod Dreher (whom I know primarily from National Review Online) is feeling it for Mike Huckabee (Beliefnet: Crunchy Con - "Huckabee Love") Linking to Huckabee's comments at a recent Forum, Dreher writes:

"I'm really starting to dig this guy. "

Romney's troubling campaign narrative

This is an interesting article about Mitt Romney's appearance before the Annual National Right to Life Convention in KC. ("Romney Woos Anti-Abortion Activists") There are a number of quotes from Romney that reflect his deft handling of his late-in-life conversion to the pro-life cause:

"I know that it is not time but conviction that unites us," Romney said in remarks on the second day of the National Right to Life's annual convention. "I proudly follow a long line of converts — George Herbert Walker Bush, Henry Hyde, and Ronald Reagan to name a few."

. . . .

Referring to his conversion, Romney told the convention of the largest grass-roots, anti-abortion group: "I am evidence that your work, that your relentless campaign to promote the sanctity of human life, bears fruit."

. . . .

"'I am humbled to be standing among the many who have toiled for the pro-life movement for so long, when I arrived at this place of principle only a few years ago,' Romney said."

Very eloquent appeals to an understandably skeptical audience. But, eloquent defenses aside, it's troubling when a theme of "seeing the light" could be Romney's campaign narrative arc on a host of issues, and that the above speech could serve as the template for his stump speech in front of the NRA, the Club for Growth, etc. While Romney purports to be an intelligent, serious, earnest politician, he ran on a variety of non-Conservative policy positions in several state-wide, federal issue-focused campaigns. As a result, it's hard not to wonder if Romney's positions either are or were based on political expedience.

Emanuel's harebrained debate idea

I'm not sure what motivated me to follow this link (The Daily Star - "Introduce a new formula for US campaign debates"), but I was surprised to see such an off-base suggestion for Presidential Primary debates from Congressman Rahm Emanuel whom--the author advises us, "was a leading strategist of the Democrats' victory in the 2006 congressional elections" (really? wasn't it folks like Trent Lott that put Dems over the top?). I just came across the same article (here), so perhaps I misunderstimated :) how much attention (undeserved) this idea would get.

The author complains about the current debate structure thusly,

What we have are not so much debates as the kind of inane interviews given by contestants in Miss America pageants. Republicans and Democrats speak to their respective bases, rather than to the nation; most candidates stay within the boundaries of what's deemed to be safe. All Democrats support more rights for gays in the military; all Republicans are opposed. How could we change this, so we have real debates that tell us more about the candidates? What format would encourage sharp discussion about the problems facing the country rather than this empty process of rounding up the usual suspects?

So, Emanuel and the writer propose to have primary debates consist of,

a series of one-on-one face-offs in which leading Democratic candidates debated, not each other, but leading Republicans. That would push the campaign toward the center, where it ought to be. And it might produce a mandate for actually solving problems as opposed to bickering about them.

I'm not sure exactly how such a format would affect the primary process, but I think it would encourage the debates to be less substantive. Certainly the Democrat Party would benefit from a debate which didn't highlight how out of touch their base is, and which allowed Dem candidates to pitch the nice-sounding platform in generalities. Do Hillary and Rudy have different views of the Healthcare issue? Of course they do, and a partisan primary debate format would allow two candidates to talk past each other (and past the issue). We need more particulars to discern between candidates and discern between governing philosophies. Does anyone really think we need more platitudinous, us/them framing of the issues as found in campaign ads?

One effect of having single-party dominance in a county/district (or of non-partisan elections) is that voters have to pay attention to the primary . . . a one-partyish scenario mitigates the effect of lazy, straight-party-line voting because all the available candidates have the same letter after their name.

I think Emanuel's idea is stupid. Not even a spendthrift, unprincipled GOP congress could make him look smart in proposing it. I think I've wasted too much time on this post.

D'oh: Lott is in McCain's "Supporter Spotlight"

While visiting the McCain website, I noticed that Trent Lott is regrettably featured on the front page in the "John McCain Supporter Spotlight." John McCain 2008 - John McCain for President It includes a flattering quote from Lott about McCain's debate performance last week.

Why Trent Lott deserved to be thrown under the bus

Wes Comer (in a post about shrill attacks by "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" supporters against Conservatives) links to a quote from Trent Lott that disturbs me. wescomer.com » Blog Archive » Just Shut Up and Fall in Line:

The Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supports the bill, said: “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”

At some point, Mr. Lott said, Senate Republican leaders may try to rein in “younger guys who are huffing and puffing against the bill.”

Maybe he means that they need to do a better job of PR to combat opponents of this legislation on talk radio or something, but I doubt it.