Huckering down

Here's an interesting article from The Weekly Standard about Mike Huckabee's (seemingly) increasing populist rhetoric on the stump.

Some of the rhetoric rubs me the wrong way, but I think it matters that he is making the comments in response to an onslaught of recent "vetting" from Romney and others. Getting called "Huckster" or a "Pro-Life Liberal" starts to get on your nerves after a while I'd guess.

But it reminded me of a recent article in National Review about the GOP's apparent challenge in 2008. Lowry and Ponnuru assert that the GOP seems to be answering questions noone is asking and needs to apply Conservative principles to existing problems and existing "realities." I use the quotation marks because political "realities" (despite the meaning of the word) are rather subjective and often used to rationalize departing from orthodoxies.

The Lowry/Ponnuru article didn't resonate at first, but I can see how--and perhaps why, Huckabee's campaign is striking a chord with voters . . . even though it isn't striking a chord with me in those particular aspects.

For three decades, the Republican party has absorbed increasing numbers of socially conservative working-class and middle-class voters while losing affluent social liberals — until the 2006 elections, in which Republican totals fell among every category of voter except for full-spectrum conservatives. The most plausible path toward a renewed center-right majority involves consolidating and deepening the trend of the decades before 2006: holding on to as much of the existing conservative coalition as possible while adding more downscale voters who lean right on social issues.

That task will force conservatives to explain how free-market policies can address the economic anxieties of this group of voters. We don’t have to support “universal coverage” on health care. But we ought to talk more about health care than about the budget; and when we talk about health care, we should explain how Republican policies will help people keep and control their own health care. We don’t have to abandon attempts to reform the tax code and to drop the top tax rate. But we should put much more effort into providing tax relief for middle-class parents. We don’t have to open the borders. But we should make it clear that our immigration policy isn’t based on anger. We don’t have to give up on the idea that sometimes the U.S. must fight wars, even going it alone; but we need to persuade people that we see unilateral military action as a last resort — that we’re not spoiling for a fight.

Paul needs him some wiggle room

It didn't surprise me to see that Ron Paul refused to rule out a third party run ("Ron Paul won't rule out third-party run"), after all he has previously run for president as a Libertarian. But the salient fact from this exchange on Meet the Press is that Paul indeed needs some wiggle on this issue:

"Republican presidential hopeful Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) refused to rule out the possibility he may run as a third-party candidate during an appearance Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Paul, however, downplayed expectations that he will run on a potential third-party libertarian ticket, saying “I have no intention of doing that.”

When asked by host Tim Russert if he would promise not to run, Paul demurred, saying, “I deserve one wiggle now and then” and that he was “99.9 percent” sure he would not run."

Yes he does, because I believe the largest energizing aspect of Paul's campaign is with what I would term the "Spoiler" faction of American politics (here and here). They don't care who or what upsets the (current) two-party apple cart, as long as it gets upset. I seriously doubt that Ron Paul is raising the money he's raising from 2-4% of "likely Republican voters."

To be clear, I don't think there's anything "wrong" with supporting a third party candidate or a third party, but it is important that we understand the third party movement to understand the Ron Paul phenomenon.

. . . and mean what you say

Perhaps the most offensive (to me as a Conservative) act of Dubya's presidency was his (a) signing BCFRA (b) while asserting that he thought the act was unConstitutional. His decision was disingenuous at worst, spineless at best.

And I thought of Dubya and BCFRA when I read this article about Ron Paul ("Paul Defends Asking for Special Projects") tonight. The article read:

"Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul on Sunday defended his efforts in Congress to bring home money to his Texas district, despite his long-held aversion to big government and congressional votes to reign in federal spending.

'I've never voted for an earmark in my life,' the Texas congressman said under questioning on NBC's 'Meet the Press' about reports that he has requested hundreds of millions of dollars for special projects in his home district.

'I put them in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back,' said Paul, who likened it to taking a tax credit. 'I'm against the tax system, but I take all my tax credits. I want to get their money back for the people.'

The 10-term congressman and longshot candidate for the Republican presidential nomination added that although he has requested special projects known as earmarks, he ultimately ends up voting against them in the House."

(emphasis added) Paul's example is a little different (though I bet if you got Paul on a roll he would flat-out claim that earmarks are unConstitutional some way or another), but it still concerns me that he (Paul) would attempt to rationalize these actions.

Speaking of context

As the post below notes, context is crucial in weighing the merits of an accusation or claim in political campaign. I had read this info about Romney's "tough on crime" ad running against Huckabee in Iowa, and had dismissed it as typical campaign rhetoric; however, in light of my post about Huckabee's fiscal record, I thought it was significant to point out the pitfalls of comparing the "apples" of one candidate's record with "oranges" of another candidate's record.

From the Newsweek article: "Romney launched another negative ad in Iowa this week, where the Republican presidential candidate has been battling the new front-runner, Huckabee. This time, Romney attacks Huckabee’s record on methamphetamine laws and the clemencies he granted as governor of Arkansas. We found that:

The ad says Romney “got tough on drugs like meth” while governor of Massachusetts, but the legislation he supported never passed, and his state’s laws are much weaker than Arkansas’. Convicted meth dealers face both minimum and maximum prison terms in Arkansas that are four times longer than those in Massachusetts.

The ad misrepresents news articles, implying that they supported Romney’s actions as governor when that’s not what the news organizations said. One article, in fact, gave critical views of Romney’s refusal to issue a pardon."

Hat tip, SaveTalkRadio.

Perspective on Huckabee's fiscal record

I'm not sure how I missed this op/ed, but I was surprised to learn more about Mike Huckabee's fiscal proclivities from Dick Morris ("Huckabee is a Fiscal Conservative"). Here's the opening paragraph:

As Mike Huckabee rises in the polls, an inevitable process of vetting him for conservative credentials is under way in which people who know nothing of Arkansas or of the circumstances of his governorship weigh in knowingly about his record. As his political consultant in the early '90s and one who has been following Arkansas politics for 30 years, let me clue you in: Mike Huckabee is a fiscal conservative.

Context or perspective is the antidote to lying with statistics, and it is the challenge of any voter to get proper context/perspective when considering the claims and accusations of a primary campaign. And the accusations will only multiply and intensify as a candidate is perceived as a threat.

Tip o' the hat to SaveTalkRadio.com

Roger Simon: biased as charged

It's interesting to get a couple of different angles on a news story, because it provides all-important context for interpreting "facts."

Over at Volunteer Voters I found a link to a Fred Thompson interview (transcript) published in a small bi-weekly paper in Waverly Iowa. I'll concede that Thompson seems somewhat flippant in the interview, and perhaps that is what motivated the interviewer (according to another report--below) to flatly say, "I don't know why he's running and neither does he." I'm not sure what qualifies as a "rationale" for a candidacy, but Thompson seems to supply one to the interviewer . . . read for yourself. Which leads to my charge of bias . . .

Yesterday I read a report of Fred Thompson's retail campaigning in Iowa on the politico blog. ("Fred Thompson: Lazy as charged" - Roger Simon - Politico.com). From reading the story, it could be argued that Thompson doesn't have "energy," but "argu[ing]" isn't what journalists do in news reports, right? In any event, an aversion to gladhanding or schmoozing is not the same thing as being "lazy," and Simon tips his hand (I believe) in this attempted dig on Thompson, who jokingly said, "I'm about the violate my 'silly hat rule,'" when handed a fire helmet while visiting a fire station. Thompson ultimately opted out of trying on the thing, and this is what Roger Simon had to say about the incident:

"In point of fact, the “silly” hat was the one Chief McKenzie wore to fires and I am guessing none of the firefighters in attendance considered it particularly silly, but Thompson was not going to put it on. He just stood there holding it and staring at it."

Actually, Thompson's wife took the hat from him in short order and put it on, but, yes, a fire helmet is a "silly hat" if donned by a grown man, who happens not to be a fire fighter, who is wearing a dress suit, who is running for President.


Tip o' the hat to Political Animals

What about the supraliminal message?

It's hilarious that some people are complaining about the "subliminal" message in Mike Huckabee's latest TV ad--the "floating cross" Huckabee Stands by Christmas Ad:

"Catholic League president Bill Donahue said Huckabee went beyond wishing people a joyous holiday. Donahue said he was especially disturbed by the cross-like image created by a white bookcase in the background of the ad, saying he believed it was a subliminal message."

Well, here's the copy from the ad:

"Are you about worn out by all the television commercials you've been seeing, mostly about politics? Well, I don't blame you. At this time of year sometimes it's nice to pull aside from all of that and just remember that what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ and being with our family and friends."

Yikes. I can only imagine how worried these critics are about the supra-liminal message of the ad.

On the other hand, maybe the "floating cross" is a "coded" threat to America's atheists.

Yeah. right.

State Rep. Rob Briley (D-Nashville) has asserted in court documents that we was on his way to rehab when all H-E-double hockey sticks broke loose. You can read details from the court filings of fate's victim in the The City Paper's report here. Briley (or his attorney) wrote:

"“In the days prior to my arrest, I had been in contact with Cumberland Heights in Nashville, Tenn., in an effort to voluntarily enter rehabilitation. I phoned several days and each day was advised no bed was available.

“On Sept. 8, I was advised a bed was available and I could enter rehabilitation on that day. I remember getting in my vehicle and beginning to drive west in the direction of Cumberland Heights.

“I have no further memory of Sept. 8.”

After he was arrested, Briley did enter rehab at Cumberland Heights, but left abruptly after it was alleged in published reports he had an extramarital affair with a Capitol Hill lobbyist, Mary Littleton."

Hmmm. Having been so desirous of getting into Cumberland Heights, I wonder where he was going when he fled rehab? Now maybe Briley can lead the charge for taxpayers to provide more rehab space so fate doesn't strike (like this) again. Sorry, but this man should not be in public office.

Myths about McCain's comeback

Sorry, but this is a foolish statement ("Stealth fighter McCain plots 2008 comeback" - Yahoo! News):

"Once the Republican heir apparent, McCain's campaign plunged close to extinction this year, as a cash crunch and his unpopular support for the Iraq war and moderate line on illegal immigration took a toll."

(emphasis mine) McCain's support for the Iraq War only hurt him among Ron Paul supporters . . . no other Republican primary voters.

The writer later makes this statement, indicating that McCain's "comeback" is somehow related . . . maybe among his one-time supporters among the media elite, but--again, not among GOP primary voters:

Recently, he staked out fierce opposition to the use of torture on terror suspects, and unusually for a Republican candidate, called for a serious effort to tackle global warming.

Mitt the Press

Mitt wept when church ended discrimination - Mike Allen - Politico.com: "Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” today that he wept with relief when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Mormon church, announced a 1978 revelation that the priesthood would no longer be denied to persons of African descent."

I have some dear friends who are Mormon, so I hesitate to say anything that can seem demeaning about Mormons or the Mormon religion (even though I think it is wrong on a variety of theological issues). But what stood out to me from the interview was this exchange: (Here's a video of the exchange).

"Moderator Tim Russert asked if “it was wrong for your faith to exclude them for as long as it did.”

“I told you exactly where I stand,” Romney said. “My view is that there’s no discrimination in the eyes of God. And I could not have been more pleased than to see the change that occurred.”

I perceive that he is reticent to say, "my faith (and the faith of my fathers!) was wrong." And I can see the challenge of "answering for" your religion when seemingly no-brainer changes in doctrine are the result of "new revelation[s]."

Dems oughta be ashamed; should Hobbs?

This report (at BillHobbs.com) of a report ;) about a recent TN Democratic Party attack on State Senator (and Republican) Diane Black is disconcerting.

The Dems ought to be ashamed. The Bredesen wing of that party ought to knock some heads together.

As an aside, I was surprised to learn that Bill Hobbs was also taken to task by Phil Williams in that report. Not that Hobbs needs me to defend him, but I'm not sure the criticism was legitimate. Williams accuses Hobbs of misleading readers in a press release singling out two Democratic appointees casting votes in a Jerry Cooper-friendly vote by the Registry of Election Finance.

But a City Paper report bolsters Hobbs' assertion:("Panel turns to AG on authority for $120K Cooper fine" on Nashville City Paper):

"This morning, however, a pair of Registry members, appointees of the House and Senate Democratic Caucuses, led an effort to ask for a state attorney general’s opinion on whether it could fine Cooper $120,000 or a maximum of $14,152.50.

After some persuasion, the Registry voted unanimously by a voice vote to seek the attorney general’s guidance to clarify ambiguities in the law regarding how much Cooper could be legally fined.

“Sorry I’m the only one who cares about the legality of the thing,” said George Harding, a Registry member appointed by the House Democratic Caucus, who stringently pushed to consult the attorney general."

An ex-president needn't be unpresidential

I've opined before (here) that former President Bill Clinton's campaigning for Hillary was unseemly and this interview, (with Charlie Rose, highlights that fact, in my humble opinion. Here's the report:

"In a surprisingly frank interview with Charlie Rose on his PBS show late Friday night, former President Bill Clinton declared that his wife was not only far better prepared to be president than her chief rival Sen. Barack Obama -- 'it's not close' -- but that voters who disagreed would be taking a 'risk' if they picked the latter."

There's no doubt that Bill Clinton owes Hillary BIGTIME . . . it is unpleasant to be an audience to the payback.

Thompson stands tall

Update: Here's a nice video montage of debate highlights (from the perspective of Thompson supporters)



I am watching C-Span's replay of the GOP debate from today and just heard a Tom Beaumont (political reporter of the Des Moines Register) pooh-poohing reactions from Frank Luntz's focus group about Fred Thompson's refusal to "raise his hand" in answer to a question about global warming. In sum, it appears that almost every focus group member was impressed with Thompson's "stand."

And the MSM just doesn't get it.

I opined previously that this "raise your hand" shtick is offensive. It was probably the most significant "event" of this event. Thompson appeared like a giant in the half a minute it took for him to say "no" as almost every other person on the stage raised their hand or attempted to squeeze in an answer or entreated the moderator for 30 seconds or anything_other_than_say_refuse_to_play.

Ignorance is bliss (for abortion supporters)

I know some of you luv Roe v. Wade, but I'm curious to see how well you know this landmark Supreme Court decision.

Well, here's a website that tests one's knowledge about the decision. The abortion debate is hampered by confusion and ignorance about Roe v. Wade. I would submit that Pro-choice folks are content with the general public's confusion.

Huckabee's "straight" talk

UPDATE: Huckabee is standing by his statements. Good for him. This is something that endears Huckabee to voters.

That being said, note Giuliani's statement at the end of the article. Though he is generous in not demagoguing Huck's statement, he tap dances around the issue:

Giuliani, who appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press," said in response to a question that he did not believe homosexuality was aberrant.

"The way somebody leads their life isn't sinful. It's the acts," said Giuliani, who supports gay rights and lived with an openly gay couple after separating from his second wife while mayor. "It's the various acts that people perform that are sinful, not the orientation that they have."

This AP report is going to cause a buzz Huckabee wanted to isolate AIDS patients - Yahoo! News. From the AP article (hat tip, TennViews):

"Mike Huckabee once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure and said homosexuality could 'pose a dangerous public health risk.'

As a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in 1992, Huckabee answered 229 questions submitted to him by The Associated Press. Besides a quarantine, Huckabee suggested that Hollywood celebrities fund AIDS research from their own pockets, rather than federal health agencies."

Newscoma posting at TennViews headlines it "New Revelations of the Real Mike Huckabee." I was kind of surprised at the candor reflected in the answers reported in the article, but I agree that the quarantine suggestion and the "put your money where your mouth is" reference to Hollywooders are lacking in propriety (for a candidate). Other than that, however, I don't think this is going to scare off anyone seriously open to voting for Huckabee. And his views have changed or moderated in some senses since making those comments. And some of the views expressed didn't need changing, frankly.

But as far as the "real (cue sinister instrumental) Mike Huckabee" reference: 15 years is a long time in a political life, and surely elitists can find it in their heart to let Huck evolve :) on how public policy interacts with personal views?

Huckabee's newfound accusers

Great reporting about Huckabee and the infamous Dumond parole case in the New York Times:

"As new polls highlight Mike Huckabee’s ascent in the Republican presidential field, he is drawing new scrutiny of his record in Arkansas, particularly his actions in the release of a convicted rapist who went on to murder a woman . . .
Two former parole board members in Arkansas said yesterday that as governor, Mr. Huckabee met with the board in 1996 to lobby them to release the convicted rapist, Wayne DuMond, whose case was championed by evangelical Christians. “He expressed his concerns about DuMond’s guilt,” said Deborah Suttlar, a former parole board member. “He felt he deserved to be released.” Mr. DuMond later went on to murder a Missouri woman after his parole. He died in prison of natural causes in 2005. Mr. Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist pastor, has denied that he had any involvement in Mr. DuMond’s release, pointing out that he had refused to commute the sentence and that the parole board freed him. But The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that three of the seven members of the parole board said Mr. Huckabee had pressured them, echoing earlier reporting by The Arkansas Times and other local news media."

The credibility of the folks on the parole board, however, is questionable, based on this report.

Mr. DuMond was convicted in the 1984 rape of a teenager who was a distant cousin of Bill Clinton, then the governor of Arkansas. While he was out on bail awaiting trial, Mr. DuMond said men forced his way into his home and castrated him, but the authorities said they thought he might have castrated himself in a play for sympathy. He was sentenced to life in prison.

Mr. Clinton’s successor, Jim Guy Tucker, found the sentence excessive and cut it to 39 ½ years, making Mr. DuMond eligible for parole.

While Mr. DuMond was in prison, the Rev. Jay D. Cole, a Baptist pastor and friend of Mr. Huckabee’s, ministered to him, and the inmate later said he had found God.

Mr. Cole said yesterday that he asked Mr. Huckabee to look into the case. “I think Mike was very torn about the whole thing,” Mr. Cole said. “I feel he felt an innocent man was in prison, or if not, he had been in prison too long. But he didn’t come out and say that.”

Nevertheless, soon after taking office, Mr. Huckabee met in October 1996 with members of the parole board, all of whom had been appointed by his Democratic predecessors. Mr. DuMond’s case, with its twists and turns — including a $110,000 judgment against a sheriff who kept Mr. DuMond’s testicles in a jar on his desk — had become something of a celebrated cause among conservative activists, who charged that Mr. Clinton’s relation to the victim had led to Mr. DuMond’s being railroaded.

The parole board meetings are public, but after Mr. Huckabee arrived, the board chairman closed the meeting to everyone except board members. What happened next is in dispute.

A request for a pardon was being considered at that point by Mr. Huckabee, who came out in favor of it. That caused an outcry among some, including the rape victim, who went to his office to ask him to change his mind.

Mr. Huckabee later denied Mr. DuMond clemency, but wrote a letter to him. “Dear Wayne,” he wrote. “My desire is that you be released from prison. I feel that parole is the best way for your reintroduction to society to take place.”

When Mr. Huckabee met with the parole board, according to Ms. Suttlar and Charles Chastain, another board member, he said he wanted to talk to them about a specific case and raised the issue of Mr. DuMond unprompted.

“I’ve looked into this a good bit,” Mr. Chastain recalled Mr. Huckabee saying to them. “I feel he may just be a fellow from the wrong side of the tracks and gotten a raw deal.”

Ms. Suttlar yesterday accused Mr. Huckabee of compromising “the integrity of the parole board.” She was somewhat more lenient in an interview with The Associated Press in 2001, when she said the pressure from Mr. Huckabee “was not coercion, it was an implied thing.”

Olan W. Reeves, who served as Mr. Huckabee’s chief counsel and attended the meeting, said that it was meant only to introduce the new governor to the board and that Mr. DuMond’s case came up when a board member challenged him on his support for clemency.

“He didn’t go over there to talk to them about that,” Mr. Reeves said yesterday. “The governor in Arkansas has nothing to do with parole.”

The board voted 4 to 1 several months later to parole Mr. DuMond, with Mr. Chastain casting the lone dissenting vote, after having denied his freedom repeatedly in previous years. Two board members, including Ms. Suttlar, abstained. She said yesterday she chose not to vote because she was disgusted by what she described as behind-the-scenes lobbying by Mr. Huckabee to have Mr. DuMond released.

But she previously told The Associated Press that she did not vote because Mr. DuMond had accused her of racial bias. She is black, and Mr. DuMond is white.

Mr. Huckabee said at a news conference in Iowa last week that he regretted the entire incident, reiterating that he did not pressure the board to “do anything.”

“I can’t fix it,” he said of the episode. “I can only tell the truth and let the truth be my judge.”

(emphasis added)

Mealy-mouthed Huckabee

One of the things I've been hearing--in light of Romney's "Faith in America" speech, is criticism of Mike Huckabee's answers of late to the question, "Do you think that Mormons are Christians?"

Here's a typical example, from a Time Mag. blog, Huckabee Stirs the Mormon Issue. For the record, I like Huckabee, probably more than any of the other candidates. And one reason I like him is plain ol' affinity--I perceive that more than any other candidate, he shares my worldview. And while I'd say that he more "mature" in the faith than me in a variety of ways, I don't think he is "right" on every issue of public policy. A single interpretation of the Christian Scriptures (or even "spiritual truth," generally) can have many different applications.

All that being said, I want to defend Huckabee on accusations that he is being mealy-mouthed or "stirring it up" in his answers about Christianity and Mormonism. Take this quote for example:

CBSNews.com: ‘Do you believe that Mormonism is a legitimate form of Christianity?’

Gov. Huckabee: ‘You know, Mormonism is a faith that people adhere
to. And I think people ought to respect anybody’s faith. I am not all
that familiar with the intricate details. I have enough trouble keeping
up with my own faith. So, I do not spend lots of time trying to
evaluate somebody else’s.’

CBSNews.com: ‘But do you think they’re real Christians?’

Gov. Huckabee: ‘Once again, I am not going to try to judge. That is
for them to determine whether they accept Jesus Christ as the only
revelation of God on Earth. And, if they do, then that is how a person
is a Christian, not by the label they wear, but by the position they
take on the role and the personhood of Christ.’

This might be difficult for non-Christians to understand, which is understandable :), but Evangelicals don't use the term "Christian"--especially in the context of the above Huckabee quote, to mean "moral" or "not Jewish" or "not Muslim" or "American" or "like me." Huckabee gives the Biblical definition of "being a Christian." Given the difficult-to-discern-about-others nature of "belief" and given the imprecision with which many people use religious terms, it is difficult to know where someone stands in relation to the Biblical definition of "being a Christian," but if the shoe fits, where it.

"Stirring it up" would have been giving a categorical statement that "no Mormons" or "all Mormons" believe such and such. But providing one's understanding of the Biblical definition of "being a Christian"--coupled with declining to judge an entire group of people, is what I call "tact." Anyone with half a brain can appreciate how valuable that is in a religiously diverse, tolerant society. Gee, sorry if Huckabee's answers don't provide the saucy soundbite you folks in the MSM (and some folks supporting other candidates) are looking for.

The Romney Speech

I just viewed Romney's "Faith in America" speech, (can be viewed here) and my first response is that the decision to give this speech was brilliant. It speaks volumes about Romney's ability to lead for him to ignore (assuming the reports are accurate) those in his campaign who advised him not to give this speech and draw attention to the issue. And it was brilliant because the glut of earned media attention is priceless. Of course, there was a risk that he might lay an egg, but I think it was a risk worth taking.

Though I thought his delivery was off pitch (too sharp; not a natural/comfortable cadence or intonation), the substance of the speech was very presidential . . . not addressing any narrow constituency and not ignoring any constituency (okay, atheists weren't feeling the love, but . . .). This speech had the tone and substance of one delivered by a person who is already President and who addresses all Americans and no opponents.

For folks who believe that what you believe is more important than simply believing, Romney's effort, in sections of his speech, to minimize religious distinctions and commend belief for belief's sake is not impressive. However, I think those same people will appreciate Romney's courageous defense of "Faith's" role in America. I guess time will tell.

Chavez not chagrined

I have been a bit out of pocket since last Friday, so I hadn't heard until this evening that Chavez' ballot-box revolution had failed. That's encouraging, but Chavez--a masterful politician, is keeping his chin up ("Venezuela's Chávez defiant, despite defeat" | csmonitor.com):

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez says the time has come for "profound reflection" following his first electoral defeat in nine years at the helm Sunday night.
. . . .
But Chávez's acceptance of the results has strengthened his democratic credentials, and analysts say he'll use that to push his socialist "revolution" just as fervently as he has been.

Well, it depends on how you define "democratic." The article continues:

"Speculation has begun to mount about how and when Chávez will attempt to push some of the reforms into law, whether unilaterally by decree or through the National Assembly, which he dominates. He also controls the country's courts, most of its media, and almost all local and state governments.
. . . .
But Chávez has the power to pass any law unilaterally, until August 2008, that does not explicitly contradict the current Constitution. During that time, analysts expect him to pass such reforms as a 36-hour workweek, universal social security, and a fund for independent workers."

Hillary's probably behind this

This is an interesting primary maneuver--some Leftwing group is going negative on Hillary. ("First Negative Ad Against Clinton". I have to say, criticism from such quarters probably increases Hillary's electability, so maybe she's behind it. From the article:

"The group, Democratic Courage, has accused Clinton of making policy decisions on the basis of polls, not convictions."

Uh, who among the Democrats running for president isn't guilty of this? Maybe Kuchy (if he can seriously be said to be a candidate)? I've heard that Obama opposed the Iraqi War, but I'd say he was armchair quarterbacking in "taking that stance" as a state senator (and is now Monday-morning quarterbacking).

Star Parker on Huck's appeal

(Star Parker: "The unfair rap against Mike Huckabee"): "The Washington Post's David Broder provides one hint about the fuel that might be propelling Huckabee. He says that, according to veteran Democratic pollster Peter Hart, the attributes that are pushing voters' buttons this year are 'transparency, authenticity and unity.'

A just-released The Economist/YouGov poll shows Huckabee doing well in these areas. Republican voters rate him first in both honesty and morality."

Speaking of wisdom being vindicated

Charles Krauthammer - Stem Cell Vindication - washingtonpost.com:

"'If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.' -- James A. Thomson

A decade ago, Thomson was the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells. Last week, he (and Japan's Shinya Yamanaka) announced one of the great scientific breakthroughs since the discovery of the great scientific breakthroughs since the discovery of DNA: an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells.

Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem cell debate is over.

Which allows a bit of reflection on the storm that has raged ever since the August 2001 announcement of President Bush's stem cell policy. The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president -- so vilified for a moral stance -- been so thoroughly vindicated.

Why? Precisely because he took a moral stance. Precisely because, to borrow Thomson's phrase, Bush was made "a little bit uncomfortable" by the implications of embryonic experimentation. Precisely because he therefore decided that some moral line had to be drawn.

In doing so, he invited unrelenting demagoguery by an unholy trinity of Democratic politicians, research scientists and patient advocates who insisted that anyone who would put any restriction on the destruction of human embryos could be acting only for reasons of cynical politics rooted in dogmatic religiosity -- a "moral ayatollah," as Sen. Tom Harkin so scornfully put it. "

And there's more . . .

Those un-mean-spirited folks at TinyCatPants

Well, I've been mixing it up with some of the folks over at TinyCatPants the past few days ("Brief Aside" « Tiny Cat Pants). Essentially, this fight spun off of a post at MusicCityBloggers where I wondered aloud whether the GOP's ascendancy in the South may have been somewhat related to the "social," anti-military, pro-USSR radicalism of the 60s era Democratic Party as opposed to the notorious (among Libs) Nixonian/GOP/racist "Southern Strategy." The gang at TinyCatPants are incredulous.

But tonight I came upon this profound post about how the Democrats' own Southern Strategy could help them reclaim the South. And it provides an interesting perspective on what motivates Black Americans to vote Democratic.

Hat tip, SayUncle.

Paintin' the GOP

Fred Barnes has an interesting op/ed about the YouTube GOP debate. Blog Main Page From the article:

"When the CNN-You Tube debate among Republican presidential candidates began with a guy named Chris Nandor playing a guitar and singing, my wife Barbara exclaimed, 'This is humiliating. This is really bad.' Of course she was right. And then things got worse. This debate not only was mortifying to the candidates. It also should have been embarrassing to the viewers, especially Republican voters who might have been watching."

I pretty much agree with Barnes here, but not inasmuch as he states Republicans had reason to be "embarrassed." "Irritated" is more like it, as so many of the selected questions hewed to the Liberal/Democratic line on Conservatism and the GOP.

View the YouTube Republican Debate

Watch the entire YouTube Republican Debate from Nov. 28, 2007 (or just individual questions and answers) here.

One initial reaction: debate audiences get on my nerves.

Please go away

Granted, I've never been a fan of Bill Clinton's prevaricating, but I'm starting to see a big problem (or at least potential problem) of political dynasties . . . it is harder to let a former president fade into respectable posterity when he's doing the whole campaigning thing. Bill Clinton Flatly Asserts He Opposed War at Start - New York Times:

"During a campaign swing for his wife, former President Bill Clinton said flatly yesterday that he opposed the war in Iraq “from the beginning” — a statement that is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003."

Immigration is a sharp object

I just read this week's column from Ann Coulter, and she does a splendid job of skewering the "the anti-illegal-immigration backlash" myth. ("NYT: An Undocumented Newspaper"). Coulter's op/ed column was in response to this op/ed, er report from the New York Times about the issue. Immigration is a sharp object, and you know what your mother always told you about sharp objects . . .

A couple of things come to mind from reading the articles . . . first, I think that Coulter may be unadvisedly pooh-poohing the potential problems with a Republican candidate being strident on this particular issue. The Democratic Party--with the MSM in its corner and a willingness to demagogue this issue and already enjoying a majority of Hispanic support, has the ability to paint Republicans and Conservatives as nativist/bigoted/mean-spirited/hateful etc. etc. if we give them the paint, brushes and an empty canvas. The Democratic Party and its major candidates have a variety of vulnerabilities on this issue, too, but being able to exploit those weaknesses isn't a given.

Secondly, the bias of Michael Luo--the NYTimes reporter, is sad. Romney's comments that "he has no problem with 'legal' immigrants" (Luo's quotation marks) are somehow evidence that he is "recognizing the need to temper his comments."

Saying that Republican candidates have "railed against" certain pro-illegal immigration proposals, referring to Tom Tancredo as "the angriest on immigration" (emphasis added), and saying a Republican woman sensitive to the issue "hurled" a comment at Fred Thompson, and referring to the general GOP stance as "harsh" reflect the Liberal elitist view that folks who disagree with Liberal policies are emotional (with baaaad emotions!) rather than rational.

And the advocacy words that jump off of Luo's page are "many Democrats," "some polls," "Hispanic electorate could be turned off," all of which seem to indicate that Luo is marshaling his argument rather than reporting a story.

I think Coulter masterfully pounds the argument of the NYTimes and Luo, but it won't help us in the GOP to ignore the pitfalls of unself-awaredly arguing our positions on this issue.

Euro-elites make McCain blush

I've been speed-reading through the several half-finished magazines on my night-stand and came across this interesting anecdote about John McCain from a March issue of National Review, ("Fever in the Alps"--subscription required). Reporting on the global warming obsession at the 2007 World Economic Forum, Jay Nordlinger writes:

"Speaking of Brits, David Cameron, MP for Witney, is here. He is the new leader of the Conservative party, and thus a successor, in this sense, to Winston Churchill. And he is a firm, firm global-warming man (Cameron, I mean, not Churchill). He tells a group of us journalists that the “big question” is, “Are we going to act before it’s too late?” He believes that Americans are finally waking up to this threat, as evidenced by the reelection of Arnold Schwarzenegger in California. Obviously, Cameron is not a student of American politics, or at least of California. But Schwarzenegger is an American hero in Davos, because he has made all the right moves on global warming. Cameron further says that enlightened politicians are trekking to Norway, “to see the importance of climate change firsthand.” He himself has, and so have Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

As he continues with us, Cameron speaks of “green growth” and “green outcomes” and “gas-guzzling cars.” No one in this town — this pretty Swiss village up in the Alps — can out-climate-change him, and that’s saying something.

But the British prime minister, Mr. Blair, does fairly well. Giving a speech in the Congress Center, he calls global warming “a moral cause.” And he, too, praises Schwarzenegger, and also McCain, who is in attendance. McCain, says Blair, has “driven the agenda forward in the United States.” Soon, McCain himself is onstage, driving the agenda forward. He says, “I bring you good news” — and that news is that Congress will probably act quickly on global warming, and that the administration is coming along, too. “I freely admit to you that it’s very late and may not be enough, but I think that for the first time there may be some action on this very important issue.”

My sense is that McCain’s global-warming passion is almost enough to make Davos forgive him for the Iraq War. In this, he is not unlike Tony Blair.

Some days later, the lights go out all over Europe, but not in the way Sir Edward Grey meant: Frenchmen make the Eiffel Tower go dark, Italians make the Colosseum go dark, and Greeks make their parliament go dark, all in protest of climate change. I can’t help feeling we’re witnessing some large, end-of-the-world cult. The splendid British journalist Charles Moore, writing in The Spectator, has the same feeling:

Now and again, one reads little news stories about sects which, believing that the end of the world is nigh, gather on a hill in Montana or in a car park in Geneva to await the Last Day, and then, when nothing happens, rather sheepishly go home. The same embarrassment threatens those environmentalists who say that if we fail to reverse greenhouse gas emissions now, it will be too late (latest Sunday Times headline: ‘Last warning: 10 years to save world’). What will they do when the planet stubbornly refuses to die?

They will go on to the next cause, with nary a backward glance. Another Davos, another theme. "

(emphasis added)

I'm sick and tired of this type of stuff

I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of this type of rhetoric ("Chavez: Only a 'Traitor' Will Vote No"):

"President Hugo Chavez warned his supporters on Friday that anyone voting against his proposed constitutional changes would be a 'traitor,' rallying his political base before a referendum that would let him seek unlimited re-election in 2012 and beyond.

. . . .

'He who says he supports Chavez but votes 'no' is a traitor, a true traitor,' the president told an arena packed with red-clad supporters. 'He's against me, against the revolution and against the people.'"

"Greater good" indeed

If you watch television (at least Sports on television) you've seen the touching ads for TIAA-CREF: "There's a place for us" while slow-mo footage of folks in the "non-profit" professions flows across the screen. Powerful stuff. Makes you want to be counted among those toiling simply "for the greater good."

But a recent article in WORLD Magazine, ("The new robber barons") caught my attention. The article reads:

"With college tuition prices rising at a much faster rate than that of inflation for decades, it stands to reason that somebody is getting rich. A report last week in the Chronicle of Higher Education indicates that university presidents are among the first in line at the gravy train.

. . . .

Like the original robber barons, today's university presidents make their living by charging exorbitant fees to those who pass through their domains. Fueled by government subsidies for students, tuition prices at public universities have more than tripled after inflation over the past three decades and have not fallen during a single year at least since 1980 (see "No way down," Aug. 27, 2005).

It's a record of price increases that would make oil executives blush but one that the captains of higher education get away with because the public mind has not associated their occupation with greed. Perception, however, may be catching up with reality."

That's why they call it the Left coast

Well, you've probably already heard something about this story from Seattle ("Seattle Schools' Thanksgiving 'Myths' Stir Controversy" - FoxNews.com), but seeing the title--"Director of Equity, Race & Learning Support," of the woman who wrote the "Thanksgiving-debunking" memo in question, who couldn't have predicted this type of "controversy"?

Wee bit o' dancing pleasure

Thanks to my friend Mike for alerting me to this impressive performance by Michael Flatley & Co. on Dancing with the Stars (last night?).



We eat this kind of stuff up seeing as we have several wee Irish Dancers in the Williams household.

Transparent cronyism

Rob Robinson has linked to a Tennessean story about state troopers being used by past governors (and their families) as chauffeurs. (thinktrain » "Son, can you spare a ride?") You gotta love the quote from Don Sundquist in the article:

Free rides for him and other VIPs have gone on for a while, said former Gov. Don Sund quist, a Republican who, like current Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen, said he approved the rides for McWherter.

"Whatever he needs, I'm for him. I think he's earned it," Sundquist said of McWherter, his immediate predecessor as the state's chief executive. "When I was in office, if he needed a car … I had no problem sending a car for him."

Sorry, Mr. Sundquist, state troopers (and any state employees, for that matter) are not the Governor's personal attaches.

And once you hear more of the details about the system, it's no surprise that it's all a little hush-hush:

House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh's full-time trooper escort had a gross salary of $102,896 in 2005, including regular pay and overtime, according to state records — putting his pay in the top 1 percent for state employees that year.

While I appreciate law enforcement, I don't think a law enforcement officer in what is probably the cushiest such job in the state deserves that kind of compensation. But I do think that Tennessee taxpayers deserve an accounting for how tax dollars are spent. Laughably, THP spokesman Mike Browning asserts that they do not maintain records of this stuff for security reasons. But maybe he's right. Sundquist might have to call out the Troopers again if word of this gets out.

Spinning the vicious, vicious budget cycles

Reading this article about an impending budget squeeze in Tennessee, ("Bredesen says he’ll be handling tight budget smoothly" on Nashville City Paper), I couldn't help but think of the $1.3 billion (that's BILLION) surplus from last (fiscal) year . . . since voters tend to have short memories, I thought I'd provide a public service by reminding us of the foolishness of assuming you'll always be flush with cash. As my dad used to say, "Don't let that money burn a hole in your pocket."

But I loved this terminology (perhaps it is gov't accounting terminology) in the report:

"Meanwhile, the Department of Education requested $133 million total in improvements to their budget today . . ."

"Improvements"? Are those the same thing as "increases"?

Thompson's "pro-lifeyness"

Tennessee radio personality Steve Gill has an op/ed today ("What really is more pro-life?" on Nashville City Paper) taking . . . well, BigPro-Life (if there is such a thing) to task for not selling their soul to the Fred Thompson campaign. Pardon us (I'm not BigPro-Life, but I am pro-life and withholding full-fledged support from Thompson, so maybe I qualify . . .) for deigning to criticize your candidate. I don't speak for any Religious or "Social" Conservative but myself, and I don't agree with the views expressed by other leaders of this slice of the electorate, but I--speaking for myself, have to challenge several of Gill's assertions.

NRLC-PAC's endorsement of a primary candidate for President came as a surprise to many pro-lifers and I voiced some (not much) surprise . . . so sue me. Thompson's vaunted "100% pro-life voting record in the Senate" is great, but anyone who follows the issue of abortion knows that the minimalist/baby-step/incremental legislative strategy pursued by the national pro-life movement in the 90's presented some pretty safe (tame?) voting opportunities for Republicans. Don't get me wrong; I'm appreciative for Thompson's votes on abortion while he was in the Senate, but don't hold it against me that I have some political context for thinking about the matter. A candidate's outspokenness on the issue, and willingness to lead on the issue, and public/campaign statements on the issue are significant. I'm trying to decide which presidential candidate best reflects my views on issues--and that consideration involves more than looking at final votes on a variety of fairly non-controversial (for a Republican) legislation.

Which leads me to my next beef with Gill et al. Gill provides a short (though it sure seemed long) lecture primer on principles of Federalism in defense of Thompson's views on how to handle the issue of abortion.

Consistent with his Federalist principles, Thompson prefers to allow the states to apply restrictions on abortion should Roe v. Wade get overturned. . . .

Thompson’s preferred policy process lies at the foundation of the Constitution. In the 9th Amendment it is clearly stated that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

. . . .

This Federalist approach to handling issues actually has very little to do with any particular policy itself, since it was intended to be broadly applied rather than on a selective basis to promote a specific political agenda. There can be little doubt that this is the approach the Founding Fathers intended; and respecting that approach does not mean Thompson is "soft" on the issue of abortion. He simply believes that the Constitution means what it says.

Well, as someone who--I guess, "[doesn't] believe the Constitution means what it says," I don't view abortion on demand (aka the opposite of "the right to life") as a mere "particular policy" or a mere element of a "political agenda." You're free to disagree with me, but abortion on demand isn't something that I--as a citizen in a republican form of government, am willing to condone. So, while there is an argument that a Federalist strategy, if successful, would result in a short-term decrease in the number of abortions in America, there is also an argument--my argument, that an across the board protection for innocent human life is warranted. Please don't hate me for using the primary season to sift through all the campaign rhetoric to discern which candidate I think is closest to sharing that opinion.

Concluding his comments about the advantages of a successful, state-by-state Federalist approach, Gill writes:

"And abortion on demand would continue to occur in those states while the effort to pass a Constitutional ban on abortions would continue." (emphasis added)

See, that's the problem, Steve. You (and Thompson and many of Thompson's current supporters) are assuming that Pro-lifers believe he would advance (or at least not stymie) "the effort to pass a Constitutional ban on abortions." Based on Thompson's spotty record of past public statements on the issue (e.g., before he was running for the GOP nomination); based on his conveniently-pragmatic/"realistic" Federalist position on the issue; based on his current, suspect language when discussing the issue; I'm leery of casting all my support to him, at this stage in the process, and at least with regard to the issue of abortion.

I like Thompson and could heartily support him against almost any Democrat I've seen. I know that some in the Thompson camp are growing concerned about his performance in various polls, and that they're getting a little frustrated with "the unpersuaded." That's no shock; but if you want my vote, stop deriding me. Fair enough?

I don't think Chuck Norris is acting

If you hadn't heard, Chuck Norris is a big Mike Huckabee supporter, and Huckabee's first TV ad features Norris in a change-of-pace, tongue-in-cheek production--frankly, like a lot of Chuck Norris' showbiz stuff.

More about Huckabee and Immigration

Marc Ambinder in his Atlantic.com blog posts about recent shots across Romney's bow on the issue of immigration. Marc Ambinder (November 14, 2007) - Huckabee Makes The First Move On Immigration:

"Kind of surprising: given how important the immigration issue to Mitt Romney's chances in Iowa, you'd think that he, and not challenger Mike Huckabee, would be the first to force a debate... and get personal."

It's an interesting read.

And it is significant to understand Huckabee's position on this issue . . . from an op/ed by Huckabee supporter Chuck Norris:

Gov. Mike did not offer blanket in-state tuition breaks to the children of illegal immigration. He tried to prevent penalties to high school students, even those whose parents brought them over illegally, who were aspiring to obtain challenging academic scholarships. He espoused that these competitive benefits were open to illegals too, "if they were willing to apply and become legal citizens."

Huckabee explained the drive behind his decision:

[My] position was and remains that you do not punish a child for the crime of the parent. If a child is in the back seat of a car when a father drives drunk, it's perfectly appropriate to put the father in the drunk tank, but you don't put the child in the drunk tank. If a child was brought here when he or she was 5 years old and has gone through our entire education system and has worked hard, learned and made straight As, and has qualified for an Academic Challenge Scholarship, which was a very specific program in the state, and that student has qualified to be able to earn that scholarship, I'd rather that student go to college and become a taxpayer, not simply take some low-end hourly wage job and ultimately be a tax-taker.

Here's a good post on the subject at MikeHuckabee2008 blog.

Whom Would Jesus Deport?

I started to write this post several months ago after a presentation at my church. The subject wasn't politics or immigration (it was on leading in an "externally focused" church), but the application to public policy seemed obvious to me: in sum, God is sympathetic to the "alien." Just do a search at bible.com for the term "alien" and you'll see what I mean (you probably need to use a version like the New American Standard Bible because "alien" is perceived as an archaic term these days).

As an aside, my church is unapologetically a "Bible" church--fundamentalist, Evangelical, "conservative," etc. so hearing this message definitely challenged my thinking on the subject. That being said, my church and its leadership are scrupulously a-political. For example, in our 8 years at the church the most political-ish statements I have heard from "the pulpit" are two references to the Biblical definition of marriage and perhaps two pro-life allusions. And that's the way I prefer it, because I don't want the Gospel to be obscured by political or any other messages.

But the point of this post is that I started to feel convicted about my attitude--my public stance on illegal immigration and the ways to address it. While Mike Huckabee has been accused of being "soft" on illegal immigration--actually, the wording is generally not as charitable as that, I have increasingly seen the wisdom in his views on the issue.

To be sure I am an American Exceptionalist, and I am seriously concerned about the erosion of American culture, American traditions and the "American" language--English. I believe America is great, and it isn't great because of fraud or exploitation or its natural resources or "dumb luck" (providence is another discussion) . . . it's because of our ideas and our ideals and our guiding principles, three things that can and are being readily undermined by illegal immigration in my opinion. And I am concerned about the burden of illegal immigration on our country's infrastructure (and am somewhat sympathetic to arguments about cheap labor's negative impact on some American workers), so I appreciate the economics of it all. But even if all these things are true, I don't get a pass from God when deliberating about how to address the problem. The reality is that this is very complicated issue with many ancillary challenges and with deep roots that can't readily be severed. Yes, they're breaking the law by coming to our country without permission and they're not assimilating as much as they ought to be and they breaking the law (oh, I said that one already), but I am pretty much convinced that God's word urges me to view them (the otherwise law-abiding aliens) more compassionately.

Incidentally, another aspect of this issue that jumped out at me several weeks ago was a news report about a convenience store robbery/murder that showed the video surveillance photos of two young Mexican-looking males who had been in the store at the time of the murder. They said these men were not suspects but were believed to have witnessed the murder (I know, I know, sometimes police say similar things about the real suspect in a crime--that wasn't the case here). The thought that crossed my mind was that if these guys are not here legally, they are probably scared to death to come forward about anything they may have seen that night. So for the first time I saw how it could hurt me and other non-illegal aliens for certain people to be driven underground by our immigration policies. But I digress . . .

I would say that this sentiment probably started with defending Dubya from invective rooted in his soft-ish immigration policy. Though I disagree with Bush on various issues, and I even disagreed with him on immigration, I perceive him to be sincere on the subject and I had to acknowledge his consistency (in his first run for President to now) on immigration. As a result, I felt like it was unfair to accuse him of crass motives or of betraying those who elected him.

Regarding Huckabee, perhaps the most frequent throw-away Conservative slam I hear is that he is "terrible on immigration" or something along those lines. His views on illegal immigration are articulated here. But what I've concluded is that in waging the political battle to "solve" the illegal immigration problems I mentioned above, it is important to avoid demonizing people who are here illegally and dealing with the issue. First of all we should keep them from coming into the country through strict border enforcement--this measure has national security implications, too. Next, we need to prosecute persons who willfully subvert our employment laws by employing illegals--such employers are knowingly flouting our laws and are sticking a finger in the eye of law-abiding fellow Americans. And lastly, we certainly should SLAM someone who is in our country illegally and commits a crime. Any measures aside from these seem draconian--or certainly seem easy to characterize as draconian, and don't really balance Christian compassion with wise public policy. Though I don't advocate imposing my religious principles on others, there's no doubt that my religious views (my worldview) should impact how I feel about a given public policy.

And I'll end by saying that so much of this (and politics) is about "tone." Some people will not believe you are resolute if you don't seem angry or outraged. (Indeed, probably the most poignant quote I've heard from Huckabee to date is, "I'm Conservative; I'm just not angry about it.") As a Christian I should not push buttons of voters just to get them riled up. I certainly should not appeal to the Flesh (or base nature) of voters to get them riled up. Illegal immigration is a complicated problem with no easy solution, and Huckabee seems willing to straddle the divide on the issue, resisting the temptation to demagogue or simplistically pander to voters about it.





Here are several Biblical references that have gnawed at me of late:

Lev. 19:34
The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 10:17-19
For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.

"He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing.

"So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.

Malachi 3:5

"Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me," says the LORD of hosts.

Torture the new abortion? hogwash

I thought this was insightful from Jill Stanek regarding "water boarding" and assertions from some Lefties that Republicans are now more protective of "torture" than "pro-life" . . . hogwash. Jill Stanek - Torture: the new abortion?:

"I digressed on the topic of waterboarding to show for one thing it's really not torture. No one is hurt by it. They just perceive they will be. At most it could be called virtual torture."

You ought to read the LATimes op/ed to which Stanek links, but the reason abortion has receded from political view to a degree (ref: Mukasey nomination) is that pro-lifers have been winning the argument on abortion.

Sort of an endorsement

This unwittingly Onionesque report ("Several Christian conservative leaders gravitating toward Huckabee")about the endorsement wars in the Social Conservative movement made me snicker: :

"Although it's unclear whether Mr. Dobson will endorse anyone, those familiar with his plans say he intends to say positive things about Mr. Huckabee on his nationally syndicated radio program next week."

I guess that's better than nothing, huh?

This matters

According to Politico.com: Nat'l Right to Life to endorse Thompson

Fred Thompson will pick up the support of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) tomorrow, according to two Republicans familar with the decision. . . . in the hotly contested effort to court the fragmented social conservative base, the validation by this group represents a coup for Thompson."

Chavez: Godwin's scofflaw

We weren't allowed to say "shut up" in my home growing up; "Nazi" is probably in the same category.

Spanish King Tells Chavez to "Shut Up":

"The king of Spain told Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to 'shut up' Saturday during a heated exchange at a summit of leaders from Latin America, Spain and Portugal. Chavez, who called President Bush the 'devil' on the floor of the United Nations last year, triggered the exchange by repeatedly referring to former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar as a 'fascist.'"

Ref.: Godwin's Law.

Surge of former insurgents

Here's some good news from Iraq. Nationals seem to be taking more responsibility for defense of their country: ("Clash between ex-insurgents, Al Qaeda in Iraq kills 18" - The Boston Globe)

Former Sunni insurgents asked the United States to stay away, and then ambushed members of Al Qaeda in Iraq, killing 18 in a battle that raged for hours north of Baghdad, an ex-insurgent leader and Iraqi police said yesterday.

The Islamic Army in Iraq sent advance word to Iraqi police requesting that US helicopters keep out of the area because its fighters had no uniforms and were indistinguishable from Al Qaeda, according to the police and a top Islamic Army leader known as Abu Ibrahim.

Also,

"Meanwhile, farther east, in Diyala Province, members of another former insurgent group, the 1920s Revolution Brigades, launched a military-style operation yesterday against Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Iraqi Army said. About 60 militants were captured and handed over to Iraqi soldiers, an Army officer said on condition of anonymity because he was not allowed to speak to media. Afterward, hundreds of people paraded through Buhriz, about 35 miles north of Baghdad, witnesses said. Many danced and fired their guns into the air, shouting 'Down with Al Qaeda!' and 'Diyala is for all Iraqis!'"

Hat tip: The Corner.

Should we elect judges?

In light of the impending battle over judicial selection in Tennessee, I was intrigued to read this AP article this evening: "O'Connor Says Judges Shouldn't Be Elected":

"Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said Wednesday that she'd do away with electing judges and make prosecutors and defense lawyers interchangeable as a way of improving the U.S. justice system."

The battle brewing is the result of a sunset provision of our current system of selecting judges for our Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals. What has become known as "The Tennessee Plan" expired in 2007 and was extended another year.

I am skeptical about adopting the English criminal justice system, and I'm not sure that "merit selection" (as opposed to election of judges) "improve[s] the judiciary." That being said, O'Connor's argument could very well carry the day in Tennessee . . . even though it shouldn't. Our Constitution (Art. VI, Sec. III) explicitly dictates popular elections for judges, as it does for other state offices.

Say thanks to the Troops

Regardless of your view on this war, I encourage you to visit this site to say thanks to someone serving in Iraq.


H/T: The Corner.

Bill Clinton and statism

This (here) is a cool piece (a slide show w/ audio) from TheAtlantic.com about Bill Clinton's philanthropic work since leaving office. And the "since leaving office" part what's interesting to me.

It is encouraging to hear what Clinton has been able to accomplish as a citizen and not a government actor (though, obviously, your typical citizen cannot pick up the phone and reach the CEOs of GE and Wal-Mart). Gov't is not known for its soft touch.

Dobson leaning Huckabee? (Updated)

Updated below . . .

Interesting report from the American Spectator ("Huckabee's Salvation"):

"Dr. James Dobson, who has largely been made irrelevant to the 2008 Republican presidential race, has apparently found his man, and according to an adviser, is ready to change the landscape of the Republican nomination race.

'He is the leader of the evangelical and social conservative movement in America, and he's going to reassert that position and leave no doubt that he's in charge,' says the adviser based in Colorado.

Sources close to Dobson say that within the next ten days he is coordinating an endorsement plan with the presidential campaign of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. According to a Huckabee insider in Iowa, the event would be staged in that state at a rally, followed by a bus tour across the state, and an appearance by Huckabee on Dobson's radio show, which is heard nationally."

A variety of voices have questioned the significance of Pat Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani, but there's little question about Dobson's enduring influence within the Religious Conservative movement.

Tip o' the hat to The Maritime Sentry.


UPDATE: Public denials from all sides . . . but private, unnamed sources standing by their story. Also, this article reports that Don Wildmon (Pres. of American Family Association) has endorsed Huckabee.

Dogma's bark is worse than its bite

Well, I read some of the stuff linked by William in the comments of my "Debate over. Not." post. There's a lot of impressive-sounding scientific bluster (a lot of it is obfuscation, I perceive--this is part of an agenda, folks, just listen to William), but this "myth debunking" was pretty weak. ("Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming" - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment. They write:

"Ice cores from Antarctica show that at the end of recent ice ages, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere usually started to rise only after temperatures had begun to climb. There is uncertainty about the timings, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice, but it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more. This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages – but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet."

Well, maybe Al Gore isn't a climate scientist, but I must have missed the press release where he was rebuked for making that assertion. And I have to beg to differ with the assertion that this assertion--if true, "does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet." Sure it does; why did Al Gore use the stat?

If you read the entire attempted "debunking" (I know, it's a pain, but the alarmists are hoping you'll just take their word for it) you see a whole lot weaselly language. Not real worthy of dogmatism, frankly.

The debate is over. Not.

Gimme a break, Al Gore.



Hat tip: Dave Oatney.

Bush on recent GOP endorsements

The Volunteer Dispatch:

"If evangelical Christians are as powerful a voting bloc as has been made out by the media, it should be the candidates making concessions, not the other way around. It shouldn't matter who Pat Robertson or James Dobson endorse because it should be readily apparent which candidates will best represent the values of evangelicals based on the issues."

What Jay said.

Lead, follow or act like you're leading

I haven't had time the last two days to dig into the subject, but I'm in a bit of a funk hearing about some recent high-profile endorsements: from Pat Robertson, Sam Brownback and Paul Weyrich. Something that has concerned me from the beginning of this presidential election cycle (or the day after the 2006 election when McCain announced his candidacy) was the pressure that some people feel to commit to a candidate early so that they can ultimately be credited with the candidate's success. Too often "leaders" are scrambling to get out in front of an issue or campaign and it is unseemly in my opinion. One of the things that impressed me about a Jeb Bush interview (via Bill Hobbs) was his statement that he wasn't endorsing any of the GOP candidates.

It is almost impossible to discern when a person's motives for endorsing a candidate are less than sterling, so I've focused--with my little soapbox, on preventing poorly-motivated endorsements. But this Huckabee statement on Weyrich's endorsement of Romney brought to mind one of Huckabee's strengths as a candidate . . . his consistency: (Huckabee campaign sets the record straight with Paul Weyrich)

"Former AR Governor and Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee said he was disappointed that one of his political mentors endorsed another Republican candidate based on information that was factually incorrect. 'I love Paul Weyrich and he has been a political mentor to me. It hurts that he has accepted some misinformation as fact, but I will forever respect and appreciate him. I will continue to support Paul even if he doesn't support me, ' Huckabee said. 'One thing is for sure---when I was a 23 year old communications director for a Christian organization that helped launch Christian involvement in public affairs, Paul Weyrich was one of my heroes and I'll bet in the late 70's and 80's Mitt Romney wasn't listening to cassette tapes of Paul Weyrich speeches like I was. '"

Even when candidates hold views that contradict a certain constituency, I believe they get major credit from voters when they acknowledge that contradiction and don't gloss over it or obfuscate their past or present views. I've noted from the beginning that one of Giuiliani's strengths has been his straightforward handling of "controversial" (within the GOP) policy stances. Unless you're the candidate, no candidate is going to agree with you on everything, so a candidate/potential leader must mitigate the disagreements.

I also think that Huckabee is someone who has been straightforward about perceived disagreements with various constituencies . . . granted it isn't as big of a news story because he hasn't been the front-runner like Giuiliani or Romney and--most importantly, his past and present disagreements (with the base) pale in comparison to those of the others in the "top-tier." But the fact that Huckabee has been so consistent on his views--like them or not, is strong evidence that he hasn't had a "Road to Des Moines" experience and is less likely to have similar "experiences" in the future.

Thompson, talk radio and talking trash

Maybe they're right about talk radio.

This morning I wasted 25 cell phone minutes waiting to speak truth to power on the state-wide talk radio program "Talk of Tennessee" hosted by Steve Gill. As I waited, Gill kept ratcheting up the rhetoric . . . and then the show ended before he took my call. Here's some of what I was going to say:

Gill (who, incidentally, wrote a flattering book about Fred Thompson's likely presidential run: The Fred Factor) was defending Thompson from critics like Mike Huckabee who have been questioning Thompson's convictions on a host of so-called social issues (actually, I had yet to hear of the criticism until Gill spoke about it on the radio--apparently Huckabee is getting some traction in the campaign). Thompson is staking out a position that Federal action on a host of issues is unwise and even--depending on the particular issue, unconstitutional. Well, that's where he's wrong. Or at least Steve Gill is wrong when he asserts that Huckabee doesn't care about the Constitution because he thinks it ought to be amended to protect human life in the womb (Gill also repeatedly questioned the motives and the sincerity of "supposedly pro-life" activists; very insulting, but I don't have time to address that now).

First, the Constitution provides for an amendment process. If a person thinks a right--such as the right to live, ought to be spelled out in the Constitution, then that person can attempt to amend the Constitution to include that right. There are certain principles or rights the protection of which is legitimately not left to the discretion of the States . . . "life" is reasonably considered one of those rights. That's fine if Thompson doesn't think it is, but it is not fine to assert that it is anti-Federalist to acknowledge the existence of such rights or unconstitutional to attempt to amend the Constitution to recognize such rights.

Second, Thompson's reaction (and that of some present supporters) is doing little to assuage the concern of voters who think that abortion is "not a government issue" (as Thompson asserted in his first run for the U.S. Senate) or something that is okay in some states and not okay in other states. Thompson has been straddling the issue of abortion since entering public life. I really resent someone tearing me a new one for wanting more than a pat answer regarding Thompson's views on an issue that is very important to me.

Which leads me to this WaPo article on the subject. In GOP Race, Blurring the Lines in the Abortion Debate | The Trail | washingtonpost.com:

"The simple way to look at the abortion divide in the Republican race is Rudy against the rest: one abortion rights supporter against a field of abortion opponents. But take a closer look and the distinctions begin to blur -- not in whether other leading candidates support a woman's right to choose or believe abortion should be outlawed in most or all circumstances, but in what each might do about it as president.

On that question, Thompson and Giuliani and the others are not so far apart. This became clearer on Sunday when Thompson appeared on NBC's 'Meet The Press' as part of the candidates' right (sic) of passage with host Tim Russert. Russert grilled Thompson at some length on abortion and in the course of the discussion, Thompson said two things of note:

First, he said that, as a senator, he had a '100 percent pro-life' voting record. Second, he said that he does not support the Republican Party's platform plank on abortion, which calls for passage of a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution."

First, though I'm glad that Thompson voted the "right" on abortion when he was in the U.S. Senate, the National Right to Life Committee's legislative scorecard on abortion (or any scorecard, for that matter) is only useful for predicting how someone would vote (assuming, of course, that the person didn't "evolve" on the issue as is common these days) on issues that came up for a vote before him/her while they were in office. The issues--or aspects of a given issue, can be rather narrow depending on the particular period during which the person served, frankly.

Second, as I detailed above, I hope Thompson (and his supporters) can appreciate that a Pro-life voter views abortion as different than laws on marijuana use or insurance regulation or speed limits. It is reasonable--as Gill argued this morning, to assert that Thompson's idea of a Federalist approach would spare more human life than holding out for a nationwide ban on abortion, but please forgive us for being reticent in acceding to a legal position that we vehemently disagree with.

I may very well end up supporting Thompson out of all those in the current GOP field, but I won't be persuaded by disingenuous and/or pugnacious treatment by him or his supporters.

Great stump speech

I heard today that Stephen Colbert has announced he won't be seeking the presidency, but I came across this inspiring, hopeful, educational stump speech from his short-lived campaign. Enjoy . . .

The Purpose Driven Post

Okay, for those of you who think Rick Warren hung the moon (that is, since he started making greenish comments--by the way, what's with a media company so blatantly propagandizing on controversial Environmental issues? but I digress . . .), here's what he had to say about Mike Huckabee:

“I know most of the candidates running for president but I’ve known Mike Huckabee the longest, since we did our graduate degrees together in the late 70s. Mike’s a man of vision, compassion, and integrity. I’ve watched his uncanny ability to identify with normal people in ways that many leaders don’t. That’s probably why TIME named him one of the five best governors in America. He’s definitely presidential material. But honestly, what I find most appealing is his self-deprecating humor. That’s a key sign of a spiritually and emotionally healthy leader - someone who is comfortable with himself, is authentic, doesn’t wear a mask, and is secure enough to be humble. People love that.”"

Btw, I like Warren and I know this side comment might take some of the sheen off of Warren's glowing comments about Huckabee, but I can't resist commenting on this (grandiose) subtitle on Warren's site: "Want to learn more about Rick Warren's historic plan to tackle the global giants of spiritual lostness, egocentric leadership, poverty, disease, and illiteracy?" Reminded me of this Onion article about John Edwards.

Would Chuck Baldwin vote for Jesus?

I don't know who Chuck Baldwin is, but apparently he is a pastor, apparently he is a Christian and apparently he's backing someone other than Mike Huckabee for president.

Pastor Baldwin, at the Christian site "NewswithViews.com," is casting Mike Huckabee as a bogeyman. (Chuck Baldwin -- "Christians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee") As the old political adage goes, it is a good sign when your competition starts aiming for you (or however that old political adage goes); so Huckabee's people can take some comfort at hit pieces like this one. But there is another positive aspect of this op/ed.

Among other damning quotes marshaled in the article is one from Phyllis Schlafly, a pillar of the Social Conservative movement. Chuck Baldwin writes:

"President and Founder of Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly, said this about Governor Huckabee: 'He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles.' She went on to say, 'Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee.'"

Guilt by association (especially when the principal "guilty" party has acquitted himself ably in many respects to Religious Conservatives) is specious; however, upon reading the quote, I had a question for Schlafly: "Which candidate are the other evangelicals (who sold you on Dubya but are not trying to sell you on Huckabee) trying to sell you on this go 'round?"

And that's the real issue or challenge we face: How do you pick a presidential candidate from among a host of candidates--none of whom are Jesus? (You non-believers can substitute whomever--I won't speculate who, you believe to be the ideal person for "Jesus").

No, I'm not saying that Mike Huckabee is Jesus. But the truth is that every candidate has strengths and weaknesses, and there are a host of political issues about which there is no definitive Christian or Biblical position. Indeed, I would submit that even Jesus (if He were running as a sort of heavenly Manchurian Candidate and we didn't know He was God in the Flesh) would somehow rub each of us the wrong way . . .

hat-tip: Miguel Diocuore.

"Inquisiting" minds want to know

Hugh Hewitt has a great post ("great" except for his assertions toward the end that Huckabee has been slinging coded, anti-Mormon barbs in the campaign) ("Mike Huckabee with Bill O'Reilly") about arguably illegitimate religious questions being thrown at folks like Huckabee and Romney. From Hewitt's post:

"The interview was conducted during my show yesterday, so I could only see some text as the mute button was on. I think Bill asked the governor if he really believed in Adam and Eve. The answer doesn't matter to me so much as what the question represents: A huge breach in the previously widely respected understanding that such questions are not asked of presidential candidates and, if asked, politely turned aside as inappropriate in a nation built on the premise that religious tests are unconstitutional in law and that politics is best kept very clear of theological disputes appropriate to church debates and academic settings."

Know-it-all-ism

Ronald Bailey of Reason Magazine has taken to quoting religious people to impugn Mike Huckabee (Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > "Choosing Between Science and God: The Mike Huckabee Story") . . . "hit and run" is right.

Bailey relies on this exchange from Salon Magazine to score make his point,

A reporter asked Huckabee how he thought his views -- including his view on evolution -- might play in the general election.

"Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do," [Huckabee] said. "In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don't think there's a conflict between the two. But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict."

Bailey's quote of Huckabee (not to be confused with the really impressive, though mostly inapposite, quote from St. Augustine that followed) relates to the evolving (though I would probably assert it is simply varying or shifting) nature of science . . . especially given the politicization of science in our day. Huckabee probably should have used the term "scientific hypotheses" instead of "science" but Bailey is just itching to prove Huckabee's "know-nothingism."

And you can save your "NASA scientist [felt uncomfortable] in Bush administration [some of whose members happened to think there might be a God]" links. When I say "politicization" I am referencing the use and abuse of an increasingly sacrosanct field of "science" to support political objectives. Global warming alarmism comes to mind.

Bailey is beside himself in linking to a poll showing that a majority of Republicans say that they don't believe in evolution. Well, if "evolution" means to Republicans what Bailey seems to think it does--that there is nothing beyond the physical or natural world, then I would say that the Republicans (and Americans in general--Democrats weren't far behind Republicans on this point) in question are more open-minded than Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Righteous addresses his critic

To begin with, I just checked, and my AuntB hotline inbox is empty, so I guess I'll respond here at the ol' blog.

Playing a fine blogdom Nurse Ratchet (that's an interesting metaphor--the Nashville blogosphere as One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest) has called me out regarding some sentiments expressed of late. ("The Bitchass Tyrant Addresses Her Critics" « Tiny Cat Pants).

I don't have much time to craft transitions and such, so here goes with the bulleted response.

1. If the shoe fits. You weren't the subject of my post (I can only remember reading a comment from you at MCB once, and I don't remember the subject or what you said). Consequently, the "community theatre" comment wasn't written with you in mind. And pardon the title of this bullet, I had to think of something.

2. My opinion, and I do have one. You were the subject of some of my comments at MCB on the matter, but only after several fawning comments that seemed to need some perspective--my perspective, applied to them. I hope people will take the time to read the entire thread (I know, it's a long one, but do it out of love for Community).

3. Unbecomingness. I don't balk at expletives or otherwise explicit conversation because the person spouting it is a woman or a feminist or even a Liberal. It's the language. It's the subject matter. Now that's not to say that I don't see something funny or insightful or even profound behind the clutter at times, but I won't deny that it is offensive and wearying. I don't hear that language in my daily life; I don't use that language; it is a distraction (at best) and an irritant (at worst). William (who made a surprisingly misogynistic comment over the past couple days) may have different expectations for e-interaction, but not me.

4. Dogmatism. Hopefully you can respect that others may believe certain "immutable truths" which are different than your own and that espousing said convictions may deeply offend and/or hurt people. I don't think that it qualifies as "prickly ridiculousness and bull-headed hurtfulness" to communicate that. Just be glad you don't have to live with me and have control of when you have to hear dissenting opinions.

5. Thinking hard. My point, and nm misunderstood it as well, was that someone with my views won't get much grace or benefit of the doubt on your site . . . no mulligans or do-overs. Not only that, (to continue with the sports metaphors) almost any pitch towards a batter on your team that may wander up and in will be perceived as a bean ball, so folks like me have to walk on egg shells to avoid ratcheting up the debate. Now bench-clearing brawls certainly draw attention, but I would generally rather play the game than do the fighting, so I try to avoid inciting something . . . and that takes rumination.

6. Coyly not naming names. Gosh it's easy to call people out in the e-world, but I that doesn't mean that I should do it. (see "ratcheting up" reference above). I didn't bring your name up, but I did have an opinion about what was said by those who did bring your name up. Surely you're aware that your posts tend to be a little blue from time to time? Certainly you are aware that some of the things you write might be kind of off-putting to those who disagree with you? I will admit that I implied that a difference in tone (slight, but perceivable nonetheless) from your posts to your comments with said posts hinted at inflammatory-ness for effect, but I pretty much will stand by that assertion. But your site, unlike MCB, isn't intended to build a "Community" (the word is starting to grate on me now) out of persons spread along the political/ideological spectrum, so that's fine with me.

It has been fun talking . . . may I go now?