Whaddya say, Roger?

Maybe you're not looking for it, but Anne Coulter has written the best (worst?) smack-down of McCain for President you'll find. ("'Straight Talk' Express Takes Scenic Route to Truth" - HUMAN EVENTS). Maybe you're not looking for it because you aren't interested in voting for Romney, Paul or Huckabee (did I really just include Ron Paul in the list of persons you can vote for in the GOP presidential primary?). Maybe you're not looking for it because you believe McCain when he says he has changed his mind about the litany of non-Republican or non-Conservative political stances in his (not too distant) past. Coulter details and documents the litany.

Fellow Tennessean Roger Abramson has scolded Republicans who can't bring themselves to support John McCain.* That's fine. And just as I don't owe him an answer about whom I'm supporting, neither does he owe me an answer, but I am curious which of the two reasons justifies his support--at this stage, for McCain. Of course, there's at least one other reason for supporting McCain . . . some people just don't buy all this Conservative stuff when push comes to shove.




*Incidentally, another local Conservative (no offense intended Roger)--Nathan Moore, agreed with Roger at the time, but Nathan has now come out in support of Romney.

Who's hurting the Reagan Coalition?

This story from Orlando (Mike Huckabee for President - Newsroom) is an example of Mike Huckabee's seemingly unique abilities (efforts?) to appeal to what used to be called "Reagan Democrats." For the first time in its 119-year history, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers is "endorsing" a Republican primary candidate.

I'm not sure whether it is because Huckabee, alone among the GOP candidates, is willing to speak to such audiences (ref. NH chapter of the National Education Association); or whether it is his message, but it does resonate with me that the Conservative (or modern-day Republican) message would be appealing to such audiences if they heard it from the right messenger or were just willing to listen to the messenger. It makes me wonder if a lot of our failure to appeal to traditional Democratic audiences is simply because we don't try.

This is an issue of rhetoric, I'd say, and I've long perceived that much of the criticism of Huckabee is related to the fact that he articulates his policy views in a way that is inoffensive to "non-Republicans."

Thompson campaign autopsy

Jeff Woods correctly discerns (in my humble opinion) why Fred Thompson's campaign never gained traction. (Nashville Scene - Pith in the Wind - "Why Fred Lost"):

"But here’s the most important reason Thompson’s campaign never caught on—social conservatives weren’t buying it. Evangelicals were turned off by Romney, McCain and Giuliani, and didn’t think Huckabee could win. So the big rationale for Thompson's candidacy in the first place was that he was going to unite the Christian Right.

That was faulty logic, as anyone who knows Thompson should have realized. He isn’t pure enough in his opinions for most social conservatives. While not exactly pro-choice, he’s never been for doing much of anything to stop abortions. He’s opposed to a constitutional amendment on the issue. It didn’t help when it came out during the campaign that he once lobbied for Planned Parenthood. To evangelicals, he’s weak on same-sex marriage, too. He says he’s against it, but wants to leave the issue to the states.

Once his positions became known, conservative Christians went with Huckabee who, unlike Fred, actually goes to church. And that was that for Thompson, an ending that in hindsight was entirely predictable."

Hat tip, Volunteer Voters.

Hey Haynes, Who you calling an "extremist"?

State Senator Joe Haynes (Democrat from Nashville) issued a press release today calling the Senators sponsoring SJR-127 "extremists." He also called the senators "out of touch with the opinion of a majority of Tennesseans." Hmmm.

SJR-127 is a proposed Constitutional Amendment to clarify that what is not in the Tennessee Constitution (the right of abortion on demand) is really not in the Constitution. In a weakly-reasoned holding from 2000 (Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee v. Sundquist), a majority of the Tennessee Supreme Court held that abortion is part of an implied right to privacy protected in the Tennessee Constitution and not at all contingent on the U.S. Constitution. Further, the opinion departed from Federal precedent in saying that abortion was a fundamental "right"; thus, any law touching on the grisly act would have to pass the highest standard of judicial review.

Some Senators--who happen to think that unborn human life is worthy of protection, also think that Sundquist was a textbook case of legislating from the bench and have committed to the arduous task (even moreso in our State) of amending the Constitution. For those of you who don't know, the final step of amending Tennessee's constitution is a state-wide referendum on the proposed amendment (read: letting voters register their opinion).

Well, Sen. Haynes is opposing a public debate, not to mention a public vote, on the issue of what protections for abortion should be in our constitution. And Senator Haynes also voted against parental consent (for minors getting abortions) in 1995, against a prohibition of Partial-Birth Abortion in 1997 and against authorization of a specialty "Choose Life" license plate in 2003.

Gee, who is the "extremist" here?

Theocrat my ear

I was a bit out of pocket at the end of last week, so I didn't get the opportunity to respond to the religion-baiting based on Mike Huckabee's "easier to amend the constitution" statement from last week.

Take a deep breath, Libs. You, too, squishies. Huckabee's comment (which is either intentionally or ignorantly quoted without context) was in reference to claims by some Republicans that attempting to pass a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not possible, or not wise (or whatever). Frankly, I think that various Republicans have discovered "Federalism" as a Stephen Douglas-like middle ground on issues like abortion and homosexual marriage. "I'm not for slavery, I'm just for Federalism." Okay, whatever. But back to Huckabee.

Huckabee thinks that humans in the womb are deserving of protection. This conclusion is based on the sacredness of innocent human life as nobly advanced in the Bible (aka "the living Word of God"). Of course, there are compelling non-Biblical, scientific, secularly philosophical bases for protecting innocent human life prior to birth (bases for which "Pro-Choicers" likewise have no compelling answer). Were Jim Crow laws consistent with the Bible? How about the laws upheld in the Dred Scott decision?

In the context of questioning whether Christians should ignore fundamental values (like, say, the ones that motivated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to demand social change) because they happen to be rooted in the Christian faith or because they may require some hard work . . . the answer's kind of obvious, isn't it?

Why not McCain?

George Will opines about John McCain and provides some perspective for the "wide open" Republican primary race ("Waiting for Straight Talk"). I'm not sure that he can be accused of not "talking straight" for espousing his all-over-the-map political views (historically and even in the present). I think he's just being himself--a career politician with a seemingly undisciplined mind, respected by almost all Americans for his pre-political biography and beloved of the MSM for his propensity to make mischief in the opposing political party.

Crossover voter intimidation?

The Caucus Blog (NYTimes) is reporting that Republicans are intimidating voters in Nevada . . . oh wait, those are Democrats; uh, carry on.

Kicking the snot out of that strawman

Writer Jeffrey Lord has a rambling, bullying op/ed at The American Spectator On-line about some Mike Huckabee statements in reference to American corporate greed as reflected in CEO salaries. I say "bullying" (and "rambling") because Lord spends way too much of the piece beating up on a strawman . . . perhaps he's actually building the strawman for most of that copy--I don't know.

But the important thing to remember is that such rhetoric is usually called forth in service to some other purpose, and it isn't "Conservatism" with a capital "C" or "the movement" (unless you're referring to a particular candidate). I will say up front that populist rhetoric from a candidate raises a red flag with me. That's probably because Democrats have long used those words or themes to demonize the affluent, foster class envy and argue for redistributing wealth (read: trusting gov't to determine what is a fair distribution of material things). Jeffrey Lord hammers that point and loosely connects it with allowing gov't to determine whether human life in the womb should be protected). From the beginning of his article:

"CEO pay and abortion.

On the surface, there would appear to be no connection. But that appearance would be wrong.

One of the more startling aspects of this GOP primary season is to hear a serious Republican candidate like Arkansas ex-Governor Mike Huckabee make an issue of executive pay in the private sector. Huckabee is not thrilled at the salaries paid various CEO's (not, I should say, this one!) by the freely elected boards of directors of free market companies. He leaves hanging the populist implication: let the government decide who gets paid how much compensation."

But as I've observed this campaign and thought about the 2006 campaign and witnessed how the Left (and its willing accomplice--the MSM) has much of the populace effectively sensitized to inequities in our system and in our economy. That's fine; nothing new there, but the problem comes when we (Conservatives or Republicans) categorically dismiss concerns about inequities in economic outcomes while ignoring inequities in economic policy. So-called "corporate welfare" and government bailouts and corporate lobbying scandals reflect that government is very involved in how corporations are run and how much profit corporations "make" and so on and so on. Something can be wrong or immoral and still legal. And law or government policy is a mishmash of such distinctions.

Mike Huckabee isn't proposing--as Jeffrey Lord and other interested parties have implied, that government regulate the salaries of CEOs. But what Huckabee is saying sure resonates with almost all those Americans who are not able to have their cake and eat it, too when it comes to advocating for a market free of government interference.

Paul Supporters Target Fox News . . . and Republicans

This article about how Ronbots were mobilizing against FoxNews caught my eye a week or so ago. Ron Paul's supporters are indeed impressive--for their idealism if not for their ingeniousness. That being said, unfortunately (for Paul's supporters), their candidate's message is not resonating with voters--despite respectable fundraising . . . despite tireless politicking by supporters. Because I have long felt that paring down the number of candidates in debates is essential to have meaningful debates, it is completely appropriate to begin weeding out un-credible candidates.

But I thought this comment about why Ron Paul deserved to be included in any GOP debate was hilarious. Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Paul Supporters Target Fox News:

"An accomodation should be made for Ron Paul. His supporters are highly educated (but not necessarily via the formal route of college), have studied his voting history, have read his policy proposals, and have judged his ethical standard to be acceptable. Though polls indicate that Paul ranks in the high single digits, the quality of Paul’s supporters is extremely high.
.
By contrast, most supporters of the other candidates ignore the voting records of the candidates, ignore their policy proposals, and shockingly ignore their ethical standards. What counts for these supporters is gotcha’s, imagery, and glitz. Just look at all the dumb image posturing before the start of the Iowa caucuses. That posturing occurs because the candidates know that the typical American (who enthusiastically supported sending a too small military force of 170,000 soldiers to Iraq) is an ignorant fool who is easily swayed by some sound bites."

Attaboy . . . that's how you attract support. And there's even more to this comment. Is it any wonder that most Conservatives aren't interested in Paul? That sounds like a comment from a Liberal, pseudo-intellectual if there ever was one.

Club for Loathing

This video clip kind of reflects the suspect obsession of Club for Growth's Pat Toomey with Mike Huckabee--even the host (Chris Matthews) seems to point it out.

It's one thing to pick between two candidates in a primary so as to advance a group's particular issue (actually, CfG is one of the few special interests who is willing to do this--to their credit) but targeting a single candidate in a crowded field of candidates with inarguably mixed records on economic policy is, frankly, suspicious.

No offense intended, AuntB

I've been having a "dialogue" with AuntB and others over at her place the past two days (Can’t We Just All Accept that Campfield Genuinely Cares? « Tiny Cat Pants). This all started as AuntB responded to a statement (I think) by State Rep. Stacey Campfield in which he compared America's 30-some-year policy of abortion on demand to the travesties of the Holocaust and slavery in America. You can read AuntB's response yourself, but suffice it to say, she's majorly offended. That's fine; that's not unexpected; but she goes further than that.

I can't speak for Rep. Stacey Campfield and whether or not he does in fact simultaneously oppose abortion and "care" about women and children (not to mention the men who impregnate a woman and want her to get an abortion!), and I think I kind of stepped into the middle of someone else's fight. However, I do have to challenge AuntB's conclusion that (a) if I support outlawing a particular act I have some obligation to accommodate those who are prohibited from doing said act and who had reasons--any reasons, for wanting to do said act, or (b) if I think that abortion is wrong--that it is homicide even, that I have disdain or spite for anyone who has reached a different conclusion.

Legally speaking, if a society concludes that an act ought to be prohibited, and if said act is not a protected right, then we can prohibit the act without regard to the consequences a prohibition may have, assuming the consequences don't infringe on some protected right. Morally and practically speaking, it may be appropriate to offer alternatives to persons who are affected by said law--for example, we outlaw theft, but provide charity through gov't and charitable organizations (my church and Nashville Rescue Mission, as examples) to persons who may perceive that they have no alternatives to theft. And there are almost always non-fatal alternatives to abortion--some available through the charity of others, some available to all persons depending on their resolve to avert an abortion.

Regarding how I view persons who disagree with me on this issue, gee, it's difficult to say. I believe that abortion is understandably a complicated moral issue. Legally speaking, the unborn human is not a "person" until s/he is born, and the unborn human is wholly within the body of the pregnant woman. Spiritually speaking, there are varying opinions about whether an unborn human has a "soul" or merits the same treatment as a born human being. Biologically speaking, again, the unborn human is completely dependent on the pregnant woman and wholly within the pregnant woman. Emotionally or relationally speaking, there's no doubt that a woman (and often even the mate of the woman) feels desperation when facing an unwanted pregnancy. And to be sure, those persons who have made the choice to get an abortion often have an emotional stake in defending the morality or moral neutrality of the act. Some don't feel guilty, but some do.

I have anti-abortion arguments (compelling, of course!) on each of those areas, but can appreciate that others reach different conclusions. Though I can appreciate their view, I still have concluded that unborn humans deserve some protection in the law. I don't per se look down on someone making the choice of getting an abortion or advocating in favor of unrestricted access to abortion, no more than--say, AuntB looks down on those who vote for Republicans, but as a Christian I think I am certainly called to treat those with whom I disagree respectfully and with a view toward winning them over to my (perceived) correct point of view.

But I think this raises an interesting question. Is it possible to disagree without spite? This is certainly an example of Liberals struggling with the concept of civil disagreement, (AuntB as well as various of the commenters on this issue), and I'm sure that my Liberal readers will point out examples of Conservatives doing it, but--come on folks. Related to the issue of abortion, maybe Campfield is guilty of more than simply reaching different political conclusions than AuntB. I doubt it, but I don't know. But I do know that there are a lot of people who think unborn humans deserve protections and it's not because they hate women or are using the issue so as to control people's lives or they think that women are stupid.

No offense intended, AuntB . . . sincerely.

Okay, this bothers me

Earlier today, Sen. Barack Obama was asked by a reporter, "If you win tonight, do you consider yourself the front-runner?" Obama paused and said,

"My name is Barack Obama, I uh, I am never a front-runner; I am always the underdog."

I think it is hard to say that he was making a joke (watch for yourself). I can't believe that it is some false modesty related to his abilities or talent. I don't think it was some tongue-in-cheek reference to how candidates should answer questions (again, watch for yourself). It seem to me that this is a reference to how foreign his name sounds, and how disadvantaged he is as a result.

There's no doubt that Barack Obama's name is not what a political consultant would have chosen, and there's no doubt that some people will balk at voting for a racial or ethnic minority, but I think it is bad form for someone to seek sympathy on that basis--especially a candidate whose platform is about bringing us all together.

That being said, dang, he gave a good, inspiring speech tonight in NH.

I'm not sure we want to hear this . . .

There will be (perhaps) unprecedented scrutiny of local (Nashville) government in the wake of the Davidson County Election Commission's security breach . . . are you sure we can handle the truth? ("Metro billed for time when security guards were not on duty" on Nashville City Paper)

"For three months last year the building that houses the Davidson County Election Commission was not guarded on Saturdays, but Metro was being billed anyway.

According to information released by Mayor Karl Dean’s office, preliminary findings in the building security audit currently underway by the Department of General Services indicate contracted security guards may not have been on duty during all of the hours billed for services at the Metro Office building that houses the Election Commission."

She didn't faint, she swooned

Top of the Ticket : Los Angeles Times : Barack Obama, Larry David and the fainting woman*:

"Barack Obama's first and only rally on election day came to a sudden and lengthy stop when a young woman in the Dartmouth College gym fainted, and was eventually rolled off on a gurney by emergency medical technicians."

An Obama political consultant was on hand, though:

A gum-chomping Larry David, in town to help with Obama's get-out-the-vote campaign, paced the edge of the student-filled gym, muttering. "How can I restrain myself?" he said to anyone who would listen. "I have such a great line.... Should I yell something out?"

Finally, he did: "Sinatra had the same effect on people!" "I was trying to break the tension," he said later. "I don't think they knew who Sinatra was."

Gee, is Larry David giving advice to the Edwards campaign?

Weakest link of a "coalition"

This is what irritates me about McCain (The Corner on National Review Online):

"If Independents go with Obama over Clinton instead of voting in the GOP primary, McCain could be denied a crucial victory tomorrow."

It's fine to have "Independents" jump on your bandwagon, but how reliable a (Republican) coalition partner is someone who could as easily vote for McCain as Obama?

Briley? It's not his divorce . . .

I don't want to nitpick this story ("Local attorney may battle Briley for District 52 seat" on Nashville City Paper)about Nashville attorney Mike Stewart's decision to run for a seat currently held by Rob Briley, but this sentence really annoyed me: :

"Stewart is not alone. At least one other local lawyer announced his intention to run earlier last week, and Briley’s decision about whether to seek re-election is still up in the air after a year that included a very high-profile DUI conviction and an accompanying personal scandal centered on his recent divorce."

(emphasis mine). Later in the story, Clint Brewer references Briley's alleged extramarital affair with a lobbyist to the House committee chaired by Briley, but some people will never read that far into the story . . .

Romney not as eager

I posted below about Romney's exceptional handling of several Ron Paul assertions in last night's debate (as a long-shot candidate he too often gets a kid glove treatment).

But Romney's performance in general was much improved it seems to me. Romney struck me as someone who might be tired of the eager beaver routine, by which I mean the unique job interview quality of a political campaign: seeming eager, energetic and yet competent and capable of leading. There's a fine line between demonstrating energy and brown-nosing primary voters, and Romney has seemed--to date, to be on the wrong side of that line.

That being said, the big story coming out of the 1/5/08 GOP debate is how Romney was targeted by all the other candidates, and Romney fared well I think. Perhaps it was the smaller number of candidates on stage, or the fact that they were seated next to each other, or the way it was moderated, or something else, but personal barbs (particularly the scripted ones) really fell flat in this debate (even though at least one person on the stage--it seemed like McCain, generally laughed at Mitt's ox being gored). And because Romney was on the receiving end of those barbs, he was able to seem like the adult in the room--he was too busy taking punches to jab back. He certainly could have laughed off the attempted cut downs, but I think it was better for him to highlight how superficial, petty and unproductive a zinger-based debate is. I think the average voter cannot believe that candidates are not "stung" or at least miffed by attacks or negative campaign rhetoric.

I believe that Romney--as an over-achieving, super-talented, pedigreed fellow--had made it his mission to become President, and once you hire a slew of political consultants you get all kinds of input intended to tweak your personality and presentation. You don't accomplish what Romney has in life by being an eager beaver. While I think that Romney had to "evolve" on certain policies in order secure the GOP nomination, I also think he must strive for authenticity in the remainder of this campaign.

Romney rocks Ron's world (view)

From the clips I have seen, Mitt Romney did a splendid job in the New Hampshire debate last evening: (here and here) he demonstrated the foolishness of Ron Paul's foreign policy--particularly re. Jihadism (actually Paul cooperated in this endeavor).

Here he defended (from Populist Poseur McCain, not Paul, I think) "BigPharma" as an industry that provides a valuable product in America (and worldwide). I perceive that this measured, reasonable, "moderate" (though not in the worst sense) performance is how he is at his core . . . which is different than the type of person that emerges from a debate-prep makeover.

And it is good to have Paul in these debates inasmuch as his comments/statements/positions (especially when fully-fleshed out) are like big, fat fast balls out over the plate for the other GOP candidates.

She's definitely tough enough

You may be tired of Hillary Clinton (I am), and you (Lefties) may not think she is Liberal enough, but you should never doubt her resolve or her spine or her icy effectiveness. Along those lines, the Drudge Report linked to this knee to the groin during tonight's Democratic debate:

Picking a candidate

Party politics are fascinating to me. Why? Because of the organic/complex process by which people pick a candidate. You could call it "messy."

And the process for special interest groups is almost as messy. I've commented extensively on the Club for Growth and its extraordinary opposition to a single candidate--Huckabee, early in the GOP primaries.

And today I've gotten several emails noting Fred Thompson's endorsement by pro-life organizations in Wyoming and New Hampshire. This follows the November endorsement of Thompson by the National Right to Life Committee.

In November, the largest factor in the process was Giuliani's perceived front-runner status, and the importance of folks-for-whom-Giuliani-was-not-acceptable (for policy or other reasons) coalescing behind another candidate so as to deny Giuliani the nomination. For Social Conservatives (wary of Romney's reliability and averse to McCain) Thompson seemed like the best bet at the time, and the NRLC even said at the time that he was the most electable candidate. And "single issue" organizations are rarely "single issue" inasmuch as they have to consider the issue of whether a candidate could ever be in a position to influence policy.

Well, today the landscape is different. Huckabee, once viewed by Social Conservatives as a hopeless underdog, is well-positioned to get the nomination, and his record is plainly, demonstrably more "Pro-life" than that of any of the other credible candidates. There is more information available about him and his record at this juncture, but the same can be said of all the candidates (and I'd submit that the information is not as cut and dried as many pretend).

So, "single-issue" Social Conservative organizations, by choosing someone these groups either (a) are more interested in other issues on which Huckabee is purportedly "weak": immigration and spending or (b) are concerned that Huckabee cannot win in a general election or (c) view Huckabee as too independent of them (read: less dependent on their endorsement). Or it could be a combination of these factors . . . see how complicated this is?

I'd say that emphasizes the respect and charitableness with which we should treat others' good-faith conclusions in a primary race.

Mean what you say . . . and don't be mean

Byron York reports ('Byron York on Iowa Caucus" on National Review Online) about the Iowa campaigns of Huckabee and Romney and hints at what is perhaps the key to Huckabee's success:

"[Romney Spokesman Eric] Fehrnstrom, like the rest of Romney’s team, was unfailingly professional. But his analysis pointed to a blind spot in the Romney campaign, a blind spot most likely shared by the candidate himself. For all his money, and all his energy, and all his organizational skills, Romney could not put to rest the doubts many Iowa Republicans felt about his genuineness, or lack of genuineness. As they paid more attention to politics in the days leading up to the caucuses, some of those voters came to believe that Huckabee had more of that indefinable something that they want in a candidate. In the end, the race wasn’t about infrastructure at all — something Romney never figured out but Huckabee knew all along."

I think that Huckabee's appeal actually hinges on his seemingly un-Conservative message and--here's the point, his willingness to stand by those sentiments. His famous line, "I'm Conservative, I'm just not angry about it," encapsulates this quality well.

Now I'm not convinced that his governing philosophy is as un-Conservative as his "soft" rhetoric sounds, but I think that people are attracted to someone who believes what he believes and seems willing to stand by those beliefs, even when it seems in his interest not to.

The Club for Growth: slouching towards irrelevance

I have long supported the mission of Club for Growth, but I have been concerned by their--in my perception, exceptional attacks against Mike Huckabee in the GOP primary.

Blue Collar Muse at Tennessee ConserVOLiance has linked to an interesting discussion of the subject ("The Club for Growth: slouching towards irrelevance"):

"Over the next few days, we will hear a great deal about the meaning of the Iowa Caucuses, as pundits and bloggers will sift through the demographic data to interpret trends, and voter preferences. There were two obvious winners. There were several losers.

The Big Loser tonight in Iowa: The Club for Growth.

I’ve written quite a bit about The Club for Growth’s ongoing jihad against Mike Huckabee.

With each salvo launched by Pat Toomey and the Club for Growth, the Huck has seemed to gain additional momentum. Each time a new “White Paper” has been released (there have been three so far) the level of skepticism towards CfG has grown. Among a large portion of the conservative coalition, the Club for Growth is no longer viewed as an honest broker. After spending upwards of $700,000 in attack advertising with the stated aim of derailing Huckabee, and future buys pending in Carolina, Huckabee went from low single digits in the polls to this solid victory in the opening act of the 08 election.

Toomey will, no doubt, claim that the message just isn’t getting out, and will order his troops to increase the volume, exaggerations, demonizations, polarizations, and continue the promotion of small-tent conservatism that continues to drive the Club towards irrelevance."

Nailing Naifeh

You've probably heard that Tenn. House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh has penned an open letter accusing (most) state Republicans for disingenuous, partisan rantings about last year's legislative session. ("Naifeh takes shots at GOP lawmakers in op-ed" : Political Animals). That's fine, and it is smart--even after the horse is arguably out of the barn, for him to frame the issues to his advantage.

But it is hard to frame the spendthrift-turned-panhandler situation in a positive light . . . unless you ignore all the facts. I liked the body slam from commenter Royce E. Burrage Jr.:

"[Naifeh wrote] 'House democrats put $250 million of a $1.3 BILLION revenue surplus into savings.' Isn’t that special…especially when the revenue surplus was further enhanced with an increase of over $200 million, estimated, due to increased taxes, bringing the total to an estimated $1.5 BILLION or more. So, they barely saved the estimated tax increase. With a FY 2008 State budget of $27 BILLION, a “rainy day fund” of $750 million represents a mere 2.8% reserve based upon current spending. Grandpaw would guffaw, and he was a farmer with no credentials in accounting.
. . . .
During the 2007 period of the current legislative session, democrats, specifically our Finance & Administration Commissioner, Mr. Dave Goetz, a democratic appointee, told Tennesseans that State revenues were running at all time highs. Six months later we were told, as cited in the news media, by this very same individual that his department has been preparing for a budget shortfall for the past 5 years; “We knew this day was coming; it’s here. We’ve been preparing for this for the better part of five years. We’re ready to manage our way through it.”

Which is it Mr. Goetz, Mr. Speaker Naifeh?

Heads should roll . . .

I am amazed at all the lapses in professionalism/security/plain ol' thinking that have resulted in the loss of computers and sensitive data belonging to the Davidson County Election Commission. ("New details reveal numerous mistakes prior to Election Commission break-in" on Nashville City Paper) I know Ray Barrett and he is a fine man, and I believe he is generally competent in his job. I'm not sure he is the one that should take the blame (read: lose his job), unless it's clear that he was tolerating behavior that contributed to this incident.

I like how Councilman Craddock predicted that this incident would cost taxpayers "several thousand" dollars. Ha. The computers themselves cost that much, and I'm sure the city can survive without those particular computers. But I think the city of Nashville ought to strike a deal with some identity theft protection company and offer 6 months to a year's subscription for persons whose private information was on those computers. And the security company should be fired (not to mention sued for breach of contract with damages). I'm somewhat sympathetic to persons who might have believed the computers would be behind locked doors during the break, but anyone who doesn't appreciate the sensitivity of such information should probably learn a lesson on the subject in some other sphere of public or private employment.

Perils of political procrastination

I've always struggled with procrastination. So even though I am very interested in politics, and even though I KEEP UP (much to my wife's chagrin) with politics, I still feel like I'm cramming for the GOP primary; scrambling to pick a candidate.

In any event, I'm taking a second look (not in the usual way) at Huckabee. I always bristled (here, for example) at the term "Compassionate Conservatism" particularly inasmuch as it was crafted (and claimed) by a purported Conservative. It implies that "compassion" is anomalous with "conservative." And I may be concluding that it will be hard to support Huckabee for president. I know that sounds squishy or waffly, but I am just keeping it real. This may be an example of the dog who caught the car . . . Huckabee's ascendance was always a long shot, and I wanted to make sure that the GOP candidate wasn't selected for me by the "GOP establishment" or the MSM, so I have long considered supporting him. Unfortunately, I now have some misgivings which are the result of all the disclosures and discoveries that come out over the course of a campaign.

It's Huckabee's premises that concern me. I concede that we as individuals are more interdependent than ever in the history of America, and that our interdependence blurs lines between accountability and how my life affects others. But I don't think that it has to be that way, and it is a wrong direction to go in arguing that "healthcare costs" will be less if I let the government/state encourage/underwrite others' efforts to lose weight, for example.

Take this recent Time op/ed:

When the Republicans met in Dearborn, Mich., to debate the economy, most of the candidates maintained that times were good and that people who thought otherwise just hadn't seen the statistics.

Huckabee had a different message: "For many people on this stage, the economy's doing terrifically well, but for a lot of Americans, it's not doing so well." He talked about people who have trouble paying their rent or getting health insurance or paying for college. Huckabee does not always have convincing answers to these problems, but at least he recognizes them.

On environmental issues, too, he has broken from the pack. Only John McCain and he have urged the Federal Government to combat global warming. "I'm one of the few Republicans who talk very clearly about the environment, health care, infrastructure, energy independence. I don't cede any of those to the Democrats," he says.

In addition, while acknowledging the importance of magnanimity and Huckabee's appeal to moderates (largely due to his "presentation"), I think Huckabee--like Dubya, may be too inclined to compromise.

Believe it or not, Huckabee's alleged siding with Liberals in the struggle within the SBC is a significant issue for me. His seeming pragmatism in rolling-over for or compromising with Democrats in Arkansas in regard to any and every taxing/spending issue. The potential–as evidenced by his SCHIP debate comment (seeming to say he would not have vetoed the Dems’ bill), to act the same way if he were to get into the White House concerns me.

From a John Fund article about Huckabee.

Rick Scarborough, a pastor who heads Vision America, attended seminary with Mr. Huckabee and is a strong backer. But, he acknowledges, "Mike has always sought the validation of elites." When conservatives took over the Southern Baptist Convention after a bitter fight in the 1980s, Mr. Huckabee sided with the ruling moderates. Paul Pressler, a former Texas judge who led the conservative Southern Baptist revolt, told me, "I know of no conservative he appointed while he headed the Arkansas Baptist Convention."

To be clear, I have never "endorsed" Mike Huckabee, though I admittedly have been eager for him to get a fair listen and for his articulation of social conservative principles to be heard. I started blogs for him and Sam Brownback at the same time (and reserved blog names for a handful of other potential acceptable-to-socially-conservatives candidates at the same time). I have attempted to give fair consideration and critiques to all the GOP candidates (except for Ron Paul and some other Grandstandidates ©) It may seem odd to say that but I have long worried that accelerated primary schedules coupled with the dominance of "the Media" in shaping perceptions (and a desire so to shape, frankly) can result in voters making hasty and perhaps ill-advised decisions about whom to support for President. I am just thankful that I'm not going to have to vote tonight on who I want to represent the GOP in '08.

I'm leaning Thompson (you can do a search of a particular candidate's name to get a feel of my feelings about him/her).

I like his demeanor/temperament, his communication skills, his charisma and his rather consistent conservative record. I think that the MSM (and any Republican already committed to another candidate) have a stake in hyping the perception that Thompson is lazy or disinterested or arrogant. This Newsweek article from September provides both sides of this argument, I think.

But as soon as I'm close to picking Thompson, I get an email notification of some lame google hit piece (here) from the Thompson campaign. Face it, people . . . there is plenty of legitimate stuff with which to hammer Huckabee . . . and that stuff resonates with me. The other stuff just irritates me and reflects poorly on your boy. And news like today's report that Thompson would back McCain if he dropped out concerns me . . . I'm not a McCain fan.

As I wrote to David Oatney earlier today, I--like most people, have a number of variables that I'm considering before making my choice, and despite what supporters of various candidates say, there's not a no-brainer choice.

Man, I love the internet

I was just sitting here tonight trying to figure out why I had been hearing--in background noise over the past few weeks, that LSU would "basically have a homefield advantage" (against Ohio State) in the BCS national championship game yet as I hunkered down for marathon bowl game spectating, I realized that Georgia was playing Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl, which is in NOLA.

"What gives?" I thought; why are two BCS games being played in New Orleans this year? Well, according to my research ("BCS Media Guide") the BCS began having 5 bowls last year, which means that on a rotating basis one of the 4 BCS bowls (Fiesta, Rose, Sugar, Orange) each year will host its bowl game PLUS the Nat'l Championship bowl game.

That's what I get for not paying close enough attention to sports (try convincing my wife of that). But how would I have had that mental itch scratched in decades past?

Romney's Federalism

Alex Harris has an enlightening post about recent statements by Mitt Romney concerning ENDA--the so-called "Employment Non-Discrimination Act," which generally refers to a Federal effort to include "actual or perceived" sexual "orientation" as a protected characteristic in employment law. Here's the article at race42008.com

Russert asked Romney if he still supported ENDA. Romney replied that he did support them at the state level. He said that implementing such laws “makes sense.”

Mitt, how could you? You’ve shown that you understand the problem conservatives have with these laws. You said that your own experience in Massachusetts showed you that those laws at the state level are bad news. Two days later you express your support.

I’m sorry, but if that is what Romney said – and the transcript and the video (see 2:34) show that it is – I cannot see how conservatives can trust him to be strong in standing against the homosexual agenda, I just can’t. I’ve been part of this battle in my own state, and this is serious.

If you are a Romney supporter, I ask you to not simply brush this off or just attack me for supporting Huckabee. I know our guys are in a fierce fight in Iowa, but like so many of us have said, this race is about the issues. Coming from a guy who wants to support the Republican nominee and who wants to like Romney, I’m asking you to take an honest look at what I’ve shared. This is something voters have to consider.

For the record, Romney would be a fine nominee, but this information makes me wonder about his change in position on a variety of "social" issues, i.e., abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. I am alert to the kind of Federalism espoused by people like George Wallace; that is, Federalism that some use as a shield/distraction from suspect or squishy positions on controversial positions . . . like whether American apartheid was something within the purview of the Federal Constitution.

I fully appreciate the Federalist position, and I can appreciate the arguments from supporters of some GOP candidates--Thompson and McCain come to mind, that their respective candidate is more Conservative because said candidate acknowledges that there are limits on the power of the Federal government. But my conclusion that sexual proclivities or attractions are not immutable characteristics is rooted in my worldview, and Romney (in this particular context) seems to want Religious Conservatives to perceive that he shares (or has adopted) their worldview on a host of issues. I'm not sure that is an accurate perception.

Getting the full fiscal picture

It is not easy to sift through the information and insinuations and invective of a campaign. But it is necessary if you want to make an informed decision.

Mitt Romney has been airing an ad about Huckabee's spending (with a clarification here). My conclusion? When fiscal apples are compared to fiscal apples, Huckabee looks pretty much like his opponents in the GOP primary.

Not that this Romney ad is exceptionally unfair or inaccurate or that I don't think Mitt Romney would be a fine president, but I think that accusations that Huckabee is a spendthrift and an economic "Liberal" are hyperbolic.

Post-partisan? Try Neo-Partisan

All the discussion about third parties is amusing to me, and I'm a big-time idealist.

I just read a NYT article about Michael Bloomberg, "Unity08" and spoilers of old. ("Bloomberg Moves Closer to Running for President").

What got my attention (aside from a preoccupation with purported spoiler Ralph Nader to the exclusion of obvious spoiler Ross Perot) was a statement from Sam Waterson--who founded "Unity08," about their desire for a "bipartisan, nonpartisan, postpartisan ticket." Yeah, right. The reality is that Bloomberg knows he can decide an election, whether or not he wins it.

From the article:

"Meanwhile, he thoroughly enjoys the attention, and despite the public denials, suggests that he is poised to run if the political stars align themselves for a long-shot, but credible, independent campaign. During a private reception this month, Mr. Bloomberg playfully presided over a personal variation of bingo, in which guests could win by correctly guessing the significance of the numbers on a printed card.

“Two hundred seventy-one?” Mr. Bloomberg asked.

One guest guessed correctly: It was George W. Bush’s bare electoral-vote majority in 2000.
"

A matter of perspective

An op/ed in The American Spectator discusses the assertion by some that Religious Leftwinger Jim Wallis is like a modern-day prophet. From the article's conclusion:

"THE LAST 40 YEARS that Wallis recalls only as 'wilderness' are remembered by most Americans as a recovery time from the chaos of the 1960s. Beyond the civil rights movement and the space program, it's hard for non-activists to recall most of that decade as historically anything more than a disturbing era of social disintegration.

Hardly wandering in the wilderness since then, America over the last 40 years has increased in population by 50 percent, become wealthier, healthier, cleaner, safer, less racist, and even more of a cultural and racial melting pot. After the ignominies of the Vietnam era, America went on to win the Cold War, largely end the impending threat of superpower nuclear conflict.

Now America presides fairly benevolently over a world that, with major exceptions, is far friendlier to American principles than 40 years ago. Good riddance to Leonid Brezhnev, Mao Tse-tung, Ho Chi Minh, Joseph Tito, Gamal Nasser, and the countless radical activists in the 1960s who romanticized those tyrants.

Sadly, the legacies of the 1960s that still survive today are unrestricted abortion, widespread illegitimacy, broken families, pervasive divorce and absent fathers, all of which originated in the collapse of sexual mores and in the expansion of the federal welfare state that the 1960s unabashedly celebrated. Wallis rarely addresses these issues,, except to recommend an even greater welfare dosage of the Great Society.

Still, even these pathologies show some small signs of receding. And today's world, and today's America is far better than in 1968, thanks to the continued vitality of American democracy and of America's religious life.

A true prophet would recognize that."

Part II: public service announcement for my friends in blogdom

Update below . . .

Glen Dean has stirred somethin' up in a post about THE MOVIE "The Pursuit of Happyness" at MusicCityBloggers.

Sounding like Hollywood abstainers they surely criticize on the Right, folks from the Left are lambasting THE MOVIE (and the movie's inspiration) for not being documentaryish or for daring to present an inspiring story that doesn't jibe with their world view. Welcome to the anti Oscar party.

It shouldn't be a surprise that I disagree with various of their (Liberals') presuppositions about the causes of, or remedies for, poverty . . . so no big news there. But it is interesting to see the dustup related to my response to SouthernBeale's gauntlet-throwing assertion (here) that anyone who has spent even an hour tutoring kids who live in the project would agree with her ideas on the subject.

I said in response:

SB, I have spent one hour tutoring kids in the project . . . what’s your answer for the problems they face? The “War on Poverty”? How’s that working out for ya?

Perhaps I should have used italics around the word "have" or provided a link to my good deed doing certificate in my response, but neither was necessary to demonstrate that SB's argument was fallacious. "Sarcastro" and "dolphin" pounced on their perception that Ned has only spent one hour tutoring inner city kids and has some nerve bragging about it. Well, they were wrong on both counts, but it reminded me of something that bothers me whenever I see it.

Such a "debate" is a head-shakingly petty and immature type of johnson-comparing contest about charity or compassion. Too many outspoken Libs seem to think that they've got the market cornered on charity or compassion, and they point to vicarious, often NIMBYish (gov't) policy positions (or to online, unverifiable, anonymous, self-aggrandizing declarations) as evidence of moral superiority or authority. I'm sure there are examples of the same done by Conservatives (go dig 'em up and feel free to post/comment about 'em). It's annoying regardless.

That's all . . . back to your regularly scheduled programming.


Update: It's unrelenting over at MCB.

"Ned seems like he has something to prove."

Actually, that is exactly opposite of what is happening.

"Ned is a hypocrite because he is always talking about religion."

Actually, no. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise, but I don't feel defensive about how "faithful" I am, and I don't use my perspective on my personal faithfulness as an attempted checkmate in discussions on issues of faith. "Back off; I'm very religious" (kind of like "Shut up; I have tutored inner city kids") is rarely a valid argument.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

Reading this account ("Carnation suspects tell officers of victims' frantic, final moments") of the Christmas Eve murders in Washington state is sobering. The male perpetrator was a clerk at Target; folks who knew him can hardly believe he's capable of this--according to reports; regrettably he was capable of shooting his girlfriend's 3-year-old nephew and 6-year-old niece at point-blank range after having murdered their parents as the children watched . . the entire time, Aunt Michele stood by, weapon in hand.

It reminded me of a murder prosecution in Knoxville when I was clerking there. A couple kidnapped a neighbor at gunpoint as he returned from work and left him bound and gagged in the bathtub while they went out to eat at a Red Lobster. From time to time it occurs to me that someone around me--in a check out line or at the next table in a restaurant, could be planning a murder.

Read the article above to see how petty the purported "dispute" was. As best I can remember, the Knoxville kidnappers got a couple hundred dollars (and a dinner at Red Lobster) in their grand scheme. Given the 24/7 media cycle and "smallness" of our world, it's easy to conclude that life is cheaper today than in past eras . . . I suppose there's wisdom in the saying, "ignorance is bliss."

Circumstantial case for Fred

This is a nice ad for Thompson--given the need for a candidate to accumulate support in this fractured primary. By referencing the varied, positive aspects of him as a candidate, the ad touches on what is probably Thompson's best "aspect": that he is the "best hope" for a win in November . . . a candidate who can unify the GOP and attract Independents.



Too bad they can't throw in Rush's comments about Thompson following the last debate.

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."