Gingrich did it, too!!!! Not quite.

The Left is so excited that they have some type of defense for the usurping tourist, Nancy Pelosi. FLASHBACK: Gingrich Thrust Himself Into Mideast Questions As Speaker, Bashed White House Policy | TPMCafe (via Liberadio's blog--here) The thing they're excited about is evidence! that Newt Gingrich traveled to Israel at one point during his time as Speaker of the House during the Clinton Administration.

Couple questions: Were we at war with Israel when Gingrich led this delegation on this trip? Were we at war with anyone (I'm not counting Haiti) when Newt made this trip or these comments?

Though I haven't made much of Pelosi's antics, this Superduper War-rooming by the Left merited comment.

Refining Cruelty

Civil War Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman reportedly said, "War is cruelty. You cannot refine it," and an article I just read from World Magazine (Refining Cruelty) reports that the Bush Administration (and America's military forces) may be experiencing the negative consequences of prior attempts to "refine war" in Iraq.

In the early stages of the war, Bush appeared to be succeeding with heavy use of "smart" weapons and massive humanitarian use of our military. Marvin Olasky writes:

"The Bush administration decreed rules of engagement to minimize civilian discomfort." and "Reducing civilian casualties was important for both humanitarian and political reasons, but we were dealing with a culture that interpreted compassion as a lack of seriousness. Islam is a works-based religion that emphasizes winning: Muhammad and his successors spread the faith by wielding the sword. Following the smashing American victory in 2003, we had the opportunity to impress upon Iraqis who wanted to be winners the idea that they had to cooperate with the winning power, like it or not.

Losing in a Christian culture is not fatal, because many of us grow up believing that seemingly lost causes are the ones worth fighting for. Jesus and the apostles, and their disciples, spread Christianity by losing in worldly terms, even to the point of crucifixion. But Islam does not have a theology of losing. If we had made it clear to our Iraqi opponents that they had no hope of success, Iraq could have settled down.

Just as 19th-century poverty-fighters thought they had to be tough to produce results, so Sherman believed his cause was right and his harshness in war was compassionate over the long term: Opponents would see that guerrilla warfare was useless. Our recent rules of engagement, which reflect our domestic liberal coddling tendencies, have produced a parallel prolongation of trouble.

By not being tough during the first year after taking Baghdad we gave the terrorists new opportunities, and now General David Petraeus is trying to play catch-up. Will he and our forces succeed? Let's hope and pray so, because an American defeat will lead to wider war. "War is hell," Sherman said, and if we don't make it hellish for 10,000 to 15,000 terrorists, they will make it hellish for more of their countrymen and for us."

Atheism, America's newest religion

Interesting article about the phenomenon termed "new atheism." Opinion | Prophets of the new atheism | Seattle Times Newspaper

Here's a particularly pointed paragraph touching on recent bloguments about American Exceptionalism:

"Certainly, you can have an ethical individual atheist, an instinctively caring, generous person who happens to disbelieve in God. But an atheist society could not survive. It would first live on the fumes of ancient moral traditions. In the end, racked by despair at life's apparent meaninglessness, its members would return to more nourishing faiths."

De-magnetizing Tennessee, somewhat . . .

Sen. Jack Johnson (R-Brentwood) is sponsoring legislation--SB 1870, (see here) that will make Tennessee less attractive to illegal immigrants. The bill cleared the Senate Commerce, Labor and Agriculture Committee on 4/3/07. The bill would require employers to use the Federal Employment Eligibility Verification Basic Pilot Program to ensure that new hires are eligible to legally work in the United States. The program is a web-based system that is operated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

According to Sen. Johnson, we would be the first state in the nation to require employers to utilize (wink, wink, Sarah) the service. We'll see if the full Senate and the Democrat-controlled House will be interested in this common-sense legislation.

I say, lead the way, Tennessee.

TheHill.com - Kerry, Gingrich announce climate showdown

This could be an interesting Environmentalism debate--Kerry v. Gingrich, TheHill.com - Kerry, Gingrich announce climate showdown, but I thought this quote from Kerry was oddly flippant:

"“As a father, when someone tells me that within the next decade, if we don't deal with global warming, our children and grandchildren may deal with global catastrophe, that tells me I damn well better do whatever I can to help make Washington deal with this responsibly,”"

Ah yes, the refreshingly glib, Senator Kerry.

Senator, does it matter whether the "someone" is credible? Does it matter whether data supports the purported crisis to be fixed by the wonderful folks in Washington?

Bob Krumm » evil emails

Bob Krumm has a great post/link (evil emails) to a Scripps Howard op/ed detailing the plain ol' spite generated by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research's expose of Al Gore's environmental hypocrisy.

Here's the link to the Scripps Howard article.

Amateur lawyer alert . . .

Someone at LeanLeft--I'm not sure if s/he is a lawyer, but if s/he is, s/he is a bad ones--is railing against a phantom S.Ct. Justice (The Incoherence of Justice Scalia on Global warming and the EPA). Regrettably, the Lovely and Liberal Brittney at NashvilleisTalking posted a link to the article. I guess it was the scathing comment about Scalia that sizzled. That being said, I know it is hard for some Liberals to imagine that Scalia--being a spawn of Satan and all, could ever be right in a judicial sense, but imagining such a thing might be more feasible if amateur lawyers would read actual opinions from the man as opposed to two sentences quoted in a news article.

But it kind of goes with the territory for an Executive Branch agency to use its priorities and interpret terms consistent with said administration's priorities. And the Supreme Court was ruling on whether a lower court's ruling was correct, not necessarily whether the original finding or holding was correct. And it is indeed a legitimate question as to whether something (CO2) which is naturally and inevitably churned out by oceans (DWARFING similar human-caused emissions--although exhalations from Liberal pols are substantial) must be viewed as a "pollutant." And whether trial lawyers should be able to sue the gov't to act!!act!! is a legitimate question.

They're legitimate legal issues . . . unless you just really think Scalia is a meanie.

Huckabee re. character and cash-on-hand

I just got off a media conference call with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (I slipped in as a blogger . . .) Here are highlights from the call, and Huckabee's responses, as best as I was able to capture them (sorry, no recording capability today).

The call was hosted by Gov. Mike Rounds (SD) who is the chair of Huckabee's national steering committee. Rounds heartily endorsed Huckabee as a proven leader who can bring people together for positive results, citing his experience with Huckabee who previously served as head of the National Governor's Association.

Huckabee had a lot of good things to say--he said his campaign for the GOP nomination was going to be about Consistency, Authenticity and Proven Results (sounding similar to Bob Corker's campaign theme(s)--perhaps excepting the "consistency" angle).

In answering a question about his nat'l organization, he referenced Tennessee's own Chip Saltsman and noted that his first quarter fundraising numbers were more accurately termed "first 6 weeks'" numbers for him, as opposed to other candidates who have been running for President for awhile. Very true.

In answer to a question about Iraq ("Um, the American people want us out of Iraq, what is your position on Iraq?") Huckabee said,

"the fastest way to get out of Iraq is to win in Iraq; . . . we definitely will lose if we indicate to our opposition that we'll be leaving at a certain point and all they have to do is wait for the clock to run out. I think we should have a goal of conclusion but not a time-frame of conclusion."

During the call Huckabee mentioned (in answer to a question about future books) a scheduled re-release of one of his previous books in the coming months, Character is the Issue. Which provided an excellent segue into the question I intended to ask him anyway, "How important/relevant is personal character, past and present, in choosing a candidate?"

Huckabee responded, more or less,

"I'm one of those people who believe it (personal character) is important. If we aren't able to keep promises made to people who are closest to us, it's relevant to ask how they would keep promises made to voters. . . .

"And if it's true what I'm hearing from some in the Christian or Evangelical wing of the Republican Party that candidates aren't going to be held responsible for issues of character, then I would say a lot of Republicans will owe Bill Clinton a great big public apology. . . . We can't have a set of rules that we apply to Democrats and can't apply to ourselves," he said, adding that otherwise, "that shows it [criticism of Clinton] really wasn't about principle. It was about personality, character assassination and politics."

Though I don't agree that Clinton's lying (which led to his impeachment) was a purely personal matter (Clinton's survival instincts turned arguably personal "sins" into undeniably public matters--don't lie under oath, Bubba), I do agree that personal character is relevant in assessing a person's qualifications to hold the most powerful office on the planet. Indeed, even Liberals have discovered personal morality as they try to tear down Republican candidates . . .

More reports on the conf. call.

Sen. McCain, may I introduce you to Justice Scalia?

I got a McCain support letter from Minn. Gov. Tim Pawlenty today and, though impressively written in general, I thought this mistake toward the end of the letter was rather unfortunate, and I hope it was merely a typo:

I have spoken to him about the kind of judges he would appoint should he serve as our nation's 44th Chief Executive, and I know that he would appoint strict constructionalists

That's a category of judges I haven't ever heard of, and it kind of reminds me (in a disturbing way) of Dubya's use of the term, "Conservativism" in the early days on the stump.

Bredesen, the fiscal Conservative. Not.

Though Gov. Bredesen is heralded as being fiscally conservative, it's obvious that is a perception, not a reality. Alas, in politics, perception is reality, and it doesn't hurt to have everyone in the mainstream media helping a candidate with the public's perception--just ask former State Senator Jim Bryson.

But in an e-letter I received today from Rep. Beth Harwell, she wrote about the imminent conflict between Republicans and Democrats on the Hill over increasing or decreasing taxes; she offers this advice:

As legislators continue to examine these issues, please keep in mind the following factors:

1) Over the past five years, State revenues have increased by 39%, while expenditures increased 57%. . . .

2) There is an anticipated natural revenue growth of nearly half a billion dollars; and

3) If there were a rollback of food tax by half a cent each year, the State would recognize a revenue reduction of $38 million per year, which is less than 10 percent of anticipated revenue.

Obviously, there must be a focus on two budgets - the budget for the State and the individual budgets of Tennessee families. The question becomes whether Tennessee is confronting a revenue problem or a spending problem. The answer--we have a spending problem that must be brought under control.

That last sentence hearkens back to the halcyon days of circling Legislative Plaza with, "It's the spending, stupid" painted on my rear window.

American Exceptionalism (read: betterness)

Bob Krumm has a great post ("this is the post where you get to call me . . .")

"America and its allies are superior. (Don’t think too hard on it; it’s simple math after all. There are only three options in any comparison equation: greater than, less than, or equal to–and argument in favor of the latter two is specious at best and treasonous at worst.)

Now that doesn’t necessarily make us right. That’s a fair (I would say wrong, but still fair) argument to make. But to say that we are wrong does not negate the fact that we are better. While I don’t denigrate those fifteen British sailors for their lack of a “stiff upper lip” under unimaginable duress, I do denigrate any of their countrymen–and ours too–who from safe perches, espouse that they had it coming to them because they were British.

For there is nothing, nothing at all about Iran, that should ever make us want to prostrate ourselves before them."

America is exceptional. Multiculturalism is asinine. And the reason America is exceptional is because it is a country established upon Judeo-Christian ideas/philosophy/principles. And that is the rub for Liberals.

While this isn't exactly applicable, it occurred to me that Jesus spoke about the "overflow of the heart" (Mt. 12:33-35) and other places in the Bible reference the heart as the "wellspring of life" (Prov. 4:23). I would posit that America's exceptionalism is the "fruit" of America's founding principles. If one acknowledges that America's founding principles are Judeo-Christian, it's hard to concede that America's record is commendable. That, in my estimation, is why an assertion of American Exceptionalism pains the Left.

Update: At the risk of stepping on some more toes (but hey, Bob started it!) I was corresponding with a fellow Conservative who questions my assertion that America's greatness is related to Judeo-Christian principles (he thinks the roots of our greatness are principles of common law).

I kind of think the real roots are in the Protestant Reformation, frankly. The Protestant Reformation was a positive step in a cultural evolution and America was the end product. Especially way back when, the Catholic Church was as close to a state religion as you could get. And while I would say that common law is certainly a characteristic of english-speaking countries, it is more of a by-product than a cause.

In my estimation, Judeo-Christian thought is the fertile ground for a system of self-gov't and liberty (and, yes, tolerance).

Elected=Corrupt? Well, this elected official should know . . .

I thought this comment from Sen. Doug Jackson was rich--classic demagoguery, in this report ("Resolution to elect constitutional officers clears judiciary panel") about a Senate bill which would allow voters to decide whether to amend the Constitution to require election of a number of state officials:

"Sen. Doug Jackson (D-Dickson) said he thought Kurita’s bill would bring more politics into the constitutional officer positions and cause more “millionaires” to be elected.

“We’re opening the opportunity for corruption further in state government,” Jackson said. "

We probably would be wise to take his word on the matter . . . of course, he apparently believes the current system is ideal.

Faith-based gov't spending in Tennessee

David Fowler of Family Action Council of Tennessee raises a salient question in his newsletter re. the impending collision between Gov. Phil Bredesen's proposed tax increase and TN Republicans' proposed tax reduction. This is a question you should keep in mind when Tennessee elected officials argue (publicly) about state spending.

What is bad for the Senatorial goose is bad for the Gubernatorial gander

The Governor has conceded that the tobacco tax increase he has proposed to cover his new educational initiatives is a declining source of revenue (or most folks hope it is as fewer people smoke). But, it is also apparent that the educational programs he has proposed will only increase in cost over time. The Administration has said that it intends to cover this divergence between income stream and program costs with the increases in revenue in future years.

Gambling on the future discipline of elected officials - a not so sure bet

The amount of revenue that will have to be covered in the future by revenue growth may be larger or smaller with the Republican proposal or the Governor's proposal, but the "solution" is the same in principle. And the issues created by the solution are the same. In other words, the "solution" does work, but only if the future legislators and Governor's are disciplined enough to allocate enough revenue growth in future years to cover the growing discrepancy between "cost" and "revenue stream." When there is not enough income in those future years to cover the "lost grocery revenue" or the "added educational program costs" and the new, other "good" stuff that folks say they really need to have that have been "put off," that is when a tax increase comes.

Further down in the newsletter, Fowler writes:

. . . it was only during the McWherter administration that the state went from a cash basis for spending to an accrual basis. We now spend "projected revenue" growth on recurring expenditures. It is my understanding that the switch was made in order to have more revenue to spend.

Using the accrual method is, perhaps, not so unusual for businesses, but businesses can adjust to shortfalls in projected income without the same bureaucratic hassles and political tensions as government. And, of course, the problem with this funding method in government comes when projections fall short, as they did in the Sundquist years. Then, the irresistible force (a tax increase), meets the immovable object, (spending levels in government program expenditures). People don't want a tax increase, especially in hard times, but they also don't want to give up their services. In fact, arguably, the demand for government services goes up at the very time the "government" loses some of its ability to pay for them.

Here's an idea

If we really want to protect the taxpayer, then what about using the surplus to begin to transition back to a cash basis system where we spend only the revenue we have and not "bet" on our revenue projections?

This manner of operating sounds like faith-based government spending; the reality is that some TN political players aren't operating in good-faith in making such proposals.

Interpreting Q1 fundraising numbers

Interesting assessment eyeon08.com » (What does all this money stuff mean?) over at eyeon08.com about interpreting the 1st quarter numbers of the GOP candidates:

"Fourth, Sam Brownback substantially differentiated himself from the rest of the second tier candidates, essentially putting him in a second tier alone, and moving the rest to the third tier."

And, as eye on 08 notes, the "upper tier" isn't set in stone as the numbers reflect some vulnerability for the front-runners.

That vishus, vishus cycle of "electability"

CBSNews' blog asks the question, "Why Aren't We Hearing More About Brownback and Huckabee?"(here), and the conclusion is that vicious cycle of credibility-as-a-Pres-candidate>media-attention>fundraising-capability>media-attention, etc. Here's the key quote of journalist Ververs:

"'Up until now, they haven't gotten the attention because they haven't demonstrated that they have much support,' said Ververs. 'In order for that to be demonstrated, they need to have some tangible evidence – which would be polls, fundraising, things we can measure support by. And if you look at those measurements, they are far behind people that supposedly aren't that conservative.'
. . . .

That won't be easy, however, unless they can get the press corps to pay a little more attention to them and a little less to the candidates with better fundraising and poll numbers. "

At this stage in the game, voters--especially my peoples, should pay less attention to "conventional wisdom" and eagerly back the candidate that resonates with them on policy. I won't deny that a candidate like Fred Thompson has appeal for his potential to appeal to voters in a general election, but there's no need to dumb down the debate on what really matters--the policy, more than a year out from actual votes being cast.

About Congress' Pork and Pacifism bill . . .

As you know, Congress has passed the Pork and Pacifism Act, but the interesting thing is that Pork is often used as a way of purchasing support.("Who Got Bought")). Amanda Carpenter of Human Events writes:

"Last week, when the House passed their pork-stuffed Iraq spending bill that establishes a date certain for withdrawal of American troops, only seven of the 43-member Blue Dog Democrats -- a group that purports to fight for fiscal responsibility and strong national security -- voted against the bill."

Gee, I'm not sure of an issue meriting non-partisan consideration more than the GWOT, can you?



(hat tip: Bobbie Patray)

The Moralist meme

This LATimes article (GOP presidential hopefuls fight for attention) about efforts by Social Conservative candidates to break through in Iowa includes this interesting tidbit about Sam Brownback's personal views (as opposed to his policy views). Of course, the difference--intentionally or not, plainly "marginalizes" Brownback by implying that he would directly translate his personal view on homosexual conduct (one, incidentally, that most Americans share) into public policy. (Feel free to raise your opinion that Brownback is implementing his personal views--I disagree).

"He grew up on a farm near Parker, Kan., where his parents still live. Raised a Methodist, he converted to Catholicism. He opposes stem cell research and considers homosexual conduct immoral. He favors banning all abortions except when the woman's life is endangered."

Incidentally, frequent commenter William (of tnparadise.blogspot.com demonstrates Democrat moralism in this post. What business is it of William what Newt Gingrich does (actually, did) in his personal life? More on that in a future post . . .

On frivolously amending the Constitution

This article (from The City Paper) reveals something about how not to amend a Constitution.

"The delay on imposing the amendment has been beneficial, Mahery said, because of the attorney general’s opinion that clarified differences of opinion on seniors maximum amount of income.

“It was very wise to wait and to make sure that they were methodically and thoughtfully thinking out the plan because once you put this plan into motion, it would be awfully, awfully hard to rescind it,” Mahery said."

Uh, yep. It is hard to rescind (not for the reasons Mahery is thinking), but it ought to be even harder to change the overarching statute for our state.

The most recent Constitutional amendment treating some citizens differently than others (but leaving the definition open for the legislature to fill in the blanks) is, according to the article, "causing far more controversy than the ban on gay marriage . . ." Newsflash: the legislature is disagreeing over how "generous" to be with the category of "senior citizens." How wise is it to amend the State Constitution so that it is little more than Chapter 67 of the Tennessee Code?

Religious Conservatives hold veto over GOP process

This article (Religious conservatives hold on in Iowa - Boston.com) describes (accurately, I'd say) the influence that Religious Conservatives have over the GOP nomination process--particularly in Iowa.

"Drake University political science professor Dennis Goldford said religious conservatives may serve more to block candidates who rile the base than elevate candidates they like.

'I don't think they are kingmakers,' said Goldford. But, he said, 'Any nominee is going to have to satisfy a majority of them that he is right on their issues.'

At this point, all three of the top-tier candidates are making overtures to religious conservatives, and there is no sign of such rejection, he said.

'Religious conservatives and social conservatives in the Republican Party are like the driver's education instructor,' said Goldford. 'He has a brake, but he doesn't have a steering wheel or an accelerator. They can pretty well say who is not going to be the nominee.'"

Former Gov. Tommy Thompson on Abortion

Former Wisconsin Governor (and former Bush Cabinet mbr.) Tommy Thompson is planning (here) to officially join the race to be the GOP nominee in 2008.

Here (from ontheissues.org) are some of his public positions on abortion:

--Both pro-life and pro-stem cell research. (Jul 2001)
--Legal abortion only for rape, incest, or mother's health. (Jan 2001)
--Ban partial birth abortions. (Dec 2000)"