GOPres candidates and the Immigration bill

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

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

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

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

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

Coulter responds, yes she does

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

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

Hey parent, please look into this

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

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

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

Huckabee unscripted

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

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

The "F" word and the "N" word

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Embarrassing family members and "rising up"

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Mean" is in the eye of the beholder

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pick a different pocket

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

Robertson disappoints . . . Liberals

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

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

Hat tip: The Corner

Huckabee's example

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

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

hat tip, the Corner: NationalReview.com

Thompson touches down in Nashville

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


Hat tip: VolunteerVoters.org

Ballot integrity v. "disenfranchisement"

Sorry, but this isn't "disenfranchisement."

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

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

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

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

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

Hat tip: NationalReview.com

Dems eye [lowering their dismal polling numbers]

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

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

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

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

And the Dismal Dems continue to play their gotcha game.

Huckabee on McCain-Feingold

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

Political Free Speech

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

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

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

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

About Tenn's newest S.Ct. Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reining in McCain-Feingold

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

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