I'm endorsing Mitt Romney

Things are happening fast and furious in the political world. John Edwards drops his official bid for President and begins his official bid for vice president.

And on the GOP side . . .:

"John McCain’s wave of political momentum is building as he comes off a major win in the winner-take-all Florida presidential primary and prepares to receive the endorsement Wednesday of one-time Republican national frontrunner Rudy Giuliani."

At least for me, the decision to back a candidate is generally very complex. Character. Political positions. Track Record. And finally, "electability."

The GOP primary in Tennessee is in less than a week. The GOP race has (likely) narrowed to McCain, Romney and Huckabee (oh, and Ron Paul). And despite much research/consideration, I have long been unsure about whom I would be supporting for the GOP nomination. But the deciding factor for me was the extended conversation I had today with a former Arkansas state legislator who worked closely with former Governor Mike Huckabee while they both were in office. In sum, all the negative things I've heard about Huckabee's views on spending reminded me too much of former Tennessee Governor Don Sundquist. And all the negative (regarding fiscal policy) things I've heard from Huckabee's detractors were accurate. That being said, I still disagree with the focus by Huckabee detractors on Huckabee (to the exclusion of other candidates). But that leads me to my last point: electability.

In light of recent GOP political developments, I do not believe that Mike Huckabee is going to become the Republicans' nominee for President. With or without my support . . . with or without my vote. And among the two Republicans likely to be in the running at the end of the day, I unreservedly believe that Mitt Romney is the better candidate.

Now where can I get a yard sign . . .

So that's what they mean by "representative"?

(Still) State Rep. Rob Briley offered a mea culpa, sort of, on the floor of the Tennessee House yesterday. (here) I say "sort of" because he says he has taken responsibility for his actions, but has yet to step down from his seat. That being said, his inaction on this point makes more sense in light of this statement from a fellow Nashville Democrat:

About a half-dozen legislators made speeches afterward saying they forgave Briley for his actions.
Rep. Gary Moore (D-Nashville) told Briley he forgave him but wasn’t sure why he needed to do so.
“I don’t think that you’ve done anything that any of us in this room have not done,” Moore said. “But you asked for my forgiveness and I’m granting it.
“And I certainly appreciate the fact that you stood before us and asked forgiveness and I think shine a little light to all of us that everyone of us in this room have our own little demons that we deal with.
“Some of us are alcoholics, some of us are thieves, some of us are adulterers. The truth of the matter is, we reflect society. We are made up from society.And all of us reflect what society reflects.”
Last year, Briley pleaded guilty to a DUI charge but had a felony evading arrest, as well as other misdemeanor charges, suspended after he reached a deal with state prosecutors.

(emphasis added) Gee, this gives a whole new meaning to "representative" government.

Duncan Hunter endorses Huckabee

Huckabee has passed a significant milestone in his campaign for presidency: he has gained the endorsement of a former rival for the GOP nomination:

"Mike Huckabee got a welcomed endorsement today from one of his former rivals for the GOP nod to the White House. Rep.Duncan Hunter (R-CA) endorsed Huckabee, citing his”outstanding character and integrity.”"

I think this is significant on a number of fronts, but particularly in Huckabee's case, it counters the perception pushed by some in the GOP that his is an "outlier" candidacy.

And I think Hunter's statement is significant in that it focuses on Huckabee's character. I think a candidate's dependability and forthrightness are even more important in a campaign where issues (and past records) aren't providing an obvious standard bearer for the Party.

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.