Hey, and thanks for visiting.  I will no longer be double-posting so I hope you’ll visit WisdomIsVindicated at it’s original address:  http://wisdomisvindicated.blogspot.com . 

I happened upon this interesting youtube footage (here) from the Romney/Kennedy senate debate in 1994. (Hat tip VolunteerDispatch (here).

I can’t see that the video contains any new info Romney’s mittamorphosis from social Liberalism to his current stances; however, it is a higher level of unsettling to see actual footage of his Liberalness . . . kind of like just hearing you’re being cheated on versus actually seeing video tape of the act.

I’m not saying that I can’t or won’t vote for Mitt Romney, but how credible is it that a person–one who has been working in public policy for more than a decade, credibly do a 180 on such fundamental issues?

What is a Social Conservative and who’s to say? These questions are being raised in light of the unexceptional (except to Adam Kleinheider–at VolunteerVoters.com) and Roger Abramson–at flanktwoposition.com)) assertion that the “Pro-life with exceptions” position on abortion (or the Pro-Life with Asterisk position) is not the “social Conservative” position on abortion.

I’m still kind of astounded at the reaction (and it is clearly no rebuttal) to my point, though. Are Roger and ACK insulted that someone has the nerve to make “bold” pronouncements? Not likely, if you read their stuff on any regular basis.

Is it that–for the sake of “the cause,” they are concerned about stigmatizing the “Social Conservative” position? Not likely, as Abramson and ACK seem careful not to become to ideologically-paired with a party.

Is it because they personally hold an asterisked position on abortion and would like to consider themselves “socially Conservative”? I doubt it, but who knows.

I might be wrong about their answer to the above questions about motives, but I guess I’ll have to go with the paranoid Social Conservative conclusion . . . they don’t want to expand (though I think acknowledge would be more accurate) the influence of Religious Conservatives or the Religious Right within the GOP.

But, again, what does the term mean and who defines the term?

ACK wrote, “The Religious Right does not determine what social conservatism is, neither does Ned Williams,” but I–and most pols, would view the terms as synonymous. “Social Conservatives” is a term that has always been used to distinguish between the more Libertarian, “Economic or Fiscal Conservatives” within the GOP and Religious Conservatives.

Well, I think it is clear that organizations like Family Research Council, Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, American Family Association, Eagle Forum, etc. have classically been the “Social Conservative” organizations.

As far as the meaning of the term, there is not necessarily unanimity on every policy issue. But regarding abortion, these organizations are not–in principle, “Pro-life with exceptions.” And I think it is fair to say that the above “socially Conservative” organizations–not Adam Kleinheider or Roger Abramson, are the ones who best define their positions.

Certainly, terms–and movements, can “soften” or (d)evolve over time. But until these organizations are lacking in number, or influence, or significance–until they are a mere “fringe” element of the “non-Libertarian Conservative” faction in the GOP, it seems that they would be the authority on what is a “Social Conservative” position.

**Roger is asserting that an exception for “life of the mother” is an exception like rape or incest; in that case, as long as one doesn’t define “life” as “quality of life,” there are two competing lives to consider. Imminent danger of death for a mother, for example where a fertilized egg hasn’t implanted in a mother’s womb, is one example where efforts to ensure survival of at least one of the lives isn’t contrary to the sanctity of life.

***Also, Bush’s murky position on exceptions can be interpreted as an effort at magnanimity toward those Americans who disagree with the non-asterisked Pro-life position, and the fact that he–in competition with John McCain, was supported by Social Conservatives doesn’t mean that his position on an issue defines the Social Conservative position, right?

I just received my 8th email of the day from one of my favorite org’s . . . ok, not really, it just seemed like the 8th email and it really isn’t one of my favorite organizations. The organization? PFAW (which stands for “People For The American Way”) or, as they’re wont to call it now, simply “People For.”

I’m curious as to why they changed their handle. I’ve never like the name, thinking that it was verbose and ambiguous (which is ironic, given that it is wordy). But I suspect there’s a reason other than the wordiness that prompted the change.

It dawned on me this evening that it is probably because–since the period following 9/11, Lefties have been a little sensitive to accusations of being “un-American” or claims that any war is worth fighting to preserve the so-called “American way.”

As with the film producers who jettisoned “the American way” phrase from the most recent Superman movie, what’s worth defending about the American way? And we don’t have any business being all exclusive or arrogant . . . you know?

Well, for an evening, I was a Florida Gator. And it was great. Congratulations to the University of Florida and their convincing thumping of THE Ohio State University. Any questions about who’s number 1 in the country?

Though, as a UT alumnus, it was difficult to pull for the Gators, I felt like I had to stick with the SEC team in this one (it helped me along that we invited a family of Gators over to watch the game). I briefly had second thoughts about my support when it dawned on me during the game that UF would be (for a couple more months) the reigning champs in the two premier college sports, but that concern didn’t last for long.

So, we can conclude that UF has a great Athletic Department (even Zook’s hire wasn’t a complete bust). And I will concede, especially in light of Bruce Pearl’s hire, that the University of Tennessee has a good Athletic Program. But I have some complaints. Since I don’t give loads of money to the Athletic Dept. (I don’t even give a little money to it), my only potential means of influencing them is by this little ol’ blog. So here goes.

Re. our football program, I know that Phillip Fulmer has one of the best winning percentages of any active coach in the NCAA, but that’s not all I’m concerned about as a fan. Fulmer has an excellent winning percentage and I think that is VERY closely related to his excellence as a recruiter, but I want excellence in fulfilling potential, in graduation rates and in sportsmanship. I do not accept that Fulmer’s “boys will be boys” attitude (which is a big part of his recruiting success, I think) precludes discipline and high expectations/standards for conduct on and off the field. That discipline is what leads to better execution on the field and averts the problems of playing down to your opponent’s level and acting like T.O. when you make a play.

It still irritates me that the above problems (lack of discipline and failure to execute) have cost us big Ws over the years (especially after layoffs like Bowl season) and even cost us any level of respect for winning the national championship in 1998–which it is hard to argue was not a plain old ugly win.

So that’s my complaint. I’ve been told that Cutcliffe is particularly strong in this area, and Fulmer needs to realize that his personal weakness in this area costs the program.

Just read that House Democrats are backing off their press release about 5-day work weeks, industrious Congresses, urgent people’s business, etc. (here) No biggie; but you’d probably be wise not to talk so much trash.

Waiting until after the Fiesta Bowl is more of a PR issue than anything else–the House Democrats don’t dare take their “100 Hour” media splash event head-to-head with a college football game.

It reminds that last week I read some blogger’s razzing of Senator Corker’s purported comment to Rep. Steve Cohen, “y’all are taking this stuff seriously” or something to that effect.

Nahhh, not that seriously . . . only when the cameras are rolling.

I channel-surfed upon two excellent programs on C-span and C-span2 this evening–kind of sounds like a conspiracy that C-span would be showing programs Ned would consider “excellent” during the infomercials time slot, doesn’t it? Oh well.

One program was a panel with Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia. Very instructive about the contrasting perceptions of the proper role of the judiciary in our constitutional republic.

You ought to watch it and I’d be eager to hear some of you try and explain why Breyer’s position is more “democratic” or more consistent with rule of law. (watch).

I was channel surfing this evening and came across a salient C-Span program in light of a TinyCatPants I read (here) yesterday. “Aunt B” riposted (sic) a Terry Frank post and an Adam Kleinheider post, on the implications, if any, of birth-rate disparities between the East and the West.

The program in question was on BookTV and featured Arthur Brooks, who has published a book/study on patterns of charitable giving in the U.S., Who Really Cares.

“Aunt B” takes offense at the insinuation that people who choose not to have children–or multiple children, are selfish. I didn’t know what to think about the selfish angle, but one thing that Brooks asserts (or has found) is that–all things being equal, people who have more children are more charitable, or vice versa.

“Number of children” is one of a handful of predictive factors for charitableness identified by Brooks (e.g., religious practice, view of government), and they are all clearly interrelated. “Aunt B” and some commenters assert that selflessness is the very reason they’re not having bunches of children. That may be true for them; however, inasmuch as giving to non-family reflects selflessness (and it’s difficult to think of a better measure), it appears the data on charitable giving reflects that a desire to have children goes together with selflessness.

I have to admit that I pay attention to commercials. Now, that’s not the reason I tune in to the Super Bowl, but I am fascinated with advertising. But I wasn’t expecting much when I visited NFL.com’s Super Ad contest site (here) (hat tip worldviews blog). Seriously, it is hard to pick a single favorite, but I like 5, 11 and 12–a mix of humorous and dramatic.

One thing that is interesting to me is how the best ads (in my humble opinion) are well-pitched–the person has “passion” as they make their pitch.

In various sparring sessions over the war in Iraq, I notice that many Liberals flatly assert that Iraq is a distraction from the GWOT (that is, if they’re generously acknowledging that the war against Islamists requires more than strict airport screening.)  I’ve asserted that Iraq was simply the next stage in the GWOT, so the various arguments marshalled for taking this step are more persuasive collectively than they are individually. 

But this article (here) by Stephen F. Hayes of The Weekly Standard is instructive on the issue of whether Iraq is a distraction from the purported common objective of effectively waging the GWOT.  In fact, the connections between Saddam’s Iraq and Jihadists (even Al Qaeda) is pretty clear.

Oh, and remember, disagreeing with a Liberal doesn’t constitute a war crime.