Kudos to The City Paper for its editorial about the recent nomination by Democrats’ recent nomination of John Wilder to another term as Lt. Governor (Wilder’s Leadership Non-existent in Senate). Here’s the last sentence:
So, to date, Tennesseans for the last three decades have deserved John Wilder as their Lt. Governor. They may earn the right to call him speaker again very soon.
My first impression was, no, that isn’t true–if Wilder is elected Lt. Governor, Democrats are getting what they deserve. But, in reality, that can only be said of his election following the 2004 election. The fact that “Republican” Senators Tim Burchett and Mike Williams–who provided Democrats the votes needed to elect Wilder to the position in 2005, are still around to cast ballots on this issue makes Republicans just as culpable. Don’t ever say we’re not bi-partisan.
I’ve been called out by Roger Abramson, again, but this time it’s about my post regarding Mitt Romney’s current position on abortion. You can read my post (here) and Roger’s reaction (here).
Abramson makes much of a Pew Poll showing that only 11% of the population agree with my position on abortion, but even if a mere 11% of the population are “socially Conservative,” that fact is only marginally relevant in electoral politics, and even less so in GOP primary politics. This confusion on Abramson’s part could explain why he challenges my assertion that Romney’s pro-life-with-various-exceptions position isn’t “socially Conservative.” The category “socially Conservative” (I should probably capitalize the “s” in social) isn’t a relative or even subjective term. It has a generally accepted meaning, and the point of my post was that Romney’s abortion stance doesn’t qualify.
On a similar point, I think it is wholly legitimate for Social Conservatives (or as I like to say, Conservatives)–as opposed to moderates, or squishes or Libertarians or Abramsons to define what Social Conservatives believe. Roger may agree with this, assuming that he was hung up on my imprecise “-ly” after “social.”
Lastly, I’ll address what Abramson refers to as his “Law of Presidential Abortion Politics”:
The more logically consistent a presidential candidate’s position on abortion is, the less viable that candidate will be.
Well, I disagree, and my position on abortion is logically consistent, as was that of Ronald Reagan, for example.
A candidate’s position on abortion is only one of many factors that contribute to his/her likelihood of success; so Roger’s “Law” isn’t necessarily validated by a perception that there are no “Pro-life” (as I define it) candidates in contention at present. But that being said, it isn’t difficult–if someone is so inclined, to state a logically consistent pro-life position while acknowledging there is not consensus on prohibiting abortion and noting that a president doesn’t govern by edict.
UPDATE: Adam Kleinheider over at VolunteerVoters.com thinks that Roger’s right. Of course, I think that Adam is wrong, so there you go . . .
Newscoma (here) alerted me to a fascinating story about the war in Iraq. I was kidding when I suggested that the defense lawyer for Ehren Watada might expect the courtroom to sit through a showing of PBS’s “The Darkside” (here) . . . but from reading the interview (here) with Watada, that’s not a stretch. It’s an interesting–and well-done, interview, and it demonstrates the clash of post-modernism and the military. Poor guy enlisted as we were planning to invade Iraq, and his father was a conscientious objector (sort of) in ‘Nam . . . I’m sure his dad is pleased now, though.
Oh well, perhaps Wataba is laying the groundwork for a lackluster run for President in a couple of decades?
Folks, it’s not a crime to disagree with a Liberal.
After graciously enduring 90 minutes of Liberal propaganda (The Darkside), I can’t believe the ingratitude of some Liberal readers. But one element of the “documentary” merits additional comment, I think.
The Charts.
You’re familiar with the technique . . . slowly spinning camera as it zooms or pans out from a chart illustrating the point being made. Oooo, powerful. Nice visual aid. Here is the one on “Vice President Cheney’s Network.”
This chart highlights how Cheney aggregated power at key national security centers — the Pentagon, State and White House — and lists the positions his friends and allies have held during the time period leading up to the 2003 war in Iraq.
This chart is only impressive if you assume that political lightweights (read: Dan Quayle, John Edwards) are the only people qualified–it’s ironic I know, to be Vice President. Of course he has “connections” and an incredible network . . . he was the Gravitas to this ticket, remember? Of course the majority of those in his vast right-wing, er, network are from the right wing.
This reminds me of the Nightline episode during my first year in law school that showed this sinister organizational chart/network that circuitously connected Judge Ken Starr with some lawyer that worked for Clinton-accuser Paula Jones because . . . they both had been members of (cue sinister music) . . . The Federalist Society. Imagine my dismay when I realized there was no chapter at my law school (a deficiency soon corrected). But back to the subject . . .
I can just hear the questioning now at the upcoming Electoral Mandate Impeachment (EMI): “Are you, or have you ever been, an acquaintance or co-worker of Dick Cheney?”
Various local blogs (VolunteerVoters and Bill Hobbs) are reporting about the e-launch of the Mitt Romney for President Exploratory Committee. So I dropped in for a little browsing, and I’m kind of surprised that this is the best they can do regarding the sanctity of life over at mittromney.com. Under “America’s Culture and Values,” we read:
Governor Romney: “I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.”
(Boston Globe, Mitt Romney Editorial, July 26, 2005)
Romney seems to think that he will emerge as the candidate for social conservatives, but this is not a “socially Conservative” position on abortion. Heck, it’s not even logically consistent.
If you’re “pro-life,” what difference does it make how the “life” was conceived? This position–with a list of exceptions, is more accurately anti-abortion-on-demand. Some will say, “fine” but those aren’t Religious Conservatives.
And if it’s a human “life” we’re talking about, how is a human life on American soil not worthy of Constitutional protection from deprivation of life? While it is certainly reasonable for a “pro-life” official to compromise and arrive at a ”state’s rights” (or “exceptions”) position on abortion, it is hardly a principled “pro-lifer” that starts at that position.
Is it just me, or is it not working for FoxSports to use pro announcers for its BCS coverage? I haven’t been able to put my finger on it yet, but I think it seems like they are are NFL-centric? They’re definitely competent to commentate on football (even though some of those in the coverage are rookies–like Wannstedt and Brown), but their references to NFL coaches and the NFL prospects of the players and differences between the NFL and the NCAA give the impression that they are looking past the college game.
I guess FoxSports has a short bench when it comes to college sports, but this may be an example of how the highest bidder may not be the best equipped to deliver the goods (that’s a screwed up metaphor, isn’t it?).
Adam Kleinheider (over at Volunteer Voters) reports that
Keith Ellison, the much chastised first in history Muslim congressman, took some heat when he announced that he would use the Koran as his photo-op faith book of choice at his swearing-in. Represenative Virgil Goode has been most vociferous in his opposition saying:
“When I raise my hand to take the oath on swearing-in day, I will have the Bible in my other hand,” Goode wrote. “I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way….
“If American citizens don’t take up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.”
Ellison has stuck to his guns and will use the Koran in his swearing in – a Koran owned by Thomas Jefferson. Goode had no comment on the choice of this very sopecific Koran.
Nicely played, Congressman, nicely played.
I’m not sure how much I want to take Goode’s side in this whole “debate,” but one way Goode could counter this play by Ellison is to see if he can be sworn-in holding Thomas Jefferson’s copy of “Canterbury Tales.”
Looks like Mr. Ellison will inspire and perform some interesting theater over the next couple years.
They say that the winners get to write the history books. Nevertheless, at the suggestion of a commienter (sic), I took the time to watch “The Darkside”–a Frontline special aired this past summer. When will I learn that if I keep up with Lefty media I can better understand and anticipate their hysterical (and unoriginal) accusations in the blogosphere? Libs, don’t be ashamed to bring this stuff forward more readily–that way we can deal with it way before it festers into a full-blown conspiracy theory.
Some quasi-”live blogging” as I watched the entire episode online at this late hour (much to my dear wife’s chagrin).
Frontline programs crack me up . . . that narrator’s voice–the sinister “music,” the slowly panned B&W photos . . . it can make ANYthing look criminal/evil/Republican. I have to admit that I admire the Left’s abilities to propagandize.
The premise is that Cheney manipulated the intelligence agencies with a handful of nefarious motives. First piece of evidence is that he and Rumsfeld couldn’t abide the CIA running things in the GWOT.
The CIA has no business waging a war (hey Libs, wasn’t this the guiding principle of your foreign policy in the 70s and 80s?) , so it made perfect sense for it to defer to the Pentagon after the initial, rapid operations it conducted in Afghanistan after 9/11. The fact that the Pentagon took over the GWOT after a month or so doesn’t prove that Rumsfeld was Hitlerian or Machiavellian or (even worse) Rovian to seek and obtain that transition. The same goes for Cheney.
The CIA has not had the best track record over the decades and given the expanding capabilities of the military in collecting intelligence and using intelligence, it makes sense that there would be a change in the whole process of intelligence gathering and dissemination–especially in response to the grave threat to America on 9/11 and thereafter. You Libs do acknowledge that 9/11 was bad and that future 9/11s aren’t desirable, don’t you?
The fact that the CIA didn’t think that Mohammed Atta had met with Iraqi officials in Prague is somehow gospel now? Is this the CIA that the Left has reviled and underminded and underfunded for decades? That one? Hindsight is 20/20. They should rename Frontline to Hindline or something like that.
I like how one talking head/book author flatly states that the military could have just blocked the eastern border of Afghanistan . . . when several others (military types) express the difficulty of blocking off a long mountainous border, replete with systems of tunnels. Of course the Liberal writer is right. And I thought we Conservatives were the dogmatic, Black&White ones. Oh, I guess that we wanted Bin Laden to escape, right? I tell you, this conspiracy stuff is too easy.
It’s not a crime to have misjudged the status of the mission in Afghanistan and determined that we could move ahead to Iraq and keep our enemies on the run. It just isn’t. Now; it may have been an inaccurate judgment, but see above about hindsight.
And surely you Libs realize that you are mischaracterizing the whole basis for invading Iraq–but maybe I shouldn’t assume that you are interested in any constructive debate on the war (oh, and demolishing the President’s approval ratings doesn’t qualify as “constructive”). And though Iraq was not “connected” to Afghanistan or Al Qaeda in one sense, it was a bit of unfinished business with WMD dreams and capabilities.
Author Suskind: “9/11 was a coming together of opportunity and intent.” (paraphrase) “They’re [Cheney and other "Darksiders"] looking to expand executive authority and then 9/11 comes along . . . ” Mr. Suskind, What is proof of their intentions to illicitly “expand exec. auth.”? (and, remember, disagreeing with a Democrat doesn’t count as “unconstitutional” or “criminal”).
I like all the “smoking gun” comments they’ve got on Cheney . . . on Meet the Press! What a conspiracy dunce. Even the “darkside” comment was said on national TV. Surely the PBS folks could have found a way to obscure that Cheney was making the “darkside” admission on national TV?!
Crockumentaries 101: Presume sinister motives to everything done by “bad guys” and noble motives (or duping of said “good guy”) to the “good guys.” Former senior level CIA operative Paul Pillar who basically wrote Tenet’s NIE that was presented to Congress, is supposedly a moral paragon and yet he cannot state any concrete means by which he was pressured to fabricate evidence supporting the threat of Iraq–a former CIA agent states, “I have such respect for Pillar that if he participated in this, the force exerted upon him by the VP must have been overwhelming[!!!]” That, my friends, is begging the question.
Likewise, Colin Powell is a moral paragon yet he chose to be a “team player” and “not abandon his Commander in Chief and the troops.” Doesn’t sound like he’s got much character to me, or maybe he isn’t as “with” you Libs as you’d like to think.
And it sounds like Tenet was the criminal if he knew that the intelligence didn’t support the decision and called it a “slam dunk” when the President expressed doubt. And likewise if Tenet “assur[ed]” Powell that the info being presented to the UN was “ironclad.” Oh, I forgot, Tenet was duped by Darth Cheney.
It took some chutzpah to feature campaign-aide-de-Kerry Joseph Wilson in this thing, but it is entirely predictable: Wilson: “I knew a lot about uranium production. I knew a lot about Niger.” Frontline narrator dude: “The CIA sent Wilson to Niger–he found no evidence of a yellow-cake sale.” That’s all that is said about this “assertion” until 30 minutes later when they roll out the Scooter Libby non-conspiracy and the Plame Affair.
But THAT WASN’T WHAT THE ASSERTION WAS, FOLKS, in the famous “16 words” of Dubya’s SOTU address. The “16 words” were accurate.
But even if all this is true, even if the entire thesis of this “documentary” is true, so what? Why were all these people so eager to go to war in Iraq? Halliburton? Military Industrial Complex? Oil? Warmonger marrow in their bones? Unadulterated evil?
Lastly, I don’t think the evidence supports the accusation that evidence was “manipulated” (sorry, it’s not enough to prove someone is Eeevul by establishing that they have voted for a Republican) but the focus on “evidence” or lack thereof in support of the invasion of Iraq is Liberal sleight of hand. To most Americans, the link between Hussein’s Iraq and the GWOT was clear . . . he was willing and eager to work with Islamists; he had demonstrated that willingness and capability; the GWOT is a worldwide battle and it won’t be solved by kicking all the Islamists out of the gov’t in Afghanistan; we had–as a country, denied the global nature of the war with Islamists in the past; thus, toppling Hussein in Iraq was merely “Chapter 3″ in the GWOT (“Chapter 4″ if you include the Clinton years when the Islamists were beginning to nip at our heels).
It is not a war crime to agree with the preceding paragraph; it is not a war crime to suspect/conclude that leading Democrats/Liberals are afraid to fight a war and will stop at nothing to subvert use of force by a Republican; it is not a war crime (or even unwise) to question the capabilities of the CIA; it was not a war crime to challenge the veracity and competence of Joe Wilson.
This WaPo article (here, via Drudge) demonstrates the problems the “New Democrat Majority Party!” faces . . . there is no way that Pelosi & Co. can scrupulously pass their–ahem, “well publicized [legislative] plan” in 100 hours. It is impossible to allow debate on (much less full review of) their (as yet un-released) proposals in that amount of time. But that is plenty of time for the MSM to cram down our throats, “these are some sure-as-syrup ethical, industrious and populist folks!”
On the other hand, it appears that Pelosi’s foolish, pre-election-press-conference 100 hours gauntlet-throwing will result in Dems shooting their wad of “popular” proposals in only four days of session.
And for the record, contrary to how it was portrayed in the WaPo article, the House Republicans FULLY DELIVERED ON THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA: they promised an up or down vote on a list of policy proposals which were both legitimately “well publicized” and not rammed through without debate.
I love the story about John Edwards trying to pull strings at Wal-Mart to get an X-box for his 6-year-old. I like it because it tells how Edwards unwittingly demonstrates (aside from incredible hypocrisy and elitism) his belief in the Wal-Mart ethic . . .
Which is what I thought of when reading this Thomas Sowell op/ed about free markets and Wal-Mart and ignorance.
And speaking of John Edwards and economic ignorance, here’s another op/ed on the subject.
-
Recent Comments
Angela McGrayel on Nihilist, but Moralist, Woody… Music City Bloggers … on Blind-sided by baby robert raikkken on If you don’t feel close … nedwilliams on Mitt on abortion egalia on Mitt on abortion
