If you’re not an Africa-watcher, you might not have seen the news that Guinean military dictator Moussa “Dadis” Camara was wounded yesterday when rogue elements of his presidential guard opened fire on him. Now – if you bear with me – I will get around to why Guinea is particularly relevant to the world scene right now. But first I want to give you a primer on the situation and why I think the military government is lying through it’s teeth when they say that “Dadis” is doing just fine.

Camara seized power in a July 2008 coup, following the death of long-time dictator Lansana Conté. His regime again made international news in September, when his thugs massacred pro-democracy protesters gathered in a soccer stadium. The death toll is unclear, but human rights groups heve estimated it at 157. Apparently, the handling of the fallout of that atrocity caused a rift between Dadis and the head of his presidential guard – who decided yesterday that the best way to handle wht situation was to whack his boss. This is where it gets interesting.

According to the military junta, Camara sustained only minor wounds and is doing well. That was their position yesterday, and they held to that position today despite announcing that Camara had been flown to Morocco for medical treatment (and refusing to discuss the nature of the wounds). Meanwhile, leaks out of the military are indicating that Camara was hit in the head and is in serious condition. In all honesty, I’m not sure I buy either side’s story but I’m more inclined to go with the head wound than the minor flesh wound. Here’s why:

First, Camara is notoriously (and rightly) paranoid about leaving the country – fearful of a counter-coup while he is away. He has even planned trips on several occasions, only to leave the jets idling on the runway at the last minute. So, we are now expected to believe that this same man left the country for a minor wound treatment – at a time when there really is a counter-coup attempt in the works? He wouldn’t have gone if he didn’t have a severe enough wound that it could not be treated in Guinea – and as poor as the country is, I’m sure his presidential team would be able to treat a minor bullet wound. Second, I don’t watch Guinea terribly often, but in my experience, Camara is a pretty outspoken guy and is not camera-shy. If he was as up-and-about as his minions claim – the why didn’t he go on TV and tell the nation everything was fine?

I think we can establish that something smells like fish – the only question is how bad the situation really is.

So, why am I bringing this up here  - other than my fetish for international news? Well, that particular region of West Africa if becoming one of the most important hubs in the international cocaine trade. Latin American drug cartels are asserting more and more influence, as they use these largely lawless nations as a stopover between production operations in South America and the fast-growing European cocaine market (which is more lucrative than the U.S.). They have alreadytrasformed Guinea’s smaller and poorer neighbor, Guinea-Bissau, into ”Africa’s first narco-state” and who knows what they could do if a larger nation like Guinea descends into chaos. It is the drug cartels, not local thugs, who would benefit most from instability. So, this event may be more internationally important than most African coup-attempts.

I’m not saying that I want Camara to stay in power, he is a thug and a pathetic excuse for a human being. I will say, however, that the international community needs to take notice of of the new African narco-states as a potential security risk – especially considering that jihadi terrorist groups are also pushing closer to that part of Africa. Guinea-Bissau has largely already fallen, and it would be a big mistake to sit idly by if Guinea-proper starts spiraling downward as well.    

Oh – and if you’re wondering whether I will ever get back to domestic issues – the answer is yes. In fact, I will be updating you tomorrow after I attend the Sarah Palin book signing in Fairfax, VA.

Reid loses by 10% and 6% to the two top Republican challengers:

Las Vegas Review Journal/Mason-Dixon 2010 Nevada Senate Poll

• Sue Lowden (R) 51% (49%) [45%]
• Harry Reid (D) 41% (39%) [40%]

• Danny Tarkanian (R) 48% (48%) [49%]
• Harry Reid (D) 42% (43%) [38%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Sue Lowden: 33% (31%) / 13% (15%) {+20%}
• Danny Tarkanian: 32% (30%) / 12% (11%) {+20%}
• Harry Reid: 38% (38%) [37%] / 49% (50%) [50%] {-11%}

2010 Senate: Republican Primary

• Sue Lowden 25% (23%) [14%]
• Danny Tarkanian 24% (21%) [33%]
• Sharron Angle 13% (9%) [5%]
• Other 5%

Survey conducted between 11/30-12/2/09 among 625 likely voters with a 4% margin of error. GOP primary surveyed 300 likely Republican primary voters and has a 6% margin of error. Results from the poll conducted October 6-8 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted August 17-18 are in square brackets.

Inside the numbers:

Nevadans aren’t warming up to Sen. Harry Reid, despite plenty of early advertising designed to boost his image, a new poll shows.

Just 38 percent of respondents said they had a favorable opinion of the Democratic Senate majority leader, the same percentage as in October and 1 point higher than in August.

“We’ve always said we will run an aggressive campaign that includes early television, and this is just the beginning,” said Reid campaign manager Brandon Hall.

Warning: This video contains extreme language. Not suitable for younger viewers.

The argument is initiated over a disagreement on Afghanistan war policy and ‘truther’ comments made by the former Governor of Minnesota.  Ventura is a former Navy Seal and veteran of the Vietnam war.

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

In an appearance on Larry King Live, the Governor reacted surprisingly while discussing the Huckabee-Clemmons story:

During an interview Thursday night with CNN’s Larry King Live, Romney, who in his four years as governor says he did not pardon or commute a single sentence, empathized with his former political rival in the last battle for the Republican presidential nomination, saying the focus is on the tragedy that struck the lives of Washington state residents.

…”You have three families that lost their father, one family that lost their mother, and this is just tragic,” Romney said. “I think [Huckabee] indicated that had he got the chance to do it again based on what he knows now, of course he wouldn’t have made that decision and I believe that’s true.”

Romney also characterized Huckabee as “a good man”, which I liked to hear. All in all, this video shows strong character from Mitt, as he could have easily turned this into an opportunity to score political points, by questioning Huck’s judgment and contrasting the amount of pardons he and Mike granted (he only commented on his refusal to grant a single pardon after King asked him about his record). I will venture to say that Romney’s behavior in this interview exemplified what we should hope to see in a leader.

On Monday, Adam Graham put up a solid defense of Huckabee as not being at fault over the Maurice Clemmons shootings, and he ended by saying, “the blame Huckabee effort is unseemly, and it verges on morbid politics.” I must disagree, for two reasons. The first is that Huckabee’s initial statement took no blame whatsoever for Clemmons’ release. As a man of God and a presidential hopeful, avoiding responsibility is inappropriate, to say the least. Whether full blame can be laid at Huckabee’s feet is irrelevant- some blame could, and by sidestepping it the former Arkansas governor made himself look shifty. Even his “tak[ing] full responsibility” statement on Newsmax.com shifted blame onto others. While the Arkansas clemency process should be known to the general public so they can understand what went on nine years ago, the way Huckabee did it was, to take Mr. Graham’s word, unseemly.

The second reason is that, as Huckabee admitted in his statement, as governor he had the final say on whether clemency should be granted. Here, according to Huckabee’s Newsmax statement, is how the clemency process works in Arkansas: “Each state is different, but in Arkansas, a governor doesn’t initiate a parole—the Post Prison Transfer Board does after it conducts a thorough review of an inmate’s file and request. The board then makes a recommendation to the governor, who decides to grant or deny.

If the decision is made to grant any form of clemency (the broad term for a commutation or a full pardon), the governor gives notice of intent and the file is sent to the prosecutor, judge, law enforcement officials, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of State as well as to the news media. A period of 30 days is then started for there to be public input as well as response from the above named officials. At the end of the public response period, the final decision is rendered.”

Huckabee granted a massive number of pardons throughout his time as governor; I imagine it was done from the goodness of his heart, his faith in the goodness of people and his faith in God. However, according to a variety of sources, Huckabee released a convicted rapist who then raped and killed a woman only eleven months later. While the latter situation and the Clemmons shooting are only two of the 1,000-plus clemencies Huckabee granted- a very small percentage, to be certain- it does call his judgement as a political leader and lawmaker into question. We conservatives would hammer a Democrat who made an error of this magnitude; we should hold “our” side at least as accountable.

I think The New Hampshire Union Leader said it best: “[Huckabee's] appalling record on clemencies, combined with his cowardly blame-shifting, ought to disqualify him from serious consideration for the presidency.” I could not agree more.

Unfortunately, Huckabee’s inability to gain support in 2012 will boost Governor Palin’s chances of winning the Republican nomination. I had hoped Huckabee would stay strong until the 2012 race as his strongest base of supporters, evangelical Christians, are also strong supporters of Palin. Since I do not support either person for President, it was my hope that they would split their strongest base of supporters, leaving the race open for a Ron Paul-type candidate, Governor Romney or Governor Pawlenty to stride in and take the nomination.

Bill Pascoe of CQ Politics says the Huckabee situation gives Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, a good shot at the nomination. I’m sure there are other potentials who would gain from this…but none more than Sarah Palin. Given her lack of practical experience, divisive speaking style, inability to articulate policy viewpoints and pettiness in responding to many of the valid criticisms against her, however, this would be a disaster for the Republican Party and America as a whole. The party would suffer because, if Palin won, she would be demolished in a general election against just about anyone, and the country would suffer because the Democratic general election candidate is likely to be President Obama, who is even worse for the country than Palin.

The good thing is that there are over two years until the 2012 presidential primaries, and two very good probable candidates are taking the necessary steps to win. The first, Mitt Romney, is making speeches on national defense and foreign policy, getting money through his PAC and generally making  himself the early establishment candidate who is, unlike Palin, Huckabee and most other presidential wanna-bes, both qualified and conservative. Meanwhile, Mike Pence (R-IN) is making the rounds himself at various events- I’ve seen him twice in the last two months, once at the Defending The American Dream Summit and more recently at the Robert L. Bartley Gala Dinner- and taking the lead in the House of Representatives against the liberal Democratic caucus. Too, he has been an ardent defender of free speech, lower spending and strong national defense. Hopefully either one of these men can make inroads with the evangelical conservatives and take them away from Palin. With Huckabee out, she has gained a huge opening for the 2012 nomination, and I have to think she plans on taking full advantage.

Yeah, she knew that was dumb, as indicated by her new Facebook note:

Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask… which they have repeatedly. But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.

(1) But is it still fair game to ask him? And at this point?

(2) She is greatly exaggerating the influence of the “Trig Truthers.” Half of the Republican Party thinks it’s “fair game” to ask about Obama’s birth certificate. The Trig morons were limited to a weird sub-section of bloggers.

I am pleased to see this, er, clarification so quickly. But this foot-in-mouth tendency needs to go away. Like, fast.

Here is the video of Huckabee’s appearance on “The View” today. This appearances by Huckabee had been schedule for at least a week.

Huckabee answering questions about the Maurice Clemmons case.

Huckabee’s exit interview.

Bye-bye, Sarah Palin. It’s been fun supporting you off and on over the past few months, but now you’ve hopped on board the crazy train and I want nothing to do with you:

Speaking to the conservative talker Rusty Humphries today, Sarah Palin left the door open to speculation about President Obama’s birth certificate.

“Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?” she was asked…

“I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers,” she replied.

“Do you think it’s a fair question to be looking at?” Humphries persisted.

“I think it’s a fair question, just like I think past association and past voting records — all of that is fair game,” Palin said. “The McCain-Palin campaign didn’t do a good enough job in that area.”

OK, now. Time to go away!

It looks as though Former Governor Mike Huckabee might just have been intentionally misleading the public and the media in his interviews the last two days, and I’m calling him on his bull.

“I looked at the file, every bit of it, and here was a case where a guy had been given 108 years. Now if you think that a 108 year sentence is an appropriate sentence for a 16 year-old for the crimes he committed, then you should run for governor of Arkansas,”

In my earlier post, I gave some commentary about where I disagreed with Huckabee on certain parts of his statement, but for the most part, I refrained from criticizing his intentions.  However,  after reading the statements thoroughly and reviewing the facts that have been reported in comparison to what Huckabee has stated, I’m calling BS.  In numerous interviews that he’s given today, Governor Huckabee has stated (statement posted at Huckpac):

Maurice Clemmons was 16 years old when he was charged with burglary and robbery. He was sentenced to a total of 108 years based on the way in which the sentences were stacked. For the crimes he committed and the age at which he committed the crimes, it was dramatically outside the norm for sentencing. The PPTB recommended in 2000 by a 5-0 vote for his sentence to be commuted.

He had served 11 years of his sentence. A pardon would have set him free and cleared his record. A commutation to “time served” would have set him free and released him from any parole reporting. As per the recommendation, I commuted his sentence to the term of 47 years, still a long sentence for the type of crime he had committed, but it would make him parole eligible. It would not parole him, as governors do not have that power in Arkansas. He would have to separately apply for parole and meet the criteria for that.

Huckabee is intentionally spinning, and this statement is complete bull. 

A- Huckabee is misleading in his description of Clemmons age

 Huckabee keeps referring to Maurice Clemmons as “a 16 year old kid.”  That’s misleading.  He was 16 at the time of his first arrest.  However, he was 17 when he committed armed robbery.  In Clemmons request for clemency, he stated, “started his crime spree at 16, after he had moved from Seattle to a high-crime neighborhood in Arkansas.”  True

In a 1989 aggravated robbery, Clemmons, 17 at the time, and two accomplices accosted a woman at midnight in the parking lot of a Little Rock hotel bar and robbed her of $16 and a credit card.

It sounds like a small detail, but 16 sounds a lot more sympathetic than 17 years old, which is closer to being a legal adult. 

B-  The time Clemmons would serve in prison

In the interviews he’s given, Huckabee has made sure to interject that:

“As per the recommendation, I commuted his sentence to the term of 47 years, still a long sentence for the type of crime he had committed, but it would make him parole eligible. It would not parole him, as governors do not have that power in Arkansas. He would have to separately apply for parole and meet the criteria for that.”

It is true that he would make him parole eligible with the clemency, but the fact is that he would already have been parole eligible whether or not Huckabee granted him clemency.  In one of his statements, Huckabee  does mention that he would’ve been eligible for parole.  However, he was not going to serve 108 years in prison, regardless.  He served 10 years in prison, and would’ve served  25 years before he was eligible for parole.  That’s a stiff sentence, but not near as bad as some have made it out to be, and the number that Huckabee has repeatedly stated in interviews.  There’s also the fact that although he was sentenced to 108 years, even in the most extreme circumstances, there was no way he would have served the full amount because- according to court records obtained by the Arkansas Times, some of the sentences were concurrent.  108 years was the total, and not how long Clemmons was going to serve.

C- It was technically not a real gun, but… 

A non-violent crime, as it has been referred to, does not mean that he snuck into someone’s house and robbed them without threatening them (actually, he committed that crime as well).  In 1989, Clemmons robbed a woman at gunpoint.  It turned out that it wasn’t a gun, but she would not have necessarily known that at the time.  He told her, “Give me your purse or I’m going to shoot you.”   He ended up punching her in the head and taking her purse.

Al Gore had set up a lecture at the upcoming climate summit that was charging $1200 a pop for the opportunity to meet him, shake his hand, and get a light snack. (I wonder what sort of snack you get for $1200). 3000 people signed up.

Quick math: That’s $3,600,000 we are talking here.

He has abruptly canceled with not so much as hint to the reason, leaving the organizers greatly annoyed and disappointed (their words, not mine). Yes, I could easily imagine that they might well be.

Now why he would do that?

In other news, did you see where Jon Stewart commented:

Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. OH. OH the irony.

I am sure the two stories have nothing to do with each other, right?

Keeping up with the Huck, or the latest on Huckagate: I don’t want to pile on the guy, especially since I plan on posting a long essay related to this case within the next week.  At the same time, I don’t want to ignore the goings on, considering this site is still R412 and focused on upcoming elections, including possible candidacies for the 2012 presidential race.

I’ve left some remarks in the comment section that pretty much confirm where I stand (which isn’t much of a surprise), so I shall just do some short commentary on the latest involving the head spinning and quite confusing news regarding Huckabee, not to go after him, but just to point out some instances where I agree or disagree with him.

Governor Huckabee has been out front in challenging the attacks that have been headed in his direction.  Appearing on the View, CNN, and just about anywhere else, he has argued that (H/t to gop12 and danl):

He was a person who at 16 did some dumb things and some criminal things, but I don’t know of a single person who can look me in the eye and tell me that if they didn’t have that same file in front of them, they wouldn’t believe that maybe 47 years was a more appropriate sentence for what he did as a minor.

I don’t initially see anything wrong with what Huckabee stated in this particular quote, but upon second glance, I noticed something that did bother me.  The underlying problem that I see with this statement is in these words, “they wouldn’t believe that maybe 47 years was a more appropriate sentence for what he did as a minor.”  On the surface, that sounds fair.  It’s just that it’s inconsistent. 

 Let’s see go over this in chronological order:

Before arrest: He’s a minor

Conviction: He’s an adult

When Huckabee grants clemency: He’s a  minor again

I don’t know about you, Governor Huckabee, but I would be willing to bet that both he and I can name numerous cases (off the top of our heads) where a person “at 16″ have been both tried and convicted as adults.  That’s the law.  I don’t personally agree with it, as I don’t think children should ever be tried as adults because it’s inconsistent case by case, but the law is the law.  Considering that Governor Huckabee wrote the book Kids Who Kill, I’m sure he’s aware of the statutes as well. 

At the same time, if he was tried as an adult, then he should remain an adult and be treated as an adult, since he did have a record while in jail, and some prosecutors (corrected from psychologists for D.S.) and the victims did oppose the decision. 

Had he been arrested on his 18th birthday, then guess what?  He’s an adult.  If the Arkansas state law convicts him as an adult, then he’s an adult.  This particular quote reeks of sentimentalism.  In fact the more I write about it, the more cynical I become.  He’s one or the other.

Today, Huckabee also appeared on the View, and it seems to have been a successful interview   According to Associated Content:

Whoopi Goldberg thanked Huckabee for his honesty and integrity in taking responsibility for his role in the release of Clemmons. In this day of denial, Mike Huckabee has stepped up to acknowledge his role. Surely it has nothing to do with the fact that he is selling a new book (or that he may run for President again in 2012).

Elisabeth Hasselbeck jumped in to say, “The two judges that allowed [Clemmons] to post bail after parole violations and the rape of a 12 year old girl should be the ones answering questions.” If Huckabee does not have visions of the future, how can we hold judges to that standard?

Huckabee ended the interview by stating that the easiest thing to do would be to deny all clemency cases outright.  The U.S. provides checks and balances for a reason though.  There are unreasonably tough judges in the U.S. and DNA tests have proven the innocence of some convicted criminals.  This is the reason for the review process on a case by case basis. Huckabee said that if the exact same case came across his desk today with the exact same set of circumstances, he would make the exact same decision.

 

 

WashingtonKay.com

Get Your Kay Bailout Bucks!

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

To the eternal sadness of conservatives around the United States, radical Obama worshiper and Trigg-truther Andrew Sullivan is leaving ‘The Right’, as he put it.  Now I know that many of you, like me, will have to try and find some reason to go on with our lives now that this conservative icon is leaving us behind, but somehow I know we can wipe our tears away and compose ourselves long enough to carry on without this truly inspirational conservative.  Mr. Sullivan has composed a manifesto of sorts to explain his leaving. I think it will help our collective grieving process to do the same. For starters, we should script a new ‘conservative blogger manifesto‘ as a guide to help fellow conservatives decide what bloggers to support, and which ones to avoid. Let’s give it a shot:

I cannot support a blogger that claims to believe in radical conspiracies involving the pregnancies of female politicians.

I cannot support a blogger that focuses his attacks on the young children of politicians.

I cannot support a blogger who bashes anti-gay marriage conservatives while endorsing anti-gay marriage democrats.

I cannot support a blogger who bashes conservatives for advocating limited government and tax cuts while supporting the privatization of Social Security, opposing universal healthcare, and supporting a flat tax.

I cannot support a blogger who defines himself as a ‘religious secularist’, attacks religious bigotry, and then goes on to participate in the very bigotry he condemns.

I cannot support a blogger who viciously attacks people he views as ‘Christian extremists’ or ‘Christianists’ while attacking those who condemn extremists of the Islamic faith.

I cannot support a blogger who defends a state-by-state federalist approach to same-sex marriage, and then whines when the votes don’t go his way, accusing opponents of homophobia and bigotry.

I cannot support a blogger who claims conservative principles and small government philosophy while supporting big spending, deficit-busting, liberal republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I cannot support a blogger who advocates prostitution and the use of recreational drugs.

I cannot support a blogger who does not support Israel’s right of self-defense.

I cannot support a blogger who ignores the Democratic Party’s widespread hypocrisy on homosexuals, openly soliciting their support while consistently siding against same-sex marriage.

I cannot support a blogger who ignores legitimate scientific doubt and condemns debate on anthropogenic global warming.

I cannot support a blogger who ignores evidence proving scientists have deliberately falsified data on anthropogenic global warming at one of the world’s leading centers for studying climate change.

I cannot support a blogger who attacked Bill Clinton for ‘reckless’ sexual behavior while soliciting unprotected sex in paid advertisements.

I cannot support a blogger who solicited unprotected sex in paid advertisements while knowingly HIV-positive.

I cannot support a blogger who voted for Bill Clinton/Al Gore, John Kerry/John Edwards, and Barack Obama/Joe Biden while claiming to be a conservative.

Goodbye Andrew! Don’t let the door hit you where the good lord split you.

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

Blanche Lincoln loses to all four potential challengers:

Rasmussen 2010 Arkansas U.S. Senate Poll

• Kim Hendren (R) 46%
• Blanche Lincoln (D) 39%
• Some Other Candidate 6%
• Not Sure 9%

• Gilbert Baker (R) 47%
• Blanche Lincoln (D) 41%
• Some Other Candidate 6%
• Not Sure 7%

• Curtis Coleman (R) 44%
• Blanche Lincoln (D) 40%
• Some Other Candidate 7%
• Not Sure 9%

• Tom Cox (R) 43%
• Blanche Lincoln (D) 40%
• Some Other Candidate 7%
• Not Sure 10%

Inside the numbers:

Senator Blanche Lambert Lincoln has found herself right in the middle of the national debate over health care, and that’s a tough spot as she prepares to face Arkansas voters in 2010.

As she did in September, Lincoln trails four possible Republican challengers in the latest Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 survey. In fact, support for the incumbent ranges from only 39% to 41% in these match-ups.

The two-term senator, who was reelected with 54% of the vote in 2004, appears more vulnerable because of her visible and pivotal role in the Senate debate over health care. Lincoln was the last Democrat to vote for allowing the debate to formally begin, and she has taken pains to point out that a vote to begin debate is not a vote for the bill.

Looking at the data, it’s easy to understand Lincoln’s concern. Against all four Republicans, she leads by wide margins among those who favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. The senator even leads by a wide margin among those who Somewhat Oppose the legislation. But among those who Strongly Oppose the health care plan, Lincoln trails every potential Republican challenger by more than 50 percentage points.

The really bad news for Lincoln is that 56% of Arkansas voters Strongly Oppose the congressional health care plan. Just 18% Strongly Favor it.

Having spent a considerable amount of time around elected officials in my youth and knowing the stress a career in public office can have on politicians and their families, I cannot help but feel compassion for Governor Huckabee.

He is taking heat from the public and media, and deservedly so, but he is most certainly experiencing a high level of guilt for the poor judgement he displayed several years ago.  Huckabee has always stuck me as the type of leader who took his career as a public servant very seriously.  The citizenry are his sheep, and that is not necessary a poor perspective to have, although as we have experienced with the Obama administration and Democratic controlled Congress, legal and economic compassion can lead to misguided governance.  This is most certainly the case for a man who pardoned and granted clemency to more convicted criminals than the three previous governors of Arkansas (William Jefferson Clinton included), combined. 

Some have suggested that ‘Governor Huckabee granted clemency to Clemmons’ because it presented a political opportunity to reach out to African Americans.  Although I would never put this past a politician to stoop to such a low level, I believe this is not the reasoning behind the clemency.  Huckabee, like many former pragmatic political leaders, capitulate in their constitutional duties because a desire of wanting to nurture their constituents.  This desire stems general human nature and from the power granted to them through electoral victory.  They fall prey to the constant pleas for assistance from the poor, misguided and disenfranchised, even if a majority of their constituents demand judgement free from emotion.      

After compassion, the second most destructive disposition adopted by elected official is the sense of entitlement.  Political figures (all powerful public figures for that matter) who allow entitlement and a lust for power to cloud their judgement engage in two types of behavior.  They either ignore criminal law and conduct standards, or in the case of male politicians, they develop a psychosexual fixation (neurosis).  The latter is certainly the case for another former 2012 contender, Governor Mark Sanford.

For Sanford, the sense of entitlement did not lead him to take a lover, but instead to the fact that he was unable to contraindicate his impulsive trickery when hiding from his constituents, family and security detail.  This sense of entitlement was on full display at his press conference, when he only focused on the lust, instead of the treachery that he prosecuted from his office.

While a compassionate nature is easy to identify in politicians with a track record of governance, corruptive behavior, generated from a sense of entitlement is much more difficult to pinpoint.  In the cases of Tiger Woods, John Ensign and Mark Sanford, the unexpected was exposed.  Prior to the revelations of the irrational actions they took to cover up the sexual relationships they were engaged in, it was believed that these men had not allowed themselves to fall victim to the entitlement syndrome.  Thus, we really don’t know who in the prospective 2012 field are unfit to be nominated.  

We remain two years away from the start of the Republican primary campaign and already two legitimate contenders have aborted their oval office aspirations because they allowed themselves to fall victim to the emotional corruption that generates within the minds and hearts of elected officials.  As the other 15 contenders face additional scrutiny leading up to the first caucus, expect to see the field of candidates shrink, as those who believe they are entitled to the office are exposed.

The dynamics of vote splitting and coalitions will be drastically different from what the 2012 junkies (myself included) currently analyze, debate and speculate about.  The opportunities and barriers faced by many of the candidates today, may not be so prevalent in 2 years.

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

I received an email from Kavon, asking me what my opinion is on the fact that the longtime Democratic Congressman from the 8th District of  Tennessee, John Tanner, has opted not to seek re-election. 

This should be another pick up for the GOP.  As I mentioned to Kavon in my response, Tanner was a conservative Democrat, and it is damn near impossible to knock out an incumbent one in this state.  With this news, it should be a gain  for the Republicans with Stephen Fincher.  However, I would remain cautiously optimistic until after the Democrats have selected their candidate to run (which is likely to be Roy Herron).

I would like to wish a very happy birthday to my friend and co-editor Aron Goldman!

My birthday wish for you is to see your Indianapolis Colts achieve a perfect 16-0 season and reach the big game..

(more…)

Things just keep getting worse.

In December 2003 and January 2004 –almost four years after Wayne Dumond committed another rape and only a few months after he had been convicted of it — Prosecutor Robert Herzfeld in the 22nd Judicial District in Arkansas wrote then Governor Mike Huckabee complaining about his process for handling clemency requests. He outlines several things that concerned him — the lack of notification and consulting, seeming contradictions in Huckabee’s statements on the subject, lack of openness, etc. He suggested a more open process “…would be more respectful to the people of Arkansas, and allow them the opportunity to understand why a convicted muderer (or rapist) should be set free.”

He goes on to say, “It is inevitable that citizens will question the motives of public officials who take such dramatic action without offering the slightest explanation of justification whatsoever. This type of situation damages the credibility of everyone in public service, and is harmful to our democracy.”

The official response came from Huckabee’s Deputy Legal Counsel. Using the Governor’s official letterhead, he replied:

The Governor read your letter and laughed out loud.

He wanted me to respond to you. I wish you success as you cut down on your caffeine consumption.

I wonder if Mike Huckabee is “laughing out loud” now?

Read the entire editorial, here;

My 10-point plan

The president’s economists insist that technically, the recession is over. But double-digit unemployment was neither prevented nor has it ended. To get people back to work as rapidly as possible and to restore America’s economic vitality, the nation must change course. Here’s the advice I would give:

•Repair the stimulus. Freeze the funds that haven’t yet been spent and redirect them to immediate, private sector job-creation priorities.

•Create tax incentives that promote business expansion and hiring. For example, install a robust investment tax credit, permit businesses to expense capital purchases made in 2010, and reduce payroll taxes. These will reignite construction, technology and a wide array of capital goods industries, and lead to expanded employment.

•Prove to the global investors that finance America’s debt that we are serious about reining in spending and becoming fiscally prudent by adopting limits on non-military discretionary spending and reforming our unsustainable, unfunded entitlements. These are key to strengthening the dollar, reducing the threat of rampant inflation and holding down interest rates.

•Close down any talk of carbon cap-and-trade. It will burden consumers and employers with billions in new costs. Instead, greatly expand our commitment to natural gas and nuclear, boosting jobs now and reducing the export of energy jobs and dollars later.

•Tell the unions that job-stifling “card check” legislation is off the table. Laying new burdens on small business will kill entrepreneurship and job creation.

•Don’t allow a massive tax increase to go into effect in 2011 with the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. The specter of more tax-fueled government spending and the reduction of capital available for small business will hinder investment and business expansion.

•New spending should be strictly limited to items that are critically needed and that we would have acquired in the future, such as new military equipment to support our troops abroad and essential infrastructure at home.

•Install dynamic regulations for the financial sector – rules that are up to date, efficient and not excessively burdensome. But do not so tie up the financial sector with red tape that we lose a vital component of our economic system.

•Open the doors to trade. Give important friends like Colombia favored trade status rather than bow to protectionist demands. Now is the time for aggressive pursuit of opportunities for new markets for American goods, not insular retrenchment.

•Stop frightening the private sector by continuing to hold GM stock, by imposing tighter and tighter controls on compensation, and by pursuing a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Government encroachment on free enterprise is depressing investment and job creation.

The 10% unemployment crisis hangs like an albatross around President Obama’s neck. Eventually, as with every recession and recovery, the economy will improve and jobs will be created, but those who were unnecessarily unemployed due to the president’s faulty economic program will not forget. In order to most rapidly re-employ all Americans and to speed a strong recovery, the president must change course. If he does not, Republicans will bring a change of their own to Washington in the 2010 elections.

H/T: Birthday Boy

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Here is an Op-Ed by Gov. Huckabee published today on the Afghan troop surge:

President Obama has now announced that the United States will send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. The President finally spoke forcefully on the way forward in Afghanistan. His supporters on the left, who have been calling for an immediate pullout of all troops, must have felt like they’d gotten a hard spanking by their big brother.The President, to his credit, made it unmistakably clear that he considers Afghanistan to be the epicenter of terrorist planning. He also made it clear that as that epicenter of terrorist planning, Afghanistan represents a clear and present danger to the United States of America and all freedom loving nations.

I was impressed with the President’s assertion that comparisons of Afghanistan to Vietnam represents a “false reading of history.” He did attempt to placate the anti-war left with a promise to work with the Afghan government so that they could eventually take over its own security. He also made a general promise to start bringing troops home within 18 months.

But, the President correctly pointed out al-Qaeda is a cancer in Afghanistan that threatens us all. You don’t deal with cancer by pretending it doesn’t exist. It may have taken longer than it should have, but the President deserves credit and our support and respect for coming to the right conclusion.

Republicans concerned about the war on terror have frequently been critical of the President’s handling of this national security threat. Now, we owe him our non-partisan support as he takes a clear stand and seeks to give our military the resources they need to push al-Qaeda back to hell.

Read the entire piece here.

______________________________________

Disclosure: David Schmidt is the Director of HucksArmy and reachable at david.schmidt@evercor.com, or on Facebook and Twitter

President Obama’s speech on what he is planning to do about the war in Afghanistan was the speech of a deeply committed radical with a mind soaked in the toxic ideology of the Left, challenged to explain to himself and his ideological comrades just why he was continuing to wage war in a Third World country in defiance of all their passionately held ideals.

Pity the man! What a task he was forced to set himself!

As president of the United States, addressing men serving in his country’s military, he had to present his decision to commit 30,000 more troops to the war as a move reflecting an unswerving appreciation of their willing sacrifice, a determination to win, and a passion for upholding the honor of the country he leads. In none of this he believes, but he had to say he did. He had to come across as encouraging, dedicated to the cause, intent on achieving goals for which his audience were willing to give their lives. He had to sound sincere when he was not. As part of the act, but making his task even harder for himself, he chose to announce his new strategy for the war at the Military Academy at West Point, which Chris Matthews of MSNBC called, speaking for peaceniks of the left everywhere, the ‘enemy’s camp’.

At the same time he had to be true to his political faith, which is in absolute opposition to any war waged by the United States on or in a Third World country, especially against an Islamic movement. His speech had to signal to the pacifist faction of the American left, the whole of the international left, and to Muslims world-wide that he was in principle against the war, against all war, against America being militarily strong, against America being the mightiest power and the most successful capitalist country in the world.

No wonder it took him months to work out what to do and how to spin it. Did he succeed? Superficially, yes. The speech, amazingly, so well fulfills his contradictory needs that it could almost be called a masterpiece of equivocation. At least until it is scrutinized in detail. Then the irreconcilable bits show up all too plainly.

How did he do it?

Pick the speech apart and you can see how it was done. For instance, for the voters and the patriots, for the generals and the soldiers, for the fulfillment of the duties of his office – let’s put all of these into a category headed Patriots – he says:

‘On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women and children …’

Then for the left revolutionaries, for the pacifists, for Islam, for America-haters, for the panel of Marxist advisers in his White House, for his dead communist father, his hippy mother, his wife, his best friends, for his Marxist professors and mentors and benefactors, his pastors, his erstwhile Alinsky-team employers, for his terrorist associates, for ACORN and the SEIU, for his whole revolutionary base, and for Islam their ally – let’s put all these into a category headed the Left – he says:

‘… without regard to their faith or race or station.’

What could this mean? What faiths or races or stations in life could have been regarded, taken into consideration, which would have qualified the evil of the act? We know the answers. If the only people to be hit had for certain been white, been captains of the ‘military-industrial complex’, been Christians and Jews, then the attack would have been more understandable, perhaps excusable, perhaps even justified. No, it isn’t said. But it is implied. What other meaning can be found in the words?

In paragraph after paragraph the pieces stand out as these for the Patriots, these for the Left. (And there are a few that do for both, such as those strongly condemning al-Qaeda – safely enough since many Islamic states are fervently against it.)

First for the Patriots: He tells the soldiers that he has been very good to them; they really have nothing to complain about. He has ’signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars’; he has read the letters sent to him by ‘the parents and spouses of those who deployed’; he visited wounded warriors at Walter Reed; and he ‘traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place’. And here are more sops to Patriots: ‘A testament to the character of our men and women in uniform’; ‘thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance’; ‘as cadets you volunteered for service during the time of danger’; ‘as your commander in chief I owe you a mission that is clearly defined and worthy of your service’; ‘I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan’; ‘we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum’; ‘to abandon this area now would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al-Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies’; ‘the struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly’; ‘it will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world’; ‘where al-Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold – whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere – they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships’; ‘we have to improve our intelligence so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks’; ‘our country has borne a special burden in global affairs’; we have spilled American blood in many countries’; ’we have not always been thanked for these efforts’; ‘more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades’; ’unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination’; ‘we do not seek to occupy other nations’; ‘we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom’; ‘men and women in uniform are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people and for the people a reality on this Earth’.

Most of the rest of the speech is primarily to placate the Left and Islam. It would be tediously long to quote, so here’s a summary and interpretaion: Al Qaeda has ‘distorted and defiled Islam’; it has even attacked Muslims, for instance in Amman and Bali; our use of force in Afghanistan was fully sanctioned by both Congress and the UN’s international approval; then we were distracted from pursuing it properly by the unjustifiable, illegal war that Bush (not named but fully blamed) waged on Iraq; although I am going to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, after 18 months all our troops will begin to come home; after that we’ll keep a kindly eye on the progress the Afghans make in becoming a country that is not corrupt, holds elections without fraud, and grows something more desirable than opium; we must exercise restraint in the use of military force; in any case we cannot afford to wage war because we have an economic crisis and what resources we have must be used to change America to you-know-what; I don’t really like bothering with foreign affairs at all very much, but since I have to let me remind you that we’ve got other tasks to do in the world, for instance in ‘disorderly regions’ (such as, not needing to be named to those who know, the Middle East); we’d rather negotiate peace than fight for it, even with the Taliban; but if the Taliban has to be fought let Pakistan do the fighting, we’ll pay them to do it; I am pursuing the goal of a world without nuclear weapons; I’ve prohibited torture; I’ll close the prison at Guantanamo Bay; I’ll speak out for human rights everywhere in the world (okay, not in China, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or Saudi Arabia, or … No, he doesn’t imply this, it just happens to be the case.)

But he fears he might not have pleased both sides after all. He anticipates disagreement and rebukes it:

‘This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue — nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.’

He ends with a series of grandiose but entirely empty rhetorical flourishes designed to elicit applause, which they did as a mater of courtesy and custom, though most of the speech was listened to without it. No wonder. It was a self-serving exercise, not improved by the flattery bestowed on the audience.

‘America, we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. …’

Are the Patriots deceived? Is the Left placated and are Muslims appeased? It remains to be seen.

Jillian Becker is editor-in-chief of The Atheist Conservative

Here is a list of ten reasons why some random fool at the Little Green Footballs blog is “leaving” the “right,” with my commentary interspersed. Crap like this gets almost 1,500 comments:

1. Support for fascists, both in America (see: Pat Buchanan, Robert Stacy McCain, etc.) and in Europe (see: Vlaams Belang, BNP, SIOE, Pat Buchanan, etc.)

Besides MSNBC, who the hell supports Pat Buchanan anymore? Who on the American Right is supporting the BNP? Also, is Pat Buchanan running some campaign in Europe? What is this foolishness?

2. Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.)

More ranting against a man with no power. Down with Pat Buchanan! What next? “We must never see a hit single from Ace of Base again! Their awful music is controlling the pop charts!” Huh?

3. Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.)

Pro-lifers “want to throw women back into the Dark Ages.” Are we really “leaving” the Right, here, sir?

4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.)

James Inhofe is crazy! The polar bears are melting, or something like that! Alas, this benighted fool is still subscribing to the false theology of scientism.

5. Support for homophobic bigotry (see: Sarah Palin, Dobson, the entire religious right, etc.)

Well, I’m not going to defend the Religious Right against this charge, but Sarah Palin’s hardly been some anti-gay crusader. She vetoed a bill that would have barred state benefits for gay couples while in office. This poor man is attacking a Sarah Palin that doesn’t exist

6. Support for anti-government lunacy (see: tea parties, militias, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc.)

…Militias?

7. Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc.)

Alex Jones?

8. A right-wing blogosphere that is almost universally dominated by raging hate speech (see: Hot Air, Free Republic, Ace of Spades, etc.)

If you think that Hot Air is “hate speech” — or if you even use the term “hate speech” in any context other than to mock it, then you aren’t of the right, and you have no movement to “leave.”

9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.)

Now Robert Spencer, for engaging in the same sort of talk toward Islam that this very commenter has directed toward Christianity, has been accused of promoting…genocidal fascism.

10. Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source)

Racism! Hate speech! Fox News is racist and conspiratorial! (Let me guess: they’re like Hitler!)

Alright, now that we’ve examined the list, it’s time for our hearty conclusion.

I rarely say this, but…shut the hell up and go back to the Daily Kos, you stupid troll.

Love,

Alex Knepper

PS — I’m filing this entry under “Democrats.”

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

Read some of the comments on this blog over at the New York Times. These liberals are unable to think of anything outside of the terms of raw, dog-eat-dog battles for handout dollars.

Catherine Rampell writes of a new finding:

Republicans may “market themselves as the party of fiscal restraint,” but states that vote Republican benefit from federal government redistribution far more than those that lean Democratic.

That’s a pretty major non-sequitur. How about “the community watch group markets itself as a group that wants to stop crime, but crime happens primarily to it, so how can it say that?” Once we change whether what’s happening from a perceived “good” — benefiting from redistribution — to a bad (crime), we can see what an idiotic non-sequtiur it is.

In simpler terms: it is possible to both benefit from something and oppose it. Shocking as it may be to the New York Times, some people actually cherish economic liberty over using other people’s money for government handouts.

The Hill reports:

A spokesman for Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul (R) is getting heat for praising a video likening Paul’s opponent to Adolf Hitler. And he’s not apologizing.

The video portraying Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson (R) as Hitler popped up on a Ron Paul message board over the weekend. A spokesman for Grayson primary opponent Rand Paul then posted a reply to the video, labeling it “Too funny!!” with a smiling emoticon.

The spokesman, Christopher Hightower, said he doesn’t think it’s funny to compare Grayson to Hitler, but that he thought the video itself was funny.

He noted that the video is nothing new and has been mocked up for any number of celebrities, sports figures and politicians.

“The video’s just funny,” Hightower said. “I don’t really think it’s funny to compare Trey Grayson to Hitler; I don’t think that’s funny.”

Asked to respond to some opponents who have raised objections, Hightower said: “Some things in life, some people think they’re funny, and some people don’t think they’re funny. I’m not really one to judge that.”

The video features an angry, ranting movie version of Hitler. Its subtitles make him out to be Grayson, angry about Rand Paul’s momentum in the Senate campaign.

A similar video popped up in Florida’s GOP Senate primary recently as well. In that case, Marco Rubio was accused by supporters of Gov. Charlie Crist of being behind the video, though there was never anything to substantiate the claim. Rubio’s supporters later suggested the video was created by Crist supporters to make Rubio look bad.

Rand Paul, who is Ron Paul’s son, has caught the political world by surprise by outpolling and outraising Grayson early in their primary.

I understand the allure of non-establishment candidates within the grassroots right now. Especially the allure of one as handsome and charismatic as Rand Paul.

The problem comes when you look beneath the surface, which the Democrats will undoubtedly do if Paul makes it to the general election.

One of the ticking time-bombs that comes along with a Rand Paul nomination is his association and guest appearances on The Alex Jones Show (not archived on the show’s site; please post a link in the comments if you are able to find them.)

Mr. Jones is–in my and many other’s opinion–a conspiratorial lunatic who features guests like David Icke that tout “revelations” such as malevolent reptilian humanoid control of government (see here and here) :

Reptilians (also called Reptiloids or Reptoids) are purported reptilian humanoids that play a prominent role in modern ufology and conspiracy theories. Alien abduction narratives sometimes allege contact with reptilian creatures. One of the earliest reports was that of Ashland, Nebraska police officer Herbert Schirmer, who claims to have been taken aboard a UFO by humanoid beings with a slightly reptilian appearance, and who bore a “winged serpent” emblem on the left side of their chest.

According to writer David Icke, 5 to 12-foot (1.5 – 3.7 m) tall, blood-drinking, shape-shifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis star system are the force behind a worldwide conspiracy directed at humanity. He claims that the reptilians maintain their control through the generation of fear and negative emotion, which is food to these entities, by manufacturing conflicts, primarily wars.[citation needed] He contends that most of the world’s leaders are in fact related to these reptilians. Icke’s theories now have supporters in 47 countries and he frequently gives lectures to crowds of 2,500 or more.

Skeptics who adhere to the psychosocial hypothesis for unidentified flying objects argue the popularity of V, a science fiction franchise, which debuted in 1983, about an invading alien race known as “The Visitors” (reptilian humanoids disguised as human beings) trying to take over Earth, and the human Resistance group attempting to stop them, may have greatly contributed to ufologists and conspiracy theorists adopting a belief in the existence of Reptilians.

The Alex Jones Show also peddles conspiracy theories such as Swine Flu vaccination as goverment sponsored biological terrorism, FEMA concentration camps, and Bohemian Grove. Did I also mention that Jones is a rabid 9/11 truther?

In 2008, Republicans made Barack Obama’s relationships with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright an issue in the campaign because they felt that the people he chose to associate himself with spoke to his character and judgement.  This should be as great a concern in choosing our candidates in a primary contest as it is in making our case in a general election.

So what does Rand Paul’s association with Alex Jones say about him? Is Paul a 9/11 truther? Does he believe there is credence to the claim that the federal government is constructing concentration camps in the U.S. to house political dissidents? If not, than why has he chosen to associate himself with someone who does?

These questions need answering before Kentucky Republicans make a decision on their candidate.

When political players have had a change of heart and want to feel important, they ceremoniously announce, echoing Norma Desmond’s vanity in Sunset Boulevard, “they have not left the movement — the movement has left them!” And so it stands with Andrew Sullivan, who has finally come to terms with the fact that adoration for Barack Obama, blaming Israel first, and a pathological obsession with attacking “neo-cons” does not — and never did — qualify you for membership in a movement that, well, doesn’t stand for any of those things.

Anyone who believes that the conservative movement holds “torture” as “core value,” “gives off a racist vibe,” supports “violence” as the “core tool” of international relations, and wants to inject “purely religious doctrine” into government is not someone who was ever a part of it. This is a ridiculous caricature of the right; it does not contribute to constructive discourse. There are a million and one things that are wrong with the current state of affairs on the right. An imminent threat of theocracy, a resurgent racist movement, and the advocacy of “torture as a core value” of morality are not among them.

The weird conflation of all of the disparate elements of the right is similarly baffling. Glenn Beck is shockingly secular, the Republican Party’s last presidential nominee actually opposed waterboarding, and Sarah Palin, ever the target of Sullivan’s ire, actually bucked the Religious Right on both abortion and gay rights while serving as governor of Alaska. For a movement that “gives off a racist vibe,” having a black party chairman who addresses their wicked mobs is awfully odd. Sullivan and I are essentially in agreement on the evils of the Religious Right, but there’s a lot more to the conservative movement than that.

Alas, Sullivan’s post-2003 views of the world have been completely dominated by caricatures. In 2008, he described Jeremiah Wright as an “imperfect man” with a lot of “promise” and described Barack Obama’s famous speech on race as stirring him to love his country more than he ever has in his lifetime. This, if the reader will recall, is the speech in which Obama targeted Geraldine Ferarro, all people who believed that Wright’s sermons were a legitimate campaign issue, and even his own grandmother as agents of racial division.

In yesterday’s article, Sullivan posted a picture of Edmund Burke, that most famous of classical conservative thinkers. But where in 2007 was Sullivan’s adherence to Burkean prudence and sobriety? He unquestioningly — laughably, in hindsight — accepted that Barack Obama was The Answer to healing our nation’s partisan divide. People, reported Sullivan breathlessly, are “prepared to set aside their ideological preferences” to support the man and rally behind this “transformative moment.” What would Edmund Burke have thought about this insane rush to judgment?

More disturbingly, Sullivan has bought into some of the most vicious ideas of the anti-war left. Sullivan was a key pundit supporting the Iraq War but quickly reversed his opinion on the justness of the mission. To make amends with the establishment, he has felt the need to — loudly — sacrifice Israel and every wicked neo-con who supported that blasted adventure at the altar of repentance.

In May, Sullivan described Israel’s war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip as “carnage,” deemed Israel “paranoid” with concern to Iran, and defended Iran’s hatred of the Jewish State, saying that “the fear is legitimate on both sides…the danger of religious fundamentalism is everywhere.” Ali Khameni, Benjamin Netanyahu — two sides of the same coin, really. (We know now why he supported Ron Paul for the Republican nomination, no?)

Sadly, reviewing Sullivan’s piece, it does not look like the dispassionate reflection of a man who is struggling to come to grips with his place in the American political arena. It looks like, rather, the collected ideals of a man who has shifted to the center-left and has a hard time waving goodbye to the movement he spent most of his adult life in. It took Andrew Sullivan five years to figure out that he is no longer of the right. The rest of us are glad that’s he’s caught up with what we already knew.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

Marc Ambinder believes that Gov. Huckabee sitting out the 2012 race would raise the pressure on Gov. Romney to compete strongly in Iowa:

…Mitt Romney needs to have a strong Christian conservative candidate in Iowa. Ex-AR Gov. Huckabee’s grassroots supporters have been working Iowa hard, and Romney might have gotten a pass if he decided not to campaign in a state where his religion was a barrier to a victory. A “pass” doesn’t mean that Romney wouldn’t have to compete in Iowa. He would. But he could use his existing, fairly formidable infrastructure to take home a solid bronze, fulfilling expectations.

Without Huckabee — if he decides not to run — and assuming Sarah Palin does not run or does not gell with Iowans — Romney’s ability to half-heartedly compete in the state and defer to the clear favorite is minimized. Romney would face expectations that he at least match his performance from 2008. If he doesn’t think he can do that, he can try to opt out entirely, which creates its own set of problems.

While I tend to agree with Ambinder that the absence of Huckabee in 2012 would focus more attention and pressure on Romney, Mitt could still keep himself in frontrunner contention if he disappointed in Iowa but pulled out a victory in New Hampshire. His real challenge would then come in South Carolina.

CQ Politics reports that Gov. Pawlenty will keynote a fundraiser co-hosted by former Rep. Jeb Bradley for the New Hampshire Republican Senate Majority Committee:

Doing favors for well-known New Hampshire Republicans such as Bradley could certainly help him in the nation’s first primary state.

…The event, according to Bradley, will benefit New Hampshire Senate Republicans and he said his participation does not count as an endorsement.

“I think what the governor is trying to do is help Republicans throughout the country, including in New Hampshire,” Bradley said in a phone interview. “We’re thrilled he’s willing to give up his time to visit our state.”

This qualifies as another signal that Tpaw intends to run in 2012.

Nate Silver has joined in on the analysis of the Huckabee-Clemmons story. After subjecting the situation to his Electric Minor Political Scandal Acid Test, Silver concludes the following:

In summary, I think this is in fact somewhat damaging to Huckabee, and could tangibly affect his odds of winning the 2012 nomination. It might also impact his desire to run for office. Over the winter, I had heard from a reasonably well-connected insider that Hucakbee was somewhat more likely to wait until 2016 to run, and Huckabee himself had recently claimed to be leaning against a 2012 bid. The 2016 race, indeed, could be a better bet for Huckabee on several levels: he won’t have to run against an incumbent; Sarah Palin will probably have burned herself out; the current, strongly libertarian brand of economic populism (which does not play to Huckabee’s more communitarian leanings) is liable to have faded, and the impact of the Clemmons killings, such as it is, may be somewhat diminished.

…Increasingly, I tend to see the 2012 nomination fight as one between Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and X, where X is somebody who may not be receiving a lot of attention right now (not someone like Tim Pawlenty or Newt Gingirch, who receive more than their fair share, and who are satellites in the Romney and Palin orbits, respectively). Huckabee’s odds have fallen from about 11 percent to 8 percent over at Intrade, which feels like a reasonable assessment.

Silver also discusses how the event has showcased the conservative blogosphere’s general distaste for the Huckster.

Lastly, James Pethokoukis provided us with an interesting observation today:

Just took a break from the Innovation Economy Conference sponsored by the Aspen Institute. Particularly interesting was a joint Q&A with GE’s Jeff Immelt and Intel’s Paul Otellini. The latter said he was concerned about the “amount of variability in the system” created by Washington. Fluctuating policy when it comes to healthcare, energy, taxes. “It is very difficult for anyone to make a hiring decision” when the future is so uncertain, he said. Immelt added he would just like to “know what the rules are.” About ObamaCare, Immelt said healthcare “costs probably aren’t going to be coming down.”

Keep in mind that some of these comments came from the CEO of the company that owns MSNBC and has come under fire for an overly cozy (to put it nicely) relationship with the White House.

Friends, we all know that thanks to common political wisdom that Mike Huckabee’s political career is over becaus he could not predict that a man who committed burglaries when he was sixteen would become a killer.

Yes, he listened to the parole board and the judge in the case to commute the sentence, but it still turned out tragically, which means that one decision disqualifies him from the Presidency.

If only Huckabee weren’t so religious, there would have been away this could have been avoided. Don’t let this happen to your Presidential candidate. Get them an advisor that will help them know the future and for less than $8 plus shipping.

Had Huckabee simply used the Magic 8 ball, all of this could have been avoided. It sees all and knows all. We would guarantee that if he simply used the 8-ball whenever he thought of giving a commutation, the number of commutations would have been cut by half.

The 8-ball is as prescient in the present as bloggers will be in the future. This Christmas, give your Presidential candidate the give of 20/20 foresight. Get the Magic 8 ball, now available from Mattel.

This will be my last post here for some time unless I post a review for “A Simple Christmas.”

America gets one president at a time and elections have consequences. Tonight, the President called for what is, in effect, a surge into Afghanistan. My stance on this has been that the President should make a decision: Win or get out. The President tonight took a step towards winning.

Like Senator McCain and many others, I’m very concerned about the time table that President Obama has laid down, and don’t believe this part of the plan is wise. However, I’ve seen Presidents send U.S. troops in with deadlines and seen those deadlines change.  I remember when President Clinton deployed troops to Bosnia in 1996 and promised to have them home by Christmas. They remained their for years.

So, I think, will be the case with Afghanistan.  The doves on the left will not consider an open-ended committment. However, once you get troops on the ground, the committment becomes very complex and you can’t pull troops out because “time’s up” without serious consequences occurring.

Should President Obama be slavish about guidelines in contravention of what is in the best interest of the American people and our troops on the ground, that will be a legitimate issue in the 2012 campaign. However, that’s more than two years away.

On the issue of Afghanistan, the interests of President Obama and the United States are one. We must succeed in Afghanistan, and I’m glad the President is taking a step towards success as opposed to retreat.

Jeb Bush is unique in that he is both unknown and known. His name is one of the most famous in all of politics, yet he himself is not well known outside of Florida, a state he successfully governed for 8 years.  His name is both a blessing and a curse, forever placing him in political speculation limbo.  His last name helped his brother become president, and yet it could be that very same name that keeps him from that office. Yet as Obama’s poll numbers slide and his policies continue to grow unpopular, the former Florida governor could be positioned for a comeback. His name, connections, and resources could certainly win him a GOP primary, and he is one of the few lesser known candidates who could quickly raise the money to compete with front-runners Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney. Over the next several months I imagine Bush will be getting more involved, starting with the Florida senate primary between his moderate successor Charlie Crist and his protege Marco Rubio. His emergence in the Florida primary will be the start of a strategy to reintroduce Bush to the grassroots and position him for a White House bid. A Rubio victory would not only lend Bush street cred with the GOP grassroots, but also keep him in a strong position with Hispanics, a group Jeb has been very successful in courting.

The Florida senate race is only half of the strategy to position Bush in 2012. The other half, meanwhile, is being methodically carried out by former Vice President Dick Cheney.  Cheney is acting as a proxy, pulling Obama to the right on foreign policy, muddying the distinction between Obama foreign policy and the Bush Doctrine. The culmination of this strategy was seen when the anti-war liberal Obama announced a surge strategy in Afghanistan; a surge strategy identical to the one implemented in Iraq that then-Senator Obama  condemned and ridiculed as a certain failure. With each attack on Obama, Cheney has diminished the President’s positions on Git’mo, torture prosecutions, KSM’s prosecution, wiretapping, Iran, rendition, and now the Afghanistan War.  Obama’s key strength in 2008, his anti-war position that took down Hillary Clinton, has now been forever compromised, sparking a divide between Obama and his progressive base.  Now, criticism of Bush’s war policy becomes far more difficult, as Obama can be cast more as an extension of Bush rather then change from Bush.  Some have misread these attacks as the beginning of a Cheney presidential run, but I think he is just the advance man for a potential Jeb Bush 2012 candidacy. Remember, Cheney earlier this year, unprompted, suggested he would support Jeb Bush for president in 2012. Considering that there is a media fascination with such a run, coupled with the realty that a 71 year old with a bad heart simply will not be a viable candidate, opens the door to Jeb Bush taking up the mantle in 2012. Bush would fill the media desire to clash Obama with Cheney, only enhancing it to the titanic scenario of Obama vs Bush.

With Huckabee and Palin potentially sitting out in 2012, there is a huge opening for someone to take up the anti-Romney position. Bush, with his vast network of connections, his organizing potential, and the generation of political chits collected by the Bush family, puts Jeb in as good a position as a Pawlenty, a Thune, or a Daniels to make a bid to challenge Romney. Now if Palin runs and the field becomes crowded, then Jeb could wait until 2016, or simply stay out of public life and let his son, George P. Bush (nicknamed 47 by the family) carry on the presidential legacy down the line.

Lets consider Jeb Bush’s advantages against the remaining non-Romney candidates in the potential field should Palin/Huckabee not run:

Tim Pawlenty: Bush has higher name recognition the Tim Pawlenty in the party, a stronger network, and Pawlenty has a problem with cap and trade that could turn out to be as damaging as RomneyCare. Fundraising advantage would also go to Jeb.

John Thune: Bush has stronger establishment connections and more public credibility on social issues, as well as the advantage of being a governor vs being a senator. Thune has also never worked in the private sector, undercutting potential populist campaigning.

Rick Perry: Perry has ties to the Tea Party movement and the grassroots, but the big Texas donors that bankroll his campaigns have stronger ties to the Bush family then to Perry. It’s unclear if Perry could even win the Texas primary against a Bush.

Newt Gingrich: Gingrich has a ton of personal baggage that could drive social cons away in droves. He has also stepped on a lot of toes in the establishment, and angered many on his way out as Speaker. He will also be up there in age, turning 69 in 2012.

Mitch Daniels: Daniels would be his toughest potential opponent among the new faces, having the best record and resume of the non-Romney candidates. But Daniels is very reluctant to run, and is a loyal friend of both Bush brothers. His reluctance would make him more likely to endorse Jeb then run against him.

Rudy Giuliani: The best opening against Mitt will be among social conservatives, who also happened to be turned off to Giuliani. Rudy would only be able to run to Mitt’s left and hope to win a plurality in a divided field like McCain. Bush would actually do better with Rudy in the race, allowing him to consolidate social cons while Rudy splits moderates with Romney.

Rick Santorum: Ummmmm…..no.  Jeb can beat Santorum in his sleep.

It seems to me that if Palin and Huckabee don’t run, as many people believe they will not, that Jeb Bush has the potential to emerge as the alternative to Romney, able to match Mitt dollar for dollar in fundraising, body for body in organizational strength, and out-flank the former Massachusetts governor among social conservatives. A major difficulty for Jeb is that it will be hard to guess Palin’s intentions. She is the most unpredictable person in the field and is as likely to announce a 2012 run as she is to get a talk show gig or host a radio show. He would have to begin organizing without knowing for sure about her 2012 plans. That doubt could be enough to keep him out of the field. But if Palin opts against a run, Bush has as much of a chance, in my opinion, as the other handful of candidates of becoming the alternative to Mitt Romney in the 2012 field, and potentially the best chance. With Romney’s known weaknesses in Iowa and South Carolina, combined with the strong campaign the Bush Machine could produce, Jeb Bush could quickly go from long-shot to 2012 GOP frontrunner.  Stranger things have happened in politics, and one thing is for sure: never underestimate a Bush.

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

More trouble in Huckabee’s corner, as Dick Morris has slithered away.  From Newsmax:
 

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee does not have the right stuff for President, Obama may never get his healthcare legacy, the GOP is poised to repeat its landmark gains of 1994, and there’s no presidential frontrunner for the Republicans, says Dick Morris.

…

As to 2012 and the far-off Presidential race, Morris sees no great window of opportunity for Huckabee.

“I think voters trust him on values, think very highly of his personal morality, like him as a person, but they don’t feel that he has all the expertise in economics or national defense. Now in the aftermath of Lewinsky, we might’ve voted for that, but in the worst depression in our modern history, we want someone who’s conversant with economics…”

Also, HuckPac’s coordinator for the state of Arkansas has resigned his position today.

I laid out my personal feelings on the matter last night, so I will not comment anymore on this, from a personal viewpoint,  until a later time (when I finally finish with a piece that I have been working on for a while).  However, I am bothered by Governor Huckabee’s response, and will sign off this post with a quote from Jim Geraughty:

“It takes a particular bravado for a man in Huckabee’s circumstances to contend that his critics are the ones who should hang their heads in shame; some people might find letting violent criminals go free early out of a misguided sense that they’ve changed their ways a clearer reflection of a sick society.”