Bob Corker derides the stimulus compromise being debated in the United States Senate

Not to be misunderstood – I’m a strong believer in low taxes and creating a structure in this country that people can count on to move ahead and to make investments, but with that has to be the reality that spending has to be under control.

…
I would just ask that my colleagues consider this…That, number one, we call this package what it is: a political stimulus package. That we begin, today, dealing in a bipartisan way with the tough decisions that we have to make. And if there are anomalies out there that we need to deal with, where people truly are being hurt, let’s deal with it. That we adopt the … Conrad-Gregg bill to truly deal with long-term entitlements, and that we ask the administration when they bring their budget forth on February 4, to bring forth a real budget that lays out to the American people the deficits that we will have to deal with in the future.

It is indeed a political stimulus package (although not quite as bad as Obama’s tossing of the jingle, and Hillary’s ridiculous subsidies for heating oil), and will likely have little real effect on the economy. What Corker is calling for is akin to what Mitt Romney has already proposed - broad based tax cuts, of both marginal rates and capital gains.

The similarities between our junior senator and Romney are striking. If you supported Bob Corker in 2006, the lone Republican winner in an otherwise disastrous midterm election, I can’t see how anyone but Mitt Romney would be your logical choice.

John McCain will make a visit to Nashville this Saturday at Montgomery Bell Academy, his first visit to Tennessee in the 2008 campaign cycle.

Reportedly hosting the event will be popular ex-governor Don Sundquist, widely known for his ultra conservative pro-income tax stand with House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh, and his wholesale abandonment of the Tennessee Republican Party. Rumors are that a photo-op with the House speaker is scheduled for Sundquist and McCain at the Capitol right after the event.

John McCain, so confident in his conservatism, is now readily masking it, campaigning in a must-have primary state with a former GOP governor reviled more than Steve Spurrier.

Mitt Romney = Winfield Dunn.

McCain = Sundquist.

Choose wisely.

UPDATE Well, McCain is being endorsed by practically everyone but Jimmy Naifeh.

It is clear after the results in Florida last night that Mike Huckabee has run dry of the electoral ethanol he picked up in his surprise victory in Iowa eons ago.

The choice now is an Edwardsian one. All simply depends on how much writing Huckabee is wanting, and willing, to see on the wall.

Continuing his run for the presidency makes the road harder for Mitt Romney. Now, I’m not sure what Huckabee’s intentions are, but helping throw the election to John McCain doesn’t seem to suit his greater stated ideological purposes - unless, of course, Huckabee is indeed the most liberal Republican candidate remaining.*

* Yes. I have defended John McCain. However, in order of preference (and conservatism), my roster goes 1) Mitt Romney, 2) John McCain, and 3) Mike Huckabee. McCain is no ardent leftist, but he is an inferior choice to Mitt Romney. My position on the topic is effectively explained here.

John Edwards, the preferred Democratic candidate of white males over forty, has dropped out of the Democrat Party presidential primary.

Camp Hillary offers a collective Cheshire grin, as it is clear who this helps, and it’s not Obama. Word from all the news stations is that both the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns are clamoring for Edwards’ endorsement of their respective candidacies. Obama is sending flowers. Hillary is mailing Fantastic Sam’s gift certificates.

The only thing that could hurt Hillary Clinton here, or at least negate any positive effects, is an outright endorsement of Obama by John Edwards. Edwards has been coy about what his next steps are going to be. The only way he can be a true king maker is by endorsing Obama, and helping him in the South, where Obama is not likely to garner as much support. This is a risky play. On the other hand, a Hillary endorsement could come with an ambassadorship.

From the trails of Ohio

The ACLU has gone to court to force Cuyahoga County to abandon plans to use a new voting machine in the March 4 presidential primary election because it does not provide a way of notifying voters about ballot errors. Voters in other Ohio counties will use equipment that does alert voters to errors and the ACLU says that puts Cleveland-area voters at a disadvantage.

Is the ACLU really sure they want machines to tell a voter when they vote Democrat?

An impressive group of Nashville area legislators endorsed Mitt Romney yesterday

The state lawmakers endorsing Romney Monday included Sens. Jack Johnson of Brentwood, Diane Black of Gallatin, Mae Beavers of Mt. Juliet and Reps. Phillip Johnson of Pegram, Debra Maggart of Hendersonville, Charles Sargent of Franklin and Susan Lynn of Mt. Juliet.

Former Republican governor Winfield Dunn, previously a supporter for Fred Thompson, also came out for Romney.

For the first time in quite awhile, the Tennessee presidential primary is going to matter - a lot. As such, Huckabee was in the state yesterday, offering his usual assortment of populist pandering

“There are a lot of people running for president who will have to explain why their positions now are so dramatically different than they used to be before,” Huckabee said. “I don’t have to do that.”

If I were a tax-loving fiscal liberal like Mike Huckabee, I’d think “change” wasn’t such a bad thing. It’s not where you were, it’s where you are, and where you’re going. Take Bob Corker, for instance. Even Steve Gill can’t find anything bad to say about his voting record in the United States Senate. I, like many others, supported Bob Corker because I believed he was a principled conservative, and we were right. The same holds true for Mitt Romney.

On the other hand… if you want to further empower an already bloated federal government, you’ve got yet another former Arkansas governor waiting for your support.

Well, yes. Not that I’m asking for it. It seems, from some well planted sources that have proven reliable in the past, that Ford has already made the decision to run, and has the campaign team already in place for a 2010 run for governor.

What do you think about that, Lincoln Davis?

Mike Huckabee’s push polling efforts continue in Florida.

Huckabee’s campaign is already under fire for  illegal push polling in South Carolina

This mirrors similar recent efforts in Michigan against Mitt Romney, where the same firm placed calls to voters blasting Romney’s record on guns and immigration. One report pegged the number of such calls into Michigan at five million while South Carolina is on tap to receive one million calls.

Of course, such calls are likely unprosecutable. As the Reason link above notes, the First Amendment certainly comes heavily into play. The overarching point is that Huckabee is keeping gas in the tank by employing cost-effective negative guerrilla tactics.  Fair enough, save what he claims to be.

Huckabee’s image disguises his savvy, and the acumen of those running his campaign blurs into the murky depths of Huckabee’s “Aw Shucks” image. Hey, he’s a Baptist preacher - he must be a nice guy. That is, until you cross him.

Regular readers know I refuse to handle Huckabee’s snakes. It’s not my style.  With calm continence, I respectfully hand the serpents back to the more faithful.  In my short time on this earth, I’ve witnessed no less than three Southern Baptist church splits, thanks entirely to the pastor’s opportunistic exploitation of the flock.  Here we see a presupposed Baptist preacher politicking in the secular depths, fronting untruths, hiding his own deficiencies. The full-court press of identity politics works to mask a candidate’s many otherwise painfully open flaws.

Which brings me to a recurrent point - he’s not even a conservative. Remind me…what is the Christian appeal?

Mitt Romney is the most qualified and best suited candidate in the Republican field to be the next president.

The case is an easy one to make. Romney’s success as a businessman is a quality no one else in the field, Democrat or Republican, can claim. That experience demonstrates a well-honed ability to manage people, delegate responsibility, problem solve, and prepare for the future. In short, his main life skills that would make him an exemplary public servant come from a life outside of politics, which is a quality I find desirable in any position of the public trust, and especially in a president.

What government experience he does have is battle tested. As a Republican governor of Massachusetts, he operated in one of the most politically hostile environments for anyone with an “R” after his name. Most importantly, he did so effectively, successfully balancing the state budget and doing so without a general increase in taxation. He promoted and achieved massive business relocation to his state, and improved Massachusetts’ credit rating. From a Republican point of view, the only blight on his governorship is his failure to win political gains for his party. In Massachusetts, that sin is forgivable.

Romney’s reorganization of the Massachusetts state government streamlined both the providing of services and the implementation of policy. His attention to critical government functions never lapsed. When a fatal accident occurred in the construction of the boondoggle known as “the Big Dig”, Romney pushed the legislature to hand him control of the previously independent Turnpike Authority, and promptly fired those in charge and replaced them with competent managers of his own.

He is also pro-life and opposes the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of stem cell harvesting. It appears now we are on the verge of producing stem cells in ways that no longer implicate the messy ethical considerations inherent in the process of creating life in order to destroy life, in order to preserve life. Though he previously held a different position, it appears to me his pro-life stance is genuine. Like Peggy Noonan recently said, your position can change once, but cannot change again. Mitt Romney is pro-life.

His plan for the economy is sound. Preserve the Bush tax cuts, reduce the lowest tax bracket from 10% to 7.5%, and lower corporate taxes from 35% to 20% by 2010 (the corporate tax rate is a pass-through tax, and is really a tax on every consumer in the economy - people pay taxes, not corporations). As well, Romney proposes to reduce the capital gains tax to zero for those making less than $200,000.00 per year.

Mitt Romney has the experience, the vision, the demeanor, and the poise to successfully lead this country. That is why he is my choice to be the next chief executive of the United States.

Linked by The Caucus - The New York Times Politics Blog.

No doubt, the peace treaty signed between the Clinton and Obama camps was thoroughly shredded last night. And Edwards looked great, too.

Of course, Edwards didn’t look good enough to win South Carolina, but Obama did. And in the first half hour of the debate, I thought Hillary Clinton was about ready to burst.  What made this all possible was Wolf Blitzer living up to his reputation as a weak-kneed moderator. On the heels of the previous Democratic debate, which may go down as the most boring political confrontation in the history of American politics, this was a refreshing change.

I’d be surprised if Obama did not go on to win South Carolina. Past that, who knows. He is getting slammed on his record by both opponents, and that tact will only intensify going forward. Edwards, who is already running on fumes, does not appear poised to go away any time soon.  Obama certainly was the one who looked most above the fray last night, but he seemed to take the most body blows, too.

Dispatch from a Democrat Nevada caucus operator

The doors officially opened at 11 a.m., but by 10 a.m. Clinton voters swarmed the place. They had been told to arrive early because there were not going to be enough ballots to go around for everyone; thus, first come first served. By the time 11:20 rolled around Clinton organizers were shutting the doors even though this was not supposed to happen until noon. Samuel ran back and forth from his precinct to the door trying to make sure it stayed open and, thus, started the war of words between him and the Clinton people. Cheating followed. Obama supporters were told that there were no more ballots even though extras were around. Clinton voters were counted more than once in differing precincts.

At least the fairy tale about Democratic electoral purity is quickly being dispelled.

More Clinton shenanigans can be found here.

In an interview with Robin Roberts, according to a transcript leak on Drudge just now

Bill ‘has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling. He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts. Whether it’s about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas. This has become a habit and one of the things that we’re gonna have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he’s making statements that are not factually accurate’

Bill Clinton and facts have always had a strenuous relationship. However, I did enjoy the stories (Bill) Clinton was telling regarding thuggish culinary union activity in Vegas.

Victor Davis Hanson notes at NRO’s The Corner

Ever since I wrote a favorable column about John McCain, I have been swamped with furious e-mail from outraged conservatives, alleging this and that, and going through in systematic fashion the usual litany-McCain-Feingold, illegal immigration, tax cuts, global warming, etc. McCain seems to anger many conservatives as much as, or more than, Hillary.

The ire he generates among conservatives continues to perplex me. VDH notes McCain’s conservative voting record hovers in the 80s. Perhaps the conservative perfect is mutually exclusive to the electable good, but that lacks persuasive power - it doesn’t explain any conservative’s support of someone like Mike Huckabee, who for lack of a better description is nothing more than John Edwards with a pulpit.

I know all the conservative arguments against McCain, but the fact is, he has a conservative voting record, he’s a known quantity, and further, he is not even remotely as dangerous to the future of America as would be either of the Democrats who may oppose him. And on the all-important issue of national security, I’m not sure there is a better Republican candidate we can trust.

Fred is withering, and I realize that I am near a cross roads, and may soon be choosing another candidate to support. I’m not sure it would be John McCain, but I’m not it wouldn’t be, either.

I find it amazing that not many people are looking at the possible end results of this mess. We’re talking about some serious economic hardships that will rival the Great Depression. We have an increasing gap in wages and there is no correction in sight, CEO failures get massive compensation packages, and all of this is just fine and dandy. Where is the outrage?

The link can be found here. Unemployment hits a historically low 5% and economic growth is expected to slow to 2% - sure sounds the same as 25% unemployment and twelve years of economic contraction to me.

Frank Rich, former arts and leisure reporter, and now one of the roving mad regularly employed at The New York Times, has a rather vituperative take on the makeup of the GOP presidential slate entitled “Ronald Reagan Is Still Dead”.

How this plays out in the actual substance of his piece today is byzantine at best. From what I can glean, it’s just another garden-variety hit job on Republicans, critiquing them for their very existence. For instance

The conservatives who hyperventilated about the Democrats’ explosion of identity politics seemed to forget that Mr. Romney also dragged Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. into this campaign — claiming that he “saw” his father, a civil-rights minded governor of Michigan, march with King in the 1960s.

Sure, that was dumb by Romney. But to compare that slip to the psychotropic conflict currently underway in the Democrat Party displays a certain lack of context comprehension. Come on - the Democrats live to promote people for what I consider irrelevant genetic reasons, and now the two top candidates can check the top two boxes on the job application form. There truly is a debate as to which trait is most worthy of being first.

Still yet to establish a thesis statement worthy of a 9th grade English paper, Rich spews on

A more indelible problem for the Republicans in 2008 is that their candidates are utterly segregated from reality as it is lived by the overwhelming majority of their fellow Americans. The G.O.P. presidential field’s lack of demographic diversity by age, gender, ethnicity or even wardrobe, let alone race, is simply the leading indicator of how out of touch its brand has become.

Diversity of wardrobe has almost been atop my list of concerns. If one is to criticize for everything, one may as well criticize for nothing (Rich attempts to conclude the Republicans have no ideas, which is utter hog wash. The GOP field overwhelms all the Democrats with actual, real and distinct ideas on war, taxes, immigration, size of government and health care). Trashing the GOP for a lack of genetic diversity is peculiar. Recalling presidential contests prior to 2008, the Democrats have nominated 1) a white guy (2004); 2) a white guy (2000); 3) a white guy (1996); 4) a white guy (1992); 5) a white guy (1988); 6) a white guy (1984)…okay, so it’s becoming a tad repetitious.

The rest of the op-ed is virtually unreadable. Even William Faulkner would blush at Rich’s mastery of stream of consciousness. Of course, it’s eminently readable if you are a Democratic partisan who enjoys red meat with your corn flakes.

My problem with Rich is not that I disagree with him, but that he demonstrates repeatedly, and in this piece in particular, that he simply does not care to really think. And this is all I ask - I don’t mind much if you disagree with me as long as you thoughtfully came to the position you hold. Once both people are thinking, there can be a real discussion about what would make good public policy. Rich’s mish mash of platitudes spilled in menagerie form on the op-ed page of the nation’s most important daily accomplishes absolutely nothing, save confirming he probably ought to be remanded to the arts and leisure pages from whence he came.

As if the 2008 election roller coaster wasn’t dizzying enough, sometimes Democrat front runner Barack Obama has invoked Ronald Reagan as a “change agent”.

Of course, Obama is correct, Reagan was an agent of change, but one for positive change, not just change for change’s sake. There have been other, more appropriate change agents throughout history fitting for a Democrat running for president in 2008 to mention, just not all of them have been successful. For instance, if Barack Obama wants to go back to the Reagan era, he certainly can find his patron saint of change in Reagan’s second opponent.

Mondale was as much interested in change as anyone. But it was bad change, poorly delivered, and the voters buried him for it. Truth is, Obama is as presumptuous about Ronald Reagan as Hillary Clinton was with Margaret Thatcher. He has virtually nothing in common with Ronald Reagan’s idea of change and individual empowerment. Obama’s world view and extraordinarily liberal record, wrought with a marked distrust of individualism, makes him more appropriately the political progeny of Walter Mondale than Ronald Reagan. The difference between Obama and Mondale is one of superficiality.  Obama is a smoother campaigner, who has a better mastery of what to say when, and what not to say ever, than Mondale did. Substantively, where it counts, the two are nearly indistinguishable, but Mondale lost a record 49 states in 1984 - I don’t see Obama bringing him up anytime soon.

Anyway, it’s too late for all that. Mr. Mondale has already endorsed the other sometimes Democrat front runner.

Say it in your best Ross Perot voice, because the man is back, and he’s angry…at John McCain

Perot’s real problem with McCain is that he believes the senator hushed up evidence that live POWs were left behind in Vietnam and even transferred to the Soviet Union for human experimentation, a charge Perot says he heard from a senior Vietnamese official in the 1980s. “There’s evidence, evidence, evidence,” Perot claims. “McCain was adamant about shutting down anything to do with recovering POWs.”

Perot is going to vote for Romney, he says in the linked article. And he found out that Barack Obama isn’t a Muslim.

The Heller case currently before the Supreme Court will conceivably be one of the most important decisions in the last twenty-five years. In well-written non-legalese,Glenn Reynolds and Brannon Denning have provided a great breakdown on the legal dynamics surrounding the case

Arguably, gun-rights supporters have much more at stake in Heller than their opponents.  The Court’s adoption of the individual-rights reading may be little more than symbolic; if not, it may take years before the Court deigns to clarify its decision.  But a rejection of their position would virtually repeal the Amendment, perhaps emboldening gun-control proponents whose initia­tives were often stymied by legislators’ invocation of the Second Amendment.  On the other hand, a loss might galvanize political action, as losses in Kelo and Bowers v. Hardwick did for property-rights and gay-rights activists.

Hat tip to SaysUncle.