SouthTennBlog: September 2005

SouthTennBlog

My Photo
Name:
Location: Huntsville, Alabama, United States

Married to the lovely and gracious Tanya. Two Sons: Levi and Aaron. One Basset Hound: Holly.

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Wild and Crazy Day

No guarantees on posts for the next several days. The lovely and gracious Tanya and I have been running around like crazy today, and will be for the next several days. The reason? We have received our travel dates for our first trip to Russia as we move forward with our adoption. We are getting visa applications, medical records, and other such documents prepared and certified. Levi and Aaron are waiting, so we've got to get busy.

Of course, when I got out of bed this morning, I was planning to have something to say about the decision coming out of the 9th Circuit Court ruling the Pledge of Allegiance as unconstitutional. No time for a lengthy discussion today, but let me just say that, while this decision is outrageous, it may well work to the advantage of those of us who desire a return to sanity in the federal courts. Most are saying now that the Democrats are willing to concede on John Roberts' nomination to the Chief Justice's seat so that they can fight tooth and toenail against a conservative being nominated to replace Sandra O'Connor. But this ruling reminded Americans why they don't like the kind of judges that liberal Democrats prefer. Opportunity may have just started knocking very loudly.

JLH

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

All About Spin

Mary Landrieu and Ray Nagin need to talk to each other more.

Maybe if they did, the Louisiana Senator and New Orleans Mayor could ensure that they were both sticking to the same story the next time they are questioned about the failure of the Big Easy’s local government in dealing with the post-Katrina disaster. In dealing with one of the most heavily-publicized scandals coming out of the tragedy on the Mississippi – regarding the two-hundred plus school buses that were left unused to be swamped just over a mile from the Superdome – the excuses offered by the respective Delta country politicians fall short of jibing with one another.

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday” this past weekend, Senator Landrieu was very clear on who was to blame for the unused buses, which could have transported thousands of citizens to safety before the catastrophic flooding began – President Bush was to blame.

As reported at Newsmax.com, the Senator stated, “Mayor Nagin and most mayors in this country have a hard time getting their people to work on a sunny day, let alone getting them out of the city in front of a hurricane. And it’s because this administration and administrations before them do not understand the difficulties that mayors . . . face . . . In other words, this administration did not believe in mass transit.”

Leaving aside the fact that the buses in question were not used to get people to work – they were school buses that were, no doubt, used every day when the schools were operating – and leaving aside the fact that the difficulties of running normal transit routes on certain schedules has little to do with simply loading people up and transporting them to safety as soon as possible, it is interesting to note that the mayor himself has not used this line of reasoning to try to excuse the city’s failure in this regard. One would think that he would have trumpeted this long before the senator if this was the reason he didn’t utilize this unutilized resource – but he apparently didn’t get the memo with the talking points in time.

Rather, Mr. Nagin felt that the issue wasn’t his problem to begin with. When asked by NBC’s Stone Phillips why the buses weren’t ready to take people to “higher ground,” Mayor Nagin’s response was simple: “I don’t know. That is a question for somebody else . . . we tried to get as many people out as possible.” He didn’t bother to say how.

Apparently, the chief executive of the City of New Orleans isn’t a big adherent to that whole “The Buck Stops Here” mentality that most effective leaders feel compelled to live by. And it is interesting to note that, while he says the question of unused buses is a question for “somebody else,” two days after the levee broke he had acknowledged on a local radio station that he had been earlier advised that the school buses could be used, but that he insisted on getting Greyhounds to transport evacuees instead. Apparently, individual reading lights is an absolute must for passengers seeking to be taken out of harm’s way.

In any event, the differences in the stories being peddled by two of the highest-profile Louisianans in this debacle are worth noting. Of course the reason for the differing stories can most likely be explained by the fact that each person has a different purpose for offering their respective excuse. Mayor Nagin’s primary concern is to simply try to cover his posterior as the man who should have led the “first response” efforts. Senator Landrieu, on the other hand, primarily seems to see in this disaster an inviting opportunity to try to destroy the Bush administration, after her threat to punch the President didn't accomplish much.

In both cases, it seems that actually solving the problems following the catastrophe and helping its victims is a priority that has become subordinated to winning political and public relations battles. At this writing, it seems that only one high-profile leader has actually concerned himself less with politics and more with getting things accomplished. And that would be the very President who – rightly or wrongly – earlier today accepted responsibility for the problems in New Orleans as well as the responsibility for solving them.

This writer’s early perspective is that simply doing one’s job, and maybe the jobs of some others as well, will be the best public relations move of all for a real leader. Time will tell.

Monday, September 12, 2005

Change of Pace

Apologies for the lack of a post yesterday. The lovely and gracious Tanya and I were scheduled to work the GOP booth at the fair from 7 to 10 P.M. However, on our way to the fair from church last night, we received word that the building housing the booth was closed early. Freed up our evening to have a look at the goats and miniature horses on display in the livestock building. If you’ve never been to a real fair, this is the place for you. We are next scheduled to man the booth on Tuesday evening. Come and see us.

In the meantime, there is news to report from other areas of the SouthTenn blogger’s life. Let me take this opportunity to introduce you to my boys: Levi Nathanael and Aaron Joseph. They are currently living in Russia, but we hope to have them home in Lincoln County soon.


Saturday, September 10, 2005

In The Trenches This Week

The next few posts will be a bit of a departure from my usual "style," as the Lincoln County Fair has started, and I have decided to spend the next few days providing a bit of a journal of the goings-on as the wife and I man the booth and interact with the fair-going public. Hope you enjoy.

JLH


Friday, September 9, 2005 - Day 1


Things are mostly quiet today as this is the “setup” day for most attractions and exhibits. I arrive mid-afternoon to find that the lovely and gracious Tanya has already gotten most of the booth together. Later in the day, our Vice-Chair, J.D. Hall brings by additional materials and, by the end of the evening, the booth has fairly well taken shape.

The only real fireworks came as we were getting ready to leave. One local man affiliated with a prominent Fayetteville business stopped by the booth and took little time in getting to a personal attack on President Bush as “the most crooked man we’ve had in a long time.” Now, it’s not in my nature to pick a fight, but if a man goes to the Republican booth, knowing it’s the Republican booth, and begins to attack President Bush, who is really picking the fight anyway?

Anyway, my defense was quite simple. I asked the man to provide me with evidence that our president is a crook. His response was to accuse Dubyah of stealing the election in Florida. But the careful observer will note that this is just another accusation, so I asked him for proof of that, while at the same time pointing out that every re-count scenario that various media outlets conducted following the inauguration had George Bush winning the election. This time, he had no response, other than to say, “It was in the papers back then, but I can’t go back and get it now.” I then pointed out that an internet search could provide him with the proof he needed to convince me, if it existed.

At this point, my opponent took a popular tactic for liberals who realize they are losing a debate – he tried to change the subject, saying that people like me didn’t like Bill Clinton when he was in office, so what’s the difference? The difference, I pointed out, is that people like me didn’t make false accusations about Bill Clinton for which there was no evidence – as he had just done to President Bush.

(Personal friends of mine can attest to the fact that I went out of my way to give President Clinton the benefit of the doubt for as long as I possibly could, much to their frustration, before I finally concluded that he was no longer worth defending. I did this at the time because I knew it was only fair, and that the day would come when a Republican was in office, and someone like this man would come along saying this about Republicans .)

For his part, his contention was that Bill Clinton was a better president, due to the prosperity the country enjoyed in the nineties, but he had little response when I asked him what Bill Clinton did to bring the prosperity about. Again, little to no response – other than to change the subject again – this time to Mike Brown’s “resume problems” at FEMA. When I asked him how this proved George Bush is a crook, silence.

By this time, the gentleman (term loosely applied) was walking away, continuing to insist on his original premise – that he had never bothered to even try to document. As he left, I made one last offer for him to return at some point and provide me with a single bit of proof for a single accusation he had made. But I’m not holding my breath.

I suppose the greatest lesson to be learned from all this is that winning a debate with a liberal is easy, as long as you remember to make them prove their assertions with facts, and don’t allow them to get away with changing the subject without addressing their original claim. Not once did this man provide me with anything specific, anything concrete, anything factually established. You see, facts don’t often support them.

Man, I need me a radio show. Anyway, it’s gonna be a fun week.

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - Day 2

Burned a lot of daylight this morning – sleeping until 8! It’s been a long time since I was in bed that late – but it felt gooooooooooooooooood.

Anyway, after dropping off the lovely and gracious Tanya at the fair, I had to go to the Cingular store to get a problem corrected that had developed with the cell phone we had gotten for the local GOP (the number is 931-625-1886). I was able to finally make it to the booth by 11. We would be here until 5, when we would be relieved by two of our great Young Republicans – John Ponder and Daryl Luna.

No fireworks today. The only extended conversations I’ve gotten into have been with loyal Republicans, although there is a sense of worry among them for the fate of the party next year in light of recent difficulties. I just remind them that problems always arise, and that it’s still quite a while until election day. Problems come and go, and it’s to be expected that the party in charge is going to get the heat – whether it’s justified or not. This too shall pass.

One encouraging development is the interest being shown in the Fair Tax info we have out for distribution. Ben Cunningham of Tennessee Tax Revolt and James Baird of Americans for Fair Taxation were at our last monthly meeting of the local GOP, and left us with some material. People are interested, and seem supportive. This thing can happen if the public learns about it great enough numbers.

One slightly troubling development is the number of Harold Ford for Senate stickers we’re seeing being distributed at the Democrat Booth. Turns out, he’s in town today. I had contacted GOP candidates for the Senate requesting campaign materials, and personal appearances, for this year’s fair more than once, but we’ve received nothing so far. Our principal materials are leftover “W still the President” stickers and stickers that the local party purchased that say “Vote GOP 2006.” So, if any Van Hilleary or Ed Bryant operatives read this, you may want to take note.


As it turns out, our two great Young Republicans, Daryl and John, have arrived early, allowing me the time to go home and get this posted before we go to meet a friend for supper (that's what we call the evening meal in the sticks in Southern Tennessee).

More tomorrow, when we'll be working the late shift.

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Finally!

Sorry for the delay in getting a new post out. Responsibilities at home, church, office, and with local party activities have kept me in almost constant motion the past two weeks. Hopefully I will be able to settle into some semblance of normalcy (whatever that means) now.

- JLH

How Has His Fitness Changed?

As much as those on the far left, both within and without the Senate, would prefer that John Roberts not serve on the Supreme Court at all, one would think that the recent decision by President Bush to nominate him for the position of Chief Justice would be the source of much despair. But chances are the most liberal among the Washington players are thanking their lucky stars for this new angle from which to challenge Mr. Roberts’ nomination.

In recent weeks it had become evident that, although there is little question that Judge Roberts is more conservative than most on the left would prefer, the support for his appointment as Associate Justice was too great to overcome. Facing upwards of seventy votes in his favor, liberals had resigned themselves to accepting that the battle to keep Mr. Roberts off the High Court was lost. But the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist last weekend and the President’s decision to move Roberts to the center chair on the Court have many on the left believing the game is afoot once again, and the comments of prominent leftist Senators reflect this.

In this context, however, one should keep in mind that the job of Chief Justice, in reality, has no greater impact on the direction of American law and jurisprudence than the job of Associate Justice. The fact is that the greater responsibilities and authorities placed on the Chief have primarily to do with administrative functions rather than judicial ones. Like the eight Associates, he has but one vote when decisions are rendered, his greatest power in this regard being the assigning of the writing of decisions once they have been made.

Nevertheless, as has increasingly become their custom in recent years, those on the left of the Democrat party are relying heavily on the assumption that Americans are ignorant and malleable enough to be moved to widespread opposition to Mr. Roberts – if not as an Associate Justice nominee, then as Chief Justice nominee.

Minority Leader Harry Reid, Ranking Judiciary Committee Member Patrick Leahy, and perpetual blowhards Edward Kennedy and Charles Schumer are among the liberal Senators who, following President Bush’s Monday morning announcement regarding Judge Roberts, were rushing to any microphones they could find to announce that this development meant that Judge Roberts should be held up to even greater scrutiny as the nominee to replace the late Mr. Rehnquist.

But what the major media outlets have – unsurprisingly – failed to do is press the Senators to explain why this is so. “What is it,” it should be asked, “That could make someone unqualified to be Chief Justice while yet being qualified to be Associate Justice?”

Of course, the answer to that question is: Nothing. Nevertheless, one should not be surprised to start hearing a small number of Americans “on the street” echoing this sentiment, without really being able to explain why it is so. After all, the title sounds more significant, surely there must be some greater legal power the Chief Justice has. But considering how often in recent years Chief Justice Rehnquist found himself casting a vote for the losing side in high profile cases, one can’t help but wonder how he would feel about this sentiment.

The bottom line to all this is that the Democrats are treating vacancies on the federal judiciary as political positions to be filled, and are conducting campaigns regarding these positions accordingly – with the assistance of major left-wing activist groups – the animating idea being that a sufficient number of Americans can be duped into supporting their position and pressuring the White House to back off its choices. Senator Kennedy as much as acknowledged this when, as reported at CNSNews.com, he recently noted that the catastrophe on the Gulf Coast is making it difficult “for the American people to participate” in the selection of the next Chief Justice.

But even this is either a statement based on ignorance itself, or at least one that relies on the Constitutional ignorance of the average American. There is no provision in the law for the public to “participate” directly in the federal judicial selection process. The public’s role in this process is to elect the President and Senate who will participate directly. And, if memory serves, at the last such opportunity to elect these players, the public put Republicans in power within both institutions. Looks like the reliance on the ignorance of the people isn’t working out too well.