Caffeinated Thoughts

CPAC Review: Haley Barbour Gave a Promising Speech
Rand Paul: Abolish the Federal Department of Education
CPAC Review: Mitch Daniels Needs To Understand How We Have Strayed From Our Founding
Sarah Palin Hires Michael Glassner as Chief of Staff for SarahPAC
Ron Williamson, the Death Penalty, and Protections for the Innocent

CPAC Review: Haley Barbour Gave a Promising Speech

Posted: 14 Feb 2011 04:30 AM PST

Governor Haley Barbour (R-MS) proudly proclaimed at CPAC the virtues of "democratic capitalism over a centralized government-managed economy." He called on office-seekers and office holders to put their faith in the American people. If they do that, he said, then the people –including Soccer Moms, Tea Party supporters, Mamma Grizzlies, and small business owners—will stand alongside them in putting the country back on the right track.

Governor Barbour clearly understands that growing the federal government's size diminishes the powers of the people. He said that the last election was "a stunning rejection" of leftist political philosophy that is fundamentally at odds with our founding. He said that the $1 trillion stimulus program produced more government to the detriment of jobs and our economic well-being, and he recognized that "every dollar taxed or spent by the federal government" is a dollar taken from the people. A bigger government, he said, equals a smaller economy.

The Governor blasted the Obama administration for curtailing the development of America's vast energy resources. He criticized it for favoring a European-style approach to energy where gas is eight to nine dollars per gallon.

On social issues, he pointed out that early on in his first gubernatorial term the legislature signed onto his pro-life agenda with the result being that Americans United for Life declared Mississippi to be the safest state in America for an unborn child.

The Governor gave a very promising speech. He has an appreciation for our founding and for the American people. That's something that is often lacking in office-holders, among both Democrats and Republicans. He is not afraid to use the word "capitalism," and he understands that it is inextricably related to democracy. He understands, too, the travesty of an increasingly centralized government; it marginalizes the people, and gives power to unelected bureaucrats.

As with the other speakers, I would like to hear more from the Governor over the coming months. How would things look under his administration? What are some of the other ways in which he would return power to the states and to the people? On education, does he agree with those (including some Republicans) who like a strong federal role, or does he favor the American tradition that education policy-making should be close to the people? What qualities would he look for in judicial nominees? What are his thoughts on marriage and life? What are his views on monetary policy?

It is early in the process. But the candidates who first lay out a comprehensive vision will be viewed as leaders. The others will be viewed as followers. And the people will want to elect a leader.

Share and Enjoy:

Rand Paul: Abolish the Federal Department of Education

Posted: 14 Feb 2011 03:00 AM PST

At CPAC last week Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said something I can wholeheartedly can agree with. Republicans do need to back to their roots and recognize that there is no constitutional role for the federal government in education.

Share and Enjoy:

CPAC Review: Mitch Daniels Needs To Understand How We Have Strayed From Our Founding

Posted: 14 Feb 2011 01:30 AM PST

The remarks of Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN) were sadly problematic.

The Governor demonstrated an understanding of how government works, of how it spends money, and the ways in which it fails to provide a true accounting to the people. He is obviously keen on innovative approaches to government. No doubt, he has learned a lot during his career, which includes service as political advisor to President Reagan and as Director of OMB under President George W. Bush.

The Governor repeatedly, and rightly, invoked the leadership of President Reagan. He also cited the example of Winston Churchill who put aside his disdain for communism in order to fight the Nazis. The Governor warned that we have a tough fight ahead and that we would need the help of a broad range of Americans, some of whom, he said, were more inclined to surf by CNN on their way to the sports channel and who had likely never heard of CPAC.

The Governor correctly presented the country's massive fiscal crisis as affecting, among other things, national security and the private sector and the nonprofit institutions that benefit from the private sector's wealth creation. He contrasted the failing performance of the bloated federal government with the superior performance of Indiana's lean state government.

But here's the problem. Although there is connectivity between a bloated government and the encroachment of liberty, having a small and restrained government does not alone ensure the defense of liberty. Similarly, there is connectivity between a bloated government and national security, but restraining government and restoring the balance sheet does not alone ensure that security.

President Reagan understood that reality. When he took office, the country faced economic disaster, a judicial and elitist assault on our social values and the most powerful evil in world history –a power that could annihilate the world. Yet, President Reagan stood tall on all counts. He believed in the people and that they would awaken to embrace their founding. And that's the type of fully integrated conservative leadership we need today.

But what do we make of the great Winston Churchill? Well, yes, the Prime Minister (as did FDR) "set aside his disdain of communism" to defeat the Nazis. But, sadly, the communists did not set aside their disdain of the free world. They kept their war maps marked into three camps –the communists, the Nazis, and the "imperialists," and they raced to grab as much territory as possible. Our General Patton understood that, but Churchill and FDR did not. That other war would drag on until President Reagan led us to victory.

And that's what we need now. We need a president who understands all the ways in which we have strayed from our founding and who is not afraid to lead America on all fronts.

Share and Enjoy:

Sarah Palin Hires Michael Glassner as Chief of Staff for SarahPAC

Posted: 13 Feb 2011 09:45 PM PST

On Friday former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin hired a veteran politico, Michael Glassner, as her chief of staff for her political action committee, SarahPAC.

SarahPAC Treasurer Tim Crawford issued a statement on behalf of SarahPAC, "We are excited that Mike has agreed to come on to help the team." Glassner served as an advisor for Bob Dole's presidential campaign, and he managed the vice presidential operations for the McCain/Palin campaign in 2008.

Many see as a possible indication that she is preparing for a 2012 run. Glassner is familiar with Governor Palin and would be an asset should she choose to run.

Share and Enjoy:

Ron Williamson, the Death Penalty, and Protections for the Innocent

Posted: 13 Feb 2011 06:36 PM PST

I recently listened to the audio version of John Grisham's book The Innocent Man: Murder and Injustice in a Small Town. It's a story primarily about one Ron Williamson, an ex-baseball star with developing mental issues who is convicted of a murder he did not commit.

I was in the midst of one of my ordinary out of state business trips and had a long drive over a couple of days. Driving along as I listened to the story I remember thinking that this wasn't one of Grisham's best works: The whole thing seemed really over the top. Nobody in law enforcement or in our judicial system could be this negligent, corrupt, incompetent, or just plain stupid. Not in real life. Grisham was pushing the limits of believability.

It wasn't until the next day, after I began listening to the last disc, that I realized that Grisham hadn't been writing fiction. He was telling a story about events that had actually happened. I have to say that realization made me nothing short of horrified.

The story has a happy ending…sort of. Williamson and another man, Dennis Fritz, are finally cleared of the murder and released after over a decade behind bars. But Williamson's mental and physical health worsened dramatically while in prison, and he died some five years after his release.

The rest of the story is a perfectly dreadful one: A young woman, Debra Sue Carter, is brutally raped and murdered late in 1982. On the singular testimony of one Glen Gore, a man who turned out to be the real killer, and with absolutely no compelling physical evidence, Ron Williamson is charged with the murder. Dennis Fritz was implicated in the murder simply because he was a friend of Williamson's. Both men were convicted in 1988, with Fritz getting a sentence of life in prison. Williamson received the death penalty.

In September of 1994, and five days from the date of Williamson's scheduled execution by the State of Oklahoma, Williamson's execution was stayed following a habeas corpus filing, and after eleven years on death row and following several appeals, Williamson was exonerated by DNA testing and was finally freed in April of 1999. Fritz was freed as well.

The details of how poorly the case was handled by nearly everyone involved in it are well documented in Grisham's book. If you read it you will, I suspect, find yourself in disbelief at how all this could happen. A few questions come to mind:

How is it that no one saw Ron Williamson that night at the bar where Carter worked except Glen Gore, and yet that was enough to establish Williamson's alleged contact with Carter? And this in spite of Williamson's mother's testimony to police officials that Williamson was home with her that night watching television.

Why didn't anyone explain to the jury that hair samples proved virtually nothing?

Why didn't the defense attempt to argue that Williamson wasn't competent to stand trial?

Why wasn't a video taped confession to the crime by another individual (Ricky Joe Simmons) introduced at trial?

Why didn't the authorities pursue Glen Gore even in the most cursory way instead of building their case on the self-serving lies of this man who actually committed the crime?

I haven't changed my position on the death penalty. I think it's allowable and even necessary. But hearing about this case made me reconsider whether our system allows for the appropriate protections for the innocent who are occasionally convicted for capital crimes they didn't commit. DNA evidence is a wonderful thing. It's actually what ended up clearing Williamson and Fritz and finally nailing that worthless killer Glen Gore. But DNA isn't infallible either. And in some cases DNA may reside quite naturally in a crime scene but it should not always be considered the DNA of the perpetrator. For example, consider someone who is murdered in their home and the spouse is charged with the crime.

It's clear from the Williamson case that our judicial system can still make some horrendous errors. And in some of these cases people's very lives are at stake. Scripture puts a very high standard for when the death penalty should be employed:

“On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness." – Deuteronomy 17:6

I am thoroughly unconvinced we are anywhere near this standard in most capital cases, and until we are I will be skeptical that our system allows for the appropriate protections for the innocent.

For more information on the Williamson case go to PBS Frontline: Burden of Innocence

Share and Enjoy: