I just got a cold call from the Republican National Congressional Committee. Apparently, they got the idea that I'm a Republican, and gave me the honor of listening to a tape recorded message from some congressman exhorting me to join an advisory council [read: give money]. Here's the pertinent part of the message, verbatim:

As a former business owner, I understand the crippling effects overtaxation, government regulation, and red tape has on your business. That's why I'm asking you to serve as an honorary chairman of the Business Advisory Council, an organization of America's top business leaders that was formed in 1995. As an honorary chairman, you'll have the opportunity to meet with and provide input to members of Congress, business experts, and the movers and shakers in Washington at periodical [sic] meetings in the nation's capital. And I'll be sending you an invitaiton to join me, as my honored guest, at the annual black tie President's dinner. It is always the event of the year in D.C.

Then a young woman came on the line and this colloquoy took place:

HER: The latest numbers do show that the President's economic plan is starting to take effect.
ME: Could have fooled me.
HER: Oh, you don't think it's starting to take effect, sir?
ME: Nope.
HER: I'm sorry [pause]. So I take it you are not interested in this call.
ME: Probably not, no.

Hee, hee. So where did they get MY name, anyway?

Anybody else get their message? Money buys access, access buys influence. And by the way, the black tie dinner referred to? I lived in D.C for 9 years and I've never heard of it.

UPDATE: It's all a telemarketing scheme. And, the RNCC/NRCC has been busted before for illegal contributions from foreign nationals. And, "NBC’s Lisa Myers recently not[ed] that awardees 'have included a convicted sex offender and a maker of drug paraphernalia....' "

ANOTHER UPDATE: It wasn't some congressman. Apparently the recorded voice was NRCC chairman Tom Reynolds. This "Business Advisory Council" is a real thing, albeit a fundraising device.

Glenn reports that Hugh Hewitt has given John Edwards a golden opportunity:

Memo to John Edwards and his campaign staff: I know you aren't in the habit of sitting down with center-right radio hosts, even those with a long PBS resume, but my radio program is open to you, each and every day between now and March 2, for all three hours if you'd like. It is aired in drive time in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, the Inland Empire and Sacramento as well as in numerous other Super Tuesday markets, and word has it you are low on cash. Send me an e-mail at hhewitt@hughhewitt.com, and I'd be glad to have you as my co-host for the next ten broadcast days. Why? Just because I like a good race.

Hewitt broadcasts in several at-play states: Boston, Atlanta, Cleveland and Cinncy. I agreed with Glenn that Edwards would be crazy not to grab hold of that kind of free publicity, especially in the morning drive time. I even sent an email to Edwards's national office as well as all his field offices, urging them to get the candidate on the air with Hewitt soonest. No response, either to me or apparently to Hewitt. Why?

Clearly, Kerry is getting the bulk of the free media coverage, especially with him hitting the Vietnam and veteran issues hard. A canny short term strategy to keep Edwards out of the spotlight, but in the long term, I think the last successful presidential candidate who ran primarily as a war hero was Eisenhower. And to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, Kerry is no Eisenhower.

Meanwhile what flummoxes me is this perception that Kerry is more electible than Edwards. Again, why? Perception is everything, in the stock market and in national politics. Kerry inevitably must be perceived as a northeastern liberal Kennedy democrat. I don't care how many hare-brained electoral strategies the pundits come up with, the presidential election for the democratic candidate comes down to whether he can win at least one state in the south. I simply don't believe that Kerry can do it.

Edwards, on the other hand, is demonstrably southern. He is a better campaigner than Kerry, who is stiff and stand-offish, to my eyes. It is more likely that Edwards is going to take one or more southern states than Kerry. In the bedrock democratic states, the democratic nominee, whoever he is, is going to win. It's the fringe states, and the fringe voters [independents, libertarians, etc.], who are going to make the difference for either candidate. My sense is that if Kerry is the nominee, those on the fence are going to analyze it like this: Kerry flip flops, he might be too liberal for my taste, we are in the middle of a war situation, and I don't want to take the chance on changing horses in the middle of the stream. I'll vote for the democratic nominee, probably, whoever he is, simply because I think Bush is bad for the country, both domestically and in foreign policy. But I feel in my gut that Edwards will be competitive, while Kerry will probably lose handily to Bush.

What I think the Bushies are doing now is hitting Kerry with a low level of negatives. My crystal ball tells me that they have something on him, and are waiting to spring it until after the conventions, when it really makes a difference. Once the Democrats lock into Kerry [if they do], then the Bushies hit, and hit hard.

What's interesting is that they have not even paid attention to Edwards. That's because the only thing they can say about him is that he used to be a very good trial lawyer who represented regular people. If Edwards gets the nomination, I HOPE that the republicans try that argument. I think they'll get their collective head handed to them. The bottom line, however, is that unless Edwards does something significant, like get on Hewitt's morning drive time show in at least 3 at play markets, then it'll be tough for him to catch up, much less win.

Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds appears perturbed that the organizers of the Boston Democratic National Convention are considering establishing a "free speech zone" in a disadvantageous location. Well, they just learned it from the Bushies:

The dissidents were confined to a specific site - a "protest zone" or "First Amendment zone," depending on one's interpretation - across the street.

Besides, Mr. Bush couldn't have seen the crowd, or the signs, even if he had ducked out of the $1,000-a-plate festivities taking place inside the hall and strolled to one of the east-facing windows for a gander.

That's because a wall of KAT buses and Knoxville fire engines had been strategically positioned outside, completely surrounding the Henley Street side of the building. His only view of the immediate area would have been end-to-end panels of orange, blue and red sheet metal.

I would agree that in each case, we see a "crushing of dissent." But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we are to castigate one, then we should castigate both.

War of words: Ann Coulter -- she's cute and smart, but nuts -- lambasted Democrats and former Senator Max Cleland for questioning Bush II's National Guard Service. Molly Ivins took gleeful exception to Coulter's remarks:

But for sheer, vicious nastiness, no one cam compete with Ann Coulter, whose latest error-riddled effusion is an attack on former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, who has been critical of the Bush administration. Apparently in an effort to make George W.'s incomplete in the National Guard look better, Coulter wrote a column distributed by the Heritage Foundation saying Cleland, a triple amputee, had showed "no bravery" in Vietnam, "didn't give his limbs for his country," is not a war hero. My favorite sentence is, "Luckily for Cleland ... he happened (to lose his limbs) while in Vietnam," her point being that if he had been injured at Fort Dix, he wouldn't be a hero.

He also wouldn't have been under enemy fire at Fort Dix. She says he lost his legs in "a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends." Actually, Cleland lost his limbs when a grenade detonated after he and another soldier jumped off a helicopter in a combat zone.

As for not being a war hero, Cleland earned the Silver Star in a separate incident just four days before he was injured. The citation reads, "during heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Capt. Cleland disregarded his own safety, exposed himself to rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted them in moving the injured personnel to covered positions. Cleland's gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit and the United Sates Army."

How lucky for Cleland ...

Not knowing when to shut up, Coulter responds, quoting Jill Zuckman in the Boston Globe:

"Finally, the battle at Khe Sanh was over. Cleland, 25 years old, and two members of his team were now ordered to set up a radio relay station at the division assembly area, 15 miles away. The three gathered antennas, radios and a generator and made the 15-minute helicopter trip east. After unloading the equipment, Cleland climbed back into the helicopter for the ride back. But at the last minute, he decided to stay and have a beer with some friends. As the helicopter was lifting off, he shouted to the pilot that he was staying behind and jumped several feet to the ground.

"Cleland hunched over to avoid the whirring blades and ran. Turning to face the helicopter, he caught sight of a grenade on the ground where the chopper had perched. It must be mine, he thought, moving toward it. He reached for it with his right arm just as it exploded, slamming him back and irreparably altering his plans for a bright, shining future."

And, here's the pot calling the kettle black: "They [liberals] ought to stick to their specialty -- hysterical overreaction. The truth is not their forte."

Who's right and who's wrong? Probably both are both, somewhat. Context, accuracy of quotation, and spin are key in these disputes. However, Coulter loses credibility with me, at least, in that she seems to think I'm a traitor.... ["Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason"] [click "Next Page 9 times to get to the quote].

The sharks are starting to feed on themselves:

For example, Peggy Noonan, the Reagan speechwriter, had this to say on Sunday in opinionjournal.com about Mr. Bush's "Meet the Press" interview: "The president seemed tired, unsure and often bumbling. His answers were repetitive, and when he tried to clarify them he tended to make them worse."

George Will, the conservative columnist, wrote in his syndicated column on Sunday, "It is surreal for a Republican president to submit a budget to a Republican-controlled Congress and have Republican legislators vow to remove the `waste' that he has included and that they have hitherto funded."

While most conservatives remain squarely behind Mr. Bush, the united front has not been quite as united.

Columnists like Robert Novak, conservative television hosts like Joe Scarborough of MSNBC and others on local radio and the Internet have raised questions about Mr. Bush.

"It's a critical departure," said J. David Hoeveler, a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, who said last week that he believed that his local conservative radio host, Charlie Sykes, had begun sounding less exuberant about Mr. Bush. "Generally it's been whole-heartedly Republican," Mr. Hoeveler said of the tenor of the conservative media. "It would suggest that those who would call themselves Republicans are quite possibly breaking ranks."

This dovetails with a lot of on-the-street evidence I've seen that even bedrock Republicans want Bush out of the White House.

Bush: we don't need your stinkin' jobs!

[No] Tennis, anyone?

I seem to have misunderstood the results from last week's primaries.

According to a CBS-supported campaign blog, Edwards beats Elvis in Memphis: "There was also an Elvis impersonator that was trying to attract a lot of attention, but much to his dismay, the focus this morning was on Edwards and not Elvis." It also reports that Edwards is in the best financial shape it's been in, and that he "will fight to the very end." Scroll down about 3/4 of the way to see the Edwards blog.

It looks like the races in Virginia and Tennessee are tightening, albeit probably too late for Edwards. CBS reports that

Kerry led an American Research Group poll of 600 Tennessee voters by 32 percent to Edwards 21 percent and Clark's 20 percent. Dean had 8 percent.

In Virginia, an ARG survey of 600 voters had 35 percent for Kerry, 22 percent for Edwards and 17 percent for Clark. Dean was at 9 percent.

Yesterday, it was 45-21 Kerry in Tennessee. What this shows is the unreliability of small sample polling, but even more dangerously, the tremendous effect the polls have on voter preferences/turnout. It's rainy here in Knoxville. Does that mean a light turnout, which probably doesn't help Edwards?

Edwards doesn't have to win in Tennessee and Virginia to carry on. This assertion was confirmed to me yesterday by an Edwards campaign worker, who advised that the Edwards campaign still had plenty of money.

OK, who's put up this anti-Kerry blog? I'm betting it's not a democrat....

Yep, it's true; I am related to Trevor Rabin. Also true that I am related, by marriage to the Kennedys [Rory married my cousin Mark Bailey; that was the wedding that didn't happen when JFK Jr. augered in]. Here's an interesting musical family tree for Trevor. I was hoping to find my name in there, as I play drums, but alas, it was not to be; I never played with T.R. [sigh]. Since leaving Yes about 10 years ago, Trevor has become one of the big movie music guys. For a graphic scroll of the movies he's scored, check this out [also, an annoying loop comes along with it]. Here's a refreshingly in-depth interview with Trevor from 2002, which details his movie work. Interestingly, his son, Ryan, is a working drummer in L.A.

I went to see John Edwards Friday night here in Knoxville. Overflow crowd. Standard stump speech, which is to say, awfully good. I tried to get Glenn Instapundit Reynolds to go with me, and even tried to get the candidate for an Instapundit bloggerview [I just made that up; pretty good, huh?], but we couldn't get it set up on short notice. Glenn then decided to veg out instead.

What I like about Edwards is (a) his message, which promotes hope for the future and the democratic concept of helping those that need a helping hand; (b) his positioning, which is as close to Clinton 1992 as any candidate in this race; and (c) his electibility, which is the strongest in the field. I also think it's cool that he plays Creedence Clearwater Revival/John Fogerty out of his tour bus.

Unfortunately, the tracking numbers don't look good for Edwards, who could really use a win here in Tennessee or in Virginia. On the other hand, Edwards has been endorsed by the Union of Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile Employees, 500,000 strong.

Interestingly, it's all perception. In terms of delegate count, Kerry has about 400, and Edwards has 116:

Going into Maine's caucuses, Kerry had captured 409 delegates, compared with 174 for Dean, 116 for Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, 82 for retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, 12 for New York civil rights activist Al Sharpton and two for Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. To win the nomination, a candidate needs 2,161 delegates

Not an insurmountable lead, especially with 75% of the delegates yet to be chosen. Question: why is the media portraying this as a done deal for Kerry? Don't they know that when they say it, that makes it true? And, it doesn't make sense; it's a much better story if the nomination continues to be contested. Example: "Each needs a primary victory in Virginia or in neighboring Tennessee to slow the Kerry juggernaut, reports CBS News Correspondent Joie Chen. " Since when is Joie Chen the last word on electoral politics?

This is kinda cool. Check out the underwater conditions in Bonaire with their constantly updated underwater Webcam. They've got other webcams around the island, too.

Raucous caucus: Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby polls it as Kerry: 25%, Dean: 22%, Edwards: 21% and Gephardt: 18% Undecided: 9%. Meanwhile, Kucinich and Edwards have agreed that if either looks to get less than 15%, they will throw their votes to the other. Dean, in a shameless Clinton 1992 ripoff, is calling himself the "ultimate comeback kid." How silly: Dean has faced none of the adversity Clinton faced in the days leading up to New Hampshire in 1992. All that has happened to Dean is that the Iowa voters are recognizing that (a) he is unlikely, at best, to win a general election against Bush, and (b) the one candidate in a realistic position to take some of the South is Edwards. This, of course, is why Edwards is surging. In fact, if any one candidate resembles the Clinton 1992 model, it would be Edwards, with his modest background and his geographic advantages.

In related news, Kerry is practicing from the get negative and then apologize school. I cry foul -- you can't have your cake and eat it too. By the way, anybody else think that Kerry is looking more and more like a basset hound?

Not to toot my own horn [you are anyway! -- ed.], I modestly note that I was an early booster of Edwards.

UPDATE: Dean apparently is desparate. His wife, who previously had better things to do, came "halfway across the country" to kiss him publicly. Sounds to me like Howard thinks Iowa is off the beaten path. NOT the way to encourage voters....

Ugh. I just looked at my previous post from 1/9. The basketball vols are a terror at home, but can't hit the side of a barn on the road. On the other hand, they have had he bad luck to run into two teams -- South Carolina and Florida -- that shot lights out against the Vols. Do we have a team? Tomorrow tells the tale, when Tennessee goes up against Kentucky in Knoxville.

On the brighter side, it looks like Tennessee may have a basketball team this year. These guys, who are playing ball with each other for the first time, look like they're veterans. And, they beat Georgia handily. Georgia just recently beat the number 3 team in the country, Georgia Tech.

The $64 question is whether the B-Ball Vols can play consistently as well against what must be one of the toughest conference schedules ever: Florida, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, etc. Whew.

Stay tuned.

As anyone who knows me will confirm, I am a big Tennessee football fan. I'm the one who caught the Flu -- and then pneumonia -- because I had to sit in the rain to see Tennessee whip Ohio State in the 1996 Citrus Bowl [driving rain that day, ugh]. I'm the one who has sat through the losses and the wins since 1970. I have been to the top of the mountain, and to the depths of the valley with my Volunteers. Being something of a student of this team through the years, I feel mildly qualified to comment on the team's status now, with the 2003 campaign ending not like a lion, but like a lamb.

The uninitiated must understand that most Tennessee fans are (a) educated as to the game, (b) vociferous in their desire to achieve the pinnacle of college football, and (c) not afraid to let anyone know what they think. I'm like that. So it will come as no shock to learn that I am, to say the least, dissatisfied with where the football program is, and has been, since we achieved the ultimate [national championship] in 1998. Evidence of unacceptable results from the 2003 season is found here , here, and here, as well as the "flop" in the Peach Bowl last week, linked above. Even when we did win, it felt like we lost. Evidence: needing overtime to beat an eventual 5-7 South Carolina, or 5 overtimes to beat an outmanned and outmatched 4-9 Alabama.

OFFENSE: our offensive production has declined every year since the 1998 season. The offense often doesn't know who's supposed to be on the field at a given moment. Penalties are endemic. We are not playing our best personnel. Playcalling is predictable and stale. We appear to be afraid to throw the ball downfield, between the zone. Execution is glaringly inconsistent. In the past, when we had a good play, we, well, expected it. Now, when we have a good play, we breathe a sigh of relief because a minor miracle has occurred to allow us the good fortune. We no longer know inherently how to do what it takes to win. If we get behind, we more often than not lose the game. If we get several touchdowns behind, as against Georgia, we quit. And anybody who sat through the debacle of the Tennessee-Georgia second half knows that I do not overstate the case. In fact, I read published reports from the coaches that they in fact intentionally quit, so as not to get players injured [I couldn't find links]. What message does that send your players, when the COACHES give it up -- and admit it -- with a quarter and a half remaining in the game?

I refuse to believe, as the pundits will declare, that these shortcomings are a result of a lack of talent. Aside from last year's class, Tennessee has had top 5 recruiting classes every year at least over the last 7 or 8 years. I make the assumption therefore that our talent is at least as good as any other top program in the country. It is at least as good as USC's or LSU's talent.

If our lack of success is not as a result of lack of raw talent, then where does the blame lay? I refuse to blame the players, who have come here to learn how to win at the highest level. The blame must fall at the feet of the coaches, who have taken the Manning years, and the record-setting Tee Martin offense, and run it into the ground, through lack of player development, lack of adequate preparation lack of creative game planning, lack of motivation to execute, and ultimately, lack of success at the only goal meaningful: the winning of championships. Let's look just at a couple of offensive areas as examples.

Quarterback: Casey Clausen should have been a Heisman candidate -- or at least Maxwell Trophy. He's got the talent and the intelligence to have exceeded even Peyton Manning at the quarterback position. Why did he not? He wasn't developed properly. I truly believe that if Clausen had been brough along by David Cutcliffe instead of Randy Sanders, Clausen would have broken all the reocrds in the book, and would be a top round draft pick for the NFL. As it is, it will be lucky if he gets drafted at all.

Instead of decrying Clausen's lack of development by his coach [Randy Sanders], the pundits started making up statistics to make him look good, like the one early this season when it was crowed that Clausen was undefeated in regular season games on the road. Never heard that one before. Anyway, it didn't last, because we promptly lost at Auburn, despite Clausen's heroic effort. It was a stupid statistic, especially in light of our embarassment in the 2001 SEC championship to LSU, and expecially in the 2003 Peach Bowl loss to Maryland, 30-3.

Offensive Line: Tennessee has long been known as a team that turns out top offensive linemen by the bushel. Phillip Fulmer is a linemen and former line coach. We have top blue chip talent in the offensive line. Why then can't those guys make a hole for a running game? Answer: coaching. The offensive coaches took outstanding potential, and turned out mediocre linemen. Replacing the offensive line coach after the 2002 season did little or no good; we had less than 50 yards rushing in the last game.

Of course, one has to consider the running backs, as well. We are loaded with talent, with Cedric Houston, Jabari Davis [who clearly gained a step in 2003], Gerald Riggs, Corey Larkins and Derek Tinsley. Each has a different style, and none was successful rushing the football this year. Why? Neither they nor their linemen have been developed to pay at the high level demanded of them by the Tennessee football community. It's not their fault; it's the coaches' fault.

Does anyone honestly believe Jay Graham was such a better back than these kids currently on the roster. I don't. I thought Graham, who played in the mid 1990s, was a fine back, but he benefited from better training as a running back, as well as his linemen being better trained. Remember, we're the team that, in the 1996 Citrus Bowl, made Graham the showcase back, instead of an outplayed Eddie George. Fast forward to January 2, 2004, when the unknown backs from the unranked Clemson looked like stars, while our running backs looked like wimps. What's the difference? Coaching.

DEFENSE: I don't comment a lot on defense, because I think John Chavis is one of the best 5 defensive coordinators in football today. I have for years had a problem with our philosophy of secondary coverage, which emphasizes playing off the receiver instead of looking for the ball. This style of play probably explains why Tennessee does not intercept the ball more often.

In general, however, the defense over the last several years has made more with less than any defense I can remember. Especially 2002. That year, the defense literally was decimated with injuries. Yet, if you take away opponents' scores caused by offensive miscues, and look solely at scores allowed by the defense, I believe the Tennessee defense led the nation in least amount of points scored. Game in and game out, the defense plays well enough for us to win; it's the offense that blows it. A notable execption is the win at Miami this season, 10-6. Again, offensive production was minimal, but the defense played its heart out, and held the 'Canes to only two field goals. Essentially, we won in spite of our offense, and because of our defense.

So what's answer? Obviously -- at least to this observer -- a revamping of the offensive coaching staff is in order, nay, desperately needed. Sure, we went 10-3 this year, but so what? We did not compete for any championship, and had we played LSU -- a team in disarray four years ago -- we would probably have gotten spanked but good. Let's face it: most of us breathed a sigh of relief when we didn't have to play in the SEC Chamionship. Our talent is still outstanding, but other teams are improving in their talent -- and more to the point, in their coaching. See for example what Georgia has done with Mark Richt, and of course national champion LSU under Nick Saban.

At the end of the 2002 season, I said that Phillip Fulmer was not at risk in his job, If he took fundamental steps to fix the ongoing problems on offense. He failed to do so, and having suffered through another boring, mediocre, and unsatisfying Tennessee football season, I have to now say that another season without seeing the improvements in coaching, preparation, motivation, execution, and ultimately contending for a championship will very possibly mean his job will be on the line in Knoxville.

How far the mighty have fallen. . . .

The Administration wants to go back to the Moon. That's good. Apparently, however, the Administration, in doing so, will at least temporarily eliminate our manned space flight capability, end investment in the space station, keep the project controlled completely in-house through NASA, and use an Apollo Plus methadology in doing so. That strikes me as very, very bad.

Consider the difficulties in getting federal appropriations for such an increased effort, in light of the ongoing problems funding the space station, and the consistent lowering of the NASA budget. Why would we cut off our nose to spite our face by leaving the space station out in the cold, when it could be a Moon/Mars staging point. Also, the current NASA ethic strikes me as incompatible with the spirit of exploration ncessary for this concept, which is literally the "Wagon Train to the Stars" idea. Furthermore, to make such a massive effort workable, it seems to me that business and industry, i.e., the private players, have to have an incentive to invest in the effort; there's just not enough government money available, and the national mindset may not be as supportive of a Moon shot now as it was 40 years ago (race to space, beat the Russians, and so forth). Many decades ago, Robert Heinlein wrote about "The Man Who Sold the Moon." If manned space exploration is to succeed on any kind of reasonable basis, we must sell it as a society to our society, and not as another insular government agency raison d'etre.

Is this initiative the Administration's way to get NASA's juices flowing again? If so, it's like going to England to get to California: taking the wrong direction.

(Thanks to Instapundit and Rand Simberg)