The Weekly Standard as an article about the kerfuffle over Southern Methodist University’s bid to host the G.W. Bush library.

LATE LAST YEAR, dozens of faculty members at Southern Methodist University publicly opposed plans by President Bush to locate his presidential library on SMU’s campus in Dallas.

Now, ten bishops of the United Methodist Church, which owns the school, and of which President Bush is a member, are urging SMU to reject the library and are circulating a petition for others to sign.

A chief organizer in stopping the Bush library is a former professor at SMU’s Perkins School of Theology, who told the Dallas Morning News that he doesn’t want his school to “hitch its future star” to the war and other aspects of President Bush’s legacy.

President and Mrs. Bush are members of Highland Park United Methodist Church in Dallas. Its pastor, the Rev. Mark Craig, is an SMU trustee who supports the library at SMU. The whole thing is, of course, just another example of Bush Derangement Syndrome, but here’s the kicker:

For decades, United Methodist bishops have largely declined to criticize their denomination’s schools as they slipped away from their Christian moorings and became virtually secular institutions. Typical campus life at Methodist schools is not behaviorally different from most other major universities. The faculty, who often adhere to the same academic fads and ideologies of secular schools, are rarely expected to sign faith statements, belong to churches, or even be reverent towards religion. Even United Methodist seminary professors sometimes reject Christian orthodoxy. Some even reject theism itself.

Bishops have almost always defended their schools’ academic independence, even as they often served on the schools’ boards and helped channel church funding to them. But hosting the presidential library of President Bush, a fellow church member, is apparently a bridge too far for some of the church’s bishops and the 4,000 other signatories to the anti-Bush library petition.

They’ve finally found a heresy which they cannot accept.

As long-time readers here know, I am an ordained pastor on the UMC and while I am utterly unsurprised at the knee-jerkiness of the 10 bishops, I am also heartened to see that at last, at last, dear heaven, they have actually decided to stand firmly for something. Okay, against something, but still . . .

As has been well reported, some Republican senators voted along with Democrats on a resolution opposing sending additional troops to Iraq. How did Tennessee’s two Republican senators come down on the issue?

Lamar Alexander emailed Nashville blogger Bill Hobbs,

The situation in Iraq is worse, and the time has come to change our strategy. I have read the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report, heard recommendations from leaders in the military, and I listened carefully to President Bush’s proposal for success.

Sending 21,500 more American troops temporarily into Iraq to try to stop sectarian violence is not, by itself, new or a strategy for success.

Lamar made it clear that he strongly opposes sending more troops, but when it came time to go on the record with his vote, he did not vote for the resolution. So does he or doesn’t he support or oppose the increase? Who knows?

Our state’s freshman senator, Bob Corker, also voted against the resolution. But what does he really think? His position either has changed since the vote or it wasn’t reported accurately by media to begin with (I’ll give 50-50 either way). Soldier’s Mom reports that at first Corker was quoted thus:

Republican Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said he didn’t support the resolution because he didn’t believe it would affect administration policy. Instead, he said next time he talks to Tennessee soldiers he will tell them, “I oppose what you are doing but I thank you for your service.”

That was from version one of an FNC story. But now the story has been edited and quotes Corker this way:

Republican Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said he didn’t support the resolution because he didn’t believe it would affect administration policy, and he believed it wouldn’t give troops the right message.

“So, in essence, what I’ll be doing the next time if I see them, if I vote for this resolution, is to say: I’m opposed to you being there, but thank you for what you’re doing,” Corker said.

That does change the tenor of his position. But it leaves open the question of whether he would have voted aye if he had thought it would change the administration’s policy.

Thanks for taking such a clear stand, guys.

Isn’t based on facts or sound reporting, that is. In a story by Kate Howard, Nashville’s newspaper, The Tennessean, reported on Nov. 30 that “State could require drivers to pay gas tax by the mile,” explaining what was aparently a proposal by state Sen. Mark Norris and some other legislators to impose a gas-pump tax that charged a fee-per-mile driven by the conumer instead of the present tax per gallon.

The system would work something like this: You pull up to a gas station, and a transmitter in your car tells the pump how far you’ve driven since you last filled your tank. The state charges you pennies for each mile you’ve traveled instead of the usual 21.4 cents per gallon you’ve been paying with every fill-up.

Members of the Senate Transportation Committee have been informally discussing the possibility of a “user fee” system, in which a Global Positioning System device would transmit your mileage to a gas pump and charge accordingly.

“Gas tax revenues are static, and they don’t necessarily increase with the transportation needs that have to be met,” said Sen. Mark Norris, R-Collierville, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee. “We need to look at more forward-thinking concepts … like doing away with the gas tax and going to a user-driven system.”

The Tennessean allows comments on its online stories (bravo!) and the first comment was,

So, let me get this right. I purchase a small, fuel efficient vehicle because of the miles I have to drive to get to work - but I pay gas tax based on miles driven, not gallons purchased.

Someone who designs gas guzzlers must have thought this one up.

And so for a couple of days a political kerfuffle ensued here in the state on this dopey idea. On Dec. 1 reporter Howard bylined a piece in which Sen. Norris denied proposing a per-mile tax.

But on Thursday, Norris said he did not support a fee based on miles driven and had no plans to propose that the idea be studied in Tennessee. Instead, he said, he was just mentioning a concept that came up in a federal commission talking about the Southeast in general, not Tennessee.

“The idea of a GPS user fee system is not on the table in Tennessee,” Norris said.

In Oregon, drivers in a pilot user-fee study have GPS transmitters in their cars that tell a sensor at gas pumps to deduct the gas tax and charge them 1.2 cents per mile driven instead. The idea is, it’s a more steady and fair source of state revenue.

“I do not support a user fee,” Norris said. “My point has been, we’re not properly using the revenue we already have. The taxpayers have already paid for transportation.”

Sloppy reporting or a politician backtracking? Both seem attractibe hypotheses, yes? For the answer, let’s turn to Bill Hobbs, who wrote Dec. 2 that the Tennessean’s story was “Rife With Misrepresentations.” The issue for the senator and his tax-reform allies was the misuse of the present collection of 21.4 cents per gallon tax. Drew Johnson, president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research and a political ally with Sen. Norris on this issue, told Bill that he was interviewed by Howard for the story.

[Kate Howard] asked if there were any benefits from using this “tax by the mile” scheme. I told her that the only problem with the current gas tax is that the highway funds generated by the gas tax are raided to offset general fund appropriations. If the “tax by the mile” scheme stopped that, and all of the gas tax money went to fund road projects, then I’d be relieved in that one regard. From that statement, readers were led to suppose that the Tennessee Center for Policy Research supports this dodgy highway funding proposal.

My quotes have since been removed from the online version of the story.

I want to stress that the Tennessee Center for Policy Research unequivocally opposes the idea of forcing Tennesseans to pay gas tax by the mile. The scheme would increase the tax burden of all Tennesseans and potentially compromise civil liberty.

In fact, as Bill points out, The Tennessean has removed from its web site its original version and replaced it with a much shorter version, the one I linked to above. Nashvillepost.com ran a story on Dec. 1 that tells Sen. Norris’ side of the issue in detail.

Norris, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, tells NashvillePost.com that he and his staff have worked exstensively the past few weeks trying to bring Tennessean reporter Kate Howard up to speed on transportation issues.

Howard, who just recently moved into the state, has been dubbed “Ms. Beep” by the Gannett-owned paper and is slated to be its full time transportation reporter.

Yesterday, Howard and The Tennessean reported that Norris was floating the idea of a new tax that would charge Tennessee motorists by the mile, something that really is being considered in Oregon, and that the monies collected would pay for shortfalls in Tennessee’s highway infrastructure budget. Capitol Hill insiders familiar with Norris’s track record on infrastructure and taxation were shocked by the report.

So was much of the public, apparently. The story generated more than 80 comments on the newspaper’s website, and a quasi-poll packaged with the story attracted more than 5,000 votes. The feedback in both cases was overwhelmingly negative toward Norris and his supposed idea.

Norris tells NashvillePost.com that he and his staff met with The Tennessean’s editorial staff and Howard yesterday in an attempt to clear up matter, hoping for clarification of his position in today’s paper. Instead, he says, today’s article makes it appear that he is backtracking on an issue due to pressure from readers of the daily paper.

“This issue was never on the table,” Norris insists. “In a long conversation with Howard, I was giving her examples of other types of user fees after I said I was against raising the gas tax and against establishing tolls on top of a gas tax that the Bredesen administration is not even using. The transportation trust fund needs to be repaid by the administration out of existing revenues.”

I’m going to believe Sen. Norris here, whom I have never met, btw, and who does not represent my district of the state. After all, it’s not like The Tennessean has a stellar reputation for fair reporting.

BTW, Bill Hobbs just celebrated his 5th blog anniversary. Drop by and say congrats!

Was losing the race for the Senate seat being vacated by Bill Frist a blessing in disguise for Harold Ford, Jr.?

That loss may be the best thing that ever happened to Harold Ford, Jr. It can be reasonably assumed that Ford has national ambitions that aspire even to the presidency. He certainly has the potential intellect and charisma for such. He has shown that he can reach across the aisle and he is extremely well-spoken.

Even he must realize that the path to the presidency rarely passes through the Senate. But it often does pass through a governor’s mansion. And Tennessee will have an open election for that domicile in just four years. Just-reelected Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) cannot run for another term.

If Harold Ford takes this advice then he will next take an executive position in a corporate environment - either business or non-profit - in the state of Tennessee. This will give him outside the beltway credentials (not to mention valuable real life world experience) beyond political office and the ability to credibly counter the argument that he has never lived in Tennessee.

He will then be primed to run for governor with an effective combination of D.C. political experience, corporate experience, a few more years of life seasoning and maturity, and some time of experiencing life in Tennessee. He now has valuable name recognition and he has gained enormous respect statewide with his admirable showings in traditional Republican areas.

Once he has completed four years in corporate life, followed by eight years as governor, he will be only 48 years old. As a former corporate executive he will understand business better. As a governor he will learn how to make hard public decisions and handle unanticipated curve balls while in the spotllight. He will be in a prime position for a nomination as a vice-presidential candidate, cabinet position, or even the Big Cheese nomination itself.

I’m no big fan of Ford. I have heard him speak - and I have seen his votes. He turned me off when I heard him address a group of military officers with his take on the War on Terror. Having just returned from Afghanistan it was all I could do to keep my mouth shut. I also do not think he has the necessary “outside the beltway” experience that is so much needed in D.C. He is a product of the political class - and we need less of that. But his abilities and his appeal cannot be denied. And I do believe he occupies a worthy place in the two party system, unlike many others of his party - or of mine for that matter (I am a Republican).

It is difficult to imagine that Ford’s ambitions are behind him with this loss. The key to his future is his next step. A media job or beltway job will not help. To get over the hump in Tennessee he needs to spend some time working in Tennessee. His star may yet shine again.

With one percent of Tennessee precincts reporting, FNC has declared incumbent Gov. Phil Bredesen the winner over Republican challenger and state Senator Jim Bryson. I think FNC said that Bredesen has 59 percent of the counted vote. Bryson never broke closer than something like 40 points in polls throughout the campaign, so this is no surprise. I’d have to point out that Gov. bredesen was a true gentleman toward his challenger from beginning to end, even agreeing to debate Sen. Bryson during the campaign season when there was no political upside to doing so, according to pundits. Despite the dirt slung between Dem. US Senate hopeful Harold Ford, Jr. and Republican candiate Bob Corker, the governor’s race was mudless. The only ad that struck me as even slightly muddy was Sen. Bryson’s first TV ad, which featured a miniaturized Bredesen look-alike, dressed ina tux, staggering drunkenly on Bryson’s palm. Come to think of it, the governor’s campaign was pretty much ad free. Bredesen always led in polls so far that he didn;t really need to spend anything and Bryson’s campaign was far from cash rich. As well, ad time was being bought up in huge lots by Ford and Corker.

More here as the night goes on. Maybe.

—————

Okay, riddle me this:

Less than one percent reporting. Republican Steele ahead in the very few counted votes by 11 points. And he’s being declared the loser. How? Why? What answer can there be except polling?

When did the purpose of voting become validating the polls? How on earth can a new channel, even vaunted, all-knowing, all-seeing Fox News Channel, declare anyone a winner with only one percent of the vote counted?

Is the implication of Harold Ford’s claim that “that God had looked with favor” upon his campaign that anyone who does not vote for him is opposing God? With the latest Mason-Dixon poll showing Ford 12 points behind Republican Bob Corker (other polls are narrower), Ford and his campaigners,

… used that status yesterday not only to rally voters but as evidence that God had looked with favor upon the Democratic campaign.

The fact that they are still in the race despite the odds, Ford told an African American crowd at Mount Zion Baptist Church here, was evidence that “we got something else at work.”

“I think the congressman said something wise — we got another manager in this race,” Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told the group.

Now that’s chutzpah.

On “Miller in the Morning,” a Nashville call-in radio show, the Kerry “stuck in Iraq” kerfuffle played a prominent role today.

As you might expect, Republican Senate candidate Bob Corker slammed Kerry’s remarks in an on-the-air interview. Then Democrat candidate Harold Ford, Jr., also was interviewed. To his credit, he denounced Kerry’s remark. “Whatever the intent, Senator Kerry was wrong to say what he said,” proclaimed Mr. Ford. “He needs to apologize again to our troops.” Kerry has yet to apologize the first time, but I’ll not pick that nit over what Ford said. Other sites reporting this quote leave out the “again,” but I heard it with my own ears.

VolunteerVoters continues,

But Rep. Ford, who served as an honorary co-chairman of Sen. Kerry’s 2004 failed presidential bid, said that the senator’s “words don’t alter the fact that the stay-the-course strategy pursued by President Bush and supported by Bob Corker isn’t working. We need a new direction in Iraq. I know how hard our troops work, and the sacrifices they make, for our freedoms. They deserve a plan for victory as good as they are, and as senator I intend to see they get one.”

Nothing unfair about those observations, even if you don’t agree (and, btw, I do agree that what we’re doing there now doesn’t seem to be working, even though there are many unreported successes. But our successes are mostly tactical and our difficulties are chiefly strategic.)

If Ford had been a little more politically astute, he would not have used the Kerry comment as any kind of springboard to criticizing the administration’s Iraq policies, even though what he did say was prima facie unobjectionable. I think it might have been a better play to let it go for this interview or move to another topic first, then come back to Iraq later with no mention of Kerry or his comments.