Bob Corker gets an "A" from the NRA-PVF

I am not surprised that the NRA would endorse Bob Corker over Harold Ford, Jr. What surprises me is the "A" rating that they gave Corker. I would have thought that an unrated endorsement would have been just as effective without having to do the mental gymnastics required to give Corker an "A" rating. His history of being a sportsman and hunter and of putting criminals in jail has little to do with whether he will truly be an advocate for, and defender of, the Second Amendment. That said, I strongly believe that Corker is more of a friend to the people on this issue than is Harold Ford, Jr. According to one blogger, Ford actually introduced a bill that included anti-gun provisions. Like John Kerry, he apparently was "for it before he was against it."

Harold Ford goes to church

The latest Harold Ford ad is dispicable. I hope someone calls the IRS. Donald Sensing has a full roundup of the IRS issues and related issues. Personally, I hate to see any church lose its non-profit status. The IRS position on what it takes to lose it with respect to political issues is rather untenable. That said, Democrats should be held to the same standards as any other party, but so far there has been nary a word from the media and those who would cry foul if it had been a Republican ad. Gee, I wonder why that is.

Keith Olbermann is a pathetic windbag

I am certainly glad that I am not the first to figure this out. For those so inclined, http://www.olbermannwatch.com sums up the daily idiocy so that you don't have to suffer through actually watching it. My experience is that watching that show is about like watching paint try. Probably the only thing on TV that is more difficult for me to watch is the insanely stupid show entitled The Office. I love comedy, but I find it excrutiating to watch more than about a minute of that mindless junk. I know. I know. The critics love it. They also love a lot of other things which I find to be completely distasteful. In any event, more people should see what Olbermann is up to - a personal misinformation campaign.

Newt Gingrich has a clue

Newt Gingrich sets forth eleven points that he believes will enable the Republicans to maintain a majority of both houses of Congress. I don't look for the Republicans to jump on this, but I think he is right. Perhaps this will be Newt's platform in 2008 when he runs for POTUS. At this point, I don't know if I would support him or not, but I certainly hope he runs. The media and their fellow travelers on the left will fall all over themselves to show their true stripes.

Racism Remarks on Imus

I caught the end of Evan Thomas' conversation with Imus yesterday and missed the racism discussion. You know, the one where it is implied that Tennesseans are too ignorant or racist to choose a senator based on ability. This morning, Imus raised the issue with Tim Russert, who also apparently believes that there are a substantial number of people who will not vote for a black man solely because of his race. The interesting thing to me is how the implication is that the white person is the one that is acting in a discriminatory fashion. While I don't dispute the idea that some people are racists and will vote based solely off of race, it would be interesting to compare the percentage of white people who vote against Harold Ford, Jr. primarily because of his race to the percentage of black people who vote for Ford primarily because of his race. No white apologist will ever mention that aspect of the "race is a factor" issue and no one else has the balls to raise the question. I do. Ultimately, we may find that racism actually works to Ford's benefit, not his detriment. I would love to see Imus ask the question of Thomas or Russert. Won't happen.

Harold Ford and guns

I read this post some time ago, but I think anyone interested in the gun "debate" should take a look at it. What is Harold Ford, Jr. 's true position on gun control? Beats me.

Could the Vols be back?

I expect Joel will have something to say about this in the not too distant future.
http://www.rockytoptalk.com/

Ford supporters grasping at straws

This guy is really grasping at straws.

http://forwardwithford.blogspot.com/2006/08/corkers-businesses-failed-to-pay-taxes.html

In a shocking move, the Ford campaign revealed to today that it has obtained documents from the Tennessee Secretary of State showing that in both 1984 and 2003, Bob Corker's companies did not pay taxes. Because of this failure to pay, the Tennessee Secretary of State revoked the business charters for Corker's companies in those years.

The first business was Amnicola Associates, Inc. In 1984 Corker was its registered agent and the company did not pay its state business taxes. The second company was the Corker-James Limited Partnership, of which the chief partner was Corker Properties. This company also did not pay its state business taxes, this time in 2003. Both of these egregious transgressions did not go unnoticed, and as mentioned the Tennessee Secretary of State in both years revoked the corporate charters of these businesses.

There are several problems with these allegations. First, serving as a registered agent of a business does not impose any obligation on the registered agent to see that a business pays taxes or file its annual report. The primary purpose of the registered agent is to accept service of process if the company is sued. The secondary purpose is to be a back-up contact person in the event that the company fails to pay its taxes or file its annual report in a timely fashion. Many attorneys serve as registered agents for their clients. CT Corporation Services serves as registered agents for thousands of corporations across the country. Are they somehow culpable if one of the corporations for which they serve gets administratively dissolved? Absolutely not.

Secondly, even if we assume that Corker was the owner of the businesses (which he likely was for at least one of them), the fact that a business entity that a person owns fails to pay state franchise and excise taxes does not make the business owner culpable or liable in any way and to suggest otherwise is either an act of deliberate misrepresentation or a show of pure ignorance. If I own shares in a business and the business fails, that is part of the business world. The fact that the business owns money does not mean that I personally owe the money. The primary purpose of the business entity is to protect the owners from the liabilities of the business. For example, suppose I owned shares in Delta Airlines at the time of its bankruptcy. In fact, suppose I own all of the shares. The fact that Delta filed bankruptcy, owed tons of creditors, taxes, etc. does not mean that I personally owe those creditors, taxes, etc.

As a society, we want people to invest in businesses because they create jobs, invigorate the economy and create tax revenues. In order to encourage such investment, our society has decided that allowing the formation of business entities to protect investors is a wise thing to do because it allows investors to limit the amount of their personal wealth that will be at risk in any particular business venture. Sometimes these businesses fail and sometimes they owe money when they do, including taxes. That's just part of a capitalistic society and I am glad that our society allows investors to take risks in such a calculated way. We are all better off for it.

As for the referenced post, I find nothing shocking about these allegations and there is certainly nothing egregious about them. It is extremely common for this to happen. Acting like this is a big deal is, well, lame. What I find shocking is the fact that Bob Corker made a voluntary tax payment to the U.S. Treasury for the purpose of reducing the national debt. While I laud the efforts of anyone who wants to reduce the national debt, I cannot understand why anyone would make a direct donation to the government. If you can't find a charity that you like well enough to give to instead of the federal government, you suffer from a lack of imagination. Of course, this could provide some valuable insight into the individual, as it suggests that he believes that government can solve more problems with that money than a private charity. I disagree with that notion completely. As Ronald Reagan once said, government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.

Update: One of the Corker bloggers has more on this. http://bloggingforcorker.com/?cat=10