Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers


Monday, May 26, 2008
It Must Be His Age . . . and Inexperience
Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 11:59 AM
ABC News' Jake Tapper points out that Barack Obama has been a "one-man gaffe machine" (after, incidentally, Michelle Malkin made the same point last week).

Remember all the righteous media huffing and puffing over John McCain's one "Islamic extremist"/Al Qaeda gaffe?  Well, it seems that it's taken several gaffes ("of consequence" as Tapper puts it) to prod the MSM into reporting that Barack misspeaks -- and on a fairly regular basis.

Here's just one, easily reported example from Tapper's piece:

As ABC News' David Wright and Sunlen Miller wrote, Obama seemed to either think Arabic is spoken in Afghanistan or he misunderstands the nature of military translators.

Imagine if McCain -- or any Republican -- had made such an error.  Most Republicans would be characterized as ignorant chicken-hawks.  In McCain's case, of course, it would be suggested that he's knee-deep into senility because of his age.

Well, maybe Barack's gaffe-proneness is attributable to his age, too . . . as well as to a heaping helping of inexperience.






Monday, May 26, 2008
Talkin' Hillary on Fox
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 11:18 AM
If you're by a TV set today -- and I hope you're not -- I'll be on Fox News during the 1 o'clock hour.  The topic of conversation will be Hillary's gaffe about RFK's assassination ...




Monday, May 26, 2008
Memorial Day
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 8:19 AM
... Let it be a day of remembrance.  If you haven't done so yet, let me recommend George Will's column on the last surviving WWI Vet.




Sunday, May 25, 2008
Bob Barr Wins
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 7:44 PM
The Libertarian Party nomination...




Sunday, May 25, 2008
A Secularist Talks Morality
Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 3:46 PM
Last week, in this column, I argued that if traditionalists were going to be successful in arguing against gay marriage, they would need to develop a public argument that explains why private sexual behavior can, sometimes, be a public matter.   In other words, they needed to develop a moral and public policy case for defining marriage as an institution reserved for one man and one woman, unrelated and above a certain age.  As I pointed out, in this day and age, that's not easy. 

This piece about a prominent secularist's new book helps explain why.  Austin Dacey is the author of "The Secular Conscience," where he argues that secularists have sought to preclude religious and moral claims from public conversation, through the following reasoning:

[S]ecular liberalism has come to hold that because conscience is private or personal, its moral conclusions must be subjective, and because conscience should be free from coercion, its moral conclusions must also be free from public criticism.

He argues that in doing so, secularists have made a terrible mistake.  Sounds like an interesting book, and a valuable one.






Sunday, May 25, 2008
Obama's Carbon Footprint
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 11:19 AM
I got a kick out of reading some Q and A from a recent Obama press avail.
He says he has a hybrid, but doesn't drive it. (Too busy flying around in jets while campaigning.)

While Obama's busy emitting extra greenhouse gases trying to become president he says President Bush should do more work to advance alternative fuels. Hah.

Here's the excerpt:

Q: When will you, would you, ask the American people to stop buying SUVs? And what do you do in your own life?

Obama: Well these days I don’t drive much. I bought a hybrid but we keep it in the garage mostly. This is part of the reason why it’s important to continue to raise fuel efficiency standards on cars. One the advantages if we do so is you can see a gradual hike in fuel mileage standards, as opposed to these abrupt jumps, and that would probably smooth out increases in oil prices. Obviously that’s not an immediate option for this summer, and I think, as I’ve said on the stump, the most important thing we can do right now is provide some relief potentially in the form of an additional tax stimulus, and make sure that the next President starts immediately on implementing the kinds of alternative fuel strategies and gasoline savings strategies that can help reduce our oil consumption over the long term.

 By the way, there's a great feature in Wired magazine this month that explains how making hybrid cars is bad for the environment. "Pound for pound, making a Prius contributes more carbon to the atmosphere than making a Hummer largely because of the nickel in the hybrid's battery," it says. Making a Prius takes about 113 million Btus. A gallon of gasoline is about 113,000 Btus. Wired calculates a Prius drinks about 1,000 gallons worth of gasoline energy before it makes its first test drive.

Real conservationists would be sticking with their beaters, rather than buying the Lexus hybrid like Al Gore. "A used car on the other hand, starts with a significant advantage," Wired says. "The first owner has already paid off its carbon debt"--meaning since it was more energy-efficient to produce the older car, it doesn't hit the road with such a huge energy deficit. The article estimates it would take the Prius 100,000 miles to close the carbon gap with a 10-year old Toyota Tercel.






Saturday, May 24, 2008
You Never Use the "A" Word
Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 11:49 AM
Sitting in yesterday for Hugh Hewitt, I was surprised that so many callers disagreed with my assessment of Hillary's "assassination" talk.  As I wrote last week in the wake of Mike Huckabee's joking aside at the NRA convention, "one never, ever, ever jokes about [or discusses] the possibility of a rival (or anyone, for that matter) being assassinated.  Especially when many  genuinely fear for that candidate's safety because of his race."

It strikes me as elementary that it's a baseline rule on which everyone, of all political stripes, should be able to agree.

There are two different ways to think about what Hillary said.  On the one hand, some callers essentially argued that she was simply referencing historical fact, and that there was nothing inherently wrong with what she said.  To me, that argument is way off base.  It was despicable for Governor Pat Brown, running against Ronald Reagan, to mention that an actor assassinated President Lincoln -- yet that, too, was simply historical fact, wasn't it?  What's more, her suggestion that her husband was running in a contested race until June  doesn't square with the historical facts.  Who would remember all this better than Hillary?

Then, on the other hand, there's the position that what Hillary said was wrong.  Within that rubric, there's a first position -- that the comment was simply a gaffe, brought about by fatigue, etc.  But if that's the case, how is it that she came to make almost exactly the same comment to TIME magazine back in March?  And looking at her remark yesterday -- "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California" -- it's noteworthy that she doesn't mention that he was killed after winning a contested primary . . . she simply notes that he was assassinated.

That leaves one final possibility: That she thought there was some strategic advantage in playing on the fears about Obama's safety, suggesting that it's to the benefit of the Democratic Party for her to stay in the race, in case the unthinkable (except to her, apparently) happens.  It's a contemptible maneuver, but is there anyone out there who really doesn't believe that either of the Clintons are capable of such a calculation?  It's worth noting that Senator Clinton is a bright woman; her remarks weren't the result of an unexpected debate question (a la the Spitzer/illegal immigrant debacle) or a spontaneous attempt at humor (a la Huckabee).  They came in front of an editorial board, answering a question she surely had anticipated.

It's impossible for anyone truly to "know" the heart of another in a situation like this, but sadly, I think Michael Goodwin is right:

We have seen an X-ray of a very dark soul. One consumed by raw ambition to where the possible assassination of an opponent is something to ponder in a strategic way.

Don't misunderstand.  I disagree with all Barack's policies and think he is dangerously naive when it comes to foreign affairs.  But politics stops at the hospital door, and when it comes to matters of personal safety for all the candidates.  He will, I hope, be beaten like a bongo drum in the election -- but of course, remain healthy and safe.

The dangers confronting candidates are real, and they are serious.  And to me, it should be clear that one just never, ever invokes the specter of assassination on the campaign trail.






Saturday, May 24, 2008
There Will Be Blood ...
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 10:40 AM
John McCain has achieved his goal:  The NYT editorial page today congratulates him for sacking Hagee and Parsley.  Of course, I see this as a continuation of a disturbing trend:  McCain is attempting to make friends of his enemies by making enemies of his friends. 

Here are a few reasons I think this is a mistake:

1.  McCain is encouraging investigation:  McCain's recent lobbyist -- and pastor purges -- create an environment that rewards his opponents for continuing to demand McCain oust his friends.  There are certainly dozens of McCain operatives, advisers, or staffers who currently work on his campaign, who also are involved with 527s or lobbying, at some level.  McCain has shown his enemies that their inquiries will produce results, and what gets rewarded gets accomplished.  McCain has also essentially conceded that he is responsible for the comments made by anyone who has endorsed him in the past.  If I were an Obama supporter or operative, I would be pouring through the comments and writings of everyone who has endorsed McCain.  This, of course, will lead McCain to purge more conservatives -- which will continue to drive a wedge between McCain and his conservative base (assuming he has any conservative base left).

2.  Real votes are at stake:  Rev. Rod Parsley is a prime example of how McCain's purges could have real electoral consequences.  Everyone knows Ohio is the swing state, and it just so happens that Parsley's church is a veritable get-out-the-vote organization.  Couple McCain's Parsley purge with his recently condemning a popular Ohio radio host who mentioned Obama's middle name -- and all of a sudden you have a real base problem in Ohio.  And oh yeah, Rob Portman won't help you there, either (and if you think he will be enough to appease cultural conservatives, that shows you're out-of-touch with conservatives ...)

3.  It strikes me that all McCain's concessions are to the Left (this includes sacking the consultant who headed up his conservative outreach for the primary).  Fair enough.  If you want to oust anyone who has said or done controversial things, conservatives should expect reciprocity.  What about Juan Hernandez?  Don't you think it's time to "denounce" him?  Note:  I think a lot of conservatives forgave McCain for making the infamous "agents of intolerance" remark back in 2000, because it was assumed that McCain was justifiably angry about the push-polling that had been conducted against him in South Carolina.  But now it's starting to look like that was the real McCain.

... My belief is that politicians tend to follow the path of least resistance.  They operate  based on rewards and punishment.  So long as appeasing the Left gets McCain ahead, he will do just that.  For this reason, it is vital that conservatives hold him accountable and keep him balanced.  Conservatives should expect a good Veep pick (not Lindsay Graham, not Crist, etc.) -- as well as for McCain to get rid of controversial influences on the Left, such as the aforementioned Juan Hernandez.  Failure to adhere to these minimum requests may have real consequences.





Friday, May 23, 2008
Thoughts on the Hagee/Holocaust Controversy
Posted by: Michael Medved at 8:31 PM

On Friday, I sent off this brief letter to a friend who's concerned (appropriately, it seems to me) with the current effort to smear a decent and sincere Friend of Israel, John Hagee, as some sort of closet anti-Semite. The attacks on this good man are horribly unfair, politically motivated and, ultimately, despicable.

"Dear.......

I've already defended Hagee on the air in this latest nonsense, and suggested that McCain made a mistake in his over-reaction. The fact that the brief excerpt from the sermon dates from ten years ago only highlights its irrelevance: with Pastor Wright, the controversy re-emerged because of comments he made last month.

Meanwhile, my main objection to the substance of Hagee's remarks involves its reenforcement of the mistaken strategy of linking Israel to the holocaust. I've written and spoken for years about the historical illiteracy and strategic stupidity behind this notion -- inviting the likes of Ahmadine-wackjob to say "since Germany committed the holocaust -- if it happened -- why not place the Jews on German land, rather than displacing Palestinians?"

You know that the 600,000 Jews who defended their functioning, independent community so successfully in 1948-49 had all arrived BEFORE the Holocaust--- only a handful were survivors smuggled into the Yishuv after the war. The Brits did a remarkably effective job preventing Jewish immigration both immediately before and after the war. Even after the new state earned its independence, no overwhelming wave of survivors arrived. In fact, the number of refugees from Islamic lands (800,000) outnumbered the total number of Holocaust survivors by at least four-to-one.

This is an important point, because Israel and its population emerged at least as much in response to persecution in Islamic nations as from the European Holocaust.

You know all this, and so does Pastor Hagee. But his unfortunate experience with this latest distortion and smear only re-emphasizes the importance of dropping Hitler references whenever talking about Israel -- or about contemporary politics, for that matter....

Thanks for your thoughts. I may try to talk some more on this subject today.... M"






Friday, May 23, 2008
Hillary References RFK Assassination as Reason to Stay in Race
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 6:26 PM


... It's funny how Mike Huckabee and Hillary Clinton are more and more alike every day.  Both from Arkansas (okay, Hillary's not from Arkansas).  Both over-stay their welcome in primary races.  And now, both make gaffes about Obama's assassination ...

Is Hillary essentially saying she should stay in the race because Obama might be assassinated?

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it." Clinton said."

Update:  I just heard Hillary's comments in context.  She obviously mangled it, but I think what she was trying to say was simply that there is historical precedent for races to still be competitive going into June.  I think the reference to RFK was simply meant to remind us of that point. 





Friday, May 23, 2008
Veep Search On: McCain Picks Former Reagan Official to Head Veep Search
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 6:13 PM


The Hill reports:
"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has tapped a former Reagan administration official to head his campaign’s search for a vice presidential nominee
Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) told The Hill that Arthur Culvahouse, who was Reagan’s White House counsel from March 1987 to January 1989, will be helping McCain vet candidates and develop a list."
More ...

Hopefully, he won't pull a "Cheney" and pick himself...


Tags: Veep



Friday, May 23, 2008
MKH Relocation Efforts Underway
Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 5:40 PM
Hey, everyone. I hate to break news on a Friday afternoon (I'm becoming such a politician!), but such is what the timing required.

I'm leaving the great, great folks at Townhall.com and Salem after almost three years for a job at The Washington Examiner, as online editor of the soon-to-launch dcexaminer.com. From an Examiner press release:
As online editor of dcexaminer.com, Ham will be responsible for overall management of the site’s news and editorial content and staff, as well as working with Examiner and outside resources on creative development of new features and functionality. She will work from the Examiner’s downtown Washington, D.C. newsroom and will start June 10.

“We are especially excited and proud to have Mary Katharine Ham join The Washington Examiner because she among the most respected young stars of online journalism and is also well-known to cable television and talk radio audiences through her regular appearances on ‘The O’Reilly Factor’ on Fox News,” said Vivienne Sosnowski, editorial director of Clarity Media, which publishes The Washington Examiner, The Baltimore Examiner and the San Francisco Examiner, as well as the Examiner.com web site.

“Her hiring demonstrates again our commitment to building a great news and information company that excels in three channels, including newspapers, online and video,” Sosnowski said.
It was not an easy decision to make. I have appreciated the personal guidance and opportunities offered me by the company and its many gifted, conservative leaders, like Chuck DeFeo, Jon Garthwaite, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Mike Gallagher,  and many, many others who grace the pages and air waves of this powerhouse one-stop-shop for today's conservatives.

It’s been both a professional pleasure and a much-appreciated challenge to work in an environment where I was allowed to be myself and produce any number of oddball web videos and other products.

I'm not outta here just yet, so I'll be around for the next couple of weeks delivering said oddball web videos (which I've been delinquent on lately), and you may see me haunting the place and the new magazine from time to time in the future. Looking forward to hanging out with you for the rest of my time here, and hopefully seeing you when you come visit me at my new place, too! I'm excited to take on another challenge in New Media using the tools and experience Townhall's innovators have given me.

Thanks, as always, for watching and reading. The Townhall audience has always been nothing but kind to me and I have appreciated it every step of the way.






Friday, May 23, 2008
Interview with Jim Talent about Infrastructure
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 2:40 PM

Just in time for Memorial Day -- when millions of travelers are vigilantly preparing for dreaded traffic congestion -- I had the opportunity to interview former Senator Jim Talent of Missouri about America's infrastructure problems.
 
Talent is co-chairman (former Michigan Governor John Engler is chairman) of a new broad-based coalition, or "comprehensive alliance" (roads, bridges, rail, locks, etc.) called The Alliance for Improving America's Infrastructure. 

While Talent notes that government shouldn't try to solve every problem, he believes improving and maintaining America's infrastructure is, "one of the four or five things government has to do if America is going to continue to be a place of opportunity for people." 

Talent points out that we haven't really invested in infrastructure since the Eisenhower Administration -- notes that China is rapidly investing in infrastructure -- and pointedly states:   "If you're optimistic about America's future, you need to invest in the infrastructure."   

So why haven't recent presidents invested in improving America's infrastructure?  Talent tells me it's, "because people get occupied with other things…we want to show Americans that this is our real priority."

He also says this bi-partisan effort would be good for safety (think bridges) and for the environment (because it reduces traffic problems and gas consumption).

And for those of us concerned about spending issues, Talent notes that investing in infrastructure has an economic multiplier effect:  "You get about $5.75 in economic growth for dollar you invest in infrastructure," he tells me. 

If you're traveling this weekend, Talent encourages you to visit their website, GetAmericaMoving.com -- and "upload pictures, videos, and messages detailing traffic bottlenecks, roads and bridges in need of repair, or other problems that are slowing us down."






Friday, May 23, 2008
Grover Norquist Likes Jindal for Veep
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 2:39 PM
... Jonathan Martin has more.

Tags: Veep



Friday, May 23, 2008
G.I. Bill Education Benefits Shot Down
Posted by: Michele Bachmann at 1:34 PM

Last night, Congress voted 223-186 rejecting a critical increase in G.I. Bill education benefits. I am a co-sponsor to the “Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention and Readjustment through Education Act” (H.R. 5944) and was extremely disappointed.

H.R. 5944 provides for an immediate increase in the Montgomery G.I. Bill education benefit, and to improve retention and update this successful program for today’s service members.  Amongst the new features this bill provides for the GI Bill program, it allows military personnel to transfer their education benefits to a spouse or dependent children.   Simply put, this is not your grandfather’s G.I. Bill.

There is a competing G.I. Bill expansion bill out there, introduced by Senator Jim Webb.  But while the G.I. Bill expansion I am supporting is comparable in size and scope of benefits, it avoids the pitfalls of the Webb bill. 

(1)  The bill I support maintains the retention benefits of the G.I. Bill.  A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis found that the Webb bill could lead to a 16% decline in re-enlistment.
(2) The bill I support is not just a big money giveaway to universities and colleges.  It removes incentives for schools to keep hiking tuition costs.
(3) The bill I support is fully paid for.  The Webb bill simply passes the costs of educating one generation of GIs on to the next.
(4) The bill I support allows education benefits to be transferred to family members, giving service members and their families options for how they use the benefits they have earned.

While both pieces of legislation go a long way to increasing G.I. benefits, one does so in a more responsible manner. Hopefully, the House can reconsider this issue when we return to Congress after the Memorial Day district work period.



Your Blog Postings:
Last updated 33 Minutes 2 Seconds Ago
Last updated 44 Minutes 6 Seconds Ago
Last updated 44 Minutes 38 Seconds Ago
Last updated 45 Minutes 13 Seconds Ago
Last updated 1 Hours 5 Minutes 20 Seconds Ago
 

Archives of our Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs

Blog Search



Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs Townhall Blogs
Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Columns Columns
Your Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs Your Blogs
By Month
 November 2009
 October 2009
 September 2009
 August 2009
 July 2009
 June 2009
 May 2009
 April 2009
 March 2009
 February 2009
 January 2009
 December 2008
 November 2008
 October 2008
 September 2008
 August 2008
 July 2008
 June 2008
By Issue
 A Culture of Life
 Budget & Government
 Campaigns & Elections
 Education
 Energy & Environment
 Faith & Family
 Foreign Affairs
 Health Care
 Immigration
 Jobs & Economy
 Judges & Courts
 Media & Culture
 Property Rights
 Safety & Security
 Science & Technology
 Second Amendment
 Social Security
 Tax Relief
Advertisement

Comments Comments

Healthcare just one cog in the wheel
 Re: Abusing Their Majority
  By micheal
God has all the time in the world
 Re: Pro-Life Democrats Enabled Passage Of Health Care Bill
  By dreadnaught
DanNV
 Re: Abusing Their Majority
  By Baradiel
DanNV Baradiel
 Re: Abusing Their Majority
  By Eugene
careful you are making my side ache ax..
 Re: Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
  By Eugene
Baradiel asks the $64 question
 Re: Abusing Their Majority
  By DanNV
I will try it on this thread
 Re: Abusing Their Majority
  By Baradiel
Val
 Re: Abusing Their Majority
  By Baradiel
They Have tried since 1955
 Re: Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
  By Sandra
Dreadnaught
 Re: Obama Praises Congress; Confident Senate Will Pass Obamacare
  By Seadog
What idiocy
 Re: Abusing Their Majority
  By DanNV
"Deadbeats," Eugene?
 Re: Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
  By Silverdrake
Ohhhhhh, Them Chickens Gonna Be A'Comin'
 Re: Abusing Their Majority
  By NeoConScum
Nancy P Gives The Letter 'C'
 Re: Pelosi Scolds Pelosi: Not Giving 3 Days To Read A Bill Is An "Absolute Outrage"
  By NeoConScum
Val
 Re: Abusing Their Majority
  By NOTW
Baradiel
 Re: Pro-Life Democrats Enabled Passage Of Health Care Bill
  By Eugene
Careful with Your Bigotry Ax
 Re: Pro-Life Democrats Enabled Passage Of Health Care Bill
  By Eugene
Hey A-Hole
 Re: Abusing Their Majority
  By peacefrog
Careful - Eugene
 Re: Pro-Life Democrats Enabled Passage Of Health Care Bill
  By Baradiel
So a question for all you "pro-life"
 Re: Pro-Life Democrats Enabled Passage Of Health Care Bill
  By Careful with that axe, Eugene

The Latest on Town HallThe Latest on Town Hall


Blog Roll Blog Roll