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

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Obama Advisor Takes Reid-Pelosi Line on Detroit

Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 10:01 AM

Barack Obama's soon-to-be White House senior adviser is saying the same thing Democratic leadership is saying about the fate of the Big Three: until you show us a plan, we can't show you the money.

"If they don’t do that then there is very little the tax payers can do," David Axelrod told George Stephanopoulos on "This Week."

So basically we have the situation where all of Washington's Big Three players (Obama, Reid, Pelosi) are telling Detroit's Big Three (GM, Ford, Chrylser) to come up with their own bailout package. This has the convenient effect of letting the Democrats escaping any responsibility for it.

But why does anybody, including those Democrats in Washington, think the auto companies would be good stewards of tax dollars? What reasonable person thinks they should be able to dictate their own terms of agreement after we've watched them squander millions upon billions of dollars? (After all, these are the people who think cutting back from five corporate jets to two shows signficant financial hardship!!)

Sadly, I think we all know the answer to these questions. It's spelled U-A-W.

(17) |

(0)

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Defining What's "Normal"

Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 3:12 PM

Immediately following the election, I pointed out how misguided it would be for the GOP to adopt the role of "mindless opposition," criticizing Barack Obama for every little thing before he's even assumed office. And I stand by that point.

But headlines like this -- "Top Republican says Obama 'off to a good start'" -- also make me nervous. Although it's right to commend the new Administration when it does something good, it's important to be careful how we do it.

For example, Republicans on the whole seem pleased with the choice of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State -- not because she's who any of us would have picked, but because she is so much better than others who might have been selected instead. The problem is that when Republicans express our relative approbation, it's often interpreted (or at least presented) by the press as general approval for the choice.

And that, in turn, can cement a misimpression in the public's mind that everyone seems to agree with Obama's choices -- that when liberals are in office, peace and bipartisanship reigns. Democrats rarely praise Republican appointees at this point in a developing Administration, and thus, all the public hears about GOP nominees at this point is about controversy and "divisiveness," etc., etc.

That contrast in treatment of Republican nominees -- both in the behavior of the opposing party and the press coverage of it -- furthers the press' implicit framing of our political system, where liberalism is the "norm" and everything else is somehow slightly deviant.

That's not to say that we should mindlessly criticize the Democrats' nominees. But it is to say that we need to make it clear that we don't agree with the substance of Obama's choices, as much as we are relieved when he has simply chosen responsible, experienced liberals, as opposed to inexperienced academic radical liberals to staff his administration.

(10) |

(0)

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Controversy Looming Over Obama's Picks?

Posted by: Matt Lewis at 2:29 PM

... I'm not saying the honeymoon is over or anything, but I do think that as Obama is forced to actually make more and more governing decisions, we will begin to see more criticism of him.

Here are just a couple of examples I've noted:

... Writing in the NYT, George Lardner, Jr. has great concerns about Obama's AG pick, Eric Holder. Of course, the concerns spring from his efforts to pardon Marc Rich. Might we be seeing the unfolding of the first scandal of the Obama Admin? ... It seems to me that the arguments Lardner lays out against Holder are clearly worse than having employed a illegal immigrant nanny or something -- issues which have doomed past nominees.

... Also, a few weeks ago, Jim Cramer wrote this:

"If Tim Geithner, the New York Fed chairman, gets a top spot in the Barack Obama's cabinet, we are done, finished, kaput. It is that simple."

Of course, Larry Summers may have gotten the gig, had it not been for Hillary Clinton. If Obama picked both Summers and Hillary Clinton, the criticism that he was picking too many Clinton folks would have been confirmed. And so he picked Geithner.

No doubt, Obama's selection of Hillary as SoS will be well-received by the establishment press. Yet, this decision will potentially anger loyalists like Kerry and Richardson. Leaks will eventually happen, and it will be interesting to see if he is still called "No Drama Obama" in a year or so.

To be sure, every pick is sure to anger some constituency...

(4) |

(1)

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Gary Bauer Hits Back at Huckabee

Posted by: Matt Lewis at 11:08 AM

Over at HEO, social conservative leader Gary Bauer fired back at Mike Huckabee over comments made in Huckabee's new book:

Huckabee said that during a private meeting we had, “it was like playing whack-a-mole at the arcade -- whatever issue I addressed, another one surfaced as the ‘problem’ that made my candidacy unacceptable.”

In fact, talking with Huckabee was like playing whack-a-mole, because he had a number of issues that posed problems. It wasn’t just that he didn’t get it on foreign policy. His record on taxes and spending, illegal immigration, his apparent backing of Al Gore's carbon cap and trade scheme, support for voting rights for Washington, D.C., and cozying up to unions like the NEA all worried me. Huckabee can call it whack-a-mole. But for me there were just too many items where he wasn’t sufficiently conservative coupled with a lack of attention and experience on foreign affairs.

(173) |

(0)

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Malcolm Gladwell on the Importance of Obama's Race

Posted by: Matt Lewis at 10:55 AM

In a recent interview, author Malcolm Gladwell (whose new book "Outliers" observes the circumstances which allow some people to become "high-achievers") had this to say about the significance of Barack Obama's race as it regards his success in life:

"... it's not like it's ever been a hindrance, it doesn't seem."

This very well may be true. Obama has made it to the highest office in the land, and before that, he attended the most prestigious universities in the country. And clearly, the Jesse Jacksons of the world resented the fat that Obama hadn't paid his dues in the Civil Rights movement (this, of course is both because of his age and because his father was from another country), but it also struck me as a dangerous / politically incorrect point for a famed author to admit ...

(7) |

(0)

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Re: Obama Selects $30K Private School for Girls

Posted by: Matt Lewis at 10:46 AM

DC Mayor Adrian Fenty is reportedly perturbed. He was hoping Obama would send his girls to a DC public school. That was, apparently, never an option...

(20) |

(0)

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Obama Selects $30K Private School for Girls

Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 9:47 AM

Barack Obama's two girls will attend Sidwell Friends--the same school Chelsea Clinton attended.

The reported middle school tuition rate is around $30,000 for each girl per year.

(16) |

(1)

Friday, November 21, 2008

Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Want You to See This Ad

Posted by: Matt Lewis at 4:28 PM

I'm hearing that CBS is refusing to run this card check ad because it features Nancy Pelosi, who, by the way, is a guest on their Sunday talk show...

(19) |

(0)

Friday, November 21, 2008

Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary

Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 4:11 PM

At first blush the markets appear to really like Timothy Geithner as Obama's Treasury Secretary.

To be frank, I don't know a lot about him. Here's what I've been looking at to get an idea of what he is like.

Novak column that blames Geithner for the Bear Stearns bailout

Wall Street Journal roundup of recent Geithner quotes on the economy.

New York Times 2007 profile on Geithner

WaPo story about Geithner's working relationship with Paulson, Bernanke

(8) |

(0)

Friday, November 21, 2008

Intelligence Is As Intelligence Does

Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 3:20 PM

David Brooks seems awfully impressed with what he terms the "valedictocracy" filling the ranks of the Obama administration.

But as someone who shares Michelle Obama's almae matres of Princeton and Harvard, let me just say that Brooks' invocation of everyone's academic credentials, without more, is hardly reassuring. Wasn't it the "best and the brightest" who set up the situation leading to the Vietnam debacle?

Of course, one always hopes that the most intelligent people are the ones who will be leading this country. Where Brooks and the like go wrong is in necessarily equating intelligence with academic credentials. Trust me -- there are plenty of Princeton and Harvard summas I wouldn't trust to come in out of the rain without an umbrella. Book smarts and life smarts (otherwise known as common sense) don't always come in the same package.

And remember: Jimmy Carter was a graduate of the elite US Naval Academy (Annapolis). Ronald Reagan was a graduate of Eureka College. Now you tell me: Who was the smarter man, and the better President?

(10) |

(0)

Friday, November 21, 2008

Obama's Economic Team

Posted by: Matt Lewis at 3:03 PM

Tim Geithner is expected to be named Treasury Secretary on Monday. He is thought of as being not a Wall-Streeter, but rather an acedemic sort. However, he was involved in the Bear Stearns and AIG Bailout.

... Bill Richardson is expected to be picked for Commerce.

(4) |

(0)

Friday, November 21, 2008

McCain Econ Advisor Says He Was Wrong on the Bailout

Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 1:50 PM

Not to sound cocky, but I've said again and again I thought John McCain lost the election the day he decided to support the $700 billion financial bailout. It was a turning point for me and, I think, many other conservatives who felt betrayed once again by the maverick.

Now the guy who advised McCain to do it agrees it was a bad move.

"We also make mistakes," Doug Holtz-Eakin said yesterday at the Heritage Foundation. “There’s no doubt about it--20/20 hindsight. I think the key strategic policy error of the entire campaign, that is mine, is believing that the bailout bill would help.”

Even worse, Holtz-Eakin said their campaign supported throwing $700 billion tax dollars to Wall Street because they thought was good politics. Not because it even had a whiff of being good policy.

“Financial markets were falling apart,” Holtz-Eakin said. “We were in a terrible position as a campaign in trying to figure out whether to continue to just take hits--which we were--or to try to do something about it when the bailout bill was stalled. We elected to go do something about it. It didn’t pay off as a campaign largely because getting that bill through was not helpful.”

“That was the key strategic error that we really made,” Holtz-Eakin explained. “Had we stayed away from Washington, stayed away from being identified with that bill – which was ultimately against the John McCain brand-- that’s not a bill he normally would support-- we would have been better served in the long run, I believe. But, that financial market meltdown combined with bad strategic decisions, I think, was a real crippling combination of events.”

H/T to the Business and Media Institute for covering the event.

(16) |

(0)

Friday, November 21, 2008

David Cameron, Moderate Hero?

Posted by: Matt Lewis at 1:13 PM

With the help of Adam Brickley, I'm out with a new column today that dispells the recent myths (being spread by moderates) about British Conservative Leader David Cameron. Here's a taste:

"In their minds, Cameron is the crusading moderator who wrested control of the Conservative Party from…well…conservatives -- dragged it kicking and screaming into the 21^st Century -- and now stands ready to become Prime Minister in the 2009 Election. They are right on two counts: the first being that Cameron is a moderate and the second being that he is a political genius.

Indeed, there is much we can learn from Mr. Cameron, and even as a staunch conservative I think that elements of his template could be the keys to future Republican victories. However, the idea that he would be on board with their reverse-RINO-hunt is complete and utter rubbish -- and it shows great ignorance of how Cameron has revitalized British conservatism. If we really want to implement the Cameron model, we must first understand the details of what he did…and what he did differs starkly with the ideas currently being floated by angry moderates hungry for conservative blood."

(1) |

(0)

Friday, November 21, 2008

Unwed Motherhood Reaches the Halls of Congress

Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 12:03 PM

California congresswoman Linda Sanchez has announced that she will become Congress' first unwed mother.

First, kudos to Sanchez, for -- of course -- not aborting the baby (it's a sad commentary that such congratulations are even necessary). From the linked story, however, it seems that she deliberately became pregnant out of wedlock; this wasn't an "accident" in any way, shape or form.

That, to me, is a sign of complete and utter irresponsibility. Since the dawn of time, single women have become pregnant accidentally. It's only in modern times that society has decided that it's A-OK for them to try to do so, even without any formal commitment (to them or their babies) from their children's fathers. While in some cases that may work just fine for the women themselves, it's not so great for the children who are deprived of a father who's been willing to make a commitment to them and their mother.

What's more, Sanchez is a highly visible Latina, who may well serve as a role model for many young girls, especially in her community. Interestingly, she insists that this is a "teachable moment" for them, presumably to learn when it's ok to become a single mother (!) and when it's not. Here's what she had to say:

I'm established in my life. I have a career. I'm financially stable. I have a loving, committed partner.

If the "partner" is so "loving" and "committed" -- why isn't he willing to put a ring on her finger and promise to love and cherish her 'til death they do part? And if he's not, is that really the kind of father she wants for her baby?

Apparently, Sanchez's "partner" told the press:

We have the rest of our lives to get engaged and married -- we don't have the rest of our lives' for Sanchez to become pregnant.

Given the ease and speed with which one can arrange to be married by a priest and/or at City Hall, it really doesn't take that much effort to tie the knot . . . at least for those who actually want to do it.

The moral obtuseness of the entire undertaking is unfortunate -- and unworthy of the example that a woman who'd like to portray herself as a groundbreaking congresswoman should be setting.

In some circumstances, single motherhood is the only option for a woman and her baby, and those women (and, of course, their children) are entitled to our compassion and concern. But to see it treated as simply another "lifestyle alternative" when it would be not only possible -- but easy -- to give the child a stable family with a married mother and father is profoundly regrettable.

Update And, by the way, this has nothing to do with the media "trashing" of Bristol Palin. In contrast to Sanchez, who seems to believe that what she's chosen to do is just great, everyone from the right to the left agreed that Bristol's situation -- a young girl who became pregnant out of wedlock -- was suboptimal, including her parents. What's more, Bristol Palin and her baby's father have implicitly acknowledged the importance of a family headed by married parents by announcing definite plans to wed, unlike Congresswoman Sanchez and her "partner." (In fact, Miss Palin sets a standard in that regard that the congresswoman should heed.)

It's easy for some among us piously to insist that no one should "judge" Bristol Palin or Congresswoman Sanchez. But there was no need to clarify standards of behavior in Bristol's case, as she and her parents already themselves recognized that, despite the fact that every baby is a blessing, Bristol's situation (and the behavior that led up to it) was unfortunate. In contrast, Congresswoman Sanchez just doesn't seem to get it.

Finally, it's easy to pretend that one has the high ground by insisting that no one has any right to express an opinion about others' sexual behavior. The problem with that "hands off" approach is that it ultimately results in the eradication of any standards, with the field being ceded to the most licentious among us. And in the end, who suffers? "The children," that group supposedly so beloved by the left.