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

Friday, January 30, 2009

"Moderate" in Style, But Not In Substance

Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 12:23 PM

The AP's David Bauder thinks that it's Rush Limbaugh who's "challenging the notion of new politics."

Really? In the week after the new President simply told Republicans "I won"? So much for the new tone.

In the week after the new President -- like Bill Clinton before him -- reversed the Mexico City policy? So much for new policy.

In the week that the new President signed on to a supposed "stimulus bill" that's in reality nothing but a wish list for every Democrat interest group (again, as Bill Clinton tried to do before him)? So much for a new, economic-crisis insipred sense of fiscal restraint.

Even as he prepares to do the bidding of one of his strongest supporters, organized labor? So much for independence.

Let's make no mistake. Barack Obama will continue to talk "bipartisanship" and "compromise." But for him, all that will merely be procedural -- i.e., he'll be polite to his adversaries and allow them to make their case. When it comes to substance, he will govern like the liberal that he is -- no "compromise" there.

Writing about the Barack Obama I had known in law school, I noted that:

[U]nlike many of his left-wing compatriots, [Obama] treated his ideological adversaries with respect on a personal level. Indeed, he always offered the small conservative contingent on the Review a hearing, even though his decision-making consistently showed that he hadn’t ultimately been influenced by their arguments. (emphasis added).

There's a distinction between "moderation" and "bipartisanship" and "inclusion" when it comes to procedure/style, and then when it comes to substance. Obama does the former, and hopes that everyone will think it's also the latter. It's not.

(9) |

(0)

Friday, January 30, 2009

Why Is The Left Afraid Of Sarah Palin?

Posted by: John Hawkins at 12:17 PM

Question: "Why is the Left afraid of Sarah Palin?" -- Dick_Nixon

Answer: There are multiple reasons why the left hates Sarah Palin.

They despise her for being a "regular Sally" made good -- that's something their politicians pretend to be, but never really are. She didn't go to an Ivy League School. She has an accent -- and it's not a New York accent. She's small town, not big city. She's not rich. She's not a lawyer. She has 5 kids and had a baby with Down's syndrome instead of aborting him. So, much of it is just out and out snotty elitism.

But, all those factors are ultimately small potatoes compared to the two main reasons why the left utterly despises and fears Sarah Palin.

#1) The left thinks they own everybody who isn't a straight, white male. If you're female, Hispanic, black, Asian, gay -- pretty much anything but a straight, white male -- and you're not liberal -- the left wants to see you destroyed because your very existence explodes the myth that people like you can only succeed through liberalism.

In Sarah Palin's case, she is a walking, talking, living refutation of everything the feminist harpies in the Democratic Party tell people. Conservative men, who they claim look down on women, adore her and would love to have her as their President. She's staunchly pro-life. She's not a man-hater who's railing against the patriarchy. In other words, she's the biggest female rock star in politics -- and she's not a liberal; nor is she someone who'd see eye-to-eye with Gloria Steinem, Naomi Wolf, or the nags at NOW on much of anything.

#2) Sarah Palin genuinely excites conservatives like no other politician in America today. There's no other Republican pol who even comes close -- and this is very important -- you will only start to see the GOP make a comeback when the base gets fired up about the Republican Party again.

When the base is excited, they will chip in money, they will volunteer, they will defend the GOP instead of trashing it -- it's the single most important factor key to turning things around and Sarah Palin is obviously capable of pulling it off. That makes her a dire threat to the left, one that they are desperate to smear and destroy.

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine, Right Wing News, and Right Wing Video.

(55) |

(0)

Friday, January 30, 2009

First Ballot Results!

Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 12:01 PM

Duncan 52
Steele 46
Dawson 28
Anuzis 22
Blackwell 20

The first ballot is a big victory for Steele and a disappointment for Blackwell.

Anuzis and Dawson are going to be duking it out on the second ballot to stay competitive. They'll both aim to flip supporters from Duncan and Blackwell into their own columns.

Now, it's important which candidate can "grow" the most votes by picking off people from Duncan...part of this spin will be from Duncan's opponents who want to members to believe the 52 vote count is a negative referendum on his management of the 2008 election.

And they'd be right , securing only 52 votes out of 168 as the current chairman has to hurt Duncan.

Blackwell's whip team was lobbying supporters strong to stick with him through multiple ballots. One of them was even dropping flyers to remind them of previous elections where members have won after only securing ballots in the low-twenties on the first round.

See my memo yesterday on how to read the "smoke signals" through the multi-ballot race.

(2) |

(0)

Friday, January 30, 2009

First Ballots for RNC Chair Being Distributed

Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 11:25 AM

The first round of balloting for the RNC chair election is beginning.

Saul Anuzis, is using his member status to cajole last minute support on the members' floor---an action Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell cannot take because they are not members.

Remember, this is a SECRET ballot election. Anything can happen, regardless of all the endorsement and commitments made in the run-up to it.

(1) |

(0)

Friday, January 30, 2009

RNC Chair Race

Posted by: Matt Lewis at 10:35 AM

... It's being streamed live at C-SPAN.

Personally, I'm following David All's twitter page for the most up-to-date information.

If Saul Anuzis is elected, David All will begin his plan of world domination.

(0) |

(0)

Friday, January 30, 2009

Fighting Narco-Gangs in Mexico

Posted by: Chris Field at 10:21 AM

Townhall magazine contributor and Heritage expert Peter Brookes has a great piece in today's New York Post concerning Mexico's narco-gang problem -- make that, emergency.

From "Help Mexico Beat the Narco-Gangs":

Mexico may be headed to hell in a handbasket as a result of grizzly fighting between the federal government and drug cartels - and among the narco-gangs themselves.

Some of last week's news:

* Authorities arrested a man accused of dissolving as many as 300 bodies in bubbling vats of acid for a Tijuana-based drug lord. (This earned the perp the nightmarish nickname "El Pozolero," after a local stew.)

* Prosecutors reported three heads found in an ice box. A headless body was also discovered in a canal in Ciudad Juarez, a town known as Mexico's deadliest - just over the border from El Paso, Texas.

The headless victims? Policemen.

Peter wrote a great piece in the December 2008 issue of Townhall magazine ("Colombia: Moving in the Right Direction" -- the opening spread of the article can be seen on the subscription page) on our vital ally's headway against narco-terrorism, specifically FARC.

(11) |

(0)

Friday, January 30, 2009

Stimulus Bill Eliminates Welfare Caps

Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 9:21 AM

There's no end to the pork and trouble inside President Obama's stimulus bill.

Charlie Hurt of the New York Post discovered language tucked in it to eliminate the caps on welfare money the federal government can send to states.

On page 354 of the bill is language that says: "Out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated such sums as are necessary for payment to the Emergency Fund."

The Emergency Fund was established by welfare law to provide assistance to states. The wildly successful 1996 Welfare Reform Act placed limits on the amount the feds could put into the fund. The language inside the stimulus bill rescinds those limits.

Hurt explains, "this means the only limit on welfare payments would be the Treasury itself."

Got that? Treasury could be come an entire slush fund for the welfare state. That might be taking things to the extreme limit, but would be permitted under the language Democrats drafted.

(2) |

(0)

Friday, January 30, 2009

That's Not Change We Can Believe In!

Posted by: Matt Lewis at 8:54 AM

Politico reports on Obama's "hardball" White House operation:

Despite his past denunciations of the “perpetual campaign” – and “political hacks like Karl Rove” – President Barack Obama’s version of change doesn’t include banishing hardball politics from the environs of the Oval Office.

Like presidents before him, Obama has imported pieces of his campaign into the White House, ranging from his own Rove, David Axelrod, to two dozen campaign staffers who will serve as liaisons with agencies. A top Iowa aide, for instance, is moving to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Obama resisted calls to abolish the White House Office of Political Affairs from everyone from his rival Senator John McCain to Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, installing a well-regarded, but low-profile, labor operative, Patrick Gaspard, as his political director.

He’s maintaining a giant, novel permanent campaign, Organizing for America, at the Democratic National Committee. And Obama aides Wednesday hinted that they would exact a cost from Republicans who opposed the stimulus, promising to release local jobs numbers in the districts of GOP members of Congress who voted against the plan.

(9) |

(0)

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Just One of the "Folks"?

Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 9:53 PM

Perhaps the most interesting part of this NY Times piece on the Obamas' new chef is the fact that he served as their chef when they lived in Chicago, delivering meals to their home.

Here is a sample menu.

Wonder how many other community-organizers-turned-junior-senators enjoyed this kind of service? Needless to say, were Obama a Republican president, instead of the kind of puff piece the NY Times has produced, we'd get a "his champagne tastes are out of step with the rest of the country" article, instead.

(20) |

(0)

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Chip Saltsman Withdraws From RNC Chairman’s Race

Posted by: Matt Lewis at 5:47 PM

His statement:

Since November’s election, I’ve had the remarkable opportunity to travel throughout thirty two states, share my vision for the future of our party, and listen to the advice of the nearly one hundred members who took the time to visit with me in their homes, their offices, their airports, and their coffee shops.

I’ve seen how the Clark County Republicans of Nevada are organizing online to defeat Harry Reid in 2010, as we defeated Tom Daschle in 2002.

I’ve heard how Republicans in the District of Columbia have expanded their membership simply by holding their meetings and spreading their message in communities that have long shared our values, but which have never felt welcome within our ranks.

I’ve witnessed how the hard work of Republican leadership in my home of Tennessee has given our state its first Republican General Assembly since 1869.

And I’ve met with Republicans in New England’s blue states who are ready to plant our party’s flag and prove that our coalition is broad enough, strong enough to compete everywhere and win anywhere.

But, while my travels make me confident in our party’s future, I wanted you to be first to know that I have decided to withdraw my candidacy to become your next chairman.

Thank you for your passion for our party and for the principles that make it great. I hope that you won’t hesitate to call on me as we rebuild our majority.

Chip

(9) |

(0)

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Blackwell: The 'Change' Candidate

Posted by: Matt Lewis at 4:56 PM

... There is dispute about this, but Ken Blackwell's people tell me they have commitments through six ballots --a point first reported by Erick Erickson at RedState:

A key for Blackwell is that he has commitments through six ballots, which means he is not getting out. Likewise, sources close to his camp and individual members I’ve talked to who previously committed publicly are privately saying they’re taking a second look as the meeting begins and are starting to lean toward Blackwell.

RedState has endorsed Blackwell, as have I.

In other news, AZ Ntl. Committeeman Bruce Ash had this to say about Blackwell today:

"Ken Blackwell is the logical change candidate with the stature and political philosophy to take the Obama Administration to task. Today I am urging members of the RNC who are supporting other "change" candidates to join me and a growing list of members in uniting behind Ken Blackwell."

(10) |

(0)

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Smoke Signals to Watch for the RNC Race Tomorrow

Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 3:46 PM

A new Republican National Committee Chairman will be chosen tomorrow and trying to predict which way the 168 RNC members will vote in an election that could take as many as six ballots to settle is difficult.

“It’s junior high in suits,” one person closely involved managing the campaign of one the leading candidates told me, indicating the erratic and at times, immature, nature of the race.

Many activists outside of the RNC have criticized members for using their GOP leadership status to take trips to Washington and hold court with the President rather than winning races.

Now, that the party is out of power, the grassroots are openly questioning RNC member commitment. This frustration has contributed to the circus-like atmosphere surrounding a normal stodgy election---especially on conservative blogs.

Today, members are being heavily lobbied for support in Washington by the candidates with receptions, meetings and even specially-made welcome bags filled with goodies, like current Chairman Robert “Mike” Duncan had waiting for members when they checked into their hotel.

The behind-the-scenes campaigning for the party’s top slot in the run-up to the race has been brutal. Candidates have criss-crossed the country over the past few months making house calls, vying for endorsements and commitments. And, like any election, there’s been lots of opposition research leaked along the way.

Race watchers say the first two ballots are only a test of support for each of the candidates. Chairman Duncan may only receive 50 out of 168 votes in the first round.
If this happens his opponents will try mightily to spin those votes as a negative referendum on his management of the 2008 elections and urge them to flip their commitments for later ballots.

The most interesting ballot to watch could be the third, where the party’s old bulls may defect from Duncan and throw their support to another candidate, which would probably be scattered among, in no particular order, Saul Anuzis, Katon Dawon and Michael Steele.

The candidate who picks up the most open votes at this point, will likely win. And, it appears to be anyone's game.

Just like with the Iowa's Democratic caucuses, it's incredibly important in a multi-ballot race that candidates plan and solicit votes for the second, third ballots and beyond to remain competitive. Some candidates have been putting in a lot more effort to pick up the second and third commitments than others. Members indicate Duncan and Ken Blackwell have been playing "big" meaning, they've sought first ballot commitments and little else, which significantly decreases their chances of winning.

One curious question looming a day before the race is if former Mike Huckabee Presidential Campaign Manager Chip Saltsman has enough support to qualify for a ballot. Saltsman, former GOP Tennessee chairman, wasn't even endorsed by committee members in his homestate. Half of them endorsed South Carolina candidate Dawson instead.

To secure a place on the ballot each candidate must have the backing of a majority of delegates from three different states, according to party rules.

Update at 5pm: Blackwell's team distributed a "final strategy memo" to ensure supporters will stick with their candidate through six ballots--although his opponents say Blackwell hasn't secured enough 2nd, 3rd, and 4th ballots to be competitive.

"It is absolutely critical that every supporter who is committed to this team is also committed to voting for Ken Blackwell through at least six ballots. Ken or one of the campaign Co-Chairs will be calling everyone this week to re-confirm that this is the case," it said

Their memo also predicted Duncan will receive somewhere around 65 votes.

"Our internal counts currently have Ken doing very well with positions 2, 3, 4, and 5 tightly bunched in the 20’s in terms of hard commitments. If any candidate not named Mike Duncan claims to be in the high 30’s or 40’s please politely ask them to show you a list or stop spinning," it said. "We believe that candidates in placements 2-5 will be separated by a relatively small number of votes. Therefore, as long as the campaigns are competitive, there won’t be much difference between coming in 2nd or 5th. Help us to make sure our supporters do not get nervous about a 5th nor overconfident about a 2nd."

(12) |

(0)

Thursday, January 29, 2009

The War on French Cheese

Posted by: Matt Lewis at 2:18 PM

Andrew Roth of the Club for Growth has posted a story about a "The Cheesetique", a cheese shop in Alexandria, VA that is being forced to stop selling one of it's signature cheeses. Apparently, one of the Bush Administration's final acts was to put a 300% tariff on the importation of Roquefort cheese from France as a way of responding to EU limitations on U.S. beef. Hence, it is now too expensive for most U.S. cheese merchants to import it.

I happen to be a regular customer at The Cheesetique, so I am happy to lend my voice to the protest of the absurd tariff on Roquefort. If you live in the area, please stop by the Cheesetique to show your support (they're protesting by having a sale on their remaining Roquefort).

(34) |

(0)

Thursday, January 29, 2009

For the Non-Believers

Posted by: John Campbell at 2:16 PM

I listened to many of the speeches given by supporters of the bill yesterday. I also had the opportunity to question the Director of the Congressional Budget Office on the subject. The tepid arguments and weak rebuttals of the proponents here lead me to believe that perhaps even they know that this is not really about stimulus. Being generous, I can say that maybe 25% of the items in this bill have some multiplier effect. But the rest is just spending. Just 2 months ago, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, said “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

Couple that statement with the President’s repeated comments yesterday that this is just “the first” in a series of economic recovery actions, and it becomes clearer to me that this bill is really about getting about a 20% annual increase in non-entitlement federal spending right now, and paying for it with tax increases to be named later. The public would not stand for that in the normal course of politics.

If you don’t believe that, I hereby submit for your consideration a document that was sent to me by a Democratic Congresswoman from California in order to entice me to vote for the package because of the money that California would receive. It actually pushed me even further in the opposite direction. I think it will have the same affect on you so here is link. Virtually all the spending in here is merely the federal government paying for programs that the state is already doing. In another case, billions of dollars are allocated for more school construction, at a time when we have just borrowed and spent $30 billion on school construction in California, and where some of our failing schools happen to be housed in beautiful new buildings. The State of California will get a $32 billion spending increase in this bill, paid for by federal taxpayers. I hope that the idea of raising taxes in California will be dead now. Isn’t $32 billion more spending enough for now?