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


Thursday, January 29, 2009
"Dear Iranian People: Just Knuckle Under"
Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 12:59 PM
Barack Obama is drafting a letter to the "Iranian people," which, as the linked BBC piece points out, is designed to reassure the delightfully cordial Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

State department officials have composed at least three drafts of the letter, which gives assurances that Washington does not want to overthrow the Islamic regime, but merely seeks a change in its behaviour.

In other words, Barack Obama intends to validate the repressive regime that currently perpetrates numerous (and heinous) human rights violations.   And it will make the lives of dissenters infinitely more difficult.

Jimmy Carter didn't get it, when he played pen pals with Iran's leadership in 1988.  And now, it seems, neither does the Obama administration.






Thursday, January 29, 2009
So Who's Blocking the "Change"?
Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 12:39 PM

President Obama ran on a platform of "hope" and "change" -- but when you look at the stimulus plan, it becomes clear that his own Democrat compatriots are the ones who are determined to carry on with business as usual.

Just a few points that every American voter should understand:

The bill provides a "worker tax credit" even for those without valid social security numbers, i.e. illegal immigrants.

More than 1/3 of a billion dollars -- $335 million, to be exact -- has been set aside for STD prevention efforts.  (See page 147.)

And that's just the beginning.  As this Wall Street Journal editorial points out:

There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

This has nothing to do with stimulating the economy, and everything to do with paying off Democrat constituencies.  And apparently, President Obama is either unwilling or unable to stop it.

But this is hardly "change."  Rather, it's typical of what Democrats try to do when they simultaneously dominate Congress and the White House.

In fact, soon after the inauguration of Bill Clinton in 1993, congressional Democrats -- again, with the new president's acquiescence -- tried to ram through another "Christmas tree" package, allegedly to "stimulate" the economy.

The more things "change," the more they stay the same.  Are President Obama and congressional Democrats really ready to send a signal that business as usual is A-OK, so long as it's being conducted by them, rather than by Republicans? 







Thursday, January 29, 2009
The Era of the Great Unbuttoning
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 12:31 PM
I offered some cheeky fashion and politics commentary for a great new project launched by some good conservative folks called The New Ledger.

Click the link
for my complaints about the NYT story about Obama taking off his jacket. Stay for the insightful thoughts on markets, technology and politics.





Thursday, January 29, 2009
Man, Woman, Marriage...Anniversary (Guest blog by Diane Medved)
Posted by: Michael Medved at 11:20 AM

 

 
(Diane's note:  I posted this on my blog www.brightlightsearch.blogspot.com on our anniversary, Tuesday, Jan. 27, and Michael asked me to re-post it here today.)

I'm trying to rein in my procrastination and write my book on marriage as the combination of opposites. To that end, I've been reading definitions of that august institution, and how those have been twisted of late.

Today happens to be my 24th wedding anniversary. My research has highlighted the ways my husband and I are different, and the unique combination formed by the two of us. I'm fortunate that I'm interested by him every day, often surprised and amused.

After so long together, it may seem odd that he's still a bit alien to me. But part of his masculinity--or perhaps his personality--is a need to have things done crisply, his way, which may not be mine. I know he'd deny that. In fact, he'd immediately list the many ways he gives in to me, often spending his minimal discretionary time accompanying me to places I enjoy (craft fairs, tulip fields) rather than locations he'd prefer (dank forest paths, record stores).

We have different styles, and over the years he's relaxed enough to allow them to co-exist. He let me decorate our kitchen in the bright Caribbean colors I crave. He voluntarily relinquished the entire upstairs of our home to our guests, children and me, lest he discover the disorder he despises. Not that I'm so disorderly, but the collage of family photos on the wall above my desk is to him the epitome of chaos; the clothes dropped by children on their bedroom floors intolerable. In his comfort zone, books must stand upright, arranged by height and color within subject; I'm known to let some slant, and at times my desk is encircled by piles of papers on the floor, organized by task. By contrast, he handles each incoming piece of mail only once, and can't bear to see items that could be disposed of or dealt with resurface again on, say, a chair.

Our differing approaches have enhanced our marriage. I'm easy, flexible, smoothing things out. He keeps me (and us) moving, completing, focusing like a laser beam. Our family benefits from both. As a team, I benefit from him; he tells me the same.

Though I was a proud feminist when that term was progressive and liberated rather than passe, now my life looks embarrassingly traditional. Even biased university scholars presently admit that sex-related stereotypes weren't just the result of oppressive socialization, but based on validated gender differences. Post-women's lib, a gathering current acknowledged the truth; graduates of Women's Studies classes launched Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus onto best-seller lists.

Gender themes have become difficult to abjure. Guys are more physical, sexual, controlling, and competitive than women, who tend to be nurturing, social, verbal, emotional. I've got a dozen books sitting right behind me on the shelf with studies and statistics to support what nearly every culture has incorporated in its structure over the past four thousand years. And yet, policy and politics repeatedly try to deny what physiology posits.

In our marriage, my husband laments the chore of paying our bills, but won't delegate it to me despite my offers, lest he lose control and mastery over even the smallest aspect of our finances. He insists that each expense over $1 be recorded immediately. He's a guy, exhibiting the male need for control in the "responsibility to support the family" arena.

(I know there are many macho men whose finances are a wreck. But they probably express their needs for control in another area. Sports? Work? All of the above? I know there are many wives who are expert in handling family finances. But is it a control thing, or a nest-keeping skill?)

My husband's collection of classical music CDs is aligned in his office precisely, in alphabetical order by composer. The shelves of CDs he has yet to open are in one section (acquisition of the music is his hobby); the discs he has consumed in another. His filing system seems obsessive-compulsive, and yet his vast knowledge of music (and indeed, nearly everything) engenders my awe.
And yet, as invested as he is with his CDs, he is equally indifferent regarding his wardrobe, earning the descriptor "sartorially-challenged." Every plea to take him for a quick trip to Men's Warehouse is rebuffed with disdain. Efforts to purchase clothing for him at Nordstrom Rack result in a perfunctory try-on at home with instant dismissal. "I don't need new pants," he says definitively, light glinting off his shiny knees where once wale adorned corduroy.

After a meeting at the White House, he was taken aside and told his black jeans and light-colored sport coat were a bit below the bar.

But I've given up worrying about that. After all, he understands what this woman wants: flowers. He buys me a bouquet every day. One of many good things about him is that he hears, and heeds. What gender trait causes women to like receiving flowers, especially if you pick them out yourself and present them with a word about why those were chosen? If he's been out of town, the next time he stops at the market on the way home, he gets two bunches. To make up for the gap.

I'll be posting some of what I'm writing, about marriage as the only setting to mesh the opposite sexes. But today, on my 24th anniversary, I'm grateful to have such an endlessly fascinating opposite as my soul mate, with whom to contrast and enjoy. I absolutely cannot believe it's been so many years since the photo above...





Thursday, January 29, 2009
The Big Spending Package
Posted by: John Campbell at 11:09 AM
Last night, the House of Representatives passed a “so-called” stimulus bill, without any Republican support.? In my previous posting, I explained why this bill is not, and will not be stimulative.? In fact, I am not even calling it a stimulus bill, I am calling it a “big spending bill”, because that is exactly what it is.

I know it is easy to criticize, and not offer alternatives, but don’t worry, I have my own ideas on what should have been included in the stimulus package. ?

The main part of any stimulus should be to create consumer demand for homes and cars. This economy will not recover until the housing and car markets find a bottom and start rising again. An up-to-$25,000 refundable tax credit for the purchase of a house (new or existing) and an up to $4,000 credit for a new car, coupled with aggressive loan rates from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (4.5% or less), would get a lot of people to overcome their economic fears and take advantage of a great deal.

These should be short-term (no more than 10 months), and then phase out. Obviously, no sub-prime stuff here. This would only be for people with the ability to make real down payments and who have real credit.

That should be put together with a short-term Capital gains tax holiday, in order to get capital to move to more efficient uses.

It is also important to include some infrastructure spending such as creating a national Wi-Fi broadband system, which would generate huge job creation as the tech sector figures out new ways to use that capability.

These are things that will create many downstream jobs in the private sector that are sustainable and would also serve to settle down the panic that is now out there in the minds of consumers, rather than creating a one-time, feel-good government job.

It is frightening if one of your neighbors has lost his job and another her home; but? if one neighbor comes home in a new car and another rents their house out because they just bought a new house, while you may not run out and do either of those things, you will likely at least go out to dinner.

More than anything else, businesses need a market to sell to. That is how recessions end.

This plan would cost only a fraction of the $825 billion in the Democrats’ giant spending package.




Thursday, January 29, 2009
Rush Limbaugh vs. Barack Obama
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 10:37 AM
I was just on MSNBC talking El Rushbo. Gotta love how my liberal counterpart said Rush was "almost treasonous".  Which side is name calling?   Enjoy ...






Thursday, January 29, 2009
Go Behind the Scenes
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 10:03 AM
This is a really neat effort by Boehner's office to show constituents what's going on behind closed doors.

Kudos to his staff.






Thursday, January 29, 2009
Rarely Do I Say This, But I Am Proud Of The Republican Party Today.
Posted by: John Hawkins at 9:50 AM
Over the last few years, conservatives have spent a surprising amount of time kicking the Republican Party in the behind -- and deservedly so. While the GOP is still going to need to be relentlessly flogged from time to time until the party's morale improves (Ha!), it's nice to see them finally starting to get their act together. I am, of course, referring to the House Republicans voting en masse against Porkulus AKA the Democrats' "Record deficit bill" AKA as the "Bankrupting America bill" AKA stimulus bill,
President Barack Obama got the $825 (or $1.2 trillion over a decade) stimulus package through the House of Representatives but the 244 to 188 vote is a hollow victory indeed. Without a single Republican voting for the bill, his high-profile visit to Capitol Hill on Tuesday came to exactly naught - at least on the House side. ....No doubt Obama will indeed get beaten up on Fox News. But his failure to get even the squishiest moderate Republican - including the 11 entertained in the White House by Rahm Emanuel last night - to back him is not merely a big score for Rep Eric Cantor, Republican Whip, and the rest of the GOP leadership. It also shows that it is not just Fox, the loony Right or Rush Limbaugh - or however else you might want to characterise the opposition in order to marginalise it - who had grave misgivings about the content of the bill. The Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill badly miscalculated by treating the bill as a victor's charter. Not that it seemed to bother Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who grinned from ear to ear as she announced the result of the vote.
Setting aside the fact that historically, stimulus bill just don't work, this bill isn't even designed to stimulate the economy. To the contrary, this is an unconscionable transfer of 800 billion dollars of borrowed money to government programs and Democratic special interest groups in order to pay them back for putting Obama in the White House. Decades after the higher-ups at ACORN are hopefully sitting in prison for voter fraud, "global warming" is universally laughed at as a hoax, and Obama is judged to have been one of our most mediocre Presidents, our children will still be trying to pay back the money that was spent on this bill, which is undoubtedly among the single biggest wastes of money in the recorded history of humankind. And happily, not a single Republican in the House voted for this nightmare bill. Unfortunately, I have been hearing behind-the-scenes for the last few days that although the GOP leadership and most of the rank-and-file in the Senate oppose the stimulus bill, they are unlikely to filibuster it. Perhaps seeing the House Republicans stand tall will stiffen their spines a bit, however, and we may see the Senate GOP go to the mat to stop this incredible disaster for the American people. Whatever the case may be, I think the House Republicans deserve a lot of credit. Unlike President Government, they put the American people first and even the most weak kneed moderates in the GOP refused to buckle. So, here's to the House GOP! Let's hope the Senate learns from their example!

PS #1:
Although I thought every Republican in a leadership position last year deserved to be flushed after another poor election performance, I have said that I thought John Boehner has shown the potential to be an excellent leader in the House. Yesterday, Boehner, along with Eric Cantor, who has caught a lot of flack lately as well, rose to the challenge and truly led. They deserve a lot of credit for that.

PS #2:
From the American Issues Project comes a statistic that shows you how hollow the claim that this is a "stimulus bill" really is,
Additionally, if you're having a hard time wrapping your mind around $825 billion, think of it like this: $825 billion is enough money to give every man, woman and child in the United States $2,700. $825 billion is enough money to give every person in America living in poverty $22,000.
I think the whole idea of creating a "stimulus bill" is highly dubious in the first place, but if we were trying to actually "stimulate" the economy, wouldn't it make much more sense to simply give people money rather than funnel it into chronically useless projects? John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine, Right Wing News, and Right Wing Video.




Thursday, January 29, 2009
The Rush Limbaugh Talking Point
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 8:22 AM
Who wrote the opposition memo all Republicans take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh?

Sure, he's an incredibly, insanely, popular radio personality with lots of appeal. I don't know too many lawmakers, however, who are busy tuning into his show while they are shuttling between their offices and the House floor for votes.

There is a concentrated effort, largely by lefty media outlets like MSNBC, taking place now to pin the GOP on Limbaugh. That network essentially ran the same segment all day yesterday between Norah O'Donnell's afternoon show through Hardball and the rest, asking Republicans why they catered to Rush.

Its leaked its way to some other outfits, too. Rick Klein, of ABC's The Note, had this little bit of editorial analysis included in one of his pieces today: "As they gather in Washington to select the new RNC chairman, Rush Limbaugh gets his way: They’re settling on opposition to Obama as an organizing principle."

Of course, the irony in all this is that the criticism only increasing Rush's influence among listeners.







Thursday, January 29, 2009
MSNBC Watch
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 8:05 AM
I'm scheduled to be on MSNBC this morning around 9:30 ESTish, to talk about El Rushbo.

BTW, I take back what I said about Dylan Ratigan.  He's actually doing quite well on Morning Joe today...





Wednesday, January 28, 2009
GOP Says NO
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 8:30 PM
Photobucket

Barack Obama's pork-stuffed $825 billion stimulus bill passed the House this evening, but it didn't gain a single vote of support from the GOP.

Not a one.

The Republicans complete unwillingness to vote for the bill is a blow to the new President, who spent a considerable amount of time on Capitol Hill this week lobbying for votes.

Obama failed miserably. The controversial spending package passed entirely with Democratic votes.

11 Democrats crossed party lines to oppose the bill with Republicans, which has prompted the the GOP to tell media, "the only bipartisanship was in opposition to this bill," as Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) in a statement.

It should be noted that the new House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R.-Va.), who is in charge of corralling and as his title dictates, whipping votes, surely played lead role in this feat.

Now the bill will be sent to the Senate, where Obama said he'd like to see 80 senators vote for the bill. That may be difficult.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell seems to be following the House GOP's lead. He issued a statement after the House vote titled "Bipartisan rejection of a partisan plan."





Wednesday, January 28, 2009
GOP Gaining Momentum?
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 8:20 PM
Kudos to House Republicans for sticking together and standing firm against the "stimulus".

Is it just me, or does it seem like -- for the first time in a long time -- Republicans are starting to get their mojo back???

... now I just hope they don't go and ruin it by picking a lousy RNC chairman.







Wednesday, January 28, 2009
House Passes Stimulus
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 7:12 PM





Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Canadian Conservatives Stay in Power
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 5:49 PM
Some of you might remember that, last month, Canada's left wing opposition parties hatched a plot to throw out Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper without an election. Well, due to some clever moves by Harper, that plot officially collapsed today and the duly elected Conservative Party will stay in power.

Adam Brickley (who you might remember as the "Draft Palin" blogger), has a great column on this situation posted on his new blog, "The Brickyard", so you should definitely head over there and check it out.





Wednesday, January 28, 2009
An Awful Excuse for a Stimulus Bill
Posted by: John Campbell at 5:32 PM
An Awful Excuse For a Stimulus Bill
By JOHN CAMPBELL, R-Irvine, represents the 48th Congressional District

Last September, we cautiously backed away from the precipice of financial collapse, but we are still a long way from getting our economy growing, flourishing, and functioning properly. Now, more than ever, we need innovative economic policies, not the political gamesmanship already playing out across all areas of government.

Republicans, Democrats, members of Congress, senators and the president all agree that America needs help, but that is where the agreement ends. The $825 billion stimulus package, which Congress was scheduled to vote on today, is, for lack of a better phrase, perfectly awful.

This package fails to meet all three criteria for successfully stimulating the economy; in fact, this bill contains 152 specific and separate appropriations. In reality, this is not a “stimulus” package at all. It is nothing more than another bloated spending bill.

The three criteria for an effective stimulus bill are:

  • It must actually be stimulative. This may sound obvious, but Beltway insiders at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue cannot seem to grasp this necessity. The package we have seen includes multiple questionable expenditures, but including hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for contraceptives, the National Endowment for the Arts, and new cars for government employees is absurd. Regardless of your views on the efficacy of these programs, do they actually stimulate the economy?
  • Any spending must have substantial multiplier benefits. Even the most ardent Keynesian should be ashamed of what we see in this package. President Barack Obama has previously called for substantial spending on infrastructure, however, this bill contains a paltry $30 billion for roads and highways, accounting for less than 4 percent of the $825 billion total. However, there is substantial funding for modernizing, or “greening” federal buildings and schools. Such projects will not have any kind of multiplier effect in the long term. The only stimulus this will be providing is a short-term job for those doing the modernizing and “greening.” Once the project is done, the job is finished, and we are right back at Square One.
  • It must be done quickly and decisively. Let’s assume that throwing more money at the public education system will fix it; I personally don’t believe it, but for argument’s sake let’s make the assumption. In this stimulus bill, school spending accounts for about one-sixth of the recovery package. Education is great, and we need to make sure that we are educating the best and the brightest in the world, but this package needs to be about fast action and stimulating the economy, not improving education. Sure, the argument can be made that this will be stimulative in terms of having more educated people coming into the workplace, but that won’t occur for at least a decade.Moreover, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that only $26 billion of this amount will be spent in the next six months, even though the bill calls for all grants and contracts to be let out within 90 days. There is no way around it; this is not quick and decisive.
This stimulus package is nothing more than a political grab bag of spending, and a lot of it. Clearly, the mission has been forgotten. The goal here is to make this recession shorter and shallower, and to keep more American families in their homes, jobs, and businesses.

Last year alone, 2.6 million U.S. jobs were lost, the most in any year since 1945. Unemployment has risen to 7.2 percent, and even higher in California. If that doesn’t scare you, it should.

If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama are serious about stimulating this economy and getting America back on track, they ought to take another look at their spending bill and decide what they are really trying to accomplish with it.





Your Blog Postings:
Last updated 8 Minutes 31 Seconds Ago
Last updated 10 Minutes 48 Seconds Ago
Last updated 11 Minutes 39 Seconds Ago
Last updated 43 Minutes 30 Seconds Ago
Last updated 1 Hours 6 Minutes 30 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
 December 2009
 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
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

This just isn't fun anymore...
 Re: Capitol Goes Into Lockdown
  By Ray
LETS BE CLEAR,
 Re: Capitol Goes Into Lockdown
  By cottoneyed
NOTW, yeah right just like 'O' wasn't
 Re: Christmas in the White House: Tranvestites, Obama and Mao
  By miss vicky
Yeah, Lonny just last week...
 Re: Capitol Goes Into Lockdown
  By Ray
Yeah, septic maybe your right...
 Re: Obama's Latest Executive Order Grants Interpol Immunity From American Laws
  By Ray
septic, liberals are so predictable...
 Re: Capitol Goes Into Lockdown
  By Ray
Ray
 Re: Capitol Goes Into Lockdown
  By Lonny
"a man with a gun"...
 Re: Capitol Goes Into Lockdown
  By Talula
septic the FDR court lover says
 Re: Capitol Goes Into Lockdown
  By Cicero
munck
 Re: Capitol Goes Into Lockdown
  By Mike
The truth re: the general welfare clause
 Re: Capitol Goes Into Lockdown
  By Cicero
Ray
 Re: Obama's Latest Executive Order Grants Interpol Immunity From American Laws
  By sceptyczny
Hey septic, I just got your...
 Re: Capitol Goes Into Lockdown
  By Ray
Kaboom the Lying Liar from LA says. . .
 Re: Capitol Goes Into Lockdown
  By Cicero
Shoot septic, I am a minority...
 Re: Capitol Goes Into Lockdown
  By Ray
cardozo said
 Re: Capitol Goes Into Lockdown
  By sceptyczny
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937),
 Re: Capitol Goes Into Lockdown
  By sceptyczny
Plumber, K.G.
 Re: Byron York: Get Going For The 2010 Elections
  By Col Bat Guano
septic, yes he did bow...
 Re: Obama's Latest Executive Order Grants Interpol Immunity From American Laws
  By Ray
Ray, my security guards
 Re: Capitol Goes Into Lockdown
  By sceptyczny

The Latest on Town HallThe Latest on Town Hall


Blog Roll Blog Roll