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

Well, elected to something, anyway.

The story that launched a thousand Leno/Letterman jokes.

...I know I'll stay alive."

This American Greetings e-card is the company's most popular ever, with 30 million viewers this month.

Maybe I'm the only one who missed it, but if you haven't seen it, it's good for a laugh. A turkey with an afro. Good stuff. (There's music, so watch your volume.)

Be sure to scroll down a couple posts for morning updates on the CNN X story, if you're interested. Drudge is still following it.

Jay takes on a moral relativist.

Michael Yon has pictures of America's young allies.

Nominate someone for TIME's Person of the Year, here.

Ankle Biting Pundits notices that gouging conspiracy is crumbling as gas prices fall.

Rob has the PC words of the year.

Because Monday Night Football was at Lambeau Field tonight, I thought it was a good day to remember this great gaffe o' 2004, and the group it inspired.

And, Betsy and John Hawkins name their 10 most inspiring movies. The American Film Institute is doing its own list in June. Here are mine, in no particular order.

• Rudy
• Hoosiers
• Last of the Mohicans
• Rocky IV
• On the Waterfront
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Destination Tokyo
• Breaking Away
• The Right Stuff
• Gone With the Wind

Scroll for updates...

Well, this is quite a story on Drudge right now:

At 11:04:45 AM ET Monday CNN was airing Vice President Dick Cheney's speech live from the American Enterprise Institute in Washington -- when a large black 'X' repeatedly flashed over the vice president's face!

I just got an e-mail from someone who says Drudge will be on Fox News at 9:45 p.m. to talk about it. I'm guessing CNN won't cover the story tonight.

UPDATE 9:50 p.m.: Drudge is on now (without a hat!)and says the X showed up each time for 1/15 of a second, so you couldn't see it unless you slowed down the tape. No one at CNN is talking to Drudge about it.

Alan Colmes: Do you think it was purposeful?
AC: Is it possible this only happened on your set?
Drudge: No, this has been confirmed.
AC: Do you think it's evidence of the liberal media?
Drudge: I don't know...I just find it rather alarming that this is being subliminally sent out on the airwaves.

UPDATE 10:01 p.m.: The Political Teen has video of the Cheney speech, slowed down for the X-effect.

UPDATE 11:42p.m.: Jeff Harrell has a full analysis and serious questions about the video linked above. He has written The Political Teen for clarification, but hasn't heard from him yet. More as soon as I hear it.

Right at the end of the segment, Alan Colmes read a statement from CNN, which I found at TV Newser but not at CNN.com.

Responding to TVNewser's request for comment this evening, a CNN spokesperson explained: "This was a technolgical malfunction, not an issue of operator error. A portion of the switcher experienced a momentary glitch."

Not much of an "official statement," as Colmes called it. Considering how suspect the X incident looks, I think we deserve just a little more than that-- especially those of us who remember this little incident. Bias? What bias?

UPDATE 12:09a.m.: Michelle Malkin gets an e-mail from someone with apparent technical knowledge who says, "It's possible it was a mistake. It isn't likely it was a mistake."

UPDATE a.m.: The Political Teen follows up on the video clip he posted, and another blogger defends the clip.

This guy found the X in the video and the text under it, which reads "Transition begins after five frames of black." That makes it look glitchy to me, and Michelle Malkin has an e-mail from a TV guy, who agrees.

But Drudge has an interesting update this morning. CNN has started an investigation and is taking the incident seriously, which is a good thing compared to the "statement" of last night.

Here are the Vice President's remarks from this morning on the war in Iraq, with a few excerpts below:

Permit me to burden you with a bit more history: In August of 1998, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution urging President Clinton take "appropriate action" to compel Saddam to come into compliance with his obligations to the Security Council. Not a single senator voted no. Two months later, in October of '98 -- again, without a single dissenting vote in the United States Senate -- the Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act. It explicitly adopted as American policy supporting efforts to remove Saddam Hussein's regime from power and promoting an Iraqi democracy in its place. And just two months after signing the Iraq Liberation law, President Clinton ordered that Iraq be bombed in an effort to destroy facilities that he believed were connected to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs.

It is a dangerous illusion to suppose that another retreat by the civilized world would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone. In fact such a retreat would convince the terrorists that free nations will change our policies, forsake our friends, abandon our interests whenever we are confronted with murder and blackmail. A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation to further violence against free nations, and a terrible blow to the future security of the United States of America.

So much self-defeating pessimism about Iraq comes at a time of real progress in that country. Coalition forces are making decisive strikes against terrorist strongholds, and more and more they are doing so with Iraqi forces at their side. There are more than 90 Iraqi army battalions fighting the terrorists, along with our forces. On the political side, every benchmark has been met successfully -- starting with the turnover of sovereignty more than a year ago, the national elections last January, the drafting of the constitution and its ratification by voters just last month, and, a few weeks from now, the election of a new government under that new constitution.

The flaws in the intelligence are plain enough in hindsight, but any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped, or fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false. Senator John McCain put it best: "It is a lie to say that the President lied to the American people."

American soldiers and Marines serving in Iraq go out every day into some of the most dangerous and unpredictable conditions. Meanwhile, back in the United States, a few politicians are suggesting these brave Americans were sent into battle for a deliberate falsehood. This is revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety. It has no place anywhere in American politics, much less in the United States Senate.

Jeff Goldstein likes the narrative, but has a caveat:

...it is becoming clear that the Dems are trying to get out ahead of predictable post-election troop withdrawals and frame them as coming from a position of weakness rather than success. The adminstration—who has done the hard work and stayed the course in Iraq throughout this divisive an poisonous political atmosphere—needs to remind people that the successes that will soon become evident in Iraq are a result of its steadfastness to its commitments and its plan to begin excising the Islamist cancer from the free world.

A Nike Inc. private plane is planning to make an emergency landing in Portland, Ore. after its landing gear malfunctioned. There are 7 people on board, and they're circling the airport to burn fuel right now. I just pray it goes as well as the Jet Blue landing did in September. The cable networks are covering it live.

UPDATE 12:10p.m.: Perfectly safe landing, thank goodness. Apparently, they were able to fix the landing gear while in the air, because everything looked in order.

Bright Eyes performed in D.C. this weekend. Bright Eyes is the stage name for 20-something musician Conor Oberst and his back-up musicians. Oberst is a luminary of the mopey music crowd. His lyricism makes him a respected indie musician; his matted hair and sensitive, kicked-puppy eyes make him an unlikely, skinny heartthrob.

I saw Bright Eyes perform in Germany in 2001. Oberst was good, if a little gloomy for my taste. He has a lot of things going for him. One of them is not his grasp of complex political issues.

In the Post's write-up of Bright Eyes' Friday performance, we find that "Oberst's lyrical concerns aren't limited to gloomy personal issues...(He's) also developing a powerful political voice." Oh, but which way does he lean? The suspense is killing me.

"I haven't played this song much lately because it started feeling like shooting fish in a barrel," Oberst said as he stood alone onstage at the beginning of the encore. But, he said, "I want to wake up the [expletive] who sleeps across the street." Thus Oberst began singing the virulent "When the President Talks to God," punctuating the caustic lyrics ("When the president talks to God/Does he ever think that maybe he's not?" ) by emphatically strumming his acoustic guitar.

But Conor has more to teach the youth of America:

Earlier in the show, there was also this: "Old Soul Song (For the New World Order)," which Oberst introduced as a number "about a protest that happened in New York right before we went to war for no . . . reason. No, that's not true: We're at war so rich people can be richer. And poor people can be poorer. Or dead."

I have no problem with Oberst voicing his opinions (though I'm sure many of his politically neutral and conservative fans would prefer he just sing), but must we pretend they're profound or new or interesting? Discussion of Oberst's political views and statements take up half of the article, throughout which his voice is referred to as "powerful," "impassioned" and "hopelessly brilliant."

Actually, Oberst's comments (particularly that last one) are downright ridiculous. And, if the Post's writer thinks they're important enough to spend half the article writing about, why aren't they also important enough to ask Oberst to explain and defend? For instance, "In what way, Mr. Oberst, do you believe the war is designed to make money for rich people and to kill poor people, and do you believe those goals are the intention of U.S. policies in Iraq?"

Now, an answer to that question would be interesting, but the standing policy among music journalists is that the political views of left-leaning lyricists are always worthy of being copied verbatim, but never questioned. For reference, see Bruce Springsteen on NPR.

Can anyone remember the last time Toby Keith or Clint Black was referred to as an "impassioned," "powerful political voice?" Then there's Johnny Ramone, whose position as lifelong Republican and legendary symbol of punk rock warrants only one paragraph in his NYT obituary, despite the fact that an iconic, conservative punk-rocker is a bit more of a story than yet another emo kid who hates President Bush.

From another Post music journalist, who did a chat with readers during CMA week, we learn that the right-leaning country music industry is not home to "powerful political voices" like Oberst's, but home to squelchers of liberal expression:

Burke, Va.:...Do you think country music will accept the [Dixie] Chicks and other artists that are outspoken liberals or will they continue to be blacklisted? Won't that hurt country music in the long term, artistically if not by numbers of fans?

Bill Friskics-Warren: I'm with you re: the Chicks, and likewise appreciate their outspokenness and where they're coming from politically. Word has it that Tim McGraw is a democrat, and Merle Haggard has lately spoken out against the war in Iraq. All of which is to say that there are more left-leaning people in the country music industry--especially among record execs and other behind the scenes folks in the business--than most people think. The trouble is, these liberal voices aren't the loudest and their messages tend to be subtler--and thus harder to get across--than those who identify more with the right. A group here called Music Row Democrats has sought to address this perception, and to elevate the level of political discourse within the industry, but I'm not sure how effective they've has been.

Let's hope they don't "elevate" the discourse to Oberst's level. If that message is "subtle," then Toby Keith is a modern-day Faulkner.

First things first-- Michelle Malkin's been blogging the Murtha vote. Very nice move, Republicans.

I got to meet one of my favorite bloggers today, which is always fun. Malkin was speaking to a monthly meeting of conservative women, hosted by the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute.

Her presentation about her book, "Unhinged" covered just one hinge in the Democrats' swinging door-- the anti-war, anti-military Left. The examples she used won't be unfamiliar to any avid blog-reader (though I could tell the audience hadn't heard about some of them), but when put together in one talk-- yikes.

Jimmy Massey, Steven Jones, Dick Durbin, Bruce Charles, Seattle Central Community College, Brendan Walsh, the hecklings of Jason Gilson and Chad Drake's family, "Screw Them", Ward Churchill, Pete Stark.

As I said-- yikes-- and that's just a 30-min. speech. A few quick quotes, below:

"This is a problem that permeates the entire Democratic Party's leadership structure."

"These Dem crazies are not just riding on the Democratic Party bus, they're driving it."

"I am angry, I'm passionate, and I believe in what I'm saying. If you want to call that shrill, then fine."

"I say (to liberals), name me one liberal campus speaker in the last year who has had a pie, or salad dressing, or a shoe thrown at them, and the silence is telling."

"My husband and I are prepared to homeschool our kids until they're 22."

She was good-humored and gracious and proved to have fabulous taste in shoes, which is perhaps one trait of hers that can be appreciated by women on the right and left alike.

I expect to find that the same is true of Sarah K, Megan McArdle, and John Hawkins (well, maybe not the shoe part) when we all go to Greece together. Sounds like good company, if we can just get Sarah K on the plane safely...

My apologies for double-posting on the Murtha vote. Got an itchy trigger finger on that one. But I guess there's no harm in reading about Republicans having a backbone in two separate entries. After all, it doesn't happen that often these days; we should make the best of it. So, go read Hugh on Murtha, below.

Just got off a blogger conference call with Dan Coats, Samuel Alito's guide through the Senate confirmation process.

Coats opened by saying there's clear momentum for Alito among the "Gang of 14," (though there is this tidbit from Salazar today) and that they just finished their 66th meeting on the Hill.

"These meetings went exceptionally well... He made the case that he's not anything like some of the charicatures, I think to the satisfaction of a lot of Senators."

So far, Coats said, Alito has done a great job of explaining his positions in various rulings to Senators, so they understand his process and philosophy and not just the outcome.

Flip Fidot of Suitably Flip asked about the nominee's response to the newest Alliance for Justice ad, which claims that he ruled "to make it easier for companies to discriminate." Coats:

"Anyone who takes the time to read the case…none of them have drawn the conclusion that the Alliance for Justice has."

Ahh, but how many regular Americans will be reading that opinion over Thanksgiving and Christmas break? Due to the late scheduling of the hearing, Dems have a lot of time to create such mischaracterizations of Alito's rulings.

About those regular Americans, Patrick Hynes of Ankle Biting Pundits said he'd talked to someone in a Senator's office who said the Senator had not received one call on Alito. Why the silence from the grassroots?

"I think it hasn’t started at the grassroots level because what they see hasn’t raised any alarms...I think the charges out there simply haven't found any traction."

A couple questions about the kind of questions Alito might face. From John Hawkins: Can Alito use the Ginsburg Precedent on Roe v. Wade questions in light of the fact that there have been several rulings by the Court on the subject since he publicly stated his beliefs?

"I think the Ginsburg rule does apply...All he can do is talk about principles, stare decisis and where it might apply."

Coats said Alito will undoubtedly face more questions about his record and rulings than did Roberts, as Alito's heard something like 3,500 cases over his years on the bench. But he's shown himself intelligent and consistent in explaining his rulings so far and he'll continue to be in hearings, Coats said.

Sen. Sam Brownback said yesterday during the Senate Blogorama that he doesn't think Alito will face a filibuster, but that if he does, the Republican majority will pass the constitutional option. I'm with him that there doesn't seem to be a filibuster in the air, but everything seems almost eerily quiet. Conservatives have to stay alert at the controls over Thanksgiving and Christmas, answering charges and silly ads quickly before they become truth to folks who are just catching ads in between turkey and football.

I'm heading over to The Heritage Foundation to see the talented Michelle Malkin speak about "Unhinged." I'll try to live-blog her comments if I can snag a wireless signal in the building, but I'm not sure if I'm not sure I can get one in the auditorium. If not, I'll update when I get back to the office.

In the meantime, a quiz for you.

Qin Chenghao: unassuming Chinese farmer or evil, evil price-gouger?

It seems that the star-shaped fruit Qin produces on his small farm in southern China contains one of the chemicals needed to make Tamiflu. In a world suddenly abuzz about bird flu, demand for Qin's small supply of star anise fruit has gone up considerably, as has the price it brings:

Qin's once-sleepy existence has given way to the life of an entrepreneur caught in a gold rush. The price of his crop has nearly tripled in the past four months, reaching about 80 cents per pound.

Tripled in the last four months, huh? Has he no feeling? No concern for the calamity that is upon us? Call in the executives of "Big Star Anise" for questioning immediately.

In other news, Michael Yon has great pictures and commentary (as usual) on a troop homecoming done up in style.

And, I heard my first official Christmas song of the season on the radio today, and it was a doozy. In perhaps the worst yuletide pop offering I've ever heard, Wilson Phillips sings:

I know your sleigh is full inside/ But won't you stop and give my baby a ride/ I'll be waiting by candle light this Christmas/ Ohhh

Ohhh, is right. And thank goodness for Google. Without it I might never have known who was responsible for this travesty.

Mark Tapscott has the scoop on the Labor/HHS bill that didn't have pork, then did, then didn't, then failed because it didn't have enough pork.

Go nominate someone for the 2005 Weblog Awards! Jennifer Aniston was already named Man of the Year, and Mohammed El-Baradei won the Nobel Peace Prize, so anything can happen.

Some beautiful photos from frontline troops. Via The Corner.

Free Thoughts hosted this week's Cotillion.

And, Geraghty defends the word he coined against attempted banning.

Andy Roth at Club for Growth notes that the Windfall Profits Tax failed this afternoon, 35-64. Thank goodness. What with those oil executive interrogations last week, I was beginning to feel like I was living in America, circa page 600 of "Atlas Shrugged."

All the Republicans voted NO, plus 8 Democrats, which I would say is pretty encouraging except that Andy warns of a "stealth" profits tax thrown in to appease moderates.

The premise on which the windfall profits tax is based is that rich, mean oil men are taking advantage of the twin catastrophes of Katrina and Wilma to price-gouge regular Americans into penury and out of productivity. The folks pushing windfall profit taxes and price-gouging legislation make no allowance for the fact that two 100-year storms put just a bit of crimp in oil refining and production, thereby driving down supply and necessarily driving up prices.

To them, prices are not signals of supply and demand, but arbitrary numbers picked by oil bosses who have it in for the little guy. Price-gouging legislation and windfall profits taxes, therefore, help the little guy, right? At times like this, I like to refer the 35 Senators who voted for a windfall profits tax to some of my favorite economists.

First, Thomas Sowell explains prices:

Why do prices exist at all? To cause things to be produced and made available to the public -- and to cause consumers to limit how much they consume. Why then do prices suddenly shoot up? Because there is either less of a supply available or more of a demand, or both.

Second, Walter Williams explains the relationship between windfall profits and the little guy, particularly in the wake of a disaster:

So-called windfall profits are profits above and beyond those needed to keep an entrepreneur producing a good or service. But they serve a vital social function. They serve as a signal that there are unmet human wants. One of the best examples of the role of windfall profits are those that arise in the wake of a disaster and are often condemned as price gouging....

In the wake of Florida’s Hurricane Andrew, windfall profits played a vital though unappreciated role. Plywood destined to be shipped to the Midwest, West and Northeast suddenly was rerouted to South Florida. Lumber mills increased production. Truckers and other workers worked overtime in order to increase the availability of plywood and other construction materials to Floridians. Rising plywood prices meant something else as well. All that plywood heading south meant plywood prices rose in other locations, discouraging "lower valued" uses of plywood such as home improvement projects. After all, rebuilding and repairing destroyed homes is a "higher valued" use of plywood....

Rising prices and opportunities for higher profits encouraged people to do voluntarily what was in the social interest: help their fellow man recover from a disaster.

If one of your Senators voted for the windfall profits tax, you may want to e-mail him or her a steady diet of Sowell and Williams. I know it's hard for them to believe that anything could work in the social interest better than a Senator can, but the market really does. And thank goodness.