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


Friday, October 09, 2009
Any Nobel Thoughts? And Five For Fighting's "Slice."
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 1:26 PM
Yes, the president's Nobel Prize is big news, but I'd rather focus on this new album:

Slice

If you have Nobel thoughts, you can post them under my Townhall.com column on President Obama's Nobel Prize.

Or if you belong to the Hughniverse, you can comment on the thread I opened there.

But you won't be able to do so on the program today as it is a prerecorded show with Five for Fighting's John Ondrasik about his new album "Slice."

Ondrasik is a great supporter of the American military, and one cut on this new release, "Note To An Unknown Soldier" will be an immediate favorite with the troops and their families. You can order the album here from iTunes.  Don't miss the conversation with Ondrasick on being a singer/songwriter in the new era of music.






Friday, October 09, 2009
Back On Planet Earth, The AMA and Big Insurance Finally Figure Out That Obamacare Will Cripple American Health Care. Perhaps They Will Help Lobby These Senators To Vote Against Cloture.
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 10:14 AM
This report from the Washington Post would be funny if the consequences of the year long surrender by the AMA and the insurance bigs inside the Beltway hadn't been so predictable.  How shocking that the Dems promised them one thing and delivered another.  How sad that America's doctors have been thrown under the bus by the AMA's D.C. sharpies and that everyone with private insurance is going to see massive premium hikes that the insurance companies didn't battle against.

Here's the list of Democratic senators, any two of whom can block cloture and thus this terrible bill.  The various hapless lobbyists for docs and insurance companies might want to try and get their members to direct their concerns to the senators on this list:

Arkansas

Sen. Blanche Lincoln

DC Phone: (202) 224-4843

Local Phone: Dumas (870) 382-1023, Fayetteville (479) 251-1224, Little Rock (501) 375-2993, Jonesboro (870) 910-6896, Texarkana (870) 774-3106

Link to E-mail 

Sen. Mark Pryor

DC Phone: (202) 224-2353

Local Phone: Little Rock (501) 324-6336

Link to E-mail 

Connecticut

Sen. Joe Lieberman

DC Phone: (202) 224-4041

Local Phone: (860) 549-8463

Link to E-mail 

Florida

Sen. Bill Nelson

DC Phone: (202) 224-5274

Local Phone: Orlando (407) 872-7161, Miami-Dade (305) 536-5999, Tampa (813) 225-7040, West Palm Beach (561) 514-0189, Tallahassee (850) 942-8415, Jacksonville (904) 346-4500, Broward (954) 693-4851, Fort Meyers (239) 334-7760

Link to E-mail 

Indiana

Sen. Evan Bayh

DC Phone: (202) 224-5623

Local Phone: Evansville (812) 465-6500, Fort Wayne (260) 426-3151, Hammond (219) 852-2763, Indianapolis (317) 554-0750, Jeffersonville (812) 218-2317, Southbend (574) 236-8302

Link to E-mail

Louisiana

Sen. Mary Landrieu

DC Phone: (202) 224-5824

Local Phone: Baton Rouge (225) 389-0395, Lake Charles (337) 436-6650, New Orleans (504) 589-2427, Shreveport (318) 676-3085

Link to E-mail 

Montana

Sen. Jon Tester

DC Phone: (202) 224-2644

Local Phone: Billings (406) 252-0550, Bozeman (406) 586-4450, Butte (406) 723-3277, Glendive (406) 365-2391, Great Falls (406) 452-9585, Helena (406) 449-5401, Kalispell (406) 257-3360, Missoula (406) 728-3003

Link to E-mail 

Nebraska

Sen. Ben Nelson

DC Phone: (202) 224-6551

Local Phone: Omaha (402) 391-3411, Lincoln (402) 441-4600, Scottsbluff (308) 631-7614, Kearney (308) 293-5818, South Sioux City (402) 209-3595

Link to E-mail 

North Dakota

Sen. Kent Conrad

DC Phone: (202) 224-2043

Local Phone: Bismarck (701) 258-4648, Fargo (701) 232-8030, Grand Forks (701) 775-9601, Minot (701) 852-0703

Link to E-mail



Sen. Byron Dorgan

DC Phone: (202) 224-2551

Local Phone: Bismarck (701) 250-4618, Fargo (701) 239-5389, Minot (701) 852-0703, Grand Forks (701) 746-8972

Link to E-mail 

South Dakota

Sen. Tim Johnson

DC Phone: (202) 224-5842

Local Phone: Aberdeen (605) 226-3440, Sioux Falls (605) 332-8896, Rapid City (605) 341-3990

Link to E-mail 

Virginia

Sen. James Webb

(202) 224-4024
1-866-507-1570

Link to E-mail.


West Virginia

Sen. Robert C. Byrd

DC Phone: (202) 224-3954

Local Phone: Charlestown (304) 342-5855, Eastern Panhandle (304) 264-4626

Link to E-mail 






Friday, October 09, 2009
"This Just In" by Lee Habeeb
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 10:00 AM

This just in ...... More awards announced for President Obama.

by Lee Habeeb
VP of Content  Salem Radio Network

Oct. 9, 2009 7:43 AMThis just in from the Pulitzer Committee.

Barack Obama will be awarded the prestigious prize for his writing in "The Audacity of Hope."  The Committee explained that though it was rare to grant the award to writing not done in the past year, the book "deserved consideration given Obama's extraordinary work thus far as President."

Oct. 9, 2009 8:03 AMThis just in fromThe Baseball Writers Association (responsible for The CY Young Award).

Barack Obama was awarded a special Cy Young Award this year for best pitch by a President in the year 2009. Noted the committee; "The style and grace President Obama brought to the baseball mound this year was extraordinary, and is the reason Major League baseball has enjoyed record setting attendance this year." That his pitch didn't cross the plate had little bearing on the decision, the committee added, anticipating critics reactions.

Oct. 9, 2009 8:22 AMThis just in from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

President Obama has been awarded an Emmy for best Dance Performance on a Daytime TV Show. "The President's smooth performance dazzled the world when he appeared on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, and since then, millions of young Americans have taken to signing up at Arthur Murray Schools of Dance all over America. His influence on the world of daytime televison – and the world of danceas well - can not be underestimated," noted a spokesman from the NATAS.

Oct. 9, 2009 8:45 AMThis just in from The National Education Association.

President Obama has been awarded the National Teacher of The Year Award for his speech in early September to America's school kids.  "The President's talk with America's school kids was so profound, and so important, that teachers around America thought it appropriate that this year's award go to our Teacher in Chief, President Obama. He has inspired generations from that talk - we're STILL talking about it," noted an NEA Spokesperson.

Oct. 9, 2009 8:45 AM

This just in from The Presidential Freedom Award Committee.

President Obama has been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award for his body of work over a lifetime. "Though it is unusual for a sitting President to be awarded The Presidential Freedom Award, we felt it important to get out ahead of history given the ground breaking nature of his time in office thus far, and all of the great work he has done to advance human freedom around the world," noted the spokesman of the Presidential Medal of Freedom Committee.

Oct. 9, 2009 9:15 AMThis just in from office of The Fields Committee, which announces its prestigious MATH Award every 4 years (it is often called The Nobel Prize of Math, and was popularzied in the movie "Good Will Hunting").

President Obama has been awarded the Fields Prize for his contribution to econometric and budgetary analysis in the public square. "The Committee has never before presented this award to a politician, but his brilliant work adding  people to Medicare while simultaneously cutting the Medicare budget is a mathematical feat we have rarely seen in public life," explained a spokesman for The Fields Committee. 



**** “This Just In”  will keep you posted on upcoming Award Announcements. If you hear of any awards being granted to President Obama in the coming minutes and hours, kindly submit to our editors.

-----






Friday, October 09, 2009
"Congatulations Mr. President. Now Please Use The Moment To Save The Afghan People From The Taliban and The World From Iran's Fanatics"
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:57 AM
That's the title of the column I just sent off to Townhall which I will link to when it appears.

Before any conservative rushes off to denounce the Committee's decision, pause and consider that this is a salute to the office of the American Presidency and the power and hope it embodies.  Of course there is no small amount of dazed admiration for the new president mixed in, but the award underscores that the world looks to him to lead, not retreat, and to make peace, not condemn regions to deep darkness, and that has huge implications for the decisions on his desk in the Oval Office right now.

The deliberations on the award were ongoing when the president's only foreign policy action of consequence was his recommitment to victory in Afghanistan.  He campaigned on winning there, and he dispatched thousands of more troops to the region.  Now as he nears a critical decision on whether or not to provide the troops his commander in the theater is pressing for even as appeasers in his inner circle council appeasement of the Taliban, he is awarded the world's most prestigious prize. 

Hope and pray that the award puts some steel in his spine and impresses on him the prospect of looking at his medal through the years if as a consequence of his decisions in the next few weeks, another many generations of Afghan women are condemned to remain in their burqas without benefit of education or medical care even as their husbands plot unmolested to strike America again.  Perhaps the award will encourage him to end the dithering and confirm again America's strong resolve to defeat the Taliban and it s al Qaeda allies.

Hope and pray as well that the award triggers in the president consideration of the awful irony if Iran would go nuclear within a year of his being so honored.

The award is a good thing for President Obama, a great honor and recognition of the role of America, and an opportunity for the president to recommit, against the pressure from his domestic left, to leading the world towards genuine peace and security.





Thursday, October 08, 2009
Need To Get Health Care Right, Not Right Now - Democratic Speechwriter Sees the Light
Posted by: Jude  at 2:20 PM
Wendy Button, speechwriter for John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, has written a compelling account of her shock not being able to afford health coverage in Massachusetts. 
"What makes this a double blow is that my experience contradicts so much of what I wrote for political leaders over the last decade. That's a terrible feeling, too. I typed line after line that said everything Massachusetts did would make health insurance more affordable. If I had a dollar for every time I typed, "universal coverage will lower premiums," I could pay for my own health care at Massachusetts's rates."
"I want health care reform. I need it, but I want Washington to start over. It doesn't make me "un-American" or "astroturf" or "racist." I'm a critic because what Washington is talking about doing has made health insurance unaffordable in Massachusetts."
Red flag, people!  Pass her article on to friends and family.  It's not infammatory, it's a short read, and it makes sense.  Consider this the P.R. antidote to yesterday's CBO Valentine to the Baucus plan.  Via the Corner and HotAir headlines.





Thursday, October 08, 2009
A "Yes" Vote On Cloture Crushes Medicare and American Medicine
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:38 AM
Eight Democratic senators stand between the Medicare and the destruction of the senior health care program as well as the ruin of American medicine generally.  These eight know the stakes and have written Harry Reid to demand that the Democratic leader slow down the jam down so that they and the public know what they are voting on and what it will cost.  They have asked for at least  72 hours and a CBO estimate for any Obamacare bill before a final floor vote occurs, as well as 72 hours and a full CBO score before any vote on a future House-Senate conference report occurs. 

These demands are a dodge because any of these eight have the ability to enforce any amount of delay they want via a refusal to vote for cloture whenever that debate-limiting motion is put forward by Reid.

To review: The Senate's rules provide that it requires 60 affirmative votes to pass a motion ending debate on any legislative proposal.  Thus if even one Democrat refuses to go along with this Obamacare jam down that will devastate Medicare, the entire bill halts until and unless that Democrat is satisfied it is a good idea.  Thus every Democrat has the individual ability to demand a serious, careful debate and serious, careful budget impact analysis.

Some Democrats hope to protect themselves against the people's fury at the polls in November 2010 by voting for cloture and then voting against passage, but that won't work in this hyperattentive new media age.

A vote for cloture is a vote for everything in the Obamacare package that would end up on the president's desk.  Everyone knows this, but some Democrats hold out hope that their genuine responsibility for Obamacare will be obscured by various posed votes.  In this sleight-of-hand they hope to be helped by Manhattan-Beltway media elites that will do what they can to obscure accountability on the cloture votes ahead.

But the clear truth is that a vote for cloture is a vote for Obamacare, and not just its ruinous impact on Medicare for seniors and medicine generally but also for the trickery that is obscuring the real and vast costs of the bills and the refusal to allow the American people the opportunity to see and read what it is they are being obliged to sacrifice their health care and benefits for.

So contact all the Democrats below.  Contact them early and often and contact anyone you know who lives in their state and ask them to do the same thing.  If you are a doctor in their state, your voice is especially important.  Tell each one of them to vote no on cloture motions --all of them-- and to start over with a genuinely bipartisan reform bill that protects Medicare and which includes tort reform.

And tell them that if they vote yes on any cloture, you will help fund their next opponent and do whatever it takes to defeat them at the polls when next they stand for re-election.

A couple of these senators, like Joe Lieberman and James Webb will not be moved by the prospect of losing their Senate seat but they will be very careful before sacrificing their honorable records to help President Obama achieve a political win that destroys Medicare.  Webb especially has built a record of fiery populism that would be laughable if he joins in a jam down that protects trial lawyers with seven figure annual incomes while dramatically cutting back on health care for seniors.  Joe Lieberman knows what the bill will really do to seniors.  Together these two can stop the whole charade right now.  Encourage them to do so.

The rest will care about their jobs, and especially Blanche Lincoln and Evan Bayh who face the public in Arkansas and Indiana in a year.  If either votes for cloture, she or he or both of them will be the face of Obamacare at the polls.

Each of these senators needs to hear fromthousands and tens of thousands and indeed hundreds of thousands of Americans that we know a yes on cloture means yes on Obamacare and will assess their records accordingly.  

Arkansas

Sen. Blanche Lincoln

DC Phone: (202) 224-4843

Local Phone: Dumas (870) 382-1023, Fayetteville (479) 251-1224, Little Rock (501) 375-2993, Jonesboro (870) 910-6896, Texarkana (870) 774-3106

Link to E-mail 

Sen. Mark Pryor

DC Phone: (202) 224-2353

Local Phone: Little Rock (501) 324-6336

Link to E-mail 

Connecticut

Sen. Joe Lieberman

DC Phone: (202) 224-4041

Local Phone: (860) 549-8463

Link to E-mail 

Florida

Sen. Bill Nelson

DC Phone: (202) 224-5274

Local Phone: Orlando (407) 872-7161, Miami-Dade (305) 536-5999, Tampa (813) 225-7040, West Palm Beach (561) 514-0189, Tallahassee (850) 942-8415, Jacksonville (904) 346-4500, Broward (954) 693-4851, Fort Meyers (239) 334-7760

Link to E-mail 

Indiana

Sen. Evan Bayh

DC Phone: (202) 224-5623

Local Phone: Evansville (812) 465-6500, Fort Wayne (260) 426-3151, Hammond (219) 852-2763, Indianapolis (317) 554-0750, Jeffersonville (812) 218-2317, Southbend (574) 236-8302

Link to E-mail

Louisiana

Sen. Mary Landrieu

DC Phone: (202) 224-5824

Local Phone: Baton Rouge (225) 389-0395, Lake Charles (337) 436-6650, New Orleans (504) 589-2427, Shreveport (318) 676-3085

Link to E-mail 

Montana

Sen. Jon Tester

DC Phone: (202) 224-2644

Local Phone: Billings (406) 252-0550, Bozeman (406) 586-4450, Butte (406) 723-3277, Glendive (406) 365-2391, Great Falls (406) 452-9585, Helena (406) 449-5401, Kalispell (406) 257-3360, Missoula (406) 728-3003

Link to E-mail 

Nebraska

Sen. Ben Nelson

DC Phone: (202) 224-6551

Local Phone: Omaha (402) 391-3411, Lincoln (402) 441-4600, Scottsbluff (308) 631-7614, Kearney (308) 293-5818, South Sioux City (402) 209-3595

Link to E-mail 

North Dakota

Sen. Kent Conrad

DC Phone: (202) 224-2043

Local Phone: Bismarck (701) 258-4648, Fargo (701) 232-8030, Grand Forks (701) 775-9601, Minot (701) 852-0703

Link to E-mail



Sen. Byron Dorgan

DC Phone: (202) 224-2551

Local Phone: Bismarck (701) 250-4618, Fargo (701) 239-5389, Minot (701) 852-0703, Grand Forks (701) 746-8972

Link to E-mail 

South Dakota

Sen. Tim Johnson

DC Phone: (202) 224-5842

Local Phone: Aberdeen (605) 226-3440, Sioux Falls (605) 332-8896, Rapid City (605) 341-3990

Link to E-mail 

Virginia

Sen. James Webb

(202) 224-4024
1-866-507-1570

Link to E-mail.


West Virginia

Sen. Robert C. Byrd

DC Phone: (202) 224-3954

Local Phone: Charlestown (304) 342-5855, Eastern Panhandle (304) 264-4626

Link to E-mail 






Wednesday, October 07, 2009
New Jersey Independent Gubernatorial Candidate Chris Daggett Sees No Corruption In The Corzine Administration He Wants To Replace
Posted by: Duane R. Patterson at 8:03 PM
From the first hour of the Wednesday Hugh Hewitt Show. The audio can be heard by clicking here, and the transcript follows:

HH: I begin with a focus on New Jersey, the Garden State, which will elect a governor in four weeks. One of the men who would be governor is independent candidate Chris Daggett. He joins me now. Mr. Daggett, welcome to the program.  

CD: Good morning or afternoon or evening. How are you today?

HH: I’m great. Are you a Phillies fan by chance?

CD: I’m not a Phillies fan, although for the National League, sure, at this point, possibly. But ultimately, I’ve been a Yankees fan.

HH: Okay, so I just was checking, because the Phillies won today. I thought maybe you’d be a little bit of a celebration going on…

CD: Oh absolutely. That’s a good thing.

HH: All right. Now Chris Daggett, is Jon Corzine, the governor of New Jersey, corrupt, or is he merely incompetent?

CD: Jon Corzine’s not corrupt, but I believe that he hasn’t done a good job as governor, and frankly, I’ve come to the belief that neither party is capable of stepping up to and addressing the problems that face New Jersey, and that’s why I’ve run as an independent.

HH: Jon Corzine is not corrupt?

CD: No, he’s not corrupt.

HH: What about his relationship with Carla Katz?

CD: That…I don’t, frankly, I don’t go and comment on that, because that’s, whatever it is that he’s established, that’s a private matter, and I leave it at that.

HH: Is it a private matter when she’s the head of the communications workers union, and he negotiates a contract with her, and she’s his girlfriend? Is that a private matter?

CD: Well, it was certainly inappropriate to not make that a clearer break in terms of either properly disclosing it, or otherwise not having the interaction he had during the labor negotiations. But the relationship side of it is private.

HH: Yeah, but corrupt goes beyond whether or not a relationship is going on. Some people think that kind of relationship is corrupt, but I’m talking about the bargaining situation. Is it corrupt to deal with your girlfriend when she’s running a union?

CD: I wouldn’t call it corrupt. I’d call it inappropriate, but I wouldn’t call it corrupt.

HH: What’s the difference?

CD: I’ll let your listeners figure that out, but I don’t think it’s corruption. I think people do things that sometimes are bad judgments that just doesn’t make them corrupt. He’s not a corrupt man.

HH: But you want to run the state of New Jersey, and the need to know what the difference is, and I’m on in New Jersey, all across the state, what the difference between inappropriate and corrupt is. Would you ever negotiate with someone with whom you were having a private relationship?

CD: No, and that’s why I said to you it’s inappropriate, but it’s not corrupt.

HH: Have a number of Corzine’s people in his administration done corrupt things?

CD: No, I don’t think…there’s not a lot of corruption in the Corzine administration. We’ve had a difficulty in New Jersey of, we have what I think people refer to at times as a culture of corruption only born of the layers in government we have. But I think ultimately, our goal is to change this to a culture of service rather than a culture of corruption. I think by and large, most of the people that are in government in New Jersey, actually, the overwhelmingly large number of them are hard-working, honest individuals.

HH: Have any members of the Corzine administration been obliged to resign because of corruption?

CD: No, not…well, of the Corzine administration, no. One commissioner stepped down who was actually not charged with anything, but there was an investigation that occurred of other people, and he was asked for information about it, but was never, no charges were filed, and have not been filed since. But he, out of the belief that he should step down, did.

HH: So Chris Daggett, you want to be governor, but you don’t see any corruption in the Corzine years?

CD: No, I wouldn’t say there’s corruption, not in terms of breaking the law. And have people in local government crossed a line and are now under investigation, and have been, are now subject to charges and having to respond to those charges? Yes. But they’re not members of his administration.

HH: Is Jon Corzine responsible for any of that?

CD: No, I don’t believe he’s responsible for any of that. I mean, I’m not sure why he’d necessarily be responsible for somebody else’s transgressions.

HH: And at what point, last question on this subject, at what point would a relationship with someone like Carla Katz become corrupt in your view? What would have to happen for that to be labeled corrupt in your view?

CD: They’d have to break a law, or have to cross the line in a manner that was illegal. What he did might be inappropriate, but I don’t believe anybody’s made the allegation that it was an illegal act.

HH: Now I didn’t say illegal. I asked corrupt. And so you’re defining corrupt as illegal and nothing else?

CD: Yeah, I’m defining as crossing a line. Maybe that’s where we’re having a problem here of defining it. I’m not sure I’d define corrupt. And there are certainly inappropriate activities that people enter into that aren’t in what I’d define as corrupt, and that’s why I guess I’m defining it the way I am. Do I have problems with his administration and whether he’s been an ineffective governor? I have a lot, because, and that’s why I’ve run for governor, but it is not really on a line associated with corruption. It’s more to do with not being willing to step up to and address the very serious fiscal problems that face this state.

HH: Now you’ve got me curious, though. If there’s an area of corruption that’s not illegal, so you’re saying you can do things that are corrupt that are not illegal?

CD: Wow, we’re really getting into a definition of corruption here, huh?

HH: I think it matters in New Jersey.

CD: Pardon me?

HH: I think it matters in New Jersey.

CD: No, here’s what matters, I believe, and that is a number of people who have figured out how to game the pension system and the health care benefits system, and to effectively get on the public payroll in some fashion in a manner that is all within the law, but certainly is what you and I would consider inappropriate or corrupt or wrong, but it’s not in the sense, but it’s what I call corruption, there’s the corruption that occurs that breaks the law, and then there’s the corruption that occurs under the cover of law. And that kind of corruption is when people knowingly game the system to become part of it when they don’t, they really haven’t earned it or shouldn’t be part of it.

HH: And Jon Corzine hasn’t done, has Jon Corzine done any of that latter type?

CD: No, not in the sense that I don’t think he’s done any of that kind of thing, where he’s done things under the cover of law. He’s done something that I thing was inappropriate in negotiating union contracts, and having conversations with his girlfriend. But that doesn’t make him corrupt in the way that I think you’ve been defining here. So no, I don’t think he’s corrupt.

HH: All right, now you are, anywhere in the polls, you’re the independent candidate, you’re between 5 and 13% in the polls. There’s no way you can win.

CD: I just had a poll yesterday, there’s a poll yesterday that came out that had me at 17%.

HH: Well, all the polls that are published that I have been able to see, and I haven’t seen that one, have you between 5 and 13%. There’s no way you can win – none – zero. Why should someone vote for you and waste their vote?

CD: That’s not a wasted vote. The only wasted vote in New Jersey this year is a vote for politics as usual for either Democrats or Republicans to take over when they have demonstrated over the last fifteen years that they have only put us into a deep, fiscal hole through their irresponsible policies. And a vote for either party this year is a vote for the same old thing, and a wasted vote, in my mind. And I do not…

HH: But Chris Daggett…

CD: I don’t agree with you that I don’t have a chance of winning.

HH: Chris, no filibuster.

CD: I’m going to win this election.

HH: You can’t win. There’s no way you can win.

CD: I’m not…what makes you tell me I can’t win? That’s…

HH: Because every single poll indicia out of New Jersey puts you at 12-13%. Even if you have gone up to 17% in a poll that no one has seen, you cannot get to 34% with the other two at 33%. It’s a joke. Why should people vote for you?

CD: Just because you haven’t seen the poll doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. There was a poll yesterday that came out through…that had me at 17%.

HH: Okay, so 17%. You’re still 17…you have to double it.

CD: And I need, I only, in a tight race, I need to get to probably 34%, somewhere in there.

HH: Yeah, and…

CD: And this is a very volatile, a political climate where the support for both Jon Corzine and Chris Christie is very soft. Most of the vote is against one or the other. So I’m…

HH: Chris Daggett, is there one major pundit in America that thinks you can win? One?

CD: Pardon me?

HH: Is there one major political observer in New Jersey or New York or Connecticut or Pennsylvania or the national media who has said in print that you can win? One?

CD: Well, you know, I haven’t read all the stuff across the country.

HH: Oh, come on, Chris.

CD: Well, you know, I mean, it’s your opinion versus mine.

HH: No, I’m asking you to tell me. Who thinks you can win except your mom?

CD: I do, and a lot of people who support me do, and a lot of people that are going to vote for me think I can win.

HH: Who has written that down?

CD: Pardon me?

HH: Who has put that…which objective political observer has written that down anywhere?

CD: It’s four weeks out. Let’s see what happens. Why don’t we see what happens.

HH: Well, people start to vote.

CD:  I’m not, I don’t live my life by so-called objective political observers, because frankly, most political observers that I run into aren’t very objective.

HH: Are they corrupt?

CD: They have an axe to grind either on the conservative Republican side or the liberal Democratic side, or whatever it happens to be. But they clearly aren’t objective.

HH: Is that corrupt?  Chris Daggett, is that corrupt, or merely inappropriate?

CD: Pardon me?

HH: Is a projecting that you can’t win corrupt, inappropriate, or is it just someone doing their job?

CD: No, it’s none of the above. It’s wrong. It’s their opinion, it’s a person’s opinions versus my opinion, and the opinion of many of my supporters who are working day and night to prove that your assumption is wrong.

HH: All right, Chris Daggett, come back next week, we’ll talk to you again. Every week, once a week, I’ll be happy to, because frankly, you cannot win, and I cannot understand…

CD: I’m sorry, but I disagree with you.

HH: I know you do, but I just don’t want to con the voters of New Jersey. On this show, truth matters. Corzine can win, Christie can win, you can’t win.

End of interview.



 






Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Because The Sacramento Bee Isn't Really Journalism
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:22 AM
In a deeply flawed "chronology" of events concerning its deeply flawed story about Meg Whitman's voting record, the Sacramento Bee leaves out my post detailing the errors in its story, but doesn't mention must less invite its own readers to listen to its own editor Amy Chance discuss the story with me.

Another example of great "reporting" by the very courageous Bee.  No wonder newspapers come in two categories --dead and dying.  The Bee ran a hit piece pretending to be a story, got caught, and won't tell its readers the truth about what happened or own its errors. 

As though every single person who cares about the story to begin with doesn't already know what happened.  BTW:  Still waiting on the promised call back from Amy with the names of who Andrew McIntosh allegedly talked to in the three "offices" he quotes in his original story.




Tuesday, October 06, 2009
The Latest From Bear In The Woods
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:52 AM
Our favorite anonymous ad exec has come out of his cave with not one, but two emails. 

Number one:

Hugh:

It's been quite awhile since I've written anything here.   Like most ad agencies -- most businesses, actually --  we're doing more with less these days, and that translates into longer hours, more weekends, and less time for stuff that isn't directly related to clients.  But just because I haven't written doesn't mean I haven't been paying attention.  I hardly need to point out that a lot is happening all at once on the political/marketing/communications front.  But I do want to comment on an opportunity or two I see, that I hope the GOP will take advantage of.  I'm still reachable at bearinthewoods84@gmail.com

So, let's talk user-generated content.  That's a fancy social media term that obviously refers to regular folks making their own stuff.  In the political world it boils down to grassroots communicatons.  We've seen a ton of it, in the form of Tea Party signs and slogans, townhall banners and speech, the online efforts to encourage folks to participate, and a number of videos documenting townhall activity that have found their audience on YouTube, and expanded that audience on air.  To say the impact has been great is an understatement.   Most of the momentum is fueled by the issues themselves -- there are, simply put, an awful lot of people who are passionately opposed to big government, huge deficits, and a government-run healthcare/energy/auto-manufacturing system.  They feel they have no one to speak for them, or that spokespeople (or organizations) are ineffective, so they have taken it upon themselves to make their own signs and videos and get them up for the world to see. 

I've heard many on the Right point out the failure to the Left's big-budget efforts to support Obamacare, compared to the grassroots communications of conservatives and libertarians, and come to the conclusion that high level marketing is ultimately a waste.  This is a dangerous position.

The Left's executions are failing not because they're slick and well-produced.  They're failing because the messages they're delivering are hollow at best, and at worse, outright falsehoods.  The creators of the messages are committing one of the cardinal sins of advertising -- they're underestimating the intelligence of their audience.  In short, they're trying to sell something people don't want.  No amount of media, and not even the best creative on the planet, can do that. What we're seeing is a rejection of the message. 

But we're also seeing an opportunity to galvanize the conservative side.  And the right creative strategy can help.

This is a strong grassroots movement.  But all movements -- like all messaging campaigns --need both leadership and focus to weather setbacks, and have greater impact.  Focused messages are stronger messages.  And people of like mind tend to rally, sometimes for different reasons, around broad common themes. 

Don't believe me?  Quick -- besides the US Flag, what's the most common banner seen at the Tea Parties?  If you answered "Don't Tread On Me"  (the yellow Gadsden Flag, or, for the nonconformists, the white Culpepper Flag) you'd be correct.  Symbolically, the rattlesnake image, and the "Don't Tread on Me" message resonate with a broad swath of the people who believe in limited government, and who now believe our current government has far overstepped its bounds.  The flags represent a broad umbrella theme that can accommodate specific issues, whether it's healthcare, cap and trade, the bailout, gun control, or school indoctrination, and oppose it under a unifying banner that simply speaks to a desire for liberty.  People in the grassroots movement carry the banner because it speaks to so many of them on so many levels.  I'm not suggesting that the GOP adopt the Culpepper flag.  But I am suggesting they take a lesson from it.

Number two:

I've been following the story of the infamous NEA conference call, over at Big Hollywood and Big Government. 

In short, it seems the White House, via the NEA, sought to recruit influential artists and creators to produce art that promotes White House policies.  At issue, of course, is the use of a government entity for political purposes -- which, of course, is illegal.  But also at issue is the very thought of government-sponsored art promoting, well, the government.  Which is something we're accustomed to seeing in countries that are more socialist than one would think even the current administration would have us be.  Then again, maybe not.  I, like most conservatives who have followed the story, am appalled by this administration's apparent misuse of government-funded organizations for political purposes.

But I'm not surprised.  Nor do I think anyone should be.  This White House is very good at campaigning.  Which is why it has attempted to stay in continuous campaign mode throughout its brief history.  Apparently, governing doesn't come naturally to them, but campaigning is a natural state of being for this administration, and it's only natural that they should seek the help of those who helped them so much in their pre-election campaign.

What's interesting to me, though, is that the reaction I'm reading from a lot of conservative circles can be paraphrased along the lines of, "this is a misuse of art."  Hogwash.  Political purposes are not only a fantastic use of art, they are quite possibly the most common use of art.  Instead, this is a misuse of a government-funded entity -- art has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

What art does have to do with, though, is emotion.  And persuasion.  And communication.  These are points that the Democrats have recognized for more than two generations, and have employed to their advantage to create profound shifts in our society.  Mostly negative shifts, in my personal opinion, but very real shifts, nonetheless.  While conservative arguments ring logical and true, they too often are presented with nothing but logic.  And while logic may engage the intellect, it's emotion that spurs action.  Art -- visual, performance, verbal, cinematic -- creates emotion.  Art is important to a message.  Art helps win minds.  Art is powerful.  The Democrats understand this.  They understand it so well that they, apparently, will risk breaking federal law to engage the power of art for their side.

Fighting them in the courts will only address the legal issues of use of government funds, and ultimately will only get us so far.  Fighting fire with fire means we must understand the importance of fighting art -- with art.

bearinthewoods84@gmail.com








Monday, October 05, 2009
The Poizner Contributions to Democrats
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 10:05 PM
Among the questions I posed to Meg Whitman's campaign over the weekend in connection with my review of the Sacramento Bee "story" --read and listen to the details below-- I asked if the former eBay CEO had contributed to Barbara Boxer's first two U.S. Senate campaigns and the answer from her campaign was no, and that 94% of her contributions had gone to Republicans, a higher percentage than Steve Poizner's.

I asked the Poizner campaign for a response and got two e-mails from Press Secretary Jarrod Agen.  The first:



Steve’s contributions to Republicans is over 91%, without including more than $3.5 million that Steve has given to conservative propositions in California. 

     Poizner Contributed $2.3 Million To The Campaign Against The Nunez-Perata-Backed Proposition 93. (California Secretary Of State Website, dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/, Accessed 10/5/09)

        Poizner Contributed $1.25 Million For The Proposition 77 Redistricting Campaign In 2005. (California Secretary Of State Website, dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/, Accessed 10/5/09)



I followed up and inquired about where the 9% had gone, and got this response:

Steve attended two Gore fundraisers with his wife, who is a Democrat, in 2000.  Those events accounted for $1k to Gore and $10k to the DNC. 

Steve’s wife also wanted to give to the 2000 recount, so Steve made a $10K contribution to the recount in 2000 from their joint checking account. 

Finally, in February of 2001, Steve and his wife attended an event for Kerry’s Senate campaign which accounts for $2k.


So the front-runners for the GOP nomination have both contributed to high profile Democrats.  Fine.

Which one is more electable and which one is more likely to push for and achieve the fundamental reforms that Arnold failed to secure and without which the Golden State is sunk?






Monday, October 05, 2009
What Happens When The Sacramento Bee Editor Doesn't Edit
Posted by: Duane R. Patterson at 7:38 PM
Hugh tried to ask some questions in follow up to this Sacramento Bee hit story and post from the story's author, Andrew McIntosh, and was immediately kicked upstairs to Amy Chance, the editor who approved the story.

Here is the audio of that interview.

10-05Hewitt-Chance






Monday, October 05, 2009
Fun With "Journalists": Sacramento Bee Edition
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 5:06 PM

My eyebrows arched when I read  Andrew McIntosh’s September 24 Sacramento Bee article on former eBay CEO-turned candidate for California governor Meg Whitman and her spotty voting record.  I have interviewed Whitman on air a couple of times and knew she wasn’t particularly active in politics until she threw herself into Mitt Romney’s and then John McCain’s presidential campaigns in 2008.  She had made a point of telling audiences that her record of voting in elections had been awful while apologizing for that fact, and so a newspaper report detailing how often she had failed to vote was to be expected.  Sure enough McIntosh’s account led with the fact that Whitman had skipped California’s famously crazy recall election in 2003, passing by the opportunity to vote for Arnold, Arianna Huffington, Gary Coleman, or any of the other 132 candidates from that interesting episode in Golden State political history.  McIntosh’s story went on to leave the impression that Whitman had never bothered to register or vote anywhere until 2002.

Two things stood out in the McIntosh piece that raised very red flags.  Those flags got bright red indeed when I called McIntosh this morning and he wouldn’t answer any questions about the piece. “We are not going to discuss sources on any story,” he huffed, and then sent me on to his editor Amy Chance. When I got Chance on the phone and asked some very basic questions about the article, she became very defensive, demanded to know if I had gotten my information from the Whitman campaign, and then after objecting that I had called her cold, told me she needed to get back to a meeting and hung up on me.  I’ll play the interview on today’s program.

To the red flags.

First, the “expert” McIntosh quotes to assess Whitman’s record is University of California, Irvine Professor Mark Petracca.  Mark’s been a friend of mine for 20 years, and he’s to the left of President Obama and a long time Democratic activist.  Asking Mark for an opinion on the significance of Whitman’s voting record is like quoting me and only me in a Bee story on Gavin Newsome’s temperament or Jerry Brown’s record on prisoner release litigation.

That’s the kind of signal that led me to read the piece very carefully indeed.

Even a modest level of attention should draw a reader’s eyes to this non-attributed assertion:  “The San Francisco County elections office no longer retains records prior to 1992, but said that had she been registered and voting, her registration information would have been transferred to the current system.  They have no record of her registration.” (My emphasis.)

“Offices” don’t make statements, people do, and no individual is quoted here. This is especially odd as voting data is not controversial, and such government offices routinely designate individuals to deal with press inquiries –individuals who can be quoted and whose quotes can be checked.  These are public records after all --not state secrets.

The lack of a specific source is the sort of glaring omission that should have drawn an editor’s attention, but the Bee is rapidly losing altitude, and editors demanding that basic standards of old school journalism be upheld are probably in short supply and stretched too thin.  Even with the thinnest of staffing, however, purposeful vagueness on such a key point combined with the convenient use of Petracca as the “expert” who condemned Whitman should have sounded alarms for editors and certainly for any reader with any background in the Bee’s long-standing habit of doing its best to bleed strong GOP candidates.  Chance told me she was very confident of McIntosh’s sources, but wouldn't’t give me even the name of one official McIntosh had spoken with in San francisco, the Ohio state office or Hamilton County –even though all are public offices charged with providing information to the public!

Sure enough, the “San Francisco County elections office” is staffed by real people, and one of them, Jocelyn Wong –the “Campaign Services Coordinator”—had previously responded to a request for registration information on such high profile San Francisco residents as Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi with a letter that states that “there is no registration records kept prior to 1992 kept by the Department.” (sic).  

“Please also keep in mind that our database can only account for the voting history of voters from 1992 to the present since the Department switched databases that year,” Ms. Wong added.

Should McIntosh have provided such useful background to his story?  After all, if the San Francisco Department of Elections cannot confirm the voting records of the Speaker of the House and the former-mayor of the city and now U.S. Senator, how certain could McIntosh’s source be about Whitman’s voting history –if he really had a source within the Department?  Since the information Ms. Wong provided undercuts McIntosh’s central thesis that an inference can be drawn from the lack of registration data on Whitman and since Wong is willing to be on the record as opposed to the unnamed source McIntosh relied on, the possibility is real that McIntosh was played by someone who fed him a false line on the degree of certainty with which he could write his story.  And though in our conversation Chance at first tries to argue to me that the Bee story leaves the question open as to whether Whitman voted or not, it clearly does not and intends for the reader to conclude that she didn’t vote while in San Francisco. 

McIntosh used other assertions that have the appearance but not the reality of in-depth research and serious sourcing.  After noting that Whitman lived in Ohio from 1979 to 1981 after graduating from Harvard, McIntosh wrote that
“[n]either Ohio State elections officials nor Hamilton County Board of Election officials found a record of Whitman registering or voting there.”

This is yet another odd, even purposefully misleading construction.  “Joe Jones wasn’t registered” would be a direct response to a direct question, and such a statement from a Buckeye public official should come with a name attached.  Again, these sort of questions are not the stuff that causes government employees to run for cover.  These are public records.

I e-mailed Whitman campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds about the story.  He produced a letter from Hamilton County’s Board of Elections’ Registration Clerk Jean Beirise stating unequivocally that Meg Whitman was registered in the county from April of 1980 through December of 1982, when her registration was canceled and stamped “MOVED OUT OF THE COUNTY.”

“Ohio election officials had confirmed in writing that Meg Whitman had registered in Hamilton County, Ohio while living there,” Bounds succinctly noted.

I pressed Bounds for any other errors in the Bee report, and while Bounds repeated again and again that Whitman makes no excuses for her spotty voting record, the Bee had missed evidence of her 1999 registration in Santa Clara County in addition to the error concerning Ohio and the misleading account concerning San Francisco’s records.

As you will hear when I play the interview today, Chance has no answer to my questions on sources but instead demands that I fax her the letter from the Jean Beirese.  She also wanted to know if I got it from the Whitman campaign, as though that changes anything about the haphazard job her reporter did of checking the Ohio records.

The Bee story is a poorly sourced and very sloppy example either of agenda journalism or of lazy journalism, if you want to call it journalism at all.  It conveys a level of certainty that is not deserved with a breathless sensationalism we’ve come to expect from the legacy media when in hunter-gatherer mode vis-?-vis Republicans.  According to Bounds, Whitman actually recalls voting for Reagan in 1984 and George H.W. Bush in 1988, and she contributed to both of the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush, was part of the “Innovators for Bush” 2004 committee, and of course was a high-profile proponent first of Mitt Romney’s and then John McCain’s 2008 presidential bids.  An honest assessment of Whitman’s voting record would have begun with what she has done in politics in the past few years and then accurately contrasted that record with her recollections of participation in the past, and perhaps have pointed out that the dismal state of San Francisco City and County voting operations precluded confirming her memories.  Even a rookie reporter would have buttressed the Ohio falsehood with a named source to protect his paper’s reputation against even a cursory fact check.  Such an accurate report on the facts of Whitman’s political record isn’t nearly as attention-grabbing as what McIntosh wrote and what his editors approved. Instead McIntosh rolled out a hit piece that no doubt will surface again and again in attacks on Whitman from her primary opponents.

I also asked Bounds about the Whitman 2003 campaign contribution to Barbara Boxer, and whether Whitman had contributed to Boxer’s campaigns in 1996 and 1990.

“No,” he responded.  “As it has been reported in several news sources dating back to 2003, as CEO of eBay Meg joined other Republicans and Barbara Boxer to fight against internet taxes.  This decision was good for Silicon Valley, good for eBay and good for Californians.  Meg only contributed to [Boxer’s] 2004 re-election campaign and 94-percent of her contributions have gone to Republicans, a significantly higher percentage than Steve Poizner.”

I haven’t yet asked the Poizner campaign for a response on that last assertion, but will.  I have had both Poizner and Whitman on the program, and will have them both back as well as former Congressman Tom Campbell as well.  May the best GOP candidate win.

I am certain, however, that Republican voters ought not to trust reporting from the Sacramento Bee when making the decision on which is the best candidate.  The refusal of Andrew McIntosh to answer any questions and of Amy Chance to take the opportunity to discuss the story in length, in a calm, measured, non-combative fashion and to answer obvious questions  tells you everything you need to know about the Bee’s standards of reporting.  When a newspaper screws up this badly on what it trumpets as an important story, you shouldn’t trust a word it writes on the candidate it attempted to smear for the duration of the race.












Monday, October 05, 2009
BookTV and Peter Slen
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 10:54 AM
Back in California after yesterday's three hour, live interview on BookTV's "In Depth" with BookTV's executive producer Peter Slen.  Slen and his colleagues are extraordinary professionals who do great things for the world of books and authors, and Peter is a wonderful interviewer as well.  The program can be seen here, and will air again next Saturday at 9 AM.

C-SPAN's extraordinary series on the Supreme Court is a truly unique view inside the nation's highest court, and includes interviews with every single living justice, sitting and retired.  Check here for times and be sure to encourage anyone with an interest in the law to watch.



Your Blog Postings:
Last updated 3 Minutes 23 Seconds Ago
Last updated 3 Minutes 52 Seconds Ago
Last updated 11 Minutes 15 Seconds Ago
Last updated 42 Minutes 55 Seconds Ago
Last updated 43 Minutes 35 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

SJA
 Re: Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
  By Careful with that axe, Eugene
Val
 Re: Pelosi Scolds Pelosi: Not Giving 3 Days To Read A Bill Is An "Absolute Outrage"
  By Baradiel
Jo
 Re: GOP Congressman: If Healthcare Bill Is So Fabulous, Why Criminalize Those Who Want To Opt-Out?
  By Baradiel
Ultimately
 Re: Pro-Life Democrats Enabled Passage Of Health Care Bill
  By Rosemary
The 72 hour "rule"
 Re: Pelosi Scolds Pelosi: Not Giving 3 Days To Read A Bill Is An "Absolute Outrage"
  By DocForesight
Baradiel
 Re: Pelosi Scolds Pelosi: Not Giving 3 Days To Read A Bill Is An "Absolute Outrage"
  By NOTW
To:Wendy: Abortion "Rights"?
 Re: Pro-Life Democrats Enabled Passage Of Health Care Bill
  By Fabius Cunctator
Lonny's compassionate nature speaks:
 Re: Pro-Life Democrats Enabled Passage Of Health Care Bill
  By homer noble
Ryan
 Re: George W. Bush Secretly Visits Fort Hood
  By RonnaRonna
Baradiel
 Re: GOP Congressman: If Healthcare Bill Is So Fabulous, Why Criminalize Those Who Want To Opt-Out?
  By Jo
baradiel
 Re: Pelosi Scolds Pelosi: Not Giving 3 Days To Read A Bill Is An "Absolute Outrage"
  By Val
dreadnaught-sewer mouth
 Re: Obama Praises Congress; Confident Senate Will Pass Obamacare
  By Val
And for all you...
 Re: Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
  By Silverdrake
Val
 Re: Pelosi Scolds Pelosi: Not Giving 3 Days To Read A Bill Is An "Absolute Outrage"
  By Baradiel
Pressure
 Re: Obama Praises Congress; Confident Senate Will Pass Obamacare
  By Kenny Z
Pro Lifers help pass Public option?
 Re: Pro-Life Democrats Enabled Passage Of Health Care Bill
  By Chris
Seriously
 Re: Pelosi Scolds Pelosi: Not Giving 3 Days To Read A Bill Is An "Absolute Outrage"
  By Baradiel
Oh, Val, you happy dreamer
 Re: Obama Praises Congress; Confident Senate Will Pass Obamacare
  By Laura61
The dems are dead
 Re: House Passes PelosiCare
  By Peter
mimi/Seadog
 Re: Durbin: Obamacare Eliminates Pre-Existing Conditions Like Teenage "Headaches" & "Acne"
  By Chris

The Latest on Town HallThe Latest on Town Hall


Blog Roll Blog Roll