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

Congressman John Campbell will be guest hosting today's edition of the Hugh Hewitt Show. The show will air from 3 pm to 6 pm PDT (6 pm - 9 pm EDT). During the broadcast a link to an internet simulcast can be found here.

Congratulations to the Media Research Center.  At last night's "DisHonors Awards," they celebrated their 20th anniversary!

First, the Honors:  Rush Limbaugh received the First Annual Buckley ward. 

But who was DisHonored the most?  Here's the "Winner" of the "God I Hate America Award."

Here are some of the past "winners."

Was any news made last night?  Michael Steele vowed to run for election again.

(David All and K-Lo have more on the night)...

I've heard of Draft Newt and Americans for Rice, but Draft Wilberforce may have them all beat. 

As their website says, Draft Wilberforce '08 is ...

... the movement to get eighteenth century British reformer William Wilberforce to lead America ... He has united people of all races, faiths and political beliefs with a new vision of leadership – marked by conviction, courage and the common good. Wilberforce leads with a spirit of civility and collaboration. From PETA to Focus on the Family, Americans are coming together to say “we need William Wilberforce today.”

Finally, a candidate who unites us!

The Washington Post reports:

If Fred Thompson, the one-time Tennessee senator better known to most Americans as district attorney Arthur Branch on "Law & Order," runs for president, some of his fans may be in for a letdown. Television stations are expected to drop reruns of the show temporarily if he makes a real-life bid for the White House.

Federal campaign law requires broadcasters to give all candidates equal time on the airwaves. That rule applies to entertainment programs like "Law & Order," meaning stations which run the show would be required to give other GOP candidates a like amount of prime time television exposure.

Reason 101 why Steve Forbes could prove to be a huge "get" for Rudy Giuliani.  This is from 1999:

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- The Union Leader newspaper endorsed Steve Forbes in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, saying he may not be charismatic, but he's no phony.

In an editorial to be published Friday, Publisher Joseph McQuaid said Forbes is the only candidate who displays "steady, intelligent, conservative leadership" who is "God-fearing, respectful of innocent life, and determined to restore a sense of decency to the White House."

"Steve Forbes is not charismatic. (Some would say he looks like a geek.) But he's also not a phony," the editorial said. "Ask him a question, you'll get a thoughtful answer, not a soundbite. He is one tough, smart customer who can be the strong, principled leader America needs."

By contrast, the paper said Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain "seem much more interested in what the news media say about them than in their own messages." ...

In 2000, Forbes was also endorsed by movement conservative giants like Phyllis Schlafly, Morton Blackwell, and Paul Weyrich. Townhall contributing editor Ken Blackwell also served as his National Chairman.

These are the same conservative leaders who (with the exception McCain's having endorsed Ken Blackwell's gubernatorial race -- in the primary), have tended to have a rocky relationship with John McCain (As I recently noted, McCain is seeking to bypass the filter of conservative leaders).

By securing Forbes' endorsement, could Rudy be similtaneously making a move in New Hampshire -- and making a play for the support of conservative leaders?

_____________________________________________

UPDATE: 5:30 PM

So why is Steve Forbes endorsing Rudy?  According to National Journal's On Call blog:  "Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney was not a lover of Steve Forbes's flat tax, and, as a "concerned citizen," took out ads in Boston, New Hampshire and Iowa in 1996 to send the publisher that message."

John McCain just launched a petition regarding the actions of the U.S. Senate last night.  Here's what it says:

· The supplemental appropriations bill that passed the Senate on March 27, calling for a date certain withdrawal from Iraq, is nothing more than a guaranteed date of surrender.

· It is a refusal to acknowledge the dire consequences of failure, in terms of the stability in the Middle East and the resulting impact on the security of all Americans, whether home or abroad.

· Democrats have chosen the politically expedient position of failure rather than putting aside the small politics of the day in the interest of our nation and the values upon which this nation rests.

· We the undersigned remain steadfast in our support for the war against terrorism and mindful of the consequences of failure in Iraq, even if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid refuse to acknowledge those consequences.

· We support our troops and the new strategy and believe it should be given the opportunity to succeed. American national security interests are directly at stake. Success or failure in Iraq is the transcendent issue for our foreign policy and our national security. People say they want to defeat the terrorists, but if we withdraw from Iraq prematurely, it will be the terrorists' greatest triumph.

· If we leave Iraq based on an artificial timetable, al Qaeda will be free to plan, train for and conduct operations from Iraq just as they did in Afghanistan before 9/11.

Signed, [YOUR NAME]

Several of our commenters are on the Duncan Hunter bandwagon.  Here's what I know about him:  He's a Congressman, a Veteran, and a candidate for president.  He's solid on the Life issue -- and Iraq, but he seems to be a bit protectionist.   He also has a pretty decent website. 

Here's your chance: Why should we support Duncan Hunter?

Upset by the $1.2 billion for dairy producers? 

As we continue to learn about all the pork the Democrats included in the recently-passed House bill, I wanted to remind you of Green Eyeshade Blog.

The blog, of course, is written by Rep. John Campbell, who chairs the RSC's Budget and Spending Taskforce.  He's also a CPA.

If you're interested in hearing the "insider" details on this bloated spending bill -- read Green Eyeshade Blog today!

Ryan Sager reports that Steve Forbes had endorced Rudy Giuliani.  As Sager writes, this is very big news, because:

... Steve Forbes is a figure quite popular with the economic conservative wing of the Republican Party. He's famous, as conservatives all know, for championing a flat tax in his 1996 presidential campaign. (Is this the direction Rudy's moving in?)

Second, Mr. Forbes, when he ran again in 2000, underwent a transformation to try to make himself into the "family values" candidate in that race. Much less economics, much more home economics. (Work with me here, folks.)

This morning, Sen. John McCain continued his outreach to the conservative blogosphere, by holding a conference call with bloggers.

Bloggers who asked questions, included: Erik Erickson of RedState, Rob Bluey of Heritage, Philip Klein and Jim Antle from The American Spectator, Kim Priestap of Wizbang, Ryan Sager of The New York Sun, Chris Stewart of Green Mountain Politics, James Joyner of Outside the Beltway, and Skip Murphy and Doug Lambert of GraniteGrok.

K-Lo and Soren Dayton also wrote about the call -- and David All "live blogged" it.

McCain spoke at length about the Democrats surrender strategy in Iraq. Among other interesting comments, he said:

- “Tom Coburn is the best thing that’s happened in the United States Senate in years."

- He does not think any restrictions should be placed on the blogosphere or the internet.

- He is happy with his campaign, but noted: “I’m unhappy with my performance with fundraising – which is my fault – because I hate to ask people for money.”

Oh the drama of the blogosphere ... Here's the latest spat:

Soren Dayton (who was on the bus with me in New Hampshire) has a post up in which he accuses MyManMitt of intentionally misquoting John McCain.

The quote in question comes from a video in which John McCain clearly says: "... I’d also like to point out that the courts have said that money is not free speech. Money is property."

(MyManMitt quotes McCain as having said: "Money is not free speech. Money is property.")

In my view, Soren is being too hard on MyManMitt. Yes, technically McCain was misquoted -- but not misrepresented.  It is clear that McCain agrees with the courts -- that's why he is quoting them. In my view, this is a matter of semantics (and not worth flaming somebody over). 

But that's not the end of it.  Soren goes on to add:

Just dishonest. Shameful. And this is not the first time. This is the way the Romney campaign — which MyManMitt (and Evangelicals for Mitt, also liars) is a talking mouth for — behaves.

Among other complaints, Soren also adds that Romney's team "lied about Sam Brownback."

But, as far as I can tell, Romney's team was correct about Brownback when they wrote: "When Brownback was elected to office that is when he also had a conversion and voted with the pro-life movement."

In fact, back in January, I wrote a piece detailing how Sam Brownback was once pro-Choice. My piece is well-sourced, and includes quotes from the former GOP Chairman, as well as the former director of development for Kansans for Life.

According to conventional wisdom, Rudy Giuliani leads most national polls (for the GOP nomination) precisely because Americans view him as the best candidate to keep us safe and secure.  But his campaign continues to do things that could ultimately undermine his terrific image and positioning:

Back in January, a 140-page document outlining Giuliani's presidential campaign strategy was either lost or pilfered.

And today, the AP reported that Rudy's website had, "... a dangerous design flaw that could have allowed hackers to expose personal information submitted by volunteers." (In a related story, John McCain's MySpace page was also hacked -- although it apparently did not pose any security concerns for users).

So why is this important?  Isn't this petty? 

If the way one conducts a political campaign can be seen as a microcosm for how one might govern, Rudy's inability to secure information (both physically and electronically), should be concerning.

It is hard to imagine a more important task for a president than the ability to keep secret plans secret.