Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS      
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!

Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Signs, Signs, Agitprop Signs ...
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 4:54 PM
MKH's post (featuring the banner with Obama's mug on it) got me thinking.  You know those Obama posters?  They scare me.  

poster3.png picture by MattLewis01

Other countries love posters with people's faces on them.  They parade them around at rallies and marches.  It smacks of fascism.  That's not our style. Give me a good ol' sign with someone's name on it, any day, but the pictures of faces ... I can do without.

Cane.jpg picture by MattLewis01

Another thing about it.  It's unabashadly the cult of personality (like Mussolini and Kennedy).  It's the epitome of symbolism over substance.  It's the kind of stuff that punk-ass kids would put on a tee-shirt ...

ernesto-che-guevara450x-1.gif picture by MattLewis01

I'm not even crazy about the Uncle Sam "I want you!" posters -- but at least Uncle Sam is fictional.  The thought of glorifying the image of a political leader just rubs me the wrong way.

... Apparently, I'm not the only one who feels this way.  I found this LA Times column of interest:

"The Obama poster has spread Fairey's fame, but is the image good for the candidate? Like the photograph-turned-icon of Che Guevara -- which graces the T-shirts of countless hipsters who barely know who the guy is -- Fairey's Obama poster is rooted in the graphic style of agitprop. There's an unequivocal sense of idol worship about the image, a half-artsy, half-creepy genuflection that suggests the subject is (a) a Third World dictator whose rule is enmeshed in a seductive cult of personality; (b) a controversial American figure who's been assassinated; or (c) one of those people from a Warhol silk-screen that you don't recognize but assume to be important in an abstruse way.

This cannot be the Obama campaign's idea of good public relations, I find myself thinking as I stare at one of the ubiquitous Fairey posters while waiting for my soy chai latte. It's just too bohemian and too vulnerable to misinterpretation, too much the visual equivalent of your parents smelling incense and thinking it must be pot."





Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Feel-Good Link of the Day
Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 4:43 PM
The U.S. Marine Corps exceeds its recruiting goals by 42 percent, and the San Francisco Chronicle must report on it.

Tee hee. I hope these guys took the news in stride.





Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Obama Could Not Be Clearer About His Israel Stance
Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 4:25 PM

It says something about Obama's stance that the very statement meant to make his position crystal clear, delivered by his own representative on Jewish issues, is one of the more clumsy, opaque, convoluted sentences of the entire campaign:
“We’re going to continue to keep making this case with initiatives to make it clear that his support for Israel could not be more unequivocal,” Mr. Wexler said.
Got it. All clear now that I've diagrammed the sentence.

As is the case with all things Obama, I think he's being deliberately vague to allow for maximum interpretations and minimum consequences. This tendency got him into trouble in his interview on Israel with "The Atlantic:"

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America's reputation overseas?

BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I'm not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that's the safest ground politically.

Obama's advisers have since stated that the "wound" of which he speaks is clearly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and not Israel itself. That interpretation is only marginally better for Obama, in my mind, but the tactic is undoubtedly helpful for him.

Credulous news organizations like the NYT will report that Obama's making all the right moves, and valiantly assuring Jewish voters of his staunchly pro-Israel stance in the face of relentlessly unfair GOP attacks on irrelevant associations and misinterpreted statements.

Gaza phonebankers will assume his outreach is posturing and read the very real signals of his associations, staff, and comments as proof that Gaza GOTV should kick into overdrive.

A deliberately blank canvas makes a dangerous presidential candidate, and the problem with Obama's pro-Israel stance persists-- it's anything but clear.

(You know what? I blame the staff!)





Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Mountain Mama in 2012 ...
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 4:18 PM
I was back on MSNBC this afternoon with Contessa Brewer, talking about West Virginia -- and Hillary's 2012 chances ...







Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Are We Better Off When The Democrats Are In Charge? Clearly Not.
Posted by: Tom DeLay at 3:56 PM
A Republican friend sent this e-mail to me and I thought it would serve as useful talking points for my friends at Townhall.com....

When the GOP last controlled both houses of Congress:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since Democrats took over Congress in 2006:
1) Consumer confidence plummet
ed;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar
ed to?over $3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

And on Taxes...

Verify this information at...
www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Taxes Under Clinton vs Taxes Under Bush

Clinton: Single making 30K - tax $8,400...
Bush: Single making 30K - tax $4,500

Clinton: Single making 50K - tax $14,000...
Bush: Single making 50K - tax $12,500

Clinton: Single making 75K - tax $23,250...
Bush: Single making 75K - tax $18,750

Clinton: Married making 60K - tax $16,800...
Bush: Married making 60K- tax $9,000

Clinton: Married making 75K - tax $21,000...
Bush: Married making 75K - tax $18,750

Clinton: Married making 125K - tax $38,750...
Bush: Married making 125K - tax $31,250

And it's important to note that both Democrat candidates will push to return to the higher tax rates!





Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Stickin': The Case for Jumping Ship
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 3:54 PM
When Carville's starting to hedge his bets, you know Hillary's in trouble ...

"I still hear some dogs barking,' Carville said, according to The State newspaper. 'I'm for Senator Clinton, but I think the great likelihood is that Obama will be the nominee."

"As soon as I determine when that is, I'll send him a check,' he added."





Tuesday, May 13, 2008
When Does Hillary's Leverage Run Out?
Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 3:50 PM

An open question to my fellow bloggers...

Obviously, she's been considerably bolstered in her dream to plow on by the revelation that fully 67 percent of Democratic voters wish her to plow on. Even among Obama voters, the number's in the 40s. Talk about some validation. I'm particularly amused by the fact that the American electorate continues to mystify the Washington punditry and media by not acting in the manner pundits prescribe for the Democratic Party. It mystifies Beltway types so much, in fact, that the defiance of Democratic voters is the lede in this story:
Pushing back against political punditry, more than six in 10 Democrats say there's no rush for Hillary Clinton to leave the presidential race – even as Barack Obama consolidates his support for the nomination and scores solidly in general-election tests.
"Why aren't they listening to us???" the media asks overtly and a little pathetically in this story.

The media turned the fire hose of negative commentary on Hillary post-Indiana and -N.C., as predicted, partly because they knew she'd fare well in Kentucky and particularly West, by God, Virginia, thereby extending the justification for her Veritably Mathematically Impossible, by God, Campaign. They hoped to make their criticisms, get the supers 'rats jumping off the ship, so to speak, and that the combination would impress upon her the need to leave the race.

Her plaudits for dropping out, from both the media and Obama, would have been great indeed had she done it pre-West Virginia, but the costs to her outweighed the benefits. Why quit while you're sorta-kinda ahead (in the ridiculous parlance of this ridiculous campaign, that is) for a couple days?

Now, she'll whoop up in W.V. and likely in Kentucky next week (she's leading by 25 percent), and her argument for her "broad coalition" will limp along despite the fact that Obama's superdelegate count is rising faster than the thrill up Chris Matthews' leg.

She'll lose in Oregon, which has 52 delegates to give, and she's trailing in South Dakota (June 3), but she's likely to take Montana and Puerto Rico, and she's leading her states by larger margins than Obama leads his.

Given how far she's come and the fact that there are only 21 days left until the end of primaries, period, at what point do the benefits of dropping out outweigh the benefits of staying in, and how's the Obama campaign gonna make it worth her while? Add to the scales the fact that Democratic voters are pretty pumped about getting to have a say in this process, and the people of the remaining few primary states would be disproportionately ticked by having their chances revoked at the very end of this improbable process, and you've got a very delicate situation. (Don't you love the way the Democrats devised this system?)

We're dealing with a pretty small window, here, in which she'll bolster her standing with a couple strong wins and he'll continue to scrape away at superdelegates, bolstering his own.

Perhaps Clinton just continues to rock on until June 3rd, then using the dual bargaining power of being both a potentially destructive annoyance to the party throughout the summer and the idea that the party owes her for having energized new voters and for her potential to keep blue-collar types within the ranks.

Does she settle on one of these bargaining chips-- either the diligent party servant or the dangerous candidate scorned? I think we all know which might suit her better.

And, at what point is her bargaining power greatest? Does she ever lose her leverage, or are the Clintons so powerful that regardless of her behavior, she's guaranteed a pay-out or a position at the end of all this? Thoughts, guys? The clock is a-tickin' on this thing. Just thinking out loud.







Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Gaza for Obama
Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 2:58 PM
Here's the video of the al-Jazeera report as a companion to AC's report:





Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Palestinians Phonebank for Obama
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 2:42 PM
I've got a story up HERE about the news segment Al Jazeera did about young Palestinians who are calling Americans at random to encourage them to vote for Barack Obama.

This is noteworthy, especially given what's happened over the past few days. One of Obama's Middle East advisers, Robert Malley, resigned over the weekend because reporters found he had met with the anti-Israel terrorist group, Hamas. And, Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said Hamas supports Obama in a radio interview on Sunday. 

My weekly newscast covered these ties between Obama and Hamas. It's HERE. In it, I also note Obama has expressed a willingness to meet with enemies of the U.S.-- signaling a diplomacy style similar to former President Jimmy Carter who met with Hamas earlier this year.







Tuesday, May 13, 2008
My Theory
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 1:57 PM
I don't usually make predictions, but I have a working theory why Hillary is staying in this thing.

I predict Hillary will soon begin making the case her candidacy has excited the Democratic base to register and vote in high numbers. Then, when Obama wins the Democratic nomination, he and all his supporters will  "owe" her. Not necessarily a VP slot, but more likely campaign cash to pay off her $20 million debts.






Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Where's the Bandwagon?
Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 12:31 PM

Numbers like these (reported here today in the New York Post) have to be worrying the Obama team:

[A] new poll says 64 percent of Democrats nationwide, want [Hillary] to stay in the race.

Even 42 percent of Obama's supporters in the ABC News/ Washington Post  poll, said they don't want Clinton to throw in the towel. . . . . 

Separate polls released yesterday show Clinton beating Obama in West Virginia, 60 percent to 24 percent, and in Kentucky, 58 percent to 31 percent.

If I were on the Obama campaign, I'd want to know why so many Democrats want Hillary to stay in.  It's one thing if they're just enjoying the excitement and coverage the race is generating -- quite another, however, if they want to keep their options open and not be locked in yet with Barack as their nominee.

As a more general matter, it's worrisome that Hillary Clinton is beating Barack so soundly in West Virginia and Kentucky.  Usually, when it becomes clear that one person is pretty certain to be the eventual winner, that person picks up support and electoral momentum because of a "bandwagon effect" -- most people want to go with a winner.  That's why so few campaigns or candidates are ever willing to admit that anything is less than great . . . they know such an admission can begin (or accelerate) a downard spiral for them.

Given all this, it's hard not to wonder:  Where's Barack's bandwagon, and what does it mean that he doesn't seem to have one?






Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Racism's Wrong; Opposition Is Not
Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 11:57 AM
The Washington Post details some ugly racist incidents reportedly being confronted by Obama volunteers (are its journalists suggesting that such invidious reasons explain Barack's forthcoming blow-out defeat in West Virginia?!).

These incidents are deplorable, awful and totally wrong.  Anyone who is refusing to vote for Barack Obama just because he's black is a racist, and should be ashamed.  (And how shocking to learn that this is going on in a Democratic primary . . . haven't we always been instructed that the Democrat Party is the party of the enlightened?!).

There's a lurking danger in these kinds of narratives, as well.  When stories like these go into wide circulation, it's a sure bet that some on the left are going to start asserting -- not that America is a great country with (unfortunately) some racists (all of which is true) -- but that America is a predominantly racist country with some great people (i.e., those who support Barack Obama).  If Barack loses in the fall, the USA will officially be labeled a racist country by many of its left-wing citizens.

Back in the realm of reality, it's the sad truth that there will probably be some people who won't vote for Barack just because of his skin color.  But there will be many, many more who oppose him because of his leftist policies and his radical associations. It's important to distinguish between the two.  And that's not just because it's wrong both to slander all GOP voters by calling them racists and to equate all opposition to Barack with racism per se.  It's also important for the sake of the candidate and the campaign itself that the distinction between policy opponents and invidious-motive opponents be grasped (as I noted here when Hillary Clinton supporters were crying "sexism!").

Finally, I've done my share of phoning and even a little door-to-door stuff in the past.  My candidates happened to be white males, but even then, some of the epithets were pretty ugly.  It would be interesting to know whether any of the people recounting these stories with evident shock and horror are campaign veterans, or first-timers who haven't been exposed to the rough and tumble of grassroots work.  Racist epithets are always unacceptable and wrong, but as campaign veterans can attest, at some point, unfortunately, some people will always resort to the ugliest kind of slurs, whether they're anti-female, anti-minority or anti-gay.




Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Bob Barr Talks to TH
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 11:45 AM
My interview with Libertarian Presidential candidate Bob Barr is up. 

(Click on the picture to view).

BARR.jpg picture by MattLewis01
(AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)






Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Pawlenty Jokes About Sex Life
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 11:00 AM
This sort of talk will definitely hurt Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty chances of getting McCain's VP slot. TMI!





Tuesday, May 13, 2008
"I Wasn't Flummoxed"
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 10:57 AM
Barack Obama is the least-prepared-to-be-president major presidential candidate in modern times.

The combination of naivete and arrogance in the interview he gave to the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg ought to stop every supporter of Israel in his or her tracks. Obama's "we don’t do nuance well in politics and especially don’t do it well on Middle East policy" is a huge red flare.  There isn't much nuance needed when terrorist organizations on Israel's northern and southern borders are proponents of the destruction of Israel.  "Nuance" when it comes to dealing with terrorists equals appeasement at best, surrender at worst.

John Hinderaker comments here.

Jennifer Rubin comments here and here.



FEATURES FEATURES

The Campbell Quiz

Posted by: John Campbell
5/16/2008

Nothing "False" About Bush Attack

Posted by: Michael Medved
5/15/2008

The Place to Discuss Our Fundamental Principles

Posted by: Fred Thompson
5/15/2008

Your Blog Postings:
Last updated 4 Minutes 53 Seconds Ago
Last updated 6 Minutes 43 Seconds Ago
Last updated 6 Minutes 59 Seconds Ago
Last updated 9 Minutes 39 Seconds Ago
Last updated 12 Minutes 37 Seconds Ago
 

Archives Archives

Blog Search



Townhall Blogs Townhall Blogs
Columns Columns
Your Blogs Your Blogs