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

Presidential spokesman Tony Snow is undergoing surgery Monday to remove a small growth in his lower abdomen, a procedure he said was being done "out of an aggressive sense of caution" because he had colon cancer two years ago.

He said Friday that cancer tests have been negative since the growth _ about the size of the tip of his small finger _ was discovered in his lower right pelvic area, but that doctors decided to remove it to be sure.

"Please do not leap to conclusions about this because we don't know what this is," Snow told reporters. "We know it's coming out and I know I'll be back soon."

Snow, 51, had his colon removed in 2005 and underwent six months of chemotherapy after being diagnosed with colon cancer. He and his wife have three young children.

Over at the HuffPo, the commenters can't help themselves, once again. But take heart-- they're only wishing quick and painful death on fellow Americans out of an intense desire for peace and nonviolence, you see?

The Deathwatch for Freedom is all that can save us from BushCo's evil regime at this point. They just all have to die. For peace.

Ian has screen caps, but doesn't link to the comment thread for context, so to be fair, some of the commenters could have learned their lesson by now and be telling these yahoos to shut up. That would be unlikely but heartening.

The Club specifically singled out freshmen Democratic Representatives Nancy Boyda (KS-2); Heath Schuler (NC-11); Nick Lampson (TX-22); Tim Mahoney (FL-22); and Harry Mitchell (AZ-5) who won their House seats on a campaign to restore fiscal responsibility to Congress and cut out earmarks. Instead these politicians caved to political pressure, throwing American taxpayers under the bus on their way down.

A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy.

But the president strikes back:

Bush is laying into the Dems at a press conference as I write this and, I might add, doing a hell of a job at it.

Politico's Jonathan Martin today cites an American Research Group poll showing Sen. McCain leading in Iowa and New Hampshire.

One possible reason could be Fred Thompson's inclusion in the poll (he may take support away from Rudy).

Another possible reason for the bump may be McCain's recent trips to the states, aboard the Straight Talk Express.

As noted in my earlier post, Iowa and New Hampshire are even more important this year than ever ...

That's why, I'm heading to New Hampshire tomorrow -- to see for myself. (I'll be attending a few town hall meetings and reporting back on the response McCain is getting in the Granite State.)

Global warming has been a hot topic on Townhall the last few weeks.   I was beginning to think Townhall readers were the last remaining skeptics until today:

LONGMONT, COLORADO — Humans don’t cause global warming, a jury of sixth graders at Trail Ridge Middle School concluded Thursday after hearing opposing arguments from their peers....

...Eleven jurors listened intently as prosecutors and defendants flashed contradictory graphs tracking global temperatures, carbon dioxide levels, polar ice cap statistics, volcanic activity and sea surface temperatures — all of which were found Wednesday in the school’s computer lab.

I guess all we need to know -- we should be learning in sixth grade.

So. What about that likable fellow from Tennessee? Thompson is not "just an actor" (though they said that about Reagan, and he turned out OK). He began his professional life as an assistant U.S. attorney, worked as Sen. Howard Baker's campaign manager and did a stint as co-chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee. It was he who asked the innocuous-sounding but momentous question of Alexander Butterfield: "Were you aware of the existence of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the president?"

After leaving Washington, he continued to practice law and slipped into acting as easily as a wagon rolls downhill. They were making a film about his legal exploits and couldn't find anyone who could do Fred Thompson as well as he did himself.

His voting record is solidly conservative. He is articulate, self-made (his father was a car salesman), highly intelligent, and exudes calm authority. His star power offers him an opening with independent voters that other candidates can only dream of, while his solid conservative credentials will excite the Republican base.

Namely, the best campaign poster, evuh. You gotta click through for that because I didn't want to steal it and the traffic. Trust me. It's worth it.

And, while we're Fred!-fixing, how 'bout the man from Tennessee on Iraq and attorneys. And, defending Gore! Gasp!

Mike Pence's staff sends along an excerpt from Congressman Pence's floor speech on the Democrat emergency funding bill for Iraq:

"Here are some examples of what the Democrats consider 'urgent' needs that require 'prompt action: '

-- $25 million for payments to spinach producers
-- $120 million to the shrimp industry
-- $74 million for peanut storage
-- $5 million for shellfish, oyster and clam producers

"Spinach, shrimp, peanuts and shellfish? That's not a war funding bill, that's the salad bar at Denny's."

Their own worst enemy.

UPDATE:  The cut and run - with a little pork on the side - bill passed 218-212.   14 Democrats vote against the bill.  Only two Republicans sided with Pelosi on the bill.

Just in case you thought the conservatives on Capitol Hill were the only ones up in arms over the pork filled appropriations bill meant to fund the war, in an editorial this morning, the Washington Post criticized the bill because of the reckless withdraw provisions and the $20 billion in unrelated spending thrown in the bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201883.html

The legislation pays more heed to a handful of peanut farmers than to the 24 million Iraqis who are living through a maelstrom initiated by the United States, the outcome of which could shape the future of the Middle East for decades.

As it is, House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat the bill mandates. It would heap money on unneedy dairy farmers while provoking a constitutional fight with the White House that could block the funding to equip troops in the field. Democrats who want to force a withdrawal should vote against war appropriations. They should not seek to use pork to buy a majority for an unconditional retreat that the majority does not support.

In addition, to the the article in the Washington Post, I was particularly struck by a report released by the RSC. Among other things, it found that if you took the $219 million allotted in the bill for spinach, peanut storage, and shrimp fishing, and directed it to the troops, it would be the equivalent of providing every soldier in Iraq with an additional $1,425.

Michelle Malkin tells you why you should go see Americanizing Shelley when it comes out this May. You know, aside from the star, Namrata Singh Gujral.

And, if that ain't enough, Townhall's very own Michael Medved's good review is featured in the trailer.

The official website and release info is, here.

Update: Someone tells me he's having trouble with Michelle's video, but it worked all right for me. Also, Medved's review is not at the link above. Unfortunately, I couldn't find it online, but I'll e-mail him to see if he can point me to it.

Did Phil de Vellis just cop to a "crime" he didn't commit, or had only a minor part in committing, to advance his career (it's working) or cover for the real perps?

No mouse will go unturned, no Mac store unstalked, no Internet politics forum unscoured until we find you. Whatever may occur, we will find you.

There's a George Strait song called "Murder on Music Row."  If you're a country music fan, you probably know the song is about how "drums and rock n roll guitars"  have changed country music to the point that "Old Hank (Williams, Sr.) wouldn't have a chance on today's radio."

George may be right.  But country music isn't the only thing that's changed.  And Hank may not be the only legend who wouldn't make it in today's world.  Politico's Roger Simon explains why the presidential nominating calendar has gotten out of hand:

The presidential nominating process used to have a beginning, middle and end. In 2008, it will have only a beginning. And then it will probably end.

The process used to start with Iowa and New Hampshire and, in the last few cycles, South Carolina.

Then other states would hold contests in the weeks and months that followed, and a nominee would emerge.

It may be true that Hank wouldn't have a chance on today's radio.  The question is:  Would Ronald Reagan have had a shot in 2008?

Now, a editor calls the paper out for it in his blogged resignation.

Among the biggest possible conflicts of interest a newspaper can enter into is to have the same people involved in news coverage running opinion pages. I am proud of the fact that Jeff Johnson, Dean Baquet and I fully separated the opinion pages from the newsroom at the Times.  I accept my share of the responsibility for placing the Times in this predicament, but I will not be lectured on ethics by some ostensibly objective news reporters and editors who lobby for editorials to be written on certain subjects, or who have suggested that our editorial page coordinate more closely with the newsroom's agenda, and I strongly urge the present and future leadership of the paper to resist the cries to revisit the separation between news and opinion that we have achieved.

Rather than wringing his hands over a nonstory like that, publisher Hiller ought to address his attention to appearances of impropriety that really matter. For example:

It creates an appearance of impropriety when one of the fired U.S. Attorneys directly contradicts the major premise of an L.A. Times article published about him — and five days later, there is still no correction.

It creates an appearance of impropriety when the paper splashes on the front page the fact that rationales for firing the U.S. Attorneys were “detailed after the fact” — and saves for the 27th paragraph the fact that they were detailed before the fact as well.

There are many more at the link.

But it's always been my experience that, when professional journalists study ethics, they always study the wrong things. In j-school and professional seminars (after graduation), we had interminable and inumerable discussions about how graphic a front-page picture could be or the relative importance of the race of a perp. Should you show a dead body? Should you describe a suspect as "black?" Oh, the things we discussed.

We very, very, very rarely discussed how not to get sucked into the lefty vortex that is a modern-day newsroom and let it shape your story choices, picture choices, and objectvity.

For that reason, most students' objectivity had not much hope of being anything but ostensible.

Today, an instructional video on how to love the earth the lefty way. You know, through high-volume carbon offsets and killing polar bears. And, what with Gore in town refusing to take any binding Earth-saving pledges, it's a good week for this lesson.

Thanks, as always, to Katie Favazza for the camera work and my Mac for the editing. Big thank-you to Jeff Matzka for the voice over. And, of course, to the Cat for her performance.

Go watch now!

Personally, I think this is a great idea:

Imagine getting a summer job with Mitt Romney's 2008 presidential campaign and getting 10 percent of the money that comes in. Sound crazy? It may be, but it's an offer now on the table for college students.

The Romney campaign is piloting the first-of-its-kind program around the country in which students are given a percentage commission of any funds they raise for the former Massachusetts governor in his bid for the White House.

Recent focus on the troubled marital history of Newt Gingrich highlights an enduring problem for Republicans. Among this year’s leading candidates, John McCain’s gone through one painful, embarrassing divorce, while Rudy Giuliani and Newt each have been divorced twice following public displays of extra-marital involvement. Of the top contenders, only Mitt Romney’s enjoyed the solid, traditional, life-long marriage that conservatives honor and, ironically, his ancestors were controversial Mormon polygamists! Part of the problem is that politics today makes impossible demands, with all serious candidates for high office expected to launch full-time campaigns years in advance. With limited privacy, constant fundraising obligations, ceaseless travel and abundant temptations, a normal, healthy family life becomes difficult if not impossible. Conservatives, and particularly religious conservatives, try to put family first, so many potential candidates will shun the tawdry, punishing arena of electoral politics –helping to produce precisely the shortage of inspiring, moral leadership that many people decry in today’s GOP. Among the last five Republican Presidential nominees, only the Bushes, father and son, have been untouched by divorce. The late Gerald Ford married a divorcee (Betty); President Reagan was divorced from his first wife, Jane Wyman, and Bob Dole was also divorced. We've come a long way from the 1950's where Democrat Adlai Stevenson's rare status as a divorced candidate attracted considerable attention and counted heavily against him (especially since his ex-wife was at times contemptuous of his candidacy). Today, the imperfect personal lives of leading Presidential contenders doesn't mean that these politicos are bad people but it does show that they've paid a painful price for their chosen profession. For those husbands and wives who want, above all, to avoid huge strain on marriages and children, it's probably a terrible idea to focus your life and goals on a national candidacy. 

Several prominent bloggers were just on a conference call with Hugh Hewitt (kudos to Rob Bluey for setting this up).

Hugh took several questions about his new book, A Mormon in the White House. Obviously, the Mormon issue came up ...

I learned that in the mid 1990s, PBS sent Hugh to Utah to report on Mormonism.  His take was that very little is known about the faith, and that there is a lot of misunderstandign about Mormonism.

Perhaps his most interesting argument is that if conservatives allow an attack to be made on Mormonism, we should also be prepared for attacks on other Christian sects.

For example, if an Evangelical (such as former Attorney General John Ashcroft) were to run for president, he would have to talk about theological issues, such as faith healing.  In my estimation, this is a good argument to make (if your goal is to convince conservatives that the Mormon issue is off the table).

Hugh went on to say that he believes the public is now too sophisticated for scurrilous attacks to work. For example, he pointed out that the pictures of Rudy Giuliani in drag haven't hurt him. I asked Hugh why it was that attacks that used to work (think Gary Hart, Mike Dukakis, or even the Swift Boat ads), don't seem to be resonating, anymore. I asked: "What happened?"

"The people on this call happened!," he answered.

His point: The amount of information that the public consumes has increased exponentially.  For this reason, the old paradigm no longer works.  (My take: It may not work with bloggers, but I will be very interested to see how an ad of Rudy in drag would play in South Carolina ... )

My last question to Hugh had to do with the importance he places on Romney's intelligence. I argued that if intelligence were so important, Jimmy Carter would have been a "great" President.

Hugh agreed that intelligence isn't the only thing that matters. He went on to add, though, that the the issues we face today have made it more important than ever to have a president who is intellectually curious, and understands complex issues...