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

Predictions that McCain's campaign is "over" are, at best, premature, and at worst, wishful thinking.  It's getting to the point where he may need to change his theme song from "I Won't Back Down," to "I Will Survive."

But while conservative bloggers and writers may serve as opinion leaders, they do not necessarily reflect public opinion. Here is one such example ...

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken last weekend found that 78% of respondents feel people now in the country illegally should be given a chance at citizenship.

Still, it is clear that  McCain is out-of-step with the conservative base.  Frankly, I cannot think of any example in history where a candidate for president has been embroiled (as a Legislator) in such a hot-button issue -- this close to the nomination. The fact that it's McCain's own doing makes me question his political strategy. But it does not make me question his sincerity on the issue.  And that's where McCain must go to turn this thing around.

Back in 2004, George W. Bush's best debate line was: "You may not agree with me, but you know where I stand."

In my estimation, in order to get past this, McCain must adopt a similar position. For McCain to win, the contrast simply must be that with McCain, you at least know what you're getting (and the insinuation is that with the other candidates, it's "buyer beware.") 

This may not be much relief to us on the issue of immigration.  But knowing that McCain will stubbornly stick to his positions may, in fact, be a relief to someone who shares his view on the Life issue ...

Note: I realize it's ironic for a "maverick" to make the consistency argument.  But while it's hard to predict which issues he will initially trumpet, McCain's team can argue that once he supports or opposes something, he usually stays true to it (ethanol is one of the obvious exceptions).

Of course, Walter Mondale tried a similar move in 1984, when he said that both he and Reagan would raise taxes. He argued that he was at least willing to be honest about it.  (We all know how that worked out...) 

Still, McCain's "I won't back down" image is the best contrast McCain has (considering his opponents).

Something else will come along and knock this story off the front pages (two weeks ago, the big story was Rudy's Pro-Life stance).  But (as we've seen time and time again) McCain's maverick image will keep coming back.  That's why, this is McCain's card to play.

A few days ago, I wrote a blog post revealing that Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) slipped a secret earmark into a bill to authorize funds for our intelligence operations. It directs $23 million toward a drug center in his district despite conclusions from the House Government Reform Committee that it is both wasteful and unnecessary.

Because of this, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) tried to have the earmark removed from the bill. Shortly thereafter Murtha angrily approached him on the floor. Rogers provided the following description of what happened next:

Murtha, who has enormous power over defense projects as Chairman of the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations, came to me on the House floor and said: “You don’t have any earmarks in the appropriations bills now or forever.”

I replied to him that threatening retribution is not the way we do business in Congress.

To which he replied: “That’s the way I do it.”

No Member of Congress should ever be threatened because of his or her efforts to crack down on wasteful spending and protect the interests of taxpayers.

This is exactly why Americans are disgusted with the United States Congress and it’s out of control spending.

Mr. Murtha’s threat violated more than the House rules – it violated the public’s trust.

As lawmakers, we must have an obligation to shine a spotlight on earmarks and eliminate wasteful spending, as Mr. Murtha’s pet project surely is.

As a former FBI agent who pursued cases of organized crime and public corruption, it is disappointing to see such behavior in the People’s House.

This pork-barrel project takes precious intelligence resources from spies on the ground catching terrorists and sends it to bureaucrats in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. You might think Speaker Pelosi would step in and hold Murtha accountable for this egregious pork project or at the very least reprimand him for his threatening behavior. Nope. To the contrary, she is defending him for his “bipartisanship” and calling this entire discussion “unjustified.”

I guess she really didn’t mean it when she said last November that she wanted to make "this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history.”

The newest member of the Townhall team makes her debut today with a story on the serious costs of rushing immigration reform:

“They never contribute more than they take out and at retirement theybecome very costly,” Rector said in Capitol Hill press conference onMonday with Sessions, Sen. Jim Bunning (R.-Ky.) and Rep. Bill Bilbray(R.-Calif.).

Rector explained, “Every person that gets the Z visa, and that would beabout 12 million people, 9 million of which are adults--is immediatelyeligible for Social Security. They start to contribute to that system.They start to earn eligibility for Medicare. The White House hasclaimed they don’t get welfare benefits. That is absolutely untrue. Forthe first 10 years or so they are in the country, the adults would notget welfare benefits, but the children would. They are going to be herefor fifty years. For the first 10 years they don’t get means testedwelfare, but for the next forty they are going to be eligible for everysingle type of means tested welfare.”

Rector said it would cost the government $2.4 trillion to payout these benefits to z visa holders. He characterized the bill as an“amnesty bill with a blank check on the U.S. taxpayer.” Entitlementprograms, like Social Security and Medicare programs, are already onpace to go bankrupt due to the exploding costs of retiringbaby-boomers. Rector said adding the additional retirement costs of alow-skilled population to these programs would be a “financialcatastrophe.”

As you may have heard last night, the bill will not be as rushed as we had thought, so Members will be going home to an earful from constituents:

This country deserves it," Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.,said of the delay. He had previously set a Memorial Day deadline for passage.

The issue carries heavy political consequences for both parties. It's a top priority for Bush, who considers it a defining element of his legacy, and for congressional Democrats who are eager to count it as one of their accomplishments at the helm of Congress.

The measure, which also tightens border security and workplace enforcement measures, unites a group of influential Senate liberals, centrists and conservatives, but it has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum.

"This is not going to go anywhere unless we have a full and thorough debate of at least two weeks," said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.

The Senate will debate the deal this week and return to it after a weeklong holiday break.

HOLLYWOOD’S HEIGL PROUDLY DEFINES A NEW SPECIES

A small passage in an interview with a glamorous movie and TV star exposes the sense of superiority, shallowness, entitlement and exceptionalism at the very core of the Hollywood world view.

Katherine Heigl, the lovely and genuinely talented 28-year-old leading lady of “Grey’s Anatomy” on TV and the upcoming movie comedy “Knocked Up,” provided revealing answers for reporter William Keck in Monday’s USA TODAY.

At one point, they engaged in the following interchange:

  Q: Your KNOCKED UP character has a truly gruesome birthing scene. And you were in the delivery room with your older sister, Meg. That all impact your decision to have kids of your own?

   A: Oh yeah. I’ve always planned to adopt anyway, but that definitely reinforced my want to. I’m done with the whole idea of having my own children. It doesn’t seem like any fun. I don’t think it’s necessary to go through all that.

The very phrase “I’m done with the whole idea of having my own children” suggests that she’s moved to a more mature state of consciousness where she can put aside such a retrograde, primitive notion. In the past, billions of women have endured the agony of childbirth but she’s reached the hyper-civilized, enlightened state where “she’s done with all that.” And why? “Because it doesn’t seem like any fun,” of course. Here we are, after long millennia of human progress, ready to embrace the sophisticated notion that the most elemental life-cycle experience of them all, child birth, deserves dismissal because it’s less “fun” than, say, a Yoga class. Ms. Heigl, apparently, fails to consider that certain experiences and processes might be worthwhile even if they aren’t “any fun.”

I know I shouldn’t sound too harsh toward this beautiful and gifted young woman, especially since her intermittently amusing new movie (which I’ve seen) carries an unexpectedly potent pro-life message. Of course, she may change her mind about “birthing babies” (as described in “Gone With the Wind”) as soon as some love relationship intensifies, or she sees that her sister Meg (with whom she experienced the delivery room) actually got some lasting value (it’s called a child) for her hours of maternity ward pain.

But please recall that Ms. Heigl already is 28 – not 18. And that her declaration about moving above and beyond the tacky business of childbirth came not in casual conversation, but in a formal interview with the nation’s top circulation newspaper, while trying to promote a major movie to the largest possible audience.

Did it never occur to her that suggesting that she’s “done with the idea of having my own children” involved her expressed contempt for an experience that the overwhelming majority of women cherish and anticipate and value?

Once upon a time, Hollywood stars went out of their way to show themselves as “regular guys” and “ordinary gals,” despite their good looks, glamour and fame. That connection with the American Everyman remained the very essence of Ronald Reagan’s appeal, for instance—in movies and in politics. It was no accident that Reagan, and Jimmy Stewart, and Clark Gable, and Henry Fonda, and even Elvis made it a point to serve in the military, like everyone else.

Today’s stars, on the other hand, feel no compunction in acknowledging the fact that they function in a different reality, but seem altogether comfortable with the notion that they constitute a higher species – unencumbered by the messy realities of childbearing.

Senate leaders agreed Monday that they would wait until June to take final action on a bipartisan plan to give millions of unlawful immigrants legal status.
 
The measure, which also tightens border security and workplace enforcement measures, unites a group of influential liberals, centrists and conservatives and has White House backing, but it has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. In a nod to that opposition, Senate leaders won't seek to complete it before a hoped-for Memorial Day deadline.
 
''It would be to the best interests of the Senate ... that we not try to finish this bill this week,'' said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., as the chamber began debate on the volatile issue. ''I think we could, but I'm afraid the conclusion wouldn't be anything that anyone wanted

Hotline's quote of the day:

Many of the predictions that Chuck made about how the war might go have come true."

-- Senate Min. Leader Mitch McConnell on Chuck Hagel, Omaha World-Herald, 5/20

Hmmmm.... (one bleep toward the end of that clip, fyi.)

Hugh, with help from his law degree, waded through it this weekend, probably at the expense of doing anything else. Since most Americans don't have that kind of time to devote to the bill, they at least deserve the week to read analyses like Hugh's, and the Memorial Day weekend to ask some energetic but respectful questions of their Congressmen and women when they come home.

This idea being floated for cloture tonight, frankly, comes off disrespectful of the serious concerns regular Americans have about this bill. And, no, Lindsay, we're not all bigots.

On critics calling the bill "amnesty:"

"I don't know how you can call $5000, a wait of at least 8 years (and other restrictions), amnesty."

"The severe critics of it at least owe us their solution that can make it through the Senate of the United States."

He'd like to get it done this week, he said, and sounded like he thought there shouldn't be much trouble with the public understanding the issue. I'd beg to differ with him there after reading Hugh's analysis. Sheesh, nobody's getting through that without a J.D. or a life of immigration expertise and coming out in one piece.

"We should vote for cloture and...five days of intense debate and amendments, we can get this done."

"This is a product of the leadership of our president, leader of our party. Negotiations have been going on for literally years."

"I think it's something we ought to give a chance to be at least debated and presented before it's roundly condemned."

"It's not that the issue isn't well understood by the American people."

"I think it's something that happens in America and probably a sign ofa healthy America that these theories are given a hearing. At the sametime, it does hurt us in this war of public opinion...to have somecredible people, including Congressmen, questioning the entire rationale."

"That number is disturbing of the Democrats, but I think thatmay have more to do with the irrational dislike of President Bush thanbelief in the theories."

On more amnesty charges, particularly concerning the immediate legal status card granted as soon as illegals come out of the shadows:

"I would describe it as a probationary status. You either put them on aprobationary status or deal with rounding up 12 million people anddeporting them or let them wash around the country ilegally."

"The purpose of this coming forward immediately is so we can indentify them."

"I don't see that as amnesty."

Will those with "probationary" cards be allowed to stay if they just want to skip the whole becoming-a-citizen thing?"

"No, if he's not goign to go through that process...then he's going to have to apply for a worker visa."

"At townhall meetings, when I start talking about immigration, there are stone faces and anger...After a while, I see people nodding and knowing that the system is broken."

"The problem is, it takes me 5 minutes, whereas the opposition can do it in a 15, 30-second soundbite."

"Maybe some of the emotion will cool off and die down a little bit so we can have a discussion."

"I had hoped because the President is leading on this, some of ourRepublcain base would give him more of a chance to make his case, butthere is not more emotional issue among our base."

"I understand the frustration and anger that people feel after a generation of a broken system."

On the Bush no-back-taxes proposal:

"I would resist that...If they want to be law-abiding citizens, they should be able to pay their back taxes."

On Iraq:

"I worry a great deal about the Maliki government...they should be ableto sit down and pass this law (oil revenu sharing and de-Baathification)...they've got to act inclusively and itdisturbs all of us when they're thinking about taking three monthsoff."

"I counsel patience...It's long and hard and tough...But Iunderstand what's happening with the American people...these suicidebombings have very little military effect, but they have tremendous PReffect."

"Patience and time, patience and time, patience and time.UNfortuantely, time isn't on our side in Washington, but I still thinkthis is the right strategy."

Also from the conference call, a bit of discussion about the Cornyn/McCain alleged throw-down:

"I would suggest that exchange between myself and John Cornyn was somewhat exaggerated...I'm sorry that YouTube wasn't there to give you the full and complete picture of what happened."

"I've been in daily contact with the negotiators, back and forth onconference calls for many years. We're in intense negotiations and sometimes tensewords are exchanged."

Cornyn gives his side of the story, here.

That's gonna leave a mark. This came from a conference call I was just on, with John McCain:

"Maybe I should wait a couple weeks and see if it changes, since it's changed in less than a year."

"Maybe his solution would be to get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn or something."

Update: McCain also addressed Fred!'s opposition to the bill.

Update: I got a Mulligan. They let me e-mail my question, so I'll type that up when I get an answer.

And, now that I read that quote about the gun, it sounds like McCain's suggesting Romney might like to shoot illegal aliens. For the record, he wasn't implying anything mean-spirited about Romney as much as he was clowning on his unfortunate "lifelong hunter" comment. Update: Ohhhh, he was talking about these Guatemalans.

Update: And, of course, given the kind of rhetoric coming from the pro-immigration side of the debate, it's not entirely out of this world for opponents to wonder if McCain did mean something like that about Romney. They could really stand to settle down with the "bigotry" charges on the pro- side. They sound as bad as Democrats. If they want an actual discussion, calling opponents "bigots" is not a way to cool the emotions and get it started.

Update: Michelle Malkin is hosting the O'Reilly Factor tonight and tomorrow. That oughtta be good TV.  

Update: And, the Romney camp responds:

“Governor Romney has been very clear that he opposes this immigration agreement, which clearly falls short of the American public’s expectations.  It seems that certain candidates who brokered this flawed plan are having a very difficult time grappling with or coming to terms with the political fallout that has ensued in a substantive manner.”
 
-Kevin Madden, spokesman for Governor Romney

Hillary Clinton is so committed to the internet, that she put up this YouTube clip -- encouraging her supporters to vote on important strategic decisions, such as ... her campaign song. 

Here's an email I got from a reader on the subject ...

Here is my story:

Everyday I check the youtube.com most popular videos of the day. Low and behold I see this Hillary Clinton "I Need Your Advice." I found it a bit odd that for at the time +200,000 views, there were only about 50 comments. Normally for that many views there are thousands of comments. In the video Hillary Clinton asks help in picking a campaign song. So as someone who ranks Hillary Clinton as the 2nd most evil US Senator (in case you were wondering Ted Kennedy is ranked #1), a lot of ideas came to my mind. Although the song by NWA "A (W)itch is a (W)itch" was my first idea, I decided to post "Loser" by Beck.

As soon as I entered my comment the window popped up "Your comment has been posted! It will be visible once it is approved." Usually my comments are posted in minutes if not seconds. I kept checking and my comments were not appearing. I tried to post "Loser" multiple occasions from different computers and different log in names. I kept checking and my comments were not posted.

I find it quite hypocritical the liberals who claim to deplore censorship are using it on youtube.com. I am equally surprised youtube.com is allowing this to occur.

Rather sad if you ask me.

Adam R. Dresher

PS - I tried to post "Loser" two more time before sending you this email.

... So what song would you pick???

If the immigration bill in the Senate is going to be defeated, it's going to take more of this.

Delegates to the state Republican convention unleashed a rare chorus of boos and hisses at U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss on Saturday, as he spoke up for a bipartisan immigration reform package unveiled in Washington this week.

and this

The crowd at South Carolina’s Republican convention cheered Saturday when former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney criticized a new immigration proposal and booed U.S. Sen Lindsey Graham when he defended it.

There's yet another story out today about how Republicans are being trounced online. Today's particular story is in the Washington Post. Of course, the best way for a conservative to be quoted in the Post is to criticize the GOP. This story is no exception.

Two years ago, I wrote a piece for Personal Democracy Forum called: Why Republicans are Winning at Tech. I stand behind my theory that the technology Republicans mastered is less "sexy" than the technology liberals have mastered -- but is actually more effective.

Please keep in mind that the same stories that we are reading now were also being circulated in 2003 (during Howard Dean's rise). Everyone thought that the Democrats technology was going to destroy Republicans. We all know how that ended...

The truth is that the audiences are different. Conservatives, who think they can simply copy the rhetoric and tactics of the Left, and be equally effective online, are wrong. Sure, some of the technology is philosophically neutral. To paraphrase Mayor LaGuardia, "There's no Republican way to set up a blog."  But while the medium is the same, the messages are starkly different. For example, bloggers are keen to talk about the "Revolution". My suspicion is that talk of a "Revolution" -- even if it is being used metaphorically -- is more appealing to liberals (and may actually be a turn-off to conservatives).