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

As Hugh mentioned, Sen. McCain was in CA on Wednesday.  Here's more from the LA Times story:

"As for the fight against global warming, an effort that Schwarzenegger made a centerpiece of his reelection campaign, McCain portrayed California as a model for Congress to take action. He voiced support for the kind of mandatory reductions in carbon emissions that California enacted last year."

The Flash Report counters:

"A note to all GOP contenders for the White House -- Arnold Schwarzenegger is a unique phenomenon. Reinvent yourself in his 'image' at your own peril."

... Maybe John McCain should read this.

Okay, enough policy.  Here's a strategy to consider:

Every time McCain starts to gain some traction with conservatives, he goes and does something like this.  It seems to me that if his staff just locked him in the basement for the next few months, he'd win in a landslide.  Maybe a "Weekend at Bernie's" campaign (figuratively speaking, of course) is in order?

On the other hand, this is interesting:

"A majority of Republican voters in South Carolina believe global warming is occurring, but is a problem people can resolve, according to a new survey."

So I guess the question is: Has the conservative paradigm shifted?  I know what conservative pundits think.  But will Primary Election voters buy into Global Warming?  If so, McCain may be ahead of the curve.  If not, this is just one more reason for conservatives to question his commitment to conservative values ...

Update: 1:41 PM - Rob Bluey has a post up about how John McCain is skipping CPAC.

Update: 2:20 PM - Katie Favazza has some good thoughts on the subject, too.

Michelle Malkin has a full report on the guys who were assaulted by a visiting moonbat, and some details not yet out about the story.

Psycho.

Update: Michelle's post reminds me of this video, on a lighter note, which Townhall All-Star Intern Katie sent me:

This is a very unusual story:

"Former heavyweight champion and "Rocky V" co-star, Tommy Morrison, has been cleared by doctors to return to the ring. Despite being forced out of boxing after testing positive HIV, Morrison now maintains that he no longer has the virus and suggests that he never had it to begin with.

Morrison, who was indefinitely barred from the ring after a positive HIV test on the eve of a 1996 bout in Las Vegas, has officially been cleared to return to the ring after passing a slew medical tests."

... "It's been a long time coming," Morrison told ESPN.com. "I know I didn't have [HIV] in the first place. I never had it. I believe it, but they kicked me out of the sport. ... Over the last two or three months, I have taken five, six different [HIV] tests and continued to pass them. It was just a matter of time before they had to let me fight again."

Let me get this straight: He may have spent the last decade thinking he was HIV positive, when he wasn't??? Unbelievable.  On the other hand, he is scheduled to box in West Virginia, a state which does not require a blood test for boxers (though Morrison has reportedly passed other HIV tests).  Very odd story ..

This is Jimmy Regan. He graduated from high school an all-American lacrosse player with a scholarship to Duke University-- one of the nation's best programs. He led the team to the ACC Championship his senior year, scoring four goals in the final game of the tournament. As he left college with a degree in economics, he could have had a scholarship to Southern Methodist University's law school or a job at a financial firm with which he'd interned.

Instead, Jimmy joined the Army, even passing on Officer Candidates School so that he could fasttrack his way into the Rangers. Jimmy died Feb. 9 in northern Iraq, just a week after he was promoted to sergeant. One of his former teammates called him "the ultimate Duke lacrosse man."

My column today is on this other Duke lacrosse story. Remember Jimmy. He is so much more worthy of it than the sordid soap opera Mike Nifong has given us.

The left seems to feel a powerful, passionate, irrational and all but irresistible urge to use government power to silence conservative voices in the media and to regulate the terms of public debate.

For instance, it’s not enough that the Dixie Chicks won five Grammy Awards in a so-called “victory for free speech,” and laughingly scoffed at their right wing critics.

Now, columnist Edward Morris of the Nashville Tennessean (hometown paper for the Country Music industry) wants to make vindictive use federal power to strike back at “all those who tried to silence their voices and destroy their careers.”

Under the headline, “Radio Was Wrong to Ban the Group,” he includes the startling (but typical) subhead: “Regulations Should Be Imposed” and complains that “country radio stations were wrong to ban the Chicks’ music and regulations should be imposed to ensure that nothing like this happens again. It is eminently reasonable for a station to decline to play a record if it doesn’t ‘test’ well with listeners; but it is outrageous to blacklist a performer’s entire catalog simply because it doesn’t like his or her politics.”

Morris might argue that turnabout is fair play: conservatives tried to use boycotts and powerful station owners to gag and stifle the Chicks, so it’s only fair that liberals try, in return, to shut down the would-be censors.

There’s a big difference, however: the right tried to use the power of the marketplace, but the left wants to use the power of government (“Regulations Should Be Imposed”). Nothing in the First Amendment protects controversial performers from boycotts or protests or radio program directors who disapprove of their political activism. The Constitution does, however, prevent government (“Congress shall make no law…”) from using its unique power to stop citizens from expressing their opinions or uniting with others in economic protest.

Even after the triumph of the Dixie Chicks, commentators like Morris still don’t trust the marketplace and the private choices of consumers to guarantee the free exchange of ideas. He demands “regulations” (initiated by the FCC, no doubt) to “ensure that nothing like this happens again.” Nothing like what, precisely? Leaders within the music business and millions of private citizens expressing their displeasure with an edgy, unnecessary comment and demanding that political posturing could bring business consequences? He apparently believes that the government must guarantee that there will be no commercial price to pay to comments on current issues, no matter how outrageous. Would these regulations also apply to situations like the famous backlash against John Lennon, when he said that “the Beatles are more popular than Christ right now”?

This line of thinking neatly parallels current efforts by Congressional Democrats (led by Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Maurice Hinchey of New York) to re-institute the “Fairness Doctrine” relating to the expression of political opinion in the media. Rather than relying on the multi-faceted “free market of ideas,” with at least 100 times more outlets for controversial expressions on all sides of every issue than prevailed when the Fairness Doctrine disappeared in 1987, they seek to empower bureaucrats to insure “balance.” The right way to correct the “conservative lies” that Democrats abhor is to broadcast your own version of the truth, not shut down the other guy – or to force that other guy to give you “equal time.”

That absurd equal time provision (should conservatives also get “equal time” to answer shows like “The West Wing” or “Will and Grace”?) wouldn’t merely end the existence of conservative talk radio and other right wing media, but would close off political discussion altogether. If you’re forced to “balance” an hour of conservative opinion with an hour of liberal opinion, no station could appeal to the public with a clear ideological orientation. Sure, I relish the idea that the FCC would force Air America to balance the obnoxious nonsense of Randi Rhodes with all three hours of the Michael Medved Show. But forcing that sort of “equal time” resembles an effort to force a Country station to balance, say, the Dixie Chicks and Faith Hill with several hours of Tchaikovsky, or to compel an urban Hip Hop station to counter each number by Fifty Cent and Snoop Dog with classic performances by Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett.

Further evidence of liberal support for government meddling in media comes with their thoughtless enthusiasm for using taxpayer money to fund PBS and NPR. Once upon a time, you could make the argument that you needed public money to provide history documentaries or children’s programming, but why do we now need to tax people to pay for material that cable networks (not to mention the internet) are providing without subsidy? The idea that federal bureaucrats will decide which programming gets government support carries with it the inescapable whiff of Stalinist “Ministries of Culture” – providing official endorsement of certain forms of entertainment over others. Why does the public need Congress and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to make those choices instead of individual consumers?

The essence of contemporary liberalism involves distrust of ordinary Americans – to feed our own kids, to decide where we choose to send them to school, to plan for retirement, to secure health insurance, to select our own entertainment and information sources.

Nowhere does this distrust, this contempt, for the general public come across more clearly than in the uncontrollable instinct to “impose regulations” and thereby limit alternatives regarding topical controversies in mass media.     

This has gotten a lot of play in the conservative blogosphere today, but it deserves to be mentioned here (just to set the record straight). Here's the story. We report, you decide ...

1. Someone sent a YouTube video to National Journal's Hotline that seemed to show McCain saying he doesn’t support overturning Roe versus Wade.

2. But the part where McCain says he is proud of his pro-life record and that he wants to see the eventual overturn of Roe was selectively edited out.

(Luckily, Hotline did some checking and found the entire speech.)

Hmm.

I like how JetBlue's CEO (David Neeleman) is using YouTube to make an apology and share his message.

This is a great example of how you can make a positive out of a very bad situation.  It's also a good example for political candidates to learn from.  Very smart. 

Next week, conservatives from around the nation will meet at CPAC.  Once again, President Bush won't be there.

By my count, Ronald Reagan spoke at 12 of these meetings, rarely missing the chance to "dance with the one who brung" him.  (You can read Reagan's speeches to CPAC here). 

The count goes something like this:

Reagan: 12

Bush: 0

How cool would it be if President Bush made a surprise visit?  Mind you, I have no information that would lead me to believe he will.  But if I were advising him, I think it would make a terrific splash ...

ABC's Bob Woodruff was injured in an IED attack in Iraq, January 2006. He's now back reporting again.

The slideshow of his recovery is pretty amazing.

In semi-related news, Andi-- who has spent much time working at Walter Reed on behalf of those recovering there-- has a personal take on the Washington Post's Sunday expose of conditions at the Army hospital.

She doesn't want it to become a political battering ram for going after the Bush administration while everyone forgets about actually fixing the problems:

On any given day, youwill find hundreds of volunteers -- some visible, some not -- workingon behalf of the patients at Walter Reed. You rarely hear about theseefforts, unless you read milblogs, that is. So there's that, butclearly more is needed. Much more. Things that volunteers can't do.Things we have to rely on those in positions of power andresponsibility to handle. Based on what I've seen and what I've heard,it's my belief that administrators haven't acted with adequate speed,nor have they acted smartly or efficiently. According to RepresentativeTom Davis,

"They've been behindfrom Day One," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), who headed theHouse Government Reform Committee, which investigated problems atWalter Reed and other Army facilities. "Even the stuff they've fixedhas only been patched."

The fact that thisWaPo story is raising awareness should be viewed as a good thing.However, I am suspicious of their motives, and with good reason. Theadministrators in charge of Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval Hospitalscertainly appear inept as a result of this story, but the subtlenuggets of red meat handed to opponents of Operation Iraqi Freedom makean important story murky to those who are rightly skeptical of themainstream media.

In related news, you know Britney's been back in and back out of rehab since I wrote that post about her yesterday?

Some people think she's not getting the help she needs. I prefer to think she's just and efficient detoxer. One day, and she's done.

Eight Democratic presidential contenders -- all except Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who had a previous commitment in Iowa -- are coming to the western cattle call hosted Wednesday by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees -- or AFSCME.

But don't expect the candidates to be mixing it up with one another. They won't be sharing the stage.

Instead, candidates will appear one after the other, each taking three questions from the audience in union-filled auditorium, read by moderator George Stephanopoulos of ABC News.

Rick Moran notices the underreported opinions of the American people:

Two recent polls however, indicate one of two things; either theAmerican people, when faced with the reality of a Democratic majority,are having second thoughts about leaving Iraq before some semblance oforder is achieved or, more likely, a couple of pollsters have finallyasked the “right” questions about Iraq to reveal what the Americanpeople have believed all along.

In fact, this poll revealswhat has been one of the best kept secrets of American opinion over thepast three years. A fairly consistent majority of between 55% and 65%oppose pulling our troops out immediately (59%). And another consistentsign of support is that a majority (57%) support “finishing the job inIraq” – keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can handlesecurity on its own. (HT: James Joyner)

Thesimple minded sloganeering from the left about polls on Iraq and howthe American people support their anti-war agenda down the line failsto take into a account that citizens have a fairly sophisticated,nuanced outlook on the war. They think Bush is doing a poor job (60%“strongly” or “somewhat strongly” agree” ), that 52% believe Congressisn’t doing much better, that only 17% want our troops to leaveimmediately, that a bare majority (50%) believe we should stay untilthe job is done, that a surprising 56% agree with the idea ofsupporting the President even if they disagree with him (another 17%“somewhat agree”), and in another surprise, 53% believe that victory isstill possible.

Also, a whopping 66% believe that losing thewar would cause America to lose its super power status. And 53% believestrongly that the Democrats have gone too far, too fast, in pressingthe President to remove troops from Iraq.

I think this is what Smash was referring to yesterday when he mentioned a momentum shift.

Yes, it's an unpopular war, but it's still a war, and losing wars has consequences the American people are well aware of.

James Joyner:

As a general rule, the public wants politicians to get along and getsomething done, they hate seeing our troops in harm’s way, they’reskeptical of foreign interventions, and they want America to finishwhat it starts. The survey reinforces the fact, too, thatpresidents–even unpopular, inarticulate ones–shape the public policydebate.

So, do Democrats read Americans too simply by assuming they're against the war so they must be for pulling out? I'm not sure. I think the numbers probably reflect a gut ambivalence about the war more than a well thought-out policy decision citizens have made. It's true that Americans have been able to go on with their daily lives largely unaware of the fact that we're at war if they wish. It is true that the conditions on the ground and the many cultural and religious divisions that make those conditions what they are are complex. It's true that many folks have neither the time nor the inclination to keep up with it all. That being said, they do know our country is at war, and are uncomfortable with the idea of losing.

They know there are stakes even if Democrats want them to think there aren't. They know leaving Iraq at least stable is important to our security at home and to the morale of troops abroad.   

Things like Murtha's slow-bleed and Obama's pull-out calendar don't contribute to success, and people know it.

Murtha's plan is couched by Dem operatives and some of the media in very kind terms about keeping the troops rested and making sure they have all they need, but Murtha himself admits that's not what it's about:

Unwilling to stand up and move outright to cut off funding for a warthey now oppose, Murtha and other House Democrats — joined by a handfulof opportunistic GOPers — instead passed a meaningless nonbindingresolution of disapproval. They didn’t bother to offer an alternativeto President Bush’s troop surge to secure Baghdad and thenprogressively turning security over to the Iraqi military and police.Now Murtha and company scurry about throwing tiny legislative ropeshere and there hoping to tie Bush down. This is political farce, notthe actions of a serious legislative body.

But Murtha, chairmanof the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, knows that, sooner orlater, even a giant like the U.S. military will be crippled if enoughof those little ropes are approved. He frankly admits that hisintention is to cripple Bush’s ability to conduct the war by making itimpossible for the military to surge troop levels in Iraq. Employingsuch a tactic while our nation is engaged in armed hostilities abroadis nothing less than an attempted congressional usurpation of clearpresidential authority. Besides harming America’s ability to fight andwin the war against terrorism, serious damage will be done to theConstitution’s long-standing balance of powers among the legislativeand executive branches if Murtha and company succeed.

When even the Washington Post editorial writers are calling it "crudely hamstringing" the troops, you know you're not gonna get that by normal Americans. 

Murtha claims last week's debate on Iraq was a dog-and-pony show, a distraction from the real deal, which is all about cutting off funds and support by any number of sneaky little legislative maneuvers. Luckily, many Americans are smart enough not to be distracted by the spectacle that is Murtha.

Also, it just occurs to me that the same sentiment reflected in the above poll numbers showed up right before the election as well. Folks were unhappy about the war, wanted a change, but not necessarily to pull out. I remember thinking at the time that voters might vote Democrat in hopes of bringing about change, but they would likely not get the kind of change they wanted, despite Dem promises to be responsible.  

This comes from 18 Doughty Street, which is a British, political, web-TV site: 

I blogged yesterday that the Clinton camp was upset that Obama was getting everything but a little gold statue in Hollywood this week.

Now, they're gonna be really mad. Long-time Clinton supporter and richie-rich Hollywood mogul David Geffen was talking the junk about the Clintons to Maureen Dowd this week. Catfight! (emphasis mine)

They fell out in 2000, when Mr. Clinton gave a pardon to Marc Richafter rebuffing Mr. Geffen’s request for one for Leonard Peltier. “MarcRich getting pardoned? An oil-profiteer expatriate who left the countryrather than pay taxes or face justice?” Mr. Geffen says. “Yet anothertime when the Clintons were unwilling to stand for the things that theygenuinely believe in. Everybody in politics lies, but they do it withsuch ease, it’s troubling.”

And, this:

“I don’t think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of asudden Bill Clinton has become a different person,” Mr. Geffen says,adding that if Republicans are digging up dirt, they’ll wait until Hillary’s the nominee to use it. “I think they believe she’s theeasiest to defeat.”

Hillary's people, predictably, are asking Obama to cut ties with Geffen and return his money in light of his appalling "viciousness". Nobody likes it when their ATM turns on them.

And, the Obama camp swipes back. Nicce.

Political hardball on the Dem side, a year away from primaries. I like it.