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!

Wednesday, May 14, 2008
West Virginia and The Map
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 10:06 AM
ElectionProjection's updated electoral college map shows Obama with a 10 vote lead over Mccain, but it also shows Obama winning Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, not to mention Colorado, Iowa and Minnesota:

 

What Hillary's blow-out, 41% win last night shows us, though, is that with Obama as the nominee, West Virginia is going to be deep red in November, and that suggests a very-real-if-difficult-to-detect-in-the-polls antipathy towards Obama.

Politico.com has a Ben Smith story that notes a Clinton supporter waving a bowling pin after last night's big win, "a symbol of the cultural distance between Obama, who bowls poorly, and the state’s working-class white voters."

But Clinton's margin of victory is too huge to simply assign it to one demographic.

There's obviously a "Bradley effect" at work, but that doesn't account for the landslide either. 

It seems as Obama has cemented his image of being from outside of the American political mainstream, and the attention paid to his "bitter" comments, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Michelle Obama have all been contributing factors.

The vast majority of Americans would gladly vote for an African-American provided that his or her politics are mainstream.

But Obama's aren't, and as that recognition spreads, his numbers plummet among the vast number of voters who live in the middle and who follow politics only sporadically.

Which means Obama's map is shrinking before our eyes while McCain's is expanding.  Suddenly the light blue states have to be considered the battlefield for the fall, and McCain has to be looking at a strategy and a running mate that puts even more pressure on Obama in the industrial midwest.  Of course Romney puts Michigan in play, as well as Colorado where Romney did very well in the GOP caucuses, but Minnesota's Governor Tim Pawlenty also brings strengths in the upper midwest. Either man as veep would expand McCain's map in key areas.  By contrast, it is difficult to imagine an Obama veep who can take a red-leaning state and put it in play.  Fred Barnes wrote that Obama needs to play defense in the must-win state of Pennsylvania with a pick of Ed Rendell, but of course Rendell's got huge negatives, as does almost every other Obama potential pick.  The key point is that Obama is playing defense  --the huge momentum of early spring is gone, and it isn't coming back.  Dismiss West Virginia and Kentucky as they will, but Team Obama knows the glow is gone and the rapidly freezing ice over his reputation as hard left will be difficult to break after the primaries are over.

Lots of white knuckles among GOP congressmen considering another special election loss, but the silver lining last night is that the more voters focus on Obama and the hard left agenda he represents and would work with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid to enact, the more they reject him and his policies.  If Hillary was the nominee  --Bill carried West Virginia in '92 and '96-- the GOP would be staring down a very long barrel, but Howard Dean, the netroots and the MSM have managed to deliver a fractured party and a deeply flawed nominee, one whose past and whose policies could resurrect the fortunes of an old soldier promising tough talk, security and a second American century.




Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Obama: Jimmy Carter Redux
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 10:01 AM
... While we're posting Obama videos, the good folks at the RNC have put together this little piece which demonstrates how Obama is merely returning to the policies of Jimmy Carter.






Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Obama Reinvents Recent History
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 9:49 AM
Barack Obama likes to tell people how he talked tough to Michigan automakers. "When I delivered that speech nobody clapped. That room was really quiet," he says.

But there was quite a bit of clapping according to the footage. Take a look. H/T RightMichigan.com






Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Iron Lady?
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 8:35 AM

Call it what you will.

... Grit versus grace

... The senator from the state of hope versus the senator from the state of desperation

Either way, I think Americans at least admire Hillary's Churchillian refusal to never, never, never give up -- even when things look impossible for her.  As much as I disagree with a lot of her ideology, I can't help but admire her toughness.  And I can also imagine a lot of Americans admire her toughness because, at the end of the day, we all would want someone fighting for us the way she's fighting right now (as Homer Simpson once said to Lisa:  "If they're ever going to pull the plug on me, I want you in my corner, honey.")

And Hillary's electability argument -- though obviously self-serving -- is also a legitimate argument to make.

Hillary's trouncing of Obama last night buttresses her argument that she is best equipped to win the swing-states like PA, OH, WV, etc. that almost always determine who wins or loses the presidency.
And let's be honest, though Michigan and Florida weren't really fair for Obama -- who do you think has the best chance of winning those states now (after Obama has been arguing against seating the delegates and Hillary as been arguing for seating their delegates)?

Obama is arguing that he is a paradigm shifter, and thus, the old rules no longer matter (because, somehow, winning Colorado is going to make him president this year...).

This sort of quixotic argument comes up from time to time in business dealings, and I get nervous when people try to tell me that things are going to be different this time.  The reason is because they are usually wrong.  History is the best predictor of future events, and it's a bit presumptions to believe that the old rules don't apply to you.  As Hillary notes, no Democrat since 1960 has been president without winning West Virginia.  Obama wants to argue that history and tradition don't matter -- that he's something altogether new. 

Well, maybe, just maybe Obama is so special that all the old rules don't apply to him.  But eschewing history is a dangerous strategy.  As they say, the pioneers get the arrows.




Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Israel at 60: Strong Democratic Ally or Festering, Open "Sore"?
Posted by: Tom DeLay at 8:19 AM

That liberals are openly questioning Israel’s likelihood of survival should, ironically, give friends of Israel reason to relax. From environmental catastrophe to the effectiveness of welfare programs for inner city families, liberals are notoriously bad about predicting the future.

And yet, as the only stable democracy in the Middle East turns 60, and as she enjoys a level of prosperity and internal stability unprecedented in its history, Israel has rarely faced greater uncertainty.  The increasingly likelihood of a nuclear Iran has introduced a whole new level of instability into a region not known for its genial methods of conflict resolution.  The increasing oil wealth of Israel’s hostile neighbors means millions of unaccounted dollars are now being funneled into the hands of unpleasant people. The increasing attractiveness of extreme forms of Islam among Arab youths obviously doesn’t bode well for the nation that ideology is committed to destroying.  Meanwhile, anti-Semitism has become more fashionable in elite society than any time since kristallnacht.

And yet… Israel shows no signs of going anywhere.  Its birthrate is higher than the United States, a sign of great social optimism despite obvious hardships.  Its economy continues to grow. Its citizens have now lived through another war with one of their belligerent neighbors and show no signs of weakening resolve.  If anything, the current generation of Israelis has shown even more pluck and determination than the last.  For this, Israel and Israelis should not only be congratulated and admired – they should feel a constant embrace from the United States, its leaders, and its people.

Someone has apparently forgotten to pass this information along to Senator Barack Obama.  In an interview with The Atlantic, the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee called Israel a “constant wound … a constant sore [that] does infect all of our foreign policy.”  On one level, this is traffic-stoppingly stupid.  What’s wrong with this guy?  We’re told ad nauseum he’s the greatest political communicator of his generation, and his idea of a balanced and nuanced position is to compare a threatened ally in a crucial region to a festering, open sore?  It’s no longer an open question as to whether Senator Obama is ready prime time: he’s not.

But far worse than the idiocy of the statement is its offensiveness.  Put simply, would Senator Obama have even flirted with such insulting language were he talking about China, Cuba, or Saudi Arabia?  Meanwhile, in the same “constant sore” interview, Obama reaffirmed his commitment to “opening a dialogue” with regimes that sponsor terrorism, kill Americans, and promise the destruction of Israel.

What can we do about it?  The answer isn't easy and requires our action.  First, we must educate our friends and family on an issue that many voters overlook - how we treat our allies, not just our enemies. Statements like this are beyond irresponsible: they foreshadow the foreign policy of a potential future administration.  Secondly, keep Israel and her people in your prayers and in your political action as they celebrate this great anniversary of Independence.  And third, make sure Senator Obama knows that just because Israel is small and Israelis can't vote for him, that they do have a voice among their allies here in the U.S.  Call his office and let him know how offensive these comments were, and ask him to retract his statement. Here's his number: (202) 224-2854.  And make sure you call - emails are too passive and can easily be ignored, but a phone ringing off the hook is a sign that we're paying attention, and we stick up for our friends.






Wednesday, May 14, 2008
40%?
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 12:51 AM
Hillary won by 40%?

Put West Virginia in the McCain column.  Along with Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Barack Obama is far outside the mainstream, and Democrats know it.  

Yes, GOP candidates are facing tough weather, as the special elections show.

But not against hard left candidates, and Senator Obama is hard left.




Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Hillary Wins West Virginia
Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 9:59 PM
Surprise, surprise.  Hillary Clinton wins West Virginia by a hefty margin.  The New York Times helpfully informs us that 

The voter surveys showing a strong racial component to the West Virginia voting suggest that Mr. Obama would still face pockets of significant Democratic resistance if he does become the party’s first black nominee.

In other words, the Times suggests, many of those voting against Obama are doing so for racist reasons.

If I were part of the Obama team, I'd tell entities like the Times to stop the friendly fire.  Back in March, Dianne Feinstein (a Hillary supporter), blamed some of her candidate's problems on sexism.   I wrote at the time:

The problem with the "gender bias" approach, of course, is that it's hard to win over potential supporters by telling them that they'll be deemed to harbor invidious motives if they don't support your candidate.  Not surprisingly, people don't enjoy being characterized as bigots.

The same applies to the racism argument.  Sadly, no doubt some people are voting against Barack because of his race.  But it does no good to accuse them of it.  That's because other Hillary supporters -- who might be won over -- are likely to be offended (and with good reason) at the implication that their support for a candidate that they may prefer for perfectly acceptable non-racial reasons (maybe they believe she has more experience, or they liked her husband, etc., etc.) is actually covert racism.

Barack Obama says he can unite the party.  Maybe he can -- but it won't be because he, his surrogates or his supporters (and yes, that includes most of the press) has bullied people into saying they'll vote for him, lest they be characterized as racist.  That's not the way to win . . . that's the way to create a massive Bradley effect.

Barack is a very smart guy, and he no doubt knows this.  What's more, at least when I knew him, he seemed willing not to view everything through a racialist lens (here's hoping that hasn't changed, given his associations in the interim).   That's helpful, because sometimes, it really isn't about race -- it's about ideology. Ultimately, he'd be well-served to get race out of the discussion . . . if he can.







Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The NYT's Grand Unity Plan
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 6:28 PM
Only the NYT could hash this one up. Brace yourself:

"So how about this: What if Mrs. Clinton asked Mr. Obama to adopt her plan for universal health care? He could put Mrs. Clinton in charge of achieving it, presumably but not necessarily from her perch inside the Senate. And he could begin by putting the goal of universal coverage as a plank in the party’s platform." -Katharine Q. Seelye, New York Times





Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Rush Hits McCain on Global Warming
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 5:37 PM
On today's show, Rush Limbaugh went after John McCain for his speech on the environment yesterday in Oregon.  Here's an excerpt from today's show:

"I'm gonna tell you something, folks, when it comes to global warming and the hoax and the fixes for this hoax, the solution, we do not have one of the three presidential candidates who differs from each other.  We are cooked.  Our goose is cooked on this.  It doesn't matter who you vote for, for president, we're going to get a liberal Democrat approach to fixing something that doesn't exist. 

... I have not faced this situation before.  I have not faced a situation where a major Republican presidential candidate sounds just like a liberal Democrat and I know of no other thing to do here than to tell you the truth about this.  This is embarrassing, and it is frightening."





Tuesday, May 13, 2008
A Lunch To Remember and CaringForChina.org
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 5:34 PM
First, please consider a donation to CaringForChina.org.  This organization runs orphanages and medical clinics in China, with a specific mission of caring for abandoned children with specific health needs.  One of their orphanages was evacuated in the quake and the children --many with special needs-- are in tents outside their home.  Their medical facilities are going to be operating at full tilt for the foreseeable futurte and your help will go directly to victims of the disaster.  CFCC has opened a special earthquake fund.  You can contribute online or send a check to:

Caring For China
3300 S. Fairview
Santa Ana, CA 92704

Thank you.

I had lunch today with three Hoover Institution fellows --Victor Davis Hanson, Thomas Sowell and Peter Robinson.  I am not in the habit of quoting my lunch guests, but VDH and Peter will be my guests in the first two hours of today's show and I have a rain check from Dr. Sowell.

This is why Hoover is such a crucial institution in the U.S.: It allows some of greatest public intellectuals to work and write throughout the year.  To get a copy of the Hoover Digest, go to www.Hoover.org, click on publications and sign up for the Digest.

And if you want to correspond with Peter, you can at robinsononthecorner@mac.com.






Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Re: Things that Scare Me
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 5:23 PM
Change you can believe in...

Matt-Lewis2.jpg picture by MattLewis01

Join the fun.  Create your own.




Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Things that Scare Me
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 4:57 PM
Matt, I think this video tops those signs.





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!)




FEATURES FEATURES

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

Baucus Bonds

Posted by: John Campbell
5/15/2008

Your Blog Postings:
Last updated 4 Seconds Ago
Last updated 1 Minutes 54 Seconds Ago
Last updated 6 Minutes 2 Seconds Ago
Last updated 12 Minutes 29 Seconds Ago
Last updated 19 Minutes 9 Seconds Ago
 

Archives Archives

Blog Search



Townhall Blogs Townhall Blogs
Columns Columns
Your Blogs Your Blogs