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
In the Tank for Barack -- and Feeling Good About It!
Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 11:56 AM
I don't always agree with Howard Kurtz, but he calls 'em like he sees 'em.

Here, he reports on the "non-coverage" of Hillary Clinton's West Virginia blow-out.  At the same time, he amasses a damning collection of links that highlights just how completely the elites in the pundit class are rooting for Barack Obama.

I noted Monday that the McCain camp is insanely optimistic if it truly expects to "work, woo and win" the press.  Kurtz's piece is Exhibit A in why.

The pro-Obama bias of much of the MSM transcends the simple liberal-conservative axis -- obviously, of course, because there is little sunlight between the policies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  It's about two other factors that apply with equal force whether it's an Obama-Clinton campaign, or a McCain-Obama one.

First, there is the "novelty" factor.  Not just the novelty that Barack is African-American, of course (if sheer newness were all that mattered, Hillary's been the first woman with a serious shot at winning) -- but the fact that Barack is much, much newer to the national press corps and national prominence than either Hillary or McCain.  And it's more fun to cover someone you haven't been covering for more than a decade or two; there might actually be something new and newsworthy to ferret out.

Second, Barack has won their hearts (much as Bill Clinton did back in 1992).  That's not just because they like him, his multi-culti/Ivy League background, his eloquence, and his (liberal) policies.  Just as importantly, it's because many in the press believe that Barack's candidacy offers the potential for "racial healing" -- something, of course, that everyone can agree would be good for America.  

The problem for McCain, in other words, isn't just that the press is in Barack's camp.  That's true in any race between a Republican and a Democrat.  It's that they can feel good about being in the tank for him . . . they actually have a way to rationalize conflating their own political preference with "what's good for America."




Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Huck Does MSNBC
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 11:55 AM
Mike Huckabee garnered good reviews for his humorous punditry on MSNBC last night.  You can watch it here ...




Tags: Veep huckabee huck



Wednesday, May 14, 2008
President Gave Up War-Time Golf for Troops
Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 11:23 AM
Yikes, from the annals of political tin-earism. Seriously.
For the first time, Bush revealed a personal way in which he has tried to acknowledge the sacrifice of soldiers and their families: He has given up golf.

“I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” he said. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”
How long before a snark about this shows up in an Obama stump speech? I don't even give it a day.





Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Kucinich: Catch the Fev-ah!
Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 11:08 AM
Dennis Kucinich seems to be regularly updating his YouTube channel despite having dropped out of the race in January.

Today, witness the electricity of this visionary leader and wonder at the inexplicable fact that he didn't catch fiyah all around this great nation of ours:







Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Hillarypalooza
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 10:53 AM
You won't be able to escape Hillary Clinton if you have a TV. She's booked for CNN in the afternoon and Fox News, ABC, NBC and CBS this evening. She also be hitting Noticiero Univision.





Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Barack Obama: Middle East Expert
Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 10:49 AM

Just compare the coverage of this to the McCain's Sunni/Shia terror funding "gaffe" of a couple months ago, which of course was actually not that much of a gaffe at all since terror funding crosses such religious lines frequently:
Obama posited -- incorrectly -- that Arabic translators deployed in Iraq are needed in Afghanistan -- forgetting, momentarily, that Afghans don't speak Arabic.

"We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then its harder for us to use them in Afghanistan," Obama said.

The vast majority of military translators in both war zones are drawn from the local population.
Naturally they speak the local language. In Iraq, that's Arabic or Kurdish. In Afghanistan, it's any of a half dozen other languages -- including Pashtu, Dari, and Farsi.
And, then again:
"We need agricultural specialists in Afghanistan, people who can help them develop other crops than heroin poppies, because the drug trade in Afghanistan is what is driving and financing these terrorist networks. So we need agricultural specialists," he said.

So far, so good.

"But if we are sending them to Baghdad, they're not in Afghanistan," Obama said.

Iraq has many problems, but encouraging farmers to grow food instead of opium poppies isn't one of them. In Iraq, oil fields not poppy fields are a major source of U.S. technical assistance.
Combine this with the fact that even Obama's most committed foreign policy supporters admit his entire philosophy is "accidental," and you've got a real recipe for geopolitical success, here. That is, if you like your success crispy and nuked with a side of smoked Western civilization. Yummy!

Now, with as much flack as the Left has given the Bush administration (sometimes rightly) for its incomplete understanding of the Middle East before moving into Iraq and the high premium they place on Obama's superior "judgment" on such matters, don't you think this comment from him will get a ton of coverage from Left blogs and Chris Matthews? Yep, I'm waiting.





Wednesday, May 14, 2008
The Catastrophe In China
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 10:46 AM
As expected, the death toll is shooting up, and thousands --tens of thosusands?-- are still trapped.

Please consider a donation to the earthquake relief fund established by CaringforChina.org, which can be made over the web or by sending a check to

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

   
AP.

 






Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Carville: 'Great Likelihood Obama Will Be Nominee'
Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 10:42 AM

The staunch Clinton ally argued she should stay in until early June, but conceded this pretty significant point:

"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.

Asked about who might share a ticket with Obama, Carville floated Clinton's name, as well as that of Clinton ally Gen. Wesley Clark. Carville also mentioned Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg as possible running mates, according the Greenville News.







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.






FEATURES FEATURES

Combating America's Energy Concerns

Posted by: Michele Bachmann
5/16/2008

The Campbell Quiz

Posted by: John Campbell
5/16/2008

Nothing "False" About Bush Attack

Posted by: Michael Medved
5/15/2008

Your Blog Postings:
Last updated 8 Minutes 58 Seconds Ago
Last updated 10 Minutes 21 Seconds Ago
Last updated 11 Minutes 53 Seconds Ago
Last updated 14 Minutes 35 Seconds Ago
Last updated 22 Minutes 13 Seconds Ago
 

Archives Archives

Blog Search



Townhall Blogs Townhall Blogs
Columns Columns
Your Blogs Your Blogs