Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers
Monday, March 31, 2008
|
|
OR Senate Primary Gets Interesting
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
5:12 PM
|
|
An interesting scenario has developed in the Oregon Senate race ...
Until recently, it has been assumed that Jeff Merkley would win the Democratic nomination to take on Republican Gordon Smith.
But his Democratic opponent Steve Novick -- who proudly displays a metal hook for a left hand -- has come on strong, most recently by winning the endorsement of the Service Employees International Union.
From the AP: "Novick fills a room the minute he walks into it," said Webb Thomas, a teacher from Beaverton. "That's what you need. Merkley is so out of central casting. If you took all the white, male, Democratic candidates and blended them together, then you'd have Jeff Merkley." ... Merkley is still favored, but appears to be in real danger, as is evidenced by a new NRSC webpage, which attacks Novick as "As tax-happy as Jeff Merkley ... only funnier."
|
|
|
Monday, March 31, 2008
|
|
RNC Responds to Obama's "100 Years"
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
4:11 PM
|
|
On MSNBC this morning, Barack Obama said this:
“... It's certainly different from saying that we would have a high level of combat troops inside Iraq for a decade or two decades or as John McCain said, perhaps 100 years. I am just quoting back what he said. Unless you tell me that that's a misquote.”
... to which RNC spokeswoman Liz Mair responded:
“Barack Obama seems happy to continue twisting John McCain’s words in a way that has been described by non-partisan Politifact.com as ‘false.’ This is despite seeming acknowledgement from Barack Obama today that he is indeed mischaracterizing John McCain’s position with regard to a continued US troop presence in Iraq.
“It’s becoming increasingly clear that for all his protestations as to representing a ‘new brand of politics,’ when push comes to shove, Barack Obama is worryingly comfortable continually repeating known falsehoods in order to score political points. Instead, Obama should stop engaging in such blatant distortion and misrepresentation. He should, in addition, condemn DNC Chairman Howard Dean who has repeatedly used the same inaccurate talking point, and who recently achieved an all-new-low by slandering John McCain as a ‘blatant opportunist’ for highlighting his record of military service."
|
|
|
Monday, March 31, 2008
|
|
The NYT Mag, and Sex at Harvard
|
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
3:50 PM
|
Of course, one would have to believe in the tooth fairy to think that a writer for Mother Jones is going to cover the pro-chastity movement among Harvard undergrads with complete fairness (I'll come back to this point at the end of the post). After reading the big story on Harvard's True Love Revolution in yesterday's New York Times Magazine, four major points in general leaped out at me.
First: It's impossible, from the piece, to tell whether someone who openly exercises sexual restraint is treated as a complete oddity on college campuses -- or whether they're simply covered that way in the article. What is fair to point out, however, is the systemic difficulty of talking about traditionalist sexual mores without running the risk of sounding hopelessly dorky and strange. It's almost impossible to sound "hip" and "cynical" and "cool" and "edgy" -- and to strike the kinds of poses that win adoring coverage from left-wing journalists -- while defending "old-fashioned" virtues like sexual restraint. On the whole, it seemed to me that the young woman primarily featured in the story, Janie Fredell, came off very well.
Fredell's stated reluctance to "join" the chastity movement at Harvard suggested to me that the licentiousness condoned (and even celebrated) in much of the culture puts people like her in a bind. They end up as unwilling "activists" when obviously, they'd be much happier simply being able to live their lives without having to discuss sex all the time -- if, that is, there were an environment where sexual activity on everyone's part wasn't simply treated as a given, by everyone from Harvard's administration on down.
Second: It was disheartening to read of the disrespect that characterizes the treatment of abstinence advocates on a campus that is supposedly dedicated to "diversity" of all kinds (and I suspect Harvard is hardly unique in this regard). It's another manifestation of elite culture's contempt for religious faith in general, and Christianity in particular. That's because, uniquely in the constellation of virtues, chastity has somehow been defined as a matter of interest or relevance only to "religious" people. And too often, among elites, when something has been denominated as the exclusive purview of the "religious" -- and particularly the conservative "religious" -- it becomes A-OK to treat it with disdain.
Read More...
|
|
|
Monday, March 31, 2008
|
|
RE: The Legacy Debate
|
|
Posted by:
Jonathan Garthwaite at
2:52 PM
|
It was only a few weeks ago that Senator McCain was condemming talk show host Bill Cunningham for using Barack Obama's middle name in a speech so it stuck out at me when I heard "John Sidney McCain" at the end of McCain's new ad.
|
|
|
Monday, March 31, 2008
|
|
RE: The Legacy Debate
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
2:05 PM
|
I, like you Matt, can claim no admirals in the family, but most of what I know of the grandfathers who passed before I was born is wrapped up in the flags that draped their coffins. They were good men, veterans who served their country and loved their families, and taught my parents to do the same.
For a lot of Americans, admirals or no, those are some of the most potent family remembrances, the war stories that get passed down, the medals and folded flags passed on from generation to generation. So, yeah, I think there's connection for many Americans where their lives intersect with McCain's and admiration where they don't. It should also be noted that McCain's rather good at telling stories that hint at the family's imperfections and a persistent rebel spirit that make his legacy simultaneously more charming and less potentially boastful than it would be if it were spit-polished at every point.
For instance, his picture of his granddad in today's speech:
He was devoted to the Navy, but in personal comportment, he was anything but regulation. He was a rumpled, informal man, who wore a crushed cap with the crown removed that the wife of one of his aviators had given him; kept his shoes off when he worked in an office; tobacco leavings were always scattered about him, as he rolled his own with one hand; possessed a mischievous sense of humor, and was unusually close to sailors and junior officers who served under him, and revered him. They called him, “Popeye;” his family called him, “Sid;” and his fellow officers, “Slew,” for reasons I never learned. What but the flaws of great men to convince us that we too can be great? It's relatable, and Mac has a knack for painting these pictures.
I agree with Matt that McCain's personal story is stronger even than his dad's and granddad's because is speaks to what we need to know-- how he will lead. But there's no doubt that drawing the straight line from George Washington's soldiers to World War I and II's sailors, to today's Senator is a good start.
Karl Rove has said again and again that McCain has to reintroduce himself to the American public. He began today, and each speech will help us "get" McCain a little more, becoming progressively more focused on how his history predicts his future, I'd wager.
I like it so far, and it makes a very uncomfortable target for liberal fire, so to speak.
|
|
|
Monday, March 31, 2008
|
|
Re: The Legacy Debate
|
|
Posted by:
Amanda Carpenter at
12:36 PM
|
I'm not sure the ads need to "connect" with voters' own personal family histories. In your blogs you often talk about whether an ad "works" or not. I think these ads "work" because they help people "get" McCain."
In other words, Matt, it's not all about you! ;)
(And, full disclosure, I grew up with a mock Civil War cannon in my front yard.)
|
|
|
Monday, March 31, 2008
|
|
The Legacy Debate ...
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
12:22 PM
|
MKH/AC -- Do you really think most average Americans connect with the legacy angle McCain is pushing?
I personally admire Sen. McCain's admirable service to our country. I think his service is a selling point to his candidacy.
All four of my uncles on my mother's side of the family served in the military. But the fact that McCain's grandfather and father were high-ranking military officers doesn't especially connect with me. My uncles were like gunny sergeants, or something. They certainly weren't Admirals.
What is more, I wonder what in the world that has to do with his ability to lead ... I don't really want to vote for anyone because of what his or her ancestors did -- or didn't -- do.
I'm guessing that there are some families who trace there military history back to serving in the Revolutionary War -- and maybe this appeals to them -- but that's not the world I come from.
Again, all my mother's brothers served, but there aren't any Civil War swords hanging on my fireplace, or anything ...
Granted, this is the first day of his bio tour. It's an introduction, and my guess is that we won't be focusing on his family legacy for long.
Am I out in, um, "right" field here???
|
|
|
Monday, March 31, 2008
|
|
Hillary's "Girl" Problem
|
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
12:17 PM
|
All together now, one more time: Being anti-Hillary doesn't equate with sexism.
And that's lucky for a couple of girls who obviously haven't appreciated their unsought roles in the Hillary Clinton campaign. The "tarmac tyke" (as Mary Katharine cleverly nicknames her below) now joins the 3 a.m. girl in throwing daggers at Hillary (figuratively, of course).
Unlike the 3 am girl, who endorsed Obama, the tarmac tyke is neutral in the presidential race. But given that Bill Clinton receives lots of credit in Bosnia for his foreign policy there, the fact that she isn't an outspoken Clintonista says a lot.
|
|
|
Monday, March 31, 2008
|
|
Mac in Meridian: The Speech Lefties Will Love to Hate
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
12:13 PM
|
 McCain's full remarks are below the fold.
I struggle to pick parts I like because the whole thing is well-written and moving. If this election is to be a battle of biographies, as some are suggesting, the contrast between McCain's and Obama's biographical narratives will be nowhere clearer than this week, during McCain's "Service to America" tour. It speaks to the wonder of our great country that its borders encompass and its public life allows for these two widely divergent American success stories.
McCain's account, in Meridian today, of his family's storied martial history reaches back to George Washington and touches on most major conflicts that have, at turns, touched the shores, tortured the souls, and foretold the greatness of the United States of America.
He is a man who loves his country, is humbled by those who came before him, and who is deeply connected to the history and sacrifice that have made this country and his ascendance in it a possibility. It is clear that his grandfather's presence on the deck of a WWI cruiser led him to the dais today.
Now, there are still policy preferences and a hundred Basras, Gitmos, and McCain-Feingolds about which to argue, from the Right and Left, but the Left pokes fun at McCain's family legacy at its own peril. It is a story with which most Americans connect, and with which they associate their own fathers and grandfathers, mothers and grandmothers. And, come election time, looking insufficiently appreciative of the Greatest Generation and those it inspired is not a good move, which is why we can likely count on parts of the far Left blogosphere to keep doing it.
Read More...
|
|
|
Monday, March 31, 2008
|
|
Advice for McCain on Handling the Mortgage Crisis
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
12:00 PM
|
While John McCain "owns" the national security/foreign policy issue, he must also continue addressing the economy and the mortgage crisis.
As everyone knows, after a crisis occurs, the immediate impulse from Washington is to do something--anything. But in truth, often, the best option is to let the market correct itself.
This, of course, is often, not a politically tenable option. Effectively managing a financial crisis can be difficult for conservatives who realize correct long-term strategy (which may be to let the market correct itself) is almost never the politically expedient strategy.
Hillary's plan to bail-out of the mortgage industry is a prime example of what not to do. Sure, pandering can work in the short-run. But it is, after all, a dangerous moral hazard to make it easier for investors to avoid losses. Luckily, McCain is known for giving voters "straight talk" they may not want to hear (see Michigan). Unfortunately, it may be easy for the Democrat to demagogue the issue, and imply McCain is asleep at the wheel.
Aside from increasing the size of government, the biggest problem with Hillary's "plan", of course, is that it sets a dangerous precedent. Creating a win/win scenario for investors and lenders (if you invest and make money, good -- if you invest and lose money, the government will bail you out) only encourages more risky speculation -- and more opportunities for future crisis.
While McCain must avoid this sort of populist pandering, I do think there is something McCain can propose that would be both proactive and effective: He should consider changing the tax code to make property an active investment.
Property-owners currently cannot immediately deduct expenses such as repairs or home improvements (a new washing machine, for example). Instead, these expenses are added to the home-owner's cost basis, and then counted toward reducing the amount declared as profit when the house is sold.
If sold correctly to the American public, this should be an extremely popular idea with most middle-class homeowners. Essentially, this is a tax cut.
What is more, if McCain is truly looking for a long-term solution that will also be a short-term benefit, changing the tax code -- to make property an active investment -- would immediately reinvigorate the housing market. It would also ensure property values increase. And, as a side benefit, it would make foreclosed houses a more attractive investment.
|
|
|
Monday, March 31, 2008
|
|
"Punished" With a Baby?
|
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
11:54 AM
|
Over at Ben Smith's Politico blog, there is a attention-getting quote from Barack Obama, discussing sex education in schools:
"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," Obama said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
Is this simply inartful phrasing -- or is it the kind of remark that inadvertently reveals the mindset of many of those who are, like Barack, at the extreme of the pro-choice movement, where a baby is less a life that's worthy of respect and protection than it is simply an undeserved "punishment" for those who've engaged in ill-advised sexual activity?
One final comment: Those who are in favor of the Planned Parenthood/SIECUS approach to sex ed -- you know, where children spend class time putting condoms on bananas -- often try to set up the same false dichotomy employed by Barack above.
The real choice isn't about whether we teach young people to exercise sexual restraint or else we "give them information." The choice is whether we have the moral confidence -- and the social consensus -- that's required to teach young people that casual sex at a tender age is wrong, or whether we just treat it as another decision, like whether to have pizza or hamburgers for lunch.
There is a world of difference in knowing how one's body works, where babies come from, and that contraception is available for use when one is older and it is appropriate to be having sexual relations, on the one hand -- and, on the other, being "given information" that implicitly encourages and facilitates teen sex by conveying a message that sexual activity on the part of teens isn't just normal, it's expected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your Blog Postings:
|
|
Last updated 12 Minutes 32 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 35 Minutes 53 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 42 Minutes 23 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 45 Minutes 58 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 55 Minutes 16 Seconds Ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archives of our Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
Comments Comments
•How the hell...
Re:
The Undecideds
By
Eugene
•Careful Because You Are My Biiiatch Axe
Re:
Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
By
Eugene
•My letter to congress - pass it along!
Re:
2,000 Pages of Mandates, Taxes, and Bureaucracy
By
Teresa
•Vote NO
Re:
Just Vote No
By
Kenny Z
•Jo Anne
Re:
Health Care Throwdown: Palin vs. Pelosi
By
Eugene
•peacefrog
Re:
Health Care Throwdown: Palin vs. Pelosi
By
Eugene
•Ladybug Sarah flyaway home .....
Re:
Health Care Throwdown: Palin vs. Pelosi
By
Jo Ann
•Originalist
Re:
Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
By
Ronna
•David...In Auschwitz Axie's Tiny Brain
Re:
Maine vote repeals gay marriage law
By
NeoConScum
•LJ
Re:
Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
By
Speedicut
•Neo
Re:
Dem Leader Hoyer: We'll have the votes by this evening
By
Eugene
•Jo ann
Re:
Health Care Vote Looms: Where Does Your Rep. Stand?
By
Ronna
•Ronna
Re:
Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
By
Origanalist
•L.J. regardless of how you spell embecil
Re:
Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
By
Ronna
•'Gene:Loathsome Nancy & Water Pail Steny
Re:
Dem Leader Hoyer: We'll have the votes by this evening
By
NeoConScum
•Here you go...
Re:
Maine vote repeals gay marriage law
By
David
•Careful with that axe, Eugene
Re:
Maine vote repeals gay marriage law
By
David
•Beta-Male Bamster is Pulling Tin Ears
Re:
NBC ranks Obama "INSENSITIVE" on Ft. Hood
By
NeoConScum
•Neo
Re:
Dem Leader Hoyer: We'll have the votes by this evening
By
Eugene
•Ronna
Re:
Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
By
L.J.
|
|
|
|
The Latest on Town HallThe Latest on Town Hall
|
|
|
|
|
|
|