Friday, May 16, 2008 |
|
Fox at 3:30 |
|
Posted by:
Amanda Carpenter at
1:37 PM |
I'm booked for Fox News with Shep Smith on "Studio B" at 3:30---pending any major breaking news.
Also, if anyone is around in the Baltimore area I'll be on with WBAL's Bruce Elliot early Saturday morning. We've been visiting over the airwaves for the past few months and he's becoming my regular Saturday morning radio-date. Tune in, he has a great show.
|
|
|
Friday, May 16, 2008 |
|
Please Schedule That Debate |
|
Posted by:
Amanda Carpenter at
12:25 PM |
Barack Obama is on television right now trying to gin up some moral outrage about Bush's remarks about appeasement in Israel. (Teleprompter isn't fully functioning today).
He just said he'd be willing to have a debate with George Bush and John McCain about negotiating with terrorists and the war.
Ok, could we have the debate like, tonight? Can we schedule that now?
|
|
|
Friday, May 16, 2008 |
|
Oligarchy Does Not = "Liberty" |
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
12:02 PM |
Bob Barr is running for president as part of the Libertarian party, so of course it is necessary for him to find a way to approve of the California judicial diktat on gay marriage.
He's chosen a lame argument, however. His assertion that such matters are state issues, and that what the California state supreme court did is therefore A-OK, confuses -- out of either ignorance or disingenuousness -- two distinct issues: Federalism and separation of powers.
Sure, federalism principles hold that state issues should be decided on the state level (setting aside, for purposes of this discussion, the implications of the "full faith and credit clause" -- the potential impact of which justified the creation of DOMA).
But separation of powers principles require that each branch of government adhere to its own role. As every schoolchild should know, the role of the judiciary is not to make the law; it is to interpret it. Here, judges created new legal rights and obligations that are not clearly appearing in (or at least obviously implied by) a constitution, doing so under the guise of "interpreting the law."
That means the court has engaged in a quintessentially legislative function (i.e., making the law). On top of it, given that this legal right/obligation was not only not recognized by the people of the state, but was recently expressly rejected by them -- and, in fact, runs counter to the understanding of marriage for centuries -- it is an act of unbridled arrogance . . . even lawlessness.
It's tempting for those who see themselves as libertarians to approve this ruling, on the reasoning that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage anyway, or some such rationale. In truth, though, those devoted to the cause of liberty should be the first to protest it -- as should every freedom-loving person, whether or not s/he supports the cause of gay marriage.
That's because, if a largely unaccountable black-robed obligarchy can create legal rights and obligations out of whole cloth against the expressed will of the people, haven't we the people handed them a blank check to rule over us, guided only by their own whim?
|
|
|
Friday, May 16, 2008 |
|
McCain Response: Conditions Required |
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
11:32 AM |
If you're following the debate about McCain's comments on Hamas -- this warrants a look ...
... And here's a statement from the McCain campaign:
“There should be no confusion, John McCain has always believed that serious engagement would require mandatory conditions and Hamas must change itself fundamentally – renounce violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept a two state solution. John McCain’s position is clear and has always been clear, the President of the United States should not unconditionally meet with leaders of Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah. Barack Obama has made his position equally clear, and has pledged to meet unconditionally with Iran’s leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the leaders of other rogue regimes, which shows incredibly dangerous and weak judgment.” ---Tucker Bounds, spokesman John McCain 2008.
|
|
|
Friday, May 16, 2008 |
|
The Campbell Quiz |
|
Posted by:
John Campbell at
10:41 AM |
|
I read a lot of political discourse that is pretty tedious and boring. I never want this blog to sink to that level. I understand that there is always a risk of that when I bring up such scintillating topics as international tax policy and mortgage origination regulations. Stop yawning!
Anyway, so here is the very first Campbell Quiz. These are a few questions about current events in Congress and politics. And no, I will not make you wait until next week to find the answers. They are all at the end of each question. Good luck, have fun.......oh yeah and maybe you'll learn something you didn't know too!
1) Two weeks ago, Congress passed a "technical corrections bill" that contained hundreds of new transportation earmarks including $90 million to study a "maglev" (magnetic levitation) train. This train would run a route that is currently served by dozens of daily airline flights and at a fare of about $118. If it takes $90 million to study it, imagine what it would take to subsidize it. This train would run between:
a) New York and Washington
b) Anaheim and Las Vegas
c) Cincinnati and Cleveland
d) San Francisco and Honolulu
Answer: (b). This earmark was originally put forth by Harry Reid (D-NV) to subsidize bringing more people to Vegas. If any of you picked (d) (San Francisco and Honolulu), please stop reading this until you sober up.
Read More... |
|
|
Friday, May 16, 2008 |
|
Speech! Speech! |
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
10:33 AM |
I'm speaking at the May meeting of the Conservative Women's Network at The Heritage Foundation at noon today in Washington, D.C.
I don't think they show this particular event online, so I'll just take my video camera over in case I say something worth capturing for posterity. Ha.
Update: I'm also working on a video today, which I'm planning to release early next week because the editing won't get done until too late today. You can hold me to that, since I'm kinda pumped about the idea and don't want to let it fall by the wayside.
|
|
|
Friday, May 16, 2008 |
|
"Polar Bear Pushback" and ProtectMarriage.com |
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:00 AM |
Wednesday's decision to list the polar bear as a "threatened species" under the federal Endangered Species Act will create enormous burdens on many industries, but especially coal and oil production, shipping and large infrastructure projects like highway construction. My new Townhall.com column outlines the best legal strategy for pushing back against the listing's burdens.
The listing decision combines with the California Supreme Court's diktat on same sex marriage to mark the worst week in the legal world for conservatives in a very long time. The opportunity to rebuke the California Supreme Court will be on November's ballot in the Golden State --see ProtectMarriage.com-- but the burdens of the polar bear decision will be with us for years to come unless the impacted industries push back hard and immediately.
|
|
|
Friday, May 16, 2008 |
|
Re: McCain Expands Blogger Outreach |
|
Posted by:
Amanda Carpenter at
9:37 AM |
I'm pleased McCain has opened up the calls to non-conservative bloggers. I was on the call yesterday and it was immediately clear the Grist.org representative was not "one of us."
Good. I'm glad he's openly fielding hard-hitting questions from the left and the right and I suspect the outrage from the right is because some are just upset they won't get their "special time" with McCain all to themselves now.
Now, when will Obama be hosting his own calls and how soon can I expect my invitation?
|
|
|
Friday, May 16, 2008 |
|
McCain Campaign Adviser Uproar ... (Updated) |
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
9:35 AM |
Politico's Ben Smith reports,
John McCain's campaign asked a prominent Republican consultant, Craig Shirley, to leave his official campaign role Thursday after a Politico inquiry about Shirley's dual role consulting for the campaign and for an independent "527" group opposing the Democratic presidential candidates. I'm told by a reliable source that Shirley was not asked to leave. Instead, he was given the choice and decided to stay with the 527. This makes sense, inasmuch as the 527 probably pays more. In addition, Shirley's specialty was conservative outreach -- something McCain was perhaps more worried about before he won the nomination.
Update: I just spoke to Shirley and according to him:
"We haven't been on a retainer with McCain for two months, which begs the question -- how could we be asked to be a part of something we hadn't been involved in for two months?"
Update: I believe the original Politico headline was titled something like: "McCain ousts consultant" -- which was factually true, but, perhaps, misleading. The headline now reads "McCain adviser outsted in conflict uproar." ... Upon reading the Politico piece more closely, it is clear that the story isn't about a consultant being fired, but about a consultant being asked to leave his official campaign role (which was part of the Virginia Leadership Team) -- a small detail that makes a big difference. I am still waiting for the McCain people to get back to me on this ...
|
|
|
Friday, May 16, 2008 |
|
McCain Channels LBJ? |
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
8:13 AM |
This ...
“I won’t spend one hour of my presidency worrying more about my re-election than keeping my promises to the American people." Reminds me of this ...
"... I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office--the Presidency of your country."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your Blog Postings:
|
|
Last updated 11 Minutes 14 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 15 Minutes 6 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 18 Minutes 3 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 29 Minutes 42 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 30 Minutes 5 Seconds Ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archives Archives
|
|
| | | |