I got this from Human Events just a minute or so ago. Here is the story. Not sure how long that link will work, but I'm sure Townhall will have something soon, if they don't already.
Is it just me or do there seem to be a lot of political celebrity tragedies this year? Ted Kennedy, Tony Snow, Tim Russert....and now my favorite columnist, Bob Novak.
More later....going in to see my baby.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
Oh my....Glenn Beck filling in tonight for Larry King
I will DVR this one.
Glenn's regular Headline News broadcast will air, as usual, tape-delayed at 9:00 PM. At the same time, Glenn will be filling in for Larry King on CNN, live and in person.
Glenn just requested that someone please check the Scriptures, because this has to be "one of the last signs." It should be interesting.
Glenn's regular Headline News broadcast will air, as usual, tape-delayed at 9:00 PM. At the same time, Glenn will be filling in for Larry King on CNN, live and in person.
Glenn just requested that someone please check the Scriptures, because this has to be "one of the last signs." It should be interesting.
Dr. Dobson comes around
Fox & Friends just broke the story, complete with a taped excerpt from Dobson himself, that he "never dreamed that I would hear myself saying this, but I just might" vote for McCain.
If I am remembering correctly, Dobson voted for a third-party candidate in 1996 because Bob Dole wasn't true blue enough for him. So, this decision to give McCain some reconsideration either means that 1) Dobson feels McCain is moving to the right or that 2) Dobson is so scared of Obama that he feels he has no choice but to support McCain in order to thwart Obama's election.
I think #2 is probably closer to the truth.
I like to think of myself as an open-minded conservative, which will probably come as news to some. :) I know that it is not considered the most chic or modern to admire Jim Dobson in political circles today, but nonetheless, my respect for Dobson is significant. I know he is viewed as over-the-top right wing, even by many Republicans, for his advocacy of socially conservative causes.
Dobson was reared with much of the same value system that I was which includes an unquestioning adherence to the principle of the sanctity of life, which he applies to the issue of abortion on demand. He also, as you would expect from the founder of an organization like Focus on the Family, is highly worried about decadence in the culture.
Both of these heartfelt concerns have led him to make some imprudent comments at times, and some of the statements he made in the early part of the Republican primary this time around are examples of this (i.e., that he could never support McCain under any circumstances, a position which from which he now finds himself having to back away). Sometimes, though, a man of integrity has to reevaluate previously stated positions in light of new developments, and Dobson may be doing that right now.
I wonder if Alan Colmes will accuse him of flip-flopping next time Dobson is on H & C. That is Colmes' M.O. for McCain lately, to defuse the charges of Obama pandering.
If I am remembering correctly, Dobson voted for a third-party candidate in 1996 because Bob Dole wasn't true blue enough for him. So, this decision to give McCain some reconsideration either means that 1) Dobson feels McCain is moving to the right or that 2) Dobson is so scared of Obama that he feels he has no choice but to support McCain in order to thwart Obama's election.
I think #2 is probably closer to the truth.
I like to think of myself as an open-minded conservative, which will probably come as news to some. :) I know that it is not considered the most chic or modern to admire Jim Dobson in political circles today, but nonetheless, my respect for Dobson is significant. I know he is viewed as over-the-top right wing, even by many Republicans, for his advocacy of socially conservative causes.
Dobson was reared with much of the same value system that I was which includes an unquestioning adherence to the principle of the sanctity of life, which he applies to the issue of abortion on demand. He also, as you would expect from the founder of an organization like Focus on the Family, is highly worried about decadence in the culture.
Both of these heartfelt concerns have led him to make some imprudent comments at times, and some of the statements he made in the early part of the Republican primary this time around are examples of this (i.e., that he could never support McCain under any circumstances, a position which from which he now finds himself having to back away). Sometimes, though, a man of integrity has to reevaluate previously stated positions in light of new developments, and Dobson may be doing that right now.
I wonder if Alan Colmes will accuse him of flip-flopping next time Dobson is on H & C. That is Colmes' M.O. for McCain lately, to defuse the charges of Obama pandering.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Madeline Kate Asbury
I just took a quick peek back at some of my recent posts...how depressing! Too many of them are about deaths.
Well, I am delighted to be able to report the BIRTH of my third daughter, Madeline Kate, a new little American citizen destined to make a great impact on the world. :)
She was born at 8:27 AM yesterday, July 14, by c-section. She weighed 6 pounds, 15 ounces, and I'll always remember that I heard her little cry before I actually saw her.
For newcomers to this blog and our family, Maddy was diagnosed with spina bifida about 4 months ago. So she goes into surgery tomorrow morning at 8:00 to close the spinal opening.
We appreciate everyone's prayers.
It was very special to have Pam's parents, as well as Pastor David & Janet and Pastor Liz with us yesterday morning when Maddy was born. Pam's father, Pastor Liz and Pastor David all prayed around Pam's bed before she went into delivery. A truly sacred moment.
With each of my three daughters' births, I have been surprised anew by the rush of love and warmth that floods a father's heart when he sees his new little one for the first time. There is really no other love like it. If God loves us that much (and He does), then what a Father we have!
You can go to Pam's blog at http://carlivia.blogspot.com to see pictures.
Well, I am delighted to be able to report the BIRTH of my third daughter, Madeline Kate, a new little American citizen destined to make a great impact on the world. :)
She was born at 8:27 AM yesterday, July 14, by c-section. She weighed 6 pounds, 15 ounces, and I'll always remember that I heard her little cry before I actually saw her.
For newcomers to this blog and our family, Maddy was diagnosed with spina bifida about 4 months ago. So she goes into surgery tomorrow morning at 8:00 to close the spinal opening.
We appreciate everyone's prayers.
It was very special to have Pam's parents, as well as Pastor David & Janet and Pastor Liz with us yesterday morning when Maddy was born. Pam's father, Pastor Liz and Pastor David all prayed around Pam's bed before she went into delivery. A truly sacred moment.
With each of my three daughters' births, I have been surprised anew by the rush of love and warmth that floods a father's heart when he sees his new little one for the first time. There is really no other love like it. If God loves us that much (and He does), then what a Father we have!
You can go to Pam's blog at http://carlivia.blogspot.com to see pictures.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Tony Snow is gone
The only reason this isn't as much of a shock as Tim Russert's passing is because we did know Tony's cancer had reoccurred. BUT...Tony gave the closing address at CPAC 2008 and wowed the crowd with his verve and enthusiasm. That was a mere 5 months ago, or 22 weeks ago today, to be exact.
Tony was a fine man, a dedicated Catholic, a loving father and the walking definition of a "happy warrior" for the conservative cause. We were privileged to see him twice in person, at CPAC and then about 15 months before that, in November of 2006, when he came by Logansport to campaign for Congressman Chris Chocola of Indiana's 2nd Congressional District. He pleased Pam and me by commenting on Carli's "poise" when we went through the receiving line. (Carli was just over 3 at the time and was proudly introducing her baby sister, Olivia, to him.) I told him I hoped he would write a book someday....a hope which now will go unrealized.
Our prayers are with his family. His children were still quite young; he himself was only 53.
Here is the Townhall.com eulogy.
Tony was a fine man, a dedicated Catholic, a loving father and the walking definition of a "happy warrior" for the conservative cause. We were privileged to see him twice in person, at CPAC and then about 15 months before that, in November of 2006, when he came by Logansport to campaign for Congressman Chris Chocola of Indiana's 2nd Congressional District. He pleased Pam and me by commenting on Carli's "poise" when we went through the receiving line. (Carli was just over 3 at the time and was proudly introducing her baby sister, Olivia, to him.) I told him I hoped he would write a book someday....a hope which now will go unrealized.
Our prayers are with his family. His children were still quite young; he himself was only 53.
Here is the Townhall.com eulogy.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Senator Jesse Helms, RIP
This is hardly breaking news since Helms passed away on the 4th of July.
I read Helms' autobiography when it first came out in the fall of 2005. It is a rollicking good read, one of the most enjoyable of its kind that I have ever come across. Helms was one of the most savvy politicians of the 20th century. He had to be to remain in the Senate for 30 years. He was savagely opposed every time he ran for office, from the election of '72 to his final run in '96. One of my favorite quotes in the book: "All 5 times that we won, we surprised the mainstream media."
Helms certainly didn't win his way into office on a sexy image or mellifluous voice, because he possessed neither. He did decide in his first few days in the Senate that if he was going to be effective, he had to master the rules. And he did just that, to great effect, something that any Senator elected in the last 20 years clearly has not achieved, with perhaps the exception of Mitch McConnell.
Jesse Helms earned the hatred of the left for being proudly vocal about what he believed. He was tarred as a racist, which is supposed to be a conservative death warrant, but didn't work in Helms' case. (I Youtubed the ostensibly infamous "Hands" ad that Helms used in his 1990 race. I couldn't find anything racist about it; I guess because it protests the use of affirmative action in hiring practices, that that is something you're just not "allowed" to speak out about?)
As William Rusher points out, you could make a solid case that we have Helms to thank for the Reagan Presidency. Helms delivered the North Carolina primary to Reagan in 1976 when he had been declared dead as a Presidential candidate in his contest to unseat sitting President Gerald Ford. Reagan went on to come within a whisper of pulling of that upset, and consequently, was the frontrunner in 1980.
The media hated Helms, but Hubert Humphrey and Joe Biden, principled liberals both, were good friends of Jesse Helms and they weren't the only ones.
Read the book; you'll enjoy it. (Titled Here's Where I Stand: A Memoir.)
I read Helms' autobiography when it first came out in the fall of 2005. It is a rollicking good read, one of the most enjoyable of its kind that I have ever come across. Helms was one of the most savvy politicians of the 20th century. He had to be to remain in the Senate for 30 years. He was savagely opposed every time he ran for office, from the election of '72 to his final run in '96. One of my favorite quotes in the book: "All 5 times that we won, we surprised the mainstream media."
Helms certainly didn't win his way into office on a sexy image or mellifluous voice, because he possessed neither. He did decide in his first few days in the Senate that if he was going to be effective, he had to master the rules. And he did just that, to great effect, something that any Senator elected in the last 20 years clearly has not achieved, with perhaps the exception of Mitch McConnell.
Jesse Helms earned the hatred of the left for being proudly vocal about what he believed. He was tarred as a racist, which is supposed to be a conservative death warrant, but didn't work in Helms' case. (I Youtubed the ostensibly infamous "Hands" ad that Helms used in his 1990 race. I couldn't find anything racist about it; I guess because it protests the use of affirmative action in hiring practices, that that is something you're just not "allowed" to speak out about?)
As William Rusher points out, you could make a solid case that we have Helms to thank for the Reagan Presidency. Helms delivered the North Carolina primary to Reagan in 1976 when he had been declared dead as a Presidential candidate in his contest to unseat sitting President Gerald Ford. Reagan went on to come within a whisper of pulling of that upset, and consequently, was the frontrunner in 1980.
The media hated Helms, but Hubert Humphrey and Joe Biden, principled liberals both, were good friends of Jesse Helms and they weren't the only ones.
Read the book; you'll enjoy it. (Titled Here's Where I Stand: A Memoir.)
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Third parties
I was (gently) taken to task for my post of a few weeks ago where I indicated that I might consider voting for Bob Barr if McCain makes an unpalatable VP choice. My correspondent (whom I'll leave anonymous since they e-mailed me rather than posting to the blog) made the excellent point that we choose our nominee in the primaries. Once those are over, it is time to close ranks.
I have made this contention myself many times. There are a couple of caveats, though.
My state held its primary so late (May 6) that I effectively had no voice in the GOP Presidential choice. Mike Huckabee, the last semi-viable McCain alternative (no, I don't count Ron Paul) dropped out on March 4. My choice, Mitt Romney, exited on Feb. 7.
Also, Bob Barr's main argument is one that, even though I am a Republican, I find hard to refute, and that is that both parties are failing the American people. Newt Gingrich makes much the same point in his new book Real Change, which is next on my reading list. Gingrich is even more articulate than Barr (as you would expect) in pointing out that there are huge majorities in this country that support most center/right solutions to most problems, yet the issues continue to confront us. (I'll have more on Gingrich in a few weeks.)
Yet, I suppose this is one of the consequences of living in a constitutional republic. Legislation is intentionally difficult to pass (the founders wished it so and they were right), which makes entrenched problems that have gone unaddressed for decades impossible to resolve in a few months.
Ultimately, although I find many Libertarian positions ones that I can be enthusiastic about, I have extreme difficulty with their lack of enthusiasm for the protection of the sanctity of life (as I pointed out in my "What is a conservative?" posts back in April). Bob Barr himself is pro-life, but support for the issue is not a part of the party platform.
So, I will support McCain, as I have ever since it was clear he would be the nominee. I don't believe that McCain will pick Mike Bloomberg anyway, for the record. Mitt Romney's name keeps floating out there, as does that of Bobby Jindal, both wonderful leaders, though I think we should leave Jindal in Louisiana, as he is really making waves there. (Read Newt Gingrich's latest commentary, devoted to Jindal, here.)
It is still an undeniable truth that to get anywhere in American politics today, you must belong to one of the major parties. The Republican party is clearly the key vehicle for achieving conservative ends. So, in Benjamin Disraeli's words, I also must say:
"Gentlemen, I am a party man."
I have made this contention myself many times. There are a couple of caveats, though.
My state held its primary so late (May 6) that I effectively had no voice in the GOP Presidential choice. Mike Huckabee, the last semi-viable McCain alternative (no, I don't count Ron Paul) dropped out on March 4. My choice, Mitt Romney, exited on Feb. 7.
Also, Bob Barr's main argument is one that, even though I am a Republican, I find hard to refute, and that is that both parties are failing the American people. Newt Gingrich makes much the same point in his new book Real Change, which is next on my reading list. Gingrich is even more articulate than Barr (as you would expect) in pointing out that there are huge majorities in this country that support most center/right solutions to most problems, yet the issues continue to confront us. (I'll have more on Gingrich in a few weeks.)
Yet, I suppose this is one of the consequences of living in a constitutional republic. Legislation is intentionally difficult to pass (the founders wished it so and they were right), which makes entrenched problems that have gone unaddressed for decades impossible to resolve in a few months.
Ultimately, although I find many Libertarian positions ones that I can be enthusiastic about, I have extreme difficulty with their lack of enthusiasm for the protection of the sanctity of life (as I pointed out in my "What is a conservative?" posts back in April). Bob Barr himself is pro-life, but support for the issue is not a part of the party platform.
So, I will support McCain, as I have ever since it was clear he would be the nominee. I don't believe that McCain will pick Mike Bloomberg anyway, for the record. Mitt Romney's name keeps floating out there, as does that of Bobby Jindal, both wonderful leaders, though I think we should leave Jindal in Louisiana, as he is really making waves there. (Read Newt Gingrich's latest commentary, devoted to Jindal, here.)
It is still an undeniable truth that to get anywhere in American politics today, you must belong to one of the major parties. The Republican party is clearly the key vehicle for achieving conservative ends. So, in Benjamin Disraeli's words, I also must say:
"Gentlemen, I am a party man."
John Kerry for VP?
In the "For whatever it's worth" category, Chris Matthews reported on Hardball last night that Kerry's stock is rising as a potential VP for Obama.
I told this to Pam just before we fell asleep last night. She thought that this would be the best thing yet for McCain; I'm not so sure. It could be, but it might also be a smart strategy.
The negatives would all potentially be the same ones that Kerry was burdened with in 2004. The first one that Pam mentioned was Teresa Heinz Kerry, who had a tendency to spout off in weird ways. (Remember the "shove it" admonition to the reporter from the Pittsburgh paper? And am I remembering incorrectly, or did she not strangely greet everyone at the Democrat convention in several different languages to represent how cosmopolitan she was?) Kerry also tends to strike people as aloof and aristocratic, problems with which Obama also struggles himself.
I don't think the Swift Boat vets would re-emerge to great effect. We've been there and done that, and I sense that that force is spent. It is SUCH a different climate than it was in '04.
Which leads me to the strengths Kerry might contribute. There was great fanfare over the fact that George W. Bush was the biggest Presidential vote-getter ever, but who was the second most? Yep; the one Bush beat. There is huge buyer's remorse in this country right now, for better or worse. Kerry might benefit from that.
Also, there would be some novelty in a former Presidential candidate being a vice-presidential running mate. If this has ever happened in our history (I can't think off the bat if it has), it hasn't in well over 100 years.
Obama will already win Massachusetts, with or without Kerry, but Presidential candidates don't ticket balance so much anymore anyway. The last ticket-balancing choice for VP was 1988, when Dukakis chose Lloyd Bentsen from Texas, and a lot of good that did him (though he argued the other day on Hannity & Colmes that he thought it could have had he not allowed Lee Atwater to redefine him).
I doubt it happens anyway, but it is interesting to contemplate. My sense is that Obama's campaign has such a theatrical flair (and little more, if you ask me) that he'll go for more of an unconventional choice. Who would that be? Hmmm....
I told this to Pam just before we fell asleep last night. She thought that this would be the best thing yet for McCain; I'm not so sure. It could be, but it might also be a smart strategy.
The negatives would all potentially be the same ones that Kerry was burdened with in 2004. The first one that Pam mentioned was Teresa Heinz Kerry, who had a tendency to spout off in weird ways. (Remember the "shove it" admonition to the reporter from the Pittsburgh paper? And am I remembering incorrectly, or did she not strangely greet everyone at the Democrat convention in several different languages to represent how cosmopolitan she was?) Kerry also tends to strike people as aloof and aristocratic, problems with which Obama also struggles himself.
I don't think the Swift Boat vets would re-emerge to great effect. We've been there and done that, and I sense that that force is spent. It is SUCH a different climate than it was in '04.
Which leads me to the strengths Kerry might contribute. There was great fanfare over the fact that George W. Bush was the biggest Presidential vote-getter ever, but who was the second most? Yep; the one Bush beat. There is huge buyer's remorse in this country right now, for better or worse. Kerry might benefit from that.
Also, there would be some novelty in a former Presidential candidate being a vice-presidential running mate. If this has ever happened in our history (I can't think off the bat if it has), it hasn't in well over 100 years.
Obama will already win Massachusetts, with or without Kerry, but Presidential candidates don't ticket balance so much anymore anyway. The last ticket-balancing choice for VP was 1988, when Dukakis chose Lloyd Bentsen from Texas, and a lot of good that did him (though he argued the other day on Hannity & Colmes that he thought it could have had he not allowed Lee Atwater to redefine him).
I doubt it happens anyway, but it is interesting to contemplate. My sense is that Obama's campaign has such a theatrical flair (and little more, if you ask me) that he'll go for more of an unconventional choice. Who would that be? Hmmm....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
