Hamilton, Madison, and Jay

This blog is devoted to a variety of topics including politics, current events, legal issues, and we even take the time to have some occasional fun. After all, blogging is about having a little fun, right?

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

TownHall Magazine -- Obiter Dictum

I just received our first copy of TownHall Magazine in the mail today. I'm thumbing through it now, reading the articles by good authors, and I'm reading some reaction on the letters page by those on the Left. While reading them, I was suddenly struck by an idea. In 1955 William F. Buckley started National Review. The "Letters to the Editor" section was commonplace in the magazine, but Mr. Buckley used to choose the most poignant, notable, and outrageous letters for his own little section of the magazine known as "Notes and Asides." After reading the letters in TownHall Magazine, I decided that a "Notes and Asides" might be relevant to deal with some of the outrageous moonbat nuttiness. So, this is my version of Mr. Buckley's infamous section.

I call it Obiter Dictum. For those unaware of what the term means, according to Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary defines it as "an incidental remark or observation." That's what this is about.

Special Note: I am not affiliated with TownHall Magazine, nor do my opinions, observations, or snarkiness reflect the views of anyone that works for TownHall Magazine. So, if you have a gripe with what I say, don't complain to them. They're unaware I'm even doing this.

The letters below are reprinted as they appeared in the magazine. They will be verbatim, including any avoidable spelling errors, and I will identify the authors of the letters by their names (first name, last initial only), and by the state they reside in minus the town.

Conservative Controversy:
When Karl Rove had the gall to say that the most satisfying thing he has done politically was "participating" in two "winning" Presidential campaigns for George W. Bush ["5 Questions," February], he neglected to mention how he personally engineered the dirty tricks of those two stolen elections. I wonder if this outrageous traitor will make a deathbed conversion and confession someday as did his equally evil mentor, Lee Atwater.

Carol B., Ohio

Ms. B,

First off, Mr. Rove is hardly a "traitor." As most sensible people know, treason is an extremely enigmatical charge to prove. It involves more than just one person being on the opposite side of an ideology. Secondly, the elections were hardly stolen. Six separate media outlets proclaimed that Mr. Gore did lose Florida in 2000. And Senator Kerry did lose Ohio by a rather wide margin. How can one say that President Bush stole the 2004, via Ohio, when it was Senator Kerry himself begging news outlets not to call Ohio for the president overnight? Senator Kerry knew before he went to bed that he likely lost Ohio.

Your TownHall Magazine cover is filled with the pictures of right wing talk show people -- Limbaugh, Malkin, Coulter, Hannity, etc. These are the people you want to define "conservative"? Do you think Ronald Reagan would listen to the rabid ranting of Malkin or Coulter? Or the hypocrisy of Rush Limbaugh? Please raise your sights a little. Here's a sixth question for Karl Rove: How do you think your promotion and elections of Bush have worked out for the Republican Conservative movement in the long run?

Bill K., Washington

Mr. K,

First off, Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter are not talk radio hosts. They are pundits who occasionally appear on talk radio, but are more often than not seen on TV. As for defining "conservative," Mr. Limbaugh has been a staunch supporter of conservatism because it makes much more sense, and is far more tolerant, that liberalism. As to President Reagan, I'm not sure what he would have listened to. Being the president means you don't have a lot of time to listen to the radio, however he would have defended their right to speak out, as guaranteed under the First Amendment. I would also like to note that in 1984, the Supreme Court heard FCC v. League of Women Voters. That decision killed the unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine, which allowed talk radio to thrive. As for the question to Mr. Rove? I think he would agree that it did a good deal in favor of the Republican Party. However, it is your obtuse observation that "Republican" and "conservative" are synonymous. They are not. One is a political party. The other is an ideology. Besides, President Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative", i.e. a moderate.

Unfortunately for America, a liberal will be elected President this November, whether it be Obama, Clinton, or McCain. Presumably TownHall Magazine agrees that McCain is a liberal as he was only mentioned once in its premiere issue.

Charles S., California

Mr. S,

You are aware that the American Conservative Union gives Senator McCain an average rating of 86, yes? You are also aware of the fact that the only reason people look at Senator McCain as a liberal is due to the off-the-wall, obtuse ideas he has had from 2000-present, yes? We can all cite chapter and verse of what we dislike about Senator McCain. Being from Arizona ourselves, we have a laundry list. That said, we would gladly, and will with glee, vote for him over Senators Obama or Clinton. It comes down to eight simple things for us, and many conservatives and Republicans agree: We will not cede this war, this economy, or the possibility of six potential Supreme Court vacancies to the Democrats. We know that on each one of those points, the Democrats could do grievous harm to this nation. So, no, I doubt anyone at TownHall Magazine would be inclined to label him a liberal; a moderate, maybe, but most assuredly the man is center-right, and a far better choice than the two stooges on the portside of the aisle.

Publius II


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home