We're All Neocons Now

As I noted in a tweet last night: "It's clear by now that neoconservatism has been vindicated by events in Iran."

Well, here comes James Taranto,"We're All Neocons Now":

Each day President Obama's blasé business-as-usual attitude toward Iran seems more out of touch with reality. Today's New York Times reports that the president "is coming under increased pressure from Republicans and other conservatives who say he should take a more visible stance in support of the protesters." But if you read on, it turns out "Republicans and other conservatives" are far from the only ones bothered by Obama's what-me-worry policy:

Even while supporting the president's approach, senior members of the administration, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like to strike a stronger tone in support of the protesters, administration officials said.

It sounds as though Biden and Mrs. Clinton are "supporting the president's approach" in only the most pro forma way. It is extraordinary that the two most senior administration officials apart from the president himself are airing their objection to his policies in this way.

True, the Times claims "other White House officials"--no names--"have counseled a more cautious approach." The argument these nameless and faceless officials make is that "harsh criticism of the government or endorsement of the protests could have the paradoxical effect of discrediting the protesters and making them seem as if they were led by Americans."

But who said the criticism had to be "harsh"? The trouble with Obama's comments is not that they are insufficiently belligerent in tone but that they are craven in substance. If the president spoke with clarity and firmness, his doing so calmly would be a plus.

Obama's insouciance does not seem to have appeased the Tehran regime:

So far, Mr. Obama has largely followed that script, criticizing violence against the protesters, but saying that he does not want to be seen as meddling in Iranian domestic politics.

Even so, the Iranian government on Wednesday accused American officials of "interventionist" statements.

Meanwhile, Obama has some of his liberal-left supporters sounding like frustrated neoconservatives:

Many Iran experts lauded Mr. Obama's measured stance just after the election. But some of that support evaporated on Tuesday when he said there was not much difference between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi.

"For Barack Obama, this was a serious misstep," said Steven Clemons, director of the American strategy program at the New America Foundation. "It's right for the administration to be cautious, but it's extremely bad for him to narrow the peephole into an area in which we're looking at what's happening just through the lens of the nuclear program."

Mr. Obama's comments deflated Mr. Moussavi, who is rapidly becoming a political icon in Iran, even supporters of Mr. Obama's Iran policy say.

"Up until now, the president had very thoughtfully calibrated his remarks on Iran, but this was an uncharacteristic and egregious error," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "People are risking their lives and being slaughtered in the streets because they want fundamental change in the way Iran is governed. Our message to them shouldn't be that it doesn't make much difference to the United States."

The Times's own Roger Cohen has written a column almost every day this week in an apparent effort to atone for his months of shilling for the regime. He has a ways to go but is definitely making progress:

The Islamic Republic has lost legitimacy. It is fissured. It will not be the same again. It has always played on the ambiguity of its nature, a theocracy where people vote. For a whole new generation, there's no longer room for ambiguity.

President Obama has said not a single word in acknowledgment of this new reality--paralyzed, perhaps, by the fear that in speaking the truth, he would antagonize the regime with which he dreams of negotiating. He would do well to consider the advice of blogress Ann Althouse: "When you think of what you might lose if you do something, remember to take account of what you might lose if you don't do it."

What could Obama say? How about something along these lines:

We are all inspired by Iran's peaceful demonstrations, the likes of which have not been seen there in three decades. Our sympathies are with those Iranians who seek a more respectful, cooperative relationship with the world.

The author of these words: John Kerry *. It's not as good as it sounds, though. Kerry, in a New York Times op-ed, says these things as a prelude to saying that no one should say such things. Which just goes to show that even John Kerry realizes no one cares what John Kerry says.

But Barack Obama is president of the United States. People do care what he says, and it is past time that he did his duty and spoke the truth.

* The haughty Massachusetts Democrat who by the way served in Vietnam. We omit "French-looking" out of respect for the French. As The Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial yesterday, France's Nicolas Sarkozy has taken a firm stand where his American counterpart has fallen limp.

See also, Stephen Hayes, "John Kerry, Neocon."

Plus, see my post from yesterday, "It's Hard Out Here For Barack..."

More debate at Memeorandum.

Announcing the Save Frank Rich Society

From Roger Kimball:

I never thought it would happen. I am actually feeling sorry for Frank Rich. True, my feelings of sorrow and compassion — I won’t call it “empathy” — have stiff competition from irritation and contempt, the jolly old stand-bys that always step forward when someone brings a column by Rich to my attention. For, truth be told, that is the only way I encounter anything published in The New York Times these days. I long ago gave up my subscription — Free, free at last! And out of regard for both the preciousness of time — you can’t waste time without injuring eternity, said Thoreau, who (unlike Frank Rich) wasn’t wrong about everything — and solicitude for my blood pressure, I resolved some time ago never to visit The New York Times web site unless a trusted friend had directed me to a specific article.

So imagine my reaction when a friend sent me a link to “The Obama Haters’ Silent Enablers,” Rich’s column in the June 14 issue of the paper. The ostensible subject of Rich’s column is right-wing “haters,” a large and diverse population (according to Rich), membership in which you, too, Dear Reader, may qualify for if you deign to offer any but the mildest criticism of our Dear Leader, a.k.a. Barack Obama. No article by Frank Rich is complete without a swipe at President George W. Bush, and so it was only business as usual that he should indulge in a little preliminary Bush-bashing before getting down to the subject at hand: “In his scant 145 days in office, the new president has not remotely matched the Bush record in deficit creation.” For support, Rich links to another article in The New York Times. Never mind that that article actually apportions the blame for the deficit rather evenly between Bush and Obama. Personally, I think Bush was profligate with the taxpayers’ dough. But I see now that he was a rank amateur when it comes to serious economic blow-out. To appreciate this, all you need to do is to savor this chart which Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit has been posting frequently in recent weeks as a public service ...

More at the link.

Obamaworld: Keep the Change!

Here's Victor Davis Hanson's new guide to the administration, "Obamaworld: Logic in the Age of Obama":

Are you confused by all that has changed since Pres. Barack Obama took office in January? If so, you’re not alone. Perhaps, though, this handy guide to Age of Obama “logic” might be of some assistance.

Also, check this comment at CQ Politics, "Honeymoon Over: It’s On Obama’s Watch Now":

Keep the change ... Thus far we have seen an administration that has run amuck. We need to return to the time-tested values that made America successful, not devolve to ruin based upon flawed and previously failed principles. Our roots are firmly planted in Judeo-Christian beliefs ... they set in place our moral compass ... they call for MINIMUM federal government with liberty gained by a FREE people acting as one. We do not "redistribute" wealth (property), but do provide charity. Our Constitution promises life (under attack), liberty (under attack) and property or "pursuit of happiness" (under attack). I say, to those who want government handouts...keep the change! To those who would assail my rights under the second Amendment ... keep the change! To those who want America to become bilingual ... keep the change! To those who don't understand the word "illegal" and want me to pay for those who reside here illegally ... keep the change! To those who do not understand that life is a gift from GOD, and that it begins with conception ... keep the change! To those who threaten the future of my children and their children's children through reckless spending by a tax cheat now...keep the change! To those who do not understand the sanctity of marriage as between one man, one woman and GOD ... keep the change! To those who would seek to modify the Constitution from the bench...keep the change! To those who have forgotten that we have oil and resources here that need to be developed for our use instead of relying on our enemies for our supply ... keep the change! To those who are enamored with "cult leadership"... KEEP THE CHANGE!

Change for Iran? Not From Obama

Here's a new anti-Ahmadinejad opposition video, "Change for Iran," with subtitles:

Don't miss as well, Christian Brose, "Obama is Getting Worse, Not Better, on Iran":

I share President Obama's desire not to say or do anything that would turn America into a "political football" inside Iran, and I've tried to offer what I hope are some constructive ideas in keeping with that end (though that may come as a surprise to some of my own loyal opponents in the comments section). Still, Obama's remarks yesterday were embarrassing. Not only that, they were harmful -- not for their toughness but for their timidity. Peaceful Iranian protestors are having their heads smashed by government goons, and Obama is explaining to CNBC, with his characteristic professorial emotional detachment, how the guy those Iranians voted for and are bleeding to support is actually no different than Ahmadinejad. I know what Obama meant. The office of Iran's presidency doesn't call the main shots, and Mousavi is no liberal peacenik. I get it. But save it for another time, please ....

Iran's people deserve to hear from the most inspiring and internationally beloved American president in a generation that the violence they are enduring at the hands of their government is not just of "deep concern" to him, but "unacceptable." They deserve to hear him "condemn" it (memo to the State Department). And they deserve to hear Obama say that if he does finally talk with Iran's rulers about changing the behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran, that goal will also include pushing them to grant all Iranians the same basic human rights that people everywhere should be free to enjoy and exercise without fear of violence and repression.

Neoclassicons

I'm involved, just a teeny-weeny bit, in this flame war Robert Stacy McCain's having with Conor Friedersdorf.

At Stacy's post yesterday, "Conor Friedersdorf vs. Dan Riehl" (on the debate between Friedersdorf and Dan), I left the link to Conor's post, Iran, Twitter, and The American Information Elite." That link goes to the Atlantic, where Freidersdorf's now a "big ideas" blogger. Stacy's been hammering Friedersdorf pretty hard anyway, but even more now that news of the Freidersdorf's Atlantic gig got out.

I've been thinking about writing something about this. So, I might as well comment on Dan's remark earlier on the conservatives schism (David Frum vs. Rush Limbaugh, etc.), when he noted that "To be honest, I wonder if this whole moderation movement isn't simply about purging the social conservatives."

Well, yeah. I'll just say here that Conor Freidersdorf is an Andrew Sullivan myrmidon. As anyone who's followed the recent conservative debates knows, especially in the months since the election, there's been an amalgamation of moderate conservatives, left-libertarians, and unpatriotic paleocons on the postmodern right. I wrote about this (only slightly tongue-in-cheek) the other day, in "What's Up With David Weigel?" From Conor Friederdorf to David Frum, to Daniel Larison to Andrew Sullivan, and then E.D. Kain, there's a movement afoot that wants desperately to be "conservative," but one that is failing miserably.

The reason is simple: These folks, let's loosely call them neoclassical conservatives, or neoclassicons, are driven by an essentially leftist-libertarian domestic policy orientation that is primarily animated by an intense hatred of "theoconservatism." That's the term Andrew Sullivan deploys in his book, The Conservative Soul: Fundamentalism, Freedom, and the Future of the Right. In Sullivan's case in particular, hatred of theoconservatism emerges out of the psycho-sexual torment of his own homosexuality. For a man who has apparently long preached a standard of homosexual monogamy, his own personal moral breakdown into wild sexual excursions of high-risk barebacking and alleged steroidal drug use makes it difficult for reasonable people to take him seriously. Sullivan's own considerably masterful writing, of course, and his ability to put his finger to the pulse of the latest ideological hot buttons, helps to give him some cachet among those on the left looking for some type of pop-legitimacy to their postmodern agenda.

What's striking about all of this is not just how wrong these folks are on most of the main issues of contemporary conservatism, but also how, from my perspsective, the Sullivan-cadres mount their ideological program completely bereft of decency. Andrew Sullivan himself, as is well known, practically lost his mind last year after Sarah Palin's nomination as the GOP presidential running-mate. His attacks on the Palin family have hit bottom and he keeps digging. Beyond that, I routinely see his followers and allies making the most ridiculously unhinged attacks, allegations, and arguments. Conor Friedersdorf put up a totally absurd piece a couple of weeks back, in an essay called, "A Question for War on Terror Hawks." Friedersdorf advocated waterboarding for folks like the suspect in the murder of George Tiller. I took him to task in my post, "Is Waterboarding Worse Than Abortion?," and he left a hopeless comment noting his exception.

E.D. Kain, another neoclassicon who practically worships Sullivan - and not to mention, Daniel Larison - is himself like a confused adolescent, afraid to engage in an intellectual debate with me at this blog. E.D. Kain was once in regular communication with me as the publisher of Neo-Constant, which was described as a blog of "Hard-line neoconservative political commentary, global politics, and foreign policy." Like Andrew Sullivan, E.D. must feel a need to float along the tides of partisan popularity. He's certainly denuded himself of moral standing among those with whom he had previous communications. But that kind of childishness appears to characterize the neoclassicons overall. Recall that Andrew Sullivan attacked Ann Althouse for her simple decision to get married. Why? Jealousy most likely, but also spite for hetersexuals and traditionalists. This is how these guys roll.

And what for? For all intents and purposes these guys have joined the other side. They're not conservative by any sense of the imagination. One doesn't have to be a devout church-goer to be deeply conservative on the issues, and that includes on such starkly moral questions as the right to life for unborn children. One of the most important conserative intellectuals in the last few decades is Robert Bork. And he claims to be just mildly religious (see Bork's, "Hard Truths About the Culture War" for a penetrating expose on the mainstreaming of postmodern radicalism in contemporary public affairs).

Robert Stacy McCain mostly just writes these people off as little men, a bunch of immature pseudo-conservative social climbers. My take is perhaps rougher. From social policy to international affairs, I see these folks in bed with the hardline activists of the nihilist left. On gay marriage to Iraq, there's little that differentiates them. For them to suggest they're "reclaiming" conservativism is preposterous. No smart conservative on today's right would even deign to associate with views like this. Rush Limbaugh is popular for a reason. Mark Levin's Tyranny and Liberty remains at the top of the bestseller lists, and the mainstream press has refused to give him the time of day. David Frum and Sullivan, on the other hand, are feted like they're top political soothsayers of the age. It's a strange thing.

No matter. Analysis of election data, as well as recent polling, indicates how far out on a limb the neoclassicons have placed themselves. The genuine conservatism of folks like Robert Bork, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin will be making a huge comeback in no time. Frankly, the Obama administration's deficit-driven agenda is already being repudiated in public opinion, and former Obama voters are now having remorse.

It's good to put these neoclassicons in there place, of course. Conservatives have to fight for every inch. The media's in the tank for Obama, and Andrew Sulllivan and his stooges are simply seeking a path of least resistance in their hubristic attempt to excommunicate the traditional right-wing from the political spectrum.

I'll have more on this debate in upcoming posts.

Top 10 Reasons to Follow Me on Twitter!

Actually, I don't have a top 10.

Since I'm new to this medium, I googling to see what's up with all the abbreviations and such (like RT). I came across this piece, "Top 10 Reasons I *AM* Following You On Twitter." This part makes say, hey, okay!

If you hook up your blog so that whenever you post an entry, it tweets, then that’s a big plus.

I use Twitter for a casual diversion during the workday – I’ll glance over at it when I’ve got a few free minutes, see what’s going on, and interact with friends. If I notice that you just posted a blog entry, I’ll go read it, and I might respond on Twitter if I’ve got comments or questions. It’s nice to have that realtime interaction with other bloggers.

I'm on social networking to promote my blog, because that's what I do. I reallly enjoy the "social" part, of course. But I like publishing even more. That said, I'm a mensch, so send me your stuff and I'll publish it here!

Well, what are you waiting for?!!

Get hot and follow me at AmPowerBlog!

Why Do We Still Insist on Marriage?

Sandra Tsing Loh wants to know, after bailing out on her husband of twenty years because she can do it all herself:

Sadly, and to my horror, I am divorcing. This was a 20-year partnership. My husband is a good man, though he did travel 20 weeks a year for work. I am a 47-year-old woman whose commitment to monogamy, at the very end, came unglued. This turn of events was a surprise. I don’t generally even enjoy men; I had an entirely manageable life and planned to go to my grave taking with me, as I do most nights to my bed, a glass of merlot and a good book ....

I can pick up our girls from school every day; I can feed them dinner and kiss their noses and tell them stories; I can take them to their doctor and dentist appointments; I can earn my half—sometimes more—of the money; I can pay the bills; I can refinance the house at the best possible interest rate; I can drive my husband to the airport; in his absence, I can sort his mail; I can be home to let the plumber in on Thursday between nine and three, and I can wait for the cable guy; I can make dinner conversation with any family member; I can ask friendly questions about anybody’s day; I can administer hugs as needed to children, adults, dogs, cats; I can empty the litter box; I can stir wet food into dry.

Which is to say I can work at a career and child care and joint homeownership and even platonic male-female friendship. However, in this cluttered forest of my 40s, what I cannot authentically reconjure is the ancient dream of brides, even with the Oprah fluffery of weekly “date nights,” when gauzy candlelight obscures the messy house, child talk is nixed and silky lingerie donned, so the two of you can look into each other’s eyes and feel that “spark” again. Do you see? Given my staggering working mother’s to-do list, I cannot take on yet another arduous home- and self-improvement project, that of rekindling our romance. Sobered by this failure as a mother—which is to say, my failure as a wife—I’ve since begun a journey of reading, thinking, and listening to what’s going on in other 21st-century American families. And along the way, I’ve begun to wonder, what with all the abject and swallowed misery: Why do we still insist on marriage? Sure, it made sense to agrarian families before 1900, when to farm the land, one needed two spouses, grandparents, and a raft of children. But now that we have white-collar work and washing machines, and our life expectancy has shot from 47 to 77, isn’t the idea of lifelong marriage obsolete?

Or, who needs men, first? But, also, why marry anyway?

Maybe Althouse has an answer for Sandra? Like love, maybe?

(Note: I skimmed the piece. If readers can find the passage where Loh admits she cheated on her husband cut and paste in it the comments...)

Obama's Public Approval Slipping

Via The Rhetorican and the Wall Street Journal, "Obama's Approval Numbers, While Still High, Are Slipping":

After a fairly smooth opening, President Barack Obama faces new concerns among the American public about the budget deficit and government intervention in the economy as he works to enact ambitious health and energy legislation, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

These rising doubts threaten to overshadow the president's personal popularity and his agenda, in what may be a new phase of the Obama presidency.

"The public is really moving from evaluating him as a charismatic and charming leader to his specific handling of the challenges facing the country," says Peter D. Hart, a Democratic pollster who conducts the survey with Republican Bill McInturff. Going forward, he says, Mr. Obama and his allies "are going to have to navigate in pretty choppy waters."

There's good news for the administration, too, including tentative support for Mr. Obama's health-care plan and approval of his nominee for the Supreme Court. The public seems more optimistic about the country's economic future than it did a few weeks earlier, and Americans are still more likely to blame the last administration for the deficit.

But the poll suggests Mr. Obama faces challenges on multiple fronts, including growing concerns about government spending and the bailout of auto companies. A majority of people also disapprove of his decision to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

More at the link.

Obama's support has dropped sharply among political independents - whichh is interesting, since if these "independents" are roughly the same as Gallup's "moderates," then the declining support of this cohort could be trouble, and soon:

There is an important distinction in the respective ideological compositions of the Republican and Democratic Parties. While a solid majority of Republicans are on the same page -- 73% call themselves conservative -- Democrats are more of a mixture. The major division among Democrats is between self-defined moderates (40%) and liberals (38%). However, an additional 22% of Democrats consider themselves conservative, much higher than the 3% of Republicans identifying as liberal.

True to their nonpartisan tendencies, close to half of political independents -- 45% -- describe their political views as "moderate." Among the rest, the balance of views is tilted more heavily to the right than to the left: 34% are conservative, while 20% are liberal.

Gallup trends show a slight increase since 2008 in the percentages of all three party groups calling themselves "conservative," which accounts for the three percentage-point increase among the public at large.

Check also Cold Fury, which has some comments on President Obama's interview with Gerald Seib:

The lying dickwad has been a hard-Left socialist his whole goddamned life, which has been clear from his every spoken word; his every written word; his choice of associations; his choice of “community organizing” and public-sector careers (never once having held an actual job in his useless life); the few votes he actually bothered with in his brief Senate career — and he now wants us to know it’s all because of George Fucking Dubya Bush.

What a worthless, manipulative, buck-passing prick.

Hmm, I wonder if we can place Cold Fury in the "conservative" column?

Added: Memeorandum has a thread. Plus, the New York Times concurs with WSJ, "Poll Finds Unease With Obama on Key Issues."

Nationalized Health Care Abortions

From Jill Stanek:

Lest you doubt Obama's intentions, the last 2 Planned Parenthood weekly email alerts have been about the health care plan. Read this one. The intention to include abortion in nationalized health care couldn't be any more clear. (Yet isn't it interesting, as always, that the A-word is awol.)

Socialized Auto Repair and Car Care

Via Debbie Hamilton and The Grouch, "Socialized Auto Repair and Car Care":

The dictum finally came down from the lord Barack Obama, the messiah, the most merciful that all the land should be taxed and part of the proceeds would be used to fund socialized car care.

Mac the mechanic, who had been an auto mechanic for at least 30 years received notice in the mail that he would no longer be able to bill people directly for his services, but would rather have to send a monthly claim to the administration of car care and auto repair. Mac had always pretty much run a cash and carry service. His loyal customers would bring their cars in for service. Mac, who was very competent and very well liked, would go over the problems with his clientele, make the authorized repairs, get paid in cash, and everyone was happy. If any unexpected problems occurred, Mac would do his best to make things right.

Well, suddenly, Mac found out that the gubment would not accept paper claims from him. The gubment required that Mac submit electronic claims. Poor Mac did not know a thing about computers. He called the car care and auto repair administration to complain but was told that this was "change he could believe in" and that he would be required to buy a complete computer system, the latest gubment claim submittal software, and a high speed internet connection, as well as hire a technician to train Mac and his staff on the proper utilization of the system.

Bewildered customers began to appear wanting their cars repaired. According to the latest gubment rules, Mac was no longer allowed to accept their money, but would be paid based on the primary problem with the car. Mr. Jones brought in his car because it was missing. Mac found it needed new spark plugs. While under the hood, Mac also found a leak in the radiator and a worn brake pad. Mac was surprised to find out that the gubment would only pay Mac for the new spark plugs, and only about 40 percent of his usual and customary charge for labor. They would not pay him anything for the radiator repair and installation of the new brake pad. His payment was based only on the primary problem.

Good stuff!

Read the whole thing at the link.

It's Hard Out Here For Barack...

From Matt Duss on Robert Kagan's, "Obama's Conundrum: Shunning Iran's Opposition":

It’s hard out here for a neocon ....

I have to say, Mr. Kagan, your op-ed this morning is really beneath you. You can’t actually believe that President Obama is “siding with the Iranian regime” against the Iranian people, or that Obama’s outreach to Iran depends upon keeping hardliners in power, can you? You’re far too intelligent to buy the brutishly simplistic “realism” that you attempt to hang upon President Obama’s approach. These sorts of claims are better left to your friend and occasional co-author Bill Kristol, who uses his series of valuable journalistic perches (with which he inexplicably continues to be gifted) to launch an endless stream of comically transparent bad faith arguments. You’re better than that. You’re the smart neocon ....

By backing pro-democracy rhetoric with American war and occupation, President Bush and his conservative supporters cast the cause of freedom and democracy into disrepute

Hmm, well, actually no ...

Check this, from Daniel Finkelstein, "Fancy that. They want freedom. Just like us. The protests in Iran show the neocons were right. No people, whatever their culture, want to live under despotism":

For years we have been told, we neocons, that other cultures don't want our liberty, our American freedom. Yankee go home! But it isn't true. Because millions of Iranians do want it. Yes, they want their sovereignty, and demand respect for their nation and its great history. No, they don't want foreign interference and manipulation. But they still insist upon their rights and their freedom. They know that liberty isn't American or British. It is Iranian, it is human.

This idea that the critics of neocons advanced so vociferously, that liberal democracy can't be “transplanted” on alien soil - what does it mean to the people of Iran who have thronged the streets to express their will?

Does it mean that we think the morality police is just part of Iranian culture? Just their way of doing things? For the thousands of protesters it is not. It turns out that they don't think it's right for young girls to be arrested, snatched from the streets for wearing the wrong coat. And they don't think there is a cultural defence to beating these girls until their parents arrive with a “decent” garment.

They don't think that public hangings are Iranian, either. Nor arbitrary detentions of doctors who dared to organise conferences on Aids, nor keeping human rights activists in solitary confinement, nor sentencing trade union leaders to five years in jail for trying to organise fellow workers. They don't think there is anything culturally valuable in sentencing political activists to death after secret trials lasting less than five minutes, or returning lawyers to jail again and again for opposing the death penalty or “publishing insulting material with unacceptable interpretation of Islamic rules”.

It is not part of their precious heritage that someone be charged with a capital offence for circulating a petition on women's rights. Nor that nine-year-old girls should be eligible for the death penalty, and children hanged for their crimes. There is no special Iranian will, even given their religious conservatism, that students should be flogged in public for being flirtatious, and homosexuals hanged in the streets.

The protests for Mr Mousavi do not just expose the lie of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's landslide victory. They expose the lie that there is something Western in wanting democracy and human rights.

And what of the other leg of the neocon argument? What of the idea that peace comes through the spread of liberalism and democracy? Can anyone really doubt that should the reformists succeed, even a little bit, the world would be a safer place? A democratic Iran would stop financing world terrorist movements, it would stop obsessing about external enemies and foreign conspiracies, it would stop threatening its neighbours. It would still oppose Israeli policy, it would still want to acquire nuclear material, but the threat of violence would recede.

Jennifer Rubin adds the finishing touch:

If this ends poorly — in a brutal crushing of the protesters — the lack of moral leadership will haunt the president. Why didn’t America do more? And if the regime is upended, Obama’s dreams of a deal with the mullahs will fade and there will be great upset and turmoil. Either way, Obama’s fondest hopes for a return to the status quo will be dashed — and with it the mythology that his aura can motivate, inspire, and change events on the ground.

Well, Duss, sorry man, it's hard out here for Barack, 'cause a whole lot'a bitches jumpin ship...

Sullivan Waffles! Take Iran Recognition One Day at a Time

In response to the Stephen Walt's realist critique of Andrew Sullivan's call for No Recognition of Ahmadinejad, Sully now says, well, that's just for today. We'll see how we feel about this tomorrow:

My point was about not recognizing now. As to the future, we have to see what it brings. A day is a long time right now in Iranian politics. So let's take this one day at a time for now.

Now doesn't that just prove my point from this morning! "Sullivan's all messed up! Who knows what position he's advocating from moment to moment?"

See also,on Sullivan, "Obama: "Diplomacy With Iran Without Preconditions," and

on Walt, "That 3:00am Phone Call for Mr. Obama.")

That 3:00am Phone Call for Mr. Obama

First, Allahpundit notes this on the alleged murder of in Tehran's Isfahan dorms:

As with any Iranian video making the rounds on Twitter, I can’t prove that it is what it claims to be but it’s certainly plausible. Reports of students being killed by regime goons have been steady since the weekend, with 60 kids supposedly detained at Isfahan U. and others allegedly thrown out of upstairs windows. Clips of their injuries were being uploaded as early as Sunday but the one below takes it to a whole new level. Strong content warning, needless to say.

But see also, the Wall Street Journal, "Obama's Iran Abdication":

The Obama Administration came into office with a realpolitik script to goad the mullahs into a "grand bargain" on its nuclear program. But Team Obama isn't proving to be good at the improv. His foreign policy gurus drew up an agenda defined mainly in opposition to the perceived Bush legacy: The U.S. will sit down with the likes of Iran, North Korea or Russia and hash out deals. In a Journal story on Monday, a senior U.S. official bordered on enthusiastic about confirming an Ahmadinejad victory as soon as possible. "Had there been a transition to a new government, a new president wouldn't have emerged until August. In some respects, this might allow Iran to engage the international community quicker." The popular uprising in Iran is so inconvenient to this agenda.

President Obama elaborates on this point with his now-frequent moral equivalance. Yesterday he invoked the CIA's role in the 1953 coup against Iranian leader Mohammad Mossadeq to explain his reticence. "Now, it's not productive, given the history of the U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling -- the U.S. President meddling in Iranian elections," Mr. Obama said.

As far as we can tell, the CIA or other government agencies aren't directing the protests or bankrolling Mr. Mousavi. Beyond token Congressional support for civil society groups and the brave reporting of the Persian-language and U.S.-funded Radio Farda, America's role here is limited. Less than a fortnight ago, in Cairo, Mr. Obama touted his commitment to "governments that reflect the will of the people." Now the President who likes to say that "words matter" refuses to utter a word of support to Iran's people. By that measure, the U.S. should never have supported Soviet dissidents because it would have interfered with nuclear arms control.

The Iranian rebellion, though too soon to call a revolution, is turning out to be that 3 a.m. phone call for Mr. Obama. As a French President shows up the American on moral clarity, Hillary Clinton's point about his inexperience and instincts in a crisis is turning out to be prescient.

See also, Stephen Walt, "Realism and Iran":

Obama's measured response to the events in Iran strikes me as ... sensible: we can and should deplore the abuses of basic rights and the democratic process, while making it clear that the United States is not interfering and remaining open to the possibility of constructive dialogue.

Funny how "realism" gives the administration a pass for amateurish handling of events.

Obama: "Diplomacy With Iran Without Preconditions"

James Joyner, in his post, "No Preconditions," hammers Andrew Sullivan and his post, "No Recognition of Ahmadinejad."

James provides this video from campaign '07, where candidate Obama was asked if he'd "be willing to meet separately, without preconditions, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries":

I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them– which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration– is ridiculous.

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

James links to his essay at the New Atlanticist, "Negotiating with Iran Without Preconditions." And he notes:

Atlantic senior editor Andrew Sullivan has a short post up titled "No Recognition of Ahmadinejad" in which he asserts, "This is the first and absolute requirement of all Western governments. The disgusting visuals of Medvedev and Ahmadinejad yesterday must not be repeated."

But Sullivan was one of the most prominent Obamacons, conservatives who nonetheless supported Barack Obama in last year's election for a variety of reasons, articulated superbly on his blog and in a December 2007 cover story in his magazine called "Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters." Obama could not have been more clear on this issue. Who can forget this moment from the July 24, 2007 Democratic debate?

I'd note first that while perhaps Sullivan might have been an "Obamacon" last year, he's now a well-established spokesman for the gay-radical nihilist base of the Democratic Party.

In any case, it's clear, as James notes, that President Obama's assertion that he "will pursue tough, direct diplomacy without preconditions to end the threat from Iran" remains the position of the administration.

Here's this morning's statement from the administration, from Jake Tapper:

President Obama argued yesterday that there is little different between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi on policies critical to the U.S.

“It's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised,” the president told CNBC. “Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons. And so we've got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election.”

Read the whole thing. Actually, according to Tapper:

... there do seem some key differences on other issues. For one, Mousavi seems far more willing to engage with the West.

Mousavi has expressed a desire for more openness. "An approach that runs on the basis of 'keeping the influx of changes at bay' will irrefutably bring about the closure of newspapers, limitations on freedom in society and public detachment from national-religious leadership," he has said. "On the contrary, an approach that moves toward the recognition of changes, upholds values like sovereignty, liberty as well as peace. Such an approach would produce the right conditions for changes in the society and enable us to make the most of our opportunities.”

Bottom line?

Well, Sullivan's all messed up! Who knows what position he's advocating from moment to moment? But more importantly, is Barack Obama for real? As his homepage indicates:

Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama and Biden would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

As James notes at his essay:

Should Obama now be willing to sit down with Iran's leadership to discuss interests vital to us both only on the rather stringent precondition that the mullah's oust Ahmadinejad? That would fly in the fact of his entire foreign policy platform.

See all the debate at Memeorandum.

Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds.

Obama Disses the Opposition in Iran

From Robert Kagan, "Obama, Siding With the Regime":

One of the great innovations in the Obama administration's approach to Iran, after all, was supposed to be its deliberate embrace of the Tehran rulers' legitimacy. In his opening diplomatic gambit, his statement to Iran on the Persian new year in March, Obama went out of his way to speak directly to Iran's rulers, a notable departure from George W. Bush's habit of speaking to the Iranian people over their leaders' heads. As former Clinton official Martin Indyk put it at the time, the wording was carefully designed "to demonstrate acceptance of the government of Iran."

This approach had always been a key element of a "grand bargain" with Iran. The United States had to provide some guarantee to the regime that it would no longer support opposition forces or in any way seek its removal. The idea was that the United States could hardly expect the Iranian regime to negotiate on core issues of national security, such as its nuclear program, so long as Washington gave any encouragement to the government's opponents. Obama had to make a choice, and he made it. This was widely applauded as a "realist" departure from the Bush administration's quixotic and counterproductive idealism.

It would be surprising if Obama departed from this realist strategy now, and he hasn't. His extremely guarded response to the outburst of popular anger at the regime has been widely misinterpreted as reflecting concern that too overt an American embrace of the opposition will hurt it, or that he wants to avoid American "moralizing." (Obama himself claimed yesterday that he didn't want the United States to appear to be "meddling.")

But Obama's calculations are quite different. Whatever his personal sympathies may be, if he is intent on sticking to his original strategy, then he can have no interest in helping the opposition. His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government's efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition's efforts to prolong the crisis.

More at the link, and Memeorandum.

See also, "Neocons, House GOPers Demand Obama Take Moussavi’s Side."

Photo Credit: Boston Globe, "Iran's Continued Election Turmoil."

Iran Reveals Extent of BDS

From the unlikeliest of places - liberal foreign policy analyst George Packer - we have the bullet-quote of the day.

Packer notes that it's remarkable how difficult it's been for writers of various persuasions to call Iran's reprehensible police-state brutality "shameful":

The reason, of course, has everything to do with the wars of the Bush years, at home and abroad, which have left so many thoughtful people incapable of holding onto the most basic thought. But it’s a mistake to let your attitude toward historic events be shaped and deformed by the desire not to sound like a neo-con, or to sound like a neo-con reborn. Trust the evidence of your eyes.

Note the tricky nuance here: Packer comes very close to blaming President Bush for the inability of radical leftists to denounce the horrors of the Iranian regime. No wait, Packer WANTS to blame Bush for the left's derangement over Iran. But he pulls up short of that total condemnation. He has to pull up short! He ends up putting responsibility for the sickness squarely on the observer, because there's nowhere else it can go! And yes, sure, President Bush was a catalyst, but the utter demonic rage against the foreign policy of the Bush years had been simmering since the Vietnam era of the 1960s. A quick skim over Fred Baumann's "Our Fractious Foreign Policy Debate" demonstrates unimpeachably the building hate-based postmodernism that was unleashed by the unbinding of American foreign policy during the Bush years.

Packer, naturally, waxes on President Obama's "calm eloquence," which indicates that he remains enthralled by the Obameister's wicked spell of hope-and-change appeasement. And that makes the fact that he's been attacked by the likes of Spencer Ackerman even more spectacular. There are few as unhinged by BDS than is Spencer Ackerman. The guy's up there with Andrew Sullivan, and of course his flop-house buddy, Matthew Yglesias.

These folks are as bad as they come, and I should note with special reference to Sullivan, no amount of hyper-voluminous Iran-blogging can rescue these folks from the darkest depths of scurrility. We have seen the enemy at home. It's an menacing, ugly sight, but witnessing leftist Geoge Packer point it out is a rare but valuable thing to behold.

Neocons Unhinged?

Joe Klein attacks Senator John McCain, and the neoconservatives along with him:

For two years now, John McCain has been entirely consistent on Iran: every last statement he's made - at least, those that I've seen - has been (a) fabulously uninformed and (b) dangerously bellicose. He's still at it, apparently. There is no question that President Obama's more prudent path is the correct one right now. There is also no question that the neoconservatives are trying to gin up this situation into an excuse for not engaging with the Iranian government in the near future--and also as a rationale for their dearest, looniest dream, war with Iran.

Read the rest, here.

It's more of the same peacenik rambling from Joe Klein.

But seriously, why is President Obama's path the "more prudent"? We're only emboldening the Iranian regime, and we'll put the region into even greater peril - from Tehran to Tel Aviv - with the deadening moral silence of this administration vis-à-vis the heroic men and women in the streets of Iran.

As always, I'm struck by how intense have been our domestic partisan divisions over the mullah's shamocratic election and the brutal crackdown against the Iranian democrats in the street. (The left blames Iran's troubles on the U.S., and discounts any comparison between the bankrupt Democratic Party leadership of today to the vigorous Cold War leadership of the Reagan administration during the 1980s. The analogy holds, folks, because tyranny holds today in Iran as it did across the East Bloc under the Kremlin.)

Where is American leadership?

We don't have to use apocalyptic rhetoric to denounce the administration's abject moral cowardice. A perfectly measured tone will do: "What Obama needs to say and do about Iran," and "More things Obama should be saying and doing about Iran."

As for Joe Klein, he's simply attempting to settle scores for getting his butt kicked by neoconseratives so many times its ridiculous. Previously, Peter Wehner has repeatedly mopped up with Klein, and I eviscerated Klein at this post.

See also Peter Wehner's essay tonight, "Let Us Not Comfort Cruel Men."

Photo Credit: Boston Globe, "Iran's Continued Election Turmoil."

Instapundit Goes Green!

Solidarity!

Via Tigerhawk, Instapundit goes green!

Check Glenn's page for plenty of updates on Iran's election. For example, "THEY’RE rallying for Iranian democracy in San Francisco tonight."

Hmm, maybe I should try out some green on header background above?

What'd ya think? I mean, hey, Glenn Reynolds is the coolest. But if it's good enough for the Ordinary Gentlemen and Andrew Sullivan, it's good enough for me!

Senator John Ensign Admits Extramarital Affair

Via the New York Times, "Senator Ensign Admits Extramarital Affair":

Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, on Tuesday admitted that he had an extramarital affair with a member of his campaign staff.

Mr. Ensign led the Republicans’ campaign efforts in 2008 and had been contemplating a run for president in 2012.

An aide said the consensual affair took place between December 2007 and August 2008, and that the woman worked for both Mr. Ensign’s campaign operation, Ensign for Senate, as well as a conservative political action committee, Battleborn PAC, from December 2006 to May 2008. Mr. Ensign is honorary chairman of the PAC. The woman’s husband was a member of Mr. Ensign’s official Senate staff. Neither has worked for the senator since May 2008, the aide said.

Mr. Ensign, 51, is married and has three children. During college at Colorado State University, he became a born-again Christian and he and his wife, Darlene, were active in the Promise Seekers, an evangelical group.

In a statement released by his office in Washington, Mr. Ensign said: “I take full responsibility for my actions. I know that I have deeply hurt and disappointed my wife, my children, my family, my friends, my staff and the people of Nevada who believed in me not just as a legislator but as a person. I deeply regret and am very sorry for my actions.”

Mr. Ensign’s wife also issued a statement, reaffirming her commitment to her husband: “Since we found out last year we have worked through the situation and we have come to a reconciliation. This has been difficult on both families. With the help of our family and close friends our marriage has become stronger. I love my husband.”

More at the link.

See also, Chris Cillizza and Paul Kane, "Ensign to Acknowledge Extramarital Affair."

The Washington Independent is already twirling mustaches, "Cross John Ensign Off of the 2012 Hopeful List."

Personally, my sense is that if guys like this can't keep it holstered, then they deserve a primary challenge.

Added: The Politico reports that blackmail was involved, "Nevada Sen. John Ensign admits affair; sources say blackmail involved," via Memeorandum.

**********

UPDATE: Instalanche!

Food Nazis

From The Guardian, "Food is the new fur for the celebrity with a conscience":

Actors, designers, pop stars have all got behind the hot new ethical campaign: food. From saving species to investigating conditions for pigs, star quality is pushing it to the foreground ...

Also, check out the "Food Nazi Mom," MeMe Roth , "Anti-Obesity Activist MeMe Roth Compares Eating To Rape":

The defence has been made in the case of sex criminals that there is pleasure on the part of the victim. The same is true with what we're doing with food. We may abuse our bodies with food, but it's incredibly pleasurable. From a food marketer's point of view, when your quote unquote victim is so willing and enjoying of the process, who's fighting back?

Ms. Roth runs the National Action Against Obesity.

I wonder what Robert Stacy McCain could do with this story?

Hat Tip: Gawker.

Amir Taheri: Excerpt, The Persian Night

Here's an excerpt from Amir Tahiri, The Persian Night: Iran under the Khomeinist Revolution.

"Repression and Resistance: Urban workers, women, students, teachers, and ethnic minorities against the regime":

In 2007, several women’s organizations launched a campaign to collect one million signatures for a petition calling for an end to inequality. In a statement on March 7, 2006, the Organization for Women’s Liberation, one of the many groups fighting Khomeinism, had made it clear that Iranian women would not be satisfied with cosmetic changes. They were demanding major reforms that, if implemented, could undermine the ideological foundations of the Khomeinist system.

The statement reads in part:

The movement for women’s liberation is, at the present time, the flagship of No to Inequality, to Discrimination, to Sexual Apartheid, to the Veil, and is the flagship of defense of Women’s Rights against Cultural Relativism, defense of Secularism and struggle against Political Islam. With its clear platform of action this movement is being organized and led. The progressive movement for women’s liberation has, through its activities and influence in many protests, succeeded in pushing back and defeating the Islamic regime’s attacks against women. The presence of a radical women’s movement is an undeniable reality in Iran.

The statement adds:

The measure of society’s freedom is the freedom of women. To achieve freedom we must overthrow the medieval Islamic rule. So long as this regime is ruling, women and society will not be free. The struggle for women’s freedom is part of the general struggle for freedom, equality, and welfare.

That the regime is incapable of delivering even on its promises of limited reform is illustrated by the case of the Lapidation Act, concerning stoning to death. In 2002, President Khatami, bowing to pressure from women’s organizations, declared a moratorium on this barbarous practice. The more radical Khomeinist mullahs, however, reacted by issuing even more fatwas sentencing women accused of sexual intercourse outside marriage to death by stoning in public. Between 2003 and 2005, the number of such cases more than doubled as thirty-two women were stoned to death. The self-styled reformist president rubbed his hands together in mock despair. He could do nothing against fatwas that overruled the authority even of a self-styled Islamic state. The precedent was Khomeini’s fatwa for the murder of Salman Rushdie. If that fatwa could not be revoked, no fatwa could. This situation could lead to total lawlessness in which any mullah could decide to sentence anyone to death on any charge.

While workers and women are engaged in a deep and long struggle against the fascist regime, the most visible opposition to Khomeinism has come from university students. In July 1999, thousands of Tehran University students revolted against the regime with cries of “Down with the Dictator” and “Freedom of Thought, always, always!” The movement quickly spread to the provinces and within a week had mobilized more than a million students. A photo of Ahmad Batebi, one of the leaders of the movement in Tehran, wearing a bloodstained T‑shirt and holding a poster calling for freedom, made the rounds all over the world, prompting comments that Iran was on the verge of a “second revolution.” As the movement gathered momentum, other opposition groups watched and waited for the right moment to join.

They waited too long. The regime, badly shaken at first and divided between those who urged immediate repression and those who counseled accommodation, pulled itself together and reacted with terror and bloody repression. Thousands of hired thugs from Hezballah were brought in to occupy the Tehran University campus, while special units of the Baseej, led by General Qalibaf, beat and arrested the protestors. Four students died and hundreds more were injured. Over three thousand others were arrested. In September, an Islamic kangaroo court sentenced six student leaders to death, among them Batebi and Manuchehr Mohammadi. The crackdown came after Khatami, who had initially hesitated, realized that the movement was targeting the very heart of the regime. The students were openly calling for a secular system based on a separation of mosque and state. They were calling on the mullahs to return to their mosques and seminaries, allowing the people to form a democratic government representing the nation’s rich diversity. Khatami joined the crackdown after he was told that further hesitation could lead to direct intervention by the IRGC and possibly his own arrest. The uprising and the repression that followed killed all hopes of “change from within,” known as estehaleh in Persian, and thus effectively ended Khatami’s presidency. As one student leader, Akbar Mohammadi, was to observe a few months later, the regime had shown that it was incapable of reform. “We started the movement with the conviction that we were supporting efforts for reforming the system without changing it,” he said. “When the movement was crushed and we were in prison, we realized that the only way that Iran could see real change was overthrowing the regime.”

More at the link.

Buy the book, here.

That's Not My Name...

Let's lighten things up a bit with some hotness from The Ting Tings, "That's Not My Name." Enjoy (video starts shortly):

Lyrics are here.

Miss California Carrie Prejean’s Odyssey: Not Very Pretty

Here's my latest at Pajamas Media, "Miss California Carrie Prejean’s Odyssey: Not Very Pretty."

Below is the video of Prejean's interview with Sean Hannity:

The latest news is dueling lawsuits: "Carrie Prejean, Miss California Pageant Headed to Court?" and "Beauty Pageant to Sue Carrie Prejean for Talking Smack to the Media."

Also, see TMZ, "Pageant to Carrie: Your Court Is Ready!"

Leftists Hit Bottom?

Cold Fury, in Palin is the New Bush, sums up how I feel about legitmating extreme left-wing discourse:

For a good long while there, some of the more genial and polite souls in the right blogosphere seemed all too eager to give people like Yglesias and Oliver Willis the benefit of the doubt as perfectly reasonable and worthy opponents in a polite, genteel debate that never really existed; it seemed plain enough to me all along what they were really all about. But sooner or later, even the most unreasonably optimistic among us realizes that the toad isn’t going to turn into a prince, no matter how arduously they keep kissing it.

This comes after a discussion of Andrew Sullivan and Matthew Yglesias. As I note here on Sullivan (and those "Rovian Islamists"), the left's comparisons between American conservatives and the hardliner in Iran is simply breathtaking. But see also, "Yglesias Hits Bottom."

Glenn Reynolds has in interesting post on his battles with these idiots going back 5 years. It turns out Yglesias went so far to say, "Fuck you," Glenn, during a debate over President Bush and Iraq.

Maybe even Ann Althouse is finally coming around - the end of Althouse/Yglesias bloggingheads?