Modern-Day Hoovervilles

The New York Times has an article and slideshow on the new shanty towns:

Tina Garland, an out-of-work truck driver, in the kitchen area of the tent she shares with her husband in Sacramento. Homeless enclaves have grown in places such as Nashville, Olympia, Wash., and St. Petersburg, Fla., but the situation in Sacramento has received extra attention following a visit from Oprah Winfrey.

Be sure to read the whole thing, here.

Many of the shanty-dwellers are in Fresno, where I lived from 1989 to 1992. Unemployment is there is generally twice the national average. That's why I don't think the notion of "Hoovervilles" is media propaganda. You get the "Grapes of Wrath" feeling living up there for a while, even during boom times.

McCain Was Right on Fiscal Fundmentals!

Via Memeorandum, "On Spending and the Deficit, McCain Was Right":

Barack Obama used to get very upset about federal budget deficits. Denouncing an "orgy of spending and enormous deficits," he turned to John McCain during their presidential debates last fall and said, "We have had, over the last eight years, the biggest increases in deficit spending and national debt in our history … Now we have a half-trillion deficit annually…and Sen. McCain voted for four out of five of those George Bush budgets."

That was then. Now, President Obama is asking lawmakers to vote for a budget with a deficit three times the size of the one that so disturbed candidate Obama just a few months ago. And Obama foresees, for years to come, deficits that dwarf those he felt so passionately about way, way back in 2008.

Everywhere you go on Capitol Hill, you hear echoes of the last campaign's spending debate. So on Thursday morning, as the budget fight raged, I asked McCain about the president's seemingly forgotten concern about deficits. McCain doesn't like to rehash the campaign - "The one thing Americans don't like is a sore loser," he told me - but when I read him Obama's quote from the debate, he said, "Well, there are a number of statements that were made by then-candidate Obama which have not translated into his policies."

That's an understatement. The deficit issue could be one of the most, if not the most, consequential of Obama's unkept campaign promises. Just how consequential was made clear last week in a little-noticed conference call featuring Budget Director Peter Orszag. Orszag was trying to explain to reporters how the Obama administration calculated its rather rosy forecasts for economic growth. Near the end of the call, he was asked whether deficits along the lines of those predicted by the Congressional Budget Office are sustainable."

There's more at the link.

Cartoon Hat Tip: Political Pistachio.

Michele Bachmann, Saving America

I'm looking at Memeorandum, and again not one conservative blogger is listed next to all the leftist attacks on Representative Michele Bachmann. I should note that my friends at Legal Insurrection and Snooper Report have posts up on this, although I'm still looking around the conservative blogosphere for additional essays. Glenn Beck gets it, of course. Below is the video from his show this afternoon, where he excoriates Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, saying "the international reserve currency is the dollar!" Beck also has spoke with Representative Bachmann this morning, in "Glenn talks with Congresswoman Bachmann."

Meanwhile, Fox News reports that the Minnesota congresswoman may be positioning herself for higher office:

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann has shown an uncanny knack for infuriating critics with sometimes off-the-wall behavior and comments, all the while advancing her own political career.

Minnesota politicos say the Republican congresswoman, having fended off perhaps her toughest challenge last year, could hold on to her seat indefinitely -- thanks in part to the conservative makeup of her district.

But Bachmann, a lightning rod of the left, also may be poised to run for governor or senator, according to the political chatter. Either way, the longer Bachmann stays in office, the more she seems to rile her opponents nationwide with a style some call genuine, but others call clueless.

"For what pisses off the Democrats, it really energizes that conservative base she has," said Lawrence Jacobs, a political professor at the University of Minnesota. "This is not a strategic politician. This is a movement conservative. She's a true believer."

Bachmann, 52, is a born-again Christian -- she has said God called her to go to law school and to run for Congress -- who cut her political teeth in the Minnesota Legislature pushing for an amendment to ban same-sex marriage. She won election to the U.S. Congress in 2006, going against the wave of Republicans forced out of office that year. Since then, she's concentrated more on tax and spending issues. She was in the spotlight this week as she questioned Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke during a hearing about federal intervention in the financial system.

Bachmann told FOXNews.com her ultimate goal in Congress is to overhaul and simplify the tax code, while fighting the efforts of the Obama administration to expand government and increase the tax burden. She said President Obama has gone on a spending "blitzkrieg," and she argued that the recent flap over AIG bonuses is just another sign that Washington needs an exit strategy for its financial intervention.

As for her re-election last year, she said it was just proof of her appeal.

"The fact that people knew that I am who I say I am and I'll vote the way that I vote and do so unapologetically, that's one thing people appreciate," she said. "You know, we're the state that voted in Jesse Ventura."

"The nation needs all the conservative fighters we can get in D.C.," she added.

There's more at the link, but the conclusion to the article, a quote from political scientist Lawrence Jacobs, is worth citing: "The larger party infrastructure is about winning elections, and Michele Bachmann is about saving America ... Michele Bachmann is a microcosm of the tension between the Republican Party that wants to win elections and conservatives who want to fight and win policy battles. That is the core of it."

**********

UPDATE: Allahpundit posts on Glenn Beck, so at least somebody's getting close!

**********

UPDATE II: Newsbusters defends Bachmann, in "Matthews Calls Bachmann the 'Mata Hari of Minnesota'; Rolling Stone's Taibbi Says 'Guy Huffing Glue' More Sensible" (with video).

Leftists Launch "Currency Trutherism" Against Bachmann

Are conservatives interested in standing up for Michele Bachmann? I sent out my post yesterday to a number of top bloggers but heard nothing. Maybe I'm wrong about this. Maybe she's indeed the extremist that the leftists keep portraying her to be. Can it really be that top right-wing bloggers are willing to let Bachmann hold down the fort on her own? Not me. I don't buy the meme that she's dog-whistling to the black-copter crowds. Bachmann's speaking more clearly about things that are half of the top conservative opinion makers in the Washington press corps (Brooks, Frum, etc.).

The leftosphere smells blood in the wake of Bachmann's denunciation of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's comments suggesting an "openness" to the displacement of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. Eric Kleefeld's got a post up right now, "Bachmann Blasts Obama's 'Economic Marxism,' Calls For 'Orderly Revolution' To Save Freedom." Here's the key quote from the audio:

At this point the American people - it's like Thomas Jefferson said, a revolution every now and then is a good thing. We are at the point, Sean, of revolution. And by that, what I mean, an orderly revolution - where the people of this country wake up get up and make a decision that this is not going to happen on their watch. It won't be our children and grandchildren that are in debt. It is we who are in debt, we who will be bankrupting this country, inside of ten years, if we don't get a grip. And we can't let the Democrats achieve their ends any longer.

Just so folks are clear, notice how Bachmann clarifies her point: "And by that, what I mean, an orderly revolution ..."

No matter. Matthew Yglesias is on the hunt, "Bachmann and Beck Double-Down on Currency Conspiracy Theory." And Steve Benen diagnoses Ms. Bachmann as insane:

Bachmann simply isn't well. Were she not an elected member of the U.S. Congress, she'd probably be shouting conspiracy theories and holding cardboard signs on some sidewalk somewhere. But what I find especially interesting is that her paranoid delusions are so detached from obvious truths. If Bachmann wanted to complain that a 39.6% top rate was the epitome of Marxism, she'd be just another conservative. But she's convinced herself that the Obama administration will "move us to an international currency," due entirely to her breathtaking stupidity.

Gird your loins, conservatives!

Bachmann's proposed resolution to protect the dollar as the country's sovereign unit of exchange is perfectly justified in light of monetary history and the outlandish comments from Secretary Geithner. Advanced economies are not inoculated from supranational pressures toward monetary homogenization or unification, as the case of the European Union indicates. Once Ms. Bachmann refers to "One World Currency," the only logical reference point is to a national currency unit that would replace current dollar hegemony worldwide. There is no alternative for circulation within borders for everday tendered transactions. More abstract currency units, for example, the IMF's "SDRs", do not circulate as legal tender within nations - they are accounting units for central bank transactions. For something to displace an indigenous legal tender as a means of domestic exchange, an international reserve currency would be introduced into local markets for stability and confidence. This is not unusual, as the dollar now routinely serves as the local unit of exchange in transitioning economies. If anything is outlandish in all of this, it's the idea that Americans should take seriously the notion that China has the economic power to replace U.S. as the world's leading economic power. This is the administration's stupidity, not Representative Bachmann's. She's simply putting in place legislative protections against this administration's transnationalists, those who are willing to consider the replacement of the dollar of the world's reserve currency. See the discussion, for example, at the Wall Street Journal, "The Chinese Yuan: The Next World Currency?"

There's nothing stupid about Michele Bachmann's concern for American sovereignty or her distrust of the Democratic financial manderins in Washington. What is not so smart is how conservatives, at least as demonstrated by the lack of response to the left's "currency trutherism" against Ms. Bachmann, aren't taking these atacks seriously. (But thank goodness for William Jacobson's exceptional essay, "Yet Another Cheap Attack On Michele Bachmann.)

**********

UPDATE: See also Snooper Report, "I Want To Bear Michele Bachmann's Babies!"

The Kooky League of Ordinary Marxists

While it's by no means jaw-dropping for those familiar with the babbling "liberaltarianism" at Ordinary Gentlemen, Freddie's attack on free markets and international interdependence is worth citing for a sense of current orthodox thinking on the left.

Freddie cites Thomas Geoghegan cover story at Harpers, "Infinite Debt: How Unlimited Interest Rates Destroyed the Economy." Geoghegan's piece, ostensibly about the "deregulation of usury," is actually a long boilerplate screed against bank lending and capital markets, and includes this juicy quote of Marxian dialectics, "What is history, really, but a turf war between manufactuing, labor, and the banks. In the United States, we shrank manufacturing. We got rid of labor. Now it's just the banks." Anyway, read the whole thing, here.

Freddie, too lazy to find a link to the Geoghegan's piece, offers his own summary, plus a video link to Geoghegan's interview at Democracy Now!, naturally. But Freddie's extension of Geoghegan's discussion to globalization is what really caught my attention:

There’s a lot of consequences to our understanding of this situation. The first is, I think, another nail in the coffin in the notion that you can ever have a truly free market when you have a currency. When you have a currency, you’ll have lending, and when you have lending, you’ll have interest, and human nature being what it is, lenders will wring out as much interest as they can when they can, offsetting the balance of our economy ... So we need a strong regulatory apparatus to limit the size of interest rates and the degree to which banks are leveraged, in order to prevent the kind of situation we have now ....

Secondly, the pro-globalization furor that has gripped our consciousness in recent decades bears a lot of blame ... The idea that globalization is good for the United States, the world and its people is an attitude that people insist on with incredible zeal, and this insistence comes from conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans. But the consequences of globalization for the United States have meant a hollowed out economy, where we produce very little of actual value, and where a huge amount of our growth comes from the accumulation of imaginary money.

Folks can debate this notion of "imaginary money" (isn't all money imaginary, really, since we place our faith in pieces of security-encoded paper, with pictures of our presidents on them, and are comforted in the notion of the "full faith and credit" of the United States government?). It's this meme of the "hollowed out economy" I want to debunk right here. The claim that the U.S. doesn't produce things is a Big Lie of the protectionist left. In thinking about this, I recall a piece some time back in the Wall Street Journal, "Still Built on the Homefront," which includes some correctives statistics:

Rumors of the death of U.S. manufacturing have been greatly exaggerated. Even as high-profile manufacturers like American auto makers stumble, a remarkable amount of stuff is still made in the U.S., from construction equipment in North Dakota to high-end ranges in Mississippi, artificial knees in Indiana and pipe organs in Ohio.

While manufacturing represents a relatively small part of the U.S. economy - about 17 percent of GDP compared with China's 41 percent - and the number of plants has dwindled, the U.S. is still by far the world's largest manufacturer by raw value of the goods produced, $1.79 trillion worth last year, nearly twice its nearest rival, Japan. China produces more of the things most consumers think of as coming out of factories - cellphones, toys, and coffee makers - but the U.S. continues making goods that tend to be more complex, difficult to transport, and time-sensitive.

This is obviously not to say the U.S. is problem free, or that there's absolutely no room for regulation in an industrial society. I'm just more fascinated at leftist ecstasy at the notion that they've finaly got their "crisis of capitalism." For more on this, see Cathy Young's piece at the Weekly Standard, "Reveling in the Financial Crisis: Naomi Klein, Rising Star of the Kooky Left."

That's classic, the "kooky left."

Let's just say Freddie at Ordinary Gentlemen is a card-carrying member.

Obama's Commitment to Afghanistan

I watched this morning's White House press conference on Afghanistan. President Obama declared that success in Afghanistan represents "an international security challenge of the highest order." The full text of the address is here.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This is the most encouraging speech I've heard from this president. The U.S. will reinforce the deployment with increased troop contingents and the administration will redouble civilian nation-building efforts and regional diplomacy. But the most important point here is the tone: Obama sounds tough. He speaks of the virtues of hard military power, for example, when he says, "There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated." Although the tough talk was leavened with the language of reconciliation and multilateralism, the president's sense of commitment and urgency is a little surprising for one who was the most antiwar candidate among top-tier Democrats in last year's presidential campaign.

It's thus no surprise that there's already pushback from the antiwar left. Arch-appeaser Matthew Yglesias exclaims, " I’ve been worried for months now that Obama’s plan might get the administration caught up in the vicious logic of escalation ..." Also responding is Andrew Sullivan, who returns to form:

I haven't had time to absorb the president's decision to double-down on Afghanistan this morning. I am, however, skeptical for two reasons. The first is that pacifying that entire region - the region that defeated the British and the Soviets - is a gargantuan task whose costs do not seem to me outweighed by the obvious security benefits. As long as we can prevent terrorist bases forming that could target the US mainland, I do not see a reason for this kind of human and institutional enmeshment. My fear is that it multiplies our enemies, drags us further into the Pakistan nightmare, and will never Westernize a place like Afghanistan without decades-long imperial engagement. Secondly, I do not believe that Iraq is as stable as some optimists do, and fear that we will not be able to get out as cleanly as the president currently envisages. To be trapped more deeply in both places in a year's time seems Bush-like folly to me.

Sullivan has even stronger words in response to David Brooks' neocon encomium to the renewed project in Afghanistan.

Greyhawk has a roundup of the media's coverage of Obama's Afghanistan plan, accompanied by the appropriate skepticism:

I always wondered how Iraq would have progressed with balanced media coverage and fewer outright declarations of failure from the halls of congress. The next few months in Afghanistan could provide the closest thing to an answer we're ever going to get.

Yuanization of the American Economy?

There's a big outcry on the left in response to Representative Michele Bachmann's congressional resolution that would prohibit the replacement of the dollar by a foreign currency as the unit of exchange in the United States. Greg Sargent and Matthew Yglesias, respectively, have riduculed Ms. Bachmann as a "colorful" personality and have attacked her resolution as more "madness." The Hotsheet has jumped on the bandwagon, indicating that Ms. Bachmann's demand for the truth from the Obama administration reflects confusion "about calls by China for a so-called 'international reserve currency'." In other words, leftists are attacking Representative Bachmann's alleged policy buffoonery.

I tried unsuccessfully to contact Ms. Bachmann's Washington office, although I did reach a staff member from the Minnesota district offices. I was told my inquiries would be forwarded to the national office. However, Greg Sargent spoke with Debbee Keller, Bachmann's spokesperson, and she said that the resolution only applied to the introduction of a foreign currency unit inside the United States. The proposal has no implications for limiting the introduction of a new international reserve currency to replace the dollar as the premiere unit of global finance.

There's something of a rush to judgment on the left, however. It's well-established in developmental economics for "full dollarization" to be established in domestic economies suffering from economic crises and the lack of international confidence in local currencies. With dollarization, the dollar replaces local currencies as both the unit of tender in routine exchange transactions, as well as the official currency in world balance of payments accounting. So when Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner suggested that he'd be "quite open" to abandoning the U.S. dollar as the international system's reserve currency, the logical implication is that another national currency would take its place, with all the attendant privileges. Although the American economy remains the world's largest, the crises of the U.S. financial system have placed tremendous pressure on the confidence of the dollar in global trade and finance. Some are predicting that it's only a matter of time before China's economy replaces the U.S. as the world's leading market, and thus, "It’s clear to see that the Chinese yuan will be the world’s reserve currency in the future."

Considering the great uncertainties facing the U.S. economy, as well as the propensity for Secretary Geithner to create economic controversy with his economic free-thinking, there is nothing inherently unreasonable for Representative Bachmann to demand direct answers from the Obama administration; that is, it is entirely appropriate to demand that top U.S. officials clarify the appropriate legal foundations for the transition away from the dominance of the dollar in both domestic and world financial transactions.

It is not unusual for advanced industrial economies to replace their domestic currencies. France and Germany, long thought as classic examples on nations jealously protective of state sovereignty, are now the leading cases of world-class economies that have abandoned their national currencies (wth the Euro). More recently, Canada has been open to the dollarization of its economy. Should the Chinese economy come to dominate international trade and finance in the decades ahead - as so many now predict - there is nothing inherently illogical about considering, and protecting against, the possible "yuanization" of the American domestic market.

Perhaps Matthew Yglesias and some of his allies on the left might have reasoned through the full implications of this before dismissing Representative Bachmann's proposal as a "dog whistle to the “end times” folks."

Adam Lambert Sings "Tracks of My Tears"

Last year, when I posted on Smokey Robinson's "Tracks of My Tears, " I suggested that it was that "one damn song that can make me break down and cry." On that note, here's Adam Lambert's knockout performance from last night's American Idol:

Be sure to watch the judges' accolades, and Simon's surprise.

Hat Tip: Ann Althouse.

Why Can't Cantor See Britney?

Okay, here's the Huffington Post's headline on Representative Eric Cantor's Britney Spears faux scandal: "Cantor Watched Britney Spears Concert During Obama Presser, Landrieu Denies Rumors."

I don't get it. Everyone saying how the GOP's got to get hip with the younger crowd, and as soon as one of the party's rising stars goes out for an evening of entertainment, it's Britney-gate.

This is no big deal. As Sister Toldjah notes:

The latest “scandal” brewing at far left blogs involves a story that first broke at the liberal Wonkette blog about how House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) allegedly “blew off” Obama’s presser Tuesday night for a Britney Spears concert. Think Progress sums up the thoughts of the far left on this “issue” (via JWF) ....

Are these people really that stupid that they don’t understand the difference between the President of the United States trying to sell his econ plan on a late night talk show versus the House Minority Whip attending a concert, allegedly with a few Congressional Democrats (or was it at the request of a fundraiser?), during (the latter part of - see update below) the Obama presser? Apparently so.

Are these fruitcakes also not aware that it’s possible that Cantor recorded or TiVo’d the presser? At last check, only one bright bulb thought to speculate on that possibility, seeing that Cantor talked at length Wednesday morning on NBC about what Obama said at the press conference.

Republicans need to go to more concerts. Screw political correctness. They need to get out and have some fun. Good for Cantor, but you've got to ask yourself, why is Mary Landrieu denying this? I don't think the issue is the missed press conference. It's that officials don't want to be seen as morally depraved. Wow, and we thought social conservatism was dead?

More at Memeorandum.

Sarah Palin: Pray With Me

From Ben Smith and Memeorandum, check out this video of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's speech to a Republican dinner in Alaska:

I like this part from the transcript:

"So I'm looking around for somebody to pray with, I just need maybe a little help, maybe a little extra," she said. "And the McCain campaign, love 'em, you know, they're a lot of people around me, but nobody I could find that I wanted to hold hands with and pray." As the crowd laughed, Palin grinned and said she meant no disrespect to the McCain campaign. She said she ultimately prayed with her daughter Piper.

I'm like that. Sometimes I just want to say a little prayer for strength. I don't do it often, but I've done it like that throughout my life, and I've never thought of my self as "hyper-religious." Sometimes you just need a little extra strength.

God bless Sarah Palin.

"Mortimer came to the meetups to score, man!"

Remember what I said about Althouse's comments section? I rest my case (snark...): " 'Love in the Time of Commenters'":

This is why Mortimer Brezny stopped blogging. He came on this damn blog to woo Ann into marrying him and all it got him was mockery from Trooper York and into flame wars with Simon Dodd. (For which I apologize, Simon.) Then some other commenter steals Mr. Brezny's idea and succeeds. I mean, all the defending I did of Ann was totally just a vain and pitiable attempt to get in the knickerbockers! Who cares about what Ron Bailey thinks! And it's Meade! Oh man, I could have put in so much less blogging effort! Gaaah! I mean, I threw Jessica Valenti through a plate glass window for Ann! And I broke her leg with a pipe! I mean, talk about full frontal feminism!

But at least this bloggingheads diavlog clears some things up. Ann is not dominant in her personal relationships. I guess that kills it, Simon. It kills it for me. I mean, I had fantasies, man. Mortimer had dirty, filthy fantasies. Mortimer came to the meetups to score, man! It hurts! The wooing I did here! The hardcore woo action that I put out here! I was devoting it up in here. I am fulminating with rage! Rage and fulmination and fire and brimstone! I mean, if I can't have Ann, no one else should! That is the cosmic rule, doesn't everyone KNOW that?

Why Be Conservative?

Check out Christopher Brownwell's excellent essay at American Thinker, "Why be a conservative?"

As a conservative I will not change my conservative principles to mirror popular or progressive policies. These conservative principles stand in antithesis to principles held by modern liberals.

The reference to "modern liberalism" is classical liberalism, for example, here.

See also, John Ray, "Defining conservatism," a brief review of Mark Levin's new book, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto.

Barney Frank's Distraction

Think Progress is really bad. After attacking John McCain last year with allegations of plagiarism, the editors issued an apology that included this preface: "As a blog that strives to maintain credibility and transparency ..." Yeah. Right. That's just before the tortuous mea culpa.

Now Think Progress has attacked Fox News as enabling Justice Antonin Scalia's alleged bigotry, "Fox News Attacks Barney Frank for Accurately Characterizing Scalia’s Views as Homophobic."

The background to the controversy is here (Frank attacked Scalia as a "homophobe"). Dr. Sanity suggests that Frank's attack is a perfect example of "how postmodern rhetoric works so brilliantly - to distract from real issues and a rational discussion of them." But the best response is Ann Althouse's. She goes right to the source of Frank's allegations, Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in Texas v. Johnson (2003):

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts–or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them–than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,”... and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.

Althouse summarizes, saying "There is nothing — absolutely nothing — to support the proposition that Scalia thinks it's a good idea to lock up gay people."

Maybe Think Progress will issue an apology to Justice Scalia.

Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds, who notes, "don’t be distracted into forgetting about Barney Frank’s financial issues, which is what he’d like you to do."

Image Credit: The People's Cube.

Democrats Love David Frum

Newsweek's published the letters to the editor in response to its cover story a couple of weeks back on Rush Limbaugh.

The magazine likely gets hundreds of e-mails and traditional letters in response to each article, and much more than that for pieces that raise hot-button controversies (as the editors note, for example, "more than 40,000 readers responded to our Dec. 15 cover story, 'The Religious Case for Gay Marriage'").

So one might think that the magazine would publish at least one defense of Rush Limbaugh from a conservative in this week's letters. But no can do, it turns out. Not only that, they've published two comments from committed Democrats:

David Frum's true conservative voice is sorely needed at this time in our nation's history ("Why Rush Is Wrong," March 16). And even though Frum and I, a lifelong Democrat, would disagree on many issues, I find myself strongly allied with him on the need to reform the Republican Party's intellectual and moral core. By incisively dissecting Rush Limbaugh's diatribes for the inflammatory and counterproductive rhetoric that they are, Frum has called on conservatives everywhere to turn away from the politics of alienation and demagoguery. I hope he proves successful.

Paul Brewer
Grand Rapids, Mich.

***

I am a liberal, but David Frum's "Why Rush Is Wrong" really struck a chord. Our country, and the Democrats, need a vital, creative Republican Party to offer competitive alternatives to the liberal agenda. I am afraid we will all suffer if Frum's call for a revitalized Republican ideology is ignored. I am at least as amused as anyone by the hole the Republicans are digging for themselves by allowing the public to see Limbaugh as their representative face, but this can't be good for anyone, except Rush and the stations that carry him.

Dave Mollen
Union, N.J.

All six letters are at the link.

As I've noted quite a bit lately, there's lots of debate on the "need" for the Republicans to move to the center. But one of the most longstanding rules of partisan politics is that you never let the opposition define your agenda and identity. What better indicator is there of the stupidity of "progressive Republicans" than the fact that the DEMOCRATS LOVE DAVID FRUM!

It'd be astonishing if it wasn't so predictable. Man, we need more outlaws ...

See also, The Fix, "Limbaugh An Issue in New York Special" (via Memeorandum).

Update on Michele Bachmann

This entry updates my earlier post on Michele Bachmann ...

Representative Bachmann's clearly raising the ire of the nihilists at Firedoglake, "Michelle Bachmann, Vigilant Guardian of the Constitution."

Funny how all these Bush/Cheney Republicans have suddenly discovered there's this thing called "the Constitution," isn't it?

A friend who speaks wingnut tells me this is good old right-wing/Bircher/Evil Federal Reserve/One World Government paranoia, as Bachmann later hints at with her weird question about an "international monetary standard." But I think she's just an idiot.

Previously Firedoglake posted a Photoshop of Ms. Bachmann with Nazi paraphernalia. We're seeing nothing less than a campaign by hardline radicals to personally destroy Michelle Bachmann, not unlike the left's current program to bankrupt Sarah Palin with endlessly frivilous ethics lawsuits against the Governor and her family.

See also John Hinderaker's comments on Ms. Bachmann, "Bachmann Quotes Jefferson; STRIB Is Shocked:

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is one of Minnesota's most effective spokesmen for conservatism, so our local media have collaborated with Democrats in trying to defeat her. The most recent attack on Michele arose out of my radio show last Saturday.

See also Representative Bachmann's essay at Townhall, "A Government Power Grab" (via Memeorandum).

Up Next: Federal Student Loan Bailouts?

I worked my way through college.

I held jobs while attending community college, and I worked full-time after I transferred to Fresno State. When I entered graduate school I had no student debt. And I continued working my first year of the Ph.D. program at a local Chevron station, turning down thousands of dollars in federal student loans that were available. I wanted to be careful. During my last couple of years in grad school, I borrowed to finance my dissertation research, which meant I could write full time instead of conduct TA seminars at the university. I've already paid off one of my student loans, and on two big loans outstanding, I pay less than five hundred a month. For a professor, that's manageable.

Basically, I did what most people do, or at least that's what I think most people do, or should do ... be responsible. I'm proud of my achievement in that sense. That just seems like the American way.

So readers can see how I might be a little turned off by Allahpundit's receptiveness to growing demands for a TARP-style federal bailout of student loan debtors: "Stimulus idea: How about massive forgiveness of student loans?"

Read the essay at the link.

The guy at Retake Education pretty much captures my sense (outrage?) at all of this:

Screw you Allahpundit. Is this what the supposed Right has come to? Hey, we’re throwing tons of money at the problem at rewarding people who acted irresponsibly at the expense of those who didn’t, why not throw some more cash on the fire while we’re at it? Screw people who were too stupid to jump on the federal gravy train when they were in college, or who stupidly paid back their loans as promised by sacrificing in the short term. What a bunch of losers they are! And all those folks who worked their asses off while they were in school so that they wouldn’t have to take out loans? Screw ‘em. And, ahem, people who are working full time jobs while going to school at night so that they can better themselves? Screw ‘em!

What a moronic, insulting idea. Allahpundit and Hot Air should be ashamed to even be thinking this.

See also, "Asking for Student Loan Forgiveness," via Memeorandum.

"I thought I was sitting opposite a Hamas spokesman or a would-be-suicide bomber"

That's the quote from Khaled Abu Toameh, an Israeli Arab journalist at the Jerusalem Post, in his essay, "On Campus: The Pro-Palestinians' Real Agenda":

During a recent visit to several university campuses in the U.S., I discovered that there is more sympathy for Hamas there than there is in Ramallah.

Listening to some students and professors on these campuses, for a moment I thought I was sitting opposite a Hamas spokesman or a would-be-suicide bomber.

I was told, for instance, that Israel has no right to exist, that Israel’s “apartheid system” is worse than the one that existed in South Africa and that Operation Cast Lead was launched only because Hamas was beginning to show signs that it was interested in making peace and not because of the rockets that the Islamic movement was launching at Israeli communities.

I was also told that top Fatah operative Marwan Barghouti, who is serving five life terms in prison for masterminding terror attacks against Israeli civilians, was thrown behind bars simply because he was trying to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Furthermore, I was told that all the talk about financial corruption in the Palestinian Authority was “Zionist propaganda” and that Yasser Arafat had done wonderful things for his people, including the establishment of schools, hospitals and universities.

The good news is that these remarks were made only by a minority of people on the campuses who describe themselves as “pro-Palestinian,” although the overwhelming majority of them are not Palestinians or even Arabs or Muslims.

The bad news is that these groups of hard-line activists/thugs are trying to intimidate anyone who dares to say something that they don’t like to hear.

Related:

* "Politicians Fret as Muslim Population Swells in Europe Amid Little Integration."

* "'Global War On Terror' Is Given New Name."

Rule 5 Rescue: Scarlett Johansson

My friend Philippe, the publisher of New Testament News, left these comments at an earlier post:

Rule 5 blogging ... is probably the best tool I have ever used to sift the chaff from the wheat ... So a big thank you for that, Donald! :-)

I only wish I had used more of rule 5 blogging earlier.

Well, I'm passing the good word along to Robert Stacy McCain, "The Hustler."

Previously:

* "Rule 5 Rescue: Helen Mirren."

* "Rule 5 Rescue: Paulina Porizkova."

Photo Credit: Scarlett Johansson, via Vanity Fair’s "Spotlight" series.

HopeNchange Deficits

Via Glenn Reynolds, "Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures":

Culture 11's Postmodern Postmortem

I can't say that I'd hadn't heard of Culture 11 until it's demise. But check out Dan Riehl. He hadn't, yet he beautifully manages to pin down Culture 11's insignificance to the blogosphere:

But I've been knocking around the Internet for too many years to count and blogging daily for five on the Right. There are few if any major memes I miss, even if I don't blog on them.

I never even heard of this Culture11 site until I read that it was gone. If someone wants to know why it failed, extrapolate that out to other bloggers and web surfers, that was it.

Having never seen it, all I can conclude is that it really must have sucked.

The Culture 11 page is still up ... there's just no new commentary. For a lot of not-so-closeted postmods, it was "Oh, the humanity" over the news. The essayists at Ordinary Gentlemen were crying on each other's shoulders when the site went belly up. Of course, it went belly up for for good reason: Culture 11 wasn't conservative. You can call it "postmodern conservatism" or "liberaltarian," or what have you. But it wasn't conservative. Even conservatives who think Culture 11 was such a great place, can't figure out what to call conservatism. They hate it that much.

Anyway, I'm going on about this since Charles Homans has written a big postmortem on Culture 11, "Culture Shock: What happened when one conservative Web site ventured outside the movement bubble." Homans' got a decent grip on what he's talking about, and the piece is a good read. But Washington Monthly is hopelessly progressive, and that helps explain why pomos like Andrew Sullivan, or confused libertarians like Daniel Larison and David Weigel, think its such an "important" piece. But read Homans' article in full (and the aforementioned pomo-liberaltarians cited herein, all found at Memeorandum). One of the sentences at the piece that captures the essence of the pomo-zeitgeist is from the discussion of Jonah Goldberg's commentary on today's college culture: Conservatives "have a problem with young people."

That's what everyone keeps saying? From David Brooks to David Frum to Meghan McCain, it's all about, "Dude, you've got to attract the up-and-comers or you'll be the permanent minority." So what are conservatives supposed to do to prevent that? Join the progressive majority, of course. But first they'll have to off-load the "Christianists," although that might be hard, considering that these evil evangelicals make up about a quarter of the electorate, and there's little genuine support for the notion that faith-based voters will abandon the GOP.

"But that's not a big enough constituency for a minimum winning coalition," critics will say. "We've got to reach out the next wave of socially progressive voters." Perhaps. But in so doing conservatives won't be able to call themselves that anymore. Gay marriage? Pro-choice on abortion? Tax-and-spend for a "green economy"? You've got to be kidding me, right? The pomos should just join the Democratic Party? Andrew Sullivan's already mouthing the Obamacrats' social-policy talking points. It should be a no-brainer for these idiots. It's mind boggling sometimes, really. You'd think today's conservatives were never kids. I know college campuses. For the life of me I can't think of one liberal policy outside Pell Grants that will really help the life chances of today's young. I've got students in my classes who are fresh out of high school with kids in kindergarten (so some girls are having babies before they're 15 years-old). I've got inner-city students who've had their children murdered. Others didn't learn to speak English until first grade, as only Spanish was spoken in the home. And don't even get me going about academic skills. Decades of "progressive" education and the collapse of rigorous expectations for the disadvantaged have sapped whatever will to upward mobility we might otherwise see in poor and minority communities. Attend classes in any humanities and social sciences department nowadays and you'll have radical ideology rammed down your throat, contrary to Michael Bérubé might say otherwise. Yeah, go to Berkeley or Harvard Yard and you'll get your Yglesias wannabes. They should move to Sweden.

There are untold numbers of young conservatives, and they're not all white Christians. I read hundreds of term paper assignments every semester, and I'm always pleased to see what's frankly a pushback among the "silent" faction that thinks Obamessianism is a joke. These kids think childhood pregnancy and liberal abortion policies are a disaster. Perhaps its religion or strong family cultures, but traditional values are not out of step with a large segment of today's young people. The meme that conservatives and the GOP absolutely must court young "progessives" is the big lie of the Daily Kos-David Frum-Andrew Sullivan new-left-pomo axis. While the youth vote turned out in large numbers in 2008 for the Democrats, the results in the long run may be specific to the issues of this election and the charisma of this president. The suggestion that demographics-is-destiny for the GOP is thus time-bound to the extant backlash against the Bush administration in particular, and may be an ephemeral trend overall. The push to capture the youth vote assumes as well continued high rates of participation among the young, social progressive age cohort. But 2008 was a perfect storm of leftist-social activism, and it's a flawed determinism to suggest that the stars will stay aligned for future elections. Complacency at having achieved change, and outright revulsion at Democratic incompetence and totalitarianism, will turn off many younger Democratic backers as the euphoria of change wears off. And on gay marriage, the issue that seems to be a proxy for the pomo battle lines, polls in California and nationally show large majorities who favor alternative equilibria to full-blown same-sex marriage rights, and these findings are stable for the last year or so, at a time when gay rights activism has received unprecedented coverage in the press.

If conservatism is to mean anything, it's that society changes along with the forces of proscription and tradition. To push too rapidly is to court reaction. This is exactly what the No on H haters are doing, and we only have to look to gay activists themselves for proof of a pushback to folks like Andrew Sullivan and the Extraordinary Gentlemen.

Culture 11's death was well deserved. And the folks now singing its praises ought to enjoy the good times while they last. The "emerging progressive majority" is anything but.

Why Progressives Oppose the Geithner Bank Plan

Glenn Greenwald has a hilariously hubristic post up harrumphing the left's "superior" principles in opposing the Obama administration's policies. That's in contrast, of course, to how the "lock-step" conservative-right laid down in submission to the Bush administration's every power grab:

Over the last month, the Obama administration has made numerous decisions in the civil liberties area that are replicas of some of the most controversial and radical actions taken by the Bush administration, and the most vocal critics of those decisions by far were the very same people – ostensibly on "the Left" - who spent the last several years objecting to the same policies as part of the Bush administration’s radicalism. Identically, many of Obama's most consequential foreign policy decisions - in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan - have been criticized by many on the Left. Opposition to Obama’s bank bailout plan is clearly being driven by liberal economists, pundits and bloggers, and much of the criticism over the AIG debacle came from liberals as well. There was pervasive liberal criticism over some of Obama's key appointments, including Tom Daschle, John Brennan and Tim Geithner. That's more independent progressive thinking in two months than the "conservative movement" exhibited with regard to Bush in six years.

Yeah. Right.

One would hope Greenwald might provide a few links to all of those on "the Left" who are so vigorously opposing the new administration's "consequential foreign policy" decisions. As far as I can tell, the criticisms, on Afghanistan for example, are more about the Bush administration getting us involved in the first place than about Obama's babbling incoherence since taking office (Matthew Yglesias is a case in point).

But on the Geithner plan, the left is not opposing Obama because of any "massive expansion of government." In fact, it's the opposite. As James Pethokoukis shows, the left is upset because Obama's not doing enough to reward the progressives with more big government programs:

Liberals are mad that private investment funds are involved. Many liberals speak scornfully of the so-called "hedge fund Democrats" such as Chuck Schumer who are pro-Wall Street and pro-globalization. The whole Geithner plan, in that it uses private investment money, smells like a creation of the hedge fund Democrats to make fat profits for their campaign contributors with little risk. Profits are privitized and risk is socialized. And why should Wall Street, which caused the problem, they argue, profit from fixing it? The big stock market rally only emphasized the point.

***

Liberals are mad Uncle Sam won't get all the profits. I think this is the big one. Liberals aren't worried that the Geithner Plan won't work. They're worried it will. See, when the Paulson Plan came out last September, the Bush White House insisted the scheme would eventually make money for the government since it was buying all these artificially undervalued, distressed assets that would one day rise in price. Former hedge fund manager Andy Kessler agreed, and publicly estimated that the $700 billion toxic asset buy could generate more than $2 trillion for the government. A few days later, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman was already spending that dough in an effort to "green the bailout", insisting the profits from the Paulson Plan be invested in a "smart transmission grid or mass transit." But the Geithner Plan splits the profits 50-50, and the government's share may further be eroded by $750 billion in new capital injections. Not much money left over for a Green New Deal.

So, Glenn Greenwald can just shut up. Every political constituency wants more for their cause. The right supported an expansion of state power to protect Americans. The left wants an expansion of state power to expropriate Americans. And that's the real "meaningful difference between the 'conservative movement' and many progressives."

Strip-Searches Go to the Supreme Court

Recalling how leftists said Representative Michelle Bachman should be "stripsearched every time she comes close to the President," check today's story at the New York Times on strip-searches and the Fourth Amendment, "Strip-Search of Girl Tests Limit of School Policy." The plaintiff, Savana Redding, was 13 years-old when she was subjected to a humiliating strip-search under her school's "zero-tolerance" anti-drug policies:

The case will require the justices to consider the thorny question of just how much leeway school officials should have in policing zero-tolerance policies for drugs and violence, and the court is likely to provide important guidance to schools around the nation.

In Ms. Redding’s case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled that school officials had violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches. Writing for the majority, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw said, “It does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights.”

“More than that,” Judge Wardlaw added, “it is a violation of any known principle of human dignity.”

But Michelle Bachmann's not worthy of that dignity, apparently. See also, Ed Morrissey, "Strip-searching teenage girls in school?", and Memeorandum.

Obama Honeymoon is Over

Via Jeff Goldstein and Robert Stacy McCain, President Barack Obama's poll numbers in the latest Zogby survey have dropped to 50 percent approval:

The honeymoon is over, a national poll will signal today as President Obama’s job approval stumbles to about 50 percent over the lack of improvement with the crippled economy.

The sobering numbers come as the president backpedals from two prime-time gaffes - one comparing his bowling score to a Special Olympian and another awkwardly laughing about the economy, which prompted Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” to ask “are you punch-drunk?”

Pollster John Zogby said his poll out today will show Americans split on the president’s performance. He said the score factors out to “about 50-50.”

Some polls show Obama coasting with a 65 percent job approval, but not in Zogby’s tally.

“The numbers are going down,” Zogby told the Herald. “It’s not because of the gaffes, but a combination of high expectations and that things aren’t moving fast enough with the economy.”

The Other McCain adds this:

This has got to scare Democrats to death, because the whole point of hitching their wagons to Obama's star was that Obama was popular. In fact, one might say that Plouffe, Axelroad & Company developed a formula in which "popular" was an acceptable synonym for "successful." But the gross incompetence of the Obama administration can't be solved by P.R. gimmicks.

See also, Gallup's new survey data, "AIG, Congress, Geithner Target of Bonus Backlash." Only President Obama escapes the public wrath, but barely, with a mediocre 54 percent majority saying they're satisfied the way he's handled the AIG controversy.

See more analysis at Memeorandum.

From Steve Benen's Commenters...

William Jacobson wrote a great piece yesterday taking down Alex Knapp, an alleged libertarian, but I thought it worth sharing some of the comments from Steve Bennen's post harrumphing Knapp's meme. This stuff is all ignorant grandstanding - these people wouldn't know what freedom looked like it if hit them on the head:

A lot of this is Michelle Malkin's (aka 'The Kabuki Queen') thespian production.

***

I often wonder why so many middle class people vote for these Republicans - that party has done absolutely nothing to help them with education, healthcare, tax breaks. The GOP are certainly crafty in their duplicity.

***

Don't feel sorry for them. Their blind-stupid votes for repugs forced the rest of us to suffer under a government we didn't deserve.

I only wish they could actually suffer from this administration the way we and the whole world suffered from Smirky/Darth.

***

It's hard to feel sorry for folks who spent 8 or 10 hours a day listening to talk radio or watching Fox blather instead of--shucks--reading a book or taking a walk or teaching their kids and grandkids how to use a screwdriver or any number of other things that make more sense.

***

These people are not conned.

What we see here is social conservative personality disorder.

The social conservaitves' standard ploy is almost invariably to do nothing and make a spectacle out of it, consequently they are self-righteously indignant at the idea of anyone else doing anything.

As if they had the slightest clue.

It's a learning disability.

***

I've been a full-time resident in Florida (southwest) now for almost 6 years. I'm not sure what makes people down here so crazy, except that a majority of the residents aren't native to the state (ncluding me) and are largely from the mid-west and atlantic states. TONS of them from Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa and so forth. The ones from the atlantic states (i.e., New York, Mass, PA) tend to be moderates at least, and some liberals. The rest seem to be folks from the mid-west who are very financially secure, many of them with second homes down here. I'd say it's in the water or something, but I've not been infected by their b.s. What I DO know is that the folks I know the best down here listen to ONLY Fox News for their information and read the local papers here, which all lean to the right. And trying to find either a moderate or left-leaning radio talk show is close to impossible. A few folks I know "woke up," but the great majority are just as right-wing Republican as always. The one thing these people all have in common is that they are very well off, if not "rich." Any ideas that threaten their status quo is seen as a threat, and it doesn't help that many of them are as old as dirt. Well...I'm as old as dirt myself I guess (61), but have always been a free-thinker and a Libra. It makes a difference. Needless to say, I don't get invited to many parties these days!

***

So, the wingnut followers are now literally protesting against straw men. They are upset that Obama is taking away their guns (no gun laws are proposed), raising their taxes (he's actually lowering them), and in some vague way imposing on their freedoms (he's actually cut back on domestic spying and other unconstitutional Bush practices).

The scary part is that they really believe this stuff -- gun restrictions, tax increases, liberty reductions.

***

As one of the commenters on Knapp's site pointed out, the Tea Party part is humorous - but the "Going Galt" part is downright hysterical. Apparently, wingers can't read - otherwise they'd be aware that the John Galt of "Atlas Shrugged" is not who they think he is...

In the end, it doesn't matter, because they are getting exactly as much media attention as they deserve.

***

Faith in Our Fathers

Some readers might have come across Sippican Cottage's commemoration of his recently-passed father, a ball gunner on a B-24J bomber during the Pacific campaign in World War II. It was quite moving, and as we're always touched by poignant memorials to our fathers who served in the "Good War," let me share Bloviating Zeppelin's piece on his dad, Richard, was an Army Air Corps bomber pilot in the war. BZ's original memoriam is here, but he's also got a letter his grandather wrote to his father before the latter shipped off to fight:

You are indeed a fortunate individual in that you are on the threshold of the new America that will arm itself to insure the retention of its principles of freedom, and by the very reason of your being a part of this greater respect and a deeper love of those principles for which America stands.

So in the realization of a real success in the job you have ahead of you and I have complete confidence that you will be a success which can be measured only in terms of Honesty, Simplicity, Tolerance and Respectability -- there can be no greater honor or reward that could possibly come to me than in being ---

Your Dad

Read the whole thing, here.

Hat Tip: Vinegar and Honey.