Shock and Awe in Massachusetts

Kenneth Davenport predicts a Scott Brown victory in the Massachusetts special election. See, "Prediction: Shock and Awe in Massachusetts."

And you know, that might be a pretty good bet. From Amy Walter, "How Long Will Massachusetts Dems Feel Blue? Among Enthusiastic Voters, The Bay State's Senate Race Is A Surprising Dead Heat":

How does a special election in Massachusetts, one of the bluest states around, go from a slam dunk to a nail-biter? One word: enthusiasm. Republicans have it. Democrats don't.

The good news for Democratic Senate hopeful Martha Coakley is that there's still a week to go before Election Day. Plus, the more the state and national media focus on this as a tight race, the more it helps rouse her currently uninterested base.

Can Republican Scott Brown really win? If you look at just those who say they are the most interested in voting on Jan. 19, the answer is yes. Among those in the recent Boston Globe poll who said they were "extremely interested" in the race, Coakley and Brown were tied at 47 percent. Last week's Rasmussen poll showed similar results. Among those who said they were most likely to go to the polls, Coakley led by just 2 points -- 47 percent to 45 percent. (Coakley still had an overall lead of 15 points in the Globe poll and 9 points in Rasmussen.)

Another less scientific but still telling statistic from the Boston Herald: Brown's crushing Coakley on Facebook. Brown has 20,000 supporters compared to Coakley's 6,000. More interestingly, the "Facebook Women for Brown" group has over 1,000 members, while the "Women for Coakley" group has just 45.

Even so, time is not Brown's friend. Up until now, Coakley's run a positive campaign. I'd expect that to end soon. She was aggressive with Brown at a debate late last week. The tone of her ads is also likely to get much tougher. This is where Coakley's money advantage should pay off. Can Brown afford to both defend himself from attacks and keep up his own messaging? At this point, neither the Republican Senate committee nor the Republican National Committee has invested significant resources here (although an online "money bomb" organized for the Brown campaign has reportedly raised him more than $1 million).

Brown also has to be worried about this race becoming too nationalized. It's not an oversight that none of Brown's ads mention he's a Republican. Brown's message is to "end business as usual in Washington." The last thing in the world he needs is a supportive tweet from Sarah Palin. Not only would that turn away independents (with whom Brown is doing quite well), but it'd likely invigorate the Democratic base, as well.

For Democrats in swing states like Virginia or Colorado, a drop in Democratic intensity is deadly, especially if it's combined with losing independents (see Deeds, Creigh). In Massachusetts, however, Democrats make up such a big percentage of the vote that Brown needs to win over a good chunk of them -- or hope that Libertarian candidate Joe Kennedy can take some too. Public Policy Polling and Boston Globe data suggest an electorate that's anywhere from 44 percent to 56 percent Democrat. Coakley's getting almost 80 percent of that vote. Let's say that the Democratic turnout ends up at 50 percent, while independents make up 30 percent and Republicans make up 20 percent. As long as she takes 80 percent of the Democratic vote, she can win, even if she takes just 40 percent of the independent vote and none of the GOP vote.

But the closeness of this race highlights the bigger problem for Democrats going into this midterm election: motivation. Revving up their base was easy when it was all about Bush. Now that it's all about them, Democrats aren't as interested. To be sure, the Coakley campaign itself deserves some of the blame for failing to engage her base more actively. But this lack of Democratic excitement is not all about her. It's been evident in state and national polls for a while. And health care is not the issue that will motivate them.

And from Legal Insurrection, "New Poll - Coakley Only Up 2 Pts."

See also, Gateway Pundit, "Nice Work... New Coakley Attack Ad Misspells Massachusetts." (Via Memeorandum.)

They’re Gone? Martha Coakley Clueless on AF-PAK Strategic Theater

As I've reported many times, the Taliban's active terror cells in the AF-PAK security theater constitute a regional network grouping that knows no national borders. The Waziristan region of the tribal hinterlands is especially ripe with Taliban jihadi activities, with operations being conducted from Kabul to PesHawar.

It's thus extremely troubling to listent Democrat Martha Coakley, who's running against Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special election, to suggest that the Taliban "are gone" from Afghanistan, and thus it's time for the U.S. to come home:

“I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan. I think that we should plan an exit strategy. Yes. I’m not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that. They’re gone. They’re not there anymore.”

More at Gateway Pundit, "Martha Coakley Is Not Just Wrong on Terror War – She’s Dangerous." (Via Memeorandum.)

Also, blogging, Flopping Aces, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, The Lonely Conservative, Moonbattery, Nice Deb, NO QUARTER

Simon Cowell Out at American Idol

The show won't be the same, although I'm not one to say it's through. From the Wall Street Journal, "Blunt but Popular Simon Cowell Will Bow Out of 'American Idol'":

Simon Cowell, the brusque personality who has been behind TV blockbusters on several continents, plans to leave the Fox network's singing competition "American Idol" after the current season, leaving a question mark over the biggest hit on American airwaves.

The 50-year-old Mr. Cowell said he was "offered a lot of money" to remain a judge on "American Idol," which has been a mega-hit for the Fox network. But Mr. Cowell, who parlayed music-producing acumen into television celebrity, said he had decided to leave because "The X Factor," another singing competition that has taken off in Britain, is set to debut—also on Fox—in 2011.

Mr. Cowell will serve as executive producer and judge on the U.S. version of "The X Factor," the network said. Mr. Cowell hasn't been an executive producer for "Idol" and the additional title suggested he may reap bigger financial gains with "The X Factor" if the show is a hit in the U.S., as it has been in other parts of the world.

Based on the British series "Pop Idol," "American Idol" launched on Fox in 2002 and has become the most popular series on television.

"Idol" made Mr. Cowell a household name on both sides of the Atlantic and became a linchpin of Fox's television lineup. But after eight seasons on air, ratings were down 7.8% for the last season, compared with the previous year.

Speaking to reporters during a Fox media event in Pasadena, Calif., network executives said they expect "American Idol" to continue for many years.

Mr. Cowell's exit comes as speculation also swirls about Fox's late-night plans. Conan O'Brien, the host of NBC's "Tonight Show," has considered leaving the General Electric Co. network over plans to move his show a half hour later to make room for "The Jay Leno Show" at 11:35 p.m. weeknights. While Fox executives played down the likelihood of Mr. O'Brien landing at the network, Fox has had informal talks with Mr. O'Brien's circle about hosting a late-night show, Kevin Reilly, president of entertainment for Fox, confirmed Monday. "I love Conan personally and professionally, but right now he's got a decision to make about his future," Mr. Reilly said.

"American Idol" has been one of network TV's biggest cash cows largely because of its allure to young viewers advertisers pay a premium to reach. The program commands some of the highest ad rates in broadcast television, with the price of 30 seconds of ad time on the program reaching $707,000 in 2009, according to TNS Media Intelligence, an ad-tracking unit of WPP PLC.

"American Idol" generated about $843.3 million in advertising in 2009, according to TNS, down from $883.7 million in 2008 when ad prices reached $737,000 for a 30-second slot. The Fox network generated $2.8 billion in gross advertising revenue last year, according to SNL Kagan.

Simon's a real prick sometimes, but when he does open up to real talent, it's quite powerful to behold.

Final Brown/Coakley Debate in Massachusetts

Neo-Neocon has the a short video clip, "Can Mr. Brown go to Washington?":

In case you missed the money quote, Scott Brown said:

With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy seat and it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.

Also, at Politico, "Final Debate Marks Mass. Stretch Run":

Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown faced off over health care, the war on terror and abortion during Monday night’s final televised debate in the Massachusetts special Senate election.

With the vote to fill the remainder of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s (D-Mass.) seat just one week away, the race has popped up on the nation’s political radar screen as tighter than expected. While some recent polls have indicated Brown neck-and-neck, others, including internal Democratic surveys, have shown Coakley ahead by a comfortable margin in a race she has been heavily favored to win.

Health care and economic issues took up nearly half of the hour-long debate, held at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. Brown continued to push his candidacy as one that would give the GOP the votes needed to stop the current health care reform bill in the Senate, saying he would be proud to be the 41st vote needed to uphold a filibuster and arguing for state-level reforms like Massachusetts has enacted. “We will be subsidizing what other states have failed to do,” if a national plan is passed, Brown said.

Also, Fred Bauer's got a nice take on some of the polling controversies. (Via Memeorandum.)

Thanks From a Student

Classes started today. So I thought I'd share a wonderful e-mail I received from a student who took my class last semester, by permission:

Hello Dr. Douglas,

I just wanted to thank you for posting my grade. I honestly thought it would be much worse. As you may have noticed, I hate politics, hence the reason it took me 2 semesters to get through your class. That being said, you should know that I did, however enjoy your class enough to stick it out through to the end and I don’t regret it. I did learn a lot from you because I enjoyed the way you taught it. I can tell you are more than 100% into what you do and I appreciate that. You are a great teacher and I’m sure you appreciate having students who go on to become involved with politics. I’m sorry I’m NOT one. I have theatre in my blood and that’s a far cry off. I want to wish you good luck through the new year and many more to come.

It's one of the nicest rewards of teaching, to hear back with words of appreciation.

I'm enjoying my office in the new building as well. See, "South Quad Complex Opens at Long Beach City College."

The college has a ribbon-cutting celebration scheduled for Friday, January 22, at 10:00am. I hope to see you there!

Text of Ted Olson’s Opening Statement in Proposition 8 Trial

From the American Foundation for Equal Rights:

The federal trial over the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 began today with an opening statement by attorney Theodore Olson, who with David Boies is leading the legal team assembled by the American Foundation for Equal Rights to litigate the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Opening statements will be followed by testimony from Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, who comprise two couples who wish to be married but who were denied marriage licenses because of Proposition 8.

After the opening statement David Boies gave the direct examination of Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami.

OPENING STATEMENT(as prepared) ...

Also, from the Los Angeles Times, "U.S. Supreme Court blocks video coverage of Prop. 8 trial" (via Memeorandum).

See also my earlier commentary, "Arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger."

Barrett Brown Doesn't Read Well

Barrett Brown has a new post up, entitled "Donald Douglas Answers My Questions and Then Some."

He's apparently upset that I suggested previously that he doesn't read well, and he responds:

Let us set aside the irony of someone claiming that his opponent “doesn’t read well” or “comprehend” particular brands of “dialogue” before going on to misspell a common word.

Hey, he's got me there! I really did misspell "merchandising," although it's not like I haven't addressed the point previously! See, "Blogging PNSfW; or, Now Hiring at American Power: Neocon Copy Editor!" So, yeah, it's true: I really do need that copy editor!

That said, seriously, Barrett Brown desperately needs to develop his critical reading skills. For one thing, I absolutely did not "respond" to his smear jobs. Stogie at Saber Point did. Brown writes, for example:

Having gotten into a dispute a while back with Donald Douglas of the prominent conservative blog American Power, I last week posted seven questions for Douglas regarding Robert Stacy McCain’s white supremacist activities, which Douglas, of course, does not recognize as such. Still, he has been kind enough to answer me ...

And:

Let’s take a look at how he’s managed to deal with them ...

Brown then proceeds to quote the entire set of responses to his post, "Seven Questions for Donald Douglas on the Question of R.S. McCain’s Racism." Of course, those are Stogie's responses, as I noted at the time:

Folks can read the whole essay for themselves. It's the same old worthless allegations ... In fact, I was actually going to ignore 'em. But since I had just spent the day with Robert Stacy McCain last week (and Brown's been reading my blog, suggesting that I'm "very close" with McCain), I thought I'd send the entry over to my good buddy Stogie at Saber Point. To my surprise, Stogie sent back a point-by-point rebuttal to Brown's "seven questions" (questions by the way which are themselves based in unsubstantiated assertions). So, here you go, in any case ...

And then at the end of Stogie's response, I wrote again:

Barrett Brown concluded his essay by saying he hoped that I'd "choose to answer these questions." Well, Stogie's answered them eminently well here, and I wouldn't have done so too much differently. But again I probably wouldn't have bothered to answer them at all, since Barrett Brown obviously didn't take care to address what I'd written in the first place (I've read American Renaissance, for example, and said what I thought about it already). Frankly, Brown stonewalled and mischaracterized my post, and I doubt he has the kind of decency that I'd expect in one worth engaging at a serious, substantive level altogether.

It's hard to see why Barret Brown thought that I'd responded to his seven questions, when Stogie actually had. Indeed, the very first comment at the post, from Dana at Common Sense Political Thought, took issue with Stogie's interpretation of the Old Testament. So, I'm restating the point for the record: BARRETT BROWN DOESN'T READ WELL! Perhaps Mr. Brown was so excited to nail me on misspelling "merchandising" that he frankly ejaculated prematurely dropped the ball on the big picture.

Indeed, that reminds me that I might as well restate my main contention from my previous entry, which is that Brown has "stonewalled and mischaracterized my post," and now on top of that he's calling me a "liar." That is, he quotes me as saying, that "I’ve looked through everything he’s linked," and then wrongly infers that I've read everything HE'S EVER LINKED WITH RESPECT TO ROBERT STACY MCCAIN. And thus, that allegedly makes me a liar. Actually, as anyone even vaguely familiar with blogging would know, when I say that "I’ve looked through everything he’s linked," that's an ovbvious reference to "everything" at the very post in which he attacked Robert as racist, which would be, "A Reply to Donald Douglas and a Restatement of My Offer to R.S. McCain."

Folks can read my original post if they're so bored that they've got nothing better to do. See, "A Theory* of Racist Smears and the Case of Robert Stacy McCain."

In any case, that's enough time-wasting with this True/Slant airhead. Barrett Brown has never addressed the main point of contention, which is that he's an unprincipled smear merchant who has nothing on Robert Stacy McCain which hasn't been addressed elsewhere. The question to Barrett Brown is why? Why devote an entire chapter in a book to rehashing years-old debates on Robert Stacy McCain's confederate ties. Stogie responded to those allegations perfectly well. But I'm looking for something a bit more illuminating. When I mentioned Barrett Brown's atheism, the point was to illustrate that gay rights and civil rights activists have one thing they can hang their hats on -- allegations of bigotry, racism, etc. I've already debunked the claims that McCain's racist, and Stogie's added additional commentary to cast futher light on the issues from a southern perspective.

I wouldn't spend time with Robert Stacy McCain if I thought he was a white supremacist. Whatever sins of racial insensitivity Robert's guilty of they happened before I met him. Had Robert attacked me or my family with bigoted slurs or deeply immoral racial prejudice I would have written about it by now, and repudiated them.

Perhaps Barrett "I Need to Learn How to Read" Brown might address those issues instead of beating around the bush of obfuscation, prevarication, and denial.

Sarah Palin Signs Multi-Year Deal With Fox News

This post gives me a chance to report on two developments in the news today. I was thinking about putting up a post on Tucker Carlson's new website the Daily Caller. Carlson hired Jim Treacher, and he's linked my blog a bunch on Twitter, so I thought I've give him a shout out. Jim's new blog is the "DC Trawler." You can read all about it here.

I first heard about Carlson's new online start-up last week. I read somewhere that the Daily Caller was going to be like the right's Huffington Post. Well, if this frontpage screenshot is any indication, I'd say the early reports were on the money -- and I kinda love those huge banner headlines with the big pictures at HuffPo, even though it's a leftist site that I don't read or link. So, let's welcome the Daily Caller, where the first big story I'm linking is the news that Sarah Palin has signed on at Fox for a multi-year contract as a political commentator.

Checking Memeorandum, the Palin story is leading the headlines there. Howard Kurtz and Ed Morrissey have reports, and here's this from the latter, which sounds about right:

It’s a good move on Palin’s part ....

However, a multi-year deal may mean that Palin will wait to run for higher office. She could either go for the Senate or the presidency next, but either way, she’d have to start building a campaign no later than a year from now. Media outlets generally cut off analysts when they start building campaigns to avoid the necessity of giving opponents free air time for responses. A multiyear deal doesn’t preclude the possibility of entering into a campaign in 2011, but it indicates that Palin isn’t yet envisioning such a step.

That’s not necessarily a bad idea anyway. Palin is young and has plenty of opportunity to run for office, with 2016, 2020, and 2024 all being very realistic for her in terms of presidential campaigns. The Fox appearances will give her an opportunity to hone her craft while keeping expectations in check. Taking her time would be a smart move, and at least since her resignation from office, Palin has been making a series of smart moves.

I'd add though, that even with the Fox News gig, Palin could lose her "it girl of the moment" status, and thus the kind of popular momentum she'll need to make a run for the GOP nomination.

In any case, like Morrissey, I too suggested that Palin might do well to wait until later election cycles before making a White House bid. See, "Can Palin Win the 2012 GOP Nomination?" But having a year of developments since the Democrats took power, a Palin run for the nomination looks better than ever at this point. So, it's got to be a tough call on Palin's part to perhaps delay the big presidential run, at least if there's indeed a multiple-year deal in the works that puts a crimp on her campaign style. (Howard Kurtz above thinks the move's going to help Palin get situated for 2012, so this is all pretty much guesswork.)

I think rank-and-file conservatives are winners all around, in any case, as now they'll have Palin on Fox News leading the media charge against the Democratic-Obamunists.

More later ...

Seventy-Eight Percent Okay With TSA Full-Body Scanners

From USA Today, "Most OK With TSA Full-Body Scanners":

Air travelers strongly approve of the government's use of body scanners at the nation's airports even if the machines compromise privacy, a USA TODAY/Gallup poll finds.

Poll respondents appeared to endorse a Transportation Security Administration plan to install 300 scanners at the nation's largest airports this year to replace metal detectors. The machines, used in 19 airports, create vivid images of travelers under their clothes to reveal plastics and powders to screeners observing monitors in a closed room.

"It would seem much more thorough than the process that we're doing now," poll respondent Joel Skousen, 38, of Willcox, Ariz., said. "It would put me more at ease getting on a plane."

In the poll, 78% of respondents said they approved of using the scanners, and 67% said they are comfortable being examined by one. Eighty-four percent said the machines would help stop terrorists from carrying explosives onto airplanes. The survey was taken Jan. 5-6 of 542 adults who have flown at least twice in the past year.

More at the link. Also, at Gallup, "In U.S., Air Travelers Take Body Scans in Stride." (Via Memeorandum.)

I suppose folks like Paul Campos and Glenn Greenwald will now call the great majority of Americans "hysterical wingnut fearmongers"!!

Either that, or they'll saw we should be like Germany! See, "From Granny to Nearly Nude Germans, Everyone's Raising Cane at the Airport."

Arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger

A year ago, I wrote more on gay marriage than anything else. On the heels of passage of Proposition 8, Californians witnessed one of the most vicious campaigns of partisan demonization witnessed in post-civil rights American politics. I noted this briefly the other day, in my essay, "The Coming Prop 8 Show Trial."

The question of gay marriage to me is extremely complicated, but what most upsets me is that while I've argued against same-sex marriage on both religious and secular grounds - and as well in terms of democratic self-determination - it's almost always the case that my positions are attacked as "bigoted" or "Christianist." And of course, it hardly helps that the neo-communust America-bashers of International ANSWER are the biggest interest group advocates of the pro-gay marriage movement. It's hard to get excited about a cause that's being most vigorously promoted by the same folks who support the killing of America's soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, or by those who would tear down American sovereignty in a cross-border terror-campaign of open-immigration extremism. But these are the same people. And as Michelle Malkin reminded us the other day, they don't play by the rules (see, "The Anti-Prop. 8 Mob Strikes Again").

That's why it's extremely interesting that Theodore B. Olson, the former U.S. Solicitor General and long-time Republican Party insider, is one of the lead attorneys arguing for repeal of Proposition 8 tomorrow. Olson's essay is here, "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage," and there's a video as well (via Memeorandum). If you read the essay, you'll see that Olson argues mostly on the basis of constitutional law, and he states his case eloquently. But constitutional, states-rights issues are beyond what I want to address here (and I've handled them ad nausea previously). My basic point all along is that on a national controversy this big, it's best to let the will of the voters prevail, for no court ruling will have the same kind of popular legititmacy as that found in a majority vote of the electorate. And gay marriage is not equivalent to Jim Crow segregation, so those arguments suggesting that only the courts can bring about fundamental change are deeply flawed. The fact is, the push for gay marriage is a hate-based campaign. A hardline interest-group constituency, with deep ties to the communist left, decries traditional values as based in bigotry and religious oppression. Advertisements like this below, from One Iowa, are in that sense deceptive in their appeals to history and values. The policy goals of such groups will by definition destroy the very history they're purporting to uphold.

But to get an idea of how deep-seated is the left's hatred of traditionalism, get a load of Michael Stickings' attack on Theodore Olson. Again, be sure to have read Olson's essay and to have watched the video. Olson is deeply authentic. And recall that his wife, attorney Barbara Olson, died on Flight 77 on September 11 when al Qaeda terrorists drove it into the Pentagon. Here's Stickings' attack on Olson, and thus conservatives in toto:

It is indeed extremely helpful that Ted Olson, a prominent conservative Republican legal figure, is a prominent supporter of same-sex marriage, and the "conservative case" he makes for it is indeed a strong one ....

Conservative opposition to same-sex marriage, rooted in bigotry (what else?), is indeed deeply hypocritical given conservatives' admiration of the institution of marriage, but what Olson doesn't seem to understand, or at least to acknowledge, is that conservatism, or at least the dominant strains of contemporary conservatism, does not consider the "principle of equality" to be anything "bedrock" or "central." If it did -- if conservatives really were committed to "the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence" -- Olson wouldn't be such a rare exception among his own kind.

Olson has a leading voice on the right, but he's speaking rationally inside a hurricane of irrationality and about justice to a political movement that has embraced injustice as a driving force. I admire him for this, but I fear he'll get nowhere.

In other words, Olson's a outlier from the bastion of evil, or something.

So, with this kind of hate-based gay rights advocacy in mind, it's important to recall that leftists won't stop at gay marriage. Kids will be getting "fisting" in the schools in no time, abortion on demand for young girls, and just about every other hardline-leftist agenda item you can imagine.

So just think ahead, beyond tomorrow. If we break down the traditional institution of marriage as it's stood in this country throughout our history, we'll break down our country itself.

In any case, see also Edwin Meese III, "Stacking the Deck Against Proposition 8."

Baltimore Hammers New England, 33-14, in AFC Wildcard Upset

It was already 24-0 when I turned on the game! But see the Pittsurgh Tribune-Review, "Rice leads Ravens run game to 33-14 win over Pats":

FOXBOROUGH, Mass. (AP) -- From the very first play, Ray Rice and the running Ravens made the team of the last decade look like the pushovers of the new one.

Rice burst up the middle for an 83-yard touchdown with frigid fans still settling into their seats, Tom Brady turned the ball over three times and Baltimore knocked off New England 33-14 on Sunday in a stadium where the Patriots had never lost a playoff game.

The Ravens (10-7) were only slight underdogs to the team that won three Super Bowls from 2002 through 2005. Now, if they beat Indianapolis next Saturday night, they'll reach the AFC championship game for the second straight year as a wild-card team.

Well, the Ravens play in the AFL divisional playoffs next week. Here's hoping their cheerleaders are as hot at New England's! Fishersville Mike likes Ashley, but the whole squad is something else. Like our friend, Kelsey:

Added: Theo Spark, "Bedtime Totty ..."

Macho Radicals: U.S. Reduced to 'Wimpering Giant' by 'Incompetent Criminals', 'Scary Sounding Websites', and 'Bombs That Fail to Detonate'

I thought Spencer Ackerman took the cake with his macho Christmas Day tweet, but I guess not.

It turns out that Paul Campos at Lawyers, Guns and Money is upping the stakes for the most vacuous left-wing machismo on the web. Campos has a piece up at the Wall Street Journal. See, "Undressing the Terror Threat: Running the Numbers on the Conflict With Terrorists Suggests That the Rules of the Game Should Change." Here's the gist of it:

It might be unrealistic to expect the average citizen to have a nuanced grasp of statistically based risk analysis, but there is nothing nuanced about two basic facts:

(1) America is a country of 310 million people, in which thousands of horrible things happen every single day; and

(2) The chances that one of those horrible things will be that you're subjected to a terrorist attack can, for all practical purposes, be calculated as zero.

Consider that on this very day about 6,700 Americans will die. When confronted with this statistic almost everyone reverts to the mindset of the title character's acquaintances in Tolstoy's great novella "The Death of Ivan Ilyich," and indulges in the complacent thought that "it is he who is dead and not I."

Consider then that around 1,900 of the Americans who die today will be less than 65, and that indeed about 140 will be children. Approximately 50 Americans will be murdered today, including several women killed by their husbands or boyfriends, and several children who will die from abuse and neglect. Around 85 of us will commit suicide, and another 120 will die in traffic accidents.

No amount of statistical evidence, however, will make any difference to those who give themselves over to almost completely irrational fears. Such people, and there are apparently a lot of them in America right now, are in fact real victims of terrorism. They also make possible the current ascendancy of the politics of cowardice—the cynical exploitation of fear for political gain.

Unfortunately, the politics of cowardice can also make it rational to spend otherwise irrational amounts of resources on further minimizing already minimal risks. Given the current climate of fear, any terrorist incident involving Islamic radicals generates huge social costs, so it may make more economic sense, in the short term, to spend X dollars to avoid 10 deaths caused by terrorism than it does to spend X dollars to avoid 1,000 ordinary homicides. Any long-term acceptance of such trade-offs hands terrorists the only real victory they can ever achieve.

It's a remarkable fact that a nation founded, fought for, built by, and transformed through the extraordinary courage of figures such as George Washington, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. now often seems reduced to a pitiful whimpering giant by a handful of mostly incompetent criminals, whose main weapons consist of scary-sounding Web sites and shoe- and underwear-concealed bombs that fail to detonate.

Campos, at LGM, then adds an obligatory disclaimer denying "relativism":

The notion that terrorists want to kill "us" -- me and you specifically, or even Americans as a class -- because they hate us personally, or if you prefer "hate our freedoms," is pure narcissism. It's very much like imagining the the US military actually wants to kill Iraqi or Afghani civilians. From a logistical and political standpoint killing civilians is a pain in the ass for the US military and I'm quite sure they would very much prefer to avoid it altogether if they could, all ethical considerations aside. From a logistical and political standpoint trying to kill US civilians by blowing yourself and the plane you're on is a pain in the ass (sometimes literally) for terrorists and they no doubt would prefer to pursue their goals in a less unpleasant manner, again all ethical considerations aside ....

I'm not drawing a moral equivalence here between terrorism and "collateral damage" in arguably legitimate military operations. What I'd like to insist on is that both kinds of death are highly impersonal and essentially random.

Get that? "Essentially random." I'm not wishing the worst or anything, but hypothetically, perhaps some randomness will place Campos on the subway platform for the next Madrid-style bombing. No doubt his family would take comfort in his WSJ op-ed pieces:

And note that Campos' link abvoe goes to Glenn Greenwald, which is of course huge confirmation of how far out this line of thinking is. And recall that I've addressed these arguments before, which are actually a prelude to leftist totalitarianism.

The fact, of course, is that it's impossible to apply simple, economistic cost/benefit analysis to the phenomenon of global jihad. It's not just "wingnuts" fanning the flames of some alleged fearmongering hysteria. Americans aren't likely to declare war on earthquakes and hurricanes because they know natural disasters happen and we deal with them through preparedness. But global jihad and Islamist terrorism is not random, and of course it's the same folks who tell us we should take a law enforcement approach to terrorism who are the quickest to downplay any evidence of total ideological war against the West. And this is what it looks like with these idiots in charge:

RELATED: If you can stomach more from these fools, here's useful idiot Frank Rich at NYT, "The Other Plot to Wreck America" (via Memeorandum).

Arnold Schwarzenegger on Meet the Press: 'Pay No Attention to My Crumbling Administration'!

It's not often that an earthquake hits while the Governor of California is being interviewed for Meet the Press. But watch the picture fall at about 25 seconds. Schwarzennegger quips, "pay no attention to the picture ... these things happen all the time in California ..."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I guess you'd have to be a Californian to appreciate the symbolism. Earlier in the interview Schwarzenegger protests that California is getting "ripped off" by the Obama administration's healthcare reform:

DAVID GREGORY: Is that how you think about health care reform? As something that ultimately would beat up on California?

GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER: Yes, it is. Right now, it is-- and I just cannot imagine that why we would have-- like I said, you know, for instance, you know-- our Senators and Congressional people, how they would vote for something like that. Where they're representing Nebraska and not us? And-- by the way, as I said in my State of the State, that's the biggest rip-off. I mean that is against the law to buy a vote?

DAVID GREGORY: You're talking about Senator Nelson?

GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER: Senator Nelson. That's like buying a vote. To say, "Hey--"

DAVID GREGORY: The Federal Government will pay for their Medicaid expansion

GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER: "I'm holding out my vote, unless I get some extra kind of benefits here." I mean if you do that in Sacramento, you know, you'll be sued. It is illegal to do that, to buy votes.

But if this isn't pure posturing, what is? One of the most vivid memories I'll have of this administration is of the governor flying to Washington to make deals with President Obama and the Democrats on cap and trade legislation:

This was May 19, the same day that voters crushed Schwarzenegger's ballot initiatives that would have increased taxes by $16 billion! It wasn't until July that Schwarzenegger saw the light, seen in the governor's total flip-flop with the launch of "Stand for California," his limited-government media initiative.

He's been all talk and swagger, while the walls have been falling down around him. Schwarzenegger predicts that this will be a Republican year, that the party is going to make big electoral gains. The "momentum" is shifting back to the GOP he says, but that's because voters are rejecting the spineless big-governmentalism that Schwarzenegger represents. Like the 6.5 quake that hit the state on Saturday, government has crumbled under Schwarzenegger's leadership in Sacramento. We need an administration that will make tough choices, not one that looks to free ride off those who do.

See also, Left Coast Rebel, "The Ghost of Ronald Reagan Has A Message for Arnold Schwarzenegger or Was it the 6.5 Magnitude Quake?"

Obama Administration to Back Iran Opposition

From the Wall Street Journal, "U.S. Shifts Iran Focus to Support Opposition" (via Memeorandum):

The Obama administration is increasingly questioning the long-term stability of Tehran's government and moving to find ways to support Iran's opposition "Green Movement," said senior U.S. officials.

The White House is crafting new financial sanctions specifically designed to punish the Iranian entities and individuals most directly involved in the crackdown on Iran's dissident forces, said the U.S. officials, rather than just those involved in Iran's nuclear program.

U.S. Treasury Department strategists already have been focusing on Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has emerged as the economic and military power behind Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In recent weeks, senior Green Movement figures -- who have been speaking at major Washington think tanks -- have made up a list of IRGC-related companies they suggest targeting, which has been forwarded to the Obama administration by third parties.

Names on the list include Iran's largest telecommunications provider, Telecommunication Company of Iran, which is majority-owned by the IRGC, and the Iranian Aluminum Co. A U.S. official involved in Iran said the administration wouldn't comment on whether it was acting on the information.

American diplomats, meanwhile, have begun drawing comparisons in public between Iran's current political turmoil and the events that led up to the 1979 overthrow of Shah Reza Pahlavi.

"In my opinion there are many similarities," the State Department's chief Iran specialist, John Limbert, told Iran-based listeners this week over U.S. government-run Radio Farda. "I think it's very hard for the government to decide how to react to the legitimate and lawful demands of the people."

Since the opposition movement's demonstrations recently peaked after the death of reformist Islamic cleric Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, a number of Iran scholars in the U.S. said they have been contacted by senior administration officials eager to understand if the Iranian unrest suggested a greater threat to Tehran's government than originally understood.

"The tone has changed in the conversation," said one scholar who discussed Iran with senior U.S. officials. "There's realization now that this unrest really matters."

In a signal of the White House's increased attention to Iran's political upheaval, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gathered over coffee at the State Department this week with four leading Iran scholars and mapped out the current dynamics, said U.S. officials. One issue explored was how the U.S. should respond if Tehran suddenly expressed a desire to reach a compromise on the nuclear issue. Mrs. Clinton asked whether the U.S. could reach a pact without crippling the prospects for the Green Movement.

U.S. allies are mixed in their response to the new focus. One senior Arab official said he told State Department officials this week they were deluded if they though Iran was close to experiencing a revolution reminiscent of the Shah's overthrow. "The IRGC has its hands on the Iranian people," the official said.

Cartoon Credit: Sparks from the Anvil.

Democrats Look to Scrap Filibuster in Senate

As they say: "It's come to this"?

From Janet Hook, at the Los Angeles Times, "Some Democrats Want to Modify Filibuster Rules":

The Senate filibuster has emerged as the bane of President Obama's legislative agenda, igniting anger among liberals over a tactic that is now hogtying Congress even on noncontroversial bills.

The threat of filibusters has become so common that congressional leaders take it for granted that any bill of consequence will not pass the 100-member Senate with a simple majority of 51. Instead, 60 votes -- the number needed to cut off the interminable speeches of a filibuster -- has become the minimum required.

Frustration has intensified in the wake of Senate Republicans' no-holds-barred effort to block the healthcare bill, which forced Democrats to scrounge for 60 votes at every legislative turn to prevent a filibuster.

Now, facing the prospect of losing seats in this fall's midterm elections, some Democrats are seeking to change the rules.

While Democrats have large majorities in the House and Senate, the 60-vote threshold for action in the Senate has become a powerful curb on the scope of the Obama agenda. To prevail over united Republicans, all 58 Democrats, including a small but influential faction of conservatives, have to stick together, along with the Senate's two independents.

The Democrats' vulnerability will be even greater given the announcements of Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) that they will not run for reelection this year.

The demands of hitting that 60-vote bar have dashed liberal hopes of including in the healthcare bill a new government insurance option to compete with private companies. Earlier last year, filibuster threats from Republicans and conservative Democrats effectively forced Obama to accept a smaller economic stimulus bill than many Democrats wanted. Obama's Senate allies have been hard-pressed to round up 60 votes for a major initiative to address global warming.

It is the Senate's own rules, not the Constitution, that set 60 votes as the benchmark for cutting off debate. Sen. Tom Harkin (D- Iowa), chairman of the Senate health committee, argues that current rules have made it too hard for Democrats to exercise the mandate they received from the voters in 2008.

"Elections should have consequences," Harkin said in a recent letter to his colleagues urging a change in filibuster rules. "Even when a party loses, it too easily can prevent the majority elected to govern from legislating."

Classic.

If you don't have electoral and popular support for your policies, obfuscate, obstruct, obscure, overrule, override, and re-organize. Dems know that 2010's going to be a bitch, so they'll ram home their ObamaCare monstrosity any which way, and damn the people.

And Hook's absolutely right about the party's "liberal" base, well, all except that they're socialist, not "liberal." Folks like Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias have been beating the drums on the filibuster for months. Much of their commentary has been among the more outrageous things I've ever seen on domestic policy: That Joe Lieberman wanted hundreds of thousands to die rather than pass the public option? Or that Republican resistance to Democratic socialism was tantamount to murder? I mean seriously.

At one point I wrote, "Keep the Filibuster; or, Matthew Yglesias Needs to Respect Minority Rights" (with a scholarly take on protecting against majority tyranny). And when Ezra Klein interviewed congressional expert Barbara Sinclair of UCLA on the filibuster, he found a sympathetic voice for changing the rules. As quoted below, Sinclair, who has written books on the U.S. Senate, responds to two questions on the rise of the filibuster, and prospects for "reform":

So part of it is polarization, but part of it, you're saying, was a strategic realization that the American people do not reward the majority if it fails to deliver on its promises, and the minority recognized it had the power to keep the majority from delivering on its promises.

That's right, and we're seeing the result. It seems pretty clear that at some point early in this Congress, the Republicans really did decide their best approach was to bring Obama and the Democrats down. It is hard to make yourself popular, but to make the other guys look incompetent is not that difficult, and it worked for the Republicans in the first Clinton Congress, and the Republicans would argue the Democrats used these techniques as well.

What about filibuster reform? What's your assessment of the chances for that sort of project?

This goes way, way back. During all those years that the Southern Democrats were blocking civil rights legislation, every Congress began with liberal Democrats trying to change the filibuster rule and not getting anywhere. You do get a change in 1975, but part of why that was possible was the big Civil Rights stuff was off the table.

Technically, the rules made cutting off debate easier, because now it only required 60 votes rather than 67. But in reality, you had to do it more often. There was less restraint. The underlying cause is that the Senate -- our whole political system, really -- changed, and opened up in many ways. There were all kinds of ways that you could become a really big player through being partially outer-directed -- aiming yourself at the media and interest groups and the like. It was less necessary to simply be on really good terms with the most senior members of the Senate.

I followed up on this with an e-mail query to Professor Sinclair on December 26th:

I just read your interview with Ezra Klein at Washington Post. Some liberals like Klein want to abolish the filibuster. It sounds as if you endorse the notion at the interview. Yet, in my seminars with Eric R.A.N. Smith at UCSB, I was always taught that the filibuster was a valuable tool to protect minority rights.

Which view is correct? A vehicle to thwart the will of the majority or a tool to frustrate needed progress by a determined faction?

Professor Sinclair responded on December 29th. I'm just quoting briefly, since I did not request a formal interview. First of all, she did not reject my suggestion that she "endorsed" reform of the filibuster (and for radicals like Klein and Yglesias, that means abolition). Second, support for reform was "a matter of perspective." Demands to eliminate the filibuster depend on who's in the majority. But structurally, when the rules protecting the minority are combined with hyper-polarization, "the effect on the Senate's ability to legislate is huge."

In other words, a determined minority can shut the place down, and in this case it's the GOP, so that's bad. To be honest, I was a little disappointed that Professor Sinclair didn't offer a more robust defense of the Senate's procedural safeguards.

In any case, back at the Los Angeles Times, Hook notes that:

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) has launched a petition drive urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to push for cutting from 60 to 55 the number of votes needed to cut off a filibuster.

"Why should launching wars and cutting taxes for the rich require only 50 votes, while saving lives requires 60?" asked Grayson, who cited a number of major bills that were passed by the Senate with less than 60 votes while President George W. Bush was in office.

Democrats used the filibuster against Republicans when the GOP was in the majority, most recently in 2001 to 2006. Back then, Democrats were great defenders of the right to filibuster Bush's judicial nominations. At one point in 2003, Reid spent more than eight hours on the Senate floor protesting the fact that Republicans spent so much time on four disputed judges instead of on joblessness. Reid read six chapters from a book he'd written about his tiny hometown of Searchlight, Nev.

Today, Reid is the Senate majority leader and complains bitterly about GOP delaying tactics.

To make it easier to end a filibuster, Harkin has proposed gradually reducing the number of votes needed to cut off debate -- from 60 votes on the first attempt, to 57 votes if another vote was held two days later, and eventually to 51 votes if the debate dragged on long enough.

"Under this proposal, a determined minority could slow any bill down," Harkin said in his recent letter to colleagues. "A minority of members, however, could not stymie the majority by grinding the Senate to a halt, as sadly too regularly happens today."

But few senators show much inclination to tamper with a tool that gives enormous leverage to either party when it finds itself in the minority.

Well, thank goodness for that.

Because I Love You Too Much Baby...

I've got two clips of Elvis Presley's "Suspicious Minds." Presley's birthday was yesterday. The American music icon would have been 75 years-old. "Suspicious Minds" was Elvis' last #1 hit before his death, and it's probably one of his biggest songs that I can remember from my childhood. While not my generation, Elvis' music grew on me as I got older and became more of an rock aficionado - and especially during the rockabilly revivial of the early-1980s, when all the great pioneer bands of the 1950s were rescued from obscurity to pop culture's youth of the day. The first clip is a live performance, circa mid-1970s. It's Elvis in his final years (and watch for Sammy Davis, Jr., in the audience toward the end of the clip). The second is a montage of Elvis images played to the "Suspicious Minds" studio version. I know older readers will especially enjoy these, bittersweet as they are:

From Pat Dollard...

At Big Hollywood, "Feed Your Head — (Warning: Explicit Content)":

From the Scott Brown Headquarters

William Jacobson reports:

From the moment I arrived until I left about 5 hours later, the atmosphere was electric. I had not expected the frenzy of phones ringing, people walking in the door to write checks, dozens of people making calls to voters, and generally ebullient mood.

Those of you who follow this blog know that I am a big supporter of Scott Brown. So I claim no neutrality. And you can believe me or not when I tell you that there is an air of excitement and movement which is beyond belief.

They are out of lawn signs and bumper stickers. Completely. Nothing left, but people kept calling all day wanting to find out where they could get them. I was told it has been this way for days.

I made calls. I won't get into the details of their phone operation, but let me say I was impressed with the computerized sophistication. I can say that the number one concern expressed by voters I spoke with and from what I heard from other callers, was jobs and the economy. The small sample I saw bears striking resemblance to what happened in Virginia and New Jersey; it's still the economy, stupid.

There also was a lot of animosity surrounding the announcement that the Democrats would delay Brown's certification if he won. People were calling in about that issue, and it was brought up on phone calls by the voters (the issue was not on the call script). The attempt to delay certification has the potential to be a defining issue in the campaign because it crystallizes in voters' minds everything that is wrong with politics.

There are plenty of anecdotes I could tell you, about people who usually vote Democratic who are voting Brown, but I'm not really sure I should be giving out that information. I also can tell you generally that the response from the phone calls (not just mine, but campaign-wide) has been overwhelmingly positive for Brown, and we called only independents. You can believe me or not, your choice.

Brown stopped by the office twice on his way to and from campaign appearances. Note to the Hillbuzz guys: He's even better in person.

More at Legal Insurrection, and at William's Twitter page. And Memeorandum.

Think Progress Goes After Michael Steele - And Dana Loesch!

Interesting!

I linked to Dana Loesch's webcast on Michael Steele's radio cancellation. Be sure to listen Dana's "Fake Interview with RNC Chair Michael Steele." Dana's the coolest!

So, calling the RNC Chair a "butt-sniffer" gets you some props from Soros-backed communists, or something? At Think Progress, "Right-Wing Radio Host Incensed That ‘Butt Sniffer’ Michael Steele Canceled Appearance On Her Show." I guess this is one of those "eat your own" things, as indicated by the comments. But Think Progress hopes to take down everyone on the right, from the "evil" tea-parties to the Re-"thug"-licans.

Note that if Steele was a Democrat, Dana would be getting smeared as a "raaaaacist"!!

(Via Memeorandum.)

Right Wing Nation, Resting

I only knew him as "C.B." in our e-mail communications, but he ran an interesting blog and we exchanged some thoughts on teaching and assessment. I have been informed that C.B., a.k.a. "Right Wing Prof" at Right Wing Nation, has passed away. I don't know enough to say anymore, although C.B had retired from Right Wing Nation and was posting at blog called Central Pennylvania Orthodox. This passage is from the last entry there, entitled "Glorious Nativity":

I’m sorry I haven’t posted. I’m daunted by the task, and can’t give you as much as I’d like, for all of the expected reasons: Increased pain and shortness of breath, weakness and shakiness (?). Forgive typos ....

Christmas Day began very bad, Christmas here, and all. Christopher arrived in his Santa cap when Sharon, Brook, and Stacy, three nurses aides, were here and I was recovering from a particularly excrutiation pain spam.

Sharon was crying as she took my hand and said this was going to be the best Christmas ever because I was surrounded by people who loved me. That’s when I started crying, when I realized the truth of what she said, and we had a room of ten wet eyes.

Everything was uphill after that ....

I treasure the (good) people I meet through blogging and social networking. Though I can't be with everyone in person, I'm with folks in my heart.

Please say a prayer for C.B.'s family, and hold tight and enjoy togetherness with your loved ones today and always.

Altadena Tea Party Leads 2010 Grassroots Movement

Don't know if it's the first of the year, but there's a tea party today up in Altadena. The event's sponsored by my friends at the Pasadena Tea Party. I'm not sure if I'll make it up there (school starts Monday and I've still got some planning to do, but we'll see). Robert Stacy McCain's still in L.A., however, and he's expecting to cover it.

There's a lot of news on the tea party front, that's for sure. Fox News had this report yesterday, "Tea Party Movement Poised for Strong Start in 2010." And see also Newsbusters on Kate Snow's report on the tea parties at ABC News.

Dana Loesch, the St. Louis blogger and tea party activist, has her "Fake Interview with RNC Chair Michael Steele." It's a great live-streaming webcast:

And of course, Sarah Palin's at the center of a lot of the buzz. From Politico, "Palin's Tea Party Raises Eyebrows":

Sarah Palin’s plan to deliver the keynote address — for a fee — at next month’s first-ever National Tea Party Convention is getting renewed attention in light of her rejection Thursday of an invitation to speak at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

The decision to blow off CPAC — traditionally seen as the year’s must-attend event for the conservative establishment — in favor of a little-known convention is prompting some soul-searching among CPAC supporters, and is being interpreted as a calculated play by the former Alaska governor to cast herself as the potential 2012 GOP presidential candidate of the high-energy, anti-establishment tea party movement.

But it’s also renewed questions about her political judgment and brought scrutiny on the Tea Party Convention, which kicks off two weeks before CPAC’s Feb. 18 start date and has cast itself to some degree as a more homegrown, grass-roots alternative to the traditional conservative conference.

“It’s a missed opportunity for her, for sure,” said GOP operative Brad Blakeman. “CPAC is an established mainstay of conservatism that those seeking to be active in 2010, 2012 and beyond should take advantage of to be seen and heard, while the tea parties are a manifestation of frustration that is loosely organized and hasn’t proven itself at the polls.”

Palin has committed to speaking at April’s Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, considered a must-attend for prospective candidates for the 2012 Republican nomination.

Still, the CPAC snub, combined with the tea party commitment, were clearly intended to send a message, asserted Erick Erickson, founder of the influential conservative blog RedState.com, which is owned by a publishing firm that is co-sponsoring CPAC. “I get why she did it,” he said. “It is a purposeful decision on her part to try to claim a segment of the conservative movement as her own.”

Though he said it has caused some conservatives to question whether CPAC is losing relevance as new conservative activists affiliate more with the tea party movement than with establishment conservative and Republican groups, Erickson predicted that CPAC is “going to draw a lot more people and a wider range of both conservative voices and conservative age groups” than the Tea Party convention.

More at the link (via Memeorandum).

Plus, Doctor Zero, at Hot Air's Green Room, dicusses the coordinated effort on the left to destroy the tea party movement, "Targeting the Tea Party":

The Tea Party movement has grown with astonishing speed. Swaddled in discussion-board posts and nursed with e-mail over the past year, the movement is now a month away from speaking with a unified voice for the first time, at its first national convention in Nashville. The transition from demonstrations to conventions marks an evolution from expressing need to taking action… from describing what is wrong to declaring what would be right.

A concerted attempt to discredit and marginalize the Tea Party movement has developed with equally amazing speed. The dimmer bulbs in this pinball machine of contempt, such as Chris Matthews, have worked hard to make the derogatory, sexually tainted slang term “teabaggers” popular. The term spread to supposedly mainstream, “impartial” journalists with viral efficiency. It’s hard to imagine a comparable grassroots movement, with a racial or collectivist agenda more agreeable to the Left, suffering this kind of crude insult. Mocking nicknames would never be slapped on a group of illegal aliens agitating for greater welfare benefits. That level of elite contempt is reserved for middle-class folks who object to paying for those benefits. The media covers Tea Parties with the same condescension they show to any unseemly spectacle of tax serfs refusing to “pay their fair share.” To those who believe all virtue resides in the compassionate power of the State, resistance always equals greed.

The Tea Parties became impossible to dismiss after the massive demonstration in Washington, following the 9/11 commemoration. It therefore became necessary to slander them. The original strategy was to portray them as violent lunatics, a bit of intellectual crabgrass planted as far back as the infamous Defense Intelligence Estimate released by the politicized Department of Homeland Security last April. Even as Major Nidal Hasan was praising jihad in seminars and peppering al-Qaeda with Facebook friend requests, and the Underwear Bomber was singing the praises of the World Trade Center murderers, Janet Napolitano squeezed her eyes closed and finger-painted “right-wing extremists” as the hot new terrorist threat. The report came out a week before the big Tea Party protests on Tax Day.

The domestic terrorist smear didn’t stick, so the race card was hauled from the bottom of the deck. Once again, MSNBC muppet Chris Matthews served up the fast-food version of this poison, with his deranged insistence that “every single teabagger in America is white.” Remember: Matthews didn’t write this script, he’s just doing a clumsy job of reading it. Someone slipped him instructions to carefully insinuate the Tea Party movement is tinged with racism, and he responded by turning pink and screaming “They’re all white!”

Ignoring this drivel based on the pathetic audience of MSNBC hosts would be a mistake. These cellar dwellers do the ground work for the media slander machine, sending toxic clouds of smoke upstairs for the more “respectable” journalists to notice after a discreet interval. After a few months of Chris Matthews confusing Tea Party footage with “Birth of a Nation,” the NBC anchors who don’t have to suffer wearing the MS Of Shame can start talking about the clouds of controversy swirling around the allegations that Tea Parties are suspected of reportedly harboring racist thoughts. Laughing at Matthews isn’t enough. It’s essential to laugh at anyone who even thinks about taking him seriously.

Not all of the Tea Party’s enemies are on the Left. Some of them are nominally conservative elitists like David Brooks, who haven’t thought elitism all the way through, and realized it leads inevitably to collectivism – because if the “educated class” is so magnificent, it makes sense for them to run the world, and resistance to their brilliant designs is stupid by definition. You can see the first glimmers of this truth in Brooks’ dismissal of the Tea Parties as “a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against.” Being against things is reactionary and blockheaded, you know. Intelligence demands progress!

The Tea Party convention made a bold choice in selecting Sarah Palin as the keynote speaker for their convention. It was also very considerate of them – since the same people hate Palin and the Tea Parties, for the same reasons, their enemies can reduce their carbon footprint by carpooling to Nashville.

It has been suggested that Palin might not have been the most strategic choice for a keynote speaker, since she’s not running for any office in 2010.

More at the link.

And be sure to check Doctor Zero's bio-page. The dude's a killer analyst!