'Bear Flag Revolt' May Help Chuck DeVore in California

Notice the irony at the screencap. My latest article, the lead story at the moment, is up at Pajamas Media, "Brown Victory Alters the Playing Field in California GOP Senate Primary." Funny how a Carly Fiorina campaign advertisment is plastered in the middle of an essay explaining how she's headed to the defeat at the hands of tea party activists:

California is expected to again face a multi-billion dollar budget deficit, and unemployment remains at 12.4 percent, the fifth-highest rate in the nation. And from San Diego to San Francisco, the Golden State’s grassroots tea party movement has been protesting vociferously against the Democratic-socialist takeover in Washington. There’s going to be zero tolerance for RINOs among conservative activists. Carly Fiorina’s already been hammered as “the next Dede Scozzafava,” and DeVore’s long been identified as the only “mainstream conservative” in the race. As Dan Riehl wrote last November:

DeVore is sharp. He combines a solid conservative record and set of ideas with the polish from having worked in D.C. before going on to the Aerospace industry. His returning to electoral politics and being retired military has given DeVore the type of polish and discipline that wins political campaigns.

And I can attest, from a year’s worth of activism in the local tea party movement, that DeVore is going to have a lock on the conservative base of the GOP’s primary electorate. Even local party officials are talking about a “second American Revolution.” Somehow I doubt that Tom Campbell and Carly Fiorina will generate much enthusiasm among the state’s movement activists. Based on this analysis, I expect that Chuck DeVore will emerge as the Marco Rubio of the GOP Senate primary in California (with a similar set of political assets).

RTWT at the link.

Join the revolt: Chuck DeVore's campaign page is here.

Game Change: Obama to Preview Next Steps at State of the Union

From ABC News, "President Obama Changes Tone Ahead of State of the Union Address: But GOP Leader Mitch McConnell Calls for a Change of Course":

On the eve of President Obama's State of the Union address and the end of his first year in office, Republican Scott Brown's astonishing win in the Massachusetts special Senate race not only reset politics in that state, but reset politics for the entire nation.

"The entire political community was caught a little bit unawares on that one," White House senior adviser David Axelrod said today on ABC's "This Week" of Brown's win.

After Brown's upset win ended the 60-seat majority in the Senate that Democrats needed in order to push through health care reform without a Republican vote, the White House is adjusting its political operation by bringing in Obama's 2008 presidential campaign manager David Plouffe. The move comes ahead of mid-term elections in the House and Senate this November, where Republicans hope to capitalize on the momentum of Brown's win and pick up more seats, which could further endanger the president's agenda.

White House advisers played down Plouffe's hire, denying an association with Brown's win.

"David Plouffe has been a regular adviser to the president throughout the year," White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"We have a very strong political operation. What it's a reflection of is that David was working on his book for the last year. He's done with that now. He's enormously talented, as everyone knows, and he brings value added to our operation as we look forward, in terms of strategy and tactics, and he'll be consulting with us on that, and we'll be stronger for it," Axelrod said.

Also back were themes from Obama's presidential campaign.

"This president's never going to stop fighting to create jobs, to raise incomes, and to push back on the special interests' dominance in Washington and this withering partisanship that keeps us from solving problems," Axelrod said.

Axelrod said those same themes propelled Brown to victory.

"This is the Obama who ran for president," he said. "And the themes that he talked about in that campaign were very much echoed by Senator Brown in his campaign, which tells you that the hunger for that kind of leadership is still very strong."

RTWT at the link.

We'll hear all about it on Wednesday during President Obama's first official State of the Union address. See USA Today, "Obama to Reintroduce Himself During State of the Union Address."

Penélope Cruz at Interview

I read this a couple of weeks ago, when I was on my lunch break in Newport Beach during the R.S. McCain freelance blogging. From Penélope Cruz's interview at Interview:

The last year and a half has been a transformative time for Penélope Cruz. Her comically unhinged performance in Woody Allen’s Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008) netted her an Academy Award. She completed her fourth film with Pedro Almodóvar, Broken Embraces, and joined the star--studded ensemble cast of Rob -Marshall’s new screen version of the Broadway musical Nine. But perhaps most -significantly, the 35-year-old Cruz has both reestablished and reinvented herself as an actress. It’s safe to say that, not too long ago, Cruz’s appearances at the multiplex—though plentiful and numerous—were largely overshadowed by her appearances in the tabloids. This was due to a variety of factors, chief among them a string of not-so-good -movies—did anyone see Captain Corelli’s Mandolin (2001)? Waking Up in Reno (2002)? Head in the Clouds (2004)?—which, however unfairly, fueled the perception that she could only act in her native Spanish, but also a succession of relationships that Cruz was reported to have had with her leading men, including Matt Damon (All the Pretty Horses, 2000), Matthew McConaughey (Sahara, 2005), and of course, Tom Cruise (Vanilla Sky, 2001). (Which, just as unfairly, fueled another perception about her that needs no further fueling).

This passage, toward the end of the interview, is my favorite:

COTILLARD: You said about your character in Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Maria Elena, that she thinks she will not be creative if she’s not torturing herself. Do you think we as actors need to keep the connection with our failures to be able to do our jobs with depth and authenticity—you know, the dark side?

CRUZ: Yeah, I mean, maybe. It’s actually a similar thing to the ego, because you don’t want to let that go. You have to look deeply inside of yourself to find something to use in your work. But the older I am, the more I refuse to treat my work as therapy and the more I think it’s less honest to do that, less about acting. When I was younger, I sometimes used personal things in creating characters, to the point where I thought maybe it was a little bit dangerous—at least for me. But I don’t feel that somebody can only be good in a character if they are really becoming that person or really suffering. I have played with that before, especially with emotional scenes, and there have been times when I have been close to throwing up because it was hard to get out of that place. It’s always a bigger challenge when it’s a dark character or something very emotionally difficult, but I think my purpose is to find a way where you can have a dance with that, where you go and you come back, instead of maybe being in that state for weeks.

More Than 150,000 Buried in Haiti

The initial reports that Haiti's death toll could be in the hundreds of thousands seemed fantastic, but here's this from the New York Times, "More Than 150,000 Have Been Buried, Haiti Says."

Actually, I've been waiting to read a little more of a big-picture scholarly take on Haiti (even from a leftist bent), and we have a little of that with Charles Simic's piece at the New York Review, "Witness to Horror":

Beginning with the 1987 election that was supposed to bring democracy to Haiti after the bloody reign of the Duvaliers, and which resulted in another bloodbath, Mark Danner chronicles the even more violent conflicts in Bosnia and Croatia in the early 1990s, the post-invasion violence in Iraq, the torture in our secret prisons around the world, and the various policy decisions in Washington that had either a dire or beneficial impact on the people of those countries. These lengthy, well-researched, and well-written pieces, many of which appeared in these pages, combine political analysis, historical background, and Danner's eyewitness reporting to convey the vast human suffering behind events that can often seem remote.

The title of the book comes from the former Haitian president Leslie Manigat, who took power from Duvalierist officers after they brutally aborted the 1987 election. He told Danner that political violence "strips bare the social body," allowing us to see beneath the surface to the real workings of a society. That is what makes this collection so fascinating to read. At the same time as we are being educated about these countries beset by violence, we are witnessing Danner's own education, his deepening understanding of the limits and unintended consequences of our military interventions.

Haiti was Danner's initiation. He arrived to cover the country's "transition to democracy" for The New Yorker in 1986, just after François "Papa Doc" Duvalier's son was flown to luxurious exile in France in an American military jet, courtesy of the Reagan administration. Danner naively expected, as he himself admits, that a freely held election and the popular government it would produce could break the cycle of military coups and dictators, in which a shy country doctor becomes a homicidal monster, a general with a stutter a drunken Caligula. He came to realize that

Violence is the motor of Haiti's politics, the means of regime change, the method of succession. The struggle for power is ongoing and endless, permeating all aspects of life and implicating any Haitian of wealth and reputation. "If a man does not go into politics," says the former president who gave me this book's title, "then politics itself comes to him." A professor, intellectual, and writer from an illustrious political family, he attained power thanks to the military after a bloody, aborted election, and lost it a few months later in a tumultuous coup d'etat.

History repeats itself in unhappy countries. The absence of respected institutions and well-established laws that a person can count on to protect him condemns these societies to reenact the same conflicts, make the same mistakes more than once, and bear the same horrific consequences of these acts. In Haiti, as a former finance minister told Danner, "The whole bloody business of repression, torture, and killing was developed to stay in office, in order to make money."

There are plenty of other places where this has been true and continues to be true, but such corruption is usually better concealed behind the veneer of law and order. In impoverished Haiti, with its sharp split between a small, educated ruling class that speaks French and the rest of the population who are illiterate and speak Creole (so they often do not understand what their president says to them), these harsh realities are, indeed, laid bare. The elder Duvalier, who ruled between 1957 and his death in 1971, believed there should be no boundaries in administering terror. One ought to kill not only one's enemies but also their friends, and in as spectacular and brutal a fashion as possible ...

RTWT at the link.

RELATED: GSGF, "Benign Intervention."

Added: From Glenn Reynolds, "MORE HAITI EARTHQUAKE RELIEF BLOGGING."

Killer Candidates: Looks and Electability in Politics

Of course good looks matter. It's more than innate intuition. Even social-psychology tells physical attraction is biologically-driven. But I'll tell you, I haven't thought about looks and politics quite the way Neo-Neocon has. See, "Politics and Good Looks: Scott Brown and His Predecessors":

Scott Brown is not just good-looking; he may just be the best-looking male politician ever to come down the pike on the national level. I would say the same for Sarah Palin on the distaff side.

In Palin’s case, I believe her beauty both helped and hurt her, since it attracted some but gave special ammunition to those inclined to call her a bimbo. As for Scott Brown, although a few on the left tried to use the fact that he had once posed revealingly (although not nude, as some tried to say) for Cosmo against him, that charge gained no traction. On the whole, I think Brown’s looks were a tremendous asset, if only to get people’s attention long enough for them to listen to him speak and display his other stellar attributes.

It’s interesting that in the last two years we’ve seen two of the most physically attractive people ever to come onto the political scene on the national level, and that both are straight-shooting Republicans of a populist nature. Before that, Romney was considered handsome, but too perfect and almost Ken-doll-like. As Joy Behar notes in the above video, John Edwards (who never rang my chimes) was considered too pretty-boy, a category into which Dan Quayle also fell so long ago, a fact that caused people to treat him as much dumber than he was.

When I think back on the presidents in my lifetime, it strikes me that a great many of them were relatively good-looking. JFK certainly was, although he was hardly in the Scott Brown class in that respect (but then, who is? Brown is one of those people for whom Hollywood would be challenged to find an actor handsome enough to play him in the biopic). LBJ, who followed JFK, was a strange hybrid, because people considered him an impressively good-looking man in person but he came across as a big-eared bumpkin on TV.

There's more at the link (plus the video cited at Neo's post).

Also, a decent background piece at the Los Angeles Times, "What Makes Scott Brown Run?"

RELATED: "Brown's Win Shows GOP How to Seize Obama's Old Senate Seat" (via Memeorandum).

Mainstreaming 'Teabagger'

At my Cindy McCain post last week, new commenter Carolyn Ann somehow conveyed the message that it's okay to be attacked as a "teabagger," especially if you're a conservative and you criticize hardline leftists as "neo-Stalinist" (which is, by the way, what they are). That's fine, though, since I'm trying to have an argument according to deep principles and political theory, and Carolyn Ann's arguing off emotion and hysteria. Still, it seems to me that when it comes to expectations of decency and fundamental rights, leftists -- and that includes folks all the way at the top of the media industrial complex -- have some really dreadful double-standards.

Awesome St. Louis blogger Dana Loesch reports on the utter cluelessness or (more likely) the despicable dishonesty of Missouri Representative Jeff Roorda, who smeared conservative activists on the floor of the Missouri legislature last week as "teabaggers." When called out by activists, who demanded an apology, Roorda claimed ignorance:

I did indeed use the term “teabagger” on the House Floor during the debate on HCR 18. I know nothing about any sexual connotation attached to the term but I do know that the term is widely associated with the anti-healthcare movement. I used the term because everybody knows who I’m talking about when I use it. There was no intention to derogate members of the so-called “teabagger” movement. My intention was only to satire the fact that the Missouri House spent an entire legislative day debating a non-binding resolution telling Congress that we are against a bill that is still in the process of being written. I make no apologies for pointing out that the Missouri House could have spent it’s time talking about more important issues overwhich the State Legislature has some control.

Thank you for writing,

State Rep. Jeff Roorda

Interestingly, while claiming ignorance on the grotesque meaning of the sexualized gay-slur, Representative Roorda still refused to apologize.

And that's to be expected, considering how mainstream "teabagging" has become to those shocked by the political power of the tea party movement. As Meryl Yourish points out, the Associated Press put the term in quotation marks in an article citing "tea-bagging" activists:

The fact that they put the epithet in quotes indicates that they know full well that “teabagger” is a vulgar term. I never knew it existed before the so-called objective media types (we mean you, Anderson Cooper) were calling Tea Party activists “teabaggers.” It is a deliberate insult. It is not the way an objective news organization should describe the millions of Americans from all walks of life who attended rallies and town halls to protest the expansion of government by this administration and congress.

But leftists somehow continue to dodge the vulgar meaning of the slur, pointing to MSNBC's lying hatemaster Rachel Maddow as "evidence." But no one's fooled by such rank hypocrisy. Last year, when Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi attacked Michelle Malkin in his essay, "Teabagging Michelle Malkin," he left no doubt the meaning leftists assign to the term:

I have to say, I’m really enjoying this whole teabag thing. It’s really inspiring some excellent daydreaming. For one thing, it’s brought together the words teabag and Michelle Malkin for me in a very powerful, thrilling sort of way. Not that I haven’t ever put those two concepts together before, but this is the first time it’s happened while in the process of reading her actual columns.

Previously Michelle Malkin’s writing was on the edge of unreadable; she’s sort of like Ann Coulter, only without that tiny fraction of P.T. Barnum/Mick Jagger-esque self-promotional flair that makes Coulter at least vaguely interesting ....

Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose. See for yourself ...

So, there's really no doubt. But if conservatives were to attack Obama backers with similarly derogatory sexual slurs, you'd be hearing yowls of "raaaaacism" faster than you could say Jeremiah Wright!

California Voters Oppose Higher Taxes

From Rasmussen, "Most California Voters Don’t See Higher Taxes as a Budget Solution":

An overwhelming 94% of California voters regard the state’s budget crisis as very serious, but most oppose raising taxes as a solution to the problem.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in California finds that just 28% of voters prefer raising taxes to cutting back on services or having the state file for bankruptcy.

Forty-three percent (43%) think cutting back on state services is the better way to go, and another 15% favor state bankruptcy. Fourteen percent (14%) aren’t sure.

Well, in that case, my guess is that you can pretty much just forget about whatever Phil Nugent is trying to say here (via The Monkey Cage).

Astroturfing for Obama

Well, the Ellie Light story's breakin' across the 'sphere, so this gives me a chance to throw some traffic to Another Black Conservativae and Left Coast Rebel (who provided the photoshop):

The main story's at Hot Air, "Ellie Light: Obama Astroturfer?" And Jawa Report's got the summary:

Patterico, The Cleavland Plain Dealer and some other intrepid souls have uncovered what appears to be a genuine astroturfing campaign by Obamacrats who are writing boilerplate pro-Obama letters to newspaper editorial sections across the nation.

They use different handles like "Ellie Light," "Mark Spivey," and a host of made up names, made up info about their residences and cut-and-pasted replications of Obama Administration propaganda. Newspapers across the country, of course, found these letters very compelling and printed them without knowledge that they were being used as willing dupes in this political astroturf operation.

Thanks to Google, we're finding out that this was a political spamming operation possible links to Obama groups like Organizing for America and is not "grassroots" operation in any sense.

But see Dan Riehl as well, "Linking Ellie Light To The White House." And, at Classical Values, "Going Light?" (via Memeorandum). And Reaganite Republican, "Ellie Light and Other Obot Trolls."

Added: Patterico has lots more on this, "Still More Astroturfing: Gloria Elle and Jan Chen Write the Same Anti-Republican, Pro-Obama Letter; UPDATED: Two More Pairings Found; UPDATED AGAIN: Four Pairings Total, and One Is a Triplet!"

It's REALLY Hard Out There...

One thing cool about this HillBuzz battle is that I get to keep throwin' down "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp":

Man it seems like I'm duckin dodgin bullets everyday
Niggaz hatin on me cause I got, hoes on the tray
But I gotta stay paid, gotta stay above water
Couldn't keep up with my hoes, that's when shit got harder ...

And I ain't messin' wit' you - no brotha!

It turns out this be one hella flamewar goin' down, yo! Check it out, fool! (link):

Someone told us to be very careful with digging too deep into this, because if our hunch is right and this does lead back to the DNC and Organizing for America themselves, there are many people who will do us physical harm to keep us from exposing them ....

Listen, we grew up gay in the Midwest, where we were abused, threatened, maligned, harassed, and blackmailed before…by people much more creative than the Hope and Change Gang…people who covered their tracks better. What these Obama-supporting thugs don’t realize is that when you launch Alinsky attacks against people who have been subjected to Alinksy attacks their whole lives, like us, we aren’t going to just turn tail and run.

If they think just because we’re gay that we’re going to wilt into puddles on the floor and let ourselves be bullied, then these homophobes have another thing coming.

Instead of being silenced and bullied, we’re going to do everything we can to not only identify the people who are attacking us, publish THEIR real names, and publish THEIR photos, the way they’ve done to the people they’ve victimized…but we are going to take things a step further, and identify who they are working for in the DNC, Organizing for America, or even the White House itself. And we will prosecute the lot of them to the fullest extent of the law.

We hope that whenever the Left uses these tactics, against any of this administration’s opponents, that people band together and provide the detective work to drag these goblins and orcs out into the sun.

We plan on using everything we’ve got to help anyone else in the future who is victimized like this. In service of that, we’re happy to use this attack on us as a case study of how to respond to the Obama camp when it lashes out at its opponents. Systematically, we can, together, figure out where these attacks are coming from and who is driving them. We can figure out who’s writing the talking points to deliver this garbage.

Actually, I was mostly looking at this in terms of libel and online harassment, but this HillBuzz thing's got larger stakes obviously. If it really does go high up like this, to some folks at the Obama White House, things could get extremely interesting!

As for blogger liability and libel, Glenn Reynolds picked up on the HillBuzz thing, "As I've noted in the past, it's almost always a mistake to threaten bloggers." And that link leads to Glenn's scholarly article, "LIBEL IN THE BLOGOSPHERE: SOME PRELIMINARY THOUGHTS." Knowing the basics of libel law, I found the piece most interesting as an excursion in online culture and the assumed hierarchy of free speech in the traditional media industrial complex. That said, the point still applies: The answer to speech, no matter how combative, is more speech. (Of course, folks like the OFA goons attacking HillBuzz, or the Ordinary Gentlemen-type goons attacking me, are pure authoritarians who definitely need to be dealt with some homeboy justice, yo!)

And by the way, I've found some of the left's dirty smears on HillBuzz, whose publisher, Kevin DuJan, was apparently outed by Daily Kos, and attacked -- wait for it!! -- as a racist!! See, "Scott Brown and a Hate site - The Making of a Republican Campaign."

Recall that Markos Moulisas claimed direct ties to the Obama camaign in June 2008 (when he secured and published Barack Obama's purported "certification of live birth"), so it's certainly plausible that all or part of these smears have their marching orders in the Big Mama's house! (Death threats follow shortly thereafter...)

Democratic Underground's doing some dirty work as well. See, "Kevin Dujan owns HillBuzz."

RELATED: "Daily Kos Documents Official Coordination with Obama Campaign."

Mark Meckler on Chuck DeVore and the California Tea Parties

I heard Mark Meckler speak at the recent OC GOP Central Committee meeting. Interestingly, Meckler's interviewed at the San Francisco Chronicle, "3 Questions: Mark Meckler, Tea Party Patriots":

Q: What is the state of the Tea Party movement in California?

A: It is incredibly strong. In our organization alone we have over 162 organized chapters. It is incredibly well organized. People are working together all across the state. So I think it is a powerful and dynamic force.

Q: Do you have an opinion of Orange County Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, a Republican who is running for U.S. Senate and has actively courted Tea Partiers?

A: I can't speak for the organization. But on a personal level - and it's not an endorsement - I like Chuck. He's got a good solid legislative history. He's easy to judge if you want to know what he stands for. If you look at what happened in Massachusetts, I think he has the wind at his back and I think he should win.

Hat Tip: Teri Peters.

Another Reason to Hang Out With Robert Stacy McCain!

I've already already reported on picking up some freelance tricks of the trade when hanging with Robert Stacy McCain, but I guess there's more to that Southern Charm than previously noted:

One more reason why the dude deserves those awesome gonzo awards!!

The Rich Are Different...

That's the first thing that came to mind when reading this story of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt: Money's going to make them happier after their split. It turns out that Brad Pitt's purchased the mansion right next door to the couple's current residence (for "£800,000"). That sure makes things a lot easier. One thing about being married with children, at least as I've always thought about it, is that marital difficulties should always be considered in the context of the kids. That is, if things get so bad that you're thinking about walking, think twice, because a split is going to seriously impair the well-being and development of the little ones (both my wife and I are kids of divorce). But just think: If you were so damn pissed at your spouse, but could afford to buy another home next door, there goes the "kids excuse" for staying together. Of course, this raises all kinds of other problems for the no-divorce arguments of the sacrosanct marriage vows ("forsaking all others, keep yourself only unto him as long as you both shall live"...). And in that sense, the rich are really different. Perhaps there's a set of values for traditional people of modest means (and concern for their kids) and a second set of values for traditional people of exceptional means (and concern for their kids). In other words, the rich are different: They have a lot more money.

RELATED: "The Rich Are Different."

What's the Best Punchline in 'Conan Obama'?

I have a feeling this piece from Professor David Michael Green will get a lot of play today, although being published at Common Dreams I'm surprised folks feel compelled to identify the author as a leftie.

Anyway, I propose this passage as the best of the bunch:

The obvious solution, of course [to your utter failure of leadership], would be a sharp turn to the left. Go where the real solutions are. Fight the good fight. Call liars ‘liars' and thieves ‘thieves'. Do the people's business. Become their advocate against the monsters bleeding them dry. Create jobs. Build infrastructure. Do real national health care. End the wars. Dramatically slash military spending. Produce actual educational reform. Launch a massive green energy/jobs program. Get serious about global warming. Kick ass on campaign finance reform. Fight for gay rights. Restore the New Deal era regulatory framework and expand it. Restore a fair taxation structure. Rewrite trade agreements that undermine American jobs. Rebuild unions. Fill the spate of vacancies in the federal judiciary, and load those seats up with progressives. Rally the public to demand that Congress act on your agenda. Humiliate the regressives in and out of the GOP for their abysmal sell-out policies.

Actually, reading over this essay once more I'm not sure if I find it all that funny. Rather than a parody of the president's failures (which are oh-so real), it's a parody of the hardline left's secular demonology. Still good for a laugh, but more insightful for its inside-baseball look at the Jane Hamsherite ideology of the neo-Stalinist contingent of today's Democratic Party.

That said, I'd give the guy a thumbs up for a least putting on a happy face while eating crow. Sure, Obama's a total failure, but considering the sub-par (socialist) sculpter's clay he had to work with, no doubt things are turning out exactly as to be expected.

Hat Tip: Memeorandum. See also Moe Lane's version, "Which Should Be the Takeaway Quote to This Anti-Obama Screed?"

Obama Approval and Disapproval at 47 Percent...

Instead of giving some big analysis of how wrong Frank Rich is at his latest New York Times column, I'm simply going to post the link to Gallup's daily presidential tracking poll, along with Weasel Zippers' entry, "Good News: Gallup Daily Poll Has Obama Approval And Disapproval at 47%....":

Also worth a look is Newsbusters, "When Bush Plummets in Polls, It's News - Obama, Not So Much."

But here's Frank Rich, in any case, "After the Massachusetts Massacre." It's not the most hysterically screeching rant Rich has ever penned. But he's still spinning in all the wrong directions (and blaming the banks ain't going get the administration off the hook). All danger signs point to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As I said earlier, "Bye Bye Obama." That's the message, plain and simple. Wait 'till November. It'll be interesting to see what Frank Rich has to say at that time ...

Charles Johnson's Downfall

I gotta tell ya: These Downfall spoofs are still pretty good despite dozens of iterations. I laughed -- LAUGHED!! -- at "My lips are still sore from kissing his butt," with the mental visuals of King Charles brown-nosing Markos Moultisas a bit much!

Anyway, from Pamela, "Sunday NY Times Magazine Profiles the Notorious ex Biggie S.M.A.L.L. Little Green Balls":

Chuckie is getting mainstream coverage when his influence and his traffic are guttersnipe low. But when Johnson was masquerading as a rational and decent voice with a circulation of 120,000 unique visitors a day, no one in big media ever paid him any mind. But since he has turned coat and transformed himself into a website of hate and smears, the left comes knocking like a sailor who just got paid.

Ain't it the truth!

I haven't actually read the Times' piece, but apparently it's not nearly as fawning as the LA Times' disappointing essay a couple of weeks ago. Look for an update sometime tomorrow, after I've had a chance to read through things ...

It's Hard Out There...

There's a whole lot that I want to write about today. It takes time, of course, to read through what others have written, and then to think about something new and different to say. That's what's happening on this New York Times piece on Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, "Right-Wing Flame War!" There are quite a few responses at Memeorandum, and I'm going to spend some time looking over these later. Meanwhile, I thought I'd share this bleg I found at HillBuzz, "Help Keep This Site Alive," plus the follow-up essay, which has some of the background, "Thank You For Your Support."

I'm not quite sure if extreme flamewars are the best fundraising cause (especially since Haiti's in the news, not to mention R.S. McCain's ongoing tip-jar needs), but the content of these is worth highlighting:

We just wanted to take this moment to thank all of you for your solid support in what’s been a difficult week here.

Most especially, we want to thank Cynthia Yockey for being such a big sister to us and getting the word out on what the Left, in the form of Daily Kos, the Democratic Underground, and Moveon.org, was doing to attack and defame us. Michelle Malkin, Conservatives4Palin, Riehlworld, Instapundit, LegalInsurrection, and many other sites we enjoy came right to our side and said, clearly, that when the Left attacks people using the Alinsky playbook, moderates, conservatives, and independents will not sit idly by and allow them to get away with it.

All of the attacks originated, from what we can tell, at a site called StupidPumas.com. We never heard of this site before this weekend, but it appears to be in business for the sole purpose of going after PUMA sites and people like Darragh Murphy and Will Bowers personally. We find it interesting that whoever runs StupidPumas does so anonymously, while simultaneously attacking people like Murphy, Bowers, and ourselves, libeling, defaming, and maligning us, but not stepping into the light and revealing who they are themselves.

We’d appreciate any information you can find revealing exactly who these people at StupidPumas.com are, so that we can begin legal proceedings against them. This site attacked one of us personally, called him a racist, and sought to destroy his livelihood here in Chicago. This site was picked up in a coordinated effort by Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and Moveon.org, instanteously, with calls to commit physical violence against us. The Left used StupidPumas to launch its attack, then used the rest of the Leftist sphere to echo and amplify it.

This is classic Alinsky.

If we sit back and don’t do anything about this, and let the Left get away with doing this to us, then what’s to stop them from doing it to others as well? The Left’s favorite tactic is calling someone a RAAACIST, but they don’t realize that the American public is waking up to this trick. The more people who stand up to these trolls and prosecute them, the less effective they will be.

This attack cost one of us a few contract, freelance jobs — so, in that respect, StupidPumas was successful. They took money out of our pockets and hurt a small businessman. But, as we understand it, that action amounts to tortious interference with a contract, whereby a third party (StupidPumas) costs an individual employment, and is thus liable for those damages.

Whoever runs StupidPumas, and whoever they work for in the Left, is going to get a wakeup call, let us assure you.

There was much debate here at Buzzquarters on what we should say or not say about any of this. But, honestly, the damage is already done. StupidPumas, Daily Kos, Moveon.org, DemocraticUnderground, and their flunkie sites are defaming us, costing us employment, libeling us, and literally taking food off the table here. Why shouldn’t we publicly stand up to them, and use this as an example to teach all of you how you can fight back against the Left when the Left’s stormtroopers and brown shirts come for you.

And, more likely than not, if you continue to oppose the socialist takeover of this country and the reckless, naive, and dangerous policies of the current president, then the Left will at some point in the future come for you too.

I've been getting back up to speed on blogging this week, and normally I like to see all sides in the debate. Stupid Pumas has this post up now, and perhaps that's some insight: "Darra$h:Bigot." That post link to Booman, who in turn is pissed at Corrente ... So, I guess it's intra-ideological wars that have taken over leftists, not unlike what's happened on the right: Purity tests everywhere.

As for HillBuzz, well, I know what it's like to have your livelihood threatened. E.D. Kain's not much different from Daily Kos, DU, and MoveOn in that respect. I can say though, that it's hard out there for a blogger. And not everything that happens is justiciable, especially libelous attacks. I'm definitely having more respect for those who insist on blogging pseudonymously. But my advice is don't be counting on a lot of help from others. It's nice if the heavyweight bloggers throw some support, but most of us can't count on it.

We Can Do This!!

I'll be honest: I generally don't post comedic rants against conservatives because they're generally not balanced with attacks on leftists. True, I have posted Janeane Garofalo's disturbed ravings for the sheer spectacle of the events. But I've never posted Jon Stewart videos. For one thing, I simply don't watch him. Secondly, though, when students come to class and ask if I'd seen Jon Stewart's show last night, I get the weird feeling that not only is the youth generation getting their information in wholly different ways than I am (and thus I'm on a different planet), but that the game's rigged: Virtually nothing that I have to say, little of the deeper contextual and historical knowledge that I have to impart, is likely to sink into my students' minds, so hiply influenced by the popular culture. But Stewart's good, so I should at least be open-minded. And I'll certainly be more open to such openness if Stewart continues to take down the likes of Keith Olbermann with such cutting comedic aplomb. You gotta love this:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Special Comment - Keith Olbermann's Name-Calling
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Dan Riehl uses the Stewart clip to get a jab in at Glenn Beck, who also stepped way over the line in his showcase acts featuring Scott Brown. I'm not quite there yet (I'm still trying to cling to the idea that somehow Beck really is on our side). But I have to admit Beck really bungled things. As Richard at Three Beers Later argues:

Glenn, you don't tell obscene jokes about a bride at her own wedding unless you're drunk. You don't compare Scott Brown, a true candidate of the people, who knocked off a Senate seat owned by a genuine woman killing misogynist, to philanderer who impeded the murder investigation of his mistress, on Brown's election day, unless your judgment is similarly impaired.

Ya fucked up. Learn it, love it, own it, because the left is going to be throwing it back in all our faces for years... as in "Well, Glenn Beck said... "

And that's an outstanding prediction, by the way (one that Dan Riehl also made). It turns out that Gail Collins spoke to Keith Olbermann, who in a quasi-apology, justified his anti-Scott Brown screeds with reference right wing pundits who are allegedly way worse, and surprise!, especially Glenn Beck:

On MSNBC, Keith Olbermann called Scott Brown, the senator-elect from Massachusetts, “an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.”

Yipes. It was a Senate race, not the Battle of Hastings.

“In the personal scheme of things, I went too far. In the broad scheme of things, this was a blip on the radar,” said Olbermann, in a telephone interview, citing the multitudinous cases when right-wing talk-show hosts have said much worse. Given the fact that Glenn Beck has already claimed that Brown could wind up “with a dead intern,” I believe he may have a point.

Yeah, Glenn, you f***ed up. Never. Ever. Give. Radical. Leftists. An. Easy. Way. Out. ... NEVER.

Dan Riehl has more, "Glenn Beck Makes the NY Times."

The March for Life 2010

The photo's from my friend Matt at St. Blogustine,"My First MARCH FOR LIFE in Washington D. C."

Be sure to check Matt's essays and additional photos (he met Carl Cameron of Fox News just as he was heading out for the day).

Also, from my friend Jill, "MSM coverage of the March for Life 2010":

Interesting that it was Russia Today of all things that produced the best news story I could find on the 2010 March for Life...

Interestingly, at the time of posting, a Google search shows none of the top newspapers, LAT, NYT, WaPo, etc., with search query results. (Ooops ... Actually, I do see a piece at WaPo, at the "Religion" section, "Thousands march in D.C. demonstration against abortion." NYT is AWOL.)

Teen Sexting

From Neo-Neocon, "Sexting: Another reason I'm Glad I'm Not the Parent of a Teenager Today":

Technology marches on, and teenagers are in the vanguard.

With the ubiquity of cell phones that take pictures that can almost instantaneously be sent to friends, coupled with the driving force of sex in newly-pubescent bodies, we have a recipe for the disaster that can result from the practice known as “sexting.”

I may be behind the times, not having a teenager myself at this point, and having raised mine in the dinosaur days before people commonly had cell phones. But this news story alerted me to the fact that it’s not at all unusual for teenage girls to send nude or seminude photos to teenage boys in a sort of advertisement of their wares. Sometimes these pictures are then freely passed around by the proud recipients for all and sundry to ogle. In the case described in the article, the teenage girls were actually charged with child pornography for sending their own photos to three boys, who were also charged.

This seems far too Draconian, but it’s an understandable effort to stop the practice. Good luck, I say; I don’t think it will work. The temptation is too great, and the tools too readily available ...

More at the link.

I can't say the same as Neo-Neocon. My oldest boy turns 14 this week. He'll be freshman in high school in September. My wife and I just made my son take a girl off his MySpace account because she'd lied about her age (claimed to be 18) and she was making lewd hand signs in her profile pic (tonguing a "peace sign" -- and my son didn't know what that meant).

So, yeah, I can relate to Neo's post, although having young kids in this age of hyper-technology can also be fun. (He's really hip with the iPod thing, for example ... I don't even have one.)

P.S. I talked to my son about this and he's said that the counselor has consulted students about texting, and he says he's never received a "sext message" from one of his girlfriends.

Scott Brown Won Big on National Security

From Professor Charles Lipson, at the Chicago Tribune, "Taxes, Terrorism and the Massachusetts Upset":

In his upset Senate victory Tuesday, Brown emphasized two big issues overlooked by most political analysts: taxes and terrorism. Massachusetts voters ranked them as the third and fourth most important issues, behind only health care and the economy, according to a Rasmussen poll. Democratic challenger Martha Coakley actually did reasonably well among voters on health care and the economy. Brown's overwhelming victory came from voters who wanted lower taxes, stronger national security and a tougher stance on terror.

Those who considered taxes their top priority favored Brown 6-to-1 (87 percent for Brown). As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama understood that issue and promised not to raise "one penny of taxes" on the middle class. Unfortunately, he also promised health care reform would be self-financing, a feat that requires significant new revenues. These costs come on top of a large stimulus package and mounting deficits. Clearly, the public is worried, and Brown capitalized on it.

He also won big on national security: 67 percent to Coakley's 29 percent. Two themes stand out. One is that President Obama's efforts to befriend old enemies yielded little and conveyed a sense of weakness and equivocation. Iran is still building its nuclear capacity, insulting the U.S. and killing protesters. Venezuela is still nationalizing its economy and rallying the Latin American left. Russia is still bullying its neighbors and declining into a thuggish autocracy. North Korea is still North Korea. Obama's biggest foreign policy initiative, his conciliatory speech in Cairo, had little impact in the Muslim world.

With so few successes, the Obama administration must now re-evaluate its generous, multilateral diplomacy toward adversaries. That, at least, is one message from Massachusetts.

RTWT at the link.

Obama's New Start

From Business Week, "Obama's Year Two: Time to Start Over":

After a tough first year, the President's economic agenda and standing will be challenged again in 2010 by soaring joblessness, ugly budget deficits, and Obama fatigue among independent voters

As President Barack Obama was preparing for a major policy speech on the economy in December, he erupted at his economic team. Budget Director Peter Orszag argued in a White House meeting that more emphasis should be put on reducing the deficit, while chief economist Christina Romer led a contingent advocating for a greater short-term focus on jobs. They were familiar refrains, and Obama was frustrated. "Why are we having this meeting again, the same discussion?" participants quoted him as saying. Welcome to year two, Mr. President. It won't require the same high-wire act as year one, when Depression 2.0 was staved off with a jumbo stimulus package, massive cash injections into the battered banking system, and bailouts of the auto industry. Instead, as he prepares to deliver his State of the Union address on Jan. 27 and his budget on Feb. 1, Obama has to clean up the damage done by the now-ended Great Recession: the budget deficits on the government's books and the sliding job market his aides were arguing over. Only after that will he be able to turn his full attention to his long-term "change" agenda.

For Obama, 2010 will be a year of finding 10% solutions. Last year's $1.4 trillion budget deficit is nearly 10% of the economy, and the unemployment rate is also stuck at 10%. And here's the dilemma: Cut the budget deficit by raising taxes or reducing spending and you risk slowing down the economy and pushing up unemployment. Spur job creation through tax credits for new hires or infrastructure spending and you blow out the budget.

"He's got a needle to thread," says John Podesta, an Obama confidant and head of the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank. "He wants to try to get as much as he can done in 2010 on the economy while paying attention to the long-term debt problems of the country."

That job got a whole lot harder with Republican Scott Brown's surprise victory in the recent Massachusetts special election, robbing Obama's Democrats of their super-majority in the Senate and threatening the President's health-care overhaul push. The setback left Democrats questioning Obama's decision to focus most of the party's energy on health care, rather than focusing more on jobs and the economy. Now, with independent voters souring on Obama, vulnerable lawmakers are likely to be reluctant about casting votes on other controversial issues such as caps on carbon emissions, tax reform, and a revamp of entitlement programs ahead of November's midterm elections. The White House may have to pare this year's legislative wish list.
Obama, who frequently invoked Martin Luther King Jr.'s "fierce urgency of now" mantra during the Presidential campaign, doesn't have time to waste. The longer unemployment remains high, the more likely it is that discouraged job-seekers will drop out of the labor force. Government borrowing and debt, meanwhile, have reached "very worrisome" levels, says former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, risking a rise in long-term interest rates.

The President and his economic team have been brainstorming for months over how to solve the budget and job deficits and still move ahead with his broader economic agenda. One proposal: tapping the $700 billion bank bailout fund to help small business owners get credit. Another would lower the principal amount on underwater home loans, in which a house's value is less than the balance due.

More at the link.

Video Hat Tip: Nice Deb.

Jessica Simpson in Santa Monica!

New Jessica Simpson pics, from The Superficial:

Here's hoping she doesn't go all Heidi Montag on us!

P.S. Theo Spark's "Bedtime Totty" is too hot!

Saving Kiki, Saving Hope

John Humphrys, at London's Daily Mail, takes a step back from the sensationalism of the telegenic rescue of Kiki, the beautiful boy, rescued in Haiti, whose wide arms and wide smile are unforgettable. See, "Kiki, the Icon of Hope in the Rubble":

No Hollywood director could have improved on the scene that was splashed across the pages of this and just about every other newspaper 24 hours ago.

No reader could have turned the page without pausing, smiling, perhaps even shedding a tear.

That one photograph summed up the horror and - yes - the hope of what has befallen Haiti.

Check the link for the rest. As Humphrys notes:

If there is one image that stays in our minds when the world's attention has moved on from Haiti it will surely be this one. But why?

Why should it not be the picture of another Haitian child who also survived the earthquake?

Well, for one thing everybody's looking for the heroic angle, and the marketable one as well. And it's definitely a professional accomplishment as well (see the Times of London, "Photographer Matthew McDermott Describes Moment of Haitian Boy’s Rescue.") But I hate to see too many corks popped when there's still so much pain.

In any case, compare and contrast the same story as told by CNN in New York and a Kenyan network in Africa. We want everyone to be safe, and God save the Haitian people. But lets continue with, when we can, the humble restraint in the American press:

More from the Daily Mail, "Haiti in Hope and Despair: The Boy Craving a Hug After a Week Buried Alive and the Schoolgirl Killed by Police for Looting."

Abandoning Obama?

I just checked Andrew Sullivan's Sitemeter. Oh sure, I know he's still a big name blogger, but I'm curious to see his traffic stats given his latest meltdown over Scott Brown's election. What kind of demand is there for these really freaked screeds against the voters in MA? (Sully peaked in the early afternoon at just over 14 thousand visitors for the 1:00 o'clock hour, and he's thus gettin' well over 150,000 visitors for the day.) He's got a post up at the moment, "Now Fight!" (a Google link is here), and the least I can say is the guy's never boring:

The seismic events of the last few days ends, in some respects, the phony war of the first year of Obama's presidency. As is the case in truly fracturing democracies, the opposition simply does not and cannot accept the fact that it is out of power. The incoherence of the opposition to Obama - that he is both Jimmy Carter and Adolf Hitler, as Stephen Colbert pointed out last night - reveals the irrationality of the hate. It began immediately on the FNC/RNC right. And the ferocity of the campaign against Obama, the sheer dickishness of the GOP and its acolytes, the total oppositionism to everything he has done and indeed anything he might do... suggests that any hope for some kind of cooperation from this rump is impossible.

But the truth is that these forces have also been so passionate, so extreme, and so energized that in a country reeling from a recession, the narrative - a false, paranoid, nutty narrative - has taken root in the minds of some independents. Obama, under-estimating the extremism of his opponents, has focused on actually addressing the problems we face. And the rest of us, crucially, have sat back and watched and complained and carped when we didn't get everything we want. We can keep on carping if we want to. But it seems to me that continuing that - as HuffPo et al. appear to be doing - is objectively siding with the forces of profound reaction right now.

Don't get me wrong. Criticism is still vital. I'm not going to give up on advocating marriage equality or a carbon tax, rather than cap and trade, or for an independent investigation of Bush era war crimes. I think pushing Obama to a more populist position on banks is well and good. But given the alternative, I am going to step up my support of this president in the face of what he is confronting, even when he is not exactly doing everything I want. In my view, you should too.

There's more at the post, but I didn't link it (check Google if you want more of Sullivan's wallowing). Still, I'm intrigued at this notion that independent voters have been brainwashed with all this "false, paranoid, nutty" talk -- but apparently not so much during the 2008 during election, when conservatives foretold precisely how bad this administration would be. (Couldn't be economic issues and the ObamaCare boondoggle, right Andrew?)

Anyway, not everyone's so quick to double-down on their support for the president. Barack Obama was a phenemonon in 2008, but it's amazing the kind of Icarus effect he's having. Nowadays, if you don't toe the line of your most partisan cadres at the base, you could end up losing them all together in a mass pathology of anger and rejection. We saw this already with Jane Hamsher (who was willing to enter into some truly bizarre alliances to defeat healthcare without the public option), but when Paul Krugman starts to question allegiances, then something's really up. See, "He Wasn’t The One We’ve Been Waiting For":

... I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.

If you read Krugman in 2009, especially his "letter" to the new president last January, then you can appreciate how significant the left's disenchantment has become.

More here, from Greg Sargent, "SEIU Chief: If Dems Pass Scaled-Down Health Bill, Labor Will Have Trouble Staying 'Focused On National Politics'" (via Memeorandum). And, from Hot Air, "SEIU Warns Obama: If ObamaCare Doesn’t Pass, We Might Not Be There for the Midterms."

Man, Ayla Brown is Tall!

Via Saberpoint, I just happened to notice this R.S. McCain interview with Ayla Brown. That woman is tall. Whoo hoo!! Be sure to read Stogie's comments:

Last time I wrote about height issues I got in a little trouble, but this time I blame Stogie!

See, At 5' 6½", George Stephanopoulos Debuts at Good Morning America - UPDATED!!"

RELATED: Ayla Brown Acknowledges It: She Voted for Kerry (via Memeorandum).