Intensity Question for Romney

From Thomas Beaumont, at RCP, "Intensity Question for Romney Stirs Doubt for Fall":

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination for president, he'll face the urgent task of inspiring the party's conservative core and rallying them to beat President Barack Obama.

Judging by his performances in the primaries and caucuses so far, and the challenge he faces next week, he's got his work cut out for him.

Even Republicans who think he'll be the nominee worry about whether he can generate the intensity required to beat the Democratic incumbent.

These party leaders and activists, from the states voting Feb. 28 and the most contested ones ahead in the fall, say Romney has made strides toward addressing this problem. But, they say, he needs to do more to convince the Republican base that he's running to fundamentally reverse the nation's course, not simply manage what they see as the federal government's mess.

"I think Romney will be the nominee, but there is still tremendous work to be done," said Sally Bradshaw, a Florida Republican and adviser to former Gov. Jeb Bush. "He has got to find a way to unify the party and increase the intensity of support for him among voters who have supported Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum or Ron Paul or someone else. And that is going to be the key to how he does in the fall."

Romney leads in the delegate count for the nomination, and by a wide margin in polls ahead of the Feb. 28 primaries in Arizona and Michigan. But the challenge from former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum in Michigan, where Romney was born and raised, underscores doubts about Romney's ability to ignite fervor in the GOP base.

Continue reading.

And check Walter Shapiro, at The New Republic, "Why Mitt Romney's Presidential Prospects May Not Be Salvageable."

PREVIOUSLY: "Romney Gains Ground in Crucial Michigan GOP Primary."

Romney Gains Ground in Crucial Michigan GOP Primary

Mitt Romney really can't lose Michigan. He grew up there, a favorite son, and a loss would demonstrate just how badly his claim to inevitability has collapsed.

At Public Policy Polling, "Michigan GOP race tightens" (via Memeorandum).

Also at The Hill, "Slouching toward nomination, Romney needs win in Michigan" (via Memeorandum).

Iran Halts Oil Exports to Britain and France

This move is a major escalation of international tension, and despite Iran's minuscule shipments, the historical precedents of such embargoes indicate the initial steps to war.

At New York Times:

PARIS — Iran’s government on Sunday ordered a halt to oil exports to Britain and France, in what may be only an initial response to the European Union’s decision to cut off Iranian oil imports and freeze central bank assets beginning in July.

Britain and France depend little on Iranian oil, however, so their targeting may be a mostly symbolic act, a function of the strong positions the two nations have taken in trying to halt Iranian nuclear enrichment and to bring pressure to bear on Syria, one of Iran’s closest allies.

Iran may also be reluctant, when its economy has been damaged by existing sanctions, to deprive itself of revenues from its larger European customers. At the same time, it may be seeking to divide the 27-nation European Union between those who depend on Iranian oil and those who do not.

Sunday’s order, according to the Mehr News Agency in Tehran, came from the Iranian oil minister, Rostam Qassemi, who had warned this month that Iran would cut off oil exports to “hostile” European nations. On Sunday, the Oil Ministry spokesman, Ali Reza Nikzad-Rahbar, confirmed that shipments to Britain and France had been cut off, and said on the ministry Web site, “We have our own customers and have no problem to sell and export our crude oil to new customers.”

At the same time, according to the Mehr agency, an official at the Oil Ministry said Iran was seeking longer-term contracts of two to five years with other European nations.

There was no immediate reaction from French officials, and the British Foreign Office in London declined to comment. A British government official, demanding anonymity to describe internal discussions, said that “we’re not getting exercised about it,” noting that Iran provides “less than 1 percent of our imported crude oil.”

More at that top link.

British Soap Star Helen Flanagan Looks Fantastic in Blue Bikini in Dubai

Well, as the commenters suggest at the Sun UK, maybe she'll become a Bond girl.

See: "Helen Flanagan is a hol lot hotta in Dubai," and also at London's Daily Mail, "That's a far cry from the cobbles! Helen Flanagan shows off her fantastic beach body in blue string bikini in Dubai."

Rick Santorum Could Beat Obama

Santorum has a lot of buzz not just on the GOP side, as folks are also taking a serious look at his chances in the general election. As always, the argument for Romney has been his electability, but that claim went out the window some time ago, and now Santorum's surge has become the biggest threat so far to Romney's long-assumed inevitability. The Hill reports, "Gallup poll shows Santorum with 8-point lead over Romney."

Note especially that Gallup's presidential tracking poll now has Santorum tied with Obama at 48 to 48 in a general election match-up.

And see Mark McKinnon, at Telegraph UK, "Santorum in his sweater vest could prove formidable Republican opponent to Barack Obama, the king of cool":

Rick Santorum may be unfashionable and obstinate, but in the end he could prove the strongest Republican contender.

Sleeveless pullovers were never cool. But neither was the small-town kid who was nicknamed "Rooster" by his classmates for the cowlick in his hair and the obstinacy in his nature.

So how, some 40 years later, can Rick Santorum - who has made the unfashionable knitwear that Americans call his sweater vest a trademark of his campaign - hope to challenge the dapper Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination before taking on the king of cool, Barack Obama?

In a string of recent contests, Santorum has beaten his rival Romney into second place, leaving Newt Gingrich, briefly seen as the likeliest alternative contender, way behind. And now he is even ahead in Michigan, the state where Romney was raised and the next primary will be held....

Raised in public housing in an industrial steel town, Santorum proudly touts his blue-collar beginnings..

Serving as a US Senator from 1995 to 2007, Santorum was a member of the "Gang of Seven" that exposed improper congressional spending. He also successfully guided welfare reform legislation, served on the Armed Services Committee, and championed legislation banning late-term abortions.

He then lost his seat in an 18-point landslide when Democrats swept control of Congress.

This defeat would seem to make Santorum a weak candidate. That's why conventional wisdom among American media and political pundits is that Romney, long-considered inevitable even though he is having a difficult time wrapping up the nomination, would be the most electable general election candidate against President Obama. Rick Santorum would get crushed.

The same pundits judge that Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, is generally more moderate, particularly on social issues, and so would have greater appeal to voters in the middle. Santorum, they reckon, would scare off independents.

Convenient thinking, but there may be much more at play that will turn conventional wisdom upside down....

In an economic address last week in Detroit, once the symbol of America's industrial dominance but now of its decline, Santorum spoke of cutting government spending, simplifying the tax code, and eliminating all taxes on manufacturing to spur middle-income job growth.

This will appeal to blue-collar workers – and their bosses. He has also said he supports unions in the private sector.
Democrats will try to use Santorum's family-focused, socially conservative stands to crucify him. But pocketbook issues will decide this election.

With Santorum as the Republican nominee, sweater vest and all, instead of Romney, President Obama would lose his foil, and his advantage as the sole candidate concerned about working Americans.

But see also David Paul Kuhn, at RealClearPolitics, "Is Santorum Too Socially Conservative to Defeat Obama?"

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers Slams Obama Administration's 'Roadmap to Greece'

She's awesome:

McMorris-Rodgers also gave this weekend's GOP address, and Lonely Con has that, "Republicans on Obama Budget: Roadmap to Greece (They Should Stop Helping Him)."

The Building Backlash Against Rick Santorum

I'm going to say it once more: Not one of the remaining candidates is my first pick, but I'm impressed with Rick Santorum, and I'd like to see him continue in the race and make the case for his candidacy. That's how it works.

That said, things certainly look grim for the GOP, by the looks of some of the responses to Santorum's surge and the increasingly desperate appeals to support Mitt Romney.

Jennifer Rubin, the resident Romney shill at the Washington Post, attempts to knock down Santorum this morning, "Is the not-Romney an improvement for conservatives?" I think attacking Santorum as an "extremist" is over-the-top and personally offensive, but that's Rubin for you:

I had lunch with a conservative scholar and writer on Friday. Remarking on the rise of Rick Santorum, he exclaimed sarcastically, “Oh, swell, the Republicans have found a guy who’s a big spender AND an extremist on social issues!”

On one level it was a funny remark, symptomatic of the notion among many conservative curmudgeons that if there is a way to screw up an election the GOP will find it. On the other, it was an interesting statement that suggests that the Republicans, after winning a House majority in 2010 by stressing limited government and focusing much less on social issues, may undo their success by choosing a candidate with positions unpopular with a substantial majority of Americans — big government and excessive meddling in personal lives (having nothing to do with abortion, on which the GOP is virtually united and public opinion in general is at least evenly divided.)

The two issues that I raised this past week — Santorum’s unconservative economic thinking and his extremism on social issues — have not gone unnoticed by others.

There's more at the link.

Again, that notion of "extremism on social issues" really rankles. Tell me, what's so extreme to say that traditional marriage is the foundation of a decent, ordered society? And what's so extreme to say that abortion is an abomination, and we should do everything we can to discourage it. It's funny too, since no doubt much of Rubin's attack on Santorum as "extreme" is directed at his Catholicism. But Rubin is Jewish, and one of the hardest of the neoconservative hardliners on the defense of Israel, something I admire in fact. The point is the hypocrisy here is astounding, and frankly a real turnoff.

In any case, Dan Riehl has more on this, taking on John Hinderaker for his whiny pleadings in favor of Mitt. See: "Powerline's Pansy Politics."

BONUS: Some additional thoughts from William Jacobson, "I feel Santorum supporters’ pain."

EXTRA: At Reuters, "Santorum says Obama agenda not 'based on Bible'." (Via Memeorandum.)

Santorum's walking that back a bit now at the video above.

ESPN Apologizes for 'Chink in the Armor' Headline

This is from the you-have-to-see-it-to-believe-it files.

At HuffPo, "ESPN Racist Jeremy Lin Headline: Network Apologizes For Insensitive Headline For Knicks Loss."

And from the network: "Statement on New York Knicks Jeremy Lin Headline."

I've been meaning to post on this guy. He's a genuine phenomenon. See, for example, New York Times, "Chinatown Can Cheer, but Can’t Watch, Rise of an Adopted Star."

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies."

And see Reaganite Republican, "Reaganite's Sunday Funnies," and Theo Spark, "Cartoon Roundup."

Better-Late-Than-Never Rule 5 Sunday

I'm behind on my Rule 5.

And Dana at First Street Journal was reminding me with his post, "Rule 5 Blogging: IDF Edition."

See also Bob Belvedere, "Smokin' Valentina Lodovini."

Also, El Opinador Compulsivo has Shania Twain. And more from Reaganite, "Paraguay Becoming the New Venezuela...? 'Miss Paraguay 2011' is Alba Riquelme ~."

Plus at Randy's Roundtable, "Thursday Nite Tart: Esti Ginzburg." And Jake Finnegan has "Behati Prinsloo."

And at Maggie's Notebook, "Rule 5 Saturday Night: Candice Swanepoel and a Couple of Bonus Babes." Plus more of the Victoria's Secret hottie at Eye of Polyphemus, "Candice Swanepoel."

And late getting to this, but American Perspective posts some hot shots of Madonna.

And almost NSFW Rule 5 at Pirate's Cove, "If All You See…is snow that is caused by hot temperatures, you might just be a Warmist."

Also, don't miss Teresamerica, "Amanda Seyfried in Gone."

Photo via Theo Spark.

BONUS: Tropical Tiki Rule 5!

EXTRA: Just go read Troglopundit. Just do it!

Added: Gator Doug, "DaleyGator DaleyBabe Leianna Kai."

Sarah Palin Talks About Brokered Convention

Another great interview with Governor Palin.

The discussion of the brokered convention comes at almost 14:00 minutes. Palin is game for a run at the White House, and she says she'll do whatever it takes to help preserve freedom in America.

Allahpundit offers a somewhat fevered take on this at Hot Air, "Palin on a brokered convention: “I would do whatever I could to help”." But see also Sean Trende, at RealClearPolitics, "A Brokered Convention Could Be Dangerous for GOP."

Inglewood School District Works to Avoid Bankruptcy with Flashy Magnet School Instead of Fiscal Reforms

The state should go ahead at take over the district. It'll probably save taxpayers money in the long run and neighboring communities can be spared the social engineering that the Inglewood School Board hopes will allow the district to avoid a bailout by Sacramento.

See the Los Angeles Times, "In Inglewood, a sparkling new campus and looming bankruptcy":

When Johnny Young looks at La Tijera School, he sees more than the gleaming new facade of steel and stucco, the technology lab outfitted with 36 desktop computers, the fitness center with spinning cycles, treadmills and weights.

The Inglewood school board president sees salvation for his beleaguered district, the most financially precarious in California.

Socked by state funding cuts and declining enrollment, the Inglewood Unified School District is expected to go broke by May. Inglewood is one of seven school districts in the state that projects red ink through next year and is closest to the brink of bankruptcy, according to state fiscal management officials who work with troubled schools.

Without quick action, the Los Angeles County education office recently wrote, there is a "strong potential" that the state will have to bail out Inglewood with an emergency loan. That would trigger the California Department of Education to fire the superintendent, sideline the school board and take over district management until the loan is repaid, which could take 20 years.

But Young is confident that such drastic measures won't happen, and projects like the new La Tijera School are one reason why. He predicted that the $24-million state-of-the-art campus that opened in January, paid for with a construction bond, will attract hundreds of new students. And new magnet programs and publicity drives at other schools should bring in even more, he said. More students means more state funding — about $5,200 per pupil.

"We are very optimistic we will come out of this and avoid a state takeover," Young said.

But a long road of hurdles lies ahead.

Estela Ponce reflects on one of the district's biggest challenges. Like hundreds of other parents, Ponce moved her three children from Inglewood schools to charter campuses.

She said her two older children were not being prepared for college; her daughter, now a senior, was getting A's at Inglewood High School but scoring below basic on state standardized tests. When asked why, she said, her daughter blamed poor teachers.

Ponce's third child was attending Centinela Elementary, a district school that surpassed the goal of 800 on state standardized tests last year. But she put him in a charter last fall after his highly regarded second-grade teacher was moved to another grade. Ponce said too many teachers at Centinela couldn't control their students and set low academic standards

"They don't provide the education my child deserves," she said.

These are the families that need excellent public education systems, and the schools are failing. But read the rest of that article. The district is bad hands. Even the teachers' union supports a state takeover.

See my essay from yesterday, "Why Progressivism Should Scare the **** Out of You."

Arizona's Sheriff Paul Babeu is Gay

Well, I'm not sure about what happened either way, but having Sheriff Babeu come out is pretty interesting.

At New York Times, "Arizona Sheriff Is Accused of Threatening Ex-Boyfriend."

And also at Washington Post, "Arizona sheriff facing allegations of misconduct forced to publically announce he is gay."

A Lesson Plan for the Occupy Wall Street Curriculum

Actually, I have no problem with colleges offering classes on the Occupy movement. What's pissy is how the progressives have championed a violent, hateful movement that so far has had zero political impact, in contrast to the tea party, which clearly had a dramatic impact on the 2010 election and is still significant, despite media claims to the contrary. The push for an Occupy curriculum is just one more depressing example of how badly radicalism has infected higher education.

That said, Glenn Reynolds says go with the flow, at Wall Street Journal, "A Syllabus for the 'Occupy' Movement":

Schools from New York's Columbia to Chicago's Roosevelt University are offering courses on the "Occupy" movement. This has inspired some derision from the right, but I think that derision is misplaced. There is much that a course on the Occupy movement might profitably cover. Here are some possible lessons....

2) Bourgeois vs. Non-Bourgeois Revolutions: A Comparison and Contrast. The Occupy movement left its major sites—McPherson Square in D.C., Zuccotti Park in Manhattan, Dewey Square in Boston—filthy and disheveled. By contrast, the tea party protests famously left the Washington Mall and other locations cleaner than they found them, with members proudly performing cleanup duties....

4) Scapegoating and anti-Semitism in mass economic-protest movements. The Occupy movement began as an assault on "the 1%," a shadowy elite of bankers and financiers charged with running the world for their own benefit. Within a few months, the Anti-Defamation League was noting that anti-Semitic statements and sympathies seemed surprisingly widespread within the Occupy encampments. Compare with other such movements that led to similar results. Are such developments inevitable? If so, what strands in Western (and perhaps non-Western) culture account for this?

5) The Fragility of Public Health. Young and healthy upper-middle-class Americans, when huddled into encampments without modern sanitary facilities, developed a number of diseases, ranging from scabies to lice to tuberculosis, with surprising rapidity. In addition, populations of rats and other vermin exploded. What lessons can be learned about the fragility of public health, and the complacency bred by modern sanitation? Are we similarly complacent in other areas?

RTWT.

Rick Santorum Defends His Positions on Social Issues

Here's the interview with Greta Van Susteren (via Memeorandum):

And Dan Riehl has more, "Dear Spineless Cowards: STFU About Santorum's Religion-Based Comments."

Social Issues and the Santorum Surge

Back in 2009, in the months after Barack Obama took office, the conservative right entered into a heated debate on the future of the movement. Some argued against a prominent role for social values in the early Obama-era push to retake political power. I argued against this position, making the case for "Core Values Conservatism." The debate picked up again last year, when Indiana Governor Mitchell Daniels was testing the waters for a presidential bid and argued that Republicans should declare a "truce" on social issues to focus on economic issues exclusively. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention shot that idea down decisively in an essay at the Wall Street Journal, "Americans Don't Want a 'Truce' on Social Issues." That said, obviously the economy continued to be the dominant issue in the electorate as the Democrats pushed ahead aggressively with its statist agenda that is bankrupting the country.

And now social issues have emerged again as a central force on the political agenda. The administration's been aching for a fight on these issues, no doubt, as shown by President Obama's no-holds-barred program to ram through the contraceptive mandate against the wishes of Catholics and religious-minded voters. But also in evidence is the rise of Rick Santorum to the front of the GOP pack. Few predicted so prominent a trajectory for Santorum as recently as a couple of months ago. He seemed like an also ran. Mitt Romney was considered virtually inevitable and the MFM establishment was attempting to quash any right-wing challenges to a Romney coronation. The GOP race has been extremely turbulent, with a roller coaster of ups-and-downs leading to the first primaries and caucuses this year. And now Santorum is not only surging in the polls but looks an even more formidable rival for the nomination than any of those previously who challenged the conventional wisdom. As I noted previously, Santorum is not my first pick, but I'm pretty stoked at how social issues are getting a new hearing, and if the economy continues to improve the right will have a tremendous opening against Obama and the progressives on the values divide. Conservatives will have the chance of a lifetime to demonstrate the radical left's agenda for the secularization of America and the destruction of faith and decency in our nation.

And for more on that, see James Taranto's weekend interview at the Wall Street Journal, "Jeff Bell, an 'early supply-sider,' on the roots of American social conservatism—and why the movement is crucial to building a Republican majority":

If you're a Republican in New York or another big city, you may be anxious or even terrified at the prospect that Rick Santorum, the supposedly unelectable social conservative, may win the GOP presidential nomination. Jeffrey Bell would like to set your mind at ease.

Social conservatism, Mr. Bell argues in his forthcoming book, "The Case for Polarized Politics," has a winning track record for the GOP. "Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964," he observes. "The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections."

The Democrats who won, including even Barack Obama in 2008, did not play up social liberalism in their campaigns. In 1992 Bill Clinton was a death-penalty advocate who promised to "end welfare as we know it" and make abortion "safe, legal and rare." Social issues have come to the fore on the GOP side in two of the past six presidential elections—in 1988 (prison furloughs, the Pledge of Allegiance, the ACLU) and 2004 (same-sex marriage). "Those are the only two elections since Reagan where the Republican Party has won a popular majority," Mr. Bell says. "It isn't coincidental"....

In Mr. Bell's telling, social conservatism is both relatively new and uniquely American, and it is a response to aggression, not an initiation of it. The left has had "its center of gravity in social issues" since the French Revolution, he says. "Yes, the left at that time, with people like Robespierre, was interested in overthrowing the monarchy and the French aristocracy. But they were even more vehemently in favor of bringing down institutions like the family and organized religion. In that regard, the left has never changed. . . . I think we've had a good illustration of it in the last month or so."

He means the ObamaCare mandate that religious institutions must provide employee insurance for contraceptive services, including abortifacient drugs and sterilization procedures, even if doing so would violate their moral teachings. "You would think that once the economy started looking a little better, Obama would want to take a bow . . . but instead all of a sudden you have this contraception flap. From what I can find out about it, it wasn't a miscalculation. They knew that the Catholic Church and other believers were going to push back against this thing. . . . They were determined to push it through, because it's their irreplaceable ideological core. . . . The left keeps putting these issues into the mix, and they do it very deliberately, and I think they do it as a matter of principle."

Continue reading.

The Inevitability of Gay Marriage?

Well, the same-sex marriage debate's been heating up around the country. Chris Christie vetoed a gay marriage bill in New Jersey, Christine Gregoire signed same-sex marriage legislation in Washington, and the Maryland House of Delegates passed a gay marriage bill just yesterday.

I've been meaning to post on this. Last weekend, at the Los Angeles Times, Harvard Professor Michael Klarman argued that gay marriage is inevitable in the United States. Klarman makes two points: (1) that as more and more people come to know someone who is gay they are reluctant to deprive them of "rights" such as same-sex marriage and (2) that younger Americans are more tolerant of gay marriage and thus the younger demographic cohort will compose a larger, decisive share of the electorate as older, more conservative voters pass from the political scene.

The generational argument is one that's been made often in the last few years, with some proponents of gay marriage even counseling moderation in political fights since time is on the side of same-sex activists. And that may be true. My position is that gay marriage is not in fact a civil right but that if states wish to enact it then a federalist solution should be considered. (And I thought the David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch compromise offered in 2009 was excellent, "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage.")

But one of the things that bothers me even about promoting state-level votes to allow gay marriage is that the radical left gay rights lobby has worked aggressively and viciously to demonize and discredit the democratic process when it comes to same-sex rights. A small but extremely vocal minority has essentially flipped James Madison's fear of tyranny of the majority on its head: now an in-your-face totalitarian gay militia will attack, stalk, berate, threaten, and destroy opponents of same-sex marriage. In California, supporters of Proposition 8 were targeted for harassment and the progressives attacked the First Amendment rights of the Mormon Church, which had spent heavily in favor of the initiative. And when the case went to federal court, the trial became farce as the radical progressives turned the proceedings into a sham show trial. (See Michelle's report, "The anti-Prop. 8 mob strikes again.")

It's obvious that progressives are scared to death of legitimate debate on gay marriage. And after the normal moral arguments and bogus comparisons to the black civil rights struggle fail to sway voters, the left turns into a lynch mob to literally destroy the opposition. Here's the letter to the editor from reader Pat Murphy at the Los Angeles Times, in response to Professor Klarman's case for the inevitability of gay marriage:

Michael Klarman wants everyone to think there's widespread support for gay marriage. Then why have voters rejected it in every state where it has been on the ballot, including recently in Maine and twice in California?

"In the few states in which it is allowed, it was the result of backroom maneuvering — such as in Massachusetts, where the legislature won't allow its residents to vote on the issue, or California, where judicial fiat has now overturned two elections.

"Because the public won't cooperate, Klarman cites polls that suit his opinion that gay marriage is inevitable. This reflects a mind-set that shows contempt for the democratic process.

Exactly.

And in response Klarman fails back on the same tired comparisons between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage that even the majority of black voters have rejected. (See the New York Times report from earlier this week, for example, "Gay Marriage a Tough Sell with Blacks in Maryland.")

The gay marriage agenda is totalitarian. The left simply cannot tolerate differences of opinion on this issue, because time and again they've been on the losing side of the argument. The funny thing about is that in then end, the browbeating and bullying will carry the day. We may indeed see the gay marriage ayatollahs prevail since people of decency and morals don't like to be falsely attacked as "bigots" all day long, and many will simply decide that given the threats to their safety, it's just not worth it after a while. And make note of how it's not just the radical fringe who resorts to thuggery. Top Democrat Party appendages have propelled the progressive attack strategy to the front of the gay marriage push. The left's merciless attacks on Rick Santorum are are recent example. Here's this from the White House-aligned Think Progress last week, "Protesters Shout Down Santorum as He Speaks Against Marriage Equality in Washington State":

So, while it's not a pretty picture, that's likely where things stand. Unfortunately, I don't see as many conservatives really buckling down in defense of traditional marriage as is needed to carry the day. I see a lot of folks on the right just throwing up their hands in defeat, perhaps because of a libertarian bent or of a misplaced need to appear tolerant.

Gay marriage is not conservative. Folks who call themselves conservative should be manning the barricades against the left's freakish mob now raping the democracy like one more crime in the #OWS agenda. There's more on that at Soros-backed Think Progress, "Catching Up On the Current State Marriage Equality Efforts" (via Memeorandum).

Why Progressivism Should Scare the **** Out of You

Both my wife and I attended public schools, and our children attend public schools. Home schooling isn't really an option for us --- but the more I think about it, that makes me very sad. For one thing I'm sick to my stomach at the multiculturalism and "diversity" ideologies that dominate the public schools. But even more is that I'm around progressive administrators everyday at my college. I'm convinced that their values are 100 percent opposed to what I believe in. The scariest thing of all is that in my experience people like this are not smart --- honestly, they are just not smart people. In my dealings with people in the administration at my college, I'm seeing more and more that progressives can't reason through basic issues in a way that is rational and just. Ideology blinds reason. It's truly frightening, especially so since progressives think they know what is best for you.

So this brings me to the homeschooling issue. I think you just have to read this essay by Dana Goldstein to believe it --- and you need to be sitting down, seriously. I can't recall reading a more honestly totalitarian argument in a long time. See: "Liberals, Don’t Homeschool Your Kids: Why Teaching Children at Home Violates Progressive Values." It's not so much the civil rights argument that comes across there --- that poor children won't have access to social advancement without the public schools (I think that may be true, in fact). It's the idea that the state knows best, and that families have an obligation to serve their children to the needs of the state. In sum, statism as an ideology over individualism and the family. That is totalitarian and un-American, and frightening in a way that I can't even describe. The word nausea comes to mind when I think about this. I've looked again for a concise paragraph to quote, but I can't do justice by lifting sections of the piece. Just go read it.

See also the comments at Vox Popoli (via Memeorandum).

And while I'm thinking about it, folks should be reading Marybeth Hicks', Don't Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid: Confronting the Left's Assault on Our Families, Faith, and Freedom. I put it down to read some other books but picked it up again just this week --- and will be reading more today in light of the Goldstein piece. Progressivism should scare the **** out of you.

Newt Gingrich Whines About 'Restore Our Future' Attack Ads

Yeah, so what else is new?

This time Gingrich is threatening legal action, so I guess that's new.

See Politico, "Newt Gingrich threatens TV stations over ad."

If You Don't Believe Santorum Is Electable...

Well, I was kinda caught off guard with Reaganite's comment the other day, slamming Rick Santorum and making the case for Newt Gingrich. Not one of those remaining in the GOP field is my first pick for the nomination (I was for Michele Bachmann early and enthusiastically), although I've been pretty impressed with Santorum and I'm really pleased that he's helped elevate social issues in the campaign.

Reaganite has a big post on this as well, "Billion-Dollar Obama Machine Would Cut Santorum to Ribbons."

That sounds harsh, actually. I'm betting that conservatives and Republicans rally around the nominee in a big way, as it's hard to beat Barack Obama for political polarization. It's going to be a tight-fought campaign.

But Reaganite might want to respond to Dan Riehl, who apparently has some strong feelings for Santorum naysayers. See, "If You Don't Believe Santorum Is Electable, You Don't Believe In Conservatism, The GOP, Or Yourself":

If you insist that Rick Santorum is un-electable at this point, but call yourself a Republican - which I don't btw - then you are wasting your time in the wrong party and may as well go Independent. I did when I left the Democrats and haven't joined another one since. But given these numbers, there is no valid argument in suggesting Santorum would not be an acceptable nominee for the GOP, any more than one can say that about Romney at this point.

But if you are a conservative looking at these numbers and saying Santorum can't win, then you may as well give it up, or stop calling yourself a conservative, because you don't believe enough in what you profess to believe in to even fight for it when called. You assume conservatism is a loser out of the gate. Frankly, I don't believe that, which is why I became one in my twenties. I believe it not only can win in America but must for America to remain strong. And I am always willing to fight to put that assumption to the test.

RTWT.

And then check Legal Insurrection, "Yes, you can be conservative and not support Santorum."

'Safe House' Kicks Ass

I think I saw just one ad for this on TV.

I didn't read a review but felt like hitting the movies today. Man, what an awesome flick. I really recommend this one.

Manohla Dargis has a review at the New York Times, "Smoldering Superagent Runs...and Keeps on Running."

And from Kenneth Turan, at the Los Angeles Times, "Movie review: 'Safe House'":

Is any place less safe than a safe house? In the entire lexicon of movie locations, is any setting more likely to be visited by chaos and destruction on a biblical scale? Not very likely.

So it's no surprise that the Denzel Washington-starring "Safe House" is a take-no-prisoners action extravaganza that doesn't stint on either bullets or brutal hand-to-hand combat. It also shows how much can be done with a business-as-usual CIA-thriller script when it's bolstered by effective acting and expert direction.

That directing is courtesy of Swedish filmmaker and top-drawer mayhem manipulator Daniel Espinosa, who's been one of the hottest new names in Hollywood since his last film, 2010's "Snabba Cash" ("Easy Money"), unofficially made the high-echelon studio rounds though it has yet to show itself on American theatrical screens. Even without "Snabba" as a reference point (it's been acquired by the Weinstein Co. with no firm release date set), it's easy to see what action junkie executives saw in Espinosa.

Working with the top-flight team of cinematographer Oliver Wood and editor Richard Pearson, both of whom have "Bourne Supremacy" credits, Espinosa has given "Safe House" an unmistakably stylish and unsettling tone, characterized by probing camera work, quick and edgy cutting and a fine ability to keep audiences off-balance and wondering when they'll get a chance to catch their next breath.

"Safe House" is grateful for all this pizazz because its David Guggenheim script is filled with standard-issue elements all pointing to the not exactly original notion that the intelligence community is a hotbed of corruption whose operatives eat betrayal for breakfast. Who knew?

And see Kurt Loder's review at Reason.

Alleged Suicide Bomber Arrested in D.C. Attack Plot

There will be more of these suicide bomb plots.

It's a natural progression of things in the war on terror. Jihadis will bring it right to our front doors, blowing themselves up in the name of Allah.

All I can say is thank goodness we nabbed this f-cker. Sheesh.

At Washington Post, "Federal agents arrest man who allegedly planned suicide bombing on U.S. Capitol." And at Los Angeles Times, "Affidavit: Bomb plot suspect said he 'would be happy' to kill 30 people":

Reporting from Washington — An immigrant from Morocco armed with a jammed automatic weapon and wearing a suicide vest packed with what he thought were explosives was arrested Friday near the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, officials announced.

Amine El Khalifi, 29, who allegedly had overstayed his visa after arriving in the U.S. when he was 16, was charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction against government property.  FBI agents had been closely monitoring him for more than a year in an undercover sting operation.

An affidavit described El Khalifi strutting around a hotel room with the gun and vest, watching himself in the mirror as he practiced how to pull the trigger and detonate the vest bomb by calling a cellphone number.

He also allegedly discussed hitting military targets near the Pentagon and a restaurant during the crowded lunch hour in Washington. But eventually he settled on the Capitol, authorities said, planning to shoot his way inside and detonating the bomb. He reportedly told undercover FBI agents he “would be happy killing 30 people.”

He appeared briefly in federal court in nearby Alexandria, Va., where most of the investigation was handled, but did not enter a plea. He faces life in prison sentence if convicted.

And see Pamela as well, "Devout Muslim Homicide Bomber Targeted US Capitol Building, Synagogues, and Military Installations in the Cause of Islam."

Huge Finance Scandal at L.A. Trade Tech College Foundation Established to Help Needy Students

You have to spend some time around the community colleges to really get a feel for this. Local educational and political officials exploited these institutions as their own personal fiefdoms. I hear amazing stories on my campus about the rampant nepotism and impropriety prevalent at the community colleges before AB 1725 passed in 1988. And yesterday's Los Angeles Times offers an updated version of the corruption. See "D.A., district probe alleged improprieties at Trade-Tech College foundation":

A foundation created to help needy students at Los Angeles Trade-Technical College paid its director tens of thousands of dollars in bonuses, membership fees at exclusive private clubs and a $1,500 monthly car allowance, according to interviews and records reviewed by The Times.

The Trade-Tech Foundation paid a $5,000 initiation fee at the California Club in downtown Los Angeles for Executive Director Rhea Chung.

It also paid for other membership fees for her, including the L.A. Philharmonic at $2,300 a year and the Central City Assn. at $8,000 annually. The foundation covered more than $9,000 for Chung's golf outings in the last two years. Records show she played on Christmas and the Fourth of July.

Problems at the foundation sparked two internal audits as well as an inquiry by the L.A. County district attorney's Public Integrity Division, which is looking into whether any funds at the foundation were misappropriated.

The college district placed Chung on administrative leave Jan. 17, and officials said they were also looking into allegations that foundation checks were forged. Officials did not identify the target of that probe.

Records show Chung's pay and expenses dwarfed the amount the foundation gave out in scholarships to students, which was $43,350 in the 2011 fiscal year and $105,400 in the first half of the current year. Chung is one of a handful of employees paid by the foundation, which last year reported $610,481 in income, primarily from events and donations.

Faculty and students are questioning why more of the money raised by the foundation was not going to help the 17,000 students at the school, at a time when community colleges are dealing with higher fees and budget cuts. The downtown L.A. campus, which trains people in skills like welding and fashion design, serves the poorest population of any college in the L.A. Community College system and one of the poorest in the nation.

In an interview at the California Club, Chung denied any wrongdoing and said all her expenses and bonuses were approved by the foundation board and college president.

She defended her golf outings and club memberships, saying they helped her meet business leaders who might make donations to the foundation. Chung maintained that Trade Tech President Roland "Chip" Chapdelaine had been informed at "every step of the way" and had signed her checks.

Chung, who holds a doctorate in education from USC, had been Chapdelaine's executive assistant before she was appointed head of the foundation and acting associate dean of advancement, community and government affairs at the college in 2009.

"I'm an individual who's been working hard at these projects that [Chapdelaine] asked me to do. We made a mark as an organization," she said. "…It's too bad that he doesn't see the value of the work that's been done."

Yeah, that's amazing alright. And there's still more at the link.

Dana Loesch Acceptance Speech at AIM Journalism Awards

I really like Dana. She's a fighter and this is a great speech:

And check out Dana on Twitter for all the latest on progressive rape apologia, left-wing media thuggery, and more.

'Rombo'

It's the new Rick Santorum ad.

Ed Morrissey reports, "Up in OH and MI, Santorum using humor to parry Romney attacks":

How does an underfunded candidate defend himself against a big onslaught of negative attack ads? Newt Gingrich tried leveraging the media attention received from going nasty and personal in response and ended up flaming out in Florida and a string of caucuses in the last three weeks. Rick Santorum has decided to use humor to just attack the attack in a new ad running called “Rombo”.

Lots more at the link.

And see Robert Stacy McCain, "Santorum Conquers the World?"

An Ever Smaller Number of Swing Voters Will Decide the Presidential Election

From Jay Cost, at the Weekly Standard, "Polarization and the Independents":

Late last month, Gallup published a summary of President Obama’s job approval ratings for 2011. The pollster’s findings were stunning: Eighty percent of Democrats approved of the president’s performance through 2011, as did just 12 percent of Repub-licans. The difference between these two numbers—Gallup calls it the “party gap”—was a whopping 68 points.

This is not a novel development. Of the 10 largest party gaps in the poll’s storied history, 8 have occurred during the Obama and George W. Bush presidencies. Indeed, we have seen a very strong party gap in recent presidential elections as well. Obama won 89 percent of Democrats and 9 percent of Republicans in 2008, for a party gap of 80 points; the party gap for Bush in 2004 was 82 points. This is a stark shift from relatively recent political history. Richard Nixon’s party gap in 1972 was 54 points; Jimmy Carter’s in 1976 was 69 points; Ronald Reagan’s in 1984 was 67 points; and even Bill Clinton’s in 1996 was 71 points.

How do we account for this increasing polarization? Much of it has deep roots. From roughly the time of the Civil War to the Great Depression, the two parties were strictly regional coalitions built not on grand ideological divisions but on old antipathies from the battlefield. The Democrats usually won the South and the big Northern cities, while the Republicans typically won most everything else. This meant that both parties had liberals and conservatives in their ranks. Consider, for instance, the tumultuous decade of the 1910s. The Democrats had in their coalition conservative Tammany Hall and the borderline radical William Jennings Bryan; the Republicans had Nelson Aldrich, the machine boss of Rhode Island, and Robert La Follette, the premier progressive of Wisconsin.

This all began to change in the 1930s, when FDR worked to rebuild the Democratic party as a progressive coalition. Roosevelt destroyed Tammany Hall in favor of Fiorello LaGuardia, a nominal Republican and strong progressive.

Interesting.

Keep reading at the link.

Why Mitt Romney Will Win the Nomination

Well, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion --- I'd rather wait until after Super Tuesday before projecting a winner.

But Ben Shapiro makes the case for Romney anyways, at Big Government:

Rick Santorum is surging in national polling.  As Ed Morrissey notes, in a two-man race, Santorum beats Mitt Romney among Republicans by a sweeping 55% to 34% margin.  In other words, ouch.

But while many pundits suggest that Santorum has a real chance to win the nomination, so long as Newt Gingrich stays in the race, that seems increasingly unlikely.  Romney currently leads the delegate count by a count of 123 to 72; Newt Gingrich has 32 delegates, and Ron Paul has 19.  Santorum isn’t on the ballot in Virginia (49), or more crucially, in Indiana (46), which is a winner-take-all state.  The other winner-take-all states are Arizona (29, and presumably a Romney win), Michigan (30, for Santorum), Puerto Rico (23, likely to go Romney), Maryland (37, likely Romney), Washington, D.C. (19, Romney), Wisconsin (42, a toss-up, but probably Romney), Delaware (17, Romney), California (172, a toss-up, but likely Santorum), Utah (40, Romney).  When you count all that up, Romney picks up 302 delegates to Santorum’s 202.  If Romney wins California, of course, he blows Santorum out of the water.

What we’re looking at, then is a presumptive lead for Romney of 151 delegates.  In the other, proportional states, Romney just needs to run relatively even with Santorum – which he will, since he has large leads in some of the most populous states, like New York and Massachusetts.

More at the link.

RELATED: From Jonathan Chait, at New York Magazine, "Is Romney More Electable Than Santorum?"

Nicolas Sarkozy Announces Reelection Campaign

At Telegraph UK, "'Captain' Nicolas Sarkozy launches re-election bid":

Nicolas Sarkozy promised to keep France “strong” like a “captain at the heart of a storm” if it re-elected him as President, as he finally launched his campaign after weeks of false suspense over his candidacy.

Man Suffers Heart Attack at Heart Attack Grill

Seriously.

That's the headline at ABC News, and Pat Dollard has more, "Man Has Heart Attack While Eating “Triple-Bypass Burger” At Heart Attack Grill – Patrons Think It’s Funny, Snap Photos – With Video."

Allahpundit Throws In the Towel?

The Last Tradition takes issue with Allahpundit at Hot Air, "CNN Poll, Obama approval 50% Is Dan Rather the pollster?":

For what’s its worth that’s what CNN is reporting. Allahpundit over at Hot Air is already throwing in the towel. Boy, we really have a bunch of freaking wimps on our side.

A lot can happen between now and November. And once the primaries are over and the GOP nominee is known, the Democrats are going to be under constant fire. It's going to be a mercilessly close election. Don't count anyone out.

Iran Blamed in Bangkok Bombings

At Wall Street Journal, "Botched Thai Bombing Plot Ratchets Up Pressure on Iran":

BANGKOK — An apparently botched bomb plot in the Thai capital put Iranian fingerprints on the latest of a string of attacks that have raised U.S. and Israeli warnings of a heightened threat of terrorism sponsored by Tehran.

Three explosions tore through a bustling Bangkok neighborhood Tuesday, wounding four bystanders and blowing off the legs of a bomber who Thai police said was an Iranian national. A second Iranian passport holder who fled the scene was detained at the city's international airport, Thai police said.

The blasts follow alleged plots in India and Georgia on Monday, and in Azerbaijan and Thailand last month, which Israel has blamed on Iran or its Lebanese militant ally, Hezbollah. Iran denied involvement in Monday's incidents and didn't comment on the Bangkok blasts.

The State Department on Tuesday moved closer than it has this year to pointing the finger at Iran. The attacks "serve as a reminder that a variety of states and nonstate actors continue to view international terrorism as a legitimate foreign policy tool, which we consider reprehensible," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

The accusations come as Iran faces growing international pressure. On Tuesday, senior European and American officials said the European Union was moving as early as this month to ban blacklisted Iranian entities from using a clearing system for international financial transactions, a move that would drastically cut Tehran's ability to access the global financial system.

Continue reading.

And at Telegraph UK, "Thailand finds Iran link between Bangkok and Delhi attacks."

Keith Olbermann and Markos Moulitsas Laugh Off Rape and Sexual Assault in Occupy Movement

Well the 'Hating Breitbart' documentary is on the way, CPAC fired up the right last weekend, and The Daily Caller launched its investigative series against Media Matters and the progressive totalitarians. I'm not sure if that explains it, but this last couple of days you might have noticed a bit of DEFCON conditions across the conservative 'sphere, etc. I'll have more on this later, but for now check Dana Loesch and the folks at Big Journalism. They're going after Olby and Kos for their repugnant denialism on Occupy's criminality and mayhem. See: "Al Gore, Keith Olbermann & Markos Moulitsas Must Retract, Apologize For Occupy Rape Cover-Up." There's an awful video at the link, which I don't care to embed.

And there's more at the tag: #OccupyWallStreet.

I'll be updating later on this. If major progs are going to deny the crimes of Occupy then there's really no lie too big for the left. But I'm not surprised. These are really bad people backing a really bad movement, and it's going to come back and reverberate to the top of the political system this season. I feel something really cooking on this, big time.

Check back...

'Sex at CPAC is Strongly Discouraged'

Look, you're surrounded by young women at CPAC, so it's not surprising that a lot of young conservative dudes would be looking to score, but by the looks of the buzz online yesterday, a backlash is brewing among those older and wiser. See Robert Stacy McCain, for example, "Cody’s Totally Excellent CPAC."

Robert links to Erick Erickson, "CPAC: Not Quite Like the Media Matters Communications Room. But Still, Grow Up" (at Memeorandum as well). And also to Melissa Clouthier, who pulls no punches, "CPAC: The Jersey Shore-ification of Our Young People":

Women, if you’re at a conference where you’re learning to be a future politician or wish to succeed in the business of politics, dress the part. No, you don’t have to be in a business suit with pearls. However, modesty is a minimum. So:

1. No cleavage. That’s right. Cover that up. I say “no” in absolutist terms because women will show a tiny bit and that’s okay, but really, in a business environment where ideas are the priority, a dude thinking about your ta-tas is counter-productive.

2. Skirts no more than three finger-widths above the knee. Why do I even have to write this? Well, because someone is allowing these girls out of the house with mini-skirts that reveal too much.

3. Save the stilettos for Saturday night on a date with your boyfriend.

4. Bend at the knee. No, I don’t want to see your butt.

Young women, you degrade your own value by dressing and then acting the ho.

I cannot even tell you how many girls have told me that all they want is to get married and have babies. They do not seem to make the connection that a young man is not interested in getting married and making babies with a girl who is so easy as to have a one-night stand over a CPAC weekend (or any other weekend.)

You know what a guy thinks when you slut-it-up? He thinks: If she’ll do that with me, she’ll do that with anyone.

This is not politically correct advice, mind you. Young ladies at college are encouraged to embrace their sexuality and flaunt it on the one hand (empowerment!) or to be tough, gruff and make-up free (man’s world!) to be taken seriously.

A successful woman can be tough and beautiful, modest and stylish, smart and sexy while still being chaste and having expectations of men.

The conservative movement means conservative values–promoting behavior that will lead to a sound society. Family is at the basis of this. Sexuality, and the self-management of it, is at the core of family.

A man who will use self-restraint, respect a woman, honor her enough to not pressure for sex–is a man who will more likely be faithful in marriage, work and life.

Likewise, a woman who sees herself as more than a sex-object and realizes she doesn’t need to be a man in order to be worthy, who carries herself with confidence and modesty, will attract men who want to get married and make babies.

I don't know, but I suspect that young people raised well by their parents already know this. My son for example is a young gentlemen who respects his girlfriends and hangs with a good crowd. But in four or five years, if he's out at a CPAC-like conference, I'm not going to blame him if he's looking for a good time --- and if that means notching a bedpost, well, you only live once. Frankly, young people are looking for action, and I'd be surprised if this notion of no hitting on hotties at CPAC finds a huge audience with the hip crowd. Indeed, I think I'm with Dan Riehl on the more on the libertarian side of things. Either way, have fun, be responsible and dress nice --- and most of all, keep a perspective on things. Sure the goal is marriage and family, but one doesn't have to detour to the monastery beforehand.

Websites Cater to 'Discreet' Encounters as Marital Infidelity Becomes the Norm

Folks might have been wondering about my new Blogad at the sidebar, the one that says, "Sex RARELY happens. When it Does, It's Beyond BORING! It's Time for a New Discreet Partner!"

I don't click through, but hovering over shows a link to the website called "Online Affairs." And you know, as much as I like the Rule 5 blogging, I have mixed feelings about these "discreet" dating services, which are basically hookups sites for online cheating.

Blogads can be pre-approved, so I'll update if I change my mind about these. Meanwhile, USA Today has a feature story on this advertising trend in today's paper. See, "Sites like Ashley Madison Cater to 'Discreet' Encounters, Cheating":

Husbands and wives take note: If Valentine's Day expectations aren't met, your mate might soon be looking elsewhere for a little romance and appreciation.

That may sound like a cautionary tale, but for Noel Biderman and others who have founded dating websites for married people, it's a lucrative business.

"The day after Valentine's Day is one of our biggest days of the year," says Biderman, founder and CEO of Ashley Madison, a 10-year-old site that unapologetically caters to "discreet" encounters for the married or otherwise attached. "People are disappointed by their spouses' lack of effort, and they feel especially undervalued when there is a societal expectation of romance. Certain days of the year act as litmus tests for many people in relationships."

Websites designed to facilitate cheating appear to be thriving; some earn tens of millions of dollars a year, and competition is growing. In addition to Toronto-based Ashley Madison, there's a growing crop of copycats that equate affairs with romance, passion and adventure.

Whether these sites promote cheating or just facilitate it is up for debate.

"People are going to cheat regardless of whether Ashley Madison is there or not," says sociologist Diane Kholos Wysocki of the University of Nebraska-Kearney, who has surveyed the site's members for her latest research. "There's a bigger social issue going on — people aren't taking care of their marriages.

"It's not so much that they're going to these cheating websites because the sex is greater or the person is more beautiful. It's because the person is giving them attention they're not getting at home."

Continue reading.

Maybe I'll post a disclaimer for the Blogads, like Betsy Newmark, "Betsy neither necessarily uses nor endorses the products advertised on this site."

Kate Upton Uses the Web to Become a Superstar Model

This is front-page news at the New York Times, "Model Struts Path to Stardom Not on Runway, but on YouTube":

There was a time, not long ago, when the surest path to modeling stardom was down the runway of a top designer’s show, when it would have been unthinkable to find among the industry’s top ranks a swimsuit girl whose main claims to fame were ad campaigns for Guess jeans and Beach Bunny Swimwear.

But that was before social media altered the paths to fame.

Unlike the many little-known beauties now on view at New York Fashion Week — women seldom identified by more than one name (Agata, Hanaa, Frida, Joan) — Kate Upton, just 19 and resembling a 1950s pinup, but with the legs of a W.N.B.A. point guard, has arrived on the scene as a largely self-created Internet phenomenon.

It is not just that she has a respectable Twitter following (170,000 people at last count), or a YouTube video with over 3 million viewers, or marketing potential perhaps best measured by her rocketing from obscurity to No. 2 on a list of the world’s 99 “top” women compiled by AskMen.com, an online magazine with 15 million readers. (Sofia Vergara, of the ABC sitcom “Modern Family,” is No. 1.)

Less than a year after Ms. Upton, curvaceous and rambunctious, posted a video of herself at a Los Angeles Clippers game doing the Dougie, a dance popularized in a hip-hop tune by Cali Swag District, she finds herself in one of the most coveted positions in the modeling business.

Joining an elite club of modeling powerhouses — brand names like Cheryl Tiegs, Tyra Banks and Heidi Klum — Ms. Upton was announced Monday night on David Letterman’s show as the latest cover girl for Sports Illustrated’s annual swimsuit issue, the circulation and advertising behemoth that has long been equally the dream book of adolescent males and the bane of feminists.

And leftists generally, who have attacked this blog ferociously not the least because of all the Rule 5.

But continue reading at the link.

PREVIOUSLY: "Kate Upton 2012 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition Cover."

And Sports Illustrated has now posted the 2012 edition, at the link.

Obama Approval Picks Up in Latest New York Times Poll

Obama will be reelected if he keeps benefiting from improved perceptions on the economy, as shown at the latest poll at the New York Times. See: "Economic Growth Gives Lift to Obama in NYT/CBS Poll." The only thing worrisome for the Democrats is that respondents continue to give the president low marks on handling of the economy --- 50 percent disapproved of the president on that measure, compared to 44 percent approval --- and respondents are also unhappy about Obama's handling of the budget. But the trend line is positive for the administration, and the president will continue to benefit until the GOP decides on a nominee. At that time Republicans can train their sites on the White House and attack the administration's economic record with both barrels.

Lots more polling data and reporting at Memeorandum.

It's going to be an extremely hard-fought campaign. I'm excited for the primaries to wrap up.

Obama Seeks New Taxes on Rich

At Wall Street Journal, "Budget Would Raise Levies on Some Dividends; GOP Dismisses 'Campaign Document'":

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama called on Congress Monday to enact new taxes on the wealthy, restructure the tax code and approve short-term spending measures as part of an election-year budget plan aimed at boosting job growth and helping the middle class.

Mr. Obama's $3.8 trillion budget for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 was quickly dismissed by congressional Republicans and GOP presidential candidates as a political document that fails to seriously tackle the nation's growing debt.

The proposal "isn't really a budget at all; it's a campaign document," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said. "Once again, the president is shirking his responsibility to lead and using this budget to divide."

The budget underscores the White House's bet that it can convince voters in November that increased spending in the short term is needed to jolt the economy before steps are taken to shrink the federal deficit in the long term. "At a time when our economy is growing and creating jobs at a faster clip, we've got to do everything in our power to keep this recovery on track," Mr. Obama said at a community college in northern Virginia.

The budget projects the deficit will exceed $1 trillion in 2012 for the fourth straight year, meaning Mr. Obama won't meet his promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.

Mr. Obama proposed generating $1.7 trillion in new revenue over 10 years largely by ending Bush-era tax cuts for families who earn more than $250,000, restoring the estate tax to its 2009 level and limiting subsidies for oil and gas companies.

He also for the first time proposed raising the tax rate households making more than $250,000 a year pay on dividends, from 15% to as much as 39.6%. The White House said the measure would generate $206 billion in revenue over 10 years.

Continue reading.

And see WSJ's editorial, "The Amazing Obama Budget."

'Uncommon Knowledge': Jonah Goldberg

The Peter Robinson interview series moves to PJTV, and first up at the new home, Jonah Goldberg:

And Goldberg's new book will be out on May 1st, The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas.

Obama Doubles Down on Class Warfare

Well, this is what I was talking about the other day.

From James Pethokoukis, "Obama’s ‘rosy’ budget scenario doubles down on class warfare":

Here’s pretty much all you need to know about Obamanomics: In 2011, the Obama White House suggested raising the top dividend tax rate to 20 percent from 15 percent. Keeping the dividend rate at a relatively low level, the White House said, “reduces the tax bias against equity investment and promotes a more efficient allocation of capital.” Makes sense, right? Basic economics.

Yet in his brand-new, 2013 budget, Obama calls for taxing dividends as ordinary income, essentially raising the top rate all the way to 39.6 percent. And then when you tack on the 3.8 percentage point Obamacare surtax — and an additional 1.2 percentage point itemized deduction phase-out for high-end taxpayers — the rate rises to 44.6 percent.

So apparently Obama is now in favor of a greater bias against equity investment (and in favor of debt) and promoting less efficient allocation of capital. And this helps create an economy “built to last” in some way?

Of course, it doesn’t. Not at all. More like “built to fail.” Then again, Obama’s new budget isn’t about economic growth or cutting debt or creating a “built to last” economy. The Obama campaign is built around the idea of reducing inequality. So in his budget, Obama takes the populist whip to the wealthy and to business ...

Continue reading.

Americans Significantly More Likely to Identify as Conservative Than Liberal

To hear it from progressives, you'd think it was the other way around --- or at least, that's the way some progs make it out to be.

See the cool graphics and discussion from Richard Florida, at The Atlantic, "Why America Keeps Getting More Conservative."

What's Capitalism?

This is Professor Gary Chartier, who's described as a "left-wing market anarchist" --- which sounds quite similar to (yet perhaps more authentic than) James B. Webb, who claims to be a "libertarian socialist."

Greenpeace Tar Sands Propaganda Video Features Registered Sex Offender George John Bolenbaugh III

Great work by Small Dead Animals, "Support Greenpeace. For the Children."

The Greenpeace blog post has been taken down, but SDA saved the video just in case:

HAT TIP: Five Feet of Fury.

Conservatives Suck!

Well, yeah, we suck, as explained by Bill Whittle. The thing is, progressives suck even more:

L.A. Times: Whitney Houston Was Found Submerged in Bathtub

Well, TMZ and the other celebrity outlets were reporting this over the weekend, but the Times had to hold off until official confirmation --- for credibility's sake, and all that.

See: "Houston found underwater in hotel bathtub, authorities say."

And now that I mention it, here's TMZ, "WHITNEY HOUSTON: Few Pills Recovered at Death Scene," and "WHITNEY HOUSTON'S FINAL MEAL: Rx and Alcohol."

Kate Upton 2012 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition Cover

It's out.

See London's Daily Mail, "REVEALED: Kate Upton is the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover girl for 2012."

The Sports Illustrated swimsuit page is here, and no 2012 pics just yet.

More later...

Santorum Support Surges Among Tea Party Republicans and White Evangelicals

At Pew Research, "Santorum Catches Romney in GOP Race" (via Memeorandum):

Rick Santorum’s support among Tea Party Republicans and white evangelicals is surging, and he now has pulled into a virtual tie with Mitt Romney in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. In polling conducted Feb. 8-12, 30% of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters favor Santorum while 28% favor Romney. As recently as a month ago, Romney held a 31% to 14% advantage over Santorum among all GOP voters.

Santorum is now the clear favorite of Republican and GOP-leaning voters who agree with the Tea Party, as well as white evangelical Republicans. Currently, 42% of Tea Party Republican voters favor Santorum, compared with just 23% who back Romney. Santorum holds an almost identical advantage among white evangelical Republican voters (41% to 23%).

More at the link.

The bad news is that neither Santorum nor Romney best President Obama in head-to-head match-ups. That will of course tighten once the GOP nominee is known, but it's clear that the president is benefiting from perceptions of improved economic conditions and there's little indication that social issues are dragging down Obama's numbers. Indeed, the most troubling findings here for Republicans are increasing negative perceptions of Mitt Romney in the GOP electorate. A majority says that Romney is not conservative (51 percent) and he flip-flops on the issues (53 percent). If the consensus remains that Romney is most likely to win the nomination, then the former Massachusetts Governor will face strong headwinds with the base leading up to the fall campaign. Frankly, at this point Santorum's way more likely to energize GOP voters. He's way more authentic and he's not burdened near the degree that Romney is when it comes to the campaign's big issues, especially health care.

See also Hot Air, "Crumble: Santorum passes Romney nationally in Pew, within two points in Gallup."

And note that Santorum's also ahead in Michigan, according to Public Policy Polling. The primary's scheduled for February 28th, so Romney's got some time to shore up his position, but a loss there will be devastating --- Michigan is home turf for Romney. His dad was the state's governor in the 1960s and he won the Michigan primary in the 2008 campaign against John McCain.

It's going to be an interesting couple of weeks until then, that's for sure

'Bistro' Anti-Semitism

Ben Cohen, at Commentary, offers the notion of 'bistro' anti-Semitism to explain a new "civilized" version of anti-Jewish hatred, a version particularly sinister in how it turns outrage against attacks on the Jews into a form a bigotry itself.

See Cohen's essay, "The Big Lie Returns":

Anti-Semitism’s newfound respectability is not unprecedented. Indeed, the fact that anti-Semites have been given power over the definition of anti-Semitism reflects the very origins of the term. Coined in late 19-century Germany, anti-Semitism was not intended as a descriptor for a troubling social trend—like racism, or the more recent Islamophobia—but as the positive organizing principle of an emancipatory political movement.

While the Jews and their allies regard anti-Semites as propelled by hatred, anti-Semites regard themselves as a fraternity bound by a message of universalist love. “This book is above all a book for friends, a book that is written for those who love us,” wrote Edouard Drumont, one of the founders of France’s Ligue Antisemitique, and an especially shrill voice behind the false allegations of treason against Alfred Dreyfus, in his Le Testament d’un Antisemite. Atzmon expresses himself with similar pretensions: “When you talk about humanity, you talk about a universal system of values promoting love for one another.” Rather than being anti-moral, the moral sensibility of anti-Semitism resides in its presentation of the Jews (or “Jewishness” or “Judaism”) as the barrier to a society founded upon love. What seems at first glance to be a material battle is really a spiritual one.

With this understanding, we can better appreciate a rare modification in the nature of anti-Semitism in our own time. I say rare, because, as a framework for interpreting the world, anti-Semitism resists innovation. Charles Maurras, another French anti-Semite, took great delight in hawking a worldview that “enables everything to be arranged, smoothed over, and simplified.”

The modification rests upon a distinction between what I call bierkeller and bistro anti-Semitism. Bierkeller anti-Semitism—named for the beer halls frequented by the German Nazis—employs such means as violence, verbal abuse, commercial harassment, and advocacy of anti-Jewish legal measures. Certainly, the first and second generations of modern anti-Semitic publicists and intellectuals had no qualms about this sort of thuggery. Since the Second World War, though, this mode of anti-Semitism has waned sharply, along with the tendency to use the word anti-Semite as a positive means of political identification.

Bistro anti-Semitism, on the other hand, sits in a higher and outwardly more civilized realm, providing what left-wing activists would call a “safe space” to critically assess the global impact of Jewish cabals from Washington, D.C., to Jerusalem. Anyone who enters the bistro will encounter common themes. These include the depiction of Palestinians as the victims of a second Holocaust, the breaking of the silence supposedly imposed upon honest discussions of Jewish political and economic power, and the contention—offered by, among others, Mearsheimer’s co-author, Stephen Walt, of Harvard—that American Jewish government officials are more suspect than others because of a potential second loyalty to Israel.

To this list we can now add the assault upon what Atzmon calls the “Holocaust narrative.” This type of revisionism doesn’t deny that the Nazis killed Jews, but it redistributes a good deal of the blame among the victims. Additionally, it disputes the conclusion of mainstream Holocaust historians that total elimination was the goal of the Third Reich’s Jewish policy.

RTWT at the link.

Occupy Prepares for New Phase of Mayhem

At New York Times, "Occupy Movement Regroups, Laying Plans for the Next Phase":

The ragtag Occupy Wall Street encampments that sprang up in scores of cities last fall, thrusting “We are the 99 percent” into the vernacular, have largely been dismantled, with a new wave of crackdowns and evictions in the past week. Since the violent clashes last month in Oakland, Calif., headlines about Occupy have dwindled, too.

Far from dissipating, groups around the country say they are preparing for a new phase of larger marches and strikes this spring that they hope will rebuild momentum and cast an even brighter glare on inequality and corporate greed. But this transition is filled with potential pitfalls and uncertainties: without the visible camps or clear goals, can Occupy become a lasting force for change? Will disruptive protests do more to galvanize or alienate the public?

Though still loosely organized, the movement is putting down roots in many cities. Activists in Chicago and Des Moines have rented offices, a significant change for groups accustomed to holding open-air assemblies or huddling in tents in bad weather.

On any night in New York City, which remains a hub of the movement, a dozen working groups on issues like “food justice” and “arts and culture” meet in a Wall Street atrium, and “general assemblies” have formed in 14 neighborhoods. Around the country, small demonstrations — often focused on banks and ending foreclosure evictions — take place almost daily.

If the movement has not produced public leaders, some visible faces have emerged.

“I’m finally going to make it to the dentist next week,” said Dorli Rainey, a Seattle activist. “I’ve had to cancel so many times. It’s overwhelming.”

Ms. Rainey, who is 85 and was pepper-sprayed by the police in November, has been fully booked for months. On a recent Thursday, she joined 10 people in Olympia, Wash., who were supporting a State Senate resolution to remove American soldiers from Afghanistan. She led a rally near Pike Place Market against steam incinerators, which the protesters complain release pollution in the downtown area. In March, she plans to join Occupy leaders in Washington for events that are still being planned.

“People have different goals,” Ms. Rainey said. “Mine is, we’ve got to build a movement that will replace the type of government we have now.”

Well, there you go: "replace the type of government we have now."

See: "Occupy Wall Street: The Communist Movement Reborn."

And more at Weasel Zippers, "Occupy Oakland Burns The American Flag For The Third Week In A Row…" (via Memeorandum).

Greeks Protest Austerity Measures, Clash With Police

At Telegraph UK, "Greece passes crucial bailout vote as country burns."

Also at London's Daily Mail, "Athens ablaze as Greece votes in favour of £110bn bailout: Rioters attack police and set ten buildings on fire in protest at cuts."

Do You Speak Conservative?

From Mona Charen, at Townhall.

Just go read that whole thing --- it's a great piece.

And Dan Riehl offers a perceptive analysis of Mitt Romney. You really do have to think ideologically, and Romney doesn't demonstrate it. See: "Romney's Blood Is Blue, Not Conservative."

Daniel Hannan Speech CPAC 2012

Via Pundette: