French President Nicolas Sarkozy Says the Syrian Regime 'Must Go'

Sarkozy is quoted at the New York Times report on the journalists' deaths in Homs, "Two Western Journalists Killed in Syria Shelling":

CAIRO — Syrian security forces shelled the central city of Homs on Wednesday, the 19th day of a bombardment that activists say has claimed the lives of hundreds of trapped civilians in one of the deadliest campaigns in nearly a year of violent repression by the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Among the 20 people that activist groups reported killed, two were Western journalists, the veteran American war correspondent Marie Colvin, who had been working for The Sunday Times of London, and a young French photographer, Rémi Ochlik. The two had been working in a makeshift media center that was destroyed in the assault, raising suspicions that Syrian security forces might have identified its location by tracing satellite signals. Experts say that such tracking is possible with sophisticated equipment.

Activists, civilian journalists and foreign correspondents who have snuck into Syria have infuriated the authorities and foiled the government’s efforts to control the coverage of clashes, which have claimed thousands of Syrian lives in the last year and which Mr. Assad portrays as caused by an armed insurgency.

Quoting a witness reached from neighboring Jordan, Reuters said the two journalists died after shells hit the house in which they were staying and a rocket hit them when they were trying to escape....

Last week, Anthony Shadid, a correspondent for The New York Times, died of an apparent asthma attack in Syria on Thursday after spending nearly a week reporting covertly in the northern area of Idlib, near the Turkish border.

Another activist group said that 27 young men had been killed the day before in that area. Reuters cited a statement from the Syrian Network for Human Rights as saying that most of the men, who were civilians, had been shot in the head or chest on Tuesday in several villages: Idita, Iblin and Balshon in Idlib province near the border with Turkey.

“Military forces chased civilians in these villages, arrested them and killed them without hesitation,” Reuters quoted the organization said in a statement. “They concentrated on male youths and whoever did not manage to escape was to be killed.”

Overall, the United Nations stopped tallying the death toll in the 11-month uprising after it passed 5,400 in January, because it could no longer verify the numbers. Efforts by the Arab League and United Nations to stem the violence have so far had little traction, with Syria’s remaining allies — China, Iran and Russia — continuing to stand by it.

But the latest deaths of journalists, on top of the agonizing civilian toll, focused a new wave of international revulsion and anger on Mr. Assad and the Syria government. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said the killings showed that “enough is enough, this regime must go. There is no reason why Syrians should not have the right to live their lives, to freely choose their destiny.”

Hey, how about regime change in Syria? I've mentioned it a few times now. It would be extremely messy, and there's obviously no international consensus for it. But if Obama can back the toppling of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya he should at least make the case for the same against Bashar al-Assad in Syria. I'd love to hear it.

See my earlier report: "Military Intervention in Syria."

Why the Left Can't Handle the Truth About Social Conservatism

Another great piece, from James Taranto, at Wall Street Journal, "Mystification and Triumphalism" (via Memeorandum).

I can't quote a key takeaway so just RTWT.

I can say that this whole debate on social conservativism is extremely refreshing and --- and this is something I'll need to flesh out more --- extremely damaging to the progressive left.

The Left's Double Standard on Social Issues

It's all double standards with progressives, but it needs pointing out here and again.

 A great piece, from William McGurn, at Wall Street Journal, "Sex, Lies and Rick Santorum":

When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he declared that marriage is between a man and a woman. For the most part, his position was treated as a nonissue.

Now Rick Santorum is campaigning for president. He too says that marriage is between a man and a woman. What a different reaction he gets.

There's no mystery why. Mr. Santorum is attacked because everyone understands that he means what he says.

President Obama, by contrast, gets a pass because everyone understands—nudge nudge, wink wink—that he's not telling the truth. The press understands that this is just one of those things a Democratic candidate has to say so he doesn't rile up the great unwashed.

It's arguably the most glaring double standard in American life today. It helps explain why candidates with social views that are fairly conventional among ordinary Americans—the citizens of 31 states including California have rejected same-sex marriage when put to a vote—find themselves depicted as extreme. It also speaks to why even some who share Mr. Santorum's social views nonetheless fear that his outspokenness on these issues will only undermine his candidacy.

That has led some folks to suggest that Mr. Santorum simply drop these issues altogether. Their hope is that by concentrating his energies solely on Mr. Obama's management of the economy and foreign affairs, Mr. Santorum might avoid dividing his party and America. However reasonable the argument may be on paper, it is simply not practical.

It's not practical...

More at that top link.

And at Riehl World View, "These Faith-Based Attacks On Santorum Are Repulsive and Un-American."

BONUS: At The Other McCain, "Memo From the National Affairs Desk: Meanwhile, Back on the Campaign Trail …"

President's Stimulus Turns Three: Long-Term Unemployment Up 83%; National Debt up 42%

At IBD, "Obama Stimulus Turns Three: What Has It Achieved?":

Without any fanfare whatsoever from the White House, February 17 marks the three-year anniversary of the day President Obama signed the much ballyhooed stimulus into law.

At the time, Obama claimed that it would "create or save" up to 3.5 million jobs, and that "a new wave of innovation, activity and construction will be unleashed across America." The stimulus, would, he promised "ignite spending by businesses and consumers" and bring "real and lasting change for generations to come."

So three years later, how do the stimulus results stack up? Here's where various indicators stood in or around February 2009, and where they stand today... 

Keep reading.

Michael Coren Gets More Death Threats

Via Blazing Cat Fur:

Supreme Court to Hear Affirmative Action Case in University Admissions

This is awesome.

At WSJ, "Justices to Revisit Race Issue: University of Texas Admissions Policy to Be Tested Before Reshaped High Court":

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to revisit affirmative action in state-college admissions, suggesting a 2003 ruling that narrowly permitted race-conscious policies in public higher education may face tough scrutiny from today's more conservative court.

The case, which comes from the University of Texas at Austin, joins a docket already crowded with major issues, most prominently President Barack Obama's 2010 health-care overhaul, whose constitutionality will be argued next month....

The University of Texas said it based its admissions policy on the 2003 precedent, Grutter v. Bollinger. In that case, involving the University of Michigan Law School, the court by a 5-4 vote held for the first time that racial diversity in higher education qualified as a compelling governmental interest. Such a state interest is essential when a government classifies individuals by race.

The UT policy includes consideration of race as part of a "holistic" evaluation of applicants who didn't qualify for admission through either superior academic performance or a plan that grants admission to the top 10% of graduates from each Texas high school. The policy was challenged by lead plaintiff Abigail Fisher, who was denied admission to the university after applying in 2008.

RTWT.

Adele Sex Tape?

Well, it's a fake.

At Telegraph UK, "Adele takes legal action over false sex tape":

Adele, the award winning singer, has fallen victim to an attempted smear after a French paparazzo released a sex tape falsely alleging that she was its star.

The 23-year-old immediately made clear that she had not appeared in the tape and instructed top law firm Schillings to take legal action.

The claims were described as “untrue and grossly defamatory”. A spokesman for Adele said it was "100 per cent false".
The hoax tape was alleged to have been made by the singer’s former boyfriend who inspired some of her most successful songs.
At her 18th birthday party she told him she was falling in love with him. But four hours later he is said to have left her for one of her gay male friends.

Adele has never disclosed the man’s identity but did reveal that he had tried to claim a share of the songwriting royalties on the grounds that he had inspired the lyrics.

Continue reading.

Republican Candidates Battle as Arizona and Michigan Races Tighten

At New York Times, "In Tightening Race, Top G.O.P. Candidates Race to Capture 2 Battleground States":

In the brilliant sunshine of Arizona, Rick Santorum aggressively challenged Mitt Romney in a state where the Tea Party is strong and the politics of immigration are poised to take center stage at a debate on Wednesday night.

And in the gritty cold of Michigan, the advertising air war intensified, as Mr. Romney increasingly faced questions about his conservative credentials from voters in his home state, a place of grim economic news and plenty of cultural conservatives.

Together, the two states — separated by about 1,700 miles — are the immediate battlegrounds for a Republican presidential contest that appears to be tightening drastically in the week before voters go to the polls to award the biggest single-day cache of delegates since the race began.

Mr. Santorum held two events in Arizona on Tuesday as he sought to seize on anecdotal and polling evidence that Mr. Romney’s large lead in the state may be quickly evaporating.

Speaking to about 500 people at the Maricopa County Lincoln Day luncheon, Mr. Santorum tipped his hat to the Tea Party movement, many of whose members had packed into the large Shriners’ hall to hear him speak.

“We need to take everything from food stamps to Medicaid to housing programs to education training programs,” he said. “We need to cut ’em, cap ’em, freeze ’em, send ’em to the states and say that there has to be a time limit and a work requirement,” he said, the rest of his words drowned out by thunderous applause.

Mr. Santorum is scheduled to address Tea Party activists near Tucson on Wednesday.

More at that top link.

Extreme C-17

My buddy at Boeing sent this:

PREVIOUSLY: "Long Beach Boeing C-17 Tour."

USA Today/Gallup Poll: Republican Voters Oppose a 'Brokered' Convention

Actually, a brokered convention would be exciting, since you just don't see that kind of thing nowadays. And personally, I'm not all that unhappy with the GOP field. If it's Romney it's Romney. He's a good man and could make an excellent president. We'll see if he can get his mojo back, or if Rick Santorum becomes the prohibitive favorite after this next round of primaries. Either way, GOP voters don't like the prospects of taking it to Tampa, as USA Today reports (via Memeorandum):

WASHINGTON – While most Republicans wish they had different choices in the party's presidential field, a nationwide USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds overwhelming resistance to the idea of an old-styled brokered convention that would pick some new contender as the nominee.

By 66%-29%, the Republicans and Republican-leaning independents surveyed say it would be better if one of the four candidates now running managed to secure enough delegates to clinch the nomination. Most are happy to see their roller-coaster campaign continue: 57% say the battle isn't hurting the party.

Meanwhile, President Obama's standing against two potential Republican rivals has ebbed a bit. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney leads the president 50%-46% among registered voters, Romney's strongest showing against him to date. Obama edges former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum by a single percentage point, 49%-48%.

The poll, taken Thursday through Sunday, illustrates the battle between head-and-heart for many GOP voters...

Read it all at the link.

The Left Fuels Santorum Surge

An outstanding essay, from Star Parker, at Townhall:

A succession of high profile left wing decisions and initiatives of recent weeks drive home the extent to which the left is changing the face of America.

Notable among these are the decision of a federal appeals court in California to uphold a prior court decision finding California’s Proposition 8, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, unconstitutional; the reversal of a decision, due to a tsunami of left wing pressure, of the Susan G. Komen Foundation to withdraw its funding to Planned Parenthood; and the Obama administration rulemaking refusing to grant a religious exemption from the new health care law employer mandate requiring provision of free contraception and sterilization services as part of health coverage.

These developments are, I think, helping to buoy the newly surging candidacy of former Republican Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum.

Why?

Santorum stands out in the current Republican field in the clarity of his image and identity. There is little doubt about who the man is and there are no glaring inconsistencies between who he says he is today and his past behavior and positions.

Even Ron Paul, who is closest to Santorum in consistency and clarity of image, carries the baggage of the sickening racist and anti-Semitic newsletters that once carried his name.

So the issue with Santorum is whether you buy what he is selling. Not whether you have to worry that there are different Santorums hiding in the closet waiting to emerge when political calculations might seem to justify their appearance.

And candidate Rick Santorum is squeaky clean conservative.

There is no pretense that so-called social issues are a world apart from economic issues.

And there is no inclination to insert social issues as a footnote to please religious conservatives while just talking about the economy because this is the main thing on everyone’s mind.

While the Republican Party splits on whether “values” should stand front and center in its platform, Democrats and the left make no pretense about this.

The political left, led today by President Obama, is defined and energized by an ongoing sense of mission to wage a cultural war in America.

And the left is determined to win this war.

Whoa, sing it sister!

More at the link.

Why I Can't Talk to Liberals

I don't even call them "liberals," of course.

They're radical progressive bobbleheads and simply bad people with bad intent.

But see Charlotte Allen, "Debating a liberal is maddening: They think conservatives are evil, while we think they're silly":

A few years ago Ann Coulter published a book titled "How to Talk to Liberal (If You Must)." With all due respect, Coulter, one of my favorite conservative eye-pokers, was wrong. There is no "how" in talking to a liberal. You can't talk to a liberal, period.

Believe me, I've tried. I've got a liberal mother, four liberal siblings and their assorted liberal offspring, and a horde of liberal friends (I went to college and grad school). Whenever I advance to them even the mildest of challenges to liberal orthodoxies, on topics ranging from the welfare state to illegal immigration to abortion, I'm greeted with name-calling, obscenities, shout-overs and, finally, the grave-like silence of ostracism.

The problem is this: We conservatives think liberals are silly; they think we're evil. Tell a liberal that you hope President Obama will be defeated in the upcoming election, and you'll be branded a racist. Voice your opposition to same-sex marriage, and you're a homophobe. Express outrage at the idea of building a mosque on the spot where one of the planes' fuselages fell in the 9/11massacre, and you're an Islamophobe. If you support the tea party, or Rick Santorum for president, or defunding Planned Parenthood, or setting up credible border enforcement, you could be all of the above plus more: anti-woman, anti-poor-people, anti-tolerance and a "fascist" to boot.

Liberals go on and on about the "Manichaeism" of conservatives: how quick we supposedly are to divide a morally gray world into black and white. But nothing beats the Manichaeism of liberals: Their causes are holy, and ours deserve a bucketful of scatology on Daily Kos.

Here are some characteristics of liberals that make it impossible to carry on a civilized debate with them...

Continue reading.

Actually, I don't think "liberals" are silly --- I think they're dangerous, and they escalate from attacking you as racist to attempting to destroy you and everything you stand for. That's why the election in November is so important. We've got to get these freaks out of office. And FWIW, while her views come as no surprise, Diana Wagman has the companion piece to Allen's, "We are not the same. I equate Republicans' political views with thoughtlessness, intolerance and narcissism. They're neither kind nor empathetic."

Understanding the Real Unemployment Rate

At Maggie's Notebook, "Unemployment Rate: Grossly Distorted – How It's Done."

Lying Your Way Into Office: How Bob Casey Beat Rick Santorum in 2006

An awesome post from Doug Ross at Director Blue, "Let's Go Back to the Replay: How Bob Casey Beat Rick Santorum in 2006."

Occupy Cleveland Rape Report Proves Olbermann Wrong

Well, the progs will find a way to deny the legitimacy of the police report, but Dana Loesch et al. have the goods here.

See: "EXCLUSIVE: Big Journalism Uncovers Police Report From Occupy Cleveland Rape Proving Olbermann Wrong."

And see Jenn Taylor, "Olbermann Defends Convicted Rapist’s Right to Occupy 14-Year-Old Girl: Worst Person in the World."

BONUS: At Bloviating Zeppelin, "Contrast & Compare: OWS v TEA Party."

Avalanches, and Danger Warnings, on the Rise for Thrill-Seeking Skiers

Avalanches are extremely fascinating, but deadly as hell, so be careful out there.

At New York Times, "Avalanches on the Rise for Thrill-Seeking Skiers":

ASPEN, Colo. — The deaths of four people in two avalanches Sunday in the Cascade Mountains northeast of Seattle are the latest examples of what can happen when backcountry skiing, powered by the predictable human urge for thrill, meets the more capricious nature of high-country snow. Though textbook conditions for avalanches have had forecasters throughout the Mountain West ramping up warnings for backcountry travelers, close calls and fatal accidents continue to mount.

So far, 17 skiers, snowboarders and snowmobilers have been killed with more than two months remaining in one of the most avalanche-prone seasons in memory. And although that number projects only marginally higher than the national average of 28.8 deaths a year over the last decade, and perhaps closer to the 36 in 2009-10, increasingly those who put themselves in harm’s way seem not to be careless novices, but rather, experts pushing the limits of safety.

Among the victims in Washington was Jim Jack, the longtime head judge of the Freeskiing World Tour, who was killed along with two other experienced backcountry skiers near the Steven’s Pass ski area. Their party of 13, all of whom were buried in snow to some degree, included professional skiers and ski journalists.

“It’s mostly the hardcore riders, people who know better,” Bruce Tremper, director of the Forest Service Utah Avalanche Center, said recently of the emerging trend of experts testing their skills against the backcountry, no matter the conditions. “In the past, we felt once you’re in the hardcore category, you’re more low risk for us. But now with the films and the videos, everybody is pushing it to the extreme.”

Read it all.

Republican Jewish Coalition Slams Obama Administration Cuts to U.S.-Israel Missile Defense

Via Weekly Standard, "The Republican Jewish Coalition's latest web ad":

Mainstream Media (MFM) Attacking Rick Santorum for 'Controversial' Comments

This is why folks don't like reading the "lamestream" press. Non-controversial comments by a conservative candidate become "controversial' when the Democrat-Media-Complex fires up the attack machinery.

See New York Times, "Santorum Defends Remarks on Obama and Government’s Role in Education."

KSLA News in Shreveport claims Santorum's comparing Obama to Hitler, "Santorum’s controversial comments meet criticism," via the radical extremist blog Crooks and Liars, "Santorum Uses Hitler Analogy to Describe Obama."

And here's CNN, "Santorum denies Hitler-Obama comparison" (via Memeorandum):

Rick Santorum on Monday denied he was comparing President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler while using a World War II analogy the previous day.

During a speech at a Georgia church on Sunday, Santorum paralleled the election to America's slow response to the swelling Nazi presence during the late 1930s. He urged his audience to get involved and not sit on the sidelines like "the greatest generation" did for a year and a half while "Europe was under darkness."

 The former Pennsylvania senator described Americans as a "hopeful people," easily susceptible to ignoring a growing problem.

"We think, well, you know, it'll get better. Yeah, he's a nice guy. I mean, it won't be near as bad as what we think. This will be okay. I mean, yeah, maybe he's not the best guy after a while. After a while you find out some things about this guy over in Europe who's not so good of a guy after all, but ya know what, why do we need to be involved? We'll just take care of our own problems," he said.

Asked Monday if he was likening the president to Hitler, he responded, "No, of course not."

He added: "It's a War World II metaphor. It's one I've used a hundred times."

Exactly.

A metaphor.

But progressives see something mentioning WWII and it's "OMG, they're attacking Obama as Hitler!"

ObamaCare Damaging Medical Device Manufacturers

At Michelle's, "Taxing medical progress to death."

Two years ago this month, as public debate over Obamacare raged, former President Bill Clinton rushed to the hospital because of a heart condition. He immediately underwent a procedure to place two stents in one of his coronary arteries. It was a timely reminder about the dangers of stifling private-sector medical innovation. No one listened.

Stents don’t grow on trees. They were not created, developed, marketed or sold by government bureaucrats and lawmakers. One of the nation’s top stent manufacturers, Boston Scientific, warned at the time that Obamacare’s punitive medical device tax would lead to worker losses and research cuts. The 2.3 percent excise tax, the company said, “would be very damaging to Boston Scientific, and the medical device industry as a whole. In a nutshell, it would raise costs and lead to significant job losses. It does not address the quality of care but the political scorecard of savings.”

Two years later, Bill Clinton’s doing just peachy. But many medical device manufacturers are suffering, and many more are preparing for the worst as the White House gears up to collect on an estimated $20 billion from the lifesaving industry. In typical Obama-transparent fashion, the Internal Revenue Service quietly released a complex thicket of medical device tax implementation rules in a Friday document dump earlier this month. Barring congressional intervention, the medical device tax will go into full effect in 2013.

Continue reading.

And flashback to 2010, at IBD, "20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms."

Poland Leads Wave of Communist-Era Reckoning in Europe

This is fascinating.

At New York Times, "Europe Reckons With Its Legacy of Communism":

WARSAW — For all that Poland has accomplished since the fall of the Iron Curtain, it has long resisted fully coming to terms with its Communist past — the oppression, the spying, even the massacres. Society preferred to forget, to move on.

So it may come as a surprise that Poland and many of its neighbors in Central and Eastern Europe have decided the time is right to deal with the unfinished business. Suddenly there is a wave of accounting in the form of government actions and cultural explorations, some seeking closure, others payback.

A court in Poland last month found that the Communist leaders behind the imposition of martial law in December 1981 were part of a “criminal group.” Bulgaria’s president is trying to purge ambassadors who served as security agents. The Macedonian government is busy hunting for collaborators, and Hungary’s new Constitution allows legal action against former Communists.

On Sunday in Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel nominated as the next president a former pastor and East German activist, Joachim Gauck, who turned the files of the Ministry for State Security — better known as the Stasi — into a permanent archive.

“In order to defend ourselves in the future against other totalitarian regimes, we have to understand how they worked in the past, like a vaccine,” said Lukasz Kaminski, the president of Poland’s Institute of National Remembrance. Across Central and Eastern Europe, a consensus of silence appears to have ended, one that never muted all criticism and discussion but did muffle voices crying out for a long-awaited reckoning.

Continue reading.

Sarah Palin Releases Video to Celebrate Presidents' Day

Via Governor Palin on Twitter:

Powerful Presidents' Day Video from Knights of Columbus

Via Theo Spark:

Scenes From the CPAC Soap Opera, and Notes for Conference Attendees in Future Years

Here's yet another topic I'd been hoping to blog about during the last week but didn't find the time.

From what I've been reading among CPAC attendees, this year's event was decidedly more raucous than years past, either that, or some of the more veteran bloggers on the scene are feeling pushed out and over the hill, forced to issue cultural fatwas against the hip crowd of younger participants, many of whom were apparently looking for a good time beyond the conference panels on politics and new media. This morning's lengthy essay by Robert Stacy McCain is perhaps a symptom of that, although few people are quite so skillful in expressing the angst: "Notes on an Unfinished Letter of Apology (Or, Does Ed Morrissey Torture Cats?)." (Via Memeorandum.)

That's a term paper-length discussion, but linked there are some of the earlier commentaries that I'd hoped to write about previously. Of special importance is Robert's own piece from last weekend, responding to the reportedly scandalous social mores and reality-series behavior on display among the young hotties prowling around the place. See: "Who Wants to See Tina Korbe’s Thighs?"

That's Tina Korbe at the video above, along with Ed Morrissey she is interviewing Rick Santorum. I've never met Ms. Korbe, but I've tweeted a few things to her and have yet to get a tweet back in response. Sometime last year she became the third full-time blogger at Hot Air. I don't read over there that much anymore, so I can't give a real detailed review of her commentary and analysis. She's good and has an excellent sense for the breaking topics, and if I recall she's got a cultural conservative orientation that's right up my alley. But like I said, I don't read Hot Air all that much. Basically, back when Hot Air was a Michelle Malkin joint, Ed Morrissey was brought on board as a marquee blogger, and I used to read over there regularly. But in 2008, when I had backed John McCain before just about anyone else in the conservative 'sphere, I recall "Captain Ed" tip-toeing around about supporting a candidate in the primaries, before coming out basically like a weasel for Mitt Romney. At that time in 2008, Romney had gotten the choice National Review endorsement and he seemed, for some reason, like a grassroots alternative to McCain, who was hammered as RINO (quite deservedly, but I didn't acknowledge that 'till later). I didn't care so much at the time about evincing a go-along-get-along approach to my fellow conservative bloggers across the 'sphere. I thus proceeded to savage Ed's endorsement and ridiculed others who'd jumped on the Romney bandwagon. I have no idea if Ed actually read my stuff or not, although I have a hunch that Allahpundit may have seen some of it and later, when I was aggressively promoting my blog posts by email, I received a personal note from him informing me that he didn't want anything to do with me. To this day, I don't think Allah's ever linked me at Hot Air (although Jazz Shaw linked me just the other day). He's a something of a self-appointed gatekeeper of the upper-establishment blogosphere, and in my opinion he's an overrated analyst, prone to verbose conspiracies and milquetoast ideological commitments. When Michelle announced the sale of Hot Air to Salem Communications I had even less reason to visit the site, as it seemed that any remnants of conservative activist sensibilities went out the window with the sale.

In any case, when I visited CPAC in 2011 I made it a point not to say hello to Ed Morrissey. The Hot Air people set up the big booth not far from the main lobby of the hotel, and the swag giveaways there make for a circus atmosphere as you're maneuvering through the conference to get to your panel presentations. Ed looks like a nice guy, and he's reasonable and doesn't bother with flame wars and all that. But I felt no need to pile on and substantiate with a personal introduction whatever other praise and ululations Ed was no doubt getting from the college-age blog wannabes slumming around the conference filling their tote bags with Hot Air yo-yos. The hierarchy in the conservative 'sphere is obviously unfair, but life is unfair and you go with the advantages that you have. Ed's good, but he's not that good. He probably ought not blog about politics in California's Central Valley, for example, as I indicated in a post some time back offering the Captain a corrective on Golden State water politics: "California's Central Valley Economy in Perspective."

But enough about Hot Air. Captain Ed and the others are certainly a good entry to this larger topic that's been vexing Robert Stacy McCain and some of the others who ventured opinions on the Jersey Shore-ification of CPAC. One bit of news from this year's conference that comes as absolutely no shock to me is that the CPAC bloggers' lounge is now segregated. I traded emails with The Lonely Conservative before the conference, and she mentioned she'd just put in her application for her blogger's credentials. I then recounted my story with her, whereby I had been denied credentials in 2011, but that when I got to the convention I spoke directly with Tabitha Hale to issue my outrage at the exclusion. "Do you know who I am?" I asked Tabitha without the slightest bit of hubris. I told her that I'd long paid my dues in the conservative 'sphere. (I dare anyone to walk five miles with me to put out citizen journalism like my exclusive and widely-cited 2010 report, "Immigrants and Socialists March Against SB 1070 in Phoenix.") And I explained to Tabitha that I was going to be reporting from CPAC for John Hawkins' Right Wing News and David Horowtiz's News Real Blog. So with that Tabitha threw up her hands, waved over to Kristina Ribali, and relented with some exasperation, saying: "Oh, let him have his credentials." I'm not accustomed to begging for attention, much less special treatment, so I can guarantee you that the moment didn't sit well with me. And while I fully expect to attend CPAC in the future, I will assuredly be taking a different approach next time, and in fact I doubt I'll even bother with scoring credentials unless something changes in the interim. As The Lonely Conservative reports, even acquiring credentials now is no guarantee of access to the bloggers' lounge. See: "Random Ramblings: CPAC Loose Ends,..":

There’s a lot from CPAC that I haven’t had time to get to. As usual, I had a wonderful time. The first day I was hoping maybe I could get into the bloggers lounge, but had no such luck. I had my heavy laptop with me, which I ended up carrying around all day. I shouldn’t have worn heels, by the time Susan Robbins and I got to BlogBash I was exhausted and my dogs were barking up a storm.

Lonely Con was "hoping to get into the bloggers' lounge"? What's up with that? She was credentialed. It turns out that CPAC's now using a two-tiered credentialing system for bloggers, which is another way of saying that non-establishment and non-inside schmooze-bloggers need not apply. Jerry Wilson has more on that at Goldfish and Clowns (where he picks up on some comments offered by Joy McCann):

I got quite the unintended chuckle from Joy McCann’s comments about the lack of room for bloggers:

As I understand it, this was the first year that we had two tiers of blogging, and in a way that’s really unfortunate. Perhaps next year there should be a sort of “media overflow lounge” where we can meet with some of the boutique bloggers and the up-and-comers. (I’m very small-time, myself, but I’m connected enough that barely I made it in [and, no, not by showing skin or flirting].)


Ed Morrissey and I talked a bit at BlogBash about how odd it is that New Media at CPAC has grown as big as it has, and although I know that this makes some people wistful, all-in-all it’s likely a good thing: information is good, and avenues for its dissemination are to be desired in the conservative movement (and in a democratic republic at large).


But I’m not crazy about it forcing a tiered system on us, wherein there are two classes of bloggers. With 500 bloggers, however, and fire codes preventing us all cramming ourselves into that one room, I’m not sure what can be done . . . unless we get a different room that doesn’t feature access to the main ballroom. It could be that that is the next step.

Ed Morrissey, concerned about a tiered caste bloggers society? Actually, as I read Joy’s post it says nothing about Morrissey being concerned about the situation. But of course. What else can one expect from Mr. I’m Only Here To Pick Up My Award (And Don’t You Dare Ask Me To Answer My Email)?

While I know Joy means well — she expands on the idea here — I’m not crazy about the idea of a media overflow lounge where those of us on the bottom rung can be stuffed into with the hope that maybe, just maybe one of the bloggers from on high will wander by to possibly acknowledge our presence with a royal wave before being escorted back to the bloggers lounge we dare not besmirch with our loathsome lowly putrid persons. Blogging is supposed to be about citizen journalists, no one above anyone else and all with something worth considering.

This leads to the question as to whether professional bloggers, which I define as bloggers paid by a corporation to write, are bloggers at all. I don’t believe they are. Case in point would be Hot Air, which is now owned by Salem Communications. Its writers write on behalf of Salem. Their primary function is creating content that entices readers to the site, thus enabling Salem to sell advertising on it at a maximum profit. That’s not blogging. That’s paid column writing that should be judged – and treated – accordingly. Go hang out with the regular media, for that is precisely what you are — conservative (sometimes) Maureen Dowds.

As to BlogBash… still waiting for an invitation. Maybe it became lost in the email. I’m sure it will arrive right after my invitation to BlogCon in Charlotte this May. (File that under “Never.”) Speaking of which, I confess to a perverse hope that CPAC will announce a regional event in California to be held the same weekend as BlogCon.

There's still much more at Jerry's post, but I want to stay with the two-tiered outrage for a minute. I didn't attend this year, of course, so I don't even know who decided on credentialing and segregating at the bloggers' lounge. Obviously there are too many bloggers who'd like access to the lounge, and I'll admit, it's a pretty sweet set up. While the WiFi sucks, you'll enjoy breakfast served and an eagle's nest access to the main convention hall, and you'll meet all of your favorite bloggers --- and not to mention some of the political rock stars of the convention, who often swing up to the lounge for a meet-and-greet with the selected few bloggers lucky enough to gain entrée. Jeez Donald Rumsfeld, I might have missed you had I not gotten down and groveled like a hungry beggar so as not to miss out on privileged access to the CPAC sky-box of the blogosphere:

Anyways, I think I'll send readers back over to Robert's post, which is still longer than this one and that ought to be enough anti-establishment ranting for one day.

CPAC is a once-in-a-lifetime experience for any conservative. I doubt I'll have any less a good time if I'm un-credentialed next time. Indeed, events like this are as fun as you make them, and I'll be planning my own bashes among like-minded friends for the next go-'round. Jason at The Western Experience did without credentials this year and he reported having a great time --- and he suggested we get together to plan for future conferences. So, up-and-coming bloggers take note: The conservative blogosphere is your oyster. Have at it and pursue your happiness, which is your God-given right. Don't let the false blogging gods of CPAC segregate you out of having a good time. You don't need them. Write with a passion, get involved and network among those with similar goals, and understand that all of these hierarchies don't mean a lot in the end --- frankly, the Ed Morrisseys of this world are media celebrities more than they are bloggers. Keeping things in perspective will help you avoid burnout and disgust. Just keep pluggin' and see where things take you. Onwards and upward you blogging proletarians!

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."