Woman Pushed Onto the Tracks at Leicester Square Tube: British Transport Police Seek Information

This is literally unreal.

At Telegraph UK, "Police hunt man who pushed woman onto Tube tracks - CCTV footage."

And at London's Daily Mail, "Who is this vile thug? Shocking CCTV images show the moment crazed commuter shoves 23-year-old woman on to Tube tracks."

Obama Welcomes High Gas Prices

At The Foundry, "Correcting the Record: Five Half-Truths From Obama on Higher Gas Prices":

During a speech on gas prices Thursday in Miami, the President tried to dodge responsibility for the pain Americans are feeling at the pump. Recognizing the trouble these higher prices are causing Americans, the President tried hard to demonstrate his concern over higher prices.

But as the video above shows, the President and his Administration have repeatedly stated that they want higher energy prices. They want to use the pressure of higher energy costs as an excuse to force their green energy boondoggle on Americans.

In a new report, Heritage’s Nick Loris breaks down five half-truths in the President’s speech...

Continue reading.

Also at IBD, "5 Biggest Whoppers In Obama's Energy Speech" (via Memeorandum) and Doug Ross, "Deconstructing Barack Obama's Blatant Energy Lies."

BONUS: At Washington Free Beacon, "Obama Politicized High Gas Prices in 2008, Now Accuses GOP of Playing Politics."

Danica Patrick Crash at Daytona 500 Qualifying Race

Well, The Lonely Conservative ties up some of the loose ends surrounding Danica Patrick's comments and crashes, "Danica Patrick is Just a Symptom, not the Disease":

The other day Danica Patrick made an inane political comment, and Smitty was there to point out her absurdity. I was going to weigh in, but got sidetracked by more important matters. But then Danica crashed, and Troglopundit blamed it on the political question that resulted in heaping piles of scorn.

It’s all quite stupid. Danica Patrick is a race car driver and a model or actress, or whatever she is. She’s certainly not someone most people would look to for political advice. Her answer to the question kind of proves the theory.

I guess this is the sort of thing that happens when it’s a slow week in politics.

I’m sure Danica Patrick is a nice person, but that’s not the point. She’s just the symptom of the problems plaguing our republic. Too many of us are so busy watching the latest reality shows, playing games, or engaging in other distractions to have even the slightest clue about what’s really happening to us.

There once was a time when it was uncool to trust the government. I don’t know when it changed, but now the “in” thing to do is to believe everything the government tells you. The left taught us one important lesson – to distrust the government. And now we’re supposed to just take their word for it and we should just trust the government? If so, does that mean when Republicans take over we should trust them, too?

Yeah, well. Maybe Danica should stick to racing and bikinis.

 BONUS: At USA Today, "Danica Patrick uninjured, earns respect after violent crash." And at Los Angeles Times, "NASCAR: Danica Patrick crashes during Daytona 500 qualifying race."

Explaining the Santorum Surge

From Larry Sabato, "The Santorum Surge and Its Larger Meaning" (via Memeorandum):

Buyer’s remorse is very common in the history of presidential nominating politics. Just when it appears that one candidate is headed for the party nod, the voters pause and say, “wait a minute, let’s think about this some more, the frontrunner’s inadequacies trouble us.” Then they opt to keep the contest alive by elevating one of the other candidates — for a while, at least. Rarely, though, has buyer’s remorse been as acute as in 2012. In fact, it is not at all clear that most Republicans have ever bought into Romney at all. Temporary non-Romney frontrunners included Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann, not to mention ghost frontrunners (such as Chris Christie) who never entered the race. Romney has only floated to the top in the absence of a well known substitute.

Of the three remaining non-Romney alternatives, only Ron Paul has never held the title of king-for-a-day. Newt Gingrich has risen from the dead twice, and he will persist as long as his iron will and Super PAC angel Sheldon Adelson’s money hold out. His chances of becoming a three-time Lazarus are not bright, but remembering the first two resuscitations, who would risk real money to bet against him?

However, it is Rick Santorum who wears the current anti-Romney crown. Propelled by an unexpected trio of victories in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri on Feb. 7, Santorum now leads Romney in most national surveys, some by a wide margin. More disturbing for Romney, Santorum led Romney in his own home state of Michigan for quite a while, before dropping back in some surveys. As we’ve just suggested, Santorum is partly on top because he is the latest ”great anti-Romney hope.” But it is more than that. As the economy improves and President Obama’s ratings creep upwards, many Republicans have become less certain that any nominee is going to defeat the incumbent. This may change if worse economic numbers crop up later in the year and high gas prices begin to take a presidential toll. But for the moment, the trend is encouraging activists to look beyond Romney, the economic manager, to someone whose social-issue conservatism and blue-collar image may enable the GOP to serve up a different kind of presidential option.

A few intellectual leaders of the Republican party’s right-wing have begun to convince themselves that Santorum may be a risk worth taking. He gives activists some fallback reasons to vote should economic recovery continue, and he will stir the base, especially Tea Partiers and evangelical Christians. GOP enthusiasm has been on the wane lately but with Santorum, goes the thinking, GOP turnout may increase. (The swing independents in competitive states are another matter. Many independent analysts think Santorum is too far right on social issues to be elected in November.)

That's sounds great, up to a point. Frankly, Tuesday night's debate could be hurting Santorum --- and the debates have been a significant factor in the surging (and resurging) prospects of previous challengers to Romney's lead. See, for example, Los Angeles Times, "Michigan polls show Romney gained after GOP debate."

The Post-Debate Handshake Controversy

Santorum was trying to be good-natured with that handshake, but I had to laugh at the video editing below. Ron Paul looks like he's practically being torn apart.

Atlhouse has more, "Why did Rick Santorum deliver a yank-your-arm-out-of-its-shoulder-socket to Ron Paul?" (Via Memeorandum and Rosie Gray.)

Girl, 9, Dies After She Was Forced to Run Three Hours as Punishment for Eating Chocolate Bar

This makes me cry.

 At Los Angeles Times, "Forced to run, girl, 9, dies in punishment for eating candy."

Elizabeth Price Foley Interview at PJ Media

An outstanding interview with Glenn Reynolds:

And check out Foley's book, The Tea Party: Three Principles.

Jennifer Love Hewitt Looks Fabulous!

The funny thing is I caught the last hour of "I Know What You Did Last Summer" last weekend, and I'd forgotten that Love Hewitt starred. That movie came out in 1997. She must have been just a teenager.

In any case, at London's Daily Mail, "Scarlet woman: Jennifer Love Hewitt displays every curve in saucy Client List wardrobe." And, "Happy birthday! Jennifer Love Hewitt celebrates turning 33 with a big bunch of balloons on set of The Client List."

And check the trailer for her new show, "The Client List - New Extendet Promo - Jennifer Love Hewitt."

What Do You Become When You Worship Government?

Via David Swindle:

Homeland Security to Monitor Policy Debates on Twitter and Facebook

Sounds familiar.

At New York Times, "Homeland Analysts Told to Monitor Policy Debates in Social Media."

WASHINGTON — Analysts for a Department of Homeland Security program that monitors social networks like Twitter and Facebook have been instructed to produce reports on policy debates related to the department, a newly disclosed manual shows.

The manual, a 2011 reference guide for analysts working with the department’s Media Monitoring Capability program, raises questions about recent claims by Homeland Security officials who portrayed the program as limited to gathering information that would help gain operational awareness about attacks, disasters or other emerging problems.

Last month, a previous disclosure of documents related to the program showed that in 2009, when it was being designed, officials contemplated having reports produced about “public reaction to major governmental proposals with homeland security implications.”

But the department said it never put that category into practice when the program began in 2010. Officials repeated that portrayal in testimony last week before an oversight hearing by a House Homeland Security subcommittee.

“I am not aware of any information we have gathered on government proposals,” testified Richard Chavez, the director of the office that oversees the National Operations Center, which runs the program.

Still, the 2011 manual, which was disclosed this week as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, lists a series of categories that constitute an “item of interest” warranting a report. One category is discussion on social media networks of “policy directives, debates and implementations related to DHS.” 

Keep reading.

We've seen this movie before.

RELATED: What could go wrong?

Well, actually...

IMAGE: "The System Worked? Janet Napolitano Flip-Flops on Terror Threat; President Obama, Still Mum on Thwarted Attack, Will Take Golf Break to Address Nation."

Whitney Houston Open Casket Photo Controversy

Well, can we please get this lady out of the news and let her rest in peace? Sheesh.

At Los Angeles Times, "National Enquirer Whitney Houston casket photo: Finally too far?"

The photo's seen at this celebrity website, Gossip David.

Also at London's Daily Mail, "Chilling picture of Whitney Houston dead in her coffin published in National Enquirer."

And at Fox News, "National Enquirer publisher calls Whitney Houston casket photo 'beautiful'."

Western Culture's Path to Self-Destruction

Via La Shawn Barber, "God Bless America with Repentance":

Charles Blow's Religious Bigoty: New York Times Columnist Mocks Mitt Romney's 'Magic Underwear'

See Jim Geraghty, "New York Times Columnist Mocks Romney’s ‘Magic Underwear’" (via Instapundit).

Mormons wear a special under "garment" that is vested with spiritual significance. A comparable religious ritual is the wearing of the yarmulke in Judaism.

Charles Blow is just a typical pathetically mean progressive bigot. The New York Times is a perfect home for him.

More at JustOneMinute and Legal Insurrection (via Memeorandum).

Romney Slams Obama on Contraception Mandate

This was well played by Mitt, very well played.

At Los Angeles Times, "Romney says Obama undermines religious freedom":

When the issue of contraception came up in tonight's Republican debate, it offered the front-runners an attempt to finesse their positions on social issues to address seeming weaknesses.

For Mitt Romney, that meant taking a hard line against President Obama and his administration's decision to mandate that all employer insurance plans cover contraception -- even those that are offered by religious institutions like Catholic hospitals and universities.

Needing to make up ground among those conservatives who have of late turned to Rick Santorum, Romney accused Obama of undermining religious freedom.

"I don't think we've seen in the history of this country the kind of attack on religious conscience, religious freedom, religious tolerance that we've seen under Barack Obama," he said.

Rick Santorum was then asked to explain his statement to an Iowa blog about the "dangers of contraception."

The former Pennsylvania senator has been dogged this week by the increased scrutiny that followed his rise in the national polls, particularly concerning his hard-line views on social issues.

His answer showed an effort to soften the edges a bit, and fuse it with an economic message, saying the poverty rate is five times higher in single-parent homes.

"The bottom line is that we have a problem in this country, and the family is fracturing," he said. "How can a country survive if children are being raised in homes where it's so much harder to succeed economically?"

He added: "Just because I'm talking about it doesn't mean I want a government program to fix it."

The actual question, submitted from a CNN viewer, asked which of the GOP hopefuls "believes in birth control." The crowd booed it lustily, and Newt Gingrich kicked off the exchange by denouncing the media for a double standard in posing the question now.

"There is a legitimate question about the power of the government to impose on religion activities which any religion opposes. But I just want to point out, you did not once in the 2008 campaign -- not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide."

He was referring to a vote Obama cast in the state Senate in Illinois.

Santorum's Missed Opportunity in Mesa

I found myself getting sleepy during the debate, as the excitement factor seemed quite low, although I don't think Santorum did as badly as some are suggesting. Mostly I thought the candidates got bogged down on earmarks and the congressional process. It wasn't until later in the debate did we get into social issues, which should have been leading off the night. And even then, I thought Mitt Romney more than held his own on that, overshadowing Santorum somewhat, while Newt Gingrich seemed subdued for he evening.

See Telegraph UK, "Rick Santorum misses opportunity to cement hold over Mitt Romney."

I like Santorum on foreign policy, I must say. But that's not what folks were looking for in the debate.

More at Washington Post, "Santorum struggles to defend record in heated GOP debate."

Mixed Messages on Iran Spark Talk of U.S.-Israel Strategy

At Los Angeles Times, "U.S., Israel send mixed messages on Iran": U.S., Israel send mixed messages on Iran":

As the U.S. seeks to tamp down talk of an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear sites, some analysts and officials see a campaign to wring concessions from Tehran.

The Obama administration is bluntly warning Israel about the danger of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, but it is far from clear whether the allies are truly at odds over a core policy question or orchestrating an elaborate campaign to wring concessions from the Islamic Republic.

Both countries say that at least for now, tightening a web of economic sanctions around Iran's vital oil exports is the best way to pressure Tehran into serious negotiations about its nuclear program, which the U.S. and its allies suspect is aimed at mastering the know-how to build a bomb.

But Israel regards a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat, and in recent weeks officials have suggested they may attack its nuclear facilities before the program reaches a point of no return.

Early Wednesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a statement that Iran denied a request for access to a site where the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency suspects explosives testing related to a nuclear weapon took place, news services reported. The statement was released after the IAEA team left on a return flight to Vienna. The unusual timing, shortly after midnight in Europe, reflected the urgency of the communique.

With Tom Donilon, the White House national security advisor, visiting Israel over the weekend and James R. Clapper, the top U.S. intelligence official, due in this week, some Israelis suggested that Washington doesn't appreciate the threat their nation faces and is undermining the chance of success. Public signs of strain in the relationship are beginning to emerge.

After meeting separately Tuesday in Israel with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. Ambassador Daniel B. Shapiro, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona told reporters that "there is clearly significant tension that now exists on how to approach this whole issue."

Continue reading.

Reason.tv: 'Why Gay Marriage is Winning'

The best thing about this video is Kennedy, the narrator, who I'm sure a lot of readers will hope is straight, and not married:

President Obama Sings the Blues with Mick Jagger, B.B. King

Well, I'm not going to begrudge Barack Hussein some good times with these rockers. Who'd pass that up? I wouldn't.

At LAT, "President Obama grooves with Mick Jagger, B.B. King."

Step Up For Israel

Via Theo Spark:

Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2012: The Lineup

Well, I think this clip introduces all the SI models for 2012:

And check out this blog, "Who is that hot ad girl?" (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

The Sacred Dogma of the Left

From Jonathan Last, at Weekly Standard:

In the conflict between the Obama administration and the Catholic church over mandated contraceptive coverage in health insurance policies, it’s easy to understand the motivations of the church. Catholics object to artificial contraception—and to abortifacients and sterilization, reimbursement for which is also mandated—as a matter of doctrine, owing to their beliefs about the dignity of the human person.

The church’s allies—evangelical Christians, Tea Partiers, and other non-Catholic conservatives—are motivated by a conviction that, theology aside, the Obamacare edict forcing the church to pay for procedures it finds morally objectionable is an unconstitutional trespass on the free exercise of religion.

But what is it that motivates those on the left? Why do they care so deeply about the kind of insurance coverage Catholic employers provide? It’s not as if NARAL and Planned Parenthood devotees are heavily represented in the workforce of Catholic institutions. And you don’t see petitions from leftwing pressure groups calling on the church to provide better dental and vision coverage, or mental health benefits. Which would, as a pragmatic matter, be much more helpful for more of the workforce than the contraceptive mandate. No, for the left, the fight isn’t about social justice or the proper scope of the state. It’s about the contraceptives. It’s about sex.

Continue reading.

Zilla of the Resistance Exposes Hate-Blogger Patrick Adkins

I tried to be friendly with Patrick Adkins when he was blogging at Political Byline. But I generally avoided him because he's burned so many bridges across the 'sphere he's literally radioactive. That made him mad after a while, and he told me to f*** off --- and then only a few months later I found him in my Facebook feed sending me a friend request. He's messed up big time --- and I mean messed up like needing a psychiatrist.

In any case, see Zilla's post, "Bloggers Beware – A Cautionary Tale."

And here's Atkins on Twitter threatening Robert Stacy McCain.

The dude's one sick mofo.

Caller Says Dana Loesch Should Be Raped

At All Patriots Media, "Leftist caller wishes rape on radio host Dana Loesch" (via Protein Wisdom):

In addition to my own show, I fill in for syndicated radio host, Big Journalism.com editor and CNN contributor Dana Loesch. On Monday, I filled in for Dana, and discussed the controversial commentary by Keith Olbermann who denies that rapes have occurred at Occupy events around the country and the most recent words from Slate.com that compares a Virginia law (requiring an ultrasound before an abortion) to rape.

The phone lines were open, and a caller named “Brenda” was brought on to the show. Brenda started by attempting to dismiss Loesch, claiming she didn’t even know her last name because she’s “never really heard of her.” (Which would make one wonder why she called into the show of someone she’s never really heard of?)

Then, after voicing her displeasure over Loesch’s supposed position on sex and rape, “Brenda” put out this violent gem:

And a woman to say that about other women, saying maybe they shouldnt have had sex in the first place. I hope she (Loesch) winds up in the same circumstance as the women she is talking down to…

In order to truly understand the leftist-progressive, you must start by accepting that they hate you. They hate you for what you believe, and they hate you for not believing what they believe. In the case of Loesch, they hate her for being a woman who doesn’t tow the feminist line of “real” women (see, Liberal Women.)

The leftist-progressive also has no need for “The New Tone,” which was a fashionable catch-phrase used after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011. But, for them, it is only applicable to those they disagree with; used as a rallying cry of sorts to stifle dialogue and prevent conversations. Calling for the rape of Loesch, to them, is justified. After all, she said something they disagree with! Just add it to the list of Ed Shultz calling Laura Ingraham a slut, and Guy Cimbalo wanting to “hate fuck” Michelle Malkin and Megyn Kelly, amongst others.

Word.

More at the link.

Santorum Flops?

I don't know if he flopped (Santorum under-performed, no doubt), but see Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary, "Santorum Flops in the Debate Spotlight":

But see The Last Tradition, "Santorum had a strong night at Arizona despite spin that…"

I have posts scheduled for later, so check back. If the debates matter

Focus on Rick Santorum in Tonight's Debate

From Howard Kurtz, at Daily Beast, "Rick Santorum Faces a Grilling at CNN Debate" (at Memeorandum):

The GOP’s new frontrunner will be under a harsh spotlight in Wednesday’s CNN debate after widely covered remarks on explosive social issues like Obama’s theology, prenatal care, and home schooling.

It doesn’t take a crystal ball to predict the kinds of questions Rick Santorum is going to get at the CNN debate in Arizona.

President Obama practices a “phony ideology” that’s not “based on the Bible?” Check.

State government involvement in public schools is “anachronistic”? Check.

Prenatal testing leads to more abortions and prompts us to “cull the ranks of the disabled”? John King, over to you.

When Santorum takes the stage Wednesday night, the glare of the spotlight will be unusually harsh. Despite complaints from his campaign about distorted media coverage, he is the one who has raised every one of these issues, along with birth control, in recent days. Reporters weren’t peppering him with questions about home schooling or amniocentesis. He’s the guy who put these subjects in play.

More at the link.

And at the video, Sarah Palin says the worst thing Santorum could do is back off from discussing these issues. That would play into the left's hands exactly and he'd be caving on issues he's championed all along.

I'll have some reactions and links later tonight...

Obamacare Contraception Mandate Attacks Religious Liberty

At the Heritage Foundation, "Religious Liberty Under Attack":

Today is Ash Wednesday — the first day of Lent — the beginning of 40 days of prayer and fasting observed by Christians across the country, culminating in the Easter feast. Likewise in April, Jews will gather to celebrate Passover, one of many traditions observed under the religious freedom that the U.S. Constitution was designed to preserve. Now, though, that freedom is under direct attack by the very government that purports to represent the people, and that is but the first step in Obamacare’s re-writing of America’s blueprint.

This week, two more Christian colleges joined other religious institutions in fighting back against that attack when they filed lawsuits against the Obama Administration for imposing an anti-conscience mandate under Obamacare. The controversial regulation forces almost all employers to provide health insurance coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization, without a co-pay.

Heritage’s Sarah Torre writes that Geneva College, a private institution in Pennsylvania associated with the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, and Louisiana College, a small Southern Baptist school located in the middle of the state, have deeply held moral objections to the mandate and are left with no choice but to take their case to court ...

Continue reading. 

And see earlier at Michelle's, "Obama’s fraudulent abortion mandate “accommodation”."

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.