The Left's Coordinated 'Bullying' Attack on Romney Exposed as 'Unconscionable' Journalism: Progressives Cheer 'Brilliant' Political Strategy of Axelrod and Plouffe

I'm going to agree with this report at ABC News, "Bullying Story Sidetracks Romney's Campaign."

By now it hardly matters that the story has not only been debunked, but the Washington Post has edited its report without publishing a correction. See Ben Shapiro, "Washington Post Romney Hit Piece Implodes":

Today’s unconscionable Washington Post story, which implied without evidence that Mitt Romney was a homophobic bully to one John Lauber back in his high school days five decades ago, has totally imploded.

And Robert Stacy McCain is on the case. See, "No ‘BullyGate’ Pulitzer for WaPo? UPDATE: Using a Second-Hand Source for a Dead Man’s Words? WTF?", and "‘BullyGate’: What Did Jason Horowitz Know, and When Did He Know It?"

And get this, from left-wing extremist Angry Black Lady at Raw Story, "Obama vs. Romney: How the Game is Played":

As I’m reading and pondering this, I’m marveling at the political strategery of Davids Axelrod and Plouffe. Think about it:

On Sunday, Vice-President Biden comes out in favor of same sex marriage.

On Wednesday, President Obama comes out in favor of same-sex marriage, leaving some to speculate that he was backed into a corner, or that he should have done it sooner, or later, or whatever it is that people complain about when they simply can’t shake the need to be outraged about something, like, all of the time. (asiangrrlMN already covered this, but long story short, Obama’s record on LGBT rights is second to none; and he announced his support for the Respect Marriage Act last year, legislation which would repeal DOMA, so can we all calm down for a minute, please?)

Then today — Thursday, a front-page article drops in The Washington Post about how Romney was a big ol’ gay-hating gay-basher.

Are you kidding me?! It’s brilliant!

Back when President Obama was a young man, trying to figure out who he was and writing pensive letters to his girlfriend about T.S. Eliot and other philosophical shit, Romney was picking on and assaulting gay people.

Face? Meet brick.

And here’s the kicker — here’s the dark chocolate inside this croissant d’awesome: Romney’s behavior most assuredly would have constituted a hate crime under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act which President Obama signed in 2009, if such a law had existed at the time and had Romney been prosecuted under that law. (The Hate Crimes Prevention Act expanded the existing hate crime law to include crimes motivated by gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and is the first federal law to extend protections to transgendered persons.)

You cannot convince me that this was not planned. At the very least, the Obama campaign knew the article was going to drop and decided to announce sooner rather than later that President Obama supports same-sex marriage (he had already planned to announce it at some point before the convention.)

This is how it’s done, folks.

Mr. Romney, sir? I do believe you have been served.

Don't you love it?

We're on the same page on the media's utter corruption.

I tweeted Angry Black Lady with the link to Shapiro's report, asking her for a retraction. Her response was to denounce Andrew Breitbart and block me on Twitter, typical for progressives called out for their dishonest hackery.

Progressives on Twitter are all abuzz on this story, cheering Angry Black Lady's ignorance and denial.

Lots more on this at Memeorandum.

This isn't going away. The Washington Post really stepped in it on this one and like the left's attacks on Ann Romney, the effects will further damage media credibility as this campaign winds along.

UPDATE: Linked at Blazing Cat Fur: "Romney is so Gay!" Thanks!

And here's more from The Other McCain: "Hard Times in WaPoVille: ‘BullyGate’ Timing Questioned on ‘Morning Joe’."

Fullerton Cops to Stand Trial in Kelly Thomas Beating Death

The video's from last year, when the story first hit the news, and there's full raw video here.

And from yesterday's Los Angeles Times, "Two Fullerton officers to stand trial in death of Kelly Thomas."

Following an emotionally charged hearing, an Orange County judge ruled that two Fullerton police officers will stand trial for the death of a mentally ill homeless man who was beaten in a violent confrontation last summer.

The ruling means that Manuel Ramos, 38, could be the first police officer in modern Orange County history to be tried for murder for on-duty actions .

Ramos is charged with second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. Cpl. Jay Cicinelli, 40, will be tried on charges of involuntary manslaughter and excessive use of force.

Thomas' death, which came five days after his encounter with six officers at a Fullerton bus depot last July, has rocked the north Orange County city, leading to a mass protest movement, the departure of a police chief and an upcoming recall election against three council members.

Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas, who took the unusual step of personally arguing the prosecution's side at the three-day preliminary hearing, said it was hard to prosecute police officers, but he believed that it was necessary in the Thomas case.

"It's a very bad day in Orange County when we have to charge two police officers with these kinds of terrible crimes," he told Superior Court Judge Walter Schwarm.

The district attorney also said he had not ruled out filing charges against additional officers, something the Thomas family and supporters have called for.

RTWT.

VIDEO: Victory Celebration for Marriage in North Carolina

I remember all the talk during the primaries, especially from libertarians, about how social issues didn't matter in 2012. I never agreed with the thesis, and I don't believe that the left can win the debate on social issues on the merits. It's gonna be attacks on "bigots" and hyper-emotional appeals to "fairness." And all of it will be wrapped in a cloak of inevitability.

And of course it's also about changing the subject. See the New York Times, "Obama Campaign Pushes the Issue of Gay Marriage."

Catholic League's Bill Donohue: 'I want to promote and to put in a privileged position that institution of marriage between a man and a woman...'

Here's Catholic League President Bill Donohue on Piers Morgan's show:

More: "OBAMA LIKES MEN MARRYING."

And see Lisa Graas, "Proving ‘Gay Rights’ is About Hate, Chad Griffin Tells Bill Donahue Siblings Can’t Marry Because It’s ‘Ridiculous’."

Was John Lauber Really Gay?

I don't know.

There's so much that's utterly bogus about this story is hard to begin. But first off, was this guy John Lauber really gay? That's an important question, since the story is not just about alleged bullying, but "anti-gay" bullying --- and it comes the day after President Obama endorsed gay marriage. It's ridiculously coincidental, and hopelessly redundant to have to point it out, but this is the meme that's been dominating the news today. And of course, it's viciously unfair to Mitt Romney, which is the point. But all's fair in love and war, so what can you do, I guess?

Here's the story, from the Washington Post, "Mitt Romney’s prep school classmates recall pranks, but also troubling incidents." And note the tentative thesis at the introduction:

BLOOMFIELD HILLS, Mich. — Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

Look, I read the article. I didn't want to because it's 5,000 words long and equally short on political significance. Until the very last couple of paragraphs, the article states only that Lauber is "presumed" to be gay. Ben Shapiro takes a look at that, "Washington Post Disgraces Itself By Targeting Romney's 'Anti-Gay' High School Story":

Today, the Washington Post ran an egregious hit piece about Mitt Romney … circa 1965. Seriously. They dug up some of his old classmates, who “mostly lean Democratic,” to tell tales of his “vicious” assault on a student, John Lauber, who had been mocked for his “presumed homosexuality.” What happened? Romney saw the student wearing bleach-blonde hair over his eye, and proceeded to lead a “prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. [Fellow classmate Matthew] Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.”

Now, there’s not much to this story. It sounds more like Romney didn’t like Lauber’s hair than that he wanted to bug Lauber for supposedly being gay. In fact, that’s a conclusion drawn by the Post without asking Romney what was going through his head. Why the Post considers certain types of hairstyles evidence of homosexuality is left unsaid.

Beyond that, the timing of the story is obviously designed to protect President Barack Obama, who just yesterday said that he would embrace same-sex marriage. The narrative from the media therefore became: Obama is fine with gays, Romney hates them. Since they had zero evidence that Romney has any antipathy toward homosexuals, they had to dig up an incident nearly 50 years ago, invest it with anti-gay rage, and print it as fact.

This is character assassination of the worst kind. It doesn’t go to Romney’s deeply-held beliefs and positions. It doesn’t show how he was defined as a young man. It’s just an old prank brought up and infused with nastiness, sans evidence, in order to turn Romney into a jerk in the public eye.

Well, yeah.

But again, it's not until the end of the piece that we learn that Lauber "came out as gay to his family and close friends." The rest of the report notes repeatedly that Lauber's homosexuality was presumed, or that the students just know "there was homosexuality there..." That's it. They just knew it. And no one at the report is interviewed with actual evidence of Lauber's homosexuality. So again, it's not just about bullying, which is bad. It's about "anti-gay" bullying --- which is the worst offense imaginable, or so we're led to believe.

And we're also led to believe that this guy Lauber was gay. He's dead now, passed away in 2004. So there's no interviewing him, conveniently.

And note at the clip: Romney says that whether someone was "homosexual, that was the furthest thing from my mind back in the 1960s, so that was not the case."

More from The Right Sphere, "Washington Post Hit Piece On Romney… Embellished?" (via Instapundit).

Added: From The American Pundit, "Whoa: Family of Romney’s Alleged Bullying “Victim” Says Story Inaccurate, They’re Disgusted by WaPo" (via Instapundit).

And at ABC News, "Sister of Alleged Romney Target Has ‘No Knowledge’ of Any Bullying Incident." Plus, from Draw and Strike, "Washington Post Caught Making Sh!t Up Again."

Obama's Pre-Election Change of Heart on Same-Sex Marriage

At the Wall Street Journal, "Obama's Marriage Act":

Congratulations to President Obama for matching his public policy with what everyone already knew were his private beliefs. His statement Wednesday that he supports same-sex marriage spared the public the ruse of waiting until after the election to state the inevitable.

First his Justice Department refused to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, and then Mr. Obama had said his views on the subject were "evolving." The Beltway chatter now is that Vice President Joe Biden's public support this week for gay marriage had cornered Mr. Obama into his own change of heart. But as with pretty much all Presidential actions lately, you don't have to be a cynic to wonder about Team Obama's political re-election calculations.

Everyone agrees that the election's number one issue is the U.S. economy. Insofar as it's not really possible for Mr. Obama to change that subject, he can at least give the chattering classes something else to write about. This qualifies. During a political cycle when few besides Rick Santorum wanted to talk about social issues, Mr. Obama has now reinserted one of the hottest into the debate.

Continue reading.

Michelle is making me laugh at the clip, calling out Obama's flip-flops like "lava lamps."

Inside Obama's Decision on Gay Marriage — Getting Dragged Along, Brutally, by His Party's Extreme Radical Base

From Ronald Brownstein, at National Journal, "Obama's Gay Marriage Leap of Faith":

But his decision also reflects a hard-headed acknowledgement of the changing nature of the Democratic electoral coalition. Indeed, historians may someday view Obama's announcement Wednesday as a milestone in the evolution of his party's political strategy, because it shows the president and his campaign team are increasingly comfortable responding to the actual coalition that elects Democrats today-not the one that many in the party remember from their youth.

Obama's senior advisers see the announcement as essentially a political wash, although polls now consistently show more Americans support than oppose gay marriage. In its latest national measure, the Pew Research Center found in April that a 47 percent to 43 percent plurality of Americans back same-sex marriage. Other recent national surveys, including those by Gallup and the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, have found majority or plurality support for the idea.

Obama's announcement might not significantly change the overall level of his 2012 support, especially in an election where economic issues will dominate. But the announcement may reflect the Obama camp's thinking about the likely composition of his support. It shows the president, however reluctantly, formulating an agenda that implicitly acknowledges the party is unlikely to recreate the support it attracted from the white working-class and senior voters who anchored Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal coalition. Instead, the announcement shows him reaching out to mobilize the new pillars of the Democratic electorate, particularly younger people and socially liberal white collar whites.

"It was crystal clear that he didn't want to get off the fence on this issue before the election if he could possibly avoid it; this is not a bright line he wants to draw," said long-term Democratic strategist Bill Galston, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "He realizes it intensifies the divide between what might be called the emerging Democratic coalition and the pieces of the old coalition that he wanted to retain. But things had gotten to a point where he felt he had no choice."

The "emerging Democratic coalition"?

Right.

These guys are just now recognizing a new party coalition, six months before the election. Give me a freakin' break. The New Deal Coalition collapsed after Vietnam. I don't know what these people are smoking, but the party lurched to the left in the 1970s and by now it's basically a coalition of social democrats and neo-Marxists --- and that's putting it mildly. See Fred Baumann, "Our fractious foreign policy debate." And on the Democrats' gay marriage extremism, see "Gay Activists Go Ballistic on Warren Invocation."

TRIVIA: Check this search from the archives, "Democrats + Vietnam + War."

BONUS: "Occupy Wall Street to Attend Capitol Hill Meeting Chaired by Congressional Progressive Caucus."

Democrat Elizabeth Warren Blows Off 'Trail of Tears' Report as 'Politics as Usual'

I didn't get a chance to post on this Tuesday, so here you go, a blockbuster from William Jacobson, at Legal Insurrection, "Cruel irony in Elizabeth Warren’s Cherokee saga."

And see Michael Patrick Leahy, at Big Government, "Elizabeth Warren Ancestor Rounded Up Cherokees For Trail of Tears."

And from Hillary Chabot, at the Boston Herald, "Elizabeth Warren brushes off ‘Trail of Tears’ report."

Elizabeth Warren waved off reports yesterday that an ancestor helped round up Cherokees in the infamous “Trail of Tears,” as well as demands from U.S. Sen. Scott Brown to prove she never claimed her Native American heritage to further her career — dismissing the developments as “politics as usual.”

“I think what this is about is Scott Brown trying to change the subject,” said Warren at a Brighton event last night. “He just wants to find a way to talk about something else, and I think it’s wrong. I think this is why people are turned off on Washington politics.”

Warren has been under fire for citing “family lore,” without documentation, that an ancestor was a Cherokee, and for listing herself as a “minority” law professor in a professional directory in the 1980s and ’90s.

But Paul Reed, a Utah genealogist who is a fellow at the American Genealogical Society, said he found primary documentation that shows Warren’s great-great-great grandfather Jonathan Crawford served in a Tennessee militia unit that rounded up Cherokees before they were force-marched to Oklahoma in the infamous “Trail of Tears.”

“Jonathan H. Crawford did serve in the Indian wars,” said Reed. “He is listed as serving in the company that rounded up Cherokees.”

Thousands of Native Americans died after they were forced to relocate under the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Warren’s family link to the genocidal exodus was first reported yesterday by conservative websites Breitbart.com and Legalinsurrection.com.

Warren also brushed off Brown’s demand to release her law school and job applications.

“If Scott Brown has a question about my qualifications for my job, he can talk to the people who hired me,” Warren said. Citing Brown’s vote yesterday against a bill that would have prevented student loans from doubling, Warren said: “No wonder Scott Brown wants to change the subject. This is politics as usual.”

Also at London's Daily Mail, "Elizabeth Warren's 'ancestor rounded up Cherokees from their homes for the Trail of Tears'... but she brushes off claims."

Europe Needs Pro-Growth Market Reforms

A great post from James Pethokoukis, "Europe’s failed experiment in tax-hike austerity":

Putting aside the issue of the euro for a moment, the fiscal reforms Europe needs are clear: Smaller welfare states, less intrusive regulation, and pro-growth tax cuts. Of course, just raising taxes is a lot simpler. Sure is a lot quicker. But it’s not working. I hope the Obama White House notices the tax-hike fiasco going in Europe since it is pretty much the exact path he wants the U.S. to follow.

No doubt.

Maggie Gallagher: 'What Harm Has Same-Sex Marriage Caused?'

From David Badash, at The New Civil Rights Movement, "Maggie Gallagher Fights Gay Marriage So She Won’t Seem ‘Like A Racist’."

Badash is in hopeless denial about Gallagher's thesis that straights who favor traditional marriage won't be bullied, demonized, and destroyed. We know (and can never forget) what happened in California after the passage of Prop. 8.

Andrew "Milky Loads" Sullivan responds (via Memeorandum):

Essentially, Maggie Gallagher is concerned about the affect of same-sex marriage on people like Maggie Gallagher. She cites no data or statistics or study which shows how any heterosexual marriages or children in families with same-sex parents have been damaged. She makes no claim that any such damages has occurred, only that people like her have been made social pariahs instead of the gay people who ought to be the pariahs. I'm sure there's a social science term that describes what she is doing, but I guess I just find the complaint that "you're making other people not like me" to be a rather petty and self-absorbed. Where, I wonder, is her concern about the affect on people other than Maggie Gallagher?

Right.

Get some help, dude. Clinical help.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers Slams 'The Life of Julia'

I just love her!

Plus, see Stewart Lawrence at PuffHo, "The GOP's Least Known but Best Qualified VP Candidate May Be a Woman."

Wisconsin Democrat Tom Barrett Aims to Unify Party Before Recall Vote

At the Wall Street Journal, "Wisconsin Candidate Labors to Unify Party" (via Google):

After winning the Democratic primary for Wisconsin's gubernatorial-recall election, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said that as governor he would unify a polarized state. Before he gets that chance, he will need to unify his party.

Mr. Barrett, who defeated four other Democratic candidates in Tuesday's primary, has just four weeks to rally their supporters before the June 5 recall to beat Republican Gov. Scott Walker. The governor has raised $13 million in the past four months and his supporters appear energized. Mr. Walker, who has gained folk-hero status in national GOP circles, won his own primary on Tuesday with 626,538 votes—nearly as many as the five Democratic candidates combined—even though he didn't face a serious challenger.

To win, Mr. Barrett will need the labor unions that backed his main primary opponent, Kathleen Falk, a former county official, to align behind him. Major labor organizations spent $4 million backing Ms. Falk. Some of them counseled Mr. Barrett not to enter the race and circulated a video attacking him as being hostile to labor. Mr. Barrett beat Ms. Falk Tuesday by 24 percentage points.

"It's important that you have unity and you have manpower and foot power because Walker has so blessed much money," said former Democratic Congressman David Obey, a Barrett supporter. Mr. Barrett "needs those (Falk) votes."

On Wednesday morning the candidates Mr. Barrett defeated, as well as the labor groups that opposed him, all endorsed their new standard bearer. What remains to be seen is how strong that support will be for someone they earlier hoped would fail.

"We don't regret endorsing Falk, we're just focused on moving forward," said Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO. "Our focus has always been about restoring our rights, the candidate that will support that, we're behind."

The recall was prompted after Mr. Walker championed a law reducing collective-bargaining rights for most public employees. Protesters marched on the state capital for weeks and eventually collected more than 900,000 signatures to force a recall. A Walker loss next month would mark only the third time a U.S. governor has been recalled from office.

Mr. Walker defeated Mr. Barrett in the 2010 election by six points. In this year's rematch, a Marquette University Law School poll released late last month showed Mr. Walker and Mr. Barrett in a dead heat, with just 4% of voters undecided. That makes it important for each party to mobilize its base, but perhaps especially so for Mr. Barrett, who has just $475,000 in the bank, compared with Mr. Walker's $4.5 million.

Polls showed that anxiety over the economy has superseded restoring collective-bargaining rights as the reason Democrats wanted Mr. Walker out. That shift helped Mr. Barrett, who is perceived as less beholden to unions than Ms. Falk. During the election, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees accused Mr. Barrett, as mayor of Milwaukee, of taking advantage of the new law limiting the power of public sector unions to negotiate.

On Wednesday Mr. Walker expressed both surprise and confidence. "We went out and were campaigning, but we didn't have an organized, sustained get out the vote effort this," he told a Milwaukee radio station. "Obviously we do for June 5th."

Actually, folks should see Althouse's post, "'Tuesday’s recall election was a giant repudiation of Big Labor'."

Barebackers for Barack!

Blazing Cat Fur reminds me of Larry Sinclair: "Obama on the Down Low."

And here's this, from Andrew "Milky Loads" Sullivan, "Obama Lets Go of Fear":

I do not know how orchestrated this was; and I do not know how calculated it is. What I know is that, absorbing the news, I was uncharacteristically at a loss for words for a while, didn't know what to write, and, like many Dish readers, there are tears in my eyes.

So let me simply say: I think of all the gay kids out there who now know they have their president on their side. I think of Maurice Sendak, who just died, whose decades-long relationship was never given the respect it deserved. I think of the centuries and decades in which gay people found it  impossible to believe that marriage and inclusion in their own families was possible for them, so crushed were they by the weight of social and religious pressure. I think of all those in the plague years shut out of hospital rooms, thrown out of apartments, written out of wills, treated like human garbage because they loved another human being. I think of Frank Kameny. I think of the gay parents who now feel their president is behind their sacrifices and their love for their children.

The interview changes no laws; it has no tangible effect. But it reaffirms for me the integrity of this man we are immensely lucky to have in the White House. Obama's journey on this has been like that of many other Americans, when faced with the actual reality of gay lives and gay relationships. Yes, there was politics in a lot of it. But not all of it. I was in the room long before the 2008 primaries when Obama spoke to the mother of a gay son about marriage equality. He said he was for equality, but not marriage. Five years later, he sees - as we all see - that you cannot have one without the other. But even then, you knew he saw that woman's son as his equal as a citizen. It was a moment - way off the record at the time - that clinched my support for him.

Oh brother.

No wonder they call him "Excitable Andy."

It was calculated, Andrew. Coldly calculated. See Lonely Con, "Obama’s Gay Marriage Distraction Paid Off."

More from No More Mister Nice Blog, "WILL 'SECRETLY GAY' BECOME THE NEW 'SECRETLY KENYAN'?" And following the links takes us to American Digest:

Gee whiz. I wonder if Obama will come out or not. He could of course avoid taking a "position" simply giving Andrew Sullivan one hot evening in the Lincoln Bedroom and leaking the photographs to Blueboy.com, but some things are just too revolting to evolve into.

Also at Astute Bloggers, "PREDICTION: AFTER OBAMA LOSES THE ELECTION HE WILL THEN DIVORCE MICHELLE...AND MARRY A MAN!"

BONUS: GOProud has this: "GOProud Statement on President Obama’s Remarks Regarding Marriage Equality" (via Memeorandum). (GOProud is a dirtbag organization and it's shameful that these pricks get as much traction on the right as they do. See, "Guess Who's Coming to CPAC?")

PREVIOUSLY: "Obama's Gay Nightmare: Still Waiting for Barry's Backside Boogie Pics!"

Markos Moultisas Cheers 'Confrontational LGBT Movement' Upon News of Barack Obama's Coming Out

On Twitter:

Confrontational LGBT movement the last couple of years has been a model of effectiveness
— Markos Moulitsas (@markos) May 9, 2012

This guy's a freak.

More freakishness, from Jed Lewison at Daily Kos: "President Obama to ABC News: 'Same-sex marriage should be legal'."

And see Althouse, "'Gay for Pay'."

French Socialists Party Like It's 1789

From Robert Zaretsky, at the Los Angeles Times, "Back to the Bastille":

It was no surprise, of course, whenFrance'snew Socialist president, Francois Hollande, celebrated his election over the weekend at the Place de la Bastille. Once the site of the nation's most notorious prison, the square has long been the place that French leftists proclaim their victories. But while many commentators noted the symbolic importance of the Bastille, they overlook how this symbol has changed over time — a transformation that may hold a lesson for President-elect Hollande.

When a large crowd attacked and took the Bastille on July 14, 1789, the French Revolution was launched. That the prison held no political prisoners but instead a mere half-dozen petty criminals and lunatics, and that the crowd marked the event by chopping off and displaying the heads of two government officials, did little to mute the festive atmosphere.

On the contrary. Overnight, the Bastille became Paris' most successful tourist attraction. The decapitated heads were still fresh on the ends of the revolutionaries' pikes when Pierre-Francois Palloy, a wealthy businessman, with a work crew nearly as large as the crowd that stormed the Bastille, began leveling the medieval pile. Once razed, the prison's iron, brick and wood detritus was transmuted into souvenirs, including inkwells, domino sets, snuff boxes and daggers.

Even after the prison was gone, tourists from France and abroad surged to the rubble-strewn field where the Bastille once stood. One year after its destruction, Palloy held a celebratory ball among the ruins at which Parisians quite literally danced on the grave of the old regime. Uncertain what to do with the vast space, the revolutionary government let it go to romantic seed. If the revolution was indeed a return to the natural order of things, what better proof than the shrubs, flowers and weeds that began to sprout amid the scattered stones at the site?

Yet governments abhor vacuums. Upon becoming emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte announced his desire to build a massive arch celebrating his military victories on the site of the old Bastille. The dubious neighbors, however, put him off, and so instead Napoleon had the Arc de Triomphe built at the other end of Paris. As for the Bastille, Napoleon conceived a fountain featuring a gigantic statue of an elephant — yes, an elephant — to celebrate his imperial conquests. The plaster model placed there was to be replaced by one in bronze. Waterloo cut short these grandiose plans, however, and the model — growing leprous and pitted, a haven for rats and derelicts — remained until 1846.

In 1832, the peeling pachyderm was joined by a second statue. Not one commemorating the revolution of 1789, mind you, but instead the revolution of 1830, which brought the fall of King Charles X and his replacement with King Louis-Philippe. In order to both celebrate the events of 1830 and make Parisians believe the revolution had come full cycle, Louis-Philippe constructed a towering bronze column. At its marble base were entombed the bodies of those who died on the barricades in 1830, at its top was the gilded Genie de la Liberte, or Spirit of Liberty: a winged figure pirouetting on a globe and flaunting the broken chains of servitude.

Some historians, noting that the sprite is now called the Spirit of the Bastille, believe the site's meaning has faded with time. But in the wake of Sunday's event, perhaps the meaning of liberty has instead simply changed over time. Ever since 1848 — and yet another revolution — France's political left has held its great demonstrations at the column's marble base. In 1936, the newly elected prime minister, Socialist Leon Blum, beamed (and held high a clenched fist) while a river of workers and students surged across the Place de la Bastille. And in 1981, the supporters of France's first Socialist president, Francois Mitterrand, converged at Bastille to celebrate his victory.

Continue reading.

Megyn Kelly Interview with Naomi Schaefer Riley

Lonely Conservative has the video: "An Inconvenient Truth for the Mob Against Naomi Schaefer Riley."

RELATED: Robert Stacy McCain's been on fire with this story. See, "Commissars Sacrifice Naomi Schaefer Riley to the ‘New Gods of Diversity’," and "This Might Be What You’d Call ‘Relevant’."

PREVIOUSLY: "Naomi Schaefer Riley Is Married to the Wall Street Journal's Jason Riley, Who is Black."

Jennifer Love Hewitt Maxim Cover Shoot April 2012 (VIDEO)

Well, I'm late getting to this one, but what the heck?

At Maxim, "April 2012 Cover Girl Jennifer Love Hewitt Interview."

PREVIOUSLY: "Smokin' Jennifer Love Hewitt Gears Up for New Series 'The Client List'."

Spitting Bull

Via Theo Spark:

Barack Obama's Abject Political Calculations on Homosexual Marriage

Elliot Abrams has a great piece on Obama's newfound support of gay marriage, "‘On My Behalf’ - Really?" (via Memeorandum):

The debate over same sex “marriage” has engaged the heartfelt feelings and convictions of millions of Americans. Then there is Barack Obama.

In his ABC interview, the president pretended that his much touted “evolution” had now led him, ineluctably, to speak out now, today; he simply could longer stay silent. ABC let him off the hook, but this is not a credible account.  In March, the Washington Post was reporting the debate among his advisers on whether the issue would help or hurt the reelection campaign and what, therefore, Obama should say: “Obama’s top political advisers have held serious discussions with leading Democrats about the upsides and downsides of coming out for gay marriage before the fall election.”

The same advisers told the Post that Obama would make the decision based on his gut, but that is an insulting way to refer to the vice president.  There is no evidence that Obama planned to speak until Joe Biden said last weekend that he was for gay “marriage” and forced the issue.

In fact, Obama has not “evolved”—he has changed his position whenever his political fortunes required him to do so. Running for the Illinois state senate from a trendy area of Chicago in 1996, he was for gay marriage. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,” he wrote in answer to a questionnaire back then. In 2004, he was running for the U.S. Senate and needed to appeal to voters statewide. So he evolved, and favored civil unions but opposed homosexual “marriage.” In 2008, running for president, he said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” Now in 2012, facing a tough reelection campaign where he needs energized supporters of gay “marriage” and has disappointed them with his refusal to give them his support, he is for it. To paraphrase John Kerry, he was for it before he was against it before he was for it again.

Mr. Obama’s statement today is a marvel...

Continue reading.

PREVIOUSLY: "President Obama Backs Homosexual Marriage."

'It was so sharp and modern. It was mod, and we all wanted the mod look...'

From Ann Althouse, on the death of Vidal Sassoon, "'A clear example of an architectural hairstyle was the Five Point Geometric Cut, created by Sassoon in 1964 on a young model named Grace Coddington...'":

I've seen a lot of hairstyles come and go in my life. (I'm 61.) But I've got to say, there was ONE hairstylist who — as far as I can tell — invented something precisely new and distinctively his. Everyone knew was [sic] a Sassoon haircut was.

I wish I could find a perfect photograph of the way the cut made a "W" at the nape. It was so sharp and modern. It was mod, and we all wanted the mod look. It was easy to grow long hair and thick bangs, Patti Boyd style. But the alternative, the 5 points... how could you find anyone in your hometown who could cut hair like that? So glossily brilliant. The best idea for a hairstyle or at least nobody else ever came up with a better one.

Is that a perfect photograph of the "W" at the nape? I think it's a pretty good one, actually.

In any case, more at the link.

And see the New York Times, "Vidal Sassoon, Hairdresser and Trendsetter, Dies at 84."

President Obama Backs Homosexual Marriage

There's never been any question of whether Obama "supports" same-sex marriage. It's always been a question of when he could come out of the closet in support of destroying the traditional and historical institution of marriage without dropping a nuclear bomb on his election chances. The jury's still out on that question, which is why today's announcement is, in part, such a big deal. For example, North Carolina has 15 electors in the Electoral College, which are now that much further out of reach for the president with his endorsement of the radical pro-gay agenda. Chris Cillizza reports on that angle, "President Obama’s calculated gamble on gay marriage."

To be fair, though, I've long criticized Obama as a pussy on gay rights. So from a Democrat's point of view, I think he did the right thing. And despite North Carolina's win last night, the trend does seem toward greater acceptance of homosexual marriage over time. The president can now claim that he's on the "right side" of history, from the gay civil rights perspective. I still think it should be up to the states --- and I think it would be politically stupid for Republicans to hop on board the same-sex marriage express. The gay lobby is repulsive. These people are perhaps the most thuggish constituency in progressive politics. The shift in support on gay marriage in the polls is largely explained by respondents who are tired of being attacked as "bigots." That's not so much winning over supporters as beating your opponents into submission.

So with that, let the great 2012 social policy debate begin. If Mitt Romney really wants to show he's conservative, the president couldn't have handed him a better opportunity.

Robert Stacy McCain has more, "Hope and Change Go Gay."

And see all the debate at Memeorandum.

Naomi Schaefer Riley Is Married to the Wall Street Journal's Jason Riley, Who is Black

I think it's important to point that out, that Naomi Schaefer Riley is married to Jason Riley, the bespectacled and soft-spoken opinion writer at the Wall Street Journal.

Most of the discussion of Schaefer Riley is focusing on the left's intolerance of different opinion. That's big. It's a perfect example of the left's totalitarianism and thought control. And the reactions have been fierce, for example, from Jonathan Tobin at Commentary, "Silencing Dissent About Black Studies," and Jonathan Last at The Weekly Standard, "Mob on the Quad." And James Taranto perhaps penned the best headline of all: "The Comical of Higher Education."

Critics attacked Schaeffer Riley as a "racist" who was exploiting her "white privilege." These reactions are hysterical, for example, from Cherise at Racism Review:

Fortunately, as Black folks, we have learned to multi-task—to resist our oppression and defend ourselves and our labor even as we go about our research, teaching, and daily lives. Yet, the fact that we must do both speaks to the very nature of the racial inequality Naomi Schaefer Riley claims has all but disappeared.

All that for rightly calling out Black Studies as "left-wing victimization claptrap."

Once again progressives have proved that the attack of "racism" is utterly without content and significance. Schaefer Riley is by definition not racist. No woman espousing a racist, Jim Crow ideology of white supremacy would marry a black man. To argue otherwise is to rip the nation's genuine history of racial oppression out of its historical context of slavery and segregation. No, the left is attacking Schaefer Riley for purely ideological reasons, out of a sheer burst of progressive hatred at anyone who would dare speak out against the abject academic fraud of phony disciplines of racial victimology. It's a particularly powerful example of how bad things have gotten in this country.

Schaefer Riley, by her marriage, objectively demonstrates a United States that has transcended race. The progressive academics who attacked her, and her editors who threw her under the bus, are now in fact the main enemies of that obviously majestic and triumphant phenomenon of historical racial transcendence.

Ann Althouse has more, "The Chronicle of Higher Education fires blogger Naomi Schaefer Riley for mocking university Black Studies programs" (via Memeorandum). And Althouse links to Schaefer Riley's own piece at the Wall Street Journal, "The Academic Mob Rules."

Al Qaeda Bomber Was Double Agent Working for U.S. and Arab Intelligence Agencies

Well, who knew, really? I thought something was strange about this story all along, particularly with regard to AP's reporting. So here comes the news that the CIA planted a double agent inside al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. There's going to be lots more information on this over the next few days so consider this developing. So far, Rep. Peter King thinks the administration is in fact jerking the public, see: "Rep. King suggests administration may have misled public on bomb plot, Calls for review." Frankly, there's no doubt in my mind that Obama is working national security --- and coordinating press coverage according to intelligence rules --- to score political points. President #GutsyCall is going rogue.

Anyway, the Los Angeles Times reports, "Al Qaeda bomb plot was foiled by double agent."

And at the Wall Street Journal, "Bomb Plotter Was U.S. Informer: Double Agent Infiltrated Yemeni Terror Group, Fed Information to U.S. Intelligence":

The supposed bomber at the center of a foiled plot to bring down a jetliner was actually a double agent who funneled vital information to U.S. and Arab intelligence agencies, according to officials, marking an apparently successful infiltration of al Qaeda's most dangerous branch.

The revelation came a day after U.S. officials said the Central Intelligence Agency, working with foreign security services and other agencies, had thwarted a bomb plot by al Qaeda's Yemeni branch aimed at bringing down a U.S. jetliner with a more advanced version of an underwear bomb used in a failed 2009 Christmas Day attempt.

The newest plot appears to provide a chilling illustration of al Qaeda's determination to learn from its mistakes: The bomb that was recovered has two detonators, providing a crucial backup in the event one failed, a U.S. official said Tuesday.

According to a U.S. official familiar with the operation, the double agent spent several perilous weeks working inside al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, answering to a foreign intelligence service that works in concert with the CIA. Saudi intelligence officials played "a large role" in handling of the double agent inside AQAP, this official said.

The man was able to convince members of the Yemeni terror group that he wanted to carry out a suicide mission, the official said.

The man was given the bomb and general instructions for carrying out the attack, the official said. Instead of following those directions, however, when he left Yemen, he contacted intelligence authorities, turning over the bomb and fresh intelligence about AQAP.

Some of the information gathered in the course of the multiweek operation led to the U.S. drone strike in Yemen on Sunday that killed a top operative of the Yemeni group, officials said Tuesday.

The Saudi embassy in Washington had no immediate comment. In the past, some Saudi officials have chafed at characterizations that Saudi Arabia used former al Qaeda militants as informants to disrupt plots by the Yemeni branch.

Yemeni officials say they weren't informed about the operation.

Continue reading.

The Journal also mentions the possibility of a congressional GOP investigation of Obama's intelligence coordination and public manipulation.

Lugar Concession Speech Slams Mourdock: 'His Embrace of An Unrelenting Partisan Mindset Is Irreconcilable With My Philosophy of Governance'

Jeez, a sore loser or what?

At CNN, "In statement, Lugar defends campaign while criticizing partisan environment" (via Memeorandum):

From time to time during the last two years I heard from well-meaning individuals who suggested that I ought to consider running as an independent. My response was always the same: I am a Republican now and always have been. I have no desire to run as anything else. All my life, I have believed in the Republican principles of small government, low taxes, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and trade expansion. According to Congressional Quarterly vote studies, I supported President Reagan more often than any other Senator. I want to see a Republican elected President, and I want to see a Republican majority in the Congress. I hope my opponent wins in November to help give my friend Mitch McConnell a majority.

If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it.

This is not conducive to problem solving and governance.

Sorry, Dick, but the times have passed you by.

And in case you missed it, there's been a grassroots tea party revolt raging for the past three years. Have a nice retirement.

Wake the F*ck Up Democrats!

From James Carville, at CNN, "Wake up Democrats; you could lose." (Via Memeorandum.)

(CNN) -- A long time ago a great three-time governor of Louisiana, Earl Long, said about Jimmie Davis, the two-time not very good governor of Louisiana, "You couldn't wake up Jimmie Davis with an earthquake."
As I go around the country and see various Democrats and talk to them on the phone, honestly I'm beginning to think that we have become the party of Jimmie Davis.

My message is simple: WTFU. Translated -- wake the you-know-what up, there is an earthquake....

You can shoot five Bin Ladens, you can save 10,000 banks and 20 car companies, even pass the most sweeping legislation in modern American history; if people don't think that you are connected to their lives and are fighting for their interests they will vote your tush out of office in a nano-second. For historical reference see Winston Churchill election of 1945 and President George H.W. Bush in 1992.

There's video at the link.

North Carolina Amendment 1 Wins in Landslide Vote for Traditional Marriage

The Associated Press reports, "NC voters approve amendment on gay marriage."

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment on Tuesday defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, making it the 30th state to adopt such a ban.

With 35 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 58 percent of the vote to 42 percent against.

In the final days before the vote, members of President Barack Obama's cabinet expressed support for gay marriage and former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages urging voters to reject the amendment. Opponents also held marches, ran TV ads and gave speeches, including one by Jay Bakker, son of televangelists Jim Bakker and the late Tammy Faye Bakker.

Meanwhile, supporters had run their own ad campaigns and church leaders urged Sunday congregations to vote for the amendment. The Rev. Billy Graham, who at 93 remains influential even though his last crusade was in 2005, was featured in full-page newspaper ads supporting the amendment.

Both sides spent a combined $3 million on their campaigns.

And at the Raleigh News & Observer, "Latest results show marriage amendment up 60 percent to 40 percent":

RALEIGH North Carolina has become the 31st state to add an amendment on marriage to its constitution, with voters banning same-sex marriage and barring legal recognition of unmarried couples by state and local governments.

North Carolina is the last state in the south to add such an amendment, and supporters hoped for a resounding victory.

Incomplete returns show the amendment up 59.72 percent to 40.28 percent. Some large counties, including Durham and Mecklenburg have not reported results.

Primary turnout was heavy. Though there were many other races on the ballot, including primaries for statewide offices and congressional seats, the amendment appeared to drive much of the political discussion.

Marriage rights for gay couples has been a topic of national debate this year, and North Carolina’s amendment and the campaigns for and against it drew international attention.

North Carolinians think of the state as progressive, but that’s within the context of the rest of the South, said Andrew Taylor, a political scientist at N.C. State University. “This is a socially conservative state,” he said.

The state has a 16-year-old law banning same-sex marriage.

At least two other states will be voting on gay marriage rights in November. Minnesota has a constitutional amendment on its ballot. Maine has a referendum to allow same-sex marriage. Voters in Maryland and Washington state may be asked to affirm new state laws allowing same-sex marriage.

Money from national interest groups poured into North Carolina. The National Organization for Marriage contributed $425,000 to the Vote for Marriage campaign, according to the latest reports, and the Human Rights Campaign and its affiliates contributed nearly $500,000 to the opposition Coalition to Protect All N.C. Families.

Vote for Marriage raised more than $1 million, and the Coalition to Protect All N.C. Families raised more than $2 million.

And now the progs are having epic hissy fits on Twitter, for example, Chris Kromm, "NEWS: NC officially joins ranks of bigoted states whose neanderthal laws will be overturned by courts in coming years."

And lesbian radical Pam Spaulding is on Twitter as well. The cries of bigotry and homophobia are going to be deafening.

More on this later.

UPDATE: That didn't take long. See Daily Kos, "The bigots win: North Carolina passes Amendment One."

More at Twitchy, "Liberals freak out over North Carolina gay marriage ban."

Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana Loses GOP Primary to Challenger Richard Mourdock

It's going to be an interesting night.

The New York Times reports, "Mourdock Defeats Lugar in Indiana Senate Primary."

And check Legal Insurrection, "Indiana primary results // Update: NBC calls race for Mourdock."

More here: "NBC News projects Lugar defeated in Indiana primary" (via Memeorandum).

Terrorist Leadership Decapitation and the Organizational Death of al Qaeda

My Spring 2012 issue of International Security came by mail last Tuesday, May 1st --- the one year anniversary of the bin Laden killing.

We also saw President Obama make his secret trip to Afghanistan last Tuesday --- to spike the football for his reelection efforts. So the timing was quite interesting for reading this research paper from Bryan C. Price, "Targeting Top Terrorists: How Leadership Decapitation Contributes to Counterterrorism." Here's this from the introduction:

Late in the evening of May 1, 2011, President Barack Obama announced to the nation that Osama bin Laden was dead. Earlier that day, the president had ordered a team of elite military forces deep into Pakistan to kill the mastermind behind the September 11 terrorist attacks, which had shocked the country and the world nearly ten years before. During his speech, President Obama said that he had told his new director of central intelligence, Leon Panetta, that getting bin Laden was the number one priority in the United States’ counterterrorism strategy against al-Qaida. Upon hearing of bin Laden’s death, Americans broke out in spontaneous celebration, and pundits immediately began speculating about its symbolic and operational importance. But what does bin Laden’s death mean, if anything, for the future of al-Qaida? More broadly, what does it mean when terrorist groups experience leadership decapitation?

Decapitation tactics, which are designed to kill or capture the key leader or leaders of a terrorist group, feature prominently in the counterterrorism strategies of many states, including Israel and the United States. Some scholars argue that targeting the group’s leadership reduces its operational capability by eliminating its most highly skilled members and forcing the group to divert valuable time and limited resources to protect its leaders. Decapitation tactics are also intended to disrupt the terrorist group’s organizational routine and deter others from assuming power. Scholars have credited these tactics with creating intra-organizational turmoil and even organizational collapse, most notably, the demise of the Kurdistan People’s Party and the Shining Path following the arrests of their leaders. Despite questions about the legality and moral legitimacy of targeted assassinations, the United States has expanded, rather than contracted, its targeted killing program since President Obama arrived in offce. In early 2010, the U.S. government even authorized the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen living in Yemen. This unprecedented decision was fraught with constitutionality concerns about due process. Yet, five months after the bin Laden operation and amid criticism about the disregard of the United States for international sovereignty, a U.S. drone fired a Hellfire missile at al-Awlaki in a remote region inside Yemen, killing him instantly.

Domestic audiences and leadership decapitation an appealing counterterrorism tactic for a variety of reasons, but most scholars argue that it is ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst. Whereas proponents of decapitation highlight cases in which the tactic has contributed to the organizational collapse of terrorist groups, critics counter with examples in which it has increased and intensified terrorist activity. Critics argue that targeted killings are both morally and ethically wrong and warn of a backlash effect: rather than reducing the terrorist threat, leadership decapitation is likely to increase the number of willing recruits for terrorist groups to exploit, allowing these groups to grow in size and popularity. Decapitation tactics may be prominent in Israel and the United States, detractors say, but that does not mean they are necessarily effective. Israel arguably has the most liberal and robust targeted killing policy of any state, yet one scholar concludes that “no compelling evidence exists that targeted killings have reduced the terrorist threat against Israel.”

Keep reading.

Price claims that leadership decapitation is a significant factor in the decline and mortality of terrorist organizations. It's a great piece. Particularly good is the theoretical discussion of organizational cultures (pp. 14-23) and also the summary and conclusions --- where Price indicates how the killing of Osama bin Laden is a bigger victory for U.S. counterterror policies than would be expected from existing theories of the decline and defeat of terror groups.

So, yeah, President Obama can be rightly proud to have ordered the mission at Abbottabad, although he might lay off his excessive use of the first-person singular pronoun.

Florida is Crucial Battleground in Swing State Campaigns

An excellent analysis at the Los Angeles Times, "Fractious Florida weighs heavily on presidential campaigns":

TAMPA, Fla. — No state is more crucial to Mitt Romney's chances of winning the White House than Florida, and no issue here is more important than the economy.

That dynamic played out recently when Vice President Joe Biden came to the perennial electoral vote battleground to promote the Obama administration's environmental record by riding an airboat through the Everglades.

The Romney camp responded with a stinging assault on President Obama's "failed" economic policies. The targets: a Florida jobless rate that exceeds the national average, painfully high gasoline prices, rising healthcare costs and one of the worst housing collapses in the country. The environment wasn't even mentioned.

"The tough economic climate in Florida is like a giant anchor around Obama's ankles," said Florida strategist Alberto Martinez, a senior Romney campaign advisor.

Long a powerful magnet for Northern retirees and tourist hordes from around the world, Florida is an economic laggard this election year, which helps explain why Obama chose to begin his reelection campaign instead in Ohio and Virginia, two other must-wins for Romney, which are faring better economically than Florida.

From the sultry Latin-infused tip of the peninsula to the pine woods panhandle that juts into Dixie, deserted storefronts and empty commercial buildings languish across the state. Weeds choke the abandoned streets and vacant lots of so-called zombie subdivisions, remnants of a speculative bubble that continues to depress the housing market and voters' mood. In Tampa, where Romney and his running mate will be crowned at this summer's nominating convention, home prices just hit another new low.

Jobs are coming back. But in a familiar pattern, they don't always match those lost in the recession. Last month, more than 3,300 applicants showed up for 400 new positions at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Tampa, many of them low-paying service jobs.

"We're starting to see seeds of recovery, but it's way late and way slower than it should have been," said Martinez, the Romney advisor.

Obama planted his flag in the nation's fourth-most populous state years ago and never left. As president, he's been a frequent visitor, making two trips last month. His campaign has opened more than a dozen Florida offices, including a bustling storefront down the street from the Republican-controlled Capitol in Tallahassee. If both sides engage fully, total campaign spending in the state could reach $150 million.

In 2008, Obama carried Florida by 2.8 percentage points, well below his national popular vote margin, in what was "a perfect environment" for him, according to Steven Schale, who ran the state campaign that year.

"Because our economy is so dependent on other people spending money, when Americans have money, our booms last longer. And when they don't, our busts take longer to get out of," said Schale, an informal reelection advisor. "There's not a damn thing the president can do to change that."

Recent public opinion surveys give Romney a statistically insignificant lead in the state and show that Florida voters view him more favorably than those in other big swing states. That may reflect the estimated $18 million that the Romney forces spent to win the Florida primary, a pivotal fight in the nomination campaign.

Organizationally, though, Romney is playing catch-up. His entire Florida team was dispatched to other states after the January victory and is just now reassembling.

"Obama was opening up storefronts all over the state, while the Republican candidates were duking it out in places that don't matter in the general election," said another Romney advisor in Florida, requesting anonymity to speak candidly about the campaign. "If you injected me with sodium pentothal and asked me what one thing bothers me most, it's what the Obama campaign has done at the ground level."

But sharp restrictions on new voter registration, imposed last year by the Republican-led Legislature, have slowed Obama's efforts to expand the electorate to make up for those who have soured on him. And even Democratic strategists say Romney's team has enough time to put together a successful statewide operation.

One potential wild card: Sen. Marco Rubio, a charismatic Cuban American and leading vice presidential contender. He could help with the state's Latinos, about 15% of the electorate, and possibly tip the state to the Republicans.

I like Rubio, so let's see if he gets the VP nod.

See also USA Today, "Swing states' poll: Big challenges loom for Obama, Romney."

Speaking of crucial swing states, the Times has this on that video up top, "Mitt Romney campaign has awkward moments in Ohio: He stays on message about the economy but makes no effort to challenge a remark that President Obama should be tried for treason."

That's a nontroversy.

Anarchy 101: Wisconsin Democratic Primary Voters Go to Polls to Choose Challenger for Governor

Folks should check Legal Insurrection throughout the day for coverage of today's elections, especially the Wisconsin primary. See: "Wisconsin Primary Tuesday to decide Scott Walker opponent."

Plus, "Tuesday: one of the busiest election days of 2012."

Check Althouse too, for example, "'Together, let's break the glass ceiling to the Governor's office'."

VIDEO: Michelle Malkin, "Anarchy 101: How Wisconsin’s Left embraces chaos (promo video)."

Pamela Geller Slams Obama's Foreign Policy on Hannity's

See: "VIDEO: Pamela Geller on Sean Hannity Obama's Failed Afghan Strategy and His Surrender in the War on Terror."

Suzanne Somers Discusses Sex and Good Health on Piers Morgan's

Well, it's been 30 years since her superstar turn in "Three's Company." And she's hopelessly liberal, but I like Piers Morgan's show, despite the criticism he gets pretty regularly from the right. (I think he did a great job covering the Trayvon Martin story, seeking to be an objective source of news.)

Police Investigating Islamic School Over Curriculum Comparing Jews to Nazis

The story's at Canada's National Post, but Blazing Cat Fur broke it first.

See Five Feet of Fury, "‘BlazingCatFur gets results’: my husband breaks another story that gets picked up by the mainstream."

Why Colleges Don't Teach the Federalist Papers

Bruce Kesler has Peter Berkowitz's essay at Maggie's Farm.

It's behind the subscription wall but check the top result at Google ("one day free pass") or Memeorandum.

And here's a key passage:

It would be difficult to overstate the significance of The Federalist for understanding the principles of American government and the challenges that liberal democracies confront early in the second decade of the 21st century. Yet despite the lip service they pay to liberal education, our leading universities can't be bothered to require students to study The Federalist—or, worse, they oppose such requirements on moral, political or pedagogical grounds. Small wonder it took so long for progressives to realize that arguments about the constitutionality of ObamaCare are indeed serious.

The masterpiece of American political thought originated as a series of newspaper articles published under the pseudonym Publius in New York between October 1787 and August 1788 by framers Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. The aim was to make the case for ratification of the new constitution, which had been agreed to in September 1787 by delegates to the federal convention meeting in Philadelphia over four months of remarkable discussion, debate and deliberation about self-government.

By the end of 1788, a total of 85 essays had been gathered in two volumes under the title The Federalist. Written at a brisk clip and with the crucial vote in New York hanging in the balance, the essays formed a treatise on constitutional self-government for the ages.

The Federalist deals with the reasons for preserving the union, the inefficacy of the existing federal government under the Articles of Confederation, and the conformity of the new constitution to the principles of liberty and consent. It covers war and peace, foreign affairs, commerce, taxation, federalism and the separation of powers. It provides a detailed examination of the chief features of the legislative, executive and judicial branches. It advances its case by restatement and refutation of the leading criticisms of the new constitution. It displays a level of learning, political acumen and public-spiritedness to which contemporary scholars, journalists and politicians can but aspire. And to this day it stands as an unsurpassed source of insight into the Constitution's text, structure and purposes.

At Harvard, at least, all undergraduate political-science majors will receive perfunctory exposure to a few Federalist essays in a mandatory course their sophomore year. But at Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Berkeley, political-science majors can receive their degrees without encountering the single surest analysis of the problems that the Constitution was intended to solve and the manner in which it was intended to operate.

Most astonishing and most revealing is the neglect of The Federalist by graduate schools and law schools. The political science departments at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Berkeley—which set the tone for higher education throughout the nation and train many of the next generation's professors—do not require candidates for the Ph.D. to study The Federalist. And these universities' law schools (Princeton has no law school), which produce many of the nation's leading members of the bar and bench, do not require their students to read, let alone master, The Federalist's major ideas and main lines of thought.

I teach Federalists 10 and 51 every semester, as they are included in my textbook (and any decent introductory American government text should have them, really). I also bought a paperback copy of The Federalist Papers when I was an undergraduate. It seemed like a cool thing to do.

Hey, there's also an excellent introductory text focusing on James Madison's contributions, Republic at Risk: Self Interest in American Politics.

Also at Power Line, "Papers? We Don't Need No Stinking [Federalist] Papers!"

Angela Merkel Rejects Calls to Weaken Fiscal Discipline, Faces Fight for Eurozone's Future

At Telegraph UK, "German Chancellor Angela Merkel faces a fight for the eurozone's future":

Angela Merkel could be forgiven if she had taken to her bunker on Monday. It was, after all, the 67th anniversary of the German surrender to end the Second World War in Europe.

There is little prospect of the German chancellor putting her hands up and losing the economic war she has been waging with her eurozone partners for two years now.

Austerity Rules OK might be the graffiti shorthand for the debt and public spending reduction programmes that have formed the core of the Merkel approach to keep the eurozone intact and the markets on side.

The message that came through strongly from France and Greece at the weekend was that austerity does not rule OK.

Mrs Merkel was effectively told to "get lost" by one of the new political leaders in Greece – Syriza party leader Alexis Tsipras – who's plea was to end the "bail-out barbarism".

Mrs Merkel or the markets are more likely to tell Greece to "get lost".

"A Greek eurozone exit is on the cards although the probability and timing of such an event is uncertain," said Tristan Cooper, sovereign debt analyst at Fidelity Worldwide Investment.

The election results were hardly a surprise for either the markets or European leaders.

Continue reading.

RELATED: At Der Spiegel, "Savings vs. Stimulus: Pragmatism Likely in Merkel-Hollande Relationship."

Kate Beckinsale: 'Republicans, Get In My Vagina!'

It's a parody, at Pat Dollard's, "Kate Beckinsale Asks Republicans to Get In Her Vagina."

Vancouver City

Another time lapse video, via Theo Spark:

Spain Bank Bailout is Latest Eurozone Financial Setback

Shoot, let them fail. The bailouts have gone on long enough.

At Zero Hedge, "The Spanish Bank Bailout Begins."

And Telegraph UK, "New eurozone crisis looms as Spain prepares bail-out":

A new eurozone crisis is looming as Spain signalled on Monday it was ready to bail out ailing banks after markets shrugged off the election results in France and Greece.

Prime minister Marian Rajoy indicated the Government was ready to intervene to save banks wrestling with the collapse of the housing market.

Bankia, Spain's fourth biggest bank, is the first in line for state aid. Rodrigo Rato, chairman and former IMF managing director, swiftly resigned after it was disclosed the finance ministry was preparing to refinance the bank and introduce legislation to protect the balance sheets of others.

Spain, which also signalled it could dock its only aircraft carrier to save €30m a year, is already struggling to cope with an austerity drive that has pushed the jobless total up to nearly 25pc of the workforce.

Mr Rajoy insisted that any bank bail-out would not compromise the tough targets set by Brussels to reduce the budget deficit.
Peter Kenny, managing director at Knight Capital, said Spain's action was positive because "it's them taking ownership of their own issues".

Fears of a fall-out in financial markets after the election results in France and Greece were short-lived. Shares and the euro recovered after initial falls as investors reasoned any policy changes in the eurozone recovery programme were some way off.

But the turmoil in Greece produced by a backlash against a tough austerity programme and the failure of early efforts to form a coalition government heightened speculation the country would be forced out of the eurozone.

Citi's European economics team said there was a "rising risk of a Greek exit from the euro within the next 12 to 18 months."

Also at NYT, "Executive Chairman Resigns at Bankia, the Troubled Spanish Real Estate Lender."

Obama's New Campaign Ad, 'Go' — Hey, What Happened ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform?

At ABC's OTUS blog, "New Obama ad strikes ‘don't blame me' tone on economy":

The ad is notable in part for what it doesn't show: Romney never appears, and opposition to Obama is reduced to a few images of Tea Party rallies, including one shot of a demonstrator in colonial garb with a "Shut 'Er Down" sign. Obama's two signature domestic policy achievements, his health care overhaul and the Dodd-Frank rewrite of Wall Street rules, are missing, as is the $800-billion-dollar stimulus package he championed as necessary to revive the economy.

And check The Fix, "Obama makes case in major swing state ad ‘Go,’ launches $25 million ad buy."

U.S. Disrupts New Jetliner Bomb Plot in Yemen — White House Gets AP to Hold Off Reporting for Intelligence Reasons

The Wall Street Journal has the main story, "Jetliner Bomb Plot Is Foiled."

It's a good thing.

Al Qaeda operatives are obviously working hard at deploying detection-proof explosives on U.S. jetliners. What's intriguing is the administration's coordination with the Associated Press in embargoing the story. Politico's got that, "W.H. embargoed Al Qaeda bomb threat" (via Memeorandum). And AP's report is here, "US: CIA thwarts new al-Qaida underwear bomb plot":

The operation unfolded even as the White House and Department of Homeland Security assured the American public that they knew of no al-Qaida plots against the U.S. around the anniversary of bin Laden's death.

"We have no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the anniversary of bin Laden's death," White House press secretary Jay Carney said on April 26.

On May 1, the Department of Homeland Security said, "We have no indication of any specific, credible threats or plots against the U.S. tied to the one-year anniversary of bin Laden's death."

The AP learned about the thwarted plot last week but agreed to White House and CIA requests not to publish it immediately because the sensitive intelligence operation was still under way. Once officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP decided to disclose the plot Monday despite requests from the Obama administration to wait for an official announcement Tuesday.

U.S. officials, who were briefed on the operation, insisted on anonymity to discuss the case, which the U.S. has never officially acknowledged.

It's not clear who built the bomb, but, because of its sophistication and its similarity to the Christmas bomb, authorities suspected it was the work of master bomb maker Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri. Al-Asiri constructed the first underwear bomb and two others that al-Qaida built into printer cartridges and shipped to the U.S. on cargo planes in 2010.

The report goes on to indicate that "The operation is an intelligence victory for the United States and a reminder of al-Qaida's ambitions, despite the death of bin Laden and other senior leaders."

Right.

An intelligence victory --- and a political victory for Barack "Gutsy Call" Obama and his new national security homeboy creds.

And if there's any doubt about the political coordination with the Obama-enabling media, recall from last year: "Good news: GutsyCall.com now redirects to Obama campaign site."

France, Greece, and the End of the Euro

From Jeremy Warner, at Telegraph UK, "Hollande wins and the end of the euro draws nearer" (via RealClearWorld).

I was thinking along these lines yesterday: "Socialist François Hollande Wins French Presidential Election."

RELATED: See what you can make of Paul Krugman's argument, "Those Revolting Europeans" (via Memeorandum). Krugman floats the notion of a collapse of the Euro, but only as a straw man to browbeat Germany to drop its insistence on austerity. In other words, Germany --- and France --- should end the pretense of fiscal restraint and start spending like there's no tomorrow. And Germany especially should be the market of last resort for depressed-economy exports, thus allowing its currency to appreciate, and then, ineluctably, making its own exports less competitive. Alas, Krugman wants the market only when it fits his agenda of the ever-spending welfare state. Obviously Berlin's not down with that redistributionist program.

Again, check that Memeorandum link for more. Krugman's getting a lot of huzzahs from the progs all fired up with the socialist victory and the impending gush of socialist red ink.