Andrew Sullivan's Latest Torture Trials Hissy Fit

Andrew Sullivan is a journalist. He's also a classic partisan blogger whose words deserve careful examination and rebuttal on the facts. Here's Sullivan this morning on the Obama administration's decision to withold Defense Department photographs of abuse of detainees:

In what can only be seen as a stunning reversal, the president is now refusing to release photographs that would help prove that the abuse and torture techniques revealed at Abu Ghraib were endemic in the Bush military. I can't help but wonder if this is related to his decision to appoint Stanley McChrystal as the commander of his Afghanistan war and occupation. There is solid evidence that McChrystal played an active part in enabling torture in Iraq, and his activities in charge of many secret special operations almost certainly involved condoning acts that might be illustrated by these photos. The MSM has, of course, failed to mention this in their fawning profiles of McChrystal.

This is a patent falsehood, exacerbated by ideological blindness. The night McChrystal was appointed the Wall Street Journal ran a major report focusing on just the issues Andrew alleges the media has systematically ignored: "Success and Scrutiny Mark General's Career."

Andrew's also freaking out that President Obama's moves toward an effective counterinsurgency operation in Afghan have garnered approving reviews from neoconservatives, including Bill Kristol, Michael Goldfarb and Max Boot. See Andrew's, "Obama, Neocon In Chief."

Note, of course, that the push for torture trials is increasingly understood as a misguided and distracting partisan witch hunt, and the administration's shift to a new COIN strategy in the Afghan war indicates President Obama's seriousness of purpose on the conflict, and he deserves the support of the American people.

Andrew Sullivan is underserving of the attention he gets, and his advocacy for criminalizing the Bush administration's military efforts, and now his excoriation of his man-crush-president, is one more sign that this guy's truly flipped his wig.

See also, "White House Indicates ‘Great Concern’ About Releasing Photos of Detainee Abuse ," and "Obama Reverses on Releasing Photos," via Memeorandum.

Florida Primary is Showdown for GOP Future

Here's Marco Rubio's new campaign spot hammering Charlie Crist:

Today's Los Angeles Times has the story, "Crist's Senate Bid Represents Ideological Struggle for GOP":

It is a heated debate in the struggling Republican Party: whether to broaden its ideology or follow the advice of Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and others who argue against deviating from core conservative principles.

Now, the GOP has a chance to see whether a moderate can become a model for Republican resurgence, with Florida Gov. Charlie Crist announcing Tuesday that he will run for the U.S. Senate in that politically important state.

Crist, who has bucked the GOP's conservative wing on voting rights, global warming and other issues, enjoys high approval ratings. But with the governor facing a conservative in the primary, Republican leaders across the country have seized on Florida as a battleground in the larger philosophical war over the party's future.

Crist won instant endorsements from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Texas Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the GOP Senate campaign committee. The two see him as the best hope for keeping a Senate seat in GOP hands as the party tries to avoid falling below the crucial number of senators needed to block legislation, an outcome that many political analysts see as likely.

Crist's main primary challenger, former state House Speaker Marco Rubio, went on the attack Tuesday, releasing a video showing the governor with President Obama and criticizing Crist's support of the Democrats' "reckless" economic stimulus spending.

"Our primary will offer Republicans a front-row seat to a debate about the future of the Republican Party here in Florida and across the nation," Rubio said. "My campaign will offer GOP voters a clear alternative to the direction some want to take our party."

Responding to the NSRC's announced backing of Crist yesterday, Robert Stacy McCain quips:

Basically, the old wobbly moderate, Crist, is stepping on the career of the promising Latino conservative, Rubio. It's the exact opposite of what we need. It's a triple disaster: Crist will forego a reasonably safe re-election bid as governor, to waste NRSC money running for an iffy Senate seat, creating an expensive GOP primary in the governor's race. It's just bad basic politics, all the way around, and only an idiot like Cornyn could think this was a smart move for the NRSC.

Notre Dame Students to Boycott Obama Commencement Speech

Here's Greta Van Susteren's interview with Notre Dame's Michele Sagala and Andrew Chronister on boycotting Obama's commencement speech:

The transcript is here, "Skipping Graduation and President Obama."

Watch the video. Greta asks Michele what she'll be doing after graduation. Michele responds, "I'm actually marrying this guy over here in August."

Then Greta to Andrew, "All right, Andrew, I'm a little psychic. I know in part what you're going to be doing, at least in August. I got smart real fast."

Good stuff from good people!

Reflections on the Leftist-Islamist Alliance

In December 2006, the Wall Street Journal published, "Anti-Americans on the March: Inside the unlikely coalition of the U.S.'s sworn enemies, where Communists link up with Islamic radicals." I cite that report periodically when discussing the radical left's support for the world's Muslim enemies of freedom. Also good is David Horowitz's, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left.

But Jamie Glazov just sent me a copy of his book, United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror, and I'm looking forward to reading it.

It turns out the David Solway has published an essay on United in Hate at Pajamas Media, "The United Hates of America." Check it out:

Jamie Glazov’s United in Hate is a serious book and deserves serious attention. Mulling it over, I recalled reading a newspaper article about some domestic calamity or other that had befallen the United States and tripping over a providential typo — the United States was misspelled as the “Untied States,” an apt metathesis or anagram. Which fits in pretty well with Glazov’s argument and which suggests another felicitous misprint we might stumble across one of these days: the “United Hates of America.”

For the U.S. is a country that seems to be increasingly at war, not with the hostile nations of the world that wish it harm, but with itself: the electoral gulf between red and blue states; the growing procedural animosity between Democrats and Republicans, mirroring the ideological conflict between liberals and conservatives; the unprecedented legal threat that the current administration is levying against its predecessor’s anti-terrorist interrogation methods, which promises even further discord and self-division; the friction between the mainstream press and the blogosphere, with the former tending on the whole to suppress information and the latter to unearth it; and especially the long and destabilizing campaign of the American Left against the political interests of its own country and its rush to embrace the dictatorial agendas of America’s most resolute enemies. In the current geopolitical context, the most pronounced subset of this zealous campaign is the “unholy alliance” (to use David Horowitz’s phrase) between the radical Left and the Islamic Right, which is a major theme of Glazov’s book.

There are, of course, many other excellent books on the general subject that United in Hate is addressing. I might mention in passing such works as David Pryce-Jones’ The Closed Circle, Paul Hollander’s Political Pilgrims, David Horowitz’s The Politics of Bad Faith, Phyllis Chesler’s The Death of Feminism, Mary Habek’s Knowing the Enemy, Nick Cohen’s What’s Left, Mark Steyn’s America Alone, Robert Spencer’s Stealth Jihad, Kenneth Timmerman’s Shadow Warriors — and even Saul Bellow’s To Jerusalem and Back, where we read the following prescient passage:

But the connection of democratic nations with the civilization that formed them is growing loose and queer. They seem to have forgotten what they are about. They seem to be experimenting or gambling with their liberties, unwittingly preparing themselves for totalitarianism, or perhaps not quite consciously willing it.

This was written in 1975 and could have served as an epigraph to United in Hate.

What Glazov has done in carrying on the work of his intellectual compatriots is to narrow and intensify the beam of their concern, laser-like. He directs his scrutiny to the love affair of the radical Left, and even large segments of the liberal Left, with the very forces that would destroy them, and he does this with a relentless, unswerving focus, buttressed by a veritable profusion of specific, high-profile examples and case studies. And he stays on message with such fierce and unwavering concentration that the reader has no choice but to keep pace. Mental coffee breaks are out of the question.

The result is devastating. The only resistance that those unsympathetic to his thesis can mount is to respond ad hominem and slander the messenger, for his examples cannot be wished away and his analysis seems the only conceivable means of making sense of the leftist orgy of national treason, betrayal of genuine liberal principles, and passionate support of tyrants and demagogues.

Read the whole thing, here.

On Torture, Democrats Have No Decency

I just love this Ramirez cartoon from IBD:

But see also Jennifer Rubin's essay, "Madame Speaker, Have You No Decency?":

The decision to criminalize and potentially prosecute Bush administration officials is a unique political witch hunt, heretofore never attempted by any party or administration. By raising the issue of the Democrats’ involvement and lack of objection to the enhanced interrogation policies, Republicans are making clear just how partisan an affair this is. They are also making clear how lacking in merit is the underlying premise of the accusers that, of course, these methods had to be torture because everyone would have concluded that their use “shocked the conscience.” Well, except for those lawmakers who attended some 40 briefings.

As usual, netroots leftists are still playing up "torture" as if the Democrats are not implicated in EIT. See Eric Martin, "Used to be One of the Rotten Ones," via Memeorandum.

But check Fox News as well, "House Majority Leader: Congressional Hearings Should Explore Pelosi's Interrogation Briefing":

While Democrats want the hearings to focus on what they call torture, Republicans have tried to turn the issue to their advantage by complaining that Pelosi and other Democrats knew of the tactics but didn't protest. Pelosi was briefed in 2002 while on the House Intelligence Committee.

Abortion Culture's Freedom to Kill

Ross Douthat's column today on the culture wars compares variations in Democratic group support on questions of gay rights and abortion. He suggests that liberals, especially those under 35, are particularly firm in their opposition to abortion rights. This group conceives of the sanctity to life within the divine context of the inalienable rights as set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Douthat notes that this younger constituency is skeptical of the far-left judicial activism found in such legal inventions as "penubras" and "emanations": "This helps explain why Americans under 35, while more sympathetic to gay marriage than their parents, also tend to be slightly more anti-abortion."

Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns and Money takes issue with Douthat. He first cites five year-old survey data - yep, that old! - to indicate patterns of public support for a court nominee committed to upholding Roe v. Wade. Recall, in contrast, the recent Pew survey that found just 46 percent of Americans "supporting legal abortion," and hence logically, Roe v. Wade. I know it's only a blog post, but geez, that's really bad work, unscholarly even.

Also, Lemieux is aghast with Douthat's implication that there's been "no rollback of Roe's near-absolute guarantee of abortion rights," exclaiming: this is "frankly absurd"! But it's his conclusion itself that's particularly telling of the deathwish abortion extremism on the Democratic-left:

... perhaps some day he'll explain why there's some moral significance to pre-viability abortions that occur during the second as opposed to first trimester, but I'm not holding my breath.

Actually, this notion of "pre-viability's a canard.

The trimester system has long been attacked as an arbritrary, judically-imposed regulatory scheme enabling leftist hostility to life. I mean really, what is viability? Is a fully healthy newborn outside the womb viable? Life begins the moment of fertilization. Support for abortion by Democratic-leftists from President Obama on down is pure barbarity.

Douthat's right: Leftists don't care about freedom. Or, if they do, it's freedom to kill, including killing human infants irrespective of stages of gestational development.

MSNBC's David Shuster: Carrie Prejean Makes Me Want to "Vomit"

David Shuster at MSNBC pretty much captures the total Prejean derangement that's taken over the left in the wake of this whole gay-totalitarian controversy:

I know a good many conservatives are just sick with the attacks on this woman, but The Anchoress strikes gold with her post, "Prejean: Cautionary Tale for Christians:

In America, we should not be watching a person endure character assassination and the possible loss of livelihood because she has committed the sin of daring to hold a “politically incorrect” position. Prejean was asked a question and she answered it. In America, once upon a time, the people who referred to themselves as “liberal” believed that one was entitled to one’s opinion and to full respect for it. Currently in America, every diversity is celebrated except the diversity of thought. Sadly, some in the nation have decided that thuggery, rather than respectful, reasonable argument, is a more expedient means of persuasion. They think “agree, or be destroyed” is a legitimate argument, as is its flip-side; “shut up to be safe.”

Be sure to read the whole thing, and check the links too!

See also, Alexander Burns, "Donald Trump on Miss California: Same as Barack Obama" (via Memeorandum).

Republicans and Health Care

There's been a lot of debate on health care the last few days. Check out this morning's Wall Street Journal, for example, "Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Health Care" (via Memeorandum).

A "soda tax" is a "vice tax", like cigarette taxes, that gouges people for making personal choices that may have negative externalities for the economy. The upshot, of course, is that limiting human freedom is taken as beneficial to the "public good." And it's the Democrats who're always doing it.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had a great editorial on the health care debate, "Republicans and the 'Public Option'." As it turns out, GOP Senate moderates are inclined to vote for Democratic legislation calling for the "public option" that allows individuals to opt out of private insurance for government provided health benefits. This is naturally the single-payer Trojan Horse for socialized medicine, and any Repubilican who votes for it deserves a primary challenge next year.

But I'll let Monique Stuart have the last word with her commentary on the Journal's editorial, "Health Care: A Battle Republicans Can’t Afford to Forfeit":

I hear the press keep throwing out this number of 47-50 million people being without insurance. That number means nothing to me because until about a year ago, I was one of those people. I often think about going back to being one of those people. The reason is I’m young and relatively healthy. I didn’t feel I needed insurance. Most of the time I still feel that way. Other than a case of pink eye I have barely even used my health insurance. Most people without insurance, at any given moment, are in a transitory state and will get insurance when they can, or want to, afford it. As I have said before, sometimes it’s just a matter of priorities.

This “overhaul” they keep talking about is just a set up. Like the article states, any concessions made by Democrats now will be superficial and easily changeable in the future. Both sides know this. If Republicans give into the Dems on this now it’s only a matter of time before the Dems true goal of single-payer, government-run health care becomes our reality. Eventually we will all be forced onto the government rolls.

The costs will end up being way more than any projections being offered now. People who are currently reluctant to run to the doctor over every hang nail will soon be showing up at the doctor’s office in anticipation of one. Why wouldn’t they? What is there to stop them? The only thing stopping them now is the cost. Take away the cost barrier and they’ll be there for every imagined illness under the sun.

This run on resources will inevitably lead to a rationing of services. The only reason other countries can survive on “free” health care is because they have beacons of freedom like us to take care of their overflow. What do you think Canadians do when their government refuses them treatment or puts them on line for an illness that is on a different schedule than the bureaucracy and isn’t waiting to kill them? They seek treatment here.

Anyway, I thought it was the Democrats that didn’t want the government in the doctor’s office with you? Isn’t that one of their battle cries when it comes to abortion? Where do you think socializing health care places the government when it comes to medical care? They’ll be in the doctor’s office with you, in the hospital, at the local pharmacy. They (some nameless bureaucrats in Washington) will be making the decisions on which medical treatments are necessary for which diseases, when it’s appropriate to go to the hospital and when it is not, and which medications are approved for your consumption. There will be no more choice in medical decisions. You want the government paying for it all? They’ll pay for it. And you’ll pay for it, too.

Have we all forgotten the old adage that nothing in life is free? Health care will never be free. We’ll be paying for it financially through higher taxation. And, more importantly, we’ll be paying for it with our freedom. Freedom from government intervention and interference in our medical options and decisions. I refuse to believe that this is what the majority of Americans want.

There's more at the link.

Monique "HotMES" Stuart is indeed hot!

Carrie Prejean Will Keep Miss California Crown

Here's the latest Carrie Prejean news, at the Los Angeles Times, "Miss California Will Keep Title, Trump Decides."

But note that the Times joined the "yellow fever" bandwagon with this morning's frontpage story, "Miss California USA Pageant is Rocked on its High Heels."

Ever since Miss California Carrie Prejean declared onstage last month at the Miss USA Pageant that she believed gay people should not have the right to marry, she has battled her critics in TV interviews, been championed by groups opposed to same-sex marriage and pretty much eclipsed the woman who beat her to become the reigning Miss USA.

(Does anyone even remember what state the winner was from?)

But that's nothing compared to what Prejean did to the Miss California organization. She hijacked it, the organizers said, for her own message.

"Up to now, we've just been riding along as a passenger on this runaway train," Keith Lewis, co-executive director of the Miss California USA pageant, said Monday morning at a news conference at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills. "But that ends today."

And with that, the organizers labeled her a rogue Miss California and, well, ostracized her. They don't have the authority to dethrone her. That power lies only with Donald Trump, the owner of the Miss Universe and Miss USA pageant system. He is scheduled to weigh in on the brouhaha today at a news conference in New York.

Keith Lewis deserves the "shame," not Carrie Prejean.

As Gay Patriot notes, via R.S. McCain:

... why do so many gay lefties use the word "shame" to describe the actions of their ideological adversaries? . . . Why can't these people show some class, some grace, in confronting their adversaries? Why must they adopt so harsh a tone and so vitriolic a vocabulary?"

As for Carrie Prejean, Stacy's got new topless photos from TMZ this morning, "Latest 'Carrie Prejean Nude' News Update."

More at Memeorandum. See, especially, JammieWearingFool, "How Convenient: More Racy Carrie Prejean Photos Surface."

Social Conservatives Under the Bus

From David Paul Kuhn, "Social Conservative Leaders Feel Scapegoated" (via Memeorandum):

There is a brooding sense within top social conservative circles that they have become the revolving scapegoat of the Republican Party. Many of the longtime leaders of the Christian right, from Richard Land to Tony Perkins to Gary Bauer, expressed resentment in extended interviews with a singular theme: that the most loyal GOP bloc has been so quickly thrown under many critics' bus.

"There are powerful interest groups in the party and in the country that are trying to scapegoat social conservatives," Land said, who has long served as a bridge between Southern Baptists' political concerns and GOP leadership. "It's people who have no problem ignoring facts."

Social conservatives have proven perhaps the most loyal Republicans. The September 15th economic crisis brought Democrats to new ground across red America. States from Indiana to Florida to North Carolina shifted to Barack Obama after the market crash. In this last chapter of the campaign Obama made inroads with GOP strongholds like white men.

But social conservatives did not budge. Only 29 percent of whites who attend church weekly backed Obama. That is the precise portion who voted for Al Gore and John Kerry. Half of all Americans who voted for John McCain were weekly church attendees. White evangelicals or born-again Christians comprised 42 percent of the GOP vote, according to exit polls.

Despite their loyalty to the GOP, traditionally, after national losses, social conservatives feel like the whipping boy of GOP critics.

"The party alienated too many Americans by allowing social conservatives to dominate," read one New York Times article shortly after Bill Clinton won in 1992. To win, "we're going to have to take on the religious nuts," argued a GOP strategist after Clinton's reelection four years later.

"That's the pattern that has emerged over the last couple of decades," said Perkins, who heads the Family Research Council. "People want to find an easy excuse for the GOP's failures and they try to point to the social conservative issues and by extension social conservatives."

Today, many social conservatives believe that this pointing is more pervasive.

More at the link.

The GOP will lose social conservatives if the Meghan McCains of the party become ascendant. That said, Republicans didn't lose in 2008 because of social conservatives, so we'll see who's going to get thrown under the bus in the end. See also, "Grassroots Conservatives Must Rise Up."

From McKiernan to McChrystal in Afghanistan

Here's the New York Times report on the sacking of Gen. David D. McKiernan, "Commander’s Ouster Tied to ‘New Approach’ in Afghan War" (via Memeorandum).

Here's the Wall Street Journal's report on McKiernan's replacement, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, "Success and Scrutiny Mark General's Career":

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he wants a new commander in Afghanistan to fight the kind of complex counterinsurgency warfare that has come to dominate the campaign there.

His recommendation, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, certainly fits that bill. Gen. McChrystal, a Green Beret who has spent most of the last year as the top staff officer to Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spent the previous five years commanding special operations forces in Iraq -- units that specialize in guerilla warfare, including the training of indigenous armies.

It was also those skills that officials said Adm. Mullen was counting on when last month he appointed Gen. McChrystal to head a task force to improve Afghan war strategy with a broad mandate to review the entirety of the campaign -- including, according to an agenda for the task force viewed by The Wall Street Journal, "appointment of key leaders."

Like Gen. David H. Petraeus, who will become Gen. McChrystal's new boss and is credited with turning around the Iraq campaign, Gen. McChrystal has won over converts in the Pentagon because of his intellectual rigor and a flexible decision-making process that lends itself to irregular warfare, senior military officers said. Gen. David McKiernan, the man Gen. McChrystal is succeeding, comes from the more traditional ranks of the Army, having commanded heavy armor brigades and divisions during his 37-year career.

McChrystal's been around a good bit of controversy (he was responsible for the misleading reports of Pat Tillman's death by friendly fire in Afghanistan), although he looks like the perfect man for Gen. Petraeus.

More analysis at Memeorandum, and see especially, Fred Kaplan, "It's Obama's War Now: The ouster of Afghanistan commander David McKiernan could make—or break—the Obama presidency."

Michelle Bachmann Interview at Right Wing News

John Hawkins has an interview with Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann:

The Republican Party is obviously in pretty lousy shape right now. Why do you think that's the case and what do we need to do to turn it around?

I think we absolutely can turn it around. You might say that the Democrats are at their apex now and the Republicans are at their nadir -- and that's happened before. We've switched positions where the Democrats have been at the nadir and the Republicans have been at the top.

But, I think the one key to remember is that conservatism is not dead. No matter how much the mainstream media, the liberal elites or anyone else wants to say it is -- it just has to be reignited ... We squandered our opportunity to lead the country because the policies and the principles that we all saw work so well in the 1980s weren't followed during the early part of the Bush years and on as we went.

You cannot grab the hearts and minds of the American people when, for instance, Republicans are putting into place a government takeover of the local public school classroom. At that point people look askance at Republicans and say, "Why in the world should we back you when you're governing like liberals?" -- and so you can understand why people would reject what it is that Republicans were selling.

Read the whole thing at the link.

Janeane Garofalo Responds: "They're All Racists!" - UPDATED!

Griff Jenkins interviewed Jeneane Garofalo on the street, and I just caught the clips at O'Reilly Factor and Hannity. This snippet of Garofalo's defiant refusal to apologize doesn't quite capture it: Jenkins asked if she wanted to take back her attack on tea partyers as racist. Garofalo got her face right in the camera and announced, "No, they're all racists." Well, that includes me and my 13 year-old son! I mean it, really, truly, when I say this is an awful, hateful, and disgusting woman. And to think she's a major spokeswoman for the left. I won't be holding my breath for anti-Garofalo protests any time soon!

**********

UPDATE: Here's the video from Hannity's show, care of HotAirPundit:

Topless Pics of Miss Rhode Island No Big Deal for Leftist Media

Via Memeorandum, here's Fox News on Alysha Castonguay, "Pageant Double Standard? Steamy Photos of Miss Rhode Island Won't Threaten Her Crown":

While racy photos of Miss California Carrie Prejean could cost the outspoken first runner up in the Miss USA pageant her crown, pageant officials don't seem to care about even steamier photos of Miss Rhode Island that appeared in a men’s magazine.

So is Prejean being targeted simply for her beliefs?

As Prejean has kept busy making appearances with groups opposed to same-sex marriage, officials at the Miss California USA organization have been investigating whether she violated her contract by failing to reveal that she had posed in her underwear as a teenager.

Also blogging: The Blog Prof and Jawa Report.

Obviously, the hypocrisy on Alysha Castonguay is choice "Rule 5" scandal material.

Conservatives Can Finish First

John Hawkins has started a much needed debate among conservative bloggers on partisanship, civility, and political conflict. In his article, "The Right Needs to Play as Dirty as the Left," Hawkins argues that leftists tactics are "below the belt," and if conservatives want to stay in the game, they "need to start giving them a taste of their own medicine."

It turns out that Hawkins opened the proverbial can of worms. His argument generated a couple of worthy responses: Adam Graham's, "No, The Right Doesn’t Need to Play as Dirty as the Left," and Clarendon's, "Thoughtful Conservatism Can Win Hearts and Minds."

Hawkins responded to Graham's piece with, "Attention Conservatives: Nice Guys Do Finish Last." He cites Machiavelli:

There is such a gap between how one lives and how one ought to live that anyone who abandons what is done for what ought to be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation: for a man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good.” — Niccolo Machiavelli

Regular readers know that I've written much about these issues (see, for example, "Kos and Andrew: Merchants of Hate," and "The Commentocracy of Hate"). It's perfectly clear to me that while both left and right engage in hardball - and often undignified - political conflict, there's a specific and unrivaled secular demonization on the left that conservatives - by nature of their values - will never match.

Again, I'm not exonerating conservatives of their worst excesses. My point is that day-in and day-out, collectivist partisans dig down, endlessly, to the depths of depravity to demonize and excoriate conservatives, often in ways that truly defy moral reason, much less common sense.

At Down With Tyranny! this weekend, Mike Huckabee - who warned of a potentially fatal Republican schism over social issues - was smeared with a "I now pronounce you Huck and Chuck" Photoshop. At the same post, Republicans are slurred "Limbaughist extremists" and "lunatic fringe America-haters", while Senator James Inhofe was lampooned in Photoshop as a bigoted clown (below).

Yeah, I know, I know, this is supposedly tame: It's just political comedy and partisan satire. It's always okay when leftist drag their knuckles with shameless attacks on conservatives. When Wanda Sykes calls Rush Limbaugh the "20th hijacker," that's brilliant comedic theatre. When TBogg attacks conservatives using Sambo displays, it's incisive satiric commentary. When Sadly No! Photoshops Thomas "Uncle Ben" Sowell de-Nazifying William Buckley's toilet bowl, that's "hilarious," says Dr. Hussein "Arlon" Biobrain.

But the fact is, conservative just don't go that low.

And I think Hawkins is right when he says it's foolish politically for conservatives to "pat ourselves on the back for being 'better than they are' because we let them do it?" Hawkins looks to Machiavelli, but we might also recall Reinhold Niebuhr's Christian realism, which holds that society will never confirm to the ideal "Heavenly City." Thus a hard-headed, morally robust approach to politics is possible without capitulating to a utopianism that works only to empower the secular leftists and their moral hypocrisy.

I'm routinely attacked by the secular collectivists for not taking "the high road." These folks, of course, are the very same people who turn around and post truly juvenile character assassinations against me, with slurs, for example, as "Donald the Moose":

So, to me, it's not so much that "The Right Doesn’t Need to Play as Dirty as the Left." We can never be that dirty!

The key is to recognize that the necessity of power on the "Earthly City" requires the occasional willingness to get down in the muck and give as good as it gets. Conservatives by beliefs, values, and temperment will never succumb to the level of diabolical excoriation that we routinely find on the partisan left. But conservtives must know this: Refusing to look at the problem realistically amounts to unilateral disarmament, and thus political impotence. And a willingness to engage realistically is the political requisite for survival of the moral order and regime stablity.

Conservatives can finish first, and they owe it to themselves and society to settle for nothing less.

Newsflash! Women Bullying Women at Work is Really Patriarchal Blame-Shifting Plot!

After decades of increasing opportunity for women in American life, the focus of gender equality in the workplace is shifting to other subtle barriers to advancement outside the normal structures of male dominance. According to the New York Times's, "Backlash: Women Bullying Women at Work," women on women bullying constitutes 40 percent of the cases of workplace gender harrassment. But note in addition to that:

... the male bullies take an egalitarian approach, mowing down men and women pretty much in equal measure. The women appear to prefer their own kind, choosing other women as targets more than 70 percent of the time.

Hmm. Let's think about that: Men take an "egalitarian approach," which might mean that men exercise decisive but fair leadership that generates a few grumbles, while women engage in catfights more vicious than anything those "evil" patriarchs could dish out. Okay. Check.

Now, let's hear if from Echidne, who just can't stand to find that, gasp!, women are oppressors:

This piece sounds to me like yet another in that long series the Times has: What Is Wrong With Working Women? These stories always create or magnify a problem and then offer anecdotal evidence on how awful the problem is.

To get to that point, the present article quickly slides by the facts: Men are more often bullies than women and if you work a little on those percentages you will find that male-on-female (heh) bullying is a larger percentage than female-on-female bullying. But never mind, we shall write about the latter! Yes.

Then we are going to pretend that all working women know the names of Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem and we are also going to pretend that these feminists believed in some universal sisterhood, easily shared by all women in a society which is still based on patriarchy.

See how it works? Now we have a problem of evil women keeping other women down. To the extent this happens, might it have something to do with the musical chairs that many firms still play with women? If only a few promotion slots are available for women, and if women know this to be the case, well, they are going to compete against other women, right?

The conclusion of the article tells us that this is a problem women should fix, what with all the other problems women have to cope with (such as guys bullying them more). Those other problems or their solutions are not, however, written up in the New York Times. It's much safer to focus on what is wrong with women themselves.

Actually, Echidne misses the whole thrust of the article. No one here is saying men don't bully and harrass women. The piece notes instead that "women are taught to fight with one another for attention at an early age" and that this fact is emerging as a substantial impediment to gender equality.

Also, this is not "anecdotal" evidence. The article discusses social science research using what look likes is large "N" workplace studies using survey questionnaire methods. Thus, by definition these are not "anecdotal" findings. But like it is with black civil rights, feminists like Echidne will endlessy claim "discrimination" while folks like Carli Fiorina and Condoleezza Rice blaze a trail of leadership across the pinnacles of power in American politics, business, and academe.

P.S. See also, Robert Stacy McCain's "National Offend A Feminist Week." I'm a little late to the party, but better late than never!

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

Added: See also, Fausta, who calls "bullshit": "Having attended an all-girls’ school for 11 years, and having been bullied by a woman supervisor at work, believe me when I tell you that women are as obnoxious and bullying as any ..."

Dick Cheney on "Face the Nation"

Via Flopping Aces, here's Former Vice President Dick Cheney's with Bob Schieffer yesterday:

CQ Politics has the transcript, via Memeorandum:

CHENEY: Well, Bob, first of all, it’s good to go back on the show.

SCHIEFFER: Thank you.

CHENEY: It’s nice to know that you’re still loved and are invited out in public sometimes.

The reason I’ve been speaking, and in effect what I’ve been doing is responding to press queries such as yours, is because I think the issues that are at stake here are so important. And, in effect, what we’ve seen happen with respect to the Obama administration as they came to power is they have moved to take down a lot of those policies we put in place that kept the nation safe for nearly eight years from a follow-on terrorist attack like 9/11. Dealing with prisoner interrogation, for example, or the terrorist surveillance program.

They campaigned against these policies across the country, and then they came in now, and they have tried, very hard, to undertake actions that I just fundamentally disagree with.

SCHIEFFER: Well, do you -- I mean, should we take that literally? You say that the administration has made this country more vulnerable to attacks here in the homeland.

CHENEY: That’s my belief, based upon the fact, Bob, that we put in place those policies after 9/11. On the morning of 9/12, if you will, there was a great deal we didn’t know about Al Qaida. There was the need to embark upon a new strategy with respect to treating this as a strategic threat to the United States. There was the possibility of Al Qaida terrorists in the midst of one of our own cities with a nuclear weapon or a biological agent.

It was a time of great concern, and we put in place some very good policies, and they worked, for eight years. Now we have an administration that’s come to power that has been critical of the programs, but not only that, there’s been talk about prosecuting the lawyers in the Justice Department who gave us the opinions that we operated in accordance with, or referring them to the Bar Association for disbarment or sanctions of some kind, or possibly cooperating with foreign governments that are interested in trying to prosecute American officials, those same officials who were responsible for defending this nation for the last eight years.

That whole complex of things is what I find deeply disturbing, and I think to the extent that those policies were responsible for saving lives, that the administration is now trying to cancel those policies or end them, terminate them, then I think it’s fair to argue -- and I do argue -- that that means in the future we’re not going to have the same safeguards we’ve had for the last eight years.

More here.

Also, Conor Friedersdorf demonstrates that Cheney derangement lives!

Nancy Pelosi, Dogged by Waterboarding Lies, Visits Iraq to Expedite Precipitous Withdrawal

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi really has no business conducting foreign policy on behalf of the administration, much less her party's congressional majority. The San Francisco Democrat, who made a made a "surprise visit" to Iraq this weekend, has not one shred of credibility on decisions regarding the disposition of the American deployment. Indeed, she's been one of the leading congresssional Democrats who has literally worked for an American defeat in the conflict.

But as The Politico reports, Pelosi is in Iraq to expedite the Obama administration's policy mandating a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops from the theater:

During a brief Mother's Day visit to Iraq on Sunday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi reaffirmed her commitment to ensure that the U.S. military meets its June 30 deadline for withdrawing American troops from major cities in the country, according to a release from her office.

The report indicates that Pelosi talks a big game on veterans' benefits for returning troops, but the Speaker's bald-faced lies on her waterboarding briefings in 2002 demonstrate that she's all about gaining and holding political power, not protecting the lives of American soldiers in the field, or U.S. citizens here at home.

See Captain Ed's post for the details of the dereliction of high office by the Democrats' second-in-line to the presidency, "More Confirmation That Pelosi Lied":

Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to evade responsibility for her role in approving the use of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques took another hit today in the Washington Post — and this time the fire comes from her side of the aisle. Pete Hoekstra upped the ante as well, demanding the release of precise minutes of Congressional briefings, and Leon Panetta has promised to make them available, at least to Capitol Hill ...

Pelosi tries but fails to latch onto Representative Jane Harmon's timeline for CIA briefings:

Pelosi’s attempt to weasel onto Harman’s objection fails when one looks at the briefing notes. Both Pelosi and Sheehy attended a briefing on September 4, 2002, five months before Harman attended her first briefing. That 9/02 briefing specifically covered EITs and their use on Abu Zubaydah. Harman raised her objection in 2003, not in 2002, as she had yet to attend one of the EIT briefings.

Captain Ed concludes:

Since Eric Holder and Barack Obama have opened the possibility of legal action against people in the loop on waterboarding and other techniques, we have seen competing leaks that give small slices of the overall picture. The act of releasing the OLC memos, while not a leak, was another politically selective act intended to give only a small part of the picture for the administration’s purposes. We need to see all of the documentation, with only the most sensitive information redacted, in order to know exactly what was done, who ordered it, who approved it, and who knew about it — and what we discovered as a result of it. Be sure to read the whole thing, especially Ed's discussion of block quotations indicati

See also, Astute Bloggers, "The Downside of Waterboarding Nancy Pelosi."

Rule 5 Rescue: Heidi Klum Mother's Day Action!

Well, it's Mother's Day. I was visiting family yesterday and was unable to work on my usual entry for Full Metal Saturday. So, what better way to make amends than with some hot "Rule 5" action featuring the lovely three-time and expecting mom, Heidi Klum:

Breaking with tradition, I'd first like to thank those who've sent me abundant traffic this week, Blazing Cat Fur, Dan Collins and Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom, John Hawkins, Moe Lane, and Dan Riehl.

Let me also throw some links to a few regular commenters here as well, M Conservative Operative, Jordan at Generation Patriot and Chris Wysocki! But see Philippe in Europe too, one of my very best commenters! Check out my friend Stogie as well.

Now, back to the regular babe-blogging program!

Check out Smitty's weekend treat, "Rule 5 Sunday." Smitty leads off the roster with the post at Three Beers Later, "Frumley Brooks, Esq., Mainsteam Conservative Pundit, Inveigles Against Offend-a-Feminist Week." Further, click over to Bob's Bar & Grill's Milla Jovovich action! And TrogloPundit weighs in with some unusual Rule 5!

HotMES! is a woman for my own heart with her dynamite post on Rachel McAdams. What an inspiration! And Suzanna Logan's full of innuendo with some Mitt Romney Rule 5 goodness! And Carol at No Sheeples Here! is on the case as well! Plus, Skye's smoking with some Lady GaGa action!

Now, don't miss Pat in Shreveport's Saturday roundup either, with Steve McQueen beefcake! Pundette's been tearing it up as well, but Michelle Obama's "burnished arms"! Threatening Democratic power, I'll tell you!

Shifting gears a lot here, The Rhetorican gives you Brokeback Star Trek! Oh, the passion! Who knew! And no doubt RepsacRomulan3 wants in on the action! And JBW too! No wonder the American Nihilists love Obama so much!

Well, let's wrap it up here to some friends I just found on the net. Say hello to The Pajama Underground and The Right Guy! No let's see some Rule 5 action fellas!

Please e-mail with your links if I've missed your blog!

Until next week!

Grassroots Conservatives Must Rise Up

This morning's Los Angeles Times features a colloquium on conservatism, "SOS for the GOP." Not much here is really new. We find the same-old "progressive conservatism" in Morley Winograd and Michael Hais', "The Republican Party ignores young 'millennials' at its peril." And "moderate" Mickey Edward argues against the Goldwater legacy in "The nation needs a better GOP."

This is the kind of thing that only time and elections will resolve. I'm simply more inclined to agree with Richard Viguerie and his contribution to the collection, "What Republicans need is a mutiny":

The current GOP leadership has no message or vision that appeals to the grass roots. We never hear from them the boat-rocking message of successful conservatives.

Instead, the public's image of the GOP is that it is incompetent (think Hurricane Katrina), corrupt (think Jack Abramoff, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, etc.) and without principles (think wild spending, bailouts, earmarks and a lack of a true conservative vision). Republicans can try smoke and mirrors, but they really need new leaders who will reverse the big-government policies of Bush 43 and congressional Republicans and articulate and move a conservative agenda forward.

Democrats have nothing to fear from today's Republican Party leaders. That's why Democrats have taken to targeting Rush Limbaugh and others who aren't in formal leadership positions in the GOP but who forcefully articulate a conservative vision.

Republicans need the political equivalent of Alcoholics Anonymous. First, they must admit their problem (many are in denial). Next, they must promise never to do it again. Then they must recognize what caused the problem ("Washingtonitis," abandoning the principles of the party and allowing people who didn't believe in the principles of the party to assume leadership positions). Last, when in a hole, stop digging.

Instead, Republicans are still digging. The GOP has lost the Goldwater/Reagan vision of rolling back unconstitutional government and restoring it to its prescribed authority. Its leaders seem barely capable of fighting for basic GOP principles of low taxes, a strong national defense and traditional values.

The American people have said clearly in the last two national elections that they don't like the GOP of Bush, Karl Rove, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, etc. All the rebranding efforts and pandering tours won't work as long as the party remains under the leadership of the team that was a party-wrecking disaster on the order of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Bush 41 and Bush 43.

In the 2008 election, Republicans acquiesced to the Specter/Colin Powell wing and nominated the one member of their party most famously critical of conservatives and most open to partnerships with people from across the aisle, John McCain. That obviously didn't work.

For Republicans to remove the stigma of Bush 43 and his GOP Congress, they must be able to honestly communicate to Americans that they are "Open Under New Management" -- but with old, time-tested principles.

The second debate is whether conservatives should tone down on social issues such as abortion and marriage.

Those, however, who win without principle have neither an agenda nor a mandate and rarely change anything for the better. In the history books, centrists and accommodators end up alongside James Buchanan, who compromised with slavery, and Neville Chamberlain, who compromised with Nazism. Political leaders we respect are ones who changed political reality, not those who accommodated themselves to political reality.

Leftist activists on social issues not only advocate loudly, even threateningly, they are happy to achieve their objectives through unconstitutional methods such as judicial activism.

Certainly, conservatives need to appeal not just to the faithful but must use logical and constitutional rationales on social issues. But stay quiet? I think not. What would have become of the great social and political debates of our country -- slavery, segregation, suffrage -- had activists acquiesced to the political establishment?

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

The political establishment is averse to conservative boat-rockers, which is why conservatives should withhold financial support from all GOP national committees and establishment politicians but support principled organizations and candidates. They should run candidates for every party and public office except when there's a principled incumbent conservative.

Conservatives should no longer look to Republican politicians for leadership and should assume the role of leading the opposition to Obama and the Democrats. We believe we have a party and a country to save, and the GOP establishment is in our way. Let the rebellion begin.

See also, Fred Barnes, "Be the Party of No: It's the Route to Republican Landslides" (via Memeorandum).