Conor Friedersdorf: Avoidance, Obfuscation, Prevarication

Unless I see some serious engagement on some of the points I've raised, this should be may last post in the current debate over Conor Friedersdorf. I will keep my eye open for some of the more egregious claims Mr. Friederdorf is wont to make in his future blogging; but there will be no further iterations in the current controversy in the absence of new information or responses. Mostly, it's simply not worth my time. Why engage if folks are too lazy or too self-absorbed to even attempt a rebuttal to the points I've raised? There's some current roiling on the right, and this is good, but some of those engaged in it are not acting in good faith, and that really defeats the purpose of it all.

Frankly, I'm not particularly invested in Mr. Friedersdorf. He's not a class intellect, and his writing is both arrogant and pedantic. I'm interested in ideas. As I've noted, Mr. Friedersdorf has made some generally off-the-wall arguments on some key public policy issues. He's also embarked on a personal jihad against Mark Levin, who is currently the #1 bestselling conservative author in the country. That kind of personalization of political difference is itself worthy of rebuttal. And as a number of my good friends have joined the exchange, I thought I might behoove myself to throw them some support.

I've responded to Mr. Friedersdorf with a number of detailed posts (here, here, here, and here). All of these essays are detailed and substantive. Mr. Friedersdorf's silence in engaging them goes beyond disrespect. Frankly, as is the case with Mark Thompson and E.D. Kain, it's most likely that Mr. Friedersdorf is simply overwhelmed by superior firepower; and rather than further expose the superficiality of his intellect, he adopts a variety of coping techniques: avoidance, obfuscation, and prevarication are the first tactics that come to mind.

Readers can check Mr. Friederdorf's comments to the links above. Let me first note the most recent for some flavor:

Look man, if you want me to address your arguments, just state one clearly enough for me to respond!

This response fits with any of the tactics I mentioned above, although I'd add the noun "dishonest" as well. Readers might check my search of "Conor Friedersdorf" posts. All the argument I've made are "clear" and compelling. That Mr. Friedersdorf chooses not to engage them simply confirms his penchant toward avoidance and more.

I actually wrote on Mr. Friedersdorf's essay attacking "war on terror hawks." As I said at the time, Mr. Friederdorf "equates the actions of one lone wacko with those of an international terrorist network that's responsible for the 9/11 attacks, as well as a number of other terrorist atrocities around the world in recent decades."

Mr. Friederdorf has never responded to this substantive, AND APPARENTLY CLEAR, point. He did retreat to denial, of course. But he has not systematically defended his argument that conservatives should treat suspected abortion killers just like captured Islamofascist jihadis - that is, he suggests conservatives should support waterboarding for both. It's not possible to pose a hypothetical like this a priori if the proponent of the scenario doesn't in fact see the two categories of antagonists ("combatants") in equivalent terms.

In fact, Mr. Friedersdorf claimed that he "did not equate" the actions of the abortion murder suspect to global terrorist barbarians. He then demanded that I explain what "leads you to believe otherwise." And so I did, here:

At your original post I cited weeks ago, "A Question for War on Terror Hawks," you assert moral equivalencies between a lone U.S. murder suspect and the untold number of violent jihadists within the global terrorist network - including many, of course, who were captured on the battlefield and held as enemy combatants in a real war on terrorism. Your post, as it proposes partisan payback for the robust anti-terror policies of the Bush years, basically endorses an Obama administration policy of declaring domestic anti-abortion terrorists as identical enemy combatants; you also deploy taunting language in saying, "I wonder how 'War on Terror Hawks' would react" if President Obama had the "prerogative to order the waterboarding of the uncharged, untried detainees." The scenario is not simply a hypothetical. It's transparent advocacy in furtherance of ideological retribution. Most of all, your post is dishonest hackery, and your defense of it is peurile idiocy.

To this, Mr. Friederdorf DID NOT ALLEGE vagueness on my part. Indeed, he asserted that my argument - offered in good faith at his request - was "a paranoid theory."

I'm not prone to paranoia, actually, so there's little to make of Mr. Friedersdorf's comment other than a one-off bit of snark. It is a good example, however, of my point above, which is that Mr. Friedersdorf resorts to avoidance, obfuscation, and prevarication when confronted with superior argumentation.

And that's actually kind of sad for him. The man clearly hopes to make an intellectual contribution of some sort. But as we see here, he's flummoxed with a case that deploys inferential logic as a matter of straightforward argumentation. It's simply not that complicated, much less unclear. So why no response from Mr. Friedersdorf? He rebuked me for not defending my original post, and then he turns and panics when I stand up to him. Readers can see why I question this man's capabilities.

But that's not all. I offered a detailed and highly reasoned argument in my essay, "Neoclassicons." Mr. Friedersdorf appears to be among a number of bloggers seeking to claim the mantle of today's "genuine conservatives." As I noted at the post, "From Conor Friederdorf to David Frum, to Daniel Larison to Andrew Sullivan, and then E.D. Kain, there's a movement afoot that wants desperately to be "conservative," but one that is failing miserably."

Once again, Mr. Friedersdorf refused to respond. He did make some lame, and completely irrelevant, points about how he'd been "defending Rod Dreher," as if dropping some names of people not even tangentially related to the discussion might possibly be considered a rebuttal. Mr. Friedersdorf apparently does that thing quite a bit, so we shouldn't be surprised.

My main thesis at "Neoclassicons," in any case, is that these folks are not "conservative." I especially indicated that Andrew Sullivan - who is the ideological lodestar for these people - is not a conservative. Hardly anyone would situate Sullivan on the right of the ideological spectrum nowadays. Andrew's colleague at The Atlantic places him at "the center right." And even liberals now think of Sullivan as one of their own.

And this is the key thing in all of this: Mr. Friedersdorf seems to think that the most important intellectual developments today are taking place on the left of the political spectrum. This fact helps explain Mr. Friedsdorf's jihad against Mark Levin. The latter, as I noted, is the hottest thinker in conservative politics today. Levin's Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto is essential reading for anyone who's seriously thinking about the future direction of the American right. And Mr. Friedersdorf is attacking him?

It takes no great leap of imagination to see that not only is Mark Levin threatening to Conor Friedersdorf, but also that Mr. Friedersdorf's attack on him are less about ideology and more about self-promotion. "Hey, if I attack Mark Levin I can score some points with the Andrew Sullivan and the left-libertarians."

That's really all there is to it. As I've shown in this post, which is now a lot longer and more detailed that I'd anticipaed, Conor Friedersdorf is an essentially dishonest man with an inflated sense of self-importance. I can hardly be more clear in saying this, but be that as it may, I'm not expecting a response to the arguments I've made in any case. Mr. Friedersdorf doesn't have it in him, and in all of his recent slurs, he's mostly out to gain attention for himself rather than debate those who really do care about the movement.

I've enabled comment moderation. I won't be publishing Mr. Friedersdorf's drive-by snarks here. If he responds with a post at either of his blogs, I'll reply in kind if they are substantive - and if in fact they move the debate forward.

Otherwise, I'm moving on ...

Obama: Hope and Change - But Not For Iran

Recall my theme from yesterday: "Change for Iran? Not From Obama."

It turns out that Charles Krauthammer's giving it some play, "Hope and Change - But Not For Iran" (via Memeorandum):

This started out about election fraud. But like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What's at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime -- and the future of the entire Middle East.

This revolution will end either as a Tiananmen (a hot Tiananmen with massive and bloody repression or a cold Tiananmen with a finer mix of brutality and co-optation) or as a true revolution that brings down the Islamic Republic.

The latter is improbable but, for the first time in 30 years, not impossible. Imagine the repercussions. It would mark a decisive blow to Islamist radicalism, of which Iran today is not just standard-bearer and model, but financier and arms supplier. It would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism -- leave it forever spent and discredited.

In the region, it would launch a second Arab spring. The first in 2005 -- the expulsion of Syria from Lebanon, the first elections in Iraq and early liberalization in the Gulf states and Egypt -- was aborted by a fierce counterattack from the forces of repression and reaction, led and funded by Iran.

Now, with Hezbollah having lost elections in Lebanon and with Iraq establishing the institutions of a young democracy, the fall of the Islamist dictatorship in Iran would have an electric and contagious effect. The exception -- Iraq and Lebanon -- becomes the rule. Democracy becomes the wave. Syria becomes isolated; Hezbollah and Hamas, patronless. The entire trajectory of the region is reversed.

All hangs in the balance. The Khamenei regime is deciding whether to do a Tiananmen. And what side is the Obama administration taking? None. Except for the desire that this "vigorous debate" (press secretary Robert Gibbs's disgraceful euphemism) over election "irregularities" not stand in the way of U.S.-Iranian engagement on nuclear weapons.

Even from the narrow perspective of the nuclear issue, the administration's geopolitical calculus is absurd. There is zero chance that any such talks will denuclearize Iran. On Monday, President Ahmadinejad declared yet again that the nuclear "file is shut, forever." The only hope for a resolution of the nuclear question is regime change, which (if the successor regime were as moderate as pre-Khomeini Iran) might either stop the program, or make it manageable and nonthreatening.

That's our fundamental interest. And our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.

And where is our president? Afraid of "meddling." Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror -- and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world.

See also, Paul Wolfowitz's withering essay, "Obama Needs to Change Stance on Iran":

President Obama's first response to the protests in Iran was silence, followed by a cautious, almost neutral stance designed to avoid "meddling" in Iranian affairs. I am reminded of Ronald Reagan's initially neutral response to the crisis following the Philippine election of 1986, and of George H.W. Bush's initially neutral response to the attempted coup against Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991. Both Reagan and Bush were able to abandon their mistaken neutrality in time to make a difference. It's not too late for Obama to do the same ....

It would be a cruel irony if, in an effort to avoid imposing democracy, the United States were to tip the scale toward dictators who impose their will on people struggling for freedom. And if we appear so desperate for negotiations that we will abandon those who support our principles, we weaken our own negotiating hand.

That does not mean that we need to pick sides in an Iranian election or claim to know its result. Obama could send a powerful message simply by placing his enormous personal prestige behind the peaceful conduct of the demonstrators and their demand for reform - exactly the kind of peaceful, democratic change that he praised in his speech in Cairo.

Conor Friedersdorf: Hammered on Multiple Fronts, Threatens Dan Riehl

The Big Baby at Big Ideas has refused to engage the substantive points at my post, "Conor Friedersdorf: Small-Minded Narcissist." In his own posts, Mr. Friedersdorf makes provocative assertions, and then he whines when you call him out on them. He then accuses others of "ad hominem" attacks as if that relieves him of the responsibility of defending his allegations.

So to be clear: I'm not attacking Mr. Friederdorf "against the man." I'm arguing "descriptively" against his behavior, which is objectively childish and selfish. His small mindedness is also objectively demonstrated by making what would be playground copycat allegations:

It's quite a paranoid theory you've developed. But it is unsupported by any evidence. Should you take the time to converse with me like a gentleman, I'll happily engage your substantive arguments, and I think you'll find that your wrongheaded assumptions about me will change.

Actually, to say I'm "paranoid" is a claim that itself needs to be substantiated by "evidence." And of course, the "theory" in question at my post is itself a logically-derived claim on Mr. Freiderdorf's arguments. It's a method of substantive debate. Ignoring the argumentative power of my claims doesn't make them go away.

But frankly, Mr. Friederdorf is not known for much intellectual firepower.

Cranky Conservative eviscerated him at this post, "How Do You Like Dem Apples?" I got a kick out of this passage:

I wasn’t really going to comment on the 3578734895723894569783th (give or take) debate on “real conservatism,” this time involving RS McCain, Dan Riehl, and Conor Friedersdorf, but after reading Friedersdorf’s take, I couldn’t help but think of that scene from Good Will Hunting.

WILL: Of course that’s your contention. You’re a first year grad student. You just finished some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison prob’ly, and so naturally that’s what you believe until next month when you get to James Lemon and get convinced that Virginia and Pennsylvania were strongly entrepreneurial and capitalist back in 1740. That’ll last until sometime in your second year, then you’ll be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood about the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.

CLARK: Well, as a matter of fact, I won’t, because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of –

WILL: “Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth…” You got that from “Work in Essex County,” Page 421, right? Do you have any thoughts of your own on the subject or were you just gonna plagiarize the whole book for me? Look, don’t try to pass yourself off as some kind of an intellect at the expense of my friend just to impress these girls.

Friedersdorf, again, ends up making it all about him! After being thoroughly schooled by Cranky Conservative at the comments, Friederdorf has the temerity to demand a retraction!

I should have chosen my words more carefully ... I do thank you for alerting me to the error, and apologize for my imprecision. However, I think the rest of my comment stands, and refutes the argument in your post. I wish you’d correct your mistake as readily as I’ve fessed up to mine.

Cranky Conservative responds beautifully:

You fess up to a blatant misreading of McCain, and that means I am supposed to “correct” a mistake that I did not make? In the very body of the post I said that I did not think you were stating that Kirk is the sole authoritative voice of conservatism. As for the remainder of the post, I stand by the analysis. You haven’t offered up anything more meaningful than name dropping.

But note something else: If Friederdorf can't win an argument on the merits, he'll make implied threats - which, in the case of Dan Riehl, means that he'll mention the publication of private e-mail communications to get you to STFU. Here's the comment from Mr. Friederdorf:

Time and again I have addressed the substance of your arguments, while you've responded with little more than ad hominem attacks. I have unfailingly refrained from responding in kind, kept the confidence of private e-mails you've sent me, and otherwise excerpted far more material from the folks I'm criticizing than you do in a typical blog post on your own site ...

So, readers can discern the pattern: Friederdorf loses an argument. Then he alleges you've slandered him with ad hominems. Then to ice the cake, he'll hoist the maganimity of NOT publishing your e-mails as some kind of macabre badge of debating honor.

And here's the thing: Friederdorf argues like a lefty! Not only is he enthralled with the leftosphere's "association with academia," but he smears and threatens with the best of its representatives.

And all of this points back to the orignal points at issue between myself and Mr. Friedersdorf - and apparently many others on the right: Conor Friedersdorf is a "faux" conservative. He can be aligned him with a group of postmodernists that I've identified as "neoclassicons." Dan Riehl characterizes these same folks as "worldly, nonreligious conservo-libertarians." Robert Stacy McCain just calls out Friedersdorf for his pathetic "intellectual scam."

I'll have more later. But in the meantime, look forward to Mr. Friedersdorf showing up here in the comments section, where he'll (1) avoid the argument presented, and (2) attack me personally while alleging ad hominems.

I've never e-mailed him, so he won't be able to threaten me with that one.

Conor Friedersdorf: Small-Minded Narcissist

I'd be charitable to say that Conor Freidersdorf's comment at my post last night was "odd." To say it was "egocentric" would be closer to the mark, and "narcissistic" also comes to mind.

The post was about the debate on the right between traditionalists and those who I've identified as neoclassical conservatives, or "neoclassicons." I mentioned Friederdorf and his debate with Dan Riehl. The exchange has been covered at The Other McCain. But the Friederdorf/Riehl debate was simply a pointer to the larger schism that's been roiling the conservative waters since at least the election of President Obama.

But Friederdorf wants folks to make it all about him:

I haven't any desire to purge social conservatives. I spent 14 years attending a religious private school ... I mean, how inaccurate! In a post ostensibly about me, you get most of your facts wrong, and spend most of your time talking about Andrew Sullivan.

Oh, poor, poor baby!

Actually, no, I don't get the facts wrong, Mr. Friedersdorf.

The post isn't "ostensibly" about you. And indeed, as for Andrew Sullivan, my point is precisely that we have a clique of Sullivan myrmidons that's emerged from various perspectives on the postmodern right - folks who I've loosely lumped together as neoclassicons. But it's by no means just you. So, once more, I'm struck by how you think its "odd" that I wrote primarily about Sullivan! You tender little attention-whore! "Oh, Dr. Douglas, you nasty!" You spent "most of your time talking about Andrew Sullivan." How dare you, you cad!

And, of course, the facts in question aren't wrong. At your original post I cited weeks ago, "A Question for War on Terror Hawks," you assert moral equivalencies between a lone U.S. murder suspect and the untold number of violent jihadists within the global terrorist network - including many, of course, who were captured on the battlefield and held as enemy combatants in a real war on terrorism. Your post, as it proposes partisan payback for the robust anti-terror policies of the Bush years, basically endorses an Obama administration policy of declaring domestic anti-abortion terrorists as identical enemy combatants; you also deploy taunting language in saying, "I wonder how 'War on Terror Hawks' would react" if President Obama had the "prerogative to order the waterboarding of the uncharged, untried detainees." The scenario is not simply a hypothetical. It's transparent advocacy in furtherance of ideological retribution. Most of all, your post is dishonest hackery, and your defense of it is peurile idiocy.

And that brings me to something else: It turns out that Dan Riehl points to your underhanded attack on Mark Levin and conservative talk radio. Interesting how Dan refuses to mention you by name, better not to besmirch his page it turns out:

While many people may have taken exception to some of Andrew Sullivan's Palin posting at The Atlantic in the past, I find it somewhat troubling that they would hire a blogger who seems to have a serious problem understanding blog ethics, if not journalistic ethics, as well. Frankly, this is unethical and lazy blogging at its worst. So much so, one almost wonders if it isn't by design.

Their newbie blogger has spent the last two days presenting extremely small snippets of text to represent Mark Levin's broadcasts, almost to the point of obsession - see here and here. Along with being unethical, this makes no sense.

He links to Talk Radio authorities, David Frum and copiously back to himself. I thought blogging was about both documenting one's source material - and sharing same with your reader whenever possible? ....

It isn't simply unethical, it's poor blogging and bad etiquette, to boot. Assuming they are paying this guy money for his blogging, one would think an organization such as The Atlantic could do much better than that.

It's my hunch that the endless attacks on Mark Levin are not just about "improving" talk radio. They're about "improving" (purging) right-wing ideology - which you allege is a system that's "damaging to public discourse" - in favor of Sullivan-styled neoclassical conservatism (which, don't forget, is really a euphemism for the right's postmodern program of marching with leftists on social issues, civil liberties, and foreign policy). So, yes, Mr. Friederdorf, you are attacking social conservatives. These are exactly the "Rovians" and "theocrats" that you and the neoclassicals are out to destroy.

God have mercy on your soul, son.

P.S. Don't miss Jimmie at Sundries Shack as well, "Conor Freidersdorf is Not Ready to Take on Mark Levin."

Did Boxer Call Him "General Walsh"?

Echidne titles her Barbara Boxer post, "Senator Cuntface," with reference to the alleged commentary at the YouTube thread (and checking it, we see this disgusting scatological misogyny: " I want to put my asshole over senator boxers vagina and fuck her with my shit until she cums buckets of lady pussy snot").

Fox News has the full story, "Boxer, the U.S. Senator, Chides Brigadier General for Calling Her 'Ma'am' ":

No one deserves the slimeball hatred of the Internet comment threads, but General Walsh doesn't appear disrespectful toward Senator Boxer. And check out Andrew Malcolm:

Truth be told, even on Capitol Hill, Walsh has taken a few years of service to his country to earn those general stars too. But Boxer did not deign to call him general. Nor did she bother with a please. Of course, the general complied with the Democrat's wishes immediately without complaint.

I think all of my readers should call me Dr. Douglas. "It's just a thing. I worked so hard to get that title."

And NOT to be missed: Lindsay Beyerstein adds this flourish: "It's amusing to see insecure men howling in vicarious indignation over Sen. Boxer's mild dominance display."

Yeah. Right.

As Betsy Newmark might say, "Barbara Boxer: awfully full of herself."

Gay Rights Big Guns Bail On Biden DNC Fundraiser

From F. Daniel Blatt at Pajamas Media, "Obama Throws a Crumb to the Gay Community":

With two prominent gay activists — David Mixner and blogger Andy Towle — bowing out of a Democratic fundraising dinner to be headlined by Vice President Joe Biden later this month, the Obama administration is finally feeling the heat from the president’s failure to follow through on campaign promises he made to the gay community.

Obama has backtracked on his pledge to repeal the Clinton-era “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy barring openly gay people from serving in the military. The administration has sidelined legislation to repeal the ban until 2010, with even openly gay Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) concurring with his party’s decision to defer consideration of the issue.

Not only have Democrats deferred on Obama’s campaign promises, but the administration has actively sought to uphold one law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which candidate Obama pledged to repeal. DOMA, signed by President Clinton in 1996, defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman and allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Earlier this month, Justice Department lawyers filed a legal brief in a Santa Ana, CA, federal court defending that law.

Mixner and Towle are not alone. Gay activists across the nation have become increasingly frustrated with the administration. Alan Van Capelle, the executive director of New York’s Empire State Pride Agenda, said President Obama’s position on gay marriage “has been causing some problems for those of us working in the states, those who are against it are using him for cover.”

In an apparent effort to mollify those critics, many of whom gave their money and time to his election last fall, Obama signed a presidential memorandum on Wednesday night to extend benefits “to the same-sex partners of federal employees in the civil service and the foreign service within the confines of existing federal laws and statutes.” After conducing internal reviews, Director of the Office of Personnel Management John Berry (who is openly gay) and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have determined that the government can administer the following benefits:

For civil service employees, domestic partners of federal employees can be added to the long-term care insurance program; supervisors can also be required to allow employees to use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children. For foreign service employees, a number of benefits were identified, including the use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad, and inclusion in family size for housing allocations.

However, the plan fails to extend full health care benefits to the same-sex partners of federal workers:

Elaine Kaplan, general counsel for the office of personnel management, said federal statutes dictated that many vital health care benefits be conferred only to “spouses” and children of federal employees, effectively making it a benefit of marriage as defined by the marriage act. Ms. Kaplan said the new legislation the president is supporting would remedy that prohibition. In the meantime, she said, his memorandum would cover those benefits that do not fall under the more restrictive statutory language.

While this package does not offer the full range of benefits that some had hoped it would, it is a welcome development and the first significant step toward the federal government recognizing our long-term relationships.

See also, Jake Tapper, "More Gay Donors Drop Out of DNC Fundraiser, Protesting Justice Department Brief," and John Aravosis, "'The' Gay Democratic Organization Pulls Out of Biden DNC Fundraiser."

This story works to confirms my suggestion that Obama's a pussy on homosexual rights. And note: Some of my recent lefty commenters simply don't get it. Why would I attack the president as a pussy if his position's the same as mine?

Well, duh, the enemy of my enemy is my friend: If the gay lobby's getting pissed at the administration, that will help to weaken the Democrats in upcoming election. Even without widespread defections, hardline dissent - complete with withering fire - makes Obama and congressional Democrats increasingly vulnerable. That I like. Besides, as I've noted, I don't oppose the repeal of DADT and so forth (see, "Obama's Stunning Failure on Gays in the Military"), and any further evidence that Obi-One is just another politician is sweet schadenfreude!

I mean, really, you've got to love it when Down With Tyranny, with the accompanying photo above, calls the administration's program a "much-trumpeted initiative to shut gays up with some bullshit sop."

In related news, the New York City Police Department has released the police reports from the Stonewall Riots of 1969, "Stonewall Riot Police Reports, June 28, 1969."

Carrie Prejean to Miss California USA: Last Chance to Retract Defamatory Statements

At Big Hollywood, "Prejean Attorney to Miss California USA Pageant Directors: Last Chance to Retract Defamatory Statements":

[Ed. note: The following letter was just released to Big Hollywood. Written by Carrie Prejean's lawyer, Charles S. LiMandri, it was sent today to Timothy F. Shields, Esq., the attorney representing Miss California USA Pageant co-directors Keith Lewis and Shana Moakler, and K2 Productions, Inc.]

RE: Carrie Prejean v. Keith Lewis, Shana Moakler, and K2 Productions, Inc.

Dear Mr. Shields:

We are writing in response to your letter of June 13, 2009. There have been multiple written communications from me to you since the date of that letter addressing these various issues in detail, and which we will not repeat at this time. Since your letter was released to the press, however, with the attachments, we feel it necessary to address some of the more egregious misrepresentations made in that letter.

1. There Was No Unauthorized Participation in Literary Works.

As you well know, both Keith Lewis and Donald Trump had given preliminary approval to Ms. Prejean to write a book. In fact, Mr. Trump’s office had circulated a draft amendment to her contract for that purpose at the time that she was terminated - - without warning and without just cause. She did not yet have a contract with a book publisher at the time she was terminated. She did have a contract with a literary publicist to find a publisher for the book, which was the source of the confusion about this issue. Without giving Ms. Prejean or me an opportunity to clarify the matter, she was abruptly terminated. The fact that she was working on a book was well known and was discussed multiple times, both verbally and in writing. Obviously, the book had not yet been published, and there can be no material breach of contract at issue here. Therefore, the reason given for her termination as being based in part upon her doing a book deal is a complete and utter pretext.

2. There Were No Unauthorized Public Appearances.

As you also know, in a telephone conference with eight people on April 29, 2009, including you and me, it was agreed that Ms. Prejean could make public appearances, in her individual capacity, so long as she did not use the Miss California USA title or wear her tiara and sash. Moreover, any public appearances she allegedly made without the advance authorization of your clients, were deemed by Mr. Trump not to be contract violations at the press conference he held on May 12, 2009. Since that day, Ms. Prejean has not made public appearances unless they were authorized by either your client or Mr. Trump. Your client has falsely accused her of doing a Shape Magazine interview, and appearing on Fox and Friends, without prior authorization. In both cases, it was Mr. Trump who asked her to do those interviews and who set them up for her. As to the radio show you referenced in your letter, in which you indicated that she would be reading from a “show biz script,” she did not do that interview after your client would not authorize it.

3. Ms. Prejean Did Not Refuse Reasonable Public Appearance Opportunities.

Mr. Lewis has falsely stated that Ms. Prejean refused to make over 50 public appearance requests after May 12, 2009. Initially, he was suggesting that she did not appear at scheduled events. He later recanted that statement and said that she did not fail to appear at any scheduled events, but simply declined numerous requests to attend them. We asked you to provide us with a list of those public appearances and you did so with a three-page itemized list which you attached to your letter and which was circulated to the media.

Read the whole letter, here.

And, in case you missed it, check my recent essay at Pajamas Media, "Miss California Carrie Prejean’s Odyssey: Not Very Pretty."

We're All Neocons Now

As I noted in a tweet last night: "It's clear by now that neoconservatism has been vindicated by events in Iran."

Well, here comes James Taranto,"We're All Neocons Now":

Each day President Obama's blasé business-as-usual attitude toward Iran seems more out of touch with reality. Today's New York Times reports that the president "is coming under increased pressure from Republicans and other conservatives who say he should take a more visible stance in support of the protesters." But if you read on, it turns out "Republicans and other conservatives" are far from the only ones bothered by Obama's what-me-worry policy:

Even while supporting the president's approach, senior members of the administration, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like to strike a stronger tone in support of the protesters, administration officials said.

It sounds as though Biden and Mrs. Clinton are "supporting the president's approach" in only the most pro forma way. It is extraordinary that the two most senior administration officials apart from the president himself are airing their objection to his policies in this way.

True, the Times claims "other White House officials"--no names--"have counseled a more cautious approach." The argument these nameless and faceless officials make is that "harsh criticism of the government or endorsement of the protests could have the paradoxical effect of discrediting the protesters and making them seem as if they were led by Americans."

But who said the criticism had to be "harsh"? The trouble with Obama's comments is not that they are insufficiently belligerent in tone but that they are craven in substance. If the president spoke with clarity and firmness, his doing so calmly would be a plus.

Obama's insouciance does not seem to have appeased the Tehran regime:

So far, Mr. Obama has largely followed that script, criticizing violence against the protesters, but saying that he does not want to be seen as meddling in Iranian domestic politics.

Even so, the Iranian government on Wednesday accused American officials of "interventionist" statements.

Meanwhile, Obama has some of his liberal-left supporters sounding like frustrated neoconservatives:

Many Iran experts lauded Mr. Obama's measured stance just after the election. But some of that support evaporated on Tuesday when he said there was not much difference between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi.

"For Barack Obama, this was a serious misstep," said Steven Clemons, director of the American strategy program at the New America Foundation. "It's right for the administration to be cautious, but it's extremely bad for him to narrow the peephole into an area in which we're looking at what's happening just through the lens of the nuclear program."

Mr. Obama's comments deflated Mr. Moussavi, who is rapidly becoming a political icon in Iran, even supporters of Mr. Obama's Iran policy say.

"Up until now, the president had very thoughtfully calibrated his remarks on Iran, but this was an uncharacteristic and egregious error," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "People are risking their lives and being slaughtered in the streets because they want fundamental change in the way Iran is governed. Our message to them shouldn't be that it doesn't make much difference to the United States."

The Times's own Roger Cohen has written a column almost every day this week in an apparent effort to atone for his months of shilling for the regime. He has a ways to go but is definitely making progress:

The Islamic Republic has lost legitimacy. It is fissured. It will not be the same again. It has always played on the ambiguity of its nature, a theocracy where people vote. For a whole new generation, there's no longer room for ambiguity.

President Obama has said not a single word in acknowledgment of this new reality--paralyzed, perhaps, by the fear that in speaking the truth, he would antagonize the regime with which he dreams of negotiating. He would do well to consider the advice of blogress Ann Althouse: "When you think of what you might lose if you do something, remember to take account of what you might lose if you don't do it."

What could Obama say? How about something along these lines:

We are all inspired by Iran's peaceful demonstrations, the likes of which have not been seen there in three decades. Our sympathies are with those Iranians who seek a more respectful, cooperative relationship with the world.

The author of these words: John Kerry *. It's not as good as it sounds, though. Kerry, in a New York Times op-ed, says these things as a prelude to saying that no one should say such things. Which just goes to show that even John Kerry realizes no one cares what John Kerry says.

But Barack Obama is president of the United States. People do care what he says, and it is past time that he did his duty and spoke the truth.

* The haughty Massachusetts Democrat who by the way served in Vietnam. We omit "French-looking" out of respect for the French. As The Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial yesterday, France's Nicolas Sarkozy has taken a firm stand where his American counterpart has fallen limp.

See also, Stephen Hayes, "John Kerry, Neocon."

Plus, see my post from yesterday, "It's Hard Out Here For Barack..."

More debate at Memeorandum.

Announcing the Save Frank Rich Society

From Roger Kimball:

I never thought it would happen. I am actually feeling sorry for Frank Rich. True, my feelings of sorrow and compassion — I won’t call it “empathy” — have stiff competition from irritation and contempt, the jolly old stand-bys that always step forward when someone brings a column by Rich to my attention. For, truth be told, that is the only way I encounter anything published in The New York Times these days. I long ago gave up my subscription — Free, free at last! And out of regard for both the preciousness of time — you can’t waste time without injuring eternity, said Thoreau, who (unlike Frank Rich) wasn’t wrong about everything — and solicitude for my blood pressure, I resolved some time ago never to visit The New York Times web site unless a trusted friend had directed me to a specific article.

So imagine my reaction when a friend sent me a link to “The Obama Haters’ Silent Enablers,” Rich’s column in the June 14 issue of the paper. The ostensible subject of Rich’s column is right-wing “haters,” a large and diverse population (according to Rich), membership in which you, too, Dear Reader, may qualify for if you deign to offer any but the mildest criticism of our Dear Leader, a.k.a. Barack Obama. No article by Frank Rich is complete without a swipe at President George W. Bush, and so it was only business as usual that he should indulge in a little preliminary Bush-bashing before getting down to the subject at hand: “In his scant 145 days in office, the new president has not remotely matched the Bush record in deficit creation.” For support, Rich links to another article in The New York Times. Never mind that that article actually apportions the blame for the deficit rather evenly between Bush and Obama. Personally, I think Bush was profligate with the taxpayers’ dough. But I see now that he was a rank amateur when it comes to serious economic blow-out. To appreciate this, all you need to do is to savor this chart which Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit has been posting frequently in recent weeks as a public service ...

More at the link.

Obamaworld: Keep the Change!

Here's Victor Davis Hanson's new guide to the administration, "Obamaworld: Logic in the Age of Obama":

Are you confused by all that has changed since Pres. Barack Obama took office in January? If so, you’re not alone. Perhaps, though, this handy guide to Age of Obama “logic” might be of some assistance.

Also, check this comment at CQ Politics, "Honeymoon Over: It’s On Obama’s Watch Now":

Keep the change ... Thus far we have seen an administration that has run amuck. We need to return to the time-tested values that made America successful, not devolve to ruin based upon flawed and previously failed principles. Our roots are firmly planted in Judeo-Christian beliefs ... they set in place our moral compass ... they call for MINIMUM federal government with liberty gained by a FREE people acting as one. We do not "redistribute" wealth (property), but do provide charity. Our Constitution promises life (under attack), liberty (under attack) and property or "pursuit of happiness" (under attack). I say, to those who want government handouts...keep the change! To those who would assail my rights under the second Amendment ... keep the change! To those who want America to become bilingual ... keep the change! To those who don't understand the word "illegal" and want me to pay for those who reside here illegally ... keep the change! To those who do not understand that life is a gift from GOD, and that it begins with conception ... keep the change! To those who threaten the future of my children and their children's children through reckless spending by a tax cheat now...keep the change! To those who do not understand the sanctity of marriage as between one man, one woman and GOD ... keep the change! To those who would seek to modify the Constitution from the bench...keep the change! To those who have forgotten that we have oil and resources here that need to be developed for our use instead of relying on our enemies for our supply ... keep the change! To those who are enamored with "cult leadership"... KEEP THE CHANGE!

Change for Iran? Not From Obama

Here's a new anti-Ahmadinejad opposition video, "Change for Iran," with subtitles:

Don't miss as well, Christian Brose, "Obama is Getting Worse, Not Better, on Iran":

I share President Obama's desire not to say or do anything that would turn America into a "political football" inside Iran, and I've tried to offer what I hope are some constructive ideas in keeping with that end (though that may come as a surprise to some of my own loyal opponents in the comments section). Still, Obama's remarks yesterday were embarrassing. Not only that, they were harmful -- not for their toughness but for their timidity. Peaceful Iranian protestors are having their heads smashed by government goons, and Obama is explaining to CNBC, with his characteristic professorial emotional detachment, how the guy those Iranians voted for and are bleeding to support is actually no different than Ahmadinejad. I know what Obama meant. The office of Iran's presidency doesn't call the main shots, and Mousavi is no liberal peacenik. I get it. But save it for another time, please ....

Iran's people deserve to hear from the most inspiring and internationally beloved American president in a generation that the violence they are enduring at the hands of their government is not just of "deep concern" to him, but "unacceptable." They deserve to hear him "condemn" it (memo to the State Department). And they deserve to hear Obama say that if he does finally talk with Iran's rulers about changing the behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran, that goal will also include pushing them to grant all Iranians the same basic human rights that people everywhere should be free to enjoy and exercise without fear of violence and repression.

Neoclassicons

I'm involved, just a teeny-weeny bit, in this flame war Robert Stacy McCain's having with Conor Friedersdorf.

At Stacy's post yesterday, "Conor Friedersdorf vs. Dan Riehl" (on the debate between Friedersdorf and Dan), I left the link to Conor's post, Iran, Twitter, and The American Information Elite." That link goes to the Atlantic, where Freidersdorf's now a "big ideas" blogger. Stacy's been hammering Friedersdorf pretty hard anyway, but even more now that news of the Freidersdorf's Atlantic gig got out.

I've been thinking about writing something about this. So, I might as well comment on Dan's remark earlier on the conservatives schism (David Frum vs. Rush Limbaugh, etc.), when he noted that "To be honest, I wonder if this whole moderation movement isn't simply about purging the social conservatives."

Well, yeah. I'll just say here that Conor Freidersdorf is an Andrew Sullivan myrmidon. As anyone who's followed the recent conservative debates knows, especially in the months since the election, there's been an amalgamation of moderate conservatives, left-libertarians, and unpatriotic paleocons on the postmodern right. I wrote about this (only slightly tongue-in-cheek) the other day, in "What's Up With David Weigel?" From Conor Friederdorf to David Frum, to Daniel Larison to Andrew Sullivan, and then E.D. Kain, there's a movement afoot that wants desperately to be "conservative," but one that is failing miserably.

The reason is simple: These folks, let's loosely call them neoclassical conservatives, or neoclassicons, are driven by an essentially leftist-libertarian domestic policy orientation that is primarily animated by an intense hatred of "theoconservatism." That's the term Andrew Sullivan deploys in his book, The Conservative Soul: Fundamentalism, Freedom, and the Future of the Right. In Sullivan's case in particular, hatred of theoconservatism emerges out of the psycho-sexual torment of his own homosexuality. For a man who has apparently long preached a standard of homosexual monogamy, his own personal moral breakdown into wild sexual excursions of high-risk barebacking and alleged steroidal drug use makes it difficult for reasonable people to take him seriously. Sullivan's own considerably masterful writing, of course, and his ability to put his finger to the pulse of the latest ideological hot buttons, helps to give him some cachet among those on the left looking for some type of pop-legitimacy to their postmodern agenda.

What's striking about all of this is not just how wrong these folks are on most of the main issues of contemporary conservatism, but also how, from my perspsective, the Sullivan-cadres mount their ideological program completely bereft of decency. Andrew Sullivan himself, as is well known, practically lost his mind last year after Sarah Palin's nomination as the GOP presidential running-mate. His attacks on the Palin family have hit bottom and he keeps digging. Beyond that, I routinely see his followers and allies making the most ridiculously unhinged attacks, allegations, and arguments. Conor Friedersdorf put up a totally absurd piece a couple of weeks back, in an essay called, "A Question for War on Terror Hawks." Friedersdorf advocated waterboarding for folks like the suspect in the murder of George Tiller. I took him to task in my post, "Is Waterboarding Worse Than Abortion?," and he left a hopeless comment noting his exception.

E.D. Kain, another neoclassicon who practically worships Sullivan - and not to mention, Daniel Larison - is himself like a confused adolescent, afraid to engage in an intellectual debate with me at this blog. E.D. Kain was once in regular communication with me as the publisher of Neo-Constant, which was described as a blog of "Hard-line neoconservative political commentary, global politics, and foreign policy." Like Andrew Sullivan, E.D. must feel a need to float along the tides of partisan popularity. He's certainly denuded himself of moral standing among those with whom he had previous communications. But that kind of childishness appears to characterize the neoclassicons overall. Recall that Andrew Sullivan attacked Ann Althouse for her simple decision to get married. Why? Jealousy most likely, but also spite for hetersexuals and traditionalists. This is how these guys roll.

And what for? For all intents and purposes these guys have joined the other side. They're not conservative by any sense of the imagination. One doesn't have to be a devout church-goer to be deeply conservative on the issues, and that includes on such starkly moral questions as the right to life for unborn children. One of the most important conserative intellectuals in the last few decades is Robert Bork. And he claims to be just mildly religious (see Bork's, "Hard Truths About the Culture War" for a penetrating expose on the mainstreaming of postmodern radicalism in contemporary public affairs).

Robert Stacy McCain mostly just writes these people off as little men, a bunch of immature pseudo-conservative social climbers. My take is perhaps rougher. From social policy to international affairs, I see these folks in bed with the hardline activists of the nihilist left. On gay marriage to Iraq, there's little that differentiates them. For them to suggest they're "reclaiming" conservativism is preposterous. No smart conservative on today's right would even deign to associate with views like this. Rush Limbaugh is popular for a reason. Mark Levin's Tyranny and Liberty remains at the top of the bestseller lists, and the mainstream press has refused to give him the time of day. David Frum and Sullivan, on the other hand, are feted like they're top political soothsayers of the age. It's a strange thing.

No matter. Analysis of election data, as well as recent polling, indicates how far out on a limb the neoclassicons have placed themselves. The genuine conservatism of folks like Robert Bork, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin will be making a huge comeback in no time. Frankly, the Obama administration's deficit-driven agenda is already being repudiated in public opinion, and former Obama voters are now having remorse.

It's good to put these neoclassicons in there place, of course. Conservatives have to fight for every inch. The media's in the tank for Obama, and Andrew Sulllivan and his stooges are simply seeking a path of least resistance in their hubristic attempt to excommunicate the traditional right-wing from the political spectrum.

I'll have more on this debate in upcoming posts.

Top 10 Reasons to Follow Me on Twitter!

Actually, I don't have a top 10.

Since I'm new to this medium, I googling to see what's up with all the abbreviations and such (like RT). I came across this piece, "Top 10 Reasons I *AM* Following You On Twitter." This part makes say, hey, okay!

If you hook up your blog so that whenever you post an entry, it tweets, then that’s a big plus.

I use Twitter for a casual diversion during the workday – I’ll glance over at it when I’ve got a few free minutes, see what’s going on, and interact with friends. If I notice that you just posted a blog entry, I’ll go read it, and I might respond on Twitter if I’ve got comments or questions. It’s nice to have that realtime interaction with other bloggers.

I'm on social networking to promote my blog, because that's what I do. I reallly enjoy the "social" part, of course. But I like publishing even more. That said, I'm a mensch, so send me your stuff and I'll publish it here!

Well, what are you waiting for?!!

Get hot and follow me at AmPowerBlog!

Why Do We Still Insist on Marriage?

Sandra Tsing Loh wants to know, after bailing out on her husband of twenty years because she can do it all herself:

Sadly, and to my horror, I am divorcing. This was a 20-year partnership. My husband is a good man, though he did travel 20 weeks a year for work. I am a 47-year-old woman whose commitment to monogamy, at the very end, came unglued. This turn of events was a surprise. I don’t generally even enjoy men; I had an entirely manageable life and planned to go to my grave taking with me, as I do most nights to my bed, a glass of merlot and a good book ....

I can pick up our girls from school every day; I can feed them dinner and kiss their noses and tell them stories; I can take them to their doctor and dentist appointments; I can earn my half—sometimes more—of the money; I can pay the bills; I can refinance the house at the best possible interest rate; I can drive my husband to the airport; in his absence, I can sort his mail; I can be home to let the plumber in on Thursday between nine and three, and I can wait for the cable guy; I can make dinner conversation with any family member; I can ask friendly questions about anybody’s day; I can administer hugs as needed to children, adults, dogs, cats; I can empty the litter box; I can stir wet food into dry.

Which is to say I can work at a career and child care and joint homeownership and even platonic male-female friendship. However, in this cluttered forest of my 40s, what I cannot authentically reconjure is the ancient dream of brides, even with the Oprah fluffery of weekly “date nights,” when gauzy candlelight obscures the messy house, child talk is nixed and silky lingerie donned, so the two of you can look into each other’s eyes and feel that “spark” again. Do you see? Given my staggering working mother’s to-do list, I cannot take on yet another arduous home- and self-improvement project, that of rekindling our romance. Sobered by this failure as a mother—which is to say, my failure as a wife—I’ve since begun a journey of reading, thinking, and listening to what’s going on in other 21st-century American families. And along the way, I’ve begun to wonder, what with all the abject and swallowed misery: Why do we still insist on marriage? Sure, it made sense to agrarian families before 1900, when to farm the land, one needed two spouses, grandparents, and a raft of children. But now that we have white-collar work and washing machines, and our life expectancy has shot from 47 to 77, isn’t the idea of lifelong marriage obsolete?

Or, who needs men, first? But, also, why marry anyway?

Maybe Althouse has an answer for Sandra? Like love, maybe?

(Note: I skimmed the piece. If readers can find the passage where Loh admits she cheated on her husband cut and paste in it the comments...)

Obama's Public Approval Slipping

Via The Rhetorican and the Wall Street Journal, "Obama's Approval Numbers, While Still High, Are Slipping":

After a fairly smooth opening, President Barack Obama faces new concerns among the American public about the budget deficit and government intervention in the economy as he works to enact ambitious health and energy legislation, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

These rising doubts threaten to overshadow the president's personal popularity and his agenda, in what may be a new phase of the Obama presidency.

"The public is really moving from evaluating him as a charismatic and charming leader to his specific handling of the challenges facing the country," says Peter D. Hart, a Democratic pollster who conducts the survey with Republican Bill McInturff. Going forward, he says, Mr. Obama and his allies "are going to have to navigate in pretty choppy waters."

There's good news for the administration, too, including tentative support for Mr. Obama's health-care plan and approval of his nominee for the Supreme Court. The public seems more optimistic about the country's economic future than it did a few weeks earlier, and Americans are still more likely to blame the last administration for the deficit.

But the poll suggests Mr. Obama faces challenges on multiple fronts, including growing concerns about government spending and the bailout of auto companies. A majority of people also disapprove of his decision to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

More at the link.

Obama's support has dropped sharply among political independents - whichh is interesting, since if these "independents" are roughly the same as Gallup's "moderates," then the declining support of this cohort could be trouble, and soon:

There is an important distinction in the respective ideological compositions of the Republican and Democratic Parties. While a solid majority of Republicans are on the same page -- 73% call themselves conservative -- Democrats are more of a mixture. The major division among Democrats is between self-defined moderates (40%) and liberals (38%). However, an additional 22% of Democrats consider themselves conservative, much higher than the 3% of Republicans identifying as liberal.

True to their nonpartisan tendencies, close to half of political independents -- 45% -- describe their political views as "moderate." Among the rest, the balance of views is tilted more heavily to the right than to the left: 34% are conservative, while 20% are liberal.

Gallup trends show a slight increase since 2008 in the percentages of all three party groups calling themselves "conservative," which accounts for the three percentage-point increase among the public at large.

Check also Cold Fury, which has some comments on President Obama's interview with Gerald Seib:

The lying dickwad has been a hard-Left socialist his whole goddamned life, which has been clear from his every spoken word; his every written word; his choice of associations; his choice of “community organizing” and public-sector careers (never once having held an actual job in his useless life); the few votes he actually bothered with in his brief Senate career — and he now wants us to know it’s all because of George Fucking Dubya Bush.

What a worthless, manipulative, buck-passing prick.

Hmm, I wonder if we can place Cold Fury in the "conservative" column?

Added: Memeorandum has a thread. Plus, the New York Times concurs with WSJ, "Poll Finds Unease With Obama on Key Issues."

Nationalized Health Care Abortions

From Jill Stanek:

Lest you doubt Obama's intentions, the last 2 Planned Parenthood weekly email alerts have been about the health care plan. Read this one. The intention to include abortion in nationalized health care couldn't be any more clear. (Yet isn't it interesting, as always, that the A-word is awol.)

Socialized Auto Repair and Car Care

Via Debbie Hamilton and The Grouch, "Socialized Auto Repair and Car Care":

The dictum finally came down from the lord Barack Obama, the messiah, the most merciful that all the land should be taxed and part of the proceeds would be used to fund socialized car care.

Mac the mechanic, who had been an auto mechanic for at least 30 years received notice in the mail that he would no longer be able to bill people directly for his services, but would rather have to send a monthly claim to the administration of car care and auto repair. Mac had always pretty much run a cash and carry service. His loyal customers would bring their cars in for service. Mac, who was very competent and very well liked, would go over the problems with his clientele, make the authorized repairs, get paid in cash, and everyone was happy. If any unexpected problems occurred, Mac would do his best to make things right.

Well, suddenly, Mac found out that the gubment would not accept paper claims from him. The gubment required that Mac submit electronic claims. Poor Mac did not know a thing about computers. He called the car care and auto repair administration to complain but was told that this was "change he could believe in" and that he would be required to buy a complete computer system, the latest gubment claim submittal software, and a high speed internet connection, as well as hire a technician to train Mac and his staff on the proper utilization of the system.

Bewildered customers began to appear wanting their cars repaired. According to the latest gubment rules, Mac was no longer allowed to accept their money, but would be paid based on the primary problem with the car. Mr. Jones brought in his car because it was missing. Mac found it needed new spark plugs. While under the hood, Mac also found a leak in the radiator and a worn brake pad. Mac was surprised to find out that the gubment would only pay Mac for the new spark plugs, and only about 40 percent of his usual and customary charge for labor. They would not pay him anything for the radiator repair and installation of the new brake pad. His payment was based only on the primary problem.

Good stuff!

Read the whole thing at the link.

It's Hard Out Here For Barack...

From Matt Duss on Robert Kagan's, "Obama's Conundrum: Shunning Iran's Opposition":

It’s hard out here for a neocon ....

I have to say, Mr. Kagan, your op-ed this morning is really beneath you. You can’t actually believe that President Obama is “siding with the Iranian regime” against the Iranian people, or that Obama’s outreach to Iran depends upon keeping hardliners in power, can you? You’re far too intelligent to buy the brutishly simplistic “realism” that you attempt to hang upon President Obama’s approach. These sorts of claims are better left to your friend and occasional co-author Bill Kristol, who uses his series of valuable journalistic perches (with which he inexplicably continues to be gifted) to launch an endless stream of comically transparent bad faith arguments. You’re better than that. You’re the smart neocon ....

By backing pro-democracy rhetoric with American war and occupation, President Bush and his conservative supporters cast the cause of freedom and democracy into disrepute

Hmm, well, actually no ...

Check this, from Daniel Finkelstein, "Fancy that. They want freedom. Just like us. The protests in Iran show the neocons were right. No people, whatever their culture, want to live under despotism":

For years we have been told, we neocons, that other cultures don't want our liberty, our American freedom. Yankee go home! But it isn't true. Because millions of Iranians do want it. Yes, they want their sovereignty, and demand respect for their nation and its great history. No, they don't want foreign interference and manipulation. But they still insist upon their rights and their freedom. They know that liberty isn't American or British. It is Iranian, it is human.

This idea that the critics of neocons advanced so vociferously, that liberal democracy can't be “transplanted” on alien soil - what does it mean to the people of Iran who have thronged the streets to express their will?

Does it mean that we think the morality police is just part of Iranian culture? Just their way of doing things? For the thousands of protesters it is not. It turns out that they don't think it's right for young girls to be arrested, snatched from the streets for wearing the wrong coat. And they don't think there is a cultural defence to beating these girls until their parents arrive with a “decent” garment.

They don't think that public hangings are Iranian, either. Nor arbitrary detentions of doctors who dared to organise conferences on Aids, nor keeping human rights activists in solitary confinement, nor sentencing trade union leaders to five years in jail for trying to organise fellow workers. They don't think there is anything culturally valuable in sentencing political activists to death after secret trials lasting less than five minutes, or returning lawyers to jail again and again for opposing the death penalty or “publishing insulting material with unacceptable interpretation of Islamic rules”.

It is not part of their precious heritage that someone be charged with a capital offence for circulating a petition on women's rights. Nor that nine-year-old girls should be eligible for the death penalty, and children hanged for their crimes. There is no special Iranian will, even given their religious conservatism, that students should be flogged in public for being flirtatious, and homosexuals hanged in the streets.

The protests for Mr Mousavi do not just expose the lie of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's landslide victory. They expose the lie that there is something Western in wanting democracy and human rights.

And what of the other leg of the neocon argument? What of the idea that peace comes through the spread of liberalism and democracy? Can anyone really doubt that should the reformists succeed, even a little bit, the world would be a safer place? A democratic Iran would stop financing world terrorist movements, it would stop obsessing about external enemies and foreign conspiracies, it would stop threatening its neighbours. It would still oppose Israeli policy, it would still want to acquire nuclear material, but the threat of violence would recede.

Jennifer Rubin adds the finishing touch:

If this ends poorly — in a brutal crushing of the protesters — the lack of moral leadership will haunt the president. Why didn’t America do more? And if the regime is upended, Obama’s dreams of a deal with the mullahs will fade and there will be great upset and turmoil. Either way, Obama’s fondest hopes for a return to the status quo will be dashed — and with it the mythology that his aura can motivate, inspire, and change events on the ground.

Well, Duss, sorry man, it's hard out here for Barack, 'cause a whole lot'a bitches jumpin ship...

Sullivan Waffles! Take Iran Recognition One Day at a Time

In response to the Stephen Walt's realist critique of Andrew Sullivan's call for No Recognition of Ahmadinejad, Sully now says, well, that's just for today. We'll see how we feel about this tomorrow:

My point was about not recognizing now. As to the future, we have to see what it brings. A day is a long time right now in Iranian politics. So let's take this one day at a time for now.

Now doesn't that just prove my point from this morning! "Sullivan's all messed up! Who knows what position he's advocating from moment to moment?"

See also,on Sullivan, "Obama: "Diplomacy With Iran Without Preconditions," and

on Walt, "That 3:00am Phone Call for Mr. Obama.")

That 3:00am Phone Call for Mr. Obama

First, Allahpundit notes this on the alleged murder of in Tehran's Isfahan dorms:

As with any Iranian video making the rounds on Twitter, I can’t prove that it is what it claims to be but it’s certainly plausible. Reports of students being killed by regime goons have been steady since the weekend, with 60 kids supposedly detained at Isfahan U. and others allegedly thrown out of upstairs windows. Clips of their injuries were being uploaded as early as Sunday but the one below takes it to a whole new level. Strong content warning, needless to say.

But see also, the Wall Street Journal, "Obama's Iran Abdication":

The Obama Administration came into office with a realpolitik script to goad the mullahs into a "grand bargain" on its nuclear program. But Team Obama isn't proving to be good at the improv. His foreign policy gurus drew up an agenda defined mainly in opposition to the perceived Bush legacy: The U.S. will sit down with the likes of Iran, North Korea or Russia and hash out deals. In a Journal story on Monday, a senior U.S. official bordered on enthusiastic about confirming an Ahmadinejad victory as soon as possible. "Had there been a transition to a new government, a new president wouldn't have emerged until August. In some respects, this might allow Iran to engage the international community quicker." The popular uprising in Iran is so inconvenient to this agenda.

President Obama elaborates on this point with his now-frequent moral equivalance. Yesterday he invoked the CIA's role in the 1953 coup against Iranian leader Mohammad Mossadeq to explain his reticence. "Now, it's not productive, given the history of the U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling -- the U.S. President meddling in Iranian elections," Mr. Obama said.

As far as we can tell, the CIA or other government agencies aren't directing the protests or bankrolling Mr. Mousavi. Beyond token Congressional support for civil society groups and the brave reporting of the Persian-language and U.S.-funded Radio Farda, America's role here is limited. Less than a fortnight ago, in Cairo, Mr. Obama touted his commitment to "governments that reflect the will of the people." Now the President who likes to say that "words matter" refuses to utter a word of support to Iran's people. By that measure, the U.S. should never have supported Soviet dissidents because it would have interfered with nuclear arms control.

The Iranian rebellion, though too soon to call a revolution, is turning out to be that 3 a.m. phone call for Mr. Obama. As a French President shows up the American on moral clarity, Hillary Clinton's point about his inexperience and instincts in a crisis is turning out to be prescient.

See also, Stephen Walt, "Realism and Iran":

Obama's measured response to the events in Iran strikes me as ... sensible: we can and should deplore the abuses of basic rights and the democratic process, while making it clear that the United States is not interfering and remaining open to the possibility of constructive dialogue.

Funny how "realism" gives the administration a pass for amateurish handling of events.