Ann Coulter on GOProud

Background here, from Rick Moran, "CPAC Boycott by Social Cons Uncovers the Right’s ‘Gay Problem’."

Now, I read this in the hard-copy of Human Events, "In honor of the gays who have come out of the closet as Republicans to be one of the 140 sponsors of CPAC 2011, I thought I'd run one of the interviews I gave before speaking to GOProud last September ..."

Can you lay out your stance on marriage equality (Prop 8, DOMA) and DADT?

I'm against gay marriage, but that's no offense to gays. It is just in defense of a crucial linchpin of civilization that's already hanging by a thread.

Are gay rights part and parcel with basic conservatism? If so, why are so many elected Republicans so skittish/unsupportive about the subject? If not, tell me why.

No, we don't generally care for identity politics of any sort, much less hearing about people's sex lives, even Nino Scalia's. (And judging by the number of children he has, it's pretty active.) Conservatives believe in individual rights, low tax rates, fighting terrorism and punishing criminals -- so do gays! They also happen to believe Judy Garland was the most underappreciated and misunderstood person in the history of show business. I don't think most gays care about gay marriage; they like going to the gay marriage meeting because it's a good way to meet other gays.

Hey, what gay problem? Coulter's the best!

More at the link.

RELATED: At Marooned in Marin, "CPAC 2011 - Wrap Up."

Congressman Allen West Visits CPAC Bloggers

From Midnight Blue:

CPAC and the Muslim Brotherhood

Okay, following up from this morning's entry, check the link for full video: "David Horowitz Gives Barnburner at CPAC!" And the transcript is here: "The Muslim Brotherhood Inside the Conservative Movement."

Now it turns out the Muslim Brotherhood debate is becoming one of the bigger stories to emerge from CPAC. Politico covers it from the MFM angle, "Right Fractures Over Islam" (at Memeorandum).

While a gay rights controversy drew headlines at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, another — and even more bitter — dispute rippled as views varied widely on how to reconcile the conservative movement with Islam in the United States.

At the 38th annual conservative gathering, there was no shortage of accusations of Islamist sympathies, Muslim Brotherhood infiltration and charges of fear-mongering. Republican presidential hopefuls, including Newt Gingrich and John Thune, also drew applause with suggestions that the Obama administration has taken a politically correct blind eye to the connection between radical Islam and terrorism.

Freshman Rep. Allen West also drew thunderous applause in his keynote speech about the threat to America posed by Islam and other security threats. And as Republican candidates define their national security stands in the 2012 elections, conservative discomfort with Islam in America will be a feature of the debate.

“We are also faced at home and abroad with a mortal threat in political Islam,” conservative activist David Horowitz said in his address to the conference. “Political Islam is a totalitarian movement that seeks to impose Islamic law on the entire world through the seizure of states by stealth and electoral means where possible and by terror where necessary and sometimes by a combination of the two. There are hundreds of millions of believers in political Islam.”

CPAC organizers held an official panel on the threat of sharia law, with several other affiliated, but unofficial, events on inclusion, religious liberty and the so-called ground zero mosque controversy, featuring the controversial blogger Pam Geller and Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer.

“Sometimes when you hear snide comments about Jews in the ’50s or Muslims today — we’ve been through this. The Republican party chased away the Catholic vote for over a hundred years,” said Grover Norquist, an ACU board member and a tax activist who has tried to bring Muslim voters in to the GOP for more than a decade. “You chase away people politically. The thing about the political effects of bigotry — it can last generations. It’s tough to fix.”

Be sure to RTWT.

When I was a young man, the name Grover Norquist was awe-inspiring. Now it's just pathetic. The dude married Kuwaiti-born Samaah Alrayyes, an Muslim outreach specialist at USAID. Gee, no wonder Grover wants to tamp down criticism of jihad as "Islamophobic." And no wonder the Soros-funded Islamo-appeasing Think Progress is on the case, "Frank Gaffney Braves Muslim Brotherhood Infiltration To Warn CPAC About Grover Norquist."

And that's not all, Horowitz has an update at NewsReal, a response to the left's hysterics, "The Muslim Brotherhood and the Fellow Traveling Left at Slate":

Yesterday morning I gave a speech at CPAC warning of the dangers posed by the infiltration of the conservative movement by the Muslim Brotherhood in the person of Suhail Khan and his sponsor Grover Norquist. Both Khan and Norquist are board members of the American Conservative Union, and both spoke at CPAC. The facts about Norquist and Khan which I discussed in my speech were taken from an elaborate dossier presented to the board of the American Conservative Union and posted on Frontpagemag.com. This morning SLATE, which is published by the Washington Post, rose to the defense of Khan. This was reminiscent of the past when liberals defended the Soviet spy Alger Hiss and attacked conservatives like Richard Nixon who were attempting to expose Hiss — a parallel I mentioned in my speech ...

In my speech I made the specific charge that Suhail Khan was a protege of his father and of the convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi ... I also charged tht Suhail Khan, along with his patron Grover Norquist, was instrumental in getting President Bush to agree to ban the use of secret evidence in trials of terrorists. This was a campaign launched by the terrorist Sami al-Arian (whose brother, also a member of Palestine Islamic Jihad, was deported on the strength of secret evidence.) Grover Norquist and Suhail used their influence to get al-Arian a face-to-face with George W. Bush who then attacked the use of secret evidence in his campaign and was about to implement al-Arian’s proposed ban when 9/11 took place. Al-Arian who, as the head of PIJ in North America, and its chief financier was responsible for the suicide murders of over 100 people in the Middle East,was also supported in this campaign by the ACLU, The Nation magazine and the American Left. (The ACLU was also one of his chief defenders when he was indicted for terrorist activities and eventually deported.) Suhail Khan has no response to these (or any other) facts because they are true.

For the record, Palestine Islamic Jihad is an umbrella group of Muslim organizations committed to the destruction of Israel. And again, duh, it's no surprise why progressives want to bury the details of the Muslim Brotherhood in America. CPAC basically had its own Green-Red alliance working the wings. Seriously. Here's the video of Suhail Khan's bald-face lie at CPAC, "There is no Muslim Brotherhood in America":

God, can he get any worse. David Horowitz outlined all the evidence during his speech. But see Andy McCarthy for good measure, "Unindicted Coconspirators."

And check Politico one more time. Suhail Khan has a standard line attempted to defuse the criticism: "Pam Geller, Robert Spencer — they’re not part of the conservative movement." Project much, Mr. Kahn?

And here's Pamela, during the Q & A on Friday, "There are 12,000 people that come to this event that don't know they've been completely sold out by CPAC leadership":

I'll have more later ...

David Horowitz Gives Barnburner at CPAC!

I should be flying back home when this post goes live. I've got a lot more reporting and stories to tell from CPAC. Anyway, I moved out from the lounge to the balcony to listen to Horowitz's speech. You won't be hearing much of this in the mainstream press (MFM):

Also at Pamela's, "'Pamela Geller Versus CPAC'."

And check David Weigel's report, "CPAC 2011: Suhail Khan Responds to David Horowitz."

Lots more later, pictures, commentary, gossip ... the whole bang!

Until then!

VIDEO: Congressman Allen West Keynote Speech at CPAC

At Marathon Pundit, "Allen West closes out CPAC, calls for "The dawn of a New America."

And previously, a photo opportunity with Congressman West. A very nice man, and a privilege to meet him.

Lincoln's Birthday

President Abraham Lincoln was born today, 202 years ago, February 12, 1809.

I imagine it's fitting, then, that I walked the Washington Mall yesterday morning, from Capitol Hill to Lincoln's Memorial. I think that's my favorite place to be in the whole United States. Perhaps I'd tire of it should I be living in D.C., but being here fills me with pride and historical grandeur. I'll have more sightseeing pictures later. I spent just a few minutes at the memorial, but it is indeed a temple:

I'll have more from the Mall after I'm home in the O.C.

Ron Paul Is No. 1 for 2012 in CPAC Straw Poll

At NYT, "At Conservative Gathering, Ron Paul Is No. 1 for 2012":

WASHINGTON — With the Republican presidential campaign poised to open, conservative activists signaled on Saturday that they were unsettled over who should win the party’s nomination, indicating a wide-open race for the right to challenge President Obama.

For three days, prospective Republican presidential contenders delivered speeches at the Conservative Political Action Conference here, introducing themselves to influential figures who will help choose the nominee. The results of a straw poll on Saturday underscored the fluidity of the field.

Representative Ron Paul of Texas won the poll for the second year in a row, and Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, took second place. The results reflected the challenges that lie ahead for Republicans as they weigh arguments of electability over ideology and try to unite the party to defeat Mr. Obama.

Mr. Paul received 30 percent of the vote, and Mr. Romney won 23 percent. The rest of the potential contenders finished in single digits, including Sarah Palin, who declined an invitation to speak here; she received support from only 3 percent of the poll’s voters.

Organizers said that more than 10,000 people from across the country attended the conference, but only 3,742 of them participated in the straw poll, the results of which offer little indication of which candidate will emerge to take on the president. The tepid showing of many of the candidates underscored the problems they face as they seek to introduce themselves to Republican primary voters. The conference is intended to allow candidates to test the themes of their prospective candidacy.

There more at the link, but see Politico, "YAF kicks out Ron Paul."

I was up in the bloggers' lounge when the YAF folks started handing flyers with the announcement. The Paulbots make CPAC seem like a circus, or at least more so than would normally be the case at an event this large. Lots more at Memeorandum.

BONUS: David Weigel, "Two Pauls Are Better Than One: Father and son Ron and Rand Paul wow the crowd at CPAC." And, "CPAC 2011: The Straw Poll Aftermath."

VIDEO: Ann Coulter's Speech at CPAC

Here's the Chris Christie segment (via Freedom's Lighthouse):

Plus, Allahpundit has full video and commentary, "Coulter at CPAC: If we don’t run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee — and he’ll lose." And at The Hill, "Coulter: Nominate Christie, because Romney will lose":

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter warned activists Saturday that if the party nominates former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in 2012, President Obama will win reelection.

Asked in a Q&A session after a bombastic speech at CPAC what she thought of the 2012 field of hopefuls, Coulter initially hesitated, but went on to essentially deliver an endorsement of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

"If you don't run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee and we'll lose," said Coulter, eliciting cheers from the crowd.

"By the way," she added, "I warned you about McCain."

Coulter didn't mention any other rumored 2012 contender by name, but said most of them are "good in the positions they're in now."

More at the link (via Memeorandum).

I'll have some more Coulter pics later.

Congressman Allan West at CPAC!

Rep. Allen West stopped by the bloggers' lounge before heading out to deliver the keynote address for CPAC 2011.

Robert Stacy McCain performed the introductions:

I'm listening to the speech right now.

Updates coming ...

Andrew Breitbart at CPAC!

This was my first chance to listen to him. He's definitely hot property at the convention. Here's Andrew during his speech this morning at the Marriott balloom.

Andrew was on a roll, as usual. Jillian Rayfield of Talking Points Memo was not amused: "Breitbart: Code Pink Protestors Used To Be 'Kind Of Slutty,' Now They're 'Long In The Tooth'":

In his rambling CPAC speech today, Andrew Breitbart described how he has enjoyed going to progressive rallies and peppering the protesters with questions. But, he said, the women of the anti-war group Code Pink are "tedious at this point" because they used to be "kinda slutty lefties," but "they're getting long in the tooth."

"I don't know why I decided to make my career trying to destroy the institutional left. I thought that would be a fun thing to do," he said at the opening of his remarks. He described how he's found that the people in protests "are not individuals. They've been community organized."

"They're not Americans," Breitbart said later. "They're animals."

Breitbart went on to describe how a "collusion" has developed between the SEIU, OFA, Acorn, and the Obama Administration. "The President is using these thugs," he said.

"It's vulgar to think that the President" has "his fingerprints all over" protest groups, Breitbart said, also noting that "at the end of the day a lot of them are just overacting extras."

He came up to the bloggers' lounge a bit later, and conservatives swarmed around to listen. Andrew quipped, "That wasn't the speech I planned to give." He then proceeded to recount the epic significance of the Pigford scandal:

And he's with Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit and John Hawkins of Right Wing News:

I spoke with him for a couple of minutes. We've met before, but he's a superstar now. He mentioned he might be interested in expanding the coverage at Big Government et al. to colleges and universities. I said, "Hey, I'm your man there":

VIDEO HAT TIP: Marooned in Marin,"Breitbart at CPAC: The Left Is Being Organized By The President Against The Mass ."

Ron Paul's Speech at CPAC

I'm hardly a fan of Ron Paul, but no doubt he's a top CPAC newsmaker.

The Hill has a report, "Ron Paul slams Patriot Act, backers drown out jeers at conference." And the big theme at USA Today, "Ron Paul: U.S. ‘propped up’ Mubarak in Egypt." (Via Memeorandum.)

In any case, listen to it. The guy's a crank, IMHO. And from the comments at Gateway Pundit:

When will this guy just go away? His looney followers are what make me hate the guy. They are worse than Obamabots.

Well, his loony followers make it easier to hate the guy, but Ron Paul's a clown all by himself.

BONUS: More coverage, with a lovely photograph of Mary Katharine and myself: "Mary Katharine Ham Covers Mitch Daniels' Speech at CPAC."

More later ...

Mary Katharine Ham Covers Mitch Daniels' Speech at CPAC

Very few bloggers were at the lounge Friday night. Seemed strange after being packed like sardines on Thursday. The big evening event was the Ronald Reagan Banquet, and it was a humdinger. Phyllis Schlafly was emcee. And George Will was on hand. He introduced Governor Mitchell Daniels. I'll post some pics later. But Mary Katherine Ham was in the house, and she reports: "Full Text: Mitch Daniels’ Speech to CPAC." And the video's at Hot Air, "Mitch Daniels’s Speech at CPAC." And from Hotline on Call, "Daniels to CPACers: Don't Be 'Suicide Bombers'":

In a speech that appeared aimed directly at conservatives wary of his stance on social issues, Indiana Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels bluntly warned participants at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday against spurning candidates and issues capable of attracting broad public support.

"Purity in martyrdom is for suicide bombers," said Daniels, whose potential 2012 presidential candidacy has been defined by his critique of the some of his party's most ardent activists. He also called not-so-subtly for a shift in the party's political tone.

"I submit that, as we ask Americans to join us on such a boldly different course," Daniels said, "it would help if they liked us, just a bit."

Daniels' speech was markedly different than those given at the conference by other prospective GOP presidential candidates, who mostly struck to red meat for the party's base. Though the governor did take a few early jabs at President Obama, he seemed less interested in catering to his than in challenging to reach beyond its orthodoxy "to unify America, or enough of it, to demand and sustain the big change we propose."

Some conservatives have criticized Daniels for calling for a GOP "truce" on social issues so it can focus the party can focus on the economy. Daniels never referenced the controversy directly in his speech, but he did say the party must attract supporters who aren't plugged into politics or conservative commentary.

"We must be the vanguard of recovery, but we cannot do it alone," he told a packed house in an after-dinner talk. "We have learned in Indiana, big change requires big majorities. We still need people who never tune in to Rush or Glenn or Laura or Sean," Daniels said, referring to talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity. "Who surf past C-SPAN to get to SportsCenter."

More at the link.

And check back for updates. Meanwhile, at New York Times, "At Conference, G.O.P. Hopefuls Offer Criticism of All Things Obama."

Ground Zero Mosque Documentary Preview

That's Pamela taking questions after Friday's panel, "The Ground Zero Mosque: The Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks." The event featured a brief 10-minute screening and a panel discussion. The entire film will screen today. As she notes:

On Saturday the entire film will be screened at Citizens United’s CPAC Theater – Delaware Ballroom: the World Premiere of the AFDI/SIOA documentary film on the Ground Zero Mosque.

More on this later ...

Meanwhile, from Ed Morrissey, "Video: 9/11 families visit CPAC to protest the Ground Zero Mosque."

Ann Coulter at CPAC

I missed the Sarah Palin impersonator, but Ann Coulter looked stunning during an interview with Pajamas Television:

Da Tech Guy has more, "Can someone explain to me why people swarmed the Sarah Palin impersonator ..."

Plus, The Other McCain updates, "CPAC Day 2: Into the Scrum" (more here). And Midnight Blue is retiring early for the night, "CPAC Experience: Flu Like Symptoms," and at No Runny Eggs, "CPAC random pics – Day 1."

And for real news, see Hot Air, "Romney supporters at CPAC pitching him as the anti-Palin." And Los Angeles Times, "Pawlenty, Romney bash Obama at CPAC":

On a seeming collision course toward the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney spoke to cheering crowds Friday at the second day of a gathering of the nation's conservatives, blasting President Obama for what they said was his failure to lead on national security and the economy.

While Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, and Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, have not formally declared their intentions, their White House ambitions appear more evident every day.

Romney's wife, Ann, introducing him to the packed house at the Conservative Political Action Conference, came close to an admission, saying that she "hoped" to see her husband elected. And when Romney, who has been on a nationwide tour, said at one point "if I decide to run for president," some in the room chortled.

But neither Pawlenty nor Romney, nor any of the other featured speakers here Friday, which included possible 2012 contenders Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Republican Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, could compete with the rowdy reception given Rep. Ron Paul, the Texas libertarian.

More at the link.

It turns out that Ron Paul rent-a-bots have surged CPAC, apparently sent by the folks at Campaign for Liberty, and perhaps a few other isolationist-style "conservative" outfits.

And there's more: Dave Weigel updates on the gay marriage tussel, "CPAC 2011: Big Ol' Gay Party." He reports on Andrew Breitbart's private party at D.C.'s 18th Street Lounge. Apparently Breitbart's all for the GOP big tent, and he reverted to '80s-era alternative rock to cut loose the jams:

Depeche Mode was played; a fight nearly broke out between two people who were too drunk to explain what they were fighting about; some people were convinced that Dana Loesch, who was wearing leather pants, couldn't have possibly been Dana Loesch, because she was wearing leather pants.

Well, I met Dana Loesch yesterday. Her leather pants were real and fabulous.

Expect updates ...

More CPAC Blogging

While I'm conferencing today (and possibly without an Internet connection), check Goldfish and Clowns, "$2500 to attend CPAC Totally Sucks."

Well, yes, but a bloggers' panel with Dana Loesch takes some pressure off:

And more on yesterday's events, "CPAC Audience Rejects Donald Rumsfeld."

Yet, Secretary Rumsfeld received a warm welcome at the CPAC bloggers' lounge. And I introduced myself:

Also, I took a wonderful picture of Tania and John Ruberry with Rumsfeld as well, and I'll update with that later.

Donald Trump at CPAC: 'Ron Paul Can't Get Elected'

I'll have more CPAC pictures posted later, but Fox & Friends just interviewed Donald Trump, and no doubt his CPAC turn yesterday generated some buzz. For example, at ABC News, "Donald Trump: If I Run For President ‘This Country Will Be Respected Again’" (via Memeorandum):

During his speech, which was added to the CPAC agenda at the last-minute, Trump hinted that the time may be right for him to run for president, arguing that he had had at least as much experience as President Obama.

“Our current president came out of nowhere,” Trump said.

He laid out his policy viewpoints in straightforward terms: “I’m pro-life. I’m against gun control, and I will fight to end Obamacare and replace it with something that makes sense for people in business and not bankrupt the country.”

Trump added, “If I decide to run, I will not be raising taxes.” He also pledged to help America re-gain a competitive advantage with China and other countries that he said “are screwing us.”

I liked it!

And my full report is here: "Updates from CPAC — Donald Trump Disses Ron Paul!"

More CPAC reporting later!

Updates from CPAC — Donald Trump Disses Ron Paul!

Apologies for the non-existent CPAC updates. The Internet connection inside the bloggers' lounge completely sucks. I had a full day nevertheless, and I'll provide a more detailed report later. For now I wanted to get this photo posted. The bloggers' lounge includes a balcony overlooking the main ballroom at the Wardman Park Marriott. Once I saw Donald Trump on the television monitors I went out to take a few photos. Just as I did, Trump announced that "Ron Paul cannot get elected." The next thing you know the whole left side of the ballroom erupted in boos. At the picture, Trump is responding back, to his right, to the huge cohort of unruly Ron Paul supporters. It was an amazing moment. The Hill's got the story, "Trump: Ron Paul a 'good guy,' but 'has zero chance' of being elected president" (via Memeorandum):

Business mogul Donald Trump said Thursday that Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) could not possibly win the 2012 presidential race.

"By the way, Ron Paul cannot get elected, I'm sorry to tell you," Trump said at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Thursday. "I like Ron Paul, I think he's a good guy, but honestly he just has zero chance of getting elected."

Both Trump's names and Paul's have been mentioned as possible candidates for the 2012 presidential race.

Trump, who was a late addition to the speech schedule at CPAC, said in the same speech that he is considering running for president and would make an announcement if he decides to run in the first half of this year.

Bonus: Apparently the same crowd heckled Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, seen below. The former vice president is not falling asleep. Rather, he's reading his notes:

At any rate, Talking Points Memo has the video: "Paul Supporters Hijack Cheney-Rumsfeld Reunion."

Pamela has more: "Where Have all the Rumsfelds Gone?"

More on Sarah Palin and CPAC

Earlier it was her comments on GOProud. Now she responds to Rick Santorum. This post has all you need, seriously: "Did Rick Santorum ‘Knock’ Governor Palin? UPDATED: Santorum Responds, Barr Fights Back – Further Updates – ADDED Palin/Santorum Reactions."

Politico's getting some mileage out of it: "Santorum's Twe-eating his Palin words" (at Memeorandum).

I'm off to CPAC.

Check my Twitter feed for instant updates, when I can get them posted. I'll try to post pictures to the blog as well.

CPAC Socializing

I think Tania's gonna bust me, since the flash is way too bright on this picture. But this will have to do until I can get a few more choice shots tomorrow:

I just happened to see Tania, as I was checking out the registration desk. We recognized each other immediately. It was also a pleasure to meet John Ruberry, a.k.a, Marathon Pundit, who was hanging out as well.

Tania arrived early Wednesday. She's got another report: "The CPAC 2011 Experience – In The Beginning."

And I'm seen here with Herman Cain and Pamela Geller:

More reports tomorrow.

Made it to CPAC!

And all you get is this Boeing 737!

(That's a few minutes prior to boarding, at John Wayne Airport, about 7:00am.)

Well, at least for now. I'm at the Henley Park Hotel in downtown D.C. I'm guessing it's just about 5 minutes or so from the Marriott Wardman Park, the conference hotel. Robert Stacy McCain just tweeted.

Look for a report in the morning.

Meanwhile, at Politico, "At CPAC, the race for second place as Paul goes all out" (via Memeorandum).

CPAC 2011

As this post goes live I'm probably on my way to John Wayne Airport. My plane is scheduled for take off at 7:30am.

I haven't missed a day of blogging since John McCain won the GOP nomination in 2008. Readers may remember, but my wife and I took the boys to Las Vegas for a little vacation --- and I did without the blogosphere for a few days. It probably won't happen again this weekend, but if posting is erratic folks will know why. This is my first trip to CPAC. I plan on taking loads of photos. I'll post some updates as soon as I get a bit of extended downtime. At any rate, I have a hunch there might be some controversy over gay rights again this year. Not so much a Ryan Sorba-style showdown, but perhaps something with the GOProud crew. Seriously. Why is GOProud's Chris Barron talking to Lawrence O'Donnell on the eve of the convention? C'mon. MSNBC? It's not like those folks wish conservatives well. Something doesn't add up, to say the least, and perhaps this indeed confirms the warnings of the American Principles Project:

See what I mean?

So, until later, a little reading from the right --- from the really, truly genuine right:

* Douglas Feith, "Dictators and Hedgehogs."

* Douglas Murray, "Cameron's Multicultural Wake-Up Call."

* Henry Olson, "After the Republican Wave."

* Kay Hymowitz, "Sarah Palin and the Battle for Feminism."

* Lila Rose, "Planned Parenthood NY: Giving Pimps Discounts, on the Tax Payers’ Dime."

And until later, see Midnight Blue's CPAC updates.

Borders Bankruptcy

Or near-bankruptcy.

See LAT, "Is Borders heading for its final chapter?"

I used to think about how much the big-box bookstores improved my quality of life. When I was in graduate school (UCSB) I used hang out at Borders on State Street all the time. Especially memorable were the times I met Dr. Michael Gordon, my dissertation advisor, for bread and coffee. It was a lot of fun. Of course I should add that I'm not necessarily crying about this. Both Barnes and Noble and Borders savaged local booksellers, so among a lot of Bohemians (including my mom), they won few friends. Still, there's something in the convenience of always being able to find a good quality bookstore at the neighborhood mall. Strange, in any case. Markets working, and all that.

More at Pat Austin's, "The End of Dead Tree Books Is Nigh."

Palin Derangement Syndrome — In the Mold of Ronald Reagan Edition

From the lead letter to the editor, at today's Los Angeles Times:

Only one Reagan

Re "Palin casts self in Reagan mold," Feb. 5

Sarah Palin's attempt to cast herself in the Reagan mold is laughable at best. Her anti-intellectual position is nothing more than another of the ad hominem, bandwagon, emotive arguments for which she is so famous, stirring up "mob mentality" by attacking the present administration.

The "small government" Palin advocates would be far more authoritarian than anything proffered by the Obama administration. Indeed, a Republican (or "tea party") government would basically annihilate Social Security, Medicare and the Environmental Protection Agency, remove a woman's right to choose and promote some extremist brand of Christianity, autocratically removing more and more of the freedoms we currently enjoy.

Palin stands for nothing more than promotion of Sarah Palin. The fact that so many people are actually convinced by her brand of argumentation is truly frightening. She is most definitely not Ronald Reagan.

Rebecca S. Hertsgaard

Palm Desert

That's pretty classic Palin derangement, and it's especially interesting that the Times gave this woman's letter top billing in today's edition.

Also interesting is the latest CNN poll out today, "CNN Poll: Republicans want winner over ideology in 2012" (via Hot Air and Memeorandum). And I'll be perfectly honest: If Palin's a candidate I'll personally pull out the stops for her to win the nominiation. Yet, while others might not say so, I do have some concerns about her general election viability. I spoke with my department chairman yesterday, mentioning that I was attending CPAC, and he didn't flinch in announcing Palin as his pick for the nomination. But we both agreed that she could have some problems winning voters at the middle of the spectrum. At any rate, the CNN survey shows some weaknesses for Obama. He's got just 25 percent of voters that would definitely vote for him, and a majority of 51 percent said they think he'll lose reelection in 2012. As for Palin chances, a new Rasmussen horse-race poll shows that right now Obama beats Palin 49 to 38. Of the prospective GOP hopefuls cited, only Mitt Romney currently leads Obama, 44 to 42 percent. See, "Romney, Huckabee Even With Obama, Other GOP Hopefuls Trail."

Bottom line: Obama's deeply vulnerable, and Sarah Palin would be a fool not to announce her candidacy. The electorate will sort things out, and there's still lots of time for things to develop.

More later ...

RELATED: "Heading to CPAC Tomorrow!"

Heading to CPAC Tomorrow!

I'm flying out in the morning. I'll post an announcement with some tentative plans for blogging.

Meanwhile, from Tania Gail, "The CPAC Experience: Conference Survival Tips For Everyone."

Also, a behind-the-scenes video from the folks at CPAC:

(UN)RELATED: At The Other McCain, who I'll be hanging with, "LIVE AT FIVE – 2.8.11."

Julian Assange's Prosecutor Accused of Anti-Men Bias

The surprise of the century, no doubt. At Time, "Courtroom Conflict":

The extradition hearings in London Monday of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange drips with intrigue: a mysterious Australian hacker accused of sex crimes by two Swedish women. Now add this to the mix: Monday, a retired female judge accused the female Swedish prosecutor attempting to extradite Assange of having a "biased view" against men.

As part of the two-day hearing to determine whether Assange should be taken to Sweden to face sex-crimes charges, retired Swedish appeal court judge Brita Sundberg-Weitman launched an outspoken attack on Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny. Sundberg-Weitman was flown to London by Assange's legal team to give evidence supporting their argument that Assange's extradition would be a "flagrant denial of justice".

They got their money's worth, as Sundberg-Weitman a published academic and associate professor at Stockholm University, accused Ny of having a "rather biased view against men," according to an account by Britain's Press Assocation.

More at the link above, and at Telegraph UK, "Julian Assange extradition hearing: Swedish prosecutor 'is biased against men': Julian Assange, the founder of the WikiLeaks website, is the victim of a "malicious" attempt to extradite him by a Swedish prosecutor who is "biased against men", a court has been told."

I've been meaning to update my reporting on this, but once Phyllis Chesler weighed in I paused a bit to think it through. See, "NewsReal Faux Feminist Naomi Wolf Joins Assange in Crusade to Bring Down America."

I still might have some commentary, perhaps reconciling the dual strands of feminism animating the case.

Sarah Palin's Comments on CPAC and GOProud

The clip's at Breitbart's, "Sarah Palin Throws Support Behind GOProud Participation at CPAC." And a teaser:

Well, I’ve never attended a CPAC conference ever so Sarah Palin Throws Support Behind GOProud Participation at CPAC." And quoted there: I was a little taken aback this go around when I couldn’t make it to this one either and then there was a speculation well I either agree or disagree with some of the groups or issues that CPAC is discussing ... perhaps what it is that you’re suggesting in the question is should the GOP, should conservatives not reach out to others, not participate in events or forums that perhaps are rising within those forums are issues that maybe we don’t personally agree with?

This has generated a little controversy. Shane D'Aprile reports, "Conservative group wants answers from Palin on gay rights":

The conservative American Principles Project, which is already boycotting this week's Conservative Political Action Conference over the inclusion of a gay GOP group, is now demanding "clarity" from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

The organization wants to know exactly where Palin stands on the inclusion of GOProud as one of CPACs sponsors and wants clarity on her stance on gay marriage after Palin suggested over the weekend that she supports the group.

Asked about the controversy over GOProud's presence at CPAC, which has led to a boycott of the event by several leading conservative groups and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Palin told the Christian Broadcasting Network that she desires a "healthy debate."

"Should conservatives not reach out to others, not participate in events or forums that perhaps arising within those forums are issues that maybe we don't personally agree with?" Palin asked. "And I say 'no.'"

Palin's comments to CBN were highlighted by Andrew Breitbart, who is a member of GOProud's board and will take part in one of the group's events during CPAC later this week.

But the interview raised the ire of APP's President Frank Cannon, who demanded answers from Palin on Monday.

"The concern of conservatives is over the participation of a group whose stated goals run at odds with that of core conservative principles, not over debate over those issues," Cannon said in a statement. "Governor Palin should clarify her comments by letting us know whether in her definition, traditional marriage is a core component of conservatism."

Palin's views on gay rights aren't entirely clear. She drew attention earlier this year after she re-tweeted a message from conservative talk host Tammy Bruce that was seen by many as expressing support for the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Palin later said she didn't support the repeal.

More at the link.

Also, a discussion by Kathryn Jean Lopez, "CPAC’s Culture Club: Sex and the Boycott."

Frankly, as a matter of pure policy, I doubt GOProud can be a genuinely conservative group, so when the American Principles Project reports that GOProud is actively lobbying in opposition to the defense of traditional marriage, that's a substantial problem. As quoted at the Lopez entry: "“It is no more acceptable as a participant at CPAC than a group that said it embraced the ‘traditional conservative agenda’ but actively worked for higher taxes and greater governmental control of the economy."

APP's full boycott letter is here: "CPAC Coalition Letter." And reading that reveals an even greater problem: GOProud is an "identity politics" organization adopting a "long-term strategy to impose" same-sex marriage. Sounds more like radical progressivism than conservatism.

In any case, we'll see how it goes. Perhaps I'll have a chance to swing by some of the GOProud events, and if so I'll publish reports and updates.

Matthew Yglesias, Destroyed

This is too good, "Matt Yglesias: The One Man Mistake Factory . . . Or “I Laugh at the Inferior Intellect”" (via Cold Fury):

Genuinely smart people see through Yglesias, and recognize him as a blowhard. Add to his many defects as a pundit and a thinker his particularly fervent advocacy of dishonesty, and his resort to obscenities when challenged (more on this later), and you have a blogger thoroughly and completely out of his depth, and exposed as a fraud.

And I thought Diary of Daedalus was thorough in its destruction of Charles Johnson. Man, this is like a nuclear detonation.

That said, I'd pay good money to see the husky pony-tailed blogger don terrorist garb while idiotically wielding a meat-cleaver:

Arianna Huffington Wastes No Time

In doing video promotions for her site.

We'll see how this works out, "Arianna Takes On The 'Cult Of No-Sleep' (VIDEO)":

Meanwhile, Robert Stacy McCain is not impressed: "HuffPo/AOL Deal: On Second Thought … Hell, No, It Still Doesn’t Make Any Sense."

Plus, David Dayen's backpedaling from his gleeful response this morning, "Asking Uncomfortable Questions Not a Matter of Left or Right." Dayen's responding to Politico, "HuffPost to AOL: Leaving left behind?":

The Huffington Post may have been founded as the liberal answer to the conservative Drudge Report, a place for progressive wound-licking in the wake of George W. Bush’s re-election.

But on Monday, Arianna Huffington was distancing herself from the lefty label as she announced the sale of HuffPost to AOL for $315 million.

“We don’t see ourselves as left,” she told POLITICO. “And I think it’s one area where news consumers are ahead of the media, because they know that continuing to see everything that’s happening as a right-left issue is missing what’s happening, and is also making it much harder for us to be properly informed.”

Some on the left worry that the sale to AOL could mean an end to HuffPost in its current incarnation — away from its roots in the progressive community, which were its first bloggers, commenters and readers, and toward a more middle-of-the-road posture, to make it more broadly appealing.

I doubt progressives have much to worry about. The Huffington Post will hardly be turning into a web copy of the Wall Street Journal. And Arianna Huffington's a progressive through and through, despite her well-documented hypocrisy.

What Huffington Post Means for Journalism's Future

Ann Althouse and William Jacobson have initial, snarky reactions to the news of AOL's $350 million purchase of Huffington Post (here and here).

My first reaction was complete non-surprise. In the online world, few media entrepreneurs have been as savvy as Arianna Huffington. And while it may take a while, the HuffPo deal will serve as a powerful consolidation of progressive media operations in the increasingly digital news industry. What's especially interesting about this is Arianna's the ultimate personification of the left's hypocritical socialist elite. Not only do progressives like Arianna love money --- lots of it --- they love telling other people what they should do with theirs. When the Mayhill Fowler story broke in 2008 --- Fowler first reported Barack Obama's "clinging to their guns and religion" comments at a ritzy San Francisco fundraiser --- Huffington was vacationing on a yacht in Tahiti. Progressive eviscerated Mayhill Fowler for her reporting, especially since the media's establishment Obama-enablers would have bottled up that juicy "clinging" tidbit. Expect more of such distortions as big media giants consolidate. The media industry already tilts heavily left, so conservatives will continue to battle the progressive narrative (recall the left's coverage of campaign 2008, for example). What's interesting is how well the HuffPo deal is being welcomed by progressives. Matthew Yglesias writes, "I continue to be an optimist about the Internet and the news." And check David Dayen, at the communist Firedoglake:

I probably have a very unusual view of things, but pretty much everything I read on Huffington Post comes from their original reporting wing, and they have a growing staff in that department delivering very strong content. It’s good for progressive media in general to see a business model thriving, and while there are concerns about a general flattening of the online space that’s already happening, and this at least plants a flag on the left side.

RELATED: From former Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman, "The Huffington Post and AOL: 'Going There' Goes Global."

Advertisers Raided the National Memory Banks on Super Bowl Sunday

It's a cultural thing, no doubt.

At New York Times, "Super Bowl Ads Mine Decades of Americana":

The advertising bowl that took place inside Super Bowl XLV on Sunday offered a wild — and somewhat welcome — ride through six decades of popular culture.

Thankfully, many viewers had probably fastened their seat belts before tuning in to Fox, considering that almost half the companies that bought commercial time in the game had something to do with the auto industry, among them nine car brands from A (Audi) to V (Volkswagen), along with Bridgestone, CarMax and Cars.com.

The traffic jam may be another sign of the postrecession recovery on Madison Avenue, but it made for occasional difficulty in distinguishing the Elantras from the Optimas.

It would also have been difficult to figure out most of the 60-plus commercials without a working knowledge of Americana or, at least, access during the game to Wikipedia (if not WikiLeaks). The spots dished up a dizzying — and at times ditzy — mélange of celebrity star turns, movie references, homages to television shows, snippets of songs and even hat-tips to other spots.

To fully appreciate the commercials, it helped to be at least passingly familiar with “Almost Famous,” “Back to the Future,” Roseanne Barr, Busby Berkeley, Justin Bieber, Adrien Brody, David Bowie, Diddy, the “Dogs Playing Poker” paintings, Howdy Doody, early video games, Thomas Edison and Eminem (who turned up in two spots, for Chrysler and Lipton Brisk).

Also, Facebook, geeks, “Glee,” Jimi Hendrix, Faith Hill, home-improvement TV series, Timothy Hutton, Janis Joplin, Kenny G, “Lassie,” Richard Lewis, nerds, “1984” (the novel) and “1984” (the Apple commercial from the 1984 Super Bowl).

Plus, Joan Rivers, silent movies, the Snickers spot from the 2010 Super Bowl, the Jon Spencer Blues Explosion, spy movies, “Star Wars,” “The Talented Mr. Ripley,” “Tiny Dancer,” “The Twilight Zone,” western movies, the “Where’s the beef?” commercial for Wendy’s and yuppies.

Whew. That is a big barrel of borrowed interest, to use the marketing term for wooing consumers by filling ads with familiar elements. The Super Bowl sponsors last year did it, too, rolling out proven draws like Kiss, “National Lampoon’s Vacation” and Betty White, but they were pikers compared with the advertisers and agencies that raided the national memory banks on Sunday.

RTWT.

Why Some Twitter Posts Catch On, and Some Don't

At New York Times:

AMID the talk last week of a Facebook revolution across the Middle East, Americans and other English speakers took to Twitter — to post about their love lives.

Hashtags — the community-driven shorthand used to identify conversation themes — like “icantdateyou” and “worstpickuplines” were vastly more popular a few days ago than ones like “Egyptians” or “jan25,” a reference to Day 1 of the Egyptian protests. In just one hour last Tuesday, “icantdateyou” racked up nearly 274,000 mentions on Twitter, with posts like “icantdateyou if all you wanna do is fuss” and “icantdateyou if you look like your brother.”

Alas, poor “Mubarak” rated fewer than 11,000 during the same hour. (Many Egyptians could not post on Twitter because their government had temporarily cut off most Internet and cellphone service.)

Sure, many of us are more inclined to toss off frivolous posts than politically charged ones. But a new study of hashtags offers some insight into how and why some topics become popular quickly online while others don’t.

People generally pass on the latest conversational idioms — like “cantlivewithout” or “dontyouhate” — the first few times they see them on Twitter, or they never adopt them at all, according to the study by computer scientists. The researchers analyzed the 500 most popular hashtags among more than three billion messages posted on Twitter from August 2009 to January 2010.

“Idioms are like a sugar rush,” explains Jon Kleinberg, a professor of computer science at Cornell and a co-author of the study. “You see it once, you either use it or you don’t, but the rush wears off.”

More contentious themes like politics take longer to catch on, the researchers found. People tend to wait until they have seen a more polarizing phrase — like “sarahpalin” or “hcr,” short for health care reform — four, five or six times on Twitter before posting it themselves.

We already know that people often influence one another’s behavior. That is the monkey-see-monkey-do premise behind advertising. And it may seem intuitive that different kinds of information spread differently on the Web.

More at the link.

Frankly, I haven't the slightest interest in those throwaway hashtags, and while I find it boring sometimes, there's still nothing like Twitter to get real-time information.

Best Super Bowl Ads

Glenn Reynolds says he was unimpressed, but there's always a couple of good ones:

More here.

Video: Reagan Centennial Ceremony in Simi Valley

Folks are debating the politics surrounding Ronald Reagan's legacy.

Some stories out today, Andrew Coffin, "Exclusive: Governor Palin Visits Reagan Country," and Patrick Edaburn, "Ronald Reagan Would Have Wanted Balance" (via Memeorandum). And from yesterday, a despicable piece from Michael Kinsley, "Obama channeling Reagan? Let's hope not: Ronald Reagan was a nice enough man -- but a terrible president":

Time magazine's cover this week features a Photoshopped picture of Ronald Reagan with his arm around President Obama. The cover story purports to answer the question of why Obama is channeling Reagan, a question no one was asking until Time brought it up. It's a standard newsmagazine technique to add a "why" to the thesis of a story. It makes it seem deeper, even while skipping over the hard part of whether it's true.

If Obama is attempting to emulate Reagan, there is no mystery about why. Reagan carried 49 states in 1984, the year he was reelected. But Time contends the 44th president is following the example of the 40th in some unusually profound way.

I hope that's not true. Reagan was a nice enough man — but a terrible president. I know, I know, you're not supposed to say this. Even political opponents are supposed to recognize and applaud his sunny disposition, his death grip on various bromides, his mystical connection with the voters, the wisdom in his simple view of a complicated world and so on. I am unpersuaded.

Actually, I think Kinsley's got a simple view, but RTWT if you're up to it.

Obama can't shine Reagan's shoes.

Anyway, be sure to watch Jim Lehrer's interview with President Reagan from 1989: "Ronald Reagan's Legacy." After a while, it's the moral bearing each president brings to the office, and the legacy of security and prosperity that he leaves behind. Reagan did well on both counts, and Americans love him for it.

And for a corrective, see Mark Steyn, "We Need Him Now" (via WyBlog).

Now Available: Video of Super Bowl I, 1967 Packers-Chiefs

Really cool story, at Wall Street Journal, "Found at Last: A Tape of the First Super Bowl":

Football fans know what happened in Super Bowl I. The game, which was played on January 15, 1967, was the first showdown between the NFL and AFL champions. It ended with the Green Bay Packers stomping the Kansas City Chiefs, 35-10.

Unless they were one of the 61,946 people at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum that day, or one of the fans who watched it live on NBC or CBS, there's one thing that all football fans have in common: They've never actually seen the game.

In a bizarre confluence of events, neither network preserved a tape. All that survived of this broadcast is sideline footage shot by NFL Films and roughly 30 seconds of footage CBS included in a pre-game show for Super Bowl XXV. Somehow, an historic football game that was seen by 26.8 million people had, for all intents and purposes, vanished.

HBO executive Rick Bernstein, who produced a two-part history of sports television in 1991, is one of many who have searched for a tape. He says his team chased numerous leads, from a reported copy in Cuba to rumors that Hugh Hefner might have recorded the game on a videotape machine in the Playboy Mansion. Nothing turned up. "It's the holy grail," Mr. Bernstein says.

The long search may finally be over. The Paley Center for Media in New York, which had searched for the game footage for some time, has restored what it believes to be a genuine copy of the CBS broadcast.

More at the link.

Just in time for today's game.

The Death of Blogging

I noticed the other day, with some interest, Chris Bowers' announcement that Open Left, the far-left progressive blog, was shutting down. I'd already noticed that Bowers had migrated to Daily Kos, and no explanation was needed: more readers, and more exposure. I didn't think too much of it beyond that. And then I read Ben Smith's post, where he wrote:

There's been a bit written recently on the death of blogs, and while there will -- I hope -- remain space for some, there's little doubt that the online world of politics is no longer limited to this form ... Some of the older blogs on right and left are still thriving, while others -- like TPM and the Hot Air bloggers -- have worked to turn themselves into broader news platforms. But the form now feels a little quaint.

So, the death of blogs. I hadn't actually seen too much on that. Or, mostly, what I have seen and written about is the fascination with new media, especially Facebook and Twitter. But I just found a report on the death of blogs at New York Observer, "The End of Blogging." Folks can read it at the link. All of this is mostly a matter of definition. Blogging per se isn't going anywhere. Twitter is micro blogging. It's the hippest medium right now, but it may well be replaced with some new application or publishing format soon enough. The larger issue is the future of news publishing altogether. Folks might check James Rainey's piece yesterday on the SoCal newspaper industry: "Consolidation seen as inevitable for Southern California's newspapers." The dead-tree news model is nearly a thing of the past. Consumers get their news online nowadays, and those formats best able to attract advertising revenue will keep publishing. My sense is that, yeah, reverse-chronology blogs are someone quaint, as Ben Smith notes, but the power of blogging remains as great as ever. Top bloggers breaking top stories will survive. And the numbers will include a lot more than those mentioned by Ben Smith, who, incidently, made his own "quaint" blogging comment on a blog. Perhaps folks will just shift over to the online newspaper format. Think Daily Caller or Huffington Post, or on a smaller platform, Maggie's Notebook, NewsReal, or PA Pundits – International. And then there's Althouse. She keeps plugging away on Blogger, and if it's good enough for her it's good enough for me! I'll be keeping American Power running, whether on Blogger or Wordpress, a switch that remains in the contemplation mode. I'm also in talks for my own blog at NewsReal, which means I might be joining the David Horowitz publishing house as a formal member. Again, that's just in the discussion phase, but I'll know more after CPAC next week, where I'll be hooking up with some folks.

Meanwhile, perhaps The Other McCain might weigh in on the topic.

And for a reminder on why I'll be blogging somewhere, no matter what, head back over to Open Left, where Daniel De Groot bids farewell with a parting attack on the right, "Farewell thought: Conservatism is still the enemy":

Shortly after Kerry's loss in 2004, at MyDD, Chris wrote "Conservatism is our enemy" which I think is the first time I ever encountered a direct ideological assault on conservatism itself. Along with Phil Agre's rightly famous essay on the subject, it began me on a road and mission to better understanding this beast. Everything I have learned to date from then continues to bolster Chris' original thesis. Conservativism is still the primary enemy of progress, justice, fairness and widespread happiness for humanity. It remains a destructive and corrosive force on the institutions of democracy and the single biggest obstacle to world peace ....

These fights will have to go on. Conservatism is a destructive system of hierarchy and zero-sum power seeking that has no place in the running of a modern society. It is some kind of evolutionary anachronism, the ingrained desire to accumulate power and resources to the exclusion of "the other" against times of need in Hobbes' jungle. Since about 1850 we (in the West at least) have lived in the world of surplus resources where there really is enough stuff for everyone to go around, but still we live with about half the population intuitively working the politics of a Malthusian state where every hamburger you eat is one of my kids going hungry. Even today in the shadow of the Great Recession, world GDP per capita (PPP) stands at over $10,000 per year. About 1 billion live on less than $400 a year. Another billion live on less than $750 a year. Clearly there is enough to go around, we just suck at distribution. Is it really so crazy to imagine we could get those bottom 2 billion up to $1000 or $2000 a year?

In the field of pursuing the ideal human society, liberalism is the science of pursuing human well being. It combines the empiricism and rationalism of science with the goal of maximizing human happiness. The process is iterative and the specific means change as well meaning ideas are found wanting, and as science improves our understanding of humans themselves and what it takes to make them happy. There is no other school of thought that both seeks to improve the lot of all, and actually can do it. The ultimate goal of liberalism is that we should not need the word "liberalism" because no one would need a special word to describe the self-evident way people determine solutions to societal problems. That's what liberalism is, and why it must win or all humanity will fall back into ruin, scarcity, ignorance and fear. We live in a world with plenty of those things, but also a world where solutions to them are in reach, which was never true any time before. Après liberalism, le déluge.

Look, that's not "liberalism" — that's radical progressivism. And as long as these f**kers keep agitating for the neo-Stalinist revolution, I'll be out pushing back, smacking these freaks down like a whack-a-mole.