Ultimate Nightmare: Sarah Palin and the Unhinged Left

We're just barely one week out from the presidential election and there's no better sign of the battle lines emerging for 2012 than Andrew Sullivan's utterly hysterical diatribe against Alaska Governor Sarah Palin this afternoon.

I've been observing the anti-Milky Loads delinking campaign, but for purposes of counter-mobilization I'm going to provide the link just once: "Why Palin Matters." To read Sullivan's essay is to witness a literal stream of consciousness of a chronic psychopathology whose affliction is clinically untreatable, and potentially dangerous to the larger society (borderline sociopathic).

I do not use this language freely, but there's nothing short of ghoulishishness to Sullivan's writing, a fundamental belligerence that leaves the transitive verb "demonize" stunningly impotent in explaining the enormity of Sullivan's psychological dislocation.

See for yourself, in any case:

Some readers think my continuing attempt to expose all the lies and flim-flam and bizarre behavior of Sarah Palin is now moot. She's history - they argue. Move on. I think she probably is history. Even Bill Kristol and his minions in the McCain-Palin campaign may not be able to resuscitate her political viability now. But even if she is history, she is history that matters.

Let's be real in a way the national media seems incapable of: this person should never have been placed on a national ticket in a mature democracy. She was incapable of running a town in Alaska competently. The impulsive, unvetted selection of a total unknown, with no knowledge of or interest in the wider world, as a replacement president remains one of the most disturbing events in modern American history. That the press felt required to maintain a facade of normalcy for two months - and not to declare the whole thing a farce from start to finish - is a sign of their total loss of nerve. That the Palin absurdity should follow the two-term presidency of another individual utterly out of his depth in national government is particularly troubling. 46 percent of Americans voted for the possibility of this blank slate as president because she somehow echoed their own sense of religious or cultural "identity". Until we figure out how this happened, we will not be able to prevent it from happening again. And we have to find a way to prevent this from recurring.

It happened because John McCain is an incompetent and a cynic and reckless beyond measure. To have picked someone he'd only met once before, without any serious vetting procedure, revealed McCain as an utterly unserious character, a man whose devotion to the shallowest form of political gamesmanship trumped concern for his country's or his party's interest. We need a full accounting of the vetting process: who was responsible for this act of political malpractice? How could a veep not be vetted in any serious way? Why was she not asked to withdraw as soon as the facts of her massive ignorance and delusional psyche were revealed?

The Palin nightmare also happened because a tiny faction of political professionals has far too much sway in the GOP and conservative circles. This was Bill Kristol's achievement.

It was a final product of the now-exhausted strategy of fomenting fundamentalist resentment to elect politicians dedicated to the defense of Israel and the extension of American military hegemony in every corner of the globe. Palin was the reductio ad absurdum of this mindset: a mannequin candidate, easily controlled ideologically, deployed to fool and corral the resentful and the frightened, removed from serious scrutiny and sold on propaganda networks like a food product.

This deluded and delusional woman still doesn't understand what happened to her; still has no self-awareness; and has never been forced to accept her obvious limitations. She cannot keep even the most trivial story straight; she repeats untruths with a ferocity and calm that is reserved only to the clinically unhinged; she has the educational level of a high school drop-out; and regards ignorance as some kind of achievement. It is excruciating to watch her - but more excruciating to watch those who feel obliged to defend her.

Her candidacy, in short, was indefensible. It remains indefensible. Until the mainstream media, the GOP establishment, and the conservative intelligentsia acknowledge the depth of their error, this blog will keep demanding basic accountability.

That's a longer segment than I'd like to afford old RAWMUSLGLUTES, but this is so pathetic that the post could very well end up down the memory hole if some coherent editor at the Atlantic decides eventually to intervene for goodness' sake.

In something that should be unbelievable, but isn't, top hard-left blogger Kevin Drum, at Mother Jones, recognizes the depth of Sullivan's psychopathology, and then goes ahead and appauds it!

Andrew's obsession with Palin was often hard to take, and I sometimes wished I could reach through the screen and strangle him whenever he started talking about Trig Palin again. Still, aside from the "clinically unhinged" crack, I agree with all of this.

But that's not the end of it: Sullivan's post is getting the big huzzahs all over the radical leftosphere, as if this screed - this virtual-incitement to political violence - constitutes mainstream political debate and discourse.

As I've already noted a couple of times, the election of Barack Obama is just the beginning of a new culture war for America. The best example is seen in the mobilization of street unrest by the most hardline radical groups in America in an attempt to overthrow Proposition 8, the majority ballot measure in California that preserves marriage between one man and one woman. With the final racial barrier breached in the left's electoral storming of the White House, the Democratic Party's extreme fringe factions are launching a multi-pronged campaign to purge conservatives from the institutions of power - by any means necessary - across the U.S. political landscape.

So, never forget: Sarah Palin is the left's ultimate nightmare.

Andrew Sullivan is simply the most vociferously vocal symptom of a larger implacable movement seeking to wrench any inkling of "center-right" ideology from the heights of influence in the American state. The left wants nothing more than the utter destruction of the Alaska Governor. Once that's complete, the continued ideological escalation of the culture war will branch out from there, with further attacks on "Christianists," Mormons," to the Fox News "ministry of propaganda" and beyond.

Is it any wonder why conservatives have no interest in transcending partisan divisions to join hands in an essential surrender to the nihilism of the left's progressive ideology program?

The True Meaning of Gutter Politics

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Ann Althouse Marriage Controversy

I sent Ann Althouse an e-mail congratulating her on her recent engagement (as did many others, no doubt). She's marrying her longtime commenter Meade, and this is after two years of communicating online and a couple of months of courting in person.

But Andrew Sullivan has issues with it, and Althouse responds:

Why is this something that you choose to mock? Is there something ridiculous about a blogger coming to love someone who she first knew through writing in the comments and developed an affection for over a period of years? Or is it just that we decided to marry within 2 months of meeting each other in person? My parents met in the Army and got married 2 weeks later and loved each other until they died many decades later. I'd really like to know what part of my experience deserves "OMFG."

AND: Sullivan posts the time line part of the email I sent him and says:

I did watch [Bloggingheads], but got a little confused with the various timelines (I'm not much clearer now). And I'm all in favor of the right of straight bloggers to marry their straight commenters. It's a civil right. And more than I am currently allowed after living with my husband for almost five years.

This isn't about legal rights. This is about how individuals treat each other, and I want to know why you disrespected me. Explain why you linked to Pandagon's scurrilous OMFG, which, as you know, means "Oh, my fucking God." Is that the way you mean to speak to me? Is that the way you talk about God?

I doubt Ann will be doing Bloggingheads.tv with Sullivan anytime soon. Why she still tolerates Matthew Yglesias is beyond me, but Ann's nice that way ...

The "OMFG" reference is to Jesse Taylor at Pandagon, who illustrates one more time the demonology and intolerance of the nihilist left.

**********

UPDATE: Meade provides a phenomenal reason why folks should read the comments sections:

I agree with Beta Conservative in objecting to the personal attacks on Andrew Sullivan. I also agree with Althouse and many others that, as free and full citizens of this great nation, same sex couples deserve all the rights and responsibilities accorded to opposite sex couples.

FWIW, the digital arc that led me to the woman who I love and promise to marry went something like this: Somewhere around September 25, 2001, I read an article on Islamist terrorism in the NYT magazine by a writer who was new to me, Andrew Sullivan. I found that article to be eloquent and persuasive. A web search on his name led me to Andrew's blog which led me to James Lilek's blog, Glenn Reynold's blog, and, finally, Ann Althouse's blog.

Although I have disagreed with some of the positions he's taken since 2001, I will be forever grateful to Andrew Sullivan for what he wrote following September 11 and for being the first in a series of links that led me to my true love, Ann Althouse.

Now that's some interesting degrees of separation.

Andrew Sullivan Gets it Wrong on Communists and Conservatives

Andrew Sullivan has this to say about conservatives and today's New York Times story on China's '50s-era terror manual:

Go to Memeorandum and check out the blogs commenting on the NYT exclusive on the undisputed fact that the Bush administration knowingly used Communist torture techniques against prisoners in wartime. You will find no right-of-center blogs commenting. It's an astonishing story - especially for any anti-Communist conservative who fought the good fight during the Cold War. But they won't mention it. I guess when a Republican administration copies communists, conservative writers need to copy Stalinists.

For a journalist of Sullivan's caliber, this is sleazy blogging.

First, Sullivan left only the generic Memeorandum link, and not an article-specific Memeorandum citation, like this one.

Further, Memeorandum citations are dynamic. That is, where multiple articles on a topic are in play at any given time, Memeorandum's aggregator-bot will locate different blog posts (which might include a number of germane, interrelated links) to various locations on the main page.

Thus, at the time of this writing, my essay, "What Should Be Done About Torture?", was linked to the Memorandum citation for Christopher Hitchens' Vanity Fair story, "Believe Me, It's Torture."

I wrote my entry this morning, however, and at that time my piece was linked along with Captain Ed's, "ChiCom tactics used at Gitmo?" (the earlier Memeorandum link is here). In that entry, the Captain argues that actual U.S. military trainers "had no awareness of the origin of their material," and the controversy "should be a matter for closed-session investigations by Congress and the DoD."

Now, it's natural that on the most hot-button and politically significant news stories of the day, partisans on the opposite sides of the left-right divide will jump on breaking news articles that bolster their agenda. No harm, no foul...

What's troubling here is how Sullivan desperately strains to paint conservatives as Stalinist propagandists - a move that only ends up being, for Sullivan, a pathetic display of partisanship, a blatantly underhanded and unsustainable attempt to smear the right-wing blogosphere.

Charles Johnson and Andrew Sullivan: Separated at Birth?

Samuel Wurzelbacher's comments from his Christianity Today interview continue to dominate the news this morning. At issue is his remark on homosexuals, where he suggests, "I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children."

When read in the context of Wurzelbacher's deconstruction of the word "queer," the guy makes sense - at least from the perspective of a parent trying to instill strong moral values in his children.

Of course, "anywhere near my children" is politically incorrect, so Wurzelbacher's being hammered from both sides of the spectrum, and certainly there's room for debate on exactly what "threat" Wurzelbacher had in mind.

Still, I just can't help noticing how Charles Johnson and Andrew Sullivan performed some near-perfect telepathy in their respective, nearly-identical posts on the topic.

Here's Charles Johnson's, "Joe the Plumber Speaks Out Against 'Queers'." Johnson cites the "anywhere near my children" quote but can't quit ("I could stop with that one, but there’s more"), and adds a couple more passages before the sigh ... "Good. Grief."

Here's Andrew Sullivan's, "What Christianity Means to Some." Sullivan also cites the "anywhere near my children" quote, and then adds, "Sam Wurzelbacher has every right to keep his children away from anyone. But he is instilling bigotry at an early age. As is his party."

And there you have it.

Charles Johnson and Andrew Sullivan: Separated at birth now reunited to excoriate Joe the Plumber, the house bigot of the GOP.

P.S. I want neither Johnson nor Sullivan "anywhere near my children"!

Andrew Sullivan's Palin-Induced Psychosis

Michelle Malkin hammered Andrew Sullivan today with her piece, "It's Official: Atlantic Magazine Blogger Suffers Palin-Induced Psychosis."

And frankly, I'm not sure if "psychosis" is a strong enough term, even though it means to be completely out of touch with any semblance of reality. That's my impression of the guy after reading Sullivan's long screed attacking Sarah Palin with the most exceedingly fantastical demonizations I've ever read. And the kick of it is that Sullivan's even more clinically deranged than is to be expected, for the simply fact of not having found anything of real value with which to substantiate the allegations he's been making for over a year now. Just this passage gives you a hint of Sullivan's supremely unmatched hatred for Sarah Palin and of his fanatical repudiation of the essence of the all-American good that she epitomizes:

Well, as promised the Dish is back to normal. I'm not. "Going Rogue" is such a postmodern book that treating it as some kind of factual narrative to check (as I began to), or comparing its version of events with her previous versions of the same events (as I have), and comparing all those versions with what we know is empirical reality (so many lies, so little time) is just a dizzying task. The lies and truths and half-truths and the facts and non-facts are all blurred together in a pious puree of such ghastly prose that, in the end, the book can only really be read as a some kind of chapter in a cheap nineteenth century edition of "Lives of the Saints." But as autobiography.

It is a religious book, full of myths and parables. And yet it is also crafted politically, with every single "detail" of the narrative honed carefully for specific constituencies. It is also some kind of manifesto - but not in the usual sense of a collection of policy proposals. It is a manifesto for the imagined life of an imagined Sarah Palin as a leader for all those who identify with the image and background she relentlessly claims to represent.

In this, the book is emblematic of late degenerate Republicanism, which is based not on actual policies, but on slogans now so exhausted by over-use they retain no real meaning: free enterprise is great, God loves us all, America is fabulous, foreigners are suspect, we need to be tough, we can't dither, we must always cut taxes, government is bad, liberals are socialists, the media hates you, etc etc.

I tried to write a fair account of Palin's various stories of her incredible fifth pregnancy, labor and delivery and to reconcile all the various facts we know and the various versions of the story she has told. Just for the record and because we have aired the public record on this before. I honestly however cannot make total sense of them in a way that I'm completely convinced by and so simply do not feel comfortable making any judgment on them in any way at this point. That's fair to her, my readers, my colleagues, and the innocent private people caught up in this circus.

I thought there might be some new facts in here that would illuminate my confusion and dispel the whole thing.

Read the whole thing for more of this phantasmagorical rupture with normal experience.

I should add that I'm reading the book now, and I'm finding it as an extremely satisfying account of the everywoman's tale of American exceptionalism. That is, Sarah Palin is our 21st century Frederick Jackson Turner, who was the author of the seminal account of the American political culture, "The Significance of the Frontier in American History." With Palin we have our modern-day political scribe of the frontier existence, the rugged pioneer of traditionalism who rejoices in the Alaskan harvest of the great remaining bounty of the nation's magnificent destiny.

This is what is so blindingly difficult for radical leftists to accept. For in Sarah Palin, we have the personification of the culture of expansion and power at the core of America's mission. We see it in Going Rogue's regaling of family hunting trips, and Sarah Palin's ethos of sustenance in faith in God. This strength is further congealed in the primacy of family at the center of all life's meaning. Palin's book is just simply an essential testament to the realism of contemporary conservatism, and to the enduring appeal of the classic American ideal.

And I can write all of this with the benefit of reading just portions of the very first chapter, which includes Palin's recitation of her squeamishness at holding warm moose eyes while out for a morning hunt with her father. This testament is also found in her retelling of the love of the outdoor life, and especially the cherishing of the long summers of the Alaskan experience, where her life has been lived in doubly exhuberance in the knowledge of the long -- and often hard -- winters that came to the land.

I'll have more on this, but I rest in my own supreme satisfaction that Palin's story is my story as well. It reminds me of my own experiences surfing the beaches of South Orange County, four-wheeling and shooting in the Southern California outback, and spending summers hiking the raw Sierra Nevadas with my frontiersman uncle, Doug Walton, a man who at 76 years-old remains a rugged entrepreneurial explorer and tour guide, and one of my all-time great role-models:

This is a central foundation of what means to be an American, something that Andrew Sullivan will never, ever grasp.

Added: Linked by SWAC Girl, "Sarah, Alaska, and Growing Up Free":

I, too, enjoyed growing up in the outdoors ... camping in Shenandoah National Park, swimming at Virginia Beach and North Carolina's Outer Banks, hiking the Blue Ridge Mountains, exploring the Northern Neck at my aunt's place on the rivah, and learning to shoot a rifle on the sprawling peanut farm of friends in eastern Virginia.

Shooting a gun? Camping with bears? Hiking the wilderness? Those are so foreign to many folks ... but for me it was a freedom-loving childhood just as Donald describes growing up in California, and Sarah Palin describes growing up as part of the Alaskan experience.

Is Charles Johnson Gay?

I recently found this comment on one of my posts on Little Green Footballs:

Charles Johnson did a lot of good early work in exposing Islam. However, Charles is now in an awkward place ideologically due to his own homosexuality and the contradictions of this position vs the outlook of the rest of Western Conservatism/Rightwing thought.

Interestingly, I've actually noticed something of a meeting of the minds recently between Charles Johnson and Andrew Sullivan, who is gay (see, "Charles Johnson and Andrew Sullivan: Separated at Birth?"). I don't see any mention of Johnson's sexual orientation at his Wikipedia entry. Neither is there mention at a Washington Post essay cited therein. It notes at the New York Sun that Johnson was "profoundly scarred by a bitter divorce in the late 1990s." But as he's in California, it's safe to assume that was a heterosexual marriage.

Johnson's sexual orientation is his own business. AND TO REPEAT: To each his own. My interest here is that a confirmed homosexual orientation would tell us a great deal about Johnson's blogging. Like Andrew Sullivan, Johnson's a Catholic who's losing his religion (Wikipedia identifies him as "agnostic").

A Google search turned up a mention of Johnson's possible homosexuality here: "I had heard several times that Johnson is homosexual, but knew nothing about it and never commented on it."

Apparently, the readers there were involved in a flame war with Little Green Footballs, and Johnson redirected the incoming links to A BRIGHT FLASHING WEBSITE WITH THE MESSAGE "YOU ARE AN IDIOT" (so, DON'T CLICK the link if you're a photosensitive epileptic). As a result, one reader with a neural disorder suffered a seizure. Check the entire thread, here.

In any case, I was thinking about Charles Johnson's blogging in the wake of the shooting at the Holocaust Memeorial. At his first post, Charles reports that "A white supremacist is the suspect in a shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Museum." In the updates, he notes that the suspect, James von Brunn, is a "nirther" (an Obama birth certificate activist) and a Holocaust denier. Yet he concludes by noting that how Brunn's attack would "vindicate" the DHS report warning of right-wing extremism.

If so, that would "vindicate" all the agitation against the extreme right at Little Green Footballs. Funny, notice how Johnson introduces his post on Nick Griffin, the new British National Party MEP who was egged the other day:

The Holocaust-denying leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, now a member of European Parliament, was forced to abandon a press conference today when demonstrators showed up throwing eggs.

Basically, a U.S. Holocaust denier gets a boost if he "vindicates" widely rebuked the DHS report, but a British Holocaust denier get a Scarlett Letter before his name, since such identifcation would further Johnson's jihad against Pamel at Atlas Shrugs, Robert at Jihad Watch, and Sammy at Yid With Lid.

I'll have more later. As my friend Shoprat once said of Johnson, at this post, "He's done an Andrew Sullivan. No other way to put it."

And that's that thing. If he's really done an "Andrew Sullivan," then he's not really a conservative blogger any more ...

See also, "Charles Johnson and the Truth about Atheism."

Rovian Islamism? Sullivan Equates Bush Administration, Sarah Palin to Iranian Thuggery!

Recall my post from this morning, "Andrew Sullivan's Anti-Mormon Bigotry"?

Well, Sullivan's up to real nastiness again with, "The Rovian Islamist":

Ahmadinejad's bag of tricks is eerily like that of Karl Rove - the constant use of fear, the exploitation of religion, the demonization of liberals, the deployment of Potemkin symbolism like Sarah Palin ...

Think of this regime as Cheney and Rove in a police state setting, and you see what's been going on. (Of course, Rove and Cheney live within a democratic system utterly unlike Iran, and there's no evidence they would violate democratic norms as Khamenei just did. But their demagoguery, abuse of the state, dedication to conflict abroad, co-optation of the armed forces, and manipulation of rural and religious voters all have parallels in Red State Iran.) We keep expecting to see some kind of shame or some attempt at rational dialogue. They have nothing but contempt for that kind of talk. If they're going to lie, it's gonna be a Big Lie. Like this sham of an election.

This is a sick, awful man. I will continue blogging on Sullivan's totally bankrupt nihilism.

Spread these posts, readers. This is nothing short of journalistic terrorism. Sullivan's words are intended to injure, even kill, all under the cloak of the First Amendement.

Via Memeorandum.

Added: William Jacobson, "Ahmadinejad Stole The Election, Just Like Bush."

Hillary's Win: It's Not About the Math

With Hillary Clinton's big win in Pennsylvania last night, the dire hand-wringing among Barack Obama's supporters has submerged below melancholy to the realm of projection and distortion.

Andrew Sullivan calls Hillary's win a triumph of "Rovian-Atwater" politics:

It's worth recalling what this primary came to be about, because of a self-conscious decision by the Clintons to adopt the tactics and politics of the people who persecuted and hounded them in the 1990s. It was indeed in the end about smearing and labeling Obama as a far-left, atheist, elite, pansy Godless snob fraud. That was almost all it came to be about....

Used by Democrats, legitimized by Democrats, embraced by Democrats, the Rove-Atwater gambits have been paid the highest compliment by the Clintons these past few weeks. But a single digit win against a young black man in a polarized race suggests that this compliment was past its sell-by date. It was an act of desperation, and one last grab back to the past. It didn't quite do what it was supposed to do. Nearly, but not quite.

Instead of analysis, Sullivan resorts to his own smears and distortion.

Karl Rove is a winning strategist, perfectly fine with Machiavellian politics. Sullivan wouldn't be complaining if Obama had more experience and actually knew how to run a campaign against the Clinton machine. Instead, Sullivan has to try to minimize Clinton by slighting her decisive victory as only "single-digit." The numbers, of course, have Clinton at 55 to 45 percent over Obama last night, a big double-digit smash if there ever was one!

As the Los Angeles Times put it:

Clinton led Barack Obama 55% to 45%, with 99% of the precincts reporting.

Then we have the New York Times' editorial, which came out early last night, around 8:00pm on the West coast, to dismiss Clinton's win as the "low road":

By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don’t like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama....

After seven years of George W. Bush’s failed with-us-or-against-us presidency, all American voters deserve to hear a nuanced debate — right now and through the general campaign — about how each candidate will combat terrorism, protect civil liberties, address the housing crisis and end the war in Iraq.

You'll notice now the Times seeks to smear Clinton as the new G.W. Bush.

Clinton, in holding on in Pennsylvania, ran a campaign from the middle, returning to real, centrist foreign policy themes - such as massive retaliation against an Iranian nuclear first-strike - when it matters the most. That's not taking the low road. That's a straight-talk-style of stumping that's precisely needed amid Obama's neo-Carterite foreign policy agenda.

The fact remains that Obama's failed to put away the Democratic nomination. He didn't do it on Super Tuesday. He didn't do in Ohio or Texas, and he didn't do it last night in Pennsylvania.

He's getting to be like Mitt Romney - staking his winning potential on a bunch of small states - while Hillary racks up the big wins in the pedal-to-the-medal heartland states that will decide it all in November.

So, forget that Obama's ahead in pledged delegates, or in the total popular vote (which is a rehash argument from Gore's popular vote "win" in 2000).

It's not about the math anymore. Barack Obama's surge has stalled, and Hillary's perfectly situated to make the case on the grounds of electoral superiority.

As Fred Barnes notes this morning, in his essay, "Hillary Builds Her Case":

FORGET DELEGATES AND the popular vote for the Democratic presidential nomination. The most important thing Hillary Clinton gained by winning the Pennsylvania primary yesterday was a better argument - indeed, a much better argument.

It is a much better argument, which is why Obamaniacs like Sullivan and the Bush-bashers at NYT have to resort to their mimimizations and smears.

The real numbers that count came in big last night: A 55 percent majority of Pennsylvanians rejected superificialty and transcendence, they rejected allusions to "Rovian" politics and voted both by experience and by their hearts.

Hillary Clinton's got the momentum.

She's already put up big campaign fundraising numbers in the follow-up to her victory, and we should expect to see a Clinton bump in public opinion in states holding upcoming primaries, especially Indiana, the next crucial test for Obama's working-class appeal.

This Bud's for you, Hillraiser!

See more analysis at Memeorandum.

Photo Credit: Los Angeles Times

Barebackers for Barack, UPDATED! — Andrew 'Milky Loads' Sullivan Cover Story at Newsweek, 'The First Gay President'

You can't make this stuff up.

As I reported previously, Andrew Sullivan really got off on Barack's coming out: "Barebackers for Barack!"

So now here comes the news that this week's cover story at Newsweek features the cover headline, "The First Gay President."

Politico has an excerpt from Sully's report, via Memeorandum:

It’s easy to write off President Obama’s announcement of his support for gay marriage as a political ploy during an election year. But don’t believe the cynics. Andrew Sullivan argues that this announcement has been in the making for years. “When you step back a little and assess the record of Obama on gay rights, you see, in fact, that this was not an aberration. It was an inevitable culmination of three years of work.” And President Obama has much in common with the gay community. “He had to discover his black identity and then reconcile it with his white family, just as gays discover their homosexual identity and then have to reconcile it with their heterosexual family,” Sullivan writes.

And don't forget about Sully's response when he first heard the news:

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

Yay, RAWMUSLGLUTES!

Get that dude a tissue! Gotta clean up those milky loads!

And hey, Vanderleun nailed it as well:

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

Well Baracky's out and proud now.

More at Gateway Pundit, "Fabulous!… Newsweek Obama Cover: “The First Gay President”."

UPDATE: See Bookworm Room, "Another formerly major American magazine goes off the tracks *UPDATED*."

Also at Blazing Cat Fur, "Milky Loads is at it again."

Waiting for Charles Johnson to Join Andrew Sullivan's Anti-Israel Ravings...

With all the Sarah Palin news, I thought I'd check Andrew Sullivan's page this morning. It's pretty much routine stuff ("the lies of Sarah Palin," blah, blah). While there, I took this screencap of Andrew's "Face of the Day" (a Palestinian terrorist):

Palestinians smuggle sheep into the Gaza Strip through a tunnel under the Egypt-Gaza border in Rafah on November 15, 2009. Residents of the poverty-stricken Gaza Strip fear a shortage of sacrificial cattle ahead of a major Muslim holiday due to Israel's blockade. Eid al-Adha or Feast of Sacrifice marks the end of the annual pilgrimage to Mecca and is celebrated in remembrance of Abraham's readiness to sacrifice his son to God. By Said Khatib/AFP/Getty.

*****

Given Sullivan's long history of anti-Semitism (see my essay at RealClearPolitcs, "Kos and Andrew: Merchants of Hate"), I'm wondering when Charles Johnson will complete his leftist transmogrification by hopping on the left's anti-Israel bandwagon. Actually, while Dan Riehl recently wrote, "Charles Johnson's Deplorable Deception Knows No Bounds" (a reference to King Charles' "racist" attacks on Robert Stacy McCain), I think folks are still waiting for the other shoe to drop on Israel.

In any case, Reliapundit suggested to keep an eye out for the denunciation of Israel at Little Green Footballs. Seeing Andrew Sullivan's attack blog this morning was just a little reminder of what's likely coming down the pike.

RELATED: "Charles Johnson and Andrew Sullivan: Separated at Birth?"

Andrew Sullivan Moving to Daily Beast

The news is here.

And when you finish that recall the piece a while back at The New Ledger, "Through the Looking Glass With Andrew Sullivan."

And always entertaining commentary from The Other McCain, "Who Speaks for America?":

A Harvard-educated, AIDS-infected, Internet-cruising, marijuana-using gay British expatriate presumes to speak for Americans who reject Sarah Palin because of “a meanness, a disrespect, a vicious partisanship.”

We await a response from Sarah Palin’s uterus ...

In any case, I saw this first on Twitter, but if Memeorandum starts a thread I'll be updating. Last time I really read Sully was during the Iran democracy protests in 2009, and he was indeed a force of nature at the time. Other than that, I can do without RawMuscleGlutes.

ADDED: In bonus pervy news, I'd forgotten that David Frum was blogging a while back at the left's leading forensic gynecology outlet, and from that whacked pedestal he defended pro-pedophile blogger Alex Knepper against the folks at NewsReal Blog. And of course recall how well that turned out: "Pro-Pedophile Propaganda: For It Or Against It, David Frum?"

OKAY, now a thread at Memeorandum. And the link there to New York Times, "Andrew Sullivan Joins Tina Brown’s ‘Daily Beast’/'Newsweek’ Team":

The launch date of Tina Brown’s reinvented Newsweek after its merger with her Daily Beast Web site remains vague, but Ms. Brown’s efforts to continue building an impressive roster do not: Andrew Sullivan announced Sunday that his popular blog, “The Dish,” would be leaving TheAtlantic.com and joining Ms. Brown’s team in April.

Also, Tina Brown's announcement, "Andrew Sullivan Joins The Daily Beast!"

I tweeted on this a little earlier, suggesting that Sully might actually lift Newsweek's viability. When Niall Ferguson published his critical cover story over there a couple of weeks ago it was the first time that I'd been genuinely interested in reading the magazine. Tina Brown's a veteran at this sort of thing, although as for Newsweek's potential success, it's like "the British are coming," or something ...

Charles Johnson's Strange Alliance with Andrew Sullivan

Sometime back I posted on "On Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs." I noted at the post that "it turns out that yesterday Johnson basically joined the likes of Glenn Greenwald in attacking Glenn Beck for SIMPLY HYPOTHESIZING the possibility of an American anarchy ..."

Well now we have Johnson attacking the "Project 912 Glenn Beck Tea Party" as a society of "book burners." But get this: Andrew Sullivan joins in with an approving link, "A Tea Party Tantrum."

I earlier suggested "I have no personal quarrel with Johnson..." Unfortunatelty, it's hard for me to say the same thing today. Pamela Geller is in the midst of an ongoing flame war with Little Green Footballs. A recent post was titled, "Neo-Nazis Link Up With Charles Johson, Little Green Footballs Smears Beck, the GOP and Conservatives." Previously, Pamela published an essay titled, "Charles Little Green Footballs: The New Fascism ... on the Right."

Readers can check the veracity of Pamela's claims at her posts. But the meme is familiar irrespective of the particulars: Charles Johnson's mounted a long campaign against a number of neoconservative bloggers in the U.S., and that's on top of blogs such as Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal in Europe.

What's interesting to me, especially, is that Johnson still continues to attack the Obama administration collectivism, all the while aiding and abetting the left's nihilist campaign against religion and social conservatism. Strange, no? But wait! Johnson's also been busy with attemps to repudiate some previous recognition from Andrew Sullivan: "There’s nothing like a left-handed compliment from Andrew Sullivan to totally creep you out."

I've got news for you, Charles, you're just as creepy as Sullivan, and just as dangerous.

Obama: "Diplomacy With Iran Without Preconditions"

James Joyner, in his post, "No Preconditions," hammers Andrew Sullivan and his post, "No Recognition of Ahmadinejad."

James provides this video from campaign '07, where candidate Obama was asked if he'd "be willing to meet separately, without preconditions, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries":

I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them– which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration– is ridiculous.

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

James links to his essay at the New Atlanticist, "Negotiating with Iran Without Preconditions." And he notes:

Atlantic senior editor Andrew Sullivan has a short post up titled "No Recognition of Ahmadinejad" in which he asserts, "This is the first and absolute requirement of all Western governments. The disgusting visuals of Medvedev and Ahmadinejad yesterday must not be repeated."

But Sullivan was one of the most prominent Obamacons, conservatives who nonetheless supported Barack Obama in last year's election for a variety of reasons, articulated superbly on his blog and in a December 2007 cover story in his magazine called "Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters." Obama could not have been more clear on this issue. Who can forget this moment from the July 24, 2007 Democratic debate?

I'd note first that while perhaps Sullivan might have been an "Obamacon" last year, he's now a well-established spokesman for the gay-radical nihilist base of the Democratic Party.

In any case, it's clear, as James notes, that President Obama's assertion that he "will pursue tough, direct diplomacy without preconditions to end the threat from Iran" remains the position of the administration.

Here's this morning's statement from the administration, from Jake Tapper:

President Obama argued yesterday that there is little different between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi on policies critical to the U.S.

“It's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised,” the president told CNBC. “Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons. And so we've got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election.”

Read the whole thing. Actually, according to Tapper:

... there do seem some key differences on other issues. For one, Mousavi seems far more willing to engage with the West.

Mousavi has expressed a desire for more openness. "An approach that runs on the basis of 'keeping the influx of changes at bay' will irrefutably bring about the closure of newspapers, limitations on freedom in society and public detachment from national-religious leadership," he has said. "On the contrary, an approach that moves toward the recognition of changes, upholds values like sovereignty, liberty as well as peace. Such an approach would produce the right conditions for changes in the society and enable us to make the most of our opportunities.”

Bottom line?

Well, Sullivan's all messed up! Who knows what position he's advocating from moment to moment? But more importantly, is Barack Obama for real? As his homepage indicates:

Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama and Biden would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

As James notes at his essay:

Should Obama now be willing to sit down with Iran's leadership to discuss interests vital to us both only on the rather stringent precondition that the mullah's oust Ahmadinejad? That would fly in the fact of his entire foreign policy platform.

See all the debate at Memeorandum.

Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds.

Trig Trutherism! Andrew Sullivan Gets a Lifeline - Again!

Look, even the freaks at Daily Kos let it go.

And take it from Glenn Beck (who knows something about fringe conspiracies), "It's the whackiest rumor about Sarah Palin or any other politician so far this election."

A pregnant Governor Sarah Palin, interviewed by Alaska's TV station KTVA in Anchorage, April 2008.

But Andrew Sullivan has gotten a lifeline from Todd Purdum's hit piece at Vanity Fair:

It remains true that no one in the MSM will investigate the details of this truly bizarre story - and MSM journalists instead have devoted their efforts to demonizing any journalist who tries.

The one MSM newspaper that tried to report out the story of the pregnancy, asking the questions that any sane person would ask, was the Anchorage Daily News ....

But Palin refused to answer any questions and went on a tirade against the ADN. You can read the full story of this here. As I have said all along, I do not know what happened and the benefit of the doubt should go to Palin in the absence of actual journalism being committed. But the more her pregnancy with Trig becomes a campaign platform, a serious inquiry into exactly what happened in those few surreal days - days and decisions that she has made public and that reflect vital questions about her character and judgment - remains on the shelf of media deference. And the key witnesses who could verify it all - Palin herself, her husband, her doctor - still refuse to even take questions on the most bizarre series of events in Palin's entire life.

I believed then and I believe now that the MSM is too concerened [sic] with their own reputations and too deferent to power to even ask the questions. Which is another betrayal of their core purpose. And why they are dying. And deserve to.

That's good, actually, that someone still believes reputation matters!

As it is, far too many people take for gospel the word of Andrew Sullivan.

It's surprising too. Remember the comment by AOSHQ: "A brain-addled conspiracy crank unable to observe the minimum levels of respectability and human decency is simply not fit for polite company."

See also, Ed Morrissey, "A Picture Refutes a Thousand Nutcase Conspiracies."

And in case you missed it, see Christopher Badeaux's, "Through the Looking Glass With Andrew Sullivan."

Also Blogging: JammieWearingFool, "Sullivan: MSM Should Die Because They Won't Go Trig Troofer."

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

Previously: "Trig Trutherism Lives!"

Neoconservative Derangement

Now this is what blogging's all about!

John Podhoretz, in "The Daily Dearborn Independent Dish," responds to Andrew Sullivan's anti-neocon hysteria:

Andrew Sullivan no longer is interested in winning in Iraq, in fact is probably quietly eager for a defeat there, doubtless out of a combination of a certain degree of conviction, a ravenous hunger for leftist Web traffic, and because having decided a few years ago he’d picked the wrong horse in supporting it, he finds it unbearable to imagine that the wrong horse may prove to be the right horse after all.

So he must hold the neoconservatives to blame, first, for gulling him into support — you know, we Jews are fiendishly clever, with our Svengali hypnotic powers overcoming the will of poor, weak-minded Catholic bloggers — and must now be held to account for holding views about Israel and Iraq and democracy we never held and have, in fact, been attacked by some of our oldest friends who do hold them. But of course, those attacks by our old friends aren’t real, nor are the divisions among neoconservatives real. Because we Jews are all in it together.

At least Henry Ford knew how to make a car.

The Ford reference is to the car manufacturer's anti-Semitic journal, "The Dearborn Independent," which published the English version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Sullivan long ago went over to the dark side, so I don't have a lot to add to Podhoretz. What's interesting is that Sullivan's post starts with a quote from E.D. Kain at the Ordinary Gentlemen, "The Democracy Fallacy."

E.D.'s current writing is of the kind that generates a lot of heat but little light, and that's too bad, considering his estimable talents.

Things didn't have to turn out this way, however. It's turns out that E.D.'s an intellectual hanger-on. He's joined up with the progressive nihilists at Ordinary Gentlemen for some fun and exposure, or so it seems. Up until a couple of weeks ago E.D. was the publisher of NeoConstant, which was originally an online magazine of neoconservative commentary and opinion. He had solicited essays from American Power for publication there, but E.D.'s apparently caught some strain of neoconservative derangement, with a special affliction of antiwar ideological recoil, so he deleted the entire blog a few days back. The domain name has remained the same (neoconstant.com), but the blog's new incarnation is the lame "New Constantine," whatever that's supposed to mean. I guess the name's a reference to the Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great (306–337), who relocated the heart of the empire to the "Second Rome" at Constantinople in 330 a.d. I think E.D.'s historical analogies are less precise than his single-minded effort to eradicate any evidence of his former neoconservative identification.

Note that E.D. deleted NeoConstant without a word of notification to those he had approached for syndication at the site, so his actions are not just unprofessional, but immature as well.

That's to be expected for someone who's been completley hoodwinked by folks like Freddie de Boer and the Young Turks of the Culture 11 fiasco.

I hadn't planned on engaging E.D. He's a nice guy, but like Sullivan, he too has gone over to the dark side. And now that he's instigating such supreme flame wars, well, the blogging gloves are coming off.

More later ...

E.D. Kain Alleges Defamation: True/Slant Blogger's Workplace Intimidation Attempts to Shut Down American Power!

WARNING! THIS IS REAL!!

E.D. "ERIK" KAIN THREATENS AMERICAN POWER!!

FULL AND UNEQUIVOCAL APOLOGY DEMANDED!!

FAINT OF HEART AND PANTYWAISTS - READ NO FURTHER!!

CLICK AWAY TO STAY ABOVE THE FRAY!!

**********

I almost titled this post, "The Arrogance of Blogging: The Secret World of E.D. Kain." (But I thought better of it, starting the header instead with "E.D. Kain" so as to maximize TOTAL Search Engine Optimization!)

I was working at my office Friday night, cleaning out old books in preparation for my department's move into our new college building. While packing, I came across my copy of Anthony Summers', The Arrogance of Power: The Secret World of Richard Nixon. Two words in Summers' book title capture the essence of E.D. Kain: arrogance and secret. I wrote about E.D.'s arrogance a couple of days ago, in "Sleaze-Blogger E.D. Kain Reaches Pinnacle of 'Conservative' Blogosphere! Simultaneously Linked by Andrew Sullivan and Charles Johnson!" At the book's brief foreword, Summers asks, "Who was this man in whom so many millions of Americans had placed their trust, who had broken that trust, yet who had achieved political resurrection time and again?"

That's a rather interesting quotation in relation to E.D. Kain, a moral coward trying to outrace a secret life of reptilian dishonor and shame, also seeking political resurrection. A man who has broken trust, mine certainly, but also the trust of many other bloggers to whom I've spoken. Who knows whose trust he'll destroy going forward? Indeed, who knows E.D. Kain, really? This is a man (if I can use that noun without discrediting it) who will descend to the most slimy dirtbag techniques to preserve the filthy stealth that is his own life. It's unbelievable, really, but that's what's fascinating about being online. You meet the most despicable cobags who'll take what they can get, then move on as quickly as a thief who steals a candy from children, without a second thought.

In any case, the "Sleaze-Blogger" entry must have must have really hit a nerve because it turns out that E.D. KAIN E-MAILED MY DEPARTMENT CHAIRMAN TO ALLEGE DEFAMATION AT THIS BLOG. So, with this clear attempt at intimidation, there's not much doubt as to what's at stake for E.D. Kain. Through intimidation and threats, he's seeking to shut down this blog and quash the truth surrounding his political duplicity and moral bankruptcy.

The chair of my department, as a matter of administrative policy, informed me of the complaint, and then told me that HE WANTS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CONFLICT. And for the record: E.D.'s complaint is going nowhere at my college, at least nowhere in the absence of formal legal action. The issue is First Amendment rights, first and formost. And what happens at the blog is my concern, not the school's. Intimidation and threats mean nothing. They won't silence me. They only prove the juvenile cowardice of the claimant. But most importantly, THERE'S NOTHING IN ANYTHING I'VE WRITTEN THAT'S UNTRUE -- NOTHING!! Nope, not a damned thing to raise even the slightest hint of libel. Hey, if it's a little in-your-face, and vulgar even, MAN UP BIG BOY!! Turn off your Ladies' Hallmark Christmas movies and GET IN THE ARENA!! It's all true. Everything I've ever written here about E.D. Kain is entirely true. Yep, and Mr. Sleaze-Blogger's totally wiggin'. So obviously I'm over the target if the puke's resorting to a cowardly campaign to chill freedom of speech. How damned pathetic.

And that, of course, substantiates what I've been saying all along: E.D. Kain is no conservative. He's a flaming Andrew Sullivan/Charles Johnson/Daniel Larison wannabe -- a spineless prick whose last inclination is to stand up like a man and TAKE SOME FREAKING RESPONSIBILITY!!

But I suppose I should explain: In June of 2008, E.D. Kain sent me an e-mail asking if I'd be interested in publication at his new online journal. He wrote, "I run NeoConstant, which I am attempting to turn into a sort of international nexus of neoconservative thought at a grassroots level." I'd already heard of the webzine. My good friend GSGF had tipped me off to it, and the site was generating considerable activity. For example, at Beaman's World, "NeoConstant Journal":

Also, in something of a journalistic coup, E.D. secured an interview with British neocon Douglas Murray, the author of NeoConservatism: Why We Need It -- noted here, at the Center for Social Cohesion:

The piece was later published at Politics and Poetry, "Interview with top British Neoconservative commentator Douglas Murray":

In 2008, I was delighted to be presented with the chance to interview the leading British Neoconservative political commentator and author, Douglas Murray. The interview was originally published on the now defunct NeoConstant website and so I have decided to post it here on ‘Politics & Poetry’. This fascinating interview will be found no where else but here.

After posting a couple of my essays at NeoConstant, E.D. Kain wrote to say that "I assume that I have some free reign in cross-posting your pieces as they all are attributed to you and link back to American Power."

And so here's the thing: E.D. Kain assumed unlimited cross-posting privileges from my work at American Power. And that was fine -- I didn't mind at all. I enjoy cross-posting at other blogs, etc. I sent him essays I thought were a good fit, and everything was cool. But then one day NeoConstant went dark. First the server-page was inaccessible. Then E.D. put up an "under construction" notice. And then, in a burst of hilarity, he actually created a new website for a week or so called "NeoConstantine"! No doubt E.D. was hoping to hold on to the domain, but for the life of me I couldn't think of anything particularly conservative about a "neo" Eastern Orthodox Christianity, or something, but I guess that was the closest fit. (Daniel Larison's Christian Orthodox, however, so maybe there's some thread there, but more on that below.)

It didn't last long, in any case. NeoConstantine came down some time thereafter, and that was it. But strangely, throughout, not a word from E.D. on what was going on -- NOT ONE WORD! -- and hence the spineless secrecy. I'm not sure what happened, but I noticed E.D. had been palling around with folks like Mark Thomspon, a Palestinian fan and "Hamas-Helper" who praised rocket attacks on Israeli civilians as "rational" during the 2008 conflict (see, "Publius Endures Applauds Hamas Rationality"). Then some time toward the end of last year, these boys joined up to establish a new blog, The League of Ordinary Gentlemen. The League's ideological program is decidely leftist, with lots of postmod-conservatism thrown in (if there's really such a thing as "pomocons").

Soon, as best I can recall, E.D. Kain's criticism of the mainstream right started getting picked up by Andrew Sullivan. I have no clue if E.D. knows Sully personally, but I it's likely they communicate. Perhaps E.D. can respond, as this is just speculation. Either way, E.D. Kain's emergence as an Andrew Sullivan myrmidon is a key indicator this man's ideological destitution. Perhaps E.D. Kain's blogging on Sarah Palin gave Andrew Sullivan a rise, since the Daily Dish's biggest campaign has been to destroy Governor Palin, a program that continues today, unrelenting.

In July of 2009, E.D. Kain posted an entry at Ordinary Gentlemen entitled, "Two Thoughts on Sarah Palin." He declaims any doubts of Palin's maternity, and says he's got no problems with her rugged individualism, etc. Yet he does have a couple of other gripes:

First, that she doesn’t seem to actually know what it is she stands for; that she may have entered the last campaign with something of a blank slate and then sort of soaked up a lot of the conservative orthodoxy that was required of her. Maybe that’s not true, but something about her inability to really express or to fully grasp what it is that these conservative policies mean leads me to this conclusion, and to the next point:

She cannot speak coherently, cannot seem to properly formulate either her thoughts or her expressions, all of which makes me suspect her capacity to lead. Leadership requires communication skills, but even more importantly, the capacity to communicate is indicative of the strength of the leader themselves.

I liked George W. Bush as a person quite a lot. I think he was a nice guy, and genuinely well-meaning, but he, too, was short on communication skills, unable to cogently express his beliefs or thoughts, and I think that was an indication of his political shallowness more than merely a public speaking tic. As such I feel that he was easily manipulated, and too reliant upon his advisers. Contrast that with Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator himself. And Palin is more in the mold of George W. than Reagan.

These two things – her shallow ideological framework and quick acceptance of the requisite talking points without much of an understanding of the policies themselves; and her inability to properly express her thoughts, beliefs, policy plans, and so forth – led me to the conclusion that she was not, in fact, ready to be a leader at the national level, whether or not she possessed some real political skills or a potential to lead in the future.

You got that? Especially, this part that, according to E.D. Kain, Palin is not "ready to be a leader at the national level ..."

The problem is that this is not the same E.D. Kain we find in July 2008 at NeoConstant. As Duane Lester points out at his post, "New to the Blogroll: Neoconstant":

A great writer and Newsvine friend of mine, E.D. Kain, has a blog that I have added to our blogroll. If you get a chance, check out Neoconstant.

Here's a sample of what you can find there:

I am overwhelmed by the excitement emanating from the Right on this. Not just social conservatives either! Secular cons and moderates are happy as can be, regardless of Palin's stance on abortion. I think many people realize that its more of a symbolic stance these days than anything. This isn't to say she doesn't stand by her pro-Life positions. I just personally think it is and should be a non-issue. I'm more interested in about a million other things like the economy and our defense, two things Palin has shown wisdom on.

Women, especially, regardless of lefty-pundits claims to the contrary, are extremely happy about this choice.

Now, as a man, I have to say, I don't blame them! I'm already in love with her whole family.

Gee, it certainly sounds like Governor Palin's ready for the national spotlight after all. And not just that, the ladies love her!

Now, since we don't have a link to NeoConstant (the blog being deleted, conveniently, it turns out), perhaps E.D. Kain can verify for us whether this discussion is accurate. WOULDN'T WANT TO SLANDER ANYONE, YOU KNOW!! That's right, perhaps another writer at NeoConstant showed such concern for the Oprah Winfrey demographic! Of course, Duane's using the passage as an example of E.D.'s "great" writing. We'll just have to wait for confirmation, in any case. But notice how in just 10 months E.D. went from praising Palin's "wisdom" on the economy and defense, to smearing her as a bog-dwelling hick. I mean what better way to win accolades -- and links! -- from such towering figures as Andrew Sullivan and Charles Johnson?!!

See the pattern? E.D. Kain's a crass political opportunist who jettisoned whatever ideological groundings he had to throw in his lot with the Obama-loving -- and alleged former "conservatives" -- Sullivan and King Charles. It's a near-perfect scheme! Start out as an anti-jihad pro-GWOT neoconservative, then start attacking the right for extremism and "wrecking" the Constitution, throw in a little anti-Birtherism, and you're all set. You'll be interviewing the LGF captain in no time!

And let me tell you: E.D. Kain is a work in progress, and a quick study!

On November 24, at True/Slant, a new gig for the sleaze-blogger, E.D. wrote a post called, "How Glenn Beck Can Save the Right." E.D. notes there that:

What conservatives need is someone with a high pulpit to tell them that this all-powerful executive branch and its corresponding militarism is wrong, is the antipathy of limited government, and is leading us far quicker toward bankruptcy than healthcare spending. Ron Paul started that ball rolling in the 2008 election. Perhaps Glenn Beck will be the one to pick it up and run with it.

Hey, not bad, except it doesn't square with the Charles Johnson's anti-climate-denialism meme. C.J.'s all about "science" you know, and since Glenn Beck just hammers the climate-change fearmongers mercilessly, E.D.'s got to throw Beck under the bus, here: "I've argued myself away from my Glenn Beck piece almost completely at this point." Wow. And in just three weeks time. Wouldn't want to jeopardize that possible blogging gig over at American Conservative -- the home of the anti-neocon resitance!

In fact, it turns out E.D.'s already angling for that gig already. Via his Twitter account, E.D. Kain attacked the "evil" neocons last week at True Slant, "America vs. Evil":

Daniel Larison lays waste to Abe Greenwald’s shoddy rendition of the history of American wars. Greenwald is attempting in his National Review piece to demonstrate how Obama is "going neocon."

Well, can't have Obama "going neocon" now, can we? Wouldn't fit well with E.D.'s butt-freak paleocon-pomocon opportunism.

Okay, it's time to sum up:

I'm not bothered that E.D. Kain took down his former, neoconservative webzine NeoConstant. That's his play. It doesn't particularly bother me either that he did so secretly, without informing me or ANY of the other people who had their work published there. (I'm keeping the names of other former NeoConstant writers confidential -- they don't need E.D. Kain calling THEIR WORKPLACE in an effort to intimate them into silence.) E.D.'s questionable methods in closing the journal might charitably be called "uncollegial"; and had he just moved on quietly, without turning to sink his fangs into the ideology of his former contributors, I'm sure I'd have forgotten all about it by now.

No, instead it's become clear that once Obama was elected, and E.D. becamed involved with the "paleocons" and the "pomocons," his former ties to the "neocons" were an obvious liability. E.D.'s a crass opportunist. It took just months to flip 100 percent on Sarah Palin (satisfying folks like Andrew Sullivan), and he took only three weeks to walk-back from Glenn Beck (appealing to the Lizard King of LGF). But the utlimate flip is the repudiation of neoconservatism itself, which appeals to the likes of Daniel Larison at the American Conservative. (And since E.D. Kain's biggest blog heroes are the champions of online libel-blogging, Andrew Sullivan against Sarah Palin and C.J. againt Robert Stacy McCain, the similarities are just devastating - and of course, for observers, the irony of E.D. Kain's moral collapse is utterly breathtaking.)

But what really bothers me is not just the DISHONESTY, CRASS OPPORTUNISM, and IDEOLOGICAL BANKUPTCY, but the SHEER ARROGANCE with a massive chaser of COWARDICE.

Recall what E.D. Kain wrote last week:

I really am spoiled reading the conservative writers that I do read at the Scene and the Porch and Pomocon and the other little pockets of intellectual conservatism remaining.

Forgive my language, but I'm calling bulls**t!! The last thing E.D. wants is true intellectualism, because to do so he'd actually have to subject his ideas to criticism. And to this day, after a number of essays written here, E.D.'s not once taken up the challenge. And why? Arrogance and secrecy, remember. The big "pomo" hotshot now at True/Slant just can't deign to tarry with the old bloggers he so eagerly published at NeoConstant! Moreover, besides the risk of getting his butt kicked in open debate, such engagement would compromise E.D.'s previously smooth but clandestine repudiation of his former neocon roots.

That is to say, as I've said before, E.D. "ERIK" Kain is a total "intellectual mountebank and an ideological imposter." I also said that E.D.'s a backstabber, and now we have absolute proof, SINCE THE SUCKER CONTACTED MY DEPARTMENT CHAIRMAN TO INTIMIDATE AND SHUT DOWN THIS BLOG!!

So, pardon me if my language is a little off color, dear readers. E.D. Kain's not the first, though. I've been previously threatened with workplace intimidation by (O)CT(O)PUS and Repsac3 (see "DEFAMATION - DONALD STYLE"). They posted my college vice-president's information online and encouraged readers to file complaints against American Power with LBCC's administration!

So, E.D. Kain's in good company. None of these freaks can't handle the truth. In fact, they're totalitarian libel bloggers, classic leftists, and I won't stand for it.

In conclusion, I have never defamed nor slandered E.D. "ERIK" Kain. Everything I've written about him is true. And thus, since things have taken an ugly and uncomfortable turn, I'm demanding a FULL AND UNEQUIVOCAL APOLOGY!! I'm calling on E.D. Kain to write BLOG POSTS linking American Power, apologizing to me and taking full responsiblity for his actions, past and present. He must also renounce the underhanded tactics of intimidation and foreswear all efforts to contact my employer. My school has nothing to do with this. If E.D. Kain has claims against me, he can make them in a court of law, not in secret e-mails to my academic colleagues.

E.D. Kain's attempt to shut down discussion and debate is reprehensible. It threatens individual rights to freedom of speech. It seeks to chill criticism and dissent. It's intolerable, but typical of leftists. And thus E.D. Kain has proven himself not only a coward and a scoundrel, but the antithesis of a true conservative.

*****

P.S. Blogwars are a dime a dozen, and if E.D. Kain can't take the heat ... well, you know.

See, for reference, Patrick Frey's attack on Jeff Goldstein:

The things I say about you, I can prove. You’re a whiny, overly verbose, hypocritical, thin-skinned, dishonest, nasty, money-grubbing sorry excuse for a man. The evidence is out there.