Conservatives Rooting Against America? Yeah. Right. It's Obama's EPIC FAIL, Not America's

Okay, full disclosure: At first I wasn't all that worked up over President Obama's Olympics lobbying. Yeah, the push for Chicago had all the by-now routine markings of Democratic crony corruption, and America REALLY has more pressing problems for the president than to fly off to Copenhagen when unemployment's topping 10 percent and American casualties are piling up in Afghanistan. But now, yeah, you know --- I am pretty bothered by this. I'm especially bothered at the how the Democratic-leftists are now trying to spin the right's reaction to both the administration's stupidity and incompetence as cheering against America. I mean look at how dramatic this Media Matters video is, "Rooting Against America: Fox News Assaults Chicago's Olympics Bid":

And this one, "Rooting Against America: Beck, Right Wing Cheer Elimination Of Chicago's Olympic Bid":

AOSHQ has a post up taking Glenn Thrush to task for whitewashing of the Democratic Party's America-bashing and nihilistic cut-and-run defeatism. See, "Republicans Rooting Against America?" Ace won't link to his key example, but here's this from Salon, "Liberation Day":

I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings.

And naturally, that's just one example. As I often point out, Newshoggers cheered when al Qaeda in Iraq started using female Down syndrome suicide bombers to kill and maim American troops and Iraqi civilians. That was a "brilliant tactical adaptation." It's no coincidence that right now the top post at Newshoggers claims that "the Afghan election was always going to be a McChrystalization of all that's wrong with the occupation." Right. And that's the Democrats' "good war," remember, the "war of necessity." Just this week Digby encapsulated Democratic Party betrayal of America in Afghanistan:

The Democrats backed themselves into defending the idea of Afghanistan being The Good War because they felt they needed to prove their macho bonafides when they called for withdrawal from Iraq. Nobody asked too many questions sat the time, including me. But none of us should forget that it was a political strategy, not a serious foreign policy.

And, of course, Media Matters --- financially-backed by the anti-American George Soros --- has long mounted a campaign of defeat for America in Iraq. As David Horowitz and Ben Johnson point out regarding Soros-financed MoveOn.org-Democratic Party antiwar establishment:

While American forces battled al-Qaeda and Ba’athist insurgents in the Iraqi capital, the Democratic National Committee released a television ad that focused not on winning those battles, but on the very legitimacy of the war ....

In the midst of a war, and in the face of a determined terrorist resistance in Iraq, Democrats had launched an attack on America’s presence on the field of battle.

See also this post at Michelle Malkin's, "Media Matters In the Meme Streets of Baghdad" (on the leftist media generally):

Curiously enough, every time a major media source blows a story, they do so by publishing something that advances the message of the “emerging defeat” in Iraq, and that only thing we can do is to manage that inevitable defeat.

Folks can see why I'm frustrated. Leftists are the true haters and cheerleaders for America's destruction.

The loss of the Olympic bid today was a failure of Barack Obama, his corrupt adminisration, and his morally bankrupt party. Conservatives want them to fail, not the United States of America.

American Stories

I've probably blogged this Amy Bishop story a bit much. Steve M.'s cynical hypocrisy proves it. He cites the despicable Talking Points Memo as "evidence" that Gregory Girard, arrested on weapons charges in Massachusetts last week, is somehow representative of the tea party patriots. William Jacobson, always circumspect in his analysis, argued that politics is irrelevant in the Bishop case, but he adds an additional point:

Had Bishop's politics been within 100 miles of a Tea Party, Talking Points Memo and Little Green Footballs would have been all over the case making the connection. Just like they did with the similarly disturbed Gregory Girard, who never shot anyone but who "stockpiled" weapons.

But of course, for socialist radicals like Steve M., Gregory Girard's the poster boy for teh AWESOME DHS SEC Janet Napolitano's alleged "fanatical" right wing tea party terrorists. Man, those administration lefties are really on the job! Pure brilliance! If you keep arresting enough Greg Girards folks will think the system really works! (Yo, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab -- you got game!) And don't even get me going about Steve M.'s Malik Nadal denialism. (No sir, for the "No Mo' Mista Nice Brotha", to even cast suspicion on the Fort Hood jihadi as a fanatical Islamist is raaaacist!!!).

But hey, the lefties are really on a roll today! Check out my new BFF Scotty Eric Kaufman's stretch-a-palooza of an excoriation:

Conservatives complain 1) when liberals ask that any brown person with a funny name not be labeled a jihadist until evidence of such is unearthed, and 2) when mainstream news outlets link the murder of prominent abortion doctors to conservative causes. They fail to see the lack of equivalence: liberals don't espouse jihad against the United States, but conservatives do inspire those on their fringes to engage in politically motivated violence. The politics of the George Tiller murder are an indictment against conservative rhetoric because that rhetoric made Tiller a target; whereas the personal politics of Amy Bishop are utterly irrelevant in the absence of a vocal and sustained opposition to the existence of the university and the tenure system among liberals.

Right. Politically motivated violence. Somehow I doubt that's really what's got the goat of these lefties. I mean, there's been absolutlely no outrage -- and I mean NONE -- at such horrendous killings as Fort Hood, and when Abdulmutallab failed to bring down the Detroit-bound airliner, that was evidence that al Qaeda's a "joke," a bunch of "incompetent criminals." Or, ahh ... maybe these attacks weren't "politcally motivated"?

And recall, lefties are getting their jollies attacking me for things I have not said. (I have never hypothesized on Bishop's motives. It's enough fascination at the simple truth of a Harvard leftist in league with some of our worst criminal murderers and jihadi terrorists.) And of course, Steve M.'s reponses are bonus epic fail.

And while Bishop may not have political or racist motives, it's Democratic soft-on-crime radicalism that's likely resulted in the deaths of even more ones (e.g., William Delahunt):

Massachusetts in the 1980s was not a bright spot in American criminal justice. Misguided compassion resulted in the infamous Willy Horton case. Delahuunt himself faced questions about his role in another murder by a furloughed prisoner during his first Congressional race in 1996. There was also the witch hunt of he Fells Acre Day Care case, in which innocent people were convicted of child molestation as well as numerable controversies over decisions to parole felons and of course summering under it all the decades long history of the Boston Archdiocese covering up incidents of priests molesting children and adolescents

But justice delayed is not always justice denied. Stories about Martha Coakley's prosecutorial overreach in continuing the unjust treatment of those convicted in Fells Acres as well as her seeming reluctance to prosecute a local policeman accused of a chilling brutal child rape were part of the local background against which the Brown campaign played out.

Whether this 1986 incident is a one of misguided compassion towards a family that had suffered one tragedy and hoped private counseling would suffice with a serious behavior problem or just a crass cover up among members of the local power structure, renewed interest in the case comes at a bad time for the multi term Congressman.

But that's what you get from the same antiwar lefists, inside the administration and out, now claiming credit for victory in Iraq. No wonder Americans hate people like this.

IMAGE CREDIT: John Singleton Copley, Watson and the Shark, 1778, oil on canvas, 71 3/4 x 90 1/2 in. See, LACMA, "American Stories: Paintings of Everyday Life, 1765–1915," February 28–May 23, 2010:

From the colonial period to the present, Americans have been inventing characters and plots, settings and situations to give meaning to our everyday lives. American Stories: Paintings of Everyday Life, 1765-1915 includes seventy-five paintings, from before the Revolution to the start of World War I, that tell these stories in scenes of family life and courting, work and leisure, comic mishaps and disasters. These daily experiences were all subject to the artist’s searching and revealing eye and many of the works on view are famous images known to almost every American. Major artists such as Thomas Eakins and Winslow Homer, John Singleton Copley and George Caleb Bingham, John Singer Sargent and Mary Cassatt, are included in this important survey, the first of its kind in over thirty years.

Winslow Homer's one of my favorites. I expect to attend this exhibition, and will write about it here in a few weeks. That'll be a wonderful respite from the crazed radicals of the nihilist left.

Scott Eric Kaufman — An English Professor Who Doesn't Know Sh*t About English

One of the most interesting things about Scott Eric Kaufman is that he doesn't seem to know anything about the things in which he writes. Oh sure, the prick's good at laying down the demonic snark while surfing the conservative 'sphere for tidbits of attack material, but when it actually comes to writing quality content ... well, the guy's pure fail. I was already thinking about this when I noticed SEK's stuffy mini-"review" of Leo DiCaprio's Inception — the most noteworthy thing of which is that SEK and his wife actually walked out on the film. I'm planning to see the movie this weekend, so I wasn't going to offer my comments on whether it merited that kind of antipathy, although I was tempted to just post a snarky piece hammering Scott Erik Kaufman for his hopelessly effete left-wing university-ish elitism.

But now I'm glad I held off. It turns out SEK's initial review didn't go over so well with some like-minded effete types, and he's written an update, "Bit more on Inception." And while I might be persuaded that one of SEK's critics is on the money when he implies that Scott's an unsympathetic childless asshole, I'm content to simply indicate SEK's non-typo completely FUBAR ignorance of the word "flak."

As you can see at the first sentence of the post: "I’ve taken a lot of interesting flack for my non-review of Inception ..."

Actually, SEK means to say, "flak." It's a word that leftists apparently have a hard time using, which is easy to explain, given the left's ideological hostility to the military. In context, you might say I'm "giving him a lot of flak" for his stupidity — and boomerang smears, since he likes to attack opponents as "functionally illiterate." It's too good, really, for nearly every time SEK's trolled my site for some jollies, he's ended up making himself look lame with massive errors at the original post. And like clockwork he always comes back with some lame excuse for why an English professor shouldn't actually be required to write proper English, but in the case of "flack" I imagine he'll just have to take his lumps. And since Ann Althouse is a frequent target of SEK's idiotic trolling, I'll let her take him to the woodshed.

See, "Flak" (where Ann hammers Josh Marshall, another Ph.D. know-it-all, who misused "flack" in 2007):

From me, you're going to first catch flak for writing "catch flack."

“Flak” is WW II airman’s slang for shells being fired at you in the air, so to catch a lot of flak is to feel in danger of being shot down. However, most civilians these days have never heard of “flak,” so they use “flack” instead, which originally meant “salesman” or “huckster.” You need to worry about this only if you’re among old-time veterans.

When you're showing off your expertise about fighting a war, you ought to get your war imagery right. A flack is a press agent. Hacks -- "writer[s] hired to produce routine or commercial writing" -- know more about flacks and not so much about flak, but they need to try not to let it show.

Gotta love it. A law professor schooling a history Ph.D.

But even better is schooling an alleged professor of English on English language usage. Can you say epic fail? And the references to teaching "English" are quite loose, since SEK's apparently teaching courses on "Manga" and the literary origins of films like The Last Airbender. My kids could probably lecture on that stuff, although they aren't stuffy Ph.D.s who write half-baked movie reviews on films on which they've walked out on.

Well, at least SEK's no longer claiming to have a "Doctorate of Philosophy of English."

RELATED: "Scott Eric Kaufman, Self-Hating Skankwad, Does It Again!"

White House Delays #ObamaCare Premium Payments Until December 31st — Wants Insurers to 'Retroactively Cover' Consumers Who Miss Payments

And to think, leftists were all jazzed about that so-called enrollment surge.

I dare say this news might kill the buzz.

At the Hill, "HHS extends another ObamaCare deadline":

The Obama administration on Thursday pushed back the deadline for consumers to make their first payment for coverage under the healthcare law.

Rather than a deadline of Dec. 23, insurers will be required to accept premium payments through Dec. 31 for people who are seeking coverage that starts on Jan. 1.

In a conference call with reporters, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said insurers have the latitude to accept premiums even beyond Dec. 31, and that the administration was “strongly encouraging” them to retroactively cover consumers that submit late payments.

In addition to the one-week extension for premium payments, the administration on Thursday formalized its announcement that consumers have until Dec. 23, instead of Dec. 15, to sign-up for healthcare coverage that goes into affect Jan. 1.

Thursday’s announcement is the latest in a string of unilateral delays the administration has implemented to buy time after the disastrous rollout of HealthCare.gov.

More epic fail at that top link.

Will Conservatives Abandon the War on Terror?

This blog has always specialized in foreign policy and international relations, and for a time I wrote almost exclusively about the Iraq war. Lately, of course, I've been having a lot of debates here with the nihilist lefties and so forth, but as folks can see in my recent essay on theories of patriarchical cultures and interstate war, foreign policy analysis remains front and center.

I mention all of this after reading Patrick Poole's essay on the Conservative Political Action Conference at Pajamas Media, "Was CPAC an Epic Fail?"

Poole opens with a discussion of how the meeting's tremendous enthusiasm masked a lost opportunity for new thinking, which I discussed previously (and see Rick Moran's thoughts on this, which generated some pushback). But Poole's discussion of Dutch filmmaker Geert Wilders' attendance at the convention should set off some alarm bells:

That the conservative movement has slid into complete irrelevancy was demonstrated by the absence of any ideas — nay, any discussion whatsoever — of several of the most pressing political issues of our day. As fellow blogger Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugged observed, there was not a single panel on the War on Terror, the growing threats to free speech, or the cultural jihad underway in the West.

What should have been one of the most important events of this year’s CPAC, the appearance by Dutch parliamentarian and anti-jihad activist Geert Wilders, was relegated to the opposite side of the hotel, divorced from all of the other conference proceedings. There were no official announcements that this event would even be taking place (none that I heard at least), and when trying to locate the room in which it would be held, not a single CPAC staffer could tell me where. And this event only happened because David Horowitz, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Andy Bostom personally shelled out the money to make it happen.

Now CPAC organizers would no doubt respond that they could not fit Wilders into the schedule on such short notice. But I have no doubt that if Bristol Palin had suddenly come available to address CPAC on the virtues of teen pregnancy, David Keene and the American Conservative Union would no doubt have moved heaven and earth to make room in the schedule for her. But they could not accommodate a man who lives under constant death threats by a long list of Islamic terrorist organizations.

Honestly, I don’t know much about Geert Wilders’ politics. I only met the man briefly, and I heard his stump speech twice on Friday. But anyone who has a stack of fatwas calling for his death because of his willingness to speak out against the global jihad is going to receive my support, regardless of any politically incorrect view he may or may not hold.

From my limited perspective, all Geert Wilders has done is hold a mirror up to reflect back the ugly racism and advocacy of violence that are the staple of the most prominent and authoritative officials in Islam. For that he has earned nothing but enmity from the avowed enemies of the West. But it wasn’t enough to earn him a speaking spot on this year’s CPAC schedule.

I've written about Geert Wilders a couple of times of late (video here). But don't forget Melanie Phillips' recent piece, "Britain Capitulates to Terror," or Phyllis Chesler's, "A Dutch Hero Comes to Warn Us, Seek Our Support. The Incomparable Geert Wilders, MP, in New York City."

Pamela Geller discusses her experience at CPAC as well in "Squandering CPAC."

Patrick Poole embellishes upon the drum I have been beating all week, that despite the urgent need for bold leadership CPAC is bereft of vision, integrity, leadership. At what I am hearing is the largest gathering of CPAC attendees ever (my cabbie said 9,000), there was nothing concerning the most critical issues of our day. The people who attended desperately need educating on a vast range of issues that threaten American sovereignty and basic human freedoms. There was nary a mention of the greatest threat to the West - the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference).

Shameful. The only moment that was inspiring and dead on balls was John Bolton's speech.

I'm not sure of Poole's ideological identification. But Pamela's post points us to the disconnect between neoconservative priorities and conservative electoral ambitions. There is a disconnect between the need to combat the scourge of Islamist radicalism - and hence to fulfill America's responsiblities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the recurring hot spots of contemporary evil (from Madrid to Mumbai) - and the interests of Beltway conservatives who seem to focus on partisan-electoral moderation exclusively, as if truly existential issues of national security and preservation of cultures should be minimal to the conservative agenda. (Note how some suggest that those who discuss these issues are not serious policy-makers but "controversialists".)

Much of the Democratic election last year was about Bush fatigue. And much of that fatigue was based in the problematic nature of maintaining public support for costly foreign wars whose origins are found not insubstantially in the preservation of Western ideals and institutions. Armies are not marching across Europe and Asia today as they were in the 1930s and 1940s when the United States entered the war to preserve the balance of power and prevent the victory of totalitarianism over freedom.

That conflict, War War II, was the "good war." Americans tend not to look at wars the same way today. A far off, abstract threat of Islamist ideology is less immediate than, say, the threat of kamikaze attacks of an earlier age. Why these modes of warfare should be seen as separate and discrete is puzzling, because the same fanaticism that drove young Japanese fighter to sacrifice their lives for a code of honor is not unlike the fanatical militants around the world today who would die in much greater numbers if the movements and states they represent had greater capabilities.

As it is, the horror of Madrid or Mumbai subsides within weeks after the hellish scenes of death fade from the nightly news. Americans are worried about collapsing banks and laid off workers, and they've elected a party to power in Washington that for the first time in American history has sought to bring about the defeat on the battlefield of America's own soldiers. The new Democratic administration is Washington is now winding down the war in Iraq in what by all measures is a precipitous withdrawal that puts in jeopardy the signature military victory of the Bush administration's last two years in office. Note here, that while top foreign-policy pundit Fareed Zakaria inveighs on the importance of "Learning to Live With Radical Islam," the Islamic American community sees "Obama as Muslim," that is to say he's their "Muslim President"!

I guess that helps explain why as a society we refuse to recognize and condemn "moderate" Muslim beheadings as ritual honor killing, at precisely the same time Islamists worldwide "are plotting to destroy us."

The "tea party movement" that folks are talking about might serve as an instructive case in the disconnect between party insiders/convention-goers and the rank-and-file patriots who are out and about, in freezing weather, mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

I mean no disrespect to those involved on both sides of this debate, but it's disheartening that the driving vision of moral clarity in foreign policy this last eight years seems to be dissipating in an remarkable acceptance of creeping Islamization and political correctness, amid frequent calls for ideological moderation as the path back to power.

Dick Cheney Hammers Obama Administration on National Security

From ABC News, "EXCLUSIVE: Cheney Attacks Biden, Obama on National Security":

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, in an exclusive appearance on ABC News' "This Week," offered a sharp critique of the Obama administration's handling of national security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying any achievements over the past year largely stemmed from policies implemented under President George W. Bush.

"If [the administration is] going to take credit for [Iraq's success], fair enough ... but it ought to come with a healthy dose of 'Thank you, George Bush' up front and a recognition that some of their early recommendations with respect to prosecuting that war were just dead wrong," Cheney told ABC News' Jonathan Karl.

Earlier Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Cheney "either is misinformed or he is misinforming" about what policies have been most effective in combating terrorists.

Biden has also suggested that Iraq may end up being one of the Obama administration's greatest successes.

"Obama and Biden campaigned from one end of the country to the other for two years criticizing our Iraq policy," Cheney said. "If they had had their way, if we'd followed the policies they'd pursued from the outset or advocated from the outset, Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Baghdad today."

I can't think of anything that pisses me off more than the Obama administration claiming credit for victory in Iraq -- and that's saying a lot, given the epic fail of the Obamacrats since 1-20-09.

Also Blogging: Gateway Pundit, GayPatriot, Don Surber and Moonbattery (via Memeorandum). And see also, "‘This Week’ Transcript: Former Vice President Dick Cheney."

Resurrecting Culture 11? Or, How Faux-Righty Conor Friedersdorf Gets Media Attention

It's be hard to believe that "pomo" conservative opinion outlets would have much of a chance in the current environment, but hardline leftists love to entertain the thought. See Washington Monthly's, "Culture Shock: What happened when one conservative Web site ventured outside the movement bubble" (via Memeorandum). The piece pays special attention to longstanding faux-conservative and online attention-hog Conor Friedersdorf. The essay dismisses mainstream conservative websites (like Big Hollywood) as ignorant of the youth culture and afraid to break out of the right-wing cocoon. What's funny, of course, is that folks on the right aren't fooled by Friedersdorf-types who aren't conservative and who in fact push far left-wing policies and ideological programs. The "Culture Shock" piece is also stuck in a 2008 mindset, wherein Bush-fatigue, Obamania, and John McCain's political campaign disaster virtually guaranteed a Democratic victory. That moment is long passed. If Culture 11 is able to round up money for a comeback it won't be a reflection of demands for a more eclectic conservatism. Anyone can find that at The Daily Dish or the pretentiously ignorant League of Ordinary Gentlemen. In other words, these folks are epic fail. Conor Friedersdorf is a special case of Andrew Sullivan myrmidonism that's simply Democratic Party cheerleading by any other name. Besides, as Robert Stacy McCain notes:

This is becoming a familiar pattern for conservatives who want to waste a double buttload of cash:

1. Create a new Web site;
2. Promise something innovative and different; and
3. Most of all, don’t call Stacy McCain.

Because I don’t anything about “making conservatism fun, light-hearted and accessible.”

Idiot Pam Spaulding Shuts Down 'House Blend' After Nine Years of Inane, Homo-Obsessed Rantings

Epic fail-blogger Pam Spaulding has thrown in the towel. The whiny LBGT bitch couldn't even make it after Jane Hamsher generously took her under her wings, providing free hosting and support.

And now Spaulding just blabbers on like a beached whale about how impossible it would be for her to continue. Cry me a freakin' river.

See, "Goodbye Pam’s House Blend: after nine years, closing the coffeehouse July 1."

World's Fastest Memory Hole: Washington Times Yanks Dale Robertson Column!

Just in, from Tommy Christopher, "Washington Times Pulls Dale ‘N-Word Sign’ Robertson’s Tea Party Column."

And, just a few minutes earlier, from Tabitha Hale at Red State, "Dear Washington Times: Seriously?":

The Washington Times has managed to give credibility to this delusional racist who claims to be the founder of the Tea Party. As Tommy Christopher points out, they’ve consistently quoted him as a Tea Party leader, and now they’re showing no qualms about him signing up to write on their Tea Party Report blog. I shouldn’t even have to say this out loud, but for the sake of argument I will: Dale Robertson is not the founder of the Tea Party movement. He happened to register TeaParty.org. It probably cost him $9 on GoDaddy. That does NOT a Tea Party leader make. In fact, many Tea Party players have shunned him and uninvited him from any related events. However, none of this seems to matter to Dale.

Plus, from David Weigel, "From the 'N-word' to the Washington Times."

Added: "Epic FAIL: TeaParty.org fraudster-in-chief Dale Robertson." More at Memeorandum.

PHOTO CREDIT: Houston Tea Party.

Jindal Torpedoes Presidential Aspirations

Commenting on Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's GOP rebuttal to the President Obama's State of the Union Address last night, Greg Veis offers some grist for the "epic fail" meme: "Americans are scared enough these days to prefer policy solutions to partisan sniping. But, holy crap, did Jindal blow it."

Here's the video, via Hot Air, "Jindal’s “Awful” Rebuttal:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The full text is here.

I haven't paid that much attention to Jindal, mainly because I don't see him as an attractive presidential candidate. He's got a fabulous resume, but some of his separation-of-church-and-state issues are way more aggressive than the GOP should go - and I'm saying that as a fairly hardline social conservative.

Randy Barnett offered a early warning yesterday at Volokh Conspiracy, "Defining 'Creationism' Down":

If your favorite candidate is on record favoring creationism as science to be taught in government schools, he or she has sunk already himself on the national political scene whether you like it or not. Better find another candidate.

Three Reasons Why Obama's Financial Regulation Bill is Epic Fail

At Reason.TV, via Glenn Reynolds:

PREVIOUSLY: "Obama Financial Regulation Bill is Bank Bailout Bonanza."

Picture of the Day, 12-21-09

Courtesy of Bloviating Zeppelin:

RELATED: Epic Fail of the Day, "Democrats Expect Health Care Bounce" (via Memeorandum).

Plus, runner up, "CBO Pegs Nelson's Nebraska Medicaid Deal Cost at $100 Million."

ADDED: Pamela Geller e-mails to remind me that the bill is very much alive. I'm actually seeing this as a metaphor for the Dems' electoral chances next year. Those folks are going need some catastrophic care after next November! See Atlas Shrugs, "Another New Low for the New Low."

Full Metal Saturday: Kristin Cavallari

Well folks, it's been a busy week blogging the culture wars, but I'm taking time out here for a little double-duty on babe-blogging. Readers might have missed my regular midweek "Rule 5 Rescue," so I'm going double-barrel with some hot Kristin Cavallari action! Ms. Cavallari's a local Laguna Beach hottie who was the leading personality during Season 2 of Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County:

Readers will recall that Full Metal Saturday owes its origins to Robert Stacy McCain's pathbreaking post, "How to Get a Million Hits on Your Blog in Less Than a Year." I call Robert "The Hustler," not only for his recognition as one of the hardest working bloggers in the blogosphere, but for the growing influence of his program of shameless blog whoring! Today's case in point is Michael van der Galien of PoliGazette, who's introducing a new feature at his site called "Link Mess." But I should note that Steven Givler, who was featured here last week, is also a reader of The Other McCain. Now, note something else: When my friend Carol at No Sheeples Here! expressed some reservations about "Rule 5" blogging, Robert put up an interesting post on the subject, where he noted:

Conservatives must rid themselves of the Dean Vernon Wormer mindset ("No more fun of any kind!") and instead try to put the "party" back into the Republican Party. Stop trying to be the uptight, respectable Omegas. Let's bring a hell-raising, fun-loving Delta House mentality to the task at hand ...

Well, I'll tell ya: It looks like a number of conservative bloggers have taken the hint, especially the ladies! Fausta Wertz puts out some classic Rule 5 blogging this week with a couple of entries, "Captain Underpants" (featuring a "hirsute" Tom Selleck) and "About those hairless chests ..." Fausta links to Neo-Neocon, who not only offers a lengthy analysis of "men waxing their chests," but the post sports a shot of some pretty hunky beefcake! Plus, Monique Stuart's playing both sides of the fence with some hot Katy Perry Rule 5 action! Now that's what I'm talking about! And don't miss Pundette & Pundette, who's got her weekend link-fest up today, with some hot buns in there to boot! If I'm omitting any entries from the ladies, just send me an e-mail and I'll add your post to this entry. And with that, on to the guys! I've got to get a couple of my blog buddies fired up for some Rule 5 revelry! Dana at Common Sense Political Thought might post an update his hot Helen Mirren entry, and Stogie at Saberpoint might well be afflicted by the Dean Vernor Wormer mindset! Let's also put some pressure on my friends Dave in Boca and William Jacobson. Come on guys, break loose with some babe blogging! And check out Lance Burri to see how it's done, "Of Rule #5, YouTube, and commercials indeterminate, persuasive, and unpleasant." Dude, it's getting hot in here! And don't even get me going about John Althouse Cohen! But wait! This just in: "The Hustler's" got breaking news on Lindsay Lohan: "EX-DISNEY STARLET LINDSAY LOHAN REPORTEDLY DUMPED BY LESBIAN GF SAMANTHA RONSON . . ." Okay, switching gears a bit, don't forget that a number of our good friends have no time for breast blogging. They're busy doing even more important work: Tea Party blogging! Moe Lane's got a great post on the 12 whole anti-capitalist protesters - that's right just 12 - who turned out for the left's epic-fail copycat protest in Washington, D.C., one of the "New Way Forward" demonstrations that are modeled after the conservative movement's emerging "Second American Revolution." Conservatives are getting fired up on this, of course. Check out Point of a Gun, with some coverage of Maryland's Tea Party protests. Little Miss Attila is gearing up for her events, but check out Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit with all kinds of links to Tea Party action nationwide. As always, if I've missed anyone just send me a quick note and I'll add your post here in an update. Otherwise, keep up the Rule 5 hotness!

Site Meter Domain Name Expires — UPDATE: It's Working! Site Meter's Working Again! Hallelujah!

Doug Ross reports, "Epic fail by analytics company Sitemeter: forgets to renew domain name."

Site Meter's been sucking for awhile. Here's James Joyner from last summer, "Is SiteMeter Finally Dead?"

I think it's dead now. When it worked well, the service was the best for instant feedback on your visitors. But it's not the only service I use. Feedjit Live is more fun, especially during traffic surges. And eXTReMe Tracking is way more reliable.

I don't see a post from Althouse yet, but she's been a full subscriber at Site Meter for years. She'll no doubt  have some complaints posted soon enough, especially as Site Meter apparently threw in the towel without any formal notification to customers.

UPDATE: Site Meter's back. Amazingly, I've been offline throughout the interlude. Robert Stacy McCain reports, "Did SiteMeter Commit Suicide? - UPDATE: It’s Working Again, But Unfortunately, My Traffic Sucks."

And Ed Driscoll reflects on the service, "Sitemeter Suicide?":

Sitemeter must have rolling server repair issues, as my counter was out yesterday and — knock on Formica — appears to be back, but now others are experiencing issues today. Also, as with their mammoth outage last year, their technical support seems to have fallen into a black hole; while the product still works (most of the time), Sitemeter reps never respond, beyond an automated ticket, to outage issues. Needless to say, this is not good customer support.

Well, as I mentioned at the main post above, I use other stat-counters in addition to Site Meter, although when it's working, I go to Site Meter first. It's got a great layout and attractive display of information, and the information is delivered in real time. Enjoy.

#Zimmerman Riots Rule 5 Break

It's been pretty hilarious with all the left's whining about "no rioting" following the Zimmerman verdict.

The race-baiting left is epic fail, and President Hussein is the freakin' worst.

I'll have more later on that later. Meanwhile, here's some Sunday babe blogging.

So, check Pirate's Cove, "Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup," and "If All You See……is a horrible carbon pollution infused beer bottle, you might just be a Warmist."

Plus, at Wirecutter's, "Supper is served."


Also, from Ron Russell, "Busty Babes and ..."

And from Proof Positive, "Women of PETA XXXV."

At Izismile, "This Average Girl Is Not Average Looking Anymore" (via Linkiest).


Plus, from Drunken Stepfather, "KATE UPTON IN A BIKINI OF THE DAY."

And Soylent has "Your Afternoon Generic Ginger."

Dana Pico has more, "Rule 5 Blogging: The IDF Again!"

At Reaganite, "ACHTUNG! 'Miss Germany 2013' Caroline Noeding - ist 'Die Schönste Frau Deutschlands'~."

And at Gator Doug's, "DaleyGatorDaleyBabe Saven Mi."

Check Egotastic! as well, "Thank God It’s Funbags! Hayley-Marie Coppin Scrubs Her Kitchen Clean and Naughty."

As always, if I missed your Rule 5 entry, drop it in the comments and I'll update.

More, from Bob Belvedere, "Rule 5 News: Judy Tyler, R.I.P."

'Orange County Local News Network' Just Spammed My Blog!

Now, that's got to be a compliment, or something!

I saw Mike Reicher and Gretchen Meier at last night's Newt Gingrich lecture. They were sitting right in front of me, on the floor actually, during the talk. In fact, that's Mike Reicher on the right in this picture, where we see Speaker Gingrich exiting stage right:

The truth is, I would have never even known who the hell Mike Reicher and Gretchen Meier were until someone at "Orange County Local News Network," their online magazine, spammed my comments. They left a link to their story on the event last night, "Gingrich Riles Irvine Crowd With Jobs, Other Proposals."

Here's a screencap of the editorial staff, at the introductory essay, "Hello, Orange County!":

Look, I've been blogging long enough to know some of the do and don'ts of the trade, and one thing these folks might want to do is get to know who's out there blogging on the issues before they start making theirselves at home in the comments with advertising links. I'll give 'em credit though: It's a pretty gutsy move to a launch magazine start-up in this economic environment. But if they're adopting an old-school hierarchical mindset, they're going to be in for some epic fail. Folks might remember what happened to Hollywood Today. Editor and Publisher Jeffrey Jolson actually went so far as to allege libel in an e-mail to me, and I told him to take a hike (see, "Jeffrey Jolson, Publisher and Editor-in-chief at Hollywood Today, Responds to Absence of Source Attributions at Tareq Salahi ATFB Story").

Thus, my suggestion to the editors at Orange County Local News Network is understand that there is NO HIERARCHY anymore. Bloggers take down the media's big boys all the time nowadays, so it pays to learn the lay of the land. In this case, a link first THEN a track-back would have been perfectly legit. Indeed, that's how you go about making folks feel appreciated, and in turn you might get some links thrown back your way. So, yo! You sho' wanna be keepin' good with us homies (citizen journalists) of the blogosphere! Because, man, sometimes "It's REALLY Hard Out There..."

Americans Support Troop Surge in Afghanistan

A lot of readers wouldn't know it, but I started blogging specifically in response to the despicable antiwar opponents of the Bush administration. Some of the commentary on the left this week is reminiscent, but folks are attacking Bush, not President Obama. Actually, Blue Texan at Firedoglake attacks the entire "Bush-Cheney cabal," so that's an especially good indicator of the derangement, "Liz Cheney Warns Against “Walking Away” from Afghanistan, Apparently Forgetting that Dick Cheney Walked Away from Afghanistan":

The Bushies’ failure, after 8 years of pissing away American lives and treasure, to competently execute and win that war is so massive, so scandalous, that anyone named Cheney shouldn’t be doing anything else on television but apologizing and begging the American people’s forgiveness.

Worst of all? Hearing Cheney try to jam Obama about the dangers of “walking away” from her father’s mess — after Dick and W. did exactly that when they got the genius idea to launch their epic fail in Iraq.

These criminals have absolutely no shame.

But it's Howie Klein who's really the essence of leftist insanity:

President Obama is days away from announcing the inevitable buckling under to the military-industrial complex and giving the generals more young Americans as cannon fodder for a useless and unwinnable war, that most Americans do not support. So who in Congress really wants to end the war and who's content just leaving it up to the military to do whatever they think is best?

Insane, as well as incorrect.

The trend has been building for months: Recall IBD's survey from October, "Americans, In Reversal, Now Back Afghan Troop Surge" (at that time, 48 percent supported sending trooop reinforcements). But check out this morning's Gallup poll, "In U.S., More Support for Increasing Troops in Afghanistan":

Americans over the last two weeks have become slightly more likely to favor sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, and slightly less likely to favor a reduction in forces. At this point, 47% of Americans would advise President Obama to increase the number of U.S. troops -- either by the roughly 40,000 recommended by the commanding general in Afghanistan or by a smaller amount -- while 39% would advise Obama to reduce the number of troops. Another 9% would opt to leave troop levels as they are, while 5% have no opinion.

The data still show that Americans are divided on the war, but with a clear and comprehensive plan for success in place -- Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy -- Americans see greater likelihood of success, and thus the resulting increase in popular support.

This is the trendlline prediction of political science research on the Iraq war, and we're likely to see the same pattern in opinion of Afghanistan. See, Christopher Gelpi, Peter Feaver, and Jason Riefler, "Success Matters: Casualty Sensitivity and the War in Iraq."

(P.S. What will be most important, over the long term, is how well President Obama will be able to resist the nihilist antiwar forces of the Democratic base. The president's dithering on an Afghan troop buildup lies in large part in his weighing the polling data on a cut-and-run from the deployment. Worried about popular opinion going into next year's midterms, the adminstration thought better of opting for Democratic-leftist defeatism. Like many have said, the war will define this administration, even after the disastrous health care monstrosity passes, in whatever form, into law.)

Sean Hannity Interviews Sarah Palin

Sean Hannity interviews Sarah Palin:

Governor Palin is in the news this morning. From Conservatives for Sarah Palin, "Were Politico and CNN at the Same Fundraiser?."

The reference is to "Sarah Palin Makes Little Splash at Dinner," and "Palin Center of Attention at Big GOP Dinner."

Dan Riehl offers some insight, "GOP and The NRCC: Epic Fail."

World Population Grows by 1 Billion in Only 12 Years

At the Occupy Orange County protest the other day, I asked a guy passing by at the information booth what he thought of the movement. He kept saying "they" have a plan to control the world economy. And I asked who's "they"? He's said "it's not a conspiracy or anything, but the 1 percent really do control the whole world." And from there he somehow squeezed in some yammering about how the world's population was now at 7 billion. I didn't really make the connection, but then I saw news reports that the world's population was about to hit 7 billion. Well that was it, I thought, no doubt this gives left-wingers plenty more fear-mongering material.

See Los Angeles Times, "World population hits 7 billion on Oct. 31, or thereabouts."

It took only a dozen years for humanity to add another billion people to the planet, reaching the milestone of 7 billion Monday — give or take a few months.

Demographers at the United Nations Population Division set Oct. 31, 2011, as the "symbolic" date for hitting 7 billion, while acknowledging that it's impossible to know for sure the specific time or day. Using slightly different calculations, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates the 7-billion threshold will not be reached until March.

Under any methodology, demographers agree that humanity remains on a steep growth curve, which is likely to keep climbing through the rest of this century. The U.N.'s best estimate is that population will march past 9.3 billion by 2050 and exceed 10.1 billion by the end of the century. It could be far more, if birthrates do not continue to drop as they have in the last half-century.

Nearly all the projected growth this century is expected to occur in developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, while the combined populations in Europe, North America and other wealthy industrialized nations will remain relatively flat. Some countries, such as Germany, Russia and Japan, are poised to edge downward, their loss made up mostly by ongoing growth in the United States, which is bolstered by waves of immigrants.

That's so ominous sounding, "they" had to pick Halloween for the date, or something.

Of course, not mentioned is the fact that the earth can sustain billions more without any problems. See Power Line, "POPULATION BOMB EPIC FAIL."

Henry Farrell: Hey, My Socialism Doesn't Interfere With My 'Rigorous' Non-Partisan Political Research!

Henry Farrell, a fairly well-known academic leftist and conservative blog-basher, pretends to be analytical and "balanced," at the Monkey Cage, "Feavered Speculation":

Peter Feaver is a reasonably well-known political scientist, working in the political science department at Duke University. He is also someone of recognizable partisan inclinations, having served for a spell in the Bush White House. This certainly isn’t a problem as such - I have recognizable partisan inclinations (which I try not to indulge on this blog) myself. But it is a problem if it interferes with purportedly political scientific analysis, or, worse, if it becomes a substitute for such analysis. And … well … how can I put this best … Either Feaver has identified an important new effect, which overturns the existing political science consensus that Presidential rhetoric has no significant consequences for public opinion. Or he is allowing his personal druthers and biases - Obama has a reverse Midas Touch! Everything he touches turns to dreck! - to substitute for actual analysis.

It's a pretty wonkish post, with links to current "cutting-edge" research. But for all of Henry's high-falutin' jargon, he's in pretty epic fail territory. The explanation's found in common sense here, less so confidence intervals, statistical significance, or what not. Face it, Henry: Obama's a loser. Can't console yourself in research suggesting presidents only influence things "at the margins." Folks just don't like Obama's signature legislative "achievement," and never really have.

Anyway, just know that Henry would never question his radical leftist cohorts for any potential partisan inclinations. No no! This is about what really constitutes "good political science"! (Neocons need not apply?)

And don't miss Feaver's original essay, "Has Obama Lost His Silver Tongue?"