Democratic November Hopes Hang on Thin Reed of PA-12

It's fascinating that most of the election attention this afternoon is focused on yesterday's special election in Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district.

The New York Times wasted no time to advance the left's meme going forward, "Democrats See Hope for Fall in Victory in House Race." And not to be outdone is CSM, "PA-12: A template for Democrats in November election?" Plus, I already commented on the partisan chest-thumping from Steve Benen and Matthew Yglesias ("the world's dumbest blogger"), although I missed Daniel Larison's whiney screed attacking the GOP as "the more unpopular, discredited party." I'll admit Larison has a point that Republicans ought to be careful about "nationalizing" congressional elections. For example, as I wrote in April:

... congressional elections aren't generally national referendums. The president almost always loses seats in the midterms. And this year will be no different ... we're talking individual House and Senate races around the country ... It's a tough political environment for both parties, which is something the tea parties frequently remind stupid RINOs.

Contrast my comment to Tim Burns' electoral message:

Doesn't sound quite so attuned to local constituency preferences, although to be fair, I wasn't doing shoe-level reporting on the ground either.

Still, Larison --- inveterate America-basher that he is --- is not to be trusted with any meaningful "big picture" takeaway from the Mark Critz victory.

What stuck me as most fascinating is the registration differential in Murtha's old district (said to be a 2-1 Democratic advantage). As Michael Barone notes, "the electorate in the 12th special election consisted of almost twice as many registered Democrats as registered Republicans." And what's especially striking is the fact of PA-12 super-favorable partisan gerrymandering, obviously boosting Democratic opportunities. Or as Ruby Slippers notes:

Murtha's district had been carved up and served on a platter to ensure his continual re-election. The District's R+1 rating comes only because the district voted for McCain in 2008 while it voted for Kerry in 2004. Democrats would have us believe the District has trended Republican over those four years while the rest of the country had their fill of Bush and the GOP. The Democrats and the cheerleading media want us to forget they believed Obama lost this district because it was filled with racist rednecks.

I'm not familiar with the territory, but just looking at the map, the burghs in this district look like big steelworker-union towns, and hence heavily Democratic in orientation. Elbridge Gerry would be proud. Seriously, look at that thing. It's almost a joke for the national press corps to trumpet a GOP collapse. Tim Burns had his work cut out for him, and frankly, perhaps he misread the tea leaves.

That said, while there's no doubt Democrats can take some heart here, I'd refer folks over to The Monkey Cage, "What do Tuesday's elections tell us about November?":

My quick answer is that you can’t learn much from primary elections. They can be important in their effects—both directly on the composition of Congress and indirectly in how they can affect behavior of congressmembers who might be scared of being challenged in future primaries—but I don’t see them as very informative indicators of the general election vote. Primaries are inherently unpredictable and are generally decided by completely different factors, and from completely different electorates, than those that decide general elections.

It's a given that the GOP can take some lessons from PA-12 (and I doubt the NRCC's $1 million spent on behalf of Burns was a wise investment). But on the whole, my sense is that the overall anti-incumbency backlash continues, the Dems are totally freaked, and they're looking for some comfort in Critz's victory. It's a thin reed, but it's about all they've got.

Leftists Spin 'Huge' Victory for Mark Critz in PA-12

There's some attention this morning on the Tim Burns loss in PA-12.

Steve Benen, hoping to play down this year's anti-Obama fever, is pumping up the win by former John Murtha crony Mark Critz as "arguably the most important election" of the day. And "the world's dumbest blogger" Matthew Yglesias is working the same beat:

Former John Murtha staffer Mark Critz’s win in the PA-12 House election is just straight-up embarrassing for Republicans. The Democratic strategy was straight out of the 2006/2008 playbook. Find a moderately conservative House district and run a somewhat heterodox Democrat ... To see a Democrat win an open seat in a district that went for John McCain will be a welcome sign to a large number of House Democrat incumbents from red districts.

In response, William Jacobson quips, "Dem Path to Victory in 2010 - Run As Conservative Republicans."

Robert Stacy McCain was on the ground in PA-12 and he was exuberantly boasting Tim Burns' chances. But my good friend Skye, a hot blogging pol in the Keystone State, had this from her election day preview yesterday:

CD-12 John Murtha’s district. Houston, we’ve got a problem. Tim Burns is PA GOP Chairman Rob Gleason’s golden boy. Rob Gleason an integral part of the GOP party machine who was a close friend and business partner with John Murtha. Despite rallying calls of Burns being the next Scott Brown, the race is polling dead even. The district is gerrymandered in favor of the Democrats with a 2:1 Dem voter registration lead. If Burns wins, don’t cry to me when he turn RINO. RS McCain, love you but we will have to agree to disagree on Tim Burns.

So, if you have a 2-1 Democratic voter registration advantage and run as a Republican you might be able to pull off a 53-45* percent victory in a district held by the Democrats for decades. (And that's not counting Democratic Party voting irregularities in Fayette County and who knows where else?) Yeah, that ought to bode well for the Dems in November.

Also, commentary and video from Allahpundit:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And check C. Edmund Wright for additional perspective, "Another Very Bad Night for Obama, Democrats and the Media." Plus, more at Memeorandum.

* Corrected figures.

ACLU, NAACP, Other Rights Groups File Suit Against Arizona's SB 1070

Jeez, how frightening for the left that Arizona takes the law seriously. See CBS News, "Arizona Immigration Law Faces New Legal Fight":

The developing legal fight over Arizona's sweeping immigration law escalated Monday as major civil rights groups filed a lawsuit challenging the measure's constitutionality.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People were among groups that filed the latest challenge.

They filed the case in U.S. District Court on behalf of plaintiffs that include labor unions, a Tucson church, social-service organizations and numerous individuals.

The new suit, the fifth legal challenge filed since Gov. Jan Brewer signed the legislation, asks a federal judge to declare the measure unconstitutional and block it from taking effect in late July. The cases could be consolidated, and no court hearings have been scheduled.

Key provisions of the law include requiring police enforcing other laws to verify a person's immigration status if there's "reasonable suspicion" of illegal presence in the United States. It also makes being in the country illegally a state crime and prohibits seeking day-labor work at roadside.

The lawsuit alleges that the law is unconstitutional because the federal government has responsibility to regulate immigration, and because enforcement of the law will violate protections for due process and equal treatment under the law.

The suit argues that enforcing the law will subject U.S. citizens and others to racial profiling and other harassment, interfere with delivery of social services, and deter people from approaching law enforcement to report crimes.

"This law is shameful and un-American and will undermine public safety," said Lucas Guttentag, director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.

Blah, blah ...

These people are way outside the mainstream, and they're freakin'. Katie Couric's citing the New York Times poll from early this month, "Poll Shows Most in U.S. Want Overhaul of Immigration Laws."

And check Pew Research as well, "Broad Approval For New Arizona Immigration Law: Democrats Divided, But Support key Provisions."

And not only that, the Obama administration has yet to overturn a 2002 legal opinion holding that "state police officers have 'inherent power' to arrest undocumented immigrants for violating federal law." Naturally, the left's radical open-borders fanatics are already going bonkers over it.

Hugh Hefner: Moral Arbiter of Our Age

It's true, or at least that's what Algis Valiunas argues at Commentary, "The Playboy and His Western World":

Most every man in the known world has at least glimpsed a Playboy centerfold, and thereupon has vowed to go out and get himself something similar in a real live girl, or perused the luscious goods until the magazine has fallen into tatters, or run to confess his pollution to unsympathetic religious personnel, or cried “Death to America” and placed his hope in the eternal succor of 72 virgins, each of whom is the spitting image of the whorish temptress in the picture. Hugh Hefner, the inventor of Playboy, has sold his idea of what sex should be with the winning fervor of a true believer, and while not exactly everyone has bought into it, he has enticed multitudes into his fold with the promise of as much pleasure as a body can manage in a lifetime, all of it perfectly innocent, of course. And what sensible person, playboy or playgirl, could possibly want anything better?

He has written, “In this century, America liberated sex. The world will never be the same.” Hefner himself is the Great Emancipator and the most influential figure that American popular culture has produced; no actor or movie director or singer or athlete has moved the life of our time as potently as he. Indeed, one is hard pressed to name more than three or four figures from the more serious precincts of our modern public life who have had an effect of comparable magnitude. Only in America can a man whose declared ambitions were to bed innumerable beautiful women and get rich in the process make a mark deeper than those left by great writers or leading thinkers or most presidents. That this should be so might well appall writers and thinkers and most presidents, but they would have to acknowledge that Hefner got hold of the fundamental American longing as no one else had before. Americans have always pursued happiness, usually without any clear idea of what they were after; Hefner demonstrated that it could be not only pursued but also captured, and he posted photographs of the quarry for proof. The sexual revolution, the defining uprising of our time, is his brainchild; others stand at his shoulder in the leadership, but he is the founding father of the orgasmic republic.

My dad kept Playboy at home, and that was some endorsement --- my old man was conservative! I guess that's why I'm a bit of a libertarian on these things, although like R.S. McCain, obviously, I tell my teenage boy to hold the horses until he's older.

Another interesting tidbit from the article:

Hefner was seducing his readership with a wholenovel way of life. To fulfill “modern man’s need for a new, more realistic, rational, human, and humane sexual morality” was his grand aim, as he would state in “The Playboy Philosophy,” a series of 25 turgid essays that ran from 1962 to 1965. The new practice would have a prolix if not exactly profound theoretical foundation. Hefner wanted to restore the primal innocence of the two things Americans had endowed with the glamour of wickedness: sex and money. Sex outside of marriage was to become the norm; the playboy was to be a materially successful man who knew how toenjoy his wealth, largely by spending it on delicious playgirls. Hef sought to save other men from the trap in which he had been caught. The nude centerfolds, called Playmates, served the project handsomely: the subjects were “the freshest, most all--American looking girls we can find,” “the photographic dream girls for a large part of our male population,” and their eagerness to expose themselves to public view proved that “nice girls like sex, too.”

FOOTNOTE: At first I was going solo with the screencap, but checking Wikipedia turned up the picture of Hef with Holly Madison and Bridget Marquardt.

BONUS: Don't you just love neocons!

John A. Ward, Former Tucson High School Teacher, Supports Arizona Ethnic Studies Law

John A. Ward, a former history teacher with the Tucson Unified School District, offers a devastating account of the radical La Raza indoctrination program he was forced to teach. He's no longer with the district. Amazing that only Fox News is willing to get the facts out there.

From Greta Van Susteren, "Why One Former Ariz. Teacher Supports the Ethnic Studies Law":

And here's Ward's 2008 essay from the Tucson Citizen, "Guest Opinion: Raza Studies Gives Rise to Racial Hostility." Also at Grizzly Groundswell, "Tucson Teacher Exposes "Raza" Studies In TUSD":

As a former teacher in Tucson Unified School District's hotly debated ethnic studies department, I submit my perspective for the public's consideration.

During the 2002-2003 school year, I taught a U.S. history course with a Mexican-American perspective. The course was part of the Raza/Chicano studies department.

Within one week of the course beginning, I was told that I was a "teacher of record," meaning that I was expected only to assign grades. The Raza studies department staff would teach the class.

I was assigned to be a "teacher of record" because some members of the Raza studies staff lacked teaching certificates. It was a convenient way of circumventing the rules.

I stated that I expected to do more than assign grades. I expected to be involved in teaching the class. The department was less than enthusiastic but agreed.

Immediately it was clear that the class was not a U.S. history course, which the state of Arizona requires for graduation. The class was similar to a sociology course one expects to see at a university.

Where history was missing from the course, it was filled by controversial and biased curriculum.

The basic theme of the curriculum was that Mexican-Americans were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites.

In this narrative, whites are able to maintain their influence only if minorities are held down. Thus, social, political and economic events in America must be understood through this lens.

This biased and sole paradigm justified teaching that our community police officers are an extension of the white power structure and that they are the strongmen used "to keep minorities in their ghettos."

It justified telling the class that there are fewer Mexican-Americans in Tucson Magnet High School's advanced placement courses because their "white teachers" do not believe they are capable and do not want them to get ahead.

It justified teaching that the Southwestern United States was taken from Mexicans because of the insatiable greed of the Yankee who acquired his values from the corrupted ethos of Western civilization.

It was taught that the Southwest is "Atzlan," the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, and still rightfully belongs to their descendants - to all people of indigenous Mexican heritage.

As an educator, I refused to be complicit in a curriculum that engendered racial hostility, irresponsibly demeaned America's civil institutions, undermined our public servants, discounted any virtues in Western civilization and taught disdain for American sovereignty.

When I raised these concerns, I was told that I was a "racist," despite being Hispanic. Acknowledging my heritage, the Raza studies staff also informed me that I was a vendido, the Spanish term for "sellout."

The culmination of my challenge to the department's curriculum was my removal from that particular class. The Raza studies department and its district-level allies pressured the Tucson High administration to silence my concerns through reassignment to another class during that one period.

The Raza studies department used the "racist" card, which is probably the most worn-out and desperate maneuver used to silence competing perspectives.

It is fundamentally anti-intellectual because it immediately stops debate by threatening to destroy the reputation of those who would provide counter arguments.

Unfortunately, I am not the only one to have been intimidated by the Raza studies department in this way.

The diplomatic and flattering language that the department and its proponents use to describe the Raza studies program is an attempt to avoid public scrutiny. When necessary, the department invokes terms such as "witch hunt" and "McCarthyism" to diminish the validity of whatever public scrutiny it does get.

The proponents of this program may conceal its reality to the public. But as a former teacher in the program, I am witness to its ugly underbelly.
Arizona taxpayers should ask themselves whether they should pay for the messages engendered in these classrooms with their hard-earned tax dollars.

The Raza studies department has powerful allies in TUSD, on its governing board and in the U.S. House of Representatives and thus operates with much impunity.

Occasionally there are minor irritations from the state superintendent of public instruction and the Legislature.

Ultimately, Arizona taxpayers own TUSD and have the right to change it. The change will have to come from replacing the board if its members refuse to make the Raza studies department respect the public trust.

Evolving Standards of Decency? Supreme Court Limits 'Harsh' Terms for Minors

The editors at NTY are calling it "A New Standard of Decency," but yesterday's ruling on juvenile sentencing is just one more in a string of leftist decisions designed, ultimately, to chip away at capital punishment. How do we know? Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, as he did for the disastrous Roper v. Simmons (2005).

Joan Biskupic has a report, "Court limits harsh terms for youths":

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that juveniles cannot be sentenced to life without parole for crimes other than murder, in a significant 5-4 decision that says imposing such sentences violates the Constitution's prohibition on "cruel and unusual" punishment.
The court's 5-4 decision — which says that an automatic life sentence for a young offender who has not committed murder violates the Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment — wipes out laws in 37 states.

It means that the 129 juveniles now serving time under such laws will, at some point, have an opportunity to make a case for parole.

Most significantly, the decision — signed by the nine-member court's four more liberal justices and Anthony Kennedy, the conservative who votes with the liberals the most — emphasizes that young criminals are different from adults. And not just when it comes to the death penalty, which the court made off-limits for juveniles in 2005.

"A life without parole sentence improperly denies the juvenile offender a chance to demonstrate growth and maturity," Kennedy wrote for the majority in the decision that found life without parole disproportionally harsh.

The decision immediately generated debate over where the court would go in the future regarding juvenile rights, including the possibility that it could strike down life-without-parole for juvenile murderers.

I can't imagine much public support for such a position, and it's going to get worse if Ruth Bader Ginsberg steps down next year, giving President Obama a chance to appoint a third radical leftist to the court during his first term. Frankly, here's a hint that the radical majority on the court won't stop the campaign of "evolving decency" with juvenile defendants:

In Kennedy's opinion for the majority, he highlighted the limited culpability of young offenders and said the usual justifications for harsh sentences, such as deterrence, do not hold up for those under age 18.

Baylor University criminal law professor Mark Osler said Monday's decision arises against the backdrop of a broader national re-examination of harsh sentences, but it is most significant in how it views offenders who are under age 18.

RTWT at the link. (And Kennedy's appeal to international legal standards is especially appalling.)

Actually, it's an Anti-Obama Election

Sean Trende's always worth reading, and his piece today is no exception, "2010: Anti-Incumbent, Anti-Liberal, or Anti-Democrat?" I like this passage, on PA-12:

If Mark Critz pulls out a win by a healthy margin, then it could be a good sign that a generalized anti-Democratic mood isn’t materializing. This doesn’t rule out the anti-liberal scenario described above by any means, since Critz is running as a fairly conservative Democrat, but it does indicate that voters in marginal districts are still willing to listen to Democratic candidates who promise to vote against health care reform and the like.

But if Critz loses or barely wins, it would be an ominous sign. Democratic turnout on Tuesday will be driven by the Democratic Senate and gubernatorial primaries occurring that day, narrowing the enthusiasm gap with Republicans in a way that won’t be likely in November. If a conservative Democrat running in a conservative Democratic district with upticket races driving turnout can’t win this year, it bodes poorly for the sixty or so Democrats running in districts that vote even more Republican at the Presidential level (I’d guess there’s eighty or ninety districts represented by Democrats that vote more Republican when you look at the state and federal levels).

But I'm with Charles Krauthammer, who says the current electoral environment is marked by an "anti-big government, anti-Obama, and anti-left-wing agenda." Now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout!

Law Professor Kris Kobach on Arizona's Immigration Law

I meant to post on Kris Kobach last week, when the Los Angeles Times reported on him, "A voice for Arizona's immigration law: Law professor Kris Kobach is a popular defender of the state's strict new immigration law, which he helped write. Both the law and Kobach are targets of public outcry."

And now, from last night on Greta's, "The Man Behind Arizona's Immigration Law":

Also, at Washington Post, "Memo from 2002 could complicate challenge of Arizona immigration law" (via Memeorandum):

In the legal battle over Arizona's new immigration law, an ironic subtext has emerged: whether a Bush-era legal opinion complicates a potential Obama administration lawsuit against Arizona.

The document, written in 2002 by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, concluded that state police officers have "inherent power" to arrest undocumented immigrants for violating federal law. It was issued by Jay S. Bybee, who also helped write controversial memos from the same era that sanctioned harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects.

The author of the Arizona law -- which has drawn strong opposition from top Obama administration officials -- has cited the authority granted in the 2002 memo as a basis for the legislation. The Obama administration has not withdrawn the memo, and some backers of the Arizona law said Monday that because it remains in place, a Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona would be awkward at best.

"The Justice Department's official position as of now is that local law enforcement has the inherent authority to enforce federal immigration law," said Robert Driscoll, a former Justice Department Civil Rights Division official in the George W. Bush administration who represents an Arizona sheriff known for aggressive immigration enforcement. "How can you blame someone for exercising authority that the department says they have?"

The Arizona law, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer (R) last month, makes the "willful failure" to carry immigration documents a crime and empowers police to question anyone if authorities have a "reasonable suspicion" the person is an illegal immigrant. It has drawn words of condemnation from President Obama and intense opposition from civil rights groups, who on Monday filed what they said was the fifth federal lawsuit over the legislation.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has said the department is considering a lawsuit against Arizona, and Civil Rights Division lawyers have been studying the law and consulting with some civil rights groups.

RELATED: At Legal Insurrection, "Leadership by the Wilfully Ignorant."

1,000 Americans Dead in Afghanistan

And naturally, New York Times is fast out of the gate with the news. See, "Grim Milestone: 1,000 Americans Dead":

On Tuesday, the toll of American dead in Afghanistan passed 1,000, after a suicide bomb in Kabul killed at least five United States service members. Having taken nearly seven years to reach the first 500 dead, the war killed the second 500 in fewer than two. A resurgent Taliban active in almost every province, a weak central government incapable of protecting its people and a larger number of American troops in harms way all contributed to the accelerating pace of death.

The mayhem of last August, coming as Afghans were holding national elections, provided a wake-up call to many Americans about the deteriorating conditions in the country. Forty-seven American G.I.’s died that month, more than double the previous August, making it the deadliest month in the deadliest year of the war.

The Times focuses on the death of Private Patrick Fitzgibbon, who stepped on an IED in August 2009. But readers should check the slideshow at Knoxville News, "Remembering Patrick Fitzgibbon: Knoxville soldier killed in Afghanistan."

The main story is here, "Suicide Bomber Hits U.S. Convoy in Afghanistan":

A man driving a Toyota minivan crammed with explosives steered into an American convoy Tuesday morning here, killing 18 people, including five American soldiers and one from Canada. At least 47 people were wounded, nearly all of them civilians caught in rush-hour traffic.

The blast sent a fireball billowing into the air, set cars aflame and blew bodies apart. Limbs and entrails flew hundreds of feet, littering yards and walls and streets. The survivors, many of them women and children, some of them missing limbs, lay in the road moaning and calling for help.

In a passenger bus, an Afghan woman lay dead in her seat, cut in half; with her baby still squirming in her arms. Fifty yards away, a man’s head lay on the hood of a truck.

“I just dove on the ground to try to save myself,” said Mahfouz Mahmoodi, an Afghan police officer. “And then I got up, and I saw the terrible scene.”

The assault demonstrated anew that the Taliban can still strike the capital — if not every day, then with regularity.

The Taliban took responsibility for the attack in a posting on its Web site, saying the group had dispatched a young man named Nizamuddin, a resident of Kabul. The Taliban said that Nizamuddin carried more than 1,600 pounds of explosives in his van.

See Jules Crittenden as well, "Forever War" (via Memeorandum).

Elvis Costello Stabs Israeli Fans in the Back

The New York Times reports, "Elvis Costello Cancels Concerts in Israel."

And at Blazing Cat Fur, "Elvis has left.... my record collection."

Elvis Costello boycotts his own concert in Israel. What's so funny bout' peace love and jihad?

And notice the "peace and understanding" flourish to Costello's statement:

It has been necessary to dial out the falsehoods of propaganda, the double game and hysterical language of politics, the vanity and self-righteousness of public communiqués from cranks in order to eventually sift through my own conflicted thoughts.

I have come to the following conclusions.

One must at least consider any rational argument that comes before the appeal of more desperate means.

Sometimes a silence in music is better than adding to the static and so an end to it.

I cannot imagine receiving another invitation to perform in Israel, which is a matter of regret but I can imagine a better time when I would not be writing this.

With the hope for peace and understanding

Down with jihad. Damn. Good music too, but I guess moral cowardice is the true meaning of "peace, love, and understanding."

'Super Tuesday' Primaries Today: PA-12 is Bellwether for November Elections

Robert Stacy McCain's been doing on-the-ground reporting on Republican Tim Burns' campaign in Pennsylvania's 12th District. The big meme is that Democrats need a win in PA-12 if they're to have any chance of avoiding a bloodbath in the November midterms. See, "Pennsylvania Race May Show Democrats Which Way Midterm Winds Blow":

WAYNESBURG, Pa. — Sam Boyd has been a Democrat his entire adult life, just like many here in this mostly rural, economically impoverished southwestern corner of the state, where the party’s roots run as deep as the coal underfoot.

But in Tuesday’s closely watched special election to succeed the late Representative John P. Murtha in the state’s 12th Congressional District, Mr. Boyd, 65, is leaning toward casting his vote for the Republican candidate, Tim Burns, a millionaire former software entrepreneur who got involved in politics through the Tea Party movement.

“I’m for Burns for the reason I was for Obama,” said Mr. Boyd, a retired general contractor who served as an unpaid campaign liaison for Mr. Murtha in his county. “I want change.”
Whether or not Mr. Burns pulls off a victory over his Democratic opponent, Mark Critz, in what polls suggest is a competitive race, voters like Mr. Boyd embody the nightmare scenario for Democrats nationally: that even committed Democrats will turn on their party.

David Weigel reports on the right's excitement over PA-12, "The conservative media go all in for Tim Burns." And see Chris Cillizza, "Incumbent Armageddon?: What to watch for" (via Memeorandum). See also Dan Balz, "Primaries may help foreshadow November elections."

RELATED: At Politico, "What to watch in Tuesday's primaries." (Via Memorandum.)

Blumenthal Exaggerates Vietnam Record: Linda McMahon Takes Credit for 'Oppo Research'

God, I love this story!

"Blumenthal Exaggerates Vietnam Record," from Linda McMahon for Senate (double-click to watch):

And at Politico, "GOP takes credit for New York Times hit" (via Memeorandum):

Pulling back the curtain on journalistic sausage-making usually hidden from voters, a Republican Senate candidate is taking credit for the front-page New York Times story accusing Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of “plainly untrue” remarks about Vietnam service.

But a New York Times spokeswoman said: "[A]nyone reading it can tell that it was the product of extensive independent reporting — including our FOIA of his military records."

The campaign of World Wrestling Entertainment co-founder Linda McMahon, who is seeking the Republican nomination to run against Blumenthal, is doing little to discourage suggestions it provided the sort of opposition research to The Times that is known around campaigns as an “oppo dump.”

Shawn McCoy, a McMahon spokesman, told POLITICO: “As we have researched Dick Blumenthal's record, we've discovered some very troubling disparities between what he's said and the facts. This is a serious blow to his credibility.”

Making the claim more explicitly, McMahon's campaign website has re-posted, as an "In Case You Missed It," a blog entry by Kevin Rennie of South Windsor, a lawyer and a former Republican state senator and representative:

“McMahon Strikes Blumenthal In NYT Article ... The piece, fed to the paper by the Linda McMahon Senate campaign, is accompanied by a chilling 2008 video of Blumenthal blithely making the false claim. ... The Blumenthal Bombshell comes at the end of more than 2 months of deep, persistent research by Republican Linda McMahon's Senate campaign. It gave the explosive Norwalk video recording to The Times. This is what comes of $16 million, a crack opposition research operation.”

It's true. "Candidate’s Words Differ From His History" is posted right there at McMahon's home page. In fact, it's the first thing I saw while checking out the story.

And man, is this scandal burning up the web. Love it!

Also, at Hot Air, "Bombshell: Democratic Senate candidate lied about serving in Vietnam; Update: Blumenthal responds, sort of."

In Defense of Arizona's Ethnic Studies Law

An essential essay, from Stanly Fish, "Arizona: The Gift That Keeps On Giving":

The loud debate over the recently passed Arizona House Bill 2281, which bans from the public schools ethnic studies courses that promote race consciousness, is a clash between two bad paradigms.

The first paradigm is embedded in and configures the bill’s targeted program, the Mexican American Studies Department of the Tucson Unified School District, which, its Web site tells us, adheres to the Social Justice Education Project model. That model includes “a counter-hegemonic curriculum” and “a pedagogy based on the theories of Paolo Freire.” Freire, a Brazilian educator, is the author of the widely influential book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.”

Freire argues that the structures of domination and oppression in a society are at their successful worst when the assumptions and ways of thinking that underwrite their tyranny have been internalized by their victims: “The very structure of their thought has been conditioned by the contradictions of the concrete, existential situation by which they were shaped.” If the ideas and values of the oppressor are all you ever hear, they will be yours — that is what hegemony means — and it will take a special and radical effort to liberate yourself from them.

That effort is education, properly reconceived not as the delivery of pre-packaged knowledge to passive students, but as the active dismantling, by teachers and students together, of the world view that sustains the powers that be and insulates them from deep challenge. Only when this is done, says Freire, will students cease to “adapt to the word as it is” and become “transformers of that world.”

To say that this view of education is political is to understate the point, although that descriptive will not be heard by its adherents as a criticism. The Social Justice Education Project means what its title says: students are to be brought to see what the prevailing orthodoxy labors to occlude so that they can join the effort to topple it. To this end the Department of Mexican American Studies (I quote again from its Web site) pledges to “work toward the invoking of a critical consciousness within each and every student” and “promote and advocate for social and educational transformation.”

If the department is serious about this (and we must assume that it is), then there is something for the citizens of Arizona to be concerned about. The concern is not ethnic studies per se — a perfectly respectable topic of discussion and research involving the disciplines of history, philosophy, sociology, medicine, economics, literature, public policy and art, among others. The concern is ethnic studies as a stalking horse or Trojan horse of a political agenda, even if the agenda bears the high-sounding name of social justice. (“Teaching for Social Justice” is a pervasive and powerful mantra in the world of educational theory.)

It is certainly possible to teach the literature and history (including the history of marginalization and discrimination) of ethnic traditions without turning students into culture warriors ready to man (and woman) the barriers. To be sure, the knowledge a student acquires in an ethnic studies course that stays clear of indoctrination may lead down the road to counter-hegemonic, even revolutionary, activity; you can’t control what students do with the ideas they are exposed to. But that is quite different from setting out deliberately to produce that activity as the goal of classroom instruction.

RTWT at the link.

RELATED: Victor Davis Hanson, "How Could They Do That in Arizona!"

Elena Kagan: Unsupportive of the Men and Women Who Are Fighting to Protect Us

The White House is going on the offensive big time to tamp down the growing backlash to High Court nominee Elena Kagan.

Newt Gingrich hammered Kagan over the weekend, highlighting her anti-military record and calling for President Obama to pull her nomination.

And in case you missed it previously, Bill Kristol launched a devastating attack on May 10th, "An Anti-Military Justice? Do Ask, Don't Confirm":

For me, the key obstacle to Elena Kagan's confirmation is pt. 5 in Ed Whelan's NRO post, which is also the question raised by Peter Berkowitz in these pages several years ago and by Peter Beinart just recently: Her hostility to the U.S. military.

Hostility? Isn't that harsh? Kagan has professed at times her admiration for those who serve in the military, even as she tried to bar military recruiters from Harvard Law School. But how does one square her professed admiration with her actions --- embracing an attempt to overturn the Solomon Amendment that was rejected 8-0 by the Supreme Court --- and her words?

Consider these words in particular from her letters to "All Members of the Harvard Law School Community": On Oct. 6, 2003, Kagan explained that she abhorred "the military's discriminatory recruitment policy....The military's policy deprives many men and women of courage and character from having the opportunity to serve their country in the greatest way possible. This is a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order." On Sep. 28, 2004: "...the military's recruitment policy is both unjust and unwise. The military's policy deprives..." etc. And on March 7, 2006: "I hope that many members of the Harvard Law School community will accept the Court's invitation to express their views clearly and forcefully regarding the military's discriminatory employment policy. As I have said before, I believe that policy is profoundly wrong -- both unwise and unjust...," etc.

Notice, time and again: "the military's discriminatory recruitment policy," "the military's policy," "the military's recruitment policy," "the military's discriminatory employment policy."

But it is not the military's policy. It is the policy of the U.S. Government, based on legislation passed in 1993 by (a Democratic) Congress, signed into law and implemented by the Clinton administration, legislation and implementation that are currently continued by a Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress. It is intellectually wrong and morally cowardly to call this the "military's policy." Wrong for obvious reasons. Cowardly because it allowed Kagan to go ahead and serve in the Clinton administration that enforced this policy she so detests, and to welcome to Harvard as Dean former members of that administration, as well as Senators and Congressmen who actually voted for the law--which is more than the military recruiters whom Kagan sought to ban did.

RTWT and check the links.

Miss Oklahoma Morgan Elizabeth Woolard Supports Arizona SB 1070!

Morgan Elizabeth Woolard took the runner-up prize at last night's Miss USA 2010 pageant after answering a politically-loaded question on Arizona's SB 1070. At Fox News, "Miss Oklahoma Named First Runner Up in Miss USA Pageant After Answering Immigration Question":

Miss Oklahoma Morgan Elizabeth Woolard lost the crown to Miss Michigan Rima Fakih.

An unhappy crowd booed Miss USA judge Oscar Nunez when he asked Miss Oklahoma Morgan Elizabeth Woolard a question about Arizona’s immigration law on Sunday night’s pageant.

But could Woolard's answer have cost her the crown?

The "The Office" star asked Woolard if she supported Arizona’s right to enforce the law, which requires police to verify a person's immigration status if there's "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the country illegally.

Woolard said she supports state's rights, adding that she is against illegal immigration, but is also against racial profiling.

"I'm a huge believer in states' rights. I think that's what's so wonderful about America," Woolard said. "So I think it's perfectly fine for Arizona to create that law."

The night's events mirrored last year's pageant, when gossip blogger Perez Hilton asked Miss California Carrie Prejean if she believed in gay marriage. Prejean said she didn't, and a media firestorm ensued, with many arguing that it cost her the Miss USA title.

And that's what's so interesting: Miss Woolard certainly anticipated the possibility of a politically loaded question, and boy did she get one. And without missing a beat she smacked a home run over the stadium walls. My bet is that a year from now Morgan Elizabeth Woolard will be a household name while disaster winner Rima Fakih will be an afterthought.

Also interesting is how leftists are up in arms over the conservative reaction to Miss USA's Muslim affirmative action beauty contestants, but it's no problem when "The Office" star Oscar Nunez launches a torpedo shot at Miss Oklahoma. Nope. Everybody's down with that, just like last year.

Also at Gateway Pundit, "Figures. Miss Oklahoma Places Second in Miss America Contest After Saying She’d Support Arizona Immigration Law (Video)."

Pamela Geller on Huckabee!

At Atlas Shrugs, "HUCKABEE VIDEO: Pamela Geller on 911 Mosque at Ground Zero":

See also, Stop Islamization of America, "SIOA 911 MEGA MOSQUE PROTEST."

Newt Gingrich Attacks Kagan Nomination and Obama's 'Secular-Socialist Machine'

Newt Gingrich is on something of a tear this week. Huffington Post is up in arms today over the former House Speaker's slam on Obama's High Court nominee Elena Kagan:

And then there's Crooks and Liars goon John Amato, freakin' at Gingrich's FNS gig this morning, "Newt Gingrich says President Obama is Nazi-Commie "threat to our way of life":

Movement conservatives like Newt are very adept at talking around their far-out beliefs in a way that almost makes them seem reasonable. They know how to manage the language and play it like an instrument. His tone is muted, never going off pitch and always in control. That's their edge. Karl Rove does it as well.

Gingrich, who has changed his religion almost as much as his wives then uses God to justify his odious assertions about the President and what he calls his "secular-socialist machine."

Gingrich was a bit surprised, methinks, that Wallace called him out on his "wildly over the top" attacks on Obama and I think it's because Newt is parroting the exact same beliefs as Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and the Teas Partiers which have caused quite a bit of unrest for the GOP elders. And yet, Gingrich is one of the elders---never forget that.

That take is pretty much over the top. Gingrich is a "last generation conservative." He can fire up a crowd --- recall my coverage of his American Solutions talk in February --- but I can't imagine too many tea partiers drooling at the chance to share a couch with Nancy Pelosi to talk up Al Gore's "Alliance for Climate Protection" global warming campaign. Gingrich is obviously gearing up for the 2012 GOP primaries, and last I heard he was still pushing for the GOP to be the "party of yes." But man, no doubt he'll be livin' down some of his famous bipartisanship over the next 18 months. One "Maverick" GOP presidential nominee is enough:

BP Makes Progress in Capturing Gulf Oil Leaks

Check out the contrasting media spin: At Fox News, "BP's Latest Attempt to Siphon Oil From Gulf Is Successful, Executives Say." (Includes the accompanying video below.) And, surprisingly, at NYT, "BP Reports Some Success in Capturing Leaking Oil." (Via Memeorandum.) Even CNN provides a fairly objective report, "BP says tube successfully inserted back into Gulf leak."

In contrast, Alyssa Milano sends us over to National Geographic where an additional click takes us to this headline: "Gulf Oil Leaks Could Gush for Years: "We don't have any idea how to stop this," expert says":

Yesterday a smaller dome was laid on the seafloor near the faulty well, and officials will attempt to install the structure later this week.

But such recovery operations have never been done before in the extreme deep-sea environment around the wellhead, noted Matthew Simmons, retired chair of the energy-industry investment banking firm Simmons & Company International.

For instance, at the depth of the gushing wellhead—5,000 feet (about 1,500 meters)—containment technologies have to withstand extremely high pressures.

Also, slant drilling—a technique used to relieve pressure near the leak—is difficult at these depths, because the relief well has to tap into the original pipe, a tiny target at about 7 inches (18 centimeters) wide, Simmons noted.

"We don't have any idea how to stop this," Simmons said of the Gulf leak. Some of the proposed strategies—such as temporarily plugging the leaking pipe with a jet of golf balls and other material—are a "joke," he added.

"We really are in unprecedented waters."

The rest of the piece lays out all the worst case scenarios.

The spill is obviously a horrendous environmental disaster, but you'd think leftists would be the first to report progress on slowing the leaks. Amazing the progressive investment in environmental disasters.

Anti-Semite Noam Chomsky Denied Entry to Israel and West Bank

It would seem --- in a rational world --- that Noam Chomsky would be generating condemnation from both left and right, but things aren't always so rational, and in the aftermath of the MIT Linguistics Professor's rebuff by Israeli authorities, some folks on the left --- unsurprisingly --- are outraged. See for example, Steve Clemons, Ron Chusid, Taylor Marsh, and Village Voice.

But Chomsky's a longtime enemy of the Jewish state, so it's good and right for Jerusalem to defend its sovereignty. And it's worth noting why. See, for example, Benjamin Kerstein, "Noam Chomsky and the New Anti-Semitism." And from Chomky's entry at Discover the Networks:

According to the website Stand4Facts.org, Chomsky has made the following statements about Israel, Jews, and the Holocaust:

• “I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence.”
• “I objected to the founding of Israel as a Jewish state. I don't think a Jewish or Christian or Islamic state is a proper concept. I would object to the United States as a Christian state.”
• Israel is “a state based on the principle of discrimination. There is no other way for a state with non-Jewish citizens to remain a Jewish state…”
• “Israel is virtually a U.S. military base, an offshoot of the U.S. military system.”
• “There are a great many horrible regimes in the world. To take just one, the world's longest military occupation. There's little doubt that those under the military occupation would be much better off if the occupation were terminated. Does it follow that we should bomb Tel Aviv?”
• “Of course [suicide bombers are] terrorists and there's been Palestinian terrorism all the way through. I have always opposed it….But it's very small as compared with the U.S.-backed Israeli terrorism.”
• “I mean you’d have to go back to the worst days of the American South to know what it’s been like for the Palestinians in the occupied territories.”
• “What this wall [separation barrier] is really doing is…helping turn Palestinian communities into dungeons, next to which the bantustans of South Africa look like symbols of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination.”

Of a pattern with this animus toward Israel is Chomsky’s involvement with neo-Nazis and Holocaust revisionism. This saga began in 1980 with Chomsky’s support of Robert Faurisson, a French anti-Semite who was fired by the University of Lyon for his hate-filled screeds. (“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie,” Faurisson wrote.) Chomsky penned a preface to a book by Faurisson, explaining that the latter was an “apolitical liberal” whose work was based on “extensive historical research” and contained “no hint of anti-Semitic implications.”

Also, an interesting discussion here: "Paul Berman on Noam Chomsky."

Surrendering the Supreme Court to the Left? Wake Up People ... Elena Kagan's Radical!

From Sandy Garst, at Shenandoah's News Leader, "Kagen Too Radical for Supreme Court Seat":

I oppose Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. She has no judicial experience, and her main qualification is supporting Obama's radical and socialist views. In her senior thesis "Socialism in New York City (1900-1933)" she said "The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America." One can conclude from her statement that she is disappointed America still hasn't achieved that lofty goal of becoming a socialist nation.

As dean at Harvard, she opposed allowing military recruiters on campus because she disapproved of the "don't ask don't tell" policy. The Supreme Court ruled against her.

Concerning the First Amendment, she feels that free speech should be balanced on "the value of the speech against its societal costs." In other words, if the government says it's OK, then you can say it. And most importantly, she agrees with our president that our Constituition is defective. She feels the court's role is to protect the little guy even at the expense of the law. She believes our founders had "outdated notions of liberty, justice, and equality." She is most impressed with the changes in law that have led to "... the emergence of enhanced methods of presidential control over the regulatory state."

I don't believe Elena Kagan can be relied upon to provide an impartial interpretation of the Constitution. The founders set up a republic to keep the power with the people. Kagan believes the power should reside with the ruler, preferably a socialist ruler.

Well, yeah.

Not so hard to sink in, eh?

And no need to stop with op-ed analyses from everyday folks. We have Elena Kagan's own lamentations on the disaster of Ronald Reagan's election, "Nov. 10, 1980: Fear and loathing in Brooklyn":

Looking back on last Tuesday, I can see that our gut response — our emotion-packed conclusion that the world had gone mad, that liberalism was dead and that there was no longer any place for the ideals we held or the beliefs we espoused — was a false one. In my more rational moments, I can now argue that the next few years will be marked by American disillusionment with conservative programs and solutions, and that a new, revitalized, perhaps more leftist left will once again come to the fore. I can say in these moments that one election year does not the death of liberalism make and that 1980 might even help the liberal camp by forcing it to come to grips with the need for organization and unity. But somehow, one week after the election, these comforting thoughts do not last long. Self-pity still sneaks up, and I wonder how all this could possibly have happened and where on earth I’ll be able to get a job next year.

A more "leftist left"?

Well, we got that now, you think?

But to hear the chattering classes tell it, Kagan's actually a conservative. See NYT, "On Speech, Kagan Leaned Toward Conservatives" (via Memeorandum).

That's bull, of course: "Elena Kagan — Worryingly Wobbly On the First Amendment."

And when Miguel Estrada, George W. Bush's failed nominee for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, wrote a glowing letter in support of Kagan, the leftist press jumped on it with glee:

Talk about a class act.

You'll recall that Miguel Estrada's nomination to a prestigious federal judgeship was blocked by Democrats and left-wing groups who grossly distorted his record and used every conceivable trick to keep the young, brilliant and, yes, conservative lawyer off the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- and out of contention for an eventual spot on the Supreme Court.

But now, rather than join some of his fellow conservatives in blindly lambasting Elena Kagan, Estrada has offered an elegant and earnest testimonial advocating the confirmation of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee.

Jim Prevor responds at Weekly Standard, "The Right’s Supreme Court Acquiescence":

Miguel Estrada became something of a conservative hero as he endured the abuse of the left during his nomination process for the Appeals Court. There may be reasons for Republicans not to go to the mat on Kagan -- the next nominee may be worse, the Republicans may not hold their 41 votes, it may distract from issues such as the economy, etc. -- but there is no heroism in simply surrendering the Supreme Court to the left, which is the practical implication of Miguel Estrada’s letter.

Actually, no surrender. I'd rather fight than quit:

Image Credit: Bosch Fawstin.

BONUS: "Elena Kagan's Senior Thesis Princeton University," at No Sheeples Here! (But taken down at Red State following Princeton University copyright claims ... surprise, surprise, surprise!)

Jan Brewer and Sarah Palin: Secure the Border - Support Arizona

Gateway Pundit has the report and video, "Jan Brewer & Sarah Palin Hold Joint Press Conference Today on Border Security."

And here's the website and video for Brewer and Palin's "Secure the Border - Support Arizona":

Also, on Twitter, Governor Brewer and Sarah Palin.

Hey, What About That 'Divisive Rhetoric'? Meg Whitman Gets Tough on Immigration

In March, gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman argued that our immigration rhetoric was too harsh, and that illegal aliens should be shown tolerance and respect. Well, that fluffy posture's out the window now, no doubt because polls show Arizona Jan Brewer hitting all the right notes on immigration enforcement. Recall Whitman's earlier op-ed piece, "Immigration reform, with respect":

We need common-sense solutions to the problem of illegal immigration while preserving the many benefits our state derives from legal immigration.

Too often, the rhetoric surrounding this issue has been overly divisive and disrespectful to Latino American citizens. The country needs to have a thoughtful debate about how we stop the tide of illegal immigration that strains budgets and angers taxpayers. But the immigration debate must take place in a measured way that reflects our national aspirations toward tolerance, hope and opportunity.

Yeah. Yeah. Soft and squishy. Let's not be too tough on the border-hoppers.

Now Ole Whitman's singing a different tune, "Meg Whitman bites back on immigration":

Front-running GOP governor candidate Meg Whitman goes on the defensive in her latest TV ad – an indication that Republican opponent Steve Poizner’s attacks on his rival are effective. His emphasis on the issue of illegal immigration is seeming timely – at least among Republicans – given Arizona’s new law and support for it among some Californians.

Chicago's North Shore Illegals Fear Unwanted Attention as Arizona Steps Up Immigration Enforcement

Well, it's working.

You gotta know that it's not just the folks up in Highland Park, North Shore, Chicago. Now that Arizona's getting serious, other states and localities are taking notice, and not just the sanctuary-city kind.

At Chicago Tribune, "Highwood keeps a low profile: North Shore Latinos fear controversy could bring attention to quiet community":

About a mile from Highland Park High School, where earlier this month officials decided to keep the girls basketball team from traveling to Arizona, a quiet North Shore community has been guardedly monitoring the firestorm that brought the nation's heated arguments over illegal immigration to its doorstep.

It is in Highwood — where boutique pubs, antique shops and the occasional Mexican restaurant line the small town's commercial strip — that most of Highland Park High's Latino immigrant students live, local activists and parents say.

For that reason, the school district's self-described effort to protect its students from controversy over an Arizona crackdown on illegal immigrants has brought concerns about an unwanted spotlight to Highwood — even though, according to some students, it appears that none of the girls on the current basketball team are immigrant, Latino or Highwood residents.

"I'm a little bit wary of the situation," said Highwood Ald. Quintin Sepulveda, who is Puerto Rican and the first elected Latino official in the town of roughly 4,100 residents. "As good as [the district's] intentions might have been, some of the people I know who live here, they're a little nervous."

The anxiety stems partly from the reality that some of Highwood's immigrant residents are in the country illegally, local activists said. But it also has to do with concern that the controversy will attract the attention of bloggers and radio personalities to this mostly middle-class town of wood-paneled homes, art galleries and outdoor festivals.

"I'm really afraid they're going to bring in (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and that they'll start doing raids here and that's going to be real bad for the community," said one local activist, who asked that her name not be published. "For years, Highwood has been known as a friendly enclave of immigrants from all over the place."

Griff Jenkins Interviews Social Justice Teacher Ron Gochez: 'I Am Against Capitalism'

Robert Stacy McCain loves his Google bombs, but I'm telling you, I'm getting some of teh awesome search engine exposure with my reporting on Los Angeles revolutionary teacher Ron Gochez. I mean, seriously. Search for "Ron Gochez" and my entries top the list. I'm even beating Gochez on Facebook! Sweet. And lots of folks have been linking my stuff all around the web, on blogs, message boards, even BreitbartTV!

And listen to the interview. Gochez confirms he's socialist, declaring "I am against capitalism," and he attacks tea party patriots as "violent racists."

What's especially noteworthy here is the statement from L.A. Unified defending Gochez's rights to freedom of speech:

The teacher in question was participating on his personal time and the views he expressed during the gathering were his own and do not represent the views or opinions of the district. There appears to be no direct violation of district policy.

Some folks might cringe at this, for example, Todd Starnes: "‘Mexican Revolution’ Teacher Won’t Be Disciplined." But the issue is not so much Gochez's First Amendment rights (which should be protected), but the double standards. Radical left-wing hate speech is rampant in America's public schools, colleges, and universities. Diversity training, "institutional racism" indoctrination, and political correctness are poisoning kids' minds from Los Angeles to Denver to Boston and all points between. Just this week, in Hallsville, Missouri, a high school sophomore was disciplined for displaying a painting from his art class that depicted "President Barack Obama with a hammer and sickle symbolizing communism." And of course, also this week we had David Horowitz's confrontation at UCSD, where a Muslim student admitted support for a second Holocaust. Robert Spencer updates on that, "Muslim Students Association issues deceptive non-condemnation of UCSD student’s endorsement of genocide of Jews." And see my piece as well, "Mark Levine, Radical Pro-Islamist History Professor at UC Irvine, Calls David Horowitz a 'Liar' on Sean Hannity's."

With Arizona's big recent pushback on immigration and ethnic studies, we're really turning a tide in the political debate. For 2010, It's not just small government issues anymore. It's the whole neo-socialist reconquista agenda being pushed by today's Democratic Party establishment. And it's long pased time to give these creeps the boot.