Right Wing Nut House

Put yourself in Iran’s place.

Every day, you read how nutty George Bush is, how he’s now got a “messianic complex,” how he believes the end times are here and the rapture at hand, and what a bloodthirsty war monger the President of the United States truly is.

Then Sy Hersh delivers a bombshell of a report saying that this crazy crusader is actually thinking of detonating a nuclear device on your sovereign territory. You put two and two together and come up with…a little bluff of your own:

Iran on Sunday brushed aside what it called a U.S. “psychological war” against its nuclear program after a published report described Pentagon planning for possible military strikes against Iranian atomic facilities. A report by influential investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker magazine, citing unnamed current and former officials, said Washington has stepped up plans for possible attacks on Iranian facilities to curb its atomic work.

The article said the United States was considering using tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran’s underground uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz, south of Tehran.

“This is a psychological war launched by Americans because they feel angry and desperate regarding Iran’s nuclear dossier,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told a weekly news conference.

“We will stand by our right to nuclear technology. It is our red line. We are ready to deal with any possible scenario. Iran is not afraid of threatening language,” he added.

That last bit is a little bluff of their own. If we decided to strike - conventional or nuclear - there isn’t much the Iranians could do to stop us and they know it. So the “scenario” involving severe degradation of their nuclear program is one that they are not only unprepared for but fear the most. And as far as them not being afraid of threatening language, I daresay the lights were burning late in the Defense Ministry last night in Tehran.

Some Middle Eastern analysts see a little triangular diplomacy among China, Russia, and the US as a way to stop the Iranian nuke program. Their reasoning goes thusly:

As much as China and Russia engage in the diplomatic maneuvers to pressure Iran, they are not expected to toe the U.S. party line. Their own respective great power agendas play a silent, but potent role in their maneuvers involving Iran. Russia is getting increasingly frustrated about the U.S. “crowding” the immediate neighborhood. Russian President Vladimir Putin bristled at the criticism that the recent elections in Belarus were rigged, simply because they did not bring about the breakup of ties between Russia and what the Western media derisively depict as “the last dictatorship in Europe.” Russia also remains on the defensive about the proposition from the West that it is backing away from democracy. U.S.-Russian competition in Central Asia has become rather nasty.

China is equally annoyed at the Bush administration’s intermittent depiction of it as competitor or even as a “potential adversary.” Beijing was displeased by reports that the recently signed U.S.-India nuclear deal was also aimed at “containing” China.

In view of these conflicting agendas, both Russia and China envision their ties with the U.S. as becoming increasingly competitive. Consequently, Iran’s nuclear enrichment program emerges as an issue where the two countries have ample maneuvering space to extract a “grand bargain” with Washington regarding issues that are of great strategic significance to each of them.

China especially might see pulling American chestnuts out of the fire as just the leverage it needs to get concessions on regional issues, perhaps even on Taiwan if we get worried enough about Iranian nukes. And Putin, lowering the iron fist ever so slowly on his people, could see helping to get an agreement on Iranian nukes as a way to get those pesky American human rights and democracy advocates off of his back.

All of this depends, of course, on America not taking pre-emptive and early action against the Iranian nuclear sites. While the temptation to do so might be great, whatever we give up with regards to Russia and China may look like a great deal if we can avoid the consequences of bombing Iran. In that respect, diplomacy still looks like the best bet - especially since we have at least 3 years and perhaps as long as 5 before Iran presents us with their little nuclear fait accompli.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and their flighty, on-again-off-again chief Mohamed ElBaradei will be paying a visit to the Iranians this week to try and get inspections going again. What good they can do at this point may be ephemeral in that the Iranians have been able to conceal most of their program from the prying eyes of the IAEA, probably developing a so-called “two track” program that includes a civilian component that is relatively open and a military one that is clandestine.

As long as we can keep the Iranians guessing about our response, the more cautious and off balance they will be. That can only bode well for any negotiations that are sure to be initiated after the UN meets at the end of this month to once again discuss sanctions against Iran.

As much as I’ve ragged on them in the past, there’s a soft spot in my heart for the Washington Post.

As a national newspaper (much moreso than the New York Times - especially lately) the Post provides unparalleled coverage of international events. Their foreign correspondents are without peer in distilling news from abroad into readable, timely articles that give both context and information with a minimum of bias.

With several pronounced exceptions on the Iraq War that I’ve pointed out, their coverage has been a cut above that of most papers in the War on Terror. I’ve taken issue mostly with their stable of liberal columnists and their national security coverage which is dependent on unsourced leaks from disgruntled intelligence agency personnel and one reporter - Walter Pincus - who may be in league with Ray McGovern’s moonbat crew; the Veteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity (VIPS). In addition, their political coverage has been lacking a certain perspective on the national agenda, as well as supplying a healthy bias against Republicans, which has made the paper quite the shallow read when it comes to domestic issues. (Occasionally, they run a nice think piece in the Sunday edition but day-to-day coverage is lacking).

Their editorial page is, for the most part, reasonable although here again their bias in favor of the Democratic party is pretty obvious. But Washington is a “company town” and that “company” is the permanent, unelected government of bureaucrats who scurry hither and thither, gossiping and chatting the day away, passing information on to Post reporters who gleefully report the foibles and fables of the elite. For whatever reasons, people who are Republicans in Washington end up on “K” Street while people who end up in the agencies tending to the welfare state are Democrats. There are a lot more of the latter than the former to be sure. Washington is the most Democratic city in the country, even moreso than Chicago. It is simply the nature of the beast that they would reflect the bias of the vast majority of their readers.

During the 1980’s when I lived in the Washington area, I looked forward every Sunday to getting a copy of the Washington Post and spending the entire morning poring over the sections, gleaning information from a variety of sources while taking great pleasure in some fine writing and penetrating analysis. I understand the Sunday edition has shrunk considerably over the years which saddens me but, given the state of the newspaper business, I’m hardly surprised by it. It just seems a shame that a resource so valuable should lose some of its luster due to a falloff in readers.

Why the sudden love note about the Post? I read this editorial this morning and remembered why the Post is still a fairly honest voice in our national debate. We might not like some of the news they write but that’s not their fault; events can be unwelcome and they are, after all, just the messengers.

I’m glad to see the Post out front of the pack in their web coverage as it appears most of their features are also published on their webpage. And while their initial experiment in blogging may have been a total disaster, word is out that they are looking to hire both a liberal and conservative blogger - which should make for some interesting back and forth between the two if nothing else.

Yes, I spend a lot of time and effort criticizing the Post and other print media. But that’s only because I love the tradition that newspapers represent. They offer a thoughtful take on the world around us that television news cannot match. And they are vital to the national debate in that they offer editorial space to all sides of an issue, allowing one’s thinking to churn, to ripen, and finally crystallize into an intelligent, intellectually defensible position. Television news cannot do that for you. Only a newspaper can.

It’s Sunday. And I miss my Washington Post today…

If you plan on perusing lefty websites today, I highly recommend you put on a hazmat suit and take along a Geiger counter. Also, please make sure you’re wearing a good pair of cowboy boots because not only is it getting thicker and deeper than usual in moonbat land, but many of the denizens of the fever swamps have detonated their own weapon of mass stupidity regarding the possible use of nuclear weapons by the United States to destroy the underground infrastructure of Iran’s nuclear program.

I personally think military action to take out Iranian nukes is self-defeating. But don’t tell the Iranians that. In fact, the more uncertain President Ahmadinejad is about our intentions, the better.

This little stratagem about keeping the Iranians guessing about our intentions seems to be lost on our rabid dog left wing who have swallowed what is almost certainly a deliberately planned leak on our military options against the mullahs and regurgitated the most hysterical nonsense this side of the Scooter Libby story:

John Aravosis: “Bush is out of control.”

Kevin Drum: “It may or may not be a bluff, but the PR campaign for an air strike against Iran is clearly moving into high gear.”

The Mahablog: “Our President, George W. Bush, has a messiah complex…”

HuffPo: “Imagine the unimaginable: George Bush becoming the first president to use nuclear weapons on another state since Harry Truman, and get this, without even declaring war.”

May we have a little sanity please? Dan Reihl:

To not plan for a possible military option as regards Iran’s nuclear program would be foolish. Emphasis my own, of course one plans for many contingencies. Said planning is as much a part of the diplomatic dialog as anything else and Think Progress and the AP are basically carrying the White House’s water by spreading the report. Too bad they can’t do it less sensationally.

Mr. Reihl tries valiantly to correct the record on what exactly Sy Hersh said in his anonymously sourced article but I fear he is getting the same result as whippoorwill singing in a whirlwind:

We don’t need mushroom clouded brains thinking about and discussing options for Iran just now. We need reasoned debate on a topic which poses a serious risk to world peace. An oil-rich country with no current need for nuclear energy appears determined to develop a nuclear capability, after having declared their desire to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.

No reasonable nation has gone on record as suggesting stopping them is a bad thing, most find it necessary. Planning for that is the prudent step. Characterizing it as demon, warmongering Bush taking up nuclear arms to confront Iran is not only silly, it’s harmful and misleading for the necessary discussion at hand.

Actually, Think Progress has a good round-up of a series of leaks in the past couple of weeks all designed to make the Iranian leadership very, very uncomfortable. Despite their bluster about nothing being able to stop their efforts to develop their “peaceful” use of nuclear energy, the fact is they are scared witless about an American strike. They realize that the military would insist on not only taking out their nuclear infrastructure but also their air defense system and probably their naval capabilities as well. Saddam never did fully rebuild his air defense system following the punishment it took during the Gulf War in 1991. And the Iranians need their navy in order to project the kind of regional hegemony to which they aspire.

One thing for sure; these leaks are putting enormous pressure on the domestic political situation in Iran which now pits the radicals who have pretty much taken over all top government positions against the not-so-radicals who used to run things and are mightily upset that Ahamdinejad has blown their nuclear cover and bollixed things up on the international stage so that Iran is once again a pariah nation:

Many Iranians are critical of Ahmadinejad’s forays into international affairs and his diplomatic blundering. The most intense and meaningful criticism has come from relatively centrist figures who represent an older generation of politicians - former Presidents Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, for example. They have spoken out against the undoing of their work, particularly the painstaking restoration of Iran’s relations with the international community.

[...]

The international isolation Iran is facing due to its intransigence has contributed to the growth of fissures within Iran’s body politic. In an effort to end public debate on this subject and criticism of the executive, Rafsanjani announced at a March 8 meeting of the Assembly of Experts - a popularly elected body of 86 clerics tasked with supervising the supreme leader - that it was time for national unity in the face of “enemy” plots. Divisive comments, he said, undermined national unity.

The next day, Ahmadinejad accused unnamed Iranians of being agents of an enemy trying to divide the country. These efforts, he continued, were connected with the desire to undermine Iran’s nuclear pursuits. And on March 10, Friday prayer leader Hojatoleslam Ahmad Khatami’s sermon in Tehran, which was broadcast across the country by state radio, shed light on the political coloring of the call for unity. Khatami (no relation to the former president) noted that the current nuclear policy was not Ahmadinejad’s alone and had been shaped years earlier. “The decision was first taken during the previous government’s term of office. The current government is implementing the same decision now.” As for domestic critics, he said, “When the time comes, the great Iranian nation will give a harsh response to the insiders who move in the same direction as the enemies, just as it has given decisive responses to foreigners.”

And into this charged up atmosphere comes the anti-Bush forces screaming, in effect, that it is unfair not to tell Iran that we have no intention of using nuclear weapons or initiate a military strike of any sort. The left calls this “confidence building” - which is a pretty good descriptive except the only people’s confidence such a tactic builds is our own domestic moonbats whose opinion and confidence in their own superior moral certitude is affirmed. Meanwhile, our enemies snicker behind their hands and keep building their nuclear capability.

This past week has seen the Jack-in-the-Box left in all of it’s glorious moonbattery jumping up and down over a story that not only has been reported before but which promises to actually vindicate Bush in his denial that he ever told anyone to leak Valerie Plame’s name.

Given what’s at stake in Iran, I would hope that whatever the Administration decides to do about it, most of us from both the right and left would be supportive. I honestly don’t think the military option is in play in any serious way. Only if we discovered that Iran was closer to building a bomb than we thought or if they gave reliable indications that they were planning on using such a weapon against Israel or the United States would we go with a military option.

And there is absolutely zero chance - zero, zip, nada - of the US using nuclear weapons on Iran. Even with nukes that will detonate below the surface, there is going to be massive radioactive fallout drifting toward Russia - something I’m sure would cause President Putin to cancel his membership in the Official US Fan Club.

But for the loony left, it’s just one more way to bash Bush. So let them have their fun. It’s actually playing into the Administration’s strategy to give the Iranians pause and make them realize we can cause serious damage to both their military infrastructure and political unity.

From our friends at the Times of London, a possible answer to a mystery and the total destruction of some pretty loony conspiracy theories; the riddle of who forged the so-called Niger Uranium Documents may have been solved:

TWO employees of the Niger embassy in Rome were responsible for the forgery of a notorious set of documents used to help justify the Iraq war, an official investigation has allegedly found.

According to Nato sources, the investigation has evidence that Niger’s consul and its ambassador’s personal assistant faked a contract to show Saddam Hussein had bought uranium ore from the impoverished west African country.

The documents, which emerged in 2002, were used in a US State Department fact sheet on Iraq’s weapons programme to build the case for war. They were denounced as forgeries by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) shortly before the 2003 invasion.

Is that the end of the story? Hardly. Because what this investigation also confirmed - and buttressed by the the British Butler Commission as well as our own Senate Select Committee Investigation - was that another document that was not a forgery was used as a basis for the claim that Saddam was trying to purchase uranium from Niger:

Some time in 2002, however, they obtained another apparently incriminating document, the source said. This was a letter purporting to be from al-Zahawie relating to a visit to Niger in 1999 to discuss the possible supply of uranium. This did not constitute evidence that Niger had agreed to supply yellowcake but it did indicate Saddam was trying to obtain it.

The letter, deemed “credible” by the Butler inquiry into Iraq intelligence, appears to be the evidence that led to Bush’s claim in January 2003 that the British had “learnt that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”.

(emphasis mine)

It turns out that the French had a paid agent who was trying to bilk French intelligence into buying a forged document about an actual uranium sale to Saddam from Niger. This was after the agent had established his bona fides by handing over an authentic document about a visit to Niger by the Iraqi Ambassador to the Vatican (a man obviously with a lot of time on his hands).

The French, smelling a rat, spotted the forgery immediately and refused to pay. It was later in 2002 that the French obtained another authentic document this time detailing the meeting in 1999 between the same Iraqi Ambassador and a former Niger Prime Minster where unspecified trade topics were discussed. Since Niger’s exports are extremely limited - cowpeas, livestock, and onions as well as uranium - it doesn’t take an expert to guess what commodity was under discussion.

Just for fun, let’s look at those dreaded 16 words one more time from the SOTU in 2003:

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

For the mentally challenged among you, let me sum up: 1) a document is passed to the British government from the French authenticating claims that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Niger, 2) This is exactly what Bush said. 3) Joe Wilson is a scurvy liar.

Does this really matter?

Of course not - not in any way that counts. I suppose for the record, historians will have a good laugh at the lefties who twisted their panties into knots screaming that Bush lied about Saddam and Niger uranium. But in the current political climate where the impeachment drums are starting to beat louder and louder the closer we get to November, this will be lost in the shuffle and the lie will continue to be told. Or, as is the case when one of their strawmen is knocked down, the left will pretend they never mentioned it and move on to the next meme.

In trying to decide how to respond to this thoughtful, yet seriously flawed article by David Neiwert, I had my pick of several different threads where the author, in an effort to ferret out what he considers to be “racism” and “hate” on right wing blogs, actually reveals some profound truths about the left and their total cluelessness regarding what constitutes legitimate debate in a free society about race and public policy.

Neiwert’s thesis - that right wing “movement” bloggers are “transmitting” the very same themes and ideas that fascists and racists espouse only dressed up in mainstream intellectual couture - is an old one, as ancient as similar lines of attack followed by the left against William Buckley, Barry Goldwater, and the bête noire of liberals Ronald Reagan. The assault is based on false assumptions, setting up straw men, towering intellectual conceits, and a moral absolutism with respect to one’s own privileged frame of reference regarding issues of race, class, and politics.

It should be noted that Mr. Neiwert has done more than most to expose the dark underbelly of the extreme right, writing extensively on the Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist movements in the Northwest. His book, Death on the Fourth of July was well received and praised for its penetrating look at hate groups and hate crimes.

That said, Mr. Neiwert should be ashamed of himself. By trying to connect right wing bloggers and the positions they advocate on the issues, however tangentially, to the haters, the Hitler lovers, the cross burners, and the racial purists, he demonstrates an arrogance commonplace on the left where it has become de rigueur to simply mouth the words “racist” and “fascist” in order to cut off debate on the issues and destroy any moral authority to which their opponents might aspire.

Mr. Neiwert sets up his hit piece by recalling his visits to a Neo-Nazi compound before it was shut down by Southern Poverty Law Center, a truly unsung organization, having done more to eliminate race and ethnic hate groups through the creative use of lawsuits than even the government. After this promising beginning, Neiwert descends rapidly into madness:

The compound represented an era when white supremacists were relegated to the fringes of American society. And while their tireless efforts to promote racial hatred were now muted, their simultaneous efforts to gain mainstream acceptance — particularly by disguising themselves and muting their core beliefs — had obviously begun to take root.

What was most disturbing was, even in 2000, the way the mainstream conservative agenda was beginning to resemble the politics of longtime racists like David Duke and Richard Butler, the Aryan Nations leader: bashing welfare recipients, attacking affirmative action, complaining about “reverse discrimination,” calling for the elimination of immigrants. Since then, this trend has only accelerated, to the point that old-fashioned haters like Duke and the National Alliance are finding their ranks thinned by followers who just become Republicans.

How many straw men can one writer set up in a paragraph or two?

First of all, it might be helpful to give Mr. Neiwert a little history lesson. “Bashing welfare recipients” (welfare reform) “attacking” affirmative action and complaining about (quotes please) “reverse discrimination” - as if such a thing didn’t exist - calling for the “elimination” (?) of immigrants (immigration reform) are in fact, conservative issues. The only problem with Mr. Neiwert’s notions of insidious issue creep by racists and fascists into the mainstream of conservatism is that he is blaming the responsible right for the fact that the racists adopted these issues, mixed them into an unrecognizable porridge of nauseating half truths and bowdlerized slogans, and spewed the result onto the internet and elsewhere trying to appear reasonable.

In short, while trying to connect Neo-Nazis to conservatives, Mr. Neiwert makes a classic, some would say stupid mistake; he puts the cart before the horse. It was not conservatives who adopted these issues from the extremists; it was the other way around.

I would suggest to Mr. Neiwert that his next article deal with the adoption by the Communist Party USA of many liberal issues such as racial justice, anti-war agitation, universal health care, and reigning in corporate power. Or better yet, he might want to take on Osama Bin Laden and that worthy’s peculiar habit of regurgitating liberal talking points about America, the war, and western civilization every time he makes a videotape.

It should make for some interesting reading. Especially the part where I’m sure Mr. Neiwert will point out that communists don’t “hate” anyone nor, for that matter, does Osama desire anything more than America leave his poor, benighted beheading jihadis alone. Yet Communists have proved themselves over the years to be inveterate haters of everything that we Americans - even patriotic liberals like Mr. Neiwert - love about this country; freedom and liberty for the individual. Any bets on what would happen if the CPUSA actually managed to seize power here? There hasn’t been a communist revolution yet that didn’t prominently feature gulags and “re-education camps” in their takeover brochures. Osama, of course, has his own axes to grind - literally.

Not content with straining every effort to connect conservative bloggers to hate groups, Neiwert then sets up the most extraordinary canard I’ve ever seen on a lefty website: that, in fact, this “transmission” of hate issues into the conservative mainstream has already happened and that righty bloggers have in fact become closet racists only awaiting the right moment for their bigotry to show itself in all its glory:

The main mechanism for converting mainstream conservatives into right-wing extremists and white nationalists is a process I call transmission: extremist ideas and principles are repackaged for mainstream consumption, stripped of overt racism and hatefulness and presented as ordinary politics. As these ideas advance, they create an open environment for the gradual adoption of the core of bigotry that animates them.

This strategy was first enunciated by Patrick Buchanan back in 1989, in a nationally syndicated column that expressed a level of kinship with David Duke, who at that point was building momentum in a bid to win the Louisiana governorship. Buchanan thought the GOP overreacted to Duke and his Nazi “costume” by denouncing him; he urged:

Take a hard look at Duke’s portfolio of winning issues and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles, [such as] reverse discrimination against white folks.

It was a simple formula: Look at the issues that attract white supremacist votes, strip out the racism (or anything inimical to good public relations for the GOP) and present them to the public as fresh, “cutting edge” ideas. In the process, you’ll attract a lot of middle-class white voters who harbor unspoken racial resentments.

Put aside the personal affront to the integrity and intent of conservatives. This is just plain ignorance. Conservatives didn’t need David Duke or any other extremist to come out against reverse discrimination. The Bakhe case was decided in 1979 - 10 years before Pat Buchanan wrote his political analysis regarding the efficacy of Duke’s “issues.” Again Mr. Neiwert is ascribing views held by extremists as being adopted by conservatives instead of the other way around. By trying to make conservatives responsible for how extremists attach themselves to their issues while at the same time smearing the entire conservative movement, Neiwert reveals himself to be little more than a petty partisan hack, an ideologue who can’t tell the difference (or deliberately obfuscates it) between legitimate arguments about public policy and the coarse, bastardization of conservative issues by the haters.

It is monstrous calumny to accuse conservatives thusly. Especially dressing his screed up, as Mr. Neiwert does in this piece, as some kind of psychological analysis of the motivations and deeply held beliefs of conservative bloggers. At bottom, the way conservatives are attacked in this piece says more about the arrogant, smug, self-righteous, self congratulatory left than it does about the people it seeks to deliberately defame.

What are we really discussing here? Nothing less than the ability to debate public policy issues without one side having recourse to use blood libel terms like “racist” in order to delegitimatize the thoughts, words, and deeds of one’s opponent. This is the reason “race” as a matter of public policy cannot be discussed rationally. The left starts with the premise that any deviation from its base assumptions on race is non-negotiable - an advantage they see as set in stone as the Ten Commandments. Hence, one cannot discuss reforming affirmative action because to do so is, by definition, racist.

Neither is it possible to discuss immigration reform as evidenced by Mr. Neiwert’s loony contention that conservatives have adopted the extremists viewpoint of “eliminating immigrants” - one would assume both legal and illegal - which is a laughable corruption of the conservative’s belief that the laws of the land currently on the books should be enforced and that in a just society, one group should not be treated differently by the law than another. Ergo, what should be a necessary and vital debate on the nature of law and society not to mention the very real and vital issues of securing our borders, allowing for orderly immigration to the United States, and dealing with the problem of illegal immigrants already here, instead degenerates into more name calling and a ghastly oversimplification and distortion of the conservative position - par for the course when the left feels it is losing an argument with the American people.

Neiwert then takes on conservative bloggers in a specific and, from my point of view, dubious way by positing that 1) Glenn Reynolds is a “right wing blogger”, 2) that commenters at right wing websites don’t speak for the proprietor of that blog (unless they really do), and 3) that David Neiwert is a mind reader of such stupendous gifts that he should be classified as a secret weapon by the Pentagon, so incisive and penetrating his analysis of people’s thoughts and motivations.

After taking blogger Michelle Malkin and Reynolds to the woodshed for their ideas on Mexican irredentism - a notion currently being mainstreamed itself by leaders of the current round of immigration protests - Neiwert reveals that attacking the reconquista issue is in and of itself, racist:

Malkin, in truth, was simply following in the footsteps of the most prominent right-wing blogger, Instapundit Glenn Reynolds, who for several months in 2004 was likewise promoting the “reconquista” notion while arguing, groundlessly, that the student organization MEChA was a pack of “fascist hatemongers” comparable to the Klan.

But in Malkin’s case, the thread from far-right extremism to mainstream consumption is especially pronounced, since she herself has a considerable history of dalliances and associations with extremists and far-right organizations, most notably VDare, the SPLC-designated hate group that publishes not just Malkin’s work but that of Steve Sailer and Jared Taylor.

Malkin, of course, has never explained her association with VDare, just as Reynolds never recanted his groundless smearing of MEChA. Similarly, they never confront the effects of their reliance on old appeals from the far right, because that would undermine the whole enterprise.

Malkin is perfectly capable of defending herself although I will point out that her articles in VDare appear courtesy of Creative Syndicate which gives her about as much “connection” to VDare as any writer would have to a site that publishes their articles through an agreement with a third party. I suppose Mr. Neiwert could have missed that very salient point in his haste to smear Mrs. Malkin. As an aside, it might be interesting to see what websites some of Mr. Neiwert’s articles have turned up on. He may not like the results of such a search.

But calling Reynolds a “right wing blogger” is a surprise - especially, I’m sure, to Glenn who has made it clear on almost a daily basis that he is not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. His dissatisfaction with conservatism is well known by most of us on the right which means either Niewert can’t read or he simply chooses to ignore the facts.

That said, calling MEChA “fascist hatemongers” may be a touch hyperbolic but I’ll let the reader decide. Neiwert links to an article that points out MEChA’s founding document never mentions “reconquista” which is true. But the “El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan” mentioned in the linked article does contain some interesting ideas regarding “reclaiming the land” of their forefathers and a despicably racist statement for its motto:

The Plan Espiritual appears to translate the foregoing principles into a militant plan of action. The Plan offers an ahistorical counterrevolutionary version of Manifest Destiny for Chicanos:

In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal “gringo” invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano, Mexican, Latino, Indigenous inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our sangre [blood] is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny.

It explicitly states that Aztlan does not belong “to the foreign Europeans” and declares MEChA’s refusal to “recognize capricious frontiers on the Bronze continent.” And then, following these remarks, the Plan goes further still, uttering those infamous words:

. . . . [W]e declare the independence of our mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.

The translation of that last little ditty is “On behalf of the Race, everything. Outside the Race, nothing.”

But hey! Don’t call them hatemongers!

Here’s where Neiwert employs his mind reading powers to their fullest extent:

Rather, they trot them out for consumption and play coy about any of the deeper implications of what they’re saying. Then, they leave it up to their readers to complete the connection.

Thus, the editors at sites like Little Green Footballs, Free Republic, or RedState provide few substantive instances of outright racism — but plenty of examples of repackaged extremism. Their commenters, however, are another story altogether; as we’ve seen, their audiences are all too glad to revel in the underlying bigotry.

The end result is a poisonous environment in which not merely the ideas, but the endemic attitudes and worldview, of the racist right receive not just fresh clothes but a whole new generation of adherents. This is why, for instance, so much naked eliminationism aimed not just at illegal immigrants and Muslims but, generically, “treasonous” American liberals has become inextricably interwoven with right-wing rhetoric in recent years.

First of all, may I propose a truce? We on the right will stop holding liberals responsible for what unhinged lefty commenters say on their sites if liberals stop the same practice regarding idiots who comment on right wing blogs. The notion that our commenters (I’m stifling a laugh here) “complete the connection” to our racist views is absurd. I had to reread that part to make sure that a grown up had actually written something so dramatically out of kilter with reality. For once again, Mr. Neiwert takes the legitimate policy positions taken by responsible conservatives and tries to destroy them by linking the ideas behind them with the mindless gibberings of the haters. Doesn’t he get tired of pulling both the horse and the cart?

When political writers like Neiwert try to play amateur psychologist by pretending to examine the innermost feelings of people for which they feel nothing but contempt and hate, the result is predictable; a slanderous, disjointed, and in the end, disquieting example of what passes for rational thought on the left. Neiwert’s piece is symptomatic of the level that civil discourse in this country has descended. And it speaks volumes to why this sad state of affairs will not be turned around anytime soon.

UPDATE

I experienced a full blown mandible gravity event when I read this bit of idiocy from David Anderson of ISOU:

The Firedoglake post makes some great points about racism in the conservative blogsphere. I find it interesting that one of the most vile racist [sic] is Michelle Malkin, who in a White Supremist [sic] Society would be at best a concubine for some Brownshirt. Perhaps Michelle has not payed [sic] much attention to her own image in the mirror lately, but HELLO, Michelle… You are a BROWN PERSON. If your Utopia ever came to pass, you might… as a reward for being a collaborator, get to work as a maid in Anne Coulter’s house, but having kissed Anne’s rear end so much, LaShawn barber [sic] would probably beat you to that job.

Thus speaketh the mainstream left.

Looks like Republicans in the Senate got the message on immigration: No amnesty, dramatically tighten border control, and get serious about illegal immigrants already here. By voting en bloc to open up the bill to the amendment process, Senate Republicans have probably scuttled the process entirely:

The Senate sidetracked sweeping immigration legislation Friday, leaving in doubt prospects for passing a bill offering the hope of citizenship to millions of men, women and children living in the United States illegally.

A carefully crafted compromise that supporters had claimed could win an overwhelming majority received only 38 of the 60 votes necessary to protect it from weakening amendments by opponents.

Republicans were united in the 38-60 parliamentary vote but Democrats, who have insisted on no amendments, lost six votes from their members.

Earlier Friday, President Bush prodded lawmakers to keeping trying to reach an agreement, but both sides said the odds were increasing that a breakthrough would not occur until Congress returns from a two-week recess.

We can add a charge of incompetence to the growing list of sins committed by the Republican Senate. To even offer a bill that contained “guest worker” provisions smacks of stupidity given the backlash by their conservative base on the issue over the last few weeks. Frist and Co. should have also known the Democrats were not going to let them off the hook by allowing this “compromise” to pass with amendments (such as removing or severely modifying the amnesty program). Once again, Frist has bungled.

And this guy wants to be President?

Brietbart seemed to be asking the same question:

Frist, R-Tenn., a potential presidential candidate in 2008, sought to establish more conservative credentials when he initially backed a bill limited to border security. At the same time, he has repeatedly called for a comprehensive bill _ adopting Bush’s rhetoric _ and involved himself in the fitful negotiations over the past several days.

Some leadership.

The bill itself is an incoherent mish-mash that little resembles what the House of Representatives passed. The “guest worker” program is ludicrous:

Illegal immigrants here more than five years could work for six years and apply for legal permanent residency without having to leave the country. Those here two years to five years would have to go to border entry points sometime in next three years, but could immediately return as temporary workers. Those here less than two years would have to leave and wait in line for visas to return.

Simply handing illegals a permanent resident card who’ve managed to evade capture for more than 5 years by hiding in enclaves where they remain undocumented and unassimilated will only encourage others to try and emulate them. After all, the immigration issue comes up in Congress every decade or so. Might was well amble across the border and wait for the next opportunity for politicians and businessmen to come up with one more plan that they won’t call amnesty but will for all intents and purposes be exactly that.

It gets loonier. All we ask of immigration scofflaws who’ve been here between 2-5 years is to show up at a border crossing and get a “temporary” workers’ permit.

That permit will be about as “temporary” as the insanity that seems to infect our lawmakers when they try and deal with immigration issues.

Let’s hope that Senate Republicans come to their senses and deal with illegal immigration as it should be dealt with; as a matter of national security and as an issue of fairness to the tens of thousands of legal immigrants who play by the rules only to see their honesty rewarded by being slapped in the face by their elected representatives.

UPDATE

In “The Definition of Amnesty” Michelle Malkin nails it:

Guess what? None –not one—of those amnesties was associated with a decline in illegal immigration. On the contrary, the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. has tripled since President Reagan signed the first amnesty in 1986. The total effect of the amnesties was even larger because relatives later joined amnesty recipients, and this number was multiplied by an unknown number of children born to amnesty recipients who then acquired automatic US citizenship.

And as I’ve noted before, there is no such thing as a “temporary” amnesty.

This entire debate is eerily reminiscent of campaign finance reform. Every time we muck with federal election laws governing political contributions, bigger and better loopholes are discovered by the army of lawyers who cater to the campaign contribution industry. It’s ridiculous.

UPDATE II: VINDICATION!

Slightly off topic, here’s Mickey Kaus on Mexican irridentism quoting a prominent Mexican-American author who is seeking to mainstream the idea of reconquista.

I got a chuckle out of both Taylor Marsh and C-Span host Steve Scully during my appearance last Sunday when I brought up the resistance to assimilation by some Mexican illegals and how that has led to a growing movement to “give back” portions of US territory to Mexico. I said at the time this was nothing to laugh at. The quotes from this author prove me correct.

A reoccurring theme that I’ve written about on this site has been the war by national security apparatchiks in the CIA, the State Department, and even in the Department of Defense against the Bush Administration’s foreign policy. Powerline, among others, has covered this subject in great detail - a subject largely ignored by the mainstream press. This is unfortunate because most of the Administration’s actions in the Plame Affair need to be understood in this context if one is interested in getting to the heart of the motivations behind what was going on.

This is not to say that the “outing” of Valerie Plame was in any way a justifiable act. Even if, as some claim, it was common knowledge that Joe Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, naming CIA employees in print is unconscionable. This has been a favorite gambit of the left for more than 30 years, done to undermine the agency’s effectiveness and can simply never be countenanced.

But the question unanswered by the President’s critics is how do you pushback against unelected bureaucrats who are not only undermining policy, but also attacking the credibility of the Chief Executive of the United States of America? Do you sit in the Oval Office and simply take it? Do you allow these partisans who used selective leaking of classified information in order to deliberately try and defeat a political rival at the polls, to operate with impunity while American men and women are fighting and dying overseas?

The arrogance and hubris exhibited by the leaking clique in the CIA and State Department - unelected, unaccountable, unhinged - demonstrates the dysfunctionality of those vital departments. This incompetence and bureaucratic game playing led directly to the tragedy of 9/11 and will, if not stopped, be the death of many more of us.

Scooter Libby evidently felt he had permission to leak parts of the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that showed the consensus of the government - not the selected, cherry-picked leaks of opposing viewpoints that came out later during the Presidential campaign - was that:

* Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

* We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.

* Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.

* Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons grade fissile material.

This was not “twisted” intelligence. It was not invented out of whole cloth. This was the best guess of our intelligence professionals gleaned from hundreds of discussions, thousands of pages of documents, and discussion and debate at the highest levels of our intelligence apparatus. It was then presented to the President and it was up to him - the elected leader of the government - to act on it or not.

The President chose to act. And when some of that NIE turned out to be wrong or overblown, the leakers, the bureaucratic ass coverers, the partisans, and the ideologues crawled from underneath the rock they were hiding and unleashed a blizzard involving the most brazenly criminal and incontrovertibly illegal dissemination of classified material in memory. Not since Nixon had to deal with our SALT fallback negotiating position showing up on the front page of the New York Times has a President had to scramble to stem the flow of damaging leaks.

This is the context in which Joe Wilson wrote his little editorial heard ’round the world - a screed that his since been shot so full of holes that swiss cheese is whole by comparison. Wilson was lying. The Vice President did not send him to Niger. His junket was not an exercise in fact finding. If it was, one must ask why Wilson’s “report” was never disseminated to the White House. And of course, Wilson mis-characterized his own findings when he said that there was no evidence that Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa. Two separate inquiries - one in the Senate and one British - concluded that in fact Saddam was seeking to buy yellowcake uranium to augment the 500 tons he already possessed and had in storage at the Al-Tuwaitha nuclear facility.

We know all of this. The fact that it has to be repeated time and time again says more about how the media and the left continue to flog the dead horse of pre-war intelligence than it does about the White House pushback against the leakers. By dressing the same pig up in different couture, the President’s critics seek to raise long dead charges under different auspices in order to damage his credibility further and undermine support for the Iraq War with the American people.

Even the New York Times recognizes there’s nothing new to the Scooter Libby “revelations” except to grouse that their own publishing of classified information is not getting a pass:

The testimony by the former official, I. Lewis Libby Jr., cited in a court filing by the government made late Wednesday, provides an indication that Mr. Bush, who has long criticized leaks of secret information as a threat to national security, may have played a direct role in authorizing disclosure of the intelligence report on Iraq.

The disclosure occurred at a moment when the White House was trying to defend itself against accusations that it had inflated the case against Saddam Hussein.

The president has the authority to declassify information, and Mr. Libby indicated in his testimony that he believed Mr. Bush’s instructions — which prosecutors said Mr. Libby regarded as “unique in his recollection” — gave him legal cover to talk with a reporter about the intelligence.

The fact that the President “has the authority to declassify information” seems to have escaped the notice of people like Andrew Sullivan, David Corn,, and Christy Hardin Smith among others. The Washington Post is even more definitive in its judgement on the legality of the issue:

Legal experts say that President Bush had the unquestionable authority to approve the disclosure of secret CIA information to reporters, but they add that the leak was highly unusual and amounted to using sensitive intelligence data for political gain.

“It is a question of whether the classified National Intelligence Estimate was used for domestic political purposes,” said Jeffrey H. Smith, a Washington lawyer who formerly served as general counsel for the CIA.

Indeed, a tough case to make either way regarding “domestic political purposes.” Was there an element of politics involved in the leak? I don’t doubt it. But - and this is something the President’s critics never, ever give him credit for - was there also an effort to pushback against those who sought to undermine Bush’s credibility?

The answer to that question is clearly yes. And I think the overwhelming evidence points to this being the major reason for the Plame Affair, this particular NIE leak, and other actions taken by the Administration to defend their good name. To not acknowledge these facts - as the left and media never do - is to beggar belief. Bush’s critics would have him sitting in the oval office emasculated, his credibility in tatters, while his enemies flitted from reporter to reporter leaking a steady stream of classified information with the President’s men constrained from responding because in order to do so, they must leak back. Meanwhile, our men and women are fighting in Iraq and watching as their Commander in Chief twists slowly in the wind, hung by a cabal of shameless, partisan, witchhunters who worked against the interests of the United States as determined by her elected leaders.

A totally unsatisfactory state of affairs but one not of the President’s making. I’ve had major differences with the President on Iraq. But this partisan effort to alter the historical record on pre-war intelligence time and time again for political purposes sticks in my craw. This is one issue on which I will continue to defend the President’s actions until the record is set straight.

UPDATE

With all my growling about motivations for the leaks, I never addressed the fact that this story has absolutely nothing to do with the Plame Affair except in a tangential way. Tom McGuire quoting from the Times article I linked above:

More air is let out of the balloon in paragraph six:

That is not just Libby asserting that the President was uninvolved in Libby’s leaks of the Plame info; it is Fitzgerald saying so too.

This hasn’t stopped some of the most amatuer, one dimensional, analysis I’ve ever seen on the web taking place at some of the top lefty websites:

Firedoglake: CONSPIRACY!! CONSPIRACY!!

Huffpo: NEENER! NEENER! NEENER!

War and Piece: HYPOCRITE! HYPOCRITE!

Austin Bay is a little more nuanced in his analysis. But then, a three toed sloth would be more nuanced in their analysis of this issue than anyone I’ve seen so far on the left:

Presidents and vice-presidents can declassify information based on their own good (or bad) judgment. That is a privilege and responsibility of the office. Their authority is near-absolute.Disseminating unclassified information isn’t a crime — no matter the technique used. The information can be disseminated at a press conference, in a press release, in a speech, or — yes– via leak. (UPDATE: Background links I should have included in the original post– though the president’s power in the sphere is common knowledge. The president is at the top of the Classification Authority hierarchy– he holds the ultimate clasification/declassification power. The vice-president is granted authority from the president. See this link to the relevant executive order regarding the vie-president. And I just found this article by Byron York which details the estension of presidential powers to the vice-president. York’s article emphasizes the formal codification of the vice-president’s classification powers, which is a change from past administrations.)

Reporters thrive on “leaks” because a leak usually means “scoop.” A leak can also mean “spin” but that’s an understood aspect of Washington’s political carnival. However, leaking properly declassified material isn’t a crime. Leaking classified material is illegal– and so is publishing classified material in a press release.

Double your pleasure…double your fun.

Here are the results for the last two Watchers Council votes.

March 24th Results:

COUNCIL

1st Place - “Autum Ashante: Child Prodigy Or Something Else?” from Education Wonks

2nd Place - “A Tale of Two Fathers” from Me.

3rd Place - “The Elephant on Campus” from Gates of Vienna.

4th Place - “Why Kant Couldn’t, and Still Can’t” from Dr. Sanity

5th Place - “Civil War or Not” from Done with Mirrors

NON-COUNCIL

1st Place - “What Did You Do in the Great Gulf War II, Grandpa?” from Florida Cracker

2nd Place - “Guest Post: Mamacita on the PC of Dumbing Down and Why This May Be the Most Important Post You’ll Read All Year” from Sigmund, Carl, and Alfred.

3rd Place - “A Reason to Believe” from the Belmont Club

4th Place - “What Frank Miller Was Talking About” from The Colossus of Rhodey
(Tie)
4th Place - “War of the Morlocks” from The Mesopotamian

March 31st Results

COUNCIL

1st Place - “A Slap in the Face” from Me.

2nd Place - “Walking Out On Their Futures?” from the Education Wonks
(Tie)
2nd Place - “What Bush Needs To Do To Come Back” from Joshuapundit

NON-COUNCIL

1st Place - “Open Letter To Reformist Muslims” from Unwilling Self-Negation

2nd Place - “Hummer Deathtraps Suck” from Winds of Change

If you would like to participate in the Watchers Council vote, go here and follow instructions.

Readers of this site know that lately I’ve become something of a gloomy gus about our prospects of succeeding in Iraq. By way of a short explanation, let me just say that this does not reflect any loss of confidence in the performance of our troops nor does it mean that I thought the invasion a mistake - yet. I do think that the political situation absolutely must be resolved as soon as possible so that the government can start addressing the numerous issues that confront the nation and contribute to it’s instability.

I was a little amused this morning to see that Prime Minister Jaafari is whistling past the graveyard when he says that Secretary Rice and Minister Straw’s visits this past week “backfired.” One thing about a backfire is that you better not be kissin’ the tail pipe when it happens and unfortunately for the soon to be ex-Prime Minister, he’s got his lips firmly wrapped around the exhaust hole. Now that 3 of the 5 major Shia parties that make up the dominant coalition have called for his resignation, his position is rapidly becoming untenable, although I see in this New York Times article that the reporter was able to scrounge up one - just one - member of the opposition who agreed that the foreigners should have kept out of the business.

Jaafari may be on the ropes but he’s hanging on in hopes that his patrone Muqtada al-Sadr will come to his rescue. Al-Sadr himself may be losing some influence due to the fact that his militia has been participating in the cycle of revenge killings and other sectarian violence that most Iraqis are now seeing as the main threat to peace and stability. Still, the self-styled religious leader has 100,000 men with guns and should not be taken lightly. How that power translates into political influence is probably being worked out as I write this. Expect the Prime Minister to be given a prominent cabinet post in the new government.

Despite the political deadlock, despite the continuing (but reduced) sectarian violence, and despite the continuing vitality of the insurgency, there is one small ray of hope - and it may surprise you:

81, 76, 50, 49, 43, 25

What are these numbers? This week’s Powerball winners? … No, they’re the number of troops that have died in hostile actions in Iraq for each of the past six months. That last number represents the lowest level of troop deaths in a year, and second-lowest in two years.

But it must be that the insurgency is turning their assault on Iraqi military and police, who are increasingly taking up the slack, right? 215, 176, 193, 189, 158, 193 (and the three months before that were 304, 282, 233)

Okay, okay, so insurgents aren’t engaging us; they’re turning increasingly to car bombs then, right? 70, 70, 70, 68, 30, 30

Civilians then. They’re just garroting poor civilians. 527, 826, 532, 732, 950, 446 (upper bound, two months before that were 2489 and 1129).

The sharp drop in American casualties is great news and is due to several factors, not the least of which is our constant improvement refining our ground tactics in fighting the insurgency. There is also the fact that we have deliberately reduced the number of combat missions (on orders from the Pentagon who presumably got them from the President) in order to reduce our killed and wounded. I want to say that this was not done for political reasons but the evidence is to the contrary. That said, by re-deploying our forces to the countryside and out of urban areas, we are forcing the Iraqi army and police to start doing the job (with American advisers always close by). The results there have been mixed so far. The Iraqi army seems to be making steady and even encouraging progress. The problems with the police - poor training, infiltration by militias and insurgents, and just not enough of them - have been well documented here and elsewhere.

But in looking at those numbers and seeing a slow, steady reduction in casualties as well as the attacks that cause them, one can barely discern a silver lining in the clouds. But none of it will matter if the politicians can’t get past their differences and forge a truly broad-based coalition government that will give the Sunnis some confidence that they will not be steamrolled by the Shia majority. The Shia’s are balking because in order to instill that confidence, they have to give up a heck of a lot more than they are willing to do at this point. It’s understandable. Like any political party that comes out on top in an election, they want the rewards that go with that victory. And having to give the Sunnis - their deadly enemies for so many years - cabinet posts and other assurances sticks in their craw. Right now, they are unwilling to go the extra mile. Whether that will change anytime soon may depend on how much pressure American Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad is willing to put on all the parties involved.

It’s a delicate job for Khalilzad who so far has proved himself fairly adept at keeping the process going despite the anti-Sunni violence and rhetoric from some of the radicals. He may have to insinuate himself into the process more forcefully to get the politicians off dead center which carries risks of offending the Shias - especially Ayatollah al-Sistani who is apparently sick of American interference, having refused to even open a letter from President Bush last week. At this point, there might not be a choice.

Reduced casualties is good news. Whether this is a lull before another round of increased insurgent attacks or whether it represents a slow petering out of the rebellion only time will tell. Either way, it won’t matter a fig unless we have a government sooner rather than later.

UPDATE

The Associated Press is reporting that the Prime Minister and other Shia members of the coalition have agreed to toss the question of Jaafari’s fate into the lap of Ayatollah al-Sistani:

Al-Attiyah said the deadlock had become “very complicated” and al-Jaafari’s supporters within the alliance want to ask the advice of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country’s most respected Shiite cleric, before deciding their next move.

Al-Attiyah said other Shiite politicians who are not affiliated with the major Shiite parties also have agreed to seek al-Sistani’s opinion.

Turning to al-Sistani shows the inability of the Shiite alliance to resolve the standoff, with many Shiite politicians fearing that a move to force out al-Jaafari would splinter their alliance.

A little speculation with your coffee…

I think this could be very good news. Prime Minister Jaafari needs some cover in order to step down gracefully (and safely) and al-Sistani may just provide it. By suggesting the PM step aside, the Ayatollah defuses a potentially dangerous situation regarding al-Sadr who would be very resentful if his Shia partners forced his hand-picked man out of office. Jaafari himself might be relieved in that his life expecancy probably would be reduced if he agreed to leave without the young cleric’s blessing. With Sistani taking the lead, al-Sadr can hardly complain about whatever decision the Ayatollah comes to.

Will al-Sistani rise to the occassion? Or will he toss the ball back to the negotiators and wash his hands of the situation? Keep in mind that al-Sistani has shown impatience with young al-Sadr in the past and he may see this as a perfect opportunity to put the upstart in his place. Watch this development closely, especially al-Sistani’s statement. It could be the break the negotiators need to get the process moving again.

UPDATE AND CLARIFICATION

The Commissar points out in the comments that the civilian casualty number for March is almost certainly too low. He read the Brookings numbers and believes that they reflect only a partial total for that month.

Given the level of violence and deaths during March I agree with that assessment. In fact, the last figures I saw on the sectarian violence alone since the bombing of the shrine in Samarra on February 22 was over 1300. That does not include those killed by car bombs, IED’s, and insurgent attacks.

While that diminishes the impact of the report slightly, I think the thrust of the report is still valid.

MORE: - In fact, the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count (ICC) site lists 193 Iraqi police and 901 civilians died in March for a total of 1094. Curiously, that number, while much higher than previous months, is lower than 6 months ago.

Don’t quite know what that means except we can only hope it’s a trend.

The revelations involving NBC’s attempt to “out” NASCAR fans as anti-Muslim bigots by having men who “look Muslim” wander around during a race in order to raise the ire of of race fans toward representatives of the Religion of Peace says something profound about the red state/blue state divide in America and the conundrum facing liberals as they seek to claw their way back into power in Washington.

The utter contempt toward ordinary Americans exhibited by NBC in this case would be shocking except that it is representative of a mindset that permeates the journalistic elite in New York and Washington as well as the political and cultural elites along the Potomac and the ivory towers of academia. The fact is, these groups have about as much interest in the lives of ordinary Americans as they do in the study of some primitive New Guinean tribal culture. We are anthropological curiosities to them, best suited to keeping our mouths shut and voting “correctly.” Beyond that, our strange beliefs as Christians, our focus on families (”dysfunctional,” of course), our dangerous flag-waving patriotism, and our silly, sappy, sentimentality when it comes to our feelings about this country are mercilessly derided as simple-minded, unsophisticated, and just plain stupid.

Herein lies the dilemma for Democrats and liberals in general: How do you cover up the fact that you feel such haughty disdain for the very people you absolutely must convince to vote for you so that you can regain power in Washington?

We got a dose of this scornful contempt in the immediate aftermath of the election in 2004. The caustic remarks dripping with sarcasm about “Jesusland” voters being too stupid to know where their own interests lay and the long, thumb-sucking magazine pieces accusing Bush supporters of being afraid of gays, of blacks, of Muslims, of any and all things “different” which dovetailed nicely with their pre-conceived notions that the NASCAR culture is, at bottom, in favor of re-establishing Jim Crow and throwing the sodomites in jail while making sex illegal and chaining women to the kitchen.

There are even efforts in blue states to stop “trading” with people and companies who live in ordinary America, as if people who live, work, play, go to church on Sunday, take off their hat when the flag goes by, and get choked up when they hear the national anthem live in a different country than the urban sophisticates who dominate the culture and to a large extent, the national conversation. We are told what is proper to believe, what we should watch on television, what cartoons are blasphemous, and which European countries are better than we are. We are instructed in what is “good” and even what is funny and what is not.

And when red state America rebels against this cultural tyranny by voting the way they think rather than the way they are told to, they are belittled as morons, mouth breathers, hicks, hillbillies, and dolts.

And liberals wonder why they can’t win an election for dog catcher in most areas of the country?

In truth, as we head into the silly season in politics, Democrats are going to have to find a way to put a lid on this attitude of loathing toward ordinary voters lest they be discovered for the insufferable elitist louts they truly are. This will prove to be more difficult than they think given that their base makes their feelings known toward ordinary voters every single day on the web. With cries of “American Taliban” echoing in their ears, somehow I don’t think evangelical Christians are going to feel too kindly toward a party that thinks them capable of the kinds of crimes against women and gays that these webnuts assure us hovers just below the surface of the “theocrats” beliefs. In their conspiratorial fantasies, the Republicans are conspiring with Christians to throw progressives to the proverbial lions while waiting for the rapture with a brew in one hand and a bible in the other.

In another context, it would be amusing. But since the KosKooks are dead serious about this, it poses an enormous problem for the Democratic party who, thanks to the stupidity and arrogance of the Republican Congress, have a shot at taking back both the House and Senate in November. How does one go about rhetorically satisfying a base that sees apostasy in saying anything nice about their cultural enemies in red states while sounding a soothing note to those very same voters in order to get them to swallow the blue pill on election day?

The Democrats are going to need help. In this, they can count on their allies in the media who view red state voters in exactly the same way as the netnuts; culturally backward ape-like creatures whose worldview must be shaped correctly by carefully managing what news is fit to be disseminated and what news should be finessed. This dance with the truth will be vital if the true feelings of the left toward their fellow citizens is going to be subsumed by the mainstream Democratic message of “change.”

What that change represents will also be finessed. It just wouldn’t do to inform the public that the first order of business for a newly seated Democratic House will be to start impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States. Beyond that, changing Iraq by cutting and running and altering the war on terror to one similar to pursuing bank robbers will also be in the cards. Along with their complete contempt for the nature of red state voters, Democrats show a disdain for their intelligence by hiding their web-driven agenda behind platitudes and sophistry.

“Exposing” red state America may be satisfying to the elites in a cultural context. But I don’t think the NASCAR dads, security moms, or evangelicals who voted for Bush 62 million strong in 2004 will appreciate the spitefulness their cultural “betters” direct their way when they once again fail to do as they’re told and vote for a radical liberal agenda.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin has a round-up of reaction to the Dateline story, including an interesting email from Ramsey Poston of NASCAR to NBC:

“This is outrageous for a news organization with the reputation of NBC to stoop to the level of attempting to create news instead of reporting it. Any legitimate journalist should be ashamed.”

This is directed to a “news show” that has been exposed time and again in the past of trying to manipulate images in order to make a story more “dramatic.” I hardly think they can feel any shame since any pretensions to being legitimate journalists went out the window years ago.

UPDATE II

Do my liberal friends think I’m exaggerating?

Check out this column in today’s WaPo from Harold Myerson about the DeLay story:

Let us not think that Tom DeLay’s decision not to seek reelection was prompted by merely temporal concerns. The Rev. Rick Scarborough, DeLay’s sometime pastor, told the New York Times that The Hammer confided in him last Saturday that “God wanted him to get out of that race.”

The broader question is whether such a deity still rules in Washington. As gods go, He was surely more ethically flexible than most. Lesser gods might frown upon bribery, fraud, greed and the abrogation of the democratic process, but this one was willing to overlook such trifles if they strengthened the Republicans’ hold on the House and were performed in a spirit of piety.

Yes DeLay is a very bad man who was mean to Democrats, kicked dogs, beat little children, and probably ate human flesh. But please note Mr. Myerson’s dripping sarcasm when talking about DeLay’s prayers and the snide comments about religion in general. I’m sure Myerson is giving a good chuckle to his elitist, snobby friends. But if one were to ask a person of faith what they thought of Myerson’s humor, somehow, I don’t think they would find it quite as amusing - even if they were a Democrat.