Right Wing Nut House

Andrew Sullivan was something of a pioneer at one time - a blogger who inspired a lot of people to get take up the obsession and join the conversation that was just starting to take off. He made a name for himself saying it with style, poking a sharpened stick into his targets, repeatedly drawing blood. There was a zest about his writing - witty in a Dorothy Thompson sort of way - a one man Algonquin Roundtable who could spout about any issue from nuclear deterrence to women’s hemlines.

He still has a rough kind of integrity. I say that because he feels he is being true to himself even if he can’t see what a monumental spectacle he is making of himself. And as long as a writer feels he is doing that, who are we to say he “lacks integrity?” Writing is such a personal craft, a bare naked exposition of one’s soul on paper, that only the writer, in those secret places he visits for approval or condemnation in his own mind, can say if he has remained true to the vision he keeps of himself in his imagination.

Sullivan has lost all respect on most of the right. I still find some of what he writes about conservatism compelling if only because his criticisms echo some of my own. But he has lost objectivity and can rarely summon the kind of clear thinking and hard eyed pragmatism that would allow his critiques to blossom into serious, reflective observations.

Oh Andrew. Quo Vadis, my friend?

This is only the second time in its nearly ten-year history that the Dish has gone silent. The reason now is the same as the reason then. When dealing with a delusional fantasist like Sarah Palin, it takes time to absorb and make sense of the various competing narratives that she tells about her life. There are so many fabrications and delusions in the book, mixed in with facts, that just making sense of it - and comparing it with objective reality as we know it, and the subjective reality she has previously provided - is a bewildering task. She is a deeply disturbed person which makes this work of fiction and fact all the more challenging to read. And the fact that she is now the leader of the Republican party and a potential presidential candidate, makes this process of deconstruction an important civil responsibility. We take this seriously as we always have. We want to be fair to her, and to her family, and to the innocent people she has brought into the spotlight. And we are not reporters. We are merely analysts trying to make sense of evidence already in the public domain, evidence that points in all sorts of directions, only one of which can be true.

Since the Dish has tried to be rigorous and careful in analyzing Palin’s unhinged grip on reality from the very beginning - specifically her fantastic story of her fifth pregnancy - we feel it’s vital that we grapple with this new data as fairly and as rigorously as possible. That takes time to get right. And it is so complicated we simply cannot focus on anything else.

There are only three of us.

I would first note the towering arrogance to believe anyone - even avid Sully fans - needs to read 440 words of explanation for why the Daily Dish would not be publishing anymore that day. Unless one were so totally in love with themselves to the point of being addicted to practicing self-fellatio, I would think about 2 sentences could have sufficed.

And to make this exercise in vainglorious blogger self promotion even more bizarre, Sully makes himself out to be a liar by posting an update to why he is not writing anything else on the blog for the day.

That’s right. He wrote on the blog to tell us that he was still not going to write anything on the blog.

I will leave it to my honored enemy Ace to deliver the coup de grace - with a very rusty, very dull scimitar:

Anyone else know of a blogger whose guest bloggers come in to say “Please excuse the insanity demonstrated by my host, he means well enough and he is, as far as we can tell, not a threat to himself or others”? Gotta be a first, right?

And yet here s/he is squawking about Palin’s “unhinged grip on reality” (nice wordsmithing there, by the way: Don’t you hate it when your grip becomes unhinged? I hate when my grip comes off its hinges).

And of course also engaging in extraordinarily tasteless, oblivious self-revelations about his/her twisted psychology. I have never in my life heard a man/woman rant so angrily about a woman’s vagina.

Palin’s vagina, in Andrew Sullivan’s telling, is a member of the Bavarian Illuminati. They’re all there — the Bildergsbergers, the Medicis, the Pope and the Jesuits, the Ghost of Richard Milhouse Nixon, and, of course, Sarah Palin’s genitalia.

You would just think that a professional homosexual like himself would have the good sense to refrain from unhinged-grip (whatever) pronouncements like “it’s the worst form of torture for interrogators to pretend to smear a suspect with fake menstrual blood” and “Sarah Palin’s vagina is the font of all evil in the galaxy.”

Just, like, whoa, dude. Maybe better to keep that mask on, eh? Maybe better to be a little more self-aware, and self-protective, than to keep on with this too-much-information jihad against female genitalia.

We get it. Girl parts are icky and apparently capable of well-nigh-superhuman levels of fecundity. They’re just sort of low-brow and workin’ class. Crude and boorish and devious things, these female genitals.

We get it. Please stop. Please stop.

I don’t have the vision or the desire to look into Sullivan’s heart and glean his intent in all of this. Michelle Malkin believes he is mentally unbalanced and has suffered an episode. She’s not the only one. Who knows? Reading what he wrote above and the “update” I wouldn’t discount anything at this point.

Judging from the bloggers who are writing about this episode, none of Andrew’s erstwhile friends on the left seem to be coming to his defense, or sharing in his anticipation of whatever “subjective reality” Andrew will view Sarah Palin’s book through. Reminds me a little of Cindy Sheehan who was lionized by the left for having the “moral authority” to hate Bush because he killed her son. We noted at the time that the more bizarre Sheehan’s behavior got and the farther left she lurched, her former allies tiptoed away hoping no one would notice that they were previously comparing her to Mother Teresa and Rosa Parks.

Has such a moment arrived for Sullivan? Has he gone so far off the deep end with this Trig birther nonsense that his credibility has been shot even on the left?

A shame. A crying shame, it is.

I risk life and limb writing about the former Alaska governor. Like the supporters of failed presidential candidate and official GOP weirdo Ron Paul, any negative comments I would make about the real conservative’s favorite MILF is going to bring an army of supporters to her defense while trashing me in the most unseemly terms imaginable.

Fortunately, I am well hidden in this corner of the blogosphere, and few real conservatives would be caught dead reading anything I write. However, Google search is ubiquitous in its reach and chances are, there are a couple of dozen Palinbots who will receive an email in their inbox informing them of my post. At that point, their email lists will fairly crackle with activity as my offense against the Goddess will be spread far and wide, bringing wrack and ruin down upon me.

Thus, I wade into the morass that Palin has made of her career with a little trepidation, but with a clear eye and my usual muddled head. The latter might usually be seen as a deficiency but when writing about Palin, it may actually prove a boon since what other frame of mind can you employ to write about a woman so challenged by fact and in love with fancy?

Let’s get the facts out of the way first; there has never been a vice presidential candidate that was treated so unfairly by the media in the modern age. The number of rumors, falsehoods, and lies that were published as fact about her is truly astonishing and has no parallel in modern politics. (Such blackening the name of candidates with prevarications was routine in the 19th century but died out when newspapers became more independent of parties.)

I am surprised that I have not read that Sarah Palin bites the heads off chickens and drinks their blood. Charles Martin took the trouble of listing the media lies about Palin, stopping at 84 linked entries - that’s links to the lies as well as links that clearly debunk the lies.

This does not include the vicious attacks made in various magazines from Vanity Fair to Redbook that repeat some of the lies while making up a few more of their own. I challenge any fair minded liberal to refute these facts.

I normally hate to see any conservative treated so abysmally by those who claim to be, if not unbiased, then fair; if not balanced, then reasonable. Palin’s treatment has been neither fair nor reasonable. Many explanations have been given for this including the unprovable assumption that liberals hate strong conservative women. I think many liberals hate all conservatives whether they are men, women, transgendered, or eunuchs. Their mode of attack changes a little from sex to sex so perhaps it appears they single out women of the right for special treatment, but it’s really all part of the same mindset; conservatives are poopy heads and nothing is out of bounds in criticizing them.

The question before us is can the narrative regarding Palin be altered to make her a viable candidate for 2012? With 60% of the American people currently dead set against voting for her for president under any circumstances, it would seem to be a very tall mountain for her to climb in order for her to achieve the respect of the voters; something she never had to begin with among a majority and seems to have damaged herself further by abandoning her office. Her tabloid like-presence in American culture has also dragged her down, as has the fact that very few of the elites in the Republican party take her seriously as a party leader.

And well they shouldn’t. They may fear her influence with the 20% or so of the party who would support her aspirations in 2012, but beyond that, they and most of the rest of us find it difficult to take one so shallow and uninformed seriously. As far as I can tell, she has done little in the intervening year since the election to rectify her appalling ignorance of the world, and even domestic issues like health care. The author of the “death panels” remark may have succeeded in scaring old people to death but if I were her, I would hardly stand on that as an accomplishment.

Her fan base - and indeed many on the right - applauded her fear mongering because they believe it slowed down the legislative process and got conservatives back in the game. I believe they are overstating her influence as there were other factors, including senior citizens both Democrat and Republican who were already up in arms over the proposed Medicare cuts who showed up in droves at town hall meetings and voiced their concerns. In effect, Palin may have simply tossed some nitro on an already volatile situation.

And this is the kind of leader these jamokes want?

What Daniel Larison and others refer to as her “psuedo-populism” appears to highlight her very “ordinariness” and “just folks” personae. The trouble with this as I see it is that there is an undercurrent of anti-intellectualism that undergirds her anti-establishmentarian shtick. She has made her shallow, depthless understanding of the world into a badge of honor, and indeed, her supporters push the idea that this is a positive good, that having a president as unversed in nuance as they are of policy and programs would be kind of neat. Sure would be a switch from all those brainy establishment elitists who don’t want to roll back the New Deal and Great Society, making this country into a true conservative paradise.

This is not to say that Palin is stupid. She’s intellectually lazy. I wouldn’t necessarily call her incurious in a George Bush sort of way but neither would I refer to her as possessing the innate intelligence of a Ronald Reagan who actually did change the narrative about himself. Reagan had an active, curious mind and the good sense to reach out to experts who educated him, as well as filling in knowledge gaps by reading voraciously. Palin does not seem to have that spark, that drive, that hunger for knowledge that anyone as ill informed as she admits herself to be should possess. Therefore, I hold no hope that she can transform herself into a reasonably well informed politician.

You can see where this piece has been going. No, I don’t think Palin can alter the narrative about herself in time for 2012, and I think it improbable that she will ever be able to rise above the level in American politics as a curiosity, a side show -grist for the conservative base who, if they get their wish and nominate her in 2012, will find that the political baggage she carries along with her determined ignorance will lead to a Reaganesque landslide for Obama.

In order for her to flip her position with the electorate, she has to want to change the reasons they hold such a low opinion of her - alter their perceptions by addressing their concerns about her. Unless and until I see that happening, the chances are good that she won’t even be able to win the GOP nomination much less the general election.

If America were an individual, she would long since have experienced an intervention where a trip to a competent psychiatrist would have been highly recommended.

Maybe our good friends France, Germany, and Great Britain could step in and gently make us confront our schizophrenia, pointing us toward the psychological help we need. I hear Russia is reasonable as far as hourly rates but Iran’s shock therapy might be just what the doctor ordered.

On one level, the debate in America over national health care is a political tussle. The mud wrestling, eye gouging, and hair pulling that is going on between the two sides can be seen in the context of many of our more contentious debates over issues like race, war and peace, or gay marriage.

But on another level - and I am not trying to be melodramatic - this is a fight over the soul of America. Perhaps all big political battles have this element lurking underneath the debate, but national health insurance, far more than any previous political scrum, holds the potential to change America in ways that even the most die hard proponents of the bill can’t imagine.

I have written often that change is what America is all about; that we stand still for nothing or nobody and that we either adapt to change and prosper or refuse to accept it and wither away. This process has always been affected by conservatism and it’s notion that there has to be some elements in our society that are worthy of handing down to the next generation, that change must be orderly, channeled, and that it fits in the framework laid out at our founding. In this way, the vast majority of Americans come to accept the change peacefully.

Why then the resistance to national health care? It isn’t just “tea baggers,” I would say to my liberal friends. There is genuine distress over this issue among at least 1/2 the population - probably more. Dismissing these concerns in a political context where opponents of reform are caricatured as (take your pick) racists, heartless monsters, or wildly out of touch “angry white men,” may be unavoidable, but I wonder if you realize that most opponents of national health care take issue with those cartoonish criticisms.

At bottom, most Americans really do see this issue as a question of what kind of country we should be. The latest Gallup poll reveals that there is great uneasiness over what the Democrats are trying to ram through:

More Americans now say it is not the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage (50%) than say it is (47%). This is a first since Gallup began tracking this question, and a significant shift from as recently as three years ago, when two-thirds said ensuring healthcare coverage was the government’s responsibility.

Gallup has asked this question each November since 2001 as part of the Gallup Poll Social Series, and most recently in its Nov. 5-8 Health and Healthcare survey. There have been some fluctuations from year to year, but this year marks the first time in the history of this trend that less than half of Americans say ensuring healthcare coverage for all is the federal government’s responsibility.

The high point for the “government responsibility” viewpoint occurred in 2006, when 69% of Americans agreed. In 2008, this percentage fell to 54%, its previous low reading. This year, in the midst of robust debate on a potentially imminent healthcare reform law, the percentage of Americans agreeing that it is the government’s responsibility to make sure everyone has health insurance has fallen even further, by seven points, to 47%. Half of Americans now say this is not the government’s responsibility.

I would hazard a guess and say that all the while that national health care was an abstract idea, it enjoyed broad support. But now that we’re getting close to actually realizing that goal, people are getting cold feet. And the reason goes to the heart of defining what this country is all about.

Whither government in America, ask the people? How much should we allow it to do for us without losing something essential that makes us who we are? Are we really all that different of a people from everyone else on the planet? Is there an identifiable “American character” that sets us apart?

Our ancestors certainly thought so. Alexis de Tocqueville agreed. Indeed, it may be out of fashion to talk about the basis of our Constitution, but if we ever forget the idea that all power flows from the consent of the governed and not the other way around, we are doomed to suffer a significant loss of personal freedom simply because government can do pretty much whatever it chooses to do unless the people withhold their consent. There hasn’t been a lot of that these last 40 years and government’s ravenous appetite to do what all governments, once created, and regardless of who is in charge, seek to do - control - has gotten out of hand.

This despite the best of intentions of government’s major cheerleaders, and their belief that society can be perfected with the application of the principles of social science; seek out root causes of society’s problems and address them.

In their eagerness to improve the lot of the American citizen, a government has been created that stopped asking permission and now simply runs roughshod over the very idea of “consent of the governed.” Perhaps American society has become too complex for government to stop its manifest destiny to control, influence, and otherwise interfere in our lives. It certainly seems that way when looking at national health care. And those Gallup numbers reflect that notion. No one understands what’s in the bill. All they know is that, for the moment, it massively increases the role of government in people’s daily lives.

I liken it to the very first draft initiated by President Lincoln during the Civil War. The riots that took place in New York City and elsewhere, along with the general unease with the very idea of conscription demanded by Washington was a symptom of something much bigger; the idea that the national government, for the very first time in American history, could reach out and tap the ordinary citizen on the shoulder. Prior to that, the only contact that most people had with Washington was through the Post Office. The draft (and other Civil War era initiatives like nationalizing currency) went against the ideal people held in their imaginations of what kind of country America was.

I think those Gallup numbers reflect a similar unease. And here is where the real schizophrenia of the American people is demonstrated.

People actually want health care reform. They want a public option. They want health insurance to be cheaper and available to all. And they don’t think people should be denied insurance just because they have a pre-existing condition that insurance companies say makes them ineligible. Every poll taken confirms these facts. We talk a good game with regard to self-reliance, individual liberty, and being true to our Founding principles. But when it comes right down to it, the majority of us want government to relieve our burdens and make our lives easier.

It may make us less free, but many of us are willing to trade that freedom for a little security.

You can argue that we’re not losing anything by having government eventually taking over 1/6 of the American economy, but that is nonsense. We are about to hand government an enormous amount of power along with the ability to control our lives in ways that can only dimly be glimpsed at this point. If you think this a positive good, fine. But please do not insult our intelligence by claiming that national health care will be so much better because we will get rid of evil insurance companies, ride herd on Big Pharma, or stick it to those rich doctors and hospitals.

I imagine despite the unease that people feel over health care reform, we will eventually come around to accept it if it passes. And we will continue to fool ourselves that the version of America many of us hold in our heads that celebrates the freedom and individualism that marked roughly the first 150 years of the American experiment is still a viable model to define who we are.

But eventually, that disconnect between who we are and who we think we are will have to be confronted. What will replace it? I haven’t a clue.

Maybe we can ask Spain for a second opinion.

Predictably, there wasn’t much of a meeting of the minds on anything except both sides are at fault and it is impossible - indeed traitorous - to think about saving the country from unmitigated disaster by working together to solve the twin crisis of deficits and Medicare reform.

Does anyone else think it kind of stupid to deliberately sit back and allow the country to spiral into bankruptcy and God knows what else because the thought of working together to save America is just too much to bear? There are several issues that simply will not be dealt with unless both sides can work together.

I am not making any startling revelation here. This is known to anyone with half a brain. It is unfortunate that many commenters on this site and many of my correspondents and commenters from Pajamas Media suffer from that condition. But why? Is it that you are not convinced that trillion dollar deficits run over a decade will not destroy us? Is it that you simply don’t believe that Medicare Part A will run out of money in 2015 or 2016 and that the deficit will have to come out of the general government fund? Or perhaps you are simply unaware that If we don’t start dealing with the rest of the Medicare crisis, we will find ourselves breaking the bank to pay for coverages?

Which is it? Are you stupid or do you hate America? I tend more toward stupid for the bunch of you because you might actually believe that one party or the other can solve these desperately serious problems without involving the other. The hard choices that will need to be made on both of these issues - and I mean draconian cuts along with tax increases - will never be addressed by either the Democrats or Republicans alone. Hence, the notion that a bi-partisan solution isn’t an option, or a convenience, or a pie in the sky, let’s not be beastly to one another, do gooder fantasy. It is a crying necessity and that’s all there is to it. Period.

Every year that passes where we don’t do something about this crisis makes it all the harder to deal with. Waiting until disaster has already befallen us to act is a fanciful idea - a ridiculous idea - a notion only fools and ignoramuses, blinded by extreme partisanship, could embrace.

The crisis is upon us. The solutions are unpalatable, and they will only become more so the longer we wait. Of this, there is no dispute, no disagreement among people from both sides of the political divide - from liberal Robert Samuelson to conservative Fred Thompson - who aren’t besotted with the ideological Kool-Ade being imbibed by their rabid, unreasoning bases. Politicians being skittish creatures, they will not make a move if it unleashes the anger and destructive bile that the opposing bases reserve for those who transgress against the idea that their opponents are satanic in their evil and can never be approached because to do so is traitorous to “the cause.”

This is not exaggeration or hyperbole. It is a statement of fact. I think Olympia Snowe was wrong to vote in favor of health care reform in committee but kick her out of the party because she is seeking a solution to the very real, very serious problems in our health care system? I think she went about it back asswards but people weren’t going after her for trying to make the Democratic bill better (an exercise in futility I will admit) but because she dared to work with the opposition in the first place. If representing your constituents by doing their bidding and working with Democrats to address the problems with the health care system is grounds for being dismissed from the Republican party, I daresay it won’t be very long before the GOP will be able to hold their convention in a telephone booth.

Judging by the comments I received on the article on this site as well as the emails and comments I got from PJ Media, it is apparent that I am tilting at windmills. My only hope is to give encouragement to those who read this site and who believe that logic and reason as a basis for political action, rather than ignorance and fear, is an absolute necessity if there is any hope that the US will survive the next couple of decades with anything close to the economy we have today.

As for the rest; I invite you to continue to carry on grasping for power in Hitler’s bunker. Eventually, you will be fighting over what remains of a country made prostrate by your foolish, and shortsighted hatred.

I probably shouldn’t write this. Every time I say that to myself, I get into trouble. And I still might hit the “delete” button before it’s published.

But I am spitting mad and feel the need to share my anger with those precious few of you who are not so blinded by partisanship that logic, reason, and above all, good common sense can’t be applied to a discussion about what happened at Fort Hood yesterday.

The rationalizations for Major Hasan’s rampage - his motives, his state of mind, even the environment in which he carried out his horrific attack - are being tossed about the blogosphere on both sides as if everything that can be known about the circumstances has already been revealed.

This must be the case because without any definitive word from authorities, from his friends and associates, or from Hasan himself, both lefty and righty blogs have already “solved” the mystery of motive and any argument to the contrary is “racist,” or “pro-jihad,” or “hate speech,” or “political correctness.” By far the most bizarre explanation for Hasan’s killing spree is that it was the result of some kind of weird Post Traumatic Stress Disorder transference where the good doctor heard so many horrible tales of what happened in Iraq that he cracked.

News flash: Everyone can’t be right. In fact, it is likely everyone is wrong. Was it an example of Muslim extremist terrorism? Or a reaction to bullying and name calling by brother officers? Or the prospect of being deployed to Iraq? A combination? None of the above?

I am making the same argument I made when six police officers were gunned down in Pittsburgh - the result, we were told, of the maniac listening to conservative talk radio and reading conservative literature. Trying to glean motive when a madman acts insanely is an exercise in futility. This is especially true when you pull such theories out of your ass because no investigation had been made at that point into the shooter’s motives.

Brainwashing and indoctrination are a separate issue. In this case, we know he attended a wahabbist mosque headed up by a radical imam. But regardless of the personal views of the imam, there apparently wasn’t a terrorist cell operating out of the mosque, nor are we aware that the imam preached jihad. Even if he did, there is absolutely no evidence that the kind of “immersion” necessary to brainwash an individual into committing suicide attacks was available to Hasan at his place of worship.

Needless to say, we are unaware of any other members of that mosque going on a shooting rampage anywhere in the US.

I am going to be accused of being in “denial” about this incident being a terrorist attack. I would rather be accused of waiting until the facts are in before making a judgment like that. I will also be accused of ignoring “Islamaphobia” and the terrorizing prospect of Hasan being sent to Iraq. I am not ignoring anything. Well…almost anything. Anyone who accuses me of ignoring “PTSD transference” as a motive is a loon. Not only because no one has ever heard of it but for the simple reason that only a psychological evaluation - not done yet - could uncover such a reason.

I hope you see what I’m getting at. In the rush to score political points against the opposition, one thing appears to be an afterthought; the unspeakable tragedy of 12 people having their lives extinguished for no good reason at all. In fact, both right and left bloggers are using the dead bodies of the victims to play “gotchya” with the opposition. And that’s what’s got me smoking hot this morning.

A couple of samples from prominent (second tier) blogs will illustrate what I am getting at:

Atlas Shrugs:

UPDATE: Shlep Smith has the jihadi’s cousin on the phone, Nader Hasan, and Schlep is lapping up the lies and he is doing the taqiya. Nader is saying the Malik was a great American. Hasan is saying that the mass murderer “was harassed” and that’s why he methodically planned and executed this massive attack on a US military installation.

He was not a convert. He is a devout Muslim who joined the army with a purpose.

“Methodically planned and executed?” Have we traced the shooter’s steps for the few hours prior to the attack? If not, how is Geller so sure? “Joined the army with a purpose?” He joined at age 17 against his parent’s wishes. How can Geller possibly say that? It’s not even a guess.

Hullaballo:

Regardless of motivation one would certainly hope, above all, that this had nothing to do with it. It’s pretty awful that one’s thoughts would immediately turn in that direction when something like this happens. But after Tim McVeigh, you have to consider it. (If the shooters were civilians, my thoughts would go in a different direction.)

Digby’s first thought was that it was right wing terrorists. The link goes to the “oathtakers” website - the group of military and law enforcement who re-swear to uphold the constitution and not obey any orders that go against it. The irrationalism of the Oathtakers is a separate issue but it is revealing that this moron just pulled that kind of crap out of absolute thin air. No execessive partisan spinning there, by God!

Stacy McCain:

A madman inspired by Vlaams Belang and incited to violence by right-wing extremists . . . Oh, wait. No.

IT’S THE JIHAD, STUPID!

Couldn’t have said it better myself, Pamela. A jihadi psychiatrist? Yeah, there’s your irony, Dr. Freud.

Excuse the dark sarcasm. Having spent the past week in upstate New York with Ali Akbar — yes, that’s his real name, and he’s a Southern Baptist from Texas — covering a campaign repeatedly maligned as “radical” and “extremist,” there is something especially bitter for me in this ugly reminder that there are still people who want to kill us all, just because we’re Americans.

We don’t know he was a jihadist. And this was not some foreigner, but an American born in Arlington, VA and who joined the military because, as he told friends at the time, he thought it was his duty to serve. It could very well be he didn’t want to kill “all” Americans - only those in the military.

I hate to be picky like that, but the truth has to matter somewhere. Jumping the gun before all the facts are in to write an authoritative sounding post when in reality, you don’t know your ass from a hole in the wall about what happened or who this guy was, makes my point about the utter banality of the blogosphere.

Andrew Sullivan:

It looks increasingly as if he snapped at the thought of participating in a war he might have seen as anti-Islam. This, if borne out, is grim news:

Hasan indeed, snapped. Why, I suspect even the brilliant Andrew Sullivan doesn’t know less than 24 hours after the attack occurred. Except it must feel good to climb on the back of dead soldiers to tell us the “grim news” that Andrew Sullivan is against the Iraq War.

To those who accuse me of sticking my head in the sand about terrorism, I will say this:

1. Yes, this fellow posted some rather incendiary views on the internet. But others post worse and don’t gun down 12 US soldiers or anyone else for that matter.

2. He was anti-war and hated the thought of going to Iraq. Well, that closes the case then, right? Except no one else has felt motivated to shoot up an army base because of those feelings.

3. He was exposed to extremist rhetoric and views on the internet and in his mosque. He may even agree with most of it. But it is a rather large step to take from sympathizing with Muslims you feel are being persecuted to picking up a gun and slaughtering people.

4. He shouted “Allahu Akbar” before opening fire. This is the smoking gun for Hasan being a terrorist, right? Unless you can show me that the maniac was not delusional and thought he was somewhere else killing somebody else, I will simply point out that gleaning motive from a diseased mind is not a job for bloggers - me, you, or anybody.

This is why the FBI has not ruled out terrorism but is refusing to call it that at the moment. Law enforcement has a little different standard than partisan bloggers; they feel the need to investigate carefully and make a judgment based on the facts and not wild, politically motivated speculation. This may inconvenience those who seek to score political points, or show off their anti-Muslim bona fides. But then, reality is always more boring than what bloggers can come up with to increase their audience, and garner links.

I fully understand that this is how the game is played in the blogosphere and am under no illusions that it will ever change. But these bombs being tossed back and forth - with 12 dead bodies lying between them - made me snap this morning.

Since it looks like I am going to hit the “publish” button, better batten down the hatches and lay out the plastic over the furniture. The spittle will be flying shortly.

Want to piss off the left? Everybody watch every single episode of the new ABC mini-series “V.” Drive the ratings through the roof. Make the show the hottest cultural happening since Seinfeld. Copy the hairstyles. Ape the fashion. Start bidding up the action dolls on Ebay.

And most especially, actually tell people you believe that this is a show about Obama and the left. It isn’t, but if you want the liberals to poop in their pants, say you think it is.

I find it not a little ironic that Jonathan Chait would see a “Tea Party Worldview” in a show that is such a hammer over the head metaphor for fascism. That’s because in the universe created for “V,” the birthers are right, the paranoid loons who believe Obama is a Muslim terrorist have a point, and there really are Haliburton built concentration camps in Utah.

Except the plot line follows fairly closely the original “V” which aired before many tea partyers were even born. This makes any overt connection to Obama problematic, although the writers manage to stick it to the president on at least one occasion when “national health care” is mentioned to describe the Visitors plans to help humanity.

Chait:

The political drama of the original was replaced by a ham-handed metaphor for President Obama. The visitors are young, charismatic, futuristic, and have a one-worldish vision of peace. They target the young by enticing them to join an idealistic (but, in reality, sinister) youth group. A few perceptive humans warn of the dangers of hopping on the bandwagon before we know what the bandwagon is really about. The alien leader, Ana, promises to use futuristic technology to heal humans. “You mean universal health care!” gapes a reporter, who, naturally, has been co-opted by the aliens. Anna soothes skeptics by declaring that accepting change can be difficult. A small band of human resistors forms. The lead character is skeptical–what proof do you have she asks, besides some scary thing “you read on the internet.” But the seemingly hysterical message from the internet is true! The charismatic new leader is masking her true identity! The death panels are real! Etc., etc.

The real irony passes so far over Chait’s head it doesn’t even muss his hair. The fact is, the “resistors” are paranoid. That’s because at first, there is no proof that the aliens are anything other than benevolent souls who only want to help. It is not until the true reptilian nature of the Visitors is revealed to one of the main characters, FBI Agent Erica Evans (played by the ravishing MILF Elizabeth Mitchell) that the “paranoid” conspiracy nuts are proved correct.

Now this might be considered something of a birther fantasy come true - except the show has been in the works since 2007, according to executive producer Scott Peters:

Others on both sides of the political spectrum may point to the visitors’ explicit promises of hope, change and universal health care as a pointed reference to pledges of the Obama administration. But [Executive Producer Scott] Peters says the show has been in the works since 2007. Reality was “never really a factor,” he says. “There’s no political message being shoved down anyone’s throat.”

Could it be that the outward, and unintentional parallels with Obamamania is discomfiting some on the left because the parallels to Hitler’s Germany - so obvious, so easily seen - hold implications for the ease with which many of them succumbed to the siren song being sung by the president? Not that Obama is a fascist in any way, but is Chait really upset because he and his fellow leftists might, under other circumstances and with another candidate less dedicated to constitutional order, have fallen into supporting a real fascist?

It would upset me if I suddenly realized my susceptibility to abandoning critical thinking and embracing an undemocratic leader. All that is missing from Obamamania for it to have become an American nightmare was a candidate willing to take the cult of personality he created and turn it into something that perverts democracy. The same can be said for some other political leaders in America (one - Huey Long - may have actually harbored such un-American notions).

But in Obama’s case, the ability to manipulate the media (not to mention the open cheerleading for the candidate during the race), more money than God, and the extra added bonus of being able to stifle criticism by playing the race card at the drop of a hat all combined to create an extraordinarily incendiary mixture that a man with more authoritarian appetites than our president might have been tempted to use to the detriment of democracy.

Thankfully, Barack Obama is not such a man. Sure, he tries to stifle dissent. What modern president hasn’t? Clinton blaming conservative talk radio for the Oklahoma City bombing and Karl Rove calling war protestors “unpatriotic” are just two examples of how the presidency has evolved to control the opposition by marginalizing resisters. It didn’t work any better than Obama’s efforts to shush Fox News so perhaps we can be grateful that even with their enormous power, presidents have to put up with criticism despite their best efforts to silence it.

In the case of “V,” one wonders if the unintentional parallels to Obamania will actually force script changes down the road. That’s because ABC has decided to air only 4 episodes this month, and then send the series off to hiatus until the spring. Already, there are signs that someone is not happy with the finished product.

Naturally, when a show debuts to huge ratings and mostly great reviews, the producer’s career is golden. Not this time. Apparently the network who gave Obama an infomercial and refuses to release the “Path to 9/11? DVD decided to replace the show runner Scott Peters before the pilot even aired. In fact, ABC hosted a big visit by press people last Monday, but Peters was notably absent. Exec producer Steve Pearlman spoke with the reporters.

Peters has been demoted to exec producer, a largely honorary title and has been replaced by former “The Shield” and “Chuck” alum Scott Rosenbaum.

Was this a case of ABC purging a political dissident from the show to make it more politically subservient? ABC has been very pro-Obama. And while the president’s name is never mentioned once in the show, there’s little doubt what they’re getting at. Critics of the “V” aliens are shown to be viewed as wackos and fringe people, the same way the MSM likes to portray ordinary Americans who don’t drink the kOOl-aid. Journalists who question the motives of the V are treated like they’re “not real news”. Wink!

My understanding is that such a change is not uncommon in the industry once a series goes on the air. Still, one wonders if the writing will take a different turn for future episodes given the jawboning on the left about parallels to Obamanania.

Yes, there are superficial similarities with Obama, but perhaps because I loved the original mini-series so much (both parts), I was more focused on how closely this incarnation of the story reflected back to the 1983 version. From what I’ve seen so far, the biggest change is the strong female characters compared to the original. Elizabeth Mitchell plays one tough cookie. She is also a single mom raising a problem teenager. The alien leader, Anna, is cool, gorgeous, scary smart, and so self possessed that any male I know would fight for the chance to ask her out for coffee.

There’s also an interesting religious angle with a Catholic priest questioning his faith with the arrival of beings from another world who never heard of Jesus, and who appear to be the real “saviors” of man. I hope they develop this a little more because it certainly would be one of the major implications for humankind if it was ever discovered that an alien civilization existed.

The special effects are a lot less cheesy, the revelation that the “Visitors” who look gorgeous in their human costumes are actually dragons isn’t handled half as well, and there is less big hair and more pixie styles among the women. (Being a big hair lover, I found this disappointing). The way we discovered the Visitors were aliens in the original was when the female co-leader Diana was seen by newsman Marc Sanger who had snuck aboard the Mothership, devouring a hamster whole. Now that was great television.

The 1983 series had “scientists” who were the persecuted minority - stand ins for the Jews. Given references to the internet already, might bloggers be targets in the remake? I’m with Chait who doubts whether scientists will be the imagined “enemies” of the Visitors. I also doubt that the fifth columnists will all be filthy rich, having been promised fabulous wealth by the Visitors if they cooperate. The great columnist Dorothy Thompson once wrote a piece on “Who would go Nazi?” if fascism ever came to America. Most of her choices were Republicans. I wonder if the new series will try and advance that same meme?

Overall, I’d give the production a B+ for it’s faithfulness to the original (so far) and a B- for political content. The have yet to really get into the fascist parallels that made the original so compelling. That grade may change as the story is fleshed out more in the coming weeks.

But if you want to enjoy the show, I suggest not trying to see Obama criticism or tea party worldview validation in every scene. It’s not there, and it will take away from immersing yourself in what promises to be a good story with lots of action.

I’m a little bemused this morning reading lefty blogs who are chortling over Doug Hoffman’s defeat last night. Isn’t that sort of like someone who’s been thrown in a sh*t pile and accidentally discovering a brass ring?

It isn’t just the raw results that should give Democrats a cold chill. The internals of the exit polls reveal several key demographic groups moving strongly back to the GOP including ex-urban whites, as well as suburban women. If that trend continues - and at the moment, that’s a big “if” - the GOP is back in the national ball game with several states that were trending blue like Virginia inching away from the Democrats and returning home.

Of course, the low turnout in these elections make it difficult to really pronounce such trends as harbingers of victory for Republicans in 2010. But moderates and Blue Dogs on the Hill think they’re real enough, which should, at the very least, complicate matters for Nancy Pelosi as she moves the health care reform bill to the floor. I don’t think the results changed anyone’s vote - and that’s the problem for Pelosi. She’s still short a couple of dozen votes for passage of a bill with a strong public option and what happened last night will just make her job of arm twisting Blue Dogs to jump on board that much more difficult.

Of all the results that came in last night, Republicans can take the most heart from the Virginia governor’s race. It’s not that McDonnell won - that was expected. But his margin of victory was astonishing considering that Obama took the state by 7% last November. Deeds finished 12 points behind Obama’s total and the other two statewide races saw similar massacres of the Democratic candidates. Again, it is perhaps folly to read too much into this race, but if you were to ask Axelrod (and if you were able to get an honest response from him), I think he would say that they were most disappointed in what happened statewide in Virginia.

New Jersey is an entirely different narrative. It is pretty clear that Obama’s presidency was a non-player in people’s decision for whom to vote. The issue was a scumbag governor - period - and the clear desire of New Jerseians to kick the bum out.

Nate Silver:

Obama approval was actually pretty strong in New Jersey, at 57 percent, but 27 percent of those who approved of Obama nevertheless voted for someone other than Corzine. This one really does appear to be mostly about Corzine being an unappealing candidate, as the Democrats look like they’ll lose just one or two seats in the state legislature in Trenton. Corzine compounded his problems by staying negative until the bitter end of the campaign rather than rounding out his portfolio after having closed the margin with Christie.

That’s pretty convincing evidence that, at least in the New Jersey governor’s race, “all politics are local” prevailed.

Not so in NY23. I am very disappointed that Doug Hoffman lost. As in any vote, it was a variety of factors that did Hoffman in. Was he “too conservative?” I doubt that. Hoffman wasn’t a bomb thrower nor is he a radical rightie. He was a nice little “gray man” as I called him yesterday, who didn’t impress the locals with his knowledge of local issues nor set them on fire with his personality. And I think the enthusiasm felt for him by national conservatives never translated into support on the ground in the district.

The Dede Factor probably had something to do with Hoffman’s loss. How much is hard to say. And don’t forget the machinations of the national GOP and state party bigwigs who foisted Scozzafava on the district in the first place. If Hoffman hadn’t been on the ballot, I am not convinced she would have won anyway. Owens centrism contrasted badly for the GOP with Scozzafava’s center left voting record as well as her open embrace of such positions as pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. That would have kept many conservatives at home last night watching “V” rather than heading to the polls to vote for the likes of Scozzafava. The notion that she would have won if Hoffman had stayed off the ballot is just not supportable by what we know.

From some New York commenters and correspondents, I am told that redistricting will probably make this a safe Democratic enclave by the 2010 race. We will see about that. It could be that come the mid terms, very few seats in the country would be “safe” for Democrats unless the unemployment rate comes down significantly, and a way is found to lower the deficit. In case you didn’t hear, voters are indeed angry. They appear angry at both parties, but Democrats come in for the lion’s share of the blame simply by virtue of them being the “ins” at the present time.

If I were a Democrat, I would be relieved that the night wasn’t as bad as it could have been. As a nominal Republican, I am pleased but very cautious. I see nothing from those results that shows me the voter is ready to embrace the GOP as an alternative to Obama and the Democrats. I think there was a lot of “holding of noses” by people in Virginia and New Jersey when going into the polling booth. I sense little enthusiasm for choosing Republicans over Democrats - something that can be changed only if the lessons from last night sink in with the mossbacks currently in charge of the party in Washington.

What are those lessons? Listen to conservatives. Not the ones calling for a purge of incumbents that don’t measure up to some idiotic notion of ideological purity. That way leads to madness and defeat:

But their success in Tuesday’s upstate New York special election, where grass-roots efforts pushed GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava to drop out of the race and helped Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman surge into the lead on the eve of Election Day, has generated more money and enthusiasm than organizers ever imagined.

Activists predict a wave that could roll from California to Kentucky to New Hampshire and that could leave even some GOP incumbents — Utah Sen. Bob Bennett is one — facing unexpectedly fierce challenges from their right flank.

“I would say it’s the tip of the spear,” said Dick Armey, the former GOP House majority leader who now serves as chairman of FreedomWorks, an organization that has been closely aligned with the tea party movement. “We are the biggest source of energy in American politics today.”

“What you’re going to see,” said Armey, “is moderates and conservatives across the country in primaries.”

Dick Armey is a fool. He knows full well that incumbents challenged in a primary are much more vulnerable to defeat in the general election than those who run virtually unopposed. And why the challenge? Does the member have ethics problems? If so, then by all means throw the rascal out.

The idea that an incumbent has “betrayed conservative principles” might be cause for removal but who are these national conservatives that they think they can dictate to locals and define “conservatism” for them? They may have their own ideas on how conservative their member is and to have someone else tell them they’re full of it - especially someone from outside the state or district - is a real recipe for a civil war.

I am coming around to the notion that the GOP has to blow their opportunity in both 2010 and 2012 for anything to change. Losing when you should have had a slam dunk win (as I think 2010 should be) might wake up a few people who need a kick in the ass. And that includes throwing out the deadwood in Washington as well as putting the radical righties in their place. Both groups are dragging the GOP down and, like a drunk who has hit rock bottom, will only reform when the alternative is more unpalatable.

UPDATE

Pete Wehner points to something I hadn’t considered:

Among the important by-products of this election is that it will encourage many impressive and capable Republicans from around the country to become candidates. They now believe, with justification, that 2010 looks to be a very good year for the GOP. If an individual ever wanted to toss his hat into the ring, this is the time to do it.

I wrote in both 2006 and 2008 about the way the Democrats far outperformed the GOP in candidate recruitment, and how that factor was one of the primary reasons for their success. There are several factors that go into recruiting a good candidate including having a strong base of support in some part of the district, some nominal name recognition, and, as always, an ability to self finance is seen as a huge plus.

I am willing to bet that Hoffman was not the best conservative candidate available in NY23, although not knowing anything about the district I can’t say for sure. But if the GOP can attract some up and comers, as well as a few old political hands who are known in the district who might be encouraged by what happened last night, more power to them.

I don’t know why it’s taken me five years to realize something of paramount importance to understand if one wishes to make a living as a writer.

I am not the brightest bulb in the room, but I still should have grasped this concept long ago; the reader’s perception and understanding of what is written trumps the author’s own intent to impart meaning every time.

I don’t know why this fundamental rule escaped my notice. I am familiar with literary criticism, where certain schools dominate and great works of literature are examined through a particular prism of understanding. I remember reading a Marxist critique of Moby Dick that had me on the floor laughing. Another critical essay I remember reading about the Melville classic dealt with the influences of Shakespeare on the writer - a brilliant exposition of a particular point of view that forced me to examine the book from a perspective I had never imagined.

But isn’t it ironic that when it came to my own writing, I failed to understand that each of us perceives the ideas and concepts on the page in front of us through our own prejudices, ideology, upbringing, and other elements that make us individuals?

Imagine the hubris it takes to believe that, as the author, your perspective on what you mean is really what counts, and that any notions to the contrary are examples of poor reading skills or worse? That has been the delusion I have been operating under these many years. And while there are almost certainly times when people are incapable of understanding my intent, I suspect that for most who pass through the doors of this web portal, they glean the essence of my thoughts through the same personal prism that I use when reading others.

Now, it may very well be that one of the reasons this is so is that I am not always crystal clear in imparting exactly what I want to say in my writings. My wordy wanderings have great need of an editor, and I really do appreciate those who make an effort to understand my intent, my meaning. I realize this is not always possible, but insofar as my efforts to be precise in my criticism fail, I shouldn’t go off the deep end excoriating someone who may or may not have understood what I was trying to say through no fault of their own.

I don’t know why this is hitting me now, except that my post yesterday was criticized roundly by many conservatives who, in my estimation, missed the point of what I was trying to say. If the criticism had been grouped around one, general theme, I probably wouldn’t have given it a second thought. But in both the comments to the post, and criticism on other blogs, there was wild divergence in what readers found wrong with what I wrote.

Again, it may very well be that my skills as a writer are deficient to the point that the piece was incoherent to most. I know what I was trying to say but hardly anyone picked up on it - even if they agreed with it! Hence, I was struck with the thought that the reason this is so is because either 1) the piece was poorly written and inadequately reasoned in its arguments and conclusions; or 2) the piece was viewed through the personal prism we all use to process what we read and each perceived my arguments in a different reality.

It could be argued that some of both conclusions were at play - something I am incapable of judging to any degree of certainty. But even if it was more of #1 than #2, I still think I have literally stumbled across a truth that writers ignore at peril to authentically understanding the essence of their craft; perception and reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Or, more poetically:

“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.’

My latest is up at Pajamas Media about the conservative insurgency in NY23 that appears about ready to succeed in handing Doug Hoffman an unexpected victory.

A sample:

What has happened in NY-23 is that the newly empowered conservative base decided the national party had gone a candidate too far in choosing liberal Republican Scozzafava to represent them and decided on their own to adopt third-party candidate Doug Hoffman, while telling the GOP establishment to take a hike.

Why the national party believed this colorless career politician who supports gay marriage and would have voted for the stimulus bill represented Republican principles, much less conservative ones, will remain a mystery. Dan Riehl has uncovered some information that former GOP Congressman Tom Reynolds may have played a large role in choosing Scozzafava, but that only muddies the waters even further. Didn’t those numbskulls at the RNC and the NRCC even bother to check this woman’s credentials before giving her stacks of cash donated by good conservatives?

It may be understandable that they would choose a pro-choice woman to run in New York state, although the man the special election is replacing who served eight terms representing that district, John McHugh, was pro-life down the line. But pro-gay marriage? Where did that come from? And it should go without saying that Scozzafava’s support for the stimulus bill would have made her a pariah in the House Republican caucus since no other GOP congressman supported it.

All of this was known to the national party before they shepherded her choice through the selection process (rammed it through might be a better way to describe what happened). Also known to the GOP elites was the wave of discontent building beyond the beltway via the tea parties and the spectacular success of Glenn Beck, who has ridden the wave to fame and fortune.

And yet, still believing they were in total control, they proceeded as if the protests at health care town halls, the 9/12 phenomenon, and the tremendous grassroots energy those events unleashed didn’t matter. Or perhaps they believed they would be able to co-opt and use all that enthusiasm for their own purposes so they could continue with business as usual. Whatever they were thinking, they blindly allowed an old crony (Reynolds used to run the NRCC), to have his way in choosing a candidate that even Nelson Rockefeller might have had to swallow hard to support.

Hoffman, by the way, is not much more conservative than Scozzafava if you examine their positions on the issues. Dede’s problem was that she served 10 years in the Assembly and had a string of votes that she could be attacked for. But Hoffman is no wild eyed “Stalinist” as Frank Rich seems to think:

The battle for upstate New York confirms just how swiftly the right has devolved into a wacky, paranoid cult that is as eager to eat its own as it is to destroy Obama. The movement’s undisputed leaders, Palin and Beck, neither of whom has what Palin once called the “actual responsibilities” of public office, would gladly see the Republican Party die on the cross of right-wing ideological purity. Over the short term, at least, their wish could come true.

The New York fracas was ignited by the routine decision of 11 local Republican county chairmen to anoint an assemblywoman, Dede Scozzafava, as their party’s nominee for the vacant seat. The 23rd is in safe Republican territory that hasn’t sent a Democrat to Congress in decades. And Scozzafava is a mainstream conservative by New York standards; one statistical measure found her voting record slightly to the right of her fellow Republicans in the Assembly. But she has occasionally strayed from orthodoxy on social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage) and endorsed the Obama stimulus package. To the right’s Jacobins, that’s cause to send her to the guillotine.

Speaking as one who has been sent to the guillotine myself by those same Jacobians, Rich is full of it. Scozzafava was foisted on the district by NY state GOP leaders and especially former Rep. Tom Reynolds (former head of the NRCC as well) who decided one of his proteges should be the nominee. And while there is certainly a lot of anger that the establishment wanted to cram a pro-gay marriage candidate down their throat (a position not even mainstream in the Democratic party), the real rebellion in NY23 centers on the perception that despite the previous month’s activism, the party and the establishment wasn’t listening or “getting it.”

And Dede’s endorsement of Porkulus when not one single GOP congressman voted for it says volumes as well. In short, this cram down by party elites at a time when tea party activists had singlehandedly delayed Obamacare and became the only true organized resistance to the president’s agenda, smacked of disrespect by the GOP leadership who were benefiting from their activism.

I have written extensively about the dangers of this populist wave, and how it could easily become, if not as radical as Rich believes in his overactive imagination, then certainly a detriment to conservatism and GOP hopes in 2010. But the race in NY23 shows that there’s nothing for it now, the base has been empowered and the wave is on the move. My fear is that all this enthusiasm and resentment, and fear will be channeled into unproductive avenues and result in a lost opportunity in 2010.

Andrew Sullivan:

No one knows what might happen now. For the insurgents, it means a scalp they will surely use to purge the GOP of any further dissidence. But the insurgents were also backed by the establishment, including Tim Pawlenty, who’s supposed to be the reasonable center.

What we’re seeing, I suspect, is an almost classic example of a political party becoming more ideological after its defeat at the polls. in order for that ideology to win, they will also have to portray the Obama administration as so far to the left that voters have no choice but to back the Poujadists waiting in the wings. And that, of course, is what they’re doing. There is a method to the Ailes-Drudge-Cheney-Rove denialism. They create reality, remember?

From the mindset of an ideologically purist base - where a moderate Republican in New York state is a “radical leftist” - this makes sense. But for all those outside the 20 percent self-identified Republican base, it looks like a mix of a purge and a clusterfuck. If Hoffman wins, and is then embraced by the GOP establishment, you have a recipe for a real nutroots take-over. This blood in the water will bring on more and more and deadlier and deadlier sharks.

Scozzafava was no “radical leftist” as I point out here. No one who gets the endorsement of the NRA can, by any stretch of the imagination, be termed a “radical leftist.” And someone who opposes cap and trade, Obamacare, and much of the Obama agenda cannot be considered much of a leftist. Her support of card check is a natural given the number of union voters in the district which speaks more of her bowing to practical political realities rather than any deep, leftist ideological commitment.

And the danger, as I have constantly harped upon, is that the calcification of views by the base on issues will become so excessively driven by ideology and partisanship, that unless a candidate is marching in nearly 100% lockstep with them, they will be branded “Marxists” by Beck and “liberals” or “radical leftists” by everyone else.

But as I point out in my PJM piece, Andrew is wrong to conclude that this presages some kind of mass takeover by the far right. The circumstances in NY23 created a perfect storm for the bast that is very unlikely to be repeated in other congressional districts. If the base puts up primary challengers to those they consider insufficiently pure, the normal equilibrium of politics will take over and incumbency, money, and name recognition will overwhelm just about any challenge to the supremacy of the party establishment. In other words, if the conservative base thinks that NY23 is some kind of harbinger for the future, they will be royally disappointed.

But that doesn’t mean I can’t cheer them on in NY23. An establishment that gets too comfortable is no good to anyone. And the message I like being sent from this race is that putting up good, reasonable conservatives like Hoffman for office is usually better than the alternative.

Don’t bother looking for it because you won’t find any other report on this shindig anywhere else. The Ball was held in the bowels of the National Archives where artifacts like the alien spacecraft that crashed at Roswell are housed, along with Obama’s REAL birth certificate (he was actually born in Hoboken, NJ), and proof that Glenn Beck is a paid agent of Chinese intelligence sent to turn American conservatives into a bunch of weepy little girls.

The fact is, this was a top secret Halloween party sponsored by the NSA, CIA, and DIA - the real spooks. So well planned was this operation, that the FBI was engaged to run a counter-op; a full dress party at the Washington Hilton that featured 200 Special Agents who impersonated famous politicos in disguise. The press knew something was amiss because the partygoers didn’t drink half of what professional politicians imbibe when out on the town. But only a couple of bloggers - me and a gay mommy blogger whom I will not link to, figured out that the Hilton party was a scam.

Sure enough, my faithful Capitol Hill source came through for me once again. This source has fed me information in the past that allowed me to break several important stories such as the scoop I had about Nancy Pelosi’s tryst with Rush Limbaugh at the Fairmont in San Francisco, as well as the hot story I did on the Jay Rockefeller cross dressing episode at a football game in Morgantown (he was dressed as a WVU cheerleader). Now he has given me the low down on this Halloween soire.

I cannot vouch for the total accuracy of what follows. But here is the report from my trusted source on various Capitol Hill personalities who attended the Ball.

I will give you three guesses what Nancy Pelosi was costumed as and the first two don’t count. Yes, but not just any witch. Pelosi came decked out as the Wicked Witch of the West complete with real Ruby Slippers (supplied by Andy Stern of the SEIU). On her arm, a real Winged Monkey - or maybe that was David Obey.

Robert Byrd came as a ghost. The sheet he had over his head looked very old - as if he had used it for something else many years ago. The hood he wore was also quite striking. Black people were giving him funny looks all night long.

Harry Reid showed up in a Sweeney Todd costume. Many thought the scalpel he openly brandished had something to do with health care reform, although nobody took the Majority Leader up on his offer for a haircut.

Chris Matthews came dressed up as a lapdog. He was cute as a button - until he started to hump the legs of most of the females present. Urinating on every Republican he got close to did not endear him to partygoers either.

John Boehner wowed the assemblage with his costume - a striking representation of a eunuch. Like most of the Republicans, he got way too drunk and ended up at the close of the evening in a corner crying it was no fair that Mitch McConnell stole his idea for his costume. He thought of coming as a castrated pansy ass first.

New Gingrich, as befitting his status as a potential presidential candidate, came costumed as Ronald Reagan. There were 30 other Republicans dressed as The Gipper, all swearing they believed in RR’s agenda, and were loyal to his memory - at least for the night, anyway.

Barney Frank was impressive in his ACORN costume. But he bitched all night about the fact that all the other nut costumes had already been rented by the time he made it to the costume shop.

Michael Steele wore an unusual costume - the Headless Horseman. Nobody got it.

Keith Olberman was dressed as R.P. McMurphy from One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest. Or perhaps he was wearing that strait jacket for real. No one had the courage to ask.

Glenn Beck’s Little Miss Muffett get up was an inspired choice. He wept when he finished 2nd in the “Best Costume” contest.

Mike Huckabee was pretty scary in his George W. Bush mask. Or was it a mask?

Who was that politician dressed as a wolf in sheep’s clothing? No one is sure and the Secret Service Agents who surrounded him all night weren’t talking. Whoever it was, he had an aide that followed him around all night with a teleprompter.

There was no mistaking Joe Biden who came dressed in the same costume he wears every year; Bozo the clown.

Sarah Palin was lovely as the Queen of Hearts. She seemed to relish screaming at the top of her voice “Off with his Head!” at every Republican she believed wasn’t conservative enough. I think she was joking.

John McCain was great in his horse costume. Too bad the disguise got all turned around so that the back of the horse was what everybody saw. He kept insisting he was a “Maverick” except the only person who agreed with him was Arthur Sulzberger who showed up in a Leonardo De Caprio costume from Titanic.

A good time was had by all, I’m told. Winner of the “Best Costume” went to Rham Emanuel who looked truly spiffy in his Godfather suit. Funny, but by the end of the night, there were considerably fewer administration opponents around than when the party started.

They’ll turn up eventually - I think. Might I suggest dragging the Potomac?