Right Wing Nut House

I want to congratulate former Senator John Edwards and the entire network of netroots activists who, through a combination of thuggish threats and wild obfuscations of the facts managed to cow a candidate for President into doing their bidding by keeping two female bigots on his staff.

Amazing. So many issues have been raised by this dust-up that my “Last Word” post yesterday really doesn’t do the matter justice - especially after the shocking statement announcing the decision was released. For in my opinion, this couldn’t have ended worse for Edwards or the netroots if Karl Rove had planned it.

The general consensus among righty bloggers who are looking at the matter dispassionately is that Edwards probably did the only thing he could do in keeping the two women on board but that the prevaricating statement he issued to announce his decision was shocking in tone and substance. Simply put, to say that the two bloggers in question weren’t trying to malign Catholics or Christians is a crock.

Ed Morrissey:

However, it’s difficult to give much credence to Edwards’ explanation. He says that both bloggers have “assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith,” but given the quoted material, it’s almost impossible to reach any other conclusion. Calling Christians “misogynists” for their beliefs on the nature of life and the Virgin Birth, and that their opposition to abortion aims to force women to produce more tithing Catholics, certainly qualifies as intentionally malignant. It’s a convenient dodge, as were the “apologies” from the pair for having been misunderstood.

Contrary to the opinions of some well-intentioned bloggers, this never had anything to do with free speech. It had to do with the judgment of the Edwards campaign in hiring two incendiary bloggers known in part for their hostility to Christians.

This brings up a point that has puzzled me since the entire imbroglio began; how can you “smear” someone with their own words? Chris Bowers used the terms “smear” several times in this post in reference to the right’s attempt to highlight what any reasonable person would conclude are bigoted references to someone else’s personal religious beliefs. And despite the denials of both Marcotte and McEwan that they were only kidding or being satirical, the context of those hateful words and phrases clearly indicates rage not comedy was at work and a deliberate attempt to inflict emotional pain on Christian believers was fully intended. Why else would Marcotte refer to Jesus as “Jebus” so often on her site (one blogger counted 114 references to “Jebus”) or so shockingly refer to Christians as “misogynists?”

I suppose I should make it known for the umpteenth time that I am an atheist and am only concerned about the impact of these words on others. For the same reason we all blanch when someone uses the “N” word in a joke or other derogatory manner due to its hurtful connotations, we should all roundly and specifically condemn these hateful, hurtful, insensitive remarks published by both these women on their blogs.

But in this case, politics has trumped decency. No major netroots blogger that I have read has taken these women to task for their extraordinarily vile and disgusting diatribes. A few brave liberal commenters on my first post regarding Marcotte expressed outrage. But the outrage of the netroots was reserved for conservatives who, as I mentioned yesterday, were using the issue to try and damage Edwards while doing a little scalp hunting. While admitting the motives of conservatives were not pure, I was still shocked that nary a peep was heard regarding the two bloggers disgusting characterizations of Catholics and Christians in general. “Christofascists” as McEwan continually referred to them.

But the extent of whitewashing being done by the netroots when they concentrate on defending the obscenities used by the bloggers rather than the substance of their remarks is truly remarkable. I actually defended Jesse Taylor former blogger at Pandagon, and the use of obscenities in this post. I doubt that a few F-bombs would have been enough to cause the kind of stink that erupted. Saying that I or any other conservative is objecting solely on those grounds is a strawman argument plain and simple.

I have my own problems with the religious right but you would never, ever catch me using the kind of invective employed by Marcotte and McEwan. For me, it makes the defense of the two bloggers all the more curious. Apparently, tolerance, like every other part of liberal dogma, is a relative thing and that it can safely be disregarded if it interferes with the drive for power that is animating the progressive community.

Goldstein:

But lost on these Marcotte supporters—who are cheering on the power of the “netroots” to cow a politician into keeping on an ugly and hateful liability—is that Edwards just showed up Marcotte and McEwan as frauds and posturing blowhards, writers who have been pulling the wool over their audiences’ eyes by posting vicious “arguments” they never truly believed. To use the loaded language of establishment feminism—he publicly castrated them—and in so doing, he made fools out of their audiences, to boot.

Further, in doing so, he has shown himself to be nothing more than a calculating political opportunist of the worst sort—one who believes the voting public so daft they might actually buy a statement like the one he just released.

As I wrote yesterday, I don’t care one way or the other, personally, about whether or not Marcotte and McEwan are allowed to keep their jobs. That’s Edwards’ call. And from a blogging perspective, I suppose Edwards’ decision is good news.

But let’s not confuse the effect with the rationale—which is both risible and insulting. Because were it really never Marcotte’s intent to malign anyone’s faith, she probably wouldn’t have dedicated so many hate-filled blog posts to, you know—maligning anyone’s faith.

Indeed. Numerous sins can be forgiven as long as those transgressions serve the “higher purpose” of electing a President beholden to progressive online community. Jeff thinks that Edward’s statement emasculates the two bloggers. Nothing could be further than the truth. With a wink and a nod at his online supporters, Edwards has included them in his political gambit of appearing to chastise the bloggers for the benefit of the press and the rest of America who view what the two bloggers wrote as beyond the pale while acknowledging to his supporters that he knows where they’re coming from.

The questions raised about Edwards in this regard are extremely troubling. If he can’t stand up to Chris Bowers, can we expect him to stand up to the Iranians? Or the North Koreans? Or perhaps China who some experts believe are ready to use force to take back their “lost province” of Taiwan in the next 5 years?

Are these unfair questions? I think not. This is what Presidential campaigns are all about. Voters examine a candidate using a variety of criteria and certainly personnel decisions are among the most important. In this respect, Edwards may have gained some online friends but lost some others - including the religious left:

“We have gone so far to rebuild that coalition [between Democrats and religious Christians] and something like this sets it back,” said Brian O’Dwyer, a New York lawyer and Irish-American leader who chairs the National Democratic Ethnic Leadership Council, a Democratic Party group. O’Dwyer said Edwards should have fired the bloggers. “It’s not only wrong morally – it’s stupid politically.”

O’Dwyer e-mailed a statement to reporters saying: “Senator Edwards is condoning bigotry by keeping the two bloggers on his staff. Playing to the cheap seats with anti-Catholic bigotry has no place in the Democratic Party.”

This is what people outside of the online community are thinking. Are they part of the “right wing smear machine?”

I have no doubt that the issues that surround the use of bloggers on campaigns is far from settled. I disagree with some of the conventional wisdom that this will necessarily make things harder for both bloggers and candidates to come together.

Joe Gandleman:

It’s the nature of blogging (unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) for many blog writers to take positions that might be controversial in content, presentation, or language (each site makes a judgment on the latter and we avoid non-newspaper language here.) While some blog writers and commenters choose words carefully, more often than not blogging resembles a cyberspace form of talk radio with little censoring. And blogwriters can be far more blunt than newspaper columnists or editorial writers.

So if this is the new standard to be applied to campaigns on the left, it’s clear there is going to be a demand for the same standards to be applied to campaigns on the right.

The Marcotte-McEwan dustup has lowered the bar somewhat but I see this as a problem much more for the angry left than the right. Bloggers who have already attached themselves to Republican candidates (with the exception of Patrick Hynes working for McCain) are pretty staid representatives of the conservative sphere. Patrick Ruffini, hired by Rudy Giuliani is a long time GOP activist and can hardly be considered a bomb thrower. And a cursory glance at the top 50 or so conservative bloggers reveal a few that resort to obscenity laced tirades but most fall into a category more vanilla than hot sauce. Skewering the opposition without using dirty or inappropriate language will not be a hindrance in hiring them for GOP Presidential campaigns.

Of course, there are plenty of lefty bloggers who get their point across without tossing F-bombs all over the place or resorting to the kind of hate speech employed by Marcotte-McEwan. I have no doubt that some of them may have moved up the list of potential hires for Democratic candidates. It will be interesting to see what will happen as a result of this controversy. For instance, the bloggers at Firedog Lake are among the most raucous writers on the left. Will this keep some of those excellent bloggers from being employed by a Democratic candidate? Time will tell.

Edwards may have guaranteed that his candidacy will last at least through the first round of primaries by keeping the netroots happy. But he may have damaged his chances beyond that point by standing behind Marcotte-McEwan and their savagely anti-Christian pronouncements. Make no mistake. He can’t have it both ways. He can say from now until doomsday that he condemns the hate speech. But by keeping the two women on his staff, he is announcing to the world that he tolerates it.

I have a feeling this candidate/blogger issue will become a blood sport by summertime as all the announced candidates begin fleshing out their staffs to include members of the online community from both right and left. What this means for blogging in general and the future of the sphere, I have no idea. But I know there’s no way I would ever open myself up to the kind of public scrutiny that these bloggers will have to go through in order to participate in The Great Game.

I was too young for the May Day protest against the Viet Nam War held in Washington, D.C. in 1971. My friends and I talked about going for weeks prior to the event, seeing ourselves as something as a cross between Che Guevara and Abbie Hoffman. We even talked seriously about ditching school, running away for a few days (our parents were dead set against any of us going), and joining the massive demonstration.

Alas, it was a pipe dream. We were just stupid kids, scared to death about being drafted and believing the anti-war propaganda about the military, the government, and the United States. We opposed the war for very personal reasons; we didn’t want to die in what we were being told was a war of conquest being fought by evil capitalists against the heroic Vietnamese agricultural reformers.

Those not alive at the time cannot fathom the depth of feeling engendered by the anti-war movement. It was magical, powerful, uplifting, and joyous. We thought we were changing the world. We thought we were ushering in a new era of democracy.

What we didn’t know was that the gimlet eyed radicals who were really in charge of the anti-war movement could have cared less about us, about the United States, or about the war for that matter. They wanted to use the anti-war movement to sweep the old guard from power and install like minded socialists in government.

The May Day protest in Washington, D.C. sought to shut down the government. Some 50,000 hard core demonstrators would block the streets and intersections while putting up human barricades in front of federal offices. How exactly this would stop the war was kind of fuzzy. No matter. Nixon was ready with the army and National Guard and in the largest mass arrest in US history, clogged the jails of Washington with 10,000 kids.

Where are the clogged jails today? As I watch the demonstration on the mall today (much smaller than those in the past) I am thinking of the massive gulf between the self absorbed hodge podge of anti-globalist, pro-feminist, anti-capitalist, pro-abortion anti-war fruitcakes cheering on speakers lobbying for Palestinians, Katrina aid, and other causes not related to the war and the committed, determined bunch of kids who put their hides on the line, filling up the jails of dozens of cities, risking the billy clubs and tear gas of the police to stop what they saw as an unjust war.

The netnuts are fond of calling those of us who support the mission in Iraq chickenhawks. What do you call someone who sits on their ass in front of a keyboard, railing against the President, claiming that the United States is falling into a dictatorship, and writing about how awful this war is and yet refuses to practice the kinds of civil disobedience that their fathers and mothers used to actually bring the Viet Nam war to an end?

I call them what they are; rank cowards. There should be a million people on the mall today. Instead, there might be 50,000. Today’s antiwar left talks big but cowers in the corner. I have often written about how unserious the left is about what they believe. The reason is on the mall today. If they really thought that the United States was on the verge of becoming a dictatorship are you seriously trying to tell me that any patriotic American wouldn’t do everything in their power to prevent it rather than mouth idiotic platitudes and self serving bromides?

I know what I would do if I actually believed the United States was in danger of slipping into some kind of authoritarian, anti-Constitutional nightmare. And it wouldn’t be sitting at this keyboard trying to come up with cleverest way to skewer my political opponent. And I know I wouldn’t be alone either. The fact is, the left is not blessed with any special insights into what evil George is trying to do to the Constitution. They are a small, pitiful minority of paranoid, self aggrandizing mountebanks who are courageous when it comes to calling people names but abject cowards when it comes to actually standing up for their beliefs and putting iron behind their words of change.

Where are all the people chaining themselves to the gates of military bases? Where are the thousands of people blocking military convoys? A couple of kids throw rocks at a military recruiting office but where are all the protestors? For God’s sake, there are more people who protest in front of abortion clinics every day than protest in front of military recruiting offices.

The fact is, the anti-war movement is a mile long and an inch deep. If there really was a massive movement to stop the war in Iraq, it would manifest itself in people carrying out some of the actions I’ve outlined above. But there is no anti-war groundswell. The American people are tired of the war, tired of the incompetence and failure and wish to see an end to the partisan wrangling over it. But war weariness does not translate into the kind of action that would stop the war dead in its tracks and bring the troops home.

To the anti-war crowd I say get off your asses and stand up for your convictions. If you seriously believe American democracy is in danger, don’t just sit like a bump on a log and pontificate about it; get up on you hind legs and fight. As it stands now, you’re all just a bunch of intellectual exhibitionists with as much commitment to ending the war and saving democracy as my pet cat Aramas.

And at least Aramas has the redeeming characteristic of being pleasant to be around.

My brother Terry (who just started a new blog) has an interesting post up today about Mitt Romney and religion. Much has been written about Romney’s Mormonism and I suppose much more will be written before all is said and done. Terry takes a little different approach to the subject:

Nevertheless, voters choose candidates for all kinds of reasons, some legitimate, some not. And sometimes, faith matters. For instance, if a candidate openly declared, “I am an atheist; God is a fairy tale invented to comfort children frightened of the dark”–I don’t think he or she would get elected in America. Ever. I think we’ll have a fat, gay Muslim president before we have an atheist one.

That’s because at some level we learn about people through their religion–or lack of it. A candidate’s faith is contextual–it fills out a public profile with the outlines of the most private of our commitments. And it is here–in the quest to understand what kind of man Mitt Romney, presidential candidate, is–that his Mormonism seems to matter to some.

Indeed, not only does Romney’s religion seem to draw criticism - even from some Christians - but some of the arguments used to question the former Massachusetts governor about his fidelity to the Constitution are eerily reminiscent of those used when Representative Keith Ellison was set to take his oath using the Koran.

Jacob Weisberg:

One may object that all religious beliefs are irrational—what’s the difference between Smith’s “seer stone” and the virgin birth or the parting of the Red Sea? But Mormonism is different because it is based on such a transparent and recent fraud. It’s Scientology plus 125 years. Perhaps Christianity and Judaism are merely more venerable and poetic versions of the same. But a few eons makes a big difference. The world’s greater religions have had time to splinter, moderate, and turn their myths into metaphor. The Church of Latter-day Saints is expanding rapidly and liberalizing in various ways, but it remains fundamentally an orthodox creed with no visible reform wing.

Beliefs that are “different” or hard to understand engender fear. I have frankly been amazed at the number of “Islamic scholars” who have emerged in the blogosphere over the last few years who, at the drop of a hat (and with a breathtaking casualness that bespeaks a shallowness of thought or just plain ignorance), will be more than happy to tell you that Islam is a religion of liars; that because of one line or another of text they’ve taken out of context from the Koran, there is proof that we can never trust Muslims, that Allah instructs them to lie to infidels in order to achieve worldwide conquest by Islam.

I have no doubt that the fanatics, the fundamentalists, the “Let’s Bring Back The Caliphate” crowd can justify anything by taking lines of revealed truth from the Koran and applying it to their jihad. A cursory glance at our own history reveals some dark truths about the way the Bible was used in similar fashion. Excerpts from the Bible have been used to justify slavery, war, capitol punishment (and anti-death penalty tracts), colonialism, forced conversions, and a host of other evils that any rational and loving God would never have intended.

The belief that Romney would be any less true to the Constitution as President because of his faith is a legitimate question. But how about questioning specific beliefs that may seem to some as outrageous or dangerous?

But there is a deeper argument about Mormonism and the presidency, and it deals with the contemporary authority of prophecy and revelation. As I understand it, Mormons believe we live in an age of prophecy–articulated in the pronouncements of the leaders of their church–and that these authentic revelations of God’s will are aimed at reforming Christianity and the world in preparation for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (which will be in Missouri–a tenet that makes a lot of people giggle. But if you’d told the Romans God was about to manifest himself on earth in Bethlehem, they’d have giggled, too.)

The issue for some (Damon Linker laid it out in The New Republic) is that if a person truly believes the utterances of church leaders are revelations carrying the force of prophecy–then they are binding, and binding on every aspect of life. Would a President Romney be bound by prophetic Mormon teaching on issues from abortion and stem-cell research to the Middle East? Is the question any different for a Mormon like Romney than it is for a Methodist like George W. Bush or a Catholic like John F. Kennedy?

The answer to Terry’s question can be found in history. In the most famous modern speech on religion and politics, candidate John F. Kennedy spoke before the ultra conservative Ministerial Association of Greater Houston in order to lay to rest once and for all the idea that a Roman Catholic couldn’t be President.

It was a brilliant speech. Kennedy challenged people to vote for him in order to prove that they were not bigots, a brilliant political ploy. And, he defined the role that religion should play in public life:

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

Kennedy is referring, of course, to the notion still prevalent at that time that a Catholic President would be in the pocket of the pope - a fear directed toward Catholics that had been with the nation since the earliest of colonial times. In one afternoon, Kennedy swept away 300 years of history and replaced it with challenge for tolerance.

Will Romney be forced into a similar declaration as a result of Mormon tradition and beliefs? Given the ink already devoted to this subject, my guess is that he will have to do so sooner rather than later. One thing is certain, he can’t keep ducking the issue. People would believe he has something to hide if he continues to refer to his beliefs as “private.”

What does it say about the United States that here, in the 21st century, we are still grappling with issues of religion and politics? Freedom has a price. And sometimes the price exacted isn’t fair or equitable but simply necessary. Romney will realize this and eventually address the issue. How he does so will determine the way people judge him as a man and a candidate.

For all of my new found friends on the left (and old friends on the right) who have been cheering me on as I have skewered the Administration over their prosecution of the war, this post may come as a bit of a disappointment.

While I believe the increase in troop strength won’t by itself lead to a satisfactory conclusion to the war, I feel compelled to support the President and General Petraeus who have both indicated that the troop increase is necessary to get a handle on the security situation in Baghdad and Anbar province.

Yes, a less than enthusiastic endorsement but a realistic one, I think. I have said many times that we are well beyond the point where military action alone can save Iraq. Only the Iraqi government can carry out the political moves necessary to take the heat out of the insurgency, the militias, and the sectarian violence that is killing more than 150 people a day and creating a growing refugee problem as Sunnis flee the mixed neighborhoods of Baghdad to avoid the slaughter.

Having said that, the surge appears to be well thought out and, if implemented with the kind of vigor our troops have shown so far in running al-Sadr’s militia to ground, it is more than possible that there can be a large decrease in the violence - breathing room for al-Maliki to make the overtures necessary to broaden the support of his government among Sunnis while restraining the Shias from taking their revenge for Saddam’s atrocities.

But whether you think the surge will work or not (and yes, I want it to work very badly), you should ask yourself a question: Is it up to the Senate to micromanage the war by second guessing both the Commander in Chief and the Commanding general in theater?

The Biden resolution states “It is not in the national interest” for the President to send more troops to Iraq. Further, as Chuck Shumer helpfully points out, this is only the beginning:

Sen. Charles Schumer D-N.Y., said Thursday that the resolution the committee approved is not the last that will be heard from Congress.

“A resolution that that says we’re against this escalation, that’s easy. The next step will be how do you put further pressure on the administration against the escalation, but still supporting the troops who are there,” he said on NBC’s “Today” program.

“That’s what we’re figuring out right now,” Schumer added. “But this will not be the end. There will be other resolutions with more teeth in it afterwards and my bet — they’ll get a majority of support and significant Republican support.”

Indeed, this is the dilemma for Democrats and those Republicans who wish to undercut the Commander in Chief during a time of war: how do you hide the fact from the voters that you are voting to cut our troops under fire off at the knees?

A very delicate political problem that the Democrats will find some way to solve. In the meantime, the larger question remains of whether the Senate should be setting war policy at all.

Yes they can cut off funding if they wish, although they cannot propose such a measure. All money bills must originate in the House (there are ways around that constitutional requirement but by tradition, the Senate usually allows the House to lead). And they can hold hearings and jawbone to their hearts content. But can they micro-manage issues like troop levels? Why not war doctrine? Why not tactics and strategy?

The answer is that these Senators are not interested in supporting the troops, or helping the Iraqis, or tamping down the violence, or anything except looking out for their own political hides:

If they were serious and had the courage of their convictions, they’d attempt to cut off funds for the Iraq effort. But that would mean they would have to take responsibility for what happens next. By passing “non-binding resolutions,” they can assail Mr. Bush and put all of the burden of success or failure on his shoulders.

This is not to say that the resolution won’t have harmful consequences, at home and abroad. At home, it further undermines public support for the Iraq effort. Virginia Republican John Warner even cites a lack of public support to justify his separate non-binding resolution of criticism for Mr. Bush’s troop “surge.” But public pessimism is in part a response to the rhetoric of failure from political leaders like Mr. Warner. The same Senators then wrap their own retreat in the defeatism they helped to promote.

I’m not so sure about that last part. The American people are smart enough to know that things are not going at all well in Iraq. They don’t have to hear it from Senators or Congressmen or even political pundits. The one dimensional reporting we are getting from Iraq about body counts and the latest massacre is sufficient enough to sour them on the war effort. And while media coverage of the war is horribly incomplete, I doubt whether it would make any difference if the “good news” that happens in that bloody land were reported as well. Vice President Cheney’s rantings aside, it is not defeatism in the media or the Congress or in the blogosphere that is hurting our efforts in Iraq. It was and continues to be Administration policies that have proven themselves a failure.

Acknowledging that fact is the first step to fixing the situation. The second step is to lower our sights in what we can accomplish in Iraq militarily. And the final step will be in assisting the Iraqi government in coming to terms with the Sunnis and the Kurds and facilitating a truly national, non sectarian government where all Iraqis can live together in peace.

None of this will be accomplished by the Senate. And this is why I’m joining with Hugh Hewitt and other bloggers in signing a petition pledging not to support Republican Senators who vote with the Democrats on the Biden resolution. I would add that I will not support any Senator who votes for any resolution that undercuts the Commander in Chief or the Commanding General in theater in their plans to improve the security situation in Iraq. This includes a bunch of alternative resolutions eagerly being drawn up by Republican Senators who don’t want to be left behind when the “Stick it to the President” train leaves the station.

Hugh is also urging people to call Senator McConnell’s office ((202-224-2541) and urge him to organize a filibuster of the resolution.

Judging by the favorable reaction to his State of the Union speech, the American people, although highly skeptical, appear to be inclined to give the President one more chance to succeed in Iraq. The least we can do as Americans is to give our support to the Commander in Chief.

Two election workers in Ohio’s most populous county were convicted of tampering with votes prior to a recount of the ballots after the 2004 election:

Two election workers in the state’s most populous county were convicted Wednesday of illegally rigging the 2004 presidential election recount so they could avoid a more thorough review of the votes.

A third employee who had been charged was acquitted on all counts.

Jacqueline Maiden, the elections’ coordinator who was the board’s third-highest ranking employee when she was indicted last March, and ballot manager Kathleen Dreamer each were convicted of a felony count of negligent misconduct of an elections employee.

Maiden and Dreamer also were convicted of one misdemeanor count each of failure of elections employees to perform their duty. Both were acquitted of five other charges.

Rosie Grier, assistant manager of the Cuyahoga County Elections Board’s ballot department, was acquitted of all seven counts of various election misconduct or interference charges.

Here is proof positive that the forces of darkness were attempting to subvert the democratic process and hand the election to evil George Bush, right?

Well…not exactly.

You see, Cuyahoga County is about 70% Democratic. And the poll workers were hired by by the county elections board. Although the board is made up of two Democrats and two Republicans, I would hazard a guess (the article doesn’t, of course) that these convicted poll manipulators were Democrats. In fact, given the way patronage jobs work in most parts of the country - Democratic and Republican - it would be safe to say that these were Democratic party activists, rewarded with a nice plum of a job for past service.

What exactly were they trying to accomplish? Kerry got 67% of the county vote in 2004 and a few votes tossed his way wouldn’t have made any difference in the long run.

It appears that the workers were caught in something of a bind; some dufus laid out procedures for handling the recount without examining what the law said about it:

Grier, the worker who was acquitted, was the only defendant who commented following the verdicts.

“It has all been very stressful,” said Grier, 54. “Yes, I’m very relieved. But, none of us should have been in this courtroom today. These charges should not have been brought against any of us.”

Defense lawyer Roger Synenberg said in his closing argument that the 2004 presidential election was the most publicly observed ever in Cuyahoga County and the workers were simply following procedures as they understood them.

The county was already under fire for what happened on election day in Cleveland. Extraordinarily long lines were found in black precincts due to a lack of foresight by county officials in ordering enough voting machines. Also, some precincts failed to open on time because the county failed to staff them with the appropriate personnel. There were also a number of problems with the machines that did show up and there were long delays in either replacing or repairing them.

In short, Cuyahoga County’s managing of their own election was one gigantic cluserf**k. But don’t tell the conspiracy theorists that. Their heads might explode. You see, the conspiracy mongers have laid all of these problems at the doorstep of former Secretary of State (and co-Chair of the Bush campaign in Ohio) Kenneth Blackwell.

Blackwell’s administration of the election was marked by incompetence and, at times, a suspiciously partisan bent. However, many of the problems the conspiracy theorists try and tar him with are actually problems created by local election officials. The fact is that elections in this country are a disgrace; amateur hour for political hacks of both parties. It is too easy to fiddle with the results, too difficult for voters to register or understand procedures, and the government is too lazy to address the problem.

To try and single out one party or another for disapprobation for the way they handle elections locally or state wide is ridiculous. This is a national problem that cuts across party lines and regions.

This case highlights that fact. My purpose in bringing it to your attention is not to savage the Dems but to show that problems in Ohio - a flashpoint for the left in their conspiracy-addled brains - had as much to do with incompetence and ignorance as it did with some hidden agenda by Diebold or the machinations of the evil Republicans.

The question isn’t whether there is a problem with the way Republicans run elections or the way that Democrats run elections but in the way that elections are run in general. The sooner we come to agreement on that singular conclusion, the quicker we can address the problems associated with the most precious freedom we have; the right to choose our leaders.

UPDATE AND CLARIFICATION

I have changed the headline of this article from “Dem Election Workers…” to simply “Election Workers…” because I cannot find concrete evidence that any of the indicted workers were in fact members of the Democratic party. Given that the county is 70% Democratic, it would stand to reason that a plum job at the Board of Elections would probably go to a Democrat.

Any way you look at it, this appears to be either a case of the staff following stupid procedures that didn’t take into account what the law said about handling recounts or, just as likely, pure bureaucratic laziness. If discrepancies had been found, it would have been tons of more work for the staff - reason enough to fudge the results of a hand recount by picking out precincts where there was an exact match with the tally.

UPDATE II

Reader David Singh tracked down the political affiliations of the BOE workers:

David Singh wrote:
I looked up the voter registration records for the three election workers in
Cleveland who were on trial. I expected to see three registered democrats as
you surmised. Luckily, all three had names unique in the Ohio voter reg.
database @ publicdata.com.

Maiden — Democrat
Dreamer — Republican
Grier — unaffiliated

George Bush will go before the American people tonight and perform one of the only Constitutionally mandated duties of a President; he must “from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;” (Article II, Section 3).

It is not necessary that he give this speech before a joint session of Congress. Our first two Presidents felt it desirable to do so but from the time of the Jefferson Administration through President William Howard Taft’s final message in 1912, the “State of the Union” was an often lengthy report to Congress full of wish lists for various departments and boring summaries of the latest wars to kick Indians off their land. Woodrow Wilson invented the SOTU as a modern presidential dog and pony show, believing that the presidency was “dynamic, alive, and personal.”

Even modern Presidents have sometimes not bothered to deliver the SOTU in public and instead, simply handed one into Congress like a kid handing his homework. Jimmy Carter was the last President to forgo the pleasure of appearing before Congress. His final SOTU in 1981 was hand delivered to Congress and judging by its length, they may have had to use a crane to get the damn thing to the Speaker’s office. Reading it through, one is struck by the blindness, the moral cowardice, and the denial of reality that oozes from every page. Even after the whupping the Gipper gave him, Carter could never acknowledge either his own mistakes or that his worldview was warped, stupid and naive.

State of the Union speeches have since become grand civic theater - a cross between a classic melodrama when a President points to the American hero of the day in the gallery and low, bawdy house comedy as the reactions of the opposition party become as much a part of the speech as the words uttered by the President.

But there was a time when the State of the Union speech took on enormous drama and in a very real way inspired millions.

Ronald Reagan’s 1982 speech was his first SOTU. He was at the height of his powers, holding the Congress and the nation spellbound with soaring rhetoric and hardheaded assessments of both our domestic and foreign problems:

But from this podium, Winston Churchill asked the free world to stand together against the onslaught of aggression. Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke of a day of infamy and summoned a nation to arms. Douglas MacArthur made an unforgettable farewell to a country he loved and served so well. Dwight Eisenhower reminded us that peace was purchased only at the price of strength. And John F. Kennedy spoke of the burden and glory that is freedom.

When I visited this Chamber last year as a newcomer to Washington, critical of past policies which I believed had failed, I proposed a new spirit of partnership between this Congress and this administration and between Washington and our State and local governments. In forging this new partnership for America, we could achieve the oldest hopes of our Republic—prosperity for our nation, peace for the world, and the blessings of individual liberty for our children and, someday, for all of humanity.

It’s my duty to report to you tonight on the progress that we have made in our relations with other nations, on the foundation we’ve carefully laid for our economic recovery, and finally, on a bold and spirited initiative that I believe can change the face of American government and make it again the servant of the people.

Seldom have the stakes been higher for America. What we do and say here will make all the difference to autoworkers in Detroit, lumberjacks in the Northwest, steelworkers in Steubenville who are in the unemployment lines; to black teenagers in Newark and Chicago; to hard-pressed farmers and small businessmen; and to millions of everyday Americans who harbor the simple wish of a safe and financially secure future for their children. To understand the state of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we’re going but where we’ve been.

After detailing the dire straits he found the Republic upon taking office, Reagan ticked off a few of the measures he had taken to remedy the situation. It is important to remember that the recession at that time was really beginning to bite as Fed Chairman Paul Volker put the screws to inflation by jacking up interest rates. And yet Reagan insisted on staying the course with his economic plan, convinced in the end that it would work.

Of course it did - mostly. The deficit soared when Reagan misjudged the Democratic Congress. He thought they would be forced to cut entitlements and other non defense spending in order to avoid all that massive red ink. He was wrong there. But if there is one thing all Americans can be grateful to Reagan for is that he let Volker wring inflation out of the economy. The medicine was bitter but absolutely necessary. It was a courageous choice, one that liberals never give him credit and one that every President since has had reason to silently thank him for.

While self congratulatory, the speech also pointed up the pain that was being inflicted and a warning that things would not get better anytime soon:

No one pretends that the way ahead will be easy. In my Inaugural Address last year, I warned that the “ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away . . . because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we’ve had it in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.” ‘

The economy will face difficult moments in the months ahead. But the program for economic recovery that is in place will pull the economy out of its slump and put us on the road to prosperity and stable growth by the latter half of this year. And that is why I can report to you tonight that in the near future the state of the Union and the economy will be better—much better—if we summon the strength to continue on the course that we’ve charted.

I don’t believe any President since this speech has ever been anything except Little Miss Suzie Sunshine about the current and future state of the Union. And Reagan’s prediction about economic growth was almost spot on; it took until the second quarter of 1983 for growth to begin again. And this time, it was non-inflationary growth. The inflation rate had been whittled down from 12% to less than 4% in two years.

But where Reagan succeeded brilliantly was his inspiration in placing Lenny Skutnik in the gallery to be recognized for heroism. When the President does this nowadays, it seems trite and forced. But back in 1982, Skutnik really was a hero - a very ordinary guy who performed a truly heroic act.

Just two weeks before the speech, on a snowy icy day in Washington, D.C., an Air Florida jet taking off from what was then called Washington National Airport crashed a mile from the airport, hitting the 14th Street bridge and plunging into the icy Potomac River. Six passengers managed to get out of the sinking plane to take their chances in the water.

Traffic on the bridge was at a total standstill which delayed many rescuers from reaching the crash site. A few firefighters with inadequate equipment made it to the river bank and a helicopter began to rescue those in the river by dropping lifelines to the 6 passengers in the icy water. One of the passengers, Arland Williams, began passing the lifelines to others who were too cold to make a move toward them. This eventually cost Williams his life as he became the only passenger who drowned as a result of the crash.

One of the passengers that Williams gave a lifeline to could not hold on as the helicopter began to lift her out of the water. It was then that Skutnik, seeing what was happening and watching as the woman slowly began to go under, jumped into the water. A firefighter leapt in after him to keep Skutnik from drowning and together, they ended up helping the woman to shore.

The crash and aftermath had mesmerized the nation for days and Skutnik was hailed from coast to coast as a true hero. Reagan tapped into all that emotion and skillfully used Skutnik as a prop to underscore his message of courage and that ordinary people can make a difference:

And then there are countless, quiet, everyday heroes of American who sacrifice long and hard so their children will know a better life than they’ve known; church and civic volunteers who help to feed, clothe, nurse, and teach the needy; millions who’ve made our nation and our nation’s destiny so very special-unsung heroes who may not have realized their own dreams themselves but then who reinvest those dreams in their children. Don’t let anyone tell you that America’s best days are behind her, that the American spirit has been vanquished. We’ve seen it triumph too often in our lives to stop believing in it now.

A hundred and twenty years ago, the greatest of all our Presidents delivered his second State of the Union message in this Chamber. “We cannot escape history,” Abraham Lincoln warned. “We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves.” The “trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest [last] generation.”

Well, that President and that Congress did not fail the American people. Together they weathered the storm and preserved the Union. Let it be said of us that we, too, did not fail; that we, too, worked together to bring America through difficult times. Let us so conduct ourselves that two centuries from now, another Congress and another President, meeting in this Chamber as we are meeting, will speak of us with pride, saying that we met the test and preserved for them in their day the sacred flame of liberty—this last, best hope of man on Earth.

It is very hard to recapture the emotions one felt listening to those words, remembering the times in which they were delivered. Those too young to comprehend or who weren’t born at that time will never understand the rank pessimism that Reagan was fighting. Like today, the naysayers were talking about the end of American dominance. We’re through, they said back then. Might was well walk away and let the Soviets have the world if they want it so badly. We’re running out of oil, our economy will never be the same, and we’ll have to learn to live with inflation and slow growth. Better get used to the idea that from now on, we’ll have limits on our power, our hopes, our dreams.

Those warnings sound just as silly today as they did back then. I don’t see anyone anywhere trying to challenge the “broken” American military. No nation wishes to commit suicide. That domestic insurrection directed against Iranian President Ahmadinejad has many elements to it, not the least of which is the realization that unless they shut the guy up, they are liable to be paid a visit by our “broken” military.

And all that paper held by the Chinese and other foreigners? While not dismissing the problem outright it should be pointed out that 25 years ago it was the Saudis and the Japanese buying up the United States that had our doomsayers in such a glum mood.

Our “moral standing in the world” always suffers under Republican Presidents. In 1982, it was Reagan’s “bellicose” rhetoric that was frightening women, children, and the French and causing the rest of the world to hate and fear us. You should know by now that our moral standing can only improve when we fight in places where we have no national interest and then only when liberals can be convinced that we are killing people selflessly.

What we need to hear tonight is a dose of Reaganism - a very large, full measure of the man’s optimism, faith, hope, and will.

But what we definitely won’t hear tonight, what we need to hear tonight, is what we have not heard since Reagan’s 1982 stirring call to action; the kind of pep talk that would pull us together as a nation and send us out to do battle with our enemies if not united then certainly with a helluva lot more confidence in ourselves than we have at present.

George Bush is a lameduck coming before Congress to give a largely meaningless speech during which he will appeal for support on Iraq. The American people do not appear to be in a mood to give their assent. Whether it is because they don’t think him capable or whether they have lost faith in him as a leader is immaterial to the issue at hand; winning or losing what’s left of Iraq.

If there is victory to be had in Iraq - and if it comes it will be with caveats galore - George Bush must use whatever persuasive powers he has to convince the American people that the goals he sets up to measure victory are realistic and can be achieved in a relatively short period of time. No timetable but rather a ticking clock. And with every movement of the clock hand we get closer to the 2008 election where success or failure in Iraq will define his party and his legacy and the President’s room for maneuver will be lost (if it’s not already gone).

The stakes are just as high now as they were in 1982. Back then, Reagan was attempting to infuse the nation with the spirit of optimism. For Bush, he must give the country a reason to support our fight in Iraq. I wish I could be optimistic that the President will rise to this challenge and overcome his limitations to give the speech of his life. But past history suggests all of us will be disappointed and Bush will fall far short of what is necessary to rally the nation to him.

CAIR spokesperson complaining about portrayal of Muslims on 24

The sound is grating to the ears. Whenever there is the slightest opportunity to piggyback a grievance - either real or imagined - on a story that will guarantee a few precious lines of copy in newspapers or a few seconds of face time on television, the Council on American Islamic Relations will turn on the whine and, like a fingernail being drawn slowly across the surface of a blackboard, draw attention to themselves in the most excruciating manner possible.

Today’s torture is the result of the realistic portrayal of Muslim terrorists on Fox’s action series 24. The show has been a favorite target for the group. They pressured the producers to actually change the story line two seasons ago because of characters who they considered were not truly representational of Arabs. The plot that season centered around Jack Bauer’s most evil foe in the history of the series. Marwan was clever, resourceful, brilliant, dedicated, and a fanatical jihadist. This exchange between Bauer and Marwan sums up both sides of the war we are fighting with the jihadis brilliantly.

Marwan is in custody but a cruise missile has been launched in the Midwest and is headed for Los Angeles. In order to get the frequency so that we can destroy the bird, which is just minutes from impact, the President has instructed Jack to make a deal with the terrorist:

Jack: You and I both know all I want to do right now is kill you. But I have my orders. You win. I’ve been instructed to ask you what you want.

Marwan: What I want is already happening.

Jack: The death and destruction is a means to an end, Why don’t we just skip to the end?

Marwan: To the end?

Jack: Everything you did today you did for a reason, for your people. What do you want to change?

Marwan: I have no desire to have a political discussion with you..

Jack: You tell me where the missile is headed, you help me stop it and I’ll guarantee you’ll talk to the President. Believe me, he’ll have no choice but to listen. You have a chance to get what you want.

Marwan: I already have agent Bauer. After this day, elected officials and the American people will know that they can’t intervene in our lives, in our countries with impunity. Besides, your President sees me in only one dimension – evil.

Jack: As you see us?

Marwan: Yes…and vulnerable.

You won’t find a Muslim talking like that anywhere else on television. Which, of course, is why CAIR is desperate to stifle it. And with this year’s story line including the detonation of a nuclear weapon in Los Angeles by other fanatical Muslims, the whine has reached new levels of agonizing discomfort:

Being portrayed again as the heartless wrongdoers has drawn renewed protests from Muslim groups, including one that had a meeting with Fox executives two years ago over the issue.

“The overwhelming impression you get is fear and hatred for Muslims,” said Rabiah Ahmed, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations. She said Thursday she was distressed by this season’s premiere. “After watching that show, I was afraid to go to the grocery store because I wasn’t sure the person next to me would be able to differentiate between fiction and reality.”

Who is it that can’t tell the difference between fiction and reality?

This isn’t even hypersensitivity to slight. It is out and out paranoia. Anyone who is afraid to go to a grocery store in the Washington, D.C. area because they are scared of being attacked is a loon, pure and simple.

In fact, why not just cut to the chase and call the spokesperson a liar?

She might have a point if there was some kind of crime spree directed against American Muslims. But one of the least reported facts in the aftermath of 9/11 was the remarkably low number of “hate crimes” directed against Arabs.

Since 9/11 the Justice Department has investigated 750 “incidents” involving not just Arabs, but others who appear to be of middle eastern origin. Out of all those incidents, federal charges have been brought against just 35 individuals. They’ve also assisted local prosecutors with another 150 cases.

This hardly represents an epidemic of hate directed against Arabs. But you’d never know it listening to the carefully choreographed cries of outrage from CAIR and other Muslim groups:

Watching the show’s characters talk about detonating a nuclear weapon a few blocks from where she works unnerved Sireen Sawaf, an official with the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council, and a self-described “huge `24′ fan.”

“It’s a great show, and I do realize it’s a multidimensional show that portrays extreme situations,” she said. “They have gone out of their way to have non-Muslim terror cells.

“But I’m concerned about the image it ingrains in the minds of the American public and the American government, particularly when you have anti-Muslim statements spewing from the mouths of government officials.”

Sohail Mohammed, a New Jersey immigration lawyer who represented scores of detainees caught up in the post Sept. 11, 2001 dragnet, watched the episode depicting the nuclear attack with an Associated Press reporter.

“I was shocked,” he said. “Somewhere, some lunatic out there watching this will do something to an innocent American Muslim because he believes what he saw on TV.”

Are you kidding me? First, Ms. Sawaf’s belief that the way Muslims are portrayed on 24 will have an affect on government officials? And then the lawyer who makes an outrageous statement about a Muslim being attacked without one shred of evidence that such a crime has ever been perpetrated in the past as a result of any TV show much less 24?

This is grievance mongering at its worst. And the most vile practitioner of it is CAIR whose over the top response to any and all perceived slights actually overshadows the grievance itself. It makes one wish that they would be half as condemnatory about terrorist attacks against innocents as they are about being singled out at airports for security checks or having people cast uneasy glances in their direction on city streets.

Goodness knows that there is plenty of bigotry hurled against Muslim Americans. America is a big country with a lot of ignorant people whose fear of those who are different manifests itself in many hurtful ways. And if the grievance mongers at CAIR would confine themselves to combating this kind of ignorance and hate, then they would be doing themselves and the nation a favor.

But that’s not the way the oppressed minority game is played in America today. If there is no grievance, then manufacture one. Liberal guilt and a willing media will do the rest.

Judging by this statement, Fox Network appears ready to resist pressure this time around to change the story line of 24:

In a written statement issued late Wednesday night, the network said it has not singled out any ethnic or religious group for blame in creating its characters.

“24 is a heightened drama about anti-terrorism,” the statement read. “After five seasons, the audience clearly understands this, and realizes that any individual, family, or group (ethnic or otherwise) that engages in violence is not meant to be typical.

“Over the past several seasons, the villains have included shadowy Anglo businessmen, Baltic Europeans, Germans, Russians, Islamic fundamentalists, and even the (Anglo-American) president of the United States,” the network said. “The show has made a concerted effort to show ethnic, religious and political groups as multidimensional, and political issues are debated from multiple viewpoints.”

Unbelievable that a major television network finds it necessary to point out that they’ve tried to spread the villains around among a variety of races and ethnicities. Kind of makes you wonder who might be keeping score?

Most people don’t put much stock in opinion polls - unless you’re a liberal and the majority supports your position. Then the poll takes on all the characteristics of holy writ. Moses and his commandments have less truthiness than a liberal clutching the results of an opinion poll that agrees with one of his positions. Then, waving the piece of paper aloft a la Chamberlain home from Munich, we lesser beings are informed that Vox populi, vox dei, (”The voice of the people is the voice of God”) and that unless the government alters their policies to conform with the latest skewed data from such unbiased sources as AP, USA Today, and the New York Times, liberals will get mad and throw a tantrum while accusing their political opponents of setting up a dictatorship.

It’s all well and good for a lefty to chortle and point to a poll showing 70% of the American people believing that George Bush is an incompetent fruitcake with the brains of a marmoset and the integrity of a tree sloth. And any old poll on the Iraq War showing the massive discontent in the country with this botched adventure is enough to send the left into paroxysms of joy, seeing vindication of their position as proof positive that while there may not be a God, there is schadenfreud to be celebrated.

Every once and a while, however, some dumb ass pollster will ask a really stupid question that reveals a teensy bit more about the nature of the left than they intend. And in doing so, a shocking truth is revealed that would give the rest of the country pause - if there was a ghost of a chance in hell that the information would be as widely disseminated as say, the number of people who think George Bush has the brains of a marmoset and the integrity of a tree sloth:

A sizable minority is optimistic that the president’s plan will work. About one in four think it is either very (10 percent) or somewhat (29 percent) likely the plan will succeed, 27 percent think it is not very likely to succeed and another 25 percent say not at all likely.

Even though a majority opposes Bush’s new plan and many are doubtful it can succeed, that does not mean they want it to fail: 63 percent of Americans say they want the plan to succeed, including 79 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of independents and 51 percent of Democrats.

On the larger political front, more people think “most Democrats” want the Bush plan to fail and for him to have to withdraw troops in defeat (48 percent), than think Democrats want the plan to succeed and lead to a stable Iraq (32 percent).

There are three separate issues here. First, while most Americans are doubtful that the surge will succeed, a sizable minority - certainly enough to prevent Congress from scuttling the plan - believe it will work. No wonder Pelosi is going to give Bush his head and allow funding for the plan to go forward.

But the real shocker here is the number of Democrats who want the plan to succeed. A bare majority of Democrats (51%) want the United States military to prevail on the field of battle. Now if I were to posit a logical fallacy, I could say that since 49% of Democrats want the military to fail, then it follows that they wish large numbers of American soldiers to die to make their wish come true. But I would never accuse Democrats of any such thing, would I?

What I am accusing them of is that they would rather see the President, and by extension, the United States of America suffer a humiliating defeat than see their cherished ideas of defeatism dribble away like so much frozen custard on a hot summer’s day. They would rather the US lose than be proved wrong.

An exaggeration? The last number quoted above is even more telling. Here’s the breakdown of people who think the Democrats want the surge plan to fail:

Democrats 42% 38 7 12
Republicans 21% 67 7 5
Independents 30% 42 11

The first number refers to respondents who think the Democrats want the plan to succeed. The second number are those who believe Democrats want the plan to fail. The third number reflects those who believe some want one thing, some another. The last number represents those Americans in perpetual obliviousness; they don’t know.

What I find extraordinary is that 38% of Democrats believe that their own party is made up of…what? Traitors? Too harsh. How about a bunch of brainless twits whose myopia is so profound that they would wish for disaster to befall American arms. The fact that this could only mean that a lot of American soldiers would be killed for nothing makes their disconnect from reality complete.

You can be sure that this aspect of the poll will never, ever see the light of day on any other network save Fox News. Nor will it be reported in any major media outlet. And to the extent that lefty blogs pay any attention the poll at all, it will be to highlight the American people’s opposition to the surge.

But there it is in black and white. And no amount of spin or whining about the source or savaging the pollster for even asking the question will change what those numbers represent: That a sizable portion of the Democratic party has a vested emotional interest in the defeat of American arms.

One can argue (and I’m sure the left will) that Iraq is already “lost” and that therefore the poll is meaningless. But the question was specifically about the President’s plan and whether or not the respondent hoped that it would succeed. Even allowing for respondent stupidity (as Ace does here) that still leaves a sizable portion of the Democrats devoutly wishing for failure of the United States military on the field of battle.

Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels. But cowardice is where the scoundrel goes first.

UPDATE

Dean Barnett calls it “The Most Depressing Poll Ever.” I have to agree. Despite my rather cavalier tone above, I find it incomprehensible that people would allow their opposition to the President or even the war itself to overcome their innate sense of patriotism that the overwhelming majority of Americans feel when it comes to our military.

Michelle Malkin contrasts the poll numbers with some steps foward in Iraq.

Sister Toldjah: :

Got that? 59% of Democrats say they would vote against funding the current level of US troops in Iraq in order to try and force a troop withdrawal and 8% “don’t know” (uh huh).

Bbbbut they support the troops.

Curt at Flopping Aces:

I’ve been saying this for so long my fingers cramp from all the typing. Liberals want nothing more then the United Stated to run from Iraq with our tails between our legs, knowing that would make the sacrificies of our troops to have been in vain, all so they could say “See! Bush was wrong!”.

How friggin disgusting.

I’ve read a couple of books by Dinesh D’Souza, a self designated conservative intellectual whose most controversial book, “The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society caused some liberal’s heads to explode back in the 90’s. As examples of deep conservative thought, they are excellent brain candy; fluffy, superficial explorations of the left’s dominance of American culture and academia. The End of Racisim was even skewered by some conservatives for being wretchedly sourced and borderline bigoted. Two black fellows at The American Enterprise Institute resigned in protest over the think tank’s promotion of the book as well as D’Souza’s continued affiliation with the group.

One of the black fellows who resigned, Glenn Loury, wrote a review of The End of Racism in which he called the then 34 year old D’Souza “the Mark Fuhrman of public policy” which may have been a little unfair but indicative of the effect that D’Souza’s shallow critique of black culture had on genuine intellectuals like Loury. D’Souza also wrote Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus in which he anticipated the much more scholarly efforts of David Horwitz in exposing the left wing bias of professors and college administrators. In D’Souza’s case, the major criticism was again one of poor sourcing. I would add that Illiberal Education, as a dialectic, was an utter failure. Logical fallacies abound in the book and it should have finished the young man as a serious critic.

But the same conservative network of foundations, think tanks, and study groups that raises up and propels brilliant thinkers like Michael Ledeen, Fred Kagan, and Jeffrey Hart to prominence also brings us the occasional dud. D’Souza, and to some extent Ann Coulter, share a predilection for generating outrage both for the sake of advancing their personal public personae as well as eliciting angry responses from the left. The latter is important in that most criticism of their work is just as shallow and vapid as the work being criticized - easy pickings for a clever interlocutor like D’Souza who is a regular on CNN and other cable news networks where clever ripostes and chicken soup bromides rule the airwaves.

The only book of D’Souza’s that I really liked was Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader - a hagiographic summation of The Gipper’s impact on America and the Presidency as well as a listing of his leadership qualities that D’Souza claims made him the leader that he was. Here D’Souza wasn’t attempting any deep analysis but rather simply giving his opinion of a man he obviously admired. It was a thoroughly enjoyable read with plenty of Reagan anecdotes and a rehash of some of his major addresses. I came away with a deeper appreciation of the man although not convinced that any of Reagan’s unusual qualities or unorthodox leadership style could necessarily be adopted by anyone else to be a successful President.

This much is clear; D’Souza is not cut out to be a scholar. His mind appears to be too undisciplined to rigorously examine the subject he writes about, taking the issues apart and putting them back together so that he is intimately familiar with all aspects of the matter. Nor does he seem to be very self critical in that I don’t see him constantly challenging his own ideas. While this is a failing of many people who consider themselves scholars, constantly bulldogging one’s own work brings texture and a richness to arguments and gives depth and nuance to criticism.

It is dangerous (and a little silly) to comment on a book I haven’t read. But D’Souza’s latest effort, The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, judging only by what the author himself has said and news reports of its contents have revealed, I would have to say that D’Souza has elevated logical fallacy to an art form while making Ann Coulter look like a Sister of Mercy of liberal criticism.

D’Souza’s own words:

“In this book I make a claim that will seem startling at the outset. The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11. … In faulting the cultural left, I am not making the absurd accusation that this group blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world. The Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks were the product of this visceral rage–some of it based on legitimate concerns, some of it based on wrongful prejudice, but all of it fueled and encouraged by the cultural left. Thus without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened.

Muslim rage “fueled and encouraged by the cultural left” being “responsible” for 9/11? There are few more vociferous and sneeringly deprecating critics of the cultural left than yours truly but this is sheer lunacy. And it gets worse:

“I realize that this is a strong charge, one that no one has made before. But it is a neglected aspect of the 9/11 debate, and it is critical to understanding the current controversy over the ‘war against terrorism.’ … I intend to show that the left has actively fostered the intense hatred of America that has led to numerous attacks such as 9/11. If I am right, then no war against terrorism can be effectively fought using the left-wing premises that are now accepted doctrine among mainstream liberals and Democrats.”

First, the idea that no one has made this charge before is ludicrous and shows that D’Souza either lives in a cocoon or is a shoddy researcher:

It took culture warrior Robert Knight to refine the argument, and he was quite specific about who was to blame:

“None of this happened by accident. It is directly due to cultural depravity advanced in the name of progress and amplified by a sensation-hungry media.

* We were told putting women into combat areas is progressive and enlightened.

* We were told pornography is liberating, and that anyone who objects is a narrow-minded Puritan who needs therapy. We have been flooded with porn imagery on mainstream television and in magazine ads. Where did those soldiers get the idea to engage in sadomasochistic activity and to videotape it in voyeuristic fashion? Easy. It’s found on thousands of Internet porn sites and in the pages of “gay” publications, where S&M events are advertised alongside ads for Subarus, liquor and drugs to treat HIV and hepatitis.

* We were told homosexuality is harmless and normal, and the military should live with a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that allows homosexuals to stay in the barracks. We were told that men “marrying” men and women “marrying” women is inevitable - not only for America, but for the world. Imagine how those images of men kissing men outside San Francisco City Hall after being “married” play in the Muslim world. We couldn’t offer the mullahs a more perfect picture of American decadence. This puts Americans at risk all over the world, especially Christian missionaries who are trying to bring the Gospel to people trapped in darkness for millennia.

* This is a Perfect Storm of our own making, and it is up to normal Americans to unmake it. It is not beyond correction. The American people should start by getting on their knees and asking God’s forgiveness for letting it get this bad. Then, they should ask Him for guidance in how to restore the moral order.”

While Knight is talking specifically about Iraq, he generalizes the jihadis hatred - ostensibly the same hatred that fueled the 9/11 attackers. (Read Eric’s entire piece. It is an excellent antidote to D’Souza’s idiocy.)

In fact, as this review of The Enemy at Home in Slate Magazine by Timothy Noah points out, D’Souza’s slings and arrows directed at the “cultural left” (a term he apparently never defines) seems to have missed their mark entirely:

The heart of D’Souza’s book isn’t his libeling of the American left, but rather his libeling of the American right. D’Souza notes, correctly, that al-Qaida’s hatred toward the West in general, and the United States in particular, is animated to a great extent by America’s permissive culture. But Bin Laden isn’t some Michael Medved figure grumping about the vulgarity of American Pie. He’s got bigger fish to fry. Al-Qaida’s enemy isn’t the excesses of secular culture; it’s secular culture itself. And to a surprising degree, D’Souza is willing to go along for the ride. Theocracy, D’Souza argues, is misunderstood to mean “rule by divine authority of the priesthood or clergy.” Not so! There are checks and balances, just like in the U.S. Constitution. In Iran, for instance, “the power of the state and of the mullahs is limited by the specific rules set forth in the Koran and the Islamic tradition. The rulers themselves are bound by these laws.”

Jesus Lord what sophistry! And ignorance to boot. It would come as a huge surprise to the small number of cowering democrats in Iran that the power of the state is “limited” in any way. More than 200,000 Revolutionary Guards make sure of that. And the Supreme Leader, whose power is technically checked by an Assembly of Experts, in reality does anything he damn well pleases as long as he’s clever enough to justify it by interpreting the Koran broadly enough.

But Noah’s point that D’Souza is actually libeling conservatives is well taken. If conservatives in this country express similar criticisms of the cultural left as the Islamic fanatics, according to D’Souza’s illogic doesn’t that put the social righties on the same moral plane as the jihadis? Doesn’t it, in fact, make us allies with conservative traditionalists around the world - even conservative Muslims? You betchya!

[I]f the political left and the Islamic fundamentalists are in the same foreign policy camp [because they both hate American imperialism], then by the same token the political right and the Islamic fundamentalists are on the same wavelength on social issues. The left is allied with some radical Muslims in opposition to American foreign policy, and the right is allied with an even larger group of Muslims [which includes radical Muslims] in their opposition to American social and cultural depravity. This is the essential new framework I propose for understanding American foreign policy and American social issues.

I hardly think we need this kind of “framework” - which is about as broad and simplistic as I’ve ever seen proposed - in reaching a new intellectual paradigm that explains either American foreign policy or the cultural left. D’Souza is spouting nonsense - a language he speaks with great fluency and total obliviousness to rationality.

If D’Souza had written about the toxicity of the culture promoted by the left and its effect on the mores and manners of American society - dumbing down discourse while polluting the values and traditions that hold the country together, I may have taken a flyer on the book and bought it. But from all that I’ve read about this book - both left and right - it’s a tome only the rabid cultural warriors could embrace.

Do you think they’ll catch the irony of D’Souza’s idea of making common cause against the left by allying with Muslim conservatives? I think not. They’ll probably be too busy chortling over the savaging of lefty icons to pay much attention to what passes for nuance in the book.

Under enormous pressure from the netnuts and other liberal activists, it appears that the Democratic leadership is caving in and is going to try and cut off funding for more troops in Iraq:

Senior House Democrats said yesterday that they will attempt to derail funding for President Bush’s proposal to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, setting up what could become the most significant confrontation between the White House and Congress over military policy since the Vietnam War.

Senate Democrats at the same time will seek bipartisan support for a nonbinding resolution opposing the president’s plan, possibly as early as next week, in what some party officials see as the first step in a strategy aimed at isolating Bush politically and forcing the beginning of a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from the conflict.

The bold plans reflect the Democrats’ belief that the public has abandoned Bush on the war and that the American people will have little patience for an escalation of the U.S. military presence in Iraq. But the moves carry clear risks for a party that suffered politically for pushing to end an unpopular war in Vietnam three decades ago, and Democratic leaders hope to avoid a similar fate over the conflict in Iraq.

The trick for the Dems is to walk the fine line between dissing the Commander in Chief and hurting the troops. For the former, I don’t think the American people could care one way or another. But the quickest way for the Democrats to lose their majority would be the appearance that they were abandoning the troops in the field.

Indeed, it is going to be very hard to separate defunding the “surge” and cutting funds to the troops already there:

House Democratic leaders have said they will not use the power of the purse in any way that would harm troops in the field, a position that had run afoul of the party’s liberal activists. Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, said that pledge is being calibrated to apply only to troops in the field now.

Tauscher said Democratic policy must “satisfy the American people that we’re putting a speed bump in front of the president that will actually hold,” adding: “The White House is used to doing business on their own, but they’re realizing things have changed. This is vastly different.”

House Democrats also expect to introduce soon a resolution of disapproval for Bush’s new policy but have moved farther than Senate Democrats toward an outright funding confrontation with the White House.

That “speed bump” also has perils for the majority. Suppose Bush surprises us and actually convinces a sizable portion of the American people that his surge is necessary? The obstructionist party during wartime - even during an unpopular war - never fares very well. Don’t believe me? Let’s email the Whig party and ask them what they think. After opposing the Mexican War, the election of 1848 was the beginning of the end for them.

By far the biggest risk the Democrats take in blocking the surge is in promoting the perception that they don’t want to “win” the war. Even though a majority of Americans believe we are losing in Iraq that doesn’t mean that a majority accepts their view that we’ve already lost. So if the Democrats can fool the people into thinking that they still support the concept of “winning,” and can portray their obstruction of the surge as part of a strategy that will lead to “victory,” (or at least avoid “defeat”), there should be plenty of support for blocking the President’s plan to send more troops to Iraq - at least in the House.

I don’t think the Senate will go along with any attempt to deny funds for a surge - at least at this point. It’s hard to say what another week of pressure from the Kossacks and other netnuts will do to that prediction. If, as this article points out, the Dem strategy is to isolate Bush by going on record opposing the surge while working to deny funds for the move at the same time, it is possible that support for Bush will collapse in both the House and the Senate and even the GOP will begin scrambling for an out on Iraq.

It will be very difficult to keep Bush from sending those extra men. And any effort to deny him those troops by the Democrats is fraught with danger. But support for the war is at such a low ebb and support for Bush even lower, the Dems just might be tempted to flex some muscle and start running the war their own way.