Right Wing Nut House

The Rick Moran show will go live today at 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM Central time.

Join me today as I delve into the Rush Limbaugh controversy. I’ll have Frank Martin of the blog Varifrank on to look at what Limbaugh said but also the Democratic reaction to it and the free speech questions it and the Moveon.org ad raise.

I just had to have Frank on after I read this piece on his site.

You can call into the show to talk to Frank and I at (718) 664-9764.

A podcast will be available for download shortly after the show ends. If you’d like to stream the broadcast live, go here.

UPDATE

You can stream the show via the player below. Or go here to download the program.

This is starting to get fun. Watching Congressional liberals like Tom Harkin skewer Rush Limbaugh for his “phony soldiers” smear of anti-war troops is a bit like watching Leonardo DiCaprio do Shakespeare; it’s so horrifically bad you just want to sit back and enjoy the actor making an absolute fool of himself.

Of course, Rush should have apologized days ago. If he had, the whole thing would probably have blown over or at least not become the cause celebre of the blogosphere that has seen those on the right falling all over themselves trying to defend the indefensible and those on the left - still smarting from the Moveon.org “Betray-us” ad fiasco that played a huge part in blunting the anti-war pack in Congress from succeeding in destroying Petraeus’s credibility - trying to convince everyone that Rush Limbaugh is an anti-military, unpatriotic, drug addict.

Frank Martin explains the stupidity of the Democrat’s weird attack:

What was once said about “not starting an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel” can also be said about someone who’s voice can be found in every populated area of the western hemisphere for at least 3 straight hours every day.

3 hours a day, 5 days a week, repeated on Saturday and Sunday, with newsletter and website and podcast for a low,low monthly subscription. Democrats seem to have collectively decided in their “moment of triumph” with a whopping 24% approval rating to wander into the idealogical bull ring, not dressed as a matador, but wearing a red union suit, clown shoes and a big red nose, and then bend over while facing the other way and waving at the kids in the front row of the stands.

Right in the path of the charging enraged bull.

Indeed, put that way, Rush really didn’t need to back down and apologize although it would have been the decent thing to do. I know many of you disagree but the fact is, in order to believe Rush’s version of his thought processes, you have to believe he hasn’t spent the last decade and a half lumping people who disagree with him together and tarring them as “unpatriotic” or “un-American.” This is Rush’s shtick and to deny that he has made a career out of doing it is to deny him the air he breathes.

But the liberal reaction to Limbaugh’s smear has been outrageous by any standards. Rush left them an opening they haven’t had in years - to turn the tables on their number one talk radio tormentor and use the exact same calumnious language to hit back. It really does remind me of a ten year old boy on the playground, sticking his tongue out at a bully while saying “So there.”

And in the background of all this is the devout wish of Media Matters and the anti-war left to lash out blindly following what I called at the time “the dumbest, the most spectacularly ignorant political maneuver in modern history.” The Moveon ad not only let Petraeus off the hook politically. It tempered the criticism of Congressional questioners and in the end, actually engineered momentum for the pro-surge crowd.

As recently as week before the ad appeared, most political observers believed that all the momentum was on the anti-war side despite the smattering of good news from Iraq. The ad took the wind out of the sails of the anti-war side, causing their Hill allies to scramble for cover behind a resolution condemning the attack.

The ad backfired so egregiously, damaging the credibility of the New York Times in the process because of the newspaper’s generous discount to Moveon, that it generated sympathy for Petraeus across the country and bolstered his credibility. In fact, the ad did exactly the opposite of what it was originally intended to do; a spectacular failure in the annals of American politics.

These facts have the anti-war crowd all in a lather and seeking to lash out at the first target of opportunity that presented itself. First, they tried a curious smear of the President for his “all the Mandelas are dead” comment - a childish ploy that any 5 year old could see through.

Then it was Bill O’Reilly’s turn to be smeared regarding some “racist” comments he made about going to Harlem. That attempt at revenge fell through when Juan Williams came out and set the record straight. In the world of liberal pandering, the authentic voice of “the other” cannot be challenged. Strike two on the left.

Finally came Limbaugh’s generosity in presenting the anti-war crew with what they believed was a gift horse; the perfect vehicle to get back at their long time nemesis. Except the way they went about it was incredibly stupid.

First of all, what cloakroom genius put Senator Tom Harkin, a man forced to admit that he lied through his teeth about his own military service, out front on this issue? It’s just incomprehensible that the liberals could be that stupid. The only possible explanation is that, like Ted Kennedy’s driving problems and Barney Frank’s male out call caper, Harkin’s admission was so long ago that they figured everyone has forgotten about it.

To top it off, Harkin pandered shamelessly to the vulgarity of the “compassionate” netnuts by bringing up Limbaugh’s battle to overcome addiction:

Well, I don’t know. Maybe he was just high on his drugs again. I don’t know whether he was or not. If so, he ought to let us know. But that shouldn’t be an excuse.

The satisfaction with Harkin on the left after he made that comment was so palpable - and shocking - that you could almost see them rubbing their hands together in glee as one. It never ceases to amaze me that the liberals can continue to brag about how compassionate they are compared to conservatives while throwing out the nastiest, most personal, most vile invective this side of a Britt/K-Fed exchange of emails.

Malkin hits the nail on the head here (although I disagree with her take on the incident in general):

Here is what this phony fiasco is really all about: It’s about the MoveOn.org Democrats trying to save face in the aftermath of the disastrous “General Betray Us” smear. They want their own moment of righteous (or rather, lefteous) indignation, their own empty proof that they really, really, really do support the troops. They want to shift attention away from MoveOn.org, its bully tactics, and its thug brethren at Media Matters. They are making a pathetic attempt to equate the “Betray Us” attack–which was deliberately timed for publication and maximum p.r. damage to our military command when the world was watching our top general in Iraq testifying in Congress–with a radio talk show host’s ruminations about anti-war soldiers who have faked their military records/history.

Bottom-of-the-barrel desperation.

Face it my lefty friends, the Democrats have botched this attack big time. In fact, a move by GOP House members to actually introduce a resolution praising Limbaugh is gaining steam along with Representative Udall’s resolution condemning him. This thing is going to backfire in the Dems faces as once again, liberal lawmakers will be seen as little more than tools carrying water for the far left on the internet.

Only in America.

UPDATE: FROM OUR “MOUTH AGAPE WITH ASTONISHMENT” FILES

I know there is something pithy, snarky, amusing, or just downright nasty I could say about The New Republic weighing in on the Rush Limbaugh matter. Frankly, anything I could add would be superfulous. There is no level of irony that I can think of in literature or life that matches this kind of total obliviousness to self-parody:

I can’t help but find it incredibly karmically satisfying that Rush Limbaugh is getting spoon-fed a little bit of the same bitter medicine Democrats swallowed when MoveOn dared to call someone wearing a military uniform less than honest. Now, what Rush did was worse — he called the many Iraq war veterans who consult with antiwar Democrats “phony troops” — and the outcry against him is less wild: Some press releases, a little play on CNN, and today Harry Reid went on the Senate floor to denounce him, which probably only makes Rush more popular with his listeners. Still, good for Reid. In these difficult days we find our scraps of pleasure where we can.

Bryan at Hot Air tries gamely to rise to this stupendous occasion of monumentally epic hypocrisy:

The phony soldiers fall into three categories: Those who claim to serve but never did; those who claim personal knowledge of US atrocities that never happened and who turn out to have inflated their own service records, if they served at all; and those who use their own military service records either to smear the military themselves or to vouch for others who smear the military and turn out to be liars. TNR’s own Scott Thomas Beauchamp falls into the latter category. TNR’s Eve Fairbanks is not only evidently unaware of how dangerous it is for someone writing for TNR to weigh in on this subject — blowback, indeed — but she’s unaware and probably willfully so that the entire accusation against Rush is false to its roots.

How’s that final report on Beauchamp going, Mr. Foer?

For once, that trite, overused bloggism cliche “You just can’t make this stuff up” is actually one of the more profound things I can write about this.

Recent events involving Republican candidates for president as well as the cumulative effect of hypocrisy, corruption, intolerance, and the stupidity over immigration have led me to the only logical conclusion possible.

At the moment, I am a man without a party.

I sure as hell am not a Republican - not after the last fortnight’s disgraceful exhibition by GOP presidential hopefuls who first, pissed off Hispanics by ditching the Univision debate, then made it a twofer by having the top tier candidates blowing off Tavis Smiley and the so-called “All American Presidential Forum” The fact that this “all american” debate forgot to put an American flag someplace where it might be visible doesn’t obviate the insult done to the organizers of the debates much less the viewers.

And then to top off GOP idiocy for September, you have war hero John McCain saying first that he couldn’t support a Muslim for President and then clarifying that remark a little later by basically saying, “Well, I can support a Muslim as long as we can be sure of their loyalty to the United States.”

How big of you, John. All you have to do is substitute “Catholic” for “Muslim” and you have exactly the right attitude - for the election of 1928. That’s when people wondered whether Catholic Al Smith would be more loyal to the Vatican or to the US Constitution.

And don’t even get me started on Larry Craig.

What in God’s name has happened to the Republican party? Is it out of fear of being asked tough questions that the candidates ducked these debates? Or was it the more practical rationale that there are no votes to be had by attending so why bother?

Your choice then is cowardice or indifference. Which was it?

To come out and say with a straight face that there were “scheduling conflicts” that precluded their attendance only reinforces the notion that the GOP is the party of snivelling liars. Nobody believes that explanation. And, of course, being so stupid allows your opponents to fill in the blanks and tell the voters the real reason you didn’t attend: You’re all a bunch of racist pigs who don’t give a fig about the concerns of city folk or black people or Hispanics.

Is it true? I don’t know anymore which is why I no longer wish to be identified with the Republican party. It isn’t a question of converting minorities and convincing them to vote for GOP candidates, although showing a little more tolerance, a little more understanding might soften people’s opposition. But there is a strong, principled conservative case that can be made that liberal policies towards minorities have done catastrophic damage to minority families, inner city neighborhoods, the urban tax base, and city schools. And while you’re talking to these voters, you could also point out that voting for people who created and continue these policies while taking the black and Hispanic vote completely for granted is akin to committing self-genocide.

This isn’t the party I enthusiastically supported in the 1980’s. That party stood up to the racial bullies like Jesse Jackson and Charlie Rangel, making the case against the welfare state with vigor and confidence. Back then, we honestly believed - still believe - that conservative policies empower people to take control of their own lives while giving your fellow American a helping hand when necessary. Community based programs and citizen action at the neighborhood level is still the best way to deal with the problems of the inner city where so many minorities live in hopelessness. Big city liberals have recognized this and tried to adapt some conservative ideas although they are still thinking in “top down” terms when it comes to the direction of these programs. Tax breaks for businesses that set up shop in poor neighborhoods - although today is carried sometimes to excess - was laughed out of town in the 1980’s. It is now part of every city’s efforts to bring jobs to minorities.

We conservatives should not be ashamed that we oppose policies that continue the destruction of minority lives and support policies that offer hope for a better future, free of dependence on government. We aren’t the only one’s preaching this sermon. Many black churches and community organizations are also for many of these empowering policies. The key is partnership. And a legitimate question can be raised asking how can you be partners with people you ignore when running for the highest office in the land?

As far as avoiding the debate on Univision, deliberately missing that event makes even less sense than missing the Smiley confab. Are we not proud to stand up before our worst critics and say we are for enforcing the law, for fairness for all legal immigrants? And if you can’t get up in front of an Hispanic audience and talk candidly about immigration and border security, you have no business asking for their votes anyway. We are always going to have race baiting groups like LULAC taking GOP concerns about border security and equal enforcement of the law and twisting those positions into some kind of racist, anti-Hispanic program where babies are going to be ripped from their mothers arms when we send the woman back to Mexico. But not standing up in front of the Hispanic community and listening to their concerns while carefully delineating between immigration scofflaws and legal immigrants is an open invitation to your political foes to feed that stereotype of Republicans as heartless monsters.

Plain and simple, it is stupid, self defeating politics.

Now what about the GOP “Muslim Problem?” This goes hat in hand with our “Christian” problem that has me constantly close to tears of frustration when trying to talk to many on the right.

For you see, according to my many critics on the hard right, evidently I am not a conservative. I am an atheist, pro-choice, gay loving, liberal weenie - despite the fact I was on the frontlines of conservative activism when most of my critics were still in books or not even born yet. There wouldn’t be a conservative revolution without people like me and it’s time you haughty, holier than thou, insufferably arrogant party destroying numskulls acknowledged it. You have turned a party with which a majority of Americans identified because of its probity, its strong stands on national defense, foreign policy, and fiscal restraint into the party of anti-abortion zealots, gay bashing louts, and obsessed morality nannies.

Obviously not all Christians are as I describe so don’t be emailing me telling me how wrong I am. But there is a sizable, vocal minority - probably close to 15% of the party - that has skewed GOP issues away from the everyday concerns of the American people and toward these religious crusades against abortion, gay marriage, and making America “moral” whatever that means. The first thing the American people think of today when they hear the word “Republican” is either “anti-abortion” or “anti-gay marriage.” To have those issues identifying the party is again, stupid and self-defeating.

I actually support some of the Christian right’s agenda with regards to the decay of cultural values (not personal morality). But kicking me out of the Conservative Book Club because I think that people who love each other - regardless of what sex they are - should be able to enjoy all the legal rights of heterosexual couples is insane. Nor should my belief that the state has a compelling interest in the life of a baby only when it is viable outside of the womb (which is not the de facto pro-choice position) be a reason to take away my key to the Haliburton executive washroom.

These are not issues to judge who or who is not a “conservative.” Nor should my opposition to the exclusionary tactics of GOP presidential candidates brand me as some kind of politically correct diversity freak. I wholeheartedly reject the notion that conservatives need to pander to any racial or ethnic group. But that doesn’t mean you have to go out of your way to insult them by showing indifference to issues that are important to them.

Perhaps some day the GOP will wake up and once again stand on principle and not cower in the shadows. If they don’t, I probably won’t have to worry about it.

They will eventually alienate so many people that they won’t be much of a political party at all.

My latest at PJ Media is up. It’s a response to the ridiculous op-ed of Tom Friedman’s in yesterday’s New York Times. Friedman wants us to “move on to 9/12″ and calls Americans “stupid” for allowing 9/11 to knock “America completely out of balance.”

A sample:

Friedman doesn’t want to move on from 9/11. He wants to pretend that 9/11 never happened. He wants to return to the time where our “openness” cost us dearly. This is not to say that reforms shouldn’t be made to policies that have shown themselves to be stupid or ineffective. That too would be irrational. But Friedman’s thesis is that the precautions we have taken since 9/11 are making us unpopular around the world and have roiled our politics here at home.

But you can’t move on to 9/12 without acknowledging that 9/11 happened. It is apparent that Friedman believes the US would be a better place if 9/11 never occurred and we never had to respond to the dangers it exposed. This is not only stating the obvious but calls into question Mr. Friedman’s cognitive thinking skills.

UPDATE FROM MY ORIGINAL POST BELOW

I see where some on the right disagree with my take on Limbaugh’s comment. Some suggested I watch the video where Rush explains his meaning in the context of bringing up phony soldier Jesse Macbeth.

I watched the video and am more convinced than ever that Limbaugh knew he had goofed when he said “phony soldiers” (plural) and in the context of the moment the comment was made, Limbaugh was clearly referencing and agreeing with the caller’s sentiment that all soldiers who come forward and make known their opposition to the war are not “real soldiers” (caller’s words).

We can parse this thing from here to doomsday and not agree because at bottom, we are arguing about Limbaugh’s intent - an admittedly doomed excursion into the realm of mind reading.

Thankfully, Rush rescued me by going even further on his show yesterday. Not only did he include Jesse Macbeth and Scott Beauchamp in his “phony soldier” meme, he also included Jack Murtha in that notorious group for the Congressman’s execrable comments condemning the Haditha Marines before the official report on the incident had even been released.

Why is Murtha’s military career - a career that all can agree was distinguished and honorable - at issue as a result of his statements about Haditha? How can you refer to Murtha as a “phony soldier” when those comments were made long after he left the military?

Call him a “phony politician” if you wish. But Murtha’s service was genuine. Would Limbaugh refer to virulent anti-war Senator Daniel Inouye as a “phony soldier” based on what the Senator has said about our involvement in Iraq? Inouye, a genuine war hero who fought for this country while Japanese Americans were languishing in detention camps, lost an arm in combat and was awarded the Medal of Honor.

Murtha is a pandering, corrupt lout of a Congressman - a man who should be kicked out of Congress for stinking up the institution with sweetheart deals and earmarks targeted to his family and cronies. His taking the lead in trying to outdo his Democratic colleagues in opposition to the war was almost certainly at least partly animated by his desire to attain a leadership position following the 2006 elections. I have nothing but contempt for him today, although in the past I admired his political courage as he went against his party in the 1980’s to support the Reagan defense buildup.

But Limbaugh’s inclusion of Murtha in his little gang of “phony soldiers” is telling. If the talk show host was only talking about “phony soldiers” why include someone whose only sin appears to be opposition to the war in Iraq - an opposition that led the Congressman to jump the gun on the Pentagon and condemn Marines - some of them entirely innocent - for the Haditha incident?

Limbaugh’s explanation just doesn’t hold water. It is entirely plausible that the polarizing Mr. Limbaugh issued a blanket condemnation of military people who are opposed to the war rather than singling out individuals like Jesse Macbeth when he uttered the words “phony soldiers.”

I admit that gleaning intent is tricky. But which is more plausible? Limbaugh lumping people who disagree with him into one, overarching, insulting rubric or Rush carefully delineating between some soldiers who oppose the war and the Jesse Macbeths of the world?

Given Limbaugh’s clear and well documented past, I think it is logical to assume the former.

First of all, I would say to my lefty friends that anyone who tries to draw some kind of equivalence with Rush Limbaugh referring to anti-war military people as “phony soldiers” and Moveon’s “Betray-us” ad is an idiot.

There is no comparison between the two. None. To make a comparison, is to stretch the point to breaking - a sure sign that any equivalence is manufactured out of whole cloth.

Having said that, Limbaugh is a goose for saying it. And he owes an apology not just to anti-war military people (and ex-military) but to the entirety of the United States Armed Forces.

Here is the context in which Limbaugh made his scurrilous remark:

CALLER: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I’ve been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they’re proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they’re willing to sacrifice for the country.

This is why I don’t buy Brian Faughnan’s “explanation” in The Weekly Standard blog:

Limbaugh’s offhand comment was poorly chosen. It’s clear that there are ‘real soldiers’–real by anyone’s criteria–who oppose the war in Iraq and they’re entitled to their views. But much like the recently manufactured controversies over Bill O’Reilly’s comments, and President Bush’s comment about Saddam having killed “all the Mandelas,” the left is trying to pull a fast-one by taking Rush’s statement out of context.

It’s also clear and undeniable that the political left has eagerly stood behind fakers who spout tales about Iraq that are at times false, or ridiculous, or both. From Jesse MacBeth to Scott Thomas Beauchamp, liberals and anti-war moonbats have suspended logic and reason to embrace people because they liked what they had to say, regardless of whether the tales made sense, or their credentials were as they claimed.

This is, quite simply, changing the subject in order to place the onus of the comment on the other side - an intellectually dishonest tactic. Of course the left has manufactured controversies recently. The Bush-Mandela incident was a jaw dropping example of pure idiocy - a two year old knew what Bush was saying in that context.

But Limbaugh’s utterance was truly despicable. And no amount of spinning can shake the fact that on its own merits, without reference to anything Moveon or any other lefty group has done to slime the troops (Code Pink razzing wounded soldiers out in front of Walter Reed, anyone?), the slur should make not just anti-war soldiers angry but all of our military upset. Limbaugh, quite simply, has intruded. And he should butt out. If one soldier wants to call out another for being “phony,” that’s one thing. But Limbaugh is an outsider and has no business sliming people for beliefs that are just as heartfelt as those who believe in the mission.

Now, no one who is serious and sane believes that Rush Limbaugh hates the troops. And because he does so obviously care about them, he must publicly apologize on the air for his remark. And, as I mentioned, he should apologize to the entire US Military. These last four years have been tough on these guys - tougher than on any other group of American soldiers since World War II. And despite claims to the contrary on the left, the military doesn’t train automatons. The secret to American success on the battlefield has always been the ability of our people to think independently, to act decisively, to take advantage of opportunities that present themselves. Non thinking robots cannot function in our military.

And because of that, you are going to have your fair share of people who disagree with public policy or see things differently than the majority. These men and women serve just as honorably. They perform just as courageously. And they are just as patriotic as any other soldier who serves. To denigrate their service cheapens their right as Americans to disagree.

So Rush, we’re waiting for that apology. And I hope I’m joined by many on the right in calling for Limbaugh to own up to his mistake and do the right thing by our military.

UPDATE

I’m not really surprised that out of all the center right blogs who have covered this incident, only James Joyner and Michael van der Galiën come anywhere near my position. Ed Morrissey gives Limbaugh points for his “clarifying remarks” that were made after the segment was long over where he says that he was really talking about the Jesse MacBeths and Scott Beauchamps of the world and not anti-war soldiers in general.

Sorry, but I’m not buying that for the simple reason that Limbaugh was agreeing with a caller who was, in fact, lumping all anti-war soldiers together, in turn agreeing with Limbaugh’s designation of them as “phony soldiers.” If he wanted to clarify his point he could have done so immediately.

I think what happened is that Limbaugh realized the hot water he was in and tried to backtrack later. He wouldn’t be the first radio host who tried the tactic and he won’t be the last.

Of course I agree that Media Matters blew this thing way out proportion and tried to massage the remarks into an example of equivalency with the Petreaus Moveon ad. As I mentioned, there is zero equivalence between the two. None. Zilch. The remark is bad enough standing on its own. We don’t need some kind of childish “gotchya” game that the left never tires of playing in order to see what needs to be done; Limbaugh apologizing.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

Judging by the answers given by Democratic presidential candidates last night to the question of whether there will still be troops in Iraq in 2013 following the first term of a Democratic president, it seems certain that the mission will continue in one form or another Bush or no Bush.

The enormity of the military conflict in Iraq was spelled out in the simplest of all admissions tonight:

Among all of the leading Democratic candidates for president, none was willing to commit to a promise in a campaign debate that all of the U.S. combat forces deployed in Iraq will be gone by 2013, the end of the next president’s term in office.

“It’s hard to project four years from now,” said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, at the start of a debate of the Democratic candidates in Hanover, N.H.

“”It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting,” said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who has vowed that if President Bush has not ended the war in Iraq by the time the next president takes office, “I will.’’

“”I cannot make that commitment,” said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, answering the question posed in a televised debate in the state that will hold the first of the presidential primary elections in January.

A.B. Stoddard writing for The Hill’s Pundit’s Blog sums up the Dem dilemma nicely:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) made the promise Clinton, Edwards and Obama — with all their nuance — could not: to pull out all troops in his first term as president. But we know not what “counterterrorism activities” will consist of in six months, let alone six years. How do we define what is a continuation of this war? We simply cannot know what sectarian violence, al Qaeda-perpetrated violence or other Iranian-influenced violence will be consuming Iraq at that point, so none of the likely Democratic nominees can say for certain — not Clinton, not Obama, not Edwards — that they would have ended our war in Iraq by 2013.

I am not saying I disagree with anything Obama, Clinton and Edwards are saying. It’s just been a bit tiring to hear them beat that “end the war” drum all across the country when even they don’t know what that means.

When pressed to the wall, the Democratic candidates demonstrated that despite all the tough talk about withdrawing from Iraq, they are as much a hostage to events there as the President. Like the Republicans, they are well and truly stuck with Bush’s policies, the Maliki government, al-Sadr’s plotting, and the rest of the crummy situation that will continue to exist for the foreseeable future in Iraq.

There is no going back or getting out quickly. And the Democratic candidates, at the risk of riling up their rabid, anti-war base (and recognizing the facts of life on Iraq all along despite rhetoric to the contrary) are responsible enough and practical enough to see that there is no briar patch nearby where this tar baby can be shed.

The frustration of the base with the Democratic performance in Congress on the war is now boiling over. This piece in Politico today gives voice to many who simply can’t understand the reluctance of Democrats to take on a wildly unpopular President and a very unpopular war:

But it’s a simple truth, whether you support the war or not: There is a lot more Democrats could do to change, or at least challenge, the politics of the war in Washington, even if they do not have the numbers to impose new policies on President Bush.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could force a vote a day over Iraq. She could keep the House in session all night, over weekends and through planned vacations.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could let filibusters run from now till Christmas rather than yield to pro-war Republicans.

Such tactics might or might not be politically sensible, but in their absence, anti-war lawmakers can hardly say they have done everything possible to challenge the war and bring attention to their cause.

This is the voice of frustration, not rationality. For all the Democrats bluster about ending the war and bringing the troops home, there is a very good practical political reason why holding their colleague’s feet to the fire simply won’t work; the public’s own ambivilence about how they view the war and how they want it to end.

The latest Gallup Poll on Iraq shows about what you’d expect: By a large plurality the people think we should establish a timetable to bring the troops home. A large majority believes that Bush has made a hash of the war and that things are not going well - although the number of Americans now believing that the United States will accomplish its goals in Iraq in the long run has been inching up since early in the year to where it is now at 35%,.

But the real ambivalence of the public shows up in the numbers regarding troop reduction and the timetable for withdrawal. Only 18% want the troops to come home immediately, the de facto position of the netroots and Moveon.Org while 38% want the troops to stay “until the situation gets better.” A plurality (41%) wish to see a timetable for gradual withdrawal - which now mirrors the Bush-Petreaus goal of removing troops slowly although the poll indicates a plurality wishing to see this occur over the course of a year’s time.

What about Petreaus’s plan for pulling troops out of Iraq? Again, a plurality is with the President with 43% believing the number proposed by Petreaus is the “Right Amount” while 36% feel that too few troops are being withdrawn.

I thought that Gallup’s summary of this poll was particularly apt:

The war is an extremely high-priority issue for Americans and is likely to be one of the top issues in next year’s election. Americans are divided on the war, along partisan lines, but on most measures a majority say that the war was a mistake and not worth the costs. Despite sentiment that the war is not going well for the United States, only about one in five favors an immediate withdrawal of troops. Most do support a gradual withdrawal of troops, preferably within a year, and a majority supports a congressionally mandated timetable.

What the poll doesn’t show but what Democratic politicians have always known is that the “timetable” for withdrawal has been a sham from the beginning. A close look at most of the timetable plans would show a long list of caveats and exceptions that would allow Petreaus or Bush to toss the timetable in the garbage in the event that the situation in Iraq didn’t warrant the troop reductions.

This, of course, was the plan all along; trap the President into making it appear that the Democrats wanted to end the war while Republicans were for continuing it. This is the true significance of the admissions made by the top Democratic candidates on Wednesday night. In the event a timetable was imposed on them, they too would be forced to deal with the situation as it is on the ground in Iraq rather than give in to the wishes of their base and bring the troops home without regard to the interests of Iraq or the United States.

It is not too early to say that unless there are truly dramatic changes in Iraq by election day, the war will be an albatross around the neck of GOP incumbents, likely to drag many of them down to defeat in November, 2008. But for the Democratic candidate for President whoever he or she will be, that will be cold comfort if, after winning the election, they are forced to stand in President Bush’s shoes and deal with the situation in Iraq as it is and not as their anti-war base wishes it would be.

The votes are in from this weeks Watcher’s Council and the winner in the Council category was yours truly for my post “Is War With Iran Now Just a Matter of Time?” Finishing a close second was “Freedom, But From What?” by Bookworm Room.

Coming out on top in the Non Council category was “Dead Eyes” by Acute Politics.

If you would like to participate in this week’s Watchers vote, go here and follow instructions.

I don’t know what’s funnier. This speech by Daniel Ellsberg given a few days ago at American University or the gushing reaction to the idiocy by some of the netnuts.

Ellsberg you may recall, leaked the Pentagon Papers back in the day when such things were actually taken seriously. While it seems pretty clear that national security was not severely damaged by the publishing of the history of our involvement in Southeast Asia, the docs were considered “classified” and Ellsberg took it upon himself to remove that designation.

Since then, Ellsberg has flitted from one radical conclave to another, apparently making a living basically by being a gadfly. Hardly anyone listens to his off the wall diatribes against American policy and the American government - except like minded fools who see Ellsberg as some kind of hero.

How anyone can take this loony bird seriously after he says something like this is beyond understanding:

If there’s another 9/11 under this regime … it means that they switch on full extent all the apparatus of a police state that has been patiently constructed, largely secretly at first but eventually leaked out and known and accepted by the Democratic people in Congress, by the Republicans and so forth.

Will there be anything left for NSA to increase its surveillance of us? … They may be to the limit of their technical capability now, or they may not. But if they’re not now they will be after another 9/11.

And I would say after the Iranian retaliation to an American attack on Iran, you will then see an increased attack on Iran – an escalation – which will be also accompanied by a total suppression of dissent in this country, including detention camps.

Paranoid blather.

Detention camps? 9/11 trutherism? I know that the Nixon thugs broke into this guy’s psychiatrist’s office. I wonder what they found?

Besides that, Ellsberg evidently does his best thinking while unconscious:

Let me simplify this and not just to be rhetorical: A coup has occurred. I woke up the other day realizing, coming out of sleep, that a coup has occurred. It’s not just a question that a coup lies ahead with the next 9/11. That’s the next coup, that completes the first.

The last five years have seen a steady assault on every fundamental of our Constitution, … what the rest of the world looked at for the last 200 years as a model and experiment to the rest of the world – in checks and balances, limited government, Bill of Rights, individual rights protected from majority infringement by the Congress, an independent judiciary, the possibility of impeachment.

Two coups in less than 8 years? Whatever sleeping pill Ellsberg is taking, gimme some. Those kind of delusions are more entertaining than most of my dreams which usually involve my boss, Editor in Chief of AT Tom Lifson, my cats, and very large bowl of double chocolate fudge ice cream.

This kind of exaggerated, ridiculous, outrageous thinking should get Mr. Ellsberg right back up on top of the radical lefty pyramid. I have no doubt he will be even more in demand now that he’s joined the ranks of the truly unhinged.

For three years I have been writing about this kind of hysterical, over the top, insanely exaggerated rhetoric. Why? Why do liberals feel it necessary to throw reality out the window and paint a picture of the government, of Bush, of Republicans, of the United States in such dark, apocalyptic terms?

I know the far right offers similar rhetoric about the government - even goofier if that’s possible. But most of them are inbred crackers, militia freaks, racist skin heads, and Hitler worshippers. These liberals are supposed to be educated, urbane, rational people. What causes such unhinged rhetoric to spew from their lips on a regular basis?

I am not insensate to some of the excesses of the Administration’s anti-terror efforts. Nor do I trust Bush/Cheney farther than I can throw them when it comes to some civil liberties issues. But I also consider myself educated, urbane, and rational and I don’t see the Constitution being torn up or some kind of evil trend toward unlimited executive authority. Nor do I see anything except the usual corruption that power brings when it comes to the GOP in Congress. These same kind of excesses plagued the Democrats in the latter years of their control of Congress. It is the nature of our system that power will corrupt some people. And whether they have a “D” or an “R” after their name doesn’t matter in the long run.

My working theory on why liberals say the things they do is that when they eventually triumph, they can claim to have saved the country from absolute disaster. It may surprise you to know that this has happened several times in our history. What won’t surprise you is that Democrats have been the ones claiming to rescue the rest of us from tyranny.

The most glaring example was the election of 1800 where Jefferson’s “democratic republicans” swept into power, throwing the Federalists out. Their entire campaign was based on hysteria, exaggerated hyperbolic rhetoric, and predictions of doom; that electing the Federalists would mean that the country would degenerate into a monarchy with a full blown aristocracy plus dominance by Great Britain to boot.

President Adams was livid with Jefferson - especially after newspapers in Jefferson’s corner printed slanderous stories about Adams and his plans to make himself king, closely ally the country with England, and set up his friends as dukes and earls to rule over the populace. The campaign was so bitter that the two founders didn’t speak or communicate for 15 years. When they finally sealed the breach in their friendship, the letters they exchanged the last years of their lives left a remarkable record of the thoughts of two great Americans on life, liberty, and the nature of man.

But this isn’t 1800. And the effect of this kind of rhetorical nonsense not only makes public discourse impossible but truly endangers the republic. The vast majority of Americans don’t believe this idiocy either. All it does is turn them off to politics further as the level of political argument descends further and further into the gutter.

The Democrats may very well sweep the elections next year. But the question is; just what kind of country will they have won? Their contribution to the terrible apathy and disenchantment with government comes at a time when we should be uniting against a common, deadly enemy. Instead, the left will ascend to power and stand atop the hill and survey a charred political wasteland, made worse by their unhinged opposition to the policies of the administration and their end of the world rhetoric directed against the GOP.

There is responsible opposition to your political foes. There is even irresponsible opposition that has long been part of the American political scene. But the opposition shown by the left over the last few years is beyond irresponsible. It is destructive. And for that, they should be royally ashamed of themselves.

Back door amnesty was dealt a blow yesterday. Not a deadly thrust but rather a flesh wound.

Still, we should be grateful there were enough Republicans in the Senate willing to stand up against this travesty:

The prospects for immediate Senate action on the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants, disappeared Wednesday amid Republican opposition.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pledged that senators would vote on the the measure, which is strongly opposed by anti-illegal immigration groups, before the Senate finishes its work for the year in mid-November.

“All who care about this matter should know that we will move to proceed to this matter before we leave here,” he said.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., had sought to attach the DREAM Act to the defense authorization bill. But Reid announced Wednesday night that Democrats were shelving the effort because of difficulties getting past legislative roadblocks.

“Unfortunately, some Republicans are opposed to this proposal and are unwilling to let us move forward on this bill,” Reid said.

It really was pathetic that proponents of the DREAM Act would try and sneak this amendment through using the very popular Military Construction bill as a vehicle. This kind of legislative subterfuge has become all too common these days after the GOP spent a decade tirelessly using the tactic to attach questionably germane amendments to a variety of legislative initiatives.

But as many predicted once the Democrats became the majority, many of the same parliamentary and legislative tactics abused by Republicans over their decade in power would be snapped up by the Democrats and used even more underhandedly.

While you can get away with this tactic easier in the Senate whose rules aren’t quite as strict regarding the germaneness of amendments, it still troubled some Senators:

Some Senate Republicans, including Texans Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, objected to the measure being brought up on a defense bill.

“Putting extraneous things on this bill isn’t helpful,” Hutchison said.

Other Republicans aren’t ready to revisit a debate that imploded in June when the Senate scuttled an overhaul endorsed by the White House that would have given most illegal immigrants a chance for legal status.

“People, I think, want to let the immigration thing cool off a bit before we jump back in,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican who helped derail the comprehensive immigration bill.

Reid will now look for another legislative vehicle to push this amendment. He will want to find something that Republicans want to vote for and can’t afford to kill off entirely.

Meanwhile, at the state level, it appears that enforcing the law actually works the way it was intended; it sends immigration scofflaws home or off to find greener pastures:

Illegal immigrants living in states and cities that have adopted strict immigration policies are packing up and moving back to their home countries or to neighboring states.
The exodus has been fueled by a wave of laws targeting illegal immigrants in Oklahoma, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia and elsewhere. Many were passed after congressional efforts to overhaul the immigration system collapsed in June.

Immigrants say the laws have raised fears of workplace raids and deportation.

“People now are really frightened and scared because they don’t know what’s going to happen,” says Juliana Stout, an editor at the newspaper El Nacional de Oklahoma. “They’re selling houses. They’re leaving the country.”

Supporters of the laws cheer the departure of illegal immigrants and say the laws are working as intended.

Can you imagine a country where every state actually enforced the immigration laws equally for all? Those who break the law by coming here illegally wouldn’t go “underground” as we’re constantly told by the open borders crowd. With no place to work, most of them would quietly go home, free to get in line and work to come to this country legally. That is sanity. And that is fairness.

Of course, for all of these state initiatives to work, we must have a federal government that is dead serious about patrolling the border. As long as we have a Homeland Security Department that continues to place a low priority on protecting the borders, not only will we be at a greater risk of suffering a terrorist attack, but the illegal immigrant problem will continue to be a source of concern far into the future.