Bloodthirsty Liberal

We don’t get to see fascists often enough, I say. How will we know them when we see them if we don’t see them?

So let’s have a look:

Michelle Bachmann

Ooh, scary. Can we handle another?

Laura Ingraham

Fascists, you challenge? Okay, fine, maybe not fascists.

How ’bout terrorists?

Clad in red and armed with Grinch dolls, grim reaper scarecrows, posters and their loud voices, several thousand tea party protesters rallied near the Capitol Tuesday to send a single message: “Kill the Bill.”

The crowd’s message and energy was only intensified by the encouragement of some of the nation’s best known conservatives, including Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) and radio personality Laura Ingraham.

“I’ve never seen so many attractive domestic terrorists in all my life!” Armey yelled at the adoring crowd. “It’s so nice to be here again together, isn’t it?…You mean you actually came to town on your own terms? To say what you wanted to say? And to be heard? Sounds pretty much like terrorists to me.”

…

“You came before, you came again, I guess they must be deaf. They can’t hear you!” Bachmann screamed over the cheers. “We’re not leaving until you understand that no means no. What part of no don’t you people understand?”

…

“Maybe they need a course in remedial reading to find out what’s in our Constitution,” Bachmann said, suggesting the tea party movement could teach them.

…

“To paraphrase Franklin Delano Roosevelt,” Burr said over boos FDR’s name evoked, “The only thing we have to fear is… Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.”

I heard a few minutes of Laura Ingraham’s radio show in the car this morning. A caller who had attended the rally told the story of chartering a bus to go. She canvassed the passengers to raise money to tip the driver and came up with a nice little envelope stuffed with cash. When she presented it to the driver, however, he refused it, saying he was happy to have the job and honored to be involved in the cause. Buy some more signs, he said. The protesters talked among themselves and decided to donate the money to the Fisher House at Walter Reed.

There are your fascists, your terrorists. Be afraid, be very afraid. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

Mark Steyn excepted, no one on the net influenced me as much as Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs.

There are journalists and opinion writers I’ve come to admire as much and more—Charles Krauthammer, Caroline Glick, David Warren, Rush Limbaugh, to name a few—but Johnson’s steadfast defense of Israel, written with sulphuric outrage and hydrochloric wit, his rejection of left wing cant and hypocrisy, paralleled my own evolving outlook on the state of the world. I can’t deny that his voice at LGF was a part conscious, part unconscious model for my voice at BTL.

I stopped reading him, however, more than two years ago, for a number of reasons. First, I must admit, I was tired of covering the same stories, either just before or just after he did. If we were that much alike, and he was that much bigger (and better), I’d just rather not know. Also, as a new blogger, I wanted a few of his traffic crumbs. I would send story tips, links to my posts, anything to get a shout-out or a hat-tip that would send readers my way. I was almost always disappointed, even when he did cover the story I sent him. I’m sure it wasn’t deliberate or malicious—his email traffic must number in the hundreds to thousands—but it was frustrating for me, so I gave up.

I would check in occasionally, of course—LGF was too good, too important to ignore—but so often the posts were about technical issues to do with the blog itself, and not the news of the day. Any reader here at BTL can see in an instant that we can barely post the stories we do, let alone write code, let alone write about writing code. He had a tendency to get obsessed, it seemed to me, over things trivial or uninteresting. I preferred going elsewhere to get seeds for my own posts. I honestly can’t tell you how alike we are or are not anymore.

I have been hearing of his feuds with other bloggers on the right, but I barely care about my own feuds, let alone those of others. In any case, why shouldn’t there be disagreement and debate among conservatives? We’re trying to get this right—in more ways than one.

Then I saw this interview which Aunt Agatha brought to my attention, among the questions and answers of which appears this gem:

How do you think Obama’s doing so far?

I’ve actually changed my mind quite a bit about Barack Obama. You know how things are during an election, everybody gets hyper-partisan, and I guess I was guilty of that as much as anyone. But I’ve seen him be a lot more centrist than I ever expected during the election, based on his background, and the people that he got his political start with, you know, Bill Ayeres, Reverend Wright. If I had to go back, knowing what I do now, I probably would have voted for him.

Interesting, provocative—that’s Charles Johnson. But nonsensical? That’s new (to me).

Critical of Sarah Palin, fine (though I like her unapologetic pro-Americanism—so very unlike the Great Apologizer); wary of European conservative movements, understandable (though any reader of Steyn’s America Alone knows the strains Europe faces now and in the future, and would at least understand if not sympathize with cultural resistance to Eurabianization); skepticism about Global warming, welcome (but being skeptical about the skeptics seems to be adopting skepticism for its own sake).

Aggie and I know all too well what it’s like to be taken for paranoid schizophrenics by our friends and family for our turn to the right. I don’t want to just dismiss Johnson—in fact, like him, I’m not comfortable with labels and affiliation. I’m not a Republican, though I vote almost exclusively for Republicans now; I am a conservative, though I support gay marriage and oppose the death penalty (with less conviction all the time). I am a Zionist, but my arguments for one Israel from the river to the sea probably make a lot of other Zionists uncomfortable.

So, my admiration of Charles Johnson and Little Green Footballs has taken a hit, again, but can never fall to zero. I’m certainly not moved to go back to reading him—his million page-views a month can carry on just fine without me. And we’ll just carry on the way we have been, finding and sharing the curious and outrageous, and sharing our reactions—with significantly fewer readers. In our relative obscurity, it helps me to think I’m right and he’s wrong, at least on this point.

To vote Republican, press 1.

To vote Democrat, press 2.

If you’re not sure who you’re voting for, please stay on the line and wait for the next available ACORN volunteer:

The Democratic State Committee now admits paying for a robocall to Somerset County voters that slams Republican Chris Christie and promotes independent gubernatorial candidate Christopher Daggett.

A Democratic spokeswoman says the party’s chairman, Joe Cryan, was not aware of the robocalls when he denied that the state committee had anything to do with them yesterday afternoon.

Cryan, who told PolitickerNJ.com yesterday afternoon that the Democratic State Committee had “absolutely” nothing to do with the call, could not immediately be reached for comment…

Before the Democrats owned up to it, Daggett media advisor Bill Hillsman said the call might be a Republican trick to generate a sympathetic newspaper story.

Democrats shilling for Independents is bad enough—but Republicans shilling for Democrats?

This isn’t all she’s done for him, either: He asked her to swing by an event at the VFW and she merrily obliged.

…

The irony here is that it’s moderate Republicans who’ll end up being the big losers from Scozzafava’s betrayal. Not only does she make them look untrustworthy (or rather, more untrustworthy than before) but increasingly it seems like they’re not even going to get Hoffman’s scalp as a consolation prize.

The Republican brand may not be brightening as the Democrat brand fades. But more Americans identify themselves as conservative than ever before. The race in NY-23 could have been predicted without reading a single story.

For our liberal readers, let us do the math and point out that self-identified conservatives hold a 2-1 lead over self-identified liberals.

So says DemocracyCorps

These base Republican voters dislike Barack Obama to be sure – which is not very surprising as base Democrats had few positive things to say about George Bush – but these voters identify themselves as part of a ‘mocked’ minority with a set of shared beliefs and knowledge, and commitment to oppose Obama that sets them apart from the majority in the country. They believe Obama is ruthlessly advancing a ‘secret agenda’ to bankrupt the United States and dramatically expand government control to an extent nothing short of socialism. While these voters are disdainful of a Republican Party they view to have failed in its mission, they overwhelmingly view a successful Obama presidency as the destruction of this country’s founding principles and are committed to seeing the president fail.

Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters’ beliefs – but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson’s incendiary comments at the president’s joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion – but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point.

Now, who does that sound like?

My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, “Well, I hope he succeeds. We’ve got to give him a chance.” Why? They didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.

…

Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.”

…

Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.”

It’s awfully big of James Carville to excuse conservatives (Rush most of all) from charges of racism—but he’s not done with them, not by a long shot:

The Republican base voters are not part of the continuum leading to the center of the electorate: they truly stand apart. For additional perspective, Democracy Corps conducted a parallel set of groups in suburban Cleveland. These groups, comprised of older, white, non-college independents and weak partisans, represent some of the most conservative swing voters in the electorate, and they demonstrated a wholly different worldview from Republican base voters by dismissing the fear of “socialism” and evaluating Obama in very different terms.

Oh, really?

Among independents, who provided Obama’s margin of victory last fall, 64 percent have severe doubts about his plans. The polls are averaging nearly 50 percent opposition.

Oh really?

The reason is Obama’s sinking numbers, particularly with independent voters. With all voters, Obama’s favorable ratings have slid 22 points since he was inaugurated in January. He still has a firm majority. However, a new Marist poll shows he has a small net negative with independent voters. Among independents, 45 percent approve and 47 percent disapprove. His disapproval rating is up 10 percentage points since August among independents.

Independent voters don’t matter much in New York, but they do in swing states that Obama won like Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin and Ohio. And their congressional Democrats are watching.

Oh really?

Forty-three percent now of Americans, only 43 percent, would vote for him for president today.

You look at his approval ratings, he slipped back into the 40s, but more interestingly, independents, he’s losing, 46-41. And on health care, he’s losing independents, 53-36.

Oh really?

The approval ratings of the president by Democrats and Republicans are as one would expect with 77% of Democrats giving President Obama positive ratings compared to 14% of Republicans. Independents, however, are more down on the president as 60% give him negative ratings while 40% give him positive marks on his overall job performance.

Oh really?

A slim 43 percent plurality of Americans now disapproves of the job Barack Obama is doing on Afghanistan, an increase from the 32 percent who disapproved last month. Only Democrats, at 63 percent, assign positive marks to the president on Afghanistan, compared with 20 percent of Republicans and 38 percent of independents.

Oh really?

As health care legislation moves out of the Senate Finance Committee, a majority of Americans says they oppose the reforms being considered. A Fox News poll released Thursday finds that by 54 percent to 35 percent, Americans oppose the reforms.

…

Predictably, a 65 percent majority of Democrats favors the legislation, while 86 percent of Republicans oppose it. Independents oppose the reforms by 62 percent to 23 percent.

You get the point. Independents are trending Republican, and the Democrats are soiling their shorts.

I was out walking the Bloodthirsty Puppy yesterday, listening to Rush, as is my wont, when Susan from Glendale, CA called. It was a memorable moment in radio.

Voice choked with emotion, she went on for minutes on end, without interruption. She almost lost it it—her composure, her mind—but kept it together, just. They even managed to work a commercial break into her pause for breath. They came back from the break and she was still there, this time in conversation with Rush. But her oration was great radio theater, like Orson Welles reading Ayn Rand. This is why Rush is so popular, and why he’s so dangerous to the left. He is brilliant. Not just at political analysis, but at political theater. He left the aural stage to her alone.

They’ve posted the audio, which I strongly recommend, as well as the transcript. It has to be heard to be believed.

Coulter, Malkin, Levin, Beck—Rush when he wrote books. Looks like they’re all headed to the remainder table now that Sarah’s Going Rogue:

HarperCollins will print 1.5 million copies for the book’s first run, the same number that was printed for late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s memoir “True Compass.”

Kennedy’s book, published earlier this month, currently stands at number six on the Amazon list.

A publishing industry source told POLITICO that they “cannot remember a non-fiction book taking off like this in the pre-order market. It became number one only a couple of hours after nothing more than a date announcement. It is truly unprecedented.”

Much of the 400-page book is based on journals Palin kept during her vice-presidential run.

The book is going to sell so well they should call it Sarah Palin and the Million-Plus Order of the Political Phoenix.

Let me say it before any of you do: she wrote a book before she read one.

There, that’s done. Now we can deal with what she (not Tina Fey) says and stands for.

Open question for our liberal readership (yes, you, the cat lady in Brookline): when you consider how popular conservative books are, how many people show up at local Tea Parties—the enormous throng that showed up in DC on 9/11—if there are that many racist, barely sentient haters out there, don’t you want to join the party? If you can’t beat us (and you can’t), join us.

BTW, most of the above books sell without even a capsule review in any newspaper, while Kennedy’s book comes in every box of corn flakes. The MSM has neutered itself, voluntarily, with a rusty spoon. And it’s as fun to watch as you might imagine.

This paragraph from the WSJ summarizes my political development, and that of many others:

In his early years, Kristol saw that the Marxism which fascinated him and many others at mid-century had no future, and he embraced the ideals of the West, holding them tight for a lifetime. Later as a Democrat, he saw that many of the social welfare policies of the 1960s would fail, and so he undertook a long, unsparing critique of his own party’s most cherished ideas. Later still, as a Republican, Kristol realized that his party’s economic ideas were moribund, and he turned his energies to leading the pro-growth, “supply-side” revolution that culminated in the historic Reagan Presidency.

That’s me. Kristol blazed this path so that many others would find it easier to tread. We are grateful for his example, and we offer his family our condolences.

If I could take back all our bloviations over this farkakte health care bill (well, my bloviations) and just ask you to read one thing, it would be this:

10 Questions for Supporters of ‘ObamaCare’

1. President Barack Obama repeatedly tells us that one reason national health care is needed is that we can no longer afford to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. But if Medicare and Medicaid are fiscally insolvent and gradually bankrupting our society, why is a government takeover of medical care for the rest of society a good idea? What large-scale government program has not eventually spiraled out of control, let alone stayed within its projected budget?

…

2. President Obama reiterated this past week that “no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition.” This is an oft-repeated goal of the president’s and the Democrats’ health care plan. But if any individual can buy health insurance at any time, why would anyone buy health insurance while healthy? Why would I not simply wait until I got sick or injured to buy the insurance? … And if the answer is that the government will now make it illegal not to buy insurance, how will that be enforced? How will the government check on 300 million people?

3. Why do supporters of nationalized medicine so often substitute the word “care” for the word “insurance?” it is patently untrue that millions of Americans do not receive health care. Millions of Americans do not have health insurance but virtually every American (and non-American on American soil) receives health care.

4. No one denies that in order to come close to staying within its budget health care will be rationed. But what is the moral justification of having the state decide what medical care to ration?

…

7. Why will hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies do nearly as superb a job as they now do if their reimbursement from the government will be severely cut? Haven’t the laws of human behavior and common sense been repealed here in arguing that while doctors, hospitals and drug companies will make significantly less money they will continue to provide the same level of uniquely excellent care?

8. Given how many needless procedures are ordered to avoid medical lawsuits and how much money doctors spend on medical malpractice insurance, shouldn’t any meaningful “reform” of health care provide some remedy for frivolous malpractice lawsuits?

Can you just feel the internal tension pulling me to print it all and pushing you to read it yourself? It’s killing me.

PS: You know how many other web pages have managed to combine “farkakte” and “bloviations” in the same page, let alone sentence? None. And you were here to witness it.

Can’t wait for that health care news conference tonight, how about you? (Good God, what’s on the Weather Channel?)

But someone will be paying attention, and I hope at least one of these questions will be asked:

1. If the major provisions of the health care bills will not kick in until 2013, four years from now, why the rush to pass a thousand-page bill before the August recess, a bill you admit that you haven’t fully read yourself?

2. You have said your health care bill will cut costs and not increase the deficit. But, independent analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office contradicts both claims, saying it will raise costs and increase the deficit by $240 billion in the first ten years. What independent analysis will you provide that supports your claims and refutes CBO’s?

3. You have repeatedly said that your health care bill allows any American who likes their current employer-based plan to keep it. But the most comprehensive independent analysis available, by the Lewin Group, contradicts your claim and found your bill will force over 80 million Americans to lose their current coverage. Will you provide independent analysis to refute this study?

4. Your own record in the Senate reveals you spent years voting against nearly every reform to make health care more affordable and accessible, but this week you said that opponents of your plan are “content to perpetuate the status quo, [and] are, in fact, fighting reform on behalf of powerful special interests.” Which specific elected officials will you cite that have proposed to keep the status quo, and is that how you characterize the opposition of the 52 Blue Dog Democrats in the House and the moderate Democrats in the Senate?

5. Yes or no question: Will you guarantee pro-life Americans that, under your plan, they will not be forced to subsidize elective abortions?

President Obama is in the bizarre position of arguing for—and stifling debate on—a bill he hasn’t read and isn’t writing.

Some are citing this as Obama’s Waterloo, and that may be true. His attitude on this bill (and most of his initiatives) does not welcome negotiation or discussion.

But Congress is still his romantic plaything for the next year and a half. If he loses his arrogance, he can still do a lot of damage.

Not that I disapprove:

Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004.

Rush was going on about this. Whatever else it may mean, it sure as hell means conservatives have nothing to fear from principle. If Republicans had reversed the ticket, President Palin might be presiding over a shorter and milder recession than anyone imagined (and getting no credit for it in the media).