Month: May 2004

They Should Be Grateful

From the previously mentioned Inhofe appearance on Chris Matthews yesterday:

JAMES INHOFE: … Let‘s look at this prison.

No. 1, this is one prison out of 26. No. 2, this is the same prison where Saddam Hussein was torturing people in an indescribable way, far worse than any abuses that took place in these pictures.

We‘re talking about drilling holes in their hands. We‘re talking about electrocuting people. We‘re talking about just dropping their bodies, half their bodies into acid. You know, things that are really serious.

Now if were an Iraqi and I went through what they said they went through, I would say to myself, That‘s not nearly as bad as if we had been here when Saddam was in charge.

They were letting off steam, Chris! Just a little ‘o that Deliverance style “sooooooey” action. They were damned lucky they didn’t get their hands drilled, for cying out loud.

Gotta run Chris. I’m late for the National Day of Prayer invitational Broomstick Slam. Thanks for having me.

Vote the liberals out of office. You will be doing the Lord’s work, and he will richly bless you. James Inhofe

Good Riddance

I think that the single most egregious mistake that Bush has made in his presidency (among many egregious mistakes) is continuously asserting that we are “better” as a people than “the enemy,” whom they have never adequately defined. His vaunted “moral clarity” continues to be nothing more that a puerile appeal to emotion that has done much more harm than good. Historically, nations have always done this, but in this age of global media, it is a very bad idea. It’s much too easy for pictures and words to make their way around the world in seconds to contradict such assertions and destroy our credibility. As Bush himself says repeatedly, “it’s a different kinda war” and indeed it is. It is much more a war of ideas than a war of military conquest. If there was ever a time when we needed someone with highly developed communication skills, it was now. Unfortunately, we were saddled with someone who speaks in the most simplistic terms possible and it is blowing back on us now.

Immediately after 9/11, Bush’s braintrust framed this War On Terrorism as between “good ‘n evil,” “us ‘n them” — exactly as bin Laden did. Instead of using reason, strength and good will to continue the solidarity the world felt toward America after 9/11, we reacted like a hurt child, lashing out with inchoate rage at virtually everyone, all the while screaming about our superior characters. (We even went after the Europeans for Christ’s sake.)

Had we emphasized our institutions and traditions rather than our alleged goodness, we might be able to get past this awful moment of Abu Ghreib by showcasing a system that resists brute power and religious judgments of character in favor of blind justice. Their scramble now to investigate and fact-find again completely rings hollow because we rested our entire argument on the character of Americans in contrast to everyone else. Our credibility is in shreds.

There were essentially three stated reasons for invading Iraq. The first was because Saddam had WMD. The second was because Saddam had ties to terrorists. The third was because Saddam tortured and terrorized his own people.

There are no WMD. There never were any terrorist ties. And by consciously undermanning the “liberation” we created the circumstances that have led to sweeps of innocent Iraqi people who are then dragged into a prison system with no due process and are systematically tortured — by us, not Saddam. No decent person can believe that it is moral to “pre-emptively” invade a country and do such things in the name of liberation and our superior “goodness” as a people.

Now, I’m not saying that Americans are a bad people. We’re just people, comprising the full range of human character from saint to psychopath. So are the Iraqis and so is every other tribe. That is why we have government in the first place. It’s hard to tell who’s bad or good and it’s not enough to simply assert that one group is and one isn’t. We need systems and institutions to sort these things out in the most perfect way we can find and those systems and institutions are imperfect indeed. If we ever had a strength in America, a source of pride and superiority, it was that we put our trust in the rule of law not men.

And that is precisely the opposite of what our president has been saying. He’s said “trust us” because we are good. We don’t need to provide any explanations or adhere to any laws, treaties or agreements because the character of our people doesn’t require it. And that is why these pictures are being greeted around the world with both horror and glee. The president of the United States has been holding out the moral superiority of the American people as justification for flouting all laws and conventions and we’ve just been slapped in the face with the truth. Americans are capable of being just as depraved as anyone else. (I would have thought that anyone over the age of 10 would already know this, but apparently not.)

Once Bush is removed from office maybe we can drop this simpleminded drivel and start speaking to the world like adults again. Fewer self-righteous sermons about being “called to bring freedom to the world” and more talk about the rule of law would be a breath of fresh air. I have a feeling we might find that people around the world are more willing to cooperate if our president doesn’t constantly lecture them about our superior moral character and instead leads on the basis of reason, law and justice. In the war of ideas, the latter is where the real firepower exists.

Silver Lining

For the first time I’m glad that Al Gore did not take office in 2000. At least Joe Lieberman is not the Vice President of the United States today.

Because, unlike Joe and his fellow Republican members of congress, I don’t believe just because Dick Cheney is the second coming of Cardinal Richelieu that having a sanctimonious, sycophantic hypocrite for Vice President would be excusable simply by comparison.

Joe, like his fellow traveller the insane Jim Inhofe, just passionately asserted that Arabs who are completely unrelated to the torture and abuse at Abu Ghrieb had done bad things to Americans at different times and places that we didn’t owe an apology to those who we tortured and abused at Abu Ghrieb. I guess I need to put out a call to Torah scholors for some guidance on that one too.

Here is the chief lecturer on morals and ethics in the Democratic Party back in 1998:

Mr. President, I have come to this floor many times in the past to speak with my colleagues about the concerns which are so widely shared in this chamber and throughout the nation that our society’s standards are sinking; that our common moral code is deteriorating and that our public life is coarsening. In doing so, I have specifically criticized leaders of the entertainment industry for the way they have used the enormous influence the wield to weaken our common values.

…it is hard to ignore the impact of the misconduct the president has admitted to on our culture, on our character and on our children.

To begin with, I must respectfully disagree with the president’s contention that his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and the way in which he misled us about it is nobody’s business but his family’s and that even presidents have private lives, as he said.

[…]

The president is not just the elected leader of our country…when his personal conduct is embarrassing, it is sadly so not just for him and his family, it is embarrassing for all of us as Americans.

[…]

In this case, the president apparently had extramarital relations with an employee half his age and did so in the workplace in the vicinity of the Oval Office. Such behavior is not just inappropriate. It is immoral. And it is harmful, for it sends a message of what is acceptable behavior to the larger American family — particularly to our children — which is as influential as the negative messages communicated by the entertainment culture.

[…]

This, unfortunately, is all-too-familiar territory for America’s families in today’s anything-goes culture, where sexual promiscuity is too often treated as just another lifestyle choice with little risk of adverse consequences.

[…]

The president’s relationship with Ms. Lewinsky not only contradicted the values he has publicly embraced over the last six years, it has, I fear, compromised his moral authority at a time when Americans of every political persuasion agree that the decline of the family is one of the most pressing problems we are facing.

Nevertheless, I believe the president could have lessened the harm his relationship with Ms. Lewinksy has caused if he had acknowledged his mistake and spoken with candor about it to the American people shortly after it became public in January.

[…]

But I believe that the harm the president’s actions have caused extend beyond the political arena. I am afraid that the misconduct the president has admitted may be reinforcing one of the worst messages being delivered by our popular culture, which is that values are fungible. And I am concerned that his misconduct may help to blur some of the most important bright lines of right and wrong in our society.

[…]

The last three weeks have been dominated by a cacophony of media and political voices calling for impeachment or resignation or censure, while a lesser chorus implores us to move on and get this matter behind us.

Appealing as that latter option may be to many people who are understandably weary of this crisis, the transgressions the president has admitted to are too consequential for us to walk away and leave the impression for our children today and for our posterity tomorrow that what he acknowledges he did within the White House is acceptable behavior for our nation’s leader. On the contrary, as I have said, it is wrong and unacceptable and should be followed by some measure of public rebuke and accountability.

[…]

With the nation at war with itself, President Lincoln warned, and I quote, “If there ever could be a time for mere catch arguments, that time is surely not now. In times like the present, men should utter nothing for which they would not willingly be responsible through time and eternity.”

I believe that we are at such a time again today.

We are not at such a time in 2004, however. Soldiers leading naked prisoners around on a leash, riding around on old ladies backs calling them donkeys, forcing bound prisoners to simulate anal and oral sex — things like this are not worth a righteous condemnation from the Senate Floor by our self-appointed moral conscience, Joe Lieberman. Instead, we are treated to a litany of crimes committed by Saudi Arabians on September 11th, 2001 and by a mob in Fallujah months after the torture took place as crimes for which WE deserve an apology — and therefore, by implication, it’s even steven.

By this logic, until we see some apologies from the Japanese, the Germans, the Brits and especially the French, it’s perfectly ok for us to kill as many Canadians as we want.

Just as long as nobody gets any consensual, unphotographed blow jobs. That would be immoral.

Update: Yglesias notices Joe’s new flexible morality too.

Correction: Smokin’ Joe actually said that we did owe an apology to the prisoners. However, his impassioned conflation of the torture with the unrelated events of 9/11 and Fallujah in the next breath certainly implied that there is a moral equivalence. There is, of course, if the US has lowered itself to the level of terrorists and a street mob.

Because He Isn’t

A wide variety of officials in the administration had advised Bush to apologize on Wednesday when he gave interviews to two Arab television channels and were puzzled when he did not, senior U.S. officials said. An apology had been recommended in the talking points Bush received from the State Department and elsewhere, the officials said. Senior administration aides then made a push overnight for him to say he was sorry during his news conference with Abdullah, the officials said.

Relative Indignance

I just watched the Beltway Boyz have a complete meltdown over the idea that someone would ask Rumsfeld to resign over such minor infractions as torture, abuse and the suspension of 200 years of legal precedent and international treaties. After all, as Mort indignantly cried, “This is not My Lai!” (Fred added that Stalin was much, much worse because he killed millions.) When you look at the great historical sweep of political malfeasance, depravity and corruption it is really the lowest of the low to ask for the resignation of a cabinet secretary over such a silly little thing.

Funny, I seem to remember that the Beltway Boyz and their pals were apoplectic at the alleged criminal behavior of Mike Espy who was forced to resign because he was accused (and acquitted) of taking some free football tickets. Or Henry Cisneros who was chased out of Washington for lying about how much he paid his lying mistress. But then, unlike the stoking of a firestorm of rage from the Arab world, those things were threats to the nation so they deserved to lose their political careers and face jail time and millions of dollars worth of legal fees.

Now, I’m hearing James Inhofe, a very religious man, making the moral argument on Hardball that nobody dropped anyone into acid like Saddam did in that very same prison, so let’s not get carried away with our condemnation of Americans. “Compared to what they do to us, it’s a picnic.” (Any ideas about what they’re doing to us?) He did go out of his way to say that he “didn’t approve” of the behavior of those bad apples before he waved around an Ahmad Chalabi special report from 1992 that says bin Laden was good friends with Saddam.

I’m once again struck by the moral surety of these religious Republicans who don’t seem to be upset by the deviant behavior graphically shown in these pictures and who don’t seem worried in the least about how they are going to explain it to their children. It seems like only yesterday that every other word from their mouths was “deplorable,” “reprehensible,” “despicable,” “disgusting,” and ” “revolting,” as they relayed their shock and horror at the stunning news of a 50 year old man having an affair with a young woman in his office. If I recall correctly, this was considered to be an act of such depravity that they didn’t know how the nation could survive if the perpetrator wasn’t removed from office.

But, somehow, pictures of a young soldier pointing gleefully to a naked, hooded prisoner forced to masturbate on camera only elicits a mild “disapproval.” Anyone have some clues where I might find an explnation of this in Senator Inhofe’s Baptist Bible or Freddie Barnes’s Episcopal prayerbook, because I’m finding it awfully difficult to understand?

Voyeur Nation

Billmon says:

And so we come to the central question: Can the cover up artists keep the focus exclusively on Abu Ghraib? Ironically, the flood of S&M porn shots now making their way onto the market tend to reinforce the media’s fascination with the perverted antics at the prison, which ultimately works in favor of the coverup, if not Rumsfeld personally. The new gulag archipelago, like the old one, requires anonymity. Right now, the other islands in the chain still have it, and may get to keep it – unless, of course, there are some candid snapshots from Gitmo or Bagram or the CIA’s mysterious ‘ghost’ prisons floating around in unauthorized hands.

Even if such photos were to come to light, I’m not sure the mainstream media, much less the American public, can absorb much more than they already have. It’s not easy to admit you live in a country that now owns and operates its own system of gulag camps – instead of contracting the entire job out to friendly despots, sight unseen, as in the good old days.

In other words, the administration has the public’s desire not to know on its side. And that, plus Bush’s gestures of contrition, may be enough to hold the line at Abu Ghraib – although Donald Rumsfeld’s scalp may have to sacrified to seal the bargain.

It’s funny he brings this up, because I was just thinking the exact opposite.

I think it is precisely the nature of the evidence that makes the media and the American public interested in the story. They are inured to charges of lies or corruption — violence and prurience are what moves them. I concluded long ago that the only scandal that really interests the American public is a sex scandal.

It is the S&M image of this one that is moving it, the pictures, the graphic kinkiness of it. That’s what shocks and thrills the public, if only in a sickening, voyeuristic, train wreck sort of way.

Bush and his band of faux moralists were in part chosen by the Republican establishment precisely because of their reputations for sexual rectitude. They knew they could get away with almost anything as long as they didn’t expose themselves to accusations of sex — of any kind. (The closest they came to slipping was Bush’s Top Gun flight of fancy, but that faded soon enough.) The press and the public are attuned to the tiniest hint of sexual impropriety, both loving it and pretending to be shocked by it, and the GOP knows this because they virtually created the environment of sexual hypocricy our culture slavishly embraces.

The pictures at Abu Ghraib have brought sex back into the White House and they don’t have a good way of dealing with it. Look at Rush — he totally misread the party line (but he knows his public…) The politicians are soiled by their association with this violent kinkiness, but their followers, like Americans everywhere, are drawn to those images like moths to the flame. They can’t escape it and they can’t change the subject. No matter how pious and faithful, Bush is tainted. It’s his war. It’s his sex scandal. It’s Clinton rules.

I don’t pretend to know how this will play out long term. But, sex has been introduced into the equation now and that changes everything. The scandal receptors are turned on and the American people will start to watch. As with most sexually hypocritical cultures, voyeurism is one of America’s biggest thrills. If news of further sexual humiliation and worse is confirmed about other prisons and prison camps around the world, the country will be watching with bated breath.

He Din’ Know Nothin’

Via Center for American Progress

Rumsfeld not only preferred clarity and order, he insisted on them. That meant personally managing process, knowing all the details, asking the questions, shaping the presidential briefing and the ultimate results…In other words, Rumsfeld wanted near-total control.” – Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack, pg. 16.

Keep this in mind on Friday as Rummy tries to pretend he was out of the loop.

Democratic Capitalism

I like to see patriotic Democrats make a buck. This guy sent me an e-mail saying he’d been inspired to create something to relieve his frustration. Makes an awfully nice stocking stuffer.

Indifferent Depravity

Once again we have the bizarre sideshow of pundits selectively calling for disavowels while devils are whispering sweet nothings in their own ears. TNR picks up on the strange silence on the right side of the spectrum towards Limbaugh’s vomitous response to the torture and abuse in Iraq. Strange, of course, because they erupted like Vesuvius over a tasteless cartoon by obscure alternate weekly cartoonist, Ted Rall, while ignoring the S&M rantings of their talk radio hero — who, not incidentally, boasts 20 million listeners a week.

“Why has, say, Salon not weighed in?” Sullivan wrote. “Why has Slate not barred [Rall’s] work permanently from their site?” These were examples of a distinct genre of conservative political writing that seeks to pressure liberals into distancing themselves from their extreme elements, ostensibly in the name of fostering a more civil, reasonable political culture. Conservatives who deploy this argument profess merely to be concerned about the tone of American politics. David Brooks summarized this view in a New York Times column last fall, writing that “the core threat to democracy is not in the White House, it’s the haters themselves.”

Now we have a well-timed opportunity to see how sincerely the right believes its own platitudes about civil discourse. On his syndicated radio show yesterday, conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh hit a new low. Discussing the allegations of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, he suggested that the humiliation of detainees was merely a bit of misguided recreation.

See here and here.

By the standards of civility Sullivan and Brooks apply to the left, Limbaugh’s outburst is surely beyond the pale. His cavalier endorsement of sadism and sexual abuse for “emotional release” counts as hate under any reasonable definition of the word. Limbaugh trivializes the suffering of Iraqi civilians as badly as Rall trivialized Pat Tillman’s heroism. His comments are also, incidentally, a slur against the accused soldiers, none of whom have been so depraved as to defend their actions as “a good time.” They, at least, have insisted that the actions had a purpose–to soften up the detainees for interrogation–however warped it might have been. (Limbaugh was also inaccurate; the Skull and Bones initiation, while bizarre, is apparently light on physical cruelty.)

Thus far, however, his remarks have been met with silence on the right, which has indulged Limbaugh for years. If lack of condemnation is really the equivalent of approval, then the complicity of the right in Limbaugh’s bile is overwhelming. There have been no calls for radio stations to cancel Limbaugh, as Sullivan called for newspapers to drop Rall’s comic. Sullivan lightly mocked Limbaugh’s comments, but did not call for him to be taken off the radio. Ramesh Ponnuru came closest to mustering some genuine criticism on National Review’s website, where he managed to summon up a sort of decaffeinated outrage: “It was a tough line [Limbaugh] was trying to walk,” Ponnuru wrote. “But when he ended up comparing the abuse to a fraternity initiations ritual, I’m afraid he fell on the wrong side of it.” You don’t say!

Part of the reluctance to criticize Limbaugh may stem from his prominence in conservative politics; in terms of influence, Limbaugh, with his 20 million listeners, is an immeasurably more significant figure than Rall, whose cartoon reaches a paltry 140 newspapers, only some of which print any given strip (compared to 1,400 newspapers daily for Doonesbury). His prominence–and, indeed, the power he wields with the right-wing base–may help explain why conservatives repeatedly let Limbaugh off the hook. But it’s also why his comments are even more deserving of outrage than Rall’s. After all, Ted Rall is a pretty minor figure; Rush Limbaugh isn’t. Both men said repulsive things this week. If one is beyond the limits of acceptable political discourse, then surely the other is, too. It would be nice to see a conservative, any conservative, acknowledge that.

It’s certainly true that Limbaugh is prominent. The vice president just went on his show a couple of weeks ago. He was married by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Why, he was chosen to receive the prestigious “Statesmanship Award” from the Claremont Institute last year.

On November 21 the Claremont Institute will honor Rush Limbaugh with our Statesmanship Award. One of our heroes, Abraham Lincoln, frequently reminded his countrymen that “our government rests in public opinion.” Few Americans in recent memory have done more on a daily basis to sustain and invigorate a healthy public opinion in this country than Mr. Limbaugh, known fondly to us all as “Rush.”

In an overwhelmingly liberal media, Rush has brought to unprecedented millions of listeners a conservative point of view, year in and year out, on virtually every significant issue, trenchantly, intelligently, wittily, and inimitably. The buoyancy and optimism that infuse all of Rush’s commentary, the unfailing good cheer in a good cause that uplifts the spirits of conservative millions every day, are reminiscent of the irrepressible spirit of the man whose life we gather here annually to celebrate, Sir Winston Churchill.

There could be few more eloquent testimonies to the success of Mr. Limbaugh in broadening and strengthening conservative public opinion in America than the deep fear and loathing he inspires among big-government, politically correct, blame-America-first liberals. Few if any since Ronald Reagan have had the honor of being more doggedly hated and feared by America’s liberal elite than Rush Limbaugh. And the reasons are the same?Rush’s staunch opposition to liberal cultural tyranny and tax and spend government, and his unblushing conviction that America is a good and great country that does not need the permission of the United Nations to defend itself against its enemies.

In recent months, wealthy liberals have launched a multimillion dollar campaign in the desperate — and need one say, fruitless — effort to create a “Limbaugh of the Left.” More recently the same liberals have, of course, been publicly licking their unseemly chops at Rush’s widely publicized personal setbacks.

All the more reason, we say, for friends and fans of Rush to come together to welcome him back to the good fight, honor him for his remarkable contributions, and wish him many more years of broadcasting the conservative truth “across the fruited plains.”

Please join the Claremont Institute as we honor Rush with our Statesmanship Award for the service he has done our country as a leading voice of American conservatism.

Unfortunately, Rush was able to attend after all because the news broke that he was under investigation for money laundering and his lawyer advised him to go to rehab for his drug adiction immediately. Luckily, they were able to find a worthy replacement:

The Claremont Institute announced Wednesday that Rush Limbaugh will not be in attendance at the Institute’s annual Churchill Dinner on Friday, Nov. 21, 2003.

The Institute announced that Dr. William J. Bennett, recently appointed Washington Fellow of the Claremont Institute, will deliver the keynote address at the event.

(Here’s a chance to take a Claremont institute Cruise with Bennett and half the masthead of National Review. Bring seasickness remedies.)

In case anyone thinks that Rush is on the outs with mainstream conservatives because he is a drug addict, he was welcomed back into the fold just last month to screams of adulation that Justin Timberlake would envy (if he were a balding, cretinous right wing blowhard):

Friday, March 19, 2004 10:40 a.m. EST

NewsMax.com’s Wes Vernon reports that top radio talker Rush Limbaugh wowed the Media Research Center with a surprise appearance at yesterday’s awards ceremony in Washington, D.C.

He was not on the program, but the audience in a huge hotel ballroom knew Rush Limbaugh was about to appear on stage when they heard his familiar radio theme song.

The occasion was the Media Research Center?s annual Dishonor Awards, held each year to spotlight grossly biased, inaccurate and downright wacky statements by the so-called “mainstream media,” or “partisan media,” as the famous talker prefers to call them.

Limbaugh castigated the elite media regarding a huge example of bias just within the last few days.

Taking note of the arrest of accused Saddam spy Susan Lindauer, Rush recalled that her resume includes four Democrat officeholders and several jobs with “the partisan media.”

“And all they could emphasize was that she was something like the 13th cousin of [White House aide Andy Card],” he lamented, “even though Card and Lindauer hadn?t seen each other in years.”

What set him off on the “partisan media” recently, Rush said, was the way South Florida news outlets had treated his well-publicized case where a Democrat prosecutor is singling him out on charges of “doctor shopping” in his pursuit of painkillers – the result of a years-long back pain problem.

Referring to the Palm Beach Post as the “newsletter” for Palm Beach prosecutors, the man regarded as a broadcast icon by 20 million-plus listeners revealed an “editorial” meeting he had with the newspaper editors.

He complained that other prominent figures in the area had been given a pass when they became reliant on painkillers, while the prosecutor went after him, largely as a result of e-mails received from Rush-haters. He cited reports from conservative news sources and interviews his lawyer had had with Sean Hannity and Joe Scarborough.

“We don?t recognize the partisan media,” the editors responded.

By stubbornly refusing to recognize any news source other than those blessed by the liberal establishment, Limbaugh said, the editors were in essence regurgitating what has been heard in elitist newsrooms for years: “Facts don’t matter.”

Henceforth, said the top talker, he will not acknowledge that these establishment outlets are “mainstream,” a concession conservatives have been willing to make until now.

They are, he told his wildly cheering audience, “the partisan media.”

“Up until the last 15 or 20 years, they had ‘a virtual monopoly’ on deciding what is and what is not ‘news,'” he explained.

President Bush, according to Limbaugh, has found out that there is little point in trying to “get along with them. They hate his guts,” even more than they hated Reagan, “and that is saying something.”

The Democrats, the surprise guest proclaimed, “care more about whether Europeans like them than they care about terrorists who want to kill us.”

And don’t let them tell you they’re compassionate, he warned. “Just try disagreeing with them and see how far you get.”

In the world of the left, Rush believes, politics is about seeking power “to rule other people,” whereas conservatives seek to “give power back to the people.”

Dizzying, isn’t it?

And just so nobody gets the idea that the MRC “Dishonor Awards” are some fringe event rather than a mainstream conservative funfest, here’s Brent Bozell’s re-cap (pdf) from last years awards:

Nominees for each category were selected by the senior staff at the MRC, who combed through our massive archives to find 2002’s most biased quotes. The quotes were placed into five categories and provided to a distinguished group of 14 judges that included Rush Limbaugh,William F. Buckley, Jr., Robert Novak, Michael Reagan and William Rusher,among others. The judges voted for a winner and two runners-up in each cate-gory and, the “winners”were announced at the DisHonors. As a fun touch, we invite a top conservative leader to “accept” theaward on behalf of thewinner. More than 900 conservatives from around thecountry attended this year’s Dishonors and participants were a literal who’s who of the conservative movement. Sean Hannity, the co-host of FoxNews’ Hannity & Colmes; Laura Ingraham, the host of the country’s third-highest rated conservative radio talkshow; and Anne Coulter, the best-selling author of Slander: Liberal Lies About the America Right,were our Presenters. Rich Lowry of National Review, Steve Moore of The Club for Growth, Judge Robert Bork, author Mona Charen and the Washington Times’ Tony Blankley were our Accepters.

I don’t know if the SCLM routinely hangs out at snotty insider awards dinners with Ted Rall, but maybe they ought to start. This kind of sophomoric Mean Girls bitchiness shouldn’t just be confined to fun loving kooks like Buckley Novak and Bork.

Until our side gets it together and learns to embrace every left wing wacko like he or she is the reincarnatiuon of Bob Hope, in the spirit of public disavowelment for everyone, I suggest we write some letters to Judge Robert Bork, the man who appeared on Larry King and denounced President Clinton as morally unfit for office because he participated in a “depraved sexual act” and ask him whether he agrees with his good friend, the mainstream Rush Limbaugh, that those MP’s at Abu Ghraib were just blowing off steam and getting a needed “emotional release.”

Then we’ll call Gary Bauer, James Dobson and Jerry Fallwell.

Take Action

Via Ezra Klein, I read that John Kerry has formed a rapid response operation. This is one way for blog readers to get involved in the campaign. If you have time to read my scratchings at work, you have time to write a letter. (And it’s a good way to look busy when somebody walks by….)

John Kerry for President – Media Corps