Sigh. Seriously, Tina Brown?

Yes, I’m talking about you, Oxford University-educated Newsweek/Daily Beast editor Tina Brown.

You’ve resorted to recycling bottom-of-the-barrel moonbat photo cliches about conservative female public figures and their enraged “crazy eyes?” Really?

Who’s in charge of Newsweek cover graphics now — a Media Matters Soros Monkey? A random Daily Kos commenter? Keith Olbermann’s intern’s intern?

The once-mighty Newsweek magazine-turned-Beast is apparently so proud of its Democratic Underground-pandering Michele Bachmann cover and title that its editors are promoting the photo and pushing the hashtag #QueenofRage on Twitter.

And the left-wing press is eating it up:

Gawker, predictably: “Ha ha, just kidding—they don’t call her CrazyEyes for nothing.”

The Village Voice rejoices after receiving a high-res image of the cover (and dutifully cropping Bachmann’s eyes).

More reax: Newsbusters and Dana Loesch (who launches her own caption contest for Tina Brown).

Rep. Bachmann is unabashedly conservative, willing to take both parties’ leaders to task, passionate about her work, popular with grass-roots activists on the Right, committed to reining in the size, scope, and power of government, and yes, expressive. For all this, she must be destroyed.

No doubt the editors and photog will deny doing anything to make Bachmann look bad.

But here’s what GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann looks like in a straight photo.

A link-filled reminder: The liberal media fetish of demonizing conservative women and their looks goes back years.

In 2005, I blasted USA Today for altering a photo of then-GOP Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to demonize her eyes. The before:

And after:

After a massive backlash from bloggers, commenters, photography software experts, and readers who called out the newspaper’s sneaky photo doctors, USA Today removed the retouched photo and admitted it had been enhanced — “giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards.”

It is, however, in keeping with the “crazy eyes”/”batsh*t crazy” narrative that’s a mainstay in the progressive blog sewer:

As documented by Karrin Anderson on the left-wing blog Bag News Notes, the Bachmann-eye-bashing editors of Rolling Stone and the Huffington Post already beat Brown and her Newsweek/Beast to the punch.

Yep, the magazine that popularized those “conventional wisdom” charts is now slavishly following the conventional crap-flinging of puerile progs on the Internet.

When I came out with Culture of Corruption in 2009, for example, one Soros-employed lefty’s response consisted entirely of multiple freeze-frame shots of my “crazyface” and “wide-eyed zealot” TV appearances, including these:

To repeat what I said last month: I’d rather have “crazy eyes” than willfully blind ones.

Also: “Crazy eyes” are also useful for doing the Mom Death Stare on unruly kids. Invaluable weapon. Wouldn’t trade these peepers for anything.

While Anderson notes that a few liberal female politicians also have faced the exaggerated crazy-eye photo treatment, she fails to recognize that those images are almost all relegated to Internet humor/blog sites — as opposed to the mainstreaming of demon conservatives images by national media publications.

As faithful readers will recall, The Atlantic magazine hired unhinged photog Jill Greenberg in 2008 to take a cover photo of then-GOP presidential candidate John McCain…

…which Greenberg then altered for her website thusly (this is just one of several bizarro images she photoshopped and featured on her professional website)…

…causing The Atlantic to issue this mortified editor’s note:

We stand by the respectful image of John McCain that we used on our cover, and we expect to be judged by it. We were not aware of the manipulated and dishonest images Jill Greenberg had taken until this past Friday.

Jill Greenberg has obviously not done that. She has, in fact, disgraced herself, and we are appalled by the manipulated images of John McCain she has created for her Web site.

It wasn’t just about vetting her political views, though. It was her previous record of unethical and unprofessional behavior motivated by left-wing malice. Greenberg tricked McCain into standing over a light to create ugly shadows on his face. Manipulation is her stock and trade. (Indeed, it’s her Twitter handle.) Four years earlier, she deliberately terrorized children, stripped them, ordered parents to “step out of the studio for a couple minutes” in concerted attempts to make children cry who were not cooperating, and then captioned the photos of the children with anti-Bush slogans.

Later, she admitted to trying to make Glenn Beck look bad (a failed attempt that he laughed off) in photo art published by Time magazine.

Time magazine has previously carried distorted photos and photoshops of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

Disseminating unflattering photos of conservatives isn’t journalism. It’s Alinskyite narrative-shaping. And for holier-than-thou highbrow poseurs from Time and Newsweek to the Soros zoo and rage photog Jill Greenberg, it’s a hard habit to break.

***

Question: When was the last time Time or Newsweek put a halo around a conservative politician? Hmmm?

Coulter is provocative, and she’s not afraid to say things–true things–she knows will generate a media backlash.

The “[i]nflammatory right-wing pundit” spoke at the University of Western Ontario yesterday. In a move that has to be tongue-in-cheek, Coulter said she will file a human rights complaint alleging that University of Ottawa vice-president academic and provost Francois Houle’s e-mail to her constituted “hate speech.”

Houle urged that Coulter exercise “restraint, respect and consideration” in her speech to the students. Houle added, “Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or ‘free speech’) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here…Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges.”

Mark Steyn posted the entire e-mail.

“I’m sure the Human Rights Commission will get to the bottom of it,” Coulter told the audience.

Is she being ironic? Former Weekly Standard publisher Ezra Levant spoke before Coulter and said Houle’s letter was a “veiled threat.”

Coulter’s detractors don’t realize the more they try to shut her down, the more people are exposed to her point of view, and that’s what they don’t want. Why are people more afraid of ideas than of giving the government power to stop the flow of ideas?

Let the discussion flourish, and challenge your opponent’s arguments with your arguments. Attacking the person is weak, and banning ideas is cowardly.

We certainly wouldn’t allow that in America.

The left-wing blogosphere is up in arms over the John Doe movement and manifesto.

It’s telling, isn’t it, that HuffPo and company are outraged not at CAIR and the litigious imams–but at me:

Does Michelle Malkin believe the things she writes? Is she five? Is she living in a parallel universe where Afghanistan is occupying us? Can you sit down and type, “I will not submit to your will,” to a hypothetical Arab teenager and not feel a little … silly?

And that’s where the cognitive dissonance of racism kicks in. If you’re an Arab man, she can’t believe you’re not a jihadist. And since she’s an Asian woman, we’re surprised that she’s such an idiot.

Love how they show their racist stripes flinging racism charges at others. And how they hide behind their hypotheticals while ignoring realities like this and this and this.

More typical reax from the 9/10 Left:

If your newspaper carries this hateful bitch – this self-loathing immigrant – contact the editorial board. We got Ann Coulter and Linda Bowles banished from the op-eds in this town – can we get the Star to come to their senses about this idiot child, too?

And from the deep-thinkers at Wonkette:

Michele Malkin is like a cheap Filipino cleaning lady (Dimestore literary simile )but, alas, the worst kind, the self-loathing variety. Earth to Michele: you’re not a country club, LNS Republican and despite all your inane columns, these folks will still look at you as the geisha who should be doing their laundry and fixing them a big bowl of noodles or giving them a rubdown after a long game of golf. I suspect if you had been a Jew in Auschwitz, you’d be the one throwing your bunkmates into the ovens. So give it up and go fuck a terror detainee you big stupid rightwing patsy.

Back in the land of sanity and reality, my friend and inspiration Debra Burlingame today in the NYPost blows the whistle on moonbatty Rep. Bennie Thompson’s behavior and the Dems’ disarray last week during the vote on the House GOP’s Protect John Doe provision:

According to witnesses in the gallery and on the floor, Speaker Nancy Pelosi displayed a classic deer-in-the headlights look as the Democratic leadership went into a huddle – plainly eager, not to embrace this common-sense measure, but to sidetrack it.

Meanwhile, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, took the floor to oppose [Rep. Peter] King’s motion – and to defend the lawsuit against John Does. “We should be tolerant,” he argued; people shouldn’t be singled out because they “look different.”

In fact, the flying imams triggered concerns by a variety of unusual actions, as well as words that roused the concern of another Arabic-speaking passenger. Witnesses say that House members started booing Thompson.

Finally, a member of the leadership realized how this would look to Americans watching on C-SPAN: Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) was seen staring at Thompson and repeatedly drawing his hand across his throat – an urgent signal to get off the floor.

With Democrats realizing they couldn’t argue against King’s measure, it went to a vote, and passed, 304 to 121.

Every one of those 121 votes aimed at defeating protection for “John Does” was a Democrat – indeed, more than half of all Democrats present voted “nay.”

And, with the exception of Rep. Anthony Weiner (Brooklyn), Democrats from the New York-New Jersey metro area led the way in voting against it.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, whose district includes Ground Zero, voted no. So did Rep. Carolyn Maloney, whose district includes Midtown, and Rep. Nita Lowey, who lost dozens of Westchester neighbors on 9/11.

Rep. Bill Pascrelle hails from New Jersey, the home of 700 9/11 victims. Earlier that night, he had praised the bill’s provision protecting government whistleblowers from retaliation. But he voted against such protection for John Does who don’t have government jobs.

The story isn’t over yet. To become law, this measure must also pass the Senate – and survive House-Senate conference, where the leadership might try to quietly excise King’s reform.

How will Hillary and Obama vote?

Will they stand on the side of John Doe or with the unhinged grievance-mongers who would demonize and punish citizen vigilance?

Do they only support whistle-blowing when it harms the Bush administration?

Do they believe, as the HuffPo huffers believe, that the passengers who subdued Richard Reid were paranoid bigots?

Do they believe that al Qaeda dry runs are figments of our imagination? That global jihad and the spread of sharia are fantasies?

Let’s see where you stand.

***

More John Doe developments:

Scott Johnson tracks the CAIR/Becket Fund battle. Also here.

Audrey Hudson reports on CAIR’s latest legal maneuvers.

The Arizona Republic editorial board blasts Intimidation by Lawsuit.

***
Previous:

The John Doe manifesto
House GOP strikes back
AIFD; Powerline
I’m John Doe buttons
Protect John Doe
Katherine Kersten reports
Becket Fund

Last night, hate-filled liberals on MSNBC attemped to smear Marine Corporal Matt Sanchez and conservatives who honored him at CPAC for his support of the military at Columbia University. They gleefully showed photos of Cpl. Sanchez at the event–including ones I took–in mockery after his gay porn past was outed by left-wing blogs. They cackled “Semper Fi.”

I said the other day I thought CPAC organizers would be justified in being embarrassed if the rumors about Sanchez’s porn star past 15 years ago turned out to be true. Well, the rumors are true. But it is neither CPAC nor Cpl. Sanchez who should feel embarrassed.

It’s the nasty, gloating liberals who claim to stand for tolerance, privacy, human rights, and compassion. I predicted the other day that left-wing bigotry would rear its ugly head. I was right. The e-mail I’ve received is more disgusting than anything Ann Coulter stupidly said at CPAC. And I can imagine the vitriol Cpl. Sanchez is enduring.

We are all fallible people. My friend and colleague Bryan Preston says it well:

At the heart of the New Testament is a book called Corinthians, in which Paul describes some of the early Christians thus:

Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

“…and such were some of you…” He’s talking to some of the first Christians. Those people had histories. But change is possible.

Cpl. Sanchez sent me a link and text of the original version of a piece published last night in Salon. I am reprinting the entire piece here. It is a powerful message about the hypocrisy of liberals, the pernicious effects of the pornography industry on the soul, the phoniness of “diversity” rhetoric, and the utter pettiness of the scandal-mongers–more powerful than any Washington pundit or social policy expert could send.

This sums it up:

Why did I become a conservative? Just look at what I left, and look at who is attacking me today.

Cpl. Sanchez, it was an honor to meet you and a privilege to know you.

***

A message from Cpl. Matt Sanchez:

Was I totally clueless? When I stepped forward to talk about an anti-military bias at Columbia of course I knew my life would come under some scrutiny. We hear it everyday, with the universality of the internet, it’s impossible to have privacy. We have all done things no one wants to be advertised, but the truth is most of us aren’t important enough to rate more than a bit of gossip from a snubbed co-worker or some derision from an embittered rival. For most, life is fairly routine, but for those rare few who dare to be different, it can be a lot more harrowing.

Being Hispanic, a 100% American flag-waving red-blooded Reagan Republican, and living in New York City, I sometimes think of myself as a progressive: my views started off liberal but I progressed to conservatism. People constantly ask “How can you be a conservative, they’re so hateful.” Obviously, these poor souls have never received a Jeanne Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award from a Conservative Political Action Committee like I did this weekend.

Let me step back a second, because most of you don’t have a clue what I’m talking about. In September 2005, I complained about military bias at Columbia University—New York City’s finest institution of higher learning (and I truly mean that). My fellow veterans were proud of me, happy that someone had finally spoken out. It is unfortunate Salon.com and most liberal blogs and media chose to ignore this issue. In fact, it’s even more unfortunate that ONLY conservative (traditional for you O’Reilly fans) were interested. Given the left’s constant talk about equality, discrimination, minority rights and systemic oppression, I thought appearing on CNN or MSNBC would have been a media no-brainer, a great way of spreading the non-partisan word, but so much is political today—even the double-standards have talking points.

It was a cold morning in Manhattan and I was late for classes, despite being a bit groggy from studying for my midterms, and working full-time at a marketing firm where I just made partner. I don’t drink coffee and in my morning haze, I didn’t notice the mounting messages on my obsidian Blackberry. I couldn’t distinguish the spam from the hate mail.

We all have a tendency to want to hate the enemy; I suppose that’s why Ann Coulter got applause when she used the term ragheads (that was the last Coulter scandal, or was it the Jersey Girls?) I also suppose that’s why I got so much invective when bloggers posted decade-plus pictures of me that I knew were still around, but simply chose to ignore. Did I think I could become a “public figure” without some scrutiny? Of course not! Am I so craven for attention that I’ll stop at anything to get it? I’m the first to admit that I want to be heard, read and taken seriously, but some issues really are simple and some are more complex. I always hear the complaint of information reduced to sound bytes and of the lack of depth in public discourse. Well, porn is porn; self-explanatory and of little depth. The pictures do pretty much all the talking, and in an age when pictures are so abundant, they don’t say much. I’m concerned many will feel inadequate, as a conservative, I like to insist on equal opportunity even if some start off with more than others.

I don’t like porn, it reduces the mind, flattens the soul. That’s not hypocrisy talking, that’s experience. If I started off with liberal leanings, being on a gay porn set should have been heaven. In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is projected. How does a conservative trace his roots to such distasteful beginnings? Like all followers of a cult, it’s tough to figure out when you stopped believing in the party-line, but I can tell you that by the time I finished my summer tour of the major studios, I was pretty disgusted with myself. It was an emotional low, and the people who surrounded me were like drug dealers only interested in being with the anesthetized in order not to shake off the stupor of being high. Why did I become a conservative? Just look at what I left, and look at who is attacking me to today? Let’s face it people, you’re all cynical enough to know that if I had espoused liberal causes, spoken out against the military, got a liberal award for courage and then outed with a porn-past, you’d be clamoring for my memoir, and nominating me for a diversity ticket with Barack Obama. Instead those who complain about wire-tapping reserve the right to eavesdrop on my private life for political brownie points. Sure, I took a picture with Ann Coulter, I don’t endorse what she said, but anyone in the military would defend her right to say it. I realize that sounds prohibitively phony, but gee it’s really true! The right to say things is precious and like so many others, my decision to serve after September 11th is even a more salient point of my past. I feel I’m duty bound to help out my fellow veterans in any fight, both foreign and domestic. The issue of anti-military bias on campus is enormous and the CPAC was correct to recognize the gravity of the situation and award those who act for change. With so many experiences since the last George Bush was in power, you’ll have to forgive me for not listing a summer job in my resume, so many years later. It’s just a part of my past, and like anyone who reflects on the past realizes, it contributes to who I am today. No apologies, just recognition. No running away, just moving forward.

I’m not clueless, I saw Jeff Ganon at the CPAC. I didn’t speak to him, and had never met him, but he seemed fine to me, despite the minor media scandal last year, or was it the year before??? It’s hard to keep track, in fact, so many scandals come and go in such a rapid cycle, like the 24 frames it takes for one second of film to give the cinematic illusion of reality. I wonder if I’m just being blasé or the readers really think the tit-for-tat sport of political “gotcha!!” amounts to something more than a Mc’Opinion: easily digested and effortlessly spewed as another “I hate those people!” anecdote. I learned a lot at the CPAC, mostly that I’m not as right-wing among the true believers as I feel in a place like New York, where people glibly promote diversity unless you don’t agree with them. I also learned that there are noteworthy citizens in this country who are dutifully engaged in public discourse and intimately committed to the autonomy of the individual. I accepted my award and spoke with great pride.

I am embarrassed to say, I thought my fellow conservative friends would distance themselves when this news came out, and I’m touched that the opposite has happened. I’ve been asked to give my point of view, invited to speak at various functions, invited to back on TV and most people have gone out of their way to give me their vote of confidence and avoid a rush to judgment. That’s really nice, I appreciate the support, but some conversations are worth having, and I’ve achieved a major victory with changing Columbia’s policy toward the military. I’m just not sure what in the world anyone wants to hear, besides his or her own dismay on how big a scandal this is, when it’s just another blip on the blogosphere.

***

Cassandra at Villanous Company:

Not content with trying to make all conservatives responsible for the perceived bigotry of Ann Coulter, now liberals want to punish Corporal Matt Sanchez for what they perceive to be the bigotry of the conservative movement as a whole.

The editorial staff has a question for these people. What did they hope to accomplish with their outing of Corporal Sanchez’ past activities? The Left is always complaining that gays face horrible bigotry and discrimination in society – that gays have to hide their sexual orientation out of fear, that the ‘religious theocrats’ of the right search out and punish anyone who doesn’t fall in line with their moral majority family values agenda. They honestly believe this.

And apparently they can’t wait to expose Matt Sanchez to the delights of the world as they see it.

Is nothing – even chapters of one’s life that are now closed – private anymore? Or didn’t they stop to think of the possible repercussions? Maybe they just don’t care. In their minds, whatever happens will serve him right for having the nerve to disagree with them politically.

John Hawkins at Right Wing News writes “In Defense of Matt Sanchez.”

B. Daniel Blatt skewers leftist attackers and argues:

Matt Sanchez is a part of all that he has met. His past figures into the man he has become. But, people do have a right to their own private lives, to deal with their past mistakes — or merely just past experiences which no longer represent their present actions — in their own way. Once again, it seems that all too many are all too interested in the apparent hypocrisy of conservatives, more interested in defining us so that they may more readily dismiss our ideas. Without even considering what we have to say.

***

Well, this is an interesting development, to say the least. As I noted on Saturday, one of the honorees at CPAC was Matt Sanchez–a corporal in the Marine Corps Reserve and junior at Columbia University who spoke out about anti-war thugs on campus. He received the Jeane Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award and a standing ovation from the CPAC crowd at the Ronald Reagan Banquet. He has also posed with Ann Coulter and me, been published in the NYPost, and appeared on Fox News Channel’s O’Reilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes. There are now tawdry rumors about Sanchez’s past lighting up the left-wing blogs. Cpl. Sanchez says he will respond on his blog.

It’s only a matter of time before the MSM goes nuts with the story. Report on the everyday progress in Iraq? Forget it. Sex, homosexuals, and the GOP? Get ready for wall-to-wall coverage a la Foley, Gannon, and Haggard.

Should CPAC organizers be embarrassed if the rumors about his alleged porn star past are true? Well, yes. Next time, they should do more extensive background research before handing out an honor with Jeane Kirkpatrick’s name on it.

Does it take away from Sanchez’s actions and words in defense of the military at Columbia? Absolutely not.

I guess we’ll see who the real bigots–on both sides of the aisle–are now. I have a feeling Ann Coulter isn’t the only one who’ll be tossing around the f-word as the story develops.

And not just in the “schoolyard,” “sophomoric” kind of way.

***

An e-mail from a Columbia student…

Mrs. Malkin -

What I have to say isn’t especially relevant given the larger nature of the brewing controversy around Corporal Sanchez, but considering that you’re a rational voice that I respect I felt I should drop you a quick line. You have the ability to influence the nature of this debate in a way that I cannot, and given its current course I’d like to see some readjustment.

I’m a freshman at Columbia and I enrolled in the USMC PLC officer training program as soon as I got here. After Matt discovered that I was involved with the program he made it his personal mission to ensure that he closed some of the gaps between my (hopefully) future as a Marine officer and the lack of support offered by the fools here in Columbia’s administration. He has been in the gym with me, often three to four times a week, despite taking classes and working full time, offered his advice as a current Marine and opened up considerable opportunities for myself, including two appearance on FOX News. Simply put, he’s a great guy who goes the distance for anyone that asks and never asks for anything in return.

As for the award, the work he’s done on campus here deserves such recognition. As I look at it, these events are from a past that doesn’t resemble his present in any way whatsoever, and it wouldn’t be fair to consider ignoring his achievements because he made fairly bad judgments in the past. In addition, his work as finally amounted to more than mere agitation, and this week Columbia’s provost finally caved to the pressure and expressed a willingness to acquiesce to the demands of the veteran community on some issues. It’s a start and we can mostly thank Matt Sanchez for that.

Most all of our respected public figures have made mistakes, and apparently Matt is in that category. Still, I count him as a close and valuable friend and pray that this event won’t overshadow the great work he’s done.

As a disclaimer: I’m not a rabid lefty Columbia student, but a registered Republican and member of the NRA, so rest assured I’m not hammering any sort of gay rights agenda or championing pornography as a First Amendment right a la Larry Flint.

Regards,
Austin Byrd

We must ask ourselves tonight how we can forge and wield a popular majority from one end of this country to the other, a majority united on basic, positive goals with a platform broad enough and deep enough to endure long into the future, far beyond the lifespan of any single issue or personality.

We must reach out and appeal to the patriotic and fundamental ideals of average Americans who do not consider themselves “movement” people, but who respond to the same American ideals that we do. I’m not talking about some vague notion of an abstract, amorphous American mainstream. I’m talking about ” Main Street ” Americans in their millions. They come in all sizes, shapes and colors—blue-collar workers, blacks, Hispanics, shopkeepers, scholars, service people, housewives, and professional men and women. They are the backbone of America, and we can’t move America without moving their hearts and minds as well.

Fellow Americans, our duty is before us tonight. Let us go forward, determined to serve selflessly a vision of man with God, government for people, and humanity at peace. For it is now our task to tend and preserve, through the darkest and coldest nights, that “sacred fire of liberty” that President Washington spoke of two centuries ago, a fire that tonight remains a beacon to all the oppressed of the world, shining forth from this kindly, pleasant, greening land we call America.

***

The American Conservative Union has issued a statement:

The American Conservative Union and the Conservative Political Action Conference today issued the following statement:

The just completed 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference on March 1 – 3, 2007, was the largest in the 34 year history of the event, featuring 33 panels on a variety of public policy issues, 24 stand alone speakers including public officials, writers, student activists, media personalities and comedians.

ACU, the event’s primary sponsor and CPAC strive to provide a platform and forum for a variety of differing views and personalities. ACU and CPAC do not condone or endorse every speaker or their comments at the conference. As such, ACU and CPAC leave it to our audience to determine whether comments are appropriate or not.

“Ann Coulter is known for comments that can be both provocative and outrageous. That was certainly the case in her 2007 CPAC appearance and previous ones as well. But as a point of clarification, let me make it clear that ACU and CPAC do not condone or endorse the use of hate speech,” said David A. Keene, ACU Chairman.

What this means for the 2008 CPAC remains unclear.

Here’s what conservative bloggers thought of the speech.

Speaking of hate speech, Patterico chronicles it on the Left.

And John Hawkins finds plenty of example of the other F-word on liberal blogs.

Doesn’t make it right. But it’s definitely worth pointing out.

***

My friend Captain Ed has come under ugly attack, and responds with his trademark graciousness.

Readers of this blog have enthusiastically cheered when I criticized the Left for their incivility. For almost a solid week, we debated the Edwards blogger scandal, where Edwards hired two women who routinely used hateful epithets in describing Christians (“Christofascists” and “Godbags”, as I recall), and people wanted his hide for it. I blasted Howard Dean for his announcement that he hated Republicans and everything for which we stand. This blog has spent the last 42 months taking on that kind of rhetoric, with thousands of posts and thousands of hours of my time.

That takes little courage, however. How brave is it to criticize those who hate and attack me?

It isn’t enough to scold your opponents for their incivility; one has to have the courage to criticize their allies for it as well. That takes more fortitude, because it means alienating those who one presumes have become friends. It means weathering with some grace the kind of comments that people have thrown at me since Friday afternoon. Some may not want to generate that kind of storm, and after today, I don’t blame them a bit.

If one wants to change the tone of political discourse, then one has to start with one’s self, and hold one’s own side accountable for their incivility.

The Hot Air team spent the past three, jam-packed days and sleepless nights covering the Conservative Political Action Conference–meeting countless grass-roots activists, catching up with old friends, making new ones, recharging our ideological batteries, working and relaxing with our fellow bloggers, and scrutinizing the GOP presidential candidates. We’ll have video reports beginning later this morning and running throughout next week and you can check out the Hot Air CPAC photo album. We were also inspired at CPAC by many heroes in the conservative movement who will never make the pages of the New York Times. Like these:

Wounded Iraq war veterans honored at CPAC

Wounded Iraq war veteran Josh Sparling receives CPAC’s Defender of the Constitution Award presented by Col. Ollie North.

(L) Matt Sanchez, CPAC honoree, corporal in the Marine Corps Reserve, and a junior at Columbia University; (R) USAFR Major Eric Egland, author of The Troops Need You, America: Six Ways to Help Them Win From Your Living Room

*Update re Matt Sanchez: See here.*

CPAC’s Friday night banquet honored many of these troops, along with modern civil rights leader Ward Connerly (who gave THE best, most eloquent, rousing, passionate, stalwart, and courageous speech of the entire conference), and other conservative leaders. After the dinner, journalist/happy warrior Joel Mowbray quipped to me:

“At left-wing conferences, you leave hating America. At right-wing conferences, you leave loving America.”

That’s exactly how I felt at the end of the dinner after shaking the hands of the disabled vets who came by crutch and wheelchair from Walter Reed to spend a few hours at CPAC.

Enter Ann Coulter.

Her “faggot” joke was not just a distraction from all the good that was highlighted and represented at the conference. It was the equivalent of a rhetorical fragging–an intentionally-tossed verbal grenade that exploded in her own fellow ideological soldiers’ tent.

There are countless conservatives who bring their children to CPAC. It’s a family-friendly event. I brought mine last year and the year before. I met several parents with their kids there this year. We expect CPAC to be a place where conservative role models speak with clarity, passion, and integrity. There are enough spewers of mindless filth, vulgarity, and hatred on TV, at the movies, and in the public schools. We don’t expect our children to be exposed to that garbage at the nation’s preeminent conservative gathering.

I was in the back of the ballroom and did not see any children in the audience during Coulter’s speech. But what if there had been?

Would you want your children hearing the word “faggot” spoken in such a casual and senseless manner? Would you like your first-grader or three-year-old running around the halls of CPAC singing “faggot, faggot, faggot?” Not me. Not anymore than I’d like my toddler singing “gook, gook, gook” or “sambo, sambo, sambo”–favored epithets hurled at conservative minorities by leftist haters groping around in their empty intellectual quivers. There were hundreds of young conservative college students in the ballroom. Would you be proud of your college-age daughter spewing such epithets in her campus debates with leftists?

With a single word, Coulter sullied the hard work of hundreds of CPAC participants and exhibitors and tarred the collective reputation of thousands of CPAC attendees. At a reception for college students held by the Young America’s Foundation, I lambasted the substitution of stupid slurs for persuasion– be it “faggot” from a conservative or “gook” from a liberal–and urged the young people there to conduct themselves at all times with dignity in their ideological battles on and off campus.

I made something else explicitly clear: Not all of us treat the communication of conservative ideals and ideas as 24/7 performance art. You can and should use humor to convey your message. You can enlighten and entertain–without becoming a tired old schtick. You can joke without becoming the joke.

***

On Saturday, Sean Hannity spoke at CPAC. He told the massive crowd that “We have a very pivotal role to play in driving the direction of this country” and urged the attendees to remind the nation “what conservative principles are about.” I wholeheartedly agree. We should remind them that we are not on the same side as Bill Maher, the Huffington Post, and John Edwards’ ex-bloggers who pollute public discourse with shallow, sensational attacks and hide behind the “satire” card when called to account.

Among other things, I asked Sean for his reaction to Coulter’s comments. We’ve posted the video at Hot Air. Partial transcript:

MM: Ann Coulter was here yesterday. She gave a very, mostly funny, speech, and at the end of it, dropped a stinker where she used the term “faggot.” And I’m glad, I have to honestly say, I’m glad I didn’t bring my children here because that’s not the kind of language I would use. What was your reaction to that? Because, predictably, the left is in high dudgeon about it. Howard Dean wants every presidential candidate in the Republican Party to renounce it. Do you think that was a really bad move on her part and should be condemned?

SH: I didn’t hear it. I’d rather see it before I comment on it and whatever. You know, no other person is responsible for what a person says except that person. And so, if they have a problem with what Ann Coulter says, blame Ann Coulter. You can’t blame somebody else for what she said. So I didn’t see it.

MM: Except that we’re all role models here. And there are so many young people they inspire–

SM: –I don’t use that term, so that’s my answer to you if she used it.

GOP presidential candidates were unequivocal, and rightly so:

Mr. Giuliani said, “The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate.”

Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mr. Romney, said: “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.”

***

I think all the fellow conservatives I met at CPAC will agree that keeping a Democrat out of the White House in 2008 is a goal we will unite behind.

It seems to me that those Democrats would like nothing better than for another Coulter Moment at the pivotal CPAC event in 2008. “Raghead” in 2006. “Faggot” in 2007. What diarrhea of the mouth at the premiere conservative gathering can we all look forward to in a crucial election year with so much at stake in a critical period of American history?

CPAC organizers and co-sponsors ought to think very carefully about the message they want to send next year–and the pivotal role they want to play in the 2008 campaign.

***

Updates:

Some defenders think there’s no difference between Coulter’s crude “faggot” remarks about Edwards and Laura Ingraham’s gentle mockery of Edwards’ vanity when she describes him as a “Silky Pony” on her radio show. The latter is witty. The former is witless. That’s the difference.

A reader at Hot Air, where debate is contentious, recommends re-reading George Washington’s Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour In Companyand Conversation.

Rule 110:

“Labour to keep alive in your Breast that Little Spark of Celestial fire Called Conscience.”

RightWingNews blogger John Hawkins, a longtime Coulter fan, writes:

What’s on tap for next year? Will she drop the N-bomb? Will she use the C-word to describe Hillary Clinton? Whatever her plans are, after being burned twice in a row, CPAC shouldn’t invite her back next year.

Some readers are accusing me of not having a sense of humor. Au contraire. I laughed quite heartily at commenters and e-mailers who think my criticism is motivated by “jealousy,” “left-wing tendencies,” or my “need for attention.” Triple-snort-worthy!

Ann Coulter just finished her riff on Al Gore, tossed out some cute jokes (“You can understand why Hollywood is concerned about global warming. You know what heat does to plastic.”), and ended with a cheap one-liner about John Edwards being a “faggot.” (Paraphrasing) She said she would refrain from commenting on Edwards because “if you say faggot, you have to go to rehab.”

A smattering of laughter.

Not from this corner.

Crickets chirping.

Flashback: Last year’s bomb about “ragheads.”

I’m getting e-mails from campaign staffers complaining if I haven’t mentioned their candidate’s speech. Sorry: Just not humanly possible to listen to all of them. The CPAC site has links to all.

***update: 200pm Giuliani speech***

Notes…

The Regency Ballroom was packed. Bryan and I barreled our way in as George Will was introducing Giuliani.

“New York City has been liberalism’s laboratory in the 20th century,” Will noted, nurturing a “culture of complaint. “Conservatism comes in many flavors, and your next speaker’s is the flavor of Margaret Thatcher.” Will joked that Thatcher couldn’t resist swinging her handbag at any bureaucratic institution that got in her way.

Applause for Giuliani’s entrance was strong. Giuliani joked that if he started swinging handbags around, he’d have another issue. The Mayor walked through his policies on taxes, welfare reform, American education, and finally national security and terrorism. About two seconds total devoted to immigration and border security, but his praise for Reagan and his closing remarks about the war were well received.

Quotable:

“I believe the Republican Party’s greatest contribution is when we give more freedom to people.”

“America will prevail against the Islamic terrorists. I have no doubt.”

“Maybe we made a mistake in calling this the war on terrorism. This is not our war on them. This is their war on us.” (Prolonged applause.)

“This war ins over when they stop planning to come over here and kill us. Until then, we have to remain on offense against terrorists.”

“America has the right ideas. We should not be embarrassed by ourselves. We are the luckiest people in the world.”

***

Interlude: Two punks from The Nation with a camera stopped by my book signing to ambush me about In Defense of Internment. Have they bothered to read the book? No. I look forward to their butchering of my comments and
the predictable unhinged reaction.

***update 1156am***

Giuliani’s scheduled to speak at noon. Meantime, a popular sticker…

***update 942am***

Newt Gingrich landed at Blogger Row. He chatted with Hot Air TV for 10 minutes. We’ll have the interview up later. I asked whether bloggers would have seats at Gingrich White House press briefings. Gingrich says he contacted Tony Snow and proposed a White House press corps blogger rotation. Let’s see where it goes.

***
Our first Hot Air TV report from CPAC: Dolphins! Hair reviews! And the anti-PETA mascot.

The quip of the night last night from Cheney:

“The enemy we face in the war on terror has made Iraq the primary front in that war. To use a popular phrase, this is an inconvenient truth.”

Robert Bluey’s Cheney/Bolton wrap-up.

Ed Morrissey on AWOL John McCain:

McCain has gone out of his way to stress his conservative credentials, especially on hot-button topics such as abortion and the war. If that’s true, then what does he have to fear from a conference of conservatives predisposed to his positions? In fact, if he claims to represent conservatives, why should he fear speaking in front of a group of them?

We debated this quite a bit on Blogger’s Corner yesterday (which is somewhat misnamed, since we occupy a row and not a corner, but that’s another story).Someone made the point that the eventual nominee needs the people in this conference to act as foot soldiers in the general election. What does it say to those foot soldiers if that nominee is too afraid to face them because he might get booed — a slim possibility in any case? How does that nominee inspire loyalty in those he explicitly spurned out of the gate?

Last week, disgraced and disgraceful Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) fired off an unhinged rant to fellow House Democrats denying he was corrupt and attacking “Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Michael Barone, Drudge, anonymous bloggers, and other assorted misinformed fools” who have cited his House impeachment and Senate conviction on bribery and perjury charges.

Hastings complains that there’s “a whole lot of information that is not being discussed at all” about his impeachment and his career. By all means, let’s discuss. I’ve compiled a handy bunch of links and dug up some helpful nuggets to help ensure that Alcee fools no one.

At Thomas, you can look up much of the impeachment record for yourselves. I found these answers from Hastings about whether the impeachment was fair quite illuminating:

Senator Durenberger. . . . As you sit here this morning, whether you slept well or not, what are your feelings about the general fairness of the process of the last three-and-a-half weeks, particularly as you reflect on the people on this side of the table?

Judge Hastings. I feel very good about it, Senator, and it gives me an opportunity to thank you all for your attention. I think through my lawyers and myself I expressed my feelings with reference to the impeachment process, and I think we have reached another plateau that I did not think that we would reach. And I still think it’s a mistake to have reached this plateau, but not as it pertains to the members of this committee. You are doing what I believe you believe is the proper thing.’

* * * * *

[Page: S13795]

Senator Pryor. . . . I think this proceeding has been extremely fair. And I hope and we hope that you feel it has been fair.

Judge Hastings . I do, Senator Pryor.’

* * * * *

Judge Hastings . Mr. Chairman, just one thing. I thank you especially and Vice Chairman Specter and each Senator for all of your courtesy. I really do appreciate it.

`Earlier on one of the Senators asked me about the process. I have immense respect for the process, and I would–and I don’t mean it facetiously–urge upon you that what we have had, regardless of outcome, is a very good impeachment inquiry.’

On Nexis, you can find out what the New York Times editorial board–those rabid right-wing fools–said about the fairness of Hastings’ impeachment. The race card is also torn to shreds. A sample:

The New York Times, Section A; Page 26, Column 1; Editorial Desk October, 24 1989

Judge Hastings, Fairly Judged

Impeachments by the House and trials in the Senate are so cumbersome and distasteful that Alcee Hastings of Florida is only the sixth Federal judge to be removed in this manner. But in convicting and removing Judge Hastings, despite his acquittal of similar charges at a criminal trial, Congress acted responsibly, even judiciously. It vindicated the Constitution’s admittedly inefficent method for purging those who dishonor their offices.

The impeachment power is so mighty and unreviewable that some of the Founding Fathers feared its misuse while seeing its necessity. Judge Hastings said he had been so abused because a jury had already acquitted him of bribery, the key impeachment charge. He asserted also that as one of the nation’s few black judges, he had been disciplined under procedures ”infected by a form of racism.”

But Congress rightly held that the bar against double jeopardy does not prohibit subsequent impeachment proceedings, which measure fitness, not criminality, and can lead at most to removal from office. The charge of institutional racism was abundantly refuted by Representative John Conyers of Michigan, long a leader among black legislators and a civil rights champion, who became one of the judge’s most vocal accusers. Judge Hastings and a lawyer friend, William Borders, were accused in 1981 of conspiring to extract a $150,000 bribe from two convicted drug dealers for reducing their sentences. Mr. Borders, arrested with bribe money from an undercover agent, was convicted and imprisoned. Judge Hastings was acquitted after a separate trial in 1983. Investigations prompted by fellow judges resulted in House impeachment charges that the judge was part of the bribery plot and had also falsified evidence to gain his acquittal. The Senate held its own hearings and convicted the judge on eight impeachment counts.

Some in Congress contend that the present system of impeaching judges is obsolete. They suggest that the task be given to the judiciary itself. They can point to the years it took to oust Judge Hastings, but delay alone doesn’t justify a constitutional amendment.

What if the judiciary, without the credibility of Representative Conyers or the political accountability of Congress, had removed this black judge? Would there not be a lingering suspicion of racism? Those who would ”streamline” the system must answer such questions before scrapping the Constitution’s sound plan.

***

The Editorial Notebook;The Virtue of Impeachment

The New York Times, Section A; Page 26, Column 1; Editorial Desk
July, 28 1988
By JOHN P. MacKENZIE

When Congress removed Harry Claiborne from the Federal bench in Nevada two years ago, it was the first full use of the impeachment power in five decades. Two more judges are now targets of impeachment proceedings. The House Judiciary Committee yesterday recommended the impeachment of Judge Alcee Hastings of Florida. A subcommittee has completed hearings on charges against Judge Walter Nixon of Mississippi.

This sudden cluster of impeachments ignites questions: Is the judicial branch, so long honored for its elegant independence, losing its way? Will the cumbersome impeachment process so engulf Congress that the Constitution must be changed to make removal easier?

The answer to both these questions is no. The Federal judiciary, pride of America’s constitutional system, loses none of its luster when judges who misbehave are removed. It’s a symbol of strength, not weakness, that the system stands ready to cleanse itself.

…Some commentators suggest changes in the constitutional design, like having the judiciary remove corrupt or unethical judges. Congress wisely rejected this idea in 1980 but took a creative step. It empowered the judiciary to investigate complaints against judges and, if necessary, to ask Congress to start impeachment proceedings. Congress has always been free to impeach with or without outside prompting and free to ignore impeachment demands. The recommendation would not bind Congress but it would require the legislators to pay attention. That’s as far as the judiciary need go. The Founding Fathers called for a removal process that would be judicious though handled by politically accountable officials. Congress’s function, quite different from deciding criminal guilt or innocence, is to determine fitness for office.

The case of Judge Hastings vindicates that design. The first black Federal judge in Florida, he says he’s a victim of political and racial persecution, especially by his fellow judges who simply don’t like him. Unlike Judges Claiborne and Nixon, who were first convicted at criminal trials, Judge Hastings was acquitted of conspiring to take a bribe in return for going easy on two convicted hoodlums. His co-defendant, a lawyer, was convicted at a separate trial.

The judge now stands accused of lying at his trial, of leaking the contents of a wiretap order he signed, and bringing the bench into disrepute. Whatever the merits, his countercharge of racism is surely answered by the unanimous vote to impeach by a subcommittee headed by Representative John Conyers of Michigan.

Mr. Conyers, a civil rights champion, is especially well qualified to assure that this impeachment is not motivated by racism. So are many of his politically accountable colleagues. ”We did not wage that civil rights struggle merely to replace one form of judicial corruption with another,” the veteran black Congressman said, explaining his vote. ”In order to be true to our principles, we must demand that all persons live up to the same high standards.” Removal by the independent judiciary alone could never provide such credible assurance.

The Federal judiciary, overworked by litigants and abused by politicians, remains a constitutional success story. A vigilant Congress can help to keep it so, by showing its willingness when necessary to wield the impeachment power.

Bryan Preston reviews Nancy Pelosi’s impending decision on nominating Hastings to chair the House Intel Committee here.

Byron York recaps Conyer’s judgement against Hastings and highlights Article 16, which charged Hastings of using secret information from a wiretap to tip off a friend to steer clear of someone who was under investigation.

York reminds us of Pelosi’s vote (and the votes of Hoyer, Conyers, Rangel, Frank, and Waxman) to impeach Hastings here.

Liberal group CREW has posted transcripts of the House proceedings and a post-trial memeorandum.

Lefty Stephen Kaus reviews the docs at the Huffington Post:

There is damming evidence against Hastings, including (1) rulings that coincided with Borders’ promises to an under cover FBI agent, (2) Borders’ knowledge of Hastings’ future actions (like that he was going to vacate most of a forfeiture on a certain day for no legitimate legal reason), (3) an obviously coded telephone conversation in which Hastings confirmed that Borders had received the money shortly before rushing out his order returning $800,000 to the supposed briber and, (4) engaging in circuitous travel and telephone arrangements for which he has offered no credible explanation.

There is too much evidence to discuss here, none of which seems to point toward Hastings’ innocence. Most famously, Borders volunteered that Hastings would show up in the dining room of the Hotel Fontainebleau at 8 p.m. on September 16, 1981 to show that Hastings was actually in on the plot. Shortly before 8 p.m. on that date, FBI agents saw Hastings and a woman enter the hotel and go to the dining room.

Hastings claimed in his testimony he was there to meet Borders for dinner, but Hastings made a reservation for two and did not look for Borders or ask about him. In fact, Hastings and his friend were seated at a table for four and Hastings said nothing when the waiter immediately removed the other two place settings. Hastings did not mention Borders to his guest or indicate that they were meeting anyone. At the time, Borders was on a prescheduled trip to attend a boxing match in Las Vegas

And again, Borders did not testify, although he had immunity and although Borders testimony could have exonerated Hastings if Hastings were telling the truth.

Jacob Laskin profiled Hastings the corruptocrat in-depth in June at FrontPage Magazine. Also at FPM, Andrew Walden explores Hastings’ pre- and post-impeachment scandals and their implications:

Hastings has also been reported to be the subject of ethics investigations in 2004 by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the Florida Elections Commission and the Federal Election Commission…

Hastings’ trips often include his “staff assistant”, reputed girlfriend Vanessa Griddine, who “earns” more than Hastings’ Chief of Staff. Griddine is not the only member of Hastings’ staff rumored to be romantically linked. Another “staff assistant” Patricia Williams is believed to “earn” as much as $129,000 per year. Williams, who represented Hastings in the impeachment trial, was disbarred in 1992 for “mishandling client funds” – acts which occurred about the time of the impeachment hearings. She is believed to be owed substantial legal fees by Hastings.

Hastings’ bio on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee website says: “Known to most as ‘Judge Hastings,’ he has had a distinguished career as an attorney, civil rights activist and judge. Appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, he became the first African American to serve as a Federal judge in the state of Florida, and he served in that position with distinction and honor for ten years.”

Here are a few items they left out.

Although Hastings was not impeached and convicted until 1988-89, his criminal activities began very shortly after his 1979 appointment to the federal bench by President Jimmy Carter. In December, 1981 a Florida Grand jury indicted Hastings on the bribery charge for which he was eventually impeached as well as several related felony charges. These charges made Hastings only the third federal judge to face criminal indictment in the 20th century. In 1983 he was acquitted even as his co-defendant was convicted.

Shortly thereafter, three federal judges took the unusual step of calling on the House of Representatives to impeach Hastings on the criminal charges as well as for claiming that the charges were racially motivated. In 1985 Hastings revealed the secret wiretap information to the Dade County Mayor. In 1987 a panel of 27 federal judges recommended impeachment of Hastings. In 1988 Hastings was impeached on charges including 14 counts of perjury during his 1983 trial. In 1989 Hastings was convicted by the Senate. In 1991 Hastings filed suit to overturn his conviction. In 1992, the conviction was remanded back to the Senate by a federal court ruling on a technicality. The timing—two months before Election Day– was perfect for Hastings. Hastings was elected from the newly-created heavily Democratic and mostly black 23rd Congressional District in November, 1992. In January, 1993, just before Hastings was sworn in as a Congressman, the Supreme Court ruled that courts have no authority to review Senate impeachment trials–effectively upholding Hastings’ impeachment.

He “keeps” two female companions—one a disbarred lawyer—on his staff. He was subject to three different investigations in 2004. Are we supposed to believe this person who so quickly fell into corruption after being named to the federal bench suddenly changed his ways in 1993?

Hastings’ well known criminal record and his choice to travel with a paid female “companion” are unspoken invitations to any foreign intelligence official or anti-American journalist seeking access to American secrets. His extensive foreign travels give him access to numerous such individuals. Hastings is already very dangerous to American security as a member of several intelligence-related House committees and sub-committees as well as the OSCE. But apparently Pelosi believes Hastings is not yet doing enough damage.

More on Griddine and Williams. See also here.

Martin Schram sums up the Pelosi philosophy: Ethics, schmethics.

Finally (for now), in his screed last week, Hastings urged his House Dem colleagues to read the floor statement of Senator Arlen Specter, the Vice Chairman of the Hastings Senate Trial Panel, who voted to acquit Hastings (are you surprised–not?). I read through the statement at Thomas, and I recommend this observation from Specter about Hastings testimony, which aptly sums up Hastings’ response to his critics now:

There was a disturbing quality to some of what Judge Hastings said in that he seemed more inclined to offer profuse details about matters that were not truly of interest than to respond to very specific questions on particularly relevant points.

Once a blusterer, always a blusterer.

Once a corruptocrat, always a corruptocrat.

It isn’t just right-wingers objecting to the possibility of a convicted judge for sale chairinng the House Intelligence Committee. In peacetime, Washington can chalk up Hastings’ resurrection to business as usual. In wartime, Washington has no business doing business as usual.

Remember, Nancy: Put the garbage out, not in.

***
Related:
Rep. Barney Frank doesn’t like being asked about Hastings on Fox News. Seems he doesn’t like being asked about anything on Fox News.

Danny Glover has more at Beltway Blogroll.

I don’t like to mud wrestle, but sometimes the slime-flingers need to be held accountable. All week, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann and his left-wing vassals have tried to blame female conservative commentators for one nutball’s fake anthrax letter attacks. Reportedly, the suspect was a Free Republic.com member whose pseudonymous profile noted that he “worshipped” Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and me. Ergo, we’re to blame. Olbermann lies about my work and props up a clueless Radar Online stooge who accuses me of “introduc[ing a kind of thuggish, sort of intimidating tone into the political debate, this kind of, 'Let's not let them boss us around anymore.' She's got a very combative, kind of truculent rhetorical pose."

Truculent. I like that.

My video response, a new ocassional segment at Hot Air called "Return Fire," is here. As I note, speciously blaming conservative pundits for domestic terrorism is old hat. Remember when the left blamed Rush Limbaugh and talk radio for the Oklahoma City bombing? Anyway, do watch the whole thing. (And see Newsbusters and Olbermann Watch for all the background, including mention of the left-wing nutball indicted last week for sending fake anthrax letters to President Bush and conservative talker Tom Sullivan.)

Unbelievably (or rather, completely believably), Olbermann turned up on an ESPN radio show yesterday to engage in exactly the kind of rhetoric he and his ilk have falsely accused me of all week. You can listen here. I've transcribed the relevant part:

Host: Would you ever go on "Dancing with the Stars?"

KO: Uh, possibly to do a cameo and introduce someone. [unintelligible] I would escort someone onto the stage, that’s as far as I would go, and hope I wouldn’t trip doing that.

Host: People still upset that I’ve had the audacity to criticize Emmitt Smith…

KO: How about Bill O’Reilly on “Dancing with the Stars?” Then you could get some real e-mails.

Host: I don’t think Bill would do that.

KO: I’ll go on it if he will. I’ll challenge him to a “Dancing on the Stars”–”Dancing with the Stars”–dance-off. How’s that?

Host: I would have to side with Bill O’Reilly on that.

Olbermann: Not if I get him in the hamstrings. You know, one of those little doctor’s tools. The small knives, right in the hamstrings kind of thing. Nancy Kerrigan kind of stuff.

Host: Nice, nice.

Olbermann (muttering): Joke

*Commercial break*

Olbermann: Can I do a correction?

Host: Just one?

Olbermann: Yeah, just one.

Host: Ok.

It would actually broadly fall into the category of an apology to Bill O’Reilly, if you can believe that. The joke I made on the way out there if we were on “Dancing with the Stars” was about me. If we were both on “Dancing with the Stars,” I’d go after him with like a pen knife to try to sever his hamstring. It’s about me. It was a joke at my own expense. But…it’s beyond the pale. You shouldn’t, you can’t joke about physical stuff no matter what you think of somebody politically, broadcasting-wise, reputationally. It’s just beyond the pale.

Host: Ok.

Olbermann: So, I apologize. [Grunts.] I apologize. You know, we gotta draw the line somewhere and the line is: You wanna criticize, be critical, be humorous, be sarcastic, yell stuff, great. But physical stuff is out of bounds. Even joking about it. Thank you. Okay.

Host: Ok. You feel better?

Olbermann: [Sighs dramaticallly.] Yeah, I suppose.

Host: It’s pretty tough for you to do right there, wasn’t it?

Olbermann: Yeah, well, it’s more in the spirit of everybody involved in public commentary, we have to gear it down a notch…

***

Speak for yourself.

***

Oh, and in case you get the mistaken impression that Olbermann was sincerely sorry (as opposed to sorry for getting caught on tape), here he is joking on his TV show about other acts of physical violence against his opponents–sticking Rush Limbaugh’s face in the middle of gunfire and highlighting John Edwards joking about wanting to accidentally shoot Dick Cheney.

This is Peter Hartlaub. He is the San Francisco Chronicle’s pop-culture critic and “helps cover movies, television and the media,” according to his bio. In addition to his newspaper duties, Hartlaub blogs for the paper’s “Culture Blog.” One of his latest posts is an astonishingly ugly, ad hominem attack on Ann Coulter–emblematic of the unhinged, intolerant Left. And it’s posted on a “culture” blog.

The jerk compares Coulter to a horse at a children’s zoo. He mocks her weight and her face by linking to sophomoric left-wing bloggers deriding her looks–including this, this, and this. He posts photos he took of the horse alongside photos of Coulter, then sits back and waits for Chronicle blog commenters to pile on. Here is a sample:

***

File this one away the next time the journalistic elite attacks bloggers as an unruly, uncivilized mob of hate-mongers in need of adult supervision. Under the guise of “culture” commentary, San Francisco Chronicle staffer/blogger Peter Hartloub displays the true colors of the moonbat mainstream media: slime green. Naturally, the anti-Coulter-obsessed staffers at media industry publication Editor and Publisher think Hartlaub’s post is funny.

Do you?

Contact:

Reader representative: If you have comments on The Chronicle’s coverage, standards or accuracy, please call Dick Rogers, the readers’ representative, at (415) 777-7870. Written comments can be e-mailed to readerrep@sfchronicle.com, faxed to (415) 442-1847, or addressed to Readers’ Representative, c/o San Francisco Chronicle, 901 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103.

Letters to the Editor should be addressed to letters@sfchronicle.com. Due to space considerations, only letters of less than 250 words will be considered for publication. Please provide your name and telephone number along with your letter. You will be called if your letter is being considered for publication.

SFGate.com executive:

Peter Negulescu – VP Digital Media pnegulescu @ sfgate.com

***

Related: Mark Finkelstein looks at a Jeff Danziger hit.

Reeling from the idiotic blackface stunt pulled by his close blogger confidante, Jane Hamsher, yesterday, Lamont actually told News Channel 8′s Jamie Muro this:

“I don’t know anything about the blogs, I’m not responsible for those, I have no comment on ‘em…Independent blogs, I can’t say anything about it.”

“I don’t know anything about the blogs?”

This is a still from Lamont’s first TV campaign ad. The guy sitting next to him is the biggest left-wing blogger in the blogosphere, Markos “Screw Them” Moulitsas.

“I don’t know anything about the blogs?”

Lamont has his own blog…

…with a nutroots blogroll that features Kos, Hamsher, and every other major left-wing blogger on the scene:

Lamont’s blogger blogged from the YearlyKos convention, where he pumped up attendees with “Nedrenaline.” (And you thought “Joementum” was bad.)

As I pointed out yesterday, Jane Hamsher is more than a mere “independent” blogger sitting on the Lamont campaign sidelines. She filmed Lamont’s first videoblog. She chauffeured Lamont and his staff. She raised money for him. She’s still on his blogroll. And despite Lamont’s claim that he doesn’t control blogs and Hamsher’s claim that she “answers to nobody,” he told her to pull the blackface Photoshop yesterday–and she dutifully complied.

Danny Glover at Beltway Blogroll points out:

[L]iberal blogs such as Eschaton and TalkLeft have criticized the use of blackface in other settings. And even more ironically, Hamsher herself went ballistic last fall when first lady Laura Bush made a reference to comedian Eddie Cantor, who gained a following with his blackface routine.

“Does the first lady not know who Eddie Cantor was?” Hamsher wrote. “Or does she actually think it’s appropriate to invoke a comedian famous for appearing in blackface when talking about minority students, and then crack wise about their erstwhile future as criminals?”

But Lamont doesn’t know “anything about blogs” and he’s “not responsible for those.”

The Hartford Courant reports that Lamont’s campaign manager “asked if Lieberman would distance himself from some controversial supporters, such as conservative commentators Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity or Michelle Malkin.” Are they really that stupid? I can’t recall any of us raising money for Lieberman, organizing Blog Days for Lieberman, driving Lieberman to campaign events, filming video blogs for Lieberman, or publishing blackface Photoshops in support of Lieberman.

Jane Hamsher, on the other hand, has done all that and more for Ned Lamont. And at her blog, her minions are still throwing out stinkbombs. Typical liberal deflection: She does the blackface stunt, yet I’m “Michelle MalKKKin.”

Lamont’s Kool-Aid drinkers argue that Hamsher’s attack on Lieberman has nothing to do with his campaign. But Lamont’s allegiance with, and to, his blog promoters is central to his candidacy. Don’t take my word for it. Lamont blogged it himself at the Daily Kos back in May, paying homage to his “heroes” in the blogosphere:

When no one else would step up to challenge Senator Lieberman and everything he represents, my family and I made the decision that the time was indeed right. I hoped that the fundamental humanity and decency of everything America stands for in its core values would call upon others as it had me to rise up and say no more. And when the final votes were tallied at the state’s Democratic convention, our faith was vindicated. In the face of unbelievable odds and some pressure from the party brass, Connecticut Democrats called out for change. My belief in our party, our delegates, and in the people of my state has never been firmer.

I realize that our campaign would have been much more difficult without the netroots. I never had to make promises I did not want to keep to big donors because netroots citizens gave five, ten, twenty dollars at a time to my campaign with no strings attached. Before the mainstream media were taking us seriously, bloggers told my story with honesty and insight and compassion. The free exchange of comments and ideas in the blogosphere carried the tale and forced the traditional media to take notice. Ordinary people with video cameras, with petitions, with websites volunteering their time and their passion forged an army that no K Street lobbying money could buy. To all of you I am eternally grateful.

We cannot bring about change until we are willing to take up arms for a cause we believe in, and we will not carry the day until we can imagine that victory is possible. Each and every one of you is a hero to me today for daring to imagine that it is so.

***

Mark Finkelstein was watching the boob tube this morning:

Watching the first half-hour of the morning news shows on the broadcast networks today yielded no mention of the incident. Think Today/GMA/Early Show might have found time for coverage if it were a campaign insider supporting a conservative Republican, rather than liberal Dem Lamont, who had, er, tarred an opponent with a fabricated blackface photo?

Dean Barnett guesting at Hugh Hewitt:

I’ll have much to say about the Joe Lieberman-in-blackface controversy in a bit. I’m still reeling, however, from the shock that the progressive netroots have jeopardized one of their preferred favorite candidates with a juvenile and tasteless act. They’re generally such mature and thoughtful people who show such reliably astute judgment.

Am I alone in seeing the dark magic of Karl Rove at work here?

***

Previous:

Blackface: It’s all our fault
Ned Lamont’s favorite nutball
Netroots vs. Rightroots: left-wingers love blackface

Update:

More bile from the Lamonties

You’ve read the story of the day, all day, on Drudge: Ann Coulter is antagonizing the Left with her comments about the liberal 9/11 widows known as “The Jersey Girls.” Hillary Clinton is going ape. TV producers of all partisan stripes are ecstatic. So are Ann’s publicists and publisher.

Unfortunately, lost in all the hype and hyperbole on both sides is the central point about the absolute moral authority the MSM confers on victims they agree with–while victims whose politics they do not share can’t get the time of day. Ann told Sean Hannity today she hopes her comments will demolish the “liberal infallibility” the MSM confers on its faves. (Video here.) Ironically, IMO, the facade has already eroded considerably–thanks to new media, talk radio, Fox News, etc. Case in point here.

In any case, when was the last time anyone paid attention to the Jersey Girls?

Dorothy Rabinowitz had the definitive piece on the 9/11 widows two years ago. Worth reading the whole thing. Here’s an excerpt:

“I watched my husband murdered live on TV. . . . At any point in time the casualties could have been lessened, and it seems to me there wasn’t even an attempt made.”

–Monica Gabrielle

“Three thousand people were murdered on George Bush’s watch.”

– Kristin Breitweiser

No one by now needs briefings on the identities of the commentators quoted above. The core group of widows led by the foursome known as “The Jersey Girls,” credited with bringing the 9/11 Commission into being, are by now world famous. Their already established status in the media, as a small but heroically determined band of sisters speaking truth to power, reached ever greater heights last week, when National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice made her appearance at a commission session–an event that would not have taken place, it was understood, without the pressure from the widows. Television interviewers everywhere scrambled to land these guests–a far cry from the time, last June, when group leader Kristin Breitweiser spoke of her disappointment in the press, complaining to one journalist, “I’ve been scheduled to go on ‘Meet the Press’ and ‘Hardball’ so many times, and I’m always canceled.”

No one is canceling her these days. The night of Ms. Rice’s appearance, the Jersey Girls appeared on “Hardball,” to charge that the national security adviser had failed to do her job, that the government failed to provide a timely military response, that the president had spent time reading to schoolchildren after learning of the attack, that intelligence agencies had failed to connect the dots. Others who had lost family to the terrorists’ assault commanded little to no interest from TV interviewers. Debra Burlingame–lifelong Democrat, sister of Charles F. “Chic” Burlingame III, captain of American Airlines flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, did manage to land an interview after Ms. Rice’s appearance. When she had finished airing her views critical of the accusatory tone and tactics of the Jersey Girls, her interviewer, ABC congressional reporter Linda Douglass marveled, “This is the first time I’ve heard this point of view.”

That shouldn’t have been surprising. The hearing room that day had seen a substantial group of 9/11 families, similarly irate over the Jersey Girls and their accusations–families that made their feelings evident in their burst of loud applause when Ms. Rice scored a telling zinger under questioning. But these were not the 9/11 voices TV and newspaper editors were interested in. They had chosen to tell a different story–that of four intrepid New Jersey housewives who had, as one news report had it, brought an administration “to its knees”–and that was, as far as they were concerned, the only story.

A fair number of the Americans not working in the media may, on the other hand, by now be experiencing Jersey Girls Fatigue–or taking a hard look at the pronouncements of the widows. Statements like that of Monica Gabrielle, for example (not one of the Jersey Girls, though an activist of similar persuasion), who declared that she could discern no attempt to lessen the casualties on Sept. 11. What can one make of such a description of the day that saw firefighters by the hundreds lose their lives in valiant attempts to bring people to safety from the burning floors of the World Trade Center–that saw deeds like that of Morgan Stanley’s security chief, Rick Rescorla, who escorted 2,700 employees safely out of the South Tower, before he finally lost his own life?

But the best known and most quoted pronouncement of all had come in the form of a question put by the leader of the Jersey Girls. “We simply wanted to know,” Ms. Breitweiser said, by way of explaining the group’s position, “why our husbands were killed. Why they went to work one day and didn’t come back.”

The answer, seared into the nation’s heart, is that, like some 3,000 others who perished that day, those husbands didn’t come home because a cadre of Islamist fanatics wanted to kill as many of the hated American infidels in their tall towers and places of government as they could, and they did so. Clearly, this must be a truth also known to those widows who asked the question–though in no way one would notice.

Who, listening to them, would not be struck by the fact that all their fury and accusation is aimed not at the killers who snuffed out their husbands’ and so many other lives, but at the American president, his administration, and an ever wider assortment of targets including the Air Force, the Port Authority, the City of New York? In the public pronouncements of the Jersey Girls we find, indeed, hardly a jot of accusatory rage at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. We have, on the other hand, more than a few declarations like that of Ms. Breitweiser, announcing that “President Bush and his workers . . . were the individuals that failed my husband and the 3,000 people that day.”

The venerable status accorded this group of widows comes as no surprise given our times, an age quick to confer both celebrity and authority on those who have suffered. As the experience of the Jersey Girls shows, that authority isn’t necessarily limited to matters moral or spiritual. All that the widows have had to say–including wisdom mind-numbingly obvious, or obviously false and irrelevant–on the failures of this or that government agency, on derelictions of duty they charged to the president, the vice president, the national security adviser, Norad and the rest, has been received by most of the media and members of Congress with utmost wonder and admiration. They had become prosecutors and investigators, unearthing clues and connections related to 9/11, with, we’re regularly informed, unrivalled dedication and skill.

The day of Ms. Rice’s appearance before the Commission, a radiant Gail Sheehy, author of “Hillary’s Choice,” beamed gratitude as she congratulated the host of “Hardball” for bringing the women on as guests. She had been following the New Jersey moms for two years, Ms. Sheehy said, and they were always leaks ahead–of everyone. She wanted to note, too, “how the moms kept making that point that it was her [Ms. Rice's] job” to inform the president. Another indicator of their expertise.

Ms. Sheehy was hardly alone in her faith in the widows and their special skills. Their every shred of opinion about the hearings last week was actively solicited–as will be true, no doubt, this week. Asked what question she would put to Ms. Rice, if she could, one Jersey Girl answered, after some thought, that it would be, What did she know and when did she know it? The answer wasn’t the first to suggest that the nation now confronted a new investigation of government malfeasance, and coverups on the order of Watergate, and that we’d been brought to this cleansing by the work of four New Jersey widows. One NBC journalist ended his summation of Ms. Rice’s testimony with an urgent coda: The issue of real significance that day, he explained, would be how the families of the 9/11 victims reacted to her testimony. There would have been no doubt, in the mind of anyone listening, which families he meant.

Really? How can that be?–is the only reasonable response to that claim, which would not have been made in a saner time. How could it be that the most important issue emerging from an inquiry into undeniable intelligence failures, at a time of utmost national peril, was the way the victims’ families reacted to the hearings?

Reader Dan F. of NYC e-mails:

I’m a lifelong resident of NYC and my wife narrowly escaped with her life after the first attack on the WTC in 1993. No one I knew personally was killed on 9/11, but like most New Yorkers the attack hurt and angered me deeply – and still does. “The widows’” act (all four of them) was getting tired long ago and Ann Coulter or that creep Ted Rall weren’t the first to point it out. Dorothy Rabinowitz of the WSJ may have that distinction and said as much in 2004. Of course, she is more subtle than Coulter or Rall, but boiled down to its essence, Rabinowitz made Coulter’s case two years ago. So you out-of-towners in Tenn., CA, and Minn. can curb your indignation…

***

Discussion:

Hot Air
Ed Morrissey
The Anchoress
Instapundit
More at Memeorandum
Chuck Simmins
Ace of Spades

***

Previous:

Ragheads and Sambos and Gooks

Matt Lauer tries to keep up.