It’s Past Midnight in Louisiana, and We’re Already Knee-Deep in Craziness

BATON ROUGE, Louisiana
While I was driving six hours across Alabama and Mississippi to get here, and then covering Newt Gingrich’s appearance at a Tea Party forum on the LSU campus, it seems that everbody went crazy:

What’s wrong with you people, huh? I turn my back for a few hours, and when I get back online, you have all gone crazy. As for me, I’ve been busy doing Neutral Objective Journalism:

Newt Gingrich was explaining to a Tea Party forum here Thursday night why he is best qualified to be President Obama’s Republican opponent. Citing his involvement in the 1980 and 1988 presidential campaigns and his leadership of the 1994 “Contract With America” campaign that elected a GOP congressional majority, Gingrich said, “I helped design campaigns that won huge elections.”
Unfortunately for Newt, he has failed to design a campaign that can win him the Republican nomination, and he is expected to lose Saturday’s Louisiana primary. The most recent polls (including the latest from Rasmussen Reports) show the former Speaker of the House in third place here, trailing far behind Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney. Another defeat in the Deep South, coming after last week’s losses in Mississippi and Alabama, will likely bring his presidential bid to an effective end. And then the blame game will begin. . . .

Read the rest at The American Spectator. And try to keep your sh*t together long enough for me to get a few hours of sleep. There’s only so much craziness I can handle, and I’ve already hit my weekly quota.

 

 

UPDATE: Via Allahpundit, Santorum’s crazy video:

C’mon, Rick: Get it together. I’ve got an ambassadorship at stake, man.

Update (Smitty): linked at Race 4 2012

Mr. Inevitability, Mitt Romney

Quin Hillyer of The American Spectator lives in Alabama and reports on the ideological emptiness of the front-runner’s campaign:

At about 7:15, Ann Romney came out to say her husband would be out soon. They knew it was important to do it soon, she said, because they were looking at weather forecasts and were afraid everyone would get drenched.
Then she made her mini-pitch for her husband. It amounted to this: “He’s gonna win anyway, so you should help him win.”
Actually, what she said was this: “It is more and more clear that Mitt is going to be the nominee of the party.” And it’s important, because “I know women, and women are talking about the economy. They are mad. I am mad.” They are all mad about the debt that Barack Obama is leaving as a “burden on our children.” Her husband understands this. That’s why he’ll be out in a minute to tell you about why he should win the race we all know he is going to win. . . .

Read the whole thing. Meanwhile, Politico ‘s Jonathan Martin has details of the latest “inevitability” argument — call it Inevitability 2.0.

Sources Close to Christina Hendricks Could Not Be Reached for Comment

When you’re seeking a metaphor for “no chance in hell,” certain impossible scenarios immediately come to mind, which was what I was aiming for in my American Spectator column today:

Monday, Carl Cameron of Fox News was the vehicle by which “sources close to the Gingrich campaign” floated a trial balloon, suggesting that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich might announce Texas Gov. Rick Perry as his running mate “prior to the Republican National Convention at the end of August.”
While I haven’t bothered to check with my own “sources close to the Gingrich campaign,” this suggestion had the distinct aroma of a substance one might find on the plains of Texas in the vicinity of a herd of longhorn cattle. Carl Cameron is too smart of a reporter to believe such a steaming pile of nonsense, and so my guess is that Carl was just sharing it with Fox News viewers in order to give them a glimpse of how truly desperate “sources close to the Gingrich campaign” have become. Republican voters go to the polls in Alabama and Mississippi today, and if Newt loses these two primaries, he’s got as much chance of winning the GOP nomination as he has of making Christina Hendricks his next wife. . . .

Read the whole purposefully cruel thing. My apologies to Newt fans, but I finally got tired of being forced to listen to such ridiculousness.

David Axelrod’s Red Roots: Obama Adviser’s Communist Ties Exposed

The cover story of the March print edition of The American Spectator is not yet online and, if you are not yet a subscriber to the magazine, I urge you to rush out to the nearest Barnes & Noble or wherever else you can buy a copy, because it’s definitely worth the $5.95 newstand price.

Presidential historian Paul Kengor has dug up some fascinating facts about the background of David Axelrod, showing President Obama’s top political strategist to have deep ties to the American Communist Party (CPUSA) and other leftist individuals and organizations.

For example, Axelrod’s mother, Myril Bennett Axelrod, worked for the left-wing New York newspaper, PM. Although it lasted less than a decade (1940-48), PM became notorious because of its penetration by Stalinists and others who promoted the Communist Party line on issues both foreign and domestic. Kengor points out that PM‘s famed Washington correspondent, I.F. Stone, was subsequently identified as a Soviet agent both in the so-called “Venona” documents and also by a former top KGB official, Oleg Kalugin.

It is unclear where Axelrod’s mother fit in the orbit of Communists, Soviet sympathizers and other “progressives” who worked at PM, Kengor says, because despite “scouring reel upon reel of microfiche” copies of the newspaper, he was “unable to find a single article with Myril’s byline.” Nevertheless, her association with the paper locates her politics on the far-left fringe of the American politic spectrum in the 1940s, which would seem important to understanding her son’s later activities.

While a student at the University of Chicago in the early 1970s, David Axelrod began working as a political reporter for the Hyde Park Herald, which Kengor says brought Axelrod to the attention of Don Rose and David Canter. Both of these men were associated with the Communist Party and other far-left organizations.

Kengor explains that David Canter’s father, Harry Canter, was “an instructor at the Abraham Lincoln School, an infamous Chicago-based [CPUSA] front that instructed pupils in the teachings of Marx and Lenin.” David Canter followed in his Communist father’s footsteps, so that a 1970 congressional investigation report, “Guide to Subversive Organizations and Publications,” lists David Canter 25 times. His Chicago-based publishing company was believed to be partly subsidized by Soviet funds and in the 1960s, Kengor writes, “David Canter and Don Rose joined forces to start a [Chicago-area] community newspaper called Hyde Park-Kenwood Voices.”

This Canter-Rose publication “was on the far left,” Kengor writes. Hyde Park-Kenwood Voices editorialized for the abolition of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), whose investigations had exposed the pro-Soviet subversive activities of both David Canter and his father Harry. At a time when U.S. troops were fighting communism in Vietnam, Hyde Park-Kenwood Voices also published “pro-Hanoi screeds by [Students for a Democratic Society] members based in Chicago,” Kengor writes.

Don Rose was associated with SDS (the left-wing campus organization from which Bill Ayers’s terrorist splinter group Weather Underground spun off in 1969) and was also a member of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, commonly known by the slang term “the Mobe.”

Rose and Canter played a critical role as “mentors” to young David Alexrod, Kengor explains, citing numerous sources including David Canter’s son Marc Canter for the fact that it was a letter of recommendation from Don Rose that helped Axelrod land a job as a reporter for the Chicago Tribune. By 1987, all three of these men — Don Rose, David Canter and David Axelrod, who had left journalism to become a paid political adviser — were part of the campaign to re-elect Harold Washington as Chicago’s mayor.

Kengor’s American Spectator article is important because Axelrod’s background — like Obama’s associations with such left-wing figures as Frank Marshall Davis and Bill Ayers — shows how ideas, policies and rhetoric originating in Marxist-Leninist doctrine and anti-American propaganda have been “mainstreamed” into Democratic Party politics.

Critics of Kengor’s investigative report will likely raise the charge of “McCarthyism,” expecting us to miss the irony of that accusation because, of course, revelations from the Venona papers and other sources have largely vindicated Sen. Joseph McCarthy: There were Soviet agents in the U.S. government, and the American Communist Party was at all times an instrument of Soviet subversion.

What strikes me, in Kengor’s extensive account of Axelrod’s background (the article is more than 5,000 words long), is the remarkable degree to which Americans seem to have lost their horror of Communism in the post-Cold War era. There was a time when anyone with such clear connections to the world of Marxist subversion would have been regarded as an untouchable in mainstream American politics. But if a far-left agitator like Obama could be elected president, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that no one is alarmed by the far-left background of his chief political strategist.

Started to Write a Long Post About This

Sometimes you get to the 800-word mark and say to yourself, “Too much.” Instead, I’ll just link to Dan Collins’s post on the background of the falling-out between Andrew Breitbart and Glenn Beck.

UPDATE: Likewise, I’ll just link this article from The Hill about the falling-out between Mark Meckler and the Tea Party Patriots.

UPDATE II: Finally, I’m linking last week’s item from CNS News about Al Regnery’s depature as publisher of The American Spectator.

You can probably discern the common thread here without too much prompting from me. Civilized adults have disagreements which are settled without resort to fistfights or gunfire.

We should probably be happy for that, even if a bit of old-fashioned violence might do something to remedy the ill feelings that often linger as a result of such disputes. I hate it when my friends get into arguments, because I feel as if I must either choose sides or else try to mediate the fight.

Most of the time, I just ignore these feuds and hope they will blow over without any damage to me. But sometimes I become aware that conflicts like this cannot be safely ignored. Festering resentments among friends will occasionally lead to one of those situations where I unwittingly become targeted as an “enemy,” simply because I’ve befriended someone who has pissed off people in a dispute I wasn’t even aware of.

Minding your own business isn’t always easy, or safe.

UPDATE III: A typo has been corrected. Breitbart never had a falling-out with Jeff Beck, but wouldn’t it be awesome if he had?

Santorum Resurgent (But Nobody Loves the Future U.S. Ambassador to Vanuatu)

After working on a long (and still unpublished) draft post this morning, I checked Memeorandum and saw these headlines:

Santorum’s Turn
— National Review

Santorum moves ahead in Michigan
— Public Policy Polling

Gingrich Money Hunt Faces Obstacles
— New York Times

All of which stories were published after I sent my column to The American Spectator last night and yet — if we judge by the Memeorandum aggregation — no bloggers are linking my column, which prefigures everything that these other stories are all about.

That’s what happens to writers whom Tabitha Hale decides are “Not Good Enough for BlogCon,” you see: No matter what you do, everybody ignores it, because they know that everything you do completely sucks. Your friends are embarrassed to be associated with you, and next thing you know, you have no friends at all. Hell, even I am ashamed to link my column now:

Several reporters, photographers, and TV camera crews were crowded into a small conference room Friday afternoon at the Marriott Wardman Park hotel in Washington. Hundreds of people were lined up outside the room, waiting to enter the “Rick Santorum Meet & Greet” which the program of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) listed as scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. The appointed time slipped past and, like the crowd waiting in line, some in the media gang inside the room began to grow impatient at the delayed arrival of the candidate, who had given a well-received speech that morning in the hotel’s main ballroom.
“We’re a long way from Iowa,” I remarked to Santorum spokesman Hogan Gidley, recalling how few reporters had covered the underdog candidate during the long months he spent crisscrossing the Hawkeye State and speaking to small groups of Republican voters. A mere two months earlier, in mid-December, Santorum had been sixth in the Real Clear Politics average of Iowa polls, with less than six percent. He had somehow miraculously surged to a win in Iowa, then endured a month of disappointing finishes in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida and Nevada, Now, fresh from triple victories last Tuesday in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri, the former Pennsylvania senator was riding a wave of momentum, attracting the kind of crowds (and swarming media coverage) that follow a bona fide presidential contender. . . .

Whatever you do, don’t read the whole thing, because I suck.

(Yes, I understand that my feelings of worthlessness may be symptomatic of Post-CPAC Syndrome, a type of depression resulting from the realization that it’s another 36o days until the next one.)

Update (Smitty): can we exert enough peer pressure to get Belvedere to come down with Da Tech Guy next year?

Quin Hillyer Denounces Jeffrey Lord as a ‘Purveyor of Smear Jobs … Despicable’

The escalating craziness among Republicans — which I have already mentioned twice today — has now spilled over into a feud between two esteemed contributors to The American Spectator, and now the hot-blooded Southerner Quin Hillyer has called out his antagonist:

Jeffrey Lord, who has intellectual integrity about equivalent to Bill Clinton’s, has become a purveyor of smear jobs utterly divorced from facts, logic, and decency. After an exchange of about a dozen emails back and forth in which he refused to acknowledge simple facts — not opinions, facts — the time has come to show him up for his growing and despicable hackery.

As usual in such matters, the gentlemen are disputing over the honor of a lady, in this case Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post. My friend Quin and I have sometimes disagreed quite strongly, and I have myself taken note occasionally of Ms. Rubin’s evident pro-Romney bias, but have not followed the argument and am thus unaware of what my friend Jeffrey Lord could have written that would inspire Quin to such invective. I am reminded of Nathan Bedford Forrest’s famous parting words to Braxton Bragg:

“I have stood your meanness as long as I intend to.  You have played the part of a damned scoundrel, and are a coward, and if you were any part of a man I would slap your jaws and force you to resent it. You may as well not issue any more orders to me, for I will not obey them, and I will hold you personally responsible for any further indignities you endeavor to inflict upon me.  You have threatened to arrest me for not obeying your orders promptly.  I dare you to do it, and I say to you that if you ever again try to interfere with me or cross my path it will be at the peril of your life.”

If Lord and Hillyer cross paths at CPAC next week, the fight is likely to be far more interesting than any speech or seminar at the conference.

Ron Paul and the ‘Not Romneys’

“There are many mysteries to the phenomenon that is Ron Paul. How is it, for example, that a 76-year-old with a reedy voice — his appearance and manner not remotely “presidential” by the usual standards of the TV age — is an idol to so many youth? Polls in Iowa showed that Paul got 48 percent among caucus voters under 30, which might suggest that his libertarian-tinged anti-war message represents the future of the Republican Party. But that youth vote was only good enough for 21.4 percent of the total, because fully 60 percent of Iowa GOP caucus-goers were 50 or older. So the oldest candidate in the race, dismissed as a crackpot by most mainstream Republicans, is almost uniquely capable of attracting young voters to a party dominated by the gray-hair-and-bifocals set. However one attempts to explain this situation, it does not bode well for the GOP. And perhaps it doesn’t bode well for America, either.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, “Ron Paul Haunts New Hampshire,” The American Spectator, Jan.  10, 2012″

HOLLIS, N.H.
After spending a couple of hours among the Paulistas yesterday, I felt obligated to write my Spectator column about this phenomenon, and I think that difficult experience explains a lot of my bleak mood today.

It wasn’t just that I was distracted by the Alabama football game or trying to file a story in a hotel bar. No, I kept thinking about what the Ron Paul phenomenon, and what “the abysmal incompetence of the non-Romneys,” signifies for the future of the GOP and the future of the country.

Contrast the pathetic joke that is the Rick Perry campaign — which now has exactly as many supporters as it can afford to hire — with the amazing grassroots enthusiasm exhibited by the young supporterfs of Ron Paul. Just to remind you, here is the video of them packed inside an aircraft hanger in Nashua on Friday:

Are we ever going to see any such display of genuine excitement for Romney, Gingrich, Huntsman or Perry? I still dare hope that Santorum’s underdog crusade might eventually inspire something similar, although there have been only glimmers of it so far.

Where are the Christian youth who say they believe in the right to life? Why aren’t conservative Christians showing up at Santorum’s campaign headquarters in such overwhelming numbers that the campaign staff is shocked by the influx of volunteers? Why aren’t pro-life, pro-family evangelical ministers and Catholic clergy urging their congregations to board the next flight to South Carolina and start doing everything they can to help Rick Santorum win on Jan. 21?

“Where’s the spirit? Where’s the guts, huh?”

Many of my conservative friends are so busy denouncing Ron Paul and his supporters that they can’t be bothered to ask themselves, “Why don’t we have that kind of wild-eyed fanaticism among our supporters?”

And I fear that the answer would be, selfishness.

But I don’t have time or patience to explain that remark now, and I suspect any attempt to explain it would annoy and offend people. So I’ll leave it there for the time being, rather that bother you with my depressing contemplations. A few discouraging headlines may suffice:

Majority of Conservatives
See Romney as “Acceptable”

— Gallup

New Hampshire polls open
in Dixville Notch — with nine votes

— Washington Post

Perry: Mitt’s company ‘just vultures’
who ‘eat the carcass’ of companies

— Politico

And as the final insult, there’s this:

Crowd boos mentioning
of McCain’s name at Santorum event

— The Hill

Oh, wait, they weren’t booing the mention of my name. It was that other guy. But it’s still depressing to think about how Cousin Maverick has disgraced the family name. Hit the freaking tip jar.

RECENTLY: