The Fiercely Independent Partisan Hackmanship of Ezra Klein

At some point, “progressive” becomes just another synonym for “whatever Democrats want”:

Greece . . . is a bailout Republicans can finally be against. TARP, after all, was proposed by the Bush administration and attracted a substantial number of Republican votes in Congress. Not so with Greece. . . .

Ezra Klein goes on from there to argue that, in fact, the U.S. isn’t bailing out Greece — it’s the IMF. Right. So let’s have Congress zero out U.S. funding of the IMF and see how long the IMF stays in business, shall we?

Not too many years ago, the Left was vandalizing Starbucks in protest of globalization, and progressive heroes like Dennis Kucinich were assailing the IMF. But now when it’s time for U.S. taxpayers to pony up for the Greek bailout, Klein is all about the “global economy” and pretending that the IMF acts independently, without any input from the White House or Congress.

Kind of like how, when Republicans wanted to fight terrorists overseas, progressives told us that was an imperialistic “blood for oil” conspiracy by Halliburton and the military-industrial complex. Now that Obama is in the White House, the courageous progressive voices for peace sound surprisingly similar to crickets chirping.

Meanwhile, if progressives want to know the truth about the IMF and the Greek bailout, they’ll have to get it from Republicans like Mike Pence and Cathy McMorris Rodgers:

[O]ur “share” of the $40 billion IMF package for Greece is equivalent to $6.8 billion.
Last year, Congress passed another $100 billion line of credit to the IMF — funds the IMF said will go “to forestall or cope with an impairment of the international monetary system or to deal with an exceptional situation that poses a threat to the stability of that system.”
In other words, the “too big to fail” doctrine is being expanded to an international level — with the United States as the primary stakeholder. . . .

Read the whole thing.

GA-9: Special Election Today!

Jumping in Pools reminds us of news down home:

Georgia’s 9th congressional district is holding their special election to replace Congressman Nathan Deal this afternoon. A Republican victory is almost guaranteed, but if none of the half-a-dozen GOP candidates (or the Democrat) capture 50.1% of the vote, a runoff election must be held in June, and a lack of Representation will continue in Congress for both Congressional Republicans, and Georgia’s 9th district. . . .

Read the whole thing.

Who Is Rachel Tabachnick, and Why Is She Attacking Phyllis Chesler?

This may be a more important question than it appears at first glance, because you may not know who Phyllis Chesler is, and you’ve almost certainly never heard of Rachel Tabachnick. But there is a mystery afoot, so follow the clues, Scooby-Doo.

First things first: Phyllis Chesler is an important feminist author who, after 9/11, began speaking out against abuse of women in Islamic societies, criticizing feminists for their silence about about such issues, and warning of the rise of left-wing anti-Semitism. She is the author of The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It (2003) and The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom (2005).

We know who Chesler is, but what do we know about Rachel Tabachnick, who has written an article at the Forward‘s Web site accusing Chesler of “single-minded zealotry” and “promoting the Religious Right and its Christian nationalism” as part of “The War Against Tolerance”?

The touchpoint of Mrs. Tabachnick’s article is a column Chesler wrote in support of Rifqa Bary. Mrs. Tabachnick uses that as the foundation for a “links-and-ties” smear, attempting to make Chesler culpable for the actions and words of Christian activists whom Chesler has never met but who also support Rifqa Bary. Chesler writes in her own response to Mrs. Tabachnick:

I am stunned, and saddened by the need to demonize Bary in terms of who her supporters may be. Why are Jews and Israelis demonizing the kind of Christians who most strongly support Israel’s right to exist? Or, is that the reason, namely, that the “right” kind of progressive Jew is supposed to be against Israel’s right to exist[?]

Chesler further suggests that the Forward‘s aim in publishing Mrs. Tabachnick is to “rile your audience up against right wing Christians so they will forget all about Islamist hatred of infidels.”

Bingo, ma’am.

Which brings us to the important question, “Who is Rachel Tabachnick?” She is a prodigious contributor to the Web site Talk2Action.org, whose raison d’être is to “expose” the Religious Right. TalkToAction was founded in February 2006 by Bruce Wilson and Frederick Clarkson. From Mrs. Tabachnick’s Talk2Action biography:

Rachel Tabachnick is an independent researcher specializing in Christian Zionism and its impact on Israel, Jews, and interfaith relations. . . .
In 2006, Rachel began collaborating with Bruce Wilson, cofounder of Talk2action . . .
Rachel has a B.A. in History and M. Ed. in Educational Media, and she brings to her research unique life experiences including having spent the first half of her life as Southern Baptist and the second half Jewish.

Beyond what she says about herself at Talk2Action, however, it is nearly impossible to learn anything else about Mrs. Tabachnick — except that she is a resident of Pittsburgh whose husband, Ritchie, donated to the Obama Victory Fund. (That site apparently misidentifies Mrs. Tabachnick herself as the donor; the original FEC document lists her husband’s name.)

Ritchie Tabachnick is president of Equipment & Controls Africa, a Pittsburgh-based company that provides petroleum industry engineering services in Angola, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Nigeria. Tabachnick is also a “progressive political activist” who spoke on a panel about bridging the “gap between social progressives and the working class” at the same Pennsylvania “Progressive Summit” in January where his wife Rachel gave a speech about “The ‘Sacralizing’ of Economic and Political Issues by the Religious Right.”

Well, it’s a free country and the Tabachnicks are free to engage in whatever political activism suits their fancy. Perceptive readers may wonder why Tabachnick, president of an oil-engineering company with some 200 employees (i.e., kind of a mini-Halliburton), would speak at a “summit” where other agenda items included “How to Fight the Corporate Ruling Class — and Win.”

Political alliances, however, are not always rational, nor are they always transparent. We do not know, for example, how Talk2Action is funded, or how it was that Mrs. Tabachnick “began collaborating with Bruce Wilson.”

What we do know is that Bruce Wilson has been posting at DailyKos as “Troutfishing” since October 2004, and that his fourth post — written the day after John Kerry’s defeat in the 2004 election — argued for the formation of a “progressive/liberal/Dem umbrella group which would be the left equivalent of the Christian Coalition.” Wilson evidently used the same “Troutfishing” nom-de-blog at his own site, Metafilter.com, where in March 2004, he warned against “the religious right’s takeover of the Republican Party,” and a “new American Taliban.”

So in the wake of GOP victory in the 2004 election, Wilson organized an effort to target the “religous right,” presenting it as an American analog of the Taliban and thus, exactly as Chesler says, to “rile up” progressives “against right wing Christians so they will forget all about Islamist hatred of infidels.” By November 2005, the liberal Web site Religious Right Watch announced that former Sen. Gary Hart would participate in an online conference sponsored by Wilson’s Talk2Action:

Talk to Action, the first national interactive blog site devoted to discussing the theocratic Christian Right and what to do about it, will host a national “e-conference,” on the Talk to Action site, featuring writers and editors of Mother Jones, which is publishing several articles about the religious right in the next issue. The event will begin at 10am EST, Tuesday, November 29th.
Talk to Action, founded by author Frederick Clarkson, blogger Bruce Wilson, and 14 other writers, seeks to advance the national conversation on this subject.

All of which is to say that Talk2Action, on which Wilson and Mrs. Tabachnick are “collaborating,” is a political project originated at Daily Kos in 2004 by a partisan opponent of the Bush administration. The goal of Talk2Action is to defeat Republicans by discrediting conservative Christians, portraying them as dangerous, intolerant kooks.

 Chesler’s column about Rifka Bary, and her general work in discussing the oppression of women in Islamic societies (Chesler was once married to a Muslim and lived in Afghanistan), were rather disruptive of the “American Taliban” message that Wilson and Mrs. Tabachnick have been relentlessly promoting.

This is why Chesler was attacked in the pages of the Forward.

We have solved that mystery, Scooby-Doo, and it’s time for the Mystery Machine to roll on, leaving others to pursue the nagging question: Who’s paying the bills at Talk2Action.org?

UPDATE: Linked as “Post of the Day” at Legal Insurrection.

Rant Alert: Elena Kagan Should Be Given A Broom And Instructed To Do Something Useful

by Smitty

Stacy may be setting up a google bomb based upon Elena Kagan’s after-hours interests. $3.50 and my interest in the sexuality of others (modulo my wife) will get you a beverage at Starbucks. I wouldn’t even afford Kagan the notice of an Uncle Jimbo cheap shot.

This Newsmax article understates the source of my irritation nicely:

Kagan’s opposition to treating military recruiters the same way corporate and legal recruiters were treated is emerging as one of the most controversial aspects of her background.

Military recruiters are not recruiting for just any old outfit. They’re recruiting for the people who support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC.

The First Amendment is a beautiful thing. While hating the military that preserves the country is as sensible as, oh, your body hating its immune system, one can respect genuine pacifists like the Amish. Also gently ignore the godforsaken ignoramus who would systematically denigrate the military. Proverbs 25:21-22 applies:

If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee.

Make no mistake: I consider all of these modern liberal “Have you deconstructed the Constitution today?” knobs as sufferable, but inimical to the long term survival of the country.

Why?

Their behavior pattern over the last century seems to indicate that nothing less than the gradual destruction of the Constitution will suffice.

The Supreme Court’s deference to Congress has been nothing short of an abdication of the responsibility to keep the Federal Government “federal”. The Volokh link above notes:

The Supreme Court is supposed to defer to Congress and uphold any law it enacts so long as the justices can imagine a possible reason why Congress might have enacted a law. If the Supreme Court does anything else, it is “judicial activism.”

As far as I’m concerned, the national debt is roughly the cost of judicial inactivism in the case of entitlements. Welfare state, judicial activism, welfare state, judicial activism. . .history is invariant, but FDR is fortunate there was no Internet to gather a Tea Party to tell him where and how far he could shove his anti-Federal, Socialist ideas.

Elena Kagan will contribute to the reversal of this situation? How, exactly? She seems to hate the existence of the very warriors who will physically defend the Constitution, in the same way a Supreme Court Justice purportedly defends the document in the theoretical realm. She loves the Federalist Society, but they are not her people. Warriors? Does she even consider them fully human?

It’s a screaming insult and a slap in the face of anyone who’s ever served the country to elevate Elena Kagan, to reward the woman, for her conduct at Hahvuhd. Irrespective of whether a court of law would find the action criminal, this blog is willing to shout that the court of public opinion finds the action a (professionally) shootin’ offense. Elena should shoot off her mouth somewhere else than the bench of the Supreme Court.

Am I sounding too calm for you?

BHO might as well nominate Joan Baez, or even Hanoi Jane, as this Helena Kagan person. I predict that the lady is going to sit in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, offer the usual Progressive Taqiyya concerning her views, and then set about making JP Stevens look a right wing reactionary.

McConnell hasn’t ruled out the filibuster. I submit that a strong, positive, Constitutional signal needs to be sent to the judiciary that denigrating the Constitution and its defenders will not be rewarded with a lifetime appointment.

Get bent, lady.

Update:Ilya splits a fine hair:

In sum, Kagan’s support of a ban on military recruiters is legitimately subject to severe criticism. Senators should certainly question her about it. But I don’t see any reason to believe that it reflects a general hostility towards the armed forces.

In addition to zooming in to look at the fine detail of a point, which lawyers do so well, it’s wise to step back and ask the common-sense question: what has all this got us?

Elena seems mired in the intellectual tradition of those that are wrecking the country. Progressivism wrecks us by inches.

Update II: Senator Sessions is onboard.

PA-12: Volunteers On the Way

Activists are organizing for this key election May 18. A bulletin from the American Action Network:

Please join the American Action Network on May 15th as we travel to Pennsylvania-12 to help earn the return of a center-right House of Representatives by knocking on doors to help candidate Tim Burns.
On Saturday, May 15th, buses will depart from the Capitol Hill Club at 8:00 am for a day trip to Pennsylvania. Transportation and meals will be provided. We will spend the afternoon in the district knocking on doors reminding voters to come out and vote for Tim Burns in this pivotal PA-12 special election.
The center-right movement once again has the opportunity to build on the momentum generated from the election of Governor Bob McDonnell, Governor Chris Christie and Senator Scott Brown—but we need your help to make a difference.

If you’re in the D.C. area, visit AAN to learn more. Volunteers are also being organized by Code Red (email [email protected] or call 740-792-2400), and others interested in helping out can visit TimBurnsForCongress.com, or e-mail the campaign or call 814-619-3414.

Allahpundit Now Seriously Considering Endorsement of J.D. Hayworth?

He is shocked — shocked! — to discover that John McCain is a lying two-faced backstabbing crapweasel:

Pandering is one thing, shameless careerist pandering is something else, and then there’s John “Goddamned Fence” McCain marching along the border in a badass Navy baseball cap looking like he could choke out a coyote with his bare hands.

In response to this pathetic travesty:

To which I can only reply:

Q. What’s the Difference Between
Lesbianism and Plagiarism?

A. Nobody ever downloaded a hot plagiarism video.

Nor could lesbianism hurt Elena Kagan’s chances of being confirmed to the Supreme Court, whereas her role in a Harvard plagiarism scandal might be big trouble:

As Dean of Harvard Law School in 2004 and 2005 she treated two liberal law professors with kid gloves when they were busted for plagiarism. Her chicanery was so blatant that even a leftist academic said she should be fired for her “whitewash.”
Kagan’s essential absolution of both professors has been virtually unnoticed . . .
But the way she handled professors Larry Tribe and Charles Ogletree, when they both were caught swiping the words of others, seems to violate basic principles of fairness.
She let the professors off easy for the kind of offense that for which any Harvard undergraduate or law school would have been suspended if not expelled. . . .
As the [2004] controversy [over Ogletree’s plagiarism] festered, Harvard Law School professor Larry Tribe, a party line liberal, came to Ogletree’s defense. Tribe told the Boston Globe that Ogletree is someone who “because he often says yes to them many people all over the country who ask for help on all kinds of things, he has extended himself even farther than someone with all the energy can safely do.”
Tribe vouching for Ogletree’s character quickly sounded like Eliot Spitzer vouching for your monogamy.
A law professor who read about Tribe’s defense tipped off The Weekly Standard that Tribe’s 1985 book, God Save This Honourable Court, had purloined quite a bit from University of Virgina emeritus professor Henry Abraham’s acclaimed 1974 book, Justice and Presidents. . . .
In a lengthy article for his blog, Massachusetts School of Law Dean Lawrence Velvel said Kagan and Summers should have been axed for their “whitewash.”
He cited example after example of how Kagan and Tribe essentially offered excuses for the very actions they purported to condemn.

Evan Gahr has much more where that came from.

UPDATE: White House bristles at mention of Kagan’s sexuality:

“I’m just not going to get into somebody who is doing what that person was doing on CBS’s website. This is about who she is going to be as a justice,” Gibbs said.

“That person” is Ben Domenech, who might have something relevant to say about liberals and double standards.

UPDATE II: Why do right-wingers keep bringing up Kagan’s sexuality? You know, all those horrible, hateful, homophobes like Andrew Sullivan.

UPDATE III: Also sounding like a right-winger, Jane Hamsher:

“Accepting Kagan just because people like Obama is wrong. That’s appropriate for American Idol, not the Supreme Court. Nobody knows what she stands for but him. It’s just a cult of personality with Obama. This is the Supreme Court.”

Jane, you’re this close to a real breakthrough. I think we can help you. There’s this TV show that comes on at 5 p.m. Eastern on Fox News . . .

Death by Consultantitis?

Instapundit links some interesting discussion on Republicans and the blogosphere by Dan Riehl at Riehl World View, and Melissa Clouthier weighs in at Liberty Pundits. Once you’ve read all of that, come back and let’s talk.

UPDATE: OK, so now that you’ve had time to read Dan and Melissa’s critiques of how the GOP deals with New Media, let me add this: Republicans suck at Old Media, too.

For years, I’ve noticed that the GOP communications apparatus is staffed with people who’ve never worked a day in a newsroom. When the Obama administration was staffing up, bloggers commented on the fact that an awful lot of allegedly “objective” reporters from the MSM were hiring on with Team Obama. Fair criticism, but why is it that Republicans so seldom hire reporters to do media relations?

Instead, GOP hire media staff on the same basis that they hire everybody else: “Hey, he was my buddy when we were in College Republicans together,” or, “She’s the governor’s niece. Put her on the payroll somewhere.”

The influence of cronyism within Republican Party staffing decisions is probably underestimated by outsiders, and then there is the disastrous effect of faux-meritocracy. When somebody’s college roommate doesn’t get the job, the next alternative is to hire “Joe Resume,” the immaculately groomed guy in the $700 suit who can deliver a persuasive 20-minute Powerpoint presentation. An ability to deliver the superficial appearance of competence, of course, is a poor substitute for actual competence, but Republicans place a lot of emphasis on looking good in a suit.

That the well-groomed Republicans got their asses kicked in 2008 by a campaign orchestrated by a slob like David Axelrod demonstrates the shortcomings of the Dress For Success school of political strategy. And before that, the polite Republicans got their asses kicked in 2006 by a campaign orchestrated by Rahm F***ing Emanuel.

Which is not to say that the magic formula for Republicans is to hire more rude slobs. I’m just saying that bloggers’ complaints about GOP New Media consultants, in general, replicate more general problems with the dominant culture inside Republican politics. Republicans tend to approach politics from a business perspective, which is good, except when it tends toward the MBA-cult approach:

  • Never do the job yourself, if it can be outsourced to a contractor;
  • Anything worth doing is worth hiring a consultant to tell you how to do it; and
  • No task is more important than making sure you never get blamed for anything that goes wrong.

Go back to the GOP electoral disasters of 2006-08 and see if you can remember anyone in the Republican Party who ever said, “Hey, this is my fault. I screwed up. Blame me.” If the evasion of responsibility is Job One, defining “competence” becomes problematic. Where do these problems come from? I believe they are an ironic product of success.

The great conservative boom of the Reagan years, followed in the 1990s by the Gingrich era — when the GOP gained a 12-year hold on Congress — and the Bush presidency, attracted to the Republican Party a lot of people who took victory for granted.

Before McCain-Feingold, before the rise of MoveOn.org and the Soros apparatus, the GOP generally enjoyed a substantial fund-raising advantage over Democrats, and so Republicans became accustomed to having a few overpaid incompetents on the payroll. The people who ran the show could afford to say, “Here, give the senator’s nephew a job — any job will do — and while you’re at it, see if you can hustle up a consulting contract for my college roommate.”

Well, now the Good Old Days are gone, money’s tight, and competence is at a premium. This is a general problem in Republican politics, of which specific complaints about GOP New Media consultants are symptomatic. Bloggers have a ready-made platform on which to air their grievances, and so we tend to bitch about whatever it is that affects us specifically. But there are other people who have their own reasons to bitch about other dysfunctional aspects of the Republican Party, and we ought not let the episodic problems of the trees blind us to the systemic problems of the forest.